See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251713491

Pre-service chemistry teachers’ understanding of phase changes and

dissolution at macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels

Article in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · December 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.120

CITATIONS READS

21 163

6 authors, including:

Mustafa Tuysuz Oktay Bektaş

Van Yuzuncu Yil University Erciyes Üniversitesi
46 PUBLICATIONS 182 CITATIONS 96 PUBLICATIONS 657 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Esen Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci Ayşegül Tarkin Çelikkiran

Middle East Technical University Van Yuzuncu Yil University
43 PUBLICATIONS 1,242 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 339 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Investigation of preservice chemistry teachers' content knowledge, perceptions of STEM education, and awareness of STEM education through a design-based elective
STEM course View project

Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi BAP tarafından SAP-2018-7458 kodlu ve „Özel Yetenekli Öğrenciler İçin Adlî Kimya Eğitimi‟ adlı projeyle desteklenmiştir. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elif Selcan Öztay on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 452–455

WCES-2011

Pre-service chemistry teachers’ understanding of phase changes and

dissolution at macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels
Mustafa Tuysuza,d,*, Betul Ekiz a,d, Oktay Bektasb,d, Esen Uzuntiryakic, Aysegül Tarkina,d,
E. Selcan Kutucua,d
a
Yuzuncu YÕl University, Faculty of Education, the Department of SSME, Van, 65080, Turkey
b
Erciyes University, Faculty of Education, the Department of SSME, Kayseri, 38039, Turkey
c
Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Education, the Department of SSME, Ankara, 06531, Turkey
d
PhD Student at Middle East Technical University

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate how pre-service chemistry teachers use macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic
levels and how they integrate teaching strategies at these three levels while instructing phase changes and dissolution. Also, their
opinions on the importance of using these three levels in their instructions were examined. The participants were seven pre-
service chemistry teachers. Data were collected using open ended questions. Results indicated that pre-service chemistry teachers
generally used demonstration, experimentation, and lecturing at macroscopic level. Although they believed that the use of the
three levels promotes meaningful learning, they had some difficulties in integrating these levels with the contents during
instruction.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Macroscopic level; symbolic level; microscopic level; representations; pre-service teachers; chemistry education.

1. Introduction

Chemistry teaching involves three levels which are macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic. It is important to
establish conceptual relationships among these levels in order for students to meaningfully understand chemistry
(Hinton & Nakhleh, 1999; Johnstone, 1993). The macroscopic level of chemistry is related to the observable
phenomena such as melting ice, burning a candle, and colour change. Teachers may use definitions of concepts and
everyday experiences to teach the topics at this level. For example, stating that sodium chloride is white, 58.5 grams
per mole, and dinner salt represents explanation at the macroscopic level. The symbolic level is represented using
pictorial, algebraic, physical, and computational shapes. Teachers can use chemical equations, graphs, reaction
mechanisms, symbols, formulas, analogies, model kits, and numbers at this level. For instance, while teaching the
burning of a candle, teachers can use the equation such as C(s) + O2 (g) ĺ CO2 (g). *Teachers also show sodium
chloride as NaCl at the symbolic level. At the microscopic level, burning candle becomes a chemical process and
carbon atoms of the wax react with oxygen molecules in the air, thus carbon dioxide molecules are produced.

*
Mustafa Tuysuz. Tel.:+90-312-210 7503; fax: +90-312-210 7971.
E-mail address: mtuysuz@metu.edu.tr.

1877–0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.120
 Mustafa Tuysuz et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 452–455 453

Teachers can explain sodium chloride as the crystal structure which is formed of sodium and chlorine ions at the
microscopic level (Hinton & Nakhleh, 1999; Treagust, Chittleborough & Mamila, 2003; Wu, 2003).
Students have difficulties in understanding chemistry topics when teachers do not use all levels during instruction
(Tsai, 1999; Wu, 2003). On the other hand, it is complicated for students to understand chemistry at the symbolic
and microscopic levels because of their poor understanding of nature of particles, i.e., atom, molecule, and ion, and
their incomplete or inappropriate mental models (Ben-Zvi, Eylon, & Silberstein, 1986; Gabel, Samuel, & Hunn,
1987; Kozma & Russell, 1997; Williamson & Abraham, 1995). In addition, the fact that they do not make a
connection between school science and real life experiences might be another reason why they could not understand
chemistry topics at the symbolic and microscopic levels (Osborne & Freyberg, cited in Wu, 2003). Research studies
revealed that students could not use the three levels correctly in explaining chemical concepts. For example, as a
result of the interviews with six college students, Hinton and Nakhleh (1999) found that students’ mental
representations on the topic of chemical reactions did not involve these levels appropriately. Regarding the nature
of matter, Pozo (2001) conducted a study with 24 pre-service teachers to examine whether pre-service teachers use
macroscopic and microscopic levels on the topics of atom, molecule, element, compound, and mixtures through
conceptual maps. Researcher coded participants’ maps in terms of the using of levels. For instance, three
participants also mentioned that matter is an element, various elements are compounds, and various matters are
mixtures. Therefore, this relationship was coded as macroscopic level. Nine pre-service teachers explained that
molecules are composed of atoms, which were coded as microscopic level. Whilst six pre-service teachers stated
that elements are composed of atoms and compounds are consisted of molecules. Thus, this relationship was
classified as both macroscopic level and microscopic level. Participants in this study had some difficulties in
understanding the relationship between macroscopic and microscopic level.
Recent studies on pre-service teachers’ use of the three levels have shown that pre-service teachers explain
chemistry concepts using macroscopic level, but they cannot use symbolic and macroscopic levels during
instruction. Moreover, they cannot create connection between these levels (Lee, 1999; Pozo, 2001). The purpose of
this study was to investigate how pre-service chemistry teachers use macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels
and how they integrate teaching strategies at these three levels while instructing phase changes and dissolution. In
addition, their opinions on the importance of using these three levels in their instructions were examined. Research
questions are as follows:
1-How do pre-service chemistry teachers use macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels while instructing
phase changes and dissolution?
2-How do pre-service chemistry teachers integrate teaching strategies with the macroscopic, symbolic, and
microscopic levels while instructing phase changes and dissolution?
3-What are the pre-service teachers’ opinions on the importance of using the macroscopic, symbolic, and
microscopic levels in their instructions?

2. Method

Seven pre-service chemistry teachers enrolled in practice teaching course at Department of Secondary Science
and Mathematics Education in a state university in Turkey participated in the study. Eight open-ended questions
were administered to participants, but only item-2 was used to reveal the pre-service chemistry teachers’
understanding of phase changes and dissolution at macroscopic, symbolic and microscopic levels. Regarding
content validity, suggestions of four experts in chemistry education about the questions were taken into
consideration. For this study, each participant was asked to respond to the following open-ended question:
“You are supposed to teach your students why phase changes and dissolution process are physical events by
integrating macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels in your instruction.
a) What kind of teaching method(s)/strategies would you use? How would you design your instruction? Why?
b) How would you teach these concepts at each three level?
c) Do you think that this kind of instruction affects your students’ understanding of phase changes and
dissolution? Why?”
Qualitative content analysis method (Creswell, 2009) was used for the analysis of the data. Firstly, pre-service
chemistry teachers’ responses were analyzed independently by each researcher. Secondly, all researchers came
454 Mustafa Tuysuz et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 452–455

together and discussed the answers. The discussion process continued until the researchers reached a consensus on
the answers.

3. Results

Pre-service chemistry teachers proposed various teaching methods/strategies for different levels (macroscopic,
microscopic, and symbolic) to teach why phase changes and dissolution are physical events. At the macroscopic
level, three pre-service teachers chose demonstration, three stated experimentation, and one preferred lecturing. At
the symbolic level, while three pre-service teachers chose lecturing, one chose questioning. Others did not state any
method for this level. For microscopic level, one of the pre-service teachers stated that he would use lecturing, two
stated that they would use animations, and four stated that they would use videos related to topics. One participant
also mentioned that she would use role playing. Although pre-service chemistry teachers stated that they would use
several different methods, they failed in how to use them. It was often seen that they made general explanations
about methods. Moreover, when examined why they select teaching methods at each level in their instruction, two
pre-service teachers preferred animations, experimentations, and demonstration to make abstract concepts concrete
and to provide meaningful learning.
Although participants mentioned that they would select several different methods, they failed in how to use and
integrate the three levels during instruction. Four pre-service chemistry teachers correctly explained why phase
changes and dissolution are physical events whereas they had difficulty in explaining the content as in compliance
with the three levels. One pre-service teacher’s explanation for this case is as follows:
“While using animations at microscopic level, intra-molecular bonds and inter-molecular bonds are
emphasized. Dissociation, change of phase, chemical reaction processes are explained step by step. Equations of
them are used at symbolic level and demonstration is used. Meantime, visualization of the equations can be
provided by doing experiments.”
The above excerpt reflects the pre-service teachers’ insufficient use of the three levels. This explanation also
lacks integration of the three representations.
Among the remaining participants, while one participant explained only at the macroscopic and microscopic
levels correctly, one pre-service teacher made a correct explanation only at the macroscopic level. Finally, one
participant could not make a correct explanation at any of these levels, since she tried to teach by choosing different
subjects for each level. Although she selected different topics for each level, her respond was analyzed whether or
not macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels were used correctly. Thus, it was seen that she explained topics
incorrectly for these levels. She also did not know the meaning of the levels. This case showed that pre-service
teacher had difficulty in applying suitable topics to these three levels.
Regarding the importance of using three levels in chemistry teaching, the pre-service teachers generally thought
that it helps students learn chemistry meaningfully and recall chemistry concepts easily.
They thought that integrating these strategies into instruction would be advantageous to develop meaningful
learning, relate chemistry with daily life, make abstract concepts concrete, eliminate learners’ misconceptions,
increase learners’ interest in course, and help learners with different intelligences understand the topics well.

4. Conclusion

Results revealed that pre-service chemistry teachers faced difficulties in using and explaining both symbolic and
microscopic levels for phase changes and dissolution whilst they could make explanations at the macroscopic level.
Several studies in literature support the findings of the present study (Bektas, Tuysuz, Ekiz, Uzuntiryaki, 2010;
Pozo, 2001). In teacher education programs, if representations and explanations at symbolic, microscopic and
macroscopic levels regarding chemistry topics are emphasized, pre-service teachers’ difficulties with using and
interpreting these three levels can be overcome, which might lead meaningful and effective learning of chemistry
topics.
It was often seen that they did general explanations about methods. Although pre-service chemistry teachers have
theoretical background knowledge about teaching methods and levels and give an importance of using these three
levels in their instructions, they have some difficulties in applying these methods and levels, and integrating them.
Therefore, some of them failed to apply which method to which level as well. It is recommended that teacher
 Mustafa Tuysuz et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 452–455 455

education programs should emphasize the practical lessons regarding integration of teaching methods and levels in
chemistry.

References

Bektas, O., Tuysuz, M., Ekiz, B., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2010). Using of macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels in chemical explanations.
Paper presented in IX. National Science and Mathematics Education Conference, 23-25 September, Izmir, Turkey.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64–66.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage: USA.
Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K.V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695-697.
Hinton, M.E., & Nakhleh, M. B. (1999). Students’ microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions, Chem.
Educator, 4, 158–167.
Johnstone, A.H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-705.
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(9), 949-968.
Lee, K.W.L., (1999). A comparison of university lecturers’ and pre-service teachers’ understanding of a chemical reaction at the particulate level.
Journal of Chemical Education, 76(7), 1008-1012.
Pozo, R. M. D. (2001) Prospective teachers' ideas about the relationships between concepts describing the composition of matter, International
Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 353-371.
Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T.L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations.
International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1368.
Tsai, C.C. (1999). Overcoming junior high school students’ misconceptions about microscopic views of phase change: A study of an analogy
activity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 83-91.
Williamson, V. M.& Abraham. M.R. (1995). The effect of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521-534.
Wu, H.K., (2003). Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences: Intertextuality in a high-school science classroom. Science
Education, 87, 868-891.

View publication stats