Critical Thinking through Three Levels of Representation: An Analysis of Carbohydrate Concepts in Chemistry Textbooks
Abstract
For a student to gain a deeper understanding of concepts in chemistry, they need to learn concepts at three levels of representation: macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic. The three levels of representation of information are crucial for developing critical thinking skills. But the textbook, which is the main learning resource, plays a vital role in helping a student relate concepts at the three levels. The objective of this research was to assess the display of carbohydrate representation at three levels in ten general chemistry textbooks. In order to examine 120 visual representations, this research employed qualitative content analysis, with five criteria developed from the work of Gkitzia et al. (2020). Criteria C1-C5 include the following: type of representation (C1), interpretation of surface characteristics (C2), relationship to text (C4), presence and nature of captions (C5), and level of correlation between elements that comprise the different representations. Thirdly, the usefulness of the proposed criteria was compared to chemistry textbooks. The results showed that there was a dominance of representations at the symbolic level. Moreover, some of the representations were found to have insufficient subtitles to give meaning, especially at the submicroscopic level. The conceptual understanding of students can be impaired by the dominance of symbolic representations and the absence of visual support for other levels. To ensure that critical thinking is done effectively, this study stresses the need to develop learning materials that incorporate the three levels of representation in a balanced manner. These five criteria can also be used to analyze existing school textbooks and to design new Chemistry textbooks.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Brown, T. L., Lemay, H. E., Brusten, B. E., Murphy, C. J., & Woodward, P. M. (2022), Chemistry: The Central Science 15th Edition. Pearson Education.
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educational psychology review, 14(1), 5-26.
Chittleborough, G. (2014). Learning with understanding in the chemistry classroom. Learning with Understanding in the Chemistry Classroom, 25-40.
Chuenmanee, C., & Thathong, K. (2018, January). The current practice of using multiple representations in year 4 science classrooms. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1923, No. 1, p. 030015). AIP Publishing LLC.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative.
Daponte, V., Hayes, C., Mariethoz, J., & Lisacek, F. (2021). Dealing with the ambiguity of glycan substructure search. Molecules, 27(1), 65.
Dekker, T. J. (2020). Teaching critical thinking through engagement with multiplicity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100701.
Derman, M. (2023). Determination of Miscoceptions About Carbohydrates. MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(4), 35-49.
Eilks, I., Moellering, J., & Valanides, N. (2007). Seventh-grade students' understanding of chemical reactions: Reflections from an action research interview study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(4), 271-286.
Fernandes Goes, L., Chen, X., Costa 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), 313-32.
Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2020). Students’ competence in translating between different types of chemical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1), 307-330.
Gudyanga, R. (2024). Immersive Reality Technologies in African Education Systems. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(11), 232-253.
Jespersen, N. D., Brady, J. E., & Hyslop, A. (2012). Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter and Change 6th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry-logical or psychological?. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 9-15.
Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143.
Kyllonen, P. C. (2012, May). Measurement of 21st century skills within the common core state standards. In Invitational research symposium on technology enhanced assessments (pp. 7-8).
Lansangan, R. V., Orleans, A. V., & Camacho, V. M. I. (2018). Assessing conceptual understanding in chemistry using representation. Advanced Science Letters, 24(11), 7930-7934.
Mansouri, F. (2007). Cultural diversity as an educational advantage.
Mathewson, J. H. (2005). The visual core of science: Definition and applications to education. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 529-548.
McMurry, J. (2016). Organic Chemistry 9th Edition. Cornell University.
National Education Association. (2019). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: an educator’s guide to the “four Cs", preparing_21st_century_students_for_a_gl.pdf
Nyachwaya, J. M., & Wood, N. B. (2014). Evaluation of chemical representations in physical chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 720-728.
Petrucci, R. H., Herring, F. G., Madura, J. D., & Bissonnette, C. (2011). General chemistry principles and modern applications. 10th Edition. Pearson, USA.
Rahhou, A., Kaddari, F., Elachqar, A., & Oudrhiri, M. (2015). Infinity small concepts in the learning of chemistry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1337-1343.
Roncevic, T. N., Horvat, S. A., Rodic, D. D., & Bogdanovic, I. Z. (2023, June). Secondary School Students' Perception of Biochemistry Concepts by Using Word Association Test. In International Baltic Symposium on Science and Technology Education. Scientia Socialis Ltd. 29 K. Donelaicio Street, LT-78115 Siauliai, Republic of Lithuania.
Sastrika, I. A. K., Sadia, W., & Muderawan, I. W. (2013). Pengaruh model pembelajaran berbasis proyek terhadap pemahaman konsep kimia dan keterampilan berpikir kritis. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran IPA Indonesia, 3(2).
Silberberg, M. S., & Amateis, P. (2006). Chemistry: The molecular nature of matter and change (Vol. 4). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in human behavior, 28(5), 1618-1625.
Stamann, C., Janssen, M., & Schreier, M. (2016, September). Searching for the core: Defining qualitative content analysis. In Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 17, No. 3). Freie Universität Berlin.
Talanquer, V. (2022). The complexity of reasoning about and with chemical representations. Jacs Au, 2(12), 2658-2669.
Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Linking the macroscopic, sub-microscopic and symbolic levels: The case of inorganic qualitative analysis. In Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 137-150). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
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.
Upahi, J. E., & Ramnarain, U. (2019). Representations of chemical phenomena in secondary school chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 146-159.
Whitten, K. W., Davis, R. E., Peck, M. L., & Stanley, G. G. (2014). Chemistry 10th Edition. Brooks/ Cole, USA.
Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science education, 88(3), 465-492.
Zumdahl, S. S., & Zumdahl, S. A. (2010). Chemistry 7th Edition. Houghton Miffin Company.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v6i1.809
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 38 timesPDF - 23 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 Nurhalimah Hasibuan, Sjaeful Anwar, Heli Siti Halimatul Munawaroh
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License