Patcharee

Journal ofRompayom Wichaidit

Science and and Sittichai Wichaidit
Mathematics
Education in Southeast Asia
2016, Vol. 39 No. 1, 43 - 75

Effects of the 5E Instructional Model Incorporated with

Multiple Levels of Representations on Thai Students with
Different Levels of Cognitive Development
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit
Faculty of Science and Technology
Thepsatri Rajabhat University, Lopburi, Tha
Thailand
Sittichai Wichaidit
nd Education
Faculty of Learning Sciences and

PY 'S
Thammasat University, Pathom m Thani, Thailand
/HDUQLQJFKHPLVWU\PD\EHGLIÀFXOWIRUVWXGHQWVIRUVHYHUDOUHDVRQVVXFKDV
U VWXGHQWVIRUVHYHUD
VWXGHQWVI
the abstract nature of many chemistry y concepts
oncepts and the ffact
fa that students may
O R
view chemistry as irrelevant to their heir everyday lives. Teaching chemistry in
familiar contexts and the use off multiple represen
representations are seen as effective
represent
approaches for enhancing students’
tudents’ conceptu understanding
udents’ conceptual tandi
an and attitudes
C O
toward science. This study, udy,
y, therefore, exp
ex
explored the effects
eff of chemistry
instruction incorporating ing levels of representation
ng the multiple lev
leve resentation (MLR) approach
esentation (MLR
in the context of household
usehold chemistry oon students’nts’ understanding
understandin anda attitude
TH

toward science. Participating sstudestudents were re 49 Grade 7 Thai students from

a secondary school in Songkhla province, ce, Thailand
Thailand. A qu quasi-experimental,
one-group pre-test/post-test
re-test/post-tes design was used to assess a students’ learning
gain, achievement
chievement
hievement levels, aand attitudeude
de toward science
scienc
science. Research instruments
istedd of the Test of L
consisted Logical Thinking
ing (TOLT), an achievement test on basic
AU

ousehold
usehold chemistry
household chemistry, and the he Test of Science R Related Attitudes (TOSRA).
Results
sults indicated that amongmongng the 49 participants,
partici
partic 19, 15, and 15 students
ZHUHLGHQWLÀHGD
HLGHQWLÀHG WUDQVLWLRQDODQ
UDQVLWLRQDO
ZHUHLGHQWLÀHGDVFRQFUHWHWUDQVLWLRQDODQGIRUPDOLQWHUPVRIWKHLUFRJQLWLYH
elopment
opm
development vely. Results
levels, respectively. Resu of a Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Res
ted
ed that post-test scores off all groups were higher than the pre-test at
indicated
WKHOHYHORIVWDWLVWLFDOVLJQLÀFDQFH,QDGGLWLRQWKHDYHUDJHOHDUQLQJJDLQ
of the concrete, transitional, and formal students were 21%, 21% and 29%,
respectively. The analysis of t-test for one sample revealed that after learning
with the Chemistry Learning Material – Multiple Levels of Representation
(CLM-MLR) approach, the students had a high attitude towards science overall.
Level of students’ cognitive development that affects learning outcomes with
the multiple representation approach is discussed.

Keywords: Multiple representations, Chemistry teaching, 5E Instructional

model, Attitude toward science, Context-based learning

43
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

Introduction
Several educational theories adequately explain why chemistry can be a
GLIÀFXOWVXEMHFWIRUPDQ\VWXGHQWVWROHDUQ)LUVWO\FKHPLVWU\UHOLHVRQPDQ\
DEVWUDFWFRQFHSWVWKDWVWXGHQWVPD\KDYHGLIÀFXOW\LPDJLQLQJDQGWU\LQJWR
understand (Garnett & Treagust, 1992; Johnstone, 1993). In general, people are
most familiar with what they can directly observe. Take the simple example
of a cat, an animal most people are familiar with. When people see a tiger,
en though a tiger is a feline
they will notice and discern that it is not a cat, even
with four legs and a tail and shares many other er characterist
characteristics with the cat.
In the study of chemistry, however, students ntss cannot direct
direc
directly observe the
re,
structure of an atom or molecule; therefore,e, fundamental ch chemistry concepts
tudents
udents (Chandras
may not be easily comprehensible to students (Chand
(Chandrasegaran, Treagust, &
Macerino, 2008; Chittleborough & Treagust, 2008; Cokelez,C 2012; Devetak,
Volgrinc, & Glazar, 2009; Rompayom,
mpayom,
payom, Tambunchong,
Tambun
Tamb Wongyounoi, &
Dechsri, 2011; Tsai, 1999).
ncepts
Secondly, chemistry concepts epts typically involve
in he use of terminology
the t that
LVXQIDPLOLDURUFRQIXVLQJWRVWXGHQWV7DEHU)RUH[DPSOHWKHZRUG
LQJWRVWXGHQWV7D
QJWRVWXGHQWV7 )RU
)RUH[DP
“bonding” in the contextntext of chemistry
chemistr refers to an attractive
attractiv force
fo between
PY
DWRPVPROHFXOHVRULRQV,QWKLVVSHFLÀFFRQWH[WWKHZRUG´ERQGLQJµGLIIHUV
RULRQV,QWKLV
RULRQV,QWKLVVSH QWH[WWKHZRUG´E
greatly with itss use when applied
appl to living
ing things.
thing TheTh term “bonding”
may also referfer to a process of attachment
hment
ment that develops
de
develo between romantic
partners. In these cases, students
s ts may have pre-conceived
pre
pre- concepts of
“bonding”
ing” from their everyday
e ay lives
ves before they
the ever enter a chemistry
O

classroom.
room. Their preconceived
sroom. prec ed notion of the meaning of some terms can
ved
cause misunderstandings. In
use misundersta
misunders n the case of the term “bonding”, for example,
o th
C

theyy may conclude that atoms

ay conclu molecules are living entities (Taber, 2002).
mss and mole
molecu
Thirdly,
rdly,
dly mmany students view w chemistry
che as irrelevant to their everyday
lives. Ultay and Calik (2012) stated that the number of students who choose
to study chemistry at higher levels has decreased dramatically in recent years.
This may result from the fact that many students do not view knowledge of
chemistry as necessary in real life situations. In other words, many students
generally have negative attitudes towards chemistry and science in general.
)XUWKHUPRUHWKHVWXG\RIFKHPLVWU\LQ7KDLODQGPD\EHPRUHGLIÀFXOWIRU
Thai students than one might expect for a variety of cultural and linguistic
reasons. Thai students have to learn a variety of technical terms when they
VWXG\ FKHPLVWU\ )RU H[DPSOH 7KDL VWXGHQWV VKRXOG NQRZ WKH VFLHQWLÀF

44
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

vocabulary in Thai language, as well as the different use of identical terms

as they pertain to science and everyday use. Moreover, they are also required
to remember both English language technical terms, which are not translated
to Thai language, as well as Thai technical terms (e.g. the Thai translation
RI¶(OHFWURQ$IÀQLW\·RU¶,RQL]DWLRQ(QHUJ\·ZKLFKPHDQOLWWOHRUQRWKLQJ
WRWKHP)RUWKLVUHDVRQ7KDLVWXGHQWVKDYHWRXVHWKHLUZRUNLQJPHPRU\
more than ever and try much harder when learning g science
s or chemistry
(Wichaidit, 2015) than other disciplines.
To address these concerns, a number of science ience educators
educato have tried to

PY 'S
explore new teaching materials and methods. s. They develop sst
strategies which
are most relevant to the nature of chemistry mistry knowledge with the aim of
improving student understanding about ut the make-up of the sub-microscopic
world. Many educators exert effort rtt to make chemistry
chemi more meaningful
O R
to students such as using multimedia
timedia
imedia learning
learnin methods (Seufert, 2003),
0D\HU·V62,0RGHOVHOHFWLQJUHOHYDQWLQIRUPDWLRQRUJDQLVLQJLQIRUPDWLRQ
UHOHYDQWLQIRUPDW
HYDQWLQIRUPDW J
C O
in meaningful ways, focusing sing integrating new
ing on integra
integrati w information
inf
infor with the
OHDUQHU·VSULRUNQRZOHGJHRIPHDQLQJIXOOHDUQLQJ0D\HU 0RUHQR
JHRIPHDQLQJIXOO
PHDQLQJIXOO J0D\H
J0D\HU 0
Interdependence of Threehree Levels of S Science Concepts
Sci oncepts Model
Mo ((ITLS Model)
TH

(Devetak et. al., 2009), elicitation

09), or using the el n strategy in chemistry
on chem
che learning
(Rompayom, 2014). 14).
Context-based
based
sed learning is oone instructional
ructional strategy
stra that
t engages students
to learn chemistry
hemistry because it connects ects chemical knowledge
nnects kn
k with real life
situations,
ons, making chem chemistry more attractive and
ch an interesting for students.
AU

Students
ents view familiar
dents familia contextsxts as interesting and attractive and thus make
FRQQHFWLRQV
HFWLRQV EHWZHHQ
QQHFWLRQV EHWZ
EHWZH VFLHQWLÀF
WLÀF FRQWHQW
HQWLÀF FRQWHQ DQG
DQ WKHLU HYHU\GD\ OLYHV 7KHVH
contexts
texts facilitate meaningful
ts also faci
fac ingful learning (Ultay & Calik, 2012). King (2012)
ngful learn
learnin
utilised
d a context-based
co
cont approach tea chemistry to 11th grade students. In
ach to teach
her study,y cconcepts about ions in solution
sol were taught in the context of water
quality. The students discussed conductivity of water, hardness of water or
removal of ions by precipitation. The results indicated that the connections
between concepts and contexts enabled students to see the relevance of
chemistry in their everyday lives.
In the same demeanor, Cigdemoglu and Geban (2015) also implemented
a context-based approach for teaching chemical reactions and energy. They
integrated a context-based approach with a “5E” instructional model (Bybee,
Powell, & Trowbridge, 2008) in which each step of instruction was organised
over the context chosen. Participants in the study were 175 Grade 11 students

45
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

from two public high schools. The results revealed that the students who
learned with the context-based approach integrated with 5E instructional
model gained higher scores on achievement tests and were more capable of
solving conceptual and algorithmic problems than those who learned with
WKHPRUHWUDGLWLRQDOWHDFKHUFHQWHUHGDSSURDFK7KLVÀQGLQJLQGLFDWHGWKDW
using 5E instructional model to design learning activities in the context of a
VWXGHQW·VHYHU\GD\OLIHZRXOGDOVRHQKDQFHVWXGHQWDFDGHPLFDFKLHYHPHQW
DFD
The 5E instructional model is recognised d as an effective
ef science
instructional model that promotes student understanding
derstanding (Artun
((Ar & Costu,
&DO×N$\DV&ROO8QDO &RVWX7XUDO$NGHPL] $OHY
7XUDO$NGHPL]
XUDO$NGHPL]
Supporting results of using the 5E modell have been presen presented in a number
of research studies in science education ion
on in various con contexts using several
VFLHQWLÀFWRSLFV7KHVHLQFOXGH$UWXQDQG&RVWX$\GHGH.HVHUFLRJOX
QDQG&RVWX
DQG $UDEDFLRJOX  %U\FH DQG 0DFPLOODQ
0DFPLOODQ   &DO×N HW DO 
Demirci and Yavuz (2009); Hardy,
rdy,
y, Joen, Moller, aand Stern (2006); Niaz (2002);
Panizzon (2003); Rompayom m (2010); Tural eet aal. (2010);
0); and
an Wichaidit (2010).
The 5E instructional nal model consists
consis of fiveive phases:
pha engagement,
e
exploration, explanation,
tion, elaboration,
ation, elaboration and evaluation.
valuation. According
Accord
Acc to Bybee
PY
et al. (2008), the model has twotw main
m functions. provides guidance for
nctions. It provid
provide
curriculum developers
velopers designing
elopers in designi
design programmes
mmes and
grammes an improves
impr effectiveness
of instructionn through a more
mo systematic
matic approach.
approa In this study, learning
activities were organised b based on the 5E instruc
instructional model where the
instruct
household
hold materials were
wer introduced
w ed in every phase
duced ph of the instruction.
O

Another
nother strategy that enhances
nhances student chemistry learning is the use
of a variety
ariety of representations
rep
re ns to help students
ions stu see and connect chunks of
C

information.
rmation.
atio G Gilbert and Treagust
eagust (2009)
(200
(20 published an edited volume of
H[SORUDWRU\WKLQNLQJDERXW-RKQVWRQH·VWULDQJOHPDFURPLFURDQGV\PEROLF
DWRU\W
RU\ QVWRQH
levels of thought) and its possible implications to chemistry education. Gilbert
and Treagust referred to the three types of representations in chemistry as
phenomenological, model, and symbolic; therefore, for some chemistry
educators, the triplet was conceptualised in terms of representational levels.
However, many science educators have suggested the idea that chemical
knowledge should be clearly represented in three main ways: macro, sub-
micro, and symbolic (Adadan, 2013; Chittleborough & Treagust, 2007;
Johnstone, 1993; Waldrip & Prain, 2012).

46
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

1RZNQRZQDVWKHFKHPLVWU\WULSOHWWKH-RKQVWRQH·VWULDQJOHKDVEHFRPH
paradigmatic in chemistry and science education in general because it serves
both as the base of theoretical framework that guides research in chemical
HGXFDWLRQDQGDOVRVHUYHVDVDFHQWUDOLGHDLQYDULRXVFXUULFXODUSURMHFWV$V
a result, the triplet idea has been one of the most powerful and productive
ideas in chemistry education over the past 25 years (Talanquer, 2011). It may
have the same effect as the analogy teaching method. Itt al allows us to relate our
VFLHQWLÀFLGHDVWRLGHDVWKDWVWXGHQWVÀQGIDPLOLDU7KLVPDNHVWKHXQIDPLOLDU
7KLVP
7KLVPD
(i.e., what we are trying to explain or teach) familiariliar
ar by drawing
drawin on what the
draw
student or other people already knows (Coll, 2006; 006;
06; Harrison & Tr Treagust, 2006).

PY 'S
Representations in science teaching are also lso conceived as a means to learn
abstract concepts, as well as to understand,and, investigate
inve and
an solve problems.
Chemistry deals with a variety of abstract tract concepts. Instead of using only
bstract
O R
a single representation (e.g. a diagram),
gram), the useus of multiple
m representations
(e.g. a formula and a diagram)) is assumed to support ssu the development of
deeper understanding, onee in which learners learne
lear can better
bet
bette consolidate the
C O
information derived from m different
fferent represe
represen
representations. ns. Byy in
integ
integrating different
representations, learners rs are presumed
ers presum tto construct ruct conceptual
truct conceptua
conc knowledge
that relates and integrates
grates different types
ty of information (e.g.
(e. depictive and
TH

descriptive information) (Ainsworth, 2006,, 2008).

mation) (Ainswo
(Ainsworth 2008 However, aadding too much
representation n at one time and allowing ng unregulated
unregula free
fr exploration in a
vironment
nment may ge
learning environment g worki memory load that can
generate a heavy working
be detrimental,
mental,
ental, especially
especi for learners
rners
ers with low prior
pr knowledge who lack
AU

HQWVFKHPDWDWRLQ
FKHPDWDWR UDWHDOOWKHQHZLQI
DWHDOOWKHQHZL
VXIÀFLHQWVFKHPDWDWRLQFRUSRUDWHDOOWKHQHZLQIRUPDWLRQ&RUUDGL(OHQ 
Glarebout,
rebout,
ebout, 2012).
Instead
tead of allo
allowing learners
rners
ers with low
lo prior
p knowledge to freely explore
the abstract
bstract
rac chemistry
che concepts
ts that are irrelevant to their everyday lives, this
researchh stu
st
study would therefore like
lik to investigate how chemistry learning
units using multiple levels of representations integrated with the real life
situation of household chemistry affects 49 Grade 7 Thai students in terms
of both learning achievement and attitudes toward science.

47
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

Objective of the Study

This study aims to investigate the effect of the 5E Instructional Model
incorporated with multiple levels of representation in the context of household
chemistry on Grade 7 Thai students. The focus of the study is to pay attention
not only to the cognitive domain in terms of raising student understanding
of household chemistry concepts, but also the affective domain - attitude
earnin process of the 5E
towards science. Learning materials used follow the learning
evels of
Instructional Model incorporated with Multiple Levels o Re
Representations in
the Chemistry Learning Material as represented d by the acronym
acron CLM-MLR.

PY 'S
arch
This research study aims to answer the researchch question: “Does
“Do CLM-MLR
“D
LQVWUXFWLRQDIIHFW*UDGH7KDLVWXGHQWV·FRJQLWLYHDQGDIIHFWLYHGRPDLQV"µ
FRJQLWLYHDQGDIIH
The three research null hypotheses es are: (1) Students
Studen at all three levels of
O R
cognitive development (i.e. concrete,ete, transitional an
and formal) have average
test
est scores after lea
post-test scores higher than pre-test l
learning with CLM-MLR; (2)
develop
dev
Students at all three levels of cognitive development ha a high percentage
had
C O
fterr learning with CLM-MLR,
of average learning gain after C MLR,R, and
a (3) Students had
itude towards science.
a high positive level attitude sci
TH

Methodology
This section describes
scribes the research
escribes resear methods
hods addressing
addre the
t above questions.
6SHFLÀFDOO\
\ LW LV
V FRPSULVHG
FRPSULVHG RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV UHVHDUFK
UUHV DQG LQVWUXPHQW
design, and
nd a description
descript of the analysis
lysis process used.
u
AU

rticipants
cipants
Participants
Participants
ticipants
pants of this
th research
h were the 49 Grade
G 7 students with ages ranging
from 12 to 13 years. They have ve studied
studi normal science course during the
HV
HVW 
ÀUVWVHPHVWHUDQGDWWHQGHGDWZRPLQXWHFODVVSHUZHHN$OOSDUWLFLSDQWV
involved in the study were instructed by the in-service chemistry teacher and
exposed to an identical syllabus that incorporated three levels of multiple
representations in chemistry. Participants were classified as concrete,
transitional and formal students based on their scores from the logical
thinking test (Tobin & Capie, 1981). Average pre-test score ranging from 0-7,
was used to classify students as either “concrete”, “transitional” or “formal”
in terms of reasoning ability and cognitive development.

48
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

Research Design
This research was a quasi-experimental, one-group pre-test/post-test study
designed to assess learning gain and effectiveness of the 5E Instructional
Model incorporated with Multiple Levels of Representation. The students
previously underwent logical thinking test and an achievement test on
knowledge of household chemistry. The achievement test was regarded as
a pre-test. The scores from the logical thinking testt were
wer used to indicate
RSPHQ
RSPHQW7K
DQGFODVVLI\WKHVWXGHQWV·OHYHORIFRJQLWLYHGHYHORSPHQW7KHQWKHVWXGHQWV
rning material using
experienced an entire unit of the chemistry learning u multiple

PY 'S
KHUV
UV )LQDOO\ WKH
UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV GHYHORSHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHUV WKH VWXGHQWV WRRN
the achievement test based on the same version of the pre pre-test in addition
to the attitude toward science scale questionnaire.
uestionnaire.
estionnaire. Student
Stud scores from the
achievement test and attitude toward rd science scale were
w then analysed.
O R
Research Instruments
C O
)RXUUHVHDUFKLQVWUXPHQWVZHUHXVHGLQWKLVVWXG\QDPHO\&KHPLVWU\
VZHUHXVHGLQWK
ZHUHXVHGLQWK \QDPHO\
QDP
Learning Module using g Multiple Levels
ng Level of Representations
epresentations
presenta (CLM-MLR),
which was designed d to follow each phase
p
ph of the 5Es method
metho (Engagement,
(
TH

Elaboration, Explanation, Elaboration, and

anation, Elaboratio
Elabo Logical Thinking
d Evaluation); (2) L
7HVW72/7E\7RELQDQG&DSLH$FKLHYHPHQW7HVWRQ+RXVHKROG
\7RELQDQG&DSLH
7RELQDQG&DSLH $FKLHYHPHQW
$FKLHYH
&KHPLVWU\$7+&DQG7HVWRI6FLHQFH5HODWHG$WWLWXGHV7265$E\
$7+&DQG7
7+&DQG 6FLHQFH5HODW
6FLHQFH5HODWHG$
)UDVHU


AU

&KHPLVWU\/HDUQLQJ0DWHULDOV,QFRUSRUDWHGZLWKWKH0XOWLSOH/HYHOVRI
PLVWU\/HDUQLQJ LDOV,QFRUSRUDWHG
DOV,QFRUSRUDWHG
Representations
presentations (CLM-MLR)
sentations (CLM
(C R)
The CLM-MLR
LM- concerning household chemistry concepts was developed
by the researchers
resea
ese based on incorporating
ncorpo the ideas of multiple levels of
representation (MLR) and context-based
b learning. The CLM-MLR consisted of
VHYHQOHVVRQSODQVQDPHO\&ODVVLÀFDWLRQRI6XEVWDQFHVLQ(YHU\GD\/LIH
$GGLWLYHVLQ)RRG&RQWDPLQDQWVLQ)RRG7HVWLQJRI&RQWDPLQDQWV
LQ)RRG&OHDQLQJ$JHQWV0DNLQJ6RDSWR8VHLQWKH+RPHDQG
(7) Acid - Base Chemicals in Everyday Life.

49
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

Each lesson plan was designed for completion in two hours. The learning
process of each lesson plan followed the 5E Instructional Model (Bybee et
DO$VDQH[DPSOHDQRXWOLQHRIWKHÀUVWOHVVRQSODQ¶&ODVVLÀFDWLRQRI
6XEVWDQFHLQ(YHU\GD\/LIH·LVSUHVHQWHGEHORZ
1. The teacher encouraged students to think of how chemistry relates to
all aspects of their everyday lives by posing questions such as ‘How
U\"·H
\ 
GR\RXWKLQNRXUOLYHVDUHUHODWHGWRFKHPLVWU\"·HJwe inhale oxygen
gas into our body, toothpaste is a chemical, body ody soap is
i a chemical, some
ÀVKVRXUFHVWKDWZHHDWDUHFKHPLFDOV) and ‘If If we would li like to classify all

PY 'S
VXEVWDQFHVKRZFRXOGZHGRLW"·HJwe J we can classify ssubstances by its
J
physical state, we can use its colour too group them )). The
them). Then, the teacher led
DVL]HWKDWVXEVWDQF
VL]HWKDWVXEVWD
WKHÀQDOGLVFXVVLRQWRUHHPSKDVL]HWKDWVXEVWDQFHVFDQEHVHSDUDWHG
O R
XVHG
GHSHQGLQJRQWKH¶FULWHULRQ·XVHG
2. Students worked in a group oup of four doing
do
doin a hands-on activity on
classifying substancess encountered in everyday ay llife (e.g. tap water,
C O
hing
table salt, dishwashing g detergents, starches,
st
sta vegetable
et oils and sugar).
lassify a variety of
Students had to classify o substance
nce by asking
ask su questions
such
H SK\VLFDOO\ VHSDU
DV ¶&DQ LW EH VHSD
VHSDUDWHG"· ¶,V WKH FRPSR
FRPSRVLWLR
FRPSRVLWLRQ XQLIRUP"·
TH

WEHFKHPLFDOO\
WEHFKHPLFDOO\GH RVHG"·7KHWHDFKH
RVHG"·7KHWHDFKHU
DQG¶&DQLWEHFKHPLFDOO\GHFRPSRVHG"·7KHWHDFKHUOLQNVWKHZRUG
Q·XVHGLQWKHSUHY DVVLÀFDWLRQDQGG
LÀFDWLRQ
¶FULWHULRQ·XVHGLQWKHSUHYLRXVFODVVLÀFDWLRQDQGGLVFXVVHVWKHUHVXOWV
JKDQGVRQDFWLYLWLH
QGVRQDFWLYL UHDFKLQJWKHÀ
UHDFKLQJWKHÀQDOV
XVLQJKDQGVRQDFWLYLWLHVXQWLOUHDFKLQJWKHÀQDOVXPPDU\RI¶FULWHULRQ·
HQWLVWXVHG7
HQWLVWXVHG7KHR HRIWKHFODVVLÀFDW
RIWKHFODVVLÀFD
VFLHQWLVWXVHG7KHREMHFWLYHRIWKHFODVVLÀFDWLRQZDVWRFRPSOHWHWKH
OHDUQLQJVWDQGDUG
QLQJVWDQGD DGHVWXGHQWV
DGHVWXGHQWVDV
OHDUQLQJVWDQGDUGRI*UDGHVWXGHQWVDVVSHFLÀHGLQWKH7KDLODQG
AU

e
science basic education on curriculum. ThisTh phase corresponds to the
T
PDFURVFRS
PDFURVFRSLF I-RKQVWRQH·VWULD
-RKQVWRQH·V
PDFURVFRSLFOHYHORI-RKQVWRQH·VWULDQJOH
3. The teacher
The teac ussion
ssion linki
led a discussion link
linking the result of the hands-on activity
nd it
and its explanations at thee microscopic
mic
i level. Students did an exercise
on homogeneous and heterogeneous substances, pure substance and
mixture, solutions, and colloids and suspensions. The entire exercise
was presented to allow students to practice in linking what they see/
observe at the macroscopic level to the explanation behind those
SKHQRPHQDDWWKHPLFURVFRSLFOHYHODQGÀQDOO\OHDGLQJWKHVWXGHQWV
to see how chemists communicate with other people at the symbolic
level (see Appendix A).

50
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

4. Students extended (elaborated) their understanding by working in

small groups to construct a ball-and-stick model of assigned molecules
found in a chemical substance. The students constructed a model
of a substance equal to a balanced equation. The students would
understand how chemistry is communicated to others through the
use of chemistry equations.
5. Students presented the model and explained ned its corresponding
meanings. This phase was intended to checkck their
eck thei understanding.
un In
addition, the students were asked to do
o 10-multiple choice
cch exercises

PY 'S
at the end of the chapter.
7KUHH H[SHUWV LQ WKH ÀHOG RI FKHPLVWU\
LVWU\ HGX UHYLHZHG WKH LQLWLDO
HGXFDWLRQ UH
YHUVLRQRIWKHGUDIWUHJDUGLQJDFRQVLVWHQF\EHWZHHQOHDUQLQJREMHFWLYHVDQG
VLVWHQF\EHWZHHQOH
WHQF\EHWZHHQ
O R
OHDUQLQJDFWLYLWLHVEFRQVLVWHQF\EHWZHHQOHDUQLQJREMHFWLYHVDQGDVVHVVPHQW
EHWZHHQOHDUQ
EHWZHHQOHDUQLQJR
strategies, (c) consistency betweentween
ween learning activities
a and assessment
strategies, (d) consistency between
etween
tween the learnin
learn
learning activities/materials
ities/
tie and the
C O
concepts of Multiple Levels vels of Representation,
Representa and
nd (e)
e) appropriateness
app of
time usage. After the evaluation
valuation
aluation by the experts, the
th ex he draft o learning unit was
of learn
then revised and subsequently
bsequently distributed
distrib
distri to
o the participants.
participan
TH

The Test of Logical (TOLT)

cal Thinking (TOL
7KH72/7ZDVRULJLQDOO\GHYHORSHGE\7RELQDQG&DSLHWRGHWHUPLQH
ZDVRULJLQDOO\GHY
RULJLQDOO\GH GE\7RELQDQG&DS
E\7RELQDQG&
the reasoning
ning ability of sstudents.
oning ts. The test consists
consis of 10 multiple-choice
AU

LWHPV GHVLJQHG WR P

PHDVXUH
PH VWXGHQWV· UHDVRQLQJ
UHDVRQ
UHDVR DELOLWLHV LQ ILYH DUHDV
controlling
rolling variables,
ntrolling variable proportional
portional reasoning,
reason probabilistic reasoning,
correlational
ational reasoning,
rrelational reas
rea and combinatorial reasoning (see Appendix B).
d combinator
combina
6WXGHQWVVHOHFWDUHVSRQVHIURPDPRQJÀYHSRVVLELOLWLHVDQGFRUUHVSRQGLQJ
HQWVVHOHFW
WVV RPDPRQJ
RPDPRQJ
ÀYHMXVWLÀFDWLRQV7KHFRUUHFWDQVZHULVWKHFRUUHFWFKRLFHSOXVWKHFRUUHFW
WLÀFD
ÀF DQVZH
MXVWLÀFDWLRQ7RELQDQG&DSHUHSRUWHGWKDWWKH&URQEDFK·VDOSKDUHOLDELOLW\
FRHIÀFLHQWRIWKHLQVWUXPHQWZDV,QWKLVVWXG\WKH72/7ZDVWUDQVODWHG
into Thai Language by the researchers and was administered to 101 Grade
8 Thai students in Muang district, Songkhla Province, Thailand. Prior to the
administration of the questionnaire, the researcher explained the purpose,
PDQQHUDQGWLPHUHTXLUHGWRÀQLVKWKHWHVWPLQXWHV%DVHGRQWKHUHVXOWV
RIWKHSLORWVWXG\&URQEDFK·VDOSKDUHOLDELOLW\ZDVIRXQGWREH

51
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

Achievement Test on Household Chemistry (ATHC)

An achievement test on the topic of household chemistry was developed
by the researcher. The test comprised of 40 multiple-choice items related to
FODVVLÀFDWLRQRIVXEVWDQFHVHQFRXQWHUHGLQHYHU\GD\OLIHVXFKDVDGGLWLYHV
in food, contaminants in food, testing of contaminants in food, cleaning
agents, how soap works, and the acid - base nature of common chemicals.
All of test items were written mainly at the knowledge,ge, comprehension,
g co and
7KHWHV
7KHWHVWFD
DSSOLFDWLRQOHYHOVIROORZLQJ%ORRP·V7D[RQRP\7KHWHVWFDQEHÀQLVKHGLQ
HGXFDWLRQUHYL
HGXFDWLRQUHYLHZ
DQKRXU7KUHHH[SHUWVLQWKHÀHOGRIFKHPLVWU\HGXFDWLRQUHYLHZHGWKHLQLWLDO

PY 'S
version of the test regarding: (a) adequacy off the
he chemistry co
con
contents covered,
(b) appropriateness of the distracters, andd (c) consistency between
b the item
REMHFWLYHVDQGWKHWHVWLWHPV
O R
Not merely focusing on the capacity pacity to remember,
remembe most questions were
rememb
ons,
also related to real life applications, ns, some of them
the incorporating the macro-,
micro-, and symbolic levels of representatio
representation iin chemistry.
mis
mist In other words,
C O
DUWLFLSDQWV·DELOLW\
WLFLSDQWV·DELOLW DWHWRZK
WR
VRPHLWHPVDVVHVVHGWKHSDUWLFLSDQWV·DELOLW\WRUHODWHWRZKDWWKH\KDGVHHQ
(macroscopic level) in the he explanation in the microscopic
croscopic
roscopic level and what the
chemists would say when they try tto communicate municate
unicate with others
othe (symbolic
o
TH

udy of the achievement

level). The pilot study achieve
ach conducte to 101 middle
test was conducted
school students from a school in M Muang District,
trict, Son
Songkhla P Province, Thailand.
Reliability off the
he test was det
deter
determined to be 0.76 follfollowin
following calculating internal
consistencycy values using theth Kuder-Richardson
er-Richardson
-Richardson 20 formula.
f In addition, the
LWHP GLIÀFXOW\
LIÀFXOW\
XOW\ RI WKH WH
WHVW UDQJHG
JHG IURP
URP 

 DQG LWHP GLVFULPLQDWLRQ
AU

JHGIURP
HGIURP HVKRZVH[DPSO
UDQJHGIURP)LJXUHVKRZVH[DPSOHVRIWKHWHVWLWHPV

1. What are
a the properties
operties
perties of this
th chemical product?

Ingredients for toilet

ilet cleaner
c
Citric acid 3.5%
Lauryl Dimethyl amino oxide 2.0%

a. Acid because it is composed of citric acid.

b. Base because it is composed of citric acid.
c. Acid because it is composed of Lauryl Dimethyl amino oxide.
d. Neutral because it is composed of Lauryl Dimethyl amino oxide.

52
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

2. Which of the following best represents the changing process?

A. H22Vń+22 " )

B. H22 " ń+22 " )

C. H22 " ń+22J

D. H22Vń+
2Vń 22J

PY 'S Figure 1. Sample item

m of the ATHC.
m the chemistry textbook
Note: The above picture was taken from tte by Timberlake
O R
(2012, p. 83)
C O
des
es (TOSRA)
Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOS
The attitude toward scienceence of students was w measured
asured by
b usiusing the Test of
XGHV7265$FR
XGHV7265$FRQ
6FLHQFH5HODWHG$WWLWXGHV7265$FRQVWUXFWHGE\ GE\ )UDVHU
)UDVHU
)UDVHU7KHRULJLQDO
TH

5$FRQVLVWH
5$FRQVLVWHGRI PHQWVRIDWWLWXGHV
PHQWVRIDWWLWXGHV
IXOOYHUVLRQRI7265$FRQVLVWHGRIVWDWHPHQWVRIDWWLWXGHVWRZDUGVFLHQFH
and comprised of seven aspects
aspects, namely; y; (1) Social Implic
Implications of Science,
\RI6FLHQWLVWV$
I6FLHQWLVWV HWRZDUG6FLH
HWRZDUG6FLHQWLÀF,
1RUPDOLW\RI6FLHQWLVWV$WWLWXGHWRZDUG6FLHQWLÀF,QTXLU\$GRSWLRQ
ÀF$WWLWXGHV(Q HQWRI6FLHQFH/HVV
QWRI6FLHQFH/HV
RI6FLHQWLÀF$WWLWXGHV(QMR\PHQWRI6FLHQFH/HVVRQV/HLVXUH,QWHUHVW
nce,, and (7) Career
in Science, Car est in
Interest n Science.
S
AU

ach aspect contains

Each cont 100 statements which
whic include both positive and
JDWLYHYLHZVWRZ
YHYLHZVWR QFH7KH7265$
FH7KH726
QHJDWLYHYLHZVWRZDUGVFLHQFH7KH7265$XVHVWKHSRLQW/LNHUWVFDOHZLWK
LHVUDQJLQJ
UDQJ O\DJUHH·WR¶
\DJUHH·WR
UHSOLHVUDQJLQJIURP¶VWURQJO\DJUHH·WR¶VWURQJO\GLVDJUHH·5HOLDELOLW\RIWKH
DOYHUVL
YHU R EH  
REH
RULJLQDOYHUVLRQZDVUHSRUWHGWREH,QWKLVUHVHDUFKRQO\ÀYHDVSHFWVRI
attitudes toward science were selected for congruence with the Thai social
context, namely: Social Implications of Science, Normality of Scientists,
$WWLWXGHWRZDUG6FLHQWLÀF,QTXLU\(QMR\PHQWRI6FLHQFH/HVVRQVDQG/HLVXUH
,QWHUHVW LQ 6FLHQFH 7KH WRWDO QXPEHU RI WKH 7265$ ZDV  VWDWHPHQWV
GLYLGHGHYHQO\EHWZHHQVWDWHPHQWVUHÁHFWLQJSRVLWLYHDQGQHJDWLYHYLHZV
WRZDUGVFLHQFH7KHÀUVWDXWKRUWUDQVODWHGWKH7265$(QJOLVKYHUVLRQWR7KDL
YHUVLRQ7KHDFFXUDF\RIWKHWUDQVODWHGYHUVLRQZDVYHULÀHGE\DQH[SHUW7KH
7KDLODQJXDJH7265$ZDVWKHQDGPLQLVWHUHGWR*UDGH7KDLVWXGHQWV
in order to determine its reliability. A reliability test was performed with the
UHVXOWLQJ&URQEDFKDOSKDFRHIÀFLHQWRI

53
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

Procedure
The researcher visited the school and consulted with the in-service chemistry
WHDFKHU UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WHDFKLQJ VFLHQFH LQ WKH ÀUVW VHPHVWHU RI WKH 
academic year. The researcher and the teacher discussed the purpose of the
learning unit. Prior to studying with the CLM-MLR learning unit, students
FRPSOHWHGWKH72/7DQG$7+&DVSUHWHVWV6FRUHVIURPWKH72/7ZHUH
cogng
then used to classify students into the three levels of cognitive development:
aching
concrete, transitional and formal. During the teaching ching process,
proc
p the teacher
taught the students using the CLM-MLR. The he researcher was w a passive

PY 'S
classroom observer. The teaching process took ok a total of 14 hou
ho
hours to cover the
entire learning unit. At the end of the unit,
nit, the ATCH was administered to
WKHVWXGHQWVDVWKHSRVWWHVWDVZHOODVWKH7265$WRGHWHUPLQHWKHLUDWWLWXGH
WKH7265$WRGHWH
KH7265$WR
toward science. The researcher analysed
ysed
sed the effects of tthe CLM-MLR in terms
O R
DFKVWXGHQWDQ
DFKVWXGHQWDQGF
RISRVWWHVWSUHWHVWVFRUHVIRUHDFKVWXGHQWDQGFODVVLÀHGXQGHUFRQFUHWH
transitional and formal groups. s. Results of learni
learnin
learning gains between the groups
C O
were analysed, as with the attitude
ttitude toward science
s of the
th group
g as a whole.

Data Collection and Analysis

TH

This study was a quasi-experim

quasi-experimental, one-group
quasi-experimen ne-group pre-test/post-test study
e-group pre-test/
designed to assesssess learning gain and effect CLM-MLR. The Statistical
fect of the CLM-M
C
Package for thee Social Scienc
Sciences
Scien (SPSS was used to analyse the
SS version 17) wa
data. Means
ans standard deviations
ns and stand d ons determined through descriptive
ns were determ
determin
VWDWLVWLFV
FV WR SDUWLFLSDQWV·
R DVVHVV SD
SDUWL V· DELOLWLHV DQG WKHLU DFKLHYHPHQW
· UHDVRQLQJ DEL
DELOLW
AU

on household
ousehold chemistry
chemi concepts.
ncepts. A non-parametric
oncepts. non-pa statistics Wilcoxon
signed-rank
gned-rank
d-rank test w with p-valuelue used to compare pre- and post-test
ue < .01 was use
scores student achievement.
res of stude
studen ent. Also, ssingle-student normalised gain, g,
ment.
(wheree g = % %post-test score- %pre-test
pre-test score/100-%pre-test) was calculated.
)RUWKHHIIHFWRIWKH&/00/5RQVWXGHQWOHDUQLQJJ!DQGJDYHZHUH
II RQ
FRPSXWHG,QDGGLWLRQDWWHVWIRU2QH6DPSOHZDVXVHGWRDQDO\VHPHDQ
VFRUHRIVWXGHQWV·DWWLWXGHWRZDUGVFLHQFH7KHH[SHFWHGVFRUHZDVPRUHWKDQ
ZKLFKLQGLFDWHVDKLJKOHYHO)RUPXODVXVHGWRFDOFXODWHVWXGHQWOHDUQLQJ
gain are summarised as follows.

54
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

  JLVWKHVLQJOHVWXGHQWQRUPDOL]HGJDLQGHÀQHGDV
%Gain
g = %Gain(max)

(%posttest—%pretest)
g=
100—%pretest

  Q GHÀ

J! LV WKH FRXUVH DYHUDJH QRUPDOLVHG JDLQ GHÀQHG DV WKH DFWXDO
PD[LP
PD[LPXP
DYHUDJH JDLQ *DLQ! GLYLGHG E\ WKH PD[LPXP SRVVLEOH DFWXDO
DYHUDJHJDLQ*DLQ!max$SUHGHÀQHGWDUJHWJ!RIZDVWDNHQ
GWDUJHWJ!RI
GWDUJHWJ!RI

PY 'S
DVGHÀQLQJWKHPLQLPXPYDOXHDWZKLFKWKHHGXFDWLRQDOLQWHUYHQWLRQ
KLFKWKHHGXFDWLRQD
KWKHHGXFDWLRQ
could be regarded as effective (Colt,
t, Davoudi, Murgu & Rohani, 2011).
  J! *DLQ!*DLQ!max
O R
  J! SRVWWHVW!SUHWHVW!SUHWHVW!
HWHVW!
HWHVW!SU
3. g-ave is the course average
ragee normalised g
gain calculated
cu as the average
C O
gain gi:
of the single-studentt normalised gains
gai
1 gi
g-ave = ƴi
N
TH

1
= ƴi[(%post —%pr
%pre)/(100
% 0 —%pre)
N
where re N is the numb
numbe
number of students
udents
dents taking bboth the pre- and post-
test
stt and the sum
summation
summa is over
er all N students.
studen
AU

Results
sults
7KHVWXGHQWVZHUHFODVVLÀHGDVFRQFUHWHWUDQVLWLRQDODQGIRUPDOEDVHGRQWKHLU
VWXGHQWVZH
GHQW DVFRQFUHWHWU
VFRQFUHWH
VFRUHVIURPWKHORJLFDOWKLQNLQJWHVW7RELQ &DSLH,IDVWXGHQW·VSUH
IURPWK
RP J WHVW 7
JWHVW7
G
WHVWVFRUHUDQJHGIURPWKHVWXGHQW·VOHYHORIUHDVRQLQJVNLOOVLVFODVVLÀHG
DV¶FRQFUHWH·VFRUHVDWZHUHFODVVLÀHGDV¶WUDQVLWLRQDO·DQGVFRUHVHTXDO
WRRUKLJKHUWKDQDV¶IRUPDO·OHYHORIFRJQLWLYHGHYHORSPHQW6HH7DEOH

55
 Table 1

56
Students’ Scores on the TOLT and the ATHC
ATH tests (N=49)
tive
Reason- Level of Cognitive Ac
Ach
Achievement Rea- Level of Cognitive Achievement
ing Development
ent Score (40) soning Development Score (40)
No. No.
Score Conc. Trans. )RUPDO Po
P
RUPDO Pre-test Post-test Score Conc. Trans. )RUPDO Pre-test Post-test
(10) (10)
1 1 9 11 14 26 1 9 13 19
AU
2 2 9 22 24 27 5 9 22 26
3 3 9 166 18 2
28 2 9 13 24
4 1 9 11 23 29 1 9 18 23
5 3 9 20 30 30 2 9 20 25
6 1 9 10
1 23 31 2 9 18 26
7 0 9 19 222 322 0 9 19 23
TH
8 2 9 20 20 33 4 9 22 30
9 1 9 155 23 34 3 9 13 18
10 2 9 19 23
2 355 0 9 10 21
C O
11 4 9 19 25 36 1 9 16 30
12 1 9 8 8 37 2 9 10 14
13 0 9 17 21 338 3 9 14 21
O R
14 1 9 15 18 39 1 9 13 13
15 3 9 11 16 4
40 1 9 11 15
16 3 9 19 30 41 1 9 10 10
17 3 9 19 266 422 1 9 7 17
18 2 9 20 30 43 1 9 6 10
PY 'S
19 3 9 21 24 4
44 1 9 14 18
20 3 9 22 23 45 2 9 10 18
21 7 9 24 34 46 2 9 10 14
22 2 9 13 23 47 2 9 9 13
23 5 9 13 25 48 2 9 14 11
24 4 9 17 18 49 2 9 7 14
25 2 9 24 28
5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

7DEOHVKRZVWKDWVWXGHQWV·UHDVRQLQJVFRUHVUDQJHGIURP,QGLYLGXDO
VWXGHQW·VSUHWHVWVFRUHVRQWKHDFKLHYHPHQWWHVWUDQJHGIURPZKLOH
VWXGHQWV· SRVWWHVW VFRUHV UDQJHG IURP  2I WKH WRWDO  VWXGHQWV 
 ZHUH FODVVLÀHG DV FRQFUHWH   DV WUDQVLWLRQDO DQG 
DVIRUPDO7KHVWXGHQWV·DYHUDJHSUHWHVWDQGSRVWWHVWVFRUHVIURP
the ATHC test were plotted in order to observe trends emerging from using
WKH&/00/5)LJXUH



PY 'S


6FRUH

O R


C O


3UHWHVW 3RVWWHVW
3R
TH

&RQFUHWH 
 
7UDQVLWLRQDO
RQDO  
)RUPDO
PD  
AU

Figure 2. T
Trend of average pre-test
pre-tes and post-test scores.

VKRZQ
KRZ DJHSU
JH SU
$VVKRZQLQ)LJXUHDYHUDJHSUHWHVWVFRUHVRIWKHVWXGHQWVEHORQJLQJ
to concrete, transitional and formal were 12.79, 15.27, and 18.29, respectively.
Average post-test scores among the same groups were 18.47, 20.47, and 24.71,
respectively. The result indicates that the formal students had more prior
knowledge than their counterparts in the transitional and concrete levels.
However, average post-test scores were higher than the average pre-test
VFRUHVIRUDOOWKUHHJURXSV,QRUGHUWRFRQÀUPWKLVUHVXOWWKHSUHWHVWDQG
post-test scores of the ATHC test were then computed and analysed. As
the total number of students in all groups was not equal, a nonparametric
statistical Wilcoxon signed-rank test was adopted to compare the pre-test
and post-test results for each group (Table 2).

57
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

Table 2
Results of the Nonparametric testing, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test (N=49)

Wilcoxon Signed-
Ranks Test
Test Z p-value
Mean Sum of
N
Ranks Rank
Negative Rank 0 .00 .0
.00
Pair 1 Concrete Positive Rank 16 8.500 136.00
136.0 3.530 .000
Students
Ties 3

PY 'S
Negative Rank 1 2.00 2.00
Pair 2 Transitional Positive Rank 133 7.9
7.92 103
103.00 3.188 .001
Students
Ties 1
O R
nk
Negative Rankk 0 .0
.00 .00
3DLU)RUPDO Positive Rank
ank
k 15 7.50
7 105.00
100 3.299 .001
C O
Students
Ties 0
(N 15 and 19)) are Z=16 and 32,
Note: Critical values of Wilcoxon test (N= 32 respectively;
p-value = .01 (2-tailed test)
est)
TH

In order to answer the ques quest

question “Did Didd the stud
students perform
pe better in the
post-test than n in
n the pre-test"µ
pre-test WKH
W QXOO OO K\SRWKHVLV
K\SRWKHVL +o) was that there was
no differencence between the pre-test
ence stt and post-test scores. The alternative
hypothesis
esiss (H1) wass th
that there was a difference;
difference that
th the median change was
AU

QRQ]HUR7KHREWDLQHGYDOXHZDVVWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQLÀFDQWLILWZDVHTXDOWRRU
]HUR7KHREWDLQHG
]HUR7KHREWDLQH ZDVVWDWLVWLFDOO\V
maller
smallerer than, the crcri alue
ue of Wilcoxon ttest. As presented in Table 2, the
critical value
ained
obtaineded values from
f mparison of tthe difference between medians using
the comparison
ilcoxon
oxo ssigned rank test revealed that: (1) Students in the concrete level
the Wilcoxon
eas
as learning achievement
had increased ent after using the CLM-MRL at a statistical
VLJQLÀFDQFHRI= SYDOXH 7UDQVLWLRQDOOHYHOVWXGHQWV
KDGLQFUHDVHGOHDUQLQJDFKLHYHPHQWDWWKHOHYHORIVWDWLVWLFDOVLJQLÀFDQFH
= SYDOXH DQG)RUPDOOHYHOVWXGHQWVKDGKLJKHUOHDUQLQJ
DFKLHYHPHQWDWWKHOHYHORIVWDWLVWLFDOVLJQLÀFDQFH= SYDOXH 
.001). All obtained values of the test were smaller than the critical value and
WKHLUSYDOXHVZHUHVPDOOHUWKDQWKXVWKHQXOOK\SRWKHVLVZDVUHMHFWHG,Q
other words, it could be concluded that the concrete, transitional, and formal
student groups all did better on the post-test than the pre-test. The learning
JDLQVIRULQGLYLGXDOVWXGHQWVFODVVLÀHGDVFRQFUHWHWUDQVLWLRQDODQGIRUPDO
level were analysed. The results are presented in Table 3.

58
 Table 3
6WXGHQWV·,QGLYLGXDO*DLQ6FRUHDQG$YHUDJH*DLQ6FRUH1
YHUDJ 
&RQFUHWH2SHUDWLRQDO6WDJH6WXGHQW
XGHQW
HQW 7UDQVLWLRQDO2SHUDWLRQDO6WDJH6WXGHQW
7UDQ
7UDQVLW )RUPDO2SHUDWLRQDO6WDJH6WXGHQW
Achievement Score Achievement Score Achievement Score
No. Pre- Post- g No.
N Pr
Pre- Post- g No. Pre- Post- g
%Pre %Post %Pre %Post %Pre %Post
test test test test test test
1 11 27.5 14 35 0.10 2 22 55 24 60 0.11 3 16 40 18 45 0.08
AU
4 11 27.5 23 57.5 0.41 8 20 50 20 50 0.00 5 20 50 30 75 0.50
6 10 25 23 57.5 0.43 10 19 47.5 23 57.5 0.19 11 19 47.5 25 62.5 0.29
7 19 47.5 22 55 0.14 18 20 50 30 75 0.50 15 11 27.5 16 40 0.17
9 15 37.5 23 57.5 0.32
32 22 13 32.55 23 57.5
57 0.37 16 19 47.5 30 75 0.52
12 8 20 8 20 0.00 25 24 60 28 70 0.25 17 19 47.5 26 65 0.33
TH
13 17 42.5 21 52.55 0.17 28 13 32.5 24 60 0.41
0.4 19 21 52.5 24 60 0.16
14 15 37.5 18 45 0.12 30 20 50 25 62.5 0.25
0.2 20 22 55 23 57.5 0.06
C O
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

26 13 32.5 19 47.5 0.222 31 18 4

45 26 65 0.36 212 24 60 34 85 0.63
29 18 45 23 57.5 0.23 37 10 25 14 35 0.13 23 13 32.5 25 62.5 0.44
32 19 47.5 23 57.5 0.19 45 10 25 1
18 455 0.27 24 1
17 42.5 18 45 0.04
O R
35 10 25 21 52.5 0.37 46 100 25 14 35 0.13 27 22 55 26 65 0.22
36 16 40 30 75 0.58 47 9 22.5 13 32.5
3 0.13
133 33 22 55
5 30 75 0.44
39 13 32.5 13 32.5 0.00 48 14 35 11 27.5 -0.12 34 13 32.5
32 18 45 0.19
PY 'S
40 11 27.5 15 37.5 0.14 49 7 17.5
.5 14 35
3 0.21 388 14 35
3 21 52.5 0.27
41 10 25 10 25 0.00 Ave. 15.27 20.47 Ave. 18.13
18 1 24.27
42 7 17.5 17 42.5 0.30 Average Learning Gain 0.21 Average Learning Gain 0.29
43 6 15 10 25 0.12
44 14 35 18 45 0.15
Ave. 12.79 18.47

59
Average Learning Gain 0.21
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

The data in Table 3 indicate that the individual gain scores of the students
belonging to the concrete level ranged from 0.00 to 0.58 (0-58%) and with an
average gain score of 0.21 (21%); the transitional level students ranged from
-0.12 to 0.50 (none to 50 %) and with an average gain score of 0.21 (21%) and
the formal level students ranged from 0.04-0.63 (4-63%) and with an average
gain score of 0.29 (29%).
)LQDOO\VWXGHQWV·DWWLWXGHVWRZDUGVFLHQFHZHUHPHDVXUHGXVLQJWKH7HVW
PHDVX
RI6FLHQFH5HODWHG$WWLWXGHV7265$5HVXOWVRIWKHDQDO\VLVRIWKHDVVRFLDWHG
KHDQDO\
KHDQDO\VLV
2QH6DPSOHWWHVWDUHLOOXVWUDWHGLQ7DEOH

PY 'S
Table 4
Results of Attitude Toward Science [TOSRA TEST,
EST, Thai version](N=49)
version](N
O R
Test V
Value = 3.50
Attitude toward Science
N df Mean S.D. t
C O
1. nce
ce
Social Implications of Science 49 4
48 3.533
533 .438 .522
2. Normality of Scientists 49 48 3.300 .514 -2.722
$WWLWXGHWRZDUG6FLHQWLÀF
LHQWLÀF
HQWLÀF 449 48
8 3.441 .4
.486 -.853
TH

Inquiry
(QMR\PHQWRI6FLHQFH/HVVRQV
RI6FLHQFH/HVVRQV
I6FLHQFH/HVVRQV 49 48 4.004 .663 5.322*
5. Leisure Interest
nterest
st in Science 49 48 3.
3.802 .553 3.824*

Over all 49 48 3.616 .399 2.032*

AU

Note:
te: t(df=48) = 1.677, p<.05

$VSUHVHQWHGLQ7DEOHWKHDQDO\VLVRIWKHWWHVWIRU2QH6DPSOHLQGLFDWHG
$VSUHVHQWHG
SUHV KHDQDO\VLV
KHDQDO\VLVR
WKDWDYHUDJHPHDQVFRUHRIVWXGHQWV·DWWLWXGHWRZDUGVFLHQFHZDVDWDKLJK
HUDJH
UDJ GHQWV·
level (X= 3.616, SD= .399, t=2.032) overall. In a breakdown by individual
DVSHFWVKRZHYHURQO\(QMR\PHQWRI6FLHQFH/HVVRQVX= 4.004, SD=.663,
t=5.332) and Leisure Interest in Science (X= 3.802, SD=.553, t=3.824) were
at high levels. Attitude toward science in terms of Social Implications of
6FLHQFH1RUPDOLW\RI6FLHQWLVWVDQG$WWLWXGHWRZDUG6FLHQWLÀF,QTXLU\ZHUH
at moderate levels.

60
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

Discussion
This research study explores how the Chemistry Learning Unit Using Multiple
Levels of Representations (CLM-MLR) affected a group of Grade 7 Thai
students in terms of their understanding of household chemistry concepts,
as well as their attitudes toward science. The present study used a quasi-
experimental, one-group pre-test/post-test study designed to determine
the effectiveness of the CLM-MLR. Data were analysed lysed
y by comparing the
t
pre-test and post-test mean scores of groups of concrete, transitional, and
atistical Wilcox
formal level students using a nonparametric statistical Wilcoxo
Wilcoxon signed-rank

PY 'S
up were calculated.
test. In addition, learning gains of each group calculate
calculated
Results of the hypothesis testing showedhowed that after learning with the
CLM-MLR, the students had averagee post-test score scores higher than the pre-
O R
WHVWDWWKHOHYHORIVWDWLVWLFDOVLJQLÀFDQFHDQGVWXGHQWVDWDOOWKUHHOHYHOV
JQLÀFDQFHD
JQLÀFDQFHDQGVWX
of cognitive development had average verage learning
learnin gains with values at 21%,
21%, and 29%, respectively.
C O
,QDGGLWLRQUHVXOWVRIWKHDQDO\VLVRIWWHVWIRU2QH6DPSOHVKRZHGWKDW
IWKHDQDO\VLVRIW
DQDO\VLVRIW 2QH6DPS
H6
the students had attitude ude
de towards science
scie at a moderate
modera levellev after their
TH

experience learning g with CLM-MLR.

CLM-MLR It can n be concluded thatth the use of
&/00/5 GLG KHOS LPSURYH WK WKH VWXGHQWV·
QWV·
WV· XQGHUVWDQGLQ
XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH DEVWUDFW
ented. According to Piaget
concepts presented. aget
get (in Lawson,
Law 2002), the concrete
[operational al stage]
ge] students begin
b to
o reason more logilogically,
l organising their
thoughtss more coherently.
coheren However,
ver,, they can generally
gener only think in terms of
AU

DFWXDOSK\VLFDOREMHFWVDQGKDYH\HWWRGHYHORSVLJQLÀFDQWDEVWUDFWUHDVRQLQJ
OSK\VLFDOREMHFWVD
SK\VLFDOREMHFWV YH\HWWRGHYHORS
YH\HWWRGHYHORSVL
DELOLWLHV7KXVWKH\KDYHGLIÀFXOW\XQGHUVWDQGLQJDEVWUDFWRUK\SRWKHWLFDO
OLWLHV7KXVWKH\K
LHV7KXVWKH\K LIÀFXOW\XQGHUVWDQ
IÀFXOW\XQGHUVWDQ
concepts
ncepts
pts like ch
chemistry.
che Piaget
iaget espouse
espo
espoused that children in the concrete
operational
ational stage were fairly adept at tth
ona stag the use of inductive logic, going from
DVSHFLÀFH[SHULHQFHWRDJHQHUDOSULQFLSOH2QWKHRWKHUKDQGFKLOGUHQDW
ÀFH[S
FH UDOSUL
DO SUL
WKLVVWDJHKDYHGLIÀFXOW\XVLQJGHGXFWLYHORJLFZKLFKLQYROYHVWKHXVHRID
JHQHUDOSULQFLSOHWRGHWHUPLQHWKHRXWFRPHRIDVSHFLÀFHYHQW7KHVWXGHQWV
in the transitional [or intermediate] stage have abilities between those in the
concrete and formal groups. The students in the formal operational stage can
formulate hypotheses and systematically test them to arrive at answers to
problems. Likewise, they are also able to think in the abstract and understand
the form or structure of mathematical problems.

61
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

'S
a) Students do hands-on
ds-on activity.
O R
C O
TH
P
b) Students
udents
dents worki
working in groups ps exhibit outputs from their hands-on
AU

activity aand present

esent them to their
the classmates.

c) The teacher explains chemistry concepts by linking the outputs of

the hands-on activity using a molecular model to convey the idea and
explanationthe microscopic level.

62
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

'S
d) Students make a molecular model off an assigned chem
chemical substance.
O R
C O
TH
P
H6WXGHQWVGRDPDUNHWLQJFRPSHWLWLRQ)RUH[DPSOHDVWKHRZQHUVRID
GHQWVGRDPDUNH
QWVGRDPDU PSHWLWLRQ)RUH[D
WLWLRQ)RUH
AU

soap
ap manufacturing company,
any, they will crecreate their own soap product
crea
usingg provided iin
ingredients.
nts.
s. Each group thenth presents their product and
collect
lect coins from the audience.
nce. The coins
ence. coin represent votes by each member
co
au
of the audience.
Figure 3. Sample of pictorial format linking among
macro-micro-symbolic representations.

7KH OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI WKH &/00/5 KHOSHG LQFUHDVH VWXGHQWV·

understanding of abstract concepts because it sets a clear direction and role
for the teacher to follow. The role of the teacher during the learning process
is to activate curiosity and pose questions in order to make the students relate
what they had observed in a macroscopic representation to the corresponding
VFLHQWLÀF H[SODQDWLRQ LQ WKH PLFURVFRSLF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ 7KH WHDFKHU WKHQ

63
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

presents how chemists communicate with other scholars in the world by

using symbolic representations such as formulae, equations or abbreviations
VHH)LJXUH%\GRLQJVRWKHVWXGHQWVZHUHDEOHWROLQNZKDWWKH\KDG
seen or done in the laboratory, its explanation at the microscopic level and
how chemistry can codify chemical phenomena at the symbolic level in a
universally coherent way. Learners at all levels of cognitive development have
a better chance of learning at a deeper level with thee additional
ad support of
PXOWLSOHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQVVXFKDVSLFWRULDORUGHVFULSWLYHIRUPDWV)LJXUH
ULSWLYH
ULSWLYHIR
The multiple representations incorporated with h the 5E instructional
instru
instr model
supported the students in making connections ions
ons among the m macro, micro,

PY 'S
and symbolic representations in order to better understand
understan the chemistry
concepts presented.
O R
C O
Structure
cture formulae of ppalmitic acid
TH

representation]
[Microscopic rep
repr
Source:
ourc en.wi
en.wikipedia.com

C16H32O2
AU

Palm
lm trees are a natural source
ource
urc of Molecular
M formulae of palmitic acid
palmitic
palm
l acid. [Symbolic representation]
[Macroscopic
[Macros
Mac representation]]
Source: ht
http://m.tnews.co.th/news.
h ws
SKS"KRW,' 

Figure 4. Sample of pictorial format linking among

macro-micro-symbolic representations.

64
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

Another reason that can be used to explain in increased learning

achievement of students is related to learning environment. Piaget stated
the three factors that affect human learning and cognitive development as
equilibration, cognitive interaction and everyday experience (in Bennett, 2003,
p. 54). Moreover, Novick and Nussbaum, (1981 in Yilmzaz & Alp, 2006, p.
30) stated that if students grasp new concepts that are relevant to their lives,
or that they can apply new knowledge to solve problems, ble then they place
value to what they have learned and this leads to even ven gre
great
greater understanding
and higher achievement. The CLM-MLR unit used ed in this study
st consisted
RI OHDUQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV ZKLFK ZHUH GLUHFWO\ UHOHYDQW
HOHYDQW
OHYDQW WR VWXGHQWV·
VWXGHQ
VWXG OLYHV )RU

PY 'S
example, one of the learning activities in thee elaboration phase
phas introduced the
molecular structure of butyric acid, which ch can be found in such substances as
butter or acetone found in nail polish. h. The students then
tth made a molecular
O R
PRGHORIDFHWRQHLQRUGHUWROLQNWKHVFLHQWLÀFLGHDDWWKHPLFURVFRSLFOHYHO,Q
KHVFLHQWLÀFLG
KHVFLHQWLÀFLGHDDW
addition, the students were also asked to write chemical
che
ch formulae. Moreover,
there was an active reading activity
ctivity related to
t the
t dangersgers
er of a sweetener that
C O
was banned as a food additive
ditive
ve by British aan
and American
erican
an auth
authorities.
7KH UHVXOWV VKRZHG HG WKDW &/00/5
&/00/5 LQVWUXFWLRQ
&/00 XFWLRQ JUHDWO\
JUHDW LQÁXHQFHG
LQ WKH
TH

students who weree already in the formal fo operational

perational stage.
stage Results of this
study were aligned ned to a study do done by Sungur an Tekkaya (2003), who
and Tekk
studied the effect
ect of gender and reasoning
fect learning achievement on
ning ability tto learn
the topic off the circulatory ssy
system, as well as on attit
attitude toward Biology in
at
general withith the 47 Grade
Gr 10 students.
nts. Their research
dents. resea instruments included
AU

Group p Assessment of Logicall Thinking (GAL (GALT), Attitude toward Biology

(GALT
scale,
ale, and an achievement
achiev test
est in the human circulatory system. Results of
WKH
H WZRZD\
ZRZD\ PXOWLYDULDWH
PX  DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH
YD 0$129$ VKRZHG WKDW
students
entss in the
th formal operational stage
sta had achievement scores higher
ational st
than transitional
ansit
ns and concretee stage
sta students, respectively. Moreover,
they found that gender did not affect achievement in, or attitude toward,
biology. However, they found that levels of cognitive development do affect
achievement and attitudes toward biology. In summary, the CLM-MLR
incorporated examples of everyday life materials into the learning unit;
therefore, the students grasped the concepts with meaningful understanding
because they saw them as relevant and useful in their lives.
,QDGGLWLRQWKH&/00/5KDVVKRZQWRDIIHFWWKHFRQFUHWHOHYHOVWXGHQWV·
understanding of household chemistry concepts more than that of transitional
level students. This may be because the concrete students may not have

65
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

never before imagined what happens at the microscopic level and may
not previously have been able to understand explanations of events at the
microscopic and symbolic levels. The CLM-MLR, which was developed based
on linkage among the chemistry triplet paradigm, can cause the concrete
students to have greater understanding of abstract concepts. However,
average learning gains among both the concrete and transitional students
were still not very high, and considerably below thosee of the formal students.
The explanation for this lies in the fact that both groups roups have
ha relatively low
OHYHOVRISULRUNQRZOHGJH7KHDPRXQWRISULRUNQRZOHGJHLQÁXHQFHVWKH
RUNQRZOHGJH
NQRZOHGJH
increase in conceptual understanding. As Seufert ufert
fert (2003) wrote,
wrote
wro an adequate

PY 'S
level of prior knowledge is crucial for the he successful use of the multiple
representation approach in achieving desired learning l goals.
g Learners are
DVVXPHGWRKDYHOLPLWHGVFKHPDVRQWKHVXEMHFWRIFKHPLVWU\ZKLFKOLPLWV
QWKHVXEMHFWRIFK
KHVXEMHFWRIF
O R
WKHLUDELOLW\WRFKXQNLQIRUPDWLRQHIÀFLHQWO\LQZRUNLQJPHPRU\7KLVLQ
QHIÀFLHQWO\
QHIÀFLHQWO\LQZR
turn, prevents understanding (Cook, Cook, 2006). Moreover,
Mor
Mo Taber (2013, p. 162)
stated that “actual capacity of working mem memo
memory may y be b
better described as
C O
4±1 (more in keeping with th what is often measured
m d in young
youn
y children), but
appear to be 7±2 when measured in most m peoplee due to au
automatic strategies
automa
used to chunk information.” learners with
mation.” The lear
learn th low prior knowledge
know
kn tend to
TH

focus more heavily ily quantitative representations

ly on quantitativ
quantita sentations that depict
esentations de procedural
knowledge such ch as formulas and an ignored red relevant
relevan information
infor from other
representations
ionss (Chandrasegaran
(Chandraseg
(Chandrase ett al., 2008; Chittleborough
Chittle
Ch & Treagust,
2008). Moreover, learners with low
oreover, learner
lea ow prior knowledge
know overly focus on
AU

symbolic representation,
epresentatio such as formulas in chemistry,
olic representation che
ch while ignoring sub-
microscopic
roscopic representations,
oscopic represen depiction of molecules, when both
s, such as the depi
DUHUHSUHVHQWHG0HLMHUHWDO5DSSRSRUW $VKNHQD]L/HDUQLQJ
HUHSUHVHQWHG0
SUHVHQWHG DO5DSSRS
5DS
withh understanding
understand
nder means that
hat the students
stude
stud can construct an understanding
from representations
eprese
pre on the basis
asis of their existing knowledge; therefore,
if they have limited prior knowledge, then using representations for that
GRPDLQPD\EHGLIÀFXOW&RUUDGLHWDO
6WXGHQWV·DWWLWXGHWRZDUGVFLHQFHZDVSRVLWLYHRYHUDOO)UHHPDQ
H[SODLQHGWKDWWKHUHDUHDQXPEHURIIDFWRUVWKDWDIIHFWVWXGHQWDWWLWXGH2QH
factor is whether students are allowed to conduct hands-on activities by
themselves. The CLM-MLR unit used in this study contained seven hands-on
DFWLYLWLHVLQDOOOHVVRQSODQV$FFRUGLQJWR)UHHPDQQRWRQO\DWWLWXGHWRZDUG
science of the students but also hands-on activities can improve learning
DFKLHYHPHQW DV ZHOO DV VFLHQFH SURFHVV VNLOOV )UHHPDQ  2VERUQH

66
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

VXJJHVWHGÀYHIDFWRUVWKDWDIIHFWHGDWWLWXGHWRZDUGVFLHQFHQDPHO\
1) effective teaching, 2) level of student participation, 3) level of interaction
between teachers and students, 4) good relationship among teachers and
VWXGHQWVDQGXVHRIDQXPEHURIWHDFKLQJVWUDWHJLHV)URP2VERUQH·VSRLQW
of view, when CLM-MLR was implemented in the classroom, students more
RIWHQVKDUHGWKHLURSLQLRQVZLWKRXWMXGJPHQWE\WKHWHDFKHU7KHWHDFKHU
acted as a facilitator of learning, leading the students nts to relate what they
had observed at the macroscopic level from laboratory tory w wor
work to the accepted
VFLHQWLÀFH[SODQDWLRQDWWKHPLFURVFRSLFOHYHO7KHWHDFKHUDOVRDFWLYDWHGWKH
7KHWHDFKHUDOV
HWHDFKHUDO
link between explanations at the microscopicc level to the commcom
communication at

PY 'S
the symbolic level, such as by the use of chemistry symbo symbols or equations.
Moreover, most activities during the explorati
exploration and eelaboration phases
were assigned to the students in the he form of group work. Students were
O R
encouraged to share their ideas orr ask whateve questions that sprang from
whatever qu
their minds. This learning situationion provided the
ation th students with high levels
of involvement and increased d student-teacher
student-teach interaction.
ction
tio
C O
)XUWKHUPRUHDQXPEHURIOHDUQLQJDFWLYLWLHVSUHVHQWHGLQWKH&/00/5
EHURIOHDUQLQJDFWL
OHDUQLQJDFWL SUHVHQWH
SUHVHQWHGLQ
dealt directly with real-life
al-life situations.
situations Students
S tss are naturally
natura more
m eager to
TH

learn things directly lives rather

y related to their li materials that have little
her than material
to do with their lives
ives (Nakhleh, Polles,
Po & Malina, 2002).
2

Acknowledgement
owledgement
wledgement
AU

We would
ould like to express
expre our deepest gratitude to all the in-service and pre-
expr
VHUYLFHWHDFKHUVZKRVDFULÀFHGWKHLUWLPHWRVWXG\WKHQHZOHDUQLQJPDWHULDO
YLFHWHDFKHUVZKR
FHWHDFKHUVZKR FHGWKHLUWLPHWRVW
HGWKHLUWLPHWRVW
QGH[SHUWO\DSSO
[SHUWO\DSS WKHLUFODVVURRP
KHLUFODVVUR
DQGH[SHUWO\DSSOLHGLWWRWKHLUFODVVURRPWHDFKLQJ2XUGHHSHVWJUDWLWXGH
also goeses to
t Tha ity Research
Thaksin University Researc and Development Institute for the
funding g to ssupport this researchch study.
stu Likewise our special thanks and
JUDWLWXGHJRWR0U0DUN(GZDUG%XFNIRUSURRIUHDGLQJWKHÀQDOGUDIWRIWKLV
article, and to the referees who proofread, and made invaluable grammatical
and format suggestions in the writing of this article. Their ideas and expertise
LQWKHÀHOGRI6FLHQFH(GXFDWLRQFRQWULEXWHGWRPDNHWKLVDUWLFOHPHDQLQJIXO
and concise in the publication of this research.

67
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

Reference
Adadan, E. (2013). Using multiple representations to promote grade 11
VWXGHQWV·VFLHQWLÀFXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHSDUWLFOHWKHRU\RIPDWWHUResearch
in Science Education, 43, 1079-1105.
$LQVZRUWK6'H)7$FRQFHSWXDOIUDPHZRUNIRUFRQVLGHULQJOHDUQLQJ
with multiple representations. /HDUQLQJDQG,QVWUXFWLRQ, 16, 183-198.
ltiple-r
ltiple-rep
Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple-representations when
OHDUQLQJ FRPSOH[ VFLHQWLÀF FRQFHSWV. Retrieved d September 27, 2014, from
uk/staff/shaar
uk/staff/shaaro
http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/shaaron.ainsworth/

PY 'S
Ainsworth_Gilbert. pdf.
KH(PR
KH(PRGHORQSU
$UWXQ+ &RVWX%(IIHFWRIWKH(PRGHORQSURVSHFWLYHWHDFKHUV·
conceptual understanding of diffusion ffusion
sion and osmosmo
osmosis: A mixed method
O R
approach. Journal of Science Educationducation and Technology,
Techn
T 22, 1-10.
$\GHGH01.HVHUFLRJOX7 $UDEDF×RJOX66WXGHQWV·RSLQLRQV
7 $UDEDF×RJOX
$UDEDF×RJOX 
C O
regarding the usage of computeromputer technologies
technol
techno n constructivist
in const
on learning
WLRQDO-RXUQDORI+X
environment. ,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI+XPDQ6FLHQFH, FLHQFH,, 7(1),
7(1), 1114-1123.
1
aching and learnin
Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching learning science:
e: A guide to rrecen
recent research and
TH

its applications. London: Continuum.

Continu
Co
acMillan, K. (2005).
Bryce, T., & MacMillan, (2005 Encouraging
uraging
ging conceptu
con
conceptual change: The use
of bridging ing analogies in tthe teaching
ching
hing of action–reaction
action–re
action forces and the
VW·
W· FRQGLWLRQ
¶DW UHVW· FRQGLWLRQ LQ S
SK\VLFV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO
QWHUQDWLRQDO -RX
-RXU
-RXUQDO RI 6FLHQFH (GXFDWLRQ,
6), 737-763.
27(6), 37-76
AU

bee,
e, R. W., Powel
Bybee, Powell, J. C., & Trowbridge, L L. W. (2008). Teaching secondary
VFKRRO
KRRO VFLHQFH
VFLHQFH 6WUDWHJLHV
HV IRU GHYHORSLQJ
GHYHORSLQJ
GHYHORS VFLHQWLÀF OLWHUDF\. NJ: Pearson/
Merrill/
rill Pre
Prentice Hall.
&DO×N 0
 $$\DV $ &ROO 5 8QDO
8QDO 6  &RVWX %  ,QYHVWLJDWLQJ
the effectiveness of a constructivist-based teaching model on student
understanding of the dissolution of gases in liquids. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 16(3), 257-270.
&KDQGUDVHJDUDQ$/7UHDJXVW') 0RFHULQR0 An evaluation
RIDWHDFKLQJLQWHUYHQWLRQWRSURPRWHVWXGHQWV·DELOLW\WRXVHPXOWLSOH
levels of representation when describing and explaining chemical
reactions. Research in Science Education, 38, 237-248.
&KLWWOHERURXJK* 7UHDJXVW')7KHPRGHOLQJDELOLW\RIQRQ
PDMRUFKHPLVWU\VWXGHQWVDQGWKHLUXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHVXEPLFURVFRSLF
level. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 274-292.

68
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

&KLWWOHERURXJK* 7UHDJXVW')&RUUHFWLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIFKHPLFDO

diagrams requires transforming from one level of representation to
another. Research in Science Education, 38, 463-482.
&LJGHPRJOX& *HEDQ2&RQWH[W%DVHG/HVVRQVZLWK(0RGHO
to Promote Conceptual Understanding of Chemical Reactions and Energy
Concepts. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(4), 435-447.
&RNHOH]$-XQLRUKLJKVFKRROVWXGHQWV·LGHDVDERXWWKHVKDSHDQG
HDVDE
size of the atom. Research in Science Education, 42 673-686.
42, 673-68
673
Coll, R. K. (2006). The Role of Models, Mental ntal
tal Models and
an Analogies in

PY 'S
Chemistry Teaching. In P. J. Aubusson, n,, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie
(Eds.), Metaphor and Analogy in Science ce Educa
Education (pp. 993-104). Dordrecht:
Springer.
O R
Colt, H. G., Davoudi, M., Murgu, u, S., & Rohani,
Roh N. Z. (2011). Measuring
N
learning gain during a one-day ne-day
-day introducto
introduct
introductory bronchoscopy course.
Surgical Endoscopy, 25, 207-216.
7-216.
C O
&RRN039LVXDOUHSUHVHQWDWLRQVLQVFLHQFHHGXFDWLRQWKHLQÁXHQFH
OUHSUHVHQWDWLRQVL
UHVHQWDWLRQVL FHHGXFDWLRQ
XF
of prior knowledge cognitive load
gee and cognitiv l theory
eory instructional design
ory on instruct
ins
TH

principles. Science Education,, 90, 11073-1091.

ce Educatio
Education 91.
Corradi, D., Elen,n, J., & Glarebout,
Glarebou G. (2012). 12).
2). Understanding
Understandin
Under and enhancing
the use of multiple extern
external rrepresentations
ntations in cchemist
chemistry education. Journal
of Science
nce
ce Education and T Technology,
ogy
gy,, 21
221,, 780-795.
Demirci,
ci, N., & Yavuz, G. (2009). The effect of co constructive teaching approach
cons
AU

RQVWXGHQWV·VFLHQFHDFKLHYHPHQWLQEXR\DQF\IRUFHe-Journal
RQVWXGHQWV·VFLHQF
QVWXGHQWV·VFLHQF YHPHQWLQEXR\DQ
YHPHQWLQEXR\DQF of New World
Science Academy, 4(2), 508–519.
ience Academy
Academ 08–519.
8–5
'HYHWDN,9RJULQF- *OD]DU6$$VVHVVLQJ\HDUROGVWXGHQWV·
HWDN,9RJ
N, D]DU6$
]DU6$
understanding
derstan
rst of aqueous solutio
solution at submicroscopic level. Research in
Science Education, 39, 157-179.
)UDVHU%-TOSRA: Test of science-related attitudes handbook. Hawthorn,
Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
)UHHGPDQ035HODWLRQVKLSDPRQJODERUDWRU\LQVWUXFWLRQDWWLWXGH
toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343-357.
*DUQHWW3- 7UHDJXVW')&RQFHSWXDOGLIÀFXOWLHVH[SHULHQFHG
by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electric circuits and
oxidation-reduction reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,
121-142.

69
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

*LOEHUW-. 7UHDJXVW')(GVMultiple representations in chemical

education: Model and modeling in science education 4. Dordrecht: Springer.
+DUG\ , -RHQ $ 0ROOHU .  6WHUQ (  (IIHFWV RI ×QVWUXFWLRQDO
support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school
VWXGHQWV· XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ÁRDWLQJ DQG VLQNLQJ Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(2), 307-326.
+DUULVRQ $ *  7UHDJXVW ' )  7HDFKLQJ J DQG
LQJ DQ /HDUQLQJ ZLWK
Anologies. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, n, & S. M.
on, M Ritchie (Eds.),
Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education (pp. p. 11-24). Dordrecht:
Dordre
Dord Springer.

PY 'S
-RKQVWRQH$+:K\LVVFLHQFHGLIÀFXOWWROHDUQ"7KLQJVDUHVHOGRP
ÀFXOWWROHDUQ"7K
ÀFXOWWROHDUQ"7KL
what they seem. In D. Edwards, E. Scanlon, & D. West Wes (Eds.), Teaching,
We
Learning and Assessment in Science Education
ducation (pp. 115-123).
111 London: Paul
O R
Chapman.
.LQJ'&RQWH[WEDVHGFKHPLVWU\&UHDWLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUÁXLG
GFKHPLVWU\&UHDW
FKHPLVWU\&UHD
transitions between concepts epts and context.
contex Teaching ngg Sc
S
Science, 55(4), 13-20.
C O
Lawson, A. E. (2002). Science
ence teaching
eaching and the
th development
pmentt of
o thinking.
thin Belmont:
Thomsom Custom m Publishing.
TH

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno,

oreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive co load in
multimedia learning.
earning. Educatio
Educational
cati Psychologist,
chologist,
hologist, 38
38, 43-52
43-52.
0HLMHU 0 5 %XOWH $ 0
0 :  3LORW $  
 6WUXFWXUHSURSHUW\
relations
ons macro and micro represent
ns between macr
mac representations:
represen Relevant meso-
OHYHOVLQDXWKHQWLFWDVNV,Q-.*LOEHUW ')7UHDJXVW(GVMultiple
HOVLQDXWKHQWLFWDV
QDXWKHQWLF -.*LOEHUW ')
*LOEHUW '
AU

representations
presentations in chemical
epresentations al education (Vol. 4, pp. 195-213). Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands.
pringer Neth
Nether
Nakhleh,
hleh,
eh, MM. B.,
B. Polles, J., & Malina, E. E (2002). Learning Chemistry in a
/DERUDWRU\(QYLURQPHQW,Q-.*LOEHUW2'H-RQJ5-XVWL'7UHDJXVW
RUDWRU
UDW Q- . *
Q-.*
& J. van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education:
E Towards Research based Practice
(pp. 6994). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
1LD]0)DFLOLWDWLQJFRQFHSWXDOFKDQJHLQVWXGHQWV·XQGHUVWDQGLQJRI
electrochemistry. ,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI6FLHQFH(GXFDWLRQ, 24(4), 425-439.
2VERUQH-$WWLWXGHVWRZDUGVVFLHQFH$UHYLHZRIWKHOLWHUDWXUHDQG
its implications. ,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI6FLHQFH(GXFDWLRQ, 25(9), 1049-1079.
Panizzon, D. (2003). Using a cognitive structural model to provide new
LQVLJKWVLQWRVWXGHQWV·XQGHUVWDQGLQJVRIGLIIXVLRQ,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDO
of Science Education, 25(12), 1427-1450.

70
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

Rappoport, L. T., & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of representation:

Emergent versus submergent perspective. ,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI6FLHQFH
Education, 30(12), 1585-1603
Rompayom, P. (2010). Development of “Chemical Bonding” learning unit
incorporated with elicitation strategy for high school students (Unpublished
PhD dissertation). Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Rompayom, P. (2014). Incorporated elicitation strategy: g An instructional
ategy
SURFHVV WR LPSURYH VWXGHQWV· XQGHUVWDQGLQJ VFLHQWLÀF FRQFHSWLRQV
J RI VFLHQWL
VFLHQW
7KH,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI6FLHQFH0DWKHPDWLFVDQG7HFKQRORJ\/HDUQLQJ
PDWLFVDQG7HFKQR
DWLFVDQG7HFKQ

PY 'S
20(1), 29-40.
Rompayom, P., Tambunchong, C., Wongyounoi, ngyounoi, S., & D Dechsri, P. (2011).
Using open-ended questions to diagnose stud studen
student understanding of
O R
inter- and intramolecular forces. s. Journal of US-Ch
US-China Education Review B,
1(1), 12-23.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting g coherence form
forma
formation in learn
learning
ea from multiple
C O
representations. /HDUQLQJ ,QVWUXFWLRQ,
,QVWUXFWLRQ 13, 227-237.
LQJ ,QVWUXFWLRQ -237.
6XQJXU6 7HNND\D&6WXGHQWV·DFKLHYHPHQWLQKXPDQFLUFXODWRU\
&6WXGHQW
&6WXG HYHPHQWLQKXPD
HPHQWLQK
TH

system unit: Thee effect of reasonin

reasoning ability
ity
ty and gender. Jou JJournal of Science
Education and Technology,, 12
d Technology
Techno 12(1),
( 59-64.
12(1)
Taber, K. (2002).
02).
). Chemical misco
m
misconceptions-
ons- Preventi
Prevention, dia
diagnosis, and cure (Vol.
1). London:
don: Royal Societ
Society of Chemistry.
hemistry.
emistry.
7DEHU.6/HDUQLQJDWWKHV\PEROLFOHYHO,Q-.*LOEHUW ')
.6/HDU
6/H WWKHV\PEROLFOHY
V\PEROLFO
AU

Treagust
reagust (Eds.), M Multiple representations in chemical education: Model and
modeling
odeling in scscience education
scien on 4 (pp.. 775-105
ation 75-105). Dordrecht: Springer.
Taber,
er, K. S. (2013). Revisiting
S (20 ing the chchemistry triplet: Drawing upon the
che
nature
ure
re of
o chemical knowledge dge and the psychology of learning to inform
chemistry education. Chemistry E Education Research and Practice, 14, 156-168.
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, Submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the
chemistry “Triplet.” ,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI6FLHQFH(GXFDWLRQ, 33(2), 179-195.
Timberlake, K. C. (2012). Chemistry: An introduction to general, organic, and
biological chemistry (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Tobin, K. G., & Capie, W. (1981). The development and validation of a
pencil and paper test of logical thinking. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 41(2), 413-424.

71
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

7VDL&&2YHUFRPLQJMXQLRUKLJKVFKRROVWXGHQWV·PLVFRQFHSWLRQV

about microscopic view of phase change: a study of an analogy activity.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 83-91.
Tural G., Akdeniz, A. R., & Alev, N. (2010). Effect of 5e teaching model on
VWXGHQW WHDFKHUV· XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ZHLJKWOHVVQHVV Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 19(5), 470-488.
Ultay, N., & Calik, M. (2012). A thematic review ew of studies into the
effectiveness of context-based chemistry curricula. rricula. Journal
urricula. J
Jo of Science
Education and Technology, 21(6), 686-701.

PY 'S
Waldrip, B., & Prain, V. (2012). Developing ng an understanding
ing understan of ions in
MXQLRUV VHFRQGDU\ VFKRRO FKHPLVWU\ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO -RXUQDO
-RX RI 6FLHQFH DQG
Mathematics Education, 10, 1191-1213. 13.
3.
O R
Wichaidit, P. R. (2015). Nature of chemistry
hemistry and performing
perf an instruction to
be consistent with its nature. Srinakharinwirot
rinakharinwirot Science
S Journal, 31(1), 149-161.
C O
Wichaidit, S. (2010). A development
evelopment of p plant biolog
biology
olo learning units
incorporated with an n analogy technique forr lower
alogy techniq secondary school
wer sec
students (Unpublished shed PhD Dissertation).
Diss
Disserta Srinakharinwirot
Srinakharinwiro
rinakharin University,
TH

Bangkok, Thailand. and.

and
<LOPD]$ $OS(6WXGHQWV·XQGHUVWDQGLQJRIPDWWHU7KHHIIHFW
$OS(6WXG
S(6WX XQGHUVWDQGLQJRIP
GHUVWDQG
of reasoning ing
ng ability and
an g grade level.
evel. Chemical
Chemi Education
Edu Research and
Practice,
e,, 77(1),
(1), 22-31.
22-3
AU

Author(s):
uthor(s):
or(s):
( )
haree
ree Rom
Patcharee haidit;
aidit 6FLHQ
Rompayom Wichaidit; 6FLH
6FLHQFH (GXFDWLRQ 3URJUDP )DFXOW\ RI
DQG
DQG7 DWUL 5D
DWUL5D
6FLHQFHDQG7HFKQRORJ\7KHSVDWUL5DMDEKDW8QLYHUVLW\/RSEXUL7KDLODQG
Email: [email protected]
Sittichai Wichaidit; )DFXOW\RI/HDUQLQJ6FLHQFHVDQG(GXFDWLRQ7KDPPDVDW
University, Pathom Thani, Thailand
Email: [email protected]

72
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

Appendix A. Example of exercise

 )LOO LQ WKH EODQN WR FRPSOHWH ZKDW \RX REVHUYH DQG KRZ FKHPLVWV
communicate with others.

Molecular
representation

PY 'S
(using particles)
O R
What do you
perceive (see) in
HYHU\GD\OLIH"
C O
What is the
TH

FKHPLVWU\IRUPXOD"

2. In your everyday liflife,

l you
u can easily se
see what happens at the
macroscopic
croscopic lev
level.
AU

Things
ingss you can
VHH2EVHUYHG
2EVHUYHG
EVHU
me
men
Phenomena)

Symbolic
representation

Draw a picture
using molecular
representation
in each beaker

73
 5E Model and Multiple Levels of Representations in Chemistry

3. How to write a chemical equation in alignment with the provided

PROHFXOHV"

Where represents H2 UHSUHVHQWV22

represents CH4 represents H22

PY 'S
3.1 ……………………….....
…
O R
C O
3.2 ……………………….....
………
………………
TH

Note: All pictures

es are edited from
fr the chemistry
hemistry textbook by Timberlake
(2012, p. 83).
AU

74
Patcharee Rompayom Wichaidit and Sittichai Wichaidit

Appendix B: Example of TOLT

Form A
Item 1 : Orange Juice (Proportion mode of reasoning ability)

)RXUODUJHRUDQJHVDUHVTXHH]HGWR Reason
PDNHVL[JODVVHVRIMXLFH+RZPXFK 1. The number of glasses
gla compared to the
MXLFHFDQEHPDGHIURPVL[RUDQJHV" number of oranges
orange will
w always be in
a. 7 glasses the ratio 3 to 2.
b. 8 glasses 2. With more oranges, the th difference
d will

PY 'S
c. 9 glasses be less.
ess.
d. 10 glasses 3. The difference in ththe numbers will
e. other always be two.
two
O R
oranges the difference was 2.
4. With four ora
oran
With six oranges,
ora the difference would
be two more.
m
C O
he is no way
5. There ayyoof predicting.
p

Item 4 : Pendulum Weight variable mode

htt (Controlling vari ode reasoning ability)
de of reas
TH

Reason
1. Thee heaviest
heavies weigh
weight should be
compared to the lightest weight.
2. All pendulu
pendulum
pendulums need to be tested
st one another.
against
AU

3. As the nnumber of washers is increased

the pe
pendulum should be shortened.
Suppose
pposee you want
wanted to do an 4. The
Th number of washers should be
H[SHULPHQWWRÀQGRXWLIFKDQJLQJWKH
PHQWWRÀ
HQW QJWKH different but the pendulums should be
weight onn th
the one end of the string of the same length.
would change the amount of time the 5. The number of washers should be the
pendulum takes to swing back and same but the pendulums should be of
forth. Which pendulums would you different lengths.
XVHIRUWKHH[SHULPHQW"
a. 1 and 4
b. 2 and 4
c. 1 and 3
d. 2 and 5
e. all

75