Engine Performance and Emission of Biodiesel Fuel Prepared From Different Ukrainian Natural Oils

View Article Online
Chemistry
View Journal
Education Research
and Practice
Accepted Manuscript
This article can be cited before page numbers have been issued, to do this please use: A. R. Zohar and S.
T. Levy, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2019, DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K.
This is an Accepted Manuscript, which has been through the

Chemistry Royal Society of Chemistry peer review process and has been
Education Research accepted for publication.
and Practice Accepted Manuscripts are published online shortly after
www.rsc.org/cerp
acceptance, before technical editing, formatting and proof reading.

Using this free service, authors can make their results available
to the community, in citable form, before we publish the edited
article. We will replace this Accepted Manuscript with the edited
and formatted Advance Article as soon as it is available.
You can find more information about Accepted Manuscripts in the

author guidelines.
Please note that technical editing may introduce minor changes

to the text and/or graphics, which may alter content. The journal’s
standard Terms & Conditions and the ethical guidelines, outlined
in our author and reviewer resource centre, still apply. In no
event shall the Royal Society of Chemistry be held responsible
for any errors or omissions in this Accepted Manuscript or any
consequences arising from the use of any information it contains.
rsc.li/cerp
Page 1 of 22 Chemistry
PleaseEducation Research
do not adjust and Practice
margins
1
2
3 View Article Online
4 Chemistry Education Research and Practice DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
5
6
7
PAPER
Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

8
9
10
11 Attraction vs. Repulsion - Learning about Forces and Energy in
12
13
Chemical Bonding with the ELI-Chem Simulation
14 Received 00th January 20xx, Asnat R. Zohar (link: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0950-3547) * and Sharona T. Levy
15 Accepted 00th January 20xx
16 This work seeks to solve one of the basic problems in chemistry learning: understanding the chemical bond as a dynamic
17 DOI: 10.1039/x0xx00000x
equilibrium between attractive and repulsive forces. This force-based model is difficult to grasp, as there are no analogues
18 www.rsc.org/ from everyday life for both attractions and repulsions happening simultaneously. In addition, current teaching approaches
19 often mislead by using mainly the 'octet rule' heuristic. As a result, students construct naïve models of the chemical bond,
20 usually viewing atoms as solid balls that are attached to each other in order to "achieve an octet." To represent the force-
21
Published on 17 April 2019. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:27:15 AM.
based dynamics of the bond, we designed the ELI-Chem learning environment (Zohar and Levy, 2015). This environment
22 enables interaction as an atom with another atom while observing the underlying forces and the potential energy curve.
23 Our theoretical framework is based on Embodied Learning theory by relating conceptual learning to bodily experiences. The
24 study uses qualitative and quantitative methods with 21 high school chemistry students in a pretest-intervention-posttest
25 design. During a 40-minute activity with the ELI-Chem simulation, students were prompted to discover the underlying forces
26 of bonding and relate them to energy changes. Findings show that learning with the ELI-Chem simulation supports students
27 in gaining the knowledge elements that are required to build the dynamic force-based mental model of chemical bonding,
28 and to conceptualize chemical energy as due to forces. Finally, the design principles of the ELI-Chem environment are
29 discussed. Aligned with science standards, attending to students’ difficulties, and using the advantages of a computer
30 simulation, the ELI-Chem environment provides an appropriate representation of chemical bonding, which is more valid
31 scientifically yet makes the abstract concept accessible.
32
33 students resort to imagining a chain of events set in an
34 Introduction unfamiliar and non-intuitive world.
35 Teaching and learning the topic of chemical bonding is most
The question is, which representation is most appropriate for
36 challenging. The chemical bond presents an unusual scheme of
high school chemistry? On the one hand, the scientific model of
37 attractive and repulsive forces acting simultaneously between
the chemical bond is based on quantum mechanical theories
38 atoms. These forces cause the atoms to come closer and farther
which are beyond high school students’ understanding. On the
39 apart continuously, setting the atoms in motion around the
other hand, the oversimplified ‘octet rule’ approach (i.e. atoms
40 point of equilibrium. Such a scheme is not intuitive; in fact, it is
form bonds "in order to complete an octet, as this is their most
41 outside of the range of physical sensations experienced in the
stable state") leads to learning impediments and
42 world. There is no familiar physical system in our world where
misunderstanding by many students (de Jong and Taber, 2014;
43 opposing forces act simultaneously. Moreover, the most stable
Taber and Coll, 2002; Tsaparlis et al., 2018). It would seem that
44 state (i.e., minimum energy) of chemical bonding is a dynamic
a more appropriate simplification for high school students is a
45 state. It is a dynamic equilibrium between the forces, meaning
force-based representation of the chemical bond (Levy-Nahum,
46 that the magnitudes of the attractive and repulsive forces are
Mamlok-Naaman, Hofstein and Krajcik, 2007; Stevens, Delgado
47 equal and the net force is zero. Yet, the forces act, they do not
and Krajcik, 2010; Taber and Coll, 2002). Moreover, the force-
48 cancel each other out. Grasping this conflict, in which a stable
based approach has recently been introduced into the NGSS
49 state is dynamic, is even more paradoxical and counter-
standards for science education (NGSS, 2013). According to this
50 intuitive.
approach, the attractive and repulsive forces between atoms
51 Understanding this invisible, non-intuitive and dynamic
arise from their subatomic structure and govern the behaviour
52 phenomenon of chemical bonding requires an appropriate
of atoms and molecules. Thus, a bond is formed due to electrical
53 representation. With computer simulations it is possible to
forces; it is most stable when the attractive forces balance the
54 create dynamic metaphors, which might constitute a more
repulsive forces.
55 suitable representation. According to Embodied Cognition
56 theories, learners rely on representations, which are based on
57 abstraction from direct experience of the world (Barsalou,
Department of Technologies in Education, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa,
Haifa, Israel. E-mail: asnat3@gmail.com
58 1999; Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Without such experiences,
59
60
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 20xx J. Name., 2013, 00, 1-3 | 1
Please do not adjust margins

Chemistry
margins Page 2 of 22
1 ARTICLE Journal Name

2
3 To represent the force-based explanation, we developed the different chemical phenomena. These conceptualView models span
Article Online
4 ELI-Chem (Embodied Learning Interactive Chemistry; Zohar and the range from being too advanced for DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
high-school chemistry
5 Levy, 2015) learning environment which includes a computer students to over-simplifications that might impede learning. On
6 simulation and an activity guide. Based on the Lenard-Jones the one hand, scientists describe chemical bonding by using
7 mathematical model of chemical bonding (Jones, 1924), the quantum-mechanical theories, which are beyond high school

8 simulation enables an active manipulation of atoms while chemistry. Educational research argues that several aspects of
9 observing the resultant forces and the potential energy curve. the quantum mechanical model are too difficult for most
10 The theoretical framework of the ELI-Chem learning beginning students to grasp, as they are purely mathematical
11 environment is based on embodied learning theories that view constructs that cannot be determined by experiments
12 bodily experiences as central to foster understanding (Gillespie, 1997; Kozma and Russell, 2005; Stevens, Delgado and
13 (Abrahamson and Lindgren, 2014). Krajcik, 2010; Shusterman and Shusterman, 1997; Taber and
14 Our main goals were to reveal students’ conceptions of Coll, 2002). Furthermore, the quantum theory gives students
15 chemical bonding and to study the effect of the bodily the incorrect impression that chemistry is a difficult, abstract,
16 experience on their understanding of the force-based mathematical subject that is not and cannot be satisfactorily
17 explanation. However, already in the pretest interview, we explained at the introductory level (Gillespie, 1997). On the
18 noticed an important finding which we have named the lacuna other hand, chemistry textbooks and teachers oversimplify the
19 of repulsion: most students did not acknowledge the repulsive topic of chemical bonding by presenting it as based on the octet
20 forces between the atoms, perceiving the chemical bond as two rule (Bergqvist et al., 2013; Levy-Nahum et al., 2007; Pabuçcu
21 attached atoms standing still. We then studied the effect of this and Geban, 2006; Taber and Coll, 2002; Talanquer, 2007). These
22 lacuna on students’ mental models (internal representation oversimplified representations are easy to demonstrate and
23 that captures people's understanding of phenomena in a single easy to understand; however, they do not provide students with
24 framework; Norman, 1983) and described them in our previous enough scientific tools that may promote their causal
25 paper (Zohar and Levy, 2019). Based on this previous research, understanding. Studies show that many students do not
26 we designed the activity guide and adapted the chemical appreciate the electrical interactions that drive chemical
27 bonding simulation. For example, we had found that the bottle- bonding; instead, they rely on rote learning and heuristics (Joki
28 neck for understanding bonding was perceiving the repulsion and Aksela, 2018; Levy-Nahum et al., 2007; Taber and Coll,
29 force between atoms. Therefore, in the design of the activity, 2002; Venkataraman, 2017). Thus, students believe that atoms
30 perceiving repulsion was the first challenge, from which other form bonds “in order to complete an octet,” that stable species
31 learning could proceed. In addition, we included in the have octets whereas species without octets are unstable, or
32 simulation an option to run the process of bonding without that atoms will spontaneously lose electrons in order to obtain
33 repulsion so that students could create and test “what if” octets (de Jong and Taber, 2014). Consequently, they do not
34 questions. comprehend the energetics associated with chemical bonding.
35 In the present paper, we demonstrate and discuss the changes Rather than using forces to explain the energy changes, they
36 in students’ mental models after working with the ELI-Chem base their explanations on intuitive interpretations. Some
37 learning environment, compared with the pretest mental students think of atoms as physical entities that require energy
38 models described previously. We then discuss the design to bring them together (Boo, 1998), or as coiled springs that
39 principles of the ELI-Chem learning environment - simulation release energy when relaxed (Hapkiewicz, 1991). Others think
40 and activity guide - and wrap up with implications for teaching. that potential energy represents an ability to form a bond, to
41 interact, or to move (Becker and Cooper, 2014; Lindsey, 2014).
42 These naïve ideas are carried over to related concepts such as
43 Literature review polarity, ionization energy and the molecular-level interactions
44 In the following, we first describe several representations of that govern phase transitions (Taber, 2003; Teichert and Stacy,
45 chemical bonding while considering their appropriateness to 2002).
46 high school chemistry; among them, we choose to base our Aware of the difficulties in both representing chemical bonding
47 design on the force-based representation. Next, we describe and understanding this topic, different approaches have been
48 the design principles of the learning environment, based upon presented.
49 the learning goals and difficulties in understanding. Teaching sequence. Dhindsa and Treagust (2014) proposed a
50 Representations of Chemical Bonding: Quantum, Forces or Octet? new sequence for teaching chemical bonding: covalent, polar
51 Chemical bonding is a key and basic concept in high school
covalent and ionic bonding. They argue that in this sequence,
52 chemistry, yet it is difficult both to understand and to
the concepts are developed with a minimum reorganization of
53 demonstrate. It is an abstract, non-intuitive phenomenon which
previously learned information, leading to more effective and
54 has no analogues in our everyday life. According to some
sustainable learning. By contrast, Bergqvist et al. (2013) suggest
55 chemists, it cannot be clearly defined, because of its intangible
the opposite sequence of metallic, ionic, and covalent bonding,
56 nature (Croft and de Berg, 2014). In order to define a chemical
to avoid students applying the ‘molecule presence’ in all
57 bond, several conceptual models can be used, each
structures. As far as we know, these teaching sequences were
58 emphasizing a different aspect of the bond and explaining
not researched with students.
59
60
2 | J. Name., 2012, 00, 1-3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 20xx

margins
1 Journal Name ARTICLE

2
3 Force-based approach. Based on science education documents specifying the learning goals, we identified two levels
View Article of
Online
4 (NGSS, 2013), bonding is a result of forces, proximity, and difficulties: general in learning chemistry DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
and specific to
5 energy. Aligned with this description, educational research chemical bonding.
6 proposed representing the topic of chemical bonding as due to Learning chemistry. The science of chemistry describes an
7 electrical forces (Levy-Nahum et al. 2007; Stevens et al. 2010; abstract dynamic molecular world in which atoms and sub-

8 Taber and Coll, 2002). atomic particles interact in a non-intuitive way. Students cannot
9 According to the force-based approach, the attractive and access this world or experience analogues of the forces
10 repulsive forces between atoms arise from their subatomic underlying the particles’ behaviour. They are required to
11 structure and govern the behaviour of atoms and molecules. imagine phenomena at an atomic-scale level and explain them
12 Therefore, a bond is formed due to electrical forces. The by applying scientific explanations. Moreover, the
13 attractive and repulsive forces act simultaneously so that the representations used in textbooks or in classrooms – both on
14 atoms move closer and farther apart continuously. The bond is the board or the ball-and-stick models – are static. Students are
15 most stable when the attractive forces balance the repulsive expected to understand that the static representation is just
16 forces. At this equilibrium point, the net force is zero; hence, one specific frame of the dynamic molecular world and to
17 the potential energy of the system is minimal. Thus, bond visualize the endless motion using their own imagination
18 formation happens spontaneously - the energy decreases and is (Gilbert et al., 2006). Thus, our first goals are to make the
19 released; whereas, breaking a bond requires energy to molecular world accessible and dynamic.
20 overcome the balance between the forces. Chemical bonding. The NGSS (2013) standards in science
21 To our knowledge, only two studies investigated the force- education state that students should understand that “Bonding
22 based explanation of chemical bonding with students; both is a result of forces, proximity, and energy. This provides a basis
23 reported a successful shift from the octet-based reasoning to an for understanding all types of bonding, including ionic, covalent,
24 appreciation of electrical forces (Joki et al., 2015; metallic, and hydrogen bonding”. As such, the main learning
25 Venkataraman, 2017). Regarding energy and forces that are goals are to describe the chemical bonding process and its
26 involved in chemical bonding, Dreyfus et al. (2014) and Nagel energetics through the relationships between attractive and
27 and Lindsey (2015) showed how appropriate scaffolding repulsive forces (Levy-Nahum et al., 2007; Stevens et al., 2010;
28 supported students in relating bond energy to forces. Learning Taber and Coll, 2002). In particular, students should be aware
29 technologies that support students in perceiving the chemical of the existence of both attractive and repulsive forces, to
30 bond as forces include interactive simulations such as Molecular recognize that a chemical bond is a dynamic equilibrium
31 Workbench (Xie and Pallant, 2011) and PhET (Weiman et al., between opposing forces, and to relate this to the involved
32 2008). Despite these research’s recommendations and findings, potential energy. Students should base their explanations on
33 updated chemical education literature shows that most the idea that chemical bonds are formed because atoms are
34 instructional materials (e.g., teachers and textbooks) did not more stable when bonded together, that energy is released
35 shift to the force-based approach (Bergqvist and Rundgren, during bond formation as the atoms become more stable, and
36 2017; Erman, 2017; Joki and Aksela, 2018; Tsaparlis et al., 2018). that energy is required in order to break a bond, to overcome
37 We choose to represent the force-based approach because we the balance between the forces.
38 consider this approach to be the “sweet spot” between Related learning goals are understanding the scientific
39 difficulty and over-simplification. It is an appropriate meanings of the concepts of ‘force’ and ‘equilibrium,’ as the
40 simplification of the quantum-mechanical theory, as it accounts force-based approach is based on these concepts.
41 for and discusses the stability of molecules in terms of the Forces. The NGSS (2013) standards state that students should
42 classical concept of a balance between the electrostatic forces have an understanding that a force may be exerted on an object
43 of attraction and repulsion (Bader, n.d.). In addition, it can be without touching it through fields. Novice students do not
44 represented with visible and familiar objects - balls and arrows conceive of force as a process of interaction between two
45 - rather than quantum-mechanical equations (restructuration; material objects. Rather, the most commonly reported naïve
46 Wilensky and Papert, 2010). Yet, the force-based approach is conception is that force is an internal property of a single object
47 not an oversimplification, as it is based on scientific principles. or an intentional interference of an external agent (Driver,
48 Although the electrical forces do not explain all aspects of 1994; McCloskey, 1983; Reiner et al., 2000). Applying this naïve
49 chemical bonding (e.g., the influence of the ‘spin’ of the idea to chemical bonding, it is possible that students would see
50 electron), they do provide a proper scientific interpretation bonding as due to a single atom property, such as “every atom
51 (Taber and Coll, 2002). wants to complete the octet.” Based on this naïve
52 Learning-goals-driven design of the Force-based Approach understanding, two atoms will bond if each of them gains an
53 Having decided to implement the force-based approach, we octet, rather than the more scientific approach of electrical
54 designed a learning environment aligned with the learning- interaction between them.
55 goals-driven design model (Krajcik, McNeill, and Reiser, 2008). Equilibrium. The NGSS (2013) standards in science education
56 The design integrates two aspects: (1) the content is aligned state that students should understand that an equilibrium is a
57 with chemistry education research and with science standards, dynamic state in which forces of the same magnitude occur in
58 and (2) the learning process is based on discovery models. In opposite directions. However, they typically think of
59 equilibrium as a static situation and interpret a lack of change in
60

Chemistry

2
3 the system to indicate that nothing is happening (Driver, 1994). environment is composed of a computer simulation and
View Article an
Online
4 The same static view of equilibrium states was found in the online activity guide. DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
5 chemical education research: most chemistry students think of ELI-Chem simulation

6 equilibrium as a static state in which no reactions occur (for a The ELI-Chem simulation was created with NetLogo (Wilensky,
7 review, see Bain and Towns, 2016; Özmen, 2008). Zohar and 1999), a platform for creating simulations. The mathematical

8 Levy (2019) reported that students perceive bonded atoms as model of the simulation is based on the Lennard-Jones (L-J)
9 static and attached to each other. They showed that a dynamic potential for two neutral atoms (Jones, 1924) approximating
10 equilibrium between atoms is understood only when students the electrical forces between them (See Appendix 1). This
11 refer to both attractive and repulsive forces that act in opposing model consists of two opposing components: a steep repulsive
12 directions. term at short ranges and a more gradual attractive term at
13 Nevertheless, the concepts of force and equilibrium are not slightly longer ranges. To display the magnitude and direction
14 being taught in the context of chemical bonding. Forces are of each force separately and simultaneously, we decomposed
15 included in Physical Science under the core idea of “Forces and the L-J equation into its two components – attraction and
16 Interactions,” and equilibrium in Crosscutting Concepts under repulsion. The student can vary the atoms’ properties – radius
17 “Stability and Change” (NGSS, 2013). Indeed, Taber (1998) has and electronegativity – and change the distance between them
18 shown that many chemistry students are not familiar with basic with the mouse. The model computes the forces and energy
19 physics, although it is implicitly assumed that they are. according the distance.
20 To sum it up, the design of learning materials, which is based on The student controls one of the atoms, moves it closer and
21 a force-based explanation of chemical bonding, should address
further away from the other atom, changing the distance

22 the following learning goals: chemical bonding as the combined between the atoms. For each distance, the simulation calculates
23 attractive and repulsive forces; relating the energetics of the magnitude and direction of the attractive and repulsive
24 chemical bonding to forces; and a dynamic rather than static forces and the energy of the system. The forces are represented
25 view of the molecule. by arrows. Their length changes with the forces’ magnitude.
26 When the student brings the atom closer to another atom, the
27 arrows both become larger, reflecting that the forces are
28 Research question
increasing. The dependence upon distance of the two forces is
29 The overarching aim of this study is to explore how force-based usually different, with repulsion dominating on very close
30 representations in chemistry could support students’ approach. At equilibrium, or bond length, the length of the
31 understanding of chemical bonding. The ELI-Chem learning arrows is the same, reflecting that the forces are equal. At this
32 environment was designed to enable students’ interactions point, the atoms vibrate – they are attracted and repelled. As a
33 with a force-based simulation of chemical bonding. The study result of the changing forces, their balance changes
34 assesses the effectiveness of this design by comparing students’ continuously, moving the atom erratically around equilibrium.
35 mental models before and after working with the learning At the same time, the potential energy curve is forming out of
36 environment. the student’s motion, and it shows the changes in energy: when
37 This paper addresses the following research question: What the atoms are getting closer it decreases until a minimum where
38 characterizes the shift in students’ mental models following the atoms are bonded. If they approach even closer, the energy
39 their learning experiences with the force-based ELI-Chem increase to a much higher values (Figure 1). Users can also run
40 learning environment? the simulation without attraction or without repulsion to learn
41 their meaning and the role of each force in making a chemical
42 bond. In addition, users can vary the radius and
43 Learning environment electronegativity of each atom to explore and compare
44 In designing the ELI-Chem environment, we considered both the different bond types. Future design of the ELI-Chem learning
45 conceptual structure of the force-based approach and the materials will use the same simulation to learn about covalent
46 learning process. To address these goals, ELI-Chem and ionic bonds.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

margins
1
2
5
6
7
PAPER

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Figure 1 ELI-Chem screenshot: Setup properties of the atoms (top left), setup type of
27 forces (top right), the simulated atoms (on the right), potential-energy curve (bottom
28 left).
29
30
31
32 Figure 1 ELI-Chem screenshot: Setup properties of the atoms (top left), setup type of forces (top right), the
33 simulated atoms (on the right), potential-energy curve (bottom left).
34
35 recognizing the repulsion force, continued with how forces are
36 ELI-Chem activity changed with the distance between the atoms, segued to
37 The activity was designed to support students’ understanding comparing the repulsion and attraction forces and culminated
38 of the force-based principles underlying chemical bonding and with the bond as a dynamic equilibrium. Next, students ran the
39 to apply this understanding in recognizing the accompanying simulation under various “what if” conditions – bonding
40 energy changes. The sequence of the activity was based on our without attraction or without repulsion. The energy activity
41 findings from the previous study (Zohar and Levy, 2019). We began with introducing the energy curve, continued with the
42 noticed that without repulsion forces, students cannot form a relationships to the forces and finished with the imaginary
43 dynamic view of the chemical bond, of attraction and repulsion worlds of ‘no attraction’ or ‘no repulsion’. The main tasks and
44 that act simultaneously. Moreover, we found that several learning goals are introduced in Table 1.
45 components of the scientific model could accrue only in a
46 certain order. Therefore, the activity began with a focus on
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Chemistry
1
2
5
6
7
PAPER

8
9
10
Table 1 ELI-Chem activity main tasks and learning goals
11
12 Task Learning goals
13 Part-I-Forces
14 Find the smallest distance between the atoms. Discovering the forces that are involved in bonding, i.e., attraction and
15 repulsion.
16
17 Explore how each of the forces changes while Learning the properties of the forces in the context of chemical bonds.
18 changing the distance between the atoms.
19
20 Compare between the attractive and repulsive Understanding the parallelism between the forces’ relationships and bonding
21
forces at various distances along the bonding states. In particular, learning that a bond is a dynamic equilibrium between
22 process. opposing forces.
23
24 Explore the bonding process under imaginary Referring to the role and meaning of each force and its impact on bonding.
conditions: no attraction or no repulsion.
25
26
27 Part-II-Energy
Explore when energy is released, absorbed, or Acquaintance with the various phases of the energy curve (the L-J curve).
28
does not change.
29
30
Compare the relationships of the attractive- Understanding the parallelism between forces’ relationships, bonding states,
31 repulsive forces and the energy changes along and the energy of the system; locating these phases on the energy curve.
32 the bonding process. Comprehending that in a stable state, the forces are equal, the net force is
33 zero, and the energy of the system is at minimum.
34
35 Explore the energy in the bonding process Referring to the role of each force and its impact on the energy; relating these
36 under imaginary conditions: no attraction or effects to the shape of the energy curve.
37 no repulsion.
38
39
40 The activity guide included instructions and challenges, Participants
41 questions and explanations. The approach involves learning The participants included 21 chemistry students from two rural
42 through exploring models (De Jong and Van Joolingen, 1998), high schools in the northern peripheral region in Israel. The
43 includes “exposing events” (Nussbaum and Novick, 1982), and student population in these schools is fairly homogenous,
44 use the Predict-Observe-Explain structure (White and ranging from middle to high socioeconomic status. Participants’
45 Gunstone, 1992). The activity had two parts: Part-I-Forces, mean age was 15.9 years (SD = 1.1). Their characteristics are
46 which introduces the forces as the underlying principles of detailed in Table 2.
47 bonding, and Part-II-Energy, which builds the energy Most participants were in the tenth grade, majoring in
48 explanations upon the concept of forces. chemistry. In Israel, all the students study a basic- sciences or
49 chemistry course in tenth grade. Students who choose to major
50 in chemistry study more advanced topics for three years – 10th,
51 Methods
11th and 12th grade. Participants were sampled
52 Research approach opportunistically; they all showed willingness and interest in
53 participating in the research. Internal Review Board at the
A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was
54 Faculty of Education at the University of Haifa was obtained for
used. Clinical interviews were used to collect the data
55 the study, as was the approval of the Ministry of Education’s
(Ginsburg, 1997). Qualitative analysis of the interviews was
56 chief scientist. Full consent was given by all participants and
conducted, obtaining the main themes (Creswell, 2011).
57 their parents. At the time of the interviews, all students had
Following this analysis, patterns were explored through visual
58
analysis (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2009).
59
60

margins

2
3 already learned the topic of chemical bonding; the topic was Stacy, 2002). The activity with the simulation was View described
Article Online
4 taught using the octet rule approach. above in the “ELI-Chem activity” section. DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
5 During the interviews, students were asked to use gestures.
6 Table 2 Participants’ demographic characteristics According to Goldin-Meadow and Wagner (2005), gestures that
7 accompany speech convey the entire idea, whereas speech

Characteristic Number of participants
8 conveys several separate ideas, consisting of collected words
(N=21)
9 and fragmented expressions.
10th grade 13
10 11th grade 4
Data analysis
11 12th grade 4 The analysis of the interviews was a two-step process. First, we
12 Majoring in chemistry (matriculation 19 watched the screen-capture movies and read all the transcripts
13 exam at 5 credit pointsa) 2 and students’ filled activity guides to conceptualize and extract
14 Chemistry as a compulsory subject (2 the knowledge elements. By knowledge elements, we mean
15 credit pointsb)
basic concepts or ideas upon which students build their answers
Female 12
16 (Sherin, 2013), such as “atoms are attracted” or “completion to
Male 9
17 eight.” We also captured students’ gestures while describing
Kibbutz high school 4
18 Small villages high school 17 the process of bond formation and breaking, looking for
19 a Matriculation exam at the highest level after chemistry studies of 3 years as a common gestures shared by different students.
20 major subject In the second step, we used visual cluster analysis to depict
b Internal exam at a low level after chemistry studies of 1 year as a
21
compulsory subject common patterns in students’ perception of the chemical bond.

22 Research procedure For each student (a row) the knowledge elements (columns)
23 that were mentioned were highlighted (Figure 4). The columns
24 The study was framed as a pretest-intervention-posttest design.
and rows were then arranged by descending use. The use of
25 The students were active during a 1-hour meeting: 10 minutes
visualizations in educational research supports understanding
26 were devoted to a semi-structured pretest interview; 40
of how mental models develop and change in context and how
27 minutes of an online guided activity; and 10 minutes, in the end,
knowledge and strategies are constructed (Hmelo-Silver et al.,
28 were allotted to a semi-structured posttest interview. A total of
2009).
29 21 students were interviewed; 15 students were interviewed
Reliability
30 individually, and six students were interviewed in dyads. At the
time of the interviews, all participants had already learned the The first author and a research assistant independently coded
31
topic of chemical bonding, but only some of them (15/21) had the transcripts of five students (24%). The coding results were
32
learned also about energy changes in chemical bonding. compared and discussed, and the differences in were resolved.
33
Therefore, all the students conducted the Part-I-Forces activity, This process resulted in a refined coding scheme and more
34
and 15 students continued to Part-II-Energy. For the qualitative detailed coding guidelines. Next, the first author and the
35
analysis, we selected two of the 15 students who had learned research assistant independently coded the additional 16
36
about energy. students and examined the inter-rater reliability. Cohen’s Kappa
37
The meetings took place either during recess at school or coefficient of agreement for the quotes was κ=0.892. According
38
outside of school hours at the interviewer’s house or at the to Landis and Koch (1977), this is an almost perfect strength of
39
student’s school. The first author conducted all the interviews. agreement.
40
41 During the hands-on activities, she answered clarifying
42 questions about how to work with the software. She explained
to the students in advance that she would not be allowed to
Findings
43
44 answer questions about chemistry. We present students’ conceptual learning by comparing the use
45 Data collection instruments of the knowledge elements (Sherin, 2013) before and after
46 working with the ELI-Chem simulation, followed by the
Data collection tools included a semi-structured interview
47 students’ resultant pre- and posttest mental models. This two-
protocol, students’ filled activity guides, a video camera, and
48 step analysis is presented separately, first for the forces
screen-capture software.
49 knowledge elements, then for the energy knowledge elements.
The interview protocol was designed to explore students’
50 Finally, we use qualitative analysis to describe how two
understanding of the topic of chemical bonding, especially
51 students worked with the ELI-Chem simulation, as two
whether and how they relate bonding to electrical forces. The
52 contrasting cases.
pre- and posttest interviews were composed of the same
53 Conceptual learning: forces in chemical bonding
questions; the posttest interview included additional questions
54 as to students’ attitudes towards the activity with the Change in forces knowledge elements. Table 3 lists and
55 simulation (see Appendix 2.) The questions were created in- describes the knowledge elements that students used before
56 house and refined through several pilot studies. Some of the and after working with the ELI-Chem force activity, in order of
57 items have been used in other studies (Griffiths and Preston, decreasing use in the pretest interview. The change in the use
58 1992; Nicoll, 2001; Pabuçcu and Geban, 2006; Teichert and of these knowledge elements is displayed in Figure 3.
59
60

Chemistry
Please doEducation Research
not adjust marginsand Practice Page 8 of 22
1
2
3
4 Chemistry Education Research and Practice
5

6
7
8 PAPER
9
10
Table 3 Forces knowledge elements, abbreviation
11 Knowledge element Abbreviation Description Example
12
Attraction Attraction There is an attraction between atoms. "A chemical bond is when two atoms are attracted to each other."
13
Electronic level Completion Completion or a full energy level is the reason for bond formation; a “He [the atom] will search for another Hydrogen and join him in order
14 completion bond is most stable when each of the bonded atoms has a full energy to complete to eight electrons. This is their most stable state, like the
15 level. noble gases.”
16 Electrons sharing/ Sharing Bond formation is a process of sharing or transferring electrons “The O is looking for two bonds and the H can offer one. If he [the
17 transfer between atoms “in order to achieve an octet.” Hydrogen] needs one bond and he [the Oxygen] needs two more
18 bonds then the two H’s will be connected to him so that they are
19 happy… everybody has what he needs.”
20 Repulsion Repulsion There is repulsion between atoms. "They [the atoms] will approach until both nuclei will repel each other
21 because both are positive."
22 Distance between Dist-impl The spatial perception of a bond without explicitly mentioning the “I think that they will not touch each other.”
atoms (implicitly) distance between atoms. This knowledge element was used in the Or, “I don’t think they are attached.”
23
negative form.
24
Distance between Dist-expl The spatial perception of a bond while explicitly mentioning the “They approach and stay [shows a distance between his hands], they
25 atoms (explicitly) distance between atoms. don’t continue to be attracted.”
26 Attraction-repulsion Attr-Repl The relationships between the magnitude and direction of repulsive “It happens simultaneously and the forces [attractive and repulsive]
27 relationships1 and attractive forces. should be the same.”
28 Dynamics Dynamics The perception of the dynamics within a bond. Gestures show a “At a certain distance, their nuclei repel each other and then they stop
29 continually changing distance between atoms (Figure 2a), in contrast to [approaching] and keep small oscillations.”
30 a static view in which gestures show atoms still attached (Figure 2b).
31
32
33
34
35 Figure 2a Figure 2b
36 Stability is equal Stability-forces A stable state of a bond is when attractive forces balance repulsion "A stable state between two atoms is when they attract each other
37 forces1 forces. with a force that equals the force that they repel each other."
38
39
1 The shaded rows are knowledge elements that showed up only in the posttest interviews
40
41
42
43
44
45 Please do not adjust margins
46
margins
1
2
5
6
7
PAPER

8
9
10
11
12 Pre Post
13 100%
14 90%
15
Percentage of participants
80%
16 70%
17 60%
18 50%
40%
19 30%
20 20%
21
10%
22 0%
23 Attraction Completion Sharing Repulsion Distance Attr-Repl Dynamics Stability -

24 forces
Knowledge elements
25
26
27 Figure 3 The change in the use of forces knowledge elements in pre- and posttest interviews (N = 21).
28
Figure 3 shows a shift in students’ use of knowledge elements ways of thinking about chemical bonding (Zohar and Levy,
29
after working with the ELI-Chem simulation. Whereas in the 2019). We identified six types of nesting that compose the six
30
mental models used by students to describe chemical bonding
31 pretest most (16/21) students used the octet-based
(Figure 5a). The sketches on the right side of the figure depict
32 knowledge elements, in the posttest, all students appreciated
the mental models (Figure 5b). Following the sketches from top
33 both attractive and repulsive forces expressed as
to bottom shows how each of the added knowledge elements
34 spontaneously oscillating atoms.
enriches the next mental model in the hierarchy and leads to a
35
more complete and scientific view of the chemical bond. Thus,
36 Change in mental models. We have operationalized mental
attraction or the completion/sharing octet rule knowledge
37 models as the distribution of knowledge elements for each
elements are basic for most students, leading to a mental model
38 student. To describe and compare students’ mental models of
of attached still atoms. Repulsive forces are added by only those
39 chemical bonding, visual clustering of the knowledge elements
students who also explicitly mentioned the distance between
40 was conducted for the pre- and posttest interviews. For the
atoms, resulting with a mental model of atoms that are apart,
41 pretest interview clustering graph, the columns and rows were
or that there is some distance between them. Finally, dynamic
42 arranged by descending use of the knowledge elements (Figure
descriptions can take place only after a full force-based model
43 4a). The posttest interview results are presented in the same
is understood, that is, including both attractive and repulsive
44 order of rows as that for the pretest interviews, to enable
forces and understanding that they act simultaneously.
45 comparison (Figure 4b).
With respect to the pretest, in the posttest, there is a greater
46 The visual clustering indicates a strong shift in the group
similarity between the students’ mental models. The “block” of
47 pattern. From the descending trend-line in the pretest
the force-based knowledge elements (Figure 4b) is distinct from
48 interview, which is mostly composed of the octet rule
the pretest results that showed a distribution of models. It
49 knowledge elements, into a “block” of forced-based knowledge
reflects that most students (19/21) learned the entire set of
50 elements. The “descending stairs” trend-line in the pretest
knowledge elements and were able to build a force-based
51 (Figure 4a) signifies a nested relationship – the knowledge
runnable model of the chemical bond, the sixth mental model.
52 elements are built upon each other, rather than being exclusive
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Chemistry
1
2
5
6
7
PAPER

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Figure 4 Visual clustering graphs of the distribution of forces knowledge elements. a. pretest knowledge
34 elements and b. posttest knowledge elements.
35
36 Attraction Completion Sharing Dist-impl Dist-expl Repulsion Attr-Repl Dynamics Mental Model
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 Figure 5 Pretest mental models of chemical bonding in terms of knowledge elements. a. visual clustering of knowledge
elements and b. sketches of students’ mental models of chemical bonding. Reprinted from "Students' reasoning about
57
chemical bonding: The lacuna of repulsion", by A. R. Zohar and S. T. Levy, 2019, J Res Sci Teach., 1-24. Copyright 2019 by
58 WILEY|JRST.
59
60

margins
1
2
5
6
7
PAPER

8
9
10
Conceptual learning: energy in chemical bonding Chem simulation (Figure 6). In the pretest interview, most
11
students (12/15) used the octet rule to explain stability. When
12 Change in energy knowledge elements. Table 4 describes the
asked about energy changes (i.e., when energy is released or
13 energy knowledge elements that students used before and
required), their answers were based on memorized statements
14 after working with the ELI-Chem energy activity (Part-II). We
that were unexplainable axioms, such as “When a bond is
15 would like to clarify two things: (1) The ‘stability’ knowledge
formed, energy is released.” Most of them (13/15) included
16 element appears in both the force and the energy tables (Tables
both correct and incorrect knowledge elements in their
17 3 and 4), as it was mentioned in the pre- and posttest interviews
responses, e.g., “energy is required to create a bond (incorrect)
18 for both activities; (2) The energy table (Table 3) includes also
and also to break a bond (correct).” Such statements indicate
19 the incorrect knowledge elements, such as “energy is required
that students were confused, reflecting that they had no
20 to form a bond.” We decided to include them, as most students
reasonable explanation that they could refer to. Another
21
used both correct and incorrect knowledge elements, reflecting

example of lacking a reasonable explanation is ST9, who tried to
22 confusion and contradictions. The change in the frequency of
explain the energetics of bond-breaking by logical elimination:
23 these knowledge elements in students’ explanations is
“In order to break a bond you need to invest energy, [so] in
24 displayed in Figure 6. As with the forces knowledge elements,
order to form a bond, energy is released, right?” Following
25 also with the energy knowledge elements there is a shift
learning, most students (14/15) used forces to describe bond
26 towards the force-based explanation after working with the ELI-
stability, and the confusion mostly disappeared.
27
28
29 Table 4 Energy knowledge elements, abbreviations, descriptions and examples.
30
31 Knowledge Abbreviation Description Example
32 element
33 Stability is equal Stability- A stable state of a bond is when attractive "A stable state between two atoms or two molecules is when
34 forces forces forces balance repulsive forces. they attract each other with a force that equals the force that
35 they repel each other."
36 Bond formation - Formation- Chemical bonds release energy when they "The energy is released while new bonds are being formed."
37 energy released released form.
Bond breaking - Breaking- Energy is required to break chemical bonds. "It is worthwhile energetically for atoms to be in a bond. That is,
38
energy required/ required if we want to break a bond, to destabilize the bond, we need to
39
absorbed1 invest energy so that… so that the atom will be destabilized and
40 the atoms themselves can separate from each other."
41 Bond formation - Formation- Energy is required to form chemical bonds. "You need to invest more energy to form it [a bond]. Because you
42 energy required (I)2 required need to push the elements [atoms] together. Like pushing them,
43 bringing them closer to each other."
44 Bond breaking - Breaking- Chemical bonds release energy as they "We’ve learned in biology that there is some kind of molecule
45 energy released (I)2 released break. whose internal energy is very very high. So when it breaks down,
46 it releases lots and lots of energy."
47 1 For this knowledge element, the term used more frequently by the students is first; after the slash, the scientific term is named.
2 Incorrect knowledge elements.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Chemistry

2
4 Pre Post DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K

100%
5
90%
6
Percentage of participants
80%
7

70%
8
60%
9
10 50%
11 40%
12 30%
13 20%
14 10%
15 0%
Formation - released Breaking - required Formation - required (I) Breaking - released (I) Stability-forces
16
17 Knowledge elements
18
Figure 6 The change in the use of energy knowledge elements in pre- and posttest interviews (N = 21).
19
20 Change in mental models. The same process of visual clustering do not have a clear idea or a logical explanation for the energy
21
was done for the energy pre- and posttest knowledge elements changes. They were confused and contradicted themselves,
22 (Figure 7). From the pre- to the posttest interviews there are including both correct and incorrect knowledge elements in
23 two main changes that go together: a shift to the force-based their descriptions. Following the activity, however, most
24 explanation and the disappearance of the incorrect knowledge students (14/15) used forces to explain the energy changes. For
25 elements. In the pretest interview, we see that all columns are example, “When a bond is formed it is spontaneous; the
26 mostly filled except the forces column, which is completely attractive forces are attracted in a way that you don’t need to
27 empty. This indicates that without referring to forces, students invest energy” (ST16).
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 Figure 7 Visual clustering graphs of the distribution of energy knowledge elements. a. pretest knowledge
51 elements and b. posttest knowledge elements
52
53 The process of learning with the ELI-Chem Simulation ended up unable to integrate her previous and new
54 Two contrasting cases make up the analysis of the learning understandings. As such, she represents the minority of
55 processes. Miki (ST10) represents the majority of students who students who benefited less from learning with the ELI-Chem
56 shifted from perceiving the bond as static attached atoms to a environment.
57 dynamic equilibrium between forces. Ella (ST1) began the To analyze their processes of learning, we compared their
58 activity in the same position as Miki; however, unlike him, she screen-capture videos and their activity guide responses at
59 three points in time. Critical events were selected from the two
60

margins

2
3 activity guides: discovering repulsion, identifying the forces, and between forces to the distance between atoms and, later
View Articleon, to
Online
4 relating to energy changes (Table 5). changes in energy. DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
5 In contrast, Miki understood the dynamic relationships

6 Table 5 Times for activity events between the atoms. Although he first wrote incorrectly, “The
Activity event Times in the video of the activity
7 green [arrows] are the repulsion. Because it grows as we

Miki Ella
8 approach,” after he compared the size of the forces, he said:
Discovering repulsion 4:30 2:00
9 “Wait... maybe it indicates attraction? No, it is probably…
Identifying the forces 5:00-6:54 4:00-5:30
10 The question is which is bigger, I can’t see… The red arrows are
Relating to energy changes 27:30 23:43
11 bigger, ah, yes! This atom acts on that atom with a force in that
12 direction and that atom activates a force to here, this is the force
13 Discovering repulsion. The activity begins by displaying on the that pushes them apart, [so] these are the red arrows” [fixes his
14 screen two non-bonded atoms. Forces are hidden. The students answer from repulsion to attraction].
15 are asked to form a chemical bond. Both Ella and Miki reacted We can see how the visualization of the forces – size, direction,
16 similarly when they noticed that they could not attach the two and the relationships between them – supported Miki (and
17 atoms together. They were surprised; they laughed and found most students) in understanding the forces as the principles
18 it very strange, both saying “this is so weird.” After just a few underlying chemical bonding. In contrast, Ella’s ascribing
19 trials, a rather short duration, Ella said: “I think that there is repulsion to octet considerations prevented her from
20 repulsion or something similar between them [the atoms].” By separating between repulsive and attractive forces; in this case,
21 comparison, the odd experience with the atoms did not create the forces’ representations do not map onto her own
22 immediate recognition for Miki. He arrived at the idea of explanation and she does not reach a resolution between the
23 repulsion only later when he was asked to explain the atoms’ two.
24 behavior in writing: Relating to energy changes. Before running the simulation,
25 This is probably repulsion that results from the electrical both Ella and Miki were confused about the energetics of
26 forces [while writing the text, he says “maybe”]; the nuclei of the chemical bonding. Ella thought that energy is required for both
27 two atoms repel each other or the electrons… [The student breaking and forming a bond. Miki answered correctly that
28 wrote the three dots.] energy is released when a bond is formed and that energy is
29 For both of them this interaction between atoms was unusual required to break a bond, however, he could not explain it.
30 and disjointed. They were surprised and even embarrassed as During the activity, Ella could not use forces to explain the
31 they could not understand what was happening. However, both energy changes, or interpret the minimum of the energy curve
32 Ella and Miki benefited from learning with ELI-Chem to discover as an equilibrium of equal forces. This results from her lack of
33 repulsion - whether by the “exposing event” or later upon understanding of repulsion as a force. Thus, she could not
34 reflection by responding to the activity questions. As we have compare attraction and repulsion to make sense of the well in
35 shown previously in the findings (Figure 5) and elaborated in a the energy curve.
36 previous paper (Zohar and Levy, 2019), understanding repulsion
37 is critical to understanding chemical bonding.
38 Identifying the forces. The activity continues with displaying the
39 forces of attraction (green arrows) and repulsion (red arrows;
40 Figure 1). Students were asked to identify the forces and explain
41 their responses. When Ella was asked “what are the green
42 arrows?” she could not figure out what they are:
43 “I don’t know… in the beginning, it looks like attraction and
44 then like repulsion. [While writing, she says] “Although I know it
45 is not the correct answer, but it can’t be both [attraction and
46 repulsion], I just know it; it is either attraction or repulsion.”
47 [Finally, she wrote “attraction.”] Figure 8 Question 10 in the activity guide
48 Ella could not separate the phenomena into a combination of

49 attraction and repulsion. She could not accept the idea that Ella did not know how to respond to question 10 (Figure 8). In
50 attraction and repulsion act simultaneously. Consequently, she explaining the phenomena she was experiencing, she talked
51 did not compare attraction and repulsion. This might be related only about attractive forces. She could not abstract the
52 to her idea about the source of repulsion, the octet rule: concept of repulsion from her experiences with the simulation.
53 "If this [atom] needs two [electrons] to complete [the octet] As a result, she could not explain why energy is required to
and this [the second atom] needs one [electron] they will not be break the bond.
54
55 attracted, there will be repulsion."
By contrast, when Miki ran the simulation and observed the
56 She considered repulsion as “not completing the octet” rather
resulting energy curve, he immediately made the connection to
57 than a force between charges; therefore, she could not perceive
forces with no additional prompt. While moving the atoms, he
58 the chemical bond as an equilibrium between two forces. As we
said:
59 will show, this will prevent her from relating the relationships
60

Chemistry

2
3 “Ahha! So the thing that happens here [energy curve going the most stable state. Because in the beginning, I thought
View Article Online
4 down] is that attraction is bigger than repulsion until reaching a that when I [the atom in the simulation] DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
come closer and
5 state of bonding; and when we approach too much then the closer and closer and it is simply repelled, a bond is not being
6 repulsion is larger and the atoms escape from each other.” formed, this is what I thought at the beginning. Later on, I
7 Continuing with the activity guide, Miki used the forces and the understood that the bond is created in the most stable sta…

8 energy curve to explain his answers: in the nearest state so there is a bond. If I approach more so
9 “Point b (in Figure 8) is the most energetically stable state, there won’t be a bond, the bond is breaking.
10 in which the energy is the lowest, meaning that in order to move Miki’s gestures reflect his conceptual learning. In the pretest, he
11 the atoms apart and in order to make “energy reach zero” [the brings his hands together until they touch, showing only
12 student wrote the quotation marks], investing energy is attraction. In the posttest, he signifies the two forces as arrows
13 required.” with his fingers that work in the opposite direction, showing
14 Describing the impact of the simulation. Finally, we include Ella both repulsion and attraction (Figure 10).
15 and Miki’s responses in the posttest interview relating to the
16 impact of the simulation.
17 Ella reflected on her experiences:
18 Interviewer: Has working with the simulation changed your
19 understanding of chemical bonding?
20 Ella: Yes, it confused me a little bit.
21 Interviewer: Why did it confuse you?
22 Ella: Because I did not think about attractive and repulsive Figure 10 Miki’s gesture description of a chemical bond: pretest interview
23 forces. I did not think about it at all and now it got into my (left), posttest interview (right).
24 head and I don’t know where I should put it. When bringing
To conclude, while these two students grew to appreciate the
25 [the atoms] together there is an attraction and when moving
existence of repulsion in the chemical bond during the first task
26 apart then… maybe then there is repulsion, I don’t know. I
of the ELI-Chem simulation, only Miki – as an example to most
27 assume that there is a reasonable explanation for this and
students – succeeded in building the force-based model. He
28 then I will understand; but I don’t know.
used the activity prompts and the simulation’s objects –
29 Ella’s gestures reflect that she could not apply the new
visualization of the forces and formation of the energy curve in
30 knowledge element of repulsion. In representing the atoms
real time – to replace the naïve knowledge elements with a
31 with her hands, she brings them together until they touch –in
force-based description.
32 both the pretest and the posttest interviews, showing attraction
In comparison, Ella also took advantage of the simulation to
33 without repulsion (Figure 9).
learn about the repulsive force. However, she related repulsion
34
to the octet rule explanation without the ability to build upon it
35
or to replace it with the force-based mental model.
36
37
38 Discussion
39 Figure 9 Ella’s gesture description of a chemical bond: pretest interview
40 (left), posttest interview (right).
In this paper, we introduced a learning environment that is
41 based on a force-based approach to learning chemistry and
42 Miki reflected on his experiences in the following way. studied its effect on students’ mental models. We used visual
43 Interviewer: Has working with the simulation changed your clustering and qualitative analyses to explore the data. The
44 understanding of chemical bonding? visual clustering was used to portray and compare the pre- and
45 Miki: It completely changed my understanding. In the posttest mental models, whereas the qualitative analysis was
46 previous [pretest] interview I tried to search for the words used to examine more thoroughly the learning process that
47 and the concepts in order to explain and also… it was occurred while working with the learning environment.
48 disconnected from reality because I did not refer to the Our findings show that learning with ELI-Chem overcomes two
49 forces between the atoms at all. I referred only to the persistent hurdles that have been highlighted by several leading
50 stability which I defined as the fact that the atom has a chemistry education researchers: (1) chemical bonding is based
51 certain number of electrons in the energy levels. Which is on attractive and repulsive forces, and (2) the relationships
52 correct, it exists, but what really holds the bond is the between these forces explain the energetics of chemical
53 attractive and repulsive forces between the atoms. So yes, it bonding. Thus, interacting with the dynamic force-based
54 changed my understanding. representation is suitable for developing mental models that
55 Interviewer: Do you remember what in the simulation are more consistent and causal, and include a more scientific
56 changed your understanding? What helped you? and comprehensive set of ideas.
57 Miki: I think that when I saw the arrows there was a moment In the following, we discuss the change in students’ mental
58 that I saw the arrows and I understood that… at a certain models followed by the design principles of the learning
59 stage, the attraction and the repulsion are equal and this is environment that contributed to this change.
60

margins

2
3 Mental models models, we categorized the knowledge elements by their
View Article Online
4 The shift in students’ mental models. Analysis of the pretest

DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
related theoretical underpinnings. Attraction and repulsion
5 interviews shows that most students viewed the chemical bond result from forces; therefore, we grouped them as a Force-
6 as two attached static atoms while disregarding the repulsive dimension. Electronic level completion and electron
7 force, the distance between atoms, and the dynamic character sharing/transfer both relate to the concept of bonding as due

8 of the system. Holding such a mental model, whether students to electrons; these were grouped as the Electrons-dimension.
9 based their explanations on the attractive force (only) or on the Distance between atoms, both implicit and explicit, describes
10 octet rule, cannot lead to a mental model of a dynamic spatial aspects of the bond; these are grouped as the Space-
11 equilibrium between attractive and repulsive forces. By dimension. Dynamic descriptors add the temporal aspect, and
12 following the knowledge elements that composed each of the these are defined as the Time-dimension. Thus, students use
13 mental models (visual clustering; Figure 4a), we could specify four dimensions when reasoning about chemical bonding:
14 those knowledge elements that are required to build the force- Electrons, Force, Space, and Time. In the pretest, we can see
15 based mental model: attraction, repulsion, the distance that forces and electrons were most basic whereas the time
16 between atoms, and dynamics. Only when one refers to the dimension was referred to by only a few students, showing that
17 entire set of these knowledge elements is a full force-based it is dependent on perceiving all the other dimensions. In the
18 model understood. posttest, however, students used the entire set of four
19 The nesting of the knowledge elements shows that repulsion dimensions, reflecting that learning with the ELI-Chem
20 and the distance between the atoms were the “bottleneck” in environment enriched their scientific understanding by
21 enabling a step-by-step reasoning through the dynamics in the
shifting to the force-based approach. Understanding that there

22 is a repulsion between atoms was odd for the students, system.
23 reflecting that this interaction is outside of their bodily Design Principles of ELI-Chem Learning Environment
24 experiences in the world. Once students learned about Given the success we have seen in using the design for force-
25 repulsion, they could explore and understand the effect of the based learning about bonding, we turn to a more systematic
26 relationships between the forces on the distance between presentation of the learning environment’s unique set of design
27 atoms. Through their investigation, they discovered the state of principles and demonstrate them with short examples.
28 dynamic equilibrium in which the opposing forces are equal. At Restructuration. Reframing content in light of learnability and
29 this stage, the students had a runnable mechanistic mental productivity considerations (Wilensky and Papert, 2010) forms
30 model (de Kleer and Brown, 1983) of chemical bonding – they the most basic rationale for this study. Learnability involves
31 were aware of the components and the relationships between choosing representations that enable causal reasoning with
32 them that could emerge into the single dynamic equilibrium of coherent and simple causes. Productivity relates to the range of
33 bonding. phenomena to which the representation can be applied. In
34 Having this mental model in place enabled the integration of the creating the dynamic schema of equilibrium for chemical
35 energetic aspect expressed in term of forces. Understanding bonding, understanding the forces that generate this dynamic
36 why energy is released during bond formation or why it is equilibrium becomes accessible to learners.
37 required to break a bond was feasible. The change in their Mechanistic reasoning. Mechanistic explanation focuses on the
38 understanding was reflected in two main points: (1) whereas in processes that underlie cause-effect relationships (Russ et al.
39 the pretest interviews they either could not explain their 2008). Mechanistic reasoning is (1) characterized by causal
40 answers or used memorized rules of thumb, in the posttest reasoning, as it explains the process by which a cause brings
41 interviews they were capable of constructing a causal about an effect; (2) nonteleological, in contrast to goal-driven
42 explanation based on forces; and (2) whereas in the pretest explanations of change in the system; and (3) built from
43 interviews they used both correct and incorrect energy experience – p-prims are used to assign causal explanations for
44 knowledge elements, reflecting a state of confusion, in the what happens under certain circumstances (diSessa, 1993).
45 posttest interviews they used mostly the correct knowledge Reasoning about mechanisms is an important aspect of
46 elements, indicating that their confusion had almost students’ inquiry processes, as they seek an explanation of how
47 disappeared. These changes indicate that after working with the things happen. It is a potentially taxing cognitive activity, and
48 ELI-Chem environment, students gained new knowledge external models provide the “vehicle for keeping in mind all the
49 elements upon which they could build causal explanations. As complex interactions among the operations” (Russ et al. 2008).
50 ST16 said in the posttest interview, Observing the changes in the forces along the bonding process
51 “For example, in thermodynamics, the teacher explained grounds students’ explanations in the underlying principles of
52 that when you break a bond then you have to invest energy; chemical bonding.
53 I did not really understand why. Now I understand that you Content is aligned with standards and attends to students’
54 have to invest energy to overcome the forces of attraction difficulties. Standards and curriculum frameworks set the
55 that are spontaneous between the atoms. And this [the expectations for what ideas are important to learn and what
56 simulation] allows me to understand this.” students should know and are able to do at each grade level
57 Mental models in terms of general physical dimensions. To (NGSS, 2013). The standards ensure that students will develop
58 study the principles by which the students built their mental an in-depth understanding of the appropriate content and key
59
60

Chemistry

2
3 skills. According to the NGSS (2013), the topic of chemical Limitations and Future Directions View Article Online
4 bonding should be taught under the framework of the force- DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
The first limitation concerns the limited scope of learning topics
5 based explanation. Based on the literature, students have
in the current ELI-Chem activity. It is important to know that we
6 difficulties relating chemical bonding to forces; therefore, they
have also merged the Lennard-Jones framework with
7 rely on heuristics or rote memorization (Levy-Nahum et al.,

electronegativity to support learning of topics that are known
8 2010; Özmen, 2004; Taber and Coll, 2002; Ünal et al., 2006).
as difficult to understand (See Appendix 1): (1) the continuum
9 Instead of using rules of thumb to predict whether energy will
of ionic-covalent bonding; (2) the energy of the system in
10 be released or absorbed, students can use the simulation to
comparison to energy of the environment; and (3) the
11 visualize and understand the force-based reasons for the energy
relationships between the concepts of energy and force. Future
12 changes.
research will test to what degree these additional changes and
13 Participation in the simulation. Rather than observing a
activities will support learning.
14 simulation, a participatory simulation allows the learner to be
The second limitation is the sample size. In balancing the study’s
15 an individual entity in the simulation, to embody a virtual
depth and breadth, we interviewed 21 high school chemistry
16 component in the model (Langbeheim and Levy, 2018). By
students who described and explained their understanding of
17 dragging the atom, the user embodies the atom’s movement
chemical bonding. These explanations were then analyzed
18 toward and apart from the other atom while “feeling” the
through a knowledge elements perspective, aggregating in six
19 pushes and pulls, or the acting attractive/repulsive forces.
mental models of chemical bonding. The interviews were
20 Learning through exploring models. Being visual, dynamic, and
extensive and the analyses were in-depth using both top-down
21 manipulable, the computer simulation environment is very
and bottom-up methods. Thus, in the balance between a larger

22 suited for discovery learning. It allows inferring, through
sample to increase validity and the advantages of qualitative
23 experimentation, the characteristics of the model underlying
analyses in producing a deeper understanding of the
24 the simulation (De Jong and Van Joolingen, 1998). Furthermore,
phenomenon, the study was conducted with this number of
25 the extensibility and adjustability of the models enable students
students. It may be that not all possible knowledge elements or
26 to engage in real inquiry by asking what-if questions of the
mental models of chemical bonding have been revealed, but we
27 models and adjusting the rules to answer their questions
do think that an in-depth analysis that reflects the changes in
28 (Wilensky and Papert, 2010). By controlling the acting forces in
students’ mental models has been constructed. A related
29 the ELI-Chem simulation (e.g., only attraction, only repulsion)
limitation concerns the analysis method used. With a large
30 learners can explore a scenario of chemical bonding in a world
number of participants, one could do a factor analysis or
31 without repulsion or without attraction, highlighting the
clustering process with statistical software. However, this was
32 dynamic equilibrium concept.
not feasible in the present study because of the smaller sample.
33 Multiple linked representations. A linkage between different
The third limitation is in the single group research design, in
34 representations of the same concepts allows students to map
which the pretest’s impact on students’ thinking is not
35 features of one representation onto those of another. Thus, the
controlled for.
36 actions that a student takes with one representation can
37 correspond to certain outcomes in another representation. This
38 affords certain ways of thinking and inferring about the
Conclusions and Implications
39 underlying entities and processes (Kozma, 2003). In ELI-Chem,
This paper introduces a study into students’ learning of the
40 the force-based dynamic molecular representations are
force-based explanation of chemical bonding through an
41 connected to the energy graph representation, showing the
interactive, visualized, and dynamic representation. The ELI-
42 linkage between forces, energy changes, and inter-atomic
Chem learning environment – simulation and activity guide,
43 distance.
makes the abstract molecular world accessible by representing
44 Instructional strategy of conceptual conflicts. Understanding
the force-based mathematical model of chemical bonding
45 necessitates, first of all, a recognition by the learner of a
(Jones, 1924) through visualized objects. Its design principles
46 problem and his or her inability to solve it with existing
integrate conceptual structures of knowledge and support for
47 conceptions (Dewey 1910; in Nussbaum and Novick, 1982). To
the learning process. By setting the force-based model in
48 achieve this purpose, Nussbaum and Novick (1982) suggest
motion the ability to imagine a changeable system is supported.
49 initiating instruction with an “exposing event” – a phenomenon
By separating the Lennard-Jones equation into its attraction and
50 that makes students aware of the differences between their
repulsion terms, students’ could control variables to explore the
51 predictions and the observed phenomenon, inviting them to
process of bonding. They could control each of the forces,
52 explain the conflict in their own words. In our case, asking the
gradually forming an understanding of the role and meaning of
53 students to bring the atoms together as close as they can
each force. The linked representations of the forces and energy
54 supported a change in their mental model of chemical bonding.
foster causal mechanistic reasoning. The activity guide takes the
55 Most students experienced conceptual conflict: in contrast to
advantages of an interactive simulation, encouraging students
56 their expectations, the atoms could not attach. Searching for an
to learn through discovering. Moreover, the activity sequence
57 explanation, they became aware of the repulsion between
addresses the student’s lack of particular knowledge elements,
58 atoms.
guiding them to build the integrated force-based mental model
59
60

margins

2
3 gradually. Our findings show that learning with the ELI-Chem of chemistry items, and to Danielle Menuhin forView her help
Article in
Online
4 environment provided students the vocabulary, concepts, DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K

explaining the logic behind the visual clustering analysis.
5 principles, and analogical sensorimotor schemes that are This research was supported through a scholarship by the
6 required to shift to a more force-based explanation. From a Ministry of Science, Technology and Space, Israel.
7 simple mental model based on one or two basic knowledge

8 elements (i.e., attraction and/or electrons), they shifted to the
9 more complex mental model that is composed of and relates
10 the concepts of forces, distance, and dynamic knowledge
11 elements to each other.
12 The uniqueness of this work stems mainly from the fact that
13 the design of the learning environment, both the simulation
14 and the activity, was based on a combination of three aspects:
15 the scientific model of the chemical context, the principles of
16 the pedagogical design and the results of a previous study into
17 the process of learning.
18 Based on our findings, we make two main recommendations.
19 One concerns both teaching chemical bonding, but more
20 generally when teaching about dynamic equilibrium
21 phenomena. Our recommendation is emphasizing the existence
22 of the two opposing forces acting simultaneously in a chemical

23 bond – attraction and repulsion. The technology of the
24 computer simulation allows visualizing the forces and their
25 relative magnitudes as they shift and combine with even minute
26 movements of one atom with respect to another. Teachers can
27 demonstrate that the most stable state is a dynamic state in
28 which the atoms are continuously attracted and repelled,
29 moving around the point of equilibrium at bond-length.
30 The second recommendation is for a design that is based on
31 how students’ ideas evolve. The accompanying activities should
32 relate to students’ mental models. According to Özmen’s review
33 (2004), teachers are not aware of students’ difficulties and
34 alternative conceptions in learning science concepts. Resulting
35 from this, students do not fully grasp the studied concepts.
36 Based on a Knowledge in Pieces view of learning (diSessa),
37 research may help teachers in noticing what fragments of
38 knowledge are not integrated into the students’ explanations.
39 Following this, the process of learning can be supported by
40 presenting the missing parts and helping students construct a
41 more consistent mental model. Envisioning or running a mental
42 model takes place only when the system's entities are placed in
43 space and their interactions are fully defined (de Kleer and
44 Brown, 1983).
45
46
47 Conflicts of interest
48 There are no conflicts to declare.
49
50
51 Acknowledgments
52 Special thanks to Mrs. Elisheva Geva, the chemistry teacher who
53 welcomed the first author into her chemistry classes. Observing
54 Elisheva and her students helped me become aware of
55 students' questions and confusions.
56 We would like to thank Dr. Ido Gilary for the thoughtful
57 scientific advice on developing the mathematical model, to Dr.
58 Malka Yinon for the kind support and enabling in using her bank
59
60

Chemistry

2
3 References Gillespie R. J., (1997), The great ideas of chemistry, J.View
Chem. Educ.,
Article Online
74(7), 862.
4 Abrahamson D. and Lindgren R., (2014), Embodiment and
DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
Ginsburg H., (1997), Entering the child’s mind: The clinical
5 embodied design, In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge interview in psychological research and practice, Cambridge
6 handbook of the learning sciences (2 nd edition), pp. 358–376, University Press.
7 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Goldin-meadow S., and Wagner S., (2005), How our hands help us

Bader, F. W. (n.d.). An Introduction to the Electronic Structure of learn, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 234–241.
8 Atoms and Molecules. Retrieved April 03, 2018, from Griffiths A. K., and Preston K. R, (1992), Grade-12 students’
9 http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/Chapter_6/sectio misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of
10 n_1.html atoms and molecules, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
11 Bain K. and Towns M., (2016), A review of research on the 29(6), 611-628.
12 teaching and learning of chemical kinetics, Chemistry Hapkiewicz A., (1991), Clarifying chemical bonding: Overcoming
Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 246-262. our misconceptions, The Science Teacher, 58(3), 24.
13 Barsalou L. W., (1999), Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Hmelo-Silver C. E., Liu L., and Jordan R., (2009), Visual
14 Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(4), 637-660. representation of a multidimensional coding scheme for
15 Becker N. M. and Cooper M. M., (2014), College Chemistry understanding technology-mediated learning about complex
16 Students’ Understanding of Potential Energy in the Context of natural systems, Research and Practice in technology
17 Atomic−Molecular Interactions, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 51, enhanced learning, 4(03), 253-280.
789−808. Joki J., Lavonen J., Juuti K. and Aksela M., (2015), Coulombic
18 Bergqvist A. C., Drechsler M., de Jong O. and Chang Rundgren S.- interaction in Finnish middle school chemistry: a systemic
19 N., (2013), Representations of Chemical Bonding models in perspective on students’ conceptual structure of chemical
20 School Textbooks – Help or Hindrance for Understanding? bonding, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4),
21 Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 589-606.
901–917.
22 Bergqvist A., and Chang Rundgren S.-N., (2017), The influence of Joki J. and Aksela M., (2018), The challenges of learning and
textbooks on teachers’ knowledge of chemical bonding teaching chemical bonding at different school levels using
23 representations relative to students’ difficulties electrostatic interactions instead of the octet rule as a
24 understanding, Research in Science and Technological teaching model, Chemistry Education Research and Practice,
25 Education, 35(2), 215–237. 19(3), 932–953.
26 Boo H. K., (1998), Students' understandings of chemical bonds Jones J. E., (1924), On the determination of molecular fields II:
27 and the energetics of chemical reactions, Journal of Research From the equation of state of a gas, In Proceedings of the
in Science Teaching, 35(5), 569-581. Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and
28 Creswell, J. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, Engineering Sciences, The Royal Society, 106(738), pp. 463-
29 and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 4th 477.
30 edn, Boston: Pearson. Krajcik J., McNeill K. L., and Reiser B. J., (2008), Learning-goals-
31 Croft M., and de Berg K., (2014), From Common Sense Concepts driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that
32 to Scientifically Conditioned Concepts of Chemical Bonding: align with national standards and incorporate project-based
An Historical and Textbook Approach Designed to Address pedagogy, Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.
33 Learning and Teaching Issues at the Secondary School Level, Kozma R., (2003), The material features of multiple
34 Science and Education, 23(9), 1733–1761. representations and their cognitive and social affordances for
35 de Jong O. and Taber K. S., (2014), The many faces of high school science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–
36 chemistry, Handbook of research on science education, 2, 457- 226.
37 480. Kozma R. and Russell J., (2005), Students becoming chemists:
De Jong T. and Van Joolingen W. R., (1998), Scientific discovery Developing representational competence, In Visualization in
38 learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains, science education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 121-145.
39 Review of educational research, 68(2), 179-201. Langbeheim E. and Levy S. T., (2018), Feeling the forces within
40 de Kleer J. and Brown J. S., (1983), Assumptions and ambiguities materials: bringing inter-molecular bonding to the fore using
41 in mechanistic mental models. In D. Gentner and A. Stevens embodied modelling, International Journal of Science
42 (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 155–190). New York: Psychology Education, 40(13), 1567-1586.
Press. Lakoff G. and Johnson M., (1980), The metaphorical structure of
43 Dewey, J. (1910), How we think, Boston: Heath. the human conceptual system, Cognit. Sci., 4(2), 195–208.
44 Dhindsa H. S. and Treagust D. F., (2014), Prospective pedagogy for Landis J. R. and Koch G. G., (1977), The measurement of observer
45 teaching chemical bonding for smart and sustainable learning, agreement for categorical data, Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
46 Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 435-446. Levy-Nahum T. L., Mamlok-Naaman R., Hofstein A. and Krajcik J.,
47 diSessa A. A, (1993), Toward an epistemology of physics, (2007), Developing a new teaching approach for the chemical
Cognition and instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225. bonding concept aligned with current scientific and
48 Dreyfus B. W., Gouvea J., Geller B. D., Sawtelle, V., Turpen, C. and pedagogical knowledge, Science Education, 91(4), 579–603.
49 Redish E. F., (2014), Chemical energy in an introductory Lindsey B. A., (2014), Student reasoning about electrostatic and
50 physics course for the life sciences, American Journal of gravitational potential energy: An exploratory study with
51 Physics, 82(5), 403–411. interdisciplinary consequences, Physical Review Special
52 Driver R., (1994), Making sense of secondary science: Support Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(1),
materials for teachers, Psychology Press. Nagel M. L. and Lindsey B. A., (2015), Student use of energy
53 Erman E., (2017), Factors contributing to students’ concepts from physics in chemistry courses, Chem. Educ. Res.
54 misconceptions in learning covalent bonds, Journal of Pract., 16(1), 67–81.
55 Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 520-537. McCloskey M, (1983), Naive theories of motion. In Mental
56 Gilbert J. K., de Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D. F. and van Driel J. H, models, D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (ed.), Hillsdale, NJ:
57 (ed.), (2006), Chemical education: Towards research-based Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., pp. 299–324.
practice, (Vol. 17), Springer Science and Business Media. Nicoll G., (2001), A report of undergraduates’ bonding
58
misconceptions, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 23(7), 707–730.
59
60

margins

2
3 NGSS Lead States, (2013), Next Generation Science Standards: For White R. and Gunstone R., (1992), Probing understanding,
View Article Online
States, By States, Washington, DC: The National Academies London: The Falmer Press.
4 Press. Retrieved November 23, 2017 from
DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
Wieman C. E, Adams W. K and Perkins, K. K. (2008), PhET:
5 https://www.nextgenscience.org/ Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(5902), 682–
6 Norman D. A., (1983), Some observations on mental models. In D. 683.
7 Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–14), Wilensky U., (1999), NetLogo,

8 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/, Center for Connected
Nussbaum J. and Novick S., (1982), Alternative frameworks, Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern
9 conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled University, Evanston, IL.
10 teaching strategy, Instructional Science, 11(3), 183–200. Wilensky U. and Papert S., (2010), Restructurations:
11 Özmen H., (2004), Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A Reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new
12 literature review of chemical bonding, Journal of Science representational forms, Constructionism.
13 Education and Technology, 13(2), 147-159. Xie Q. and Pallant A., (2011), The molecular workbench software:
Özmen H., (2008), Determination of students’ alternative an innovative dynamic modeling tool for nanoscience
14 conceptions about chemical equilibrium: a review of research education, in Khine M. S. and Salch I. M. (ed.) Models and
15 and the case of Turkey, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9(3), 225– modeling: cognitive tools for scientific enquiry, New York:
16 233. Springer, pp. 121–132.
17 Pabuçcu A. and Geban Ö., (2006), Remediating misconceptions Zohar A.R. and Levy S.T., (2015), ELI-Chem (Embodied Learning
18 concerning chemical bonding through conceptual change Interactive-Chemistry): Learning through interacting with
text, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(30). atoms. Developed in the Systems Learning & Development
19 Reiner M., Slotta J. D., Chi M. T. and Resnick L. B., (2000), Naive Lab (SLDL) at the University of Haifa.
20 physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based Zohar A.R. and Levy S.T., (2019), Students' reasoning about
21
conceptions, Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1–34. chemical bonding: The lacuna of repulsion, J Res Sci Teach., 1–
22 Russ R. S., Scherr R. E., Hammer D. and Mikeska J., (2008), 24.
23 Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific
inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from
24 philosophy of science, Science Education, 92(3), 499–525.
25 Sherin B., (2013), A Computational Study of Commonsense
26 Science: An Exploration in the Automated Analysis of Clinical
27 Interview Data, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 600–
28 638.
Shusterman A. J. and Shusterman G. P., (1997), Teaching
29 Chemistry with Electron Density Models, Journal of Chemical
30 Education, 74(7), 771.
31 Stevens S. Y., Delgado C. and Krajcik J. S., (2010), Developing a
32 hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the
33 nature of matter, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
47(6), 687–715.
34 Taber K. S., (1998), The sharing‐out of nuclear attraction: or ‘I
35 can't think about physics in chemistry.’ International Journal
36 of Science Education, 20(8), 1001-1014.
37 Taber K. S., (2003), Mediating mental models of metals:
38 Acknowledging the priority of the learner’s prior learning,
Science Education, 87(5), 732–758.
39 Taber K. S. and Coll R. K., (2002), Bonding, in Gilbert J. K., de Jong
40 O., Justi R., Treagust D. F. and Van Driel J. H. (ed.), Chemical
41 Education: Towards Research-based Practice, Kluwer
42 Academic Publishers, pp. 213–234.
43 Talanquer V., (2007), Explanations and Teleology in Chemistry
Education, International Journal of Science Education, 29(7),
44 853–870.
45 Teichert M. A. and Stacy A. M., (2002), Promoting understanding
46 of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student
47 explanation and integration of ideas, Journal of Research in
48 Science Teaching, 39(6), 464–496.
Tsaparlis G., Pappa E. T. and Byers B., (2018), Teaching and
49 learning chemical bonding: research-based evidence for
50 misconceptions and conceptual difficulties experienced by
51 students in upper secondary schools and the effect of an
52 enriched text, Chemistry Education Research and Practice.
53 Ünal S., Çalık M., Ayas A. and Coll R. K., (2006), A review of
chemical bonding studies: needs, aims, methods of exploring
54 students’ conceptions, general knowledge claims and
55 students’ alternative conceptions, Research in Science and
56 Technological Education, 24(2), 141–172.
57 Venkataraman B., (2017), Emphasizing the Significance of
58 Electrostatic Interactions in Chemical Bonding, Journal of
Chemical Education, 94(3), 296–303.
59
60

Chemistry
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
ARTICLE Journal Name
1
2
3 Appendix 1: The mathematical equations of the ELI-Chem simulation
4
5
The ELI-Chem model is based on Lennard-Jones equation (1) that approximates the interaction between a pair
6

of neutral atoms or molecules. It is worth mentioning that the Lennard-Jones equation is not the most accurate
7
representation of the potential energy, but rather a simplified form that is used for simulation software.
8
As students move an atom on the screen, they change the distance between the atoms. For each distance, the
9
attractive and repulsive forces, and the potential energy are calculated and displayed.
10
The common expression of Lennard-Jones equation is:
11
12
𝑟𝑚 12 12 𝑟𝑚 6
13 𝑉(𝑟) =  ∗ [ ( 𝑟
) − 6
∗( 𝑟
) ] (1)
14
15 Where:
16  𝑉(𝑟) - is the potential energy between the two atoms.
17
18   - is the well depth and a measure of how strongly the two atoms attract each other.
19  𝑟𝑚 - is the distance at which the potential energy between the two atoms is zero. It gives a
20 measurement of how close the two atoms can approach and is equals to half the distance between
21 atoms’ center. Thus, in the ELI-Chem model:
22 𝑟 + 𝑟2
23 𝑟𝑚 = 1
2
24
25  r - is the distance between the atoms as set by the student (measured from the center of one atom
26 to the center of the other atom).
27
28
𝑟 12 𝑟𝑚 6
29 The ( 𝑚 ) term describes the repulsion at short ranges and the ( ) term describes the attraction at
30 𝑟 𝑟
long ranges. To display the attractive force and repulsive force separately, we created variables for each
31
32 force. The energy is the difference between these terms. Thus,
33
34 12 𝑟𝑚 6
 attraction =  ∗ 6
∗( 𝑟
)
35
𝑟𝑚 12
36  repulsion =  ∗( )
37 𝑟
38  potential energy = repulsion - attraction
39
40
41 Ionic-covalent bond character. Since one of our goals was simulating the whole scale of ionic-covalent
42 bond type, we changed the attractive term to include a changeable parameter, 𝑏, as follows:
43
44 𝑟 12 12 𝑟𝑚 𝑏
45 𝑉(𝑟) =  ∗ [ ( 𝑚 ) − ∗( ) ]
𝑟 𝑏 𝑟
46
47 Where:
48  𝑏 - is a linear function of the ionic character of a bond which we call "𝑝𝑖𝑐" (percent ionic covalent).
49 Thus,
50 2 ∗ 𝑝𝑖𝑐
51 𝑏 = 6−
100
52
53  𝑝𝑖𝑐 - is the percent ionic character of a bond; it is a function of the difference between the
54
electronegativity of the elements in the bond (student's setup). Thus, we define 𝑝𝑖𝑐 as
55 120∗EN^2
56 𝑝𝑖𝑐 = 4+EN^2
(Figure 1).
57
58
59 20 | J. Name., 2012, 00, 1-3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 20xx
60
margins
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
Journal Name ARTICLE
1
2
3
4
5 100
6

7 80
8
60
9
10 40
11 pic
12 20
13
14 0
15 0 1 2 3 4 5
16 EN
17
18 Figure 1 Percent ionic-covalent vs. difference between atoms’ electronegativity
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 20xx J. Name., 2013, 00, 1-3 | 21
60
Chemistry
View Article Online
DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K
ARTICLE Journal Name
1
2
3 Appendix 2: Pre- and posttest interview protocols
4
5
Pretest Interview Posttest Interview
6

Part-I-Forces
7
1. What is a chemical bond? 1. What is a chemical bond?
8
2. Why do atoms bond? 2. Why do atoms bond?
9 3. How close can atoms approach one another? 3. How close can atoms approach one another?
10 4. What holds atom together? 4. What holds atom together?
11 5. What is bond stability? 5. What is bond stability?
12 6. How would you explain to your friend (that 6. How would you explain to your friend (that didn’t yet
13 didn’t yet learn about bonding) what a learn about bonding) what a chemical bond is? Please use
14 chemical bond is? Please use gestures. gestures.
15 7. Which example from everyday life would you 7. Most students used a magnet as an example for chemical
16 use in your explanation of bonding? A bond. Do you think that this example is an appropriate
chemical bond is like….? representation of chemical bond? Why or why not?
17
Would you use the same example you used before
18
working with the simulation?
19
8. Did the simulation change your understanding of chemical
20 bonding? How did you understand it [pending student’s
21 response] from the simulation? Please provide details.
22 9. Currently, this simulation is under development. What
23 would you change or how would you improve the
24 simulation?
25 Part-II-Energy
26 1. Why do atoms form bonds? 1. Why do atoms form bonds?
27 2. What is bond stability? 2. What is bond stability?
28 3. During which phase of chemical bonding is 3. During which phase of chemical bonding is energy
29 energy released, bond formation or bond released, bond formation or bond breaking? Why?
breaking? Why?
30
4. For which phase of the bonding process, 4. For which phase of chemical bonding, energy is required:
31
energy is required: to form a bond or to to form a bond or to break a bond? Why?
32 break a bond? Why?
33 5. What does it mean ‘high-energy’ bond? 5. What does it mean ‘strong bond’? and ‘weak bond’?
34 6. What does it mean ‘strong bond’? and ‘weak 6. Did the simulation change your understanding of chemical
35 bond’? bonding? How did you understand it [pending student’s
36 7. Compare the formation of Hydrogen response] from the simulation? Please provide details.
37 molecule from two Hydrogen atoms to the 7. Currently, this simulation is under development. What
38 formation of Nitrogen molecule from two would you change or how would you improve the
39 Nitrogen atoms. In which process more simulation?
40 energy is released?
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 22 | J. Name., 2012, 00, 1-3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 20xx
60

Engine Performance and Emission of Biodiesel Fuel Prepared From Different Ukrainian Natural Oils

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Engine Performance and Emission of Biodiesel Fuel Prepared From Different Ukrainian Natural Oils

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

View Article Online

This is an Accepted Manuscript, which has been through the

acceptance, before technical editing, formatting and proof reading.

You can find more information about Accepted Manuscripts in the

Please note that technical editing may introduce minor changes

4 Chemistry Education Research and Practice DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Please do not adjust margins

1 ARTICLE Journal Name

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Please do not adjust margins

1 Journal Name ARTICLE

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Please do not adjust margins

1 ARTICLE Journal Name

5 chemical education research: most chemistry students think of ELI-Chem simulation

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

further away from the other atom, changing the distance

Please do not adjust margins

4 Chemistry Education Research and Practice DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Please do not adjust margins

4 Chemistry Education Research and Practice DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Please do not adjust margins

1 Journal Name ARTICLE

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

compulsory subject common patterns in students’ perception of the chemical bond.

Please do not adjust margins

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

4 Chemistry Education Research and Practice DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

23 Attraction Completion Sharing Repulsion Distance Attr-Repl Dynamics Stability -

Please do not adjust margins

4 Chemistry Education Research and Practice DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Please do not adjust margins

4 Chemistry Education Research and Practice DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

used both correct and incorrect knowledge elements, reflecting

Please do not adjust margins

1 ARTICLE Journal Name

4 Pre Post DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Please do not adjust margins

1 Journal Name ARTICLE

4 relating to energy changes (Table 5). changes in energy. DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00007K

5 In contrast, Miki understood the dynamic relationships

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

48 Ella could not separate the phenomena into a combination of

Please do not adjust margins

1 ARTICLE Journal Name

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

Please do not adjust margins

1 Journal Name ARTICLE

4 The shift in students’ mental models. Analysis of the pretest

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

shifting to the force-based approach. Understanding that there

Please do not adjust margins

1 ARTICLE Journal Name

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Accepted Manuscript

and bottom-up methods. Thus, in the balance between a larger

Please do not adjust margins