=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3099/paper7
|storemode=property
|title=Theoretical Approach to the Problem of Macro-Micro Relationships in Secondary Chemistry Teaching: A Proposal Based on Observation and Inference
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3099/paper7.pdf
|volume=Vol-3099
|authors=Davut Saritas ,Hasan Özcan,Agustín Adúriz-Bravo
}}
==Theoretical Approach to the Problem of Macro-Micro Relationships in Secondary Chemistry Teaching: A Proposal Based on Observation and Inference==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3099/paper7.pdf
Theoretical Approach to the Problem of Macro-Micro
Relationships in Secondary Chemistry Teaching: A
Proposal Based on Observation and Inference
Davut Saritaş1[0000-0002-5108-4801], Hasan Özcan2[0000-0002-4210-7733] and Agustín Adúriz-
Bravo3[0000-0002-8200-777X]
1 Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, Faculty of Education, Department of Science
Education. Nevşehir, Turkey
davutsaritas@gmail.com
2 Aksaray University, Faculty of Education, Department of Science Education. Aksaray,
Turkey
hozcan@aksaray.edu.tr
2 CONICET/Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Instituto
CeFIEC. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
aadurizbravo@cefiec.fcen.uba.ar
Abstract. The aim of the present study, of elucidative and argumentative nature,
is to propose a first draft for a theoretical approach towards establishing well-
founded explanatory relationships between the micro and macro levels of
chemical knowledge. The establishment of such an aim is done taking into
account that “levels” in chemistry are usually regarded as the cause of many
misconceptions among secondary students. We first examine the recent literature
of chemistry education addressing the “macro-micro problem”. We then redefine
that problem, using the aid of the philosophy of science and the specific
philosophy of chemistry, in terms of observations and inferences. We draw
attention to the theoretical-empirical, explanatory-descriptive, abstract-concrete,
general-factual nature of chemical concepts in science education. Finally, we
derive some instructional guidelines that intend to be coherent with currently
established knowledge in chemistry education research. We indicate some clues
for the design of instructional sequences, laboratory practices, and technology-
mediated teaching activities that follow the spirit of our theoretical approach.
Keywords: Secondary Chemistry Education, Macro and Micro Levels,
Observation and Inference, Theoretical Approach, Philosophy of Science.
1 Introduction
The theories of Piaget, Bruner, Gagne and Ausubel on how individual experience
influences learning emerged more than half a century ago as a new paradigm in
education, and they are still widely used to support science teaching. Constructivist
learning theories emphasize the importance of experiences, and one of the most crucial
aspects of those experiences is observation [1]. For instance, the model of learning
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons
License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
1
2
through discovery, as proposed by Jerome Bruner [2], describes an approach that
requires students to draw conclusions from their observations. Observation, which is
an indispensable element of the scientific research process, is also a basic skill that is
effective in traditional and in technology-mediated science classrooms [3].
Although there are many different teaching methodologies that require students to
observe, in terms of science education, the first thing that comes to mind are laboratory-
based methods. Such methods are effective in achieving learning outcomes through
observations, management of prior knowledge, conceptual understanding, critical
thinking, developing ideas and skills, and eventually using digital technologies. Perhaps
the most established purpose of experiments in science classes in compulsory education
is explaining facts using theoretical knowledge [4]. In other words, making accurate
inferences by using the available theoretical knowledge to interpret the observations
made through experiments. Therefore, school experiments allowing observation and
inference –with or without the aid of new technologies– should have an important role
in science teaching. The skills of experimenting, observing, drawing conclusions and
establishing hypotheses are “exemplar” scientific processing skills, and therefore
significant objectives of contemporary science education. On the other hand, the
difference between observation and inference within the scope of the so-called “nature
of science” should also be taught [5].
In accordance with the previous considerations, the aims of this article are:
1. To draw attention towards the hybrid theoretical-empirical, explanatory-
descriptive, abstract-concrete, general-factual nature of chemical propositions.
2. To make some philosophical considerations on the ontological and
epistemological characteristics of the levels in which chemistry functions (macro and
micro).
3. To sketch the outline of a theoretical approach towards secondary chemistry
teaching based on the process of making inferences from observation.
4. To derive instructional guidelines, coherent with current proposals in chemistry
education research, in order to design laboratory experience with or without the
mediation of digital technologies.
2 Theory and Antecedents
2.1 The Problem of the Macro-Micro Relationship when Making Inferences
from Observation in the Chemistry School Lab
Laboratory and experiments play a significant role in chemistry, which seeks to
understand the transformation of substances. In this regard, chemistry may be the first
field of science that comes to mind when it comes to experiments. As stated earlier, the
main purpose of experiments in science education is to enable students to “reach”
scientific facts about observed events reconstructed with reasonable inferences based
on already learned, structured knowledge. However, empirical and theoretical
knowledge on concrete phenomena re-read through experiments is correlated through
processes of observation and inference. This supposes an additional difficulty for
chemistry education.
2
3
Relationships between theoretical and empirical knowledge in the chemistry
education literature are described in terms of “levels” of understanding –macro, micro
and symbolic [6]. Establishing appropriate relations between macro and micro, two
ontologically separate aspects of the chemical world, is a competence expected from
learners. Chemistry develops scientific models that try to explain with micro
“phenomena” how the macro phenomena take place. But when these two levels are
considered separately in teaching, students face problems in explaining and modelling
[7]. It is usually emphasized that misconceptions in chemistry are caused by confusion
between levels [8]: the micro-related knowledge students use in explaining their
observations is incorrectly inferred, i.e. its transport from one level to another is flawed.
Solutions to this learning problem depend on the development of a robust understanding
of the micro and a correct structuring of the macro (and this of course can be aided by
a consistent and well-founded use of digital technologies).
The specialized literature focusses on the importance of concretizing micro models
for chemical problem solving [6-9]. There are diagnostic studies that determine the
conceptual structures, reasoning patterns and extended misconceptions that individuals
use at the micro level. Additionally, when school lab experiments aimed at interpreting
the micro structure are examined, it is seen that some typified materials, analogies,
images and simulations predominate [10, 11]. Current diagnoses portray the problem
of the conceptual association of micro and macro in terms of both observing the macro
and inferring from the micro.
2.2 Current Approach: Heavy Focus on the Micro
The literature suggests that most research and innovation in chemistry teaching has a
micro-oriented approach. Accordingly, different means (scale models, drawings,
animations, etc.) are used in order to concretize the theoretical knowledge about micro.
However, there are limits to represent the micro through models prepared with concrete
materials, analogies with experienced phenomena, images, and digital recreations.
Indeed, one of the drawbacks of these representations is the emerging assumption that
models are a “replica” of reality [5]. The formation of this epistemologically feeble
understanding in the teaching process can lead to new obstacles, instead of eliminating
misconceptions. Therefore, it is not surprising that students explain macro behaviors
(such as melting or solving) with flawed analogies; students tend to explain the micro
level with concepts related to the macro level, instead of the other way round [1, 7, 12].
So, lack of awareness of the use of such tools in activities in the teaching environment
may lead to grave conceptual problems. The problem about the micro is basically
related to the models used when teaching and the approaches including modelling to
reveal the characteristics of central chemical concepts [8, 11]. The process of using
concrete models of the micro as proxies of the macro level experience should be
supported, and at the same time support, the set of accepted theoretical propositions and
inferences based on other formal, symbolic and linguistic representations (formulas,
equations, symbols, etc.). Such a complex process requires awareness of the theoretical
knowledge and its representations, and digital mediation, used without care and
control, can severely amplify the aforementioned problems.
3
4
On the other hand, available studies show that teachers often prefer to provide
“accurate” explanations of the micro, limiting their teaching to “horizontal”
relationships at the micro level, and not accompanying their students in the
establishment of “vertical” relationships with the macro. Therefore, what is done is the
“transmutation” of micro-sized phenomena that do not allow observation to a macro
form with concrete (model, drawing, etc.) or digital (animation, simulation)
representations. But understanding laboratory experiments is not “enlarging” or
“scaling up” the micro pieces involved. Chemical models and their tools are “fictional”
descriptions or explanations of the pieces, therefore, the following question is key in
chemistry education: what are the “experiences” of students of the nature of the entities
modelled, drawn, simulated –broadly, represented? We argue that an experimental
approach (which can be made more robust through the use of digital technologies) is
indispensable in school chemistry in order to associate the theoretical knowledge about
the micro with empirical knowledge about the macro.
3 Discussion: Elucidation and Argumentation
3.1 Analysis of the Problem with the Help of the Philosophy of Science
In order to attack the problem of macro-micro relations, a strategy is to first describe it
in some detail with the aid of the philosophy of science [8]. The idea is to identify key
aspects of the nature of chemical knowledge to be taught and to establish consistent
teaching methods at the secondary level. The philosophy of science has delved into the
epistemology of knowledge production and the mechanics of scientific representation
(models, analogies, simulations, etc.); these are valuable inputs for chemistry
education.
As stated above, chemistry teaching tends to be micro-based and adopts a micro-to-
macro orientation. This tendency results in students’ conceptual understanding to shift
from abstract to concrete. In terms of content knowledge, from theory to observation.
The acceptability of using only that way is epistemologically and pedagogically
controversial: it clashes with what we know of the nature of chemistry. The main reason
for this is the epistemological qualities of chemistry. From the philosophical point of
view, the problem is related to issues such as emergence, supervenience, holism, part-
whole relations, asymmetry, causality, among others [13]. In the discussion in terms of
chemical properties, the properties of the part will not be sufficient to understand the
properties of the whole, the explanation cannot assume a linear causality between part
and whole. In an approach more consistent with the nature of chemistry, we need to
take into account the emergence of properties caused by the interaction of the parts,
assume a non-reductionist approach to understand the asymmetric relations between
whole and part, critically examine the notion of causality, and understand a dynamic
and contextual relationship between substances, structures and properties. From this
general framework drawn from the philosophy of chemistry, the problem of macro-
micro relationship in chemistry is mainly about how to relate observations through
inferences. It is the process of inference that reveals new perspectives on the nature of
the macro, micro and symbolic dimensions in chemistry education.
4
5
3.2 Observation and Inference
Understanding the relations between observation and inference from a scientific point
of view requires epistemological distinctions between descriptive/empirical/concrete/
factual and explanatory/theoretical/abstract/general knowledge [14]. The existence of
abstract, theoretical knowledge in chemistry depends on a process of
institutionalization of ideas through the use of technical language. Knowledge is
expressed in propositions roughly divided into descriptive and explanatory,
respectively aiming at defining the status of phenomena and responding to questions
on how and why. Explanatory knowledge, constituted by general propositions about
abstract states of affairs involving the identification of causes and consequences, is
often simplistically coalesced with theoretical knowledge. If knowledge produced in
these processes is obtained directly from the observed characteristics of phenomena, it
is usually called empirical knowledge. Indirectly obtained knowledge requires the use
of concepts to “reconcile” representations, which point at the unobservable.
Descriptive knowledge can thus be theoretically supported, and explanatory
knowledge can refer to empirical sources. However, we usually state, for teaching
purposes, that explanations are “general” and description are “factual”. For instance,
“litmus paper turns red in HCl solution” expresses an empirical conclusion in the form
of a description, whereas “litmus paper turns red due to an interaction with the HCl
solution” expresses an empirical conclusion in a form that contains explanations
produced from observable features. To sum up, the theoretical or empirical nature of
the propositions expressing scientific knowledge is more related to the sources of
knowledge, while its descriptive or explanatory nature is more related to the aim and
intention of the text composed of those propositions [15].
Theoretical knowledge includes terms to describe and explain, produced by the
creators of the theory and accepted through consensus. These terms (“theoretical
concepts”) constitute the “apparatus” of the models of phenomena that appear when
using the theory on an empirical domain. For example, when thinking about the boiling
point of a liquid, terms such as “van der Waals forces”, “induction” or “polarity” are
the theoretical concepts that “model” the phenomenon. In the school chemistry lab,
empirical knowledge is not sufficient to make sense of a phenomenon observed,
theoretical knowledge is also needed. What is observed is a sign of something else that
cannot be observed (e.g. temperature is a sign of kinetic energy or molecular
movement). Further knowledge is needed to understand and explain this “signing”, and
this includes the list of theoretical concepts. Following the classical ideas by the French
physicist and philosopher Pierre Duhem [16], an experiment is accompanied by an
interpretation relating concrete data obtained by observing to theoretical entities
accepted by observers; such an interpretation yields some abstract and symbolic
descriptions and explanations. Therefore, each empirical concept is meaningful in a
theoretical framework; there are theoretical structures to make sense of what is actually
happening in a school experiment.
5
6
3.3 Moving from Concrete to Abstract
Abstract chemical concepts describe the behavior of substances through resorting to an
unobservable particle level. This epistemic move is at the center of the literature of
chemistry education. Such a characterization of the knowledge of chemistry can hide
the experiential and experimental nature of chemical intervention, and this turns to be
an obstacle to understanding the knowledge structure of the discipline. Therefore,
although chemistry relies on “unobservable” chemical processes, these are not
completely abstract, they are “anchored” in the concrete of chemical interventions to
change materials and control such changes. Chemical knowledge consists of
explanations made by experiencing the phenomenon through scientifically accepted
representations, and this is why we talk about moving from concrete to abstract.
As frequently stated in the literature of chemistry education, the three-level (macro,
micro and symbolic) understanding of chemical processes [6] requires accepting that
the nature of the three levels is not the same. Macro and micro appear to be
ontologically separate dimensions, and the symbolic level is semiotic (i.e. it deals with
the signs). Phenomena occurring at the macro and micro levels are expressed
linguistically and non-linguistically through elaborate representations. The macro will
be the target of school chemistry lab practices, the micro will be grasped through some
theoretical mediators (concepts, representations, scale models, images, spectra,
symbols, mechanisms, equations, formulas, etc.). Knowledge of this micro dimension
is possible with those epistemological tools produced by science, each element
constituting that dimension acts a semiotic indicator, having meaning because it refers
to macro events. Just because a student writes down a reaction with formulas and
symbols, this does not mean that s/he has actually understood the macro change or the
micro reaction. The symbolic dimension which of course can be enhanced by digital
technologies, should act as a means of establishing satisfactory explanatory relations.
4 A Teaching Proposal
In the light of the conceptual framework given above, some instructional implications
can be drawn. Secondary chemistry teaching should act in an integrated fashion at the
macro and the micro levels through relating whole and part and expressing the
knowledge about these two dimensions with different semiotic tools, including digital
technologies in all their potential. Coherent chemical descriptions and explanations
should be attempted when conceptualizing the school labs. In this respect, it is possible
to divide our instructional proposal into two sub-dimensions: one that is more
ontological, the relations that we needed to establish between the macro and the micro,
and another one that is more epistemological, the appropriate theoretical knowledge
and representations that we can use to efficiently model those relations.
The history of science has shown that chemical phenomena have been interpreted
in quite different ways: it is now commonplace to contrast the explanations for
combustion given by supporters of phlogiston and of oxygen. “Making sense of” a
phenomenon is done according to the principles of good reasoning and the constraints
of theoretical categories. The macro ontological dimension of chemical events is the
6
7
first step of theoretical reconstruction, which culminates at the micro level with entities
that can vary considerably between different theoretical schools. In current chemistry,
this sense-making is made by giving properties to the whole through inferring
properties of parts, and this requires a whole network of relations. In the philosophy of
chemistry, the top-down causality adopted by the holistic approach is more plausible
from the epistemological point of view, as opposed to the bottom-up causality adopted
by the ontological reduction of the whole (ontological reductionism) approach.
Accordingly, in order to explain a chemical phenomenon, the configurational “forces”
that determine the relations that are present should be mentioned [13, 17]. Otherwise,
stating a chemical causality “piling up” from the micro linearly without emergence can
cause misconceptions about properties that cannot be explained.
A perceptible property of a substance, such as odor, is a property depending upon
the properties of the particles but it is not explained by an isolated examination of the
particles; therefore, it is more appropriate for chemistry to establish an asymmetric
relationship between macro and micro with a causality derived from macro properties.
In other words, if we seriously consider ideas from the philosophy of science, the
starting point in the teaching process should be observable changes of the whole. It can
be said that a chemical explanation of a “whole” from this point of departure of “parts”
can be put forward more clearly. In this context, instead of giving exaggerate priority
to micro representations (models, symbols, technological representations, etc.), the
teaching of chemical content should be based on theoretically-reconstructed
experiences. It then seems more appropriate to establish an interactive relationship by
bringing the representations under use closer to the observed phenomenon.
“Projecting” theoretical knowledge onto phenomena requires making inferences,
i.e. transferences or extractions from models to phenomena. There are different types
of reasoning that scientists use when making these inferences to “overstand” (i.e.
dominate) facts. In the literature of philosophy of science, a number of theoretical
frameworks have been put forward; authors talk about hypothetical deduction,
induction, retrodiction, abduction, which are defined as combined, non-formal and
therefore non-demonstrative methods [14]. It is often stated that induction and
deduction, which are the classical “scientific methods”, are not enough in today’s
understanding of science [18].
Hypothetical thinking is the type of thinking that is essential in science education
and forms the basis of a sound method in relation to scientific inference. According to
Anton Lawson [14], the process of scientific knowledge formation in the minds of
students is essentially neither inductive nor purely deductive. Students reason according
to patterns expressed as hypothetical arguments in the form of conditional structures
“if… and/but…, then…, therefore…”. When effective use of existing theoretical
knowledge is required, a hypothetical-deductive form becomes important. Theoretical
knowledge and observations related to the phenomenon are linked through an
“inference about the case”: a fact is observed, a theoretical corpus is deemed
appropriate, then an abduced hypothesis provides a reasonable answer. In such a
conclusion, two different factual situations can arise. 1. the hypothesis is supported by
empirical data, and we have yet another reason for the adoption of our theoretical
knowledge, or 2. the hypothesis is not supported empirically, and our theoretical
7
8
knowledge is deemed insufficient to explain the case: we need to revise. In this
“method”, as it can be seen, the theoretical knowledge proposed by the teacher is
effectively applied and at the same time tested: “ampliative” reasoning is consistent
with the notion that scientific knowledge is open to change.
In our proposal for chemistry teaching, a crucial point of the hypothetical method is
providing meaning for empirical knowledge. When interpreting a lab experience, there
is production of testable hypothetical propositions within the framework of theoretical
knowledge institutionalized in class. In this context of school chemistry, relationships
between the macro and the micro are established through an interactive process that
“comes and goes” between observation and theory with the intervention of inferences.
Here, of course, technological mediations can give new dimensions to the process. An
overview of that interactive process that we envisage is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Proposal of an interactive process between the macro and the micro for secondary
chemistry teaching through lab experiences.
Dimensions and stages
A1. Observation of an experience in the school lab, with or
A. Working in the macro
without technologies
dimension
A2. Transition from observation to inference
B1. Theoretical representation of the experience, with or
B. Working in the micro
without technologies
dimension
B2. “Making sense” of the phenomenon
C.1. Comparing and “editing” inferences
C. Working in the macro and C.2. “Abduction” of hypotheses
micro dimensions C.3. Test of hypotheses, with or without technologies
C.4. Extraction of conclusions
5 Final Remarks
An initial evaluation of our teaching proposals in terms of the corpus of science
education research can be done under some general “headings”. Instructional activities
generated with our framework are in accordance with the “inventive route” strategy of
proposing and testing hypotheses. Current well-known “active” teaching methods, and
adequate supporting new technologies, can be inserted at the different stages of our
proposal (see Table 1). For example, when students face the macro experience in the
lab, teachers could use computer-assisted labs, remote labs, virtual/simulated labs or
animation-based labs. On the other hand, when a dimension of “prediction” is
incorporated as a preliminary stage, prior to the transition from macro observations
towards micro explanations, the whole lab experience can become a prediction-
observation-explanation cycle, a method favored in the specialized literature.
In the stages where the micro is being examined, a wide variety of digital
technologies (animations, mobile apps, augmented reality, and even search engines and
8
9
social media) can be profitably used to enrich teaching and assist learning. The stage
where students are required to infer can be organized as the construction of school
scientific argumentations, and further argumentative texts can be elaborated to connect
the different stages of our proposal. Argumentation leads the students to justify their
own conclusions with the use of multiple representations such as pictures, graphs, scale
models, multimodal and hypermedia texts and even gestures [19].
The fact that our teaching proposal is adjusted to methodological approaches
currently favored in innovative chemistry education and at the same time to
epistemologically valid views on the nature of scientific processes is salient. The use
of Lawson’s proposal [20] of hypothetical prediction and argumentation warrants that
our suggestions for secondary chemistry classrooms are aligned with conceptions of
the nature of science shared within our research community [21]. Activities designed
under the guidelines that we have discussed can potentially support scientific thinking
and reasoning skills in students. Affordances and constraints introduced by the
mediation of digital technologies at this point of our cycle need to be further
investigated in chemistry education.
The conceptual approach proposed in this work focusses on establishing
epistemological articulations between observation and inference; it is thus inscribed, as
it was said before, in the line of research and innovation around the nature of science,
or NOS [21]. Further NOS ideas that can be explored with our proposal are the
differences between law and theory, the nature of models in chemistry, the logical
structure of chemical knowledge, the nature of idealization or the role of
representations. The spirit of our proposal intends to create awareness among students
of the empirical, theoretical, descriptive, explanatory, factual, general, concrete,
abstract nature of chemical propositions.
In terms of innovative chemistry education, a proposal structured around inferences
may contribute to the “eradication” of misconceptions. Many misconceptions on the
particulate structure of matter have been related to a lack of understanding of the use of
the micro dimension to “account for” the macro dimension. Reconciliation of the pieces
of theoretical knowledge that in principle can explain results obtained in the school lab
is the keystone of our proposal and a way of “working with” students’ conceptions in a
more comprehensive way, looking for possible integrations and re-significations.
Finally, we think our approach should be tested in actual technology-mediated
implementations in secondary chemistry classrooms with the aid of analytical
constructs from philosophy of science and science education. In its state presented in
this article, it should be considered a set of recommendations or guidelines derived from
currently accepted knowledge in the discipline of chemistry education.
References
1. Özmen, H.: A cross-national review of the studies on the particulate nature of matter and
related concepts. International Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education 5(2), 81-110
(2013). http://www.ijpce.org/index.php/IJPCE/article/view/77
2. Bruner, J.S.: The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review 31, 21-32 (1961). DOI:
10.12691/education-7-12-5
9
10
3. Martin, D.J.: Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach. Delmar, Albany
(1997).
4. Gott, R, Welford, G., & Foulds, K.: The assessment of practical work in science. Blackwell,
Oxford (1988).
5. McComas, W.F. (Ed.): The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies.
Springer, Dordrecht (1998).
6. Johnstone, A.H.: The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing
demand. Journal of Chemical Education 70(9), 701-704 (1993). DOI: 10.1021/ed070p701
7. Taber, K.S.: Chemical misconceptions: Prevention, diagnosis and cure. Volume I:
Theoretical background. Royal Society of Chemistry, London (2002).
8. Erduran, S., Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R.: Developing epistemologically
empowered teachers. Science & Education 18(9-10), 975-989 (2007). DOI:
10.1007/s11191-006-9072-4
9. Krell, M., Reinisch, B., & Krüger, D: Analyzing students’ understanding of models and
modeling referring to the disciplines biology, chemistry, and physics. Research in Science
Education 45(3), 367-393 (2015). DOI: 10.1007/s11165-014-9427-9
10. Adadan, E.: Using multiple representations to promote grade 11 students’ scientific
understanding of the particle theory of matter. Research in Science Education 43(3), 1079-
1105 (2012). DOI: 10.1007/s11165-012-9299-9
11. Galagovsky, L.R., & Adúriz-Bravo, A.: Modelos y analogías en la enseñanza de las ciencias
naturales: El concepto de modelo didáctico analógico. Enseñanza de las Ciencias 19(2), 231-
242 (2001). https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/21735
12. Jaber, L.Z., & BouJaoude, S.: A macro-submicro-symbolic teaching to promote relational
understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education 34(7), 973-
998 (2012). DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.569959
13. Schummer, J.: Philosophy of chemistry. In: D.M. Borchert (Ed.): Encyclopedia of
philosophy, 2nd edition. Macmillan, New York, n/pp. (2006).
14. Lawson, A.E.: Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery.
Science Education 94(2), 336-364 (2010). DOI: 10.1002/sce.20357
15. Sarıtaş, D., & Tufan, Y.: İndirgemecilik açısından kimya öğretiminde makro ve mikro bilgi
seviyeleri [Macro and micro knowledge levels for chemistry teaching in terms of
reductionism]. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 33(2), 165-192 (2013).
16. Duhem, P.: La théorie physique: Son objet, sa structure. Chevalier & Rivière, Paris (1906).
17. Hendry, R.F.: Chemistry: emergence vs. reduction. In: C. Macdonald and G. Macdonald
(Eds.): Emergence in mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 205-221 (2010).
18. Musgrave, A.E.: Popper and hypothetico-deductivism. In: D.M. Gabbay, S. Hartmann, & J.
Woods (Eds.): Handbook of the history of logic. Volume 10: Inductive logic. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 205-234 (2011).
19. Namdar, D., & Shen, J.: Intersection of argumentation and the use of multiple
representations in the context of socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science
Education 38(7), 1100-1132 (2016). DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1183265
20. Lawson, A.E.: The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with
implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education 25(11), 1387-
1408 (2003). DOI: 10.1080/0950069032000052117
21. Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J.S., & Antink, A.: Nature of science and scientific inquiry as
contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International
Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology 1(3), 138-147 (2013).
https://www.ijemst.com/index.php/ijemst/article/view/19/19
10