Understanding of Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gases in Three Modes of Representation among Tenth-Grade Students in Chemistry

Joje Mar P. Sanchez

Abstract


An analysis of students’ performance in Kinetic Molecular Theory (KMT) of gases was done to determine the extent of the understanding of these chemistry concepts in three modes of representation, namely macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic. The study employed one-shot quasi-experimental research where students in Grade 10 at a secondary school in Cebu City were exposed to the Integrated Macro-Micro-Symbolic Approach (IMMSA). A validated post-test tool with macro, micro, and symbolic questions was used in the study. The post-test results revealed that there was a gradual improvement of the students’ understanding from a good understanding of macroscopic and microscopic levels to a very good understanding of the symbolic level. Thus, it was concluded that the use of three modes of chemical representation led to a high extent in the understanding of concepts in chemistry. It is recommended that teachers begin their instruction at the macroscopic level and introduce symbols only after the microscopic level.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.1.3


Keywords


Chemistry education, Kinetic Molecular Theory, macroscopic, microscopic, symbolic modes

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ainsworth, S. (2007). The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In: J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.). Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (Vol. 3, pp. 191-208). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5267-5_9

Brandiet, A. (2014). Investigating students‘ understanding of the symbolic, macroscopic, and particulate domains of oxidation-reduction and the development of the redox concept inventory [Ph.D. Dissertation] Miami University. https://www.etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0:NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:96474

Davidowitz, B., & Chittleborough, G. (2009). Linking the macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels: Diagrams. In: J. K. Gilber & D. Treagust (Eds.). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education (Vol. 4, pp. 169-191). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_9

Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 Curriculum Guide – SCIENCE (Grades 3 to 10). Republic of the Phillippines, Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Science-CG_with-tagged-sci-equipment_revised.pdf

Erceg, N., Aviani, I., MeÅ¡ić, V., GlunÄić, M., & Žauhar, G. (2016). Development of the kinetic molecular theory of gases concept inventory: Preliminary results on university students’ misconceptions. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12, Article 020139. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020139

España, R., & Apostol, J. (2004). Science III- Chemistry (New Edition). Abiva Publishing House, Inc.

Fahmy, A. F. M. (2016). Uses of systemic approach and chemist’s triangle in teaching and learning Chemistry: Systemic Chemistry triangle [SCT] as a teaching & learning strategy. Journal of African Chemical Education, 6(2), 69-95.

Franco, A. (2005). Secondary students’ multiple representations relating to the structure of matter. Royal Society of Chemistry: University of Cambridge.

Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in Science education. In: J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh, (Eds.). Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (Vol. 3, pp. 3-24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5267-5_1

Gilbert, J. K. & Treagust, D. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Springer.

Govender, N., Good, M. A., & Sibanda, D. (2016). Preservice teachers collaborative learning of gases and kinetic molecular theory (KMT) using CmapTools®: A variation theory analysis. International Journal of Sciences and Research, 72(12), 394-412. http:/doi.org/ 10.21506/j.ponte.2016.12.56

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In: J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justin, D. F. Treagust and J. H. van Diel (Eds). Chemical Education Towards Research-based Practice (Vol. 17, pp. 189-212. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47977-X_9

Jauhariyah, M. N. R., Suprapto, N., Suliyanah, Admoko, S., Setyarsih, W., Harizah, Z., & Zulfa, I. (2018). The students’ misconceptions profile on chapter gas kinetic theory. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 997, Article 012031. http://doi.org/ 10.1088/1742-6596/997/1/012031

Johnstone, A. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377-379.

Kincheloe, J., & Horn, R. (2007). The Praeger handbook of education and psychology (Vol. 1). Connecticut: Praeger Publishers

Li, W., & Arshad, M. (2014). Applications of multiple representation levels in redox reactions among tenth grade Chemistry teachers. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11, 35-52.

Marais, P., & Jordaan, F. (2000). Are we taking symbolic language for granted?. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(10), 1355-1357. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p1355

McDermott, M. (2009). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation on the student construction of chemistry knowledge. University of Iowa. (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of Iowa. https://www.mobt3ath.com/uplode/book/book-23735.pdf

Millar, R. (2004). The Role of Practical Work in the Teaching and Learning of Science. Department of Educational Studies, The University of York. https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_073330.pdf

Nelson, P. (2002). Teaching Chemistry progressively: from substances, to atoms and molecules, to electrons and nuclei. Chemical Education Research and Practice Europe, 3(2), 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1039/B2RP90017C

Rhodes, G. (1992). Does a one-molecule gas obey Boyle’s Law? Journal of Chemical Education, 69(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p16

Rizk, L. (2011, August 13-18). Learning by doing: Toward an experiential approach to professional development. World Library and Information Congress, Puerto Rico.

Royal Society of Chemistry. (2011). Global framework for Chemistry education for 11-14 and 14-16 ages ranges. http://www.rsc.org/images/ DEVELOPING%20A%20GLOBAL%20FRAMEWORK%20FOR%20CHEMISTRY%20EDUCATION_tcm18-207914.pdf

Sanchez, J. M. (2017). Integrated macro-micro-symbolic approach in teaching secondary Chemistry. Kimika, 28(2), 22-29.

Sanchez, J. M. (2018). Translational skills of students in Chemistry. Science Education International, 29(4), 214-219.

Santos, V. C., & Arroio, A. The representational levels: Influences and contributions to research in chemical education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(1), 3-18.

Schoenfeld, A. (2013). Reflections on problem solving theory and practice. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10, 1-2.

Sunyuno, Yuanita, L., & Ibrahim, M. (2015). Supporting students in learning with multiple representation to improve student mental models on atomic structure concepts. Science Education International, 26(2), 104-125.

Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the Chemistry triplet. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435

Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: Visualization of the molecular world using animations. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 7, 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1039/B5RP90020D

Taskin, V., & Bernholt, S. (2014). Students' understanding of chemical formulae: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 157–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.744492

Touli, E. H., Talbi, M., & Radid, M. (2012). Teaching-learning of chemistry: Analysis of representations of learners on the modeling of chemical transformation. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 47-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.065

Towns, M., Raker, J., Becker, N., Harle, M., & Sutcliffe, J. (2012). The biochemistry tetrahedron and the development of the taxonomy of biochemistry external representations (TOBER). Chemical Education Research and Practice, 13, 296-306. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp00014h

Wiseman Jr., FL. (1979). An experiment oriented approach to teaching the kinetic molecular theory. Journal of Chemical Education, 56(4), 233. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed056p233

Wood, L. (2013). Representing Chemistry: How instructional use of symbolic, microscopic and macroscopic modes influences student conceptual understanding in Chemistry. (Ph.D. Dissertation). Arizona State University. https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/114440/content/Wood_asu_0010E_13174.pdf

Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10126

Yakmaci-Guzel, B., & Adadan, E. (2013). Use of multiple representations in developing preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding of the structure of matter. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8(1), 109-130.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493