The Efficacy of an Alternative Instructional Programme Designed to Enhance Secondary Students’ Competence in the Triplet Relationship

Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 4)


Research has consistently shown that secondary school students have conceptual difficulties transferring between macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemistry. In this chapter, we describe how students responded to a 15-item two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument that analysed their understanding of seven types of chemical reactions using macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representations after they had been taught a special alternative programme to make these three representations more overt. The research has shown that by placing particular emphasis on the triplet relationship of macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemistry, it is possible for students to achieve more meaningful learning of chemical representations. Suggestions are made for how such improved learning can be accommodated in normal classrooms, as compared to research-oriented classrooms.


Ionic Equation Symbolic Representation Dilute Hydrochloric Acid Secondary Student Potassium Iodide 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, G. (2004). Fundamentals of educational research (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70, 549–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1988). Theories, principles and laws. Education in Chemistry, 25, 89–92.Google Scholar
  7. Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodner, G. M. (1991). I have found you an argument: The conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(5), 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boo, H. K. (1998). Students’ understanding of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 569–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2004). Diagnostic assessment of secondary students’ use of three levels of representation to explain simple chemical reactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving Science Education (pp. 46–49). Chicago, IL: The National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  13. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science – from behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–25). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 233–248). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look at the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabel, D., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particle nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translations of the representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 883–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual (2nd ed.). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  29. Seddon, G. M., & Eniaiyeju, P. A. (1986). The understanding of pictorial depth cues, and the ability to visualise the rotation of three-dimensional structures in diagrams. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4(1), 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Thinking and understanding in qualitative analysis practical work. Teaching and Learning, 23(1), 69–75.Google Scholar
  31. Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (Vol. 1,pp. 327–436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Treagust, D. F., & Chittleborough, G. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities (Vol. 8,pp. 239–267). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tytler, R. (2002). Teaching for understanding in science: Student conceptions research, and changing views of learning. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48(3), 30–35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curtin University of TechnologyPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations