Student-generated submicro diagrams: A useful tool for teaching and learning chemical equations and stoichiometry

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 154-164

  Davidowitz, Bette ^a   Chittleborough, Gail ^b   Murray, Eileen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

^b DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Chemical equations; Representations; Stoichiometry; Submicroscopic diagrams

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955776554     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c005464j     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Airey J. and Linder C., (2009), A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes, J. Res. in Sci. Teach., 46, 27-49.
2. Ault A., (2001), How to say how much: amounts and stoichiometry, J. Chem. Educ., 78, 1347-1349.
3. Ben-Zvi R., Eylon B. and Silberstein J., (1987), Students' visualisation of a chemical reaction, Educ. Chem., 24, 117-120.
4. Ben-Zvi R., Eylon B. and Silberstein J., (1988), Theories, principles and laws, Educ. Chem., 25, 89-92.
5. BouJaoude S. and Barakat H., (2000), Secondary school students' difficulties with stoichiometry, Sch. Sci. Rev., 81(296), 91-98.
6. Brown T. L., LeMay H. E. and Bursten B. E., (2006), Chemistry: the central science (10th ed.), New Jersey, Pearson: Prentice Hall.
7. Chandrasegaran A. L., Treagust D. F., Waldrip B. G. and Chandrasegaran A., (2009), Students' dilemmas in reaction stoichiometry problem solving: deducing the limiting reagent in chemical reactions, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 10, 14-23.
8. Chittleborough G. D., (2004), The role of teaching models and chemical representations in developing students' mental models of chemical phenomena, Unpublished doctoral thesis, from http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20041112.125243/ accessed 21/3/2010.
9. Chittleborough G. and Treagust D., (2008), Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires transforming from one level of representation to another, Res. Sci. Educ. 38, 463-482.
10. Davidowitz B., (2006), Multiple choice or multiple guess, that is the question: reflections on assessment in a first year chemistry course, For Engineering Educators, 10, 15-17. Available at http://www.cree.uct.ac.za/FEE Magazine 2006.pdf
11. Devetak I., Urbančič K., Grm K. S. W., Krnel D. and Glažar, S., (2004), Submicroscopic representations as a tool for evaluating students' chemical conceptions, Acta Chim. Slov., 51, 799-814.
12. Fach M., de Boer T. and Parchmann I., (2007), Results of an interview study as basis for the development of stepped supporting tools for stoichiometric problems, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8, 13-31.
13. Gabel D. L., (1998), The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching, in B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (eds.), International handbook of science education, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 233-248.
14. Gabel D. L., (1999), Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future, J. Chem. Educ., 76, 548-554.
15. Giordan A., (1991), The importance of modelling in the teaching and popularisation of science, Impact Sci. Soc., 164, 321-338.
16. Hackling M. W. and Garnett P. J., (1985), Misconceptions in chemical equilibrium, Eur. J. Sci. Educ., 7, 205-214.
17. Herron J. D., (1975), Piaget for chemists, Explaining what "good" students cannot understand, J. Chem. Educ., 52, 146-150.
18. Huddle A. P. and Pillay A. E., (1996), An in-depth study of misconceptions in stoichiometry and chemical equilibrium at a South African University, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 33, 65-77.
19. Johnstone A. H., (1993), The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand, J. Chem. Educ., 70, 701-705.
20. Kelly R. M. and Jones L. L., (2008), Investigating students' ability to transfer ideas learned from molecular animations of the dissolution process, J. Chem. Educ., 85, 303-309.
21. Kozma R. B., (2003), The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding, Learn. Instr., 13, 205-226.
22. Laugier A. and Dumon A., (2004), The equation of reaction: a cluster of obstacles which are difficult to overcome, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 5, 327-342.
23. Marais P. and Jordaan F., (2000), Are we taking symbolic language for granted? J. Chem. Educ., 77, 1355-1357.
24. Mayer R. E., (2002), Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: an example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction, New Dir. Teach. Learn., 89, 55-71.
25. Mullford D. R. and Robinson W. R., (2002), An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students, J. Chem. Educ., 79, 739-744.
26. Nakhleh M. B., Lowry K. A. and Mitchell R. C., (1996), Narrowing the gap between concepts and algorithms in freshman chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 73, 758-762.
27. Niaz M. and Robinson W. R. (1992). Manipulation of logical structure of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 29, 211-226.
28. Nurrenbern S. C. and Pickering M., (1987), Concept learning versus problem solving: is there a difference? J. Chem. Educ., 64, 508-510.
29. Papaphotis G. and Tsaparlis G., (2008), Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: the case of basic quantum chemical concepts, Part 1, Statistical analysis of a quantitative study, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9, 323-331.
30. Sanger M. J., (2005), Evaluating students' conceptual understanding of balanced equations and stoichiometric ratios using a particulate drawing, J. Chem. Educ., 82, 131-134.
31. Silberberg M. S., (2009), Chemistry: the molecular nature of matter and change (5th ed.), Boston: McGraw Hill.
32. Taber K. S. and Bricheno P., (2009), Coordinating procedural and conceptual knowledge to make sense of word equations: understanding the complexity of a 'simple' completion task at the learner's resolution, Int. J. Sci. Educ, 31, 2021-2055.
33. Tien L. T., Teichert M. A. and Rickey D., (2007), Effectiveness of a MORE laboratory module in prompting students to revise their molecular-level ideas about solutions, J. Chem. Educ., 84, 175-181.
34. Treagust D and Chittleborough G., (2001), Chemistry: a matter of understanding representations, in J. Brophy, (ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities (Vol. 8,), JAI: Elsevier Science Ltd, pp. 239-267.
35. Treagust D. F. and Harrison A. G., (1999), The genesis of effective scientific explanations for the classroom, in J. Loughran (ed.), Researching teaching methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy, London, UK: Falmer Press, pp. 28-43.
36. Wood C. and Breyfogle B., (2006), Interactive demonstrations for mole ratios and limiting reagents, J. Chem. Educ., 83, 741-748.
37. Yarroch W. L., (1985), Students' understanding of chemical equation balancing, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 22, 449-459.