Correct Interpretation of Chemical Diagrams Requires Transforming from One Level of Representation to Another

Volunteer non-major chemistry students taking an introductory university chemistry course (n = 17) were interviewed about their understanding of a variety of chemical diagrams. All the students’ interviewed appreciated that diagrams of laboratory equipment were useful to show how to set up laboratory equipment. However students’ ability to explain specific diagrams at either the macroscopic or sub-microscopic level varied greatly. The results highlighted the poor level of understanding that some students had even after completing both exercises and experiments using the diagrams. The connection between the diagrams of the macroscopic level (equipment, chemicals), the sub-microscopic level (molecular) and the symbolic level (equations) was not always considered explicitly by students. The results indicate a need for chemical diagrams to be used carefully and more explicitly to ensure learner understanding. Correspondingly, students need to interpret visual chemical diagrams using meta-visualization skills linking the various levels of representation, and appreciating the role of the diagrams in explanations need to be developed.

[1]  Bette Davidowitz,et al.  Enabling Metacognition in the Laboratory: A Case Study of Four Second Year University Chemistry Students , 2003 .

[2]  J. Clement,et al.  Effects of Student-Generated Diagrams versus Student-Generated Summaries on Conceptual Understanding of Causal and Dynamic Knowledge in Plate Tectonics. , 1999 .

[3]  Sharan B. Merriam,et al.  Qualitative research and case study applications in education , 1998 .

[4]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Non-major chemistry students' learning strategies: Explaining Their Choice and Examining the implications for teaching and learning , 2005 .

[5]  A. H. Johnstone,et al.  The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand , 1993 .

[6]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Students Becoming Chemists: Developing Representationl Competence , 2005 .

[7]  J. R.,et al.  Chemistry , 1929, Nature.

[8]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[9]  Keith R Skamp,et al.  Elementary School Chemistry: Has its Potential been Realized? , 1996 .

[10]  Keith S. Taber,et al.  The Atom in the Chemistry Curriculum: Fundamental Concept, Teaching Model or Epistemological Obstacle? , 2003 .

[11]  Gail Chittleborough,et al.  The Role of Teaching Models and Chemical Representations in Developing Students' Mental Models of Chemical Phenomena , 2004 .

[12]  Kenneth Tobin,et al.  International handbook of science education , 1998 .

[13]  Stephen M. Fiore,et al.  A picture is worth a thousand connections: the facilitative effects of diagrams on mental model development and task performance , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[14]  C A Nelson,et al.  Learning to Learn , 2017, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.

[15]  Alexandru T. Balaban,et al.  Visual Chemistry: Three-Dimensional Perception of Chemical Structures , 1999 .

[16]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Visualization in science education , 2005 .

[17]  Mike Stieff,et al.  Teaching and Learning with Three-dimensional Representations , 2005 .

[18]  A. Giordan,et al.  The Importance of Modelling in the Teaching and Popularization of Science. , 1991 .

[19]  Gail D. Chittleborough David F. Treagust Mauro Mocerino.  Constraints to the development of first year university chemistry students ’ mental models of chemical phenomena , 2003 .

[20]  王祖浩 孙丹儿 杨惠仙.  Chemistry:The Molecular Nature of Matter and Change评述 , 2007 .

[21]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Why Students May not Learn to Interpret Scientific Inscriptions , 2002 .

[22]  D. Gabel,et al.  The Complexity of Chemistry and Implications for Teaching , 1998 .

[23]  J. Novak.  Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education , 1990 .

[24]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Visualization: A Metacognitive Skill in Science and Science Education , 2005 .