The Effect of Argumentation-Based Teaching Supported by Concept Cartoons on Pre-Service Biology Teachers’ Ability to Translate Chemical Representations About Basic Chemical Concepts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.6664Keywords:
Argumentation, Chemical representations, Concept cartoonsAbstract
This study aims to investigate the effect of argumentation-based teaching supported by concept cartoons on pre-service biology teachers' conceptual understanding of basic chemistry concepts and their skills of transition between chemical representations. In this study, mixed methods were used as a research design; particularly, a special type of embedded design, a one-phase experimental embedded pattern design, was applied. The sample consisted of pre-service biology teachers studying at the Faculty of Education at a university in western Türkiye. Concept cartoons were prepared by the researchers, and the instruction lasted for nine weeks. In this study, quantitative data were collected through multiple-choice questions on chemical representations prepared by Gkitzia and colleagues (2020), and qualitative data were collected through interviews with students about these questions. We used the SPSS 23 package program for quantitative data analysis, and content analysis for qualitative data analysis. The study found that students correctly interpreted the submicroscopic drawings of substances after instruction, used symbolic representations without errors, and successfully transitioned between chemical representations. The findings of the study emphasize that the role of concept cartoons in the argumentation process is critical, especially in teaching abstract concepts.
References
Abate, T., Michael, K., & Angell, C. (2020). Assessment of scientific reasoning: Development and validation of scientific reasoning assessment tool. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(12), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9353
Adbo, K., &, Taber K., S. (2009). Learners’ mental models of the particle nature of matter: A study of 16‐year‐old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 757-786. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701799383
Agusty, A.I., & Chen, H., L. (2025). The effects of an SVVR-based argumentation flipped learning approach on students’ physics learning achievement, argumentative writing, classroom engagement, and perceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-025-10268-3.
Akaygün, S. (2018). Visualizations in high school chemistry textbooks used in Turkey. In International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 111-127. American Chemical Society.
Akgün, A., & Gönen, S. (2004). Çözünme ve fiziksel değişim ilişkisi konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının belirlenmesi ve giderilmesinde çalışma yapraklarının önemi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(10), 22-37.
Arini, A. D., Azizah, U., Sukarmin, S., Satriawan, M., & Saphira, H. V. (2025). Analyzing students’ misconceptions based on submicroscopic level representation in elements, compounds, and mixtures. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 11(2), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v11i2.10052
Aydeniz, M., & Dogan, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00170F
Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Impact of argumentation on college students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,10(6) 1303–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9336-1
Ceylan, Ö. (2015). Analyzing the effects of concept cartoon usage on 7. grade students' science achievement and their cognitive structure of learning. [Unpublished master thesis], Sakarya University.
Çiğdemoğlu, C., Arslan, H. O., & Çam, A. (2017). Argumentation to foster pre-service science teachers’ knowledge, competency, and attitude on the domains of chemical literacy of acids and bases. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00163F
Danin, V.J., & Kamaludin, A. (2023). Development of google sites-based learning media on chemical bonds with multilevel chemical representation. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(9), 6727–6733. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i9.1552
Davidowitz, B., & Chittleborough, G. (2009). Linking the macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels: Diagrams. In Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 169-191). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
De Jong, O., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical con tent knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 947-964.
Devetak, I., Vogrinc, J., & Glažar, S. A. (2009). Assessing 16-year-old students’ understanding of aqueous solution at submicroscopic level. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 157-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9077-2
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
Eilks, I., Moellering, J., & Valanides, N. (2007). Seventh-grade students’ understanding of chemical reactions: reflections from an action research interview study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75408
Ercan, S., & Şahin, F. (2015). Fen eğitiminde mühendislik uygulamalarının kullanımı: Tasarım temelli fen eğitiminin öğrencilerin akademik başarıları üzerine etkisi. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 128-164.
Evrekli, E., & Balım, A. G. (2024). The Effect of using animated concept cartoons in science education on student’s conceptual understanding. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 414-436. https://doi.org/10.52826/mcbuefd.1556259
Farheen, A., & Lewis, S. E. (2021). The impact of representations of chemical bonding on students’ predictions of chemical properties. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(4), 1035-1053. 10.1039/D1RP00070E
Gabel, D. L. (1993). Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 193–194. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p193
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. 4,1-8. D. F. Treagust (Ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.
Giri, V., & Paily, M.U. (2020). Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking. Science & Education, 29, 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00120-y
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. 10.1039/C8RP00301G
Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2011). Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90002B
Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290609
Gurung, E., Jacob, R., Bunch, Z., Thompson, B., & Popova, M. (2022). Evaluating the effectiveness of organic chemistry textbooks for promoting representational competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(5), 2044-2054. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c01054
Haidar, A. H., & Abraham, M. R. (1991). A comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of concepts based on the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 919-938. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660281004
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509-534. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199609)80:5<509::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-F
Head, M., Yoder, K., Genton, E., & Sumperl, J. (2017). A quantitative method to determine preservice chemistry teachers’ perceptions of chemical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00052K
Hilton, A., & Nichols, K. (2011). Representational classroom practices that contribute to students’ conceptual and representational understanding of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 33(16), 2215-2246. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.543438
Hoffmann, R., & Laszlo, P. (1991). Representation in chemistry. Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 30(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.199100013
Hosbein, K. N., Alvarez-Bell, R., Callis-Duehl, K. L., Sampson, V., Wolf, S. F., & Walker, J. P. (2020). Development of the investigation design, explanation, and argument assessment for general chemistry I laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(2), 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01075
Hu, B., Zhu, L., & Bi, H. (2024). Effect of computer simulations on student ability to translate chemical representations when learning the particulate nature of matter concept. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(10), 4053–4068. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00964
İnan, A. N., Yaman, F., & Hand, B. (2025). Exploring the effect of a technology-supported science writing heuristic approach on pre-service science teachers’ written argumentation, representation, and reasoning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 26(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.a039/D5RP00002E
Jaber, L. Z., & BouJaoude, S. (2012). A macro-micro-symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 973-998. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.569959
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x
Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: an evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431-446. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290642
Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Education, 43, 1645–1663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9326-x
Kokkotas, P., Vlachos, I., & Koulaidis, V. (1998). Teaching the topic of the particulate nature of matter in prospective teachers’ training courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200303
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representation competence. Visualization in Science Education, 121-145.
Langitasari, I., Aisyah, R. S. S., Parmandhana, R. N., & Nursaadah, E. (2024). Enhancing students' conceptual understanding of chemistry in a SiMaYang learning environment. KnE Social Sciences, 191-200. http://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i13.15919
Lieber, L., & Graulich, N. (2022). Investigating students’ argumentation when judging the plausibility of alternative reaction pathways in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23(1), 38-54. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00145K
Martini, M. (2021). Analysis of students’ ability to identify symbolic representations in chemistry. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 6(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.26740/jppipa.v6n1.p7-10
McDonald, C.V. (2017). Exploring nature of science and argumentation in science education. In B. Akpan (Ed.), Science education: A global perspective. (pp. 7-43.) Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32351-0_2
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. SAGE publications.
Murni, H. P., Azhar, M., Ellizar, E., Nizar, U. K., & Guspatni, G. (2022). Three levels of chemical representation-integrated and structured inquiry-based reaction rate module: Its effect on students' mental models. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(3), 758-772. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2022.148
Naah, B. M., & Sanger, M. J. (2012). Student misconceptions in writing balanced equations for dissolving ionic compounds in water. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 186-194. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP00015F
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p191
Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (2013). Concept cartoons: What have we learnt?. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.36681/
Nelsen, I., Farheen, A., & Lewis, S. E. (2024). How ordering concrete and abstract representations in intermolecular force chemistry tasks influences students’ thought processes on the location of dipole–dipole interactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25(3), 815-832. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00025K
Nuić, I., & Glažar, S. A. (2023). The effects of E-learning units on 13-14-year-old students’ misconceptions regarding some elementary chemical concepts. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 88(4), 451-465. https://doi.org/10.2298/JSC220704092N
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701545919
Nyachwaya, J. M., & Wood, N. B. (2014). Evaluation of chemical representations in physical chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 720-728. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00113C
Nyachwaya, J. M., Mohamed, A. R., Roehrig, G. H., Wood, N. B., Kern, A. L., & Schneider, J. L. (2011). The development of an open-ended drawing tool: An alternative diagnostic tool for assessing students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90017J
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Science (IDEAS) Project. London: University of London Press.
Papageorgiou, G., Stamovlasis, D., & Johnson, P. (2013). Primary teachers’ understanding of four chemical phenomena: Effect of an in-service training course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(4), 763-787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9295-y
Pham, L., & Tytler, R. (2022). The semiotic function of a bridging representation to support students’ meaning-making in solution chemistry. Research in Science Education, 52(3), 853-869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10022-w
Pinto, G., Castro-Acuña, C. M., López-Hernández, I., & Alcázar Montero, V. (2023). Learning difficulties in the interpretation of matter at the molecular level by university students—A case study: Dissolution of oxygen in water. Education Sciences, 13(8), Article 781. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080781
Plano Clark, V. L., Huddleston-Casas, C. A., Churchill, S. L., O'Neil Green, D., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). Mixed methods approaches in family science research. Journal of Family Issues, 29(11), 1543-1566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X08318251
Prilliman, S. G. (2014). Integrating particulate representations into AP chemistry and introductory chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1291–1298. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed5000197
Ramadhani, D. G., Yamtinah, S., Saputro, S., & Widoretno, S. (2023). Analysis of the relationship between students’ argumentation and chemical representational ability: a case study of hybrid learning oriented in the environmental chemistry course. Chemistry Teacher International, 5(4), 397-411. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2023-0047
Romero Ariza, M., Quesada Armenteros, A., & Estepa Castro, A., (2024). Promoting critical thinking through mathematics and science teacher education: the case of argumentation and graphs interpretation about climate change. European Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 41-59, 10.1080/02619768.2021.1961736
Salvucci, S., Walter, E., Conley, V., Fink, S., & Saba, M. (1997). Measurement error studies at the national center for education statistics. U.S. Department of Education.
Santoso, T., Ahmar, D. S., Tukaedja, S. V., & Haetami, A. (2024). The effect of the discovery learning model with a scientific approach on student representation ability in the buffer solution. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 10(6), 3296-3302. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i6.7389
Seyhan, H. G., & Türk, G. E. (2022). The effect of argumentation-supported problem-based learning method in teaching chemical equilibrium and Le-Chatelier's principle. Mimbar Sekolah Dasar, 9(3), 413-430. https://doi.org/10.53400/mimbar-sd.v9i3.45585
Short, H., Lundsgaard, M., & Krajcik, J. (2009). The development of argumentation skills and content knowledge of intermolecular forces using a nanoscience context [Poster presentation]. The international conference great challenges and great opportnities in science teaching, Hyatt regency orange county, Garden Grove, CA.
Smith, T. A., & Metz, P. A. (1996). Students’ understanding of the solution process for ionic compounds. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(5), 415-418. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed073p233
Stieff, M. (2011). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1137-1158. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20438
Stieff, M., Scopelitis, S., Lira, M. E., & Desutter, D. (2016). Improving representational competence with concrete models. Science Education, 100(2), 344-363. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21203
Suparman, A. R., Rohaeti, E., & Wening, S. (2024). Student misconception in chemistry: A systematic literature review. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 14(2), 238–252. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.14.02.28
Şendur, G. (2021). Representations in Organic Chemistry textbooks: Nucleophilic substitution and elimination reactions of alkyl halides. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society, Section C: Chemical Education, 6(1), 71-92. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2363-8915
Taber, K. S. (2009). Learning at the symbolic level. In J. K. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 75–105). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8 5
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 Pratice, 14(2), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012E
Talanquer, V. (2022). The complexity of reasoning about and with chemical representations. Jacs Au, 2(12), 2658-2669. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.2c00498
Taskin, V., Bernholt, S., & Parchmann, I. (2015). An inventory for measuring student teachers’ knowledge of chemical representations: Design, validation, and psychometric analysis. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 460–477. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00214H
Tatar, E. (2011). Prospective primary school teachers’ misconceptions about states of matter. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(2), 197-200. http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Tsaparlis, G. (2009). Learning at the macro level: The role of practical work. In Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 109-136). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Tsitsipis, G., Stamovlasis, D. & Papageorgiou, G. (2012). A probabilistic model for students’ errors and misconceptions on the structure of matter in relation to three cognitive variables. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 777-802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9288-x
Uc, F. B., & Benzer, E. (2021). The effects of argumentation applications conducted with writing activities on the creative writing and concept learning of second school students. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 79-104. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/akuned/issue/64258/870678
Uyulgan, M. A., & Akkuzu-Güven, N. (2022). Analysis of prospective primary school teachers' knowledge regarding chemical representations on crystallization Experiment. Journal of Science Learning, 5(1), 176-192. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1342856
Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., Tuysuz, M., Sarici, E., Soysal, C., & Kilinc, S. (2021). The role of the argumentation-based laboratory on the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ argumentation skills. International Journal of Science Education, 43(1), 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1846226
Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1033
Wu, H.K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10126
Yaman, F. (2019). Öğrencilerin sanal kimya laboratuvarı kullanarak hazırladıkları argümantasyona dayalı yazma etkinliklerinin çoklu gösterimler açısından incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 18(1), 207-225. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.527203
Yaman, F. (2020). Pre-service science teachers’ development and use of multiple levels of representation and written arguments in general chemistry laboratory courses. Research in Science Education, 50, 2331–2362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9781-0
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.
Yıldırır, H. E. (2020). Secondary school students' initial and changes in cognitive structures of argument and related concepts. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(2), 231-249. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i2.859
Yıldırır, H. E. (2013). The evaluation of learning environment-based argumentation in classroom: A case study involving experienced chemistry teachers and prospective chemistry teachers. [Unpublished Doctoral thesis], Balıkesir University.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Research in Education and Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Articles may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Authors alone are responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the copyright of the articles. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of the research material.
The author(s) of a manuscript agree that if the manuscript is accepted for publication in the International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), the published article will be copyrighted using a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license. This license allows others to freely copy, distribute, and display the copyrighted work, and derivative works based upon it, under certain specified conditions.
Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to include any images or artwork for which they do not hold copyright in their articles, or to adapt any such images or artwork for inclusion in their articles. The copyright holder must be made explicitly aware that the image(s) or artwork will be made freely available online as part of the article under a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
