Advertisement

The Use of a Representational Triplet Model as the Basis for the Evaluation of Students’ Representational Competence

  • Jill D. MarooEmail author
  • Sara L. Johnson
Chapter
  • 461 Downloads
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 11)

Abstract

In this chapter, we demonstrate a way to evaluate student understanding using a representational triplet model. Similar to Johnstone’s triangle, we see our triplet model as three points (i.e. macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic) that all connect to form a plane of expert understanding. In our research, we evaluated students’ explanations using a hierarchical classification spanning from no connection between points through connecting all three points and exploring the expert plane. We observed a continuum of representational competence in our sample from low, exhibiting no connections between levels, to medium representational competence with connections between two of the three levels of the triplet model on some topics. We found the lens of this representational framework useful for assessing students’ representational competence through analysis of their explanations. This analysis includes a graphical representation of the hierarchical classifications for each individual student, which makes it possible to see a student’s overall representational competence for the area of focus. Overall student understanding can be further visualized through differentiating by accuracy on the graphical representation. Plotting each student’s graphical representation on a spectrum allows for comparisons across time or within a group. This approach has applications in both research and educational settings.

References

  1. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Boddey, K., & de Berg, K. (2014). The impact of nursing students’ prior chemistry experience on academic performance and perception of relevance in a health science course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. Advance online publication, 16, 212.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c4rp00240g.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 292–307.  https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90006F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Models and modeling in science education, Volume 4: Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1–8). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jaber, L. Z., & BouJaoude, S. (2012). A macro-micro-symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 973–998.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.569959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnson, S. L., Maroo, J. D. & Halverson, K. L. (2010, April). Classification of UndergraduateAlternative Conceptions of the Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle. Paper presented at the meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  7. Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and microchemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379.Google Scholar
  8. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 701–705.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2007). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students’ cellular and molecular explanations of genetic phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 200–205.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rappoport, L. T., & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of represenation: Emergent versus submergent perspective. Internation Journal of Science Education, 30, 1585–1603.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701447405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1353–1368.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Northern IowaCedar FallsUSA
  2. 2.University of North AlabamaFlorenceUSA

Personalised recommendations