RESEARCH www.rsc.

org/cerp | Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Presentation of atomic structure in Turkish general chemistry textbooks

Mansoor Niaza and Bayram Coştub
Received 26th November 2008, Accepted 24th April 2009
DOI: 10.1039/b914503f

Research in science education has recognized the importance of teaching atomic structure within a
history and philosophy of science perspective. The objective of this study is to evaluate general
chemistry textbooks published in Turkey based on the eight criteria developed in previous
research. Criteria used referred to the atomic models of Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr and
twenty-one textbooks (published between 1964 and 2006) were analyzed. Results obtained showed
that none of the textbooks explained satisfactorily that: a) Thomson’s experiments on cathode rays
were conducted to clarify the controversy with respect to the nature of cathode rays, that is,
charged particles or waves in the ether; b) The rivalry between Rutherford’s hypothesis of single
scattering based on a single encounter and Thomson’s hypothesis of compound scattering led to a
bitter dispute; c) Bohr had not even heard of the Balmer and Paschen formulae for hydrogen line
spectrum when he wrote the first version of his article; and d) Bohr’s model was based on an
inconsistent foundation in which he ‘grafted’ Planck’s ‘quantum of action’ on to Maxwell’s
electrodynamics. Some textbooks explained satisfactorily that: a) Rutherford’s model of the atom
had to compete with that of Thomson; and b) Bohr’s main objective was to explain the paradoxical
stability of the Rutherford model. It is concluded that the inclusion of historical reconstructions of
atomic structure in Turkish general chemistry textbooks can provide students with a better
appreciation of the dynamics of scientific progress.

Keywords: historical reconstruction, atomic structure, Turkish and U.S.A. general chemistry
textbooks

led the authors to conclude, “These trends are

Introduction
Atomic structure constitutes an important part of the
chemistry curriculum in most parts of the world. Research in
science education has recognized the importance of teaching
atomic structure within a history and philosophy of science
(HPS) perspective (Chiappetta et al., 1991; Dumon and Luft,
2008; Harrison and Treagust, 1996; Niaz, 1998; Justi and
Gilbert, 2000; Taber, 2001, 2003; Tsaparlis, 2001; Rodríguez
and Niaz, 2002, 2004). The importance of HPS has been
recognized by various reform efforts (AAAS, 1993; Project
Beyond, 2000). The inclusion of HPS in the chemistry
curriculum facilitates not only conceptual understanding, but
also the various aspects of the nature of science (Taber, 2008).
In a recent study Abd-El-Khalick, Waters and Le (2008) have
drawn attention to the importance of including ‘nature of
science’ (NOS) in high school chemistry textbooks. These
authors analyzed 14 textbooks including five ‘series’ spanning
one to four decades with respect to the following NOS
aspects: empirical, tentative, inferential, creative, theory-
driven, myth of the scientific method, nature of scientific
theories and laws, and the social and cultural embeddedness
of science. Results from this study revealed that chemistry
textbooks fared poorly in their representation of NOS, which
a
Department of Chemistry, Universidad de Oriente, Apartado Postal 90,
Cumaná, Estado Sucre, 6101A, Venezuela. E-mail: niazma@gmail.com
b
Secondary Science and Mathematic Education Department, Karadeniz
Technical University, Fatih Faculty of Education, 61335 Akçaabat-
Trabzon, Turkey. E-mail: bayramcostu@gmail.com
incommensurate with the discourse in national and
international science education reform documents …” (p. 1).
Various studies have drawn implications for teaching
atomic structure based on a HPS framework. Justi and Gilbert
(2000) analyzed high school chemistry textbooks (9 from
Brazil and 3 from U.K.) to study the presentation of atomic
models. These authors report the use of hybrid models based
on various historical developments, such as: Ancient Greek,
Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr and Quantum Mechanics
(Schrödinger’s equation). Based on their findings these
authors concluded: “Hybrid models, by their very nature as
composites drawn from several distinct historical models, do
not allow the history and philosophy of science to make a full
contribution to science education” (p. 993). Niaz (1998)
analyzed 23 general chemistry textbooks (published in the
U.S.A., 1970-1992) to study the presentation of the Thomson,
Rutherford and the Bohr models of the atom within a HPS
perspective. Results show that most textbooks emphasize
experimental details based on observations, leading to a
presentation of scientific progress as a rhetoric of conclusions
(Schwab, 1962, 1974), based on irrevocable truths. It was
concluded that textbooks should emphasize not only the
experimental details but also the ‘heuristic principles’
required to ‘structure inquiry’. Rodríguez and Niaz (2002)
analyzed 30 general chemistry textbooks (published in the
U.S.A., 1929-1967), using the same criteria (based on HPS) as
Niaz (1998), and found that despite the rhetoric these
textbooks also generally ignored HPS.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2009, 10, 233–240 | 233
Rationale of the study symbols are used: T = Thomson; R = Rutherford; and B =
Bohr.
In September 2006, Jonathan Osborne, President of the
T1 – Cathode rays as charged particles or waves in the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
ether. Thomson’s experiments were conducted against the
NARST (based in the U.S.A.), delivered the Keynote speech
backdrop of a conflicting framework. Thomson (1897)
at the 7th National Science and Mathematics Education
explicitly pointed out that his experiments were conducted to
Conference in Ankara, Turkey and pointed out seven fallacies
clarify the controversy with regard to the nature of the
faced by science education, of which perhaps the following is
cathode rays; that is, charged particles or waves in the ether.
the most important: “Science education persists with
This criterion is based on: Thomson (1897), Achinstein
presenting an idealized view of science as objective, detached
(1991), and Falconer (1987).
and value free” (Osborne, 2007, p. 175). In contrast, Osborne
T2 – Determination of mass-to-charge ratio to decide
suggests that science curriculum must emphasize, “… the
whether cathode rays were ions or a universal charged
study of the history of ideas and the evidence on which they
particle. Thomson decided to measure mass-to-charge ratio to
are founded must lie at the core” (p. 177), which would
identify cathode rays as ions (if the ratio was not constant) or
provide students an, “… opportunity to consider data which
as a universal charged particle (constant ratio for all gases).
has no clear interpretation and to consider plural
This criterion is based on: Thomson (1897), Achinstein
alternatives” (p. 179).
(1991), Heilbron (1964), and Niaz (1994).
According to Schwab (1974) scientific inquiry tends to
R1 – Nuclear atom. Rutherford’s experiments with alpha
look for patterns of change and relationships, which constitute
particles and the resulting model of the nuclear atom had to
the heuristic (explanatory) principles of our knowledge. In
compete with a rival framework, namely Thomson’s model of
other words, “A fresh line of scientific research has its origins
the atom (referred to as ‘plum-pudding’ in most textbooks).
not in objective facts alone, but in a conception, a deliberate
This criterion is based on: Rutherford (1911), and Niaz
construction of the mind . . . this conception [heuristic
(1994).
principle] . . . tells us what facts to look for in the research. It
R2 – Probability of large deflections is exceedingly small,
tells us what meaning to assign these facts.” (Schwab, 1974,
as the atom is the seat of an intense electric field. The crucial
p. 164) Monk and Osborne (1997) pointed out how many
argument that clinched the argument in favor of Rutherford’s
science curricula have forgotten Schwab’s important
model was not the large angle deflection of alpha particles (an
epistemological distinction between the methodological
important finding), but rather the knowledge that 1 in 20,000
(experimental data) and interpretative (heuristic principles)
particles deflected through large angles. This criterion is
components. Matthews (1994) emphasized the importance of
based on: Rutherford (1911), Herron (1977), and Millikan
heuristic principles in scientific inquiry and science education
(1947).
in similar terms. In the case of atomic structure, it is even
R3 – Single/compound scattering of alpha particles. To
more important to follow Schwab’s (1962) advice that science
maintain his model of the atom and to explain large angle
cannot be taught as an “... unmitigated rhetoric of conclusions
deflections of alpha particles, Thomson put forward the
in which the current and temporary constructions of scientific
hypothesis of compound scattering (multitudes of small
knowledge are conveyed as empirical, literal, and irrevocable
scatterings). The rivalry between Rutherford’s hypothesis of
truths” (p. 24, emphasis in original).
single scattering based on a single encounter and Thomson’s
A historical reconstruction of the structure of the atom
hypothesis of compound scattering led to a bitter dispute
precisely shows that data from Thomson’s cathode ray
between the proponents of the two hypotheses. This criterion
experiments, Rutherford’s alpha particle experiments and
is based on: Rutherford (1911), Crowther (1910), and Wilson
Bohr’s ‘quantum of action’ were difficult to understand and
(1983).
scientists presented alternative interpretations, which led to
B1 – Paradoxical stability of the Rutherford model of the
conflicts and controversies. These aspects have been used by
atom. Bohr’s main objective was to explain the paradoxical
Niaz (1998) to evaluate general chemistry textbooks published
stability of the Rutherford model of the atom, which
in U.S.A., and can also be used for evaluating textbooks
constituted a rival framework for his own model. This
published in Turkey. The objective of this study is to evaluate
criterion is based on: Bohr (1913), Lakatos (1970), and Niaz
general chemistry textbooks published in Turkey based on the
(1994).
eight criteria developed by Niaz (1998).
B2 – Explanation of the hydrogen line spectrum. Bohr had
not even heard of the Balmer and Paschen formulas for the
Criteria for the evaluation of general chemistry hydrogen line spectrum, when he wrote the first version of his
textbooks published in Turkey 1913 article. Failure to understand this episode within a
Based on the historical perspective (rational reconstruction) historical perspective led to an inductivist/positivist
presented by Niaz (1998), here we present criteria for the interpretation, referred to as the ‘Baconian inductive ascent’
evaluation of Turkish general chemistry textbooks (see by Lakatos (1970). Interestingly, Kuhn and Lakatos, in spite
Appendix 1). It is important to note that the criteria used in of their so many differences, agree that Bohr’s major
this study are precisely the same as used by Niaz (1998) to contribution was the quantization of the Rutherford model of
evaluate general chemistry textbooks published in U.S.A. To the atom. This criterion is based on: Bohr (1913), Heilbron
refer to the criteria based on the three models, the following and Kuhn (1969), Lakatos (1970), and Niaz (1994).

234 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2009, 10, 233–240 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
 B3 – Deep philosophical chasm. Bohr’s incorporation of
Planck’s ‘quantum of action’ to the classical electrodynamics
of Maxwell represented a strange ‘mixture’ for many of
Bohr’s contemporaries and philosophers of science. This
episode illustrates how scientists, when faced with
difficulties, often resort to such contradictory ‘grafts’. This
criterion is based on: Bohr (1913), Holton (1986), Margenau
(1950), and Lakatos (1970).
It is important to note that these criteria (T1, T2, R1, R2,
R3, B1, B2, and B3) represent the ‘heuristic principles’
(Schwab, 1974) that underlie the work of Thomson,
Rutherford, and Bohr.
Evaluation of chemistry textbooks based on space utilized,
mathematical details, illustrations of experimental apparatus,
and models
Besides the criteria just mentioned, textbooks were also
evaluated on the following additional criteria, considered to
be related to those based on a history and philosophy of
science framework:
1. Space (SP) utilized by the textbooks; that is, number of
pages used for presenting the work of Thomson,
Rutherford, and Bohr.
2. Mathematical (MD) details that complement/help to
understand the atomic model.
3. Illustrations (IA) of experimental apparatus used by
Thomson and Rutherford.
4. Illustrations (IM) of the atomic models of Thomson,
Rutherford, and Bohr.
Procedure for implementing the criteria
The following classifications were generated to evaluate the
textbooks:
• Satisfactory (S): Treatment of the subject in the textbook is
considered to be satisfactory if the role of conflicting
frameworks based on competing models of the atom is
briefly described.
• Mention (M): A simple mention of the conflicting
frameworks or controversy with no details.
• No mention (N): No mention of the conflicting frameworks
Each textbook was awarded points on the following bases:
Satisfactory (S) = 2 points; Mention (M) = 1 point; No
mention (N) = 0 point.
The following procedure was used to establish the
reliability of the evaluation of textbooks:
First stage: The second author analyzed the following
textbooks published in Turkey as translations of books
originally published in U.S.A.: a) Chang, 1998 (Turkish
translation: Soydan and Aroğuz, 2000; b) Mortimer, 1983
(Turkish translation: Altınata, 1990; c) Sienko and Plane,
1976 (Turkish translation: Gündüz et al. 1978). These
textbooks had already been analyzed by Niaz (1998) and this
facilitated an understanding of the criteria. Translation of
textbooks originally published in U.S.A. into languages such
as: Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish is quite
widespread. Niaz has evaluated in various studies Spanish
translations of textbooks originally published in U.S.A. (for
details see Niaz, 2009). Although there could be some
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
problems with respect to the quality of the translation (as
words may not have precise equivalents, with the same
associations and nuances, in different languages), such
editions are authorized and conducted under the auspices of
the original authors and publishers, who retain the copyright.
Second stage: The second author analyzed the following
textbooks published in U.S.A.: a) Atkins and Jones, 1997
(Turkish translation: Kılıç et al. 1998; b) Petrucci and
Harwood, 1993 (Turkish translation: Uyar, 1994). This
provided further experience with respect to textbooks
published in U.S.A.
Third stage: A university chemistry professor with a Ph.D. in
inorganic chemistry and 12 years of teaching experience, and
the second author of the paper, applied the criteria separately
to evaluate two textbooks (selected randomly). It was found
that both evaluators coincided on the evaluation of six criteria
on one textbook and all eight criteria on the second textbook.
Each evaluator explained the points of disagreement and, after
some discussion, consensus was achieved. With this
experience, the rest of the textbooks (19) were then evaluated
by the second author.
The following guidelines were used to select Turkish
general chemistry textbooks: a) Availability of textbooks in
Turkish libraries; b) Inclusion of recent (8 textbooks
published between 2000 and 2006) and older textbooks (13
textbooks published between 1964 and 1998); and c)
Textbooks widely used by chemistry teachers.
Evaluation of Turkish general chemistry textbooks: results
and discussion
Thomson (Criteria T1 and T2)
Table 1 shows that none of the textbooks described
satisfactorily (S) or mentioned (M) the conflicting framework;
namely cathode rays could have been charged particles or
waves in the ether (criterion T1). As for T2, only one textbook
described satisfactorily (S) that Thomson determined mass-to-
charge ratio to decide if cathode rays were ions or a universal
charge particle, whereas five textbooks mentioned (M) it. The
following was considered to be an example of a satisfactory
presentation of T2:
In 1879 Thomson computed cathode rays’ (electrons) e/m
[charge-to-mass] ratio by measuring deflections in both
electrical and magnetic fields… [the textbook gives
mathematical details about e/m ratio] …The experiments
provide e/m ratio for cathode rays as
e/m = 5.27X1017esu/g. And, this value does not depend on
the gas inside the tube or the metal used for the cathode or
anode. Moreover, it was also known earlier that e/m ratio
for electrolysis is less than (at least 1000 times) the
carriers of the electricity in the cathode rays and takes
different values for different gaseous ions. Taking into
consideration the two findings, Thomson proposed that
cathode rays were universal charged particles and not ions.
(Yavuz, 1978, p. 4)
The various textbooks not only did not mention the
‘heuristic principle’ (Schwab, 1974) of Thomson’s
experiments (criteria T1 and T2), but also presented
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2009, 10, 233–240 | 235
 Table 1 Evaluation of Turkish chemistry textbooks based on a history and philosophy of science framework

Criteria
No. Textbooks
T1 T2 R1 R2 R3 B1 B2 B3 Points
1. Alpaydın & Şimşek (2006) N N S M N S N N 5
2. Atasoy (2000) N N S M N N N N 3
3. Atasoy (2004) N N S M N N N N 3
4. Aydın, Sevinç, & Şengil (2001) N N N N N N N N 0
5. Bağ (2006) N N S S N S N N 6
6. Bayın (1982) N M M N N S N N 4
7. Baykut (1964) N N N M N S N N 3
8. Bekaroğlu & Tan (1986) N N S N N N N N 2
9. Dikman (1975) N N S N N S N N 4
10. Erdik & Sarıkaya (1991) N M S M N S N N 6
11. Ergül (2006) N M S N N N N N 3
12. Hazer (1997) N N S M N M N N 4
13. İrez (2002) N M S M N N N N 4
14. Özcan (1998) N M S M N N N N 4
15. Pamuk (1984) N N M M N M N N 3
16. Saracoğlu (1983) N N N N N N N N 0
17. Soydan & Saraç (1998) N N S N N N N N 2
18. Tezcan & Tezcan (2005) N N N M N N N N 1
19. Tunalı & Aras (1977) N N S S N N N N 4
20. Ün (1967) N N S M N N N N 3
21. Yavuz (1978) N S S N N N N N 4
Criteria: T1: cathode rays as charged particles or waves in the ether; T2: cathode rays as ions or universal charged particles; R1: Rutherford’s nuclear atom
vs. Thomson’s model of the atom; R2: large angle deflection vs. Deflection of 1 in 20,000 particles; R3: single/compound scattering of alpha particles;
B1: paradoxical stability of the Rutherford model of the atom; B2: Bohr’s explanation of the hydrogen line spectrum; B3: incorporation of Planck’s ideas
– a deep philosophical chasm.
T = Thomson; R = Rutherford; B = Bohr; S = satisfactory; M = mention; N = no mention.
Each textbook was awarded points on the following basis: Satisfactory = 2 points, Mention = 1 point, and No mention = 0.
Thomson’s findings in a way that approximates to what performed the alpha particle experiment. And he observed
Schwab (1962) referred to as a ‘rhetoric of conclusions’. The that most of the particles pass through with no deflection,
following two examples are presented to illustrate how some and a few particles pass through with little deflection or
of these textbooks present scientific knowledge as ‘rhetoric of reflected backwards as seen in Figure… [he] thought that if
conclusions’: Thomson’s model is valid, alpha particles will swerve off
J. J. Thomson computed charge-to-mass, e/m ratio by their original path as seen in Figure…However, some
observing deflections in both electrical and magnetic fields alpha particles pass through large deflection as seen in
…cathode rays travel in a straight line, have energy and … Figure… Rutherford proposed that the positive electricity
[explains properties of cathode rays] Their properties do and mass in an atom are concentrated in very small regions
not depend on the gas inside the tube or the metal used for (see Figure…). (Atasoy, 2004, pp. 61-63)
the cathode or anode. Therefore, [concluded] cathode rays Rutherford performed an experiment known as alpha
are rapidly flowing electrons… (Erdik and Sarıkaya, 1991, particle scattering to verify the Thomson model. In 1911,
p. 36) Rutherford sent alpha particles radiated from a radioactive
Cathode rays are deflected by electrical fields as indicated source to layers of gold, copper, lead and platinum foil
by Fig…This deflection proves that cathode rays are about 0.0004 cm. thick… Rutherford observed in the
composed of negatively charged particles [Conclusions]. experiments that most of the particles pass through with no
These negatively charged particles were called electrons. deflection, a few particles pass through with little
Cathode rays (electrons) are also deflected by magnetic deflection, and very few particles scattered backwards, as
fields. Thomson, in 1897, observing deflections of cathode seen in Figure… If Thomson’s model, that is the positive
rays in both electrical and magnetic fields computed the charge and the mass are distributed evenly throughout the
e/m ratio for the electron and found it to be -1.75588 x 108 metal is valid, alpha particles must pass through with no
… (Alpaydın and Şimşek, 2006. p. 38) deflection… However, alpha particles pass through with
large deflection … Rutherford concluded that rare
Rutherford (Criteria R1, R2, and R3) scattering of particles at big angles may be explained by
Fifteen textbooks described satisfactorily (S) that the presence in matter of a massive nucleus, the size of
Rutherford’s model of the nuclear atom had to compete with a which is much smaller when compared to the atom. (Özcan,
rival framework, namely Thomson’s model of the atom 1998, p. 86).
(criterion R1), whereas two textbooks only mentioned (M) the Two textbooks described satisfactorily (S) that the crucial
conflict. The following were considered to be examples of argument in favor of Rutherford’s model was not the large
satisfactory (S) presentations based on criterion R1: angle deflections of alpha particles but rather the knowledge
In 1911, after new findings proposed by Ernest Rutherford that 1 in 20,000 particles deflected through large angles
(1871-1937), the model of atom known as ‘plum-pudding’ (criterion R2), whereas eleven textbooks only mentioned it
[offered by Thomson] was confuted entirely…[he]

236 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2009, 10, 233–240 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
(M). The following is an example of a satisfactory (S)
description:
As seen in Figure… it was observed that most of the
particles pass through with no deflection, however, one
alpha particle in 20,000 was deflected through an angle
greater than 90°. Rutherford was intrigued by the
observations from the alpha particle experiments, since if
Thomson’s model in which the positive charge and the mass
are distributed evenly throughout the atom is valid, alpha
particles must pass through with little deflection and not
scattered backwards…[from his observation] Rutherford
concluded that:
1. Since most of the alpha particles pass through with no
deflection, an atom must consist largely of empty space.
2. Since few alpha particles, atoms of He with charge +2
[He2+], were deflected through an angle greater than 90 °,
an atom must consist of a positively charged nucleus the
size of which is much smaller when compared to the atom.
(Tunalı and Aras, 1977, p. 217).
None of the textbooks described satisfactorily (S) or
mentioned (M) the rivalry between two conflicting
frameworks, namely Rutherford’s hypothesis of single
scattering and Thomson’s hypothesis of compound scattering
(criterion R3), put forward to explain Rutherford’s alpha
particle experiments.
Most of the textbooks presented Rutherford’s experiments
as a ‘rhetoric of conclusions’ (Schwab, 1962) and the
following is an example:
Rutherford performed an experiment known as alpha
particles scattering… [he] sent alpha particles radiated
from a radioactive source to a layer of gold-foil about 0.5
micron thick… most of the alpha particles (99%) pass
through with no deflection, whereas a very few alpha
particles (1%) passed through with large deflection or
scatter backwards… Rutherford concluded that the
deflection of the very few alpha particles (1%) through an
angle greater than 90° proved the presence of a massive
nucleus while most of the particles (99%) passing through
with no deflection proved the presence of a largely empty
space in an atom (Ün, 1967, p. 170).
It is interesting to observe how this presentation contrasts
with what Rutherford (1911) actually wrote:
“The observations, however, of Geiger and Marsden on the
scattering of alpha particles indicate that some of the alpha
particles must suffer a deflexion of more than a right angle
at a single encounter. They found, for example, that a small
fraction of the incident alpha particles, about 1 in 20,000
were turned through an average angle of 90o in passing
through a layer of gold-foil about .00004 cm. thick” (p.
669).
Bohr (Criteria B1, B2, and B3)
Six textbooks described satisfactorily (S) that Bohr’s main
objective was to explain the paradoxical stability of the
Rutherford model of the atom, which constituted a rival
framework (criterion B1) and two textbooks mentioned (M) it.
The following is an example of a satisfactory (S) presentation:
Describing atomic spectra based on Rutherford’s atom
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
model is entirely invalid, since, in that model, the
negatively charged electrons revolve around the positively
charged atomic nucleus. However, classical physics at that
time was unable to explain why the orbiting electrons did
not spiral into the nucleus, because a charged particle like
an electron which is subject to centripetal acceleration on
a circular orbit, should continuously radiate
electromagnetic waves according to classical
electrodynamics. Thus, because of the loss of energy, the
electron should spiral into the nucleus very soon. If so, that
is if an atom gradually dwindled away, the matter and the
world would cease to exist! Moreover, if the orbiting
electron loses energy, it should take all continuous energy
levels [derived from Rutherford’s atom model]. However,
spectral emission or absorption lines showed that atoms
will only absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation at
discrete frequencies. (Erdik and Sarıkaya, 1991. p. 55).
None of the textbooks mentioned (M) or described
satisfactorily (S) the quantization of the Rutherford model of
the atom within a historical perspective (criterion B2). Again,
none of the textbooks mentioned (M) or described
satisfactorily (S) how scientists (Bohr in this case), when
faced with difficulties, often resort to contradictory ‘grafts’
that represent a deep philosophical chasm (criterion B3).
In contrast to both Thomson’s and Rutherford’s
experiments, few textbooks (Erdik and Sarıkaya, 1991; Tunalı
and Aras, 1977; Yavuz, 1978) presented Bohr’s work as a
‘rhetoric of conclusions’ (Schwab, 1962). The following is an
example of a textbook that was classified as No mention (N)
on criterion B1:
Because atoms consisted of a small dense positively
charged nucleus surrounded by orbiting negatively charged
electrons, there must be an attractive electrostatic force
between two opposite charged particles, according to
Coulomb's law. If there was no different force to
compensate for the attractive electrostatic force, the
electron would spiral into the nucleus. However, this does
not occur. Thus, Niels Bohr proposed that there should be a
centrifugal force originating from orbiting electrons.
(Tunalı and Aras, 1977. p.219).
It is interesting to compare the presentation of this textbook
(Tunalı and Aras, 1977) which was classified as No mention
(N) on Criterion B1, with that of Erdik and Sarıkaya (1991),
presented above, that was classified as Satisfactory (S). The
presentation by Tunalı and Aras (1977) has the following
major problems: a) It does not refer to the problematic nature
(paradoxical stability) of Rutherford’s model of the atom; b) It
refers to Bohr having suggested, ‘a centrifugal force
originating from orbiting electrons’. There is no evidence that
Bohr may have suggested this. On the contrary, Bohr
hypothesized that atoms will only absorb or emit
electromagnetic radiation at discrete frequencies. This shows
that this textbook makes a factual error and thus departs from
the historical record.
Evaluation based on additional criteria
Table 2 presents the results of evaluation based on additional
criteria, such as space (SP) utilized by the textbook,
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2009, 10, 233–240 | 237
Table 2 Evaluation of Turkish chemistry textbooks based on space utilized, mathematical details, illustration of experimental apparatus, and models*

Thomson Rutherford Bohr

No.
SP MD IA IM SP MD IA IM SP MD IM
1 1.5 n y y 2 n y y 3 y y
2 2 n y y 2 n y y – – –
3 2 n y y 2 n y y – – –
4 3 y y n – – – – 2.5 n n
5 1 n n y 4 n y n 4 y n
6 2 n n n 2.5 n y n 7 y y
7 – – – – 3 n n n 4 n n
8 3 y y n 1.5 n y n 3 y n
9 – – – – 2.5 n y n 4.5 n n
10 3 y y n 1.5 n y n 5 y n
11 1.5 n n n 2 n y n 0.5 n n
12 1 n n y 2.5 n y y 5 y n
13 1.5 n n n 2.5 n y n 2.5 n n
14 3 n y n 2.5 n y y 6.5 y y
15 2 n y n 2 n y n 8 y n
16 2 y n n 2 n y n – – –
17 1 n n n 1 n y n 2 n n
18 1.5 n y n 1.5 n y n 2 n n
19 2 n y n 2 n y n 3 n y
20 – – – – 4 y y n 5 y n
21 3 y y n 2 n y n 4 y n
Criteria:
SP= space utilized by textbook (no. of pages)
MD=mathematical details
IA=illustrations of experimental apparatus
IM=illustrations of models
Note: Textbooks are identified by a number, see Table 1; y = yes; n = no; dash (–) indicates that the text does not deal with the subject.
mathematical (MD) details, illustrations (IA) of the apparatus, Rutherford model of the atom (criterion B2). Such graphic
and illustrations (IM) of the models. descriptions by textbooks demonstrate how experimental
It can be observed that, on average, textbooks that covered findings are important, whereas the theoretical details
the subject devoted about 2 pages to the work of Thomson, 2 (heuristic principles) are important only if they can furnish
pages to the work of Rutherford, and 4 pages to the work of observable (tangible) evidence. This illustrates the distinction
Bohr. In the case of Thomson, eleven textbooks between the methodological (experimental, emphasized by
presentedexperimental details accompanied by illustrations, textbooks) and interpretative (heuristic principles)
whereas only five textbooks presented mathematical details of components, as conceptualized by Schwab (1974).
the determination of the mass-to-charge ratio by Thomson, Presentations of textbooks that emphasize only the empirical
and five textbooks presented illustrations of Thomson’s model findings, inevitably leads to a rhetoric of conclusions
of the atom. It is important to note that the rationale behind (Schwab, 1962). The experimental details mean nothing in the
the determination of the mass-to-charge ratio by Thomson absence of a theoretical framework relating to the
(criterion T2) constitutes precisely the ‘heuristic principle’ instrumentation. This leads to a dilemma: are the textbook
(Schwab, 1974) of Thomson’s experimental work. authors deliberately ignoring theoretical and historical details,
In the case of Rutherford, nineteen textbooks presented or just assuming they have provided enough background for
experimental details accompanied by illustrations, whereas the student to interpret the results? A definitive answer would
only one textbook presented mathematical details and five require further study. Nevertheless, given the widespread use
textbooks presented illustrations of Rutherford’s model of the of such presentations, it is plausible to suggest that it
atom. represents the empiricist epistemology of the textbook
In the case of Bohr, ten textbooks presented mathematical authors.
details to derive Bohr’s equation for calculating the allowed Table 3 shows that none of the textbooks had a
energies in a hydrogen atom, and four textbooks presented classification of Satisfactory (S) on criteria T1, R3, B2 and
illustrations of Bohr’s model of the atom. B3. Criterion T1 dealt with the context in which Thomson
These results show that textbooks tend to emphasize conducted his experiments, namely to clarify a controversy
experimental details, perhaps at the expense of mathematical over the nature of cathode rays: charged particles or waves in
and theoretical interpretations and illustrations of the atomic the ether. Inclusion of this aspect in the textbooks would help
models. In the case of Bohr, textbooks emphasize the students to understand that experiments are generally designed
experimental details of the hydrogen line spectrum and ignore to solve and throw light on an existing problem in the
Bohr’s major contribution, that is, quantization of the scientific community. Criterion R3 is a good example of how

238 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2009, 10, 233–240 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009

Table 3 Distribution of Turkish general chemistry textbooks according to
criteria and classification
Classificationa
Turkish textbooks (n=21)
Criteria N M S
(T1) 21 – –
(T2) 15 5 1
(R1) 4 2 15
(R2) 8 11 2
(R3) 21 – –
(B1) 13 2 6
(B2) 21 – –
(B3) 21 – –
a
Classification: S = Satisfactory, M = Mention, N = No mention.
two famous scientists (Thomson and Rutherford) could not
agree on the interpretation of their experimental data. Despite
the close relationship between the two, the controversy was
bitter and lasted for many years (Wilson, 1983). Criterion B2
is good indicator of the ‘Baconian’ orientation of the
textbooks and also the lack of a historical perspective. There
is enough historical evidence to show that Bohr’s main
concern was the paradoxical stability of the Rutherford atom,
and that at first he was not even aware of the problems
associated with atomic spectra. Criterion B3 could provide the
opportunity to make students aware as to how Bohr’s theory
was ‘grafted’ on to Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
Finally, although a detailed comparison is not possible, the
presentation of atomic structure in Turkish general chemistry
textbooks (based on these eight criteria) is quite similar to that
of textbooks published in U.S.A. (cf. Niaz, 1998).
Conclusion
This study shows that general chemistry textbooks published
in Turkey (1964-2006) generally lack a history and
philosophy of science perspective. None of the Turkish
textbooks explained satisfactorily that: a) Thomson’s
experiments on cathode rays were conducted to clarify the
controversy with respect to the nature of cathode rays, that is
charged particles or waves in the ether (criterion T1); b) The
rivalry between Rutherford’s hypothesis of single scattering
based on a single encounter and Thomson’s hypothesis of
compound scattering led to a bitter dispute (criterion R3); c)
Bohr had not even heard of the Balmer and Paschen formulae
for hydrogen line spectrum, when he wrote the first version of
his article (criterion B2), and Bohr’s model was based on an
inconsistent foundation in which he ‘grafted’ Planck’s
‘quantum of action’ on to Maxwell’s electrodynamics
(criterion B3). In recent years Turkish universities have
encouraged its faculty members and doctoral students to
engage in science education research. It is plausible to suggest
that this may encourage faculty members to use in the
classroom research articles alongside the textbooks.
Furthermore, it may stimulate some textbook authors
interested in research to incorporate the criteria presented in
this study
Finally, science education in the 21st century cannot
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
continue to repeat the rhetoric of conclusions (Schwab, 1974),
but rather break the mould and provide students an insight
into the dynamics of scientific progress. Textbooks, instead of
forcing students to memorize facts, can provide historical
reconstructions based on the development of scientific
theories that frequently involve controversies, conflicts and
rivalries among scientists. Such presentations can stimulate
students to think that all the work has not yet been done and
scientific progress needs their contribution.
Appendix. List of Turkish general chemistry
textbooks analyzed in this study (n = 21)
1. Alpaydın, S., and Şimşek, A., (2006), Genel kimya (2. Baskı),
Ankara, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
2. Atasoy B., (2000), Genel kimya, Ankara, Gündüz Eğitim ve
Yayıncılık.
3. Atasoy B. (2004), Temel kimya kavramları (2. Baskı), Ankara, Asil
Yayın Dağıtım.
4. Aydın A. O., Sevinç V., and Şengil İ. A. (2001), Temel kimya (2.
Baskı), Adapazarı, Aşiyan Yayınları.
5. Bağ H., (2006), Genel kimya-I (1. Baskı), Ankara, PegemA
Yayıncılık.
6. Bayın Ö., (1982), Modern kavramlar yaklaşımıyla kimya, İstanbul,
Fil Yayınevi.
7. Baykut F., (1964), Modern denel, genel kimya dersleri, İstanbul,
İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları.
8. Bekaroğlu Ö. and Tan N., (1986), Genel kimya (teori ve problemler),
İstanbul, Kipaş Dağıtımcılık.
9. Dikman E., (1975), Temel kimya (anorganik), İzmir, Ege Üniversitesi
Fen Fakültesi Yayınları No:58.
10. Erdik E. and Sarıkaya Y., (1991), Temel üniversite kimyası (5.
Baskı), Ankara, Hacettepe-Taş Kitapçılık Ltd. Şti.
11. Ergül S., (2006), Genel kimya, Ankara, Anı Yayıncılık.
12. Hazer B., (1997), Genel kimya, Trabzon, Akademi Ltd. Şti. Yayınları
No 5.
13. İrez G., (2002), Temel kimya-1, Muğla, Muğla Üniversitesi Yayınları
Yayın No: 35.
14. Özcan M., (1998), Modern temel kimya-I (Genişletilmiş 2. Baskı),
Balıkesir, Vipaş Yayın No. 17.
15. Pamuk F., (1984), Genel kimya, Ankara, Gazi Üniversitesi Yayınları
Yayın No. 36.
16. Saracoğlu A. S., (1983), Temel kimya (3. Baskı), İstanbul, Çağlayan
Kitabevi.
17. Soydan B. and Saraç. A. S., (1998), Genel üniversite kimyası ve
modern uygulamaları (2. Baskı), İstanbul, Seç Yayın Dağıtım.
18. Tezcan H. and Tezcan R., (2005), Genel kimya, Ankara, Gündüz
Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.
19. Tunalı N. K. and Aras N. K., (1977), Kimya temel kavramlar (11.
Baskı), Ankara, Başarı Yayınları.
20. Ün R., (1967), Genel kimya (genel ve anorganik), Trabzon,
Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Yayınları Yayın No: 20.
21. Yavuz O., (1978), Genel kimya, Erzurum, Atatürk Üniversitesi
Basımevi.
References
AAAS, (1993), Benchmarks for science literacy: project 2061 (American
Association for the Advancement of Science), Oxford University
Press, New York.
Abd-El-Khalick F., Waters M. and Le A., (2008), Representation of
nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past
four decades, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 45, 835-855.
Achinstein P., (1991), Particles and waves: historical essays in the
philosophy of science, Oxford University Press, New York.
Altınata T., (1990), Modern üniversite kimyası (Cilt-1), Çağlayan
Kitapevi, İstanbul.
Atkins P. and Jones L., (1997), Chemistry: molecules, matter and change,
Freeman, New York.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2009, 10, 233–240 | 239
Bohr N., (1913), On the constitution of atoms and molecules,
Philosophical Magazine, 26, 1-25.
Chang R., (1998), Chemistry (6th ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York.
Chiappetta E. L., Sethna G. H. and Dillman D. A., (1991), A quantitative
analysis of high school chemistry textbooks for scientific literacy
themes and expository learning aids, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 28, 939-951.
Crowther J. G., (1910), Proceedings of the Royal Society (Vol. xxxiv),
Royal Society, London.
Dumon A. and Luft, R., (2008), Naissance de la chimie structurale, EDP
Sciences, Paris.
Falconer I., (1987), Corpuscles, electrons, and cathode rays: J.J. Thomson
and the ‘Discovery of the Electron’, Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 20, 241–276.
Gündüz N., Gündüz T., Özgüner S., Pulat E., Tüzün C., Üneri S. and
Zeren A., (1978), Temel kimya, Güven Matbaası, Ankara.
Harrison A. G. and Treagust D. F., (1996), Secondary students’ mental
models of atoms and molecules: implications for teaching chemistry,
Sci. Educ. 80, 509-534.
Heilbron J. L., (1964), A history of atomic models from the discovery of
the electron to the beginnings of quantum mechanics, Doctoral
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Heilbron J. L. and Kuhn T., (1969), The genesis of the Bohr atom, Hist.
Stud. Phys. Sci., 1, 211–290.
Herron J. D., (1977), Rutherford and the nuclear atom, J. Chem. Educ.,
54, 499.
Holton G., (1986), The advancement of science and its burdens,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Justi R. S. and Gilbert J. K., (2000), History and philosophy of science
through models: some challenges in the case of ‘the atom’, Int. J. Sci.
Educ. 22, 993-1009.
Kılıç E., Köseoğlu F. and Yılmaz H. (1998), Temel kimya-I, Bilim
Yayıncılık, Ankara.
Lakatos I., (1970), Falsification and the methodology of scientific
research programmes, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.),
Criticism and the growth of knowledge, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 91-195.
Margenau H., (1950), The nature of physical reality, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Matthews M. R., (1994), Science teaching: the role of history and
philosophy of science, Routledge, New York.
Millikan R. A. (1947), Electrons (+ and −), protons, photons, neutrons,
mesotrons, and cosmic rays (2nd ed.), University of Chicago Press,
Chicago (first published in 1935).
Monk M. and Osborne J., (1997), Placing the history and philosophy of
science on the curriculum: a model for the development of pedagogy,
Sci. Educ., 81, 405-424.
Mortimer C. E., (1983), Chemistry (5th ed.), Belmont, CA, Wadsworth.
Niaz M., (1994), Enhancing thinking skills: domain specific/domain
general strategies – a dilemma for science education, Inst. Sci., 22,
413–422.
240 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2009, 10, 233–240
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, 527–552.
Niaz M., (2009), Critical appraisal of physical science as a human
enterprise: dynamics of scientific progress, Springer, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
Osborne J. F., (2007), Science education for the twenty first century,
Eurasia J. Math. Sci. and Tech., 3, 173-184. [Based on the author’s
keynote speech given in September 2006 at the 7th National Science
and Mathematics Education Conference in Ankara, Turkey].
Petrucci P. H. and Harwood W. S., (1993), General chemistry: principles
and modern applications (6th ed.), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Project Beyond, (2000),
(http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/education/research/be2000).
Rodríguez 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, 423-441.
Rodríguez M. and Niaz M., (2004), A reconstruction of structure of the
atom and its implications for general physics textbooks, J. Sci.
Educ.Tech., 13, 409-424.
Rutherford E., (1911), The scattering of alpha and beta particles by matter
and the structure of the atom, Philos. Mag., 21, 669–688.
Schwab J. J., (1962), The teaching of science as enquiry, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Schwab J. J., (1974), The concept of the structure of a discipline, in
Eisner, E. W. and Vallance, E. (eds.), Conflicting conceptions of
curriculum, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA, pp. 162-175.
Sienko M. J. and Plane R. A., (1976), Chemistry: principles and
properties, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Soydan B. A. and Aroğuz A. Z., (2000), Kimya, Beta Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
Taber K. S. (2001), When the analogy breaks down: modeling the atom
on the solar system, Phys. Educ., 36, 222-226.
Taber K. S. (2003), The atom in the chemistry curriculum: fundamental
concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle?’ Found. Chem.,
5, 43-84.
Taber K. S., (2008), Towards a curricular model of the nature of science,
Sci. & Educ., 17, 179-218.
Thomson J. J., (1897), Cathode rays, Philos. Mag., 44, 293–316.
Tsaparlis G., (2001), Towards a meaningful introduction to the
Schrödinger equation through historical and heuristic approaches,
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2, 203-213.
Uyar T., (1994), Genel kimya. Prensipler ve modern uygulamalar cilt-1,
Palme Yayıncılık, Ankara.
Wilson D., (1983), Rutherford: simple genius, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009