Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Development and Use of Multiple Levels of Representation and Written Arguments in General Chemistry Laboratory Courses

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs) development of multiple levels of representation and written arguments using an immersive approach to argument, the science writing heuristic, in general chemistry laboratory I and II courses. Fifty PSTs participated the study, 20 experiments were performed, and 976 samples were collected over two semesters. A case study design was used. The data were evaluated in three ways: the first was to examine the total number of representations used and connectedness of these representations, the second was to use analytical and holistic frameworks to evaluate PSTs’ written argument, and the third was to use a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test to compare the scores gathered from the representations and argumentation. The results showed that PSTs’ holistic argument and multiple levels of representation increased over time, they showed parallel patterns, and the increasing quality of argument and use of representations were intertwined. The results also indicated that PSTs predominantly used the symbolic level of representation and used it as a mediator between the macroscopic, microscopic, and algebraic levels. The argument components of evidence and reflection appear to be critical areas in which the PSTs used more connected levels of representations, and PSTs were selective in using representations. The results of this study suggest that students should be provided with opportunities to use, generate, interpret, and reflect on these representational levels through the use of writing and negotiation activities as part of being involved in an argument-based laboratory environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J. & Hand, B. M. (2005). Excerpts from the process of using inquiry and the science writing heuristic. Retrieved from http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/SWH/Resources.htm.

  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2008). An evaluation of a teaching intervention to promote students’ ability to use multiple levels of representation when describing and explaining chemical reactions. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 237–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chittlebrough, G., & Treagust, D. (2008). Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires transforming from one level of representation to another. Research in Science Education, 38, 463–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, A. (2008). A study of student written argument using the Science Writing Heuristic approach in inquiry-based freshman general chemistry laboratory classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

  • Choi, A., Hand, B., & Greenbowe, T. (2013). Students’ written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1763–1783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: key models in chemical education. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1–10). The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Greenbowe, T., & Hand, B. (2005). Introduction to the science writing heuristic. In N. J. Pienta, M. Cooper, & T. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemist guide to effective teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunel, M., Kingir, S., & Aydemir, N. (2016). The effect of embedding multimodal representation in non-traditional writing task on students’ learning in electrochemistry. In B. Hand, A. M. McDermott, & V. Prain (Eds.), Using multimodal representations to support learning in the science classroom (pp. 59–40). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B. (2017). Exploring the role of writing in science: a 25-year journey. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 25(3), 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments on organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Park, S., Kyung Suh, J., & Bae, Y. (2017a). Teacher orientation as a critical factor in promoting science literacy, European Science Education Research Association, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland. 21–25 August.

  • Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., & Jang, J. (Eds.). (2017b). More voices from the classroom: International teachers’ experience with argument-based inquiry. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Shelley, M. C., Laugerman, M., Fostvedt, L., & Therrien, W. (2018). Improving critical thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: a randomized controlled trial using the Science Writing Heuristic approach. Science Education., 102, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higher Education Council (YOK). (2014). Contents of the courses of undergraduate science teachingprogram. http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/49665/fen_bilgisi/f385bc78-22df-497d-bfca-7aee80c75c22. Accessed 01 Nov 2018.

  • Hinton, M. E., & Nakhleh, M. B. (1999). Students’ microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions. The Chemical Educator, 4, 158–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaber, L. Z., & BouJaoude, S. (2012). A macro–micro–symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 973–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, J., & Hand, B. (2017). Examining the value of a scaffolded critique framework to promote argumentative and explanatory writings within an argument-based inquiry approach. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1213–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and microchemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry—logical or psychological? Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe, 1, 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. D., Boscolo, P., Kirckpatrick, L. C., & Gelati, C. (Eds.). (2014). Writing as a learning activity (studies in writing). Leiden/Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R. L., Hand, B. M., & Yoon, S. (2017). Examinations of cognitive processing of science writing tasks. Journal of Psychology and Brain Studies, 1, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students’ understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1077–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton-Meier, L. (2008). Creating border convergence between science and language: a case for the science writing heuristic. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language: The case for the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) (pp. 13–24). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2016). Coming to know more through and from writing. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 403–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. (2009). Learning at the symbolic level. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 75–105). The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 156–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: the many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, K., Goh, N. K., Chia, L., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Linking the macroscopic, sub-microscopic and symbolic levels: The case of ınorganic qualitative analysis. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 137–150). The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • The Student Selection and Placement Centre (ÖSYM). (2016). Statistical information on OSYS results. https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2016/LYS/Yerlestirme_Tablo-4_MinMax_Lisans10082016.pdf

  • Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. (2009). The efficacy of an alternative instructional programme designed to enhance secondary students' competence in the triplet relationship. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 151–168). The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1353–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsaparlis, G. (2009). Learning at the macro level: the role of practical work. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 109–136). The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2016). Argument evaluation and evidence. The Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Dr Brian Hand for his valuable input and insight in preparing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Yozgat Bozok University, Yozgat, Turkey

    Fatma Yaman

Authors
  1. Fatma Yaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatma Yaman.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 8 The name and focus of each experiment
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yaman, F. Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Development and Use of Multiple Levels of Representation and Written Arguments in General Chemistry Laboratory Courses. Res Sci Educ 50, 2331–2362 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9781-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9781-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation