Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching Chemistry Conceptually

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom

Abstract

This chapter by Williamson presents teaching chemical concepts through implementing three levels of chemical concepts. This chapter upgrades the Chaps. 1–3 and 6 of this book. Williamson concludes that traditionally, chemistry at all educational levels has been taught as a mathematical course that emphasized algorithmic problem solving almost exclusively. Because research showed that students at all levels have trouble with conceptual understanding of chemistry, a new approaches to teach chemistry had to emerge. Some chemistry teachers at all levels of education intuitively teach chemistry conceptually, many still have difficulties how to do this and what teaching strategies are available to them. Conceptual teaching, as a teaching strategy emphasizes students’ ability to explain relationships, to predict outcomes, to visualize/explain particle behavior, and to understand the macroscopic, particulate, symbolic, and mathematical levels of chemical concepts presentations. In this chapter, author highlights different teaching strategies to make chemistry teaching more conceptually and less mathematical when that is not really necessary to deeply understand the chemical concepts. These strategies can be used with large or small classes and they include the application of macroscopic representations, particulate representations (both dynamic and static models), group problem solving, algorithmic and conceptual assessments, etc.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross age study of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abraham, M. R. (2004). Inquiry and the learning cycle approach. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists’ guide to effective teaching (pp. 41–52). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J. B., Baker, L. N., & Ramsden, J. H. (1986). Guided inquiry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(6), 533–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B. R., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. C. (1925). A study of pupil errors in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 2(9), 760–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourque, D. R., & Carlson, G. R. (1987). Hands-on versus computer simulation methods in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(3), 232–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunce, D. M., VandenPlas, J. R., & Havanki, K. L. (2006). Comparing the effectiveness on student achievement of a student response system versus online WebCT quizzes. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(3), 488–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J., & Windschitl, M. A. (1998). Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(12), 1658–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, S., Williamson, V. M., McCann, K., & Peck, M. L. (2009). Attitude and perception of students towards guided and open inquiry laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1427–1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chimeno, J. S., Wulfsberg, G. P., Sanger, M. J., & Melton, T. J. (2006). The rainbow wheel and rainbow matrix: Two effective tools for learning ionic nomenclature. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(4), 651–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, E., & Cook, R. L. (2005). Cross-proportions: A conceptual method for developing quantitative problem-solving skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(8), 1187–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1987). A new road to reaction: Part 4. The substance and its molecules. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 692–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedel, A. W., Gabel, D. L., & Samuel, J. (1990). Using analogs for chemistry problem solving: Does it increase understanding? School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 674–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D., & Sherwood, R. (1980). The effect of student manipulation of molecular models on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(1), 75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidar, A. H., & Abraham, M. R. (1991). A comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of concepts based on the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 919–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haim, L., Corton, E., Kocmur, S., & Galagovsky, L. (2003). Learning stoichiometry with hamburger sandwiches. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9), 1021–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1993). Development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, Z. (1986). Chemistry for art and communication students. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(2), 142–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, J. R., & Jones, L. L. (2008). A review of literature reports of clickers applicable to college chemistry classrooms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Jimenez, P., Pontes-Pedrajas, A., Polo, J., & Climent-Bellido, M. S. (2003). Learning in chemistry with virtual laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(3), 346–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKee, E., Williamson, V. M., & Ruebush, L. E. (2007). Effects of a demonstration laboratory on student learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 395–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, R. W. (1999). A low-cost activity for particle conceptualization at the secondary level. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 50–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers?: Identifying conceptual students in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M., & Robinson, W. R. (1993). Teaching algorithmic problem solving or conceptual understanding: Role of developmental level, mental capacity, and cognitive style. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(2), 407–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupil’s understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross-age study. Science Education, 65(2), 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibrium of cognitve structures. Newyork, NY: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. (1990). Further studies on concept learning versus problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 254–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rappoport, L. T., & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of representation: Emergent versus submergent perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1585–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J., Kozma, R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 330–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanger, M. J., & Badger, S. M. (2001). Using computer-based visualization strategies to improve students’ understanding of molecular polarity and miscibility. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(10), 1412–1416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawrey, B. A. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 253–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. M., & Jose, T. J. (2008). Effects of a two-year molecular visualization experience on teachers’ attitudes, content knowledge, and spatial ability. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(5), 718–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. M., & Jose, T. J. (2009). Using visualization techniques in chemistry teaching. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists’ guide to effective teaching (Vol. 2), (pp 71–88). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. M., & Rowe, M. W. (2002). Group problem solving versus lecture in college-level quantitative analysis: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(9), 1131–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. M., Brown, L. M., Peck, M. L., & Simpson, M. (2005). Facilitators and barriers to teacher implementation of molecular visualization. The Texas Science Teacher, 34(2), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. M., Lane, S., Gilbreath, T., Tasker, R., Ashkenazi, G., Williamson, K. C., et al. (2012). The effect of macroscopic and particulate visualizations on students’ particulate explanations. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(8), 979–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. M., Watkins, J. T., & Williamson, K. C. (2013). The effect of student-constructed animations versus storyboards on students’ mental rotation ability, equilibrium content knowledge and attitudes. Peer-reviewed chapter. In J. Suits & M. Sanger (Eds.), Pedagogic roles of animations and simulations in chemistry courses (pp. 293-311). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velázquez-Marcano, A., Williamson, V. M., Ashkenazi, G., Tasker, R., & Williamson, K. C. (2004). The use of video demonstrations and particulate animation in the general chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), 315–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yezierski, E. J., & Birk, J. P. (2006). Misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter: Using animations to close the gender gap. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(6), 954–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A and M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Vickie M. Williamson

Authors
  1. Vickie M. Williamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vickie M. Williamson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Iztok Devetak

  2. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Saša Aleksij Glažar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Williamson, V.M. (2014). Teaching Chemistry Conceptually. In: Devetak, I., Glažar, S. (eds) Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4366-3_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation