Abstract
We live in a complex, rapidly changing, material world, major aspects of which require an understanding of the ideas of chemistry. Education for ‘scientific literacy’ in respect of ‘the public’ – people of all ages – is now widely seen as a general goal for science education, whether pursued formally or informally. It seems appropriate to talk about ‘chemical literacy’ – the contribution that chemistry can make to scientific literacy – and to amend the hitherto general discussions to focus on this particular aspect (Laugksch, 2000; Roberts, 2007).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70, 549–563.
Atkins, P. W. (2005). Skeletal chemistry, from http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2005_Jan/skelatal.asp
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualization of some chemical reactions. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.
Bodner, G. M. (1992). Refocusing the general chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 186–190.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.
Fensham, P. J. (1994). Beginning to teach chemistry. In P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 14–28). London: Falmer.
Gabel, D. L. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: MacMillan.
Gabel, D. L. (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.
Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695–697.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3–18). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges to understanding the submicroscopic world. In J. Gilbert, K., O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 189–212). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 71(256), 33–40.
Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to a changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.
Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry: Logical or psychological? Chemical Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9–15.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
Marais, P., & Jordaan, F. (2000). Are we taking symbolic language for granted? Journal of Chemical Education, 77(10), 1355–1357.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels 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.
Nelson, P. (2002). Teaching chemistry progressively: From substances, to atoms and molecules, to electrons and nuclei. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 3, 215–228.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2005). The importance of involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of defining the operational meaning of ‘chemical literacy’. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 323–344.
Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006). The use of scientific literacy taxonomy for assessing the development of chemical literacy among high-school students. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 7(4), 203–225.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.
Tuckey, H., & Selvaratnam, M. (1993). Studies involving three-dimensional visualisation skills in chemistry. Studies in Science Education, 21, 99–121.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
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. (eds) Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8871-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8872-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)