Research: Science and Education

edited by

Chemical Education Research

Diane M. Bunce
The Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. 20064

The Assessment of Students and Teachers Understanding of Gas Laws

Huann-shyang Lin* and Hsiu-ju Cheng Department of Chemistry, National Kaohsiung Normal University, 116 Ho-ping 1st Road, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; *T1666@nknucc.nknu.edu.tw Frances Lawrenz Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

Research studies found that even after having been taught the particulate theory and the properties of gases (e.g., weight and volume), the majority of high school students still believed that a gas has no weight (1, 2). Before instruction, children hold a variety of intuitive conceptions or naive ideas resulting from their daily life experiences, which are in conflict with the correct scientific conceptions. For example, seeing balloons flying into the sky and carbon dioxide escaping from soda water may make children believe that most gases are light or weightless. These intuitive conceptions of gases compete with scientific conceptions while students construct knowledge regarding the properties of gases. Stavy (3) found that the construction of knowledge is a very slow and continuous process. Additionally, Nussbaum (4 ) indicated that intuitive conceptions of gases may survive through many stages of instruction and even after instruction is completed. The scientific meaning of the information may be distorted by the preconceptions that were active when the pupil assimilated the new information. To provide meaningful instruction, it is necessary to understand how scientific concepts are distorted and accommodated by students. In other words, assessment of students conceptual understanding is important. Unfortunately, most assessments of gas laws conducted by chemistry teachers are algorithmic and emphasize mathematical calculations. This is true not only in classroom practices, but also in many chemistry textbooks. In an analysis of 14 chemistry textbooks, De Berg (5) found that of the 80 exercises on the pressure volume relationship, only 5 posed qualitative questions about the properties of gases. Since textbooks serve as a guide for science education, it is no surprise that algorithmic modes of problem-solving are more common than conceptual modes of problem-solving. Gabel, Sherwood, and Enochs (6 ) warned that if students do not understand a chemical concept qualitatively before it is presented quantitatively, they are likely to conduct only mindless manipulations of mathematical equations. Recently, Nakhleh (7) found that students conceptual problem-solving ability in chemistry lagged far behind their algorithmic problem-solving ability. Research results also show that students get used to applying algorithms to solve conceptual problems. The students simply do not trust their conceptual understanding of the chemistry involved (8). All these results point to the importance of concept-based instruction and assessment. To reveal students conceptual understanding of gas laws, this study focused on the application of scientific concepts

in practical situations, instead of mathematical calculations in theoretical situations. In addition, this study documents high school chemistry teachers understanding of the same situations, on the assumption that chemistry teachers must have sound understanding before they will be able to help their students construct knowledge of scientific concepts. Methodology The subjects of the study were 119 11th-grade students and 36 high school chemistry teachers. The students were from three different classrooms in a prestigious high school and in an advanced program designed for high achievers of physical science. The majority of them were college-bound and planned to major in either science or engineering. The 36 teachers were from 36 high schools in a suburb of Kaohsiung City in Taiwan. The teachers completed the assessment instrument while they were attending a teaching methods workshop. Owing to the large number of subjects involved in this study, researchers were unable to conduct interviews with everyone. Therefore we used an open-ended pencil-andpaper test, asking the teachers and students to predict the results of a demonstration or to explain or draw a diagram to show their ideas about a phenomenon. After they finished studying Charless, Boyles, and the ideal gas law, the students were asked to respond to a 4-item test (see Figs. 14). The problems used in this study do not require substitution into a mathematical formula. Instead, they require conceptual understanding of gas properties and gas laws and the ability to apply this knowledge in different situations. It should be noted that when we conducted demonstrations of the test items, safety procedures were explained and the respondents questions about the meanings of the test items were clarified. For example, in item #4, which is a hypothetical item, we reminded the respondents that a balloon should be used if they want to close the flask while heating, and that the heating procedure should last no more than a few seconds; otherwise it may cause an explosion. For the same item, it was also explained that although no such magnifying glass exists, they should just pretend that they have one and it can magnify as much as they want. Items 1 and 2 are related to Boyles law, and item 3 is associated with Charless law. The last item of the instrument solicited representations of gas molecules. At first we intended to use the same instrument with both students and teachers. However, the teachers had already had experience using balls
235

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu Vol. 77 No. 2 February 2000 Journal of Chemical Education

Research: Science and Education

and sticks as analogies for molecules in their college courses. Moreover, during the teaching methods workshop, an assessment of the teachers understanding of molecular models showed that the teachers already held the scientifically correct conception. Therefore, we decided to exclude the last item from the teachers test. All the test items were carefully developed and pilot-tested following the procedures suggested by Gronlund (9). The Cronbach reliability of the instrument is 0.65. In addition, we used Gronlunds third recommendation (9, p 75), comparing the scores of known groups, to provide construct validity. The instrument efficiently discriminated between high- and low-achieving students as determined by the students school grades in chemistry. The students and teachers answers were graded according to the following scheme: no explanation, explanations with irrelevant statements, and misconceptions were given 0 points; answers showing partial misconceptions but indicating some

degree of relevance toward the target concept were assigned 1 point; answers with sound arguments but minor mistakes were assigned 2 points; and answers with correct statements and use of target concepts were assigned 3 points. Quantitative Results Table 1 shows the percentage distribution of students and teachers scores on the conceptual problem-solving items. Surprisingly, there is a great similarity between students and teachers performance on items 1a, 3a, and 3b. The majority of the students and teachers understood item 1a, which deals with an ammonia fountain, and both groups explained the principle satisfactorily. However, on the related problem 1c, only 22% of the students and 36% of the teachers could provide a sound explanation (i.e., a score of 2 or 3 points). On this item, only 6 of the 36 teachers (17%) successfully identified the pressure difference between the closed and open systems of the Erlenmeyer flask and explained that the pressure change inside the closed Erlenmeyer flask is dependent on the change of the volume of the air in it. On item 3a about volume change with temperature, almost half of the students and teachers gave an incorrect prediction. Furthermore, no more than 20% of the students and teachers could correctly explain the reason for their prediction (item 3b).

1. In Figure 1, the round-bottom flask is filled with ammonia gas, which is very soluble in water. A closed balloon containing water is attached to the flask. The Erlenmeyer flask is filled with dilute red ink and connected to the round bottom flask with a glass tube. When the clip closing the balloon is removed and the water inside the balloon is squeezed into the round bottom flask, the dilute red ink goes up the tube from the Erlenmeyer flask and sprays into the round bottom flask. a. Please explain in your own words why the dilute red ink goes up and sprays. b.Would the amount of ink going up increase or decrease if the Erlenmeyer flask were stoppered? c. Explain the reason for your prediction in b.
NH3

H2O

3. An Erlenmeyer flask is closed by a stopper connected to a glass tube. The glass tube is sealed by a drop of mercury as shown in Figure 3. When the flask is immersed in a beaker of 3 C cold water, the mercury moves toward the left; when the flask is immersed in a beaker of 80 C hot water, the mercury moves toward the right. If we move the whole apparatus in the diagram from a room with a temperature of 26 C to an outdoor yard with a temperature of 5 C: a. Can you predict what direction the mercury will move or if it will remain motionless? Fig. 3 b. Explain your prediction.

dilute red ink

Fig. 1

Figure 3. Conceptual problem-solving item #3.

4. The Erlenmeyer flask in the first diagram of Figure 4 was evacuated and filled with equal amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Pretend you are provided with a magnifying glass that is of a power that you can see anything you want to. a. Please draw what you might see and explain the reason. b. If a burner is put under the flask and kept burning for a few seconds as in the second diagram, what might you see with the magnifying glass? Please draw it and explain your reason.

Figure 1. Conceptual problem-solving item #1.

Water

2. In Figure 2, an Erlenmeyer flask is tightly closed by a rubber stopper containing a funnel. If we pour water into the funnel slowly, the water easily enters the Erlenmeyer flask. However, when the water level inside the flask reaches the foot of the funnel, it is no longer easy to add water. Can you explain in your own words why this happens?

Fig. 2

Fig. 4

Figure 2. Conceptual problem-solving item #2.

Figure 4. Conceptual problem-solving item #4.

236

Journal of Chemical Education Vol. 77 No. 2 February 2000 JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu

Research: Science and Education

Table 1. Distribution of Students and Teachers' Scores on Conceptual Problem-Solving Items

Score Distribution (%) Item 0 1a 1c 2 3b 4a 4b identifying pressure difference 13 41 42 30 59 39 57 applying Boyle's law applying Boyle's law applying Charles's law drawing molecular model drawing molecular movement 1ba identifying the closed system Students' Score 1 15 59 36 44 54 21 40 29 2 55 14 9 13 12 11 3 17 8 17 7 9 3 0 3 17 14 19 44 53 Teachers' Score 1 11 83 50 14 56 31 2 58 19 14 11 3 28 17 53 5

3aa predicting gas volume change 46

this item, the only possible scores were 0 (wrong prediction) and 1 (correct prediction).

a For

The analysis of students representations of gas molecules (items 4a and 4b) shows that despite prior instruction, the majority of these college-bound prospective science or engineering majors could not satisfactorily represent gas molecules. Qualitative Results A correct response to item 1 would be that the dissolving of ammonia gas in the water caused the pressure to decrease in the round-bottom flask. Consequently, the pressure difference between the round-bottom flask and the Erlenmeyer flask is the main cause of the fountain. Very few students and teachers stated that the air inside the Erlenmeyer flask exerts pressure and that the pressure would be decreased by increasing the airs volume (when the flask is stoppered). They failed to say that keeping the stopper open would allow the pressure above the red ink to remain constant at 1 atm (without being decreased) and push more of the red ink into the roundbottom flask. The most frequent misconception in this item is similar to the 17th-century plenists view of Nature abhors vacuum. This explanation was stated as when the ammonia dissolved in the water, the space originally occupied by the ammonia must be replaced by the red ink, thereby sucking up the red ink and creating the fountain. If the stopper is closed, the sucking action will be stronger, because the air outside the Erlenmeyer flask was not allowed to refill the space being sucked. The second major misconception was misuse of the PV = nRT formula. For example, a student stated that The endothermic reaction of H2O + NH3 NH4OH will bring down the systems temperature. Based on PV = nRT, when T is decreased, V should be decreased too. This will make the space empty in the round-bottom flask, therefore the red ink will be sucked up to fill the space. This misuse indicates that although the subjects memorized the formula, they did not understand its meaning and used it in an inappropriate situation. For item 2, a response was classified as sound understanding if it indicated the following. First, a closed system was created when the water level reached the foot of the funnel. Second, the continuing addition of water will decrease the volume of the air inside the flask. On the basis of Boyles law, this situation will in turn increase the pressure inside the flask and make it harder for the water to enter.

The teachers performed well on this item. However, most students, in their explanations, were not able to apply the concepts they had supposedly learned. A majority of them simply used their intuition to explain the phenomenon by stating:
1. In the beginning, the water can spray freely into the flask. When the waters level reaches the funnels foot, there is an upward pushing force exerted by the water in the flask, which prevents the water in the funnel from entering the flask. 2. The water molecules in the flask sealed the exit of the funnel. 3. When the water level does not reach the foot of the funnel, it is easy for the incoming water to find a spot to stay. If the water reaches the funnel, any more water will have to push the existing water away in order to gain space. Therefore, it will take a longer time.

For item 3, a prediction that the mercury will move left is correct. Answers consistent with the following were considered to show sound understanding. First, the air in the flask sealed by the mercury is a closed system. Second, a lower temperature around the system will cause the pressure inside the flask to be lower than the atmospheric pressure. Therefore, the mercury is pushed leftward. The most common misconception found in item 3 was caused by the subjects failure to distinguish between system and surrounding. They simply explained that if the two sides of the mercury have the same temperature (5 C), the mercury will stay where it is. The second common misconception on item 3 was misuse of P1V1 = P2V2 or PV = nRT equations. The subjects tended to blindly choose a gas law equation if it had the variable they wanted, and make odd rearrangements of it in order to match the statement of the problem. For item 4, if a drawing was consistent with the molecular kinetic theory and exhibited molecular concepts, it was considered a sound understanding. The analysis revealed that the majority of the students were not able to draw an appropriate model of a gas. While it may not be surprising that typical students cannot produce appropriate representations of gases, it is surprising that capable students cannot, especially since the kinetic theory and the gas laws had just
237

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu Vol. 77 No. 2 February 2000 Journal of Chemical Education

Research: Science and Education

process may be helpful in chemistry teaching, especially for abstract concepts. The finding that students alternative conceptions are similar to Aristotles famous dictum Nature abhors a vacuum seems to remind chemistry teachers that todays students hold misconceptions similar to those of previous scientists. To promote students understanding, the following suggestion of Mayr may be useful (11, p 20):
(Molecules were pushed down by the atmospheric pressure) (Molecules stay away from heat)

O O
CO

....
CO

....
Heat O CO CO

I feel that the study of the history of a field is the best way to acquire an understanding of its concepts. Only by going over the hard way by which these concepts were worked outby learning all the earlier wrong assumptions that had to be refuted one by one, in other words by learning all past mistakescan one hope to acquire a really thorough and sound understanding.

.... (Molecules expand when they are heated)

....

Figure 5. Students three major misconceptions of kinetic theory.

been taught. Their representations of gas molecules varied from the particulate model to the ball-and-stick model, which had been presented during classroom instruction. On the other hand, several representations of molecular movement seem to be derived from students own experiences. Figure 5 presents three major misconceptions of kinetic theory. It shows that students tend to give the nonliving molecules human characteristics, or make assumptions based on daily life experiences. These intuitions include (i) the atmospheric pressure pushes gas molecules down to keep them together at the bottom of the flask; (ii) gas molecules rise and stay away from heat; and (iii) molecules expand when the temperature rises. Discussion and Implications for Chemical Education The fact that about 80% of these advanced program students were not able to provide sound explanations on the four conceptual problems supports the view that conceptbased pedagogy and assessment are needed. Previous reports indicate that most students are taught how to get correct answers using algorithmic solutions (8). This situation should be of concern to chemical educators. If they do not provide opportunities for verbalizing or explaining understanding of chemical concepts presented in the classroom and in textbooks, how can we expect students to perform well on problems that require conceptual understanding and application? The advanced-program students in this study had studied particulate theory in elementary school, through junior high school, and on to senior high school. Furthermore, kinetic theory had been taught just before this study was conducted. Nevertheless, many students still used their common sense intuitions instead of scientific concepts in describing the movement of molecules at different temperatures. This shows that even very capable students possess alternative conceptions that are resistant to change. Teaching strategies recommended by Zoller (10), such as team work in class, extensive class discussions, and active student participation in the learning
238

Bent (12) and Herschbach (13) also concluded that formal scientific concepts are frequently hard, demanding, and austere. However, the concepts can be presented in a more humanistic mode to put technical concepts in a more meaningful context. As Bent described (12, p 465), a sense of history is like a slow-acting fertilizer: Its influence, slight in any instant, may be determinative in the long run. Finally, analysis of the teachers responses revealed that teachers and students hold similar alternative conceptions of gases. This may serve to remind science educators that preservice and in-service training programs should emphasize the importance of conceptual problem-solving and provide opportunities for prospective and in-service teachers to clarify their understandings. Continuing efforts are needed to convince teachers that it is critically important to develop learners qualitative understanding before concepts are presented quantitatively. Acknowledgment We sincerely thank the National Science Council, Taiwan, Republic of China, for financial support (NSC85-2511-S017-005). Literature Cited
1. Stavy, R.; Eisen, Y.; Yaakobi, D. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1987, 9, 105 115. 2. Sere, M. Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1982, 40, 299309. 3. Stavy, R. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1988, 10, 553560. 4. Nussbaum, J. In Childrens Ideas in Science; Driver, R.; Guesne, E.; Tiberhien, A., Eds.; Open University Press: Milton Keynev, England, 1985; pp 124144. 5. De Berg, K. C. Sci. Educ. 1989, 73(2), 115134. 6. Gabel, D.; Sherwood, R.; Enochs, L. J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1984, 21, 221233. 7. Nakhleh, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 5255. 8. Nakhleh, M.; Mitchell, R. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 190 192. 9. Gronlund, N. E. Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching; Macmillan: New York, 1985. 10. Zoller, U. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 195197. 11. Mayr, E. The Growth of Biological Thought; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1982. 12. Bent, H. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1977, 54, 462466. 13. Herschbach, D. R. J Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 391.

Journal of Chemical Education Vol. 77 No. 2 February 2000 JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu