Fostering Active Chemistry Learning in Thailand: Toward a Learner-Centered Student Experiences

  • Richard K. Coll
  • Chanyah Dahsah
  • Sanoe Chairam
  • Ninna Jansoon


Coll, Dahsah, Chairam, and Jansoon state in Chapter 16, that Thailand like many countries worldwide has engaged in major reforms to the science curriculum. A key focus of these reforms has been a shift toward a learner-centered science curriculum. In this chapter, authors report on a number of studies to show how a learner-centered science curriculum in Thailand places major importance on shifting the mindset of Thai students from a rather less active learning role in a strongly teacher-dominated classroom to a role in which they are active learners of chemistry.


Alternative Conception Home Group Solid Reactant Total Phenolic Compound Sound Understanding 
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.


  1. Balfakih, N. M. A. (2003). The effectiveness of student team-achievement division (STAD) for teaching high school chemistry in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Science Education, 25(5), 605–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbosa, R., Jofili, Z., & Watts, M. (2004). Cooperating in constructing knowledge: Case studies from chemistry and citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 935–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beall, H., & Prescott, S. (1994). Concepts and calculations in chemistry teaching and learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(2), 111–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(12), 1000–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BouJaoude, S., & Barakat, H. (2000). Secondary school students’ difficulties with stoichiometry. School Science Review, 81(296), 91–98.Google Scholar
  6. Bunce, D. M., Gabel, D. L., & Samuel, K. B. (1991). Enhancing chemistry problem-solving achievement using problem categorization. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(6), 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cain, L. (1986). S’ Mores-demonstration of stoichiometry relationships. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(12), 1048–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camacho, M., & Good, R. (1989). Problem solving and chemical equilibrium successful versus unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, M. (1984). Model confusion in chemistry. Research in Science Education, 14(2), 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Çalik, M. (2005). A cross-age study of different perspectives in solution chemistry from junior to senior high school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 671–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005a). A comparison of level of understanding of eighth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005b). A cross-age study on the understanding of chemical solution and their components. International Education Journal, 6(1), 30–41.Google Scholar
  13. Chang, R. (2003). General chemistry. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  14. Charania, N., Kausar, F., & Cassum, S. (2001). Playing jigsaw: A cooperative learning experience. Journal of Nursing Education, 40(9), 420–421.Google Scholar
  15. Chairam, S., Somsook, E., & Coll, R. K. (2009). Enhancing Thai students’ learning of chemical kinetics. Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(3), 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiu, M.-H. (2001). Algorithmic problem solving and conceptual understanding of chemistry by students at a local high school in Taiwan. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China, Part D, 11, 20–38.Google Scholar
  17. Choi, M. M. F., & Wong, P. S. (2004). Using a datalogger to determine first first-order kinetics and calcium carbonate in eggshells. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 859–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coll, R. K., Taylor, I., & Fisher, D. L. (2002). An application of the questionnaire on teacher interaction and college and university classroom environment inventory in a multicultural tertiary context. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Exploring tertiary students’ understanding of covalent bonding. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Learners’ mental models of metallic bonding: A cross-age study. Science Education, 87(5), 685–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Colosi, J. C., & Zales, C. R. (1998). Jigsaw cooperative learning improves biology lab courses. BioScience, 48(2), 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coşto, B. (2007). Comparison of students’ performance on algorithmic, conceptual, and graphical chemistry gas problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 379–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dahsah, C. (2007). Teaching and learning using conceptual change to promote Grade 10 student understanding and numerical problem solving skills in stoichiometry. Unpublished PhD thesis. Thailand: Kasetsart University.Google Scholar
  26. Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. K. (2007). Thai Grade 10 and 11 students’ conceptual understanding and ability to solve stoichiometry problems. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25(2), 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. K. (2008). Thai Grade 10 and 11 students’ understanding of stoichiometry and related concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 573–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dahsah, C., & Faikhamta, C. (2008). Science education in Thailand: Curriculum reform in transition. In R. K. Coll & N. Taylor (Eds.), Science education in context: An international examination of the influence of context on science curricula development and implementation (pp. 291–300). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  29. Dahsah, C., Coll, R. K., Cowie, B., Sung-ong, S., Yutakom, N., & Sanguanruang, S. (2009). Enhancing Grade 10 Thai students’ stoichiometry understanding and ability to solve the problems via a conceptual change perspective. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 31(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
  30. Dominic, S. (1996). What’s a mole for? Journal of Chemical Education, 73(6), 309–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (1996). The mole environment: Development and implementation of studyware. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 36(4), 625–628.Google Scholar
  32. Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (1998). The mole environment studyware: Applying multidimensional analysis to quantitative chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Demeo, S. (1996). Mathematically modeling dilution. The Chemical Educator, 1(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Devetak, I., Vogrinc, J., & Glažar, S. A. (2009). Assessing 16-year-old students’ understanding of aqueous solution at submicroscopic level. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dunnivant, F. M., Simon, D. M., & Willson, S. (2002). The making of a solution: A simple but poorly understood concept in general chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 7(4), 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Eilam, B. (2004). Drops of water and of soap solution: Students’ constraining mental models of the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 970–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Eilks, I. (2005). Experiences and reflections about teaching atomic structure in a jigsaw classroom in lower secondary school chemistry lessons. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(2), 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fleming, F. F. (1995). No small change: Simultaneously introducing cooperative learning and microscale experiments in an organic lab course. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(8), 718–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Furio, C., Azcona, R., & Guisasola, J. (2002). The learning and teaching of the concepts ‘amount of substance’ and ‘mole’: A review of the literature. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(3), 277–292.Google Scholar
  40. Gabel, D. L., Briner, D., & Haines, D. (1992). Modelling with magnets. The Science Teacher, 59(3), 58–63.Google Scholar
  41. Gabel, D. L., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: A project of the National Science Teacher Association (pp. 301–326). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R. D. (1984). Analyzing difficulties with mole-concept tasks by using familiar analog tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(8), 843–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Glynn, S. (1997). Drawing mental models. Science Teacher, 64(1), 30–32.Google Scholar
  45. Holliday, D. C. (2000). The development of Jigsaw IV in a secondary social studies classroom. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  46. Holliday, D. C. (2002). Jigsaw IV: Using student/teacher concerns to improve Jigsaw III. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  47. Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). The student laboratory and the science curriculum. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huddle, P. A., & Pillay, A. E. (1996). An in-depth study of misconceptions in stoichiometry and chemical equilibrium at a South African university. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hume, A., & Coll, R. K. (2008). Student experiences of carrying out a practical science investigation under direction. International Journal of Science Education, 30(9), 1201–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hume, A., & Coll, R. K. (2009). Assessment of learning, for learning, and as learning: New Zealand case studies. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 283–304.Google Scholar
  52. Institution for Promoting Science and Technology [IPST]. (2003a). Chemistry Textbook 2 (2nd ed). Bangkok: Curusaphaladphoa.Google Scholar
  53. Institution for Promoting Science and Technology [IPST]. (2003b). The Teacher Manual of Chemistry Textbook 2 (1st ed.). Bangkok: Curusaphaladphoa.Google Scholar
  54. Jankun, J., Selman, S. H., Swiercz, R., & Skrzypczak-Jankun, E. (1997). Why drinking green tea could prevent cancer. Nature, 387(6633), 561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jansoon, N., Coll, R. K., & Somsook, E. (2009). Understanding mental models of dilution in Thai students. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(2), 147–168.Google Scholar
  56. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Johnson, A. W. (1990). The year-long first course in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(4), 299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Learning groups. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 441–461). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(1), 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Justi, R. (2003). Teaching and learning chemical kinetics. In J. K. Gilbert, O. D. Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69–94). London, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  61. Kabapinar, F., Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2004). The design and evaluation of a teaching-learning sequence addressing the solubility concept with Turkish secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 635–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kolb, D. (1978). The mole. Journal of Chemical Education, 55(8), 728–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2002). Students’ errors in solving numerical chemical-equilibrium problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  64. Krishnan, S. R., & Howe, A. C. (1994). Developing an instrument to assess conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(7), 653–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In A. L. Stevens & D. Gentner (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75–99). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Lazarowitz, R., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1998). Cooperative learning in the science curriculum. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 449–469). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lazrowitz, R., & Tamir, R. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: A project of the National Science Teachers Association. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  68. Lin, Q., Kirsch, P., & Turner, R. (1996). Numeric and conceptual understanding of general chemistry at a minority institution. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(12), 1003–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lythcott, J. (1990). Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 248–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ministry of Education (MoE). (1996). Education reform at the Ministry of Education Thailand. Bangkok: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  71. Ministry of Education (MoE). (2009). Core basic education curriculum B.E. 2551. Retrieved October 9, 2009, from (in Thai)
  72. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  73. McElroy, L. J. (1996). Teaching dilutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(8), 765–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mettes, C. T. C. W., Pilot, A., Roossink, H. J., & Kramers-Pals, H. (1980). Teaching and learning problem solving in science. Journal of Chemical Education, 57(7), 882–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nakhleh, M. B., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(2), 190–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nakhleh, M. B., Polles, J., & Malina, E. (2002). Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. In J. Gilbert, O. D. Jong, R. Justi, D. Treagust, & J. H. v. Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69–94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  78. Niaz, M. (1995). Progressive transitions from algorithmic to conceptual understanding in student ability to solve chemistry problems: A Lakatosian interpretation. Science Education, 79(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Office of the National Education Commission [ONEC]. (2003). National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Bangkok: Pimdeekarnpim.Google Scholar
  80. Office of the Education Council [OEC]. (2006). Education in Thailand 2005/2006. Bangkok: Amarin.Google Scholar
  81. Parkash, B., & Kumar, A. (1999). Chemical kinetics illustrated by an improvised experiment. School Science Review, 80(292), 114–117.Google Scholar
  82. Pinnell, G. S. (1984). Communication in small group settings. Theory into Practice, 23(3), 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pravalpruk, S. (1999). Learning and assessment in the science classroom in Thailand. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 75–82.Google Scholar
  84. Raviolo, A. (2004). An analogic model for understanding the preparation of volumetric solutions. The Chemical Educator, 9(4), 211–215.Google Scholar
  85. Robinson, W. R. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9), 978–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sawrey, B. A. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 253–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schmidt, H. J. (1991). A label as a hidden persuader: Chemists’ neutralization concept. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schmidt, H. J. (1994). Stoichiometry problem solving in high school chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Schmidt, H. J., & Jigneus, C. (2003). Students’ strategies in solving algorithmic stoichiometry problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(3), 305–317.Google Scholar
  90. Smith, M. E., Hinckley, C. C., & Volk, G. L. (1991). Cooperative learning in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(5), 413–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Stephans, J. (1994). Targeting students’ science misconceptions: Physical science activities using conceptual change model. Riverview, FL: The Idea Factory.Google Scholar
  92. Tinger, J. B., & Good, R. (1990). Effects of cooperative grouping on stoichiometric problem solving in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(7), 671–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wang, M. R. (2000). An introductory laboratory exercise on solution preparation: A rewarding experience. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 249–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in school science. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 35–51). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. White, R., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  97. Woolnough, B. E. (1991). Practical science: The role and reality of practical work in school science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard K. Coll
    • 1
  • Chanyah Dahsah
    • 2
  • Sanoe Chairam
    • 3
  • Ninna Jansoon
    • 4
  1. 1.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Srinakharinwirot UniversityBangkokThailand
  3. 3.Ubon Ratchathani UniversityUbon RatchathaniThailand
  4. 4.Thaksin UniversitySongkhlaThailand

Personalised recommendations