Chemistry Education

Research and Practice

View Article Online
PAPER View Journal

Students mental models of atomic spectra

Cite this: DOI: 10.1039/c6rp00051g
Nilufer Didis- Korhasan*a and Lu Wangb

Mental modeling, which is a theory about knowledge organization, has been recently studied by science
educators to examine students understanding of scientific concepts. This qualitative study investigates
undergraduate students mental models of atomic spectra. Nine second-year physics students, who
have already taken the basic chemistry and chemistry laboratory application courses, participated in the
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.

Received 25th February 2016,
Accepted 4th May 2016
DOI: 10.1039/c6rp00051g
www.rsc.org/cerp
study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants. The analysis revealed that
students had four types of coherently organized knowledge structures: the Scientific Model of Atomic
Spectra (SMAS), the Primitive Scientific Model of Atomic Spectra (PSMAS), No Photon Model (NPM), and
the Orbit Model (OM). Identified mental models indicated that students used some fundamental
concepts interchangeably, and electronic transition and photon energy were the threshold concepts
for students scientific understanding of atomic spectra.

Introduction investigating the constraints of mental models revealed that

Mental modeling is a theory about knowledge organization. For
this reason, a mental model can be defined as the representation
of an individuals knowledge (Seel, 2006). Mental models are the
knowledge structures, which are composed of coherent elements
to explain phenomena (Didis- et al., 2014). The function of mental
models is similar to computer simulations, because they allow
simulations in learners mind by processing inputs to predict
outcomes (Taber, 2013). Thus, they allow individuals reasoning
and facilitate problem solving and as a result they have great
importance in everyday reasoning (Gentner, 2002).
Mental modeling research in science education dates back
to the 1980s, and two dierent books about mental models
were published in 1983 (Gentner and Stevens, 1983; Johnson-
Laird, 1983). The mental modeling framework was recently
studied to examine students understanding of dierent chemistry
concepts such as galvanic cells (Supasorn, 2015), ionic bonding
(Coll and Treagust, 2003), chemical bonding (Coll and Treagust,
2001; Coll and Taylor, 2002; Stefani and Tsaparlis, 2009), chemical
compounds (Chittleborough et al., 2002), vapor pressure (Tumay,
2014), atomic structure (Harrison and Treagust, 1996; Park and
Light, 2009), molecules (Harrison and Treagust, 1996), atomic
and molecular orbitals, the Schrodinger equation, and hybridization
(Stefani and Tsaparlis, 2009). Chittleborough et al.s (2002) research
a
Bulent Ecevit University, Faculty of Education, 67300, Zonguldak, Turkey.
E-mail: niluferdidis@gmail.com; Fax: +90 372 323 8693; Tel: +90 372 323 3870
b
Harvard University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology, Cambridge,
MA, 02138, USA
Current address: Harvard University, Department of Physics, Cambridge, MA,
02138, USA.
eight aspects were in action in students understanding of
chemistry. Out of the eight aspects, four of them were student-
centered, such as appreciation of chemical representations, prior
chemistry knowledge, lack of any mental model and lack of
motivation, and the other four were course-centered, such as
teaching and assessment styles, use of chemical representations,
the amount of content and the speed of teaching the content. The
researchers indicated that for the construction of mental models
especially on the submicroscopic level concepts, students under-
standing of macroscopic and symbolic representations was very
important, because when the reality and the representations are
misunderstood, they limit students development of knowledge
organization. In addition, some concepts, which are considered as
threshold (Meyer and Land, 2003; 2006; Cousin, 2006; Park and
Light, 2009; Talanquer, 2015), need to be fully understood by
students for the construction of correct mental models and as a
result, conceptual troublesomeness may associate with these
threshold concepts (Park and Light, 2009). Ke et al. (2005) stated
that sensory motor experiences also had a role in students
mental models based on the classical interpretation of quantum
theory and that other primitive knowledge elements were in the
development of mental models of classical and quantum ideas.
Just as atomic structure is an important concept in science
from Democritus to today, helping students to understand it is
also important in science education (Park and Light, 2009). As
science educators, we hope to help students construct coherently
and correctly organized knowledge structures, i.e., mental models,
about the atomic world, because they may support understanding,
reasoning, and predictions (Gentner, 2002) about the other related
concepts in quantum theory. However, while learning quantum
theory, students may construct incorrect mental models causing

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

Paper
incorrect reasoning. Investigation of incorrect models, as well as
correct models, is important for revealing the learning process and
creating materials that minimize the triggering errors. From the
constructivists perspective of learning, if we could learn more
about students knowledge structures, no matter correct or
incorrect, we can help them construct scientific knowledge
structures by revising or improving their previous knowledge
structures. In light of the existing body of mental model
research, in this study we aim to investigate how second-year
undergraduate physics students understand atomic spectra, and
how they organize fundamental concepts in quantum theory to
explain this phenomenon. The research questions of this study are
as follows:
 What are the students mental models of atomic spectra?
 How is the structure of the mental models (i.e. are the
concepts used in a model all un/scientific (pure) or a mixture of
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
scientific and unscientific concepts (hybrid))?
 What do the mental models reflect about students under-
standing of atomic spectra?
We focused on students mental models of atomic spectra
because this topic contains very important concepts that are
used in the upper level science courses that teach the quantum
theory, such as the concepts of photons, electronic states in an
atom, electronic transitions, and atomic orbitals. In addition,
mental models not only indicate whether individual concepts
are understood scientifically but also whether these concepts
are used in a coherent and correct way. Scientific knowledge
organization is also important for future science teachers and
professors in their subject matter knowledge when they teach
in schools and universities.
Related literature
Pedagogical research about the atomic world
Quantum theory, which can be considered as a paradigm shift
from classical to quantum perspective, introduced many new
concepts, and these concepts are sometimes too abstract and
counter-intuitive to understand. However, learning of these
concepts is important for the further development of scientific
ideas providing the development of science and technology. For
this reason, many science educators aimed to examine upper
level secondary, undergraduate, and graduate level students
understanding of the concepts of quantum theory in the
context of the atomic world. These were: atomic and molecular
orbitals (Stefani and Tsaparlis, 2009; Tsaparlis and Papaphotis,
2009), the Schrodinger equation, physical observables, measure-
ment, wavefunction, Hilbert space (Singh, 2001; 2008a; Zhu and
Singh, 2012), the SternGerlach experiment (Zhu and Singh,
2011), atomic spectra (Ivanjek et al., 2015), angular momentum
(Zhu and Singh, 2013), wavefunction, probability density
(Emigh et al., 2015), energy levels and transition, wave particle
duality, uncertainty (Gardner, 2002), probability (Sadaghiani,
2005; Wattanakasiwich, 2005), operators, observables, eigenvalues
(Didis- et al., 2010), potential wells (Ozcan et al., 2009),
and the discrimination of classical and quantum notions
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
(Muller and Wiesner, 2002; Baily and Finkelstein, 2009; 2010).
In addition, recent research indicated that the development of
software facilitating the learning of the quantum concepts may
lower the barrier for students conceptual understanding. Some
of these media are: PhET Simulations for quantum tunneling,
wave packets, covalent bonds, the photoelectric effect, the
SternGerlach experiment, Rutherford scattering, models of
the hydrogen atom, blackbody radiation, etc. (McKagan et al.,
2008); Visual Quantum Mechanics: for matter waves, potential
energy diagrams, quantum orbitals, wavefuntions, probability,
the uncertainty principle, electron diffraction, etc. (Zollman
et al., 2002); QuVis Quantum Mechanics Visualization: for spin,
photon, waves, etc. (Kohnle et al., 2015).
As far as the literature has found, students scientific learning
of quantum concepts is painful no matter what stage they learn,
be it the secondary level to graduate. However, research-based
courses and material developments like tutorials (Zollman et al.,
2002; McKagan et al., 2008; Singh, 2008b; Baily and Finkelstein,
2009; 2010; Kohnle et al., 2015), revision of quantum theory
curricula (Asikainen and Hirvonen, 2009; Carr and McKagan,
2009; Ivanjek et al., 2015; McKagan et al., 2010), exploration
of students conceptual understanding and problem solving
by conceptual tests (Wuttiprom et al., 2009; Zhu and Singh,
2012; 2013; Dick-Perez et al., 2016), attitude and motivation
(Didis- Korhasan, 2015) towards learning the quantum concepts
are in the focus of physics and chemistry educators, who
teach the concepts of quantum theory in upper secondary and
university courses.
Mental modeling research
In addition to previous research examining students under-
standing of the concepts in quantum theory, the following
research about how students organized their knowledge of
the concepts in quantum theory is also one of the focuses
in both physics and chemistry education research, because
students abilities to solve the problems in a quantum
mechanics test do not always demonstrate their understanding
of the concepts (Ke et al., 2005). If new knowledge is consistent
with the previous knowledge, mental models can facilitate
learning (Gentner, 2002). For this reason how students construct
and organize their knowledge in learning quantum theory was
examined by researchers using the mental modeling framework,
for example students understanding of potential energy diagrams
and probability (Bao, 1999), quantization of energy, light and
angular momentum (Didis- et al., 2014), atomic structure (Ke
et al., 2005; Park and Light, 2009), electromagnetic radiation,
and Wiens law (Vadnere and Joshi, 2009).
One of the earliest studies using the mental modeling
framework is the research of Bao (1999). Bao studied university
physics students mental models of the probability concept for
classical and quantum mechanics. He developed his Model
Analysis tool to make quantitative explanations of students
models. This tool includes two algorithms to examine students
mental models quantitatively. With the Model Analysis tool, by
using students answers in the test with multiple-choice questions,
he identified students model-based responses. In addition,
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
by using these model-based responses, he constructed density
matrices, which included the information about students
model states. Five force and motion questions of FCI (Hestenes
et al., 1992) were used to determine physical models as
correct, incorrect and null models. After the analysis, The results were similar to Baos (1999) findings about having
Bao explained the superiority of this analysis to the score-based
(measurement with multiple-choice tests) analysis by indicating
the loss of information in score-based analysis. He implemented
this analysis to examine students mental models in quantum
mechanics. He first developed tutorials, conducted interviews,
conceptual quizzes, and homework/exam questions, and then
he developed a multiple-choice test to construct matrices. By the
experience of students diculties in the classes, he examined
students conceptions of potential energy diagrams and most students had the EQM model that was based on classical
probability topics. In his study, Bao identified three types of mechanics. The TWM model was considered as a conceptual
mental models of students for quantum mechanical concepts.
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
These types were: (1) strong classical mechanical models; (2)
hybrid models including correct information about quantum
mechanical concepts by using classical mechanical reasoning;
and (3) mixing models including both quantum mechanical and
classical mechanical models at the same time.
Vadnere and Joshis (2009) study is a considerably new study
using Baos tool (1999) that he developed in his dissertation to
examine students mental model; however, their design dif-
fered from that of Bao (1999). The researchers examined
students mental models of electromagnetic radiation, Wiens
law, etc. with a weak experimental design. The researchers
implemented a pre-test to 119 volunteer Standard 12 (corres-
ponding to K-12) students. Software was then used to teach
students these concepts. Afterward, the students were post-
tested. In the analysis, the researchers used the density
matrix, which was used in mental model identification by
Bao (1999). They first defined three probabilities for students
mental models such as the expert model (E), the misconception
model (M), and the null model (N) by considering students
answers. In the examination of the development of students
mental models, the researchers identified an increase in the
probability of triggering the expert state, and a decrease in the
null state in the post-test than in the pre-test. This way, they
explained that this software was successful in the development
of students mental models. They suggested that the tools of
quantum mechanics, which were the mathematical expressions
used in the definition of quantum particles such as density
matrix, could be used to analyze student learning.
Ke et al. (2005) aimed to investigate variation and progression
in students mental models of quantum mechanics phenomena. A
cross sectional survey was carried out and the data were collected
first with the implementation of a pencil and paper questionnaire
to 140 students in dierent grades from undergraduate to PhD.
Then, two-step interviews were conducted with the selected
participants. In the first step of the interviews, participants
reexamined their answers in the questionnaire and explained
more about their answers. In the next step, they grouped and
linked the concepts by using concepts cards with a card-sort
task and they discussed the rationale behind their choices.
The researchers identified three mental structures about atomic
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
Paper
structure with the organization of quantum mechanical concepts
such as electron, energy level, orbital, uncertainty, wave function,
probability, etc. The researchers named students mental models
by considering the three stages in the history of quantum theory.
classical and quantum interpretations. Students having the
Early Quantum Mechanics (EQM) model had classical ideas
about the electron behavior with fixed orbits; students having
the Transitional Wave Mechanics (TWM) model considered the
wave nature of the electron with a wave like path; and the last
group of students having the Probabilistic Wave Mechanics
(PWM) model interpreted the electron behavior by considering
probability and uncertainty. The researchers indicated that
development with the change in the previous model and the
PWM model was mainly observed in experienced students (PhD
students). Finally, students had more mental models together,
and this result indicated that the development of students
mental models was not linear (i.e. EQM and PWM may exist
at the same time) and they improved their mental models.
The study by Park and Light (2009) also aimed to identify
students mental models of atomic structure and troublesome
concepts that play a role in the construction of mental models.
The researchers implemented a questionnaire to 633 first-year
college students taking a general chemistry course. This course
focused on fundamental chemical principles and seven of nine
chapters were about the atomic structure in the textbook. The
researchers not only accepted the quantum mechanical model
of an atom as scientific models, they also considered other
three models taught in high schools and previously identified
by other researchers (Justi and Gilbert, 2000 as cited in Park
and Light, 2009) as scientific models. They coded students
explanations in a 13-level hierarchical order by considering the
chronological development of the concepts. These levels of
understanding were used to classify the mental models of
20 students about the atomic structure such as the Particle
model, the Nuclear model, Bohrs model, and the Quantum
model. Pre- and Post-interviews were conducted with students.
Three high achiever students had a single coherent mental
model of the atomic structure in each of the interviews and the
others had mixed mental models with fragmented knowledge
elements. Probability and energy quantization were identified
as the threshold concepts for understanding atomic structure and
they were explained as threshold barriers distinguishing between
students who got or did not get the target level of understanding.
Didis- et al. (2014) examined second-year undergraduate
students mental models of the quantization of physical observables
and investigated context dependency of mental models in
dierent contexts such as blackbody radiation, photoelectric
eect, atom, etc. Researchers collected data during an academic
semester (15 weeks) in a modern physics course constructing
the basic ideas of quantum theory. Dierent sources of data were
used to identify students mental models about the quantization
of light, energy, and angular momentum. These were basically
interviews with 31 students, tests, and examination papers.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

Paper
Six types of context dependent mental models the Scientific
Model (SM), the Primitive Scientific Model (PSM), the Shredding
Model (ShM), the Alternating Model (AM), the Integrative Model
(IM), and the Evolution Model (EM) were identified. Some of
these mental models were hybrid and some students had mixed
model states (having more than one model) to explain the
quantization phenomenon. Didis- Korhasan et al. (2016) also
examined the influence of instructional issues on these mental
models. By the analysis of almost 10 week classroom observation
data (2760 min) and interviews, students mental models were
reinterpreted in terms of elements emerging from the learning
environment. The results revealed that the manner of teaching
(instructional methodologies and content specific techniques
used by the instructor), the order of the topics, the familiarity
with concepts, and peers played roles in the development of
mental models.
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
Research assumptions
Mental models are complex mental structures which cannot be
observed directly. For this reason, identification of mental
models is not a simple process and it requires in-depth questioning
(Taber, 2008). This research had some assumptions about the
identification of mental models:
 Since mental models are abstract structures constructed in
mind, identification of mental models is based on inferences
from participants explanations.
 Mental models are coherent knowledge structures and for
this reason coherency, that is having a single conceptual energy with negative values, discrete energy levels, electronic
framework (Didis- et al., 2014), among the concepts constructing
a mental model is an important feature to specify the model.
 Mental models allow qualitative reasoning (Gentner, 2002)
to explain experienced or hypothetical situations as well as
physical phenomena.
 Mental models may not have firm boundaries. The elements
of one mental model might be confused (Norman, 1983, p. 8).
Methodology
To investigate individuals knowledge structures, asking for
their mental models directly is not enough (Gentner, 2002).
For this reason, indirect methods, such as interviews, tests, and
questionnaires including conceptual questions and qualitative
reasoning problems that reveal students knowledge patterns,
are used to infer students mental models. Both qualitative and
quantitative methodologies can be used to investigate students
mental models with dierent designs, and each has advantages
and disadvantages in terms of the number of participants and
the amount of time spent for investigation. This research examined
students mental models of atomic spectra by a qualitative
approach, discovered students scientific and unscientific con-
ceptions related to atomic spectra, and identified the threshold
concepts that limit knowledge organization.
Data collection
The participants were selected among the second-year under-
graduate students enrolled in the physics program of a university.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
In total, nine students participated in the study, five of them
were males and four of them were females. Participants had
already successfully completed the introductory chemistry and
chemistry laboratory courses, and they were taking the modern
physics course. These nine participants were selected purposively
among the 98 students and they participated in the research
voluntarily. Because this was a qualitative examination of students
understanding and we did not aim to generalize findings, we
delimited the participant selection by selecting almost 10% of the
students. The selection criteria were to provide diversities among
the participants in terms of students interest in learning quantum
theory as well as their academic performance. The level of
students interest was determined by the first author of this
paper who had the opportunities to observe the students
participation in the modern physics course (e.g., how much
they asked questions to the instructor in and after class and
discussed related topics with their peers).
In order to identify students mental models of atomic spectra,
a test with four questions was developed (see Appendix I) and it
was taken by the participants via one-on-one interviews. The
questions were designed to reveal the participants cognitive
structures and to encourage them to conceptually explain the
phenomenon of atomic spectral lines. Starting from general to
specific, visible to invisible, concrete to abstract in the first
question, students were asked to interpret the lines in the
atomic emission and absorption spectra. In the second ques-
tion, they explained some basic terms related to atomic spectra:
transition, and photon emission. In the third question, they were
asked how the transition of an electron between energy levels is
related to the emission of a photon. In the fourth and last
question, students made qualitative reasoning about the behavior
of an electron and the resulting atomic spectra in a hypothetical
situation where the electron in the hydrogen atom obeys classical
mechanics rather than quantum mechanics. During the interviews,
participants were requested to think out loud as much as possible.
Each interview took almost one hour and was video recorded.
Data analysis
After the verbal data (i.e. the students answers to the questions
in Appendix I) were transcribed and matched with the visual
and mathematical artifacts created during the interviews,
the data analysis was conducted by using a code list. All
codes emerged from the data. Mutual exclusiveness and
appropriateness to explain atomic spectra were the criteria
for determining the codes. A draft code list was presented to
two external researchers (one of them is a physics educator and
the other is a molecular physicist) for feedback. Both of the
authors discussed about the coding, and definitions of the
concepts in the code list were clarified and rewritten after
resolving the discrepancies. The final code list is presented in
Table 1. The first five of the six concepts are scientific and
reflects the reality, while the last one, the orbit (O), is unscientific
in the context of atomic spectra although it was used in Bohrs
atomic model.
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
 View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Paper

Table 1 The code list for the determination of mental models of atomic spectra

Code of concepts Abbr. Description

Bound electron BE An electron in an atom.
Discrete energy levels DEL Energy levels for an electron in the atom.
Spectral lines SL The colored lines in an emission spectrum or the dark lines in an absorption spectrum.
Photon energy PE Energy of a photon with a certain wavelength.
Electronic Transition ET Change of an electrons quantum state from one to another within an atom.
Orbita O Existence of an electron in a specific orbit.
a
Unscientific concept for the quantum atom model.

The mental models for atomic spectra were identified Results

following the methodology used by Didis- et al. (2014). In the
data analysis, participants coherent use of these codes (i.e. the
concepts) to explain the atomic spectra was important. For this
aim, we focused on how students used the concepts coherently.
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
Students mental models
Four dierent mental models of atomic spectra were identified;
the Scientific Model of Atomic Spectra (SMAS) and the other
three were unscientific: the Primitive Scientific Model of

If these concepts were meaningfully connected together to

have a single conceptual framework, the observed knowledge
organization was called a mental model (see Appendix II for
sample coding). The proposed mental models are not students
definitions of atomic spectra. The students were not asked
to answer the question what is an atomic spectrum. Instead,
the mental models were identified by researchers based on
inferences from participants explanations to the features
related to atomic spectra described in the questions listed in
Appendix I. In the investigation of mental structures, both
of the authors discussed and agreed on four mental models
summarized in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 presents how the codes (concepts) are related to each
other and used together to form coherent frameworks, i.e., mental
models. For example, the coherent use of the concepts (we call
them codes in the data analysis) bound electron (BE), discrete
energy levels (DEL), electronic transition (ET), photon energy (PE),
and spectral lines (SL) is called the Scientific Model of Atomic
Spectra (SMAS), and it is outlined by the triangle with dotted lines.
Fig. 1 Composition of mental models about atomic spectra. The triangle
outlined by the dotted lines represents the Scientific Model of Atomic
Spectra (SMAS); the shaded triangles represent the three unscientific
models, and they are: the Primitive Scientific Model of Atomic Spectra
(PSMAS), the No Photon Model (NPM), and the Orbit Model (OM). Ellipses
on a triangle contain the concepts used coherently (but not necessarily
correctly) in a mental model. The unscientific concept, the orbit (O), is in
shaded ellipse.
Atomic Spectra (PSMAS), the No Photon Model (NPM), and
the Orbit Model (OM). Table 2 lists these mental models with
the elements constructing the models.
Scientific Model of Atomic Spectra (SMAS). The Scientific
Model of Atomic Spectra (SMAS) was observed in two of the
nine students. In this model, students explained atomic spectra
with the coherent use of BE, DEL, ET, PE, and SL. More
specifically, the spectral lines (SL) arise from the transitions
(ET) of an electron in an atom (BE) from a quantum state to
another quantum state with a dierent energy level (DEL).
Because a bound electron has discrete energy levels (DEL),
the magnitude of the energy of the absorbed or emitted photon
(PE) can be determined by the dierence between these specific
energy values. For this reason, spectral lines correspond to
specific wavelengths. One of the two students explained the
spectral lines as follows:
Interviewer (I): Lets look at this. [Q1: In an emission
spectrum, what do the (colored) lines represent (in the visible
region), or in an absorption spectrum what do the dark lines
represent? Why do the lines occur? Why do they have dierent
colors (in the visible region) in emission spectra? Why are they
dark in absorption spectra?] Do you have any idea?
Student 8 (ST8): Yes I have. This is umm. . . In an atom, when
an electron with a dierent n is falling down to the other n
level, it emits a photon. This has a specific energy, for example
passing from n = 3 to n = 2, the photon is emitted with an
amount of eV energy between these energy levels. For this
reason these lines occur.
I: Ok, then, (pointing to the emission spectrum in the figure)
how does this dark area occur?
ST8: This is for example, here, umm. . ., in this dark area
(pointing to the emission spectrum in the figure), a photon
cannot be emitted. The magnitude of the energy that does not
correspond to dierence between two energy levels is dark here.
Absorption is the reverse of emission. That means, the
absorbed photons correspond to dark lines, and other areas
are seen colored.
One of the important observations about the students
displaying this model was the relationship between spectral
lines and quantized energy levels. Another excerpt given below

This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
 View Article Online

Paper Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Table 2 Mental models of atomic spectra

Codes of concepts
Scientific Unscientific
Mental models BE DEL SL PE ET O
Scientific Model of Atomic Spectra (SMAS)     
Primitive Scientific Model of Atomic Spectra (PSMAS)a   
No Photon Model (NPM)a   
Orbit Model (OM)a   
a
Unscientific mental models of atomic spectra.

belongs to the other student who explains spectral lines as
follows:
I: Is there any relationship between energy levels and the
spectral lines? Is the distance between the spectral lines related
to the energy levels?
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
I: Why do we see dierent lines? Why are they lines?
ST1: Line structure is probably because of each color has
specific character. For this reason they are dierent lines. But I
have no idea about they are black in absorption spectrum (smiling).
I: Lets look at this (pointing to Question 2). You see E

ST9: Yes. here in eV. What does it mean?

I: How?
ST9: Energy levels determine the distance between the lines.
That means, for example, there are spectral lines. The transition
of an electron occurs between the discrete energy levels in an
atom and it determines the wavelength of the emitted photon.
As a result of this, the energy dierence between two levels
(pointing to the figure) explains lines, and also the distances
among the spectral lines.
Some conversations are omitted here
I: (pointing to the figure in Question 2) All right. Could you
explain what Part d each arrow means here?
ST9: Umm. . . This is the transition of an excited electron to
the ground state. Arrows explain this. It gives the energy as the
dierence of these energy values. Photon energy, which is hn,
equals to the dierence between these energy values.
This mental model is the target model for understanding
atomic spectra, in which scientific concepts are understood and
linked together correctly to explain spectral lines.
Primitive Scientific Model of Atomic Spectra (PSMAS). The
Primitive Scientific Model of Atomic Spectra (PSMAS) was
another model which was observed in two of the nine students.
This model can be considered as a primitive scientific model
because it includes the coherent use of three elements of SMAS,
which are DEL, SL, and PE.
One of the two students with this model ignored the electronic
transitions in an atom in the explanation of spectral lines (SL), and
considered radiation independent of the behavior of an electron in
an atom. More specifically, the emitted photon (PE) was described as
a spontaneous event when energy levels (DEL) change. This students
explanation of the emission and absorption spectra is as follows:
I: Lets examine these spectra. [Q1: In an emission spectrum,
what do the (colored) lines represent (in the visible region), or
in an absorption spectrum what do the dark lines represent?
Why do the lines occur? Why do they have dierent colors (in
the visible region) in emission spectra? Why are they dark in
absorption spectra?]
ST1: Umm. . . I remember that spectra are as the fingerprints
of atoms. It is interesting. I like this description. . . Probably,
the colored lines are because of radiation.
ST1: Umm. . . When an electron is jumping from one energy
level to another, umm. . . For example when jumping from 2 to
1, energy changes due to them. We call energy levels. . .
I: All right! What do these arrows (pointing to part d in
Question 2) mean?
ST1: Energy level changes. There is energy dierence
between them. Umm. . . It is radiation. We define radiation as
hn. Then, we explain spectrum. Because the energies are
dierent, dierent colored lights emitted naturally.
The other student who displayed this model also associated
spectral lines with just the change of the discrete energy levels
rather than connecting it with electronic transitions. Furthermore,
this student did not understand the energy levels correctly and
associated energies with orbits through mathematical manip-
ulations as shown in Fig. 2.
ST2: If we get a small part here (drawing electron orbits and
pointing to them), I guess it might be wrong but, anyway, if we
consider this small region (on the orbit), we do not see as a
curve but we see it as a line, that is an energy level.
I: Do you mean the small part is an energy level?
ST2: Yes (smiling). I think, an energy level is, here (pointing
to his drawing), umm, I do not understand that it is the energy
of an electron or it is the energy of orbit! I do not know. . .
I: Ok, I am trying to understand what you mean.
ST2: From the beginning of the semester, it (electron) always
changes energy levels and photon emitted or we send photon
Fig. 2 Explanation of energy levels in terms of orbits and integrals.

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
and it also changes energy level. I remember it. I remember
from modern physics, but there were similar explanations in
the chemistry course. (Smiling). . . Umm. . . If we get a part from
here (pointing to his drawing again). . . Dont we integrate small
parts in this way? For example, (drawing the integral graph),
this is dz (smiling). . . I know this. . . I am not sure about my
knowledge. Umm. . . These lines (pointing to energy levels), they
are energy levels of electrons. But there is something missing. I
feel I am right.
PSMAS is the closest model to SMAS in terms of recognizing
the relationship between photon energy (PE) and discrete
energy levels (DEL) of an electron. However, the missing of
BE and ET in the model reflects wrong knowledge organization
and incorrect understanding of concepts. Students with PSMAS
treated spectral lines as a property of an atom that is not connected
to the behavior of the electron or any electronic transition.
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
No Photon Model (NPM). The most common model is the
No Photon Model (NPM), since four students displayed this
model. All of them were aware of DEL and SL; however, they
thought that they were the same concepts. More specifically,
students thought that an electron in an atom (BE) has energy
levels (DEL) and these dierent energies correspond to the
dierent spectral lines (SL). No transitions between energy
levels or the concept of a photon was mentioned. hn was not
considered as the energy for a photon, but the energy level that
corresponds to a spectral line. One of the examples below explained
students association of spectral lines with energy levels:
I: Here are the spectra (pointing to the figure in Question 1).
First one is an emission spectrum and the other is absorption.
You see the colored lines between 400 nm and 700 nm in the
emission spectrum. [Q1: In an emission spectrum, what do the
(colored) lines represent (in the visible region), or in an
absorption spectrum what do the dark lines represent? Why
do the lines occur? Why do they have dierent colors (in
the visible region) in emission spectra? Why are they dark in
absorption spectra?]
ST7: Umm. . . They are. . . These colorful lines are energy levels.
I: Energy levels?
ST7: Yeah. . .
I: How do you explain, for example, why the dark area
between the colored lines is large here and it is small here?
ST7: I am not sure but I think it is because of the dierence
between energy levels. . .
Another student gave a similar explanation on atomic
spectra.
I: [Q1: In an emission spectrum, what do the (colored) lines
represent (in the visible region), or in an absorption spectrum
what do the dark lines represent? Why do the lines occur? Why do
they have dierent colors (in the visible region) in emission spectra?
Why are they dark in absorption spectra?] Can you explain?
ST5: Yes. . . It is related to energy levels.
I: How they are related?
ST5: Both are already discrete (smiling).
I: You see lines.
ST5: Yes, these lines have got to be energy levels (pointing to
the spectrum).
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
Paper
I: Do you mean this energy level corresponds to a line in the
spectrum (pointing to the figures of Questions 1 and 2) and
another energy level is another line in the spectrum?
ST5: Yes, thats right.
An excerpt from the third student displaying this model
showed how energy levels correspond to spectral lines as follows:
ST3: Umm. . . Energy level is inversely proportional to wave-
length. That means, if it has a long wavelength, the energy is so
little.
I: Do you mean here (pointing to the spectral lines) energy
levels are dierent?
ST3: If a wavelength of this light is dierent (showing a line
in spectrum) probably its energy level is dierent. This energy is
hn (writing the formula in a box).
Orbit Model (OM). The Orbit Model (OM) is similar to NPM,
and the main dierence is that instead of the discrete energy
levels (DEL) that correspond to the dierent spectral lines, it is
the dierent orbits (O) where an electron resides in an atom
(BE) that corresponds to dierent spectral lines (SL). Similar
to NPM, photons were not mentioned in OM. hn was not
considered as the energy for a photon, but rather, the student
thought hn corresponds to a spectral line. The students explanation
is as follows:
I: [Q4: Suppose the electron in a hydrogen atom obeys
classical mechanics rather than quantum mechanics. What
would you expect to observe in the spectrum?]
ST6: Umm. . . I think about that. . . The electron will fall
down to the nucleus. . .
I: How will they fall down?
ST6: Am I right? I am not sure but this is not a real event so
you cannot see such a thing (smiling).
I: What about spectrum?
ST6: If you ask me the spectrum, I think these colors are
because of orbits, but I do not know. Spectrum occurs probably
due to the distances of the orbits. That means, if it is real, we
see these spectral lines here (drawing the discrete spectral
lines, which were close to each other at one end of the spectrum
around 400 nm, as shown in Fig. 3) because now orbits are
being closer to each other at this end. This might happen at the
other end (pointing to the opposite end of spectrum for 700 nm).
The student displaying this model had similar knowledge
organization to the students with NPM but this student connected
spectral lines with orbits that are at dierent distances from the
nucleus. This was also an incorrect model. The student did not
have a correct understanding of discrete energy levels, electronic
transition, photon energy, or orbitals.
Structure of mental models
Table 3 compares the structures of dierent mental models in
terms of purity (Bao, 1999; Didis- et al., 2014) by considering
whether the concepts involved are scientific or unscientific. If
all the concepts involved are of the same type (e.g. scientific), it
was called a pure model, and if not (e.g. both scientific and
unscientific), it was called a hybrid model.
One of the interesting findings of this study on the structure
of mental models reflected in Table 3 is that a pure mental
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
 View Article Online

Paper Chemistry Education Research and Practice

What do the mental models reflect about students

Fig. 3 A students drawing of the emission spectrum. A hypothetical
electron in the hydrogen atom obeys classical mechanics rather than
quantum mechanics. There are discrete spectral lines when the electron is
falling down to the nucleus. Lines are getting closer to each other because
orbits are getting closer to each other. The student did not consider the
dierence between the 400 nm end and the 700 nm end of the spectrum,
and stated that the closer lines can exist in either end of the spectrum
depending on which end the nucleus is. The lines are concentrated at one
end because it is approaching the nucleus. Mor (in the lower right
corner) means the color violet.
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
understanding of atomic spectra?
This research indicated some threshold concepts explained
by researchers (Meyer and Land, 2003; 2006; Cousin, 2006; Park
and Light, 2009; Talanquer, 2015). A threshold concept can be
described as opening up a new and previously inaccessible
way of thinking about something (Meyer and Land, 2006, p. 3).
They are dicult to understand but when they are understood
they provide more connected and deeper understanding
(Chandler-Grevatt, 2015). Threshold concepts are assumed to
have the following five characteristics: transformative, integrative,
irreversible, troublesome, and bounded (Meyer and Land, 2003;
2006; Cousin, 2006; Park and Light, 2009; Talanquer, 2015).
Electronic transition (ET) and photon energy (PE) are identified
as threshold concepts in understanding atomic spectra as they

demonstrate the five characteristics mentioned above. Firstly,

these two concepts are transformative because unscientific
model with all the concepts used being scientific is not necessarily
mental models emerged due to the missing of one or both of
a scientific mental model. Although all the elements of a mental
these two concepts as shown in Fig. 4.
model can be all scientific concepts, whether the mental model
Electronic transition (ET) is what dierentiates the two
is scientific or not depends on the connections among the
models SMAS and PSMAS. Students with PSMAS do not associate
concepts in the knowledge organization. For example, in the
the change in energy levels in an atom with the electronic
SMAS, students used scientific concepts in a coherent and
transition between dierent quantum states. An important
correct way. However, in mental models PSMAS and NPM,
thing to point out is that the unscientific model PSMAS is very
students used scientific concepts with incomplete or incorrect
hard to be identified with common calculation questions in
understanding and connected them incorrectly when they organized
atomic spectra. Students with either SMAS or PSMAS will be able
their knowledge.
to correctly calculate the wavelengths in the absorption or
The incorrect pure organization of knowledge can be manifested
emission spectra based on that the photon energy equals the
in two ways. First is without using all the scientific concepts
dierence between two discrete energy levels.
needed in the construction of a scientific mental model, and the
In addition to electronic transition (ET), photon energy (PE)
second is with incorrect links. For example, the students with
is the other threshold concept: students with PSMAS lack ET
PSMAS did not consider electronic transition between energy
and misconnected PE directly to DEL, and students with NPM
levels to explain the photon energy and they explained it only in
or OM lack both of these concepts in their mental models.
terms of the dierence between energy levels. The absence of
The lack of the concept of photon energy is easier to be
these concepts in their knowledge organization prevented the
identified than the concept of electronic transition with calculation
construction of correct models.
questions, as the students with NPM or OM will not be able to
In another example, students displaying NPM had wrong
correctly calculate the wavelengths in atomic spectra based on
links among the scientific concepts in addition to missing
the wrong connection between spectral lines (SL) and discrete
concepts; they did not fully understand DEL or SL and incorrectly
energy levels (DEL) in NPM or orbits (O) in OM.
connected these two together.
The transformative characteristic of these two threshold
In addition to the pure mental models, the last type of
concepts is also demonstrated as they bring a shift from a classical
organization is the hybrid model. In our study, we observed that
perspective (common sense) to the quantum perspective in
OM was a hybrid unscientific model which was constructed by
the use of scientific and unscientific elements together.

Table 3 Purity of mental models

Mental Scientific Unscientific

models elements elements Connection Purity
SMAS 5 0 + Pure, scientific
PSMAS 3 0 . Pure, unscientifica
NPM 3 0 ., Pure, unscientificb
OM 2 1 ., Hybrid, unscientificb
(+) corresponds to correct connection. ( ) corresponds to wrong Fig. 4 Domains for mental models of atomic spectra identified by two
connections. (
) corresponds to missing connections. a Wrong under- threshold concepts. The visual model of Park and Light (2009) about the
standing with missing concepts. b Wrong understanding with missing/ threshold concepts was used to indicate their role in the construction of
wrong concepts and missing/wrong connections among the concepts. scientific and unscientific models.

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
explaining the atomic spectra. The correct understanding of
atomic spectra with electronic transition and photon energy
is also a reflection of a scientific understanding of atomic
structures and the wave-particle duality of light and matter. As
threshold concepts, ET and PE are also integrative because they
bring together other important concepts spectral lines,
discrete energy levels, and bound electron of atomic spectra
as shown in Fig. 1.
Given their transformative and integrative roles in explaining
the atomic spectra, they are irreversible and unlikely to be forgotten.
They are troublesome, that is they require the quantum perspective
and are hence counter-intuitive and dicult to understand.
Their troublesome characteristic is also why the electronic
transition (ET) is missed in all the three unscientific mental
models and photon energy (PE) is misused in PSMAS and
missed in NPM and OM. Lastly, they are bounded, because
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
they are specific to the disciplines related to quantum theory.
We think that understanding the phenomenon of atomic
spectra can be seen as a strategic tool to assess whether the
students have a good understanding of the following three
aspects shown in Fig. 5: (1) the behavior of an electron in an
atom (wave-particle duality of matter), (2) the wave-particle
duality of light, and (3) the interaction between an electron
and a photon (lightmatter interaction). As shown in Fig. 5, the
SMAS consists of five scientific concepts concerning the above
three aspects.
The behavior of an electron in an atom (BE) can be explained
with the wavefunctions (orbitals) associated with the corresponding
energies (DEL). In the process of an electronic transition (ET)
between dierent quantum states, the electron absorbs or
releases energy that corresponds to the packet of energy carried
by a photon (PE), which explains the colors and discreteness of
spectral lines (SL). This is how matter and light interact.
The only limitation of using atomic spectra as the assessment
tool for the understanding of atomic structures is that SMAS
does not require the understanding of orbitals, so students
with an incorrect understanding of orbitals can do well in
Fig. 5 The scientific model of atomic spectra (SMAS) as a reflection of the
correct understanding of (1) the behavior of an electron in an atom (wave-
particle duality of matter), (2) the wave-particle duality of light, and (3) the
interaction between an electron and a photon (lightmatter interaction).
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
Paper
questions on atomic spectra without the misconception on
orbitals exposed.
Conclusion, discussion and
implications
Mental models are the knowledge structures constructed in an
individuals mind, which are composed of coherent elements to
explain what is perceived when seeking a deeper understanding
(Norman, 1983; Taber, 2013; Didis- et al., 2014). Our research
has shown that students wrong understanding of the concepts
results in the construction of unscientific mental models of
atomic spectra. Gentner (2002) explained that novices had a
tendency to learn conservatively. For this reason, students
often used locally coherent but inconsistent structures. One
of the interesting findings was almost half of the students
(4 students) associated discrete energy levels (DEL) with
discrete spectral lines (SL) in NPM. Ivanjek et al. (2015)
indicated that a large number of Croatian and American
students might have such a kind of understanding in atomic
spectra. This kind of idea might be considered as a misconception
of students about atomic spectra; however, our research findings
indicated that students might have this misunderstanding with
a coherent wrong organization of the fundamental knowledge
elements about the spectral phenomenon. Another model, OM,
was the other kind of wrong association of spectral lines.
One student having this model explained that the change in
orbits caused the collapse of spectral lines toward one end of
the spectrum. The findings of Ivanjek et al. (2015) and our
findings from dierent countries reflected how students intended
to concretize abstract concepts with observable elements (e.g.
spectral lines) with wrong associations.
As Park and Lights (2009) research indicated the importance
of threshold concepts to understand the atomic structure
well, we also identified that two of the fundamental concepts,
electronic transition (ET) and photon energy (PE) were threshold
concepts in the construction of a scientific mental model about
atomic spectra. There are two important concepts embedded in
other concepts such as atomic structure and the nature of light.
Similar to the findings from previous research studies (Bao,
1999; Didis- et al., 2014), we also observed that both scientific
and unscientific elements were used together in one of the
students mental models, and that is the hybrid unscientific
model OM. One possible explanation of this model is that the
students kept the early Bohrs atomic models describing the
atom in terms of orbit, but they misused this concept to explain
atomic spectra.
Students with NPM and OM incorrectly connected either the
individual discrete energy levels or the classical orbits to each
of the spectral lines. One possible cause for this misconception
is that the students misinterpreted the symbolic representations
of the energy levels or the classical electron orbits, and hence drew
incorrect connections with the spectral lines (an observable reality).
This is consistent with the explanation by Chittleborough et al.
(2002) that the misconceptions arise from the wrong interpretation
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

Paper
of symbolic representations that are not always clearly defined.
In addition, this wrong connection can also be explained with
an inappropriate analogy between analog and target. Previous
research indicated that mental models were often based on
analogies (Duit, 1991; Treagust et al., 1994; Glynn and Takahashi,
1998; Gentner, 2002; Glynn, 2007; 2008; Didis- , 2015). Students
explanations of NPM indicate their wrong analogical reasoning
based on the shared feature, i.e. discreteness, for both
the discrete energy levels and the discrete spectral lines. Didis-
et al.s (2014) research indicated the existence of an analogy in
the unscientific mental model of quantization. In the Shred-
ding Model, students explained quantization as a slicing of
a cake.
In addition to concretizing dicult abstract concepts by
either misinterpreting the symbolic representation or drawing
inappropriate analogies, we also observed that students tried to
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
use irrelevant mathematical models to interpret the visual
representations. One example is that a student described orbits
as an integration process as shown in Fig. 2.
Students use of the concepts such as energy level and
spectral lines, orbit and orbital interchangeably in this PSMAS can answer them correctly and hence have the illusion
study is similar to the physics education students use of
some quantum mechanical concepts such as operator and
observable interchangeably (Didis- et al., 2010). In addition,
students use of the concepts orbit and orbital interchange- absorption and emission spectra, they got really curious and
ably may also indicate students diculty in discriminating
classical and quantum phenomena (Bao, 1999; Ke et al.,
2005). Ke et al.s (2005) research showed that the experienced
students having quantum mechanical mental models knew
about the dierences between classical and quantum ideas,
but students having classical mental models for quantum
concepts were not aware of their conflicts. Based on these
discussions, we draw attention to the following issues and
suggestions for teachers to consider:
(1) As the topic of atomic spectra involves the atomic
structure (matter), properties of light, and how light and matter
interact, we suggest that teachers start with the introduction of
the first two aspects to provide students a solid background,
and then explain how a photon and an electron interact through
the absorption/emission of a photon during an electronic
transition. This may minimize students mistake in associating
electronic energy levels directly with spectral lines.
(2) Developing links among concepts helps identify mis-
conceptions of individual concepts and promotes meaningful
learning. A concept may be understood better in relation to
other concepts (Taber, 2015). Conceptual linkages made by
learners among dierent concepts help teachers understand
how well the students understand them. Teachers should
explore and map out the links students hold for concepts
taught in the class (Taber, 2015). Atomic spectra is a strategic
topic where we can help students understand the fundamentals
of both matter and light. The integration of multiple topics
has advantages to overcome misconceptions as explained
in Tsaparlis (1997) where the integration of atomic orbitals
and spectroscopic terms was used to help students clarify the
misconceptions around atomic orbitals.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
(3) When using quantum terminologies and visual represen-
tations to describe quantum phenomena, teachers should
make sure that students understand them correctly. Human-
like or classical attributions to quantum objects should be
carefully used to avoid misconceptions. Mathematical connections
should also be emphasized for quantum theory concepts and
visuals (Tsaparlis, 1997) to prevent students from applying
irrelevant mathematical models to explain quantum concepts.
(4) Conceptual questions on atomic spectra used in the
interviews not only help us identify the dierent mental models
students may have, but also help identify students misconceptions
and increase their interest in understanding this phenomenon.
Firstly, as noted earlier in this paper, the unscientific model
PSMAS is very hard to be identified with common calculation
questions in atomic spectra, because students with either SMAS
or PSMAS will be able to correctly calculate the wavelengths in
the absorption or emission spectra based on that the photon
energy equals the dierence between two discrete energy levels.
Therefore if calculation questions are the only form of assessment
of students understanding of atomic spectra, students with
that they fully understand the phenomena of atomic spectra.
Secondly, we observed in our interview that when the students
realized that they cannot fully explain the spectral lines in the
wanted to ask more questions to learn what was really going on.
In addition to the conceptual questions listed in Appendix I,
another good one is to ask students why lines in the emission
and absorption spectral lines appear at the same wavelengths.
(5) We suggest that teachers take time to explain the physical
set up for the atomic spectra so that the students understand
the dierence between absorption and emission spectra instead
of inventing or guessing what atomic spectra are.
(6) Knowledge in chemistry and physics can be organized
separately (Taber, 2001) by students and this artificial division
could be a barrier in students learning. Greca and Freire (2014)
suggested that some physics concepts that are base for quantum
mechanics should be modified and taught to all undergraduate
students. However, sometimes chemistry students may consider
chemistry learning separate from physics learning (Taber, 2001).
Vice versa, it is possible that physics students may consider
atomic orbitals as a concept in chemistry and fail to transfer the
knowledge to understanding atomic spectra taught in a physics
class. Teachers should be careful not to promote division
between physics and chemistry, but should provide required
physics or chemistry background to students so that they can
understand the quantum mechanical concepts eectively.
Both qualitative and quantitative methodologies can be used
to investigate students mental models with dierent designs,
and our research used a qualitative approach and identified
students mental models from their answers to a series of
conceptual questions. For further research, some quantitative
approaches (Bao, 1999; Stamovlasis et al., 2013; Vadnere and
Joshi, 2009) may be used with a statistical analysis of data from
a larger number of students for generalization of results to
dierent populations.
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Appendix I: interview protocol
(1) In an emission spectrum, what do the (colored) lines
represent (in the visible region), or in an absorption spectrum
what do the dark lines represent? Why do the lines occur? Why
do they have dierent colors (in the visible region) in emission
spectra? Why are they dark in absorption spectra?
(2) Consider the figure below, explain (a) negative energy,
(b) n, (c) E (in eV), and (d) each arrow.
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
(3) How would you relate an electrons jump from an outer
orbital to an inner orbital to the energy of the emitted photon?
(4) Suppose the electron in a hydrogen atom obeys classical
mechanics rather than quantum mechanics. What would you
expect to observe in the spectrum?
Appendix II: sample coding
Excerpt Coding
Student 8 (ST8): Yes I have. This is umm. . .
In atom, when an electron with a dierent n is BE
falling down to the other n level, it emits a photon. ET
This has a specific energy, for example passing ET
from n = 3 to n = 2, the photon is emitted with
an amount of eV energy between these energy PE
levels. For this reason these lines occur. SL
I: Ok, then, (pointing to the emission spectrum in
the figure) how does this dark area occur?
ST8: This is for example, here, umm. . ., in this
dark area (pointing to the emission spectrum in
the figure), a photon cannot be emitted.
The magnitude of the energy that does not corre- PE
spond to dierence between two energy levels is DEL
dark here. Absorption is the reverse of emission.
That means, the absorbed photons correspond to PE
dark lines, and other areas are seen colored. SL
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
Paper
Acknowledgements
We thank Bulent Ecevit University and the Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK).
References
Asikainen M. A. and Hirvonen P. E., (2009), A study of pre- and
inservice physics teachers understanding of photoelectric
phenomenon as part of the development of a research-based
quantum physics course, Am. J. Phys., 77(7), 658666.
Baily C. and Finkelstein N. D., (2009), Development of quantum
perspectives in modern physics, Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys.
Educ. Res., 5, 010106.
Baily C. and Finkelstein N. D., (2010), Teaching and under-
standing of quantum interpretations in modern physics
courses, Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res., 6, 010101.
Bao L., (1999), Dynamics of student modeling: a theory, algorithms
and application to quantum mechanics. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
Carr L. D. and McKagan S. B., (2009), Graduate quantum
mechanics reform, Am. J. Phys., 77(4), 308319.
Chandler-Grevatt A., (2015), Challenging concepts in chemistry,
Education in Chemistry. Online Available at: http://www.rsc.
org/eic/2015/12/challenging-concepts-chemistry-education.
Chittleborough G. D., Treagust D. F. and Mocerino M., (2002),
Constraints to the development of first year university
chemistry students mental models of chemical phenomena.
Teaching and Learning Forum 2002: Focusing on the Student.
Online Available at: http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/events/conferences/
tlf/tlf2002/refereed/chittleborough.pdf.
Coll R. K. and Taylor N., (2002), Mental models in chemistry:
senior chemistry students mental models of chemical bonding,
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 3(2), 175184.
Coll R. K. and Treagust D. F., (2001), Learners mental models
of chemical bonding, Res. Sci. Educ., 31, 357382.
Coll R. K. and Treagust D. F., (2003), Investigation of secondary
school, undergraduate, and graduate learners mental models
of ionic bonding, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40(5), 464486.
Cousin G., (2006), An introduction to threshold concepts, Planet,
17, 45.
Dick-Perez M., Luxford C. J., Windus T. L. and Holme T., (2016),
A quantum chemistry concept inventory for physical chemistry
classes, J. Chem. Educ., 93(4), 605612.
Didis- N., (2015), The analysis of analogy use in the teaching of
introductory quantum theory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16, 355376.
Didis- Korhasan N., (2015), The place of learning quantum
theory in physics teacher education: motivational elements
arising from the context, Educational Sciences: Theory &
Practice, 15(4), 10871101.
Didis- N., Erylmaz A. and Erko -S., (2010), Pre-service physics
teachers comprehension of quantum mechanical concepts,
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,
6(4), 227235.
Didis- N., Erylmaz A. and Erko -S., (2014), Investigating students
mental models about the quantization of light, energy and
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

Paper
angular momentum, Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res.,
10(2), 128.
Didis- Korhasan N., Erylmaz A. and Erko -S., (2016), The
influence of instructional interactions on students mental
models about the quantization of physical observables: a
modern physics course case, Eur. J. Phys., 37, 129.
Duit R., (1991), On the role of analogies and metaphors in
learning science, Sci. Educ., 75, 649672.
Emigh P. J., Passante G. and Shaer P. S., (2015), Student
understanding of time dependence in quantum mechanics,
Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res., 11, 020112.
Gardner D. E., (2002), Learning in quantum mechanics, Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Gentner D., (2002), Mental models, psychology of. in Smelser
N. J. and Bates P. B. (ed.) International encyclopedia of the
social and behavioral sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
Elsevier Science, pp. 96839687.
Gentner D. and Stevens A. L., (1983), Mental models, Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Glynn S. M., (2007), Methods and strategies: the teaching-with-
analogies model, Science and Children, 44(8), 5255.
Glynn S. M., (2008), Making science concepts meaningful to
students: teaching with analogies. Online Available at: http://
blogs.oregonstate.edu/smed1112/files/2011/10/Glynn2008
MakingScienceConceptsMeaningful.pdf.
Glynn S. M. and Takahashi T., (1998), Learning from analogy-
enhanced science text, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 35(10), 11291149.
Greca I. M. and Freire O., (2014), Teaching introductory quan-
tum physics and chemistry: caveats from the history of
science and science teaching to the training of modern
chemists, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 286296.
Harrison A. G. and Treagust D. F., (1996), Secondary students
mental models of atoms and molecules: implications for
teaching chemistry, Sci. Educ., 80(5), 509534.
Hestenes D., Wells M. and Swackhamer G., (1992), Force
concept inventory, Phys. Teach., 30, 141158.
Ivanjek L., Shaer P. S., McDermott L. C., Planinic M. and Veza
D., (2015), Research as a guide for curriculum development:
an example from introductory spectroscopy. I. identifying
student diculties with atomic emission spectra, Am. J. Phys.,
83(1), 8590.
Johnson-Laird P. N., (1983), Mental models, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ke J. L., Monk M. and Duschl R., (2005), Learning introductory
quantum mechanics, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 27(13), 15711594.
Kohnle A., Baily C., Campbell A., Korolkova N. and Paetkau M.
J., (2015), Enhancing student learning of two-level quantum
systems with interactive simulations, Am. J. Phys. 83(6),
560566.
McKagan S. B., Perkins K. K., Dubson M. Malley C. Reid S.
LeMaster R. and Wieman C. E., (2008), Developing and
researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum
mechanics, Am. J. Phys., 76(45), 406417.
McKagan S. B., Perkins K. K. and Wieman C. E., (2010), Design
and validation of the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual
Survey, Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res., 6, 020121.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Meyer J. and Land R., (2003), Threshold concepts and troublesome
knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within
the disciplines, Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments
in Undergraduate Courses. Online Available at: http://www.
etl.tla.ed.ac.uk//docs/ETLreport4.pdf.
Meyer J. H. F. and Land R., (2006), Overcoming barriers to
student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome
knowledge, New York: Routledge.
Muller R. and Wiesner H., (2002), Teaching quantum mechanics
on an introductory level, Am. J. Phys., 70(3), 200209.
Norman D., (1983), Some observations on mental models, in
Gentner D. and Stevens A. A. (ed.), Mental models, Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 714.
Ozcan O., Didis- N. and Tas- ar M. F., (2009), Students conceptual
diculties in quantum mechanics: potential well problems,
Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 36, 169180.
Park E. J. and Light G., (2009), Identifying atomic structure as a
threshold concept: Student mental models and trouble-
someness, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31(2), 233258.
Sadaghiani H. R., (2005), Conceptual and mathematical barriers
to students learning quantum mechanics, Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Seel N. M., (2006), Mental models in learning situations, in Held C.,
Knau M. and Vosgerau G. (ed.) Mental models and the mind:
current developments in cognitive psychology, neuroscience and
philosophy of mind, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 85107.
Singh C., (2001), Student understanding of quantum mechanics,
Am. J. Phys., 69(8), 885895.
Singh C., (2008a), Student understanding of quantum mechanics
at the beginning of graduate instruction, Am. J. Phys., 76(3),
277287.
Singh C., (2008b), Interactive learning tutorials on quantum
mechanics, Am. J. Phys., 76(45), 400405.
Stamovlasis D., Papageorgiou G. and Tsitsipis G., (2013), The
coherent versus fragmented nowledge hypotheses for the
structure of matter: an investigation with a robust statistical
methodology, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14, 485495.
Stefani C. and Tsaparlis G., (2009), Students levels of explanations,
models, and misconceptions in basic quantum chemistry: a
phenomenographic study, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46(5), 520536.
Supasorn S., (2015), Grade 12 students conceptual understanding
and mental models of galvanic cells before and after learning
by using small-scale experiments in conjunction with a model
kit, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16, 393407.
Taber K. S., (2001), Building the structural concepts of chemistry:
Some considerations from educational research, Chem. Educ.:
Res. Pract. Eur., 2(2), 123158.
Taber K. S., (2008), Conceptual resources for learning science:
issues of transience and grain-size in cognition and cognitive
structure, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30(8), 10271053.
Taber K. S., (2013), Modelling learners and learning in science
education: developing representations of concepts, conceptual
structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and
research, Dordrecht: Springer.
Taber K. S., (2015), The role of conceptual integration in
understanding and learning chemistry, in Garca-Martnez J.
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
and Serrano-Torregrosa E. (ed.), Chemistry Education: Best
Practices, Opportunities and Trends, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH
& Co. KGaA, pp. 375394.
Talanquer V., (2015), Threshold concepts in chemistry: the
critical role of implicit schemas, J. Chem. Educ., 92, 39.
Treagust D. F., Stocklmayer S. M., Harrison A., Venville G. and
Thiele R., (1994), Observations from the classroom: when
analogies go wrong! Res. Sci. Educ., 24, 380381.
Tsaparlis G., (1997), Atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals and
related concepts: conceptual diculties among chemistry
students, Res. Sci. Educ., 27(2), 271287.
Tsaparlis G. and Papaphotis G., (2009), High-school students
conceptual diculties and attempts at conceptual change:
The case of basic quantum chemical concepts, Int. J. Sci.
Educ., 31(7), 895930.
Tumay H., (2014), Prospective chemistry teachers mental
Published on 20 May 2016. Downloaded on 30/05/2016 14:34:13.
models of vapor pressure, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15,
366379.
Vadnere R. and Joshi P., (2009), On analysis of the perceptions
of standard 12 students regarding a physics concept using
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
Paper
techniques of quantum mechanics, Phys. Educ., 26(4),
279290.
Wattanakasiwich P., (2005), Model of understanding of probabil-
ity in modern physics, Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
Wuttiprom S., Sharma M. D., Johnston I., Chitaree R. and Soankwan
C., (2009), Development and use of a conceptual survey in
introductory quantum physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31(5), 631654.
Zhu G. and Singh C., (2011), Improving students understanding
of quantum mechanics via the SternGerlach experiment,
Am. J. Phys., 79(5), 499507.
Zhu G. and Singh C., (2012), Surveying students understanding
of quantum mechanics in one spatial dimension, Am.
J. Phys., 80(3), 252259.
Zhu G. and Singh C., (2013), Improving student understanding
of addition of angular momentum in quantum mechanics,
Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res., 9, 010101.
Zollman D. A., Rebello N. S. and Hogg K., (2002), Quantum
mechanics for everyone: hands-on activities integrated with
technology, Am. J. Phys., 70(3), 252259.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.