Comparative analysis of real gases topic in Physics and Chemistry university books: a proposal based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy

## COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REAL GASES TOPIC IN PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY UNIVERSITY BOOKS: A PROPOSAL BASED ON REVISED BLOOM'S TAXONOMY 1

Maria das Graças Cleophas 1 and Murilo Sodré Marques 2

- 1 Instituto Latino Americano de Ciências da Vida e da Natureza, Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana, Av. Silvio Américo Sasdelli, 1842 - Vila A, CEP 85866-000, Foz do Iguaçu, PR, Brazil. E-mail: maria.cleophas@unila.edu.br
- 2 Centro das Ciências Exatas e das Tecnologias, Universidade Federal do Oeste da Bahia, Rua Bertioga, 892, Morada Nobre, CEP 47810-059, Barreiras, BA, Brazil. E-mail:

murilo.sodre@ufob.edu.br

Palavras-chave : Blooming Scientific Topic Analysis Tool, Real gases, Revised Bloom's Taxonomy.

## Resumo expandido

The physical and chemical descriptions of matter are intimately related. Within the scope of Thermodynamics, it is well known that the study of gases properties gives power to its intrinsic phenomenology, being essential in all basic courses in Physics and Chemistry, both in high school and higher education. The real gases topic follows a trend: with the focus of textbooks almost exclusively on the properties related to ideal gases, little is discussed about the possible extensions of the ideal gas model: even Van der Waals equation, which was the first attempt to include terms of interaction and size of molecules in the description of gases, in some cases, needs further deepening. One possible factor that tends to corroborate with this scenery is the distinct approach used by physicists and chemists to describe the same phenomena in their respective textbooks, which can cause obstacles in the teaching and learning process. That said, a proposal is being developed, called Blooming Scientific Topic Analysis Tool or simply BSTAT, aiming both to evaluate topics belonging to the Natural Sciences curricula and to understand the ability (in textbooks) to promote this body of knowledge, based on the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (RBT). The BSTAT assigns to each of the six categories of the cognitive process dimension originally proposed by Bloom, an equal score so that its sum is 100 (detailed in table 03 - Appendix A) in order to assess how much of the Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) or Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) are explored by certain textbook topics in students (Figure 1).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Figure 01: Detailing of Blooming Scientific Topic Analysis Tool.

<!-- image -->

The sample consisted of 16 textbooks, with 8 belonging to each of the two areas. Tables 01 and 02 shows the books which were expended. Briefly, this work addresses the following research questions: 1. What are the differences in the approach to the topic 'Real Gases' given by Physics and Chemistry textbooks? 2. What are the prevalent cognitive domains in the topic in question? 3. Which thinking skills make up the dimension of the cognitive process are most pronounced by the analyzed books?

Table 01: University Chemistry books which has been analyzed.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Table 02: University Physics books which has been analyzed.

Our results are shown in terms of LOTS and HOTS for Chemistry and Physics books is shown in figure 2:

Figure 02: Bar graph indicating performances of Low Order and High Order Thinking Skills in (left) Chemistry and (right) Physics books according to BSTAT.

<!-- image -->

Figure 02 allows us to conclude that the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS - orange bars) are better explored than Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS -blue bars) in the Chemistry books whereas in terms of Physics books, with the exception of the Nussenzveig's book, the HOTS and LOTS are almost equally explored in Physics books in relation to the theme Real Gases. In terms of average thinking skills of Low and High order, Physics books also have a better accomplishment, as can bee in fig 03:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Figure 03: Comparison between Chemistry and Physics books separating skills in low and high order.

<!-- image -->

There was a tendency for Physics books to explore the theme around the Pressure-Volume phase diagram containing Van der Waals isotherms, while Chemistry books, in turn, sought a more phenomenological analysis, showing the deviations in the behavior of the ideal gas for high pressures or low temperatures by law of corresponding states, in addition to the treatment of Van der Waals phenomenological parameters by both areas.

From assigning an equal score to each of the six categories in the domain of the cognitive process (so that the sum of the six categories had a maximum score of 100 points), we could see that the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) and Lower Order (LOTS) are almost equally explored in Physics books in relation to the Real Gases theme, while the HOTS are better explored than LOTS in the Chemistry books in approach of real gases.

## Referências

ANDERSON, L., KRATHWOHL, D. and BLOOM, B., A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Pearson, 2001).

ATKINS, P. W.; JONES, L. Chemical Principles: The Quest for Insight. 6th Ed., New York: W. H. Freeman, 2010.

BLOOM, B. Taxonomy of educational objectives . Michigan: Longmans, 1954.

BROWN, T. L.; LEMAY, H. E.; BURSTEN, B. E. Chemistry: The Central Science. 11th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2012.

EBBING, D.; GAMMON, S. D. General Chemistry: Media Enhanced Edition , 8th Ed. New York: Cengage Learning, 2007.

GIANCOLI, D. C., Physics for Scientists &amp; Engineers with Modern Physics: Pearson New International Edition. 4th Ed. New York: Pearson Education Limited, 2013.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

GITTERMAN, M. Chemistry Versus Physics: Chemical Reactions Near Critical Points. Singapore: World Scientific, 2009.

GOLDSBY, K.; CHANG, R. Chemistry, 11th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2012.

HALLIDAY, D.; RESNICK, R.; WALKER, J. Fundamentals of Physics Extended . 10th Ed. New York: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2013.

KAHVECI, A. Quantitative analysis of science and chemistry textbooks for indicators of reform: A complementary perspective, I nternational Journal of Science Education 32, 1495-1519 (2010).

KLIEGER, A. and SHERMAN, G., Physics textbooks: Do they promote or inhibit students' creative thinking, Physics Education 50, 305-309 (2015).

KNIGHT, R. D. Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach. 4th Ed. New York: Pearson/Addison Wesley, 2016.

KOTZ, J. C.; TREICHEL, P. M.; TOWSEND, J. Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity , 10th Ed. New York: Cengage Learning, 2012.

LING, S. J.; SANNY, J.; MOEBS, W. University Physics vol. 2. Rice: OpenStax, Rice University, 2016.

NIAZ, M., A rational reconstruction of the kinetic molecular theory of gases based on history and philosophy of science and its implications for chemistry textbooks, Instructional Science 28, 23-50 (2000).

NUSSENZVEIG, H. M. Curso de Física Básica: Fluidos, Oscilações e Ondas, Calor . 5th Ed. Rio DE Janeiro: Editora Blucher, 2018.

SCHUTTLEFIELD, J. D. , KIRK, J., PIENTA, N. J. and TANG, H. Investigating the Effect of Complexity Factors in Gas Law Problems, J. Chem. Educ. 89, 586591(2012).

SERWAY, R. A.; JEWETT, J. W. Physics for Scientists and Engineers . 9th Ed., New York: Cengage Learning, 2013.

SILBERBERG, M. Principles of General Chemistry. 3 rd Ed. New York: McGrawHill Higher Education, 2012.

TIPLER, P. A. ; MOSCA, G. Physics for Scientists and Engineers. 6th Ed. New York: W. H. Freeman, 2007.

WHITTEN, K. W., General Chemistry , 7th Ed. San Francisco: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2004.

WILKINSON, J., A quantitative analysis of physics textbooks for scientific literacy themes, Research in Science Education 29, 385-399 (1999).

YOUNG, H. D.; FREEDMAN, R. A.; FORD, A. L., S ears and Zemansky's University Physics . 14th Ed. New York: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2015.

ZUMDHAL, S. S.; DECOSTE, D. J. Chemical Principles. 8th Ed. New York: Cengage Learning, 2016.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

## APPENDIX A

Table 03: Criteria used in the BSTAT for textbook analysis.