Linking the Macroscopic, Sub-microscopic and Symbolic Levels: The Case of Inorganic Qualitative Analysis
Basic Grade 10 inorganic qualitative analysis in Singapore requires students to carry out procedures using chemicals, apparatus and appropriate techniques for which they record their observations and make inferences based on the observations. As students are assessed mainly on their written observations, they focus on getting the correct results and writing ‘standard’ observations. Thus, many students merely follow instructions given in the worksheet and seldom think about or understand the reactions involved especially in terms of what is occurring in these reactions at the sub-microscopic level. To respond to this situation, the authors first designed the Qualitative Analysis Diagnostic Instrument to identify students’ understanding of the reactions involved in qualitative analysis. Secondly, the authors developed the Qualitative Analysis Teaching Package to help students learn qualitative analysis by facilitating their understanding of the sub-microscopic and symbolic level explanations of the macroscopic level experiences of the procedures and reactions involved, as well as the manipulative, observational and inferential skills and thinking processes required. The diagnostic instrument and teaching package are especially important with the imminent change from the current one-off national practical examination to school-based assessment in 2008 with the focus on manipulative, observational, analytical and planning skills.
KeywordsZinc Dioxide Hydroxide Sodium Chloride Chlorine
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Gunstone, R., & Loughran, J. (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45(1), 27–31.Google Scholar
- Boo, H. K. (1994). A-level chemistry students’ conceptions and understandings of the nature of chemical reactions and approaches to learning of chemistry content. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, London.Google Scholar
- Goh, N. K., Toh, K. A., & Chia, L. S. (1987). The effect of modified laboratory instruction on students’ achievement in chemistry practicals. Research report, Institute of Education, Singapore.Google Scholar
- Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70(256), 33–40.Google Scholar
- Hodson, D. (1992). Redefining and reorienting practical work in school science. School Science Review, 73(264), 65–78.Google Scholar
- Johnstone, A. H. & Wham, A. J. B. (1982). The demands of practical work. Education in Chemistry, 19, 71–73.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Education (2006). Chemistry: GCE Ordinary Level (Syllabus 5072). Singapore: Author. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from http://www.seab.gov.sg/SEAB/oLevel/syllabus/2008_GCE_O_Level_Syllabuses/5072_2008.pdf.
- Pintrich, P. J., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–200.Google Scholar
- Ribeiro M. G. T. C., Pereira, D. J. V. C., & Maskill, R. (1990). Reaction and spontaneity: the influence of meaning from everyday language on fourth year undergraduates’ interpretations of some simple chemical phenomena. International Journal of Science Education, 12(4),391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Swartz, R. J. (1991). Infusing the teaching of critical thinking into content instruction. In Costa, L. A. (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. (Vol. 1, pp. 177–184). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
- Tan, K. C. D. (2000). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate secondary students’ conceptions of qualitative analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
- Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Development and application of a two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument to assess high school students’ understanding of inorganic chemistry qualitative analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2004). Qualitative analysis practical work. School Science Review, 85(313), 97–102.Google Scholar
- Tasker, R. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Facing the mismatches in the classroom. In Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children’s science (pp. 66–80). Auckland, London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 327–346). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. (1995). Chemistry: Report on the November 1994 examinations. Cambridge: Author.Google Scholar
- University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. (1997). Chemistry: Report on the November 1996 examinations. Cambridge: Author.Google Scholar
- Woolnough, B. & Allsop, T. (1985). Practical work in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar