Unveiling Misconceptions in Chemical Bonding: A Comparative Study Across Secondary and Undergraduate Levels
Kumar, Sandeep
Professor of Chemistry, and ‘by courtesy of Psychology’, School of Applied and Behavioral Sciences, NIILM University, Kaithal, Haryana
Abstract
Misconceptions in chemical bonding remain a persistent challenge in chemical education. This study explores the conceptual misunderstandings held by students at the secondary and undergraduate levels, comparing their depth, nature, and frequency. Using diagnostic tools, interviews, and written assessments, we analyzed data from 300 students. Our findings indicate that while misconceptions are more prevalent at the secondary level, certain complex misconceptions persist even in undergraduate learners, suggesting systemic gaps in pedagogy and curriculum. This paper offers a detailed analysis of these issues, provides visual data representations, and concludes with actionable recommendations to improve chemistry education.
Keywords: Chemical Bonding, Misconceptions, Conceptual Understanding, Chemistry Education, Secondary and Undergraduate Comparison
Impact Statement
The research paper “Unveiling Misconceptions in Chemical Bonding: A Comparative Study Across Secondary and Undergraduate Levels” significantly contributes to science education by highlighting persistent conceptual misunderstandings in one of the most foundational topics in chemistry—chemical bonding. By systematically comparing students’ misconceptions across secondary and undergraduate levels, the study uncovers critical gaps in the learning trajectory and emphasizes the need for pedagogical reform. The findings reveal that many misconceptions, such as confusion between ionic and covalent bonding, incorrect visualization of electron sharing, and oversimplified models of molecular geometry, are not only prevalent but often remain unaddressed through traditional teaching methods.
This study’s impact lies in its ability to inform educators, curriculum developers, and policy-makers about the cognitive challenges students face at different academic stages. By diagnosing the root causes of these misconceptions and recommending evidence-based instructional strategies—such as the use of visual models, concept mapping, and inquiry-based learning—the research supports the development of more effective chemistry education frameworks. Ultimately, the study promotes deeper conceptual understanding, thereby enhancing students’ scientific reasoning and preparing them for advanced studies or careers in STEM fields.
About Author
Dr Sandeep Kumar is working as Professor of Chemistry and ‘by courtesy of psychology’ NIILM University Kaithal Haryana, and have more than two decades experience in teaching, research, curriculum development, counselling and leadership. His areas of interest are chemical education, research, behavioural science, teacher education and practices. As resource person, he has conducted more than 225 training programs for the school and higher education teachers. He has been awarded with numerous prestigious National and International Awards. He has participated and presented research articles in more than 200 National and International conferences. He has been invited as keynote speaker, guest of honour, conference chair, and resources person in various National and International Conferences. He is associated with various National and International Organizations.
References
Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed063p873
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2008). Diagnostic assessment of students’ understanding of chemical bonding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(1), 18–24.
Coll, R. K., & Taylor, N. (2001). Alternative conceptions of chemical bonding: A synthesis of research. ERIC
Cooper, M. M. (2010). Constructivist approaches for teaching chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(8), 849–855.
Gabel, D. L. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p548
Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29039-3
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 955–967.
Nahum, T. L., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Barnea, N. (2004). Can final examinations amplify students’ misconceptions in chemistry? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 301–325.
Niaz, M., & Fernández, R. (2008). Improving learning of scientific concepts by use of constructivist concept maps. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 299–313.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization, 5(3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500126
Özmen, H. (2004). Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000031255.92943.6d
Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions: Prevention, diagnosis and cure. Royal Society of Chemistry.
Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing learning: Re-drawing a chemistry curriculum map. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(2), 127–131.
Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204
Voska, K. W., & Heikkinen, H. W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<160::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-M