Investigating How Science Teachers in South Africa Engage with all Three Levels of Representation in Selected Chemistry Topics

References

• Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70, 549–563. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730700508
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basson, I., & Kriek, J. (2012). Are grades 10–12 Physical Science teachers equipped to teach Physics? Perspectives in Education, 30(3), 110–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodner, G.M. (1992). Refocusing the general chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 186–190. doi: 10.1021/ed069p186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucat, B., & Mocerino, M. (2009). Learning at the sub-micro level: Structural representations. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education: Models and modelling in science education (pp. 11–29) London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, M., & Gilbert, J. (2009).Towards a better utilization of diagrams research into the use of representative levels in chemical education. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds), Multiple representations in chemical education: Models and modelling in science education (pp. 55–73). London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Davidowitz, B., Chittleborough, G., & Murray, E. (2010). Student-generated submicro diagrams: A useful tool for teaching and learning chemical equations and stoichiometry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(3), 154–164. doi: 10.1039/C005464J
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Basic Education (2011). Curriculum and assessment policy statement: Further education and training band. Author: Pretoria.
   Google Scholar
• Dumon, A., & Mzonghi-Khadhraoui, S. (2014). Teaching chemical change modelling to Tunesian students: An ‘expanded chemistry triplet’ for analysis in teachers’ discourse. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 70–80. doi: 10.1039/C3RP00126A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J., & Treagust, D. (2009). Introduction: Macro, sub-micro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds), Multiple representations in chemical education: Models and modelling in science education (pp. 11–19). London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, A.G., & Treagust, D.F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509–534. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199609)80:5<509::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-F
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnstone, A.H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to a changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705. doi: 10.1021/ed070p701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozma, R.B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949–968. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199711)34:9<949::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-U
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locke, J. (2009). Of the abuse of words. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Onwu, G., & Randall, E. (2006). Some aspects of students’ understanding of a representational model of the particulate nature of matter in chemistry in three different countries. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 226–239. doi: 10.1039/B6RP90012G
   Google Scholar
• Ramnarain, U., & Joseph, A. (2012). Learning difficulties experienced by grade 12 South African students in chemical representation of phenomena. Chemistry Education and Practice, 13, 462–470. doi: 10.1039/C2RP20071F
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogan, J., & Grayson, D.J. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1171–1204. doi: 10.1080/09500690210145819
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, M., Dharsey, N., & Ndlovu, T. (2008). The place of subject matter knowledge in pedagogical content knowledge: A case study of South African teachers teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1365–1387. doi: 10.1080/09500690802187025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stott, A. (2013). South African physical science teachers’ understanding of force and the relationship to teacher qualifications, experience and their school’s quintile. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1), 173–183. doi: 10.1080/10288457.2013.829599
   Google Scholar
• Taber, K. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156–168. doi: 10.1039/C3RP00012E
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry ‘triplet’. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. doi: 10.1080/09500690903386435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of sub-microscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000070306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umalusi (2011). Annual report: Strength, growth and stability. Department of Basic Education. Pretoria: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Van Berkel, B., Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. (2009). Micro–macro thinking in chemical education: Why and how to escape. In J. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds), Multiple representations in chemical education: Models and modelling in science education (pp. 31–55). London: Springer.
   Google Scholar