Researchers in chemistry education agree that conceptual understanding of chemistry topics depends on an understanding between the three levels of representations including macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic in chemistry, and the ability to shift among them (Gabel, 1999; Johnstone, 1991; 1999; Talanquer, 2011; Treagust et al., 2003).  Macroscopic representations refer to the observable features of matter while submicroscopic representations refer to occurrences at molecular level, and symbolic representations are based on symbols such as formulas or graphs (Gabel, 1999; Talanquer, 2011). Research has shown that students’ inability to properly transfer one form of representation into another may result in the development of nonscientific understandings of chemistry concepts (Treagust, Chittleborough, & Mamiala, 2003).  Therefore, using multiple representations and models in teaching chemistry have been widely discussed and supported in the literature (Adadan et al., 2009; Ainsworth, 2008; Gilbert & Treagust, 2009; Yakmaci-Guzel & Adadan, 2013). However, current literature indicates need for conducting studies about how teachers use of representations in their lesson for teaching chemistry topics. Therefore, the current study may contribute the literature in terms of how preservice teachers use representations in their explanations and in their teaching.

The purpose of this study is to investigate preservice science teachers’ representations of physical and chemical changes and explore how they use representations in their teaching physical and chemical changes at the sixth grade.   The research was guided by the following research questions:

1. How do preservice science teachers represent physical and chemical changes at submicroscopic level and symbolic level?  In other word, how do preservice teachers transfer macroscopic representation level of physical and chemical change to the submicroscopic and the symbolic representation level?
2. How do preservice science teachers integrate multiple representations of physical and chemical changes in their teaching at the sixth grade?

Adadan, E., Irving, K.E. & Trundle, K. C. (2009). Impacts of multi-representational instruction on high school students’ conceptual understandings of the particulate nature of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1743-1775. Ainsworth S., (2008), The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts, in Gilbert J. K., Reiner, M. and Nakhleh M. (ed.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp.191–208). Springer. Gilbert, J.K., & Treagust, D. (2009). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. London, UK: Springer. Gabel, D.L. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 548–554. 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. Johnstone, A.H. (1999). The nature of chemistry. Education in Chemistry, 36(2), 45–47. Taber, K. S. & Garcia-Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: Drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 99-142. Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry ‘triplet’. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. Treagust, D.F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T.L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education,25(11), 1353–1368. Yakmaci-Guzel B. and Adadan E., (2013), Use of multiple representations in developing preservice chemistry teachers’understanding of the structure of matter. International Journal of Environment and Science Education, 8(1), 109–130.