Multiple Representations Analysis of Chemical Bonding Concepts in General Chemistry Books
Abstract
This research aimed to analyze the use of the concept of the three levels of chemical representation in eight general chemistry books. It was qualitative research with an evaluative descriptive design. The concepts analyzed included the concepts of ionic, covalent, and metallic bonds. The analysis focused on two main criteria: the use of macroscopic, sub-microscopic, and symbolic levels of representation and the relationship between the three levels. The results of the analysis showed that in the concept of ionic bonding, there were pictures of some salts or reactions for the formation of ionic compounds from their elements at the macroscopic level, explanations at the sub-microscopic level, and models of the arrangement of ions in the ionic crystal lattice for the symbolic level. In the concept of covalent bonds, there were images of gasses or covalent compounds at the macroscopic level, explanations at the sub-microscopic level, and models of electron density shifts at the symbolic level. In the concept of metallic bonds, there were pictures of some metals at the macroscopic level, explanations at the sub-microscopic level, and electron cloud models at the symbolic level. The relationship between the levels of representation was found in five of the eight general chemistry books analyzed. General chemistry books present the relationship between the three levels of representation in images that include energy level diagrams, atomic or ionic arrangement models, reaction equations, and explanations of the molecular level.
Keywords: concept, chemical representation, general chemistry, books
References
[1] Johnstone AH. Teaching of chemistry-logical or psychological? Chem Educ Res Pract. 2000;1(1):9–15.
[2] Talanquer V. Macro, submicro, and symbolic: the many faces of the chemistry ‘triplet,’. Int J Sci Educ. 2011;33(2):179–95.
[3] Sen S, Yilmaz A. The development of a three-tier chemical bonding concept test. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 2017;14(1):110–26.
[4] Meltafina M, Wiji W, Mulyani S. Misconceptions and threshold concepts in chemical bonding. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2019. pp. 42030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042030.
[5] Barke HD, Hazari A, Yitbarek S. Misconceptions in chemistry: Addressing perceptions in chemical education. Springer Science & Business Media; 2008.
[6] Özmen H. Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. J Sci Educ Technol. 2004;13(2):147–59.
[7] Pérez JRB, M.E.B. Pérez MEB, Calatayud ML, Garcia-Lopera RM, Montesinos JVS, Gil ET. Student’s misconceptions on chemical bonding: A comparative study between high school and first year university students. Asian Journal of Education and e- Learning. 2017;5(1).
[8] Shehab SS, BouJaoude S. Analysis of the chemical representations in secondary Lebanese chemistry textbooks. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2017;15(5):797–816.
[9] Gkitzia V, Salta K, Tzougraki C. Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2011;12(1):5–14.
[10] Alharbi A. A descriptive-evaluative study of a Saudi EFL textbook series. Cogent Education. 2015;2(1):1079946.
[11] Jespersen ND, Hyslop A. Chemistry: The molecular nature of matter. John Wiley & Sons; 2021.
[12] Whitten KW, Davis RE, Peck L, Stanley GG. Chemistry. Cengage Learning; 2013.
[13] Goldsby KA. Reactions in aqueous solutions. Chemistry. 10th ed. R. Chang (ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill; 2010.
[14] Silberberg MS, Amateis P, Venkateswaran R, Chen L. Chemistry: The molecular nature of matter and change. McGraw-Hill New York; 2006.
[15] Ebbing D, Gammon SD. General chemistry. Cengage Learning; 2016.
[16] Brown TL, LeMay HE, Bursten BE. Chemistry: the central science. Pearson Educación; 2002.