Advertisement

Linking the Macroscopic, Sub-microscopic and Symbolic Levels: The Case of Inorganic Qualitative Analysis

  • Kim Chwee Daniel Tan
  • Ngoh Khang Goh
  • Lian Sai Chia
  • David F. Treagust
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 4)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Practical Work Macroscopic Level Complex Salt Laboratory Session Aqueous Sodium Hydroxide 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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 Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, London.Google Scholar
  3. Butts, B., & Smith, R. (1987). HSC chemistry students’ understanding of the structure and properties of molecular and ionic compounds. Research in Science Education, 17, 192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dechsri, P., Jones, L. L., & Heikkinen, H. W. (1997). Effect of a laboratory manual design incorporating visual information-processing aids on student learning and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 891–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 420–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70(256), 33–40.Google Scholar
  10. Hodson, D. (1992). Redefining and reorienting practical work in school science. School Science Review, 73(264), 65–78.Google Scholar
  11. Johnstone, A. H. & Wham, A. J. B. (1982). The demands of practical work. Education in Chemistry, 19, 71–73.Google Scholar
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Secondary students’ perceptions about learning qualitative analysis in inorganic chemistry. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(2), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. (1995). Chemistry: Report on the November 1994 examinations. Cambridge: Author.Google Scholar
  24. University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. (1997). Chemistry: Report on the November 1996 examinations. Cambridge: Author.Google Scholar
  25. Volet, S. E. (1991). Modelling and coaching of relevant metacognitive strategies for enhancing university students’ learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Woolnough, B. & Allsop, T. (1985). Practical work in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim Chwee Daniel Tan
    • 1
  • Ngoh Khang Goh
  • Lian Sai Chia
  • David F. Treagust
  1. 1.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations