Integrated Macro-Micro-Symbolic Approach in Teaching Secondary Chemistry

  • Joje Mar P. Sanchez College of Teacher Education, Cebu Normal University, Cebu City
Keywords: chemistry education, integrated macro-micro-symbolic approach, conventional lecture method


The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of the Integrated Macro-Micro-Symbolic Approach (IMMSA) in teaching Chemistry to 10th graders of a secondary school in Cebu City, Philippines. A pre-post quasi-experimental design with control group was utilized to two groups of students, of which one was exposed to IMMSA and the other to conventional lecture method (CLM). Topics included in the experimentation proper were the five postulates of the Kinetic Molecular Theory of gases. Data gathered from the pre- and post-test tools were analyzed using t-tests, with a level of significance, α=0.01. Study findings revealed that both groups had Below Average performance levels in the pre- and post-test, where the lack of time and spiral progression were seen as reasons for the performances. The study also found out that both groups had significantly increased their performances from the pre- to the post-tests, implying the essence of both lectures and integrated use of modes. Ultimately, the study revealed that IMMSA is more effective than CLM as seen in the students’ enhanced performance, signifying the effective nature of the integration of macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic modes in teaching Chemistry concepts. With this, the Three-tiered model of learning and Chemistry triangle are still valued in the 21st century learning environment.


Ainsworth, S. (2007). The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education. Springer Science and Business Media, 191-208
Balushi, S. (2012). The effect of different textual narrations on students’ explanations at the submicroscopic level in Chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9 (1), 3-10. DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2013.911a
Bradley, J. (2005). Chemistry education for development. Retrieved last January 4, 2017 from
Bradley, J. (2014). The Chemist’s triangle and a generic systemic approach to teaching, learning and research in Chemistry education. African Journal of Chemical Education, 4, 64-79
Brandiet, A. (2014). Investigating students‘ understanding of the symbolic, macroscopic, and particulate domains of oxidation-reduction and the development of the redox concept inventory. ProQuest LLC, 3670808
Bütüner, S. (2016). The use of concrete learning objects taken from the history of mathematics in mathematics education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2016.1184336
Cardellini, L. (2012). Chemistry: Why the subject is difficult?. Educacion Quimica, 1-6
Childs, P. and Sheehan, M. (2009). What’s difficult about Chemistry? An Irish perspective. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 10, 204-218
Department of Education (2013). K to 12 curriculum guide: SCIENCE (grades 3 to 10). Retrieved January 4, 2017 from
Eilks, I. And Hofstein, A. (2015). Relevant Chemistry Education: From Theory to Practice. Rotterdam : Sense Publishers, p. 33
Ellis, A. (2001). Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Together: The Reflective Classroom. New York : Eye on Education, Inc., 23-24
Gilbert, J. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in Science education. Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education. Springer Science and Business Media
Gilbert, J. And Treagust, D. (2009). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1-8
Harrison, A. And Treagust, D. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice. Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 189-212
Jaber, L. And Boujaoude, S. (2012). A macro-micro-symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 973-998
Johnstone, A. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377-379
Kincheloe, J. And Horn, R. (2007). The Praeger Handbook of Education and Psychology, Vol. 1. Connecticut : Praeger Publishers, 57-61
Kumar, K. (2004). Methods of Teaching Chemistry. New Delhi : Discovery Publishing House, 71-72
Li, W. And Arshad, M. (2014). Applications of multiple representation levels in redox reactions among tenth grade Chemistry teachers. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11, 35-52
Nelson, P. (2002). Teaching Chemistry progressively: From substances, to atoms and molecules, to electrons and nuclei. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3, 215-228
Resurrecion, J.E. and Adanza, J. (2015). Spiral progression approach in teaching Science in selected private and public schools in Cavite. Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress, 3, 1-12
Risch, B. (2010). Teaching Chemistry around the World. Munster : Verlad, p.7
Royal Society of Chemistry (2011). Global frameworks for Chemistry education for 11-14 and 14-16 age ranges. Retrieved last January 4, 2017 from
Saville, B., Cox, T., O’Brien, S. And Vanderveldt, A. (2011). Interteaching: The impact of lectures on student performance. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 44, 937-941
Schoen, A. (2013). Reflections on problem solving theory and practice. The Mathematics Journal, 10, 1-2
Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in Chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4, 2-20
Sunyono, L. and Ibrahim, M. (2015). Mental models of students on stoichiometry concept in learning by method based on multiple representations. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5 (2)
Tan, R. (2015). Improving the use of physical manipulatives in teaching science concepts through lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 4 (4), 328-342
Woldeammanuel, M., Atagana, H. And Engida, T. (2014). What makes Chemistry difficult?. African Journal of Chemical Education, 4, 31-43
Wood, L. (2013). Representing Chemistry: How instructional use of symbolic, microscopic and macroscopic modes influences student conceptual understanding in Chemistry, ProQuest LLC, 3590249
How to Cite
Sanchez, J. M. P. (2017). Integrated Macro-Micro-Symbolic Approach in Teaching Secondary Chemistry. KIMIKA, 28(2), 22-29.
Chemistry Education