Abstract
Explanations of chemical phenomena are nearly always focused at the sub-micro level, a level that cannot be observed, yet are normally provided with diagrams at the symbolic level. These diagrams represent the macro and sub-micro levels of matter. The connections between the macro level and the diagrams of the sub-micro level are not always apparent to students, indicating a need for chemical diagrams to be used carefully and explicitly. Having students draw and annotate chemical diagrams representing chemical phenomena at the sub-micro level can provide some insight into their understanding of chemistry at the macro level. Misinterpretation of diagrams can occur when the representations are not understood, when links are not made between the macro and sub-micro levels, or when the diagram is unfamiliar. Responding to these difficulties, strategies based on research and our experiences of teaching with diagrams are suggested for the choice and use of chemical diagrams depicting the sub-micro level in the teaching and learning of chemistry. These strategies provide opportunities for learners to construct acceptable personal mental models of the sub-micro level.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Reference
Andersson, B. (1990). Pupils’ conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12–16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 53–85.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multi-media-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2005). Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical change at molecular level. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1269–1298.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualisation of a chemical reaction. Education in chemistry, 24(109), 117–120.
Bowen, C. W. (1998). Item design considerations for computer-based testing of student learning in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(9), 1172–1175.
Brown, T. L., LeMay, H. E., & Bursten, B. E. (2006). Chemistry: The central science (10th ed.). New Jersey, Pearson: Prentice Hall.
Bucat, R. (2004). Pedagogical content knowledge as away forward: Applied research in chemcitry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 215–228.
Chittleborough, G. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). The modelling ability of non-major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 8(3), 274–292.
Chittleborough, G. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2008). Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires transforming from one level of representation to another. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 463–482.
Collins, A., & Gentner, D. (1987). How people construct mental models. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (Vol. 1, pp. 243–265). New York: University of Cambridge.
de Jong, O., & van Driel, J. (2004). Exploring the development of student teachers’ PCK of the multiple meanings of chemistry topics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 477–491.
Devetak, I., Urbancic, K., Grm, W., Krnel, D., & Glazar, S. (2004). Submicroscopic representations as a tool for evaluating students chemical conceptions. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 51, 799–814.
Ebbing, D. D. (1995). General chemistry (5th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Ebbing, D. D., & Gammon, D. S. (1999). General chemistry (6th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Ebbing, D. D., & Gammon, D. S. (2002). General chemistry (7th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Ebbing, D. D., & Gammon, D. S. (2005). General chemistry (8th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Fiorea, S. M., Cuevasa, H. M., & Oser, R. L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand connections: The facilitative effects of diagrams on mental model development and task performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2), 185–199.
Gabel, D. L. (1993). Use of the particulate nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 193–194.
Gabel, D. L. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gabel, D. L. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554.
Gabel, D. L., Briner, D., & Haines, D. (1992). Modelling with magnets: A unified approach to chemistry problem solving. The Science Teacher, 59(3), 58–63.
Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Giordan, A. (1991). The importance of modelling in the teaching and popularisation of science. Impact of Science on Society, 164, 321–338.
Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39–53.
Hinton, M. E., & Nakhleh, M. B. (1999). Students’ microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions. The Chemical Educator, 4(4), 1–29.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.
Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry – logical or psychological. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9–15.
Johnstone, A. H., & El-Banna, H. (1986). Capacities, demands and processes – A predictive model for science education in chemistry. Education in Chemistry, 23, 80–84.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J.(1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in Science Education (pp. 121–146). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 117–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Krnel, D., Watson, R., & Glazar, S. A. (1998). Survey of research related to the development of the concept of ‘matter’. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 257–289.
Lijnse, P. L., Licht, P., de Vos, W., & Waarlo, A. J. (1990). Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles (Ed.), Utrecht, Holland: CD-β Press, pp. 283–293.
Mayer, R. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 55–71.
Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139.
Mulford, D. R., & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 739–744.
Nelson, P. G. (2002). Teaching chemistry progressively: From substances, to atoms and molecules, to electrons and nuclei. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 215–228.
Nicoll, G. (2003). A qualitative investigation of undergraduate chemistry students’ macroscopic interpretations of the submicroscopic structure of molecules. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(2), 205–213.
Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508–510.
Onwu, G., & Randall, E. (2006). Some aspects of students’ understanding of a representational model of the particulate nature of chemistry in three different countries. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 7(4), 226–239.
Potgieter, M., Davidowitz, B., & Blom, B. (2005). Chemical concepts inventory of first year students at two tertiary institutions in South Africa. In the conference proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference Southern African Association of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Namibia, pp. 664–675.
Sanger, M. J. (2000). Using particulate drawings to determine and improve students;’ conceptions of pure substances and mixtures. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(6), 762–766.
Sanger, M. J. (2005). Evaluating students’ conceptual understanding of balanced equations and stoichiometric ratios using a particulate drawing. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(1),131–134.
Sanger, M. J., Campbell, E., Felker, J., & Spencer, C. (2007). Concept learning versus problem solving: Does particle motion have an effect? Journal of Chemical Education, 84(5), 875–879.
Sanger, M. J., & Phelps, A. J. (2007). What are students thinking when they pick their answer? A content analysis of students’ explanations of gas properties. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(5), 870–874.
Silberberg, M. S. (2000). Chemistry: The molecular nature of matter and change (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Silberberg, M. S. (2003). Chemistry: The molecular nature of matter and change (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Silberberg, M. S. (2006). Chemistry: The molecular nature of matter and change (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Stevens, M. G., Owens, C., & Wuhrer, R. (2002). Nanotechnology in society. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(3), 22–27.
Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: Visualization of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 141–159.
Treagust, D. F., & Chittleborough, G. D. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities (Vol. 8, pp. 239–267). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of sub-microscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1369.
Velázquez-Marcano, A., Williamson, V., Askenazi, G., Tasker, R., & Williamson, K. (2004). The use of video demonstrations and particulate animation in general chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), 315–323.
Wright, T. (2003). Images of atoms. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 491, 18–24.
Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Students’ understanding of chemical equation balancing Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 449–459.
Zare, R. (2002). Visualizing chemistry, journal of chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(11), 1290–1291.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Davidowitz, B., Chittleborough, G. (2009). Linking the Macroscopic and Sub-microscopic Levels: Diagrams. In: Gilbert, J.K., Treagust, D. (eds) Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8871-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8872-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)