Advertisement

Scientific Terminology and Symbols

Chapter

Abstract

With this statement Peter von Zahn [1] emphasizes the importance of chemical symbols, which he calls a unique communication tool for chemists – whether they work in Europe or America, in China, or Japan. With this in mind it is also an important aim of chemical education to teach chemistry terminology and symbols to students. They have to be able to read about and in newspapers and magazines. At the same time, scientists are required to make their methods and conclusions understandable even for nonprofessionals: “Scientists and inventors cannot live isolated in an ivory tower, they require a sounding board. They need the approval of those who will benefit from their scientific work in the end.” 1]

Keywords

Mental Model Bonding Number Everyday Language Scientific Terminology Sugar Crystal 
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.

Supplementary material

References

  1. 1.
    Zahn Pv (1981) Freund und Helfer oder heimlicher Feind ? Chemie im Kreuzfeuer der öffentlichen Meinung. CU 12:1Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dörrenbächer A (1995) IUPAC-Regeln und DIN-Normen im Chemieunterricht. Aulis: KölnGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Langer S (1979) Philosophie auf neuen Wegen. MittenwaldGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barke H-D (1988) Chemiedidaktik zwischen Philosophie und Geschichte der Chemie. FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jäckel M et al (1998) Chemie heute Sekundarstufe II. Schroedel, HannoverGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sumfleth E et al (1989) Stoffe: Eigenschaften und Reaktionen. Modelle: Teilchenanordnungen und -umordnungen. Eine mit Lernhilfen gestützte Einführung in die Chemie. MNU 42:411Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Behrendt H (1997) Concept mapping. Schülerinnen und Schüler konstruieren eigene Begriffsnetze. NiU-Physik 8:18Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmidkunz H, Büttner D (1985) Chemieunterricht im Spiralcurriculum. NiU-P/C 33:19Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steinbuch K (1977) Denken in Modellen. In: Schäfer, G., u.a.: Denken in Modellen. Westermann, BraunschweigGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scheible A (1969) Ist unser Chemieunterricht noch zeitgemäß ? MNU 22:449Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sauermann D, Barke H-D (1998) Chemie für Quereinsteiger. Schüling, MünsterGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaminski M, Jansen W (1994) Die Ermittlung der chemischen Formel im Anfangsunterricht. NiU-Chemie 25:12Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barke H-D, Rölleke R (1999) Max von Laue: ein einziger Gedanke – zwei große Theorien. PdN-Ch 48:16Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barke H-D, Hazari A, Sileshi Y (2009) Misconceptions in chemistry – addressing perceptions in chemical education. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnstone AH (2000) Teaching of chemistry – logical or psychological? CERAPIE 1:9Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gabel D (1999) Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future. J Chem Educ 76:548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barke H-D (1993) Chemical education and spatial ability. J Chem Educ 70:968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wirbs H, Barke H-D (2002) Structural units and chemical formulae. CERAPIE 3:185Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barke H-D (1982) Probleme bei der Verwendung von Symbolen im Chemieunterricht. NiU – P/C 131Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmidt HJ (1990) Stolpersteine im Chemieunterricht. Diesterweg, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Becker HJ (1988) Verbraucherfragenim RIAS-Telefonstudio: Gegenstand fachdidaktischer Forschung? Chim Did 14:69Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Becker HJ (1995) Ein Alltagsdialog über Jughurt – Chance für fächeraufweitenden Chemieunterricht. PdN-Ch 44:17Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Gilbert JK, Treagust AF (2008) Reforming the teaching and learning of the macro/submicro/ symbolic representational relationship in chemical education. In: Paper presented at the 19th symposium on chemical and science education, University of Dortmund, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  2. Herron JD (1996) The chemistry classroom: formulas for successful teaching. American Chemical Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Johnstone AH (2000) Teaching of chemistry-logical or psychological? Chem Educ Res Pract 1(9)Google Scholar
  4. Kauffman GB (1979) Principal net equations for expressing chemical reactions. J Coll Sci Teach 9:83–85Google Scholar
  5. Marais P, Jordan F (2000) Are we taking symbolic language for granted? J Chem Educ 77:1355–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Yarroch WL (1985) Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. J Res Sci Teach 22(5):449–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Didaktik der ChemieWestf. Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.School of ChemistryUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations