Research on students’ conceptions has received a great attention by the education community (Duit & Treagust, 1995). Researchers agree that students come to science classes with a broad range of alternative conceptions about diverse phenomena (Vosniadou, 2002) and their existing conceptions play a key role in the outcomes of new learning (Ausubel & Robinson, 1969).

Solution chemistry including solutions and solubility is one of the fundamental topics in high school chemistry curriculum since an understanding of solution chemistry is essential to learn more advanced topics including chemical kinetics, chemical equilibrium, acid-base equilibrium, and electrochemistry (Calik, Ayas, & Coll, 2010; Prieto, Blanco, & Rodriguez, 1989). Therefore, there have been many studies investigated students’ conceptions of solution chemistry (Calik, Ayas, & Ebenezer, 2005). However, although most of these studies have focused on students’ conceptions of the nature of solutions and dissolution process (Calik et al., 2005; Kabapinar et al., 2004; Pinarbasi & Canpolat, 2003; Prieto et al. 1989), there is limited research on students’ conceptions of some other conceptual aspects of solution chemistry [e.g., factors affecting solubility of solids and gases, the types of solutions relative to the solubility of a solute, concentration of solutions, and colligative properties of solutions] (e.g., Calik et al., 2010; 2009; Talanquer, 2010; Teichert et al., 2008). As a result, the current study was conducted in order to investigate Grade 11 students’ understandings of solution chemistry including a variety of associated concepts such as the nature of solutions and dissolving, factors affecting the solubility of solids and of gases, the types of solutions, colligative properties of solutions, and the electrical conductivity of solutions.

Moreover, researchers in chemistry education agree that conceptual learning of chemistry concepts requires an understanding between the three levels of representations including macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic in chemistry, and the ability to shift among them (Gabel, 1999; Talanquer, In press). 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, In press). 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).  Considering the role of multiple representations in the learning of chemistry, the current study investigated students’ understanding of solution chemistry in multiple contexts with multiple modes [verbal, visual] (Gilbert, 2004) and levels of representation.         

Overall, the purpose of the study was  to investigate Grade 11 students’ understandings of  several  associated solution chemistry concepts such as the nature of solutions and dissolving, factors affecting the solubility of solids and of gases, the types of solutions, colligative properties of solutions, and the electrical conductivity of solutions in multiple context with multiple modes [verbal, visual] (Gilbert, 2004) and levels of representation [macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic] (Gabel, 1999; Talanquer, In press).

Ausubel, D. P., & Robinson, F. G. (1969). School learning: An introduction to educational psychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Calik, M., Ayas, A., Coll, R. K. (2010). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(1), 32-48. Calik, M., Ayas, A., & Ebenezer, J. V. (2005). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 29-50. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In J. F. Barry & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 46-69). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Gabel, D. L. (1999). Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 548-554. Gilbert, J. K. (2004). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115-130. Kabapinar, F., Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2004). International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 635-652. Pinarbasi, T., & Canpolat, N. (2003). Journal of Chemical Education, 80(11), 1328-1332. Prieto, T., Blanco, A. & Rodriguez, A. (1989). International Journal of Science education, 11(4), 451-463. Talanquer, V. (2010). International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2393- 2412. Talanquer, V. (In press). Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, Teichert, M. A., Tien, L. T., Anthony, S., & Rickey, D. (2008). International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1095-1114. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1368. Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naïve physics. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. (pp. 61-76). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Due to word limitation, the reference list is given in a short form.