Volume/Issue :

Article type :

Original article

Page No :

61-71

Abstract :

Understanding submicroscopic level, which requires in-depth chemistry knowledge, is difficult for students. The sample of the research consisted of 32 students, who performed a teaching-learning sequence of two electrochemical reactions. Eight of them were videotaped and their speech was transcribed and analyzed. The results indicated that students who used more chemical terms improved their understanding of the submicroscopic level. Talking more, in this case, showed no relation to learning directed to an instrumental understanding (focus on how). The use of more chemical terms enabled them to grasp a relational understanding (focus on why) and the predictive ability of new chemical phenomena.

Keywords :

chemical education, chemical terms, electrochemistry, relational understanding, submicroscopic level

References :

Al-Balushi, S. M. (2013). The effect of different textual narrations on students’ explanations at the submicroscopic level in chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9 (1), 3-10.
Bybee, R.W. (1995). Achieving scientific literacy. The Science Teacher, 62 (7), 28-33.
Cheng, M., & Gilbert J. K. (2009). Towards a better utilization of diagrams in research into the use of representative levels in chemical education. In: Gilbert, J. K. & Treagust, D. F. (Eds). Multiple representations in Chemical Education (Vol.4, p. 55-73). Springer.
Gilbert, J K. (2005). Visualization: A Metacognitive Skill in Science and Science Education. In Gilbert, J.K (Ed.). Visualization in science education (Vol.1, p. 9–27). Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Gilbert J.K., & Treagust, D.F. (2009). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In: Gilbert, J. K. & Treagust, D. F. (Eds)., Multiple representations in Chemical Education (Vol.4, p. 1-8). Springer.
Guedes, M. F. (1992). Análise de conteúdo de livros didáticos de Ciências: os termos químicos apresentados e suas representações possíveis [Content analysis of science textbooks: The chemical terms presented and their possible representations]. Dissertação – Faculdade de Educação, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 209 p.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to a changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70 (9), 701-705.
Locatelli, S. W. (2016). Relação existente entre metavisualização e as representações simbólica e submicro na elaboração de atividade em química [Relationship between metavisualization and the symbolic and submicro representations in the elaboration of activity in chemistry]. Tese (Doutorado em Ensino de Química) Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20-26.
Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplete: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14 (2), 156-168.
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.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2004). Students’ Understanding of the Descriptive and Predictive Nature of Teaching Models in Organic Chemistry. Research in Science Education, 34, 1–20.

Cite as :

Locatelli, S., Soares Gomes, P. H., & Arroio, A. (2018). Connections involving the use of chemical language and understanding of reduction-oxidation reaction. Gamtamokslinis ugdymas / Natural Science Education, 15(2), 61-71. https://doi.org/10.48127/gu-nse/18.15.61