Integrating Particulate Representations into AP Chemistry and Introductory Chemistry Courses

Abstract

The College Board’s recently revised curriculum for advanced placement (AP) chemistry places a strong emphasis on conceptual understanding, including representations of particle phenomena. This change in emphasis is informed by years of research showing that students could perform algorithmic calculations but not explain those calculations using particulate representations. This article provides a discussion of particulate representations in chemistry and specific examples of ways to introduce particulate representations to students and to integrate them throughout the AP chemistry or any introductory chemistry course. This contribution is part of a special issue on teaching introductory chemistry in the context of the advanced placement chemistry course redesign.

Introducing a Culture of Modeling To Enhance Conceptual Understanding in High School Chemistry Courses

“…A few lessons and activities based on using models and modeling techniques to teach concepts in chemistry are exemplified by articles in this Journal's Advanced Placement Chemistry Special Issue. 9,18 Additionally, many teachers have limited understanding of models themselves or lack training in how to introduce, discuss, and use models with their students. 2,3 Because of this, students have little to no knowledge of vocabulary associated with modeling in chemistry, how to represent matter in a model, how to interpret a model, or recognize the strengths and weaknesses of a model.…”

The development of students' justifications for their positions regarding two theoretical models: Electron cloud or sodium chloride crystal—After engaging in different learning activities

“…The findings of the study indicate that different active learning activities exerted different cognitive demands on participants. The debating activity refocused participants' attention on the submicroscopic structural orientation of scientific models—the favorite and recommended language of different chemistry education researchers (Al‐Balushi & Al‐Harthy, ; Milenković, Segedinac, & Hrin, ; Prilliman, ; Treagust & Chandrasegaran, ; Warfa, Roehrig, Schneider, & Nyachwaya, ). This was evident in the discussions during the debating activity and then in individual students' written responses after the conclusion of the debating activity.…”

Students' mind wandering in macroscopic and submicroscopic textual narrations and its relationship with their reading comprehension

“…Also, the presence of difficult, new and/ or low frequency words within the text is associated with longer gaze durations and leads to longer total inspection times (Sereno and Rayner, 2003;Smallwood et al, 2008;Foulsham et al, 2013), contributing to a slower reading pace (Foulsham et al, 2013) and worse reading comprehension (Smallwood et al, 2008). They are more abstract (Gericke and Hagberg, 2007;Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013bAl-Balushi and Coll, 2013;Taber, 2013), less frequently encountered by learners than macroscopic description of natural phenomena and they represent more difficult concepts than macroscopic words (Sanger et al, 2013;Kelly, 2014;Milenković et al, 2014;Prilliman, 2014;Ryan and Herrington, 2014;Sjöström and Talanquer, 2014;Warfa et al, 2014). They are more abstract (Gericke and Hagberg, 2007;Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013bAl-Balushi and Coll, 2013;Taber, 2013), less frequently encountered by learners than macroscopic description of natural phenomena and they represent more difficult concepts than macroscopic words (Sanger et al, 2013;Kelly, 2014;Milenković et al, 2014;Prilliman, 2014;Ryan and Herrington, 2014;Sjöström and Talanquer, 2014;Warfa et al, 2014).…”

“…The three levels included in this triplet nature of chemistry are considered as levels of thought (Johnstone, 2000). Much of the difficulty students have in learning chemistry and the related misconceptions have been considered to be a result of their inability to comprehend the details of the phenomenon undertaken at the three levels and their failure to move spontaneously among them (Sanger et al, 2013;Kelly, 2014;Milenković et al, 2014;Prilliman, 2014;Ryan and Herrington, 2014;Sjöström and Talanquer, 2014;Warfa et al, 2014). Much of the difficulty students have in learning chemistry and the related misconceptions have been considered to be a result of their inability to comprehend the details of the phenomenon undertaken at the three levels and their failure to move spontaneously among them (Sanger et al, 2013;Kelly, 2014;Milenković et al, 2014;Prilliman, 2014;Ryan and Herrington, 2014;Sjöström and Talanquer, 2014;Warfa et al, 2014).…”