The macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic level in explanations of a chemical reaction provided by thirteen-year olds

Main Article Content

Dragica D. Trivic
Vesna D. Milanovic


The aim of this research was to investigate whether pupils aged 13, at the end of their first year of studying chemistry, are capable of perceiving the macroscopic and the submicroscopic level of the previously learned contents on chemical reactions, and whether they relate them to the chemical equations (the symbolic representation). Another aim was to establish how much demonstration experiments contribute to a better linking of the mentioned levels. The research featured 69 pupils of the seventh grade from three primary schools. The pre-test was conducted, following which experiments were demonstrated, and the post-
-testing was carried out in the end. After the intervention, a total of 12 pupils were interviewed about which aspects of chemical reactions they thought of based on the chemical equations. A statistically significant difference in two out of five requirements of the post-test, compared to the pre-test, indicate that the demon­stration experiments may contribute to a better linking of three levels of rep­resenting chemical reactions. However, when one compares the pupils answers in the test and in the interview, it can be observed that the correct answers in the test are not always based on understanding the concepts in connection with the chemical reaction.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...

Article Details

How to Cite
D. D. Trivic and V. D. Milanovic, “The macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic level in explanations of a chemical reaction provided by thirteen-year olds”, J. Serb. Chem. Soc., vol. 83, no. 10, pp. 1177–1192, Oct. 2018.
History of & Education in Chemistry


S. C. Nurrenbern, M. Pickering, J. Chem. Educ. 64 (1987) 508

M. Weinrich, V. Talanquer, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 16 (2015) 561

B. Anderson, Stud. Sci. Educ. 18 (1990) 53

J. J. Hesse, C. W. Anderson, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 29 (1992) 277

A. H. Johnstone, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 1 (2000) 9

R. Kozma, in Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning, M. Jacobson, R. Kozma, Eds., Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2000, pp. 11–46

D. F. Treagust, G. Chittleborough, T. L. Mamiala, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25 (2003) 1353

D. L. Gabel, J. Chem. Educ. 76 (1999) 548

M. E. Hinton, M. B. Nakhleh, Chem. Educ. 4 (1999) 158

H. K. Wu, Sci. Educ. 87 (2003) 868

P. G. Nelson, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 3 (2002) 215

G. D. Chittleborough, D. F. Treagust, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 8 (2007) 274

R. Driver, H. Asoko, J. Leach, E. Mortimer, P. Scott, Educ. Res. 23 (1994) 5

D. Krnel, R. Watson, S. A. Glazar, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20 (1998) 257

D. Stamovlasis, N. Kypraios, G. Papageorgiou, Sci. Educ. Int. 26 (2015) 284

Z. Wang, S. Chi, M. Luo, Y. Yang, M. Huang, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 18 (2017) 875

B. A. Sawrey, J. Chem. Educ. 67 (1990) 253

M. B. Nakhleh, J. Chem. Educ. 70 (1993) 52

D. L. Gabel, D. M. Bunce, in Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, D. L. Gabel, Ed., Macmillan, New York, 1994

R. Ben-Zvi, B. Eylon, J. Silberstein, Stud. Educ. Eval. 12 (1986) 213

V. M. Williamson, M. R. Abraham, J. Res. Sci. Educ. 32 (1995) 521

A. L. Kern, N. B. Wood, G. H. Roehrig, J. Nyachwaya. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 11 (2010) 165

W. L. Yarroch, Res. Sci. Teach. 22 (1985) 449

A. L. Chandrasegaran, D. F. Treagust, M. Mocerino, Res. Sci. Educ. 38 (2008) 237

V. Talanquer, J. Chem. Educ. 90 (2013) 832.

Most read articles by the same author(s)