Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Evaluation of a Teaching Intervention to Promote Students’ Ability to Use Multiple Levels of Representation When Describing and Explaining Chemical Reactions

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students are generally known to memorise and regurgitate chemical equations without sufficient understanding of the changes that occur at the particulate level. In addition, they often fail to recognise the significance of the symbols and formulas that are used to represent chemical reactions. This article describes an evaluation of the ability of 65 Grade 9 students (15–16 years old) from a Singapore secondary school to describe and explain seven types of chemical reactions using macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representations. The study was conducted over nine months using a supplementary teaching program with particular emphasis on the use of multiple levels of representation to describe and explain chemical reactions. Students’ proficiency in the use of multiple levels of representation was assessed at the end of the course using a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument that was previously developed by the authors. In order to evaluate the efficacy of the instructional program, the instrument was also administered to another group of 76 students who were not involved in the supplementary instructional program. The efficacy of the program was evident from the significantly improved scores on the diagnostic instrument of the former group of students. In addition, several student conceptions in the use of multiple levels of representation were identified that could assist teachers in their planning and implementation of classroom instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70, 549–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2005). Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical change at molecular level. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1269–1298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2006). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualisation of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1988). Theories, principles and laws. Education in Chemistry, 25, 89–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodner, G. M. (1992). Refocusing the general chemistry curriculum: Why changing the curriculum may not be enough. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 186–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2004). Diagnostic assessment of secondary students’ use of three levels of representation to explain simple chemical reactions. Unpublished dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.

  • Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2005, July). Diagnostic assessment of secondary students’ use of three levels of representation to explain simple chemical reactions. Paper presented at the 36th annual conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Hamilton, New Zealand.

  • Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2006, April). Development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument to evaluate secondary students’ multiple representations in chemistry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science studies. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Vol. 1 (pp. 233–248). London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 611–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translations of the representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 883–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 117–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lien, A. J. (1971). Measurement and evaluation of learning (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students’ understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1077–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seddon, G. M., & Eniaiyeju, P. A. (1986). The understanding of pictorial depth cues, and the ability to visualise the rotation of three-dimensional structures in diagrams. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4(1), 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: Visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 141–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning in science in the schools: Research reforming practice, Vol. 1 (pp. 327–346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F. (2006). Diagnostic assessment in science as a means to improving teaching, learning and retention. In UniServe science – symposium proceedings: Assessment in science teaching and learning (pp. 1–9). Sydney, NSW: Uniserve Science.

  • Treagust, D. F., & Chittleborough, G. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities, Vol. 8 (pp. 239–267). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Overview: Research on students’ preinstructional conceptions – The driving force for improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 1–14). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2002). Teaching for understanding: Student conceptions research, & changing views of learning. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48(3), 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 449–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia, 6845, AUSTRALIA

    A. L. Chandrasegaran & David F. Treagust

  2. Department of Applied Chemistry, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia, 6845, AUSTRALIA

    Mauro Mocerino

Authors
  1. A. L. Chandrasegaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David F. Treagust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mauro Mocerino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. L. Chandrasegaran.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chandrasegaran, A.L., Treagust, D.F. & Mocerino, M. An Evaluation of a Teaching Intervention to Promote Students’ Ability to Use Multiple Levels of Representation When Describing and Explaining Chemical Reactions. Res Sci Educ 38, 237–248 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9046-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9046-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation