This article was downloaded by: [CDL Journals Account] On: 24 September 2008 Access details: Access Details:

[subscription number 785022369] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283

The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations

David F. Treagust a; Gail Chittleborough a; Thapelo L. Mamiala a a Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845 Australia; e-mail: D.Treagust@smec.curtin.edu.au. Online Publication Date: 01 November 2003

To cite this Article Treagust, David F., Chittleborough, Gail and Mamiala, Thapelo L.(2003)'The role of submicroscopic and symbolic

representations in chemical explanations',International Journal of Science Education,25:11,1353 1368

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/0950069032000070306 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070306

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

INT. J. SCI. EDUC., NOVEMBER

2003, VOL. 25, NO. 11, 13531368

RESEARCH REPORT

The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations

David F Treagust, Gail Chittleborough and Thapelo L. Mamiala, . Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845 Australia; e-mail: D.Treagust@smec.curtin.edu.au
Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

Chemistry is commonly portrayed at three different levels of representation macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic that combine to enrich the explanations of chemical concepts. In this article, we examine the use of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations and ascertain how they provide meaning. Of specific interest is the development of students levels of understanding, conceived as instrumental (knowing how) and relational (knowing why) understanding, as a result of regular Grade 11 chemistry lessons using analogical, anthropomorphic, relational, problem-based, and model-based explanations. Examples of both teachers and students dialogue are used to illustrate how submicroscopic and symbolic representations are manifested in their explanations of observed chemical phenomena. The data in this research indicated that effective learning at a relational level of understanding requires simultaneous use of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. Representations are used to help the learner learn; however, the research findings showed that students do not always understand the role of the representation that is assumed by the teacher.

Introduction The effectiveness of school chemistry teaching is dependent on the teachers ability to communicate and explain abstract and complex chemical concepts, and on the students ability to understand the explanations. Expert chemistry teachers present new information at an appropriate level for the learner, make use of relevant explanatory artefacts, build on the knowledge and concepts that students already understand, and provide students with all the information that they need to know without being beyond their grasp or over-simplifying the content (Treagust and Harrison 1999). In this article, we examine the use of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations, and ascertain what they add to explanations and how they provide meaning. The article begins with a discussion of the three levels of representation in chemistry, an analysis of the types of explanations used in science classrooms and an examination of different levels of understanding that are possible with this kind of teaching. This discussion leads to the research question that guides the research: What is the role of symbolic and submicroscopic representations on the comprehensibility of chemical phenomenon, and how do these representations provide meaning?
International Journal of Science Education ISSN 09500963 print/ISSN 14645289 online 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/0950069032000070306

1354

D. TREAGUST ET AL.

Figure 1.
Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

Three levels of representation used in chemistry.

Three levels of representation in chemistry Chemists refer to chemical phenomena at three different levels of representation macroscopic, symbolic and submicroscopic that are directly related to each other (Johnstone 1982). The macroscopic level is the observable chemical phenomena that can include experiences from students everyday lives such as colour changes, observing new products being formed and others disappearing. In order to communicate about these macroscopic phenomena, chemists commonly use the symbolic level of representation that includes pictorial, algebraic, physical and computational forms such as chemical equations, graphs, reaction mechanisms, analogies and model kits. The submicroscopic level of representation, based on the particulate theory of matter, is used to explain the macroscopic phenomena in terms of the movement of particles such as electrons, molecules, and atoms. These submicroscopic entities are real but they are too small to be observed, so chemists describe their characteristics and behaviour using symbolic representations to construct mental images. We contend, as illustrated in figure 1, that all three levels of representation are integral in developing an understanding of the chemistry concepts under investigation. Students understanding of the role of each level of representation macroscopic, symbolic and submicroscopic as well as the relationships between each level is often assumed by chemistry teachers who commonly use all three levels simultaneously. Furthermore, teachers often assume that students can easily transfer from one level to another (Johnstone 1982). In comparing the perceptions of experts and novices on a variety of chemical representations, Kozma and Russell (1997) concluded that novices used only one form of representation, and rarely could transform to other forms, whereas the experts transformed easily. Novices relied on the surface features, for example lines, numbers and colour, to classify the representations, whereas experts used an underlying and meaningful basis for their categorization. The study highlighted the need for representational competence, including an understanding of the features, merits and differences of each form, and showed the significance of computer animations in linking the various representations. Similarly, Copolo and Hounshell (1995) consider this difficult task of mental

THE ROLE OF REPRESENTATIONS IN CHEMISTRY

1355

Table 1.

A description of each type of explanation used in the analysis (from Mamiala and Treagust 2001).
Description A familiar phenomenon or experience is used to explain the unfamiliar A phenomenon is given human characteristics to make it more familiar An explanation that is relevant to the explainees personal experience An explanation demonstrated through the solving of a problem Using a scientific model to explain a phenomenon

Type of explanation Analogical Anthropomorphic Relational Problem based Model based

Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

transference to be given little consideration, and Johnstone (1982: 379) referred to the mental gymnastics of slipping and sliding from one level to another as a necessary skill in understanding chemistry. Explanations and their relationship to representations While the macroscopic observable chemical phenomena are the basis of chemistry, explanations of these phenomena usually rely on the symbolic and submicroscopic level of representations. Consequently, the ability of students to understand the role of each level of chemical representation and the ability to transfer from one level to another is an important aspect of generating understandable explanations. The simultaneous use of macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representations has been shown to reduce students alternative conceptions in the teaching and learning of chemical concepts (Russell et al. 1997). Research studies have shown that it is essential for teachers explanations to be student friendly and compatible with the students existing explanatory knowledge (Treagust and Harrison 1999). Dagher and Cossman (1992) identified 10 types of verbal explanations used by science teachers in US junior high school classrooms. Based on research in South African science classrooms, Mamiala and Treagust (2001) expanded Dagher and Cossmans framework to include a more extensive range of explanations. For the research in this article, the five most prevalent types of explanations were analogical, anthropomorphic, relational, problem based, and model based (see table 1). Two levels of understanding Instrumental understanding (knowing how) and relational understanding (knowing why) are differentiated by the depth of understanding and the application of knowledge that the learner exhibits (Skemp 1976). The instrumental level reflects a rote-learning synopsis where the learner knows a rule and is able to use it; on the other hand, relational understanding reflects meaningful learning in which the student knows what to do and why they are doing it. Skemp analysed the merits of each type of understanding, with instrumental being easier and quicker to grasp and providing immediate rewards and success, whereas relational is more adaptable to new tasks. The proposed knowledge schema that a student develops at an instrumental level of understanding would be represented by discrete units, whereas

1356

D. TREAGUST ET AL.

Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

Figure 2. Relationship between levels of understanding and levels of chemical representation.

at a relational level a students schema of knowledge would be linked and interconnected (see figure 2). Skemp emphasized the significance and the subtlety of the differences between the two types of learning, in that the students may know the same facts of the subject but their way of knowing is different. This epistemological perspective draws attention to the importance of foundation learning being presented in situ as part of a conceptual structure or schema. For chemistry, the conceptual schema includes the three levels of chemical representation macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic levels of representation. The degree of linking between the three levels can provide some insight into the ontological knowledge network of the learner. Skemp differentiates two types of learning, whereas Buxton (1978) distinguishes four different stages from instrumental to relational understanding rote, observational, insightful and formal. It is anticipated that the greater linking between the levels of chemical representation will enhance students understanding of the concepts. The inter-relationship between the levels of understanding and the use of different representations in chemistry is used to investigate the research question: What is the role of symbolic and submicroscopic representations on the comprehensibility of chemical phenomenon and how do these representations provide meaning? The two parts of the research question correspond to two levels of analysis: the description of the impact of particular representations and the assessment of the potential of the explanation to lead to a deeper understanding of a chemical concept. Methodology The data from two independent studies conducted in Year 11 chemistry classes in co-educational high schools in Perth, Western Australia complement each other in that they both investigated the use and role of explanations in learning chemistry.

THE ROLE OF REPRESENTATIONS IN CHEMISTRY

1357

Study 1 provides a teacher perspective and study 2 provides a student perspective. The studies took place at different high schools, in classes in which students had a range of academic achievement and whose average age was 16 years. The selection of the schools was based on the teachers volunteering to be involved in the research, the geographic location of the school, and the availability and suitability of classes. Both studies involved student volunteers who had chosen to study chemistry in senior high school.

Study 1: Introductory physical chemistry The first study involved observations of two chemistry teachers over a 10-week period while they taught topics including the quantitative composition of substances, chemical equations and reacting masses, electron configuration of atoms, structure and bonding of metals, ionic substances, covalent molecular substances and covalent network substances, the periodic table and gases. A total of 31 50-minute lessons were observed, 17 with one teacher and 14 with the other. The teachers made use of a variety of explanations, choosing those most appropriate for the content and format to suit their students learning styles. The two teachers, who each had more than 20 years experience in the classroom, were given a broad outline of the purpose of the study and were encouraged to teach in their normal style, despite the presence of researchers in the classroom. Both teachers were interviewed about their choice, justification and delivery of the chemical explanations.

Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

Study 2: Introductory organic chemistry The second study involved the implementation of a model-based teaching programme for introductory organic chemistry including topics on the structures and properties of alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, cyclo-alkanes, nomenclature, isomerism, and substitution, addition and combustion reactions. This study, with one chemistry teacher who had over 20 years teaching experience, involved observing 24 lessons of two chemistry classes over a 3-week period. The teacher was the head of science at his school and, during the observed lessons, the teaching approach involved activities that required the students to build representations of chemical compounds using ball-and-stick chemical models. With each class, the students worked in pairs, discussing their answers and recording their results as structural formula representations

Common methodology for study 1 and study 2 Qualitative data sources for both studies came from classroom observations by two participant researchers, interviews with teachers and students, and audio-taping students interactions during group work to identify explanatory occurrences that involved submicroscopic and symbolic representations. The participant researchers took notes on their observations. In study 1, where possible, both teachers were interviewed after chemistry lessons and were asked prepared questions about their choice and delivery of chemical explanations. In study 2, six pairs of students were

1358

D. TREAGUST ET AL.

Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

randomly selected each lesson to be audio-recorded. In addition, the researchers questioned students throughout the lessons during group work. The audio recordings were translated, reviewed and coded for evidence relating to the use of symbolic and submicroscopic representations in learning chemistry. A variety of explanations using various representations in common chemistry topics provided a typical sample of chemical explanations. Both studies provided examples of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in explanations of chemical phenomena to address the first part of the research question. The explanations were examined in terms of their intended level of understanding in order to respond to the second part of the research question. The types of explanations in both studies were based on the framework developed by Mamiala and Treagust (2001) (see table 1). The authors took on the role of participant observers (Merriam 1998) in order to document both teachers explanations and students understanding of these explanations. Two researchers worked together to cross-check the data and classify the explanations to ensure an accurate interpretation of the descriptive analyses of the classroom discourses, which were initially based on the classroom observations with supporting evidence from the interview data.

Results and discussion Representative examples of the role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations have been selected from both studies. The data presented include the concept to be learnt, the type of explanation used, a portion of the transcript of the learning situation, an analysis of the teaching event in terms of the submicroscopic and symbolic representations used, and whether instrumental or relational learning was intended and/or attainable. Study 1: Introductory physical chemistry In the first study, five teacher explanations analogical, anthropomorphic, relational, problem based, and model based are described. Analogical explanation for limiting reagent. The teacher started the lesson by giving a brief definition of the concept of limiting reagent. Teacher: A limiting reagent is the one chemical in a reaction that determines how much of the other chemicals are going to be used up. When you are given the following reaction: MgCO3 + 2HCl MgCl2 + CO2 + H2O 1.70 g 1.46 g

and the amounts reacting are as shown. Which one will you say is a limiting reagent? Student: Multiply 1.46 by 2 and divide by the molecular mass . . . Teacher: Why multiply by 2 . . .?

THE ROLE OF REPRESENTATIONS IN CHEMISTRY

1359

A student wanted to multiply by 2 because of the numerical coefficient in HCl; the teacher recognized this issue and introduced an analogy. Teacher: In a particular community there are 20 male dancers and 20 female dancers . . . one male is with one female dancer. How many groups will be on the dancing floor? Student: Twenty. Teacher: You have one male partnering with one female . . . there will be nobody sitting. If you have a situation where one male dancer needs two female dancers, how many groups will be on the dancing floor? Student: Ten. Teacher: How many people will not be dancing? Student: Ten males.
Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

In this teaching scenario, the teacher used a variety of symbolic representations: the equation, the numerical values of the amounts of chemical compounds, as well as the analogy to help the students visualize the concept. Analogies are a common feature with students everyday language and the teachers ability to use them effectively contributes towards students understanding of chemical phenomena (Gabel 1998, Thiele and Treagust 1994). According to Dagher and Cossman (1992: 364), analogical explanations are when a familiar situation similar to the unfamiliar phenomenon to be explained is used to provide the explanation. A correspondence is assumed to exist between aspects of the analogical situation and those of the actual phenomenon. During the post-lesson interview, the teacher commented on the relevance of the dancing analogy to the students: Teacher: In Australia, it makes sense because the students look forward to the annual ball. The ball is one of the most eagerly awaited events in ones change of lives, and influences the attitudes, self-esteem, morale and personality of the kids. The teacher was asked why it is necessary to use a lot of explanations for some concepts? Teacher: For difficult concepts, I use a lot of questioning techniques and a fair bit of reinforcing techniques. On top of that, the limiting reagent, the excess reagent, types of products and stoichiometry requires much more explanation at a ground level. I usually use an analogy and I think it is going well with these students. When asked about the limitations of the analogy, the teacher responded: Teacher: So even this dancing partners analogy becomes useless because we are dealing with the same boys and girls in different dancing . . . But in chemical reactions, we are dealing with different chemicals in entirely different chemical reactions.

1360

D. TREAGUST ET AL.

In the discussion of limiting reagents, the symbolic representation of the equation and the analogy helped to develop the submicroscopic representation of the limiting reagent concept, providing an image of something being left over or, conversely, all used up. The proposed submicroscopic representation to be understood at the molecular level is for the molecules to combine and react on a one-to-two ratio. The classroom observations indicated that the students appeared to follow this type of explanation with interest. The teachers comments indicated that he attributed the success of the analogy to the meaning that the analogy had for these particular students. The teacher was aware of the difficulty of the concept and used multiple strategies to reinforce the concept. When students can apply the concept of limiting reagents successfully, they are able to develop a relational level of understanding of the concept because they are able to transfer from moles to grams to chemicals easily; that is, from submicroscopic to symbolic and to macroscopic levels of representation.
Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

Anthropomorphic explanation for the periodic table. In this teaching scenario, the teacher introduced the periodic table and made comments about the elements in the groups. Teacher: . . . this is also called a periodic table [Teacher pointing to a periodic table hanging on the wall]. In the periodic table the horizontal rows are called periods and the vertical columns are called groups. The first column is . . . called alkali metals. So the surname of the first group is Alkali, Mr Alkali and the family name of the second group is Mr Alkali Earth Metals. I wont go into surnames of all the other families. Groups between II and III . . . they have schizophrenic chemical behaviour, that is, multiple behaviours. Coming to the last column, they come from the house of the lords. Noble gases these elements live in the high society, they do not mix with low class people like you and me. Let us see why are they such high society. This scenario provides an example of an anthropomorphic explanation that occurs when a phenomenon is rendered more familiar by attributing human characteristics to the nonhuman agent(s) involved (Dagher and Cossman 1992: 364). Anthropomorphic explanations have the potential to be misinterpreted or misunderstood because, in this case, there is a likelihood that some students are not familiar with the term schizophrenic and this may result in their inability to understand the intended meaning of the representation. The teachers explanation was macroscopic and symbolic in nature since it made use of observable behaviour of chemicals with reference to students everyday experiences and presented the elements as symbols. The submicroscopic level of representation was presented by the subatomic structure of elements and their relationship to the reactivity of the element, thus linking the macroscopic and the submicroscopic levels. The aim of the explanation was to demonstrate a relational understanding of the chemical concept of an elements behaviour in relation to its position on the periodic table.

THE ROLE OF REPRESENTATIONS IN CHEMISTRY

1361

Problem-solving explanation to determine the empirical formulae of an anhydrous salt. In this lesson, the teacher used the results from a laboratory class to illustrate how an empirical formula was derived. He started by briefing students on how he had prepared his sample of anhydrous barium chloride during the previous lesson. Teacher: This is how I prepared the sample of anhydrous barium chloride anhydrous means without water [Teacher responding to a question by student]. Initially we need to find the weight of the barium chloride before drying it [He then wrote on the board as follows]. Water of crystallisation of BaCl2XH2O Mass of dry crucible (empty): = Mass of dry crucible + sample = Mass of BaCl2XH2O: = =

Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

37.56 g 41.80 g 41.80g37.56 g 4.24 g

At this stage the teacher commented about the BaCl2XH2O having lost water of crystallization. He continued on the board. Mass of crucible and dry BaCl2 Mass of water of crystallisation Mass of dry BaCl2 = 41.20 g = 41.80 g41.20 g = 0.6g = 4.24g0.6 g = 3.64 g BaCl2 3.64 g 3.64/208.20 g 0.0174 0.0174/0174 1 1

Mass ratio Mole ratio Whole no. Ratio Empirical formula

H2O 0.6 g 0.6 g/18.016 g 0.0333 0.0333/0174 1.91 2 BaCl22H2O

This explanation based on problem-solving is characterized by a concept or a phenomenon being explained or clarified during the process of solving a problem or answering a question. In explaining the problem, students practical experiences were related to the macroscopic representation, but also there was frequent use of symbolic representations, including chemical symbols, chemical equations, and numerical data. The teachers approach to solving problems of this type with the students in the classroom appeared to be effective because later, when given additional problems to solve on their own, students knew exactly what was required. The laboratory work and the associated calculations justified the symbolic formula and served to link the macroscopic and symbolic levels of representation. Students completing similar problems may only have an instrumental understanding, but when they successfully completed problems where some application was required, it is likely that some relational understanding would be achieved.

1362

D. TREAGUST ET AL.

Figure 3.

A diagram of the atom.

Model-based explanation for atomic structure. In this teaching scenario, about atomic structure, the teacher explained that: Teacher: There is not much of mathematics and calculations in this case, but use of diagrams and the following models. [Teacher defined the atom and gave a historical background of its origin] an atom cannot be cut (John Dalton) . . . it is very abstract . . . Later, people discovered that the atom can be cut . . . In science, you need to stand your ground as long as you have evidence and be willing to change your ideas as new evidence arises. Look how it went: John Dalton, Thompson, Rutherford and Niels Bohr. A nucleus is a collection of particles not a bag where you stored something. [Teacher drew the diagram on the board] (see figure 3). The teacher continued to explain the movement of electrons using this model and he made use of an analogical explanation of a fans blades to clarify the motion of electrons around the nucleus, to illustrate the Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle in a simplified form. Teacher: When the fan is stationery you can identify the number of blades, but as it is turned full blast is it possible to identify each blade? No, it is blurred. Therefore it is the same with electrons, hence the name electron cloud. You cannot identify each and every electron since they are moving at a high speed. Although this model-based explanation concluded with an analogically based explanation, its emphasis was more on the elaboration of the various models that are used to represent the structure of an atom. Many symbolic representations provide a visual representation of the submicroscopic level. Despite the symbolic representations being depictions of reality that may not be accurate, they can provide tools to help explain features that are not visible. Here the teacher again used multiple representations models, analogies, drawings and descriptions to explain the atomic structure of the atom. The atomic models were presented factually, which most likely led to instrumental understanding since the emphasis was on knowing how rather than knowing why. Relational explanation for everyday chemical experience. In this lesson, the teacher related movement of molecules to students everyday experiences. Teacher: When you are in a restaurant you can tell from the smell coming from the kitchen that the chef is preparing something nice for you. How are you able to tell?

Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

THE ROLE OF REPRESENTATIONS IN CHEMISTRY

1363

Of course, from the smell Can you see smell? No. What do you think smell is? Not sure . . . [inaudible] Those are molecules, they have travelled from the kitchen into your nose and yet you did not see them. Do you make sense in what I am saying? Student: Yes, Sir [although he said yes, the student appeared not to be convinced] This scenario is an example of a relational explanation referring to the relevance of an explanation to an explainee. In this type of explanation, a more simplified version of the unfamiliar concept is related to familiar experiences of the learner. The explanation required students to imagine something that they cannot see. The submicroscopic representation of moving molecules, carrying a smell a macroscopic quality may prove difficult for students to accept easily. In the previous discussion, the teacher expected the students to be able to transfer between the two levels immediately, thereby intending to engage students in relational understanding; however, the final comment by the student indicated that this may not have been successful. Study 2: Introductory organic chemistry All the explanations in study 2 can be classified as model-based explanations because the students were required to construct the organic structures of the compounds they were learning about. At least two symbolic representations were used for each task: the ball-and-stick model and the written structural formula, with additional modes included where possible. Four examples of explanations used by the students are reported. Model-based explanations for a three-dimensional structure of hydrocarbon. The teacher described models as representations of chemical substances, and students practiced transferring from the three-dimensional symbolic ball-and-stick representation to the two-dimensional symbolic structural formula representations. The teacher highlighted the differences between the two representations being used. Teacher: It is not always convenient to have your models with you so we draw a structural formula a two-dimensional representation. Teacher: Obviously an advantage of our model is that it allows us to visualise threedimensional models. It also allows us to remember that these things have energy and that these things are moving all the time twisting, turning vibrating. Although energy, or the twisting, turning and vibration of the methyl group, cannot be seen, the teacher was able to effectively use a model that provided an image and a meaning to the explanation to explain the submicroscopic process. The teachers use of the phrase twisting, turning, vibrating illustrated his attempt to focus on the submicroscopic level of representation. However, modelling skills are not inherent in learning or teaching, and the analogical relations of the reality and the model or

Student: Teacher: Student: Teacher: Student: Teacher:

Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

1364

D. TREAGUST ET AL.

representations need to be established by the student. The teacher appreciated this and stated: Teacher: Now it doesnt matter if this methyl group is over here or over there. You can imagine because you can flip these around [referring to the structural formula and the ball-and-stick model] just like you can with your plastic models. Subsequently, the ability to transfer from one symbolic representation to another was practised in these lessons, with the teacher always reverting to the structural formula representations on the board to explain and compare chemical compounds. Students eventually chose to work without the ball-and-stick model, saying to one another: Just do it on paper, we dont need the model. The symbolic and submicroscopic chemical representations used in this scenario take on a relational form of understanding that helped to forge links between familiar and unfamiliar concepts. Model-based explanations for the structure and formula of alkanes. In this learning episode, when students made pentane from models, their conversation with each other reinforced the number of carbon and hydrogen atoms required and the lengths of the bonds. The explanation of the structure was primarily instrumental learning in that the students were required to follow specific instructions. In the following dialogue during this activity, students reinforced their understanding of the bonding structure for carbon, the general formula for an alkane and compared the symbols for different bonds and different atoms. Student 2: Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So far I have five Ive got to connect three more carbons together Student 2: Its not going to sit very nice Student 1: This can be pentane pentane alright? Student 3: Harold Student 1: Yes Student 1: Twelve hydrogen Student 1: 1, 2, 3, 4,. .6, 7, 8, 9 one more, three more . . . Student 2: Three more? Student 1: Yeah Student 1: This isnt pentane. Oh yes it is I didnt count that one Student 2: What are the green ones? Student 1: Is this pentane? Student 2: Green [ones] are chlorine Student 1: Andrew, you used the wrong bond on the top. Student 3: Thats a better pentane Student 1: These bonds are long bonds at the top Researcher: How many carbons? Student 1: Five and twelve hydrogen, pentane? Teacher: Yes thats pentane Student 1: For octane well just expand it further Student 2: Is it really chlorine? Chlorine! Student 1: Gotcha. This will destroy your lungs Student 2: Chlorine gas, chlorine gas

Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

THE ROLE OF REPRESENTATIONS IN CHEMISTRY

1365

Students repeatedly counted along the ball-and-stick model, identifying the longest chain. This was invaluable for naming compounds correctly, as in the example 1, 2, 3, 4, so its butane, so its methyl butane. The students dialogue was indicative that they were confirming and consolidating their nomenclature rules with the aid of the ball-and-stick models. The reference to chlorine gas when referring to the green balls suggests that students were linking the symbolic representational level to the macroscopic level. Students were able to identify the pattern in the nomenclature and structural formula, suggested by the comment for octane we will just expand it further. Working in pairs proved to be an effective way for students to help and challenge each other. The students explanations of possible structural configurations to each other using the models and the diagrams was indicative of a relational level of understanding. This example supports recommendations of Harrison and Treagust (1998: 424) that learning to model should be overtly social and involve discussion and negotiation of meaning.
Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

Model-based explanations for isomeric structures. The following dialogue provides evidence of model-based explanations where the students used the ball-and-stick models and the structural formula to help identify alternative and feasible isomers and understand the naming conventions. Students made inferences based on their observations of the model. Skemp refers to relational explanations as building up a conceptual structure (schema) from which its possessor can (in principle) produce an unlimited number of plans for getting from any starting point within his schema to any finishing point (1976: 25). In this scenario, the students used the balland-stick model to explain the differences between isomers and related these differences to other representational forms such as the structural formula. In this way, the symbolic representations provided explanations that had a relational understanding. Student 1: Next one, you are going to have two chlorines in the middle. That means 2, 2 dichloropropane, it is all dichloropropane. Student 2: This is what we have just done, it is still . . . Student 1: It is all propane and it is dichloropropane and it is just the number and the fact that the number is 1, 1; 1, 2; 2, 2. Student 2: Perhaps 1,3 . . . What about 1, 3? Student 1: Fine. 2, 2 is here and 1, 2 is just like this. Student 2: 2,3? Student 1: No it will be 1, 2 Student 2: I see. I did not realise you were getting at it. It will be what? Student 1: On what? Student 2: 1, 2; 1, 3 Student 1: 1, 2; 1, 3 Student 2: and then 2, 2; . . . 1, 2. Student 1: What about 1, 1; 1, 2; 1, 3 and that is it? Student 2: Yeah! Model-based explanations for identifying cistrans isomers. A second example of dialogue provides evidence of students using these opportunities of working with models to reinforce their understanding through a multiple perspective view of the model often repeating the same idea over and over, getting positive feedback from

1366

D. TREAGUST ET AL.

their partner. Students looked for positive reinforcement from their peers and their teacher, with correct responses building their confidence and understanding. A students submicroscopic representation was constructed as a result of the information received and interpreted by the student. The use of discussion with peers and with the teacher helped the students confirm their understanding and acceptance of their representation. Both instrumental and relational understanding levels of understanding were exhibited. Understanding the meaning of the new terminology of trans and cis forms, applying the naming rules to the new compounds, and identifying all the possible structures are examples of instrumental understanding. Transferring from the three-dimensional, ball-and-stick model to the two-dimensional, structural formula, the record in their notes shows a relational level of understanding. Student 1:
Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

Student 2: Student 1: Student 2:

Student 1: Student 1:

If we had the CH3 bond on the same side of the double bond as the chlorine . . . Ive already done that. We have . . . atoms. I say you put them both on the top, one on the bottom one on the top and both on the same side trans-chloropropene and then we have cischloropropene. Look this one is different. There are so many.

The co-operative discussions observed were enriching to both the explainee and the explainer. The task of explaining their ideas to fellow students revealed their misunderstandings and helped clarify their ideas. Students frequently asked the teacher for confirmation, even though they had already discussed an answer with their peers, and were confident they were correct. The value of this process is identified by Horwood, who concluded that the most neglected function of an explanation is its ability to enable the learner to become an independent explainer (1988: 48). Conclusions The data presented from teaching episodes in these two studies have provided examples of the use of symbolic and submicroscopic representations in explaining the macroscopic nature of chemical phenomenon from both teacher and student perspectives. The examples have attempted to show the potential of explanations in expanding the learners understanding of chemical phenomena. The abstract nature of chemistry and the need for the learner to develop a personal understanding of the submicroscopic nature of the chemical nature of matter necessitates the use of an extensive range of symbolic representations such as models, problems and analogies. Distinguishing the chemical content from the explanatory tools is not always obvious and, consequently, the role of explanations and the relationship of the symbolic representations to the macroscopic and submicroscopic levels should be overtly discussed. Two significant pedagogical issues about the role and use of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in understanding chemical explanations and implications for teaching chemistry arise from these teaching episodes.

THE ROLE OF REPRESENTATIONS IN CHEMISTRY

1367

1. Effective learning at a relational level of understanding requires simultaneous use of a variety of both levels of understanding and types of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. 2. Despite the efforts of the teacher, the role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations may or may not be understood by the learner. Representations are used to help the learner learn; however, the findings from both studies showed that students do not always understand the role of the representation that is assumed by the teacher. A significant factor in the students effective use of explanations in these studies was their ability to recognize the various representational forms of chemical phenomena and to transfer from one level of chemical representation to another (e.g. submicroscopic to macroscopic, symbolic to submicroscopic). The students conversations in study 2 demonstrated how they gradually became familiar with the mode of explanation, learning to use the various representations appropriately and interpreting their meaning accurately. The variety of explanation types analogical, anthropomorphic, relational, problem-solving and model based were used to explain chemical phenomena at one or more representational levels. The findings from both studies suggest that familiarity with the purpose of each level of representation can enhance a learners understanding and ability to explain a concept. Consequently, the development of students understanding from an instrumental to a relational level could be aided by linking their experiences of the behaviour of chemicals at the macroscopic level with the symbolic and submicroscopic levels of representation.

Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008

Note
Dr. Livy Thapelo Mamiala is now at the Faculty of Education, Vista University, Port Elizabeth, 6000, South Africa.

References
BUXTON, L. (1978). Four levels of understanding. Mathematics in Schools, 17, 36. COPOLO, C. F. and HOUNSHELL, P. B. (1995). Using three dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 295305. DAGHER, Z. and COSSMAN, G. (1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers: their nature and implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 361374. GABEL, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 233248. HARRISON, A. G. and TREAGUST, D. F. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98, 420429. HORWOOD, R. H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72, 4149. JOHNSTONE, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377379. KOZMA, R. B. and RUSSELL, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949968. MAMIALA, T. L. and TREAGUST, D. F. (2001). Teachers use of explanations in senior high school chemistry. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St Louis, MO.

1368

THE ROLE OF REPRESENTATIONS IN CHEMISTRY

MERRIAM, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass). RUSSELL, J. W., KOZMA, R. B., JONES, T., WYKOFF, J., MARX, N. and DAVIS, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronised macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 330334. SKEMP, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 2026. TREAGUST, D. F. and HARRISON, A. G. (1999). The genesis of effective scientific explanations for the classroom. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (London: Falmer), 2843. THIELE, R. B. and TREAGUST, D. F. (1994). An interpretive examination of high school chemistry teachers analogical explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 227242.

Downloaded By: [CDL Journals Account] At: 05:40 24 September 2008