Abstract
Chemical reasoning, and in particular structure–property reasoning, is an important goal of chemistry education. Johnstone’s triangle (1982, 1991) is often used to explicate this type of reasoning. This triangle describes the multilevel thought chemical reasoning requires and shows why students find chemistry so difficult. However, this model gives little guidance for teachers and students on how to teach and learn structure–property reasoning. In this theoretical article, we propose an alternative model for structure–property reasoning which has three advantages compared with previous models, namely, more coherence between chemical concepts and the skill of reasoning, more horizontal coherence (coherence between the concepts), and more vertical coherence (coherence throughout the school years). In four cases selected from the Dutch secondary school chemistry curriculum, the model was used to show how it can guide teachers and students in teaching and learning structure–property reasoning, and to demonstrate these above-named three advantages. The presented model has various educational applications as a scaffold for students’ reasoning, and as an instruction, design, and curriculum tool for teachers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
DAS: No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Achieve, Inc. (2010). International science benchmarking report: taking the lead in scienceeducation--forging next-generation science standards. Achieve, incorporated.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B.-S., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed063p64
Ben-Zvi, R., Silberstein, J., & Mamlok, R. (1990). Macro-micro relationships: A key to the world of chemistry. In P. L. Lijnse, P. Licht, W. De Vos, & A. J. Waarlo (Eds.), Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles (pp. 183–197). University of Utrecht.
Cooper, M. M., Corley, L. M., & Underwood, S. M. (2013). An investigation of college chemistry students’ understanding of structure-property relationships. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21093
Dangur, V., Avargil, S., Peskin, U., & Dori, Y. J. (2014). Learning quantum chemistry via a visual-conceptual approach: Students’ bidirectional textual and visual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice., 15(3), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00025K
De Jong, O., Blonder, R., & Oversby, J. (2013). How to balance chemistry education between observing phenomena and thinking in models. In: I. Eilks, & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry – a studybook, Rotterdam: SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_4
den Otter, M.-J., Dam, M., Juurlink, L. B. F., & Janssen, F. J. J. M. (2021). Two design principles for the design of demonstrations to enhance structure–property reasoning. Education Sciences, 11(9), 504. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090504
den Otter, M.-J., Juurlink, L. B. F., & Janssen, F. J. J. M. (2022). How to assess students’ structure–property reasoning? Journal of Chemical Education. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00234
Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 278–302.
Gabel, D. L. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p548
Giere, R. N. (2010). Scientific perspectivism. University of Chicago Press.
Goedhart, M. J. (2007). A new perspective on the structure of chemistry as a basis for the undergraduate curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(6), 971. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p971
Harlen, W., Devès, R., Dyasi, H., de la Garza, G. F., Lèna, P., Millar, R., Reiss, M., Rowell, P., & Yu, W. (2015). Working with Big Ideas of Science Education. Science Education Program.
Janssen, F. J. J. M., Hulshof, H., & van Veen, K. (2019). Wat is echt de moeite waard om te onderwijzen? ICLON, Leiden University.
Janssen, F. J. J. M., Westbroek, H. B., Landa, I., van der Ploeg, B., & van Muijlwijk-Koezen, J. (2020). Perspectives for teaching about how science works. In W. McComas (Ed.), Nature of Science in Science Instruction (pp. 253–269). Springer International Publishing.
Jensen, W. B. (1998). Logic, history, and the chemistry textbook: I. Does chemistry have a logical structure? Journal of Chemical Education, 75(6), 679. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed075p679
Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x
Kozma, R. B., Russell, J. W., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 330. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed074p330
Landa, I., Westbroek, H. B., Janssen, F. J. J. M., van Muijlwijk-Koezen, J., & Meeter, M. M. (2020). Scientific perspectivism in secondary-school chemistry education. Science & Education, 29(5), 1361–1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00145-3
Mahaffy, P. (2004). The future shape of chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90026J
Mahaffy, P. (2006). Moving chemistry education into 3D: A tetrahedral metaphor for understanding chemistry. Union Carbide Award for Chemical Education. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p49
McComas, W.F. (2014). Benchmarks for science literacy. In: W.F. McComas (Ed.), The language of science education. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-497-0_11
Meijer, M.R., Bulte, A.M.W., & Pilot, A. (2013). Macro–micro thinking with structure–property relations: Integrating ‘meso-levels’ in secondary education. In: G. Tsaparlis, & H. Sevian, (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education. Innovations in science education and technology, vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5914-5_20
Meijer, M. R. (2011). Macro-meso-micro thinking with structure-property relations for chemistry. An explorative design-based study. [Doctoral dissertation of Utrecht University]. In Faculty of Sciences, Freudenthal Institute (Issue FIsme Scientific Library 65). https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/205840
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Reid, N. (2021). The Johnstone Triangle. The Royal Society of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781839163661
Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00111C
Sjöström, J. (2013). Towards Bildung-oriented chemistry education. Science and Education., 22, 1873–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9401-0
Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 4(12), 1–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2006.9678570
Taber, K. S. (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. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012E
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet.” International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435
Talanquer, V. (2018). Progressions in reasoning about structure–property relationships. Chemistry Education Research and Practice., 19, 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00187H
Talanquer, V., & Pollard, J. (2010). Let’s teach how we think instead of what we know. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(2), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1039/C005349J
Thomas, G. P. (2017). ‘Triangulation:’ An expression for stimulating metacognitive reflection regarding the use of ‘triplet’ representations for chemistry learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00227G
Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Havard University Press.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this article was carried out within the Dudoc-Bèta program with financial support of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Literature research and design of the cases were performed by M-JdO and AK. The first draft of the manuscript was written by M-JdO and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
den Otter, MJ., Kuijpers, A., Dam, M. et al. A Perspective for Structure–Property Reasoning to Explicate and Scaffold Thinking like a Chemist. Res Sci Educ 54, 283–297 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10142-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10142-5