Abstract
Research has consistently shown that secondary school students have conceptual difficulties transferring between macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemistry. In this chapter, we describe how students responded to a 15-item two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument that analysed their understanding of seven types of chemical reactions using macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representations after they had been taught a special alternative programme to make these three representations more overt. The research has shown that by placing particular emphasis on the triplet relationship of macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemistry, it is possible for students to achieve more meaningful learning of chemical representations. Suggestions are made for how such improved learning can be accommodated in normal classrooms, as compared to research-oriented classrooms.
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.
References
Anderson, G. (2004). Fundamentals of educational research (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge Falmer.
Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70, 549–563.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64–66.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1988). Theories, principles and laws. Education in Chemistry, 25, 89–92.
Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873–878.
Bodner, G. M. (1991). I have found you an argument: The conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(5), 385–388.
Boo, H. K. (1998). Students’ understanding of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 569–581.
Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2004). Diagnostic assessment of secondary students’ use of three levels of representation to explain simple chemical reactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293–307.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving Science Education (pp. 46–49). Chicago, IL: The National Society for the Study of Education.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science – from behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–25). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 233–248). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look at the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554.
Gabel, D., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particle nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695–697.
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.
Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 611–628.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1, 75–83.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.
Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translations of the representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 883–903.
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.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students’ understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1077–1096.
Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508–510.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual (2nd ed.). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Seddon, G. M., & Eniaiyeju, P. A. (1986). The understanding of pictorial depth cues, and the ability to visualise the rotation of three-dimensional structures in diagrams. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4(1), 29–37.
Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Thinking and understanding in qualitative analysis practical work. Teaching and Learning, 23(1), 69–75.
Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (Vol. 1,pp. 327–436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Treagust, D. F., & Chittleborough, G. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities (Vol. 8,pp. 239–267). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.
Tytler, R. (2002). Teaching for understanding in science: Student conceptions research, and changing views of learning. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48(3), 30–35.
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
Treagust, D.F., Chandrasegaran, A.L. (2009). The Efficacy of an Alternative Instructional Programme Designed to Enhance Secondary Students’ Competence in the Triplet Relationship. 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_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_8
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)