Content uploaded by Georgios Tsaparlis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Georgios Tsaparlis on Mar 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
CHEMISTRY EDUCATION:
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IN EUROPE
2000, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 217-226
RESEARCH REPORT
Methods and issues of teaching and learning
Anastasia GEORGIADOU and Georgios TSAPARLIS
University of Ioannina, Department of Chemistry
CHEMISTRY TEACHING IN LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL
WITH METHODS BASED ON: A) PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES;
B) THE MACRO, REPRESENTATIONAL, AND SUBMICRO
LEVELS OF CHEMISTRY
Received: 8 October 1999; revised: 6 March 2000; accepted: 6 March 2000
ABSTRACT:
Two teaching methods for the improvement of learning of the highly abstract and
complex content of chemistry in lower secondary school were studied in this work: a) a method based
on developmental psychology, and in particular on some of psychologist R. Case’s proposals; (b) a
‘three-cycle’ method based on the distinction of school chemistry into three levels of approach
according to A.H. Johnstone, namely the macroscopic, the representational, and the submicroscopic.
The macro cycle did not include chemical notation, as well as the concepts of molecules and atoms.
The representational cycle covered the same course material by adding chemical formulae and
equations. The submicro cycle introduced atomic and molecular structure, and stoichiometry. Four
teaching approaches, for three experimental groups and for one control group were tested. In the
experimental groups, (a) some of Case’s suggestions; (b) the three-cycle method; and (c) the
combination of these two methods were applied respectively. All groups were subjected to the same
evaluation tests at the end of the school year and at the beginning of the next year. The experimental
groups scored higher at both tests, mainly on the theoretical questions. The group that followed the
combination of Case’s and Johnstone’s suggestions was the best achieving one. Finally, the largest
single positive effect was made by the three-cycle method. [Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. Eur.: 2000, 1,
217-226]
KEY WORDS
:
teaching methods; lower secondary school chemistry; developmental psychology;
Case, R.; ‘three-cycle’ method; Johnstone, A.H; macroscopic level, representational level;
submicroscopic level
INTRODUCTION
In Greece, chemistry is taught for the first time as a separate subject in grades eight
and nine of lower secondary school (gymnasion). Prior to that there is an integrated science
course in grades five and six (primary school), where chemistry has a limited participation.
According to the programme of studies and the corresponding standard chemistry school
book (Frassaris & Drouka-Liapati, 1981) that were used until the school year 1996-97, many
abstract chemical concepts at the submicro (molecular, atomic and subatomic) level were
introduced quite early in the course: atomic and molecular structure, relative molecular mass,
the mole, molar volume, Avogadro’s constant, the building-up of the periodic table on the
basis of the atomic (electronic) structure, chemical bonds (ionic and covalent), chemical
reactions, stoichiometric calculations. (Since 1997-98, the situation has changed and
improved considerably with a new programme of studies and new books.) It is well known
that these concepts require formal operational reasoning in the Piagetian sense, and at the
GEORGIADOU & TSAPARLIS
218
same time pose a heavy burden on students’ working memory (Herron, 1978; Johnstone,
1991; Tsaparlis, 1997). This fact, combined with the very low teaching time allocated to
chemistry (just one forty-five minutes period per week per year), as well as the lack of
experiment/practical work from teaching, must be the causes of the very low knowledge of
basic chemistry that Greek students used to demonstrate at the beginning (grade ten) of upper
secondary school (lykeion).
An investigation of the above knowledge was carried out by Tsaparlis (1991, 1994b)
in ten upper secondary schools in Ioannina, Athens and Piraeus, with respect to the following
areas: chemical notation, atomic and molecular structure, chemical equations, and simple
stoichiometric calculations. The average achievement was 20.5% (with standard deviation,
SD, equal to 15.0%) in chemical theory, while in the problems it was 21.0% (SD = 26.4%).
As we commented, ‘it is as if students come to upper secondary school, and their only
knowledge from foreign-language teaching is only the alphabet; no vocabulary, no grammar,
no structure of the language’.
Chemistry education research has as one of its major targets to suggest new ways and
methods of teaching chemistry. These ways and methods must not only be based on the
proper educational theory (educational psychology, developmental psychology, science
education), they must also be given support by experimental empirical work. In this paper a
research effort is described that aims to improve student achievement in lower chemistry. [A
preliminary account of this work was presented at the 2nd ECRICE (Tsaparlis & Georgiadou,
1993a; 1993b]. Motives in this effort were, on the one hand, the suggestions for improvement
of teaching methodology by psychologist Robbie Case (Case 1977; 1978); on the other hand,
the distinction of chemistry teaching into three levels, the macroscopic, the representational
and the submicroscopic, a distinction that was proposed by Alex H. Johnstone (Johnstone,
1982; 1991). A great influence on this work has also been exerted by Piaget’s theory of
cognitive development and its implications for science education.
RATIONALE
The information processing model of learning (Sanford 1985; Johnstone, 1991)
maintains that perception, driven by long-term memory, makes us distinguish the familiar
from the unfamiliar. The new information is passed to working memory, where it is processed
in an effort to be learnt, that is, stored in long-term memory. Working memory has a limited
capacity (with some variation among people), so it can process only a few pieces of
information at a time (Baddeley, 1986, 1990). This has considerable implications for
learning. In addition, working-memory theory “can account for performance on tasks that
involve both processing and storage, and both of these cognitive functions are likely to be
required for most forms of scientific problem-solving” (Niaz & Logie, 1993, p. 519).
According to Case (1978a; 1978b), successful instruction must somehow accomplish
the following two objectives: (a) to demonstrate to students that their current strategy must
and can be improved upon, and (b) to minimise the load on students’ working memory.
For the first objective to be accomplished, instruction must:
a. provide the student with some meaningful procedure for determining whether his or her
approach has been successful;
b. present the student with problems for which his or her current strategy will not work;
c. provide an explanation for why the current strategy will not work, if this is not apparent to
the student;
d. provide a demonstration of (or invite the student to discover) the correct strategy;
CHEMISTRY TEACHING IN LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL
219
e. explain why the correct strategy works better, if this is not apparent to the student;
f. provide a period for practice with coaching, together with the opportunity to transfer the
new strategy to new situations.
To minimise the burden on working memory, instruction must:
(i) reduce to a minimum the number of items of information that require student’s attention;
(ii)insure that all cues to which the student must attend and all responses he or she must
exhibit are familiar ones;
(iii) insure that all stimuli to which the student must attend are salient, either because of their
physical characteristics make them stand out from their context, or because they are
pointed out verbally by the instructor.
Chemistry is a difficult discipline to teach. According to Johnstone (2000), “the
difficulties may lie in human learning as well as in the intrinsic nature of the subject”. The
concepts of chemistry are of a very different kind to most others met by learners. “The
psychology for the formation of most of the concepts in chemistry is quite different from that
of the ‘normal’ world.” Johnstone (1991, 2000) maintains that in chemistry “we have the
added complication of operating on and interrelating three levels of thought: the macro and
tangible, the sub micro atomic and molecular, and the representational use of symbols and
mathematics”. In the case of the macro level, it is possible to have direct concept formation,
as in the case, for instance of recognising metals and non-metals, acids and bases, flammable
substances, etc. In the case, however, of concepts like elements or compounds, molecules,
atoms, or electrons, bonding types, we are at the submicro level and it is very difficult for
concepts to form. “It is psychological folly to introduce learners to ideas at all three levels
simultaneously. The trained chemist can keep these three in balance, but not the learner”.
With respect to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, we are aware, of course, of
the problems and the criticisms this theory has faced - in particular his general postulated sets
of cognitive structures (e.g. Lawson, 1991; Shayer, 1993). However, we count ourselves
among those who believe that “evidence indicates that there are sets of cognitive structures
that significant numbers of people do in fact have in common’’ (Shayer, 1993). In our
opinion, serious consideration should also be given to Niaz’s argument (1993) that Piaget
has used the scientific research methodology of idealisation to develop his genetic
epistemology in a similar way to that used in various physics theories (e.g. Galileo’s,
Newton’s, and the ideal gas law). Finally, we must take into account that Piaget is well-
recognised as a constructivist.
METHOD
Four teaching methods were designed for the comparative study, and these were
applied for three consecutive school years (1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93) by the same
teacher, the one of the authors (A. G.), to a total of 380 grade-eight students of the same
school. The school is a relatively prestigious experimental gymnasion in Piraeus, for which,
however, the students are selected (as for all experimental schools in Greece) by drawing lots
among all applicants.
The same research methodology was used in all three school years of the study. Table
1 has the topics that were taught. Each year, the students were divided into four groups, one
control group and three experimental groups.
GEORGIADOU & TSAPARLIS
220
All methods had the same general educational web: a constructivist teaching method,
based on Piaget’s theory of cognitive development; the instructor was constantly using
experiments, models and dialogue in an effort to guide the students into the construction of
new knowledge and its incorporation and connection with students’ prior knowledge and
mental structures. In all four groups, we had in common the following teaching features:
planning, inductive approach to concepts, student-centred, attractive presentation.
The experimental groups followed the following methods:
1. Experimental group one, the Case group. Some of the Case’s psychological suggestions
were applied (see below).
2. Experimental group two, the Johnstone group. Johnstone’s three-cycle model was used.
3. Experimental group three, the Johnstone-Case group. The above two methods were
combined.
For the Case and the Johnstone-Case groups, teaching material and tasks were
prepared that aimed at showing students the way they can and should improve the strategies
they followed, but also at easing as much as possible the load on their working. The
educational material included concept maps (Novak & Gowin 1984), simulation games and
concrete models. To avoid misconceptions that are caused by the complete identification of
concepts with models, we used a variety of models (Schrader, 1985; Stavridou, 1991). In
addition, we used materials familiar to students from daily life, for example, colour paper-
disks of various shapes for modelling metals and non-metals; students had to make these
interlock with each other, as in a jigsaw game (Sapwell, 1990). The Moire pattern analogy of
Bard (1981) was used to show that electrons move and form an electron cloud. Elements
were represented with small spheres from plastelene bearing wire hooks, equal in number to
the valence of the element: when atoms combine to form compounds, all hooks must be
hooked (Schrader, 1985).
In addition, the following notations were used:
•
symbols for physical states after chemical formulae (s, l, g, aq);
•
electrical charges in the formulae of ionic compounds (e.g. Na
+
Cl
-
);
•
parentheses for all ionic molecular groups, even in the case where they occurred only
once in the formula of the compound, e.g. (NH
4
)
+
(NO
3
)
-
, Ca
2+
(SO
4
)
2-
.
The traditional, algorithmic ‘rule of three’ which is being used as a rule in Greece for
solving numerical stoichiometric problems was abandoned in favour of a ‘logical method’
that is based on logical thought and the use of simple arithmetic, and is well known to the
students from their early elementary-school years (Zarotiadou, Georgiadou, & Tsaparlis
TABLE 1.
The chemical topics taught each school year (grade eight).
• Chemistry as an experimental applied science.
• Soil - Mixtures.
• Atmospheric air.
• Water - Pure substances.
• Decomposition and synthesis of water -
Compounds and elements.
• Molecules and atoms.
• Atomic and molecular mass - Avogadro
constant - The mole - Molar volume of gases.
• The building up of atoms (electronic shell
structure) - Periodic table.
• Formation of compounds - Types of bonding
in molecules (ionic - covalent) - Valence.
• Chemical formulae - Writing and naming of
inorganic compounds.
• Chemical reactions - Chemical equations -
Stoichiometric calculations.
• Categories of inorganic chemical reactions.
• Acids - Hydrochloric and sulphuric acid.
• Bases - Sodium hydroxide.
CHEMISTRY TEACHING IN LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL
221
1995). Similar calculations of everyday life such as shopping transactions and measuring at
home were used as analogues to stoichiometric calculations.
In applying the Johnstone model, we adopted the three cycle educational approach to
chemistry. The first cycle (at the macro level) did not include either atomic and molecular
structure or the use of chemical notation, and occupied half of the teaching time (the largest
part of the lessons: 13/26). During this cycle, the students became familiar with the chemical
substances and their properties. In the second cycle (the representational), the same course
material was covered by adding now chemical formulae and equations, after an initial brief
reference to atoms and molecules. Finally, in the third cycle, the same material was treated
again, this time by introducing and using the abstract concepts of atoms and molecules,
chemical bonds, the periodic table, relative atomic and molecular mass, molar volume,
Avogadro’s constant, and stoichiometry. Table 2 provides in detail the features of the three
experimental teaching methods, together with those of the method used with the control
group.
All students were subjected to Lawson’s paper-and-pencil test of formal reasoning
(Lawson, 1978) with the aim, firstly to classify them in the cognitive developmental stages,
and secondly to check the equivalence of the groups. It was found that 22.1% of our sample
(N= 380) were formal thinkers, 44.5% were in the transitional stage, and 33.4% were
concrete thinkers. These findings are consisted with those reported by Shayer (1991) (χ
2
=
5.17 and p = 0.076).
The students were distributed evenly in the four groups as was indicated by the
crosstabulation statistical procedure. In addition, the four groups were found equivalent with
regard to the cognitive ability: χ
2
= 0.125 (p = 0.99). The same conclusion for the
homogeneity of the samples was also found by means of one way analysis of variance
(ANOVA): F = 0.93 (p = 0.43).
The chemistry tests
All groups (total N = 380) were subjected to the same evaluation tests twice: (a)
immediately after completion of the teaching year (initial test); (b) at the beginning of next
school year, that is, after about four months (retention test). Each test was given without
notice. The tests lasted one teaching period (45 minutes), and aimed at checking retention,
understanding and coding of basic chemical concepts and procedures. Two and the same tests
were used in both the initial and the retention testing:
1. A test of theoretical knowledge of general and inorganic chemistry, on the following
topics: (a) chemical notation (40% of the marks), (b) atomic structure (15%), (c)
molecular structure (15%), and (d) chemical reactions-equations (30%). Table 3 provides
an outline of this test.
2. A test on stoichiometric calculations, consisting of two problems: one consisting of five
simple interdependent problems-steps (50% of the marks); and one composite problem,
equivalent in content to the previous one (50%). Table 4 provides an outline of this test.
The tests were given in four equivalent forms, so as to avoid students’ interaction in
neighbouring seats. No significant difference was found among the four variations, as shown
by ANOVA. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was found equal to 0.79 (a satisfactory
value), for the test of theoretical knowledge, and 0.58 for the test on stoichiometric
calculations (a relatively satisfactory value, if we take into account that we had calculations
here).
GEORGIADOU & TSAPARLIS
222
TABLE 2
. The features of the four teaching methods.
GROUP
→
→→
→
CONTROL
CASE
JOHNSTONE
JOHNSTONE-
CASE
Administration
of educational
material
According to
Greek
National
Curriculum
According to Greek
National
Curriculum
In three cycles:
Macro,
representational
sub-micro
In three cycles:
Macro,
representational
submicro
Textbook
Standard
textbook
Standard textbook Modified
textbook
in three cycles
Modified textbook
in three cycles
Experiments
Experiments
demonstrated
by the teacher
Students performed
guided discovery
experiments in
groups of four
Experiments
demonstrated by
the teacher
Students perform
guided discovery
experiments in
groups of four
Chemical
notation
Classic
(e.g. NaCl,
NH
4
NO
3
,
MgSO
4
)
-Electrical charges in
the formulae of ionic
compounds (Na
+
Cl
-
);
-Parentheses for
molecular groups
[e.g.(NH
4
)
+(
NO
3
)
-
Mg
2+
(SO
4
)
2-
]
-Symbols for
physical states (s, l,
g, aq)
Classic
(e.g. NaCl,
NH
4
NO
3
,
MgSO
4
)
-Electrical charges in
the formulae of ionic
compounds (Na
+
Cl
-
);
-Parentheses for
molecular groups
[e.g.(NH
4
)
+
(NO
3
)
-
Mg
2+
(SO
4
)
2-
]
-Symbols for physical
states (s, l, g, aq)
Models
&
Classic models
of textbooks
Proper original solid
models and
mechanical
analogues for
abstract concepts
Classic models
of textbooks
Proper original
solid models and
mechanical
analogs for
abstract concepts
Analogies
Drawing of
models on
paper
Construction of
solid models by
students
Drawing of
models on paper
Construction of
solid models by
students
Heuristic tools
- Concept maps - Concept maps
Stoichiometric
calculations:
(a) Teaching
method
Mechanical
method:
algorithmic
rule of three
Logical method:
unit-base
Mechanical
method:
algorithmic rule
of three
Logical method:
unit-base
(b) Teaching
period
Whole school
year
Whole school year At the submicro
level only
At the submicro
level only
CHEMISTRY TEACHING IN LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL
223
RESULTS
Achievement in theory
Table 5 contains the relative data. For the initial test (end of school year), the statistic
F assumed the value 5.19 (p = 0.002). All experimental groups outperformed the control
group with a large significant difference. On the contrary, there was no significant difference
among the experimental strategies. On the other hand, no statistical difference was detected
among the experimental groups. For the retention test, F was found equal to 8.36 (p = 0.00).
In this case, the Johnstone and the Johnstone-Case groups outperformed the Case and the
control groups with a very large significant difference.
In all groups there was a significant statistical difference in the achievements between
the initial and the retention tests. For the control group, the difference of the means of the two
tests was 7.2% (retention 79.9%), with statistic t = 4.9 (two-tailed p = 0.00). For the Case
group the difference was 12.8% (retention 69.8%), with t = 7.1 (p = 0.00). For the Johnstone
group the difference was 9.9% (retention 79.2%), with t = 6.3 (p = 0.00). Finally, for the
Johnstone-Case group the difference was 5.7% (retention 87.7%), with t = 3.20 (p = 0.00).
TABLE 3
.
An outline of the theoretical test. Within parentheses, the percentage
marks/weights, corresponding to each test item, are given.
A. CHEMICAL NOTATION (40%)
1. Symbols of elements. (5)
2. Symbols of ions. (5)
3. Symbols of charged molecular ions. (5)
4. Compounds. (25)
B. ATOMIC STRUCTURE (15%)
5. Number of electrons in a neutral atom, given
the number of protons and neutrons. (5)
6. Arrangement of electrons to electron shells. (5)
7. Number of electrons in ions (in comparison to
neutral atoms). (5)
C. MOLECULAR STRUCTURE (15%)
8. Diatomic molecules. (7.5)
9. Ionic and covalent compounds. (7.5)
D. CHEMICAL REACTIONS (30%)
10. Coefficients of chemical equations. (10)
11. Chemical reactions (product prediction). (20)
TABLE 4.
An outline of the test on stoichiometric calculations. Each problem had an equal
weight (50%). Equal weights (10% each) had the five steps of the fist problem.
A. PROBLEM IN FIVE STEPS
1. Number of molecules of products, given the
number of molecules (or atoms) that reacted.
2. Number of moles of products, given the
number
of molecules (or atoms) that reacted.
3. Number of gr-atoms or gr-molecules, given the
number of molecules (or atoms) that reacted.
4. Number of moles that are produced from the
reaction of the gr-molecules or gr-atoms of
question (3) above.
5. Volume under STP of moles of gas that was
produced according to question (4) above.
B. COMPOSITE PROBLEM
A complete chemical equation is given, and the
student is asked to calculate the volume of the gas
produced under STP from given mass of one of
the reactants.
GEORGIADOU & TSAPARLIS
224
Achievement in stoichiometric calculations
Table 6 contains the relative data. For the initial test, one-way analysis of variance
gave a value for statistic F = 0.73 (p = 0.54). For the retention test, F=1.32 (p = 0.27). There
TABLE 6.
Achievement in stoichiometric calculations*.
PREVIOUS
WORK**
(N = 408)
CONTROL
(N =92)
CASE
(N = 89)
JOHNSTONE
(N =94)
JOHNSTONE-
CASE
(N =105)
Initial test - 40.2 (29.3) 40.0 (26.2) 38.2 (29.3) 44.1 (31.1)
Retention test 21.1 (26.4) 27.5 (29.0) 25.6 (28.8) 28.0 (30.7) 20.6 (29.7)
* Mean achievement, with maximum 100% (standard deviations in parentheses).
* * Tsaparlis (1994).
was no significant difference between the groups in both the initial and the retention test. On
the other hand, for all groups there was a large significant difference in the achievement
between the initial and the retention test: for the control group, the difference in the means
was 12.7% (retention 68.5%), with t = 4.6 (two-tailed p = 0.00); for the Case group the
difference was 14.4% (retention 64.0%), with t = 5.72 (p = 0.00); for the Johnstone group the
difference was 10.2% (retention 73.3%), with t = 4.66 (p = 0.00); finally, for the Johnstone-
Case group the difference was 23.5%, with t = 9.42 (p = 0.00).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
On the theoretical test, the Johnstone-Case group, that combined Case’s principles
with Johnstone’s three level model, took the lead; the Johnstone group followed, while in the
third place was the Case group, that used Case’s psychological proposals; the control group
was last. We conclude that the teaching model that makes a distinction into the three cycles
(levels) of chemistry, compared with the traditional simultaneous treatment, contributes to
better learning of the theory of chemistry.
As long as teaching is recent, the positive influence of the features of the Case
methodology, in particular when it is used by the textbook, is larger. Otherwise it seems that
it loses its value, and in the worst case it may cause some confusion. To this then we could
attribute the low retention demonstrated by the Case group.
In the test of stoichiometric calculations, achievement did not exceed 50% in the first
test, and 37% in the second test. The abstract concepts of the submicro level and the use of
analogical reasoning that necessarily enters these calculations, combined with the widely held
view that solving numerical exercises is a difficult task, constitute restraining factors for the
TABLE 5.
Achievement in the basic theory of chemistry*.
PREVIOUS
WORK**
(N = 408)
CONTROL
(N =92)
CASE
(N = 89)
JOHNSTONE
(N =94)
JOHNSTONE-
CASE
(N =105)
Initial test - 35.8 (21.5) 42.3 (19.8) 47.5 (24.5) 46.0 (22.5)
Retention test 20.5 (15.0) 28.6 (19.2) 29.5 (17.7) 37.6 (21.2) 40.3 (20.9)
*Mean achievement, with maximum 100% (standard deviations in parentheses).
** Tsaparlis (1994).
CHEMISTRY TEACHING IN LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL
225
students of this age. The various methods of stoichiometric problem-solving did not seem to
make a differentiation of any statistical significance, while a long term practice with such
calculations, using either method, had a positive effect. By and large, stoichiometric
calculations are difficult for many lower secondary students.
The aim of this research was to present experimental teaching strategies that might be
more effective than those usually used. In comparison with the results of previous work
(Tsaparlis, 1991; 1994), all groups outperformed the students of the previous study, with a
statistically significant difference. This must be attributed to a higher than average level of
the school of this study, coupled with certain conditions which were observed in the case of
the current work, namely a systematic methodology, programming and planning of teaching,
clear statement of objectives, experimental approach to phenomena, the specific educational
features (child-centred constructivist approach, induction, overview, attractiveness). Without
radical changes, with simple but systematically observed conditions, IT IS possible to
significantly improve the prevailing picture. All in all, the suggested methods, enriched with
features based on psychological theory, but especially with the distinction of the three levels
of chemistry, could be more effective.
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE:
Georgios TSAPARLIS, Department of Chemistry,
University of Ioannina, GR-451 10 Ioannina, Greece; fax: +30 651 44989; e-mail:
<gtseper@cc.uoi.gr>
REFERENCES
Baddeley, A.D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A.D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. London: Erlbaum.
Bard, J.D. (1981). A Moire pattern analogy to electron motion. Journal of Chemical
Education, 58, 480.
Case, R. (1978a). Implications of developmental psychology for the design of instruction. In
Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., Pellegrino, J., & Fokkema, J. (eds.), Cognitive psychology and intruction, pp.
441-463. Plenum.
Case R. (1978b). Intellectual development from birth to adulthood: A new-Piagetian
interpretation. In Siegler, R.S. (ed.), Children
,
s thinking: What develop. New Jersey: Hillsdale
Erlbaum,.
Frassaris T. & Drouka-Liapati P.(1981). Chemistry for B & C gymnasion classes (in Greek).
Athens: School Textbook Publishing Organisation (OEDB).
Herron, J.D. (1978). Piaget in the classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 55, 165-170.
Johnstone A.H. (1982). Macro and microchemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377-379.
Johnstone A.H. (1991). Thinking about thinking. International Newsletter on Chemical
Education, No. 6, 7-11.
Johnstone A.H. (2000). The presentation of chemistry - logical or psychological? Chemistry
Education: Research and Practice in Europe (CERAPIE), 1, 9-15.
Lawson, A.E. (1978). Development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 11-24.
Lawson, A.E. (1991). Is Piaget’s epistemic subject dead? Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 28, 581-591.
Νiaz, Μ. (1993). Role of the epistemic subject in Piaget’s genetic epistemology and its
importance for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 569-580.
Νiaz, Μ. (1993). If Piaget’s epistemic subject is dead, shall we bury the scientific research
methodology of idealizatrion? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 809-812.
Niaz, M., & Logie, R.H. (1993). Working memory, mental capacity and science education:
Towards an understanding of the ‘working memory overload hypothesis’. Oxford Review of
Education, 19, 511-525.
GEORGIADOU & TSAPARLIS
226
Νovak, J.D. & Gowin, B.D. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press.
Sanford, A.. J. (1985). Cognition and cognitive psychology. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Sapwell, P.J. (1990). Energy transformation jigsaw. School Science Review, 72 (258), 115-
116.
Schrader, C. L. (1985). Every one wants to be a model teacher. Part III. Extension to atomic
structure and bonds. Journal of Chemical Education, 62, 71-72.
Shayer, M (1991). Improving standards and the National Curriculum. School Science Review,
72(260), 17-24.
Shayer, M. (1993). Piaget: Only the Galileo of cognitive development? Comment on Niaz and
Lawson on genetic epistemology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 815-818.
Stavridou, H. (1991). Scientific models in chemistry teaching - Learning difficulties: Their
causes, results, and suggestions (in Greek). Chemica Chronica (General Edition), 53 (5), 133-136.
Tsaparlis, G. (1991). S.O.S. from lower secondary chemistry (in Greek). Chemica Chronica
(General Edition), 53 (4), 111.
Tsaparlis, G. (1994). S.O.S. from lower secondary chemistry (in Greek). Proceedings of the
4th Greece-Cyprus Conference, pp. 135-140. Ioannina, Greece: Association of Greek Chemists.
Tsaparlis, G. & Georgiadou, A. (1993a). Improvement of chemistry teaching, using
suggestions from developmental psychology. Proceedings of 2
nd
European Conference on
Research in Chemical Education (ECRICE), pp. 345-350, Pisa, Italy: Universita degli Studi di Pisa.
Tsaparlis, G. & Georgiadou, A. (1993b). A three-cycle method of teaching beginning high
shcool chemistry students, based on the macro, the representational & the sub-micro levels of
chemistry. Proceedings of 2
nd
ECRICE, p.p. 357-362. Pisa, Italy: Universita degli Studi di Pisa.
Tsaparlis, G (1997). Atomic and molecular structure in chemical education: A critical
analysis from various perspectives of science education. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 922-
925.
Zarotiadou E., Georgiadou A., & Tsaparlis G.. (1995). A comparative study of logical and
rote methods of solving stoichiometry problems in lower high school. Proceedings of
3
rd
ECRICE, pp. 314-317. Lublin-Kazimierz, Poland: Maria Curie-Sklodowska University.
