Students’ Description of an Atom:

A Phenomenographic Analysis

Ridvan Unal and Dean Zollman

Department of Physics
Kansas State University
116 Cardwell Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506
Voice: 785-532-1619
Fax: 785-532-7167
[email protected]

Abstract
This study investigates the students’ ideas about an atom by asking them to describe an
atom on a paper and pencil questionnaire. Students’ understanding of the structure of an atom, its
constituents and their approximate locations, the size of an atom, and energy released by an atom
are investigated. Analysis of responses was based on the phenomenographic method. The study
does not attempt to develop a catalog of students' "misconceptions" of atoms. It explores how
students describe atoms when they are presented with an open-ended question. We can then
learn what ideas are foremost in students' thoughts when they think of atoms.

1
 Introduction
Research on students’ conceptual understanding of physics over the past decade has
shown that many students in high school and introductory college physics courses are not
developing a satisfactory conceptual understanding of physics (Clement, 1982; McDermott,
1984; McDermott, 1991; Novak 1987; Heuvelen, 1991; Fischler & Lichtfeldt, 1991; Sere, 1991).
Many of these studies have revealed the difficulties students have in making connections
between various representations, basic concepts and principles, and real world phenomena
(McDermott, Rosenquist, and Zee, 1987; Goldberg and Bendall, 1992). Many decisions students
make about the behavior of physical systems seem to be driven by prior knowledge and beliefs.
Osborne and Freyberg (1985) have revealed that the knowledge claims employed by learners are
not often well grounded by what they call “sound rules” or relevant associations of concepts.
Research in students’ misconceptions has found that students frequently have knowledge
frameworks that, when taken together, are inconsistent within themselves. This conclusion
implies that students’ knowledge often consists of separate facts, formulas, and equations poorly
organized for retention and use (Heuvelen, 1991; Mestre, 1991). The common factor in all these
studies is the identification of student prior knowledge for a better teaching strategy.
In contrast to other areas of physics, research studies on students’ conceptions in
Twentieth Century physics are limited (Bethge and Niedderer, 1996). Quantum physics is the
least attractive area for the researchers because the target audience is much smaller than the other
areas of physics. Further, instruction about quantum physics has not generally been available at
the introductory level. However, students need to learn more about contemporary developments
in physics to understand modern technology. Thus, a better understanding of student views of
modern physics is needed. One aspect is student knowledge of atoms.

Students’ Views of Atoms and Models

A study by Sequeira and Leite (1990) revealed that students showed a reasonable
knowledge about the size and the structure of the atom. The same study showed that 29% of the
eighth graders, 35% of adult students and 10% ninth graders did not respond when asked
questions about the atom. In contrast Sequeira and Leite, Cros and Maurin (1986), in a study

2
involving first-year university students, reported that the constituents of the atom were “either
totally unknown or poorly perceived.”
Bethge & Niedderer (1996) asked German secondary students to draw an atom. They
found that approximately 25% of the students' drawings included conceptions close to those of
quantum physics, another 25% used conceptions between quantum and classical physics such as
“smeared orbits”, and 50% drew the atom in terms of classical physics. One class of students
maintained these descriptions even after completing a teaching unit that used quantum
mechanical approach in an advanced secondary school physics course.
In another study of German secondary students’ models of an atom, Fischler & Lichtfeldt
(1992) taught a unit of 32 lessons concerning quantum physics to a test group of secondary
students. In their approach, they did not address the phenomena of quantum physics by referring
to the conceptions of classical physics. They found that 68% of the students in the test group
oriented themselves toward the conception of localization energy. However, the control group
students persisted in the conception of circle and shell.
These studies showed that the majority of the students do not hold the same idea of an
atom as physicists. The first studies revealed that over 60% of students did not have an
acceptable, if any, description about the size and structure of the atom. Later studies, which
concentrated on the atomic models, showed that students still retain classical or semi-classical
models of the atom even after the instruction that concentrated on the quantum physics
descriptions of an atom.
Albanese and Vicentini (1995) point out that in teaching about atoms the focus is not on
the existence of atoms, but on convincing students of the validity of an atomic model in order to
explain the macroscopic properties of matter. Therefore, a first issue in this transmission of
knowledge may be identified as the epistemological problem of the role of models in scientific
understanding. Albanese and Vicentini concluded that “students seem to consider atoms not as
the elements of a model which tries to explain macroscopic properties as emergent properties of
the collection of the elements (which by themselves do not posses them) but as the smallest part
in which a microscopic object may be subdivided while retaining its characteristics.”
On the other hand, Jammer (1965, cited in Bethge and Niedderer, 1996) argued that in
physics the concept of a model has evolved through a change from a pictorial representation

3
(“image”) to a “structural similarity with respect to relations”. Bethge and Niedderer (1996)
conclude that students consider models acceptable when models seem to be images of reality.
Previous studies reveal a broad range of topics that are directly or indirectly related to the
present study of documenting and examining the students’ perception of an atom. Even though
some of them revealed some information about students’ perceptions of the size of the atom,
none of them revealed any information about students’ perceptions of “small” or more
specifically what “small” really means. Also, these studies lacked systematic investigation
concerning how students relate an atom to matter. The studies by Niedderer, et al. and Fischler,
et al. did not explore students’ conceptions of the structure of the atom even though they studied
students’ atomic models. The present study investigates the whole picture of the atom including
size and structure of an atom, students’ atomic models and how students relate matter at the
atomic level with energy.

Purpose of This Study

This study investigates the students’ ideas about an atom by asking individuals, to
describe an atom on a paper and pencil questionnaire. In this questionnaire we probed students’
understanding of the structure of an atom, its constituents and their approximate locations, the
size of an atom, and any energy released by an atom. The study categorizes the students’
descriptions of an atom by looking for structurally significant differences that clarify how
students describe the atom. Analysis of responses was based on the phenomenographic method
developed by Marton (1986).
In this study we do not attempt to create a catalog of students' "misconceptions" of atoms.
Instead, we are interested in learning how students describe atoms when they are presented with
an open-ended question. We can then learn what ideas are foremost in students' thoughts when
they think of atoms. Thus, this study can be the basis for development of instructional materials
or studying the process by which students come to understand abstract models in physics.

Phenomenography as a Research Method

Phenomenography is a “research method for mapping the qualitatively different ways in
which people experience, conceptualize, perceive, and understand various aspects of, and

4
phenomena in, the world around them.” (Marton, 1986) The point of departure in
phenomenography is always relational. Phenomenographers deal with individuals, some specific
aspect of the world, and the relation by which they try to describe that aspect of the world as it
appears to them. Thus, they adopt an experiential, or what phenomenographers call a “second-
order,” perspective. (Marton, 1981)
Phenomenographic studies have repeatedly found that each phenomenon, concept or
principle can be understood in a limited number of qualitatively different ways (Marton, 1986;
Browden et al., 1992; Prosser, 1994). The present study assumes that a limited number of
conceptions of the atoms and principles related to it can be found.
Phenomenographers categorize their subjects’ descriptions, and these categorizations
constitute the main outcome of the research. Phenomenographers look for the most essential and
distinctive structural aspects of the relation between the individual and the phenomenon (Marton,
1986). Above all, each category is a potential part of a larger structure in which various
categories of descriptions exists. A goal of phenomenography is to discover a structural
framework that is useful in understanding students’ knowledge.
The categories are directly drawn from the students’ responses to open-ended response
surveys (Prosser and Walker, 1995) or from the students’ interviews (Marton, 1986; Browden et
al., 1992); no attempt is made to fit the data into predetermined categories. The categories are
based on the most distinctive characteristics that differentiate one conception from another and
are presented in increasing levels of understanding (Browden et al., 1992). Thus, a hierarchy of
students' ideas is a result of the phenomenographical method.
The “phenomenographer must discover and classify previously unspecified ways in
which people think about certain aspects of reality.” (Marton, 1986) Thus, placing responses in
categories and organized systems of categories is the most important outcome of
phenomenographic research (Marton, 1986 and Browden et al., 1992). The categorization of
descriptions is not merely sorting data, but is looking for the most distinctive characteristics that
appear in those data. Thus, one is looking for structurally significant differences that clarify, in
our case, how students describe the atom.

5
 General Description of the Study
A questionnaire was constructed in two major steps followed by a modification. In the
fall semester of 1995, two questions were asked as part of an extra credit activity in a conceptual
physics course (Zollman, 1990). These questions asked students to describe the atom and where
they had learned about it.
Based on those responses we constructed a more specific set of questions. The revised
questionnaire was administered to another group of students. A revision based on analysis of
these responses led to the questionnaire shown in Appendix A. This version has been used in our
data collection.
The students involved in this study were enrolled in five different high schools. Three of
the high schools were located in rural areas; one in a city and one in a small town.
Questionnaires were administered to students in grades 9-12 at the end of the Spring Semester of
the 1995-96 academic year.

Interpretation of Students’ Responses

A total of 239 high school students participated in the survey. Table 1 shows the
students’grade distributions by year in school.
Table 1: Students year in school

(N=239) Grade Level

9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade Other

% of 29 21 37 12 1
Students

As shown in Table 2, most of the students in all grade levels were taking or had taken a
physical science course at the time of our survey. The majority of 11th and 12th graders were
taking Chemistry. Almost half of the 12th graders and a few 11th graders had taken or were
enrolled in the high school physics course.

6
 Table 2: Percentage of students who were taking or had already taken some selected
science courses across the grade levels
Courses Completed or Enrolled In

Physics Physical Science 1-2 Chemistry

9th -- 76% 80% 2%

Grade

10th - 51% 53% 10%

Grade

11th 6% 66% 65% 77%

Grade

12th 44% 31% 31% 86%

Grade

Categorization of the Students Responses

As a first step, a panel of physics education researchers identified categories by analyzing
the student responses. These categories were based on three principles (Marton, 1986; Bowden
et.al., 1992; Prosser and Walker, 1995).
• Categories should be extracted from the student responses; thus we can not have pre-
assigned categories.
• Categories should not be mutually exclusive or inclusive, but distinguishable.
• Responses must be explicit to be categorized.
In identifying categories the panel members used an iterative process.
Using the responses from fifty randomly selected questionnaires, the panel identified a
set of tentative categories. Then, using these categories each panel member individually sorted
all responses. Disagreements about category descriptions or allocation of students’ responses to
categories were resolved with reference to the students’ responses as the only evidence of
students’ understanding. Then, the panel revised the categories and established a set of rules for
placing all responses in categories.
To check consistency the panel members sorted another 25 randomly selected
questionnaires. The consistency of 0.82 was acceptable for this type of study. Then, a second

7
panel placed another set of randomly selected responses in the categories established by the first
panel. With one exception this panel had a similar level of consistency. After a minor
modification to account for the exception, the categories were used for the entire sample.

Brief Descriptions of the Categories for the Descriptions of Atoms

This process resulted in six primary categories for the student responses to the question,
"Describe an atom." The three of these six are generic: no response, “do not know,” and
“other”--a response that does not fit in the existing scheme but occurred too seldom to be
established as a category.
The remaining categories are as follows:
• Units of matter: The student defines the atom as a constituent of matter. For example, “Atom
makes up stuff, building block of everything, the smallest unit of matter.”
• Constituents of an atom: The student states constituents of an atom and perhaps their
location. For example, “An atom contains electrons, protons, and neutrons. A nucleus may
be found in the center.”
• Model of an atom: The student describes some atomic model. For example, “An atom is
made up of a nucleus with protons and it has electrons that circle around it....”
Each primary category was further divided into subcategories. The full descriptions and
numerical codings are described in Appendix B.
In keeping with the phenomenographical approach these categories, except for no
response and do not know, are not mutually exclusive. A student's response could be placed in
two or, even, all three major categories. For example, the response, “An atom is the smallest unit
of an element, has protons, neutrons, and electrons and looks like a small solar system.” would
be placed in all three categories.
The phenomenographical approach also enables us to establish a hierarchy within the
categories. The major categories have a hierarchy from lowest to highest of Units of Matter,
Constituents of Atoms, and Models of Atoms. Combinations of categories also fit in the
hierarchy. Table 3 indicates the hierarchical structure of the categories and their combinations

8
 Table 3: Hierarchical Structure of the Categories.
Highest level is at the top of the list.
Units, Constituents & Model
Constituents & Model
Units & Model
Model
Units & Constituents
Constituents
Units of Matter
The question about seeing an atom is multiple-choice and thus required only a straightforward
analysis.
The responses to the question about energy from an atom were also approached using
phenomenology. However, the classifications were much simpler. Our primary categories were
“Yes, but I don't know how,” nuclear energy, motion, other, and no energy. We were unable to
assign a hierarchy to these categories.

An Example of Categorization of a Student Response

As an example of our method consider the student response presented below. The
student’s answers are printed in italics with brackets added by us to facilitate discussion.
Question 1: Using words and/or diagrams describe your ideas of an atom. Include in your
description what an atom is and how it is related to other objects.
“An atom is the [smallest part of matter; atoms make up everything] and {are made up of
protons, neutrons and electrons}” The drawing shown in Figure 1 was included.

FIGURE 1: Student representation of an atom

9
 The part of the response in square brackets […] falls into the units of matter sub-category
“smallest unit of matter” (coded 2-2). The part in {…} falls into two constituents sub-categories
one for identifying the electron, proton and neutron (coded 3-2 epn) and another for their
location (coded 3-3). Finally, the drawing places the response in the atomic models sub-category
planetary model (coded 4-2).
Question 2: How can an individual atom be seen? (Check all that apply)
The student checked only: “Atoms can not be seen now, but may be seen with some
invention of the future.”
Question 3: Is it possible to obtain energy from atoms? If yes, briefly explain how.
“Yes, some atoms are radioactive, and when the nucleus is unstable, it may emit a
particle and produce energy.”
This response to question 3 falls into the category “nuclear energy” (coded 5).
Each student’s responses were analyzed using a similar procedure.
The analyses of student responses to the first question “Using words and/or diagrams
describe your ideas of an atom. Include in your description what an atom is and how it is related
to other objects.” are given below.
Units of Matter (26%)
Responses in this category described an atom in terms of its relation to matter.
This category is the lowest one in the hierarchical sequence, because students wrote about only
one aspect of an atom, its relation to matter. The following statements are examples of this
category.
• “Atoms are really small things no one has ever seen and everything is made of some sort
of atom.”
• “An atom is very small. It is the building blocks of all things.”
Most of these students concentrated on the size of the atom. To understand the meaning
of small or the smallest, we need to look at the students’ responses to the second question where
students were asked how an individual atom could be seen. This information will be discussed in
the next section
Units of Matter and the Constituents of an Atom (7%)

10
 A response is placed in this combination of categories when the student not only defines
the atom but also states the constituents of an atom. The focus of the student is on both the
constituents and the relation of an atom with matter. The following statements are examples of
students’ responses.
• “Atoms are made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Atoms make up everything.”
• “Atoms are the building blocks of molecules. Each atom has a certain number of
protons, electrons, and neutrons. Atoms combine with other atoms to form the
objects we are familiar with today.”
These extracts are evidence that students heavily concentrate on the constituents and on the
relation between the atom and macroscopic world.
Units of Matter and Models of an Atom (3%)
Responses in this combination of categories are from students who define the atom by
drawing or describing a model of an atom, but where the constituents are not mentioned.
However, each student mentioned the atom as a form of matter. The examples in Figure 2 are
taken from the students’ responses. From these drawings it is evident that students have some
idea about the atomic models but they fail to identify the constituents of an atom.

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 2: Students’ representation of an atom

For Figure 2 (a) the student wrote “atoms make up everything around us”. For Figure 2
(b) the student responded that “an atom is a tiny particle of matter that is combined with other
atoms to make large objects.” The student who drew Figure 2 (c) described the atom as the
“smallest particle of matter”.
Constituents of an Atom Only (5%)
In these responses, the students identified the objects that are in an atom but did not
discuss the atom's relation to matter or an atomic model. One student responded with “proton,

11
neutron, electron”. Another said, “An atom contains electrons, protons, and neutrons. A
nucleus may be found in the center.” No information is given about the relation of an atom to
the matter even though it was requested explicitly.
Only Models of an Atom (3%)
The students in this category drew a picture of an atom without any description. They
did not mention the constituents of an atom and its relation with matter. The representations of
an atom in Figure 3 are taken from the students’ responses.

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 3: Students’ representation of an atom. These drawings were not accompanied
by any description.

12
Constituents and Models of an Atom (20%)
To be placed in this combination of categories students described what objects make
the atom and expressed the relation between these objects with a model. In this category,
students have higher level conceptions of an atom than previous categories. The following
descriptions are examples of students’ responses.
“An atom has protons and neutrons in its nucleus. The protons are positively charged
which the neutrons are neutral. The electrons orbit around the nucleus in energy levels.
The electrons are negatively charged.” This description included Figure 4.

FIGURE 4: A student’s representation of an atom, which was part of a description.

FIGURE 5: Students’ representation of an atom. Neither a description of an atom nor

their relations with matter were included by this group of students.

It is evident from these figures that students have identified the constituents of an atom
and presented it with a planetary type model.
The units of matter, constituents, and atomic models (14%)
This category is the one with the highest rank in our hierarchical order because students
mention the all three characteristics of an atom. The following are examples for this category.
“An atom is the simplest unit of a substance that retains the properties of that
substance. An atom has a positively charged nucleus that contains protons (+) and

13
 neutrons (no charge) surrounded by electrons which are randomly wound the nucleus
(there is a given probability of their position).” This description included Figure 6.

FIGURE 6: This student representation included a description that mentioned

probabilities.

Other students wrote

• “An atom is the building block of all matter. It is the smallest coherent part that an
element may be broken down into and still retains its properties. It is made up of
electrons, neutrons, and protons. The neutrons and protons constitute the nucleus, and
the electrons orbit the nucleus.”
• “Other objects are made up of atoms; atoms are what forms matter. Atoms are made up
of an electron cloud that contains electrons and a nucleus that contains protons and
neutrons. Atoms lose electrons and gain them to become positively or negatively
charged.”
This latter student clearly defines the atom in terms of its constituents and its relation to
matter; then he/she explains their relation in electron cloud model without any specific
attribution to the probabilistic nature. From this respond we can not state what this student
conception of an “electron cloud” is.
Some of the students have a shell model representation of an atom as shown in the
following example:
“An atom is the single smallest piece of matter. It has a nucleus and contains protons
and electrons. It is very small. It has shells of electrons called orbitals.”
This description includes Figure 7.

14
FIGURE 7: Representation of an atom given by a student who discusses orbitals.
Even though many students are fairly successful in describing the atom in terms of its
relation to matter and its constituents, the models presented here are not quantum mechanical
representations. A few students do use terms such as “electron cloud” and “orbital” which are
used in quantum mechanical descriptions. However, we did not ascertain the students’
definitions of these terms.
A summary of results for all categories by grade level is given in Table 4.
Table 4: Students’ distribution in each category or combination of categories across the
grade levels
Grade level

9th 10th 11th 12th

Grade Grade Grade Grade
Units, Constituents & Model 20% 12% 10% 15%

Constituents & Model 26% 16% 16% 27%

Units & Model 4% 2% 3% 3%

Model 3% 6% 2% -

Units & Constituents 9% 2% 10% -

Constituents 6% 4% 3% 6%

Units of Matter 11% 33% 36% 24%

No Response
Only 24 students out of 239 students did not respond to question 1. We have no
information about why those students did not respond.

15
 Do not know
Responses in this category are from students who responded to the question explicitly
that they did not know the description of an atom and its relation to matter. This category has
only twelve students.
Other
In the “Other” category are the responses that did not fit the categories but were too few
in number to warrant the creation of another category. 5% of the responses fall in this category.
Examples are:
“The smallest living form of life. If you did not have atoms, you wouldn’t be alive.”
“Atoms can be dangerous if used in the wrong way.”
“A world destroying bomb.”
Overview of Results for Description of the Atom
Figures 9 and 10 present a summary of all data collected in this study. Except for ninth graders
more students fall in the units of matter than any other category. However, none of the
categories or combination of categories exceeded the 25% of students. More than half of the
students included “Units of Matter” response in their description whereas only 33% of students
mentioned something about the constituents, and 42% of students included atomic models in
their descriptions.

Others
Units, Constituents & Model
Constituents & Model
Units & Model
Category

Model
Units & Constituents
Constituents
Units of Matter
Don't Know
No Response
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

% of Students

FIGURE 9: Percentage of Students in each category or combination of categories across

Grade Levels

16
 No Response

Don't Know

Units of Matter
Categories

Constituents
12th Grade
Units & Constituents

Model 11th Grade

Units & Model

Constituents & Model 10th Grade

Units, Constituents & Model

9th grade
Others

0 10 20 30 40
% of Students

Figure 10: Percentage of students whose responses were placed in each category.

Results by Category of Description

As shown in Figure 9 students’ distribution across the category “units of matter” and
combination of categories "constituents and model" and "units, constituents and model" is
different than the rest of the categories. More than 15% of students fell in this category or
combination of categories whereas less than 10% students fell to the rest of the category or
combination of categories.
Results by Grade Level
The 10th and 11th graders more often described an atom as a unit of matter than any
other grade level students. In this category, students concentrated on the size of an atom and its
relation to matter. Though students mentioned the size of an atom as very small, we have no
further information about whether they are associating some macroscopic properties to the
individual atoms as reported by Anderson and Renstrom (1983, cited in Griffiths and Peterson,
1992). Since most of our students thought that an atom could be seen with present technology,
students may see an atom as something directly observable.
We found very little variation across the grade levels in students' descriptions of the
constituents of an atom, models of an atom, and combination of categories of units of matter
and models of an atom. For each group a small fraction of students fell in these categories.
There is a significant variation in the grade level distribution of students in combination
categories of constituents and models of an atom. The 9th and 12th grade students described an

17
atom by concentrating on constituents and models of an atom more than the 10th and 11th
grade students.
In our interpretation the highest hierarchical level of description is the combination of
all categories. In this combination of categories, students described an atom by including the
units of matter, constituents, and models of an atom. The 9th graders differed from others in
this category. One reason could be that 76% of 9th graders have taken physical science course
and 80% of them were enrolled in another physical science course at the time of survey. These
courses include a discussion of the structure of matter. Very few of the 9th graders had taken or
were taking any other science course. We can not be certain that this course is the only source
for the description of an atom by 9th graders. Some other sources may also contribute to their
description such as retained knowledge from earlier school years, television or books.
In the combination of categories, students concentrated on three features of an atom:
(1) how big an atom is and its relation to matter
(2) constituents of an atom and their approximate location.
(3) models of an atom that varied from the one similar to the Thomson model of an
atom to some terminology of quantum mechanics.
Because the same features were absent in the descriptions submitted by students in most other
grade levels, we suspect that this description comes from course content.
Most students in higher grade levels reported that they had completed physical science
courses similar to the ones being completed by the ninth graders. Yet, they did not, on the
average, give responses at as high a level as the ninth grade students. This result seems
consistent across schools in the sample. We tentatively conclude that the more complete
descriptions of the atom are the result of contemporary instruction and not remembered later.
Students’ Perceptions of Seeing an Atom
The percentages of students’ responses to the question about whether an atom can be
seen now or in future are shown in Table 5. The data show that about 69% of all students
except 9th graders indicated an atom could be seen with present technology. However, 9th
graders think that an atom will be seen in future with some invention. Only a few students
think that seeing an atom is not a technological possibility.

18
Table 5: Percentage of students falling in categories of how an atom can be seen
across the grade levels. (Numbers totaling less than 100% indicate that some students
did not answer.)
An atom can 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade
be seen:

with Present 18% 69% 69% 72%

Technology
with Future 61% 14% 14% 21%
Technology
Impossible 8% 2% 10% 3%
Even in Future
Other 13% 2% 3% -

100% 87% 97% 96%

How Students Relate an Atom with Energy

The data show that a majority of students think that it is possible to obtain energy from
an atom. Most often nuclear energy is stated as the way to obtain energy from an atom. The
“other” category includes various ways to obtain energy from an atom such as electromagnetic
radiation, electricity, and chemical reactions. A few students thought that electrons produce
energy. Furthermore some students mentioned that atom “smashing” and/or particle
accelerators are the way to obtain energy from an atom.
Table 6: Percentage of students relating an atom with various type of energy across the
grade levels
Category 9th 10th 11th 12th
Grade Grade Grade Grade
No Response 17% 16% 8% 7%
Do not Know 4% 2% 3% 3%
No Energy 13% 12% 13% 3%
Yes, but don’t know how 4% 6% 13% 10%
Nuclear Energy 31% 31% 26% 24%
Motion 3% 4% 10% 10%
Others 27% 29% 27% 41%
99% 100% 100% 98%

19
 Conclusion
In describing the atom, most of the students fall into our low hierarchical level of
reasoning categories. Forty-six percent of 9th graders fell into the combination of categories
“constituents and models” or “units, constituents and models” whereas twenty-eight percent of
10th graders and twenty-six percent of 11th graders fell in these combinations of categories.
Because the higher grade level students had completed courses similar to those of the ninth
graders, we conclude that students do not seem to retain what they have learned from previous
courses or years. Majority of students did not include a model in their descriptions of an atom.
Students, who included a model in their description, used mechanical models in their
descriptions whereas 3% percent of them mentioned some quantum mechanical concepts.
The data show that about 69% of all students except 9th graders indicated an atom
could be seen with present technology. However, 9th graders think that an atom will be seen in
future with some invention. From students’ responses to the questions 2 and sometimes 1, we
can conclude that most of the students perceived an atom as something very small, but still
directly observable. They are not clear about the size of the micro-world.
Sixty-six percent of 9th graders, seventy percent of 10th graders, seventy-six percent of
11th graders and eighty-seven percent of 12th graders think that it is possible to obtain energy
from an atom. This indicates that grade level has effect on students’ responses in relating the
concept of energy and atom.
Even though students related an atom with energy, this is not within the context what is
given in their textbooks where electronic transitions were associated with the energy. Most
often nuclear energy is stated as the way to obtain energy from an atom.
Implications for Future Study
The next step in understanding students' views of atoms is an interview for further
understanding of students’ ideas about the atom. From these data, we need to create an
interview protocol and interview with students so that we may learn what they meant by
writing terms such as “electron cloud” or describing a probabilistic picture. We need to probe
the students’ ideas about which macroscopic properties they are associating with an individual
atom. Furthermore, we need to probe in what context students’ prefer to use different models.
How students are affected with the availability of different models to them is another big issue

20
that we need to learn from these interviews. We also need to find out if omissions of certain
aspects from their descriptions, such as the nucleus, are significant or just a simple omission.
We need to find out why students believe that with present technology we can see an
atom and what they mean when they say an atom can be seen. From there we can compare
students’ model of an atom with students’ perception of size of an atom. By this understanding
we can help students to construct a better relation of an atom with matter.
We need to probe them about the energy from an atom. When these students discussed
energy from an atom, they most frequently mentioned nuclear energy. Is the equality of nuclear
and atomic energy related to cultural background? In order to address this question, we will
compare responses about energy from atoms of the US students with a sample of South African
and Romanian students.
We also need to make a direct comparison with the work of Niedderer and Bethge
(1996). They report that a very large fraction of their sample of German students drew a Bohr
model. However, in their questionnaire they asked students to draw ("zeichnen") an atom where
we used the word "describe." Understanding how this slight difference in wording leads to very
different results could help us understand the process by which students come to understand
models of the atom.

Implications for Teaching

Teachers can use the results of study in various ways. For example they can build on
the small unit of matter idea. They can change the emphasis on the topics for better
understanding of constituents of an atom. The results of this study imply that teachers and
curriculum developers who want to use quantum mechanical approach and do not wish to
include the Bohr Model can safely do so. A large fraction of students do not describe the atom
in terms of a planetary or Bohr model. Thus, teaching contemporary physics without making a
transition from the semi-classical Bohr picture to quantum mechanics seems justified.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported financially by NSF grants ESI-9452782 and DUE-9652888 and
by a fellowship from the Fulbright Commission of Germany. Dean Zollman thanks the Institut
für Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften in Kiel, Germany, for its hospitality during the final

21
stages of the work. The authors thank Sanjay Rebello, Pratibha Jolly, Larry Escalada, Abby
Dimitrova, and Kastro Hamed for fruitful discussions and help with the phenomenographical
analysis.

22
 REFERENCES

Albanese, A., and Vicentini, M., 1995, Why do we believe that an atom is colourless?
Reflections about the teaching of the particle. Unpublished manuscript.

Anderson, B. & Renstrom, L., 1983, How Swedish pupils, age 12-15, explain the copper pipe
problem. Unpublished manuscript, University of Goteborg, Sweden.

Bethge, T., & Niedderer, H., 1996, Students’ conceptions in quantum physics. Unpublished
manuscript.

Browden, J., Dall’Alba, G., Martin, M., Laurillard, D., Masters, G., Ramsden, P., Stephanou, A.,
and Walsh, E., 1992, Displacement, velocity, and frames of references:
Phenomenographic studies of students’ understanding and some implications for teaching
and assesment. American Journal of Physics, 60, 262-269.

Clement, J., 1982, Students’preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of

Physics. 50, 66-71

Clement, J., 1982, Using bridging analogies and anchoring intutions to deal with students’
preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 30, 1241-1257

Cros, D. & Maurin, M., 1986, Concepts of first-year university students of the constituents of
matter and the notions of acids and bases. European Journal of Science Education, 8,
305-313.

Fischler, H. & Lichtfeldt, M., 1992, Modern physics and students’ conceptions. International
Journal of Science Education, 14, 181-190.

Fischler, H., & Lichtfeldt, M., 1991, Learning quantum physics. In Duit, R., Goldberg, F., and
Niedderer (eds.), Proceedings of an International Workshop on Research in Physics
Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, (Kiel: Institute for Science
Education) 241-258

Goldberg, F., and Bendall, S., 1992, Computer-video-based tutorials in geometric optics. In
Duit, R., Goldberg, F., and Niedderer (eds.), Proceedings of an International Workshop
on Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, (Kiel:
Institute for Science Education) 356-379.

Griffiths, A.K. & Preston, K.R., 1992, Grade 12 Students’ Misconception relating to
fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29, 611-628.

Jammer, M., 1965, Die entwicklung des modellbegriffes in den physikalischen wissenschaften.
Studium Generale, 18, 166-173, unpublished manuscript, University of Breman.

23
Marton, F., 1981, Phenomenography – describing conceptions of the world around us.
Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.

Marton, F., 1986, Phenomenography- a research approach to investigating different

understanding of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 29-39.

McDermott, L.C., 1984, Research in conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today,

37(7), 24-32.

McDermott, L. C., 1991, What we teach and what is learned: closing the gap. American Journal
of Physics, 59(4), 301-305.

McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., and van Zee, E. H., 1987, Student difficulties in
connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics
55, 503-513.

Mestre, J., P., 1991, Learning and instruction in pre-college physical science. Physics. Today,
44(9), 56-62.

Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P., 1985, Learning in science: The implications of children’s science
(Auckland: Heinman).

Prosser, M., 1994, A phenomenographic study of students’ intuitive and conceptual

understanding of certain electrical phenomena. Instructional Science, 22, 189-205.

Sequeira, M., and Leite, L., 1990, On relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles
at the junior high school level. In P. L. Lijnse, P. Licht, W. de Vos, and A. J. Waarlo
(eds.), Proceedings of a Seminar: Relating Macroscopic Phenomena to Microscopic
Particles (Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD-β Press). 220-232.

Sere, M. G.(1991, Passing from one model to another: which strategy? In P. L. Lijnse, P. Licht,
W. de Vos, and A. J. Waarlo (Eds.), (eds.), Proceedings of a Seminar: Relating
Macroscopic Phenomena to Microscopic Particles (Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD-β
Press) 50-67.

Van Heuvelen, A., 1991, Overview, case study physics. Amercian Journal Physics, 59, 898-907.

Zollman, D. A., 1990, Learning cycles for a large enrollment class. The Physics Teacher, 28,
20-25.

24
 APPENDIX A: THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Some Questions About Atoms

Please take a few minutes to answer the questions below.

1. Using words and/or diagrams describe your ideas of an atom. Include in your description what an atom
is and how it is related to other objects.

2. How can an individual atom be seen? (Check all that apply)

q with our unaided eyes
q with an ordinary (optical) microscope
q with an electron microscope
q with some complex apparatus but I don't know what it's called
q Atoms cannot be seen now, but may be seen with some invention of the future.
q Humans will never be able to see atoms.
q Other (Please specify______________________________________________)
3. Is it possible to obtain energy from atoms? If yes, briefly explain how.

4. a) What grade are you in? 7 8 9 10 11 12

b) What year college are you? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

5. What science class are you taking now?

6. What science classes have you taken in the past?

25
 APPENDIX B: CATEGORIES AND CODING SCHEME

Code & Category

0 No response
1 I don’t know
2 Units of Matter
2-0 Just units of matter
2-1 Atoms are small units of matter
2-2 Atoms are the smallest unit of matter
2-9 Other
3 Constituents of atoms
3-1 All constituents mentioned
3-2 Some constituents mentioned
Indicate which ones (e.g. 3-2ep for electron and proton but not neutron
mentioned)
3-9 Other
4 Model of atoms
4-0 Model similar to the Thomson Model of the Atom
4-1 A mixture of the Thomson Model and a planetary model
4-2 Planetary Model
4-3 Bohr or Shell model
4-4 Quantum Mechanical Model or some statement of probabilities
4-9 Other
5 Other

26