Abstract
The case is made that, whilst all school-age students should appreciate the nature of and relationship between the macro and submicro types of representation (what we call the Group A Curriculum), only those students intended to study chemistry at an advanced level need to know about the quantitative aspects of symbolic representations (what we call the Group B Curriculum). The chapters in this book, together with a framework for effective curriculum change, are used to outline what needs to be done if a revised education in respect of a representational triplet is to be provided.
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.
Literature About Students’ Conceptions
Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life. New York: Teachers College Press.
Anderson, R. D. (1995). Curriculum reform: dilemmas and promise. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 33–36.
Black, P., & Atkin, J. M. (Eds.). (1996). Changing the subject. London: Routledge.
Bucat, B., & Mocerino, M. (2008). Learning at the sub-micro level: Structural representations. In J. K. Gilbert, & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Chandrasegaran, A., Treagust, D. F., Mocerino, M. (1997). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school pupils’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293–207.
Cheng, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Towards a better utilisation of diagrams in research into the use of representations in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Chiu, M.-H., & Wu, H.-K. (2008). The roles of multimedia in the teaching and learning of the triplet relationship. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Davidowitz, B., & Chittleborough, G. (2008). Linking the sub-micro and symbolic levels: Diagrams. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Mutliple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.
Fensham, P. J. (2000). Providing suitable content in the ‘science for all’ curriculum. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contributions of research (pp. 147–164). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Ferk Savec, V., Sajovic, I., & Grm, K. S. W. (2008). Action research to promote the formation of linkages by chemistry students between the macro, sub-micro, and symbolic representation levels. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2008a). The complex relationships between the macro / sub-micro /symbolic levels of representation in chemical education: An Introduction. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Goodlad, J. (1979). Curriculum enquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Justi, R., Gilbert, J. K., & Ferreira, P. F. M. (2008). The application of a ‘model of modelling’ to illustrate the importance of metavisualization in respect of the three levels of representation. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Meijer, M., Bulte, A. M., & Pilot, A. (2008). Structure-property relations between macro and sub-micro representations: Relevant meso-levels in authentic tasks. In J. Gilbert, K. & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
O’Hare, M. (Ed.). (2006). Why don’ t penguins’ feet freeze? London: Profile Books.
Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents views of the school science curriculum. London: King’s College London.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific Literacy / Science Literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Roberts, D. A., & Ostman, L. (1998). Analysing school science courses: The concept of companion meaning. In D. A. Roberts & L. Ostman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 5–12). New York: Teachers College Press.
Scheffel, L., Brockmeier, W., & Parchmann, I. (2008). Historical material in micro-macro thinking: Conceptual change in chemistry education and in the history of chemistry. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Schwab, J. J. (1964). The structure of the natural sciences. In G. W. Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 1–31). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Taber, K. (2008). Learning at the symbolic level. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2008). Linking the macroscopic, sub-microscopic and symbolic levels: The use of inorganic qualitative analysis. In J. Gilbert, K. & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2008). The efficacy of an alternative instructional program designed to enhance secondary students’ competence in the triplet relationalship. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Tsaparlis, G. (2008). Learning at the macro-level: The role of practical work. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Van Berkel, B., Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. M. (2008). Micro-macro thinking in chemical education: Why and how to escape. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Van Den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: between ideals and outcomes. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 421–448). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
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
Gilbert, J.K., Treagust, D.F. (2009). Towards a Coherent Model for Macro, Submicro and Symbolic Representations in Chemical Education. 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_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_15
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)