The representational levels: Influences and contributions to research in chemical education

Valéria Campos Santos; Agnaldo Arroıo

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Valéria Campos Santos
Agnaldo Arroıo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Chemistry Education, Representational Levels, Visualization

Abstract

Chemistry is considered a difficult subject to study since it comprises microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic components. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the literature on the representational levels (macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic) that involve models of thinking in chemistry, and it summarizes what is currently known and provides guidance for further research. This work reports the outcomes of theoretical and empirical studies about the representative levels in chemistry, science, and teacher education. The outcomes present a major concern around the difficulties and abilities of high school and undergraduate students in understanding chemistry in all the representational levels. Nevertheless, few studies were found about the teaching of educational programs, which shows that scientific studies on this topic are still lacking.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-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 changes at molecular level. International Journal of Science Education, 11(27), 1269– 1298.

Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. (1999). High-school chemistry student’s performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Journal of Scinece Education and Technology, 4(8), 257–271.

Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. (2000). Computerized molecular modeling - The new technology for enhancing model perception among chemistry educators and learners. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 109–120.

Bodner, G. M., & Domin, D. S. (2000). Mental models: The role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 24–30.

Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a twotier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school student’s ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293–307.

Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). The modeling ability of non-major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 274–292.

Cook, M. (2011). Teachers’ use of visual representations in the science classroom. Science Education International, 22(3), 175–184.

Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091.

Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92(5), 848–867.

Dori, Y., & Sansson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors casebased computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 219–250.

Ferk, V., Vrtacnik, M., Blejec, A., & Gril, A. (2003). Students’ understanding of molecular structure representations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1227– 1245.

Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds). International handbook of science education (Vol. 1), (pp. 233– 248). London: 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., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D.L. Gabel (Ed). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, (pp. 301-325). New York: Macmillan.

Grosslight L., Unger C., Jay E., & Smith C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799–822.

Hinton, M. E., & Nakhleh, M. B. (1999) Students’ microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions. Journal of Chemical Educator, 4(5), 158–167.

Jaber, L. Z., & BouJaoude, S. (2011). A macro-micro-symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 973–998. First published on: 03 June 2011 (iFirst) (SSCI).

Jansoon, N., Coll, R. K., & Somsook, E. (2009). Understanding mental models of dilution in Thai students. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(2), 147– 168.

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 a changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.

Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry: Logical or psychological? Chemical Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9–15.

Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.

Rappoport, L. T., & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of representation: Emergent versus submergent perspective, International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1585–1603.

Russell, J. W., Kozma, R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 330–334.

Sabelli, N. H., & Livshits, I. S. (1995). Sharing multiple complementary representations in the teaching of science. In D. Thomas (Ed). Scientific Visualization in Mathematics and Science Teaching, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the advancement of computing in education.

Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: an overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(2), 2–20.

Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 141–159.

Taylor, D. (2010). The literature review: A few tips on conducting it. Canada: Toronto University. Retrieved 12/10/2010 from http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specifictypes- of-writing/literature-review.htm

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.

Wu, H. (2003). Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences: Intertextuality in a high-school science classroom. Science Education, 87(6), 868–891.

Wu, H., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning . Science Education, 88(3), 465–492.

Wu, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.