Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry "triplet"

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 179-195

  Talanquer, Vicente ^a  

^a University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemistry education; Knowledge structure; Learning; Pedagogical content knowledge; Position paper; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 78651479934     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690903386435     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1988). Theories, principles and laws. Education in Chemistry, 25, 89-92.
2. Bodner, G. M. (1992). Why changing the curriculum may not be enough. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 186-190.
3. Bodner, G. M., & Herron, J. D. (2002). Problem-solving in chemistry. In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 235-266). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
4. Cang, H., Xu, C. S., & Yang, H. (2008). Progress in single-molecule tracking spectroscopy. Chemical Physics Letter, 457, 285-291.
5. 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), 293-307.
6. Davidowitz, B., & Chittleborough, G. (2009). Linking the macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels: Diagrams. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 169-191). the Netherlands: Springer.
7. Deacon, T. W. (2003). The hierarchic logic of emergence: Untangling the interdependence of evolution and self-organization. In B. H. Weber & D. J. Depew (Eds.), Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered (pp. 273-308). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 278-302.
9. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushword, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.
10. Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and its implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 223-248). London: Kluwer Academic.
11. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548-554.
12. Gabel, D. L. (1993). Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 193-194.
13. Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695-697.
14. Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9-27). the Netherlands: Springer.
15. Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
16. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (Eds.). (2009a). Multiple representations in chemical education. the Netherlands: Springer.
17. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2009b). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1-8). the Netherlands: Springer.
18. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2009c). Towards a coherent model for macro, submicro and symbolic representations in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 333-350). the Netherlands: Springer.
19. Gord, J. R., Meyer, T. R., & Roy, S. (2008). Applications of ultrafast lasers for optical measurements in combusting flows. Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry, 1, 663-687.
20. Hinton, M. E., & Nakhleh, M. B. (1999). Students' microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions. Chemical Educator, 4(4), 158-167.
21. Hoffmann, R., & Laszlo, P. (1991). Representation in chemistry. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition in English, 20, 1-16.
22. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.
23. Jensen, W. B. (1998). Logic, history, and the chemistry textbook: I. Does chemistry have a logical structure? Journal of Chemical Education, 75(6), 679-687.
24. Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377-379.
25. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom like they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
26. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-705.
27. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry: Logical or psychological? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9-15.
28. Kermen, I., & Méheut, M. (2009). Different models used to interpret chemical changes: Analysis of a curriculum and its impact on French students' reasoning. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 10, 24-34.
29. 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.
30. Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Crossing levels and representations: The connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 224-242.
31. Luisi, P. L. (2002). Emergence in chemistry: Chemistry as the embodiment of emergence. Foundations of Chemistry, 4, 183-200.
32. Mahaffy, P. (2004). The future shape of chemistry education. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 229-245.
33. Mahaffy, P. (2006). Moving chemistry education into 3D: A tetrahedral metaphor for understanding chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(1), 49-55.
34. Meijer, M. R., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2008). Structure-property relations between macro and micro representations: Relevant meso-levels in authentic tasks. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 195-213). the Netherlands: Springer.
35. Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of level 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.
36. Nurrenbern, S. & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning vs. problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-510.
37. Penner, D. E. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students' understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 784-806.
38. Rappoport, L. T., & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of representation: Emergent versus submergent perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1585-1603.
39. Sanger, M. J. (2005). Evaluating students' conceptual understanding of balanced equations and stoichiometric ratios using a particulate drawing. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(1), 131-134.
40. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1368.