The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations

By David F. Treagust, G. Chittleborough, Thapelo L. Mamiala. 2003

481 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Learning Difficulties in Chemistry: An Overview (2007, background): “Chemical knowledge is learned at three levels: “sub-microscopic,” “macroscopic” and “symbolic”, and the link between these levels should be explicitly taught (Johnstone, 1991; Gabel, 1992; Harrison and Treagust, 2000; Ebenezer, 2001; Ravialo, 2001; Treagust et al., 2003).”
Supporting Students in Learning with Multiple Representation to Improve Student Mental Models on Atomic Structure Concepts. (2015, background): “…representation built from experience, interpretation and explanations of previously accepted concepts, implemented into the students’ comprehension of submicroscopic external representation phenomenon (Canas, 2001., Treagust et al., 2003; Park et al., 2009; Wang & Barrow, 2013; and Laird, 2013).”
Impacts of Multi‐representational Instruction on High School Students’ Conceptual Understandings of the Particulate Nature of Matter (2009, background): “Meaningful learning through multiple representations occurs when students construct coherently linked knowledge frameworks (Treagust, Chittleborough, & Mamiala, 2003 ).”
A Macro–Micro–Symbolic Teaching to Promote Relational Understanding of Chemical Reactions (2012, background): “Relationship between levels of understanding and chemical representations (Treagust et al., 2003) nineteenth century.”