Research: Science and Education

edited by

Chemical Education Research

Diane M. Bunce

A Study of Turkish Chemistry Undergraduates

Understandings of Entropy
W

The Catholic University of America

Washington, DC 20064

Christopher F. Bauer
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824-3598

Mustafa Szbilir*
Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Kazim Karabekir Education Faculty, Ataturk University,
25240 Erzurum, Turkey; *sozbilir@atauni.edu.tr
Judith M. Bennett
Department of Educational Studies, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD UK

Interest in childrens understanding of science ideas has

its origins in the classic studies of Jean Piaget (1). Much of
the research into students understanding of chemical ideas
has focused on school-age pupils, with less emphasis on undergraduates (24). Many high school and university students
experience difficulties with fundamental thermodynamic
ideas in chemistry (5). Thermodynamics is seen as consisting
almost entirely of equations that are not understandable and
that have to be learned by rote in order to do calculations
and pass examinations (6). Despite the importance of thermodynamics as the foundation of chemistry, most students
emerge from introductory courses with only very limited understanding of the subject (7). Physical chemistry courses,
where students tackle more advanced ideas of thermodynamics and kinetics, are perceived by many students to be their
most difficult courses (8).
Defining Entropy
Entropy is a fundamental concept in chemical thermodynamics that helps to explain the natural tendency of matter
and energy in the universe to become less ordered (9). Entropy is defined or explained in a number of different ways,
as illustrated in the following brief summary. Entropy provides a measure of the number of ways in which energy is
distributed among energy levels within and between particles
(6, p 7). This means that the more widely spread the energy
quanta among the various energy levels, the more probable
the state (the greater the number of microstates) and the
higher the entropy. However, entropy is not a driving force.
Energys dispersion in a final state compared to an initial state
is the driving force. Entropy is the index of that dispersal
within a system and between the system and its surroundings.
Entropy change is a quotient that measures the quantity of
the unidirectional flow of thermal energy (10). As paraphrased
by Lambert (10), entropy change measures energys dispersion
at a stated temperature (10, p 187). A detailed discussion
about entropy is available at Lamberts regularly updated Web
site (11).
On the other hand, entropy is defined in terms of distinguishability, meaning that entropy is a measure of the
number of distinguishable ways the energy can be apportioned (12, p 1417). According to quantum theory, the molecules in a pure gas are indistinguishable. For example, it does
not make sense to regard one hydrogen molecule in hydrogen gas as being different in any way from another hydrogen
1204

Journal of Chemical Education

molecule. One effect of indistinguishibility is that if we mixed

two samples of the same gas we would find that there is no
change in entropy (13, p 283). Detailed analyses of the effects of distinguishability are available (12, 13).
Previous Research on Entropy Misconceptions
Research on students understanding of entropy has revealed considerable confusion among students. A study of 98
Scottish high school students from ten different schools indicated that students generally interpret entropy as a measure
of disorder (14). There was also some tendency to confuse
entropy with kinetic energy.
These results are confirmed by other studies (15). For
example, a study of 56 student-teachers in their final year of
college ascertained their ideas and areas of conceptual difficulties in thermodynamics and concluded that the students
seemed to have a belief that there is a strong relationship between entropy and kinetic energy of the particles. Another
misunderstanding explored (15) seemed to stem from a misinterpretation of the term disorder as chaos. Ribeiro (16)
also found that many students understanding of the word
disorder is different from that of scientists. Students used
disorder in the sense of chaos or randomness. It was also reported that the majority of the students considered that
disorder was greater when the energy increased (16, p 27).
Moreover, it was also found that students perceived entropy
and disorder as equal, or that entropy was the cause of disorder in the system (15). In one study, students were asked to
compare the entropy values of carbon dioxide and propane
at the same temperature (15). The results showed that seven
out of ten students thought that carbon dioxide had greater
entropy than propane at the same temperature.
Another study involved interviewing 14 Portuguese undergraduates in chemistry in their final year (16). It was reported that although the majority of the students remembered
the term microstate, only a few of them were able to explain
it in terms of the possible arrangements of the particles. It
was also found that a microstate was perceived as a little state
and not related to entropy. In the same study it was also revealed that students have misunderstandings such as these:
The entropy of the universe does not change; A system always goes to maximum entropy; The change of entropy of a
reaction is always positive; and finally, in an isolated system,
the change of entropy is greater than or equal to zero. It was
suggested that university teachers should determine students

Vol. 84 No. 7 July 2007

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Research: Science and Education

existing knowledge, lecturers should be careful in the language they use, scientific ideas must be shown to be useful
to explain real phenomena, and students should be helped
to see the contextual differentiation of their knowledge more
clearly (16).
A classroom-based study (9) conducted in a secondary
environmental science class that explored the idea of entropy
in the study of basic ecology revealed many incorrect ideas
developed by secondary students. In addition, the study suggests that students could develop scientifically acceptable ideas
if they are taught concisely. Students learned entropy as a
physical law of nature rather than an idea that matter becomes
more mixed-up. It was suggested that it would be useful to
develop tasks at the beginning of the course leading students
to discuss and confront alternative ways of thinking about
entropy.
The literature synopsis above indicates that there is a
shortage of systematic research on students understanding
of entropy at undergraduate level. Of the studies done so far
most focused on either secondary-level students, or on only
one aspect of entropy. This current study is an attempt to
probe undergraduates understanding of entropy.
Study Purpose and Logistics
This study explored what Turkish chemistry undergraduates understand of entropy and identified and classified what
they misunderstand. Therefore, the following research question was addressed in the study.
What do Turkish chemistry undergraduates understand
about entropy and what are their misunderstandings?

For this purpose, diagnostic questionnaires and semistructured interviewsbefore and after a course in physical
chemistrywere used. Although some results of this study
confirm previous findings, it goes further to investigate undergraduates understandings and misunderstandings extensively in a more systematic way, and also seeks to establish
where the identified misunderstandings may originate.

Student Demographics
This empirical study describes part of a longitudinal research project (17) and it follows the structure of similar studies (i.e., 18). The data for this study was collected from two
different Chemistry Education Departments in two universities in Turkey, one in western Turkey and the other in eastern
Turkey. Both universities are placed in the top 20 of the Turkish Universities League. The students (third-year undergraduates, average age range of 1923) involved in the study were
enrolled in Physical Chemistry I and II courses (4 hours per
week for a 14-week semester) at the fifth and sixth semesters, respectively. In addition, in one of the departments, there
were four hours of laboratory work per week parallel to the
teaching, while in the other department the laboratory course
was given the following year. There were 47 majors in one
department and 44 in the other.
A diagnostic questionnaire consisting of open-ended
questions on key chemical ideas in thermodynamics, including
four questions on entropy, was developed and given twice as
a pre-test and post-test with a seven-month interval to a total
of 91 students. In this study it was accepted that a good diagwww.JCE.DivCHED.org

nostic question is one that generates information accessing

respondents thinking about the ideas being explored (19, p
75). Students were divided in two groups: 45 of them answered two of the questions (Seawater and Mixing of Gases)
while 46 of them answered the other two (Spontaneous
Change and Carbon Dioxide and Propane).
With respect to university education in Turkey, all the
students have to be successful in a centralized, nationwide
university entrance exam in order to gain access to the university. Students in this study had encountered some of the
concepts of thermodynamics at a very basic level both prior
to university and in general chemistry courses in the first year
of their study in the participating departments. All the students in the participating departments are being trained as
chemistry teachers through a four-year program.

Teaching Entropy in Physical Chemistry

in the Participating Departments
The content and the design of the courses were determined by the instructors and they were similar in both departments. The physical chemistry course is divided into two
main sections in the participating departments. Thermodynamics is covered in the fifth semester, while kinetics was the
subject in the sixth semester. Thermodynamics sections in
which entropy was covered includes the following subsections:
The properties of gases (perfect and real gases)
The first law of thermodynamics (work, heat, energy,
thermochemistry, state functions, and work of adiabatic expansions)
The second law of thermodynamics (the direction of
spontaneous change, entropy, third law, effectiveness of
thermal processes, and Helmholtz and Gibbs energies)

Entropy, the subject of this study, is covered under the

second law of thermodynamics toward the end of the fifth
semester in a five-week period (four class hours per week, a
total of twenty class hours). The subheadings covered in both
departments were the dispersal of energy, entropy, the entropy of irreversible change, entropy changes accompanying
specific processes, and the third law of thermodynamics. With
respect to the characteristics of teaching, the courses could
be described as exposition-dominated lecturing. That means
that the instructor actively presents the contents and students
mostly listen and take notes; short discussions and question
and answer sessions sometimes take place. In addition, homework is assigned to the students. During instruction, no differentiation was made between statistical thermodynamics
and classical thermodynamicsinstead these topics were intermingled.
Because of the lack of quality physical chemistry textbooks written in Turkish, instructors mostly follow textbooks
written in English. Most of the students do not know English, and usually rely on notes they take during lectures. This
procedure, typical in many countries, is an additional obstacle
to the many learning difficulties in physical chemistry. It
could be ameliorated by instructors preparing an outline that
is handed out at least a few days before each lecture, complete with the basic mathematics that will be employed. An
analysis of the problem of What Makes Physical Chemistry
Difficult? is presented in reference 20.

Vol. 84 No. 7 July 2007

Journal of Chemical Education

1205

Research: Science and Education

The Data

Interviews

Questionnaire
Administration of the diagnostic questionnaire was carried out by the researcher in a lecture hour (50 minutes). In
order to obtain equal number of responses to each question,
the order of the questions was varied and four different sets,
with the questions in different orders were prepared. This ensured that every question had an equal chance of being answered. No indication was given to the students whether they
were expected to provide mathematical derivations, algebraic
solutions, or molecular-level explanations. This was intentionally done to see the students approach to the questions. Students were not permitted to take the diagnostic questionnaire
out of classroom or discuss it with their friends or instructors. Diagnostic questions 14 (question 1, Seawater; question 2, Mixing of Gases; question 3, Spontaneous Change;
and question 4, Carbon Dioxide and Propane) were designed to test the following ideas, respectively:

Interviews were conducted just after the pre-test and the

post-test in order to support the data obtained from the questionnaires. The interviews held after the pre-test (22 interviews) sought to reveal the students understandings of all
the key ideas that were investigated in the entire study, including entropy. The post-interviews (7) sought to explore
only the students understandings of entropy in detail; therefore, there are more pre-interviews than post-interviews. The
interviewees were all volunteers and the interviews took place
in a staff office on one-to-one basis. Each interview was taperecorded and then transcribed fully. Students permission to
tape-record the interview was obtained in each case. Interview
times varied between 3045 minutes. Students were not told
about the content before the interviews, although they were
aware that the topics would be the same as on the questionnaire. The interviews were not carried out as a freestanding
study and so were not subjected to rigorous analysis. Selected
extracts from these interviews are reported here to illustrate
and support the evidence found from the questionnaire data.

Any process that increases the number of particles in

the system increases the number of microstates and
therefore increases the entropy of the system.

Analysis and Results

Entropy is the measure of the number of ways that

energy can be shared among particles. Entropy increases if the number of ways of distributing the available energy among the particles is increased.

Data and analyses from this study are provided in the

Supplemental Material.W The authors invite you to look at
the questions, data tables, and interview excerpts provided online to grasp the entirety of the ideas discussed in this paper.

During a spontaneous change the entropy of the universe increases.

Conclusions and Discussions

The entropy of a substance depends on its structure

and the number of atoms it contains.

The questions (shown in Boxes 14 in the Supplemental MaterialW) outline the ideas being tested and the expected
answers under the related subheadings of results. Questions
13 were devised specifically for this study (question 3 was
modified from 21, p 61). Question 4 was adapted from a
previous study (15) and modified. Producing high quality
diagnostic questions about entropy is difficult. Although the
questions used in this study may not be regarded as a perfect
set of questions, they were successful in revealing students
understanding of entropy.
Data relating to the questions are presented in Tables
25 in the Supplemental Material.W In the discussion f denotes the frequency with which a particular idea was identified. The word response refers to the whole answer given
for a single question. It may include both scientifically correct and incorrect ideas as well as misunderstandings. The
main categories are highlighted in bold and are the same for
all questions. Subcategories vary according to each particular question. Percentages are calculated to help illustrate how
often particular misunderstandings or partial understandings
were repeated. The totals may exceed 100% in some cases,
because some responses included more than one misunderstanding or partial understanding that was coded in different categories. For example, if a particular response to one
of the questions included two different misunderstandings
and one partial understanding it was coded three times in
three categories. In contrast, some of the total percentage figures may be less than 100 because we excluded misunderstandings that occurred with a frequency of less than 5%.
1206

Journal of Chemical Education

This study provides insights into students understandings

of entropy: results from the questionnaires and interviews
show that entropy is difficult for undergraduates to comprehend. Students understandings of the basic aspects of the idea
arein many caseslimited, distorted, or wrong. The difficulties arise from misinterpretation of mathematical equations
in thermodynamics and inadequately integrating the new
knowledge with students existing knowledge. Students misunderstandings identified in this study can be grouped under
the following broad headings:
Defining entropy as disorder and considering visual
disorder and entropy as synonymous
Inaccurately connecting entropy with the number of
collisions and intermolecular interactions
Inaccurately connecting entropy of the system and accompanying entropy changes in the surroundings
Believing that the entropy of the whole system decreases or does not change when a spontaneous change
occurs in an isolated system
Supposing that the entropy of CO2 is greater than that
of C3H8, or the same at the same temperature.

In addition, careful examination of the percentages of the

misunderstandings identified reveals that instruction did not
prevent misunderstandings; instead misunderstandings increased in some cases (see especially tables 2, 4, and 5 in the
Supplemental MaterialW). This finding supports the notion
that misunderstandings are resistant to change in traditional
teaching environments and special precautions have to be
taken in order to prevent them (22).

Vol. 84 No. 7 July 2007

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

Research: Science and Education

Entropy depends on the temperature, volume (in the case

of gases), the state of a substance or system, and type and
amount of substance. Students written responses and interview results suggest that factors affecting entropy were poorly
understood or in some cases, not understood at all. Students
argued that entropy is equal to the disorder of the system or
simply stated that entropy is disorder in some cases. The
findings also indicate that a major difficulty among the undergraduates who took part in this study was the students
understanding of the word disorder. Almost all of the respondents defined entropy from the visual disorder point of
view indicating chaos, randomness, or instability in some
cases. Further probing on the use of the word disorder revealed that it was used to refer to movement, collision of particles, or mixed-upness, similar to previous studies (1516)
findings. Furthermore, the findings of this study suggest that
visual disorder and entropy were considered as synonymous. This may be because of the fact that the meaning of
the word disorder, as used in the context of chemical thermodynamics, is inconsistent with its everyday meaning and
misleading. Textbook writers and teachers commonly use disorder without defining it and the meaning varies among
users. Whatever is meant by disorder should be clearly
stated, defined, and consistently used throughout by the users.
Perhaps another alternative to avoid the problems related to
language would be encouraging students to explain in their
own words and avoiding mere parroting of rote-memorized
teacher language. In this way students and instructors may
arrive at shared meaning (23).
Moreover, recent research suggests that using disorder
in teaching entropy should be avoided as it does not help students understand the concept (10, 2425). Instead, it was suggested that entropy should be defined as the index of energy
dispersal within a system and between the system and its surroundings (10, p 187). It was argued that entropy could be
considered from two viewpoints, classical thermodynamics and
mechanical thermodynamics (25). From a classical thermodynamic viewpoint, entropy can be seen as a measure of the
energy dispersal changing from localized to spread out. From
a molecular thermodynamics point of view, it can be considered as the change in the system from having fewer accessible
microstates to having many more accessible microstates. However, it was also argued that teaching entropy as disorder is
misleading as a descriptor for entropy. Entropy is neither disorder nor a measure of disorder or chaos. Entropy is not a
driving force. Energys diffusion, dissipation, or dispersion in
a final state compared to an initial state is the driving force in
chemistry. Entropy is the index of that dispersal within a system and between the system and its surroundings (10).
The majority of the content of the responses was composed of basic facts or statements about the subject and only
a small number of the students attempted to discuss the ideas
at the molecular level. Although students tended to use mathematical equations and preferred algebraic solutions, and in
the responses for pre-tests and post-test responses displayed
some interpretations and conceptual understandings, no systematic trend has been observed in the responses between
pre- and post-tests. Students habit of using algorithms to
solve problems may be due to the unintended impression that
science is a sort of mathematics, math in disguise, unintentionally caused by science teachers. Algorithms may be foswww.JCE.DivCHED.org

tered by the instructors by placing more value on algorithmic

learning than on conceptual learning and also by the exam
system in which more algorithmic problems are preferred for
the sake of easy grading.
The majority of the students could not use thermodynamic principles to explain the change in entropy of a system.
The students thinking was found to be poor and limited at a
microscopic level. Mostly they considered their answers at a
macrophysical level and consequently were unable to provide
interpretations at a molecular level. In many cases, everyday
meanings of the words dominated students understandings,
indicating that they are more likely to use an everyday notion
of a scientific concept than the accepted scientific one.
Implications for Teaching
The results of this study suggest that many students in
an advanced undergraduate class have difficulties in understanding entropy, as well as having difficulties in acquiring
advanced thermodynamics ideas (17). It is likely that many
of the learning difficulties identified in this study would be
found among physical chemistry students in general, although
the subjects in this study were from only two university chemistry departments in Turkey. Therefore, the findings of the
present study may provide some clues about the quality of
student learning in typical physical chemistry classes. The
results indicate that a substantial review and reform of teaching strategies at the tertiary level of education is essential.
Since this study provides evidence that students explanations of scientific phenomena are based on the
macrophysical world and they demonstrate a limited ability
to think at the molecular level, instructors should ensure that
students have acquired the correct scientific meanings of entropy and related concepts and that they can apply the ideas
learned in different situations, whether it is an everyday phenomenon or a theoretical one (15). In addition, instructors
should pay attention to everyday, out-of-class ideas associated with the scientific terms they use. They should also be
checking whether students have understood concepts in the
way instructors intend.
Sometimes the best way to become aware of the shortcomings of ones own knowledge is to compare it with that
of others (26). A classroom discussion covering areas of confusion (entropy change in a system and the surroundings,
disorder, visual disorder, spontaneity, entropy and intermolecular interactions) could be an effective way of identifying
students learning difficulties and stimulating students to
think about basic concepts in a problem before proceeding
to a solution. Short-answer questions prepared in different
forms such as multiple choice, truefalse, and two-tier diagnostic questions could be an alternative in determining students misunderstandings both prior to teaching and during
teaching. Furthermore, in-class writing, previously used (27)
to identify students learning difficulties in thermodynamics, could be another alternative. The essence of in-class writings is based on posing students short-answer, open-ended
questions during teaching. Reading in-class writing of students
may provide clues to the level of students understandings and
misunderstandings they hold during the teaching process. A
previous study (27) provides evidence that in-class writing is
a powerful means for identifying students problems and mis-

Vol. 84 No. 7 July 2007

Journal of Chemical Education

1207

Research: Science and Education

understandings so that they can be remedied at the time.

Showing good student writing examples to the students during the next lecture can help clarify troublesome concepts.
In addition, instructors can give additional coverage of identified topics if necessary. However, doing this in a nonthreatening manner should not be forgotten. Perhaps employing
an informal and ungraded format would be a better way to
probe student knowledge effectively.
A context-based teaching approach that uses scientific
applications and context as a starting point may provide better
help for students in developing an understanding of some
areas of chemistry as compared to traditional approaches (28).
A recent study (29) provides evidence that a context-based
approach in teaching chemical thermodynamics at the undergraduate level improves learning as well as increasing interest in chemistry. Context-based approaches can be a viable
alternative to the more traditional approach without sacrificing rigor or quality of learning. In addition, a recent study
(30) points out that thermodynamic entities should be defined qualitatively and their effects talked about before they
are defined quantitatively, reversing the usual procedure in
which numerical problem solutions are set first and then understanding follows. Holman and Pillings (29) study applied
this notion in teaching chemical thermodynamics and reported success in the quality of student learning.
Kozliak (31) argues that using simple examples (based
on the Boltzman distribution) the concept of entropy can be
introduced consistently on a molecular basis by emphasizing
energy distribution among the accessible microstates. Students
are strengthened in their understanding of chemistry as a molecular science. Then they can remain focused on the ensuing
phenomenological consideration of thermodynamics because
a molecular foundation exists for the concrete and well-defined
goal of calculating entropy using the experimental measurable values of work, heat, and temperature. As a result, the
content and nature of physical chemistry courses may be reconsidered, liberating it from a textbook-driven and mathematical derivation-driven course and providing informative,
interesting, and content-rich materials to help students learn
physical chemistry concepts. Some of the mathematical burden can be removed by the appropriate use of software to
enable students to focus on learning the significance of physical chemistry (20).
Finally, studies that reflect the theoretical aspects and students understandings of entropy are limited (32). Students
difficulties with entropy need further exploration, as do other
thermodynamic concepts. High school and university students understandings of the relationships between entropy
changes and temperature, entropy and spontaneity, and entropy changes in the case of solid and liquid matter would
benefit from further research. It is also important to make
available the findings of the studies reviewed above to classroom teachers, instructors, and students so that their findings may be incorporated into practice.
Acknowledgments
We thank the students and lecturers who took part in
this research, and acknowledge the financial support of
Ataturk University. We also wish to thank the reviewers for
their many helpful and valuable comments.
1208

Journal of Chemical Education

Supplemental Material

Thee questions used in this study, the data analysis coding scheme, analysis and discussion of the questionnaire and
interview data, and misunderstandings as well as their possible sources are all available in this issue of JCE Online.
Literature Cited
1. Osborne, R. J.; Wittrock, M. C. Sci. Educ. 1983, 67, 489508.
2. Pfundt, H.; Duit, R. Bibliography: Students Alternative Frameworks and Science Education, 5th ed.; IPN, University of Kiel:
Kiel, Germany, 2000.
3. Gilbert, J. K.; Watts, D. M. Studies in Sci. Educ. 1983, 10, 61
98.
4. Driver, R.; Easley, J. Studies in Sci. Educ. 1978, 5, 6184.
5. Banerjee, A. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 879881.
6. Carson, E. M.; Watson, J. R. University Chem. Educ. 2002,
6, 412.
7. Ochs, R. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 952954.
8. Thomas, P. L. Student Conceptions of Equilibrium and Fundamental Thermodynamic Concepts in College Physical
Chemistry. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO, 1997.
9. Tomanek, D. Sci. Educ. 1994, 78, 7382.
10. Lambert, F. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 187192.
11. Lambert, F. http://www.entropysite.com/entropy_is_simple/
index.html (accessed Apr 2007).
12. Spencer, J. N.; Lowe, J. P. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 14171424.
13. Matthews, P. Advanced Chemistry 1; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992.
14. Johnstone, A. H.; MacDonald, J. J.; Webb, G. Physics Educ.
1977, 12, 248251.
15. Selepe, C.; Bradley, J. Student-Teachers Conceptual Difficulties in Chemical Thermodynamics. In SAARMSE Fifth Annual
Meeting, Sanders, M., Ed; University of the Witwatersrand:
Johannesburg, South Africa, 1997; pp 316321.
16. Ribeiro, G. T. C. Research in Assessment 1992, 9, 2336.
17. Szbilir, M. A Study of Undergraduates Understandings of
Key Chemical Ideas in Thermodynamics. Ph.D. Thesis, The
University of York, York, UK, 2001.
18. Abraham, M. R.; Grzybowski, E. B.; Renner, J. B.; Marek, E.
A. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 105120.
19. Szbilir, M. University Chem. Educ. 2002, 6, 7383.
20. Szbilir, M. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 573578.
21. Warn, J. R. W. Concise Chemical Thermodynamics; Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., Ltd.: London, UK, 1988.
22. Driver, R. European J. Sci. Educ. 1981, 3, 93101.
23. Johnstone, A.; Selepeng, D. Chemistry Education: Research and
Practice in Europe 2001, 2, 1929.
24. Lambert, F. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 13851387.
25. Lambert, F. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 12411246.
26. Ribeiro, M. G. T. C.; Periera, D. J. V. C.; Maskill, R. Int. J.
Sci. Educ. 1990, 12, 391401.
27. Beall, H. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 10561057.
28. Ramsden, J. M. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1997, 19, 697710.
29. Holman, J.; Pilling, G. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 373375.
30. Carson, E. M.; Watson, J. R. University Chem. Educ. 1999,
3, 4651.
31. Kozliak, E. I. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 15951598.
32. Szbilir, M. J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 2003, 2, 2127.

Vol. 84 No. 7 July 2007

www.JCE.DivCHED.org