pubs.acs.

org/jchemeduc Commentary

Exploring the Plurality of Chemical Modeling: Implications for

Chemistry Teaching
Vicente Talanquer*

Cite This: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00244 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations

See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: Modeling is a core disciplinary practice in chemistry, yet its complexity is often
oversimplified and underdiscussed in educational contexts. This essay explores the plurality of
chemical modeling by examining the different granularity levels and dimensions of analysis that
chemists use to represent matter and its behavior. It highlights the indirect nature of
Downloaded via 187.36.166.178 on July 6, 2025 at 21:32:12 (UTC).

connecting macroscopic observations to submicroscopic models and discusses the diverse

approaches used to model chemical substances and processes. Through an illustrative example,
this paper demonstrates how various chemical models provide complementary insights into the
same phenomenon. Recognizing the plurality of chemical modeling has significant implications
for chemical education, as it can help educators develop curricula, instructional strategies, and
assessments that foster deeper conceptual and epistemic understandings.

KEYWORDS: Chemical Thinking, Models, Modeling, Teacher Knowledge

■ INTRODUCTION
Whether explicitly or implicitly, a core learning objective in
the behavior of various systems (e.g., distinct models for
covalent and ionic substances). Additionally, we employ
foundational chemistry courses is to help students identify, multiple models of a given phenomenon to capture, emphasize,
understand, and apply structure−property relationships to or explore different aspects (e.g., varying models for acid−base
predict and explain the observed properties and behaviors of behavior).11 Acknowledging this plurality provides an important
matter based on its modeled submicroscopic structure.1−3 Many foundation for developing student chemical modeling com-
chemistry educators describe this as connecting the macroscopic petence and supports more coherent instructional design.
and submicroscopic levels of matter, a central disciplinary Recognizing core chemical models’ characteristics, bounda-
challenge articulated in Alex Johnstone’s chemistry triplet.4,5 ries, and affordances can help instructors scaffold learning more
While we recognize that building such connections is difficult for effectively. Students’ misuse or conflation of chemical models
learners,6 discussions of student difficulties often overlook the can lead to significant conceptual misunderstandings. For
complexity of these reasoning tasks. Additionally, we frequently instance, interpreting molecules solely through ball-and-stick
blur the line between the real-world entities and processes we models can lead to the mistaken belief that chemical bonds are
seek to understand and the models we construct to represent rigid, making it harder to grasp vibrational motion or bond
and interpret them. rotation. Similarly, over-reliance on the electron-pair bonding
The central aim of this Commentary is to encourage reflection model can obscure more nuanced ideas such as resonance and
on the intricate and indirect relationship between the real and electron delocalization, phenomena that require extending or
modeled worlds in chemistry. Specifically, I seek to make visible shifting to models grounded in molecular orbital theory.
the diverse modeling strategies that underlie chemical reasoning Without explicit instruction in what each model emphasizes,
and the complexity of what we ask students to do when we and what it omits, students are likely to overgeneralize or apply
expect them to understand and connect phenomena at various models inappropriately. Supporting metamodeling skills:
levels.
I also argue that modeling in chemistry is inherently
pluralistic.7,8 Chemists employ diverse models to represent the Received: February 23, 2025
same system, often varying in granularity and physical Revised: May 30, 2025
dimensionality.9 Chemical reasoning depends less on the Accepted: June 25, 2025
application of general theories and more on the construction
and use of specific models tailored to the substance or process of
interest.10 We build different models to understand and predict
© XXXX American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00244
A J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Commentary

knowing which model to use, when, and why, is therefore material world and the theoretical models chemists construct to
essential to building deeper chemical understanding.12,13 understand it.28
These representations occupy a central role in the “symbolic”
■ CHEMICAL MODELING
Models are essential tools in scientific reasoning, allowing us to
corner of Johnstone’s triangle, which classifies chemical
understanding into macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic
domains.4,5 The symbolic level encompasses chemical formulas,
make predictions, construct explanations, and engage in diagrams, equations, and other tools that express conceptual
evidence-based argumentation about the properties and relationships in abstract or visual form. Given the diversity and
behaviors of systems of interest.14 This central role of modeling function of these tools, I use the term “representation” to refer to
has been emphasized in K−12 science education frameworks, this broader category of visual and symbolic devices. In general, I
including the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and have proposed thinking of the triangle’s corners as pointing to
the Framework for K−12 Science Education in the United (1) the concrete experiences we have with chemical substances
States, which identify “developing and using models” as one of and phenomena; (2) the models we construct to explain,
the eight core scientific practices.15,16 These documents predict, and control those experiences; and (3) the representa-
highlight that models serve as explanatory tools and learning tions we use to visualize and manipulate those models.29 This
supports, helping students visualize, simulate, and reason about Commentary focuses on the nature and diversity of chemical
abstract phenomena across scientific domains. models while recognizing that modeling and representational
Extensive research at the K−12 level has explored how competencies are deeply intertwined in teaching and learning.
students engage with models, the difficulties they face, and the Without explicit support in distinguishing models from their
instructional strategies that foster productive modeling representations, students may misinterpret the limitations,
practices.14,17−21 For example, students often conflate models scope, or intent of the models they encounter, hindering their
with the phenomena they represent or fail to recognize the conceptual understanding and modeling fluency. Analyses of the
limitations of a model when applied in new contexts.22 They complexity involved in thinking with and about chemical
may also view models as static or final rather than evolving tools representations have been published elsewhere.30
subject to revision based on new evidence.23 These findings
From Macro Reality to Macro Models
underscore the need for explicit instruction that helps students
compare and evaluate models, understand their purposes, and Understanding how we represent chemical systems is
reflect on their limitations. These skills are often referred to as inseparable from understanding what we are modeling in the
metamodeling competencies.12,13 first place. Just as we must distinguish between models and their
While modeling as an intellectual process shares common visual representations, we must also attend to the conceptual
characteristics across scientific disciplines,24 each field employs leap involved in modeling the systems themselves. In many
distinctive model types tailored to its unique content and goals. cases, we begin by interpreting the tangible, observable world
In chemistry, many models aim to capture key attributes of through macroscopic models: simplified conceptualizations of
matter’s composition and structure, focusing on the subcompo- reality that enable further theorizing. This modeling step is often
nents responsible for observed physical and chemical proper- implicit, yet it plays a foundational role in constructing
ties.19,25−27 This focus on unobservable entities and processes at submicroscopic explanations.
multiple scales makes chemistry especially dependent on model- In the conventional conceptualization of Johnstone’s triangle,
based reasoning. Yet the pervasiveness of modeling in the one corner represents the macroscopic materials and processes
discipline also presents challenges as we often blur the that we experience in the real world, while another corresponds
distinctions between models, their visual representations, and to the submicroscopic components whose composition and
the reality they aim to describe. structure determine observed properties and behaviors.31
Reflecting on these issues is critical for chemistry educators However, ambiguity remains as to whether these entities are
when designing curricula, instruction, and assessment. Rather considered real and concrete or modeled and abstract.29 This
than treating modeling as a linear progression from simple to distinction is crucial, as we often draw direct connections
complex, students would benefit from recognizing and between real macroscopic entities and modeled submicroscopic
navigating the plurality of models used across chemical contexts. entities, bypassing a critical modeling step in which our
Supporting this capacity requires more than introducing macroscopic reality is first represented through macroscopic
multiple models; it demands fostering awareness of why models of the systems under consideration.32
chemists switch between models, what aspects of reality each Imagine, for example, that we want to discuss the properties of
model captures, and how these models help bridge the tangible, water on our planet with our students. In this conversation, we
experienced world and the abstract, conceptual one. will likely refer to water as a chemical substance, automatically
replacing the actual material with an abstract model.33 This
Of Chemical Models and Representations
model assumes that water is a unique form of matter with a
Chemists are known for their ability to explain, predict, and constant elemental composition, regardless of its source.
control the properties of substances and processes by invoking However, any water sample contains dissolved substances like
models of entities operating at various scales, from tangible minerals, gases, or trace elements that vary depending on the
chemical substances to invisible components such as molecules, source (e.g., tap water or natural water bodies). It is the abstract
atoms, and electrons. Chemical thinking seamlessly integrates macroscopic model of water as a chemical substance that
the macroscopic and the submicroscopic worlds, building supports the development of submicroscopic models in which
models of systems of interest at different scales and connecting we conceptualize water as being composed of identical,
them with the support of a powerful representational system. independent molecules.
Representations in chemistry serve not merely as tools for This type of macroscopic modeling also occurs when we
communication but as epistemic bridges between the observable characterize a chemical reaction as the result of interactions
B https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00244
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Commentary

between distinct chemical substances acting as reactants, which • Structural − focuses on the spatial organization of relevant
then transform into a specific set of chemical substances components.
identified as products. For example, consider the typical • Interactional − focuses on the interactions between a
chemical equation for the combustion of methane: CH4(g) + system’s components.
O2(g) → CO2(g) + 2 H2O(l). The abstract model represented • Energetic − focuses on the amount and distribution of
by this equation simplifies and idealizes the actual process by energy within the system.
assuming the existence of pure substances with constant • Kinetic − focuses on the time evolution of targeted
composition and omitting real-world complexities, such as the components and their properties.
formation of secondary products.
In general, chemistry educators must recognize that engaging We should recognize that a single chemical model may
in chemical thinking often begins with modeling the target operate at different granularity levels or target several
material or process at the macroscopic level. This typically dimensions of analysis. By spanning various levels of granularity
involves making assumptions that simplify complexity and and dimensions of analysis, chemical models provide a
facilitate but may also constrain the construction of submicro- comprehensive framework for understanding matter and its
scopic models of matter (e.g., representing water as an idealized behavior. To illustrate the plurality of chemical modeling, in the
molecular compound versus a dynamic hydrogen-bonding next section, I describe various chemical models that we can
network). From this perspective, we should understand the build to analyze a well-known chemical process.
“macroscopic” corner of Johnstone’s triangle as having a dual An Example
nature, representing real systems and phenomena of interest and Let us consider the common demonstration of a chemical
their corresponding macroscopic idealizations. reaction in the gas phase using ammonia and hydrochloric acid
The Many Chemical Models as reactants.32 In a typical setup, cotton balls soaked in aqueous
When we think of chemical models, we often visualize familiar ammonia and concentrated hydrochloric acid are placed at
representations, such as Bohr’s model of the atom or ball-and- opposite ends of a long glass tube. Over time, a white set of rings
stick depictions of molecules. However, chemical models are forms inside the tube, appearing closer to the hydrochloric acid
highly diverse, spanning multiple granularity levels and source. Additionally, a slight increase in temperature is detected
dimensions of analysis. In science, it is common to conceptualize in the area where the rings form. This phenomenon can be
a system’s components as arranged in hierarchical levels of modeled in various ways: macroscopic-level modeling, partic-
organization or different granularity levels.34 In chemistry, each ulate-level modeling, molecular-level modeling, atomic-level
level differs in the physical scale of its associated entities and the modeling, and electron-level modeling.
degree of organizational complexity.9 Entities at a higher level of Macroscopic-Level Modeling. To explain this phenom-
granularity (e.g., the molecular level) are composed of entities enon, we could build a macro-compositional model in which we
defined at the next lower level (e.g., atoms). assume that two gaseous chemical substances, NH3(g) and
The granularity levels relevant to chemistry include entities HCl(g), evaporate from their respective solutions and diffuse
with emergent properties�characteristics that differ from those through the tube. When they meet, they undergo a chemical
of their components at the next lower level but arise from their reaction and form a new substance: ammonium chloride, a white
dynamic interactions.35,36 For example, we recognize a solid, as a chemical product. One can represent this process by
molecular level because molecules exhibit emergent properties the following chemical equation: NH3(g) + HCl(g) →
such as geometry and polarity, which result from the interaction NH4Cl(s). We can further assume that NH3(g) diffuses more
and organization of their constituent atoms. Similarly, we rapidly through the tube, which explains the formation of the
distinguish an atomic level from an electronic level because rings closer to the source of HCl(g).
atoms possess emergent properties, such as valence (bonding We can also build a macro-energetic model focusing on energy
capacity), which arise from interactions among subatomic transfer and dispersal during this phenomenon. The observed
components (electrons and protons). temperature increase suggests that the chemical product has a
We often build chemical models at the following levels of lower enthalpy of formation than the combined reactants,
granularity: resulting in the release of heat to the surroundings (ΔH < 0 for
an exothermic process). Since the reaction generates a solid
• Macroscopic − major components: chemical substances. product from two gaseous reactants, it leads to a decrease in the
• Particulate − major components: particles of varying mass system’s entropy (ΔS < 0). This suggests that the thermody-
in dynamic interaction. namic feasibility of the process may depend on temperature.
• Molecular − major components: submicroscopic entities However, observations indicate that the reaction is product-
with specific chemical composition and structure. favored (spontaneous) at room temperature. All these
• Atomic − major components: atoms of the same or predictions may be verified by calculating the change in free
different elements. energy ΔG = ΔH − TΔS for the reaction using experimental
• Electronic − major components: subatomic particles (e.g., data (ΔHrxn° = −176.2 kJ/mol, ΔSrxn ° = −284.8 J/(K mol), ΔGrxn °
electrons, protons). = −91.3 kJ/mol).
A macro-kinetic model of the phenomenon can also be
Chemical models also differ in the dimensions of analysis they developed, representing the concentrations of reactants and
emphasize. Some models, for example, focus on a system’s products as functions of space and time. In this model, diffusion,
composition or structure, while others highlight energetic or reaction, and nucleation events are described using differential
kinetic factors. The most common dimensions of analysis equations based on a simplified reaction mechanism.37 This type
include: of reaction-diffusion model predicts the formation of Liesegang
• Compositional − focuses on the chemical composition of a rings�periodic precipitate bands that arise due to spatial and
system’s entities. temporal fluctuations in reactant concentrations.38 These
C https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00244
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Commentary

fluctuations result from the interplay between diffusional

transport and precipitation dynamics, leading to the ring pattern
■ DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Overall, the example presented in the previous section illustrates
observed in the experiment. This model generates insights into the plurality of chemical models chemists construct to describe,
the spatial and temporal distribution of system components, analyze, understand, and predict different aspects of a property
thus spanning structural and kinetic dimensions. or phenomenon, depending on their goals. Attention to different
Particulate-Level Modeling. To construct a particulate- granularity levels and dimensions of analysis allows chemists to
level model, we can visualize the reactants as small particles in gain deeper insights into and greater control over the systems of
constant random motion within the tube. These particles have interest. The choice of model is often driven more by its utility in
different masses, influencing their diffusion rates. When particles achieving a particular epistemic or practical aim than by its
of the reactants collide, they can react to form gaseous particles perceived correctness or accuracy�for instance, chemists use
of the product, which attract each other and aggregate into solid both valence bond theory, which facilitates inferences about
nuclei that precipitate. As the reaction and precipitation molecular geometry, and molecular orbital theory, which
processes progress, a local depletion of reactants occurs in the enables predictions about electron distribution.10,11 The
region where the product forms, reducing the likelihood of example also highlights the multiple meanings one can attribute
further product formation in that area. However, the continued to the macroscopic and submicroscopic corners of Johnstone’s
diffusion of reactant particles through the tube allows the triangle and the diverse paths one can take to connect the macro
reaction to repeat in a subsequent region, leading to the and submicro worlds.
characteristic periodic ring pattern observed in the experiment. In classroom practice, teachers can help students compare
These rings will form closer to the HCl source as particles of this different models of the same phenomenon to strengthen their
reactant are modeled to be heavier than those of NH3 and thus understanding. For example, when studying cloud formation,
have a lower average speed at a constant temperature. This students might first be asked to describe what they observe
model offers insights into the spatial and temporal distribution during a demonstration or in nature: cooling air leading to
of components in the system and their interactions, encompass- visible condensation. They can then construct a macroscopic
ing structural, interactional, and kinetic aspects. explanation based on changes in temperature and humidity,
Molecular-Level Modeling. At this level, the reactants are followed by a particulate-level model where water vapor
modeled as polar molecular substances. The interaction molecules slow down and cluster as the air cools. Students can
between regions of opposite partial charge in NH3 and HCl compare these models, discussing what each explains, what it
molecules induces a chemical reaction, leading to the formation leaves out, and why both are useful. These activities promote
of NH4+ (ammonium) and Cl− (chloride) ions. These flexible thinking and a clearer understanding of the role of
oppositely charged ions attract each other, forming gaseous modeling in chemistry.
ion pairs (dimers), which then aggregate into a solid crystalline As it occurs in other scientific disciplines, chemical models can
ionic network. The strong electrostatic forces within this ionic also differ in the methodological approach used to describe
lattice significantly lower the system’s potential energy, a phenomena of interest. For example, one could build
phenomenon associated with negative lattice energy. As a result, deterministic models by assuming that system components
energy is transferred to surrounding particles as kinetic energy, follow predictable laws (e.g., Newtonian mechanics) or
manifesting as a temperature increase in the system. This model probabilistic models by recognizing uncertainty and variability
focuses on the interactional and energetic dimensions of the in their behavior (e.g., statistical mechanics). One could build
phenomenon. theoretical models derived from first-principles or empirical
Atomic-Level Modeling. At the atomic level, the behavior models based on data and approximations. Or one could build
of reactant molecules can be described using the Brønsted- analytical models that characterize behaviors mathematically or
Lowry acid−base theory. In this framework, hydrochloric acid computational models that use numerical simulations to analyze
(HCl) acts as a proton donor (acid), transferring a proton (H+) a system’s structure and dynamics.
to ammonia (NH3), which acts as a proton acceptor (base). This Recognizing the plurality of chemical modeling would greatly
proton transfer leads to the formation of NH4+ and Cl− ions, enrich the pedagogical content knowledge39 of chemistry
explaining the ionic nature of the reaction product. This model teachers at all educational levels. Nehring and Schanze11 have
offers insights into the compositional and structural dimensions recently discussed how recognizing and understanding plurality
of the phenomenon. in chemical thinking can help teachers better support and foster
Electron-Level Modeling. At the electronic level, the student learning by
reaction can be modeled based on the Lewis acid−base theory.
Here, NH3 is seen functioning as a Lewis base, donating a lone • Making appropriate curricular decisions
pair of electrons to H+ (a Lewis acid). The reaction mechanism • Using concepts, models, and representations consistently
can be visualized using arrow-pushing formalism, where • Designing transitions between concepts and models
sensitively and transparently
• The nitrogen atom in NH3 donates a pair of electrons to • Anticipating and taking pluralist perspectives on students’
form a new bond with H+. conceptions
• The H−Cl bond breaks, with its bonding electrons • Fostering epistemic cognition as a part of learning
remaining on the Cl atom, resulting in the formation of a chemistry
chloride ion (Cl−).
To translate these goals into everyday classroom practice,
The molecule of NH3 may also be characterized as a educators need concrete instructional strategies that support
nucleophile while the molecule of HCl acts as an electrophile. students in developing modeling skills. Embedding moments of
This model highlights the role of electron movement in bond reflection and model comparison into instruction allows
formation and cleavage, providing a detailed mechanistic view of students to engage more deeply with the nature and function
the reaction. of chemical models. For instance, when introducing a model
D https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00244
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Commentary

such as VSEPR, educators might prompt students with reflective choices, explain underlying assumptions, and reflect on each
questions: What does this model allow us to predict? Where might it model’s scope and limitations.43 Formative assessments might
fall short? What assumptions are built into it? These questions include concept sketches, model comparison charts, or peer
encourage students to consider not only the content of a model critiques of explanations. Summative assessments could feature
but also its purpose and limitations. Similarly, when comparing multirepresentational tasks or open-ended questions that ask
Brønsted−Lowry’s and Lewis’s definitions of acids and bases, students to choose among models and defend their reasoning
students can choose which model better explains a particular based on evidence and context.
reaction and justify their choice. These strategies foster Stepping back, we must ask what chemistry we want students
awareness of how models function as tools for explanation, to learn and why. It is not enough to teach students to balance
not just as facts to memorize, reinforcing the broader equations or calculate molar masses if they fail to grasp the
instructional aims outlined above. reasoning behind these tools. Teaching stoichiometry, atomic
Careful curricular, instructional, and assessment design is structure, or bonding as isolated skills risks reducing chemistry
essential for helping students understand what we know in to rote manipulation. What makes chemistry powerful is its
chemistry and how chemical knowledge is constructed, refined, capacity to model the invisible to understand and control the
and applied through models. To foster deeper learning, students visible. If we want students to engage meaningfully with the
should have more opportunities to analyze, discuss, and reflect discipline, we must help them “look under the hood” of chemical
on chemical models’ nature, purpose, scope, and limitations and thinking and make modeling itself an explicit object of
the connections between them. Achieving this goal may require instruction. Recognizing the plurality of chemical models is
restructuring traditional curricular sequences to integrate not a philosophical luxury. It is central to building a deeper, more
different types of knowledge and modeling perspectives while transferable understanding of the nature, practice, and power of
analyzing problems of interest. Alternative introductory our discipline.
chemistry curricula, such as CLUE 40,41 and Chemical
Thinking,42 offer concrete examples of this approach. In the
classroom, instructional strategies that support this perspective
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
include:17,19,32
Vicente Talanquer − Department of Chemistry and
• Comparing different models for the same phenomenon, Biochemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721,
prompting students to justify when and why a particular United States; orcid.org/0000-0002-5737-3313;
model is most useful in each context. Email: [email protected]
For example, after observing the reaction between baking
soda and vinegar, students can construct a macroscopic model Complete contact information is available at:
based on observable changes, like bubbling and mass loss to https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00244
describe gas production. They can then build a particulate
model to explain the reaction in terms of atom rearrangement Notes
and the formation of new substances. The author declares no competing financial interest.
• Engaging students in debates or written arguments about
the strengths and weaknesses of competing models to
help them recognize the role of evidence and reasoning in
■ REFERENCES
(1) Talanquer, V. Central Ideas in Chemistry: An Alternative
model evaluation. Perspective. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (1), 3−8.
In a unit on chemical bonding, students might debate (2) Cooper, M. M.; Posey, L. A.; Underwood, S. M. Core Ideas and
whether valence bond or molecular orbital theory better Topics: Building up or Drilling Down? J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (5),
accounts for the properties of O2, citing evidence like its 541−548.
paramagnetic behavior. (3) Johnstone, A. H. Why Is Science Difficult to Learn? Things Are
Seldom What They Seem. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 1991, 7 (2), 75−83.
• Guiding students through progressive model-building, (4) Johnstone, A. H. Chemistry Teaching - Science or Alchemy? 1996
starting with simple, intuitive representations and refining Brasted Lecture. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74 (3), 262−268.
them toward more sophisticated frameworks. (5) Johnstone, A. H. Teaching of Chemistry - Logical or
In exploring gas behavior, students might begin with the Psychological? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2000, 1 (1), 9−15.
macroscopic gas laws, then explain them based on kinetic (6) Talanquer, V. Progressions in Reasoning About Structure-
molecular theory, and f inally analyze molecular simulations Property Relationships. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2018, 19 (4), 998−
to visualize how particle motion relates to pressure and 1009.
temperature. (7) Ruthenberg, K.; Mets, A. Chemistry Is Pluralistic. Found. Chem.
2020, 22 (3), 403−419.
• Analyzing historical case studies to illustrate how models (8) Schummer, J. The Methodological Pluralism of Chemistry and Its
evolve, encouraging reflection on the factors that drive Philosophical Implications. In Philosophy of Chemistry�Growth of a
model change. New Discipline; Scerri, E., McIntyre, L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The
Students could explore the development of atomic models, Netherlands, 2015.
f rom Dalton to Boht, discussing how new experimental (9) Talanquer, V. Multifaceted Chemical Thinking: A Core
evidence reshaped scientists’ conceptualizations of the atom. Competence. J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98 (11), 3450−3456.
(10) Schummer, J. The Preference of Models over Laws of Nature in
To meaningfully develop students’ modeling competencies, Chemistry. Eur. Rev. 2014, 22 (S1), S87−S101.
assessment practices, both formative and summative, should (11) Nehring, A.; Schanze, S. Turning the Plurality of Chemistry into a
explicitly target the skills of constructing, evaluating, and Resource for Learning: A Core Competency of Chemistry Teachers.
connecting chemical models. Effective assessments should Sci. Educ. 2025, DOI: 10.1007/s11191-025-00624-5.
move beyond asking students to recall or apply a single model. (12) Rodriguez, J.-M. G.; Lazenby, K.; Scharlott, L. J.; Hunter, K. H.;
Instead, they should prompt students to justify their model Becker, N. M. Supporting Engagement in Metamodeling Ideas in

E https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00244
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Commentary

General Chemistry: Development and Validation of Activities (36) Tümay, H. Reconsidering Learning Difficulties and Misconcep-
Designed Using Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning Criteria. tions in Chemistry: Emergence in Chemistry and Its Implications for
J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (12), 4276−4286. Chemical Education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17 (2), 229−245.
(13) Schwarz, C. V.; White, B. Y. Metamodeling Knowledge: (37) Thompson, S.; Shipman, P. D.; Shipman, S. P.; Zurlinden, T. J.
Developing Students’ Understanding of Scientific Modeling. Cogn. The Counterdiffusion of Hcl and Nh3: An Experimental and Modeling
Instr. 2005, 23 (2), 165−205. Analysis of Topochemistry, Diffusion, Reaction, and Phase Transitions.
(14) Taber, K. S. Models and Modelling in Science and Science J. Chem. Phys. 2019, 150 (15), DOI: 10.1063/1.5083927.
Education. In Science Education: An International Course Companion; (38) Ramírez-Á lvarez, E.; Montoya, F.; Buhse, T.; Rios-Herrera, W.;
Taber, K. S., Akpan, B., Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Torres-Guzmán, J.; Rivera, M.; Martínez-Mekler, G.; Müller, M. F. On
Netherlands, 2017; pp 263−278. the Dynamics of Liesegang-Type Pattern Formation in a Gaseous
(15) National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science System. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6 (1), 23402.
(39) Hume, A.; Cooper, R.; Borowski, A. Repositioning Pedagogical
Education; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012.
Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science.
(16) National Research Council. Next Generation Science Standards;
Springer: Singapore, 2019.
The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2013.
(40) Stowe, R. L.; Herrington, D. G.; McKay, R. L.; Cooper, M. M.
(17) Windschitl, M.; Thompson, J.; Braaten, M. Beyond the Scientific
The Impact of Core-Idea Centered Instruction on High School
Method: Model-Based Inquiry as a New Paradigm of Preference for Students’ Understanding of Structure-Property Relationships. J. Chem.
School Science Investigations. Sci. Educ. 2008, 92 (5), 941−967. Educ. 2019, 96 (7), 1327−1340.
(18) Gilbert, J. K.; Justi, R. Modelling-Based Teaching in Science (41) Cooper, M.; Klymkowsky, M. Chemistry, Life, the Universe, and
Education; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. Everything: A New Approach to General Chemistry, and a Model for
(19) Justi, R.; Gilbert, J. Models and Modelling in Chemical Curriculum Reform. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (9), 1116−1122.
Education. In Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice, (42) Talanquer, V.; Pollard, J. Let’s Teach How We Think Instead of
Gilbert, J. K., De Jong, O., Justi, R., Treagust, D. F., Van Driel, J. H., What We Know. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11 (2), 74−83.
Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003; pp 47−68. (43) Nicolaou, C. T.; Constantinou, C. P. Assessment of the Modeling
(20) Chiu, M.-H.; Lin, J.-W. Modeling Competence in Science Competence: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Empirical
Education. Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 2019, 1 (1), 12. Research. Educ. Res. Rev. 2014, 13, 52−73.
(21) Carroll, G.; Park, S. Towards Expansive Model-Based Teaching:
A Systematic Synthesis of Modelling Pedagogies in Science Education
Literature. Stud. Sci. Educ., 2024, 1−39.
(22) Treagust, D. F.; Chittleborough, G.; Mamiala, T. L. Students’
Understanding of the Role of Scientific Models in Learning Science. Int.
J. Sci. Educ. 2002, 24 (4), 357−368.
(23) Lazenby, K.; Becker, N. M. Evaluation of the Students’
Understanding of Models in Science (Sums) for Use in Undergraduate
Chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2021, 22 (1), 62−76.
(24) Nersessian, N. J. The Cognitive Basis of Model-Based Reasoning
in Science. In The Cognitive Basis of Science; Carruthers, P., Stich, S.,
Siegal, M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2002; pp
133−153.
(25) Goodwin, W. Models of Chemical Structure. In Springer
Handbook of Model-Based Science; Magnani, L., Bertolotti, T., Eds.;
Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp 879−
890.
(26) Suckling, C. J.; Suckling, K. E.; Suckling, C. W. Chemistry through
Models; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1980.
(27) Erduran, S.; Kaya, E. Transforming Teacher Education through the
Epistemic Core of Chemistry; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019.
(28) Taber, K. S. Revisiting the Chemistry Triplet: Drawing Upon the
Nature of Chemical Knowledge and the Psychology of Learning to
Inform Chemistry Education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14 (2),
156−168.
(29) Talanquer, V. Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The Many Faces
of the Chemistry “Triplet”. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33 (2), 179−195.
(30) Talanquer, V. The Complexity of Reasoning About and with
Chemical Representations. JACS Au 2022, 2 (12), 2658−2669.
(31) Reid, N. The Johnstone Triangle: The Key to Understanding
Chemistry; Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, U.K., 2021.
(32) Sarıtaş, D.; Ö zcan, H.; Adúriz-Bravo, A. Observation and
Inference in Chemistry Teaching: A Model-Based Approach to the
Integration of the Macro and Submicro Levels. Sci. Educ. 2021, 30 (5),
1289−1314.
(33) Schummer, J. The Chemical Core of Chemistry I: A Conceptual
Approach. HYLE 1998, 4, 129−162.
(34) Vogt, L. Levels and Building Blocks-toward a Domain
Granularity Framework for the Life Sciences. J. Biomed. Semantics
2019, 10 (1), 4.
(35) Luisi, P. L. Emergence in Chemistry: Chemistry as the
Embodiment of Emergence. Found. Chem. 2002, 4 (3), 183−200.

F https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00244
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX