Steinbuch’s Epistemological Model and the Reality of Particles: A Philosophical Perspective for Chemistry Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v7i1.23911Keywords:
atomism, epistemological process, materialist perspective, mental structures and models, representational abilities, steinbuch’s epistemological modelAbstract
Atoms are considered entities that independently originate from human thought and perception based on a materialist perspective. In terms of the scientific model concept, Steinbuch (1977) created a scheme to indicate the epistemological process in science called “thinking in model terms.” This scheme is the basis for understanding matter as reality. The purpose of the study is to explain the philosophical review of the study of the concept of particles as matter. This review can make students and teachers aware of the importance of a thinking model for understanding science. The implementation of the study used “reviewing the literature” with theoretical interventions from various literatures through five stages, namely identifying vital terms, locating literature, critically evaluating and selecting the literature for your review, organizing the literature, and writing a literature review. The study results show that a philosophical review of the understanding of particles as matter that is real is an essential component of holistically understanding science. Understanding based on Steinbuch's scheme, “thinking in model terms,” significantly impacts civilization, including chemistry education. The scheme's application also trains participants' representational abilities, especially at the particulate level, so that the chemistry knowledge obtained is meaningful to participants.
Downloads
References
Adbo, K., & Taber, K. S. (2009). Learners’ Mental Models of the Particle Nature of Matter : A study of 16 ‐ year ‐ old Swedish science students Learners ’ Mental Models of the Particle Nature of Matter : A study of 16-year-old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 757–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701799383
Annisa, D., Sutrisno, H., Laksono, E. W., & Yanda, S. N. (2024). Evaluating Students’ Academic Resilience in Chemistry Learning: Insights from a Rasch Model Analysis. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE), 6(3), 328–349. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v6i3.23522
Asmussen, G., Rodemer, M., & Bernholt, S. (2023). Blooming student difficulties in dealing with organic reaction mechanisms - an attempt at systemization. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24(3), 1035–1054. https://doi.org/10.1039/d2rp00204c
Barke, H.-D., Harsch, G., & Schmid, S. (2012). Essentials of Chemical Education. In Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 6(11), 951–952. Springer.
Barke, H.-D., Hazari, A., & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Misconceptions in Chemistry (Addresing Perceptions in Chemical Education). Sense Publisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70989-3_2
Becker, N., Stanford, C., Towns, M., & Cole, R. (2015). Translating across macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels: The role of instructor facilitation in an inquiry-oriented physical chemistry class. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00064e
Bent, H. A. (1984). Uses (and abuses) of models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 61(9), 774.
Bruce, M. R. M., Bruce, A. E., & Walter, J. (2022). Creating Representation in Support of Chemical Reasoning to Connect Macroscopic and Submicroscopic Domains of Knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(4), 1734–1746. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00292
Bucat, B., & Mocerino, M. (2009). Learning at the Sub-micro Level: Structural Representations. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Chemical Education: Models and Modeling in Science Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8
Cheng, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2009a). Introduction: Macro, Submicro and Symbolic Representations and the Relationship Between Them: Key Models in Chemical Education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Chemical Education: Models and Modeling in Science Education (p. 369). Springer.
Cheng, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2009b). Towards a Better Utilization of Diagrams in Research into the Use of Representative Levels in Chemical Education. In J. K. Gilbert & F. Treagust, David (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Chemical Education: Models and Modeling in Science Education (p. 55). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research (Planning, Conducting and Evaluation Quantitative and Qualitative Research) (Fourth). Pearson Education.
Davidowitz, B., & Chittleborough, G. (2009). Linking the Macroscopic and Sub-microscopic Levels: Diagrams. In J. K. Gilbert & F. Treagust, David (Eds.), Models and Modeling in Science Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8
Demirdöğen, B., Nelsen, I., & Lewis, S. E. (2023). Organic chemistry students’ use of stability in mental models on acid and base strength. Chemistry Education Research and Practice.
Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2020). Students’ competence in translating between different types of chemical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp00301g
Ijirana, I., Mansyur, J., Rizal, M., & Aminah, S. (2021). Longitudinal Study of Metacognitive Skills and External Representation of Students in the Context of Problem-Solving. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE), 3(3), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v3i3.13563
Ijirana, I., & Wahyuni, S. (2019). The Chemistry Competency Achievement of SMA Negeri 7 Palu Students Using Predict, Observe, and Explain (POE) Learning Model. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE), 1(1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v1i1.7474
Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Models and modelling in chemical education. In Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47–68). Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47977-X_3
Kapici, H. O. (2023). From Symbolic Representation to Submicroscopic One: Preservice Science Teachers’ Struggle with Chemical Representation Levels in Chemistry. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 9(1), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3122
Keiner, L., & Graulich, N. (2021). Beyond the beaker: Students’ use of a scaffold to connect observations with the particle level in the organic chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(1), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00206b
Kiernan, N. A., Manches, A., & Seery, M. K. (2021). The role of visuospatial thinking in students’ predictions of molecular geometry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(3), 626–639. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00354a
Kranz, D., Schween, M., & Graulich, N. (2023). Patterns of reasoning – exploring the interplay of students’ work with a scaffold and their conceptual knowledge in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24(2), 453–447. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RP00132B
Lieber, L., & Graulich, N. (2020). Thinking in Alternatives - A Task Design for Challenging Students’ Problem-Solving Approaches in Organic Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(10), 3731–3738. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00248
Locatelli, S. W., & Davidowitz, B. (2021). Using metavisualization to revise an explanatory model regarding a chemical reaction between ions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(2), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00339e
Melsen, A. Van. (2023). Modern atomic theory. Encyclopedia Britanica.
Parobek, A. P., Chaffin, P. M., & Towns, M. H. (2021). Location-thinking, value-thinking, and graphical forms: combining analytical frameworks to analyze inferences made by students when interpreting the points and trends on a reaction coordinate diagram. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(3), 697–714. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00037C
Petrucci, R. H., Harwood, W. S., Herring, G. F., & Madura, J. D. (2011). Kimia Dasar (Prinsip-prinsip dan Aplikasi Modern) (A. Safitri (ed.)). Erlangga.
Rodriguez, J. M. G., Stricker, A. R., & Becker, N. M. (2020a). Exploring the productive use of metonymy: Applying coordination class theory to investigate student conceptions of rate in relation to reaction coordinate diagrams. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(8), 2065–2077. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00496
Rodriguez, J. M. G., Stricker, A. R., & Becker, N. M. (2020b). Students’ interpretation and use of graphical representations: Insights afforded by modeling the varied population schema as a coordination class. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(2), 536–560. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00249a
Rusmansyah, Almubarak, Hamid, A., & Analita, R. N. (2021). Analyze mental model of prospective chemistry teachers with chemical representation teaching material based on 8E cycle learning model. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2331, 0–7. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0041732
Schwedler, S., & Kaldewey, M. (2020). Linking the submicroscopic and symbolic level in physical chemistry: How voluntary simulation-based learning activities foster first-year university students’ conceptual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(4), 1132–1147. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00211a
Suja, I. W., Redhana, I. W., & Sudria, I. B. N. (2020). Mental Model of Prospective Teachers on Structure and Properties Correlation of Organic Compounds. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1503(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1503/1/012034
Sunyono, S. (2018). Mental models of atomic structure concepts of 11th grade chemistry students. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 19(1), 1–21.
Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical Misconceptions: Prevention, Diagnosis and Cure. Vol. 2: Classroom Resources. Royal Society of Chemistry.
Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00012e
Trivic, D. D., & Milanovic, V. D. (2018). The macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic level in explanations of a chemical reaction provided by thirteen-year olds. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 83(10), 1177–1192. https://doi.org/10.2298/JSC171220055T
Tsaparlis, G. (2021). Introduction − The Many Types and Kinds of Chemistry Problems. In G. Tsaparlis (Ed.), Problems and Problem Solving in Chemistry Education: Analysing Data, Looking for Patterns and Making Deductions (Advances i, Issue 1925, pp. 1–14). The Royal Society of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781839163586-00001
Underwood, S. M., Kararo, A. T., & Gadia, G. (2021). Investigating the impact of three-dimensional learning interventions on student understanding of structure-property relationships. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00216j
Vallabhajosula, S. (2023). Science of Atomism: A Brief History. In Molecular Imaging and Targeted Therapy: Radiopharmaceuticals and Clinical Applications (pp. 21–35). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23205-3_2
Vo, K., Sarkar, M., White, P. J., & Yuriev, E. (2022). Problem solving in chemistry supported by metacognitive scaffolding: teaching associates’ perspectives and practices. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23(2), 436–451. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00242B
Wackerly, J. W. (2021). Abductive Reasoning in Organic Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(9), 2746–2750. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00295
Wang, Y., & Lewis, S. E. (2020). Analytical chemistry students’ explanatory statements in the context of their corresponding lecture. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(4), 1183–1198. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00063a
Watts, F. M., Schmidt-Mccormack, J. A., Wilhelm, C. A., Karlin, A., Sattar, A., Thompson, B. C., Gere, A. R., & Shultz, G. V. (2020). What students write about when students write about mechanisms: Analysis of features present in students’ written descriptions of an organic reaction mechanism. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(4), 1148–1172. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00185a
Werner, S., Förtsch, C., Boone, W., von Kotzebue, L., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2019). Investigating How German Biology Teachers Use Three-Dimensional Physical Models in Classroom Instruction: a Video Study. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 437–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9624-4
Widing, L., Nilsson, P., & Enochson, P. G. (2023). A social semiotic lens to capture meaning-making of polymeric concepts during modelling in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24(2), 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1039/d2rp00211f
Winarti, A., Almubarak, A., & Saadi, P. (2021). Visual learning style-based chemistry mental model representation through transformative online learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2104(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2104/1/012023
Winarti, A., Iriani, R., Butakor, P. K., Meiliawati, R., & Syarpin, S. (2023). Transcript-Based Lesson Analysis: The Analysis of Classroom Communication in Chemistry Implementing Case-Based and Project-Based Learning. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE), 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v6i1.23160
Winarti, A., & Mubarak, A. (2019). Rasch Modeling: A Multiple Choice Chemistry Test. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE), 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v2i1.8985
Submitted
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Almubarak Almubarak, Nahadi Nahadi, Galuh Yuliani, Corrienna Abdul Talib, Dini Noor Arini
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
