Introduction: Macro, Submicro and Symbolic Representations and the Relationship Between Them: Key Models in Chemical Education

We live in a complex, rapidly changing, material world, major aspects of which require an understanding of the ideas of chemistry. Education for ‘scientific literacy’ in respect of ‘the public’ – people of all ages – is now widely seen as a general goal for science education, whether pursued formally or informally. It seems appropriate to talk about ‘chemical literacy’ – the contribution that chemistry can make to scientific literacy – and to amend the hitherto general discussions to focus on this particular aspect (Laugksch, 2000; Roberts, 2007).

[1]  A. Johnstone.  Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem , 1991 .

[2]  George M. Bodner,et al.  Why changing the curriculum may not be enough , 1992 .

[3]  J. Gilbert,et al.  Developing Models in Science Education , 2000 .

[4]  J. Gilbert.  Chemical education: towards research-based practice , 2003 .

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

[6]  B. Andersson,et al.  Pupils' Explanations of Some Aspects of Chemical Reactions. , 1986 .

[7]  Helen Tuckey,et al.  Studies Involving Three-Dimensional Visualisation Skills in Chemistry: A Review , 1993 .

[8]  George E. DeBoer,et al.  Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform , 2000 .

[9]  Peter J. Fensham,et al.  The Content Of Science: A Constructive Approach To Its Teaching And Learning , 1994 .

[10]  Avi Hofstein,et al.  The importance of involving high‐school chemistry teachers in the process of defining the operational meaning of ‘chemical literacy’ , 2005 .

[11]  Avi Hofstein,et al.  The use of scientific literacy taxonomy for assessing the development of chemical literacy among high-school students , 2006 .

[12]  D. Gabel,et al.  Understanding the Particulate Nature of Matter. , 1987 .

[13]  Peter G. Nelson,et al.  TEACHING CHEMISTRY PROGRESSIVELY: FROM SUBSTANCES, TO ATOMS AND MOLECULES, TO ELECTRONS AND NUCLEI , 2002 .

[14]  Paul Marais,et al.  Are We Taking Symbolic Language for Granted , 2000 .

[15]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students' understanding of acid, base, and ph concepts , 1994 .

[16]  Dorothy L. Gabel,et al.  Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning Project. , 1993 .

[17]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Positioning Models in Science Education and in Design and Technology Education , 2000 .

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

[19]  R. C. Laugksch.  Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview , 2000 .

[20]  Gail Chittleborough,et al.  The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations , 2003 .

[21]  Alex H. Johnstone,et al.  TEACHING OF CHEMISTRY - LOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL? , 2000 .

[22]  Derek Hodson,et al.  A Critical Look at Practical Work in School Science. , 1990 .