Teaching and Learning Chemistry by Applying Three Levels of Thinking
Keywords:
teaching and learning chemistry, three levels of thinking, observable level, micro level, symbolic levelAbstract
The aim of this article is to present the method of teaching and learning chemistry by using three levels of thinking. Research has generally confirmed that teaching and learning chemistry by using three levels of thinking—applying the observable, molecular and symbolic levels—could help learners achieve a meaningful or deep level of understanding. Although Thailand has been using three levels of thinking for teaching and learning chemistry, available research studies, books, and academic articles are still limited in this country. Applying the three levels of thinking is important and benefits teaching and learning chemistry. Chemistry teachers, science teachers, curriculum writers, educators and researchers alike should benefit from a fundamental understanding about teaching and learning chemistry applying the three levels of thinking. As a means of introduction of this topic, there are three main topics canvassed in this article including 1) Difficulties and misconceptions in chemistry 2) chemistry curriculum and 3) Three levels of thinking. This article will also identify certain common difficulties and misconceptions in chemistry and how the three levels of thinking can be used in those situations, including related discussions about background definitions, examples of lesson plans, advantages and disadvantages of various lesson plans, and overall preparation of the teacher and students for teaching and learning with the three levels of thinking.
Keywords: teaching and learning chemistry, three levels of thinking, observable level, molecular level, symbolic level.
References
Boz, Y. (2006). Turkish Pupils’ Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 203-213.
Bucat, B. (2004). Pedagogical content knowledge as a way forward: Applied research in chemistry education. Chemistry education research and practice, 5, 215–228.
Bunce, D.M., & Gabel, D. (2002). Differential effects on the achievement of males and females of teaching the particulate nature of chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 911-927.
Chandrasegaran A. L., & Treagust D. F. (2008). An Evaluation of a Teaching Intervention to Promote Students’ Ability to Use Multiple Levels of Representation When Describing and Explaining Chemical Reaction. Research in Science Education. 38, 237-248.
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., Waldrip, B. & Chandrasegaran. A. (2009). Students’ dilemmas in Reaction Stoichiometry Problem Solving: Deducing the Limiting Reagent in Chemical Reactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 14-23.
Chang, H.P., & Lederman, N. G. (1994). The Effect of Levels of Cooperative within Physical Science Laboratory Groups on Physical Science Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 167-181.
Chittleborough, G. D., Treagust, D.F., & Mocerino, M. (2002). Constraints to the development of first year university chemistry students’ mental models of chemical phenomena. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Teaching Learning Forum. Perth, Australia.
Devetak, I., Vogrine, J., & Glazar, S.A. (2009). Assessing 16 year-old students’ understanding of aqueous solution at sub-microscopic level. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 157-159.
Dickson, H., Thomson, C., & O’Toole, P. (2016). A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Investigating First Year Chemistry Students’ Ability to Visually Express Their Understanding of Chemistry Concepts. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 24(1), 12-23.
Freedman, P. M. (1997). Relationship among Laboratory Instruction, Attitude toward Science, and Achievement in Science Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 347-357.
Gabel, D. L. (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: MacMillan.
Gabel, D. L. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76 (4), 548-554.
Gunstone, R. F., & Champagne, A. B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel(Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum, pp.159-182. London: Routlegde.
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. (2000). Teaching of chemistry: Logical or psychological? Chemical Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9-15.
Johnstone. A. H., & Selepeng, D. (2001). A Language Problem Revisited. Chemistry education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(1), 19-29.
Kelly, R. M., & Hansen, S. (2017). Exploring the design and use of molecular animations that conflict for understanding chemical reactions. Quimica Nova, 40(4), 476-481.
Kelly, R. M., Barrera, J. H., & Mohamed, S. C. (2010). An Analysis of Undergraduate General Chemistry Students’ Explanations of the Submicroscopic Level of Precipitation Reactions. Journal of Chemical Education 87(1), 113-118.
Marais, P., & Jordaan, F. (2000). Are we walking symbolic language for granted? Journal of Chemical Education, 77(10), 1355-1357.
Naah, B., & Sanger. M. (2012). Student Misconceptions in Writing Balance Equations for Dissolving Ionic Compounds in Water. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 186-194.
Skryabina, E. (2000). Student Attitude to Learning Physics at School and University Levels in Scotland, PhD Thesis, University of Glassgow.
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9–31.
Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2008). Visualising the molecular world- design, evaluation, and use of animations. In Gilbert J., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.). Visualisation: Theory and Practice in Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp.103-131.
Treagust, D. F., Chandrasegaran, A. L., Zain, A. N., Ong, E. T., Karpudewan, M., & Halim, L. (2011). Evaluation of an intervention instructional program to facilitate understanding of basic particle concepts among students enrolled in several levels of study, Chemistry education research and practice, 12, 251–261.
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.
Tucky, H., & Selvaratnam, M. (1993). Studies involving three-dimentional visualization skills in chemistry. Studies in Science Education, 21, 99-121.
Zhang, Z., & Linn, M. (2011). Can Generating Representations Enhance Learning with Dynamic Visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1177–1198.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
บทความทุกบทความเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของวารสารคณะศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์ วิทยาเขตบางเขน
วารสารศึกษาศาสตร์ปริทัศน์ (Kasetsart Educational Review)
