Abstract
This paper briefly examines the teaching approaches, for the topic of chemical equilibrium, of a small sample of Australian and German senior high school teachers. The data are analysed using a framework comprising three dimensions of pedagogical practice, where each dimension is characterised by two extremes on a scale: a teacher-centred vs. student- centred dimension a teaching facts vs. teaching processes dimension, and a discipline-oriented vs. daily life-oriented dimension (Gräber & Nentwig, 1999). The research was designed to answer two questions: “To what extent do the teachers incorporate different aspects of these three pedagogical dimensions?” and ‘To what extent do the teachers each incorporate a similar organisation of content and examples?’
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. 3 rd Ed. (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.
Fischler, H. (dy1994). Concerning the difference between intention and action: Teachers’ conceptions and actions in physics teaching. In I. Carlgren, G. Handel, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 165–180). London, England: Falmer Press.
Garnett, P. J. (Ed.). (1997). Foundations of chemistry. Melbourne, Australia: Longman Cheshire.
Gräber, W., & Nentwig, P. (1999). Scientific literacy: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Teacher Education in Europe, Spring University, Klaipeda, Lithuania.
Gräber, W., & Treagust, D. F. (1999, March). Content and structures of chemical equilibrium: Commonalities in teachers’ practice. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Hackling, M. W. & Garnett, P. J. (1985). Misconceptions of chemical equilibrium. European Journal of Science Education 7, 205–214.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher 17(2), 13–17.
Schmidkunz, H. & Lindemann, H. (1976). Dasforschend-entwickelnde Unterrichtsverfahren: Problemlösen im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. München: Paul List Verlag.
Stork, H. (1984). Zur Aufrechterhaltung von Motivation und Lebensnähe in einem fachlich anspruchsvollen Chemieunterricht. Chimica 38, 145–157.
Tyson, L. M., Treagust, D. F. & Bucat, R. B. (1999). The complexity of teaching the topic of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education 76, 554–558.
van Driel, J. H., de Vos, W., Verloop, N. & Dekkers, H. (1998). Developing secondary stunts’ connections of chemical reactions; the introduction of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education 20, 379–392
Wheeler, A. E. & Kass, H. (1978). Students’ misconceptions in chemical equilibrium Science Education 62, 223–232.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Treagust, D.F., Gräber, W. (2001). Teaching Chemical Equilibrium in Australian and German Senior High Schools. In: Behrendt, H., et al. Research in Science Education - Past, Present, and Future. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47639-8_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47639-8_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-6755-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-306-47639-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive