PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2020, Vol. 16(2) 42-55

Examination of Secondary School Students' Ability to Transform among Chemistry Representation Levels Related to Stoichiometry

Ayşegül Tarkın Çelikkıran

pp. 42 - 55   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.241.4   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1911-25-0004.R1

Published online: April 02, 2020  |   Number of Views: 49  |  Number of Download: 157


Abstract

The aim of this qualitative case study was to explore secondary students’ ability to transfer among representation levels in relation to stoichiometry. In the study, 40 students in the 11th grade from two classes of an Anatolian high school in the east part of Turkey were selected as sample group. The data were collected by using a questionnaire consists of ten questions designed specifically target the transformation from macroscopic to symbolic, from symbolic to submicroscopic, and from submicroscopic to symbolic level. The analysis of the data was carried out both deductively and inductively by content analysis method. The results indicate that many students were unable to establish an appropriate link among chemical representation levels regarding stoichiometry.

Keywords: Chemistry Education, Representations, Stoichiometry, Submicroscopic Level, Symbolic Level


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Celikkiran, A.T. (2020). Examination of Secondary School Students' Ability to Transform among Chemistry Representation Levels Related to Stoichiometry . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(2), 42-55. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.241.4

Harvard
Celikkiran, A. (2020). Examination of Secondary School Students' Ability to Transform among Chemistry Representation Levels Related to Stoichiometry . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(2), pp. 42-55.

Chicago 16th edition
Celikkiran, Aysegul Tarkin (2020). "Examination of Secondary School Students' Ability to Transform among Chemistry Representation Levels Related to Stoichiometry ". International Journal of Progressive Education 16 (2):42-55. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.241.4.

References
  1. Adadan, E. (2012). Using multiple representations to promote grade 11 students’ scientific understanding of the particle theory of matter. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1079-1105. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arasasingham, R. D., Taagepera, M., Potter, F., & Lonjers, S. (2004). Using knowledge space theory to assess student understanding of stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 1517-1523. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baah, R., & Ampiah, G. J. (2012). Senior high school students’ understanding and difficulties with chemical equations. International Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 5(3), 162-170. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baptista, M., Martins, I., Conceição, T., & Reis, P. (2019). Multiple representations in the development of the students’ cognitive structures about the saponification reaction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20, 760-771. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cardellini, L. (2012). Chemistry: why the subject is difficult?. Educación química, 23, 305-310. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheng, M. M. W., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). Teaching Stoichiometry with Particulate Diagrams – Linking Macro Phenomena and Chemical Equations. In Eilam, B & Gilbert, JK (Eds.), Science Teachers’ Use of Visual Representations, p. 123-143. Cham: Springer [Google Scholar]
  7. Chittleborough, G., & Treagust D. (2008). Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires transforming from one level of representation to another, Res. Sci. Educ. 38, 463–482. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cooper, M. M., Stieff, M., & DeSutter, D. (2017). Sketching the invisible to predict the visible: from drawing to modeling in chemistry. Topics in cognitive science, 9(4), 902-920. [Google Scholar]
  9. Davidowitz, B., Chittleborough, G., & Murray, E. (2010). Student-generated submicro diagrams: A useful tool for teaching and learning chemical equations and stoichiometry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(3), 154-164. [Google Scholar]
  10. De Jong, O., & Taber, K. (2007). Teaching and learning the many faces of chemistry. In S. K. Abel & N.G. Lederman (Ed). Handbook of Research on Science Education, 631-652. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  11. Demirdöğen, B. (2017). Examination of chemical representations in Turkish high school chemistry textbooks. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4). [Google Scholar]
  12. Devetak, I., Vogrinc, J., & Glazar, S. A. (2009). Assessing 16-year-old students. Understanding of aqueous solution at submicroscopic level. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 157–179. [Google Scholar]
  13. Devetak, I., Urbančič, M., Grm, K. S. W., Krnel, D., & Glažar, S. A. (2004). Submicroscopic representations as a tool for evaluating students’ chemical conceptions. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 51(4), 799-814. [Google Scholar]
  14. Farida, I., Widyantoro, D. H., & Sopandi, W. (2010). Representational Competence’s Profile of Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers in Chemical Problem Solving. Paper presented at 4th International Seminar of Science Education, Bandung. 30 October 2010 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gkitzia V., Salta K., & Tzougraki C. (2011). Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12 (1), 5–14. [Google Scholar]
  16. Head, M. L., Yoder, K., Genton, E., & Sumperl, J. (2017). A quantitative method to determine preservice chemistry teachers' perceptions of chemical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 825-840. [Google Scholar]
  17. Herga, N. R., Čagran, B., & Dinevski, D. (2016). Virtual laboratory in the role of dynamic visualisation for better understanding of chemistry in primary school. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(3), 593-608. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jaber, L. Z., & BouJaoude, S. (2012). A Macro–Micro–Symbolic Teaching to Promote Relational Understanding of Chemical Reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 973-998. [Google Scholar]
  19. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701. [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry-logical or psychological? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 9-15. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kern, A. L., Wood, N. B., Roehrig, G. H., & Nyachwaya, J. (2010). A qualitative report of the ways high school chemistry students attempt to represent a chemical reaction at the atomic/molecular level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(3), 165-172. [Google Scholar]
  22. Krajcik, J. (1991). Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany, & B. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 117–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc [Google Scholar]
  23. Marais, P., & Jordaan, F. (2000). Are we talking symbolic language for granted? Journal of Chemical Education, 77(10), 1355 - 1357. [Google Scholar]
  24. McBroom, R.A. (2011). Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Mental Models Regarding Dissolution and Precipitation Reactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. [Google Scholar]
  25. Miles M. B., & Huberman A. M., (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mocerino, M., Chandrasegaran, A. L., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Emphasizing multiple levels of representation to enhance students' understandings of the changes occurring during chemical reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1433. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191. [Google Scholar]
  28. Russell, J. W., Kozma, R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of chemical education, 74(3), 330-334. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sanger M. J. (2005). Evaluating students’ conceptual understanding of balanced equations and stoichiometric ratios using a particulate drawing, J. Chem. Educ., 82, 131-134. [Google Scholar]
  30. Santos, V. C., & Arroio, A. (2016). The representational levels: Influences and contributions to research in chemical education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(1),  3-18. [Google Scholar]
  31. Shehab, S. S., & BouJaoude, S. (2016). Analysis of the chemical representations in secondary Lebanese chemistry textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 797-816. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sim, J. H., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2014). Representational competence in chemistry: A comparison between students with different levels of understanding of basic chemical concepts and chemical representations. Cogent Education, 1(1), 991180. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sunyono, Yuanita, L., & Ibrahim, M. (2015). Mental Models of Students on Stoichiometry Concept in Learning by Method Based on Multiple Representation. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5(2), 30-45. [Google Scholar]
  34. Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156–168. [Google Scholar]
  35. Taber, K. S., & García-Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: Drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 99-142. [Google Scholar]
  36. Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry ‘triplet’. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust D. F. (2009) Linking the Macroscopic, Sub-microscopic and Symbolic Levels: The Case of Inorganic Qualitative Analysis. In: Gilbert J.K., Treagust D. (eds) Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tarkın-Çelikkıran, A. & Gökçe, C. (2019). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının çözünürlük konusuna ilişkin submikroskobik seviyedeki anlama düzeylerinin çizimlerle belirlenmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 57-87. [Google Scholar]
  39. Taskin, V., & Bernholt, S. (2014). Students' Understanding of Chemical Formulae: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 157-185. [Google Scholar]
  40. Thadison, F. C. (2011). Investigating Macroscopic, Submicroscopic, and Symbolic Connections in a College-Level General Chemistry Laboratory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi. [Google Scholar]
  41. Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1368. [Google Scholar]
  42. Trivić, D., & Milanović, V. D. (2018). The macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic level in explanations of a chemical reaction provided by thirteen-year olds. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 83(10), 1177-1192. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.  [Google Scholar]
  44. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık [Google Scholar]