CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Science Education and PedagogyChemistry Education and ResearchVarious Chemistry Research Topics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

How to Balance Chemistry Education Between Observing Phenomena and Thinking in Models

De Jong, Onno, Blonder, Ron, Oversby, John·2013·Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook
DOI 10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The first part of the chapter aims at offering some general background information about multiple meanings and models in chemistry and chemistry education. A number of students ' difficulties in understanding these issues and factors that offer insight in their difficulties are also given. The second part of the chapter aims at providing three clusters of useful suggestions for the practice of teaching. The first cluster consists mainly of content-related suggestions for teaching multiple meanings and models, while the second cluster mainly covers student-related suggestions for teaching these issues. The third cluster regards suggestions for identifying students ' (alternative) conceptions after teaching. Some suggestions are rather specific while others are more general; the latter allows teachers to adapt and elaborate them for use in the specific situation of their own classroom. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 23

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Baddock, M., & Bucat, R. (2008). Effectiveness of a classroom chemistry demonstration using the cognitive conflict strategy. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1115–1128. · DOI
  2. Baral, F., Fernandez, E., & Otero, J. (1992). Secondary students’ interpretations of the process occurring in an electrochemical cell. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 655–657. · DOI
  3. Boo, H. K. (1998). Students’ understandings of chemical bonds and the energetic of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 569–581. · DOI
  4. Boulter, C., & Buckley, B. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. In J. K. Gilbert, & C. J. Boulter (eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht: Kluwer. · DOI
  5. De Jong, O., Acampo, J., & Verdonk, A. H. (1995). Problems in teaching the topic of redox reactions: actions and conceptions of chemistry teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 1097–1110. · DOI
  6. De Jong, O., & Treagust, D. (2002). The teaching and learning of electrochemistry. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (eds.), Chemical education: towards research-based practice (pp. 317–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  7. De Jong, O., & Van Driel, J. H. (2004). Exploring the development of student teachers’ PCK of the multiple meanings of chemistry concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 475–489.
  8. Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 278–302. · DOI
  9. Driver, R. (1989). Changing conceptions. In P. Adey (ed.), Adolescent development and school science (pp. 79–99). London: Falmer.
  10. Eilks, I. (2003). Students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and some misleading illustrations from textbooks. Chemistry in Action, 69, 35–40.
  11. Eilks, I., Witteck, T., & Pietzner, V. (2012). The role and potential dangers of visualisation when learning about submicroscopic explanations in chemistry education. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 2, 125–145. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies. In P. Aubusson, A. Harrison, & S. Ritchie (eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 11–24). Dordrecht: Springer. · DOI
  13. Hawkes, S. J. (1992). Arrhenius confuses students. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 542–543. · DOI
  14. Hewson, P. W., & Thorley, N. R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541–553. · DOI
  15. Ingham, A. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 193–202. · DOI
  16. Johnson, P. (2002). Children’s understanding of substances, part 2: Explaining chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1037–1054. · DOI
  17. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 701–705. · DOI
  18. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: Some challenges in the case of ‘the atom.’ International Journal of Science Education, 22, 993–1009. · DOI
  19. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Models and modelling in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47–68). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  20. Levi Nahum, T., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Taber, K. S. (2010). Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies in Science Education, 46, 179–207. · DOI
  21. Meijer, M. R., Bulte, A., & Pilot, A. (2009). Structure-property relations between macro and micro representations: Relevant meso-levels in authentic tasks. In J. K. Gilbert, & D. Treagust (eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 195–213). Dordrecht: Springer. · DOI
  22. Sequira, M., Leite, L., & Duarte, M. (1993). Portuguese science teachers education, attitudes, and practice relative to the issue of alternative conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 845–856. · DOI
  23. Solsona, N., Izquierdo, M., & De Jong, O. (2003). Exploring the development of students’ conceptual profiles of chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 3–12. · DOI
  24. Taber, K. S. (2001). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 2, 123–158. · DOI
  25. Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17, 179–218. · DOI
  26. Van Driel, J. H., De Vos, W., Verloop, N., & Dekkers, H. (1998). Developing secondary students’ conceptions of chemical reactions: The introduction of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 379–392. · DOI
  27. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT.
  28. Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 449–459. · DOI

Metadata

Authors
De Jong, O., Blonder, R., & Oversby, J.
ORCID
Venue
Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook
Publisher
SensePublishers
Published
2013
Pages
97-126
DOI
10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_4
OpenAlex
W2225809438
Cited by
23
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
9.56
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
SensePublishers eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Chemistry Education and Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Various Chemistry Research Topics
Keywords
chemistry education, chemical models, multiple meanings, student difficulties, misconceptions, teaching practice, conceptual change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How to Balance Chemistry Education Between Observing Phenomena and Thinking in Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_4
The paper
De Jong, O., Blonder, R., & Oversby, J. (2013). How to Balance Chemistry Education Between Observing Phenomena and Thinking in Models. Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_4