Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Outline Objectives for Chemistry Education and how to Assess Them

  • Chapter
Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook

Abstract

Chemistry education at the secondary level is usually warranted by two main justifications that seem somewhat contradicting – one is the attainment of chemical literacy for all future citizens and the other (and more traditional one) is to provide a preparatory course for future chemistry education at the university level. This chapter suggests a view of chemical literacy that goes beyond content and concepts in chemistry, and focuses also on higher-order thinking skills, attitudes and habits of mind, four levels of chemistry understanding, and appreciation of the role of chemistry in different contexts in life. In addition examples of different models for teaching chemistry are introduced including some recommendations of how to address the needs of heterogeneous populations. Finally, the role of assessment for learning and curriculum innovation is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • AAAS (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Washington: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). Teaching thinking skills in context-based learning: Teachers’ challenges and assessment knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 207–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89, 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 384–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (2000). Computerised molecular modeling the new technology for enhancing model perception among chemistry educators and learners. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1, 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnea, N., Dori Y. J., & Hofstein, A. (2010). Development and implementation of inquiry-based and computerized-based laboratories: Reforming high school chemistry in Israel. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 218–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., & Holman, J. (2002). Context-based approaches to the teaching of chemistry: What are they and what are their effects? In J. K Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 165–184). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolte, C. (2008). A conceptual framework for the enhancement of popularity and relevance of science education for scientific literacy, based on stakeholders’ views by means of a curricular Delphi study in chemistry. Science Education International, 19, 331–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, G., Holman, J., Lazonby, J., Piling, G., & Waddington, D. (2000). Salters advanced chemistry. Oxford: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2011). Facilitating high school students’ use of multiple representations to describe and explain simple chemical reactions. Teaching Science, 57, 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M-H., & Wu, H-K. (2009). The roles of multimedia in the teaching and learning of the triplet relationship in chemistry. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 251–283). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003) Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners’ mental models of ionic bonding Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 464–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalpe S., Heitzman, M., Krajcik, J., Merritt, J., Rogat, A., & Shwartz, Y. (2006). How can I smell things across the room? A 6th grade chemistry unit. AnnArbor: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dangur, V., Peskin, U., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Teaching quantum mechanical concepts via the learning unit “From Nano-scale Chemistry to Microelectronics.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Garden Grove, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 582–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Kaberman, Z. (2012). Assessing high school chemistry students’ modeling sub-skills in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Instructional Science, 40, 69–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (1984). Conceptions, misconceptions and alterative frameworks in chemical education. Chemical Society Reviews, 13, 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, A. (1998). What future for chemistry to age 16? School Science Review, 80(291), 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortus, D., Dershimer, R.C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1081–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. L. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R. D. (1980). Effect of using analogies on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level. Science Education, 64, 709–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D., Briner, D., & Haines, D. (1992). Modelling with magnets: A unified approach to chemistry problem solving. The Science Teacher, 59(3), 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, P., Tobin, K., & Swingler, D. (1985). Reasoning abilities of Western Australian secondary school students. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 387–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2008). Reforming the teaching and learning of the macro/ submicro/symbolic representational relationship in chemical education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (eds.), Promoting successful science education. (pp. 99–110). Aachen: Shaker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules and chemical bonds: A case-study of multiple model use in grade-11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2007). Taste of chemistry. Holon: Yessod [in Hebrew].

    Google Scholar 

  • Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., Saar, L., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). The relationship between metacognition and the ability to pose questions in chemical education. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 165–195). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: a pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459–1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holman, J. (2002). What does it mean to be chemically literate? Education in Chemistry, 39, 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Question posing, inquiry, and modelling skills of high school chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 597–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katchevitch, D., Ernst, N., Barad, R., & Rapaport, D. (2006). Chemistry inside us. Rehovot: Weizmann Institute of Science [in Hebrew].

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Reiser, B., Sutherland, S., & Fortus, D. (2011). Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. sitemaker.umich.edu/hice/iqwst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, D., Yayon, M., & Aharoni, O. (2011). Chemistry and the environment. Rehovot: Weizmann Institute of Science [in Hebrew].

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching: concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 131–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D. (1983). The American people and science policy. New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mthembu, Z. (2006). Using the predict-observe-explain technique to enhance students’ understanding of chemical reactions with special reference to redox reactions. Unpublished PhD thesis. Perth: Curtin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.

  • Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Goldsworthy, A. (2004). Active assessment. London: Millgate House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nentwig, P., & Waddington, D. (eds.) (2005). Making it relevant. Context based learning of science. Munster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2012). Reading science: How a naive view of reading hinders so much else. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 37–56). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • OECD-PISA (2007a). PISA sample items. pisa-sq.acer.edu.au/showQuestion.php?testId=2300& questionId=10.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD-PISA (2007b). Science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Vol. 1. www.pisa.oecd.org/science.

  • Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. Nuffield Foundation. www.nuffieldfoundation.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdf.

  • Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. M. W. (2006). Special issue: Context based chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 953–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, M. (2000). Learning to think, thinking to learn: Models and strategies to develop a classroom culture of thinking. Cheltenham: Hawker Brownlow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prewitt, K. (1983). Scientific literacy and democratic theory. Deadalus, 112(2), 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risch, B. (Ed.) (2010). Teaching chemistry throughout the world. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark. New York: Ballantine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2008). The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum. Elementary School Journal, 109, 199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006). The use of scientific literacy taxonomy for assessing the development of chemical literacy among high-school students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 203–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S. (1997). Scientific literacy and school science: Arguments and second thoughts. In S. Sjøberg & E. Kallerud (eds.), Science, technology, and citizenship. Oslo: NIFU Rapport 10/97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, D., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Evaluating students’ understanding of chemical bonding. School Science Review, 81, 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., & Chittleborough, G. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations. In J. Brophy (ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities (pp. 239–267). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F. (1988). The development and use of diagnostic instruments to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F. (2002). Supporting change, but also contributing to the problem. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2, 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walberg, H. J. (1983). Scientific literacy and economic productivity in international perspective. Daedalus 112(2), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandersee, J. H. (1988). Ways students read text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (eds.) (2012). Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Yael Shwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yehudit Judy Dori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David F. Treagust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bremen, Germany

    Ingo Eilks

  2. Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel

    Avi Hofstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shwartz, Y., Dori, Y.J., Treagust, D.F. (2013). How to Outline Objectives for Chemistry Education and how to Assess Them. In: Eilks, I., Hofstein, A. (eds) Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation