Authors : Nzala Sikawala; Kabunga Nachiyunde; Daka Harrison

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 9 - September

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/373rp7kt

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26sep675

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Chemistry education faces persistent global challenges in enabling learners to master chemical formulae and chemical equations, foundational competencies that determine success in advanced study. In Zambia, this challenge is acute, with Examinations Council reports documenting fewer than forty percent proficiency in these areas for over a decade. This study investigated the pedagogical efficacy of Chemical-Hook Valency Metonymic Modelling in scaffolding learner comprehension and conceptual assimilation of chemical formulae and equations among Zambian secondary school learners, aligned with the competence-based science curriculum. A mixed-methods approach employing the Solomon Four-Group Experimental Design was utilized with 140 Grade 11 learners randomly assigned to four groups of thirty-five each. Quantitative data were collected through pre-tests and post-tests, while qualitative data were gathered via semi-structured interviews with fifty purposively selected learners, six focus group discussions, sixty classroom observations across twenty teachers, and learner reflection logs.

Keywords : Chemical-Hook Valency Metonymic Modelling; Scaffolding; Conceptual Assimilation; Chemical Formulae; Solomon Four-Group Design; IMMS Theory; Competence-Based Curriculum; Zambia.

References :

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
3. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1981). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 7–75). Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Chola, J., & Mwanza, C. (2020). Misconceptions in chemical bonding among secondary school learners in Lusaka District, Zambia. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(2), 45–62.
5. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
6. Damayanti, R., & Putri, D. (2025). Quasi-experimental study on stoichiometry: Strategies for improving post-test scores and reducing cognitive load. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 26(2), 156–172.
7. Davies, P., & Thompson, K. (2022). Comparative approaches to instructional scaffolding in science education: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 35, 100427.
8. Dewi, K., & Martini, S. (2026). Metacognitive strategies in chemistry learning: A systematic review of 50 articles. International Journal of Science Education, 48(1), 78–95.
9. diSessa, A. A. (2018). A friendly introduction to "knowledge in pieces": Modeling types of knowledge and their roles in learning. In T. G. Amin & O. Levrini (Eds.), Converging perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 65–84). Routledge.
10. Duncan, R. G., & Rivet, A. E. (2018). Learning progressions in science education: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 54(2), 123–182.
11. Examinations Council of Zambia. (2019–2023). Grade 12 examination performance review reports. ECZ.
12. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
13. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554.
14. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer.
15. Green, M. (2018). The limitations of formalistic approaches in chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(8), 1289–1305.
16. Hamerská, L., Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2024). Students' understanding of chemical equations: A cross-national study. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(1), 78–95.
17. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
18. Helmenstine, A. M. (2019). Valence definition in chemistry. ThoughtCo.
19. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
20. Johnson, M., & Lee, S. (2021). Empirical validation of chemistry education models: A decade in review. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(3), 567–589.
21. Johnson, R. (2020). Procedural approaches in chemical equation instruction: A critical analysis. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(6), 1567–1582.
22. 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.
23. Johnstone, A. H. (2019). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), 2765–2773.
24. Kitaw, T., & Cherie, A. (2025). Transforming chemistry education in Africa: A 21st century perspective on opportunities and challenges. African Journal of Chemical Education, 15(2), 89–106.
25. Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge University Press.
26. Luxford, C. J., & Bretz, S. L. (2014). Development of the bonding representations inventory to identify student misconceptions about covalent and ionic bonding representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(5), 689–696.
27. Mirzaie, A., Hasanbarani, A., & Madadizadeh, F. (2025). Misconceptions among 10th grade students in Iran: A conceptual evaluation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 26(1), 45–62.
28. Müller, J., & Rau, M. (2025). Metaphors in chemistry education: A systematic review. Journal of Chemical Education, 102(1), 34–51.
29. Mumba, F., & Chirwa, M. (2022). Resource availability and learner performance in secondary school chemistry: A case study of selected districts in Zambia. Zambian Journal of Education, 8(1), 23–41.
30. Musonda, A. (2019). Factors contributing to poor performance in chemistry at senior secondary level in Northern Province, Zambia [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Zambia.
31. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.
32. Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross-age study. Science Education, 65(2), 187–196.
33. O'Sullivan, M. (2006). Curriculum overload in developing countries: Causes and consequences. International Journal of Educational Development, 26(4), 412–428.
34. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
35. Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.
37. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
38. Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 10–23.
39. Smith, J. (2018). Formalistic approaches in chemical nomenclature instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(4), 567–582.
40. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
41. Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16.
42. Taber, K. S. (2001). Constructing chemical concepts in the classroom: Using research to inform practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2(1), 43–51.
43. Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions—Prevention, diagnosis and cure. Royal Society of Chemistry.
44. 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 Practice, 14(2), 156–168.
45. Taber, K. S. (2019). Alternative conceptions and the learning of chemistry. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 59(6), 456–469.
46. Talanquer, V. (2018). Progressions in reasoning about structure–property relationships. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(4), 998–1009.
47. Talanquer, V. (2026). Conceptual reframing in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 27(1), 12–28.
48. 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.
49. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of curriculum overload. Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 345–367.
50. Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 11–30). Routledge.
51. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
52. Wilson, K. (2019). Formalistic approaches and real-world application in chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(9), 1890–1905.