CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Science Education and PedagogyChemistry Education and ResearchVarious Chemistry Research Topics

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Teachers’ Teaching Strategies, Opportunities, and Challenges When Developing Conceptual Understanding of Redox Reactions

Open access
Department of Physics, College of Science, Engineering and Technology, University of South Africa, South Africa, Marumure, Godfrey, Kriek, Jeanne, Department of Physics, University of South Africa, South Africa·2025·Science Education International
DOI 10.33828/sei.v36.i3.4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Teaching redox reactions requires careful investigation as learners often display a range of misconceptions, particularly in connecting the chemistry levels of representation: macroscopic, sub-microscopic, and symbolic. This study explores teachers’ teaching strategies, opportunities, and challenges when developing conceptual understanding of redox reactions. The study is guided by the pedagogical link-making framework while supported by the expanding triangle chemistry-learning framework. An interpretive approach was followedusing an interview protocol and observation criteria document to collect qualitative data. A purposely sampled group of ten chemistry teachers teaching in public schools in rural settings were interviewed, and three had lessons video/audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and analyzed using ATLAS-ti. The study results displayed as networks, Sankey frequency diagrams and text show that teachers used various strategies from passive to active strategies. Teachers adopted passive and active teaching strategies to enhance learners’ learningprogression of concepts. Teaching opportunities are presented as the positive applications of dimensions for conceptual understanding, contextualized analogical models and the provision of relevance of redox reactions. The teachers’ active teaching strategies enhanced the relevance of the concepts by connecting them to learners’ lives. Teaching challenges were limited content knowledge leading to challenges in shifting across levels of representation, particularly from the sub-microscopic level. Teachers demonstrated inadequate pedagogical skills that enhance conceptual understanding. Recommendations include developing focused professional development in pedagogical content knowledge of the particulate nature of matter, particularly the sub-microscopic level of representation of difficult topics and switching across different levels of representation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.33828/sei.v36.i3.4

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Adu-Gyamfi, K., Ampiah, J.G., & Agyei, D.D. (2015). High school chemistry students' alternative conceptions of H2O, OH-, and H+ in balancing redox reactions. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 4(6), 744-758.
  2. Adu-Gyamfi, K., Ampiah, J.G., & Agyei, D.D. (2018). Teachers' problems of teaching of oxidation-reduction reactions in high schools. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(5), 53-71.
  3. Aflalo, E. (2021). Students generating questions as a way of learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 63-75.
  4. Ali, M.T., Woldu, A.R., & Yohannes, A.G. (2022). High school students' learning difficulties in electrochemistry: A mini-review. African Journal of Chemical Education, 12(2), 202-237.
  5. Amponsah, K.D. (2020). South African twelfth grade students' conceptions regarding Electrochemistry. Journal of Education and Learning, 14(3), 362-368.
  6. Bergqvist, A., & Rundgren, S.N.C. (2017). The influence of textbooks on teachers' knowledge of chemical bonding representations relative to students' difficulties understanding. Research in Science and Technological Education, 35(2), 215-237.
  7. Garcia-Martinez, & E. Serrano-Torregrosa, (Eds.) Chemistry Education: Best Practices, Opportunities and Trends. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. pp. 181-201.
  8. Brandriet, A.R. (2014). Investigating Students' Understandings of the Symbolic, Macroscopic, and Particulate Domains of Oxidation- reduction and the Development of the Redox Concept Inventory. Miami: ProQuest LLC (PhD Thesis).
  9. Brandriet, A.R., & Bretz, S.L. (2013). Measuring meta-ignorance through the lens of confidence: Examining students' redox misconceptions about oxidation numbers, charge, and electron transfer. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 1-31.
  10. Chi, M.T., & VanLehn, K.A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 177-188.
  11. Chittleborough, G. (2014). The development of theoretical frameworks for understanding the learning of chemistry. In: I. Devetak, & S. A. Glazar, (Eds.) Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 25-40.
  12. Cole, R. (2015). Using chemistry education research to inform teaching strategies and design of instructional materials. In: J. Garcia-Martinez, & E. Serrano-Torregrosa, (Eds.) Chemistry Education: Best Practices, Opportunities and Trends. 1 st ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. pp. 151-180.
  13. Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2019). Philosophy of chemistry and chemistry education core of chemistry. In: S. Erduran, & E. Kaya, (Eds.) Transforming Teacher Education Through the Epistemic Core of Chemistry. Cham: Springer. pp. 1-24.
  14. Erduran, S., & Mugaloglu, E.Z. (2014). Philosophy of chemistry in chemical education: Recent trends and future directions. In: M. R. Matthews, (Eds.) Teaching about International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 287-315.
  15. Goes, L.F., Chen, X., Nogueira, K.S., Fernandez, C., & Eilks, I. (2020). An analysis of the visual representation of redox reactions and related content in Brazilian secondary school chemistry textbooks. Science Education International, 31(3), 313-324.
  16. Goes, L.F., Fernandez, C., & Eilks, I. (2020). The development of pedagogical content knowledge about teaching redox reactions in German chemistry teacher education. Education Science, 10(170), 1-23.
  17. Goes, L.F., Nogueira, K.S., Fernandez, C. (2020a), Limitations of teaching and learning redox: A systematic review. Problems of Education in the 21 st Century, 78(5), 698-718.
  18. Guerra-Ramos, M.T. (2011). Analogies as tools for meaning making in elementary science education: How do they work in classroom settings? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7(1), 29-39.
  19. Hadinugrahaningsih, T., Rahmawat, Y., & Suryani, E. (2022). An analysis of preservice chemistry teachers' misconceptions of reduction-oxidation reaction concepts. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 12(2), 448-465.
  20. Haghighat, H. (2020). The philosophy of chemistry and its evolution over time. Journal of Philosophical Investigations, 16(40), 325-335.
  21. Holme, T.A., Luxford, C.J., & Brandriet, A. (2015). Defining conceptual understanding in general chemistry. Journal Chemical Education, 92(9), 1477-1483.
  22. 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.
  23. Jin, H., Mikeska, J.N., Hokayem, H., & Mavronikolas, E. (2019). Toward coherence in curriculum, instruction, and assessment: A review of learning progression literature. Science Education, 103, 1206-1234.
  24. Johnstone, A.H. (2010). You can't Get there from Here. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 22-29.
  25. Karen, P. (2015). Oxidation state, a long standing issue. Angewandte Chemie (International Ed. in English), 54(16), 4716-4726.
  26. Kidanemariam, D.A., Atagana, H.I., & Engida, T. (2013). The place of philosophy of chemistry in reducing chemical misconceptions. African Journal of Chemical Education, 3(2), 106-117.
  27. Konicek-Moron, R., & Keeley, P. (2015). Teaching for Conceptual Understanding in Science. Arlington, Virginia: NSTA Press.
  28. Koopman, O. (2017). Investigating how science teachers in South Africa engage with all three levels of representation in selected chemistry topics. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(1), 15-25.
  29. Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
  30. Lehesvuori, S., & Ametller, J. (2021). Exploring coherence and authorship in pedagogical link-making in science. International Journal of Science Education, 43(17), 2791-2813.
  31. Lipscher, J. (2023). Reflections on challenges and rewards in teaching chemistry. Chimia, 77(10), 659-662.
  32. Mahaffy, P.G. (2015). Chemistry education and human activity. In: J. Garcia- Martinez, & E. Serrano-Torregrosa, (Eds.) Chemistry Education: Best Practices, Opportunities and Trends. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. pp. 3-26.
  33. Mahaffy, P.G., Krief, A., Hopf, H., Mehta, G., & Matlin, S.A. (2018). Reorienting chemistry education through systems thinking. Nature Reviews: Chemistry, 2(126), 1-3.
  34. Mani, R.S. (2016). Objectives of teaching chemistry in modern schools. International Journal of Scientific Research, 5(1), 406-409.
  35. McConnell, D. A., Chapman, L., Czajka, C. D., Jones, J. P., Ryker, K. D., & Wiggen, J. (2017). Instructional Utility and Learning Efficacy of Common Active Learning Strategies. Journal of Geoscience Education, 65(4), 604-625.
  36. Mudadigwa, B., & Msimanga, A. (2019). Exploring teacher pedagogical practices that help learners make connections during the teaching of reactions in aqueous solutions at senior secondary level. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 23(3), 332-343.
  37. Novak, J.D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 6(3), 21-30.
  38. Orgil, M., York, S., & MacKellar, J. (2019). Introduction to systems thinking for the chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 96, 2720-2729.
  39. Ormrod, J.E. (2016). Human Learning. 7 th ed. Boston: Pearson.
  40. Pitjeng-Mosabala, P., & Rollnick, M. (2018). Exploring the development of novice unqualified graduate teachers' topic-specific PCK in teaching the particulate nature of matter in South Africa's classrooms. International Journal of Science, 40(7), 742-770.
  41. Quílez, J. (2019). A categorisation of the terminological sources of student difficulties when learning chemistry. Studies in Science Education, 55(2), 121-167.
  42. Rahayu, S., Treagust, D.F., & Chandrasegaran, A.L. (2022). High school and preservice chemistry teacher education students' understanding of voltaic and electrolytic cell concepts: Evidence of consistent learning difficulties across years. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 1859-1882.
  43. Robertson, S.I. (2017). Problem Solving: Perspectives from Cognition and Neuroscience. 2 nd ed. London: Routledge.
  44. Rollnick, M. (2021). A predictable picture of the state of practical work in science education in Africa. South African Journal of Science, 117(5/6), 9405.
  45. Scherer, P.O., & Fischer, S.F. (2017). Marcus theory of electron transfer. In: Theoretical Molecular Biophysics. Biological and Medical Physics, Biomedical Engineering. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 201-224.
  46. Schmidt, S.J. (2021). Helping students connect the macroscopic level to the molecular level. Journal of Food Science Education, 20, 166-177.
  47. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link-making: A fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3-36.
  48. Sibanda, D., & Hobden, P. (2016). The sequencing of basic chemistry topics by physical science teachers. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(2), 142-153.
  49. Silverstein, T.P. (2011). Oxidation and reduction: Too many definitions? Journal of Chemical Education, 88(3), 279-281.
  50. Sinatra, G.M., Heddy, B.C., Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1-13.
  51. Strzalecki, T. (2014). Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 108, 108-122.
  52. Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of 'relevance' in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49(1):1-34.
  53. Szozda, A.R., Bruyere, K., Lee, H., Mahaffy, P.G., & Flynn, A.B. (2022). Investigating educators' perspectives toward systems thinking in chemistry education from international contexts. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(7), 2474-2483.
  54. Taber, K.S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156-168.
  55. Taber, K.S. (2019). Alternative conceptions and the learning of chemistry. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 59, 450-469.
  56. Talanquer, V. (2018). Chemical rationales: Another triplet for chemical thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1874-1890.
  57. Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1368.
  58. Tsakeni, M. (2018). Opportunities for teaching sustainable development through the chemistry component of caps physical sciences. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(1), 125-136.
  59. Tsaparlis, G. (2019). Teaching and learning electrochemistry. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 59, 478-492.
  60. Tseng, S.S. (2020). Using concept mapping activities to enhance students' critical thinking skills at a high school in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Education Research, 29(3), 249-256.
  61. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Prediction-observation-explanation. In: R. White, & R. Gunstone, (Eds.) Probing Understanding. London: The Falmer Press. pp. 44-64.
  62. White, R.T., & Gunstone, R.F. (2010). The conceptual change approach and the teaching of science. In: Change, Stella Vosniadou. New York: Routledge. pp. 619-628.
  63. Woldeamanuel, M.M., Atagana, H., & Engida, T. (2014). What makes chemistry difficult? African Journal of Chemical Education, 4(2), 31-43.
  64. Wong, R.M., Alpizar, D., Adesope, O.O., & Nishida, K.R. (2024). Role of concept map format and student interest on introductory electrochemistry learning. School Science and Mathematics, 124(1), 18-31.
  65. Wood, L. (2013). Representing Chemistry: How Instructional Use of Symbolic, Microscopic, and Macroscopic Mode Influences Student Conceptual Understanding in Chemistry. Arizona: ProQuest LLC (PhD Thesis).
  66. Zanello, P., Nervi, C., De Biani, F.F. (2019). Inorganic Electrochemistry: Theory, Practice and Application. 2 nd ed. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
  67. Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic Conversations: Classroom Talk that Fosters Critical Thinking and Content Understandings. 1 st ed. New York: Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Department of Physics, C. O. S., Marumure, G., Kriek, J., & Department of Physics, U. O. S. A.
Affiliations
University of South Africa (ZA)
ORCID
Kriek, Jeanne
Venue
Science Education International
Publisher
International Council of Associations for Science Education
Published
2025-09-30
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
289-298
ISSN
  • 1450-104X (ISSN-L)
  • 2077-2327
DOI
10.33828/sei.v36.i3.4
OpenAlex
W4414650522
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Science education international (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Chemistry Education and Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Various Chemistry Research Topics
Keywords
redox reactions, conceptual understanding, chemistry teachers, teaching methods, levels of representation, misconceptions, analogical models, particulate nature of matter, pedagogical content knowledge, teacher professional development, rural schools

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