- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Why we should teach the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively

S. B. McKagan1, K. K. Perkins2, and C. E. Wieman1,2,3

  • 1JILA and NIST, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
  • 3Department of Physics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z1

PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010103 – Published 6 March, 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010103

Abstract

Some education researchers have claimed that we should not teach the Bohr model of the atom because it inhibits students’ ability to learn the true quantum nature of electrons in atoms. Although the evidence for this claim is weak, many have accepted it. This claim has implications for how to present atoms in classes ranging from elementary school to graduate school. We present results from a study designed to test this claim by developing a curriculum on models of the atom, including the Bohr and Schrödinger models. We examine student descriptions of atoms on final exams in transformed modern physics classes using various versions of this curriculum. We find that if the curriculum does not include sufficient connections between different models, many students still have a Bohr-like view of atoms rather than a more accurate Schrödinger model. However, with an improved curriculum designed to develop model-building skills and with better integration between different models, it is possible to get most students to describe atoms using the Schrödinger model. In comparing our results with previous research, we find that comparing and contrasting different models is a key feature of a curriculum that helps students move beyond the Bohr model and adopt Schrödinger’s view of the atom. We find that understanding the reasons for the development of models is much more difficult for students than understanding the features of the models. We also present interactive computer simulations designed to help students build models of the atom more effectively.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (46)

  1. H. Fischler and M. Lichtfeld, in Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, edited by R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (IPN, Kiel, 1992), pp. 240–258.
  2. H. Fischler and M. Lichtfeld, Modern physics and students’ conceptions, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 14, 181 (1992).
  3. R. Blanco and M. Niaz, Baroque tower on a gothic base: A lakatosian reconstruction of students’ and teachers’ understanding of structure of the atom, Sci. Educ. 7, 327 (1998).
  4. R. Justi and J. Gilbert, History and philosophy of science through models: Some challenges in the case of ‘the atom,’ Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 993 (2000).
  5. M. Budde, H. Niedderer, P. Scott, and J. Leach, ‘Electronium:’ a quantum atomic teaching model, Phys. Educ. 37, 197 (2002).
  6. M. Budde, H. Niedderer, P. Scott, and J. Leach, The quantum atomic model ‘Electronium:’ a successful teaching tool, Phys. Educ. 37, 204 (2002).
  7. R. Müller and H. Wiesner, Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level, Am. J. Phys. 70, 200 (2002).
  8. G. Kalkanis, P. Hadzidaki, and D. Stavrou, An instructional model for a radical conceptual change towards quantum mechanics concepts, Sci. Educ. 87, 257 (2003).
  9. J. Petri and H. Niedderer, A learning pathway in high-school level quantum atomic physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1075 (1998).
  10. J. L. Ke, M. Monk, and R. Duschl, Learning introductory quantum physics: Sensori-motor experiences and mental models, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 1571 (2005).
  11. A. G. Harrison and D. F. Treagust, Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry, Sci. Educ. 84, 352 (2000).
  12. K. Taber, When the analogy breaks down: modeling the atom on the solar system, Phys. Educ. 36, 222 (2001).
  13. I. A. Halloun, Modeling Theory in Science Education (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2004).
  14. National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (National Academy, Washington, DC, 1996).
  15. D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens, Mental Models (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983).
  16. A. diSessa, Towards an epistemology of physics, Cogn. Instruct.10, 105 (1993).
  17. A. Elby and D. Hammer, On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology, Sci. Educ. 85, 54 (2001).
  18. National Research Council, Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 (National Academy, Washington, DC, 1996).
  19. N. Bohr, On the constitution of atoms and molecules, Philos. Mag. 26, 1 (1913).
  20. L. de Broglie, Ph.D. thesis, Paris University, 1924.
  21. E. Schrödinger, Quantisierung als eigenwertproblem, Ann. Phys. 386, 109 (1926).
  22. P. Loeblein (private communication).
  23. Jefferson County Public Schools, Chemistry Performance Expectations, 2005.
  24. D. A. Zollman, N. S. Rebello, and K. Hogg, Quantum mechanics for everyone: Hands-on activities integrated with technology, Am. J. Phys. 70, 252 (2002).
  25. P. R. Fletcher, Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney, 2004.
  26. G. Ireson, The quantum understanding of pre-university physics students, Phys. Educ. 35, 15 (2000).
  27. D. T. Brookes, Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, 2006.
  28. D. T. Brookes and E. Etkina, Using conceptual metaphor and functional grammar to explore how language used in physics affects student learning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010105 (2007).
  29. L. Grosslight, C. Unger, E. Jay, and C. L. Smith, Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 799 (1991).
  30. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (National Academy, Washington, DC, 1999).
  31. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, Reforming a large lecture modern physics course for engineering majors using a PER-based design, in 2006 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, edited by L. McCullough, P. Heron, and L. Hsu (AIP Press, Melville, NY, 2007).
  32. http://per.colorado.edu/modern
  33. B. Berardi-Coletta, L. S. Buyer, R. L. Dominowski, and E. R. Rellinger, Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.21, 205 (1995).
  34. D. Dykstra, American Association of Physics Teachers National Summer Meeting, 2006 (unpublished).
  35. http://phet.colorado.edu
  36. S. B. McKagan, W. Handley, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, A research-based curriculum for teaching the photoelectric effect, Am. J. Phys. (arXiv:physics/0706.2165).
  37. J. Loewenstein, L. Thompson, and D. Gentner, Analogical learning in negotiation teams: Comparing cases promotes learning and transfer, Academy of Management Learning and Education 2, 119 (2003).
  38. F. Marton, Sameness and difference in transfer, J. Learn. Sci. 15, 499 (2006).
  39. J. D. Bransford and D. Schwartz, in Review of Research in Education, edited by A. Iran-Nejad and P. D. Pearson (American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, 1999), Vol. 24, p. 61.
  40. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, C. Malley, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, and C. E. Wieman, Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum mechanics Am. J. Phys (to be published May 2008).
  41. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. T. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, Scientific abilities and their assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006).
  42. E. Etkina and A. V. Heuvelen, Investigative Science Learning Environment: Using the processes of science and cognitive strategies to learn physics, in 2001 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, edited by S. Franklin, J. Marx, K. Cummings, (Rochester, NY, 2001) http://piggy.rit.edu/franklin/perc2001/Brahmia.doc
  43. L. C. McDermott and the Physics Education Group, Physics by Inquiry (Wiley, New York, 1996), Vols. 1 and 2.
  44. F. Goldberg, S. Robinson, and V. Otero, Physics for Elementary Teachers (PET) (Its About Time, Armonk, 2005).
  45. P. Heron, Physics Education Research Conference, 2004 (unpublished).

  46. All statistics were calculated using a one-tailed Z test under the hypothesis that the treatment would lead to a decrease in the exclusive use of the Bohr model and an increase in the use of the Schrödinger model, use of multiple models, explicit discussion of models, and mention of the limitations of the Bohr model.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010103– Published 6 March, 2008
  • Received 22 June 2007
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation