Patterns in undergraduate students’ and educators’ sense of the ontology of the atom and implications for addressing learning impediments
Abayneh
Lemma
*a and
Woldie
Belachew
b
aDepartment of Chemistry, The Stream of Natural Science and Mathematics, Fitche College of Teacher Education, Fitche, Oromia, Ethiopia. E-mail: alsanabbay@gmail.com
bDepartment of Science and Mathematics Education, College of Education and Behavioral Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
First published on 21st April 2023
Abstract
In this study, we explored undergraduate chemistry education at Kotebe University of Education (KUE) in terms of the ontological orientations, patterns and source domains of educators’ and undergraduate students’ sense of the atom. Due to the ambiguity and controversy regarding atomic ontology as a case of interest and the requirement for a thorough analysis, an interpretative case study design was employed. It mainly involved a semi-structured interview of 10 educators and 14 undergraduate students. The analysis involved Charmaz's approach for coding. Four core patterns were found to constitute the overall narrative of educators and undergraduate students, from which the interpretative, mechanical, and hypothetical orientations were implied. The ways of thinking in the three patterns were traced back to the underemphasis and distorted portrayal of the History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) in the curriculum and classroom discourse. The usage of some words and expressions with mechanical connotations was also discovered to be the fourth theme of patterns to which the mechanical orientations are attributed. Views of controversial ontologies are held by the participants of this single system. There is also an emerging inclination among undergraduate students toward reductionism, which is not expected from a chemistry student. Therefore, this study implies that the historical and philosophical aspects need to be critically examined in classroom instruction, curriculum development, professional development of educators, and research on chemistry education to avoid ontological complications and address learning impediments. The instructional approaches, materials, and classroom discourse also need to be examined carefully from an ontological point of view to avoid unnecessary complications and obstacles.
Introduction
Background of this study
In the history of chemistry and its education, the issue of an atom remained very controversial and complicated (Taber, 2003; Erduran, 2014). Its ontology is the most problematic aspect (Taber, 2003; Bensaude-Vincent and Simon, 2008; Matthews, 2011). In this sense, atomic ontology is concerned with the question of whether an atom is a fundamental reality. Four ontological schools were traced from the History and Philosophy of Science (HPS), i.e., hypothetical, mechanical, interpretative, and operational ontology (Chalmers, 1999; Bensaude-Vincent and Simon, 2008). The first one denies the reality of the atom and claims its omission from science education, while the mechanistic notion of an atom is assumed in the second one. The interpretative perspective addresses the atom as a theoretical entity. The operational thesis addresses the reality of the atom from a practical point of view through experimental manipulation and stoichiometric quantification (Bensaude-Vincent and Simon, 2008; Matthews, 2011; Abayneh and Woldie, 2022b).†The literature on the History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) shows that chemists and philosophers have different views on the issue of the reality of atoms. Even chemists and philosophers who considered themselves realists were found to disagree on this issue. Jean-Baptiste Dumas (1800–1884) was against any atomic notion and its inclusion in science/chemistry education. Similarly, August Kekulé (1829–1896) philosophically opposed the reality of atoms. However, he defended the inclusion of atomic theories in chemistry education as “absolutely necessary” (Bensaude-Vincent and Simon, 2008). Wilhelm Ostwald (1853–1932) was less concerned about this ontological issue. Instead, he was interested in studying and explaining chemical phenomena mathematically in terms of energy. Others such as Pierre Duhem (1861–1916) and Robert Boyle (1627–1691) used the mechanical notion in dealing with the “chemical mechanics” and “kinetics” of different systems. Alternatively, chemists such as John Dalton (1766–1844) and Charles Adolphe Wurtz (1817–1884) developed and employed the operational perspective of reality in their quest to find the chemical atom (Rocke, 1984; Bensaude-Vincent and Simon, 2008; Banchetti-Robino, 2020). According to Bensaude-Vincent (1999), this variation is attributed to the longstanding philosophical divide between positivism and realism, on which different positions of positivism are based. Thus, even chemists have different views on the reality of atoms.
The teaching–learning of the atom is also quite challenging, given that students have been reported to be frequently overwhelmed with naive ideas and corresponding learning impediments. One indication of this is the persistence of a range of alternative conceptions and learning difficulties regarding atoms and related fundamental concepts. In the 21st century, the notions of learners with respect to an atom still reflect Democritus's idea of indivisible, discrete, and ultimate constituents of matter. This notion was found to still constitute the atomic sense of upper primary, secondary, and undergraduate students (Taber, 2002, 2003; Ayas et al., 2010; Gökdere and Çalik, 2010; Abayneh, 2013; Adadan, 2014; Derman et al., 2019; Taber, 2020; Wiener, 2020).
Potential controversies were documented in these studies (Taber, 2003; Hadžibegović and Galijašević, 2013). For example, Taber (2003) indicated that students continue to regard atoms as indivisible units in chemistry even after learning about radioactive disintegration in physics. Also, it was found that even experienced chemistry teachers and chemists use the term ‘atom’ when referring to other chemical entities such as ions, elements, and molecules (Taber, 2000, 2002, 2003). Furthermore, the literature shows that upper primary and secondary students, teachers, undergraduate students, and pre-service teachers describe chemical entities that are not atoms or not normally found as atoms as atoms (Barker, 2000, Taber, 2000, 2002, 2003; Kind, 2004; Gökdere and Çalik, 2010; Abayneh, 2013; Taber, 2020; Wiener, 2020). Students in primary and secondary schools were also found to believe that atoms have the same characteristics as their elements, molecules, and compounds (Barker, 2000; Kind, 2004; Abayneh, 2013).
These conceptions and narratives of the atom are not just conceptually problematic. The ontological message depicted by these conceptions and narratives is controversial enough that learners fail to understand the atom and related topics such as the particulate nature of matter, physical properties, reactivity, bonding, structure, stoichiometry, and colligative properties (Barker, 2000; Justi and Gilbert, 2000; Taber, 2003; Kind, 2004; Abayneh, 2013; Tumay, 2016). Additionally, the aforementioned sets of alternative conceptions were found to be embedded in their understanding of the macroscopic world and underlying events. Consequently, these persistent naive ideas become “learning impediments”, “learning hindrances”, or “epistemological obstacles” (Taber, 2003; Kind, 2004; Tumay, 2016). According to Taber (2003), this obstacle is attributed to the epistemological profile that arises from prior experiences and corresponding mental schemas. These experiences and cognitive patterns are assumed to determine the figuration and argumentation style of an individual. Samples of misleading wording and figurations were also present in the report by Taber (2003). The unintentional usage of “atoms” by expert chemists for chloride ions in nucleophilic substitution reactions is among the examples.
Other researchers associated the obstacle with the status of HPS in the curriculum, instruction or understanding of a person. In this regard, the narrative in the curricular materials (curriculum frameworks, textbooks, and reference books) has also been reported to neglect or undervalue essential components from historical and philosophical perspectives (Matthews, 1994; Niaz, 1998; Justi and Gilbert, 2000; Rodriguez and Niaz, 2002, 2004; Niaz and Coştub, 2009; Viana and Porto, 2009; Niaz and Maza, 2011). For example, Niaz and Coştub (2009) evaluated 21 textbooks of General Chemistry published in Turkey between 1964 and 2006. They reported that the textbook narratives lack important historical pieces such as the purpose of Thomson's experiment on cathode rays, the conflicts between the Rutherford and Thomson scattering hypotheses as a reason for the subsequent discoveries, and the foundations of Bohr's atomic model. Similarly, Perez et al. (2016) reported that important historical contexts are missing in the overall narrative of atoms in four of the six textbooks of General Chemistry they analyzed. Similarly, the level of understanding or awareness has been reported to be either missing or low (Niaz et al., 2002; Abayneh and Woldie, 2022c; Cheloni et al., 2006). This means that there is little or distorted understanding of HPS in the evaluated education systems.
Alternative conceptions with similar ontological implications have been evaluated and reported in Ethiopia also (Sileshi, 2011; Abayneh, 2013; Kindu and Mekonnen, 2016; Wisudawati et al., 2022). The mechanical ontology was found to be implied by much of the identified notion (Abayneh, 2018). Another study conducted in Ethiopia showed that chemical bonding and colligative characteristics are among the five most difficult concepts of secondary and preparatory chemistry education (Kindu and Mekonnen, 2016). Again, understanding these concepts demands a clear picture of atoms and their reality (Taber, 2003; Kind, 2004).
Hence, the teaching–learning of the atom suffers from two core problems. These are the longstanding positivism-realism divide with controversial ontological narratives and the persistence of naive ideas and learning difficulties. Therefore, it is suggested to holistically examine a given system in terms of the patterns in the overall narrative and associated source domains (Erduran, 2014). These inquiries are also suggested to be driven by the desired philosophical schools, in which the reality of atoms is examined from different perspectives (Taber, 2003; Amin et al., 2015, Tumay, 2016). Dereje et al. (2013) also highlighted the need for the utilization of the philosophy of chemistry in addressing learning difficulties of fundamental chemistry concepts in the local context.
However, the conceptualization of the atom in these educational systems in the local context has not been explored. Based on this gap, we previously tried to understand how the atom is ontologically portrayed in the curriculum of undergraduate chemistry education at Kotebe University of Education (KUE) (Abayneh and Woldie, 2022a) and perception by educators (Abayneh and Woldie, 2022b). Consequently, we gained some important insights and associations between the perception of educators and curricular narratives of the atom. However, it is still impossible to understand the undergraduate chemistry education at KUE holistically given that the perspective of undergraduate students has not been examined. Thus, by involving two more educators and 14 undergraduate students, this study aimed to holistically understand the overall narrative of the atom in undergraduate chemistry education at KUE in terms of ontological orientations, source domains, and underlying associations.
The aim and research questions of the study
The theoretical and empirical evidence discussed in the previous section showed that the teaching and learning of fundamental chemistry concepts are being threatened by the controversy in the way educators/instructors, teachers, and students think about the atom. The issue of how individuals understand the reality of chemical entities such as atoms has not been studied. We also do not know much about the source domains to which the learning impediments are attributed, especially in Ethiopia. Little has been done to understand this system of undergraduate education in terms of what and why educators and students think about the reality of the atom. Besides, the issue of the historical ontological question regarding the reality of the atom has remained untouched in the local context.By investigating undergraduate chemistry education at Kotebe University of Education (KUE) in relation to the unresolved ontological question and learning impediments, we aimed to gain useful insight to address the persistence of these impediments. Therefore, this study builds on our earlier works (Abayneh and Woldie, 2022a; Abayneh and Woldie, 2022b) by including two more educators and 14 undergraduate educators to address the following research questions:
(a) How is the atom ontologically presented in the overall narrative of the educators and undergraduate students at KUE?
(b) How can the overall narrative of the atom in undergraduate chemistry education at KUE be explained in terms of the association between educators’ and undergraduate students’ understanding of the atom?
Methodology
Research design
In this study, we attempted to understand undergraduate chemistry education at Kotebe University of Education (KUE) in terms of the educators’ and undergraduate students’ understanding of the atom and associated source domains. Also, we intended to map the undergraduate chemistry education at KUE in terms of the patterns in the overall narrative of the atom and provide a detailed description of it in regard to the learning impediments in the literature. This is one part of a dissertation from which three articles were previously published (Abayneh and Woldie, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c). Firstly, the curriculum perspective was examined for the 2020–2021 academic year. Then, during the 2021–2022 academic year, the educators’ and undergraduate students’ perception of the reality of atoms was examined. The core case in this quest is the reality of atoms and its portrayal in a given system of chemistry education. Thus, neither the specificity of the case nor the existence of certain people, programs, or phenomena was the basis for its selection. Also, it is because it continues to be debated in the literature.Considering this, the case study design was preferred. It was philosophically acknowledged that the reality of invisible entities such as atoms would be interpreted differently. This means that the understanding of the atom as reality would not be mind-independent and free from historical and societal constraints (Vihalemm, 2012). The theoretical framework, i.e., the Theory of Experientialism (ToE), also acknowledges this thesis of embodied cognition and the corresponding role of sociocultural characteristics. ToE states that conceptions of individuals of the reality of invisible entities and phenomena are metaphorical rather than literal (Yu, 2013). Conceptions, according to ToE, stem from bodily experience with the physical and social environment. Thus, to understand how individuals construct meaning about a phenomenon or an entity, this theory suggests looking at their lived experiences and the patterns in their thinking or narrative (Amin et al., 2015). To satisfy these purposes and requirements, Merriam's qualitative case study was chosen over the two other approaches for case study design (Yazan, 2015). This approach is ideal for conducting an in-depth analysis and providing a thick description of the case and its context (Merriam, 2009).
The research site
Given the reality of atoms as the issue of interest or driving force to explore a given system of undergraduate chemistry education, the next key issue is where to get the desired data. It needs to be a place where richer experiences are found, especially in teacher education. Proximity and access are the other attributes. Addis Ababa University (AAU) was the best choice in terms of proximity and access, where the first author is undertaking his PhD study and the second author is working. It is located in the capital of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. However, there is another university in the same city with a richer experience in teacher education, namely, Kotebe University of Education (KUE).The latter is a place where substantial educational experiences can be discovered. Other higher education institutions in the country, including AAU, did not consistently offer teacher education. However, KUE has been consistently offering teacher education at different levels (from pre-primary to preparatory) and modalities (from certificates to Master of Education (MEd) Degree). It is also among the few institutions that have a reputation for preparing a greater number and better quality of teachers in Ethiopia. Its proximity, where it is located in the capital of the country, makes it also more convenient.
Research settings
KUE is the second-oldest public university in Ethiopia. It started in 1959 as the College of Teacher Education (Kotebe CTE) of Haile Selassie I University. It is the only university of education in the country. The Chemistry Department is organized under the College of Natural and Computational Studies. Currently, there are 16 members of the academic staff of the department, seven of whom have doctorates. They all completed the one-year Higher Diploma Program (HDP) course and were certified as professional teacher educators. Moreover, all the instructors taught courses to students enrolled in both teacher education and non-teaching programs. Thus, we decided to address them all as “educators” in this study.At the time of data collection, there were 18 undergraduate students in the Chemistry Department. Three of them were third-year, while the remaining 15 were second-year. About 20% of the second-year students were female, while all the third-year students were male. The modality of teacher education in the university is consecutive. This means that these students may or may not join the Post Graduate Diploma in Teaching (PGDT) program when they graduate with a BSc degree at the end of the four-year undergraduate education. Specifically they can be enrolled in PGDT and become chemistry teachers in secondary education (MoE, 2003, 2009; MoSHE, 2020). At the time of preparing this article, KUE announced that it was re-launching the Bachelor of Education (BEd) program of teacher education in all subjects of upper primary and secondary education in Ethiopia.
Participants
The university was purposely selected based on the aforementioned reasons. Chemistry educators and undergraduate students from the University were also selected using purposive sampling. However, some criteria were prepared and used to choose and engage the most appropriate informants. The criteria incorporated the attributes from the preliminary survey. Qualification, specialization, teaching experience, and exposure to at least one of the selected courses were used in the selection of educators (Table 1).‡ We aimed to maintain the maximum variation by considering a different qualification, specialization, experience, or exposure to at least one of the courses.| No. | Assigned namea | Assigned codeb | Qualification | Teaching experience (years) | Exposure to the courses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a “Assigned names” are pseudo names assigned by the researchers to keep anonymity. b Assigned codes are codes used in the data analysis. | |||||
| 1. | Kinfe Desta | E-005 | PhD | 6–10 | Moderate |
| 2. | Tasisa Gonfie | E-006 | PhD | 6–10 | Moderate |
| 3. | Addisu Tadesse | E-002 | MSc | 6–10 | Higher |
| 4. | Belay Demie | E-003 | MSc | >10 | Moderate |
| 5. | Akmal Seid | E-004 | MSc | <5 | Lower |
| 6. | Moti Tesfaye | E-010 | MSc | >10 | Higher |
| 7. | Leta Kebede | E-001 | MSc | 6–10 | Higher |
| 8. | Temesgen Getahun | E-007 | MSc | <5 | Lower |
| 9. | Tura Abdisa | E-008 | PhD | >10 | Moderate |
| 10. | Nigussie Debal | E-009 | MSc | 6–10 | Lower |
Firstly, the profiles of the educators were organized into a table with details of their qualifications, field of specialization, teaching experience, and exposure to the selected courses. At the end of a given interview and analysis of the resulting transcript, the table was reexamined to choose the next appropriate interviewee. Accordingly, an educator of a different category of qualification, specialization, teaching experience, or exposure was considered. The selection continued in the same way until the tenth one, at which saturation of the themes and sub-themes was attained. Table 1 presents of a summary of the profiles of the educators.
Alternatively, gender, year of education, opinion on the relevance of the courses, interest in the classroom instruction, academic achievement, choice of chemistry as a department, and interest in becoming a teacher were used as attributes of the criteria for choosing the undergraduate students. The data from the preliminary survey was analyzed and organized into a table of these attributes. The corresponding results were used differently to maintain the maximum variation. In general, 14 undergraduate students were engaged in the gradual and simultaneous data collection and analysis. The resulting profiles of the interviewed undergraduate students are summarized in Table 2 [gender and academic achievement were deliberately omitted from Table 2 to ensure that the identity of the interviewees will not be exposed].
| No. | Assigned namea | Assigned codeb | Opinion on the relevancy of courses | Interest in the classroom instruction | Choice of chemistry as a department | Interest to be a teacher |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a “Assigned names” are pseudo names assigned by the researcher to keep anonymity. b Assigned codes are codes used in the data analysis. | ||||||
| 1. | Abraham Getu | UGS CHEM-III-002 | Very relevant | Moderately interesting | Moderate | Moderate |
| 2. | Senay Demeke | UGS CHEM-II-007 | Very relevant | Highly interesting | Moderate | Moderate |
| 3. | Abebe Desta | UGS CHEM-II-001 | Very relevant | Less interesting | High | Moderate |
| 4. | Kebede Gizaw | UGS CHEM-III-001 | Very relevant | Highly interesting | High | High |
| 5. | Fasika Nigussie | UGS CHEM-II-004 | Very relevant | Highly interesting | High | Moderate |
| 6. | Beakal Abate | UGS CHEM-II-006 | Very relevant | Highly interesting | High | Moderate |
| 7. | Naol Debelie | UGS CHEM-II-012 | Very relevant | Highly interesting | High | Moderate |
| 8. | Gemechis Taye | UGS CHEM-II-008 | Moderately relevant | Moderately interesting | Moderate | Low |
| 9. | Sultan Beshir | UGS CHEM-II-010 | Moderately relevant | Highly interesting | High | Moderate |
| 10. | Tsega Damene | UGS CHEM-II-009 | Very relevant | Moderately interesting | Low | Moderate |
| 11. | Getnet Yifru | UGS CHEM-II-002 | Very relevant | Highly interesting | Moderate | Low |
| 12. | Yerosen Dereje | UGS CHEM-II-003 | Very relevant | Less interesting | High | Moderate |
| 13. | Dame Tibie | UGS CHEM-II-011 | Moderately relevant | Less interesting | Low | Low |
| 14. | Tadios Demamu | UGS CHEM-II-005 | Moderately relevant | Less interesting | Low | Low |
Instruments
Two types of instruments were prepared and employed in this study, i.e., a questionnaire of the backgrounds of the participants and a semi-structured interview. Both instruments were from the previously published part of this study and were prepared by the first author and reviewed by three more persons, including the second author. Moreover, the interview protocol was piloted at Addis Ababa University. Four undergraduate students and three teacher educators were engaged in the piloting. The details are available in the report by Abayneh and Woldie (2022b).The interview protocol had four parts, i.e., background, introduction, major interview items, and closing part. The background part had separate sections for recording the profiles of the educators and undergraduate students. However, it was not part of the interview, it was only recorded at the beginning of each interview. The introduction was focused on welcoming the participants, appreciating their willingness, and debriefing the process of the interview. The main part constituted 11 major items and 5 probing cases. The items and probing cases were organized into 5 themes, namely, “reality”, “constituents of the world”, “sense of the atom”, “learning experience”, and “teaching experience (for the educators)”.
The questionnaire was needed for the preliminary survey. The purpose of the survey was to gather personal and professional data to help the researchers to know more about the educators and undergraduate students. The selection of individual participants demanded due knowledge of their opinion, attitude, and personal, educational, and professional profiles. The questionnaire was prepared as two versions for the educators and undergraduate students. The educators were asked in the questionnaire about their qualifications, specialization, teaching experience, and exposure to the selected courses, while the undergraduate students were asked about their age, gender, relevancy of the courses, classroom instruction, academic achievement, choice of chemistry as a department, and interest in becoming a chemistry teacher.
Data collection and analysis
The interviewing and coding tasks were carried out simultaneously. The audio recordings were organized and documented using codes, which consisted of letters from the initials of the names of the units (“E” for educators and “UGS CHEM” for undergraduate students) and numbers given during the interviews. In addition, Roman numerals (II or III) were used in the case of undergraduate students to represent their years of education. The details of the participants were fed as the “properties” of each audio file. The audio was transcribed immediately following each interview. Subsequently, the resulting transcripts were read and coded repeatedly, in which a free trial version of NVivo was used. It involved three stages, i.e., initial, focused, and theoretical coding (Charmaz, 2006).In the initial coding, the transcripts were intensively read from which significant segments were identified and documented according to the research questions. The four ontological themes from HPS (hypothetical, mechanical, interpretative, and operational ontology) were used as a reference to sort the segments of the first research question. The hypothetical ontology refers to all segments of views against any claimed existence of atoms as the simplest, fundamental, and chemically indivisible units of matter. Anti-atomism, reductionism, and agnosticism are the underlying atomic notions of this theme (Bensaude-Vincent and Simon, 2008; Jensen, 2010). The second theme, mechanical ontology, is the ontological theme in which the existence of atoms as objectively existing and independent reality is implicitly or explicitly acknowledged. It can be implied by corpuscularism, the mechanical, physical, or kinetic notion of an atom (Jensen, 2010; May, 2010).
The interpretative ontological theme acknowledges atoms as interpretative models inferred from the observations, pieces of evidence, principles, and hypotheses of quantum mechanics (May, 2010). It mainly constitutes the kinetic and electrical notions (Jensen, 2010; May, 2010; Abayneh and Woldie, 2022b). In the operational theme, atoms are ontologically treated as unobservable, chemically indivisible, and fundamental constituents of matter that can be able to be quantified and manipulated practically (Rocke, 1984; Bensaude-Vincent and Simon, 2008; Abayneh and Woldie, 2022b). Stoichiometric atomism, gravimetric atomism, chemical atomism, and functional atomism are associated with this ontological theme (Jensen, 2010). The first two are also known as sub-categories of chemical atomism (Rocke, 1984; Taber, 2003; Bensaude-Vincent and Simon, 2008).
The analysis was also informed by ToE and its underlying analytical model (the Epistemic-Rhetoric Dual Model), which were mainly employed in the identification of the segments (Amin et al., 2015). Accordingly, worldview, linguistic style, figuration, and argumentation were specially examined in the analysis. Worldview is associated with the assumption of an individual about the existence and quest for reality. Style is mainly concerned with the choice of words and syntax. Figuration refers to the symbolic aspect of the expression of an individual or writing in which the use of visible tables, symbols, analogies, metaphors, and texts is examined. Concerning argumentation, it is assumed that scientific facts and figures can be interpreted subjectively and differently. This implies that the speech or writing of an individual needs to be examined in terms of the extent to which his/her expression, assertion, argumentation, claim, interpretation, and justification are supported by available experimental evidence and the context in which the experiment is planned and conducted (Ornatowski, 2007).
Next, in the focused coding, the segments were re-examined and some unimportant codes were omitted, and the more important ones were identified, and specified, under which the remaining segments were sorted. Hence, the codes with significant ontological connotations were sorted and studied under the category of the first research question. In addition to the aforementioned ontological themes, there were also predetermined sub-themes of atomic notion (anti-atomism, reductionism, agnosticism, physical atomism, kinetic atomism, chemical atomism, electrical atomism, and the overemphasized atomic notion) with the exception of one emerging sub-theme (Abayneh and Woldie, 2022b; Jensen, 2010; Matthews, 2011; May, 2010). The deductive approach to coding was employed in the cases of atomic notions and implied ontologies given that there were pre-established themes. However, there was no predetermined sub-theme in the cases of justification and source domains, for which the inductive approach was employed.
Segments with similar patterns of wording, syntax, figuration, and argumentation were identified and treated under the category of the second research question. In this case, there were no predetermined themes and sub-themes. Thus, the inductive approach was employed. The themes were directly established from the data itself. Finally, the resulting themes from the two units were triangulated against each other. This was the stage of theoretical coding, which involved taking one theme at a time and checking it against all the transcripts to identify those that hold for a substantial proportion of the participants.
In the case of difficulty in understanding and sorting some of the codes, the transcripts were repeatedly read for clarification. We also had to go back to three of the educators to seek clarification or confirmation. Criterion-based purposive sampling, iterative data collection and analysis, constant comparison, saturation, and the abductive approach to triangulation were the techniques we employed to maintain the internal validity of this study and its findings. Special emphasis was placed on minimizing our bias as researchers, early communication with the department head, winning the trust of interviewees, piloting the interview, and engaging with some of the educators as participant reviewers.
Peer review and inter-coder testing were employed to reduce the threat of bias from our personal experiences and assumptions. The codebook was reviewed by three colleagues. Besides, one transcript was randomly selected and recorded by a colleague. The inter-coder reliability, Cohen's kappa, was computed to check and enhance the validity of the analysis. Initially, the transcript of one educator was randomly taken and coded by a colleague. The test resulted in a kappa value of 0.47, which falls into the moderate range of agreement (Campbell et al., 2013). Disagreements were identified and discussed. Consequently, a census was reached. Some modifications were also made. Then, the colleague was asked to carry out the coding again based on the census. This time, two more transcripts from the undergraduate students were taken randomly and coded to fulfill the “10–25% of the data units” suggestion (Campbell et al., 2013, p. 5). The first transcript was from the educators, while the remaining two transcripts were from undergraduate students. Finally, a Cohen's kappa value of 0.72 was obtained. This value falls in the “0.61–0.80” division of the strength of agreement. It indicates a substantial level of agreement (Landis and Koch, 1977; Campbell et al., 2013). Although a higher value is expected in studies on medical, policy, and financial decisions, this level of agreement appeared to be acceptable in exploratory academic research (Campbell et al., 2013).
Alternatively, the adaptation of a criterion-based selection of individual participants, constant comparison, saturation, and the abductive approach to triangulation were the techniques used to maintain the transferability of this study. The criterion-based selection and constant comparison were employed from the first interview. The saturation of the themes was also checked throughout the data collection and analysis until it was finally attained on the 24th interview. The abductive approach to the theoretical coding was used in the form of triangulation during the cross-unit analysis stage. Once the within-unit analysis was completed separately for the units of educators and undergraduate students, the resulting themes were combined and checked against each transcript. This is a part of the theoretical coding in which the abductive approach to coding was employed.
Ethically, we tried to stick to the code of research involving human subjects. Informed consent, confidentiality, ownership, and power relations are the requirements of the ethical code. Accordingly, the participants were briefed on the purpose of the research, the risks and benefits of taking part in this study, and their right to drop their participation whenever they desired. At the beginning of each interview, it was ensured that the interviewee understood these issues and agreed to proceed. The participants were also asked for their permission to use an audio recorder. Informed consent, consisting of these issues, was obtained from all participants.
From a confidentiality point of view, codes and pseudo-names were used. Also, the profiles and quotes of the participants were presented in a generic form to expose their identities. Audio files and transcripts will be erased following the approval of the study from which this article was prepared. From the point of view of ownership, we tried to ensure that the participants believed in the study and considered themselves part of it. Some of them were also informed of the key findings. They were also allowed to comment on the findings. Concerning power relations, we tried to address participants as per their social and academic rank but caution was taken not to expose their identities.
Results
Implied ontologies
Three of the four ontological views were found to be implied by the thinking of the atom by the educators and undergraduate students. These are the interpretative, mechanical, and hypothetical ontological views. The findings about the implied ontology are summarized in Table 3.| No. | Ontological themes | Number of sourcesa [E: educator; UGS: undergraduate student] | Number of codes |
|---|---|---|---|
| a The transcripts of one educator and eight undergraduate students were coded into two ontological themes, where some pieces were coded to one theme, while others were coded to another theme. This is why the total number of sources in Table 3 (which is 32) exceeds the total number of interviewees, which is 24. | |||
| 1. | The hypothetical ontology | 10 (1E + 9UGSs) | 53 |
| 2. | The interpretative ontology | 9 (9Es) | 85 |
| 3. | The mechanical ontology | 12 (1E + 11UGSs) | 88 |
Source, in NVivo, refers to all the analyzed primary materials (interview transcripts, documents, videos, memos, etc.) from which significant segments were coded. In this study, it specifically refers to the number of interview transcripts from which segments were coded to each of the ontological themes. Alternatively, the column entitled “codes” refers to the total number of segments that were coded to each category or theme of the implied ontologies. For example, “10” in the “source” column and “53” in the “codes” column in the first case show that 53 segments of hypothetical ontological implications were coded from ten transcripts. Similarly, “12” in the “source” column and “88” in the “codes” column of the third case show that 88 segments of mechanical implications were found and coded from 12 transcripts.
All the sources of the codes of the interpretative ontology in Table 3 are the transcripts from the interviews of the educators. This means that the interpretative ontological view was shared by nine educators (E-001, E-002, E-003, E-005, E-006, E-007, E-008, E-009, and E-010). One of these educators (E-002) had segments also coded to the theme of hypothetical ontology. One educator (E-004) and five undergraduate students (UGS CHEM-II-001, UGS CHEM-II-004, UGS CHEM-II-005, UGS CHEM-II-006, and UGS CHEM-III-001) were oriented solely toward the mechanical position. Three undergraduate students (UGS CHEM-II-008, UGS CHEM-II-011, and UGS CHEM-III-002) were solely oriented toward the hypothetical ontology. Unexpectedly, six undergraduate students (UGS CHEM-II-002, UGS CHEM-II-003, UGS CHEM-II-007, UGS CHEM-II-009, UGS CHEM-II-010, and UGS CHEM-II-012) sounded hypothetical in some parts of their transcripts and mechanical in others. The details of the results on the implied ontologies are presented, as follows.
Below is a quote from Dame's transcript. Dame Tibie (UGS CHEM-II-011) is a second-year chemistry student. He is hardly interested in being a chemistry teacher.
Yes, it is better if we believe so [in the existence of a limit to the divisibility of matter] because there would be some destination. This thing we call the atom should be our destination. That is also what we learned in chemistry. Otherwise, we should presume there would be nothing at all. In that case, we can’t talk about sub-atomic particles either.
According to this quote, Dame had no way of realizing the existence of such things as atoms from his learning experience. In much of his narrative, he sounded as if he was forced to accept the reality of atoms without any teaching–learning experience of checking it. The “Otherwise, we should pre-suppose there would be nothing” part makes Dame sound reasonably anti-atomist. However, in his response to the question of the chemical process of the divisibility of matter, he said that “the idea is, in the end, there are atoms, electrons, protons, and neutrons.” Thus, Dame thinks that the sub-atomic particles are the last product of the chemical divisibility of matter. Although the atom is also mentioned as being equally fundamental, the inclusion of the sub-atomic particles makes the idea reductionist.
In general, two types of atomic notions were found to be the basis for this ontological theme. One is anti-atomism, in which the reality of the atom was referred to as impossible to confirm. In this regard, the participants were directly opposed to the existence of the atom and its essence in science education. However, they were found to sound as if they were opposing. This means that it is most likely that these educators and prospective teachers will unintentionally promote the anti-atomist view to students in their classroom teaching. For instance, the following is an excerpt from Addisu's (E-002) transcript.
For me, the concept of the atom is a very advanced philosophy. It is the basis for understanding the world. To reject the existence of atoms, we must deny many scientific discoveries and underlying sets of evidence. But they are imaginary. That means they are abstract.
Addisu argued that there is lot of evidence for the reality of the atom. Consequently, the reality of atoms was expressed as being undeniable. However, it is not clear what exactly the proof is. The argument in the quote was not supported by the available proof. Also, the proof was not specified. Moreover, again, Addisu addressed atoms as imaginary and abstract. The usage of these words sheds doubt on the entire quote. The last two sentences are likely to be interpreted as anti-atomistic by young audiences or students who lack the desired prior conception.
The second one corresponds to reductionism, in which sub-atomic particles were given more ontological priority. Accordingly, the undergraduate students were found to be oriented against the ontological position of the atom. This perspective was traced to be linked to their assertion that as science develops, the division of matter may persist. The following excerpt is a typical example quoted from Naol. Naol Debelie (UGS CHEM-II-012) is a second-year chemistry student. He is moderately interested in becoming a chemistry teacher.
It is getting more and more advanced. I think that this is not the end. In my opinion, many things still need to be discovered. What I mean is that it continues. The divisibility would go beyond the level of electrons, protons, and neutrons in the future.
The interview was conducted in the context of the chemical process of divisibility, and examples of chemical approaches such as electrolysis and decomposition reactions were provided. Thus, Naol was referring to the chemical process of the divisibility of matter. At least for the time being, he considers electrons, protons, and neutrons as the last products of this divisibility. The last statement also suggests that he believes that as science develops, the [chemical] divisibility will continue beyond the level of subatomic particles. Thus, atoms are not the last chemical units of matter for Naol. The view or intent behind this disregard for atoms as the last or fundamental chemical units corresponds to reductionism. Reductionism appeared to be the dominant view. It was traced from the atomic views of the eight undergraduate students (UGS CHEM-II-002, UGS CHEM-II-003, UGS CHEM-II-007, UGS CHEM-II-009, UGS CHEM-II-010, UGS CHEM-II-011, UGS CHEM-II-012, and UGS CHEM-III-002). Anti-atomism is the other view that was traced as a sub-theme of the hypothetical ontology. However, it was reflected in the transcripts of only one educator (E-002) and one undergraduate student (UGS CHEM-II-008).
The following excerpt from Moti's transcript is among the many segments in which an atom was portrayed with an interpretative ontology.
There is an invisible region. It contains neutrons, electrons, and protons. Much wider than orbitals, the electron cloud has a high probability of containing an electron. That is the space reserved for a specific atom. If such an area doesn’t exist, it would be impossible for the subatomic particles to exist, as electrons, protons, and neutrons can’t exist and take part in reactions independently. Furthermore, the reality of atoms can be better realized with the broad range of evidence, discoveries, and applications of quantum mechanics. We are currently using the quantum mechanical atomic model.
In this quote, the reality of the atom is explained in terms of the sub-atomic particles that were acknowledged to be “experimentally discovered and verifiable.” Moreover, the reality of atoms was claimed to be better verified through sets of evidence, discoveries, and applications of quantum mechanics. It was also addressed as the current working model of an atom. Two core points of ontological significance can also be traced from this excerpt. One is the coexistence of subatomic particles. It was explicitly stated in the excerpt that the sub-atomic particles cannot exist and take part in chemical reactions discretely. Thus, the point is that the chemical indivisibility of the atom can be implied to some extent by this atomic view. The second is the invisibility of an atom. This region is referred to as “invisible.”
This idea of invisibility was well acknowledged by the other educators, among whom Kinfe (E-005) is quoted below.
There is an area—an intangible region. But it's well known. It is like a magnetic field. The magnet only physically takes up a small amount of space in this way. The field, however, continues beyond that until some limit. Up until that limit, the field applies.
The usage of intangible and its comparison with the physical presence of a magnet are the portions that imply the sense of invisibility. In general, terms such as region, house, abstract, and field were used to refer to the atom. Electrons, protons, and neutrons were also addressed as invisible in these portions of the data. However, these sub-atomic particles were acknowledged to be indirectly sensed or felt. Here, we present another quote in which this sensibility was asserted. It is an excerpt from Leta's (E-001) transcript.
[…] So, an atom is a region that comprises these particles [electrons, protons, and neutrons]. It is not otherwise something independent or separate. You, therefore, figure out its existence from the existence of these particles. You realize the existence of the atom from that of the particles. You can, for example, feel electrons when you touch charged bodies. You can feel the electric shock.
Regarding the issue of creation and natural existence, much of the thinking of the atom corresponds to chemical atomism, in which arrays of ions and molecules are also ontologically acknowledged. In the discussion on the probing case of NaCl (see the Appendix: interview item 3, the last probing case), the majority of educators appeared to recognize that most elements are naturally found in either molecular or ionic form. The following is a typical example quoted from Tura (E-008).
Existence in nature can be in a molecule or compound form too. That is what I believe. Thus, it depends on the nature of the substances and their corresponding constituents. There are substances found in the form of ions. There are also substances that are fundamentally found in the form of molecules. Others are found in the form of compounds. Later, these molecules and compounds were analyzed, and their atomic composition was identified. The constituents were also then synthesized using different chemical approaches, including decomposition, displacement, and the like.
Almost the same ontological stance was implied by the majority of educators. Thus, many more pieces of evidence can be quoted. This issue of creation and existence was also explained in terms of the very concept of reactivity. Consequently, the molecular and ionic forms of existence were acknowledged. This atomic notion, chemical atomism, was solely found in the transcripts of seven educators (E-001, E-003, E-005, E-006, E-007, E-009, and E-010). Chemical atomism was also found to be partially reflected in the atomic senses of two other educators (E-002 and E-008).
Two more atomic notions were also traced from the transcripts of a few educators. One is the overemphasized atomic notion that considers atoms as the building blocks of all substances. It was partially reflected in the atomic senses of two educators (E-002 and E-008), as well as another educator (E-004) who had a mechanistic ontological orientation. The other one appeared to be somewhat emerging, given that it has not been reported before in any of those studies. This was reflected in the atomic sense of two educators (E-002 and E-006). In this view, everything is supposed to have been created at once by God. This means that salts (NaCl), individual ions (Na+ and Cl−), metals (Na-metal), molecules (Cl2), and individual atoms (Na and Cl) are all hypothesized to have been created simultaneously by God.
The following is a typical indicator in which an atom is mechanically portrayed. It was quoted from the only educator with mechanical ontology, Akmal (E-004).
This cloth [pointing to his jacket] is made of atoms of cloth. This chalk [pointing to a white chalk box on his table] is also made up of tiny particles of chalk called atoms. Thus, we can say atoms exist.
Narratives of this type sound as if every substance has unique atoms. This is most likely to be misunderstood as if the carbon atoms in a given sample of fiber and calcium carbonate are completely different. Learners may assume from this type of expression that the atoms exist in the same [physical or mechanical] way that chalk and cloth do. It was assured during the interview that the educator is not thinking that way. The problem is not with what he thinks. It is rather concerned with his expression.
A similar pattern of the usage of these expressions was found in the transcripts of five undergraduate students (UGS CHEM-II-002, UGS CHEM-II-005, UGS CHEM-II-007, UGS CHEM-II-010, and UGS CHEM-II-012). The following excerpt is another example. It was quoted from Getnet's transcript. Getnet Yifru (UGS CHEM-II-002) is a second-year undergraduate student. He has no interest in becoming a chemistry teacher.
Different atoms combine to form different substances. All substances come from atoms. For instance, in biology, cells are the basic units of all living things. This is to say that life starts in a cell. Similarly, in chemistry, the formation of substances starts with the atom. For example, a piece of paper is created from the atoms of paper.
This assumption about every substance having its own [unique] atoms makes the notion more mereological than the others, i.e., the classical philosophy of parthood relations. Atoms could be wrongly considered in this mereological sense to retain their individual properties even after chemical reactions. Therefore, students could wrongly assume from these expressions that the constituent atoms of a given piece of paper have the same mechanistic properties as the paper itself. Nevertheless, the cell analogy makes the idea in this quote overemphasize atoms over ions and molecules as discrete building blocks of all substances.
The other category of mechanical ontological orientation is associated with the hope of being able to see atoms in the future through a specialized microscope. This hope was found in the atomic perception of seven undergraduate students (UGS CHEM-II-001, UGS CHEM-II-003, UGS CHEM-II-004, UGS CHEM-II-005, UGS CHEM-II-006, UGS CHEM-II-009, and UGS CHEM-III-001). Atoms are expected to be seen with certain mechanistic or bulk properties.
Abebe (UGS CHEM-II-001), for example, stated that “it may need a special device. Nothing is impossible. One day, we will have a device to see atoms.” Although there is no direct mention of the bulk properties in this quote, the word see in the last sentence depicts an expectation of some of those bulk properties. It was also noted from the elaboration of Abebe and the other six undergraduate students that they wish to see atoms the way they saw a sample cell or bacteria through a microscope in biology class.
The association between the educators’ and undergraduate students’ sense of the atom
The intent here was to check if there are associations in any aspect of the atomic senses between undergraduate students and educators. This was kept in mind since the first interview and on-site data analysis. Segments of expressions, assertions, claims, and justifications were specially considered during the process of tracing the patterns in the overall narrative of the atom. Consequently, seven themes of patterns of similarities were formulated during the within-unit data analyses. The corresponding number of sources and codes of these themes are summarized in Table 4.| No. | Themes of the patterns | Number of sources [E: educator; UGS: undergraduate student] | Number of codes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unjustified assumption of reality as a part of the disciplinary obligation | 3 (1E + 2UGSs) | 8 |
| 2 | An inconclusive claim of “obvious” reality | 4 (2Es + 2UGSs) | 15 |
| 3 | Being able to see atoms in the future | 7 (UGSs) | 37 |
| 4 | The quantum mechanical model as the latest or best available explanation | 8 (Es) | 111 |
| 5 | The continuity of [the chemical process of] the divisibility of matter | 8 (UGSs) | 101 |
| 6 | Indefinite inference | 4 (1E + 3UGSs) | 5 |
| 7 | The usage of words and figurations in mechanical connotations | 6 (1E + 5UGSs) | 48 |
Again, source refers to the number of transcripts from which segments were coded to a given theme of the associative patterns. Thus, the patterns in the fourth and fifth themes are the most shared, with a total of eight sources. On the contrary, the pattern in the first theme is shared by only three of the participants. In this study, “codes” refer to the total number of segments coded in the respective themes. This makes the fourth and sixth themes the ones with the maximum and minimum numbers of total codes, respectively. The themes are discussed as follows, together with their associations with the ontological orientations and sample quotes.
A total of 15 codes of this sort were found from four sources (Table 4). The argument of French chemists and philosophers on the naming of these particles was taken by educators to support the claim. Below is a typical excerpt. It was quoted from the transcript of Moti (E-010).
Atoms do exist. They are fundamental chemical units of matter. For every substance, there should be fundamental units. Thus, their reality shouldn’t be controversial. It is obvious. Maybe their naming, specifically, the issue of what these units should be named, can be controversial. This is the type of debate that the French are advocating. They are claiming that there is nothing such as a “proton” and that what was discovered and named “proton” is not really a proton. They are attempting to show that what was previously known as a proton should no longer be called a proton. Their concern is not with the reality of a proton or an atom.
For example, Tsega (UGS CHEM-II-009) started with the history of the invention of the microscope and their experience of being able to identify cells in a sample of blood in biology class and concluded that “since nothing is impossible, I believe that someday we will have a device to see atoms.” Yerosen (UGS CHEM-II-003) used similar experiences to predict that “one day, we will have a device to see atoms.” The atom was explained mechanically with different biological entities such as cells and bacteria. This indicates that there is an expectation that atoms exhibit some of those characteristics, such as color, form, physical state, and shape. Thus, the mechanical ontology was found to be implied.
The phrase “science is dynamic, but the best we have… is…” was used in most of these arguments. In the deduction that follows this phrase, the quantum mechanical perspective is taken for granted as the “current,” “best,” or “modern” model to justify the reality of atoms. Consequently, educators are oriented toward the interpretative school of ontology. Just like in the case of the undergraduate students in the previous theme, the assertion in the arguments of these educators was found to be inferred from the dynamics of HPS in general, and the chronological narrative of the development of atomic theory in particular.
There were also related concerns raised by the educators themselves about the poor awareness of educators and under-emphasis of HPS in the curriculum. Thus, it appeared that the sole use of the quantum mechanical perspective would most likely be associated with the curriculum and teaching–learning experience the educators had. For example, Addisu (E-002) commented that “we, ourselves, forgot it, especially after graduate study, and are occupied only with our areas of specialization.” Some of these concerns show that the historical and philosophical aspects have also been underemphasized in the classroom instruction by the educators. Tasisa Gonfie (E-006) is among the educators who commented on this neglect. Below is a quote from his comment.
We have to wonder if further discoveries and theoretical hypotheses will be obtained in the future. Thus, we have to be open-minded. We must not take the current theory for granted as the last and perfect one. Even so, we are not paying that much attention to history and its context.
Tasisa's comment not only shows the neglect of historical and philosophical aspects but also explains where the “best” or “modern” entitlements came from. Especially, his remark about “being open-minded” and the expectation of “further discoveries and theoretical hypotheses” explained the source domain of the stance with which the dynamics of science are being interpreted.
The document review conducted as another part of this study also revealed that some essential cases of HPS are missing from the curriculum of undergraduate chemistry education (Abayneh and Woldie, 2022a). This finding from the document review makes the curriculum a major source domain for the perception of the atom by educators.
As a result of this sense of the dynamics or changing patterns in HPS and the chronology in the curriculum, eight§ of the undergraduate students (UGS CHEM-II-002, UGS CHEM-II-003, UGS CHEM-II-007, UGS CHEM-II-009, UGS CHEM-II-010, UGS CHEM-II-011, UGS CHEM-II-012, and UGS CHEM-III-002) asserted that the chemical process of the divisibility of matter will be discovered to continue as science advances. A total of 101 segments were identified in association with this theme (Table 4).
The following is just one of these segments. It was quoted from Abraham's (UGS CHEM-III-002) argument.
Science is dynamic, as you know. You can realize this from the history in the textbooks. There was Dalton's theory, then came J. J. Thomson and Rutherford's models. Then, Rutherford's model was replaced by Bohr's model. Thus, I believe it will be discovered in the future that the [chemical process of] divisibility [of matter] will be discovered to continue beyond the level of electrons, protons, and neutrons.
A similar pattern can be noted from the following excerpt from Sultan's (UGS CHEM-II-010) case.
We learned from the historical development of modern atomic theory that science is dynamic. The theories, models, and discoveries have continued to get more and more advanced. Many former postulates were disproved. Starting with Dalton's atomic theory, numerous changes were made. These changes show that science is dynamic. Because science is dynamic and it keeps changing and getting more and more advanced, I believe that we will continue to know what happens beyond the level of electrons, protons, and neutrons.
In both quotes, the continuity of chemical divisibility was argued based on the dynamics of science. Both undergraduate students stated that they realized the dynamics of science from the historical narratives in the curriculum and the underlying learning experiences. However, their reference to the historical narrative was found to lack some essential perspectives and epochs. For example, the operational perspective of Dalton's pursuit of chemical atoms was not raised at all. This means that the key milestones of Dalton's work, such as the discovery of the chemical force of interaction in solutions, the law of multiple proportions, the development of a table of atomic weights, and the determination of relative atomic weights, were not mentioned. These were the milestones that constituted the operational perspective of the reality of the atom (Rocke, 1984).
In the other parts of their transcripts, only the postulates of Dalton's atomic theory were acknowledged. The issue of some of the postulates, such as the indivisibility of the atom, getting disproved was given more emphasis in the atomic perception of these students. Even in the above-mentioned quote from Abraham's argument, it is described as if Dalton's atomic theory was already replaced by J. J. Thomson's model. The arguments were made in response to the question about the chemical approach to divisibility. Electrolysis and decomposition were also raised in the interviews as examples in the probing case of sodium chloride salt. Thus, the continuity was predicted in the context of chemical phenomena. This thesis of continuity moves chemical fundamentality and ontological status from the atomic to the subatomic level and beyond. It makes the undergraduate students’ view reductionist.
We don’t have to see everything to accept their existence. For example, we can’t see viruses, but we know about their existence indirectly from the diseases they cause. We also can’t see air, but there are ways of knowing its existence.
Getnet's argument starts with the aforementioned assertion. He also tried to analogically support his argument with the cases of viruses and air. However, he did not give a specific case, evidence, or alternative ways of knowing about the existence of atoms. This is why the theme was labeled as an “indefinite inference.” Below is part of the continued conversation with Getnet.
Getnet: We know through experimentation. We know the reality of atoms and sub-atomic particles through experiments. Electrons, protons, and neutrons were discovered scientifically through experiments. Similarly, I believe that atoms do exist. My justifications or reasons are the experiments that have been conducted so far.
Interviewer: That is interesting, but regarding the experiment, it would be great if you could elaborate a bit or you may give an example of these experiments. We can skip it. However, I would appreciate it if you could provide an example.
Getnet: I don't have any at the moment.
Interviewer: Okay, you've already told me enough. Thank you.
These expressions sound as if every substance is made of unique constituent atoms. These expressions are also most likely to give the wrong message that the substances and constituent atoms are linked by similarities in properties, including bulk properties. It is most likely for novice readers or audiences of these expressions to wrongly consider individual atoms to have bulk properties such as color, physical states, shape, appearance, smoothness, and hardness. Consequently, these expressions convey a mechanical sense of existence.
The seven themes are not equally influential in informing the ontological positions of educators and undergraduate students. The attributes in the themes are associated with different degrees with the implied ontological positions. Four of the seven themes were found to be associated with much of the overall narrative of the atom in undergraduate chemistry education at KUE, of which three stem from a single root. The three themes are the acknowledgment and sole use of “the quantum mechanical model as the latest or best available explanation”, the assertion of “the continuity of [the chemical process of] the divisibility of matter”, and the hope of “being able to be seen in the future as science advances”. These three stem from a distorted understanding of the dynamics or changing patterns of HPS in general, or the historical development of the modern atomic theory in particular. In turn, the distortion was linked to the curriculum and classroom instruction, in which essential historical and philosophical aspects were either ignored or underemphasized. The fourth theme is the usage of some words and figurations with mechanical connotations, which is associated with mechanical ontology.
The remaining three themes, i.e., “unjustified assumption of reality as a part of disciplinary obligation”, “inconclusive claim of “obvious” reality”, and “indefinite inference”, were found to have no contribution to the ontological orientations of the educators and undergraduate students. For example, Senay's (UGS CHEM-II-007) orientation toward mechanical ontology has nothing to do with his inconclusive claim of “obvious” reality. He was coded for mechanical ontology due to his expectation of being able to see atoms in the future as well as the usage of some expressions with a mechanical connotation. Similarly, Sultan's (UGS CHEM-II-010) orientation toward the hypothetical ontology is not associated with his assumption of the reality of atoms as an obligation of being a chemistry student. Instead, Sultan was coded for the hypothetical ontology for his assertion of the continuity of the chemical process and the divisibility of matter beyond the atomic level.
Therefore, the overall narrative of the atom in undergraduate chemistry education at KUE appeared to be explainable in terms of the differentiated inference of the dynamics of the historical development of modern atomic theory in particular or HPS in general and the usage of some expressions with a mechanical connotation. As a system, undergraduate chemistry education incorporates educators, students, and the curriculum. Therefore, the undergraduate chemistry education at KUE appears to be a system with interpretative educators, reductionists, and mechanistic graduates. Most unexpectedly, it was discovered to be a system of educators and undergraduate students with contradicting ontological orientations, who most expectably shared some typical uses of words, sentence structure, and figurative and argumentative styles. The curriculum was not examined directly in this study. However, it was noted from the frequent reference to it that the missing pieces and distortions in its narratives seemed to misguide undergraduate students toward either the reductionist or mechanistic sense of ontology.
As expected, the assertions and claims of the educators were more established. The arguments of the majority of the educators were supported by a broader range of observations, discoveries, and applications of quantum mechanics. Almost the same historical narrative was used in the perception of the atom by undergraduate students. However, the difference is that the undergraduate students rely on what has been said in the classroom and written in the course materials, while the arguments of the educators include a wide range of applications of quantum mechanics in different areas, including health and information communication technology. The perception of the atom by undergraduate student focuses on what has been said to be disproved by quantum mechanics, i.e., issues such as the limitations of Bohr's postulates, the uncertainty principle, and the orbit-orbital disputes.
On the contrary, the perception of the atom by educators focuses on what is known thus far. The wide range of applications of quantum mechanics, both in the real and fictitious world, formed the basis of the arguments by the educators. Ideas of teleportation and quantum entanglement were also used by some educators to justify how far quantum mechanics can go to make realities appear. For this reason, the educators were curious about what has been discovered or invented thus far, while their students were more curious about what is to be disproved next. This is the origin of the deviation or mismatch. Also, we noted that the deviation is attributed to the fact that the perception of the atom by the undergraduate students is limited only to what has been said in the classroom and written in course materials. These differentiated experiences, together with the aforementioned distortion of HPS in the curricular and instructional narratives, appeared to be the sources of the mismatches between the perception of the atom by educators and undergraduate students. However, we believe that further investigation needs to be conducted to clearly understand what causes the deviation.
The scope and depth of the explanation were expected to vary among second and third-year undergraduate students, together with the strength of their arguments. Third-year students were normally expected to give a broader explanation and stronger arguments compared to second-year students, given that they spent more time studying and took more courses. On the contrary, the breadth of explanation and strength of arguments were found to be better in the case of second-year students. We learned from an informal pre-interview that they were not comfortable with their teaching–learning experiences from the first two years of their study. They reflected that they had a very difficult time in the first and second years of their study (the 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 academic years) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We found this reason convincing because we know that the country's entire education system was overwhelmed by the pandemic, especially in the first two years (2020–2021 and 2021–2022).
No distinct pattern of difference in the atomic senses, underlying atomic notions, and ontological orientations were found across the different categories of academic achievement. We only found that the undergraduate students with better academic records provided more details about what was written in the course materials and said in their classes. Concerning their opinions on the relevancy of the courses, their interest in classroom instruction, and their choice of chemistry as a department, a pattern of disappointment was observed. We noted that the majority of students had this ambition that everything in the field of chemistry could be learned through experimentation before joining the department. Then, this ambition turned to disappointment when they found out that the classes are not experimental. The opinion and interest of undergraduate students were not very positive as rated in the preliminary questionnaire (Table 2). However, this disappointment was found to be unrelated to their ontological orientation. They linked the failure to learn through experimentation to the shortage of resources or apparatus in the country in general, and the university in particular. They deduced that if there was no shortage of resources, they would have seen atoms through a special microscope or experimentally confirmed how the chemical process of divisibility of matter will be discovered to continue beyond electrons, protons, and neutrons.
Although it is expected that the sense of the atom and ontological orientations of educators will vary across the different areas of specialization, no difference was observed. According to our understanding of the literature on HPS, we expected that someone with a specialization in analytical or inorganic chemistry would be more oriented toward operational ontology. Someone with a specialization in physical chemistry would be oriented toward interpretative ontology or reductionism. However, we found no distinguishable difference. We believe that this could be related to the fact that they all passed through the same curricular race in which HPS is underemphasized.
Discussion
The implied ontologies
It was found in this study that the majority of educators were oriented toward the interpretative ontological perspective, while the sense of the undergraduate students fell between the hypothetical and mechanical dipoles of ontology. The finding on the case of educators agrees with most of the literature. The underlying views of mechanical ontology are similar to most of the persistent naive ideas documented in the literature for the last four or five decades (Taber, 2000; Barker, 2000; Taber, 2002, 2003; Kind, 2004; Ayas et al., 2010; Gökdere and Çalik, 2010; Abayneh, 2013; Muireann et al., 2013; Park et al., 2016; Taber, 2020; Wiener, 2020).For example, the physical atomic notion (physical atomism) is conceptually similar to the naive assumptions about the bulky properties of atoms (such as color, appearance, smoothness, hardness, shininess, and malleability) that were reported by Abayneh (2013), Barker (2000), Kind (2004), and Muireann et al. (2013). The other idea embedded in mechanical ontology is the overemphasized atomic notion in which atoms are considered the ultimate building blocks of everything. The finding in this regard is highly consistent with the naive ideas persistently found in the literature (Barker, 2000; Taber, 2000, 2002, 2003; Kind, 2004; Ayas et al., 2010; Gökdere and Çalik, 2010; Abayneh, 2013, 2018; Park et al., 2016; Derman et al., 2019; Taber, 2020; Wiener, 2020).
Alternatively, reductionism and anti-atomism were found to be embedded in the hypothetical ontological version of the undergraduate students. This is somewhat striking. Firstly, the inclination of undergraduate students toward these views is not something expected from chemistry students or teachers. They are supposed to believe in the reality of the atom despite all the challenges, uncomfortable experiences, and learning difficulties. This stand against the reality of the atom has not been reported in the literature to be reflected by someone from the chemistry field. Reductionism and anti-atomism have only been advocated by scholars from other disciplines such as physics and philosophy (Scerri, 2007; Bensaude-Vincent and Simon, 2008).
The patterns in the overall thinking and associated source domains
The whole idea of the atom appeared to be the makeup of four core patterns in the thinking and narrative of the atom. Three of these patterns appeared to arise from differences in the understanding and interpretation of the dynamics of science, which were found to be associated with the distorted conception of HPS. These discrepancies are essentially consistent with what Taber called a “mismatch” between the various conceptions of the atom held by expert chemists, experienced teachers, novice chemists, and students, and those found in the curriculum (Taber, 2003). According to Taber (2003), the mismatches are attributed to the usage of misleading expressions by expert chemists. However, others attributed this problem to the neglect or under-emphasis on HPS (Justi and Gilbert, 2000; Rodriguez and Niaz, 2002; Cheloni et al., 2006; Niaz and Coştub, 2009). Indications of both aspects were noted in this study. On the one hand, the similarity between the figurative styles of some of the educators and undergraduate students strengthens what Taber (2003, p. 21) stated, as follows: “[…] although chemists may sometimes seem to use similar ideas and language, there is a significant difference in the way expert chemists and novices apply these ideas.” Thus, the communicative style of the educators is one of the domains from which the perception of the reality of atoms by students originate.On the other hand, the findings in terms of the distorted understanding of the dynamics in HPS by undergraduate students agree with HPS-based inquiries (Justi and Gilbert, 2000; Rodriguez and Niaz, 2002; Cheloni et al., 2006; Niaz and Coştub, 2009). Besides, the findings on the curriculum are consistent with that of a series of HPS-based curriculum evaluations of chemistry textbooks (Niaz, 1998; Rodriguez and Niaz, 2002; Niaz and Coştub, 2009; Niaz and Maza, 2011). This consistency substantiates the formerly hypothesized associations of the learning impediments and ontological complications with the neglect, distortion, and/or misleading portrayal of HPS.
Moreover, there are indications of a direct relationship between the status of HPS in the curriculum of an individual and the level of understanding by students. For instance, Justi and Gilbert (2000), reported that students have difficulties in making sense of the process and results of scientific and philosophical inquiries in the context of no or little emphasis on HPS.
In general, this study shows that students are still forming naive ideas of mechanical ontological implications. The analysis of the transcripts of the undergraduate students revealed numerous pieces of evidence that depict a mechanical school of reality. Similar links between the mechanistic depiction of the atom and the persistence of the nave ideas have been indicated in the literature (Justi and Gilbert, 2000; Taber, 2002, 2003; Kind, 2004; Niaz and Coştub, 2009; Gökdere and Çalik, 2010; Abayneh, 2013). These associations indicate that the learning obstacles can be more closely associated with the ontological message than the conceptual one depicted by a given instructional approach, material, or activity. The perceptions of atomic reality by educators and students were found to be related to their understanding of HPS in general, and the historical development of modern atomic theory in particular. Thus, the status of HPS in the curriculum, the precision of the portrayed image in the curricular narratives, and understanding by students are equally essential in this type of philosophy-driven inquiry.
Getting back to our argument, the above-discussed findings also show that considering ontological or conceptual perspective alone will not help us much given that the ontological mismatches, the narrative in the curriculum, the discourse by experts, and failure by students to make sense of fundamental concepts are all interconnected (Erduran, 2014; Knuuttila, 2021). Also, taking a portion of a system, such as students or educators only, will not give much information. Alternatively, the system as a whole needs to be explored and understood. Thus, to address the impediments in this system of chemistry education, a comprehensive understanding of the process of meaning-making in its context is required.
Implications
The main finding of this study is that different ways of thinking about atoms lead to diverse interpretations and applications of the same basic idea. This is taking place in a single system of understanding of the atom system. Participants in the same system hold various ontological viewpoints, which implies various conceptions of the atom, atomic theories, and related concepts, most of which are conceptually problematic. These divergent and problematic conceptions, which are addressed in the literature as learning impediments or obstacles, were discovered to be linked mainly to a distorted depiction of HPS. Consequently, this distortion is attributed to the curriculum, classroom instruction, and the figurative styles of the educators. The usage of words and expressions with a mechanical connotation was also found to be another pattern to which the mechanical orientation is attributed. Following addressing the learning impediments from the literature, the corresponding implications are discussed as follows: separately for classroom instruction, professional development of educators, curriculum development, and research on chemistry education.Implications for instruction
Science has a way of seeing and making sense of the world, similar to chemistry. Therefore, any educational system in general, and the understanding of the atom in particular should be consistent with this nature and philosophy of science. Thus, having a distinct ontological base may make these issues clearer. Our chemistry education aims to build a basis that can better match the desired quality of graduates. However, this duty of favoring and selecting one over the other continues to be contentious. For instance, operational ontology has received widespread acceptance as the framework of chemists for understanding reality. Alternatively, mechanical ontology has long been criticized for being out of date. Furthermore, it has been criticized for treating atoms as indivisible balls of varying colors, sizes, and speeds.This implies that an ontologically flawed viewpoint may be pedagogically effective for achieving a certain goal. Consequently, the mechanical depiction of an atom may have pedagogical benefit, though not as a representation of an atom. It can be used as a methodological means of explaining what is happening in, for instance, various samples of gases. In this instance, Taber's “dead metaphor” is actually not dead given that it will be beneficial from an epistemological and educational standpoint. Thus, it functions as an epistemic tool from the perspective of artifacts and supports learning (Knuuttila, 2021). However, its problematic ontological implication must be understood. Knowing this allows us to maintain the learning by students by avoiding unnecessary ontological complications and learning impediments.
Thus, educators are advised to consider the ontological perspective, while planning and implementing their instruction. The selection and use of a given instructional approach, material, symbol, word, sentence, picture, or assertion should be decided based on not just the pedagogical benefit but also the convenience of the ontological view that it conveys. Besides, educators are advised to watch students and their own figurative and argumentative styles. This also demands looking into the writing and speech of their students. The use of typical assessment techniques, such as interviews, laboratory reports, assignments, project essays, and oral presentations, can be very helpful. The number of undergraduate students (3 in the case of third year and 15 in the case of second year) is manageable to employ these techniques. These techniques can also be employed as peer and self-assessment in larger class sizes.
Implications for the professional development of educators
It was found from the self-reflection by the educators that their exposure to and awareness of the controversial issues of HPS are not at the expected level. The findings from the curriculum and undergraduate students strengthen this under-emphasis. Hence, there need to be opportunities in which educators can wonder about the essence of the historical and philosophical aspects. For example, the essential cases, context, and evidence of HPS can be incorporated in the departmental handbook of the Higher Diploma Program (HDP) in the form of case studies and thematic areas of action research projects. However, HDP is for newly hired educators, and all the educators have already completed and graduated from the program. Thus, HDP works only for newly employed educators.In addition to HDP, public universities such as KUE have a trend of getting the staff up-to-date in which refreshment workshops are provided. The topics from HPS can be treated in these workshops, specifically by educators from the Chemistry Department. It will also be good if the educators are aware of both the local perspectives of the process and depth of knowledge as well as their optimized integration in the classroom practice. Thus, both the Universalist and Pluralist approaches of chemistry, both as the process and ends of inquiry, are better to be considered in the inclusion of the aforementioned historical and philosophical aspects. Related publications can also be used in these workshops as topics of discussion.
In addition, related instructional approaches and materials can be examined from the perspectives of the underlying ontological and conceptual messages they depict. As pointed out previously under the “Implications for Instruction”, educators need to be aware of both the representational and modal aspects of the approaches, materials, activities, linguistic, and epistemic styles they use in their classroom instruction. To be able to think beyond the pedagogical advantage and avoid the ontological complications, they should know the appropriateness of ontology that each approach, material, activity, word, syntax, symbol, metaphor, analogy, or argumentation portrays.
Implications for curriculum development
The key point is that the diverse modes of thinking, ontological orientations, and mental schemas that can be linked to these persistent learning impediments result from an inaccurate representation of HPS. Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend the entire conceptualization system in terms of the patterns in the overall narrative and thinking, connected source domains, relevant epistemic profiles, and mental schemas before considering how to overcome these difficulties.In terms of the contents, it is better to ensure that issues such as the existence of atoms and means of confirmation are entertained accordingly. Besides, it is better to consider the optimized incorporation of the historical and philosophical aspects in the prospective curricular reviews and reforms. Subject area methodology courses can also be used for their integration in the pre-service diploma teacher education as well as the Bachelor of Education (BEd in Chemistry Education) program that KUE is currently launching. Then, the contents should be organized and structured cohesively and consistently by ensuring that they are not contradicting each other and make sense. Both symbolic and textural narrations should also be examined and made as precise and relevant as possible. The educators are also advised to examine the curriculum and address any incorrect aspects during their instruction.
Implications for research on chemistry education
Primarily, we require a forum or platform for these types of problems and underlying discussions. The topic should be considered as one thematic area for additional research into educators'/instructors’, pre-service teachers’, and undergraduate students’ sense of the atom, and the curriculum. Examining the patterns in the writing of the course materials and classroom conversations may also be necessary.The inclination of undergraduate students toward reductionism is somewhat striking, given that it is not something expected from a chemistry student or pre-service teacher. Indeed, it is normal to have students and educators with different ontological views. However, it will not be normal to have prospective chemistry teachers or chemists oriented toward reductionism. With this perspective, making sense of chemistry cannot be meaningful, whether for prospective teachers or chemists. A holistic examination of the teaching–learning of atom-related topics is suggested than trying to deal with the range of misconceptions and learning impediments arising from reductionism. This means that we need to try to treat the problem at its very source. To be able to treat the problem at its very source, these inquiries need to start from a philosophical base. This philosophical emphasis may be extended into the investigation of the overall rhetoric and linguistic orientations of scientific, philosophical, and historical literature as well as the professional and personal communications of scientists, chemists, educators, and professors.
Limitations of the study
Classroom observation was planned as the other method of data collection. However, the data collection and analysis for this study started during the COVID-19 pandemic, where the usual face-to-face mode of instruction was not yet restored. Therefore, we were forced to abandon classroom observation. We believe that this study would have been more insightful if classroom observations were also included. The other limitation of this study is that the findings in the case of the second research question did not show a cause-and-effect relationship between the sense of the atom by educators and undergraduate students. The curriculum and teaching–learning experiences were directly referred to in much of the reasoning or justification, which were discovered as the source domains of the sense of the atom by the educators and undergraduate students. The findings only showed the similarities in the use of some words, expressions, syntaxes, assertions, and claims by the educators and undergraduate students. Beyond the similarities, the findings did not show to what extent the sense of the atom by the undergraduate students is attributed to the thinking, linguistic, figurative, and argumentative styles of the educators.Conflicts of interest
We, the aforementioned authors, declare that there is no competing interest that might have influenced the publication of this article in this journal or somewhere else.Appendix
Interview protocol
Part I: profile of interviewees
| Educators | |
| Interviewee's code | ————— |
| Status/rank | ————— |
| Specialization | ————— |
| Experience in KUE | ————— |
| Date of the interview | ————— |
| Place | ————— |
| Time | ————— |
| Undergraduate students | |
| Interviewee's code | ————— |
| Program | ————— |
| Year | ————— |
| Section | ————— |
| Date of the interview | ————— |
| Place | ————— |
| Time | ————— |
Part II: introduction
Thank you for being willing and coming! As already stated in the written consent, the purpose of this interview is to collect data on how educators and undergraduate students construct meanings about the reality of atoms and draw some implications for addressing common learning difficulties and misconceptions. I'm looking into your idea of the atom, its interpretation, corresponding rationale, and reflection on related experiences. With your permission, I am going to use an audio recorder so that I can get all the details, make sure that I am catching you up, and have an attentive conversation with you.Part III: interview questions
1. Getting to know each other[Introducing myself], I am hoping that you could tell me about yourself too. [Probing for undergraduate students: Was it your intention to continue your education in chemistry? How about teaching?].
2. Reality
2.1. Let me start with the very idea of reality, or existence in its philosophical sense: what does reality mean to you?
2.2. How about comparing reality in chemistry [for example, a molecule, air, dust, a metal sample, or isomers] to reality in biology [for example, cells, organs, organisms, osmosis, diffusion, and viruses]; or in physics [for example, force, light, wave, particles, and power]; or in social science [for example, an idea, humanity, and honesty]; or in Mathematics [for example, point, numbers, geometric objects]?
3. Constituents of the world
3.1. What do you think the world and the things within are made of?
3.2. Let us, on the other hand, consider the [mechanical, quantum mechanical, and chemical] divisibility of things around us. Does it have a limit? What will be obtained at the end?
Probing for undergraduate students: Let's, for example, take a crystal of table salt;
(a) What exactly table salt is made of?
(b) How do you think table salt is made from its constituents?
(c) What do you think will happen if we keep on grinding or dissolving a given piece of the salt crystal? Is there an end? If so, what will be obtained at the end [ions, atoms, molecules, and formula units]?
(d) What do you think will happen if we keep on chemically breaking down or decomposing a given sample of a compound or substance, such as sodium chloride or water? Is there an end? If so, what will be obtained at the end [ions, atoms, molecules, formula units]?
Probing for all: Let's, for example, consider table salt or sodium chloride; we all learned in Chemistry that it is formed by reactions of reactants comprising sodium and chlorine as a result of the electrostatic attraction between sodium (Na+) and chlorine (Cl−) ions. However, considering the very first creation of things in this world;
(a) Which one do you think was created first? Is that the salt (NaCl), the individual ions (Na+ & Cl−), or the individual atoms (Na & Cl), which appeared or existed first in this world?
(b) Which one is then the fundamental entity?
4. Sense of atom
4.1. What does ‘atom’ mean to you?
Probing for undergraduate students: Consider your understanding of the atom from your chemistry education and
(a) Explain or try to explain what an atom is and its existence in relation to ions, formula units, molecules, and other physical objects.
(b) Draw the image that appears in your mind when you think of an atom on the paper sheet that I am about to give you. I need you to also explain [via the microphone of my audio appliance] about the constituents and the structure of your illustration of the atom while you are drawing. Consider an individual Na-atom existing independently in solution and crystal of NaCl.
4.2. Are atoms real? Do atoms exist?
4.3. How do you think one can know this existence or reality?
Probing for all: Based on your views on the existence of the atom
(a) If you think atoms exist, how do you think their existence can be better shown, justified, or conceptualized to students during the teaching–learning process?
(b) If you think atoms don’t exist, what is then the essence of contents such as atomic theories, particulate nature of matter, and electronic structure of the atom in chemistry education?
5. Learning experience
5.1. Try to remember the first time you were introduced to the idea of an ‘atom’ in your learning experience. When was it? In which grade and subject was it? What idea or view you made of it? What mental image of the atom did this experience leave with you?
5.2. Which of your learning experiences influenced you the most in constructing your current sense of an ‘atom’, ‘what and how the world is made of’, and ‘the limit to the divisibility of matter’?
6. Teaching experience (for the educators)
The literature as well as the data I have collected thus far substantially imply that secondary and undergraduate students still possess the classical mechanical notion of the atom, while emerging orientations towards agnosticism and anti-atomism have also been traced. The implications in either direction are not consistent with the available scientific evidence.
6.1. Why do you, as an educator/instructor, think the students construct this sense of the atom?
6.2. How do you think the issue of the atom, atomic theories, and related contents should be conceptualized to address the desired ontological shift and optimize chemical atomism?
Part IV: closing
We are done with the questions. I appreciate your generous willingness, commitment, and contribution, and therefore would like to express my heartfelt thanks! Finally, I'd like to hear your thoughts on our conversation and/or any feedback you may have.[Listening to the interviewee's final remarks; appreciating and cheering].
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Temechegn Engida (PhD) for the thorough guidance and support he has been offering since the beginning of the study. We also owe acknowledgment to the management bodies of Addis Ababa University, the Education Bureau of Oromia Regional State, Kotebe University of Education, and Fitche College of Teacher Education for their support and facilitation. Most importantly, we thank the educators and undergraduate students of Kotebe University of Education who participated in the study.References
- Abayneh L., (2013), A diagnostic assessment of eighth-grade students and their teachers’ misconceptions about basic chemical concepts, Afr. J. Chem. Educ., 3(1), 39–59.
- Abayneh L., (2018), Early Chemistry Misconceptions: Status and Implications for Science Education in Ethiopia, Afr. J. Chem. Educ., 8(2), 190–203.
- Abayneh L. and Woldie B., (2022a), Atomic ontology in the chemistry curriculum and implications for optimizing chemical atomism in teacher education in Ethiopia, KIMIKA, 33(1), 20–41.
- Abayneh L. and Woldie B., (2022b), Ontological orientations of educators’ sense of the atom and underlying source domains: a case study of Kotebe Metropolitan University, Ethiopia, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 23(3), 885–897 10.1039/D2RP00001F.
- Abayneh L. and Woldie B., (2022c), How Worthy is Dalton's Pursuit of Chemical Atomism for the Prospective Teachers? A Case of Kotebe University of Education, Ethiopia, J. Chem. Educ. Res. (JCER), 6(2), 22–43 DOI:10.26740/jcer.v6n2.p138-151.
- Adadan E., (2014), Investigating the influence of pre-service chemistry teachers’ understanding of the particle nature of matter on their conceptual understanding of solution chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 219–238 10.1039/C4RP00002A.
- Amin T., Jeppsson F. and Haglund T., (2015) Conceptual Metaphor and Embodied Cognition in Science Learning: Introduction to special issue, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 37(5–6), 745–758 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2015.1025245.
- Ayas A., Özmen H. and Çalik M., (2010), Students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter at secondary and tertiary levels, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 8, 165–184 DOI:10.1007/s10763-009-9167-x.
- Banchetti-Robino M. P., (2020), The changing relation between atomicity and elementarity, in What is a Chemical Element? A Collection of Essays by Chemists, Philosophers, Historians, and Educators, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–108.
- Barker V., (2000), Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas, London WC1H OAL: A report prepared for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Viewed 12 March 2017, https://modeling.asu.edu/modeling/KindVanessaBarkerchem.pdf.
- Bensaude-Vincent B., (1999), Atomism and positivism: A legend about French chemistry, Ann. Sci., 56, 81–94 DOI:10.1080/000337999296544.
- Bensaude-Vincent B. and Simon J., (2008), Chemistry: The impure science, London: Imperial College Press, Viewed 12 October 2019, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50411935_Bernadette_Bensaude-Vincent_and_Jonathan_Simon_Chemistry_The_Impure_Science/link/593ff8c40f7e9bf167f1ce6d/download.
- Campbell J. L., Quincy C., Osserman J. and Pedersen O. K., (2013), Coding in-depth semi-structured interviews: Problems of unitization and inter-coder reliability and agreement, Sociological Methods Res., 42, 294–320 DOI:10.1177/0049124113500475.
- Chalmers A. F., (1999), What is this thing called Science,Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 3rd edn, Viewed 21 October 2018, https://silo.pub/download/what-is-this-thing-called-science-an-assessment-of-the-nature-and-status-of-science-and-its-methods.
- Charmaz K., (2006), Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis, SAGE Publications, Viewed 20 March 2020, https://www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Charmaz_2006.pdf.
- Cheloni F., Leme M. and Porto P. A., (2006), Undergraduate chemistry students’ conceptions of the history of science from a biographical approach [Paper presentation], The 29th Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Society of Chemistry, 2006, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Retrieved from https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/81/81132/tde-23042013-164825/publico/Paulo_Henrique_Oliveira_Vidal.pdf.
- Dereje A., Atagana H. I. and Temechegn, E., (2013), The Place of Philosophy of Chemistry in Reducing Chemical Misconceptions, Afr. J. Chem. Educ., 3 (2), 106–117.
- Derman A., Koçak N. and Eilks I., (2019), Insights into Components of Prospective Science Teachers’ Mental Models and Their Preferred Visual Representations of Atoms, Educ. Sci., 9, 154, 1–19 DOI:10.3390/educsci9020154.
- Erduran S., (2014), A holistic approach to the atom in school chemistry, Educ. Quím. Educ., 19, 39–42 DOI:10.2436/20.2003.02.142.
- Gökdere M. and Çalik M., (2010), A cross-age study of Turkish students’ mental models: an “atom” concept, Didact. Slov.-Pedagos. Obzorja, 25(2), 185–199.
- Hadžibegović Z. and Galijašević S., (2013), 100th anniversary of the Bohr model of the atom: How chemistry freshmen understand atomic structure of matter. Bull. Chem. Technol. Bosnia Herzegovina, 40, 51–56, from https://www.academia.edu/27991848.
- Jensen W. B., (2010), Four centuries of atomic theory: an overview, in Giunta, C. J. (ed.), Atoms in Chemistry: From Dalton's predecessors to complex atoms and beyond, Washington: ACS Books, pp. 7–19, Viewed 24 May 2019, https://organica1.org/seminario/atomism_before_dalton.pdf.
- Justi R. and Gilbert J., (2000), History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in the case of 'the atom, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 22(9), 993–1009 DOI:10.1080/095006900416875.
- Kind V., (2004), Beyond appearances: Students' misconceptions about basic chemical ideas, London: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2nd edn, Viewed 17 April 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228799159.
- Kindu T. and Mekonnen T., (2016), Difficulties Experienced by Grade 12 Students in Learning Chemistry in Ebinat Preparatory School, Afr. J. Chem. Educ., 6 (2), 16–32.
- Knuuttila T., (2021), Epistemic artifacts and the modal dimension of modeling, Eur. J. Phi. Sci., 11(65), 1–18 DOI:10.1007/s13194-021-00374-5.
- Landis J. R. and Koch G. G. (1977), The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics, 33, 159–174 DOI:10.2307/2529310.
- Matthews M. R., (1994), Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science, London: Routledge DOI:10.4324/9781315811642.
- Matthews M. R., (2011), Alan F. Chalmers: The scientist's atom and the philosopher's stone: How science succeeded and philosophy failed to gain knowledge of atoms, Sci. Educ., 20, 173–190 DOI:10.1007/s11191-010-9226-2.
- May L., (2010), Atomism before Dalton, in C. Giunta (ed.), Atoms in Chemistry: From Dalton's predecessors to complex atoms and beyond, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, pp. 21–33, Viewed 20 July, 219, https://organica1.org/seminario/atomism_before_dalton.pdf.
- Merriam S. B., (2009), Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation (Revised and expanded from Qualitative research and case study applications in education), San Francisco, The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series, Viewed 25 September 2020, https://eds-courses.ucsd.edu/tep288a/shortbook.pdf.
- Ministry of Education (MoE), (2003), A National Curriculum Guideline for Pre-service Teacher Education Programmes, Addis Ababa.
- Ministry of Education (MoE), (2009), Post Graduate Diploma for Teachers: Curriculum Framework for Secondary School Teacher Education Program in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
- Ministry of Higher Education (MoSHE), (2020), Curriculum of Bachelor of Science in Chemistry: A Draft Developed by Jimma University Chemistry Department Staff, Addis Ababa: Ministry of Science and Higher Education, 2020.
- Muireann S., Peter E. and Sarah H., (2013), The chemical misconceptions of pre-service science teachers at the University of Limerick: Do they change? in Clément P., Bruguiere C., Tiberghien A., Psillos D. and Sperandeo R. M. (ed.), Proceedings of the ESERA 2011 conference: Science learning and citizenship, Science learning and Citizenship, European Science Education Research Association, pp. 1–13, Viewed October 5, 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282777426.
- Niaz M., (1998), From cathode rays to alpha particles to quantum of action: a rational reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks, Sci. Educ., 82, 527–52 DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199809)82:5%3C527::AID-SCE1%3E3.0.CO;2-B.
- Niaz M. and Coştub B., (2009), Presentation of atomic structure in Turkish general chemistry textbooks, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 10, 233–240 10.1039/b914503f.
- Niaz M. and Maza A., (2011), Nature of science in General Chemistry textbooks, Dordrecht: Springer DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-1920-0.
- Niaz M., Aguilera D., Maza A. and Liendo G., (2002), Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure, Sci Educ, 86, 505–525 DOI:10.1002/sce.10035.
- Ornatowski C. M., (2007), “Rhetoric of science: Oxymoron or tautology?” The Writing Instructor, 1-15, September 2007, Viewed 20 June 2020, https://www.writinginstructor.com/ornatowski.
- Perez E. A., Guidote A. M., Yu G. U. and Mariano M. E., (2016), Content analysis of the discussion of the atom in general chemistry textbooks using evaluation criteria based on the nature of science and the philosophy of chemistry, KIMIKA, 27(2), 50–60.
- Rocke A., (1984), Atomism in the nineteenth century: From Dalton to Cannizzaro, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, Viewed 12 May 2021, http://https:/digital.case.edu/islandora/object/ksl%3Ax633gj985.
- Rodriguez M. and Niaz M., (2002), How in spite of the rhetoric, history of chemistry has been ignored in presenting atomic structure in textbooks, Sci Educ, 11(5), 423–441 DOI:10.1023/A:1016599623871.
- Rodriguez M. and Niaz M., (2004), A reconstruction of structure of the Atom and its implications for General Physics textbooks: A History and Philosophy of Science Perspective, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 13 (3), 409–424 DOI:10.1023/B:JOST.0000045468.49500.3b.
- Scerri R. E., (2007), The ambiguity of reduction, Int. J. Phil. Chem., 13 (2), 67–81.
- Sileshi Y., (2011), Chemical reaction: Diagnosis and towards remedy of misconceptions Afr. J. Chem. Educ., 1(1), 10–28.
- Taber K. S., (2000), Teaching chemistry without (too much emphasis on) atoms? A Royal Society of Chemistry Teacher Fellowship Discussion Paper, Viewed 21 December 2007, https://www.leeds.c.uk/educol/documents.
- Taber K. S., (2002), Misconceptions in chemistry: Prevention, diagnosis and cure? London: Royal Society of Chemistry, vol. 2.
- Taber K. S., (2003), The atom in the chemistry curriculum: Fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle, Found. Chem., 5, 43–84 DOI:10.1023/A:1021995612705.
- Taber K. S., (2020), Conceptual confusion in the chemistry curriculum: exemplifying the problematic nature of representing chemical concepts as target knowledge, Found. Chem., 22, 309–334 DOI:10.1007/s10698-019-09346-3.
- Tumay H., (2016), Reconsidering learning difficulties and misconceptions in chemistry: emergence in chemistry and its implications for chemical education, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17 (229), 229–245 10.1039/C6RP00008H.
- Viana H. E. B. and Porto P. A., (2009), The development of Dalton's atomic theory as a case study in the history of science: Reflections for educators in chemistry, Sci. Educ., 19 (1), 75–90 DOI:10.1007/s11191-008-9182-2.
- Vihalemm R., (2012), Practical realism: Against standard scientific realism and anti-realism, Stud. Phil. Esto., 5(2), 7–22 DOI:10.12697/spe.2012.5.2.02.
- Wiener J., (2020), Science teachers' conceptions of atomic models, Euro. J. Math. Sci. Educ., 1(2), 67–80 DOI:10.12973/ejmse.1.2.67.
- Wisudawati A., Barke H.-D., Abayneh L. and Agung S., (2022), Students’ and teachers’ perceptions for the composition of ionic compounds, Chem. Tea. Int., 4(3), 1–10 DOI:10.1515/cti-2021-0032.
- Yazan B., (2015), Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake, Qual. Rep., 20 (2), 134–152 DOI:10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2102.
- Yu X., (2013), What are the metaphors we live by? Theory Practice Language Studies, 3 (8), 1467–1472 DOI:10.4304/tpls.3.8.1467-1472.
Footnotes |
| † Details of the four ontological themes and underlying atomic notions were provided in Abayneh and Woldie (2022b, pp. 885–887). |
| ‡ Areas of specialization were omitted from Table 1 to ensure that no educator will be identified. |
| § Some of the transcripts of the educators and undergraduate students were coded to two or more themes of the patterns. Hence, the sum of the numbers of educators and undergraduate students mentioned under each theme exceeds the total number of the interviewees. |
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2023 |