Evaluation of chemical representations in physical chemistry textbooks

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 720-728

  Nyachwaya, James M ^a   Wood, Nathan B ^a  

^a NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84908668896     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11094028     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/c4rp00113c     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Atkins P. W., (1994), Physical Chemistry, 5th edn, NY: Freeman and Company
2. Atkins P. W., (1982), Physical Chemistry, 2nd edn, NY: Freeman and Company
3. Atkins P. and De Paula J., (2011), Physical Chemistry for the life sciences, 2nd edn, NY: W. H. Freeman and company
4. Atkins P. and De Paula J., (2006), Atkins' physical chemistry, 8th edn, NY: W. H. Freeman and company
5. Ball D. W., (2015), Physical Chemsitry, 2nd edn, Connecticut: Cengage Learning
6. Ben-Zvi R., Eylon B. and Silberstein J., (1987), Students' visualization of a chemical reaction, Educ. Chem., 24, 117-120
7. Bodner G. M., (2003), Problem solving: the difference between what we do and what we tell students to do, Univ. Chem. Educ., 7, 37-45
8. Bunce D. M., Gabel D. and Samuel J., (1991), Enhancing chemistry problem solving achievement using problem categorization, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 28 (6), 505-521
9. Chandrasegaran A. L., Treagust D. F. and Mocerino M., (2008), 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
10. Chandrasegaran A. L., Treagust D. F. and 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, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8 (3), 293-307
11. Chang R., (2005), Physical Chemistry for the Biosciences, Sausalito, Ca: University science books
12. Cheng M. and Gilbert J. K., (2009), Towards a better utilization of diagrams in research, in Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D. (ed.) Multiple representations in chemical education, New York: Springer, pp. 55-73
13. Chiappetta E. L. and Fillman D. A., (2007), Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 29 (15), 1847-1868
14. 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
15. Cohen L., Manion L. and Morrison L., (2011), Research methods in education, 7th edn, London: Taylor & Francis, Inc
16. Cooksy A., (2014), Physical Chemistry: Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Interactions, New Jersey: Pearson
17. Dangur V., Avargil S., Peskin U. and Dori J. Y., (2014), Learning quantum chemistry via visual-conceptual approach: students' bidirectional textual and visual understanding, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2014, 15, 297-310
18. Davidowitz B. and Chittleborough G., (2009). Linking the macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels: Diagrams, in Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D. (ed.) Multiple representations in chemical education, the Netherlands: Springer, pp. 169-191
19. Dori Y. J. and Hameiri M., (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40 (3), 278-302
20. Engel T. and Reid P., (2006), Physical Chemistry, New Jersey: Pearson
21. Engel T. and Reid P., (2010), Physical Chemistry, 2nd edn, New Jersey: Pearson
22. Furío-Más C., Calatayud M. L., Guisasola J. and Furío-Gómez C., (2005), How are the concepts and theories of acid-base reactions presented? Chemistry in textbooks and as presented by teachers, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 27, 1337-1358
23. Gabel D. L., Samuel K. V. and Hunn D., (1987), Understanding the particulate nature of matter, J. Chem. Educ., 64 (8), 695-697
24. Gabel D. L., (1993), Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding, J. Chem. Educ., 70 (3), 193
25. Gabel D., (1999), Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future, J. Chem. Educ., 76 (4), 548-554
26. Gabel D. L., (2003), Enhancing conceptual understanding of Science, Educ. Horizons, 81, 70-76
27. Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D., (2009), Introduction: macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: key models in chemical education, in Gilbert J. K., Treagust D. (ed.) Multiple representations in chemical education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1-8
28. Giordan A., (1991), The importance of modelling in the teaching and popularisation of science, Impact Sci. Soc., 164, 321-338
29. Gkitzia V., Salta K. and Tzougraki C., (2011), Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12 (1), 5-14
30. Harrison A. G., (2001), How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Res. Sci. Educ., 31, 401-435
31. Jaber L. Z. and BouJaoude S., (2011), A Macro-Micro-Symbolic Teaching to Promote Relational Understanding of Chemical Reactions, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 1-26
32. Johnstone A. H., (1982), Macro-and micro-chemistry, Sch. Sci. Rev., 64 (227), 377-379
33. Johnstone A. H., (1991), Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem, J. Comput. Assist. Lear., 7, 75-83
34. Johnstone A. H., (2000), Teaching of chemistry: Logical or psychological? Chem. Educ.: Res. Pract. Eur., 1 (1), 9-15
35. Justi R. S. and Gilbert J. K., (2002), Models and modelling in chemical education, in Gilbert J., De Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D. and Van Driel J. (ed.) Chemical education: towards research-based practice, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 213-234
36. Keig P. F. and Rubba P. A., (1993), Translation of representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning and specific prior knowledge, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 30, 883-903
37. Kern A. L., Wood N. B., Roehrig G. H. and Nyachwaya J. M., (2010), A qualitative report of the ways high school chemistry students attempt to represent a chemical reaction at the atomic/molecular level, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11, 165-172
38. Koppal M. and Caldwell A., (2004), Meeting the challenge of science literacy: project 2061 efforts to improve science education, Cell Biol. Educ., 3, 28-30
39. Kozma R., (2000), The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry, in Jacobson M. and Kozma R. (ed.) Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 11-46
40. Kozma R. B. and Russell J., (1997), Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 34, 949-968
41. Laidler M. J and Meiser J. H., (1999), Physical Chemistry, 3rd edn, New York: Houghton Mifflin
42. Levine I. N., (2002), Physical Chemistry, 5th edn, Boston: McGrawHill
43. Levine I. N., (2009), Physical Chemistry, 6th edn, Boston: McGrawHill
44. Lorenzo M. G., Farre A. S. and Rossi A. M., (2010), Teachers' discursive practices in a first organic chemistry course, in Çakmakci G. and Tas-ar M. F. (ed.) Contemporary Science Education Research: Scientific Literacy and Social Aspects of Science, Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi, pp. 13-22
45. McQuarrie D. A and Simon J. D., (1997), Physical Chemistry: A molecular Approach, Sausalito: University Science Books
46. Naah B. M. and Sanger M. J., (2012), Student misconceptions in writing balanced equations for dissolving ionic compounds in water, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13, 186-194
47. Nakhleh M. B., (1993), Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? J. Chem. Educ., 70, 52-55
48. Nyachwaya J., Mohamed A., Roehrig G. H., Wood N. B., Kern A. L. and Schneider J. L., (2011). The development of an open-ended drawing tool: an alternative diagnostic tool for assessing students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12, 121-132
49. Papaphotis G. and Tsaparlis G., (2008), Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: the case of basic quantum chemical concepts, Part 2. Students' common errors, misconceptions and difficulties in understanding, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9, 332-340
50. Patterson G., (2007), Physical Chemistry of Macromolecules, 2nd edn, Taylor and Francis
51. Sibley R. J., Alberty R. A. and Bawendi M. G., (2005), Physical Chemistry, 4th edn, New Jersey: John Willey and Sons
52. Taber K. S., (2013), Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14 (2), 156-168
53. Talanquer V., (2011), Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: the many faces of the chemistry "triplet", Int. J. Sci. Educ., 33(2), 179-195
54. Treagust D. F., Chittleborough G. and Mamiala T. L., (2003), The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25, 1353-1368