The influence of textbooks on teachers’ knowledge of chemical bonding representations relative to students’ difficulties understanding

References

• Andersson, S., A. Sonesson, B. Stålhandske, and A. Tullberg. 2000. Gymnasiekemi A. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Liber.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson, S., A. Sonesson, O. Svahn, and A. Tullberg. 2007. Gymnasiekemi A. 3rd ed. Stockholm: Liber.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, V., and R. Millar. 2000. “Students’ Reasoning about Basic Chemical Thermodynamics and Chemical Bonding: What Changes Occur during a Context-Based Post-16 Chemistry Course?” International Journal of Science Education 22 (11): 1171–1200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergqvist, A. 2012. Models of Chemical Bonding: Representations Used in School Textbooks and by Teachers and their Relation to Students? Difficulties in Understanding. Dissertation, Karlstad: Karlstad University.
   Google Scholar
• Bergqvist, A., M. Drechsler, O. De Jong, and S. N. Chang Rundgren. 2013. “Representations of Chemical Bonding Models in School Textbooks? Help or Hindrance for Understanding?” Chemistry Education Research and Practice 14 (4): 589–606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergqvist, A., M. Drechsler, and S. N. Chang Rundgren. 2016. “Upper Secondary Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Chemical Bonding Models.” International Journal of Science Education 38 (2): 298–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borén, H., A. Boström, M. Börner, M. Larsson, S. Lillieborg, and B. Lindh. 2005. Kemiboken. 3rd ed. Stockholm: Liber.
   Google Scholar
• Boulter, C., and J. K. Gilbert. 2000. “Challenges and Opportunities of Developing Models in Science Education.” In Developing Models in Science Education, edited by J. K. Gilbert and C. Boulter, 343–362. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Butts, B., and R. Smith. 1987. “HSC Chemistry Students’ Understanding of the Structure and Properties of Molecular and Ionic Compounds.” Research in Science Education 17 (1): 192–201.
   Google Scholar
• Coll, R. K., and D. F. Treagust. 2002. “Exploring Tertiary Students’ Understanding of Covalent Bonding.” Research in Science and Technological Education 20 (2): 241–267.
   Google Scholar
• De Jong, O. 2000. “The Teacher Trainer as Researcher: Exploring the Initial Pedagogical Content Concerns of Prospective Science Teachers.” European Journal of Teacher Education 23 (2): 127–137.
   Google Scholar
• De Jong, O., J. H. Van Driel, and N. Verloop. 2005. “Preservice Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Using Particle Models in Teaching Chemistry.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42 (8): 947–964.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drechsler, M., and H. J. Schmidt. 2005. “Textbooks’ and Teachers’ Understanding of Acid-Base Models Used in Chemistry Teaching.” Chemistry Education Research and Pracice 6 (1): 19–35.
   Google Scholar
• Drechsler, M., and J. H. Van Driel. 2008a. “Experienced Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Teaching Acid-Base Chemistry.” Research in Science Education 38 (5): 611–631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drechsler, M., and J. H. Van Driel. 2008b. “Experienced Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Teaching Acid–Base Chemistry.” Research in Science Education 38 (5): 611–631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edling, A. 2006. “Abstraction and Authority in Textbooks: The Textual Paths towards Specialized Language.” Doctoral thesis, Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
   Google Scholar
• Eilks, I., T. Witteck, and V. Pietzner. 2012. “The Role and Potential Dangers of Visualization When Learning about Sub-Microscopic Explanations in Chemistry Education.” Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal 2 (3): 125–145.
   Google Scholar
• Engström, C., P. Backlund, R. Berger, and H. Grennberg. 2005. Kemi a: Tema & Teori. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Bonnier utbildning.
   Google Scholar
• Gericke, N., and M. Hagberg. 2007. “Definition of Historical Models of Gene Function and Their Relation to Students’ Understanding of Genetics.” Science & Education 16 (7–8): 849–881.
   Google Scholar
• Gericke, N. M., and M. Hagberg. 2010. “Conceptual Variation in the Depiction of Gene Function in Upper Secondary School Textbooks.” Science & Education 19 (10): 963–994.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gess-Newsome, J. 2015. “A Model of Teacher Professional Knowledge and Skill including PCK: Results of the Thinking from the PCK Summit.” In Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education, edited by A. Berry, P. J. Friedrichsen and J. Loughran, 28–42. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J. K. 2007. “Visualization: A Metacognitive Skill in Science and Science Education.” In Visualization in Science Education, edited by J. K. Gilbert, 9–27. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Goh, N. K., L. S. Chia, and D. Tan. 1994. “Some Analogies for Teaching Atomic Structure at the High School Level.” Journal of Chemical Education 71 (9): 733–788.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosslight, L., C. Unger, E. Jay, and C. L. Smith. 1991. “Understanding Models and Their Use in Science: Conceptions of Middle and High School Students and Experts.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28 (9): 799–822.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, A. G., and D. F. Treagust. 1996. “Secondary Students’ Mental Models of Atoms and Molecules: Implications for Teaching Chemistry.” Science Education 80 (5): 509–534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, C., A. Hofstein, B. Eylon, and S. Simon. 2008. “Evidence-Based Professional Development of Science Teachers in Two Countries.” International Journal of Science Education 30 (5): 577–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howson, G. 2013. “The Development of Mathematics Textbooks: Historical Reflections from a Personal Perspective.” ZDM 45 (5): 647–658.
   Google Scholar
• Ingham, A., and J. K. Gilbert. 1991. “The Use of Analog Models by Students of Chemistry at Higher Education Level.” International Journal of Science Education 13 (2): 193–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Justi, R. S., and J. K. Gilbert. 2000. “History and Philosophy of Science Through Models: Some Challenges in the Case of ‘The Atom’.” International Journal of Science Education 22 (9): 993–1009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Justi, R. S., and J. K. Gilbert. 2002. “Models and Modelling in Chemical Education.” In Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice, edited by J. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. Treagust and J. Van Driel, 213–234. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Kind, V. 2009. “Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education: Perspectives and Potential for Progress.” Studies in Science Education 45 (2): 169–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, R., and M. M. Cheng. 2014. “The Relationship between Teaching and Learning of Chemical Bonding and Structures.” In Topics and Trends in Current Science Education, edited by C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien and P. Clément, 403–417. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Levy Nahum, T., R. Mamlok-Naaman, and A. Hofstein. 2013. “Teaching and Learning of the Chemical Bonding Concept: Problems and Some Pedagogical Issues and Recommendations.” In Concepts of Matter in Science Education, edited by G. Tsaparlis and H. Sevian, 373–390. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mikk, J. 2000. Textbook: Research and Writing. Franhfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, C. C., and S. M. Crespo. 2006. “Learning to Teach with Mathematics Textbooks: How Preservice Teachers Interpret and Use Curriculum Materials.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 62 (3): 331–355.
   Google Scholar
• Nicoll, G. 2001. “A Report of Undergraduates’ Bonding Misconceptions.” International Journal of Science Education 23 (7): 707–730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson, P. 2009. “From Lesson Plan to New Comprehension: Exploring Student Teachers’ Pedagogical Reasoning in Learning about Teaching.” European Journal of Teacher Education 32 (3): 239–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson, P. 2014. “When Teaching Makes a Difference: Developing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge through Learning Study.” International Journal of Science Education 36 (11): 1794–1814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Othman, J., D. F. Treagust, and A. Chandrasegaran. 2008. “An Investigation into the Relationship between Students’ Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter and Their Understanding of Chemical Bonding.” International Journal of Science Education 30 (11): 1531–1550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oversby, J. 1996. “The Ionic Bond.” Education in Chemistry 32 (2): 37–38.
   Google Scholar
• Özmen, H. 2004. “Some Student Misconceptions in Chemistry: A Literature Review of Chemical Bonding.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 13 (2): 147–159.
   Google Scholar
• Park, S., and Y. C. Chen. 2012. “Mapping Out the Integration of the Components of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): Examples from High School Biology Classrooms.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49 (7): 922–941.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peacock, A., and S. Gates. 2000. “Newly Qualified Primary Teachers’ Perceptions of the Role of Text Material in Teaching Science.” Research in Science & Technological Education 18 (2): 155–171.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, R. F., and D. F. Treagust. 1989. “Grade-12 Students’ Misconceptions of Covalent Bonding and Structure.” Journal of Chemical Education 66 (6): 459–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, R. F., D. F. Treagust, and P. Garnett. 1989. “Development and Application of a Diagnostic Instrument to Evaluate Grade-11 and -12 Students’ Concepts of Covalent Bonding and Structure Following a Course of Instruction.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26 (4): 301–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilström, H., E. Wahlström, B. Lüning, G. Viklund, L. Aastrup, and A. Peterson. 2007. Modell Och Verklighet. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Natur och kultur.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, W. R. 1998. “An Alternative Framework for Chemical Bonding.” Journal of Chemical Education 75 (9): 1074–1075.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, K. J., S. L. Druker, H. E. Garnier, M. Lemmens, C. Chen, T. Kawanaka, D. Rasmussen, et al. 2006. Teaching Science in Five Countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999. NCES 2006-011. Accessed 2012, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED491193&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED491193
   Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. S. 1987. “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform.” Harvard Educational Review 57 (1): 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sikorova, Z. 2012. “The Role of Textbooks in Lower Secondary Schools in the Czech Republic.” IARTEM E-Journal 4 (2): 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Skolverket (Swedish National Agency for Education). 2011. Läroplan, Examensmål Och Gymnasiegemensamma ämnen För Gymnasieskola [Curriculum for the Upper Secondary School]. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education.
   Google Scholar
• Taber, K. S. 1997. “Student Understanding of Ionic Bonding: Molecular Versus Electrostatic Framework?” School Science Review 78 (285): 85–95.
   Google Scholar
• Taber, K. S. 2001. “Building the Structural Concepts of Chemistry: Some Considerations from Educational Research.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice 2 (2): 123–158.
   Google Scholar
• Taber, K. S. 2003a. “The Atom in the Chemistry Curriculum: Fundamental Concept, Teaching Model or Epistemological Obstacle?” Foundations of Chemistry 5 (1): 43–84.
   Google Scholar
• Taber, K. S. 2003b. “Mediating Mental Models of Metals: Acknowledging the Priority of the Learner’s Prior Learning.” Science Education 87 (5): 732–758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, K. S., and R. Coll. 2002. “Bonding.” In Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice, edited by J. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. Treagust and J. Van Driel, 213–234. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Taber, K. S., and M. Watts. 1996. “The Secret Life of the Chemical Bond: Students’ Anthropomorphic and Animistic References to Bonding.” International Journal of Science Education 18 (5): 557–568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuan, I., B. Jeng, L. Whang, and R. Kaou. 1995. A Case Study of Preservice Chemistry Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge Development. Paper Presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, SanFrancisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Tulip, D., and A. Cook. 1993. “Teacher and Student Usage of Science Textbooks.” Research in Science Education 23 (1): 302–307.
   Google Scholar
• Van Der Valk, A., and H. Broekman. 1999. “The Lesson Preparation Method: A Way of Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge.” European Journal of Teacher Education 22 (1): 11–22.
   Google Scholar
• Wickman, P. O. 2014. “Teaching Learning Progressions.” In Handbook of Research in Science Education, edited by G. N. Lederman and S. K. Abell, 145–163. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Yoon, K. S., T. Duncan, S. W. Lee, B. Scarloss, and K. L. Shapley. 2007. Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
   Google Scholar