Research: Science & Education

Students’ Misconceptions in Electrochemistry:

Current Flow in Electrolyte Solutions and the Salt Bridge1
Michael J. Sanger and Thomas J. Greenbowe
Department of Chemistry, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, IA 50011

Several researchers have documented students’ mis- sistently harboring this misconception.
conceptions in electrochemistry. One reason for the interest
in studying electrochemistry is that surveys of students and Current Flow through Electrolyte Solutions
teachers suggest that students find this topic difficult (1), and the Salt Bridge
and research confirms that students’ beliefs about problem
complexity affect their performance and learning (2). Sev- In general, students recognize that current cannot flow
eral articles have promoted pedagogical suggestions or opin- without a closed circuit, and many believe that only elec-
ions about more effective methods of teaching electrochem- tron flow can complete this circuit. Consequently, many stu-
istry (3–6); but few, if any, of these have actually been tested. dents cling to the notion that electrons flow from the anode
Allsop and George (7) reported that students had diffi- to the cathode along the wire and are then released into
culty using standard reduction potentials to predict the di- the electrolyte at the cathode, traveling through the elec-
rection of chemical reactions and were unable to produce trolyte solutions and the salt bridge to reach the anode. This
an acceptable diagram of an electrochemical cell; 11% of is represented as Misconception 10a2 (electrons enter the
these students stated that a salt bridge provides a pathway solution from the cathode, travel through the solutions and
for the flow of electrons. Ogude and Bradley (8) noted that the salt bridge, and emerge at the anode to complete the
although many students can solve the quantitative electro- circuit), which was held in one form or another by 9 of the
chemical problems that appear on chemistry exams, few 16 students.
were able to answer qualitative questions requiring a Of those who believed that electrons flow through the
deeper conceptual knowledge of electrochemistry. Also in salt bridge, two stated that anions in the electrolyte solu-
this study, 30% of college students consistently replied that tions and the salt bridge help transfer the electrons (Mis-
electrons cannot flow in the electrolyte and 28% consis- conception 10b: anions in the salt bridge and the electro-
tently replied that electrons can flow in the electrolyte; 42% lyte transfer electrons from the cathode to the anode); three
were inconsistent in their responses. Similar results were stated that cations transfer the electrons through the salt
found in the 25th National Youth Science Olympiad in bridge (Misconception 10c: cations in the salt bridge and the
South Africa in 1989 (8): 30% of students suggested that electrolyte accept electrons and transfer them from the
ions flow to complete the circuit in the electrolyte solution, cathode to the anode); and three stated that the electrons
while 61% suggested that electrons flow in the electrolyte. flow through solution without any assistance from anions
Garnett and Treagust (9, 10) probed student miscon- or cations (Misconception 10e: electrons can flow through
ceptions about oxidation–reduction reactions and electro- aqueous solutions without assistance from the ions).
chemical and electrolytic cells through interviews with Three students who correctly stated that ions flow
high-school students in Australia. They reported several through solutions and the salt bridge to complete the cir-
common misconceptions about oxidation–reduction reac- cuit suggested that it is the flow of anions in solution that
tions, electrochemical cells, and electrolytic cells. Misconcep- completes the circuit, and cation flow does not constitute a
tions about the flow of current in electrolyte solutions and current (Misconception 10f: only negatively charged ions
the salt bridge include the notions that (i) electrons move
through the electrolytes and the salt bridge, carried or
transferred by cations and anions; (ii) protons move through Table 1. Common Student Misconceptions
the electrolytes and the salt bridge, even in neutral or ba- No. Statement of Misconception
sic solutions; and (iii) ion movements in solution do not con- 2h Electrons move through solution by being attracted from one ion to
stitute an electrical current. Garnett et al. (11) discussed the other.
some probable origins of these misconceptions and their 2i Electrons move through solution by attaching themselves to ions
implications for improving the chemistry curriculum. at the cathode and are carried by that ion to the anode.
We have replicated, with additions, Garnett and 10a Electrons enter the solution from the cathode, travel through the
Treagust’s interview study (10) to probe students’ miscon- solutions and the salt bridge, and emerge at the anode to
ceptions about galvanic (electrochemical), electrolytic, and complete the circuit.
concentration (Nernst) cells. We reported the responses of 10b Anions in the salt bridge and the electrolyte transfer electrons from
16 student volunteers (9 men and 7 women) from three the cathode to the anode.
freshman-level chemistry courses at a Midwestern Ameri- 10c Cations in the salt bridge and the electrolyte accept electrons and
can university (12). The first part of this article focuses on transfer them from the cathode to the anode.
students’ misconceptions and proposed mechanisms related 10ea Electrons can flow through aqueous solutions without assistance
to current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge from the ions.
(summarized in Table 1), and on likely sources for these 10fa Only negatively charged ions constitute a flow of current in the
misconceptions. The second part reports the results of a electrolyte and the salt bridge.
study to determine whether teaching to actively confront 11b The anode is positively charged because it has lost electrons; the
cathode is negatively charged because it has gained electrons.
the misconception that electrons flow in solution using com-
a
puter animations will decrease the number of students con- Not previously reported by Garnett and Treagust ( 9, 10).

Vol. 74 No. 7 July 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education 819

Research: Science & Education

constitute a flow of current in the electrolyte and the salt ing unqualified, generalized statements about concepts be-
bridge). cause students tend to interpret the statements literally,
In their responses to questions about electrochemical and apply them more extensively than is intended.
and electrolytic cells, 7 of the 16 students responded with Ogude and Bradley (8) attributed student misconcep-
comments suggesting that the electrodes have net positive tions concerning current flow in electrolyte solutions and the
and negative charges. Some who believed that the anode is salt bridge to two factors: (i) reference by textbooks or the
positively charged held Misconception 11b (the anode is instructor to continuity of current and established belief in
positively charged because it has lost electrons; the cath- the electronic nature of current electricity (phrases like “con-
ode is negatively charged because it has gained electrons); tinuity of current” imply that current is uniform throughout
they interpreted anion flow toward the anode as suggest- the electrochemical cell); and (ii) careless discussion of elec-
ing that the anode is positively charged and cation flow to- trode processes (textbooks with obvious mistakes or mislead-
ward the cathode as suggesting that the cathode is nega- ing statements result in student misconceptions).
tively charged. Both Garnett and Treagust (9, 10) and Ogude and Bra-
dley (8) suggested that a major source of misconceptions
Mechanisms for Electron Transfer through Electrolyte comes from imprecise or inappropriate language used by
textbooks and instructors in explaining electrochemical con-
Solutions and the Salt Bridge
cepts and this study is no exception. More than half the stu-
dents (9 of 16) in this interview study suggested that elec-
Eight of the nine students who stated that electrons
trons flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge to
flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge suggested
complete the circuit. Analysis of the three textbooks used
possible mechanisms for the flow of electrons. Five stated
by these students (14–16) revealed that all have comments
that electrons are transferred from cathode to anode by the
that, while not technically incorrect, may be misinterpreted
ions in solution (Misconception 2i: electrons move through
to suggest that electrons do flow through electrolyte solu-
solution by attaching themselves to ions at the cathode and
tions and the salt bridge. For example:
are carried by that ion to the anode). Four of these students
stated that cations (Ag+ and K+ in the galvanic cell and Al3+ 1. In a molten salt such as sodium chloride, or in a solu-
in the electrolytic cell) assisted in the transfer of electrons tion of an electrolyte, however, electrical charge is car-
from cathode to anode (Misconception 10c), while one stu- ried through the liquid by the movement of ions. The
dent stated that anions help in the transfer of electrons transport of electrical charge by ions is called elec-
from cathode to anode. None of the students in this study trolytic conduction, and it is able to occur only
demonstrated Misconception 2h (electrons move through so- when chemical reactions take place at the electrodes.
(14, p 770)
lution by being attracted from one ion to the other). This
misconception was originally reported by Garnett and Comment: If students interpret “electrical charge” as
Treagust (9): a student suggested that electrons are trans- “electrons” instead of as “the inherent charge of the
ions”, the first sentence could lead to Misconceptions
ferred back and forth from anion to cation as they travel
10b and 10c and the second sentence could foster Mis-
from cathode to anode in solution. Three students who conception 2i about the transfer of electrons through
stated that electrons flow in electrolyte solutions and the electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge.
salt bridge suggested that the electrons receive no assis-
2. ...This task is accomplished through a voltaic (or gal-
tance from ions and travel as free electrons from the cath-
vanic) cell, which is merely a device in which elec-
ode to the anode (Misconception 10e).
tron transfer is forced to take place through an exter-
In contrast to Garnett and Treagust’s students (9),
nal pathway rather than directly between reactants.
none of our students suggested that electrons in solution (15, p 727)
are transferred from the cathode to the anode by “piggy-
backing” from anions to cations (Misconception 2h), and sev- Comment: Electrons are being transferred from the re-
eral of our students suggested that electrons travel in solu- ductant to the oxidant, but “electron transfer through
tion as free electrons from the cathode to the anode (Mis- an external pathway” can be misinterpreted as sug-
conception 10e). While these differences are interesting, we gesting that electrons flow throughout the entire cir-
are unable to attribute them to developmental (high school cuit including the electrolyte solutions and the salt
versus college) or pedagogical (teaching methods in Austra- bridge and may be responsible for Misconceptions 10a
lia versus those in the United States) differences. or 10e.

3. ...If we physically separate the oxidizing agent from

Probable Sources of Misconceptions the reducing agent, the transfer of electrons can take
Garnett and Treagust (10) proposed two origins of stu- place via an external conducting medium. As the re-
action progresses, it sets up a constant flow of elec-
dent misconceptions concerning the flow of current in elec-
trons and hence generates electricity (that is, it pro-
trolyte solutions and the salt bridge: (i) students’ interpre-
duces electrical work). (16, p 767)
tation of the language of science—students interpret the
terminology used in the textbook or by the instructor in a Comment: The “constant flow of electrons” occurs only
manner consistent with everyday usage, but inconsistent in the wire connecting the electrodes, but student may
over-generalize this statement to the flow of current in
with scientific usage; and (ii) students applying information
electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge, which would
too generally, over-generalizing a scientific statement to result in Misconceptions 10a–e.
situations where it is inappropriate. From these proposed
origins, Garnett et al. (11) drafted suggestions for improv- The results of this analysis should prompt textbook
ing the chemistry curriculum that included the following authors to carefully examine and reconsider the language
ideas: (i) teachers and curriculum developers need to select used in their chemistry textbooks. The use of detailed dia-
explanatory language with care, and be particularly cau- grams and animations about current flow through electro-
tious in selecting language having everyday meanings that lyte solutions and the salt bridge should be included in a
differ from meanings in a scientific context; and (ii) teach- multimedia presentation to help students visualize these
ers and curriculum developers need to be cautious in mak- concepts. Park and Hopkins (17) report that dynamic visual

820 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 74 No. 7 July 1997

 Research: Science & Education

displays are more effective than static ones. electrons flow in the salt bridge by teaching to actively con-
front, and therefore prevent or dispel, this misconception
Some Methods for Preventing Misconceptions are encouraging. After receiving instruction on electro-
chemistry, students in the second semester of introductory
We have become increasingly interested in the use of chemistry for non-science majors answered three concep-
computer animations as a lecture tool to enhance students’ tual questions about the flow of electrons in electrolyte so-
ability to visualize and understand chemical concepts on the lutions and the salt bridge (Fig. 1). The instructor had ex-
molecular level. In a typical lecture, the instructor performs plicitly emphasized that electrons do not flow in electrolyte
a live chemical demonstration, writes the relevant balanced solutions or the salt bridge and showed several computer ani-
chemical equation(s) on the chalkboard, and shows and ex- mations that modeled the correct flow of current in galvanic
plains a computer animation depicting the reaction on the and electrolytic cells (i.e., electron flow in the wires and cat-
molecular level. In this way, the lecture attempts to facili- ion and anion flow in the electrolyte solutions). Table 2 con-
tate students’ connection of the macroscopic, symbolic, and tains a description and an approximate running time of the
microscopic representations of chemical processes (18–20). computer animations employed. Each one was displayed
Examples of electrochemistry animations used in these lec- three times in succession while the instructor provided a nar-
tures have been reported by Greenbowe (21). ration of events. Presenting visual and verbal (oral and writ-
Preliminary studies to determine whether we can re- ten) information simultaneously is consistent with Paivio’s
duce the number of students holding the misconception that dual coding theory (22) and Mayer and Anderson’s contigu-
ity principle (23).
The animations of the salt
bridge included an overall anima-
tion that focused on the dynamics of
V the entire copper–zinc electrochemi-
1. Electrons in the cell flow through the ___ lightbulb cal cell, and a “close-up” of cation
toward the ___. and anion migration out of the salt
(1) wire, silver electrode Ag(s) Ni(s) bridge (Fig. 2). The animation clearly
(2) wire, nickel electrode shows only ions migrating in solu-
* (3) salt bridge, nickel electrode tion. This “close-up” view allows stu-
* (4) salt bridge, silver electrode dents to focus their attention on the
1 M Ag+ 1 M Ni2+ critical concept being illustrated
(24).
2. In an electrochemical cell, conduction through the electrolyte is due to: The computer animation of the
* (1) electrons moving through the solution attached to the ions electrolytic cell illustrates the plat-
* (2) electrons moving from ion to ion through the solution ing of silver metal on an iron spoon
(3) the movement of both positive and negative ions (Fig. 3). The animation clearly
(4) the movement of water molecules shows electrons being released at
* (5) electrons moving across through the solution from one electrode to the other the anode, bumping up from the an-
ode through the wire and the bat-
tery to the cathode. Silver ions in so-
3. The electrochemical cell shown below has 1.10 volts for its emf. There is an oxida- lution migrate toward the iron cath-
tion reaction and a reduction reaction. ode (spoon) where they capture elec-
V trons at the solution–metal inter-
saltbridge face, plating out on the electrode as
K+ NO3-
silver metal. The animation clearly
Zn metal Cu metal
shows that only ions migrate in so-
lution.
Zn2+, SO42- Cu2+, SO42- The distractors in each ques-
1.0 M 1.0 M tion were classified as being consis-
tent (marked with an asterisk in
Which one(s) of the diagrams below depict each half-cell as the reactions proceed? Fig. 1) or inconsistent with the mis-
Note: In the following diagrams, cations are symbolized as + and anions as –. An elec- conception that electrons flow in
tron is symbolized as e-. electrolyte solutions. Responses to
the three conceptual questions were
V V V
analyzed to determine whether stu-
dents consistently demonstrated or
failed to demonstrate this miscon-
ception. Of the 112 students who
took the final exam, 3 (3%) consis-
B C D
tently chose responses suggesting
V V
that electrons are present in solu-
tion, 40 (36%) consistently chose re-
sponses not suggesting that elec-
e- trons exist in solution, and 69 (61%)
e-
E F chose responses inconsistent with
(1) Either C or D (2) E only (3) B only (4) Either B or E * (5) F only regard to the presence of electrons
in electrolyte solutions.
These results can be compared
Figure 1. Conceptual questions concerning the flow of electrons in solution. with those reported by Ogude and

Vol. 74 No. 7 July 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education 821

Research: Science & Education

Table 2. Animations Used in Electrochemistry Lectures

Animation Focus Duration
Zinc–copper electro- Dynamics of entire cell: ion migra- 45 s
chemical cell tion in electrolyte solutions and the
salt bridge; movement of electrons in
the wire; oxidation–reduction reac-
tions at electrodes
Salt bridge (part I) Cation and anion migration out of 30 s
the salt bridge
Salt bridge (part II) Cation and anion migration out of 30 s
the salt bridge; charge balance in
each half-cell
Electroplating silver Electron movement in the wires; ion 45 s
onto iron migration in the aqueous solution;
oxidation process at anode; reduc-
tion process at cathode
Figure 2. Close-up view of a representation of cation and anion
migration in the salt bridge of a copper/zinc electrochemical cell.

Bradley (8), in which 40 first-year college students an- responses. Even though our students received instruction
swered five conceptual questions concerning the flow of elec- in electrochemistry that emphasized the correct model of
trons in electrolyte solutions. In their study, 11 (28%) con- current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge and
sistently demonstrated the misconception; 12 (30%) consis- were directed to readings about this topic in their textbook,
tently did not demonstrate the misconception; and 17 (42%) previous experience suggests that this misconception resists
were inconsistent. These numbers are complicated by the change. Perhaps the computer animations shown in lecture
fact that Ogude and Bradley also used question #2 in Fig- were not shown long enough for students to process the in-
ure 1, but they included only response 5 as being consis- formation. Research is needed to determine whether these
tent with the misconception; we included responses 1, 2, animations adequately explained the students’ experiences
and 5 because all of them suggest that electrons exist in and observations and appeared logical to the students (25).
solution. Since 8 of the 40 students in Ogude and Bradley’s Many of our students report that the computer anima-
study chose responses 1 and 2 for this question, it is likely tions are useful, but capturing the dynamic aspects of these
that more than 28% consistently demonstrated and less processes on paper is difficult. They need more time to view
than 30% consistently did not demonstrate this misconcep- the animations, make sense of them, and copy important
tion.3 information derived from them into their notes. To address
A chi-square test of independence was performed on these student concerns, we will place the computer anima-
the number of students in each study who consistently tions used in lecture on our chemistry file server in the fu-
demonstrated or failed to demonstrate the misconception ture. In this way, students will have access to the anima-
or were inconsistent in their responses. The results of this tions 24 hours a day and can review the animations and
test (χ 2(2) = 21.90, p < .0001) support the assumption that take notes at their leisure. Several animations are available
our teaching method had an effect on the proportion of stu- on our World Wide Web site (http://www.public.iastate.edu/
dents consistently demonstrating this misconception. Spe- ~fipse-chem/homepage.html). We will also prepare a lecture
cifically, the test of independence suggests that the propor- handout to reduce the time students spend copying the ani-
tion of students in Ogude and Bradley’s study who consis- mations into their notes.
tently demonstrated the misconception is larger than ex- Perhaps viewing computer animations helps students
pected and the proportion of students in our study who con- build a better mental model (26–27) of electrochemical cells.
sistently demonstrated the misconception is smaller than Further research is needed to investigate this issue.
expected if the two groups were equivalent.
Our study suggests that active teaching to confront the Summary
misconception that electrons flow in electrolyte solutions
and the salt bridge, using computer animations to help stu- In a replication of Garnett and Treagust’s interview
dents visualize chemical reactions at the molecular level, study concerning electrochemical cells (10), we were able to
decreased the proportion of students consistently demon- confirm most of the misconceptions reported and to iden-
strating this misconception. The effect of viewing anima- tify several new ones, including the notions that electrons
tions that focus attention on the molecular level (particu- can flow through aqueous solutions without assistance from
late nature of matter) can be seen in Williamson and the ions and that only anions constitute a flow of current in
Abraham’s study (20), in which students who viewed ani- electrolyte solutions. Our students suggested two mecha-
mations based on the states of matter and reactions in so- nisms for electron flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt
lution were better able to visualize particulate behavior in bridge: electrons can either attach themselves to ions in so-
chemical reactions. lutions or they can flow by themselves without assistance
Although the test of independence does not suggest a from the ions. Analysis of the textbooks used by our stu-
difference in the proportion of students inconsistently dem- dents suggests a source of these misconceptions: obvious
onstrating the misconception, these numbers should be mistakes or misleading statements in the texts, which can
scrutinized. Since Ogude and Bradley’s students answered be misinterpreted or over-generalized to inappropriate situ-
five questions while ours answered only three, it is not un- ations. We also demonstrated that instruction including the
reasonable to expect a larger inconsistent group in their use of computer animations aimed at confronting the mis-
study due to random effects; however, our study shows a conception that electrons flow in electrolyte solutions and
larger proportion of students who were inconsistent in their the salt bridge can reduce the number of students who con-

822 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 74 No. 7 July 1997

 Research: Science & Education

Literature Cited

1. Johnstone, A. H. Chem. Soc. Rev. 1980, 9, 365–380.

2. Carter, C. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, 1987.
3. West, A. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 609–610.
4. Al-Soudi, H. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 630.
5. Moran, P. J.; Gileadi, E. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 912–916.
6. Runo, J. R.; Peters, D. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1993, 70, 708–713.
7. Allsop, R. T.; George, N. H. Educ. Chem. 1982, 19, 57–59.
8. Ogude, A. N.; Bradley, J. D. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 29–
34.
9. Garnett, P. J.; Treagust, D. F. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 121–
142.
10. Garnett, P. J.; Treagust, D. F. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 1079–
1099.
11. Garnett, P. J.; Garnett, P. J.; Treagust, D. F. Int. J. Sci.
Educ. 1990, 12, 147–156.
12. Sanger, M. J.; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34,
377–398.
13. Sanger, M. J.; Greenbowe, T. J., paper presented at the ACS
Figure 3. Computer screen image of the electrolytic plating of sil- National Meeting, Chicago, IL, August 20–24, 1995.
ver metal onto an iron spoon. 14. Brady, J. E.; Holum, J. R. Chemistry: The Study of Matter
and Its Changes; Wiley: New York, 1993; pp 769–813.
15. Brown, T. L.; LeMay, H. E.; Bursten, B. E. Chemistry: The
sistently demonstrate this misconception.
Central Science, 6th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1994; pp 719–767.
Acknowledgment 16. Chang, R. Chemistry, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1994;
pp 765–805.
This work was partially funded by the National Science 17. Park, O.-C.; Hopkins, R. Instr. Sci. 1993, 21, 427–449.
Foundation Division of Undergraduate Education through 18. Greenbowe, T. J. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, 1983.
grant DUE 9253985. 19. Gabel, D. L.; Samuel, K. V.; Hunn, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1987,
64, 695–697.
Notes 20. Williamson, V. M.; Abraham, M. R. J. Res. Sci. Teach.
1995, 32, 521–534.
1. Presented at the ACS National Meeting, Chicago, IL, Au- 21. Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 555–557.
gust 20, 1995. 22. Paivio, A. Mental Representations: A Dual-Coding Approach;
2. The numbering scheme for the misconceptions presented Oxford: New York, 1990.
here is consistent with that used by Garnett and Treagust (9, 10 ) 23. Mayer, R. E.; Anderson, R. B. J. Educ. Psych. 1992, 84, 444–
and Sanger and Greenbowe (12). Representative student quotes 452.
for each of these misconceptions were presented by the authors 24. Dwyer, F. M. A V Commun. Rev. 1970, 18, 235–249.
at the ACS National Meeting in Chicago in August 1995 (13). 25. Posner, G. J.; Strike, K. A.; Hewson, P. W.; Gertzog, W. A.
3. If we reanalyze our data using only response 5 in ques- Sci. Educ. 1982, 66, 211–227.
tion 2 as consistent with the misconception, our results change 26. Gentner, D.; Stevens, A. L. Mental Models; Lawrence
drastically: 1% of students consistently demonstrate the miscon- Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1983.
ception, 58% consistently do not demonstrate it, and 41% are in- 27. Halford, G. S. Children’s Understanding: The Development
consistent in their responses. of Mental Models; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1993.

Vol. 74 No. 7 July 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education 823