Multiple Representations in Chemical Education

Preface Alex Johnstone, University of Glasgow, Scotland Macro, submicro and symbolic representations, and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education John K. Gilbert, The University of Reading UK and David F. Treagust, Curtin University of Technology, Australia Section A: The challenges faced in teaching and learning about the representational triplet Introduction Chapter1. Learning at the submicro level: Structural representations Bob Bucat, University of Western Australia and Mauro Mocerino, Curtin University of Technology, Australia. Chapter 2. Micro-macro thinking in chemical education: why and how to escape Berry van Berkel, Albert Pilot, Astrid M. W. Bulte, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Chapter 3. Towards a better utilisation of diagrams in research into the use of representative levels in chemical education Maurice Cheng, University of Hong Kong and John K. Gilbert, The University of Reading,UK Chapter 4. Learning at the symbolic level Keith Taber, University of Cambridge,UK. Section B: Improving existing pedagogy in respect of the triplet relationship Introduction Chapter 5. Learning at the macro level: The role of practical work Georgios Tsaparlis,University of Ioannina, Greece Chapter 6. Linking the macroscopic, sub-microscopic, and symbolic levels: The use of inorganic qualitative analysis. Kim Chwee Daniel Tan, Nanyang Technological University, Ngoh Khang Goh, Lian Sai Chia, National Institute of Education, Singapore, David F. Treagust, Curtin University of Technology, Australia. Chapter 7. The efficacy of an alternative instructional programme designed to enhance secondary school students' competence in the triplet relationship David F. Treagust andA.L.Chandrasegaran, Curtin University of Technology, Australia Chapter 8. Linking the submicro and symbolic levels: Diagrams Bette Davidowitz, University of Cape Town, South Africa, and Gail Chittleborough, Deakin University, Australia Section C:Classroom solutions to the