Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Experienced Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Teaching Acid–base Chemistry

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigated the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of nine experienced chemistry teachers. The teachers took part in a teacher training course on students’ difficulties and the use of models in teaching acid–base chemistry, electrochemistry, and redox reactions. Two years after the course, the teachers were interviewed about their PCK of (1) students’ difficulties in understanding acid–base chemistry and (2) models of acids and bases in their teaching practice. In the interviews, the teachers were asked to comment on authentic student responses collected in a previous study that included student interviews about their understanding of acids and bases. Further, the teachers drew story-lines representing their level of satisfaction with their acid–base teaching. The results show that, although all teachers recognised some of the students’ difficulties as confusion between models, only a few chose to emphasise the different models of acids and bases. Most of the teachers thought it was sufficient to distinguish clearly between the phenomenological level and the particle level. The ways the teachers reflected on their teaching, in order to improve it, also differed. Some teachers reflected more on students’ difficulties; others were more concerned about their own performance. Implications for chemistry (teacher) education are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrhenius, S. (1903). Development of the theory of electrolytic dissociation. Nobel Lecture, December 11, Accessed on: October 18, 2007, Available at http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/laureates/1903/arrhenius-lecture.pdf .

  • Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 487–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of PCK. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 147–161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beijaard, D., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Evaluation of story-line methodology in research on teachers’ practical knowledge. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 25, 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulter, C., & Gilbert, J. K. (2000). Challenges and opportunities of developing models in science education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 343–362). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen, W. S. (1999). Domains of teacher knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 133–144). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, M. (1984). Model confusion in chemistry. Research in Science Education, 14, 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demerouti, M., Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2004). Acid–base equilibria, Part 1. Upper secondary students’ misconceptions and difficulties. The Chemical Educator, 9, 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, O., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 947–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, O., Veal, W. R., & Van Driel, J. H. (2002). Exploring Chemistry teachers’ knowledge base. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 369–390). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vos, W., & Pilot, A. (2001). Acids and bases in layers: The stratal structure of an ancient topic. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 494–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drechsler, M., & Schmidt, H.-J. (2005a). Textbooks’ and teachers’ understanding of acid–base models used in chemistry teaching. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 6, 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drechsler, M., & Schmidt, H.-J. (2005b). Upper secondary school students’ understanding of models used in chemistry to define acids and bases. Science Education International, 16, 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furió-Más, C., Calatayud, M. L., Guisasola, J., & Furió-Gómez, C. (2005). How are the concepts and theories of acid–base reactions presented? Chemistry in textbooks and as presented by teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1337–1358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, M. M. (1988). Narrative structures in social explanation. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing social explanation (pp. 94–112). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gericke, N. & Drechsler, M. (2006). Are biology and chemistry models used from a ‘nature of science’ perspective? An analysis of Swedish textbooks. Paper presented at the 12th IOSTE symposium, proceedings pp. 353–358, July 2006, Penang, Malaysia.

  • Gilbert, J. K., De Jong, O., Justi, R., Treagust, D. F., & Van Driel, J. H. (2002). Research and development for the future of chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 391–408). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Pietrocola, M., Zylbersztajn, A., & Franco, C. (2000). Science and education: Notions of reality, theory and model. In J. K. Gilbert & C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 343–362). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teachers’ knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers Collage Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. W., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1011–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R. S. (2000). Teaching with historical models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 209–226). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2000). History and philosophy of Science through models: Some challenges in the case of “The Atom.” International Journal of Science Education, 22, 993–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluation teachers cognition: Inferences concerning the goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60, 419–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J. J., Mullhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 370–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthijsen, I. C. H. (2006). Denken en handelen van docenten [Thinking and acting of teachers]. (PhD dissertation). Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, P., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (1999). Exploring language teachers’ practical knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1994). Students models of matter in the context of acid–base chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 495–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, H. D. (1998). Teacher as knower and learner, reflections on situated knowledge in Science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 427–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oversby, J. (2000). Models in explanations of chemistry: The case of acidity. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 227–251). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner-Canham, G. (1994). Concepts of acids and bases. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 246–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B., & Munby, H. (1991). Concept mapping and misconceptions – A study of high-school-students understanding of acids and bases. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 11–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. D. (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 723–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H.-J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions – Looking for a pattern. Science Education, 81, 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H.-J., & Volke, D. (2003). Shift of meaning and students’ alternative concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1409–1424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., de Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86, 572–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1141–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2002). Experienced teachers’ knowledge of teaching and learning of models and modelling in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1255–1272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Onno de Jong for his assistance in preparing the paper and Niklas Gericke for his assistance in the development of the categories.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michal Drechsler.

Additional information

Submitted to Research in Science Education

Appendix

Appendix

Excerpt from Interviews with Students

Acid–base Reactions

  1. 1.

    Students were asked to write a reaction equation between an acid and a base.

    $${\text{HAc}} + {\text{NaOH}} \to {\text{NaAc}} + {\text{H}}_2 {\text{O}},$$
    • Since water is formed, it becomes neutral.

      $${\text{HCl}} + {\text{NaOH}} \to {\text{NaCl}} + {\text{H}}_2 {\text{O}},$$
    • In an acid–base reaction, it becomes neutral.

      $${\text{HCl}} + {\text{NaOH}} \to {\text{NaH}}_2 {\text{O}} + {\text{Cl}}^ - $$
    • The base NaOH takes a proton from the acid HCl.

  2. 2.

    Students were asked what an acid–base reaction is.

    • In a reaction there is always one [particle] acting as a base. Even if you have two acids, for example HCl and H2SO4, one is a base.

    • Acids and bases are very difficult for me...Acids donate protons and bases are substances that accept these protons. It is pretty tricky, because, if you look at water, it is both an acid and a base. If a water molecule is first a base, it takes a proton from another water molecule, so that the water molecule that was first a base suddenly becomes an acid. It is quite difficult to keep up with that, how it turns around. In an acid–base reaction the result will be neutral... They consume each other depending on their concentrations. Hydrogen ions or oxonium ions and hydroxide ions form water in a neutralisation.

Water is an Acid

  1. 3.

    Students were asked to identify acids and bases in the equation:

    $$\text{NH}_3 + \text{H}_2 \text{O} \rightleftarrows \text{NH}_4^ + + \text{OH}^ - $$

    When they hesitated to define water as an acid, they were asked why.

    • It is difficult to think about water as sour...

    • Because water is not really...it is both an acid and a base, as I recall it...but... I do not know...water is water, right? It makes me think of something neutral, something that is not extreme in any way.

    • You can’t imagine drinking an acid, but you drink water.

Model Confusion

  1. 4.

    The students were asked to explain the differences between the following two equations.

    $$\begin{array}{*{20}l} {{\text{acid}} + {\text{base}} \to {\text{salt}} + {\text{water}}} \hfill \\ {{\text{acid}}_{\text{1}} + {\text{base}}_{\text{2}} \to {\text{base}}_{\text{1}} + {\text{acid}}_{\text{2}} } \hfill \\ \end{array} $$
    • Some substances, for example, water, can act both as an acid and as a base depending on the substance with which they react.

    • Salt and water are formed... there should be an acid and a base as well...perhaps you can identify NaCl as an acid, I am not too familiar with that.

    • It would have been better to learn Brønsted from the beginning. It gets messy changing models when you’ve already learned it one way.

      $${\text{HCl}} + {\text{NaOH}}$$
  2. 5.

    Students were asked to explain, on a particle level, the reaction between the substances HCl and NaOH.

    • Perhaps it strives to turn into water. If these two (Na+ and Cl) are attracted more to each other and NaCl is a salt, right? Perhaps it has something to do with a metal and a non-metal attraction. They want to form a salt. And if OH and H have a stronger attraction to each other, I do not know.

Buffer Solutions

  1. 6.

    Students were asked to explain how buffer solutions work.

    • How can it work? You cannot have an acid and a base in the same solution. In that case the acid and the base should consume each other.

Excerpts from Textbooks

Since the teachers used different books, different excerpts were discussed. As the excerpts from the different books were quite similar, however, an example from each type of excerpt is presented below.

  1. 1.

    The books define acids according to their general properties, e.g., sour taste, colouring litmus, reaction with non-precious metals, etc (for example, textbook 1, page 103).

    The substances that for many years were called acids have many common properties. For instance, they have a sour taste and it is said that their reactions are sour.

  2. 2.

    The books define acids according to Brønsted (for example, textbook 2, page 79).

    A reaction in which protons are donated or accepted is called a proton transfer reactions. The substance or ion that donates protons is an acid, according to Brønsted’s definition of acids.

  3. 3.

    The books’ explain acidic solution/basic solution (for example, textbook 2).

    The oxonium ions give water solutions their sour taste and sour reaction. In colloquial speech, that sour solution is called an acid (page 78)...The rule is to pour the acid into water (page 80; with acid, the authors refer to a water solution of an acid.)

  4. 4.

    The books use redox reactions, e.g., reactions with non-precious metals (for example, textbook 3, page 161).

    Now that we know that acids are proton acceptors, we can write formulas for acidic solutions’ reactions with carbonate compounds and with non-precious metals....

    Reaction with carbonate

    $${\text{CaCO}}_{\text{3}} \left( {\text{s}} \right){\text{2H}}^{\text{ + }} \left( {{\text{aq}}} \right) \to {\text{Ca}}^{2 + } \left( {{\text{aq}}} \right) + CO_2 \left( {\text{g}} \right) + {\text{H}}_{\text{2}} {\text{O}}\left( {\text{l}} \right)$$

    Reaction with non-precious metal

    $${\text{Mg}}\left( {\text{s}} \right) + {\text{2H}}^{\text{ + }} \left( {{\text{aq}}} \right) \to {\text{Mg}}^{2 + } \left( {{\text{aq}}} \right) + {\text{H}}_{\text{2}} \left( {\text{g}} \right)$$
  5. 5.

    The books use formula equations and ionic equations according to, for instance, neutralisation (for example, textbook 1, page 112).

    $${\text{Na}}^{\text{ + }} + {\text{OH}}^{\text{ - }} + {\text{H}}_{\text{3}} {\text{O}}^{\text{ + }} + {\text{Cl}}^{\text{ - }} \to {\text{2H}}_{\text{2}} {\text{O}} + {\text{Na}}^{\text{ + }} + {\text{Cl}}^{\text{ - }} $$

    We can see that the ions Na + and Cl do not participate in the reaction. They are called counter ions or “spectator ions.” Thus, only the following reaction takes place.

    $$\mathop {{\text{OH}}^{\text{ - }} }\limits_{{\text{base}}} + \mathop {{\text{H}}_{\text{3}} {\text{O}}^{\text{ + }} }\limits_{{\text{acid}}} \to {\text{H}}_{\text{2}} {\text{O}} + {\text{H}}_{\text{2}} {\text{O}}$$

    “The reaction between an acid and a base is called neutralization. A salt is formed.”

None of the textbooks explained the following about acids and bases:

  • That models are used

  • What model is in use at the moment

  • Why different models are used in parallel

  • The scope and limitations of each model.

Textbook 1: Andersson, S., Sonesson, A., Stålhandske, B., & Tullberg, A. (2000). Gymnasiekemi A. Stockholm: Liber.

Textbook 2: Borén, H., Larsson, M., Lif, T., Lilleborg, S., & Lindh, B. (2000). Kemiboken A 100p. Stockholm: Liber.

Textbook 3: Henriksson, A. (2000). Kemi kurs A. Malmö: Gleerups Förlag.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Drechsler, M., Van Driel, J. Experienced Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Teaching Acid–base Chemistry. Res Sci Educ 38, 611–631 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9066-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9066-5

Keywords

Navigation