Determination of comprehension levels of prospective chemistry teachers related to covalent bonding by using concept cartoons strategy

Abstract

This study aims to identify prospective chemistry teachers’ difficulties in comprehension of the subject of polar and nonpolar covalent bonding. In addition to that, attempts were also made to determine how they interpreted the nature of force in covalent bonding. The study was conducted in a qualitative research method. Three different concept cartoons were used for data collection. 15 prospective chemistry teachers were included in the study. All of the participants were chosen through a purposeful sampling method. The data collected were put to content analysis, consistent with the nature of qualitative research studies. Following the analyses, the prospective chemistry teachers’ levels of comprehension of the subject were revealed and the issue was discussed.

Keywords

Concept cartoons constructive learning theory covalent bonding nonpolar covalent bonding polar covalent bonding

1 Introduction

Educators in science (in physics, chemistry, and biology) have demonstrated for decades that constructive learning theory occupies a very important place in education. Teachers/educators accept the importance of course settings where learners interact with each other, where learning processes go beyond being personal and learners can share their views and thoughts with their peers in a manner to help them culturally to learn. One of the things that should not be overlooked and that should be considered in forming classroom settings of this type is the fact that the concepts of students have do not mostly overlap with scientific knowledge. It will be difficult to mention knowledge frameworks containing scientific knowledge unless new knowledge forms a meaningful whole with the knowledge structure existing in students’ minds due to the sustainability and integrity of learning. The failure to the formation of a scientific framework of this type triggers alternative concepts and/or misconceptions about the concepts in question and difficulties in comprehension. This situation is frequently encountered in subjects such as chemical bonding where different representations and models are intensely used; because the subject of chemical bonding ranks first among the key subjects of chemistry. Both high school and university students have several alternative concepts in the subject of chemical bonding [1, 2]. Students also tend to replace ionic bonding with covalent bonding in some cases. For instance, they describe ionic compounds by using the structure of covalent bonding [3]. Researchers also discuss how to teach the types of bonds, and how to present the content to students [4]. Undoubtedly, another subject challenging to researchers is the fact that the misconceptions and/or alternative concepts students have for chemical bonding are diverse. Briefly, they include bond polarity [5 –7], the existence of electron transfer in covalent bonding [3 , 9], and the formation of bonds in ionic bonding as a result of electron sharing [5 –7]. In some cases, the fact that students do not fully comprehend the models related to bonds [10] or that the models are abstract causes them to have difficulties in comprehending the subject and forming alternative concepts.

1.2 Concept cartoons strategy and their usage in education

Concept cartoons are regarded as an innovative learning-teaching strategy reflecting the constructive perspective in science, mathematics, and technology education [11 –16]. It is used in different ways in education in this context. Some of the uses include such areas of application as problem-solving [17], developing thinking skills [18], revealing knowledge structures [14–16 , 19], and teaching scientific knowledge [15, 20]. The cartoons consist of explanations containing/ describing one or more students’ thoughts about a scientific concept. The statements/explanations used in the cartoons are prepared in a manner to include a series of misconceptions or alternative concepts. A point that should be taken into consideration in preparing concept cartoons is that one of the explanations given consists of acceptable scientific knowledge. In the same way, care should be taken that other explanations are not easily predictable and that they contain unscientific explanations based on students’ experiences and intuitions [13].

White and Gunstone [21] demonstrated that the strategy could be used in classes effectively as an instrument of assessment. Using concept cartoons as an instrument of assessing how students learn concepts and how they make sense of the concepts does not mean that the use of the strategy is restricted to what is listed here. This learning strategy is also a quite well-thought teaching/learning strategy [22, 23]. Chen, Ku and Ho [24] used the strategy of concept cartoons to assess students’ argument skills. Not only did concept cartoons improve students’ argument skills but they also stimulated their thinking skills [25].

Concept cartoons were used sometimes as an instrument to determine the way how concepts are comprehended by students [26 –28]. İngeç [27] used concept cartoons to determine the learning difficulties in and alternative concepts for such concepts as “momentum”, “impulse-momentum equation” and “conservation of momentum”. In another study concept cartoons prepared based on argumentation were used and thus how students structured the concepts of electricity was demonstrated [29]. In another study where concept cartoons prepared as animations were used [30], students’ views on such concepts as mass, volume and density were determined and their comprehension of those concepts are improved through concept cartoons. In a study of the concepts of chemical equilibrium which was conducted by using the strategy, it was found that students had misconceptions about concepts such as the dynamic structure of equilibrium, activation energy, the use of a catalyzer, and substance addition [31]. Such researches showed that the strategy of concept cartoons was an innovative and supportive instrument in teaching physics, chemistry, and mathematics.

This study employed the strategy of concept cartoons prepared in the form of graphical worksheets (Appendices 1-2-3) as an instrument of evaluation. In this context, the study sought answers to the following research questions:

What are the prospective chemistry teachers’ difficulties in polar and nonpolar covalent bonding, which were determined by using concept cartoons?

What are the prospective chemistry teachers’ thoughts about the nature of force in covalent bonding, which were determined by using concept cartoons?

2 Methodology

This study was conducted in a qualitative research method. Both data collection and data analysis were conducted fully consistence with the methods of qualitative research.

2.1 Participants and the course setting

All of the participants were chosen through a purposeful sampling method. Thus, the study was conducted with the participation of 15 prospective chemistry teachers (12 female and 3 male) who were between 18 and 20 years old and who passed the course General Chemistry I- which included the subject of bonds. The book General Chemistry Volume I- Principles and Modern Applications [32] was used as the course book in the course General Chemistry I. The courses were mostly taught in the form of traditional instruction. That is to say, special teaching techniques such as analogies, concept maps, or teaching through simulation were not used by the lecturer. The subject of chemical bonding was taught in 2 weeks (10 hours) in classes that were taught 5 hours a week.

2.2 Data collection tool

The researchers prepared three different concept cartoons about polar and nonpolar covalent bonding (HCl-cartoon- H₂-cartoon) and the nature of force in bonding (Nature of forces (NoF) cartoon) as data collection tools. Five students discuss in these concept cartoons. The ideas suggested by the students were built based on misconceptions or alternative concepts determined in the studies in the literature [33 –36]. One of the dialogues represented the correct answer while the remaining four dialogues contained misconceptions or alternative concepts. The participants were allowed 8–10 minutes for each concept cartoon given to them. It took a student approximately 24–30 minutes to complete the answers posed by the questions in the three cartoons.

2.3 Data analysis

The data collected through the concept cartoons were put into content analysis. Following the application, firstly which ideas in the cartoons chosen by the participants were determined separately. After that, the process of analysis continued by determining each participant’s reasons for choosing the ideas. Then, the participants’ choices and the reasons for their choices were grouped by using the classification of levels of comprehension, whose final shape was given by Çalık [37]. The 10 criteria set in the classification were as in the following:

Correct answer and correct explanation (CA-CE), correct answer and partially correct explanation (CA-PCE), correct explanation (CE), incorrect answer and correct explanation (IA-CE), partially correct explanation (PCE), correct answer and explanation with an alternative concept (CA-EAC), the correct answer (CA), incorrect answer and explanation with an alternative concept (IA-EAC), no answer and explanation with an alternative concept (NA-EAC), incorrect answer and no explanation (IA-NE), no answer or irrelevant answer.

Comparisons were made after the second researcher also went through the same process. Discussions on the diverse situations emerging in the comparisons (levels of comprehension) continued until an agreement between the researchers was reached. In consequence, the participants’ levels of comprehension of the polar and nonpolar covalent bonding and the nature of force in covalent bonding were revealed.

3 Findings

The answers given to the scientifically correct idea in the cartoons were marked as correct answers whereas the answers given to the ideas containing misconceptions or alternative concepts were marked as incorrect answers. The findings obtained through content analysis are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Content analysis results for polar and nonpolar bonds

Type of bonding in HCl compound Type of bonding in H₂ compound

Ideas in the HCl-cartoon Ideas in the H₂ cartoon

Participant Anna (1) Julia (2) Rose (3) Nick^* (4) Amy (5) Susan (1) Zack (2) Clara (3) Nicole^* (4) Daphne (5)

P1 IA-EAC IC-PCE IA-EAC IC-PCE IA-EAC

P2 IA-EAC IA-EAC

P3 CA-EAC IA-EAC

P4 CA-EAC IA-NE IA-NE

P5 CA-PCE IA-NE IA-NE

P6 CA-EAC IA-NE CA-NE

P7 CA-EAC CA-PCE

P8 CA-EAC IC-EAC

P9 CA-EAC IA-NE IA-NE

P10 CA-EAC IA-PCE IA-EAC

P11 IA-NE CA-NE IA-EAC

P12 CA-NE IA-EAC

P13 IA-NE CA-NE IA-NE IA-NE IA-NE CA-NE

P14 IA-NE IA-NE IA-NE IA-NE IA-NE

P15 CA-NE IA-NE IA-NE CA-NE

^*Scientific correct idea.

First, the findings about the participants’ difficulties in comprehension of the type of bonding in the HCI compound were examined. Accordingly, 12 out of 15 participants (P) agreed with the fourth idea (Nick) in the HCl cartoon that was scientifically correct while P11, P12, P13, and P15 did not offer any explanations for the correct idea. While P3, P4, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10 offered explanations with alternative concepts, P5 made partially correct explanation. The statement of P5 was as in the following:

The atom with high electronegativity in polar covalent bonding attracts bonding electrons (P5).

P5 mentioned that the atom with high electronegativity in polar covalent bonding attracted bonding electrons but she did not compare the CI and H atoms in terms of electronegativity and in terms of attracting bonding electrons. It can be said that she knew the definition of “electronegativity”, but she failed to put the knowledge into practice in this specific case.

Examples for the explanations with alternative concepts (or misconceptions) made by P3, P4, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10 were as follows:

Whether a bond is polar covalent or nonpolar bonding is determined by the force of attraction and partial negativity. So, if the total load is zero, the bond is nonpolar covalent bonding (P3).

They do not attract each other equally because of the electronegativity difference in polar covalent bonding. Partial positive and partial negative charges are formed (P4).

Different atoms have different forces of attraction for each other and those differences cause polar covalent bonding (P6).

Because chlorine gives out electrons, it is partially negatively charged; and because hydrogen takes electrons, it is partial positive charged (P7).

There are polarization and partial negative and positive charges in polar covalent bonding. Also, an electrostatic force is formed (P8).

Negative and positive poles distribute in polar covalent bonding. Electronegativity is the atom’s force to attract the electron outside since electronegativity affects the atom’s force of attraction (P9).

Negative and positive charging is formed because of the electronegativity difference in polar covalent bonding (P10).

P3 made connections between the polarity or non-polarity of a bond and the forces of attraction and “partial negative charge” but he did not say what the forces of attraction were, the source of a partial negative charge, about partial positive charge, and thus he had the alternative concept that partial negative charge was also available in nonpolar bonding. In the same way, he set up associations between the non-polarity of bonding and the total charge, but he did not explain what the total charge was.

P4 used the concepts of “partial positive and partial negative charge” while explaining the electronegativity difference, but she could not accurately explain the functions of the concepts in the polar covalent bonding.

According to the explanation with the alternative concept of P6, the atoms attracted each other by an atom’s force in polar covalent bonding. Based on her statement, it can be said that she uses the concepts of “force of attraction” and “electronegativity” interchangeably. P7’s explanation of the alternative concept is that there was “electron exchange” in polar covalent bonding.

P8 made mention of “partial negative and positive charge” and “polarization” in explaining polar covalent bonding, she also mentioned “electrostatic force” in the formation of polar covalent bonding and thus emphasized ionic bonding.

P9 made an explanation with an alternative concept by defining electronegativity as an atom’s attracting the electron outside. Yet, electronegativity is atoms’ force to attract bonding electrons. Also, P9 mentioned of distribution between “negative and positive poles” while explaining the formation of polar covalent bonding and thus emphasized “ionic bonding”.

P10 used the concept of “electronegativity difference” while explaining polar covalent bonding, but she made an explanation with an alternative concept by underlining the concepts of “negative and positive charging” and “ionic bonding”. Yet, partial negative and positive charging is available in polar covalent bonding.

On examining the answers to the incorrect ideas, it was found that four of the participants agreed with the first incorrect idea (Anna, HCl-cartoon) while P11, P13, and P14 did not offer any explanations and P1 made an explanation with the alternative concept. An example of an explanation with an alternative concept was the following.

Because the power of attraction between electrons in the HCI compound is different, we cannot say it is a covalent bonding. This is because there is no power of attraction between electrons (P1).

Here, there were two types of scientifically incorrect usage: (1) the phrase “between electrons” and (2) the phrase “power of attraction”. This is because the basis of covalent bonding formation is not interactions between electrons and the phrase “power of attraction” chosen to express the bonding formed is not correct, either.

Two participants agreed with the second incorrect idea (Julia, HCl-cartoon) in the HCl-cartoon and while P2 made an explanation with an alternative concept, also P1 made a partially correct explanation. An example of an explanation with an alternative concept was as in the following:

The polar covalent bonding in the HCI compound is the force of the atomic nucleus to attract the internal electron and not the external electron (P2).

P2 stated that force of attraction occurs between the “atomic nucleus” and the “electrons inside” but she did not explain what she meant by saying “electrons inside”. However, the essence of polar covalent bonding is the force of attraction between protons in the nucleus and the bonding electrons.

While P14 agreed with the third incorrect idea (Rose, HCl-cartoon) in the cartoons and made no explanations, P13, and P15 agreed with the fifth incorrect idea (Amy, HCl-cartoon) in the cartoons and also made no explanations.

Secondly, the findings about prospective chemistry teachers’ difficulties in comprehension of the type of bonding in H₂ compound were examined. While only four of the participants agreed with the scientifically correct idea (Nicole, H₂-cartoon), P6, P13, and P15 did not make any explanations about the correct idea. P7, on the other hand, made a partially correct explanation given in the following:

Non-metallic atoms share electrons, so protons attract bond electrons (P7).

P7 mentioned both the “sharing of electrons” and “electronegativity” in the formation of nonpolar covalent bonding but this is not the essence of nonpolar covalent bonding.

An examination of the answers to the incorrect ideas displays that P5, P9, P10, and P13 agreed with the first incorrect idea (Susan, H₂-cartoon) in the H₂-cartoon whereas P3 made an explanation with an alternative concept given as in the following:

Nonpolar covalent bonding is formed between the same non-metals because the partial load is 0 (P3).

The explanation made by P3 showed that he used the concepts of “partial charge” and “dipole moment” interchangeably.

Six of the participants agreed with the second incorrect idea (Zack, H₂-cartoon) in the H₂-cartoon while P14 and P15 did not make any explanations. P1, P2, and P10 made explanations with alternative concepts while P8 made a partially correct explanation. The explanations with the alternative concept of P1 and P2 were as in the following:

The same atoms do not have to form bonds for the formation of nonpolar covalent bonding (P1).

Nonpolar covalent bonding occurred only between the same non-metallic atoms (P2).

P1 had an alternative concept with his explanation by mentioning “molecule non-polarity” instead of “intramolecular nonpolar bonding”. On the other hand, P2 stated that nonpolar covalent bonding occurred only between “the same non-metallic atoms”. This statement is not the essence of nonpolar covalent bonding.

Another wrong statement of P8 about nonpolar covalent bonding was in the following:

I agree with Zack since there is no polarization and the dipole moment is zero (P8).

According to P8, there were no “polarization” and “dipole moment” in nonpolar covalent bonding, but she made no explanations about this issue.

While six participants agreed with the third incorrect idea (Clara, H₂-cartoon) in the H₂-cartoon, P4, P6, P9, P13, and P14 did not make any explanations, and P1 made a partially correct explanation as in the following:

The cause of nonpolar covalent bonding formation is not sharing of electrons; they are also shared in polar covalent bonding (P1).

P1 could not fully explain the formation of covalent bonding despite saying that electrons were shared in polar and nonpolar bonding.

Six participants agreed with the fifth idea (Daphne, H₂-cartoon) in the H₂-cartoon, P4, and P5 did not make any explanations, and P1, P10, P11, and P12 made explanations with alternative concepts. Examples of the explanations with alternative concepts were as in the following:

Words such as the similar force of attraction or similar electronegativity instead of similar elements are more suitable (P10).

Nonpolar covalent bonding does not occur only between similar elements (p11, P12).

P10 used “force of attraction” and “electronegativity” in the same meaning. She did not say anything about the causes of the force of attraction. Yet, the electronegativity of elements is the same- and not different- in nonpolar covalent bonding.

P11 and P12 confused “intramolecular nonpolar bonding” and “molecular non-polarity” by mentioning nonpolar covalent bonding do not occur only between “similar elements”.

This study identified prospective chemistry teachers’ views on the nature of forces in covalent bonding in accordance with the second research question. The findings obtained are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Content analysis results for the nature of forces in covalent bonding

	Forces keeping atoms together in covalent bonding
	Ideas in the NoF cartoon
Participant	Wendy (1)	Lola^* (2)	Valerie (3)	Alice (4)	Jack (5)
P1	IA-EAC			IA-EAC	IA-EAC
P2		CA-EAC			IA-EAC
P3		CA-EAC
P4			IA-EAC
P5	IA-EAC
P6	IA-NE		IA-NE
P7			IA-EAC
P8			IA-EAC
P9	IA-NE		IA-NE
P10	IA-NE		IA-NE
P11	IA-NE	CA-NE		IA-NE
P12				IA-EAC
P13		CA-EAC			IA-EAC
P14				IA-EAC
P15				IA-EAC

^*Scientific correct idea.

An examination of the prospective teachers’ views about the nature of forces in covalent bonding made it clear that 4 out of 15 prospective teachers agreed with the scientifically correct idea (Lola, NoF-cartoon) available in the NoF-cartoon, but P11 did not make any explanations about the idea and P2, P3, P13 made explanations with alternative concepts. Examples of the explanations with alternative concepts were as in the following:

Electrons attract each other in covalent bonding (P2).

Covalent bonds were attracted from protons in the center of the atom (P3).

Electrons were not attracted form protons and were shared (P13).

P2’s explanation that electrons attracted each other was an explanation with an alternative concept. Indeed, there are no forces of attraction between electrons that are unshared based on covalent bonding formation.

P3 made the explanation that “protons” attracted the bonds from the center of atoms and thus made an unscientific explanation. It is not the case in covalent bonding.

P13 made an explanation with an alternative concept by mentioning protons do not attract electrons. She, however, did not say which electrons they were.

On examining the selected incorrect answers, it was found that six participants agreed with the first incorrect idea (Wendy, NoF-cartoon) in the NoF-cartoon, but P6, P9, P10, P11 did not make any explanations, and P1, P5 made explanations with alternative concepts. Examples of explanations with alternative concepts were as in the following:

Covalent bonding does not have to be between non-metallic elements (P1).

Covalent bonding is formed between non-metallic ions (P5).

P5 mentioned “ion formation” in covalent bonding and has an explanation with an alternative concept.

While six participants agreed with the third incorrect idea (Valerie, NoF-cartoon) in the NoF-cartoon, P6, P9, and P10 did not make any explanations, and P4, P7, and P8 made explanations with alternative concepts. An example of explanations with alternative concepts was as in the following:

Atoms are held together due to the electronegativity difference (P4).

Forces of attraction in covalent bonding are formed due to the electronegativity difference between non-metals (P7).

There is electronegativity and partial positive and negative charge difference between atoms in covalent bonding (P8).

P4 and P7 had explanations with alternative concepts by considering only polar covalent bonding in the formation of covalent bonding and by saying that the force of attraction occurred due to “electronegativity” difference, and thus they overgeneralized. Yet, there are no electronegativity differences in nonpolar covalent bonding.

P8 did not mention nonpolar covalent bonding by saying “electronegativity” and “partial positive and negative charge difference” in explaining covalent bonding.

Five participants agreed with the fourth incorrect idea (Alice, NoF-cartoon), P1, P12, P14, and P15 made explanations with alternative concepts and P11 did not make any explanations. Examples of explanations with alternative concepts were as in the following:

There were no forces of attraction between electrons and atoms had the force of attracting bonding electrons (P1).

Bonds are formed between electrons (P14).

The forces of attraction between electrons kept atoms together (P15).

The statement of P1 that there were no forces of attraction between electrons and that atoms had the force of attracting “bonding electrons” was also mistaken. Actually, the force of attraction stems from the protons in the atomic nucleus.

The statement of P15 that the forces of attraction between electrons kept atoms together was an explanation with an alternative concept.

P1, P2, and P13 agreed with the fifth incorrect idea (Jack, NoF-cartoon) in the NoF-cartoon and made explanations with alternative concepts. Examples of explanations with alternative concepts were as in the following:

The force of attraction in covalent bonding stems from protons, not from the nucleus (P1).

The force keeping electrons together stems from electron sharing (P13).

The idea of P1 is an explanation with an alternative concept. Actually, the force of attraction stems from the protons in the atomic nucleus.

P13 stated that protons did not attract electrons. She, however, did not say which electrons they were. She also had a mistake in saying that electrons were shared but were not attracted by protons. Her explanation that the force keeping electrons together in covalent bonding stemmed from the “sharing of electrons” was also explained with an alternative concept. Indeed, the force keeping electrons together in covalent bonding is not sharing of electrons.

4 Conclusions and discussion

After analyzing the findings, it can be said that prospective chemistry teachers have difficulty explaining the bond formation process. The preferred key concepts that they used to explain the whole process were not scientifically correct and some explanations of them also include alternative concepts about the type of covalent bonding and the nature of the attractive force in the covalent bonding.

Considering the results, the fact that prospective teachers have statements with alternative concepts about the force of attraction between protons in the atomic nucleus and bonding electrons in polar covalent bonding, that they cannot associate the concepts of polarity and electronegativity and that they cannot fully explain electronegativity difference despite mentioning the difference indicates that they have problems in comprehending the essence of covalent bonding. In their study, Burrows and Mooring [38] detected several common misconceptions concerning electronegativity and concluded that a lack of understanding of electronegativity led to a misunderstanding of polar covalent bonding. Similarly, in a study conducted by Nicoll [6], it was pointed out that students mentioned the concept of polarity but that they could not set up associations between the concepts of polarity and electronegativity. Peterson, Treagust, and Garnett [34] concluded that students associated electron sharing and covalent bonding but that they did not consider the effects of electronegativity. The fact that they mentioned molecular non-polarity instead of intramolecular nonpolar bonding while explaining the formation of nonpolar covalent bonding was also remarkable. Peterson, Treagust, and Garnett [34] also point out that students have similar misconceptions. In the same way, their statement that nonpolar covalent bonding occurred only between the same nonmetallic atoms or between similar elements and that similar forces of attraction or electronegativity were available in such bonding also shows that they are mistaken. Another finding obtained here was that prospective teachers could not explain the source of the forces of attraction in covalent bonding fully. Thus, it was found that prospective teachers made mistakes by considering only polar covalent bonding in explaining covalent bonding especially and that they made overgeneralizations. In a similar vein, Luxford and Bretz [39] also reported similar misconceptions. Temel and Özcan [36] concluded that prospective teachers had a partial understanding of the forces keeping atoms together in covalent bonding, that they named the forces as the forces of attraction but that they could not explain fully the forces of attraction. Another result remarkable was that prospective teachers mentioned only electron sharing while explaining covalent bonding and that they emphasized ionic bonding by mentioning electrostatic force especially. This was a result showing that prospective teachers confused covalent bonding with ionic bonding and thus had a mistake. Butts and Smith [40], Coll and Taylor [5], Nicoll [6], and Taber [3] also concluded that students confused covalent bonding with ionic bonding. Similar mistakes were also reported by Birk and Kurtz [33] and Robinson [35]. In the study conducted by Luxford and Bretz [41], students defined covalent and ionic bonding based on the type of atoms being metals and nonmetals, and one bond type involving a sharing of electrons and the other bond type involving a transfer. Fadillah and Salirawati [42] pointed to the fact that students’ cognitive structure demonstrates the inadequacy of knowledge and misconceptions in relation to chemical bonding. Meltafina, Wiji and Mulyani [43] listed the common misconceptions about chemical bonding as in the following: ionic bonding was sharing electrons; there is a transfer of electrons in covalent bonding; the atoms of Na and Cl attract each other and form the compound of NaCl; covalent bonding has very different electronegativity; equal sharing of the electron pair occurs in all covalent bonding.

5 Implications for teaching

The subject of chemical bonding occupies a very important place in both high school and university education. Also chemical bonding continues to be built upon as students progress into more advanced chemistry and life science courses [44]. Therefore, content facilitating the teaching of the subject should be prepared. As mentioned by Chang and Churchill [45] how students’ performance learning in General Chemistry classes can be improved by various in - and out-of-class methods and exercises has been considered. Hunter, Rodriguez, and Becker [46] suggested student-centered learning to transform the way the concept of chemical bonding is taught. For instance, different techniques according to students’ age, achievement status, and interests could be used together. Students can be asked to visualize their thoughts about chemical bonding by drawing on a piece of paper. They can be asked to describe the drawings in their own words. Students’ and prospective teachers’ difficulties in comprehending and their alternative concepts could be identified based on their statements. The ideas emerging with their statements can be discussed in the classroom and the process of teaching can be enriched in content. In this context, concept cartoons arise as an effective technique. Discussions can be started based on cartoons, and thus teaching environments where in-class interaction will be at the maximum can be created. Asking students to criticize the statement of a classmate can make them focus on the formation of covalent bonding and on the points related to the nature of forces in bonding.

References

Nimmermark

, Öhrström

, Martenssob

and Davidowitz

, Teaching of chemical bonding: A study of Swedish and South African students’ conceptions of bonding, Chemistry Education Research and Practice 17 (2016), 985–1005.

Taber

K.S.

, Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some consideration from educational research, Chemical Education: Research and Practice in Europe 2 (2001), 123–158.

Taber

K.S.

, Student understanding of ionic bonding: Molecular versus electrostatic framework, The School Science Reviews 78 (1997), 85–95.

Dhindsa

H.S.

and Treagust

D.F.

, Prospective pedagogy for teaching chemical bonding for smart and sustainable learning, Chemical Education Research and Practice 15 (2014), 435–446.

Coll

R.K.

and Taylor

, Alternative conceptions of chemical bonding help by upper secondary and tertiary students, Research in Science and Technological Education 19 (2001), 171–191.

Nicoll

, A report of undergraduate’ bonding misconceptions, International Journal of Science Education 23 (2001), 707–730.

Nicoll

, A qualitative investigation of undergraduate chemistry students’ macroscopic interpretations of the sub-microscopic structure of molecules, Journal of Chemical Education 80 (2003), 205–213.

Taber

K.S.

, An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education, International Journal of Science Education 20 (1998), 597–608.

Taber

K.S.

, Models, molecules and misconceptions a commentary on Secondary school students’ misconceptions of covalent bonding, Journal of Turkish Science Education 8 (2011), 3–18.

10.

Coll

R.K.

and Treagust

D.F.

, Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate and graduate learners’ mental model of ionic bonding, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40 (2003), 464–486.

11.

Keogh

and Naylor

, Learning in science: Another way in, Primary Science Review 26 (1993), 22–23.

12.

Keogh

and Naylor

, Making sense of constructivism in the classroom, 8 (1997), 12–14.

13.

Keogh

and Naylor

, Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation, Science Teacher Education 21 (1999), 431–446.

14.

Pekel

F.O.

, Effectiveness of argumentation-based concept cartoons on teaching global warming, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain, Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 20 (2019), 945–953.

15.

Samkova

, Concept Cartoons as a Representation of Practice, 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME), ICME-13 Monographs, Hamburg, Germany, 2018.

16.

Taşlıdere

, The effect of concept cartoon worksheets on students’ conceptual understandings of geometrical optics, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 38 (2013), 144–161.

17.

Jones

, Problem solving through cartoon drawing. In R. Fisher, (Ed.), Problem Solving in Primary Schools. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987.

18.

De Fren

, Using cartoons to develop writing and thinking skills, Social Studies Journal 79 (1988), 221–224.

19.

Guttierrez

and Ogborn

, A causal framework for analyzing alternative conceptions, International Journal of Science Education 14 (1992), 201–220.

20.

Peacock

, An agenda for research on text material in primary science for second language learners of English in developing countries, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16 (1995), 389–401.

21.

White

and Gunstone

, Probing Understanding, London: Falmer, 1992.

22.

Gunstone

, Learners in science education. In P. Fensham, (Ed.), Development and Dilemmas in Science Education, Lewes: Falmer, 1988, pp. 73–95.

23.

Gunstone

R.F.

, Children’s science: A decade of developments in constructivist views of science teaching and learning, Australian Science Teachers Journal 36 (1990), 9–19.

24.

Chen

, Ku

and Ho

Y.C.

, Applying the strategy of concept cartoon argument instruction to enpower the children’s argumentation ability in a remote elementary science courseroom, 13th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, Netherland, 2009.

25.

Webb

, Williams

and Meiring

, Concept cartoons and writing frames: Developing argumentation in South African science classrooms? African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 12 (2008), 5–18.

26.

İngeç

S.K.

, Yıldız

İ.

and Ünlü

, Identification of misconception about uniform circular motion by the use of concept cartoons, VII. National Science and Mathematics Education Conference, Ankara, Turkey, 2006.

27.

İngeç

S.K.

, Use of concept cartoons as an assessment tool in physics education, US-China Education Review 5 (2008), 47–54.

28.

Keogh

and Naylor

, Teacher and learning in science using concept cartoons: Why Dennis wants to stay in at playtime, Australian Primary and Junior Science Journal 16 (2000), 10–14.

29.

Türkoguz

and Cin

, Effects of argumentation based concept cartoon activities on students’ conceptual understanding levels, The Journal of Buca Faculty of Education 35 (2013), 155–173.

30.

Dalacosta

, Kamariotaki-Paparrigopoulou

, Palyvos

J.A.

and Spyrellis

, Multimedia application with animated cartoons for teaching science in elementary education, Computers & Education 52 (2009), 741–748.

31.

Yıldırım

, Tepe

, Kus

and Biberoğlu

, Developing and implementing a two-tier test to determine misconceptions about the chemical equilibrium that supported concept cartoon, Journal of Bayburt Faculty of Education 10 (2015), 534–547.

32.

Petrucci

R.H.

, Herring

F.G.

, Madura

J.D.

and Bissonnette

, General Chemistry: Principles and Modern Applications, Pearson: Toronto, 2010, pp. 917–1031.

33.

Birk

J.P.

and Kurtz

M.J.

, Effect of experience on retention and elimination of misconceptions about molecular structure and bonding, Journal of Chemical Education 76 (1999), 124–128.

34.

Peterson

, Treagust

D.F.

and Garnett

, Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and -12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26 (1989), 301–314.

35.

Robinson

W.R.

, An alternative framework for chemical bonding, Journal of Chemical Education 75 (1998), 1074–1075.

36.

Temel

and Özcan

Ö.

, The analysis of prospective chemistry teachers’ cognitive structure: The subject of covalent and ionic bonding, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 12 (2016), 1953–1969.

37.

Calık

, Devising and implementing guide materials related to solution chemistry topic in Grade 9 based on constructivist learning theory (PhD Thesis), Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, 2006.

38.

Burrows

N.L.

and Mooring

R.S.

, Using concept mapping to uncover students’ knowledge structures of chemical bonding concepts, Chemical Education Research and Practice 16 (2015), 53–66.

39.

Luxford

C.J.

and Bretz

S.L.

, Development of the bonding representations inventory to identify student misconceptions about covalent and ionic bonding representations, Journal of Chemical Education 91 (2014), 312–320.

40.

Butts

and Smith

, HSC chemistry students’ understanding of the structure and properties of molecular and ionic compounds, Research in Science Education 17 (1987), 192–201.

41.

Luxford

C.J.

and Bretz

S.L.

, Moving beyond definitions: What student-generated models reveal about their understanding of covalent bonding and ionic bonding, Chemical Education Research and Practice 14 (2013), 214–222.

42.

Fadillah

and Salirawati

, Analysis of misconceptions of chemical bonding among tenth grade senior high school students using a two-tier test, AIP Conference Proceedings, 2018, 080002.

43.

Meltafina

, Wiji

and Mulyani

, Misconceptions and threshold concepts in chemical bonding, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1157 (2019), 042030.

44.

Bowe

K.A.

, Bauer

C.F.

, Wang

and Lewis

S.E.

, When all you have is a covalent model of bonding, every substance is a molecule: A longitudinal study of student enactment of covalent and ionic bonding models, Journal of Chemical Education (99) (2022), 2808–2820.

45.

Chang

and Churchill

, Bringing out the “main characters” in general chemistry: Can creating a sense of narrative in the classroom and for the textbook aid long-term memory, Journal of Chemical Education 88 (2011), 408–414.

46.

Hunter

K.H.

, Jon-Marc

and Rodriguez

N.M.

, Becker, A review of research on the teaching and learning of chemical bonding, Journal of Chemical Education 99 (2022), 2451–2464.

	Type of bonding in HCl compound					Type of bonding in H₂ compound
	Ideas in the HCl-cartoon					Ideas in the H₂ cartoon
Participant	Anna (1)	Julia (2)	Rose (3)	Nick^* (4)	Amy (5)	Susan (1)	Zack (2)	Clara (3)	Nicole^* (4)	Daphne (5)
P1	IA-EAC	IC-PCE					IA-EAC	IC-PCE		IA-EAC
P2		IA-EAC					IA-EAC
P3				CA-EAC		IA-EAC
P4				CA-EAC				IA-NE		IA-NE
P5				CA-PCE		IA-NE				IA-NE
P6				CA-EAC				IA-NE	CA-NE
P7				CA-EAC					CA-PCE
P8				CA-EAC			IC-EAC
P9				CA-EAC		IA-NE		IA-NE
P10				CA-EAC			IA-PCE			IA-EAC
P11	IA-NE			CA-NE						IA-EAC
P12				CA-NE						IA-EAC
P13	IA-NE			CA-NE	IA-NE	IA-NE		IA-NE	CA-NE
P14	IA-NE		IA-NE		IA-NE		IA-NE	IA-NE
P15				CA-NE	IA-NE		IA-NE		CA-NE