Analyses on the Degree of Learning Achievement by Students and on Differences of Explaining in High School Chemistry-II Textbooks for the Atomic Models and Electron Configurations

원자모형과 전자배치 단원에 대한 고등학교 학생들의 학습 성취도 및 화학 II 교과서의 설명방식의 차이점에 대한 분석

  • Published : 2003.06.20


A questionnaire on "atomic models and electron configuration" was performed on 34 of 11th grade and 38 of 12th grade students who took the Chemistry-II course in order to examine the degree of learning achievement. Also eight Chemistry-II textbooks published in the 6th curriculum were analyzed for the similarities and differences in dealing with this topic and possible improvements were discussed in conjunction with the questionnaire. The results of this questionnaire showed that the degree of learning achievement on the topics between two different classes were not much different in general, although a little difference was found. This indicates that the topics have been taught in early 11th grade but subsequent supplemental teaching has not been performed. To study on the topics of "atomic models and electron configuration" effectively and systematically, knowledge on the basic spectroscopy and quantum mechanics should be preceeded. However this could be practically difficult under the current high school curriculum. Therefore It would be necessary to describe the basic concepts for the quantum mechanics and spectroscopy schematically in the "Reference Materials" section of the textbook, even if it is not very long. On the other hand, the Chemistry-II textbooks analyzed in this work reveal, in general, to have the similar organization and explanation modes. However it has been analyzed that a connection between the Bohr and electron-cloud atomic models might be insufficient or position of electrons might be possible to be misunderstood by students in some textbooks.


Atomic Models; Electron Configuration; Chemistry-II Textbook; Questionnaire


  1. 교육부, 과학과 교육과정, 대한교과서 주식회사: 서울, 1997.
  2. 한유화; 강대훈; 양일호; 백성혜; 박국태 대한화학회지 1999, 43, 340.
  3. 강대훈; 백성혜; 박국태 화학교육 1998, 25, 207.
  4. Bunce, D. M.; Gabel, D. L.; Samuel, J. V. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 1991, 28, 505.
  5. Hashweh, M. Z. European Journal of Science Education1986, 8, 229.
  6. Wandersee, J. H.; Mintzes, J. J.; Novak, J. D. In Handbookof Research on Science Teaching and Learning;Gable, D. L., Ed.; MacMillan Publishing Co.: New York,1994, pp. 177-210.
  7. Gilbert, J. K.; Swift, D. J. Science Education 1985, 69, 681.
  8. 한국교육개발원, 교과서 정책과 내용 구성방식 국제 비교연구, 연구보고 PR95-17, 한국교육개발원, 1995
  9. 전라북도 교육과학정보원, 고등학교 교육과정해설(과학), URL:고등학교교육과정해설(과학).hwp
  10. Fountain, K. R. Journal of Chemical Education 1997,74, 354.
  11. Gilbert, J. K.; Osborne, R. J.; Fensham, P. J. ScienceEducation 1982, 66, 623.
  12. 권재술 한국과학교육학회지 1991, 11, 117.
  13. 이상권; 권정근; 김경미; 박국태 대한화학회지 1992, 46, 279.
  14. Pfund, H.; Duit, R. Bibliography: Students' AlternativeFrameworks and Science Education. Kiel: Institute ofScienece Education, University of Kiel, 1993.
  15. Driver, R.; Guesene, E.; Tiberghien, A. In Childern'sIdeas in Science; Driver, R.; Guesene, E.; Tiberghien, A.Eds.; Milton Keynes: Open University Press: 1985, p. 193.
  16. 송진웅; 박승재; 장경애 한국과학교육학회지 1992, 12, 109.
  17. 김효진; 김연규; 박현주 대한화학회지 1999, 43, 552.

Cited by

  1. Deformation analysis of tunnel excavation below existing pipelines in multi-layered soils based on displacement controlled coupling numerical method vol.36, pp.11, 2012,