Science and Mathematics Education Centre

The Role of Teaching Models and Chemical

Representations in Developing Students Mental Models
of Chemical Phenomena


Gail Diane Chittleborough


This thesis is presented for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
of
Curtin University of Technology




May 2004



Declaration


This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any
other degree or diploma in any university.
To the best of my knowledge and belief this thesis contains no material
previously published by any other person except where due acknowledgment has
been made.



Signature: .

Date: ...


ii
Dedication


This thesis is dedicated to my husband, Mark who has provided continual
support and encouragement to me and to the memory of my father, the late Bill
Taprell.
iii
Abstract
Chemical representations play a vital part in the teaching and learning of
chemistry. The aim of this research was to investigate students understanding of
chemical representations and to ascertain the influence of chemical representations
on students developing mental models of chemical phenomena.
Three primary threads flowing through the thesis are models, representations
and learning. Each thread was found to play a vital part in students learning of
chemical content, in their learning of the scientific process and in their learning about
the process of learning itself. This research with students from Year 8 to first year
university level comprised four studies that provide comparisons between ages,
abilities, learning settings and teaching and learning approaches.
Students modelling ability was observed to develop and improve through
instruction and practice and usually coincided with an improvement in their
understanding of chemical concepts. While students were observed to actively use
models to make predictions and test ideas, some were not aware of the predictive
nature of models when asked about it. From the research, five characteristics of
scientific models have been identified: scientific models as multiple representations,
scientific models as exact replicas, scientific models as explanatory tools, how
scientific models are used, and the dynamic nature of scientific models. A theoretical
framework relating the four types of models teaching, scientific, mental and
expressed and a typology of models that highlights the significant attributes of
models, support the research results. The data showed that students ability to
describe the role of the scientific model in the process of science improved with their
increasing age and maturity.
The relationship between the three levels of chemical representation of matter
the macroscopic level, the sub-microscopic level and the symbolic level revealed
some complexities concerning the representational and theoretical qualities and the
reality of each level. The research data showed that generally most students had a
good understanding of the macroscopic and symbolic levels of chemical
representation of matter. However, students understanding of the sub-microscopic
iv
level varied, with some students being able to spontaneously envisage the sub-
microscopic view while for others their understanding of the sub-microscopic level
of chemical representation was lacking. To make sense of the sub-microscopic level,
students appreciation of the accuracy and detail of any scientific model, or
representation upon which their mental model is built, depended on them being able
to distinguish reality from representation, distinguish reality from theory, know what
a representation is, understand the role of a representation in the process of science,
and understand the role of a theory in the process of science.
In considering learning, the importance of an individuals modelling ability
was examined alongside the role of chemical representations and models in
providing clear and concise explanations. Examining the links forged between the
three levels of chemical representation of matter provided an insight into how
students were learning and understanding chemical concepts. Throughout this
research, aspects of students metacognition and intention were identified as being
closely related to their development of mental models.
The research identified numerous factors that influenced learning, including
internal factors such as students prior chemical and mathematical knowledge, their
modelling ability and use of chemical representations, motivation, metacognitive
ability and time management as well as external factors such as organisation,
assessment, teaching resources, getting feedback and good explanations. The choice
of learning strategies by students and instructors appeared to be influenced by those
factors that influenced learning.
Feedback to students, in the form of discussion with classmates, online
quizzes and help from instructors on their understanding was observed to be
significant in promoting the learning process. Many first year university non-major
chemistry students had difficulties understanding chemical concepts due to a limited
background knowledge in chemistry and mathematics. Accordingly, greater
emphasis at the macroscopic level of representation of matter with contextual
references is recommended. The research results confirmed the theoretical construct
for learning chemistry the rising iceberg that suggests all chemistry teaching
begins at the macroscopic level, with the sub-microscopic and symbolic levels being
introduced as needed. More of the iceberg becomes visible as the students mental
v
model and depth of understanding increases.
In a variety of situations, the changing status of a concept was observed as
students understanding in terms of the intelligibility, plausibility and fruitfulness of
a concept developed. The research data supported four aspects of learning
epistemological, ontological, social/affective and metacognitive as being
significant in the students learning and the development of their mental models.
Many university students, who are mature and are experienced learners, exhibited
strong metacognitive awareness and an intentional approach to learning. It is
proposed that the intentional and metacognitive learning approaches and strategies
could be used to encourage students to be more responsible for their own learning.


vi
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor David Treagust for his continuing support and
guidance in the role of supervisor. He was instrumental in the commencement of this
research and has shown confidence and faith in my abilities. My co-supervisor Dr
Mauro Mocerino has also been very accommodating, welcoming me into the Faculty
of Applied Chemistry, and I would like to thank him for the time and efforts that he
has afforded me.
I would like to thank my husband Mark and our three sons, Simon, Timothy
and Tristan for being patient and tolerant of the demands that my research has
imposed on the family.
Thanks to the teachers and school students who participated in the research.
Sincere thanks to the unit co-ordinator and lecturer for the two first year introductory
chemistry units at Curtin University for consenting to participate in the research
despite the disruptions it may have caused. Thanks also to the demonstrators and
students in the first year introductory chemistry units. I would like to express
particular gratitude to those students who volunteered to participate in the research,
giving up their valuable free time and willingly expressing their understandings to
me.
Thanks to Dr Thapelo Mamiala with whom I worked in developing the
instruments for the first two studies.
I appreciated the rapport that developed between staff involved in the
Learning Effectiveness Alliance Program (LEAP) at the university under the
leadership of Professor Mario Zadnik. The feedback from other members of the
LEAP projects was always positive and practical.
Thanks to Susan Rennie for transcribing some of the audiotapes and to
Suzanne Jelenich for proofreading the manuscript.
The congeniality and encouragement among the postgraduate students and
staff at the Science and Mathematics Centre promoted a positive and supportive
working environment: particular thanks go to Professor Lonie Rennie, Dr Chi-Yan
Tsui, Robyn Chien, Gina Williams, Dr Jill Aldridge, Fiona Budgen and Rosalie
Wood.
vii
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 1
MODELS, REPRESENTATIONS AND LEARNING 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Background 2
1.3 The Nature and Scope of the Research 3
1.4 Research Questions 4
1.4.1 Objective 1 4
1.4.2 Objective 2 4
1.4.3 Objective 3 5
1.5 Significance of the Research 6
1.6 Justification of the Research 7
1.7 Definitions and Terminology 8
1.8 The Organisation of the Thesis 11
1.9 Summary 13
CHAPTER 2 14
LITERATURE REVIEW: MODELS AND CHEMICAL REPRESENTATIONS 14
2.1 IntroductIon 15
2.2 The Dilemmas of Understanding Chemistry 15
2.2.1 Three Levels of Chemical Representation of Matter 17
2.2.2 Representation 18
2.2.2a The metaphorical nature of representations 19
2.2.2b Representational levels of chemical representations 19
2.2.2c Explanatory power of symbolic and sub-microscopic levels of
chemical representation of matter 23
2.2.3 Alternative Conceptions 25
2.2.3a Anomalies in chemical explanations 26
2.2.4 Relating Chemistry to Everyday Life 26
2.2.5 Language 27
2.3 Symbolic Representations of Chemical Phenomena 29
2.3.1 Chemical Models 30
2.3.1a Chemical models as copies or replicas of reality 30
2.3.1b Chemical models real or representations? 31
2.3.1c Visualising the particulate nature of matter 33
2.3.2 Diagrams and Pictorial Representations 34
2.3.2a Diagrams enhancing visualisation 34
2.3.2b Diagrams providing conceptual links 35
2.3.3 Chemical Equations 35
2.4 Modelling Ability 38
2.4.1 Modelling-Based Skills 38
2.4.2 Three Levels of Modelling Ability 38
2.5 Typologies of Models 40
2.6 Teaching Approaches 42
2.6.1 Problem Solving 42
2.6.2 Laboratory Work 44
2.6.2a Importance of laboratory work 45
2.6.2b Execution, recording and assessment of laboratory activities 46
2.6.2c Relevance of laboratory activities to real life 47
2.6.3 Cooperative Learning 48
2.7 Theoretical Framework for Understanding Chemistry 49
2.8 Conclusion 52
viii
CHAPTER 3 55
LITERATURE REVIEW: LEARNING CHEMISTRY 55
3.1 Introduction 55
3.2 Types of Learning 56
3.3 Constructivist Approach 57
3.3.1 Individual Constructivism 58
3.3.2 Social Constructivism 60
3.4 Conceptual Change Theory of Learning 60
3.4.1 Individual Conceptual Change 60
3.4.2 Multiple Perspectives of Conceptual Change Theory 62
3.4.2a Epistemological perspective 62
3.4.2b Ontological perspective 63
3.4.2c Social/affective perspective 65
3.4.3 Intentional Conceptual Change 66
3.5 Metacognition 67
3.5.1 Metacognitive Teaching Resources and Strategies 69
3.5.2 Metacognition and Conceptual Change 70
3.6 Mental Models 72
3.6.1 The Mental Model and Conceptual Change 73
3.6.2 Instrumental/Relational Learning 74
3.6.3 Mental Models in Chemistry 75
3.7 Chemical Explanations 76
3.8 Conclusion 77
CHAPTER 4 80
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 80
4.1 Methodology of Educational Research 80
4.2 Quantitative Data 83
4.2.1 Surveys and Questionnaires 84
4.2.2 Statistical Analysis 84
4.3 Qualitative Data 85
4.3.1 Participant Researcher 85
4.3.2 Written Comments 85
4.3.3 Dialogue 85
4.3.4 Interviews 85
4.3.5 Coding 87
4.3.6 Interpretive Analysis 87
4.4 Validity and Reliability of the Research 89
4.4.1 Validity of the Research 89
4.4.2 Reliability of Data 90
4.4.3 Objectivity/Subjectivity/Bias 91
4.4.4 The Evolution of the Data Collection 91
4.5 Ethical issues 92
4.5.1 Consent 92
4.5.2 Identification 93
4.6 The Four Studies 94
4.7 Study 1 Learning Introductory Organic Chemistry in Secondary
School 98
4.7.1 The Purpose of Study 1 98
4.7.2 Design and Procedures 98
4.7.3 Quantitative Data Sources 99
4.7.3a Models 100
4.7.3b Molecular Chemical Representations (MCR) 100
4.7.3c My Views of Models and Modelling in Science (VOMMS) 101
4.7.4 Qualitative Data Sources 102
4.8 Study 2 Secondary School Students Views on Models 103
ix
4.8.1 Purpose of Study 2 103
4.8.2 Design and Procedures 103
4.8.3 Quantitative Data Sources 104
4.8.3a Scientific Models (SM) 104
4.8.3b Students Understanding of Models in Science (SUMS) 104
4.8.3c My Views of Models and Modelling in Science (VOMMS) 105
4.8.4 Quantitative Data Analysis 105
4.8.4a Scientific Models 105
4.8.4b Students Understanding of Models in Science (SUMS) 105
4.8.4c My Views of Models and Modelling in Science (VOMMS) 109
4.9 Study 3 Learning Introductory Chemistry for Non-majors 109
4.9.1 Purpose of Study 3 109
4.9.2 Design and Procedure 110
4.9.3 Quantitative Data Sources 112
4.9.3a Initial questionnaire 113
4.9.3b Student Unit Experience questionnaire 113
4.9.3c Worksheets 114
4.9.4 Qualitative Data Sources 116
4.9.4a First interview 116
4.9.4b Second interview 117
4.9.5 Data Analysis Procedures 120
4.10 Study 4 Learning Introductory Chemistry and the Implementation of
Online Pre-laboratory Exercises for Non-majors 120
4.10.1 Introduction 120
4.10.2 Purpose of Study 4 121
4.10.3 Design and Procedures 121
4.10.4 Quantitative Data Sources 124
4.10.4a Introductory questionnaire 124
4.10.4b Students Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) 125
4.10.4c Online survey 125
4.10.4d Utilisation of the WebCT chemistry site 125
4.10.5 Qualitative Data Sources 126
4.10.6 Data Analysis Procedures 126
4.11 Conclusion 127
CHAPTER 5 128
MODELS AND MODELLING ABILITY 128
5.1 Objective 1 128
5.2 Students Perceptions of Models 129
5.2.1 Models 130
5.2.2 Scientific Models (SM) 130
5.2.3 My Views on Models and Modelling in Science (VOMMS)
Studies 1, 2, 3 and 4 134
5.2.3a Models as representations 138
5.2.3b The multiplicity of models 139
5.2.3c The dynamic nature of models 140
5.2.3d Summary of the VOMMS instrument 142
5.2.4 Students Understanding of Models (SUMS) 142
5.2.4a Models as multiple representations (MR) 146
5.2.4b Models as exact replicas (ER) 146
5.2.4c Models as explanatory tools (ET) 146
5.2.4d The uses of scientific models (USM) 146
5.2.4e The changing nature of models (CNM) 147
5.2.5 General versus Scientific Models 147
5.2.6 Summary and Response to Research Question 1.1 150
5.3 Criteria That Students Use to Classify Models 150
5.3.1 Scientific Models as Multiple Representations 151
5.3.2 Scientific Models as Exact Replicas 153
5.3.3 Scientific Models as Explanatory Tools 157
5.3.4 How Scientific Models are Used 158
x
5.3.5 The Dynamic Nature of Scientific Models 159
5.3.6 A Typology of Models 162
5.3.7 Summary and Response to Research Question 1.2 163
5.4 Modelling Ability 164
5.4.1 Study 1- Learning Introductory Organic Chemistry in Secondary
School 165
5.4.2 Study 3 Learning Introductory Chemistry for Non-majors 167
5.4.2a Narelle (ID 6) 171
5.4.2b Alistair (ID 4) 176
5.4.2c Leanne (ID 12) 180
5.4.3 Study 4 Learning Introductory Chemistry and the
Implementation of Online Pre-laboratory Exercises for Non-
majors 183
5.4.4 Summary and Response to Research Questions 1.3 187
5.5 Learning with Models 190
5.5.1 A Theoretical Framework of Models 190
5.5.2 Chemical Epistemology 194
5.5.3 Summary and Response to Research Question 1.4 196
5.6 Conclusion 196
CHAPTER 6 199
THE THREE LEVELS OF CHEMICAL REPRESENTATION OF MATTER 199
6.1 Objective 2 199
6.2 Four Teaching Models of Chemical Compounds 200
6.2.1 Molecular Chemical Representations 200
6.2.2 Using Teaching Models Study 1 208
6.2.3 Teaching Models versus Scientific Models 211
6.2.4 Summary and Response to Research Question 2.1 211
6.3 Identifying Three Levels of Chemical Representation 212
6.3.1 Initial Ideas About Atoms 213
6.3.2 Worksheet 2 Physical State and Chemical State 215
6.3.3 Worksheet 3 - Symbolism in Chemistry 218
6.3.4 Laboratory Experience 219
6.3.5 Interview Results 220
6.3.6 Summary and Response to Research Question 2.2 224
6.4 Transferring from One Level To Another Study 1 225
6.4.1 Linking the symbolic and sub-microscopic chemical
representations 226
6.4.2 Model-based explanations of the structure and formula of
alkanes. 227
6.4.3 Model-based explanations for isomeric structures. 228
6.5 Transferring from One Level To Another Study 3 230
6.5.1 Worksheet 1 230
6.5.2 Worksheet 4 230
6.5.3 Interviews 232
6.6 Transferring from One Level To Another Study 4 233
6.6.1 Distillation 235
6.6.2 Fractionating Column Experiment 237
6.6.3 Column Chromatography 242
6.6.4 Chemical Equilibrium 245
6.6.5 Experiment Freezing Point Depression 251
6.6.6 Strong and Weak Acids 253
6.6.7 Structural Formulas 254
6.6.8 Logarithmic Relationships 256
6.6.9 Summary and Response to Research Question 2.3 257
6.7 Understanding Chemical Explanations 258
6.7.1 Three Levels of Chemical Representation of Matter 258
6.7.2 Chemical Explanations and Learning 261
xi
6.7.2a The epistemological aspect 263
6.7.2b The ontological aspect 264
6.7.2c The social/affective aspect 265
6.7.3 Appropriate Depth of Learning 266
6.7.4 Summary and Response to Research Question 2.4 267
6.8 Conclusion 267
CHAPTER 7 270
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONAL MENTAL MODELS 270
7.1 Objective 3 270
7.2 Factors That Influence Learning 271
7.2.1 Factors That Influence Learning Study 3 Learning
Introductory Chemistry for Non-majors 271
7.2.1a Prior chemical and mathematical knowledge 272
7.2.1b Modelling ability and the use of chemical representations 273
7.2.1c Motivation 276
7.2.1d Unit structure, organisation and time management 277
7.2.1e Assessment 279
7.2.1f Teaching resources 280
7.2.2 Factors That Influence Learning Study 4 Learning
Introductory Chemistry and the Implementation of Online Pre-
laboratory Exercises for Non-majors 281
7.2.2a Good explanations 282
7.2.2b Feedback 288
7.2.2c Motivation and Self-efficacy 288
7.2.2d Organisation 290
7.2.2e Utilisation of the resources available through the WebCT chemistry
site 290
7.2.3 Summary and Response to Research Question 3.1 292
7.3 Learning Strategies 294
7.3.1 Learning Strategies Study 1 Learning Introductory Organic
Chemistry in Secondary School 294
7.3.2 Learning Strategies Study 3 Learning Introductory Chemistry
for Non-majors 297
7.3.3 Learning Strategies Study 4 Learning Introductory Chemistry
and the Implementation of Online Pre-laboratory Exercises for
Non-majors 300
7.3.4 Summary and Response to Research Question 3.2 302
7.4 Development of Mental Models 303
7.4.1 Development of Mental Models Study 1 Learning
Introductory Organic Chemistry in Secondary School 303
7.4.2 Development of Mental Models Study 3 First Year
University, Non-major Chemistry Course 2001 306
7.4.3 Summary and Response to Research Question 3.3 308
7.5 Metacognition 309
7.5.1 Metacognitive Awareness 310
7.5.2 The Intentional Learner 311
7.5.3 Metacognition and the Intentional Learner 312
7.5.4 Summary and Response to Research Question 3.4 314
7.5 Conclusion 315
CHAPTER 8 318
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 318
8.1 Description of The Research 318
8.2 Theoretical Frameworks of the Research 319
8.3 Models and Modelling Ability 323
xii
8.4 The Three Levels of Chemical Representation of Matter 326
8.5 The Development of Personal Mental Models 331
8.6 Strengths and Uniqueness of the Research 333
8.6.1 Using a Variety of Data Sources 333
8.6.2 Using a Diverse Sample 334
8.7 Limitations of the Research 334
8.7.1 Sample and Sample Sizes 335
8.7.2 Particular Learning Situations 335
8.7.3 My Analysis and Interpretation 335
8.8 Implications for Teaching and Learning of Chemistry 336
8.8.1 Explanatory Tools Models and Chemical Representations 336
8.8.2 The Process of Science 337
8.8.3 Modelling Skills 338
8.8.4 Macroscopic Level of Chemical Representation 338
8.8.5 Sub-microscopic Level of Chemical Representation 339
8.8.6 Symbolic Level of Chemical Representation 340
8.8.7 Background Knowledge 341
8.8.8 Assessment Structure 341
8.8.9 Metacognitive Aspects of Learning 341
8.8.10 Feedback 342
8.8.11 Chemistry Teaching to Non-majors 343
8.9 Areas for Future Research 344
8.9.1 Using Technology to better investigate mental model
development 344
8.9.2 Teaching and Evaluating Modelling as a Skill 344
8.9.3 Integrating Modelling with the Three levels of Chemical
Representation of Matter 345
8.9.4 More Focus on Chemical Literacy 345
8.9.5 Developing Teachers Philosophy of Chemical Education 346
REFERENCES 347

xiii
List of Appendices
Appendix A 366
List of Abbreviations 366
Appendix B 368
Permission Slips for Studies 2, 3 and 4 368
Appendix C 374
Syllabus for Study 1 Learning Introductory Organic Chemistry in
Secondary School 374
Appendix D 376
Quantitative Data Sources for Study 1 Learning Introductory
Organic Chemistry in Secondary School 376
Appendix E 382
Quantitative Data Sources for Study 2 Secondary School Students
Views on Models 382
Appendix F 388
PSI (Personalised Student Instruction) Learning Program 388
Appendix G 390
Unit Outlines for Chemistry 117 and Chemistry 118 390
Appendix H 400
Quantitative Data Sources for Study 3 Learning Introductory
Chemistry for Non-majors 400
Appendix I 408
Worksheets 1 4 408
Appendix J 416
Interview Questions for Study 3 416
Appendix K 420
Learning Effectiveness Alliance Program (LEAP) Grant Application 420
Appendix L 426
Websites for Chemistry 117 and 118 426
Appendix M 432
Example of Pre-laboratory Exercises 432
Appendix N 436
Quantitative Data Sources for Study 4 Learning Introductory
Chemistry and the Implementation of Online Pre-laboratory
Exercises for Non-majors 436
Appendix O 442
Interview Questions for Study 4 442
Appendix P 454
Practical Test and Results for Study 1 454
Appendix Q 458
Laboratory Notes for Equilibrium Experiment 458
Appendix R 464
Typical Test for Topic 38 - Alcohols 464
Appendix S 466
Presentations and Publications 466
Appendix T 470
So you want to pass this unit 470

xiv
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Three Levels of Chemical Representation of Matter (Johnstone, 1982) 18
Figure 2.2 Examples of Each of the Three Levels of Chemical Representation of Matter 19
Figure 2.3 The Relationship Between the Three Levels of Chemical Representations and
Real and Represented Chemical Data 20
Figure 2.4 The Reality or Representational Status of the Three Levels of Chemical
Representation of Matter 21
Figure 2.5 Comparison of Two Schemes for Modelling Skills 39
Figure 2.6 The Exploding Triangle A Framework for Learning Chemistry 49
Figure 2.7 The Rising Iceberg : A Theoretical Framework for Learning Chemistry 51
Figure 3.1 Comparison of Students Modelling Ability, Knowledge Schema and Type of
Understanding 71
Figure 3.2 A Theoretical Framework Relating the Four Types of Models: Teaching,
Scientific, Mental and Expressed 78
Figure 4.1 Worksheet 2 Question 2 115
Figure 4.2 Worksheet 4, Question 1 116
Figure 4.3 Worksheet 4 Question 2 117
Figure 4.4 Focus Cards 1 and 2 118
Figure 4.5 Focus Card 3 119
Figure 4.6 Pre-laboratory Exercise Semester 1, Week 3, Question 1 123
Figure 5.1 Percentage Responses to the Preferred Alternative for Each Item in the VOMMS
Instrument for the Available Year Groups 137
Figure 5.2 The Process of Science Based on Student Responses to the VOMMS
Instrument 162
Figure 5.3 Still Photos from the Video Showing Students Modelling in Study 1 168
Figure 5.4 Narelles Drawing of the Structure of an Atom. 172
Figure 5.5 Concept Map Drawn by Narelle in the Initial Questionnaire 173
Figure 5.6 Narelles Answer to Question 2 in Worksheet 4 175
Figure 5.7 Alistairs Responses to the Concept Mapping Question in the Initial
Questionnaire. 177
Figure 5.8 The Links that Leanne Demonstrated Between the Three Levels of Chemical
Representation of Matter 183
Figure 5.9 A Theoretical Framework Relating the Four Types of Models: Teaching,
Scientific, Mental and Expressed, Showing Their Relationship to Learning 193
Figure 6.1 Comparisons of the Results for Studies 1 (n=36) and 3 (n=18) for Items 2-9 of the
MCR Instrument. 206
Figure 6.2 An Outline of Two Isomers of C6H14 209
Figure 6.3 Responses to the Question What do you think the atom looks like? 214
Figure 6.4 Responses to the Question What do you think the atom looks like? 215
Figure 6.5 Distillation Column as Presented in Diagram 1.1 of Pre-laboratory Exercises 235
Figure 6.6 Fractional Distillation as Presented in Diagram 1.5 of Pre-laboratory Exercises 238
Figure 6.7 Column Chromatography as Presented in Diagram 3.4 of Pre-laboratory
Exercises 244
Figure 6.8 Equilibrium Experiment as Presented in Diagram 4.3 of Pre-laboratory Exercises 245
Figure 6.9 Physical States of Matter as Presented in Diagram 5.1 of the Pre-laboratory
Exercises 251
Figure 6.10 Strong and Weak Acids as Presented in Diagram 8.8 of Pre-laboratory
Exercises 254
Figure 6.11 Triglyceride Esters as Presented in Diagram 6.3 of Pre-laboratory Exercises 254
Figure 6.12 Common Aldehydes and Ketones as Presented in Diagram 12.5 of Pre-
laboratory Exercises 256
Figure 6.13 The Relations Among [H3O
+
], pH, [OH
-
] and pOH as Presented in Diagram 8.8
of Pre-laboratory Exercises 257
Figure 6.14 The Relationship Between the Three Levels of Chemical Representation of
Matter and the Mental Model 263
Figure 7.1 Excerpt from the Discussion Board of the WebCT Site for Chemistry 118 293
Figure 7.2 Attributes of Different Types of Learners With the Different Motivation of Students
in Study 4 312
Figure 7.3 Four Dimensional Framework for Intentional Conceptual Change (ICC) 314
Figure 8.1 The Development of Ideas About Models and Learning 320
Figure 8.2 The Development of Ideas About Chemical Representations and Learning 321
Figure 8.3 The Development of Ideas About Learning and Understanding 322
xv
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Description of the Rusting of Iron at Each Level of Chemical Representation of
Matter 22
Table 3.1 The Social, Individual, and Teacher Perspectives of the Process of Conceptual
Change 59
Table 4.1 List of Data Sources and the Corresponding Identification Numbers 93
Table 4.2 Outline of the Four Studies 96
Table 4.3 The Studies Investigating the Research Questions 97
Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach Alpha Reliability of Scales of the Molecular
Chemical Representations Instrument for Study 1 (n=36) 101
Table 4.5 Factor Analysis of the 27-item Instrument Students Understanding of Models in
Science (SUMS) (n=228). 106
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of the Five Scales in the SUMS Instrument
(n= 228) 108
Table 4.7 Bi-variate Correlation of the Five Scales in the SUMS Instrument (n=228) 109
Table 4.8 Comparison of Age and Gender for the Students in Study 3 111
Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach Alpha Reliability of Scales of the Molecular
Chemical Representations Instrument for Study 3 (n=18) 113
Table 4.10 Comparison of Age and Gender for the Students in Study 4 122
Table 4.11 Example of Two Pre-laboratory Exercises Showing Feedback (in italics) 124
Table 5.1 Percentage Results for the Instrument Models with Year 11 Students in Study 1
(n=36) 131
Table 5.2 Percentage Responses to the Instrument Scientific Models Part 1 in Study 2
Showing Each Year Group (n=229) 132
Table 5.3 Percentage Student Responses to the Instrument Scientific Models Part 2 in
Study 2 Showing Each Year Group (n=216) 133
Table 5.4. Comparison of Results for VOMMS Instrument for Studies 1, 2, 3, and 4 (n=275) 135
Table 5.5 Percentage Results of the VOMMS Instrument for Study 2, Showing Each Year
Group (n= 174) 136
Table 5.6 Frequencies of each Category for Item 1 of the VOMMS Instrument 139
Table 5.7 Frequencies of each Category for Items 2 and 3 of the VOMMS Instrument 140
Table 5.8 Frequencies of each Category for Items 4, 5 and 6 of the VOMMS Instrument 141
Table 5.9 Descriptive Statistics and Range of Responses on the Instrument Students
Understanding of Models (SUMS)(n=228) for Study 2 143
Table 5.10 Descriptive Statistics and Range of Responses on the Instrument Students
Understanding of Models (SUMS n=18) for Study 3 144
Table 5.11 Descriptive Statistics and Range of Responses on the Instrument Students
Understanding of Models (SUMS n=49) for Study 4 145
Table 5.12 The Percentage Results to Item ER/16 from the SUMS Instrument for Studies 2,
3 and 4 149
Table 5.13 Percentage of Students Agreeing with Item 4 and Item 6 of the VOMMS
Instrument for All Four Studies 160
Table 5.14 Comparison of the Characteristics of Chemical Models Using the MAPP
Typology of Chemical Representation 164
Table 5.15 Assessment of Modelling Ability and Descriptive Data for the Student Volunteers
from Study 3 (n=20) 170
Table 5.16 Narelles Responses to the Questions on Worksheet 1 174
Table 5.17 Assessment of Modelling Ability and Descriptive Data for the Student Volunteers
in Study 4 (n=19) 186
Table 6.1 Results of the Instrument Molecular Chemical Representations (MCR) for Study 1
(n=36) 202
Table 6.2 Results of the Instrument Molecular Chemical Representations (MCR) for Study 3
(n=18) 203
Table 6.3 Classifications of Chemical Representations from Worksheet 2 According to State,
Physical Composition and Chemical Composition by Student Volunteers
(n=8) 216
Table 6.4 Results of Worksheet 3 Symbolism Used in Chemistry (n=9) 219
Table 6.5 The Mean Response and Standard Deviation for Worksheet 1 (n=9) 231
Table 7.1 Percentage Responses, Mean and Standard Deviation for Items in the Student
Unit Experience (SUE) Questionnaire with Study 3 (n=61) 275
Table 7.2 Percentage Response to Researchers Items on SEEQ Instrument in Study 4 -
Semester 1 (n=98) 283
Table 7.3 Percentage Responses to Online Survey in Study 4 - Semester 2 (n=115) 284
Table 7.4 Frequency of the Eight Main Categories for Question 26 in Online Survey by First
xvi
Year Chemistry Students (n=115) 285
Table 7.5 Record of the Number of Students, the Time Taken, the Number of Attempts and
the Score for the Pre-Laboratory Exercises for Semester 1 and Semester
2 291
Table 7.6 The Number of Times Students Accessed the Website per Semester 291
Table 7.7 The Number of Times the Discussion Page was Accessed per Semester 292
Table 7.8 Frequency of the Ten Categories for Question 25 Concerning Learning Strategies
in the Online Survey by First Year Chemistry Students (n=115) 301