See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260024903

The effect of macroscopic and submicroscopic pictorial representations on

pre-service science teachers’ explanations

Article · June 2012

DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2012/4-6/B.2

CITATIONS READS

3 198

1 author:

Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi
Sultan Qaboos University
81 PUBLICATIONS   192 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design of a National Achievement Indicator in Reading and Mathematics in Key Stage 1 Schools in Oman: Towards Improving Student Learning Outcomes (Fund- USD
104000) View project

Redesigning Teacher Education Programs In Oman Using National Performance Indicators, International Standards, and Exemplary Models (Fund- USD 125000) View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi on 16 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 4. No. 6. November, 2012

Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi. The effect of macroscopic and submicroscopic pictorial representations on

pre-service science teachers’ explanations. International Journal of Academic Research Part B; 2012; 4(6),
10-14. DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2012/4-6/B.2

THE EFFECT OF MACROSCOPIC AND SUBMICROSCOPIC

PICTORIAL REPRESENTATIONS ON PRE-SERVICE
SCIENCE TEACHERS’ EXPLANATIONS
Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi

Associate Professor, Curriculum & Instruction Department,

Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat (SULTANATE OF OMAN)
sbalushi@squ.edu.om

DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2012/4-6/B.2

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the current study is to examine whether different types of chemical representations
(macroscopic vs. submicroscopic) stimulate meaning construction differently. The sample included 152 pre-service
science teachers in Oman. The instrument included a diagram of the reaction of sodium in water and asked
participants to explain how heat transfers from the water around the sodium piece to the thermometer and how it
causes the mercury level to rise. Two different versions of the diagram were designed: macroscopic and
submicroscopic. The two versions of the instrument were distributed randomly to participants. A rubric was
designed to evaluate participants’ explanations at the submicroscopic level. The results show that participants who
received the submicroscopic diagram statistically outperformed those who received the macroscopic. These
findings indicate that 1) adding submicroscopic details to the macroscopic experimental sketch encourages
students to think at the submicroscopic level; and 2) students do not spontaneously think at the submicroscopic
level.

Key words: chemistry; explanation; macroscopic level; pictorial representations; submicroscopic level

1. INTRODUCTION

Visualization at the submicroscopic level, which is an unobservable world that deals with atoms, molecules,
ions and their subcomponents, is a key component of advances in chemistry for researchers, and of meaningful
understanding for learners (Al-Balushi, 2011; Bucat & Mocerino, 2009; Kozma & Russell, 2005). Diagrams are
used in chemistry to fill the gap between the macroscopic level of chemistry (the observable world) and its
submicroscopic level (the unobservable world) (Davidowitz & Chittleborough, 2009). If diagrams in chemistry are
utilized to go beyond their illustrative function, they might serve as stimulators of mental model construction
(Chittleborough & Treagust, 2008). They provide a material medium for chemists and chemistry students to
perceive and manipulate unobservable entities (Kozma & Russell, 2005). Consequently, they set the way for better
explanations of chemical phenomena (Treagust, Chittleborough, & Mamiala, 2003). However, as argued by Kozma
and Russell, representations in chemistry do not convey meaning directly by themselves to the individuals but the
meaning is constructed through their use in practice. It is when learners of chemistry immerse themselves in the
practices of the chemical community that interpreting meanings of chemical representations becomes
spontaneous, meaningful and precise. Therefore, it might be legitimate to study whether different types of
representations (macroscopic vs. submicroscopic) stimulate meaning construction differently.
Research has shown that students have not reached an adequate level of taking full advantage of the
diagrams at the submicroscopic level. Submicroscopic diagrams appeared difficult to interpret, especially for
students with a weak chemistry background (Chittleborough & Treagust, 2008). Consequently, they are not able to
construct a holistic picture of chemical phenomena that inter-relates the macroscopic, submicroscopic and
symbolic levels of understanding in chemistry (Al-Balushi, 2009; Treagust & Chandrasegaran, 2009). They might
realize, for instance, that strong acids ionize completely in water, yet they are not able to choose the correct
submicroscopic diagram that represents this phenomenon. Students also face difficulty in translating symbols and
equations into submicroscopic drawings (Cheng & Gilbert, 2009). Another example is students’ difficulty in drawing
the process of dissolving, especially drawing the arrangements of solute particles in the solution and drawing the
submicroscopic representation of diluted and saturated aqueous solutions of molecular crystals (Devetak, Vogrinc,
& Glažar, 2009).

2. THE EFFECT OF DIAGRAMS ON LEARNING

Visual representations communicate information that it is not possible to produce in words. In chemistry,
they facilitate the representation of information, describing events, enriching explanations, making predictions and

10 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 4. No. 6. November, 2012

generating hypotheses (Davidowitz & Chittleborough, 2009). Research into the effects of diagrams on learning
shows that visual representations stimulate different types of meaning compared to verbal narrations and that they
are recalled more easily than words, especially for abstract concepts (Bowen & Roth, 2005; Cheng & Gilbert, 2009;
Pozzer & Roth, 2003; Tan, Goh, Chin, & Treagust, 2009). Diagrams promote more connectedness in learning by
linking the macroscopic observations and submicroscopic species (Davidowitz & Chittleborough, 2009). On many
occasions, the intended meaning is not constructed by learners unless a desired interaction between the text and
its related visual illustrations takes place (Cheng & Gilbert, 2009; Pozzer-Ardenchi & Roth, 2005). Studies show
that using diagrams that link the submicroscopic level to symbolic and macroscopic levels results in high
achievement and better understanding of the particulate level of matter (Gabel, 1993; Sanger, 2000). Even
decorative photographs might foster important cognitive messages not attained by verbal means.
Nevertheless, some diagrams might sometimes mislead learners if they are not accurately designed (Cheng
& Gilbert, 2009). For instance, Bucat and Mocerino (2009) present an example of a two-dimensional diagram of a
beaker of water with molecules shown below a horizontal line representing a liquid surface. The authors argue that
the presence of the horizontal line might suggest that water molecules are within a medium instead of being the
medium itself. Cheng and Gilbert (2009) present another example in which verbal and visual information contradict
each other. The authors explain that visual representations in school textbooks exaggerate the nuclear size
compared with the size of the atom as a whole.
Literature in chemistry education emphasizes the need for careful and explicit use of diagrams (Cheng &
Gilbert, 2009; Chittleborough & Treagust, 2008; Davidowitz & Chittleborough, 2009). Also, diagrams, through their
explanatory and descriptive roles, help model reasoning in chemistry (Chittleborough & Treagust, 2008; Davidowitz
& Chittleborough, 2009). The current study contributes to the research efforts that test the explanatory effect of
different types of chemical diagrams. It examines the role of diagrams (macroscopic vs. microscopic) to promote
learners’ explanations of chemical phenomena. Research has shown that different modes of communication (e.g.,
verbal, visual) stimulate different meaning constructions. Therefore, probing students’ understanding of chemical
concepts using verbal types of questions conveys part of the meaning (Cheng & Gilbert, 2009). However, little is
known as to whether using different visual illustrations (macroscopic vs. submicroscopic) to probe into students’
understanding of chemical phenomena stimulates different meaning constructions. This study examines whether
students interact differently with these different visual modes and whether they are able to translate from one mode
of understanding into another. It is useful to know how students construct meaning when they interact with
macroscopic versus submicroscopic diagrams. Consequently, the current study might contribute in guiding
chemistry teachers and textbook writers to decide on which visual mode is best for the intended meaning and
comprehension of chemical concepts. The guiding question of the current study is:
Do different types of chemical representations (macroscopic vs. submicroscopic) stimulate
meaning construction differently?

3. METHODOLOGY

Participants
The study was undertaken on 152 pre-service science teachers, 115 (75.7%) female and 37 (24.3%) male,
studying at a public university in Oman..
Design and Instrumentation
The effect of different types of chemical representations on students’ meaning construction was examined
by an experimental design in which two different representations were distributed randomly to participants. The
instrument used for this purpose was designed to have one type of representation: macroscopic or submicroscopic.
Each participant received one version of the instrument. The two representations are illustrated in Figure 1. Both of
them show a piece of sodium in a beaker of water with a thermometer immersed in it. The submicroscopic version
differs in that it shows the components of the illustration to have submicroscopic particles. Participants are asked to
explain how heat transfers from the water around the sodium piece to the thermometer and how it causes the
mercury level to rise.
The instrument, which was first written in English, was validated by four science education professors and
one chemistry professor from a Midwestern university in the USA. Some linguistic changes were made as a result
of this process. Then, the instrument was translated into Arabic, the instruction language in Oman. Four science
education professors who were fluent in both Arabic and English validated the translation of the instrument. The
instrument was then piloted using five science education pre-service students in Oman. They were asked to
comment on the readability and the understandability of the instruments. Minor linguistic changes resulted from this
process.

Data Collection
In their regular university classes, the instrument was administered to participants. First, a two-minute video
clip of the reaction of sodium in water was shown to participants. Then, the two versions of the instrument were
distributed to them randomly. Seventy-nine students received the macroscopic figure while seventy-three received
the submicroscopic figure. Ten minutes were given to the participants to answer the question in the instrument.
Data Analysis
In scoring participants’ answers to the question in the instrument, a rubric was designed to determine the
submicroscopic level of each response. Table 1 shows this rubric, which was structured based on the literature that
had dealt with learners’ understanding of the submicroscopic level in chemistry. The same panel which validated
the instrument also validated the rubric. In addition, the English-to-Arabic translation validity was carried out by the

Baku, Azerbaijan| 11
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 4. No. 6. November, 2012

same group of science education professors who carried out the language validation for the instrument. The inter-
raters reliability was established by the researcher and one science education graduate student who was also a
senior chemistry teacher. The calculated reliability coefficient was 0.95. The Student Independent Sample t-test
was used to compare the mean scores of the two groups in the experiment: the macroscopic and the
submicroscopic.

Fig. 1. The macroscopic and submicroscopic diagrams used in the study

Table 1. The rubric used to score participants’ use of the submicroscopic

level of matter in their explanations of heat transfer

Level Score
Macroscopic: No submicroscopic term(s) is/are used OR they are used inadequately. 0
Submicro-level I: Submicroscopic terms such as atoms and molecules are used adequately 1
with minor misconceptions.
Submicro-level II: Submicroscopic terms such as atoms and molecules are used adequately 2
with NO misconceptions.

4. RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of the current study was to examine whether different types of chemical representations
(macroscopic vs. submicroscopic) stimulate meaning construction differently. Table 2 illustrates the results of the
comparisons between the macroscopic and submicroscopic groups. The results show that the students who
received the submicroscopic representation outperformed those who received the macroscopic representation.

12 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 4. No. 6. November, 2012

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and t-test results for the comparisons
between macroscopic and submicroscopic groups
Representation Type N mean SD df t
Macroscopic 79 0.987 1.10 150 2.261*
Submicroscopic 73 1.425 1.27
*t-value is significant at 0.05 level

This statistically significant difference leads to the following two conclusions:

1. Adding submicroscopic details to the macroscopic experiment sketch encourages students to think
at the submicroscopic level: This result adds support to the studies which show that submicroscopic
representations positively affect students’ understanding at the microscopic level and promote conceptual links
between macroscopic observations and submicroscopic species through their explanatory and descriptive
roles (Chittleborough & Treagust, 2008; Davidowitz & Chittleborough, 2009; Gabel, 1993; Sanger, 2000).
2. Students do not spontaneously think at the submicroscopic level: This is evident from the low
submicroscopic score (0.987) that the macroscopic (control) group attained. This score barely reached the
Submicro-level I listed in the submicroscopic rubric used to score participants’ responses (Table 1). On the
other hand, those who received the submicroscopic figure scored 1.425 which was significantly higher than the
control group’s score. It might be plausible to conclude that the presence of circles, that represented atoms
which composed the glass, thermometer and water, cued students to integrate the submicroscopic entities into
their explanations of the heat transfer from the place where the reaction of sodium and water took place to the
thermometer, causing its mercury level to rise. One would expect that college students with science majors
should not need such cues to think at the submicroscopic level. However, they needed to be reminded that
there were particles to be aware of and that they had a role in the process of heat transfer. This might indicate
that they do not have enough practice in the activities usually performed by the chemical community so as to
ensure that interpreting meanings become meaningful, precise and spontaneous (Kozma & Russell, 2005).
This epistemological problem is not limited to the sample of the current study. Literature documents that the
translation between macroscopic and submicroscopic is challenging to science learners (Al-Balushi, 2009;
Cheng & Gilbert, 2009; Chittleborough & Treagust, 2008; Devetak, et al., 2009; Treagust & Chandrasegaran,
2009).

5. LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The out-performance of the group which received the submicroscopic figure signifies the importance of
integrating the submicroscopic level of matter into macroscopic representations, such as laboratory experiment
setting diagrams, experiment observation diagrams and general macroscopic diagrams. The presence of
atoms in the diagram reminds learners of the submicroscopic aspects and consequently enhances their
descriptions and explanations of natural phenomena at the submicroscopic level. Textbook writers should take
advantage of such an approach to associate their text diagrams with more submicroscopic entities. Science
teachers, too, should encourage their students to integrate the submicroscopic level with their laboratory
sketches and use them to explain the observations.
A limitation of the current study was that it examined the effect of one diagram. A long-term experiment
with different submicroscopic diagrams should give more insights into the effectiveness of submicroscopic
diagrams. In addition, another experimental study might examine the effectiveness on students’ explanations
of empirical observations of using a laboratory manual with diagrams that integrate macroscopic, symbolic and
submicroscopic levels. Such a laboratory manual is expected to allow for more translation between different
modes of representation in chemistry and to mentally link all three levels of chemical phenomena.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Balushi S.M. (2009). Factors Influencing Pre-Service Science Teachers' Imagination at the
Microscopic Level in Chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
7(6), 1089-1110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9155-1.
2. Al-Balushi S.M. (2011). Students' evaluation of the credibility of scientific models that represent
natural entities and phenomena. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9,
571-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9209-4.
3. Bowen G.M. & Roth W.-M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice
science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063-1088. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/tea.20086.
4. Bucat B. & Mocerino M. (2009). Learning at the sub-micro level: Structural representations. In J.
Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education, models and
modeling in science education (Vol. 4, pp. 11-30), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_2.
5. Cheng M. & Gilbert J. (2009). Towards a better utilization of diagrams in research into the use of
representative levels in chemical education. In J. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple repre-
sentations in chemical education, models and modeling in science education (Vol. 4, pp. 55-73),
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_4.

Baku, Azerbaijan| 13
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 4. No. 6. November, 2012

6. Chittleborough G.D. & Treagust D.F. (2008). Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires
transforming from one level of representation to another. Research in Science Education, 38(4),
463-482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9059-4.
7. Davidowitz B. & Chittleborough G. (2009). Linking the macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels:
Diagrams. In J. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representation in chemical education (Vol.
4, pp. 169-191), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-
8872-8_9.
8. Devetak I., Vogrinc J. & Glažar S. (2009). Assessing 16-year-old students’ understanding of
aqueous solution at submicroscopic level. Research in Science Education, 39, 157-179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9077-2.
9. Gabel D.L. (1993). Use of the particulate nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding.
Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 193-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed070p193.
10. Kozma R. & Russell J. (2005). Students Becoming Chemists: Developing Representational Com-
petence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121-146). The Netherlands:
Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_8.
11. Pozzer-Ardenchi L. & Roth W.-M. (2005). Making sense of photographs. Science Education, 89,
219-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20045.
12. Pozzer L.L. & Roth W.-M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high
school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089-1114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.10122.
13. Sanger M. (2000). Using particulate drawings to determine and improve students’ conceptions of
pure substances and mixtures. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(6), 762-766. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1021/ed077p762.
14. Tan K., Goh N., Chin C. & Treagust D.F. (2009). Linking the macroscopic, sub-microscopic and
symbolic levels: The case of inorganic qualitative analysis. In J. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.),
Multiple representations in chemical education, models and modeling in science education (Vol. 4,
pp. 137-150), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-
8_7.
15. Treagust D.F. & Chandrasegaran A. (2009). The efficacy of an alternative instructional program-
me designed to enhance secondary students’ competence in the triplet relationship. In J. Gilbert &
D.F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education, models and modeling in
science education (Vol. 4, pp. 151-168), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_8.
16. Treagust D.F., Chittleborough G.D. & Mamiala T.L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and
symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education,
25(11), 1353-1368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070306.

14 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

View publication stats