Content Analysis of School Textbooks on Chemistry Bond Materials Viewed from Chemical Representation Criteria

Eva Luthfiana, Sentot Budi Raharjo, Elfi Susanti Vh, Nurma Yunita Indriyanti

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the chemical representation of chemical bonds in three chemical textbooks. Chemical studies are basically related to three types of chemical representations: macro, submicro and symbolic. In this study a detailed review was carried out and could define the chemical representations in school textbooks to improve students' understanding of chemistry. A detailed analysis reveals five criteria for evaluating chemical representations which are included in three detailed chemical textbooks revealing five criteria for evaluating the chemical representation used in school textbooks. These criteria (C1-C5) are: (C1) type of representation; (C2) interpretation of surface features; (C3) their relationship with the text; (C4) the existence and characteristics of a statement; (C5) the level of correlation between components consisting of several representations. The five criteria include the basic elements needed to utilize chemical representations that are better in understanding chemistry. These five criteria can also be used for analysis of existing school textbooks and as a tool for au­thors in designing new chemistry textbooks

Keywords

chemical representation; chemical textbooks; chemical bonds

Full Text:

PDF

References

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students’ Learning from Text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013176309260

Cheng, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2009). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education, 4, 55–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8

Chwee, K., Tan, D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education, 4, 137–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8

Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2011). Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90003J

Gudyanga. (2014). Students’ Misconceptions about Bonding and Chemical structure in Chemistry.

Harwood, T. G., & Garry, T. (2003). An Overview of Content Analysis. The Marketing Review, 3(4), 479–498. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934703771910080

Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of Chemistry - Logical or Psychological? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 1(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1039/A9RP90001B

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, 9(2), 105–143.

Kundel, H. L., & Polansky, M. (2003). Measurement of Observer Agreement. Radiology, 228(2), 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2282011860

Lobana, T. S., Sandhu, A. K., Mahajan, R. K., Hundal, G., Gupta, S. K., Butcher, R. J., & Castineiras, A. (2017). Dinuclear PdII/PtII complexes [M2(phosphine)n(thio-ligand)3]Cl incorporating N,S-bridged pyridine-2-thiolate and benzimidazoline-2-thiolate. Polyhedron, 127, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poly.2017.01.042

Macnamara, J. (2006). Media Content Analysis: Its Uses; Benefits and Best Practice Methodology. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.3712

Novick, S. and Nussbaum, J. (1996). Pupil’s understanding of the particulate nature of matter: a cross age study, 65(2), 320–341.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.494

Seguin, R. (1989). The Elaboration of School Textbooks b y.

Shahali, E. H. M., Halim, L., Treagust, D. F., Won, M., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2017). Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Science Process Skills in Relation to Their Teaching Qualifications and Teaching Experience. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9500-z

Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1618–1625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/paedagogia.v22i1.29984

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.