Translational Skills of Students in Chemistry
Abstract
Understanding Chemistry requires interplay of several modes of representations which can be observed in the translational skills of students. This paper investigated the extent of the translational skills of students exposed to conventional lecture method (CLM) and the integrated macro-micro-symbolic approach (IMMSA). Individual interviews were conducted, and the results were presented based on Johnstone’s Chemistry triangles. Findings revealed that the CLM group had Fair extent of translational skills, lacked two-way translations, and followed Pattern 1 skills. On the other hand, the IMMSA group had Satisfactory skills, included two-way translations, and followed patterns 1 and 2. This led to the conclusion that interplay within and between chemical modes of representation creates a relational understanding in Chemistry. It was suggested that teachers should start their instruction from microscopic terminal for deeper understanding in the macroscopic and symbolic levels.ÂReferences
Adbo, K. (2012). Relationships between models used for teaching Chemistry and those expressed by students. (Ph.D. dissertation, Linnaeus University, Kalmar & Växjö, Sweden). Retrieved from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:506580/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Ainsworth, S. (2007). The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J.K. Gilbert, M. Reiner and M. Nakhleh (Eds.). Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media
Bradley, J. (2014). The Chemist’s triangle and a general systemic approach to teaching, learning and research in Chemistry education. African Journal of Chemical Education, 4(2), 64-71
Brandiet, A. (2014). Investigating students’ understanding of the symbolic, macroscopic, and particulate domains of oxidation-reduction and the development of the redox concept inventory (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio: Miami University, Oxford, Ohio).
Cardellini, L. (2012). Chemistry: why the subject is difficult?. Educacion Quimica, 23(2), 305-310
Chittleborough, G. & Treagust, D. (2007). The modeling ability of non-major Chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 274-292. DOI: 10.1039/B6RP90035F
Department of Education (2013). K to 12 curriculum guide: SCIENCE (grades 3 to 10). Retrieved 20 August 2018 from http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/page/2014/Final%20Science%20CG%203-10%2005.08.2014.pdf
Driver, R. & Ericsson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60. DOI: 10.1080/03057268308559904
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through Chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548. DOI: 10.1021/ed076p548
Gilbert, J. & Treagust, D. (2009). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Gilbert, J. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in Science education. In J.K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.). Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp.3-24). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media
Harrison, A. & Treagust, D. (2003). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In J.K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justin, D. Treagust & J.H. van Diel (Eds). Chemical Education Towards Research-based Practice (pp.189-212). Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Kluwer Academic Publishers
Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in Chemistry education: Thirty years of experience with developments, implementation, and research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 247-264. DOI: 10.1039/B4RP90027H
Jaber, L. & Boujaoude, S. (2012). A macro-micro-symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 973-998. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.569959
Johnstone, A. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377-379
Kaur, G. (2011). Study and analysis of lecture method of teaching. International Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 1(1), 9-13
Kumar, K. (2004). Methods of Teaching Chemistry. New Delhi : Discovery Publishing House
Li, W. & Arshad, M. (2014). Application of multiple representation levels in redox reations among tenth grade Chemistry teachers. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(3), 35-52
Marais, P. & Jordaan, F. (2000). Are we taking symbolic language for granted?. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(10), 1355-1357. DOI: 10.1021/ed077p1355
Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. The University of York Department of Educational Studies. Retrieved 20 August 2018 from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_073330.pdf
Nelson, P. (2002). Teaching Chemistry progressively: from substances, to atoms and molecules, to electrons and nuclei. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 215-228. DOI: 10.1039/B2RP90017C
Royal Society of Chemistry (2011). Global framework for Chemistry education for 11-14 and 14-16 ages ranges. Retrieved 20 August 2018 from http://www.rsc.org/images/ DEVELOPING%20A%20GLOBAL%20FRAMEWORK%20FOR%20CHEMISTRY%20EDUCATION_tcm18-207914.pdf
Sanchez, JM. (2017). Integrated macro-micro-symbolic approach in teaching secondary Chemistry. Kimika, 28(2), 22-29. DOI: 10.26534/kimika.v28i2.22-29
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the Chemistry triplet. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179-195. DOI: 10.1080/09500690903386435
Towns, M., Raker, J., Becker, N., Harle, M. and Sutcliffe, J. (2012). The biochemistry tetrahedron and the development of the taxonomy of biochemistry external representations (TOBER). Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 296-306. DOI: 10.1039/c2rp00014h
