Application of multiple representation levels in redox reactions among tenth grade chemistry teachers

Winnie Sim Siew Lı; Mohammad Yusof Arshad

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Winnie Sim Siew Lı University Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Education, Johor Bahru, Johor-MALAYSIA
Mohammad Yusof Arshad University Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Education, Johor Bahru, Johor-MALAYSIA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Multiple Representation Levels, Macroscopic, Submicroscopic, Symbolic, Verbal Interaction

Abstract

Utmost important is students should be able to understand chemistry concepts at multiple representation levels and integrate between these levels. However, previous research showed that students face difficulty in this aspect. Thus, this study embarked into investigating how chemistry teachers apply these multiple representation levels in teaching redox reactions through verbal interaction. Ten chemistry secondary school teachers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia were involved in this study. Data were collected using observation and semi-structured interview. Analysis of data was done quantitatively to determine the percentages of verbal interaction at multiple representation levels. Data were also analyzed qualitatively to determine the pattern of application of multiple representation levels. Findings showed that teachers emphasized more on macroscopic level compared to submicroscopic and symbolic levels. It was found that students’ statement on multiple representation levels dominates interaction that occurred during chemistry lessons observed. Furthermore, there were three types of patterns of integration between multiple representation levels illustrated by chemistry teachers. Eighty percent of the respondents showed incomplete integration between these multiple representation levels. In conclusion, chemistry teachers should be aware and understand the application of these multiple representation levels in order to produce chemically literate students.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum [Curriculum Development Centre] (2012). Spesifikasi kurikulum kimia tingkatan empat [Curriculum specification chemistry form four]. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.

Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science. London: Continuum.

Brandon, P.R., Taum, A.K.H., Young, D.B., & Potenger III, F.M. (2008). The development and validation of the inquiry science observation coding sheet. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31(3), 247-258.

Brown, G. (1975). Microteaching. London: Methuen.

Chamberlain, A., & Llamzon, T. (Eds.) (1982). Studies in classroom interaction. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Curriculum Development Centre (2005). Curriculum specification chemistry form four. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Education.

De Jong, O., Acampo, J., & Verdonk, A., (1995). Problems in teaching the topic of redox reactions: actions and conceptions of chemistry teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(10), 1097-1110.

De Jong, O., & Treagust, D. (2002). Teaching and learning of electrochemistry. In Gilbert J.K., de Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D. F., & van Driel J. H. (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 317-337). Dordecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

De Jong, O., & Taber, K.S. (2007). Teaching and Learning the Many Faces of Chemistry. In Abell, S.K., & Lederman, N.G. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 631-652). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Dori, Y.J., & Homeiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbol, macro, micro and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (3), 278-302.

Eggleston, J.F., Galton, M., & Jones, M. (1975). A science teaching observation schedule. London: Macmillan Education. Flanders, N.A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behaviour. USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Garnett, P.J., & Treagust, D.F. (1992). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electric circuits and oxidation-reduction equations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (2), 121–142.

Gilbert, J.K., & Treagust, D.F. (Eds.) (2009). Multiple representation in chemical education. Berlin: Springer.

González-Sánchez, A.M., Ortiz-Nieves, E.L., & Medina, Z. (2014). Journal of Chemical Education. Doi: 10.1021/ed4003783.

Jaber, L.D., & BouJaoude, S. (2012). A macro–micro–symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (7), 973-998.

Johnstone, A.H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7 (2), 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.

Johnstone, A.H. (2000). Chemical education research: Where from Here? Chemistry Education, 4 (1), 34-48.

Malamah-Thomas, A. (1987). Classroom interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ministry of Education (1990). Surat Pekeliling Ikhtisas Bil. 8/1990: Sukatan pelajaran dan peruntukan masa untuk mata-mata pelajaran program Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah (KBSM) bagi sekolah menengah atas mulai tahun 1992 [Circulation letter number 8/1990: syllabus and time allocation for subjects under Integrated Curriculum Secondary Schools (KBSM) for secondary schools starting 1992]. 15 Disember 1990. Kuala Lumpur.

Mohamed Najib Abdul Ghafar (1997). Access and success in higher education. Johor: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Nieves, E.L.O., Barreto, R., & Medina, Z. (2012). JCE Classroom Activity # 111: Redox Reactions in Three Representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 643-645.

Nurfaradilla Mohamad Nasri, Zakiah Mohd Yusof, Shanti a/p Ramasamy, & Lilia Halim (2010). Uncovering Problems Faced by Science Teacher. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 9, 670-673.

Ozkaya A. R. (2002). Conceptual difficulties experienced by prospective teachers in electrochemistry: half-cell potential, cell potential, and chemical and electrochemical equilibrium in galvanic cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 79 (6), 735-738.

Sanger, M.J., & Greenbowe, T.J. (1997). Common student misconceptions in electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic, and concentration cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (4), 377-398.

Shahabuddin Hashim, Rohizani Yaakub, & Mohd Zohir Ahmad (2007). Pedagogi: Strategi dan teknik mengajar dengan berkesan [Pedagogy: Effective teaching strategy and technique]. Pahang: PTS Profesional.

Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4 (2), 2-20. Suchman, J.R. (1966). Developing inquiry. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc.

Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33 (2), 179-195.

Tan, K.C.D., Goh, N.K, Chia, L.S., & Treagust, D.F. (2009). Linking the macroscopic, sub-microscopic and symbolic levels: The case of inorganic qualitative analysis. In Gilbert, J.K., & Treagust, D.F. (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 137-150). Springer.

Tay, C.S. (2010). Amalan konstruktivis guru sains sekolah rendah melalui interaksi verbal bilik darjah [Constructivist approach among primary science school teachers through classroom verbal interaction]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.

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.

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.F. (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 109-136). Springer.

Tsaparlis G. (2007). Teaching and learning physical chemistry – Review of educational research. In M.D. Ellison & T.A. Schoolcraft (Eds.), Advances in teaching physical chemistry (pp.75-112). Washington DC: American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press.

Tsaparlis, G. (2009). Learning at the macro level: The role of practical work. In Gilbert J.K., & Treagust, D.F. (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 109-136). Springer.

Tsaparlis, G., Kolioulis, D., & Pappa, E. (2010). Lower-secondary introductory chemistry course: A novel approach based on science-education theories with emphasis on the macroscopic approach, and the delayed meaningful teaching of the concepts of molecule and atom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11 (2), 107-117.

Valanides, N., Nicolaidou, A., & Eilks, I. (2003) Twelfth grade students' understanding of oxidation and combustion: using action research to improve teachers' practical knowledge and teaching practice. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21 (2), 159-175.

Viera, A.J., & Garrett, J.M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37 (5), 360-363.