Main Article Content
Bohr’s model is a semi-classical model which involves both classical and quantum principles. Although more sophisticated Schrödinger model has been presented to students, the residual picture in their minds persists to consider Bohr’s model to be the closest to the physical reality. We included few questions about Bohr’s model in tests to assess the students’ understandings of realistic atomic models in general-chemistry courses offered for freshmen in two universities in the Middle-East (namely, Yarmouk University at Irbid, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates University at Al-Ain, UAE, from both a statistical sample of 687 students was collected). The results reveal the existence of huge misconceptions amongst a large portion of the students’ sample (i.e., ≥ 85%). Alternative solutions are discussed and suggested to draw a strategy to better dissimilate the knowledge in order to overcome the existing learning difficulties.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Copyrights for articles published in IJIER journals are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
 N. Bohr, “On the Constitution of atoms and molecules, Part I”, Philosophical Magazine 26 (1913) 1.
 A. Lakhtakia and E.E. Salpeter, “Models and Modelers of hydrogen”, Am. J. Phys. 65 (1996) 933.
 L. de Broglie, PhD thesis, Paris University, 1924.
 E. Schrodinger, “Quantisierung als eigenwertproblem”, Ann. Phys. 386 (1926) 109.
 H. Fischler and M. Lichtfed, “Modern physics and students’ conceptions”, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 14 (1992) 181.
 D.A. Zollman, N.S. Rebello and K. Hogg, “Quantum mechanics for everyone: Hands-on activities integrated with technology”, Am. J. Phys. 70 (2002) 252.
 P.R. Fletcher, PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 2004.
 G. Ireson, “The quantum understanding of pre-university physics students”, Phys. Educ. 35 (2000) 15.
 S.B. McKagan, K.K. Perkins and C.E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Spec. Topics – Phys. Educ. Res. 5 (2008) 010103 (10 pp).
 J. Petri and H. Niedderer, “A learning pathway in high-school level quantum atomic physics”, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20 (1998) 1075.
 National Research Council, “Talking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8”, (National Academy, Washington DC, 1996).
 National Research Council, National Science Education Standards, (National Academy, Washington DC, 1996).
 T.E. Brown, H.E. LeMay, B.E. Bursten, C. Murphy, P. Woodward, M.E. Stoltzfus, “Chemistry: The Central Science”, 14th Edition, (Prentice Hall, 2017).
 A. Beiser, “Concepts of Modern Physics”, 6th Edition, (McGraw-Hill Inc., 2003).
 E. F. Redish & R. N. Steinberg, “Teaching physics: Figuring out what works”. Physics Today, 52 (1999) 24–30.
 R. L. DeHaan, “The impending revolution in undergraduate science education”. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14 (2005) 253–269.
 J. V. Aalst & T. Key, “Pre-professional students' beliefs about learning physics”. Canadian Journal of Physics, 78:1 (2000) 73-78.
 N. Hativa & P. Goodyear, “Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education”. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher (2002).