Chemistry Education

Research and Practice

View Article Online
PAPER View Journal | View Issue

Analysing processes of conceptualization for

Cite this: Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,
2018, 19, 1010
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
students in lessons on substance from the
emergence of conceptual profile zones
Edenia Maria Ribeiro do Amaral, *a João Roberto Ratis Tenório da Silva b
and
Jaqueline Dantas Sabino c

Received 16th February 2018,
Accepted 6th May 2018
DOI: 10.1039/c8rp00050f
rsc.li/cerp
In this paper, we analyze the process of conceptualization experienced by students in Secondary School
when involved in activities in a teaching and learning sequence on the concept of substance, considering
the emergence of zones of the conceptual profile. The results point out that the approaches to different
modes of thinking of substance enabled the teacher to discuss and confront ideas, leading students to
construct or share meanings stabilized in a scientific view. The conceptual profile was an important tool to
design activities by creating discursive contexts involving different modes of thinking about substance,
which contributed to raising specific discussions involving historical, scientific and social contexts to
understand senses and meanings for substances.

Introduction In this way, to plan science teaching and learning sequences,

In this paper, we analyse the process of conceptualization
(Mortimer et al., 2014) experienced by students in Secondary
School when they studied substance in chemistry lessons
throughout different activities structured in a teaching and
learning sequence (TLS). The process of conceptualization
was approached by taking into account the conceptual profile
theory (Mortimer and El-Hani, 2014) and more specifically by
using revised zones of the conceptual profile of substance
proposed by Silva and Amaral (2013). From the conceptual
profile perspective, science learning involves a more complex
process than only conceptual change from personal senses to a
scientific view on concepts. It is related to a meaning-making
process that goes toward the constitution of conceptual thinking
(Vygotsky, 1978). Students are considered as part of the larger
social environment from which they bring senses and socially
stabilized meanings, which play an important role in the meaning-
making process for scientific concepts. It seems not appropriate to
consider conceptual evolution as a linear progression but a dynamic
process in which ideas come and go when students seek to under-
stand and articulate different ideas around scientific concepts.
a
Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Departamento de Quı́mica/PPGEC,
Rua Dom Manoel de Medeiros, S/N, Dois Irmãos, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.
E-mail: edeniamramaral@gmail.com
b
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Núcleo de Formação Docente, Recife,
Pernambuco, Brazil. E-mail: joaoratistenorio@gmail.com
c
Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Postgraduate Program in Science
Education – PPGEC, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.
E-mail: jaquelinedantas@gmail.com
we must open up opportunities for students to express, discuss,
confront and compare ideas brought from their experiences
and produced in scientific contexts.
Substance is an important and structuring concept, which
enables students to reach wider learning of chemistry (Gagliardi,
1988). In the literature, there is a large discussion on issues related
to the teaching and learning of substance (see De Vos and Verdonk,
1987; Dickinson, 1987; Abraham et al., 1994; Johnson, 1996, 2000,
2002; Stains and Talanquer, 2007; Padilla et al., 2008; Close and
Scherr, 2015). Researchers have dealt with different issues to
approach substance: discussing epistemological aspects for con-
ceptions on substance and difficulties of learning at different levels
(Oliveira, 1995; Hashweh, 1996; Johnson, 2000, 2002; Papagerogiou
and Sakka, 2000; Ngai et al., 2014), analysing historical difficulties
to understand differences between chemical elements and sub-
stances (Oki, 2002), and exploring students’ understanding of
different forms of presentation of substances. Some of these
authors pointed out the importance of historical and epistemo-
logical aspects related to the development of ideas for scientific
concepts to overcome learning difficulties and to contribute to the
process of making meaning for substance in science teaching and
learning (see Oliveira, 1995; Hashweh, 1996; Ngai et al., 2014). In
this work, we propose a discussion on epistemological, ontological
and axiological commitments to the concept of substance in terms
of conceptual profile zones, considering the importance of these
aspects to the process of conceptualization.
Mortimer (1995, 1996) introduced conceptual profiles as a
tool for modeling the heterogeneity of thinking and speaking in
science classrooms. He was initially inspired by Bachelard’s

1010 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018

Paper
ideas on epistemological profile (1940), in which plurality of
thought is structured in terms of philosophical schools, and
some ideas are considered as obstacles to the understanding of
scientific concepts. Differently, Mortimer proposed conceptual
profiles for the investigation of science teaching and learning,
introducing not only epistemological commitments related to
the ideas expressed by individuals, and giving attention to the
heterogeneity of thinking in order to make students aware of
their own conceptual profiles. In subsequent years, the philo-
sophical bases of the conceptual profile theory moved away from
Bachelard’s ideas (Mortimer et al., 2014).
The conceptual profile theory is grounded on the idea that
people present different ways of seeing and conceptualizing the
world, mainly by considering that the social world is not
homogeneous, and there are different ways of perceiving and
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
understanding subjective experiences (Schutz, 1932/1967).
There is a heterogeneity of thinking, from which different types
of verbal thinking can emerge in any culture and in any individual
(Tulviste, 1991). Regarding the cognition of individuals, the con-
ceptual profile theory is aligned with the social dimension of
human mental processes, such as that proposed by Vygotsky
(1978). Mortimer et al. (2014) pointed out that ‘‘The fact that those
collective constructions are imposed upon individual cognition
follows from the development of individual thinking through the
construction of an internal plane of functioning by means of
cultural tools made available through social interactions’’ (p. 14).
From this perspective, we can share different meanings expressed
in different social languages starting from our diverse and multi-
faceted social experience.
According to the conceptual profile theory, people can exhibit
different modes of thinking that are accessed in different contexts,
and they represent the ways of conceptualizing for a given experi-
ence. In building conceptual profiles, these modes of thinking are
modelled as zones that represent ontological, epistemological and
axiological commitments, which underlie the meaning-making
process for scientific concepts. Conceptual profiles are proposed
for a given concept and are constituted by several zones, each one
representing a particular mode of thinking about that concept.
Each individual presents his or her own individual conceptual
profile, but he or she can share different senses and meaning in an
appropriate sociocultural context, in which concepts can be applied
(Mortimer et al., 2014).
Conceptual profiles are models constituted by zones that
represent the relevant aspects of our experience (Mortimer et al.,
2014) and individuals in making meaning for scientific concepts
can express ideas related to different zones. In the classroom,
modes of thinking can be associated with different senses and
meanings that students attribute to a scientific concept. From
this perspective, in science teaching and learning, it is desirable
that the teacher adopts approaches to promote discursive inter-
actions in the classroom, producing a repertoire of ideas that will
play an important role in the conceptualization process experi-
enced by the students.
Mortimer et al. (2011) pointed out differences between ideas
on concepts and conceptualization, considering that concepts
are not physical entities inside people’s minds. For the authors,
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
there is a process of conceptualization that is understood as a
dynamic process, which is continually subjected to influences
from the external experiences lived by the individual (Mortimer
et al., 2014). In this sense, in science teaching and learning, we
seek to construct meanings for scientific concepts including
discussions on situations experienced by individuals. We learn
the concepts when we apply them several times in different
situations, putting together senses and meanings in order to
stabilize and share meanings, in a dynamic and continuous
process. Vygotsky (1978) considered that this dynamic process
could lead to the constitution of conceptual thinking.
Mortimer et al. (2011) argue that the assumption that
individuals ‘‘possess’’ concepts comes from the tendency of
conceptual thinking to operate in a similar way when we recognize
situations as similar. That is, some meanings stabilize in the
process of conceptualization, but it does not imply a static
condition of conceptual thinking, which may change in the face
of new situations. Another explanation for the idea of permanence
of the concept, e.g., the tendency of conceptual thinking to operate
in a similar way, lies in the difference between meaning and sense
(Vygotsky, 1978). For Vygotsky, sense is understood as a dynamic
and personal formation, constructed individually, considering
that the sense of a word changes in different contexts. Whereas
meaning is elaborated in a sociocultural context and can be
considered more stable. For Mortimer et al. (2011), in the
process of conceptualization, students can produce different
senses for the same word, and these senses may vary according
to different discursive contexts. However, collective discussion
can lead to the construction and/or sharing of socially accepted
and stabilized meanings.
Differently from the conceptual change model for science
education (Posner et al., 1982), according to the conceptual
profile theory, students do not necessarily have to change their
informal conceptions to learn scientific concepts, when non-
scientific modes of thinking seem to be pragmatically appropriate
to understand situations in quotidian life or specific cultural
contexts. Therefore, the process of conceptualization involves the
coexistence of these different modes of thinking, and they can be
structured in a conceptual profile. In science teaching and learning,
it is important to focus on not only changing or substituting ways
of thinking in scientific ideas that our everyday language reinforces.
Instead, we can promote discussion on cultural diversity and the
role played by scientific ideas in social contexts (Mortimer et al.,
2011). In this way, science teaching and learning involves making
students aware of the diversity of modes of thinking related to
scientific concepts, seeking to understand the pragmatic value for
them in different contexts and situating the scientific view among
others.
In the science classroom, students must be engaged in
discussions, analyses and choices related to different situations,
where they can compare different modes of thinking applied to
them, including scientific views. According to El-Hani et al.
(2014), many times students are not aware of the role played
by scientific ideas to explain and/or solve particular situations
and they intuitively choose informal ideas to approach them. In
this case, it could be useful for teachers to lead students to think
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 | 1011

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
about both scientific ideas and those emerging from social
experience, seeking different ways of approaching a specific
problem and leading students to meaningful learning on scientific
concepts applied to different situations. In this work, we present
a teaching and learning sequence (TLS), planned to teach the
concept of substance by considering different modes of thinking
structured in terms of conceptual profile zones, in order to
analyse the process of conceptualization experienced by students
in the classroom.
Silva and Amaral (2013) proposed a conceptual profile for
substance considering data obtained from different sources:
conceptions on substance in the historical development of the
concept, the literature on students’ misconceptions/conceptions
about substance, and answers obtained from questionnaires and
interviews applied to students and teachers. The authors proposed
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
five zones for a conceptual profile of substance – generalist,
essentialist, substantialist, rationalist, and relational. In further
studies, the original zones were applied in science classrooms
and changes were proposed for the zones (Silva, 2017a; Silva,
2017b; Sabino and Amaral, 2018). In this paper, we have made a
critical review of the original zones of the conceptual profile of
substance and considered the following zones for data analysis –
generalist, pragmatic/utilitarian, substantialist, empirical, rationalist
and relational.
In the generalist zone, there is an assembly of ideas or
conceptions, in which substance is considered as something
present in everything, without distinction of the constituents or
differentiation among materials, mixture, substance or chemical
element. In addition, substance is like the essence or something
essential that constitutes and qualifies materials – a common
idea in philosophical and historical contexts. These ideas are
representative of a generalist view of the concept and represent
an epistemological commitment related to an ingenuous realism
(Bachelard, 1938/1996), as ideas involve immediate perceptions,
sensations, and/or intuitions that guide individuals in the con-
struction of their notions according to the social and historical
setting where they live and interact with their peers. It represents
a vague and generalized idea that substances can be anything
and are found everywhere. Ways of speaking related to this zone
are common in everyday situations, in which materials or
mixtures are classified as substances or are closely associated
with them. For instance, it is common to find people who
consider mixtures such as detergent, milk or mineral water as
substances, regardless of whether these materials are formed by
various chemical compounds or substances.
The pragmatic/utilitarian zone includes ideas on substances
defined or characterized by their applications and uses, acquiring
importance for possible benefits or damage caused to human
beings. In this sense, the properties of substances are addressed,
not necessarily in scientific terms, but in a pragmatic sense. For
this zone, we identify both epistemological and axiological com-
mitments, considering a pragmatist sense such as that proposed
by Putnam (1995), where he considers that there is an interrela-
tionship between empirical situations and a theoretical approach
that involves questions of value and interpretation, which
lead individuals to construct their notions in accessing the
1012 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028
View Article Online
Paper
external world. Here, most of the ideas included in the pragmatic/
utilitarian zone tend to emphasize values for the use or application
of substances, e.g., the utility of them causing benefits or damage to
human life or to the environment. For example, often it is
recommended to eat protein-containing foods, such as milk,
cheese and other animal foods, because of the benefit of protein
in maintaining the health of the body. It is also common to
recommend the use of medicines, herbal products or food supple-
ments to meet the needs of the body, for example, when someone
says, ‘‘you need iron to stay strong!’’ The mention of iron in this
case does not necessarily imply the visualization of a substance in
the chemical sense but it is associated with the benefit of some
product or material in a specific situation (Silva, 2017). In this
sense, the understanding of substance comes under an affective
aspect (axiological commitment), and a more elaborated compre-
hension on the properties of substance is not addressed.
The substantialist zone was proposed considering ideas in
which a material dimension for substance is emphasized, as a
counterpoint to the view discussed by Oliveira (1995) when he
took into account Bachelard’s ideas on substance as a chemical
model. The comprehension of substance as something that
keeps materiality even in atomic–molecular dimensions leads
students to consider that the properties of a substance extend
to its constituents (atoms or molecules). Mortimer (1997)
proposed a substantialist zone for the conceptual profile of a
molecule, considering that handbooks and dictionaries claim
that the molecule is the ‘‘smallest unit of matter that can exist
by itself and which retains all the properties of the original
substance’’ (Mortimer 1997, p. 203). For Mortimer, this defini-
tion is substantialist in the sense that molecules do not retain
all the properties of the original substance. The properties are
relative to the substances and not to their individual constituents
(atoms or molecules). Mortimer considered that substantialism is
present in scientific contexts and ‘‘for science itself, it is an
important zone of the (conceptual) profile, since its automatic
and almost unconscious use in chemical language can produce
confusion, leading chemists, and especially chemistry students,
to make mistakes’’. In the same direction, we proposed the
substantialist zone by considering ideas on substance as some-
thing exclusively material, in which the student does not make a
distinction between the properties of the substances and their
constituents in the atomic–molecular dimension. For example,
many students consider that gold atoms (Au) are a yellow-like
substance and that it is yellow because the atoms are yellow
(Silva, 2011). Ideas like this can confuse the understanding of the
atomic–molecular aspects of substances. The difference in the
substantialist zone from the generalist one is that, in a sub-
stantialist mode of thinking, there is an idea of substance
contained in materials, but this concept is not understood in
the atomic–molecular dimension, such as a model to explain the
behaviour and properties of the matter.
The comprehension of the atomic–molecular aspects and
macroscopic properties of substances is aligned with scientific
thinking. According to the scientific perspective on substance,
three zones were proposed: empirical, rationalist and relational
zones. The empirical zone includes ideas on substance that
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018

Paper
address the physical and chemical properties of substances as
important features for their chemical identification. In this
case, the existence of a diversity of substances that constitute
materials giving them specific properties is recognized. These
properties can be determined or observed macroscopically
from the manipulation of materials or substances, and by
observing transformations in nature. For example, water is
characterized as having a boiling temperature of 100 1C (at an
atmospheric pressure of 1 atm); or metals are characterized by
their gloss, malleability and hardness. Differently from the
pragmatic/utilitarian zone, ideas in the empirical zone are
based on theory. For Norman (1998), empiricism is challenged
in its central issues by the idea of observation as being theory-
laden, highlighting the effort to interpret and to justify what
you see. In these terms, we consider that ideas included in an
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
empirical zone are aligned with a scientific view of substance,
considering the understanding of this concept from its observable
aspects and properties, which could be studied. Here, the students
have to deal with an idea about purity of substance, considering
that physical and chemical properties are determined for sub-
stances extracted from materials in order to characterize them.
In the rationalist zone, we find ideas or conceptions on
substance considering scientific models to explain its structures
and properties. It is possible to represent and to characterize
various types of substances – simple, compound, organic, inorganic,
etc. – from the knowledge of the entities that compose materials. The
ways of speaking related to this zone represent an understanding of
the concept, in which students can go beyond macroscopic and
concrete features of materials to interpret many kinds of phenomena
and the nature of substances: for example, to know that atmospheric
air is composed of several types of gaseous simple substances
and compounds; or the differentiation of organic and inorganic
substances by the presence of carbon and hydrogen in certain
molecules. The rationalistic commitment for this zone is aligned
with the applied rationalism proposed by Bachelard (1949/1977),
as theory and experiment come together by considering that
ideas arising from a theoretical approach tend to get their
application and data obtained empirically tend to be organized
by theories.
In the relational zone, there are complex ideas on sub-
stances when the relational dimension for the properties of
the substances is considered. For example, the same substance
can behave as an acid or a base under certain conditions, and
the acidic properties do not identify the substance itself, but
represent the behaviour of the substance when it is dissolved in
a specific solvent. In this way, some properties of the sub-
stances are associated with the conditions in which they are
found and would not be parameters to give them a chemical
identity. This is aligned with a complex rationalism, leading to
the understanding of the concept of spheres with high level of
abstraction. According to Silva and Amaral (2013), in this zone,
the concept of substance is considered as a theoretical model
for explaining the behaviour of matter, and its existence in
the real world is considered a myth (Oliveira, 1995). Thus,
the existence of pure substances with well-defined physical
and chemical properties stands as a theoretical approximation.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
In a system, the molecules of a substance are in constant
interaction with other species present in the environment
and under specific conditions, with a constant energy exchange
(Silva and Amaral, 2013).
In this work, these zones of the conceptual profile of
substance inspired the proposal of a teaching and learning
sequence (TLS), taking into account the ideas proposed by
Méheut (2005). According to Méheut, a TLS intends to bring
aspects of research into practices in the classroom, and different
teaching perspectives may be implicated in their design. The
author pointed out four main elements to design a TLS related
to each other considering epistemological and pedagogical
dimensions – the teacher, the student, the scientific knowledge
and the ‘‘material world’’. The epistemological dimension refers
to a genesis of the concept and, for us, it represents to consider
modes of thinking ranging from the senses and meanings
consolidated in diverse contexts to the scientific view of the
concept. For us, the ‘‘material world’’ proposed by Méheut is
related to objects and processes that could be represented from
sociocultural situations. Therefore, the conceptual profile of
substance constitutes a model of structuring these modes of
thinking, which may suggest a genesis for the concept.
The TLS proposed sought to promote discussion and articulation
among different modes of thinking on substance from different
situations. These situations would potentially constitute diverse
discursive contexts based on interactions between teacher and
students, and students and students, bringing different views and
conceptions and favouring the students to be aware of the plurality
of ideas that concepts embody (epistemological dimension). The
activities were designed to promote active participation of students,
interactions and discussions in the classroom, in order to encourage
the students to express their conceptions or to comment different
ideas about substance (pedagogical dimension). With this, we
believe that we have promoted opportunities for a process of
conceptualization that involves different modes of thinking on the
concept being studied.
Methodology
This research adopted a qualitative approach for the methodology,
considering this perspective underpins the role played by research-
ers to construct and to interpret data from the contact with
individuals and the research context (André, 2001; Bogdan and
Biklen, 2007). This is aligned with research actions to analyse the
students’ process of conceptualization in the science classroom. In
addition, a quantitative treatment was applied to the data in order
to estimate frequencies in which the conceptual profile zones for
substance emerged from the students’ speeches in the classroom
discussions.
The research involved 13 students aged 14–15 years from
year 9 of Secondary School, in Recife, Brazil. We invited students
to attend voluntarily lessons in a special schedule offered by
the teacher in school. For ethical precaution and considering
that the students were minor aged, their parents/guardians
were required to sign a term of consent for them to take part
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 | 1013
 View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Paper

in this study. These students had already started studies on
chemical content since year 8, and one of the authors of this
paper acted as a teacher in years 8 and 9 for this class. To
preserve the identity of the students, fictitious names were used.
A teaching and learning sequence was planned and applied to
the class, and lessons were recorded in video focusing on the
discursive interactions among students, and students and teachers.
The more relevant recordings for research were transcribed and
some pieces analysed in terms of episodes.
Before the beginning of the sequence, students were
required to answer a questionnaire in order to identify their
previous conceptions about substance. The teaching and learn-
ing sequence occurred in three lessons – the first lesson lasted
two hours and the other lessons 1 hour each. The activities were
carried out seeking to promote discussions on different situa-
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
students was that both had very active participation in the
lessons – one student presented predominantly ideas aligned
with the scientific view of the concept, and the other expressed
difficulties in understanding the concept from the scientific
point of view.
In lesson 1, initially, a questionnaire was applied to inves-
tigate students’ previous conceptions about the concept of
substance. After answering the questionnaire, students read
and discussed the text ‘‘History of chemistry: Alchemy’’ (Fonseca,
2007). After reading, students were divided into three small
groups to discuss questions such as ‘‘Nowadays, how does the
concept of an element present in Aristotle’s age look to you?’’
and ‘‘Do you agree with Aristotle’s ideas on the composition
of matter?’’ The intention was to promote a discussion on
historical, epistemological and contextual aspects related to the

tions, which encourage students to construct an understanding
of the chemical concept of substance. For each activity, an
object (content), learning objectives and actions to be carried
out by the students were established. A brief summary of the
activities developed in the teaching and learning sequence is
presented in Table 1.
At the end of the three lessons, two students were inter-
viewed in order to verify whether they had a perception of
the different modes of thinking of substance involved in the
classroom discussions. The criteria for the choice of the two
concept of substance. Next in the lesson, the teacher used a
digital tool for simulations on computers (https://phet.colorado.
edu) to present a scientific view about the atomic–molecular
aspects of chemical elements, substance and mixtures. Through-
out lesson 1, the teacher tried to stimulate student–student
interactions, and teacher–student interactions, mediating
debate and raising questions to instigate students to participate
and express their ideas.
In lesson 2, the activities were carried out in two moments:
first, the students read the text Miracle Medicines from the

Table 1 Activities carried out in the TLS

Activity Objective Object Actions

Class 1 (2 h)
Application of questionnaires
Reading of historical text on the
Aristotelian view of substance
Small group discussion and
questioning
Digital simulation on physical
states of substances (https://phet.
colorado.edu/pt_BR/)
Lecture and discussion
Class 2 (1 h)
Reading thematic text – the use of
antibiotics during the war
Lecture and questioning
Class 3 (1 h)
Analyses of package inserts in
small groups
Discussion in small groups
Discussion in the large group
To identify students’ informal
conceptions
To discuss epistemological, his-
torical and contextual aspects
related to the concept of
substance
To promote discussions about
conceptions related to the con-
ceptual profile zones
To discuss concepts of chemical
element, substances, and mix-
tures – molecular and atomic
aspects
To introduce scientific views on
substance, and to articulate dif-
ferent zones of the conceptual
profile
To approach the concept of sub-
stance starting from a theme
(contextualization)
To introduce scientific ideas and
articulate different zones of the
conceptual profile
To identify ideas used by students
to apply the concept of substance
To promote discussions between
students on package inserts and
questions
To highlight the scientific zones
of the profile in articulation with
other zones
Conceptions on substance
Historical and philosophical
views on the concept of substance
Concepts of substance and
chemical element – historical and
conceptual aspects
Constitution – number and types
of atoms and molecules – and
physical states of some
substances
Atomic–molecular and macro-
scopic view of substance – con-
cepts of chemical element and
substance
Theme on medicines, for discus-
sion on substances
Some macroscopic properties of
the substances
Substances that constitute
medicines
Macroscopic aspects and mole-
cular atomic aspects of the con-
cept of substance
Macroscopic aspects and mole-
cular atomic aspects of the con-
cept of substance
Reading and writing responses
Collective reading of the text
Working in small groups and
discussing issues
Lecture and computer use for
simulation. Debate in the large
group
Exposition of scientific concepts
stimulating debate and student
participation
Collective reading of the text and
text-oriented debate
To present answers for questions
asked in the lecture
To identify in package insert:
substance, element and material
To answer questions posed on the
board
To share discussions carried out
in small groups

1014 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018

Paper
book Napoleon’s Buttons,† proposed by the teacher to present
the theme on medicines, and second, the teacher presented
content about the macroscopic aspects of the concept of substance.
From this book, among others, the text had an approach on the
importance of the antibiotic properties of substances, used mainly
during the First World War. Upon reading, the teacher intended to
start a discussion about substances used to produce medicines,
and ideas about natural and synthesized substances that emerged
from the classroom discussion. It was also possible to explore ideas
on the macroscopic properties of the substances, benefits or
damage that products can cause in people, highlighting ideas
about substances and products and their applications in various
situations.
In lesson 3, the teacher brought back discussions held in the
previous lessons and it promoted a very fruitful debate, in
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
which students were free to express their ideas and to make
known the difficulties they had to understand the concepts
studied in lessons 1 and 2. Next in the lesson, the teacher asked
students working in small groups to identify chemical elements,
substances and mixtures in package inserts. The purpose of the
activity was to find out whether the students were able to apply the
concepts studied in previous lessons and whether they were able
to relate the information contained in the package insert with
some properties and effects caused by the substances on the
human body. The students were invited to answer some questions
posed by the teacher, such as ‘‘Are the medicines substances or
mixtures?’’, ‘‘What substances and chemical elements are present
in the medicine?’’. At the end of the lesson, teachers and students
engaged in an open discussion with the whole class, when each
group presented their answers.
In the planned teaching and learning sequence, at least two
different contexts were approached: the sociocultural context –
Aristotle’s ideas, use of antibiotics in war, medicine package
inserts; and scientific context – presentation and simulation of
scientific models for substance, discussions on the properties
of substances and composition of materials. We expected to
analyse the students’ process of conceptualization by considering
the dynamics for emergence of different zones of the conceptual
profile in the classroom discussion.
Data were organized in three parts for analysis: the answers
to the questionnaire, the students’ and teachers’ speeches in
the classroom discussion and interviews with two students.
Answers to the questionnaire were categorized taking into
account the conceptual profile zones for substance: generalist,
pragmatic/utilitarian, substantialist, empirical, rationalist and
relational. Students and teachers’ speeches were analysed in
episodes extracted from the transcripts of the videos. The
transcripts were made using standard punctuation marks seeking
to highlight pauses with commas, questions marks for interroga-
tions, slash to indicate interruption for speech, and parentheses to
make explanation or complementation for elocution. The episodes
† Remédios Milagrosos in Os botões de Napoleão: as 17 moléculas que mudaram
a história. Penny Le Couteur, Jay Burreson. Translated by Maria Luiza X. Borges.
Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2006. (Miracle Remedies. Napoleon’s Buttons: How 17
Molecules Changed History).
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
were defined as pieces of discursive interactions that bring a
meaningful set of ideas expressed by students and teachers (Amaral
and Mortimer, 2007), and they were organized in turn to allow the
identification of different ways of speaking that can be related to
modes of thinking on substance.
Mortimer and Wertsch (2003) sought to establish relation-
ships between ways of speaking and modes of thinking that are
representative of zones in a conceptual profile. According to the
authors, different modes of thinking are interwoven with different
forms of speech characterized in terms of social languages and
discourse genres (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986). According to Bakhtin, this
heterogeneity of speech exists because a discourse consists of
several different social voices, considered as specific points of view
about the world, the ways of conceptualizing the world in words,
specific perspectives of the world, each one characterized by its own
objects, meanings and values. As such, they can all be juxtaposed to
one another and coexist in the consciousness of real people.
From this point of view, the analysis of speeches produced
in the classroom was oriented to the identification of ways of
speaking of the students about substance that presented the
characteristics described in the proposed zones for the con-
ceptual profile of substance, thus seeking to associate ways of
speaking and modes of thinking about this concept. Identifying
the emergence of conceptual profile zones in students’
speeches is not always an easy task, considering that the ideas
representative of one or another zone are not necessarily
expressed in an isolated and well-defined way, e.g., students
often express ideas in which different zones of the profile may be
articulated. In analysis, we tried to visualize a set of elocutions to
interpret modes of thinking presented by students. In Table 2,
we summarize the zones of the conceptual profile for substance
used in the analysis.
Different ways of speaking associated with different modes
of thinking on substance, represented by zones of the concep-
tual profile of substance, were identified in the questionnaire
and episodes extracted from the lessons. They were framed on a
spreadsheet (Microsoft Excels), in which lines represented the
conceptual profile zones, emerging from each of the lessons,
considering the individual responses and speeches for each
student. A main spreadsheet was organized with different
arrangements that enabled us to estimate frequencies in which
the zones of the conceptual profile emerged in the speech of
each student, and for the entire data set analysed. Different
graphs were generated from the main spreadsheet and they
favoured a visualization of changes in the emergence of zones
in the data set organized for analysis. It is important to
emphasize that the values for frequency cannot be considered
as absolute values.
Results and discussion
The results are presented in three parts. Firstly, we present an
analysis of the students’ answers to the questionnaire taking a
glance at the possible zones of the conceptual profile of
substance that could be associated with the responses, before
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 | 1015
 View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Paper

Table 2 Brief description of the conceptual profile zones for substance

Zones Brief description

Generalist Substance considered as something present in everything. There is no differentiation of materials, mixture, substance or
chemical element. In addition, substance is like the essence or something essential that constitutes and qualifies materials
Pragmatic/ Substance defined or characterized by their applications and uses, acquiring importance for possible benefits or damage
utilitarian caused to human beings
Substantialist Substance understood as something material more than a chemical model, even in atomic–molecular dimensions leading
students to consider that the properties of a substance extend to its constituents (atoms or molecules)
Empirical Substance addressed by physical and chemical properties, which are important for its chemical identification. It is recognized
that there are many substances constituting materials and giving them specific properties
Rationalist Substance understood by scientific models to explain its structures, properties, and classification in different types – simple,
compound, organic, inorganic, etc. – depending on the entities that compose them
Relational Substance understood in a complex view when the relational dimension for the properties are considered. Properties do not
identify the substance itself, but represent the behaviour of the substance when it is associated with specific conditions

the application of the TLS. In the second part, we show an apple can prevent or reduce high cholesterol as well as many
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.

analysis of the episodes extracted from lesson 1 and an over-
view of lessons 2 and 3, from which we identify the emergence
of zones of the conceptual profile in the discursive interactions,
at different moments of each lesson, seeking to characterize
conceptualization processes. In the third part, we present an
analysis of the interviews with two students, after the applica-
tion of TLS, in which we seek to understand details on the
conceptualization process for these students.
Analysis of the questionnaire
The questionnaire applied in lesson 1 had six questions, from
which we looked for previous conceptions of the students to
take a glance at possible zones of the conceptual profile that
could be implied in these conceptions. Before the first ques-
tion, the students read a short poem exalting chemistry that is
present in various situations – water we drink, breathing,
human metabolism and medicines.
Questionnaire applied to the students
POEM: Chemistry, a central science (Magda R. S. Vieira)
Chemistry is a science/Very active and special/It is present in
our life/In different and unique ways/As we look around/We cannot
deny/Chemistry is all near us/At all times and places/In the water
we drink/In our breath/Also in our metabolism/We see Chemistry
in action/Developing medications/Creating new technologies/
Beyond the limits/From the pioneer Alchemy/For those who still/
Find Chemistry apart/Look inside you/It joins us all the time.
(1) According to the poem, Chemistry is actively present in
our daily life. So, substances surround us. For you, what is a
substance?
(2) Give some examples for: (a) chemical elements; (b)
substances; (c) materials.
(3) Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who lived between 384
and 322 BC, and he asserted that four primordial elements
constituted all things: water, earth, fire and air. For him, different
combinations of these four elements constituted everything. Do
you agree with this philosophical view (Aristotelian)? Is it similar to
the chemical view of substance we have today? Justify.
(4) Evaluate the statements if they are correct or not and
justify your answer: (a) gold is a metal made up of atoms of
gold. Atoms are small particles and they form substances. Gold
is yellow, so gold atoms are yellow; (b) regular consumption of
other health benefits. An apple contains several substances.
(5) What do you mean by pure substance? Give an example.
(6) In the previous lesson, we study the properties of matter. We
have seen that there are general properties such as mass, volume,
and inertia, and specific properties such as density and boiling
point. How important is it to know the properties of substances?
In general, the students presented short responses to the
questions and we were only able to make approximations to
the zones of the profile. We did not analyze question 5 from the
questionnaire because the students’ responses were out of the
scope of this paper. In question 1, the poem was mentioned
and the teacher asked students: for you, what is a substance?
Some of the students’ responses were:
It is something that is present everywhere and everywhere on the
earth; It’s all around us;
Substance is something made up of atoms;
(It) is a set of molecules, which may form some things;
For me, substance is all that has volume, matter;
Substance is all that has chemical composition.
In question 2, the students were asked to give examples of
(a) chemical elements, (b) substances and (c) materials. Some
of the students’ responses:
(a) chemical elements:
Set of atoms with different atom numbers e.g. mineral water;
Gases;
Hydrogen;
O, H, N;
Chlorine, sodium chloride;
Water; H2O.
(b) substances:
Set of chemical elements ex: sparkling water;
Water, air (H20, CO2);
Water (H2O), carbon (C);
NaCl, CO2.
(c) materials:
Gold, plastic;
Pen, pencil;
Elements in different physical states e.g. ice;
H;
Beaker, graduated cylinder, Erlenmeyer flask, Petri dish, watch
glass

1016 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018

Paper
The responses in these two questions suggest that the students
understand substance in different ways and there are misconcep-
tions in relation to the chemical view. According to the responses,
the students considered substance as something present in every-
thing, and there is no distinction among materials, substances,
and chemical elements; or substance has materiality (volume and
matter); or substances have atoms or molecules in their constitu-
tion, presenting a chemical composition. The examples proposed
by the students reflect the heterogeneity of thinking and suggest
that most students do not know how to distinguish chemical
elements, substances and materials. Although it was not possible
to know details of the students’ ideas from their short answers, it
is possible to consider that some of the ideas are related to
different modes of thinking about the concept, and consequently
they should be associated with different zones of the conceptual
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
profile such as generalist, substantialist, pragmatic/utilitarian and
rationalist.
The ideas proposed by Aristotle on elements and substances
were mentioned in question 3, when the students were challenged
to compare the views from philosophical and current contexts.
Most of the students disagreed with the Aristotelian view, but
they did not present clear ideas on atoms, elements and
substances or the distinction between them. Some answers to
this question were:
The composition of matter is made up of atoms that constitute
all things;
(Matter is) Composed of atoms of various substances;
I do not (agree);
Everything is composed of chemical elements, water, fire, etc.
Everything is made of substances and it is divided into different
levels; I think matter is all made up of atoms and can have one or
more elements.
One student responded: I agree with him (Aristotle). In bringing
up Aristotle’s ideas, again we find the heterogeneity of thinking on
substance and elements expressed by the students. For this
question, the students’ responses suggested ideas associated with
the generalist and rationalistic zones of the conceptual profile on
substance.
In question 4, the students were invited to remark on given
propositions: (a) Gold is a metal made up of atoms of gold. Atoms
are small particles and they form substances. Gold is yellow, so
gold atoms are yellow; (b) regular consumption of apple can
prevent or reduce high cholesterol as well as many other health
benefits. An apple contains several substances. For item (a), we
found most of the students denying the proposition (Wrong,
because the color of a substance does not define the color of its
atoms), but three students agreed with the sentence (True,
because the atoms together form the gold). Here, we found clues
of the substantialist mode of thinking on substance, from
which the students do not differentiate the properties of atoms,
molecules and substances. Here, the sentences informed
clearly that gold is a substance made up of atoms, and we were
seeking to verify if students would extend the properties of the
substance to its constituting atoms.
For item (b), most of the students gave one-word responses
(yes or true) confirming what the proposition stated. One student
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
tried to explain (True, it must contain one substance for each benefit –
Laura), and two students denied the proposition without justifica-
tion. In this sense, it was not possible to make a deeper analysis of
this question and analyzing the modes of thinking, but the answer
from Laura suggests an understanding of substance associated
with the benefits that it can promote for health (pragmatic/
utilitarian zone).
In question 6, we asked the students about the properties of
the substances. Many students presented vague or nonsense
answers and some of them presented answers such as: To know
how to apply the substances by knowing their properties; to be able
to identifysubstances; to know in which physical state it (the substance)
is. From these answers, we suggest that some students seemed
to recognize the importance of the properties of substances
for different applications (a pragmatic/utilitarian view) and
as a way of identification of the substances (empirical or
rationalistic view).
The answers of the students to the questionnaire present
ideas that suggest approximations to the different zones of the
conceptual profile, with the exception of the relational zone,
which was not identified in the answers. Considering an
approximation of the students’ responses to the zones of the
conceptual profile for substance, we estimated frequencies to
these zones for the whole class, as shown in Fig. 1. The students
often expressed different modes of thinking in their responses
and the sum of the percentages overpassed 100%.
According to Fig. 1, on the one hand, the students’ previous
conceptions seemed to be representative of the intuitive or
informal ideas, probably from perceptions built in the socio-
cultural context (generalist and substantialist zones – 132%),
perhaps because of the lack of familiarity of the students with
chemistry studies, at this stage of schooling. On the other hand,
it is interesting that we also found answers that seemed to
represent ideas aligned with the scientific view for substance
(empirical and rationalist zones – 65%). This seems to be
associated with previous studies of the concept (year 8), when
some students reached scientific aspects to understand sub-
stance. The analysis of the discursive interactions in the class-
room was more effective in identifying the emergence of the
conceptual profile zones on substance.
Analysis of the emergence of zones of the conceptual profile of
substance in lessons
The emergence of zones of the conceptual profile of substance
was analyzed from the transcripts of the three lessons that were
video recorded, from which relevant episodes were extracted.
We will present the detailed analysis for lesson 1 and the
synthesis of the analysis for lessons 2 and 3.
Lesson 1. In lesson 1, the teacher had an objective of eliciting
the discussion of epistemological, historical and contextual
aspects related to substance, as a starting point to place a
scientific view for this concept in a set of ideas that may embody
different senses or meanings. Four activities were carried out –
reading and discussion of the text, digital simulation, small
group work and lecture and discussions. The text was two pages
long and, initially, presented ideas about artisans’ work and
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 | 1017

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Fig. 1 Estimated frequencies for zones emerged from students’ responses to the questionnaire.
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
techniques from the Ancient to Early Middle Ages to introduce
ideas on matter as developed by philosophers in Ancient Greece.
For illustration, we present a short piece of the text on Aristotle’s
ideas, which is relevant for the analysis in this paper: ‘‘Aristotle
(384 BC, 322 BC) was born in the Greek city of Stagira and he is
renowned as one of the most important philosophers of mankind.
He adopted and modified the theory of the elements created by
Empedocles. According to Aristotle, matter was constituted by a single
essence, which could not have isolated existence (continuous matter). For
the essence of matter, the four primary qualities – heat, cold, dryness and
wetness – would combine in pairs, thus forming the elements earth,
water, air, and fire. By the variation of the relative quantities of the four
qualities, objects composed of combinations of these elements could be
converted into each other. For Aristotle, only four from six possible
combinations were allowed – earth is cold and dry, water is cold and
wet, air is hot and wet, and fire is hot and dry’’. The teacher discussed
the text trying to bring together historical conceptions and
scientific ideas on substance.
After reading the text, the teacher posed some questions
similar to those posed in the questionnaire: (a) Nowadays is
there the concept of element as stated in the time of Aristotle? and
(b) Do you agree with Aristotle’s ideas on the composition of
matter? The students discussed these questions in small groups
and the teacher intervened when she had demands or perceived it
was necessary. Small group work favored the interactions between
students for discussion and elaboration of ideas. Episode 1.1
(Table 3) represents a discussion in a specific group.
In episode 1.1 (Table 3), Miguel and Valentina expressed an
understanding that suggests the differences between the concepts
of chemical elements and substances in the historical and current
contexts. For them, nowadays we have been considering the idea of
atoms as constituting elements (turn 3), and previously there was
the idea that matter was constituted of four elements (turns 5 and
6), and these elements had a status of substance (turns 7 and 8).
The students expressed that current ideas on atoms, elements and
substances are organized as follows: elements are like an atom for
the substance (turn 2) or matter (turn 4), and substances are
constituted by a set of elements (turns 9 and 10). They seemed to
understand that explanatory models of matter have changed
1018 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028
View Article Online
Paper
Table 3 Episode 1.1 – Discussion of historical conceptions on substance
in a small group, in lesson 1
1. Teacher: For you, what has changed about the concept of chemical
elements and substance? (from the historical context to nowadays)
2. Miguel: We discovered that the chemical element is like the atom of
the substance. . .
3. Valentina: Nowadays, the element is constituted by atoms. . .
4. Miguel: Nowadays, element is as if it was the atom of matter
5. Valentina: Before, it was the substance, the element. . .
6. Miguel: It was fire, earth, air. . .
7. Valentina: Then! They were the substances!
8. Miguel: Yes, they were the substances of today. . .
9. Valentina: What about the substance?
10. Miguel: Nowadays, it is the set of elements.
throughout history; however, we do not have evidence that they
understood what a chemical element is, when they spoke of
elements as atoms that constitute substance or matter. From this
analysis, it is not appropriate to consider that the students pre-
sented a rationalist view of the concept of substance, even though
they reasoned based on the atomic–molecular dimension. In this
sense, we consider that they presented the ideas that represent the
generalist zone of the profile in this episode, considering that they
do not differentiate materials, substances, chemical elements and
atoms. Araújo et al. (1995) argue that most of the textbooks still
present Aristotelian definitions of substance and highlight that
problems can appear when teacher and students deal with these
views. Silva and Amaral (2013) found that students do not seem to
have a clear idea of how substances compose materials and they
are constituted by chemical elements.
Episode 1.2 (Table 4) was extracted from discussion with the
whole class during the activity of digital simulation, when the
teacher was presenting the scientific view of substance by showing
simulations of the atomic–molecular composition and dynamics
for substances – water, oxygen, neon and argon – in different
physical states (gaseous, liquid and solid). The software displayed
the images of small colored balls representing atoms that consti-
tute three simple substances (oxygen, neon and argon) and one
compound (water). The grouping of balls changed by heating or
cooling simulating different physical states for each substance.
These images were shown to the whole class with a projector.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018

Paper
Table 4 Episode 1.2 – Discussion on the atomic–molecular aspects of
substances with the whole class
1. Teacher: The air, is what?
2. Laura: There are several substances. . .
3. Teacher: And when you have several substances, what do you call it?
4. Rafaela: Element?
5. Jose: No!!! Mixed substance
6. Laura: So the air is a mixture?
7. Miguel: Oxygen, carbon dioxide, water. . .
8. Teacher: And what are oxygen, carbon dioxide and water?
9. Miguel: Chemical elements
10. Laura: No, substances! No? Element? Ahhh I do not understand
anything at all!
The teacher’s purpose was to discuss the differences between
elements, substances and mixtures, confronting ideas from
historical and scientific contexts.
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
In episode 1.2 (Table 4), the three students seemed to
understand the (atmospheric) air as a mixture, but they did
not express well-defined ideas about the differences between
substance and chemical element. Laura and Jose indicated the
air as a mixture (turns 2, 5 and 6), and Miguel specified some
components of it (turn 7), but he got confused defining these
components as chemical elements (turn 9) and also Rafaela
(turn 4). In the activity of digital simulation, students visualized
substances such as neon and argon – constituted for one atom
each – in an atomic–molecular dimension and it seemed to
interfere with conflicting ideas presented by them. Also, Laura
clearly expressed her difficulties in differentiating substance
and element (turn 10).
In episode 1.2 (Table 4), we observed advances in the students’
speeches, which appeared more elaborate than in episode 1.1
(Table 3). It is important to highlight that the activities dealt with
two different contexts – historical and nowadays – to discuss the
concepts, creating opportunities for the students to visualize them
in diverse situations. Although there is no evidence that they put
together ideas from the different contexts, we can consider that
students seemed to look for shared meanings for these ideas,
performing their own trajectories in a process of conceptualization
(Mortimer et al., 2011). In terms of conceptual profile zones, we
realize a movement from generalists to a more rational way of
speaking on substances, even though there are persistent ideas in a
generalist zone.
In order to analyze how the students were making meaning
for the concepts, we extracted another piece of the discursive
interactions following on the activity of digital simulation. In
episode 1.3 (Table 5), we intend to illustrate a moment in which
the students expressed ideas closer to the scientific view of
substance.
In episode 1.3 (Table 5), Jose expressed a good understanding
of the constitution of water (turns 2 and 6) and Carlos pointed
out the difference between water and oxygen from the different
number of atoms in both molecules (turn 3). Gabriela still
presented ideas of a generalist view when she did not show
indications for which molecules and elements are different in
the two substances, oxygen and water (turn 4). At this point, Jose
and Carlos seemed to differentiate the concepts of atoms,
elements, and molecules, and we can consider they presented
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Table 5 Episode 1.3 – Discussion on chemical elements constituting
substances with the whole class
1. Teacher: What is the difference between oxygen and water?
2. Jose: Because the water is made of two different atoms
3. Carlos: Because the water molecule has three atoms and oxygen
has two
4. Gabriela: Is a set of different molecules and elements
5. Teacher: What are the elements that make up water?
6. Jose: Hydrogen and oxygen
the ways of speaking associated with the rationalist zone of
the conceptual profile, since they point to an understanding of
water (substance), considering its constitution by two chemical
elements, from an atomic–molecular dimension.
In summary, in lesson 1, several activities were carried out
with distinct objects and objectives that sought to explore the
concept of substance under different aspects. The engagement
of the students in carrying out these activities played an
important role in the meaning-making process for concepts.
The small groups work favored the expression of ideas by the
students. The reading of text with issues related to the historical
development of the concept and the subsequent discussion
were important for the perception and understanding of the
sociocultural aspects associated with the meaning attributed
to the concept of substance. All these features – expressing
ideas, reading the text to confront ideas, and analyzing digital
simulations – contributed to make meaningful the classroom
discussion and consequently to expand the repertoire of ideas in
the process of meaning making for the scientific concept.
Lesson 2. In lesson 2 the teacher introduced a theme about
medicines from which the macroscopic properties of substances
were emphasized (see Table 1). In proposing a theme for studies,
we considered it an important tool to teach scientific concepts
through situations intentionally engendered in the classroom
(Moura et al., 2010). Among others, the students read a text
about the development of products with an antibiotic effect used
mainly during the First World War. From the text, the teacher
showed more specifically the structural formula of penicillin and
discussed the antibiotic properties of this substance, highlight-
ing historical and social aspects related to the use of the
medicines composed by it. The teacher’s purpose was to intro-
duce scientific ideas on the properties and uses of substances
bringing together different contexts in which these ideas were
and are applied. In addition, she discussed about mixtures,
processes of separation/extraction of substances from materials,
physical and chemical processes, melting and boiling points,
density and intermolecular interactions. From the discussion, other
issues arose such as extracting substances from plants, natural and
artificial substances and the classification of substances. In lesson
2, we observed different ways of speaking about substances that
were associated with different modes of thinking characterized in
terms of empirical, rationalist, pragmatic/utilitarian, and substan-
tialist zones of the conceptual profile.
Some of the students emphasized the importance of sub-
stances to human beings, following ideas given in the text, which
highlighted the use of antibiotics for the treatment of infections
in soldiers injured at the front in the war. Therefore, the reading
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 | 1019

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
stressed the ideas about the macroscopic properties and appli-
cations of substances, and the students were invited to extend
their ideas on substance considering differences other than
from elements and mixture (lesson 1). The text favored the
emergence of ideas included in the pragmatic/utilitarian zone
of the conceptual profile, when they highlighted relationships
between substances and their application, for example, as
Carlos claimed that knowing the properties of substances is
important ‘‘to know whether it (the substance) causes benefits or
damage’’. Nevertheless, ideas associated with the other zones of
the conceptual profile emerged in the classroom discussion.
The students expressed ideas representing the empirical and
rationalist zones of the conceptual profile, especially when
the teacher presented scientific models to explain the theme.
For example, when referring to the properties of substances,
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
Manuela claimed that they are ‘‘extremely well defined’’, which
tends to be associated with an empirical mode of thinking.
Also, Jose pointed out that a pure substance ‘‘has only one type
of molecule’’, and ‘‘when it (the substance) has one type of atom it
is a simple substance’’, making clear the difference between pure
and simple substances by using a scientific model to characterize
the types of substances (rationalist zone). The teacher and the
students discussed the classification of substances, when they try
to understand the properties of the substance that constitutes
medicines or other products, and the process of extraction of these
substances from natural sources. It is possible to extract a pure
substance from a mixture of them (natural substances), but it is
also possible to synthetize chemical substances in laboratories
(synthetized substances). For this specific point, students get
confused about the difference between the concepts of pure sub-
stance (out of the mixture or material) and simple substance – a
substance made up of just one type of element.
Ideas representing the substantialist zone of the conceptual
profile also emerged when the teacher and the students held a
discussion about substances obtained by extraction from plants
to produce medicines. For example, when Jose said ‘‘Most of the
time it (the substance) has to be modified. If you take a substance
out of a plant, for example, you have to change something’’. The
student seemed to consider substance as something material
inside of the plant, since it must be modified in the process of
extraction, in spite of many times the appropriate process of
extraction is chosen according to the properties of the substance.
For example, it is common to extract essences from plants by
vaporization and condensation. Although it was not the purpose
of the teacher, ideas on pure, natural or synthetized substances
emerged in the discussions and the students found it hard to
manage and to understand these issues. These difficulties went
beyond our aims in this work as they focused on differences
between natural and artificial substances.
In lesson 2, we see that the type of activity led the classroom
discussion through ways of speaking about the sources and
properties of substances, favoring the emergence of different
modes of thinking mainly associated with the applications and
effects of the substances in human life. It is possible to point
out ontological shifts in these modes of thinking, considering
that it was predominantly ideas on substance more as concrete
1020 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028
View Article Online
Paper
materials than a model for explanation of the behavior of
matter. It is important to highlight that both of the ontological
categories (Chi, 1992) – material and abstract – could be aligned
with the scientific view for the concept of substance, depending
on the articulations constructed between macroscopic and
atomic–molecular dimensions. This could be a big challenge
to teach the concept of substance in chemistry lessons.
Lesson 3. In lesson 3, three activities were carried out – the
analysis of package inserts by students, discussion in small
groups of questions by the teacher, and discussion with the
whole class (see Table 1). The teacher’s purpose was to identify
students’ ideas when they applied the concept of substance,
and to highlight the ideas representative of the scientific zones
of the profile in articulation with other zones. The students were
asked to identify chemical elements, substances or mixtures
presented in the package inserts of different medicines. In
general, we found that most of the students still had difficulties
in distinguishing those concepts and expressing ideas in an
appropriate chemical language, when they were not able to
match the name of the substances and chemical elements. We
realized that the package inserts bring complex information on
the action of the medicines, but they did not show chemical
formulas of substances. It was not easy for the students to
understand all the chemical issues involved in the text of
package inserts, at this level of schooling (year 9).
Most of the students were not able to articulate ideas discussed
in previous lectures to the analysis of the package inserts. Silva and
Aguiar (2011) verified that students (year 8) did not use definitions
of substance in a conscious and adequate way in an activity on the
importance of minerals on human nutrition, which involved the
understanding of the concepts of chemical elements and sub-
stance. In this work, the students seemed to understand that
several substances constitute medicines and these medicines when
ingested by the people can provoke desired reactions (cure dis-
eases) and/or side effects. For them, the effect caused by these
substances in our organism depends not only on the nature of the
constituents but also on the amount in which the medicines are
ingested. However, they have struggled to translate their ideas in
terms of atoms, chemical elements, and molecules that make up
the medicines.
With regard to the emergence of the conceptual profile
zones, we observed the ways of speaking representative of four
zones: generalist, pragmatic/utilitarian, substantialist and
rationalist. To illustrate the ways of speaking associated with
the generalist zone, we look at the speeches by Jose: ‘‘it does not
matter the substance, depending on amount and intensity, sub-
stances can cause benefits or damages to the human body’’, and by
Laura: ‘‘the elements are secnidazole and excipients, and the
substances are what constitute them, it is cellulose’’. Jose seemed
to reproduce common knowledge about substances and their
effects, without a deep reflection on chemical concepts. Laura
presented very confused ideas related to the names read in the
package inserts when she considered the active principle of the
medicine, secnidazole (synthetic derivative of the group of
nitroimidazoles with antiparasitic activity effects) and excipient
as elements made up of cellulose (substance).
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018

Paper
Ideas associated with the pragmatic/utilitarian zone can be
illustrated by the following speech by Laura: ‘‘I think the natural
substance is likely a chemical substance (both) that can cause benefits or
damage’’, and by Miguel: ‘‘I think they (the medicines) are made up of
some substances that together will cause effects’’. Bernardo expressed
the ideas associated with the substantialist zone when he said,
‘‘What are medicines made up of? From compressed substances’’.
Rationalist ideas were considered when the students recognized
substances described in the package inserts regardless of whether
they were represented by chemical formulas, for example, when
Rafaela said: ‘‘. . .if we know the molecular formula of the substances, so
we could know the elements’’ and Valentina said: ‘‘cellulose, silicon,
sodium starch glycolate. . .those are substances’’. In this way, the
students tried to answer the issues posed by the teacher – to identify
chemical elements, substances and mixtures in the package inserts –
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
but other ideas emerged in the discussions in both small groups and
the whole class.
In the analysis of the three lessons, we observed variations
in the emergence of zones of the conceptual profile of sub-
stance. The emergence of the conceptual profile zones for the
whole class in the episodes extracted from each lesson and in
the questionnaire is illustrated in Fig. 2.
The students expressed ideas associated with all zones,
except for the relational zone, which represents a complex
way of understanding the substance. The ideas related to the
relational zone were not expected for this level of schooling. In
Fig. 2, we can observe a large variation in the emergence of the
conceptual profile zones throughout the three lessons and in
the questionnaire. We attribute these variations to several
factors, such as the different types of questions and didactic
situations to which the students were exposed, and the use of a
theme in which the concept of substance has a specific use
related to human health. In spite of the texts and theme
guiding the discussions in a specific direction, in general, we
can see that students presented more elaborate ideas than
the informal conceptions found in the responses to the ques-
tionnaire, throughout the lessons (see Fig. 2). Nevertheless,
students’ informal conceptions emerged in discussions of
new situations even if they seemed to advance in a scientific
Fig. 2 Dynamics of the emergence of the conceptual profile zones in the three lessons and questionnaire for the whole class.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
understanding of substance, for example, when they work with
package inserts.
Fig. 2 shows generalist ideas that are more evident in the
questionnaire, lesson 1 and again in lesson 3. We agree that
the students did not abandon their informal conceptions in the
process of teaching and learning of scientific concepts, but we
can see that they advanced in expressing ideas related to the
scientific zones, extending their particular conceptual profiles
(Mortimer et al., 2014). Besides, they expressed more diversified
ideas in lessons 2 and 3, suggesting that scientific ideas were
discussed in articulation with other modes of thinking.
The TLS design played an important role in promoting
discussions and bringing out diverse conceptions that can be
contrasted and reflected from the school content to be studied.
Therefore, in this work we seek to promote an approximation of
scientific knowledge with the sociocultural context from a
theme, a way to contemplate the epistemic dimension of the
teaching and learning sequence (TLS), according to the terms
proposed by Méheut (2005). From the point of view of the
pedagogical dimension, we found that the teacher played an
important role in favoring the communication of the ideas by
the students, seeking to raise and capture different conceptions
and visions about the concept being worked on. A broader
domain of possible sense and meanings that the concept can
acquire in different contexts or situations seems to make the
teacher more aware and engaged in the task of promoting
debate and interactions in which students’ ideas are considered
(Silva and Amaral, 2010). It points to the potential use of the
conceptual profile theory in the formation and professional
development for science teachers.
In the analysis of the emergence of the zones of the
conceptual profile from the discursive interactions in the class-
room, each student went through a particular conceptualiza-
tion process, presenting different rhythms and pathways in
making meaning to the contents studied. We consider that it is
important to analyze learning pathways experienced by two
students, seeking to understand in depth the different aspects
of the process of conceptualization. As previously mentioned,
learning pathways were analyzed in terms of the variations in
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 | 1021

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
the emergence of conceptual profile zones for each student in
each lesson.
Process of conceptualization of the students – Laura and Jose
We present a detailed analysis of the conceptualization process
for two students – Laura and Jose – who actively participated in all
of the lessons. This analysis would be unreliable for students who
participated in a limited way because we do not have enough
evidence for how they dealt with previous and new ideas focused
in the classroom discussions. The expression of ideas that we
identified as associated with the zones of the conceptual profile
was different for both students, which endorses the individual
dimension of the meaning-making process for scientific concepts,
although social interactions play a crucial role in it.
Analysis of Laura’s conceptualization process
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
Laura expressed ideas and raised questions in most of the
classroom discussions. In her speech, she explicitly recognized
her difficulties with different aspects of the concepts of substance
and chemical elements. In Laura’s responses to the questionnaire,
we were able to identify conceptions that suggest approximations to
the three zones of the conceptual profile, at least. She pointed to
the importance of knowing the properties of the substances
‘‘because from it we can classify and divide them into groups and
facilitate the study (on substance)’’, suggesting an empirical view of
the concept. In replying to the proposition about apples’ benefits
and composition, she expressed ‘‘true, as it should contain one
substance for each benefit’’, highlighting a pragmatic view on
substance. Laura considered false the statement about the yellow
color for gold because the atoms are yellow, ‘‘false because I think
atoms are very small and their color has no influence’’. In spite of
the proposition being considered false, she seemed to state the
color for atoms, a macroscopic characteristic, suggesting an
approximation to the substantialist commitment.
Throughout the three lessons, different ways of speaking
were identified in Laura’s speech, when conceptions and ideas
were exposed, confronted, compared and reflected, in the
classroom discussions. In lesson 1, Laura expressed difficulties
in differentiating chemical elements, simple substances, com-
pounds and mixtures, for example, in the discussion about air,
she seemed to be surprised because air is a mixture, and she
felt confused to classify its components: ‘‘No, substances! No?
Element? Ahhh I do not understand anything at all’’ (episode 1.2
(Table 4), turn 10). In addition, she presented misunderstandings
about pure substance and simple substance: ‘‘I think pure (sub-
stance) is when you have only one type of element’’. These are the ideas
representative of the generalist zone of the conceptual profile, and
they often emerged in her speech. It did not seem to restrict her in
stating the ideas representative of the other zones, for example, for
the rationalist zone, she claimed ‘‘nowadays water is a substance, but
before it was an element! That substance nowadays, in the case of water,
is formed by hydrogen and oxygen’’.
In lesson 2, during the discussion about the acquisition and
application of natural and synthesized substances, Laura stated
that there is no difference between these two types of substances –
‘‘I think it’s the same thing’’ – suggesting an understanding of the
1022 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028
View Article Online
Paper
relation between the identity of substances and their properties,
regardless of how they were obtained. Ideas like that are represen-
tative of the empirical zone of the substance concept. In some
moments of the lesson, Laura referred to substances as something
that might cause some benefit or damage to the human body – ‘‘it
(the substance) can be changed to cause benefit to your body, or it can
be changed to injure it, depending on the quantity. . .’’. For her, the
amount of substance plays an important role for the action of
substances. In this case, the use and effects of the substances
seemed to guide the comprehension of the concept, promoting the
emergence of the pragmatic/utilitarian zone of the conceptual
profile. The ideas representative of the substantialist zone emerged
in this lesson, for example, when Laura admitted that an isolated
water molecule has an equal boiling point at 100 1C.
In lesson 3, the teacher’s purpose was to encourage students
in applying the concepts studied to analyze package inserts.
Laura appeared to realize that medicines have several substances in
their composition and presented a more structured speech: ‘‘I think
the medicine is a mixture, which is made of substances that are
excipients and secnidazole’’. It is quite probable that she read this
information on the package insert, but she did not know the
meaning for technical names, including excipients like a substance.
Conflicting ideas about the differences between substances and
molecules emerged when she requested ‘‘So molecule is substance?’’
and she replied herself ‘‘but it is small’’, showing difficulties in
differentiating macroscopic and atomic–molecular dimensions of
substances, which often implies in assigning the properties of the
substance to the molecule. In this case, the ideas included in the
substantialist zone emerged in Laura’s speech, in this lesson.
According to the analysis shown above, from Laura’s speech,
the ideas representative of the zones of the conceptual profile were
placed in an Excels spreadsheet, in order to generate a visualiza-
tion of the emergence of zones for the student throughout the TLS.
The emergence of the zones is not considered from the absolute
values of the frequency, but it represents a proportional analysis of
the dynamics of zones observed during the three lessons and in the
questionnaire.
In Fig. 3, we can see the heterogeneity of the ways of
speaking by Laura at different moments in the lessons and in
the questionnaire, which makes it possible to consider that
different modes of thinking were interwoven in her conceptua-
lization process (Mortimer and Wertsch, 2003; Mortimer and
El-Hani, 2014). In general, it seems reasonable to expect that
after the student expressed ideas aligned with the scientific
view, the emergence of the nonscientific modes of thinking
should be overcome. Nevertheless, Fig. 3 shows an oscillation
of the emergence of the scientific and nonscientific zones of the
conceptual profile. For example, even though generalist ideas
emerged in lesson 1 and they were less frequent in lesson 2,
as the student followed constructing more structured ideas,
generalist ways of speaking persist in Laura’s speech when she
was faced with applying these ideas in a new situation (insert
packages – lesson 3).
In this dynamic process, stabilized meanings could be part
of the students’ repertoire of ideas. We consider that the
scientific ideas of substance were incorporated to the senses
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
 View Article Online

Paper Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Fig. 3 Emergence of the conceptual profile zones in the three lessons and the questionnaire for Laura.
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.

and meanings presented by Laura, which seems to be aligned
with the objectives of educational aims at school. Scientific and
nonscientific ideas play important roles in the teaching and
learning process of making meaning for scientific concepts. In
this case, we reinforce the conceptualization process such as a
continuum in which senses and meanings oscillate depending
on the experiences of individuals (Mortimer et al., 2011).
In the interview with Laura, after the TLS, our expectation
was to identify details of the conceptualization process experi-
enced by the student. Initially, we asked her to define the
concept of substance, and episode IL1 (Table 6) shows a piece
of the interview at this moment.
In episode IL1 (Table 6), Laura was able to express in detail
her conflicting ideas about chemical elements and substance
(turn 2), using words belonging to the scientific language. This
suggests a kind of appropriation she had during the lessons
and an indication that she is advancing in the understanding of
the scientific meaning of substance. She correctly exemplified a
substance (O2), identified the atom that forms that substance
(O), but defined an element as ‘‘a lot of O2’’. The teacher
intervened seeking to stress the senses presented by Laura for
substance (turns 3–7), by evoking chemical symbols presented
in the periodic table. In turn 8, Laura recognized O as an
element representative of its different isotopes and she com-
pared it to the substance O2. The teacher suggested that she is
putting together macroscopic and atomic–molecular (‘‘micro-
scopic’’) dimensions for the concept (turn 9). Then she defined
substance as being ‘‘a set of atoms’’ (turn 10). We consider that
despite the advances in the use of the scientific language, Laura
yet did not embody stabilized meanings for chemical substance.
In another moment of the interview, a macroscopic dimension
was mentioned to investigate her comprehension of substance
properties, mainly considering the activity with the package inserts.
This moment is shown in episode IL2 (Table 7).
In episode IL2 (Table 7), Laura recognized the properties as
important to identify substances mainly by addressing melting
and boiling points for them (turns 2 and 5), a very common
approach found in chemistry textbooks. However, she did not
realize the role played by these properties in materials or
substances present in our life or social context (turn 4).
Vogelezang (1987) stated that students admitted the existence
of substances (or materials) around everything, but usually they
do not associate them with contents studied in lessons of
chemistry. At another moment of the interview, the teacher
expressed the following statement: ‘‘Substance is everything
that is around us. Almost everything we see in the world is a
chemical substance’’. And Laura commented: ‘‘I think kind of
everything we see is composed of substances, which does not mean
that this is a type of substance (. . .) a pen is made up of several
substances, but that does not mean a pen is a type of substance. . .
no! One or more substances make up a pen’’. She seemed to
understand the difference between material (mixture) and
substance. When the teacher asked her to comment on another
sentence ‘‘The smell of a perfume is due to a substance present
in the material’’, Laura stated ‘‘I think the smell is a property like
this. . . and what will come of it. . . maybe, I think, that the perfume

Table 6 Episode IL1 – Laura exposing the definition of substance in the interview

1. Teacher: Define substance

2. Laura: Every time I feel confused about element and substance. I know that element is the whole set (. . .) element is a kind of general, and substance I do
not know well what it is, because. . . it has the atom of something. For example, the substance oxygen would be in the case O2, the substance would be
O2, and an ‘‘O’’ would be an atom and a lot of O2 together is an element, I think.
3. Teacher: Do you think a lot of O2 is an element? In the periodic table, what do we find?
4. Laura: Elements.
5. Teacher: Is there oxygen in the periodic table?
6. Laura: There is.
7. Teacher: But we see the representation in the periodic table only with an ‘‘O’’, right?
8. Laura: Yeah! But the element would be ‘‘O’’ because it would be ‘‘O’’ along with all its variations. Like that. . . ‘‘O’’ isotopes would all be together when
putting the ‘‘O’’ element there. And like that. . . what’s the point? Substance right? Substance would be, for example, O2 the substance oxygen.
9. Teacher: You defined the substance using an example and speaking in microscopic terms.
10. Laura: So if I was defining it in words other than with examples, I would say that substance is a set of atoms.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 | 1023
 View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Paper

Table 7 Episode IL2 – Laura discussing substance properties in the interview

1. Teacher: How important is it to know the properties of substances?

2. Laura: I think it’s important for you in differentiating one from the other, so you know more about the substance. For me, it does not matter,
but for certain people who. . .
3. Teacher: Why do you think it does not matter, you do not have substances in your daily life?
4. Laura: Yes, but I kind of do not care what property of the substance I ‘‘catch’’.
5. Teacher: Because you are only thinking about the melting point, boiling. . . you are not thinking of the smell, flavor. . .
6. Laura: It is that whenever I think of properties I remember more of melting point and boiling point, things like this

is a mixture, and I think the smell is a property of this. The smell
will be a property of the substance present in there. The smell is not
a kind of substance. The substance has properties like melting and
boiling points, color, smell, taste. . . I think this is also a property of
the substance. So I think the smell is a property’’. Here, Laura
seemed to get confused about the smell as a sensation and as
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
attention to the difference between meanings related to elements
and substance in the historical context and nowadays – ‘‘There were
four elements and today there are more (of them)’’ – presenting a
generalist way of speaking.
In lesson 2, the discussion on the use of substances to
produce medicines and natural and synthetized substances

the property of a specific substance composing the perfume.
These results suggest that Laura presented elaborate ideas
about substance, but she did not stabilize meanings in terms of
a scientific view, and (personal) senses still played an important
role in her conceptualization process. It appears from such
evidence that the process of conceptualization occurs by oscilla-
tion between senses and meanings, in a continuum movement
toward the stabilized meanings, which are shared socially. Laura
advanced in the understanding of substance by acquiring the
domain in the use of the scientific language but the meaning-
making process is not conclusive, and she would be faced with
challenges in her learning pathway as soon as a new situation is
engendered. From this perspective, it is not so easy to measure
progression for learning.
Analysis of Jose’s conceptualization process
Jose presented active participation in the classroom discussion
and, differently from Laura, most of the time he expressed
structured ideas in a scientific view in the responses to the
questionnaire and throughout the three lessons. In this way, he
seemed to understand the different aspects of the substance
concept – differentiating elements, substances and mixtures,
and the classification of pure and simple substances, in both
macroscopic and atomic–molecular dimensions.
In lesson 1, Jose presented predominantly ideas from a
scientific view, when debating in the diverse activities and
discursive contexts. For example, he expressed ideas such as:
‘‘H2O is a substance and H is an element; What changed? Now, I
know what it is. Chemical element is atom; Substances are atoms
together; H2O is made up two different atoms; (pure substance) is
when it has only one type of molecule; (simple substance) because
it is constituted of only one type of atom’’. Jose showed the ways of
speaking aligned with a rationalist mode of thinking on sub-
stance, considering atomic–molecular dimensions to explain
the constitution of matter. Nevertheless, at some moments, he
seemed to show other commitments related to this concept, for
example, Jose explains to a colleague – ‘‘molecule is substance,
the smallest part of the substance is a molecule’’ – it sounds like a
substantialist way of understanding the concept, when macro-
scopic and atomic–molecular dimensions are not clearly dis-
tinguished. Also, in discussing Aristotle’s ideas, he did not give
appeared to promote the emergence of different modes of
thinking from Jose’s speech. He expressed the following idea
‘‘I think that chemical substances are created in the laboratory’’,
from which he associated substance to the processes of synthesis
and industrialization of products (generalist view) – and ‘‘Most of
the time it (substance) has to be modified. If you take a substance
out of a plant, for example, you have to change something’’ –
considering substance as something material contained in
plants (substantialist mode of thinking). We realize that the
approach of the macroscopic aspects for substance stressed
some of the structured ideas presented in the previous lesson,
leading to the emergence of the ways of speaking representative
of generalist and substantialist modes of thinking about the
concept. Jose also claimed that it is important to know the
properties of substances to ‘‘know the amount and intensity of
substance (for use)’’ at the same time that he pointed out ‘‘the
color, smell’’ as some of these properties (an empirical mode of
thinking of substance). However, when appropriate in the dis-
cussion, he confirmed the scientific ideas previously presented
(rationalist mode of thinking). For us, it marks the dynamics of
his process of conceptualization, when he is invited to express
ideas in a continuous movement of seeking for a wide under-
standing of the concept.
In lesson 3, we see more diversity of ideas in Jose’s speech,
which suggests that the discussion on the package insert
allowed posing new ways of speaking about substance, enga-
ging the student in a new challenge to articulate ideas. From
reading the text in the package inserts, Jose was able to identify
the name of the components of the medicine, but the lack of
symbols for chemical elements lead him to say ‘‘I do not think
there is any element here’’. He considered that it was not
possible to get information about chemical elements without
the chemical formula for substances. In the analysis about the
properties of the substances, he stated ‘‘it does not matter the
substance itself, it depends on the amount and intensity of this
substance (it) can cause benefits or damage to the human body’’.
He seemed to evoke a very common sense idea about good
practices in the use of some products – salt, sugar, coffee, etc. –
and, as in the previous lesson, he named ‘‘intensity’’ as a feature
to evaluate the use of substances, expressing a way of speaking
representative of the generalist mode of thinking. Jose also

1024 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018

Paper
presented conflicting ideas related to natural and synthetic
substances, when he stated ‘‘(natural substances) as the name
says (they) are found in nature and do not have to suffer any
chemical industrial process and, as I said before, depending on the
amount (it) can bring benefits or damage to the organism (body)’’.
Here, he expressed a naive view about natural substance
pointing the amount as the reason for the effects it causes in
the human body, showing a way of speaking that highlights a
pragmatic/utilitarian mode of thinking of substance. On the
other side, differently than in lesson 2, he pointed out that
substances’ properties can be useful to identify substances –
‘‘When you know the properties of a substance, you can identify it
in the environment’’ – a way of speaking representative of an
empirical mode of thinking. The emergence of conceptual
profile zones from Jose’s speech is shown in Fig. 4.
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
In Fig. 4, we did not see significant changes in the emergence
of the conceptual profile zones from Jose’s speech throughout
the three lessons and the questionnaire. He continued to express
ways of speaking representative of the rationalist modes of
thinking of substance in the whole TLS; however, other ways
of thinking emerged from discursive contexts resulting from
activities carried out in lessons 2 and 3, including ideas that are
more intuitive. In this case, we highlight the importance of
encouraging discussion on different situations in the science
classroom in order to bring together different ways of thinking
from which the students draw meaning to understand the
scientific view for concepts in the face of the different meanings
stabilized for them in nonscientific contexts.
These results lead us to a positive expectation toward the
understanding of the concept of substance in Jose’’s interview,
when a closer conversation would allow us to perceive details in
his process of conceptualization. First, the teacher asked him to
define substance and he claimed, ‘‘Something is made up of
molecules (. . .) if it is pure, it is made up of only one type of molecule.
If I am not mistaken, it (a substance is) composed (is constituted) of
more (?)’’. First, he presented an atomic–molecular view of the
substance, and then he seemed to be confused about the classifica-
tion of pure substance and compound, a difficulty not expressed in
the lessons. At another moment, the teacher asked him about the
statement that a molecule has the properties of the substance, for
Fig. 4 Emergence of the conceptual profile zones in the three lessons and the questionnaire for Jose.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
example, that a water molecule would have a boiling point in
100 1C. Jose argued, ‘‘This is wrong because the molecule has no
boiling point, the substance does’’, reinforcing his response in the
questionnaire.
Following the interview, the teacher showed some state-
ments and asked Jose to comment on them. In Table 8, we
show the statements and comments from Jose.
In Table 8, Jose confirmed previous ideas related to the
scientific view of substance, nevertheless the conflicting ideas on
pure substance and compounds persisted (see items 2 and 4). In
item 2, he disagreed with the statement taking into account that
compounds (constituted by more than one chemical element)
can also present constant melting and boiling points, not only
pure substance. He claimed that the pure substance has only one
chemical element (item 4), a definition given for a simple
substance. In this case, it seemed that understanding of sub-
stance in the atomic–molecular dimension is not aligned with
the macroscopic comprehension, as purity is related to the
separation of substances from mixtures or materials. In lessons
2 and 3, we realize Jose’s difficulties in describing the extraction
of substances from natural sources. Another interesting point is
when Jose did not relate smell to a property of substance present
in perfumes but to a reaction that our body presents to the
substance (item 5). In lesson 2, he had listed smell as one of
the substance properties, and it reinforces that Jose understands
the atomic–molecular model to explain the relations among
atoms, chemical elements, substance and mixture, however he
has difficulties in understanding the macroscopic aspects of this
concept.
In summary, we consider that Jose marked mainly the
scientific ideas in the classroom discussion, but it does not
mean that he did not defend other modes of thinking of
substances, since they emerged sometimes. We suppose that
Jose has a predominant commitment to scientific views in the
school context. In this sense, we claim the importance in
bringing discursive contexts associated with different modes
of thinking of scientific concepts to the classroom discussions;
the teachers could contribute to reach a wider and more
meaningful learning, by allowing the students to confront the
scientific and the other modes of thinking. In Jose’s case, some
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 | 1025
 View Article Online

Chemistry Education Research and Practice Paper

Table 8 Jose’s comments on the statements shown by the teacher

1. Substance can be understood as a compound made up of a single element or by more than one element.
Jose 1: Yes, a substance is made up of molecules, which are formed of one or more chemical elements. Therefore, when analyzing a substance, it is noticed
that it is fundamentally constituted by one or more chemical elements.
2. Pure substance has all the properties distributed equally. A way of verifying whether the substance is pure or not is by freezing or heating it. If the
melting and boiling points remain constant, the substance is pure.
Jose 2: No, because this also occurs in compounds. The variation (of properties) is observed only for mixtures.
3. Substance is everything around us. Almost everything we see in the world is a chemical substance.
Jose 3: No, most of what is around us are mixtures.
4. The pure substance is that which is found in nature and when it undergoes a chemical process, it becomes impure.
Jose 4: No, pure substance is that made up of molecules of only one chemical element.
5. The smell of a perfume is due to a substance present in the material
Jose 5: No, for the ‘‘smell’’ itself is not a substance, but a reaction of our bodies to a substance present in the perfume (mixture).

difficulties to understand diverse aspects on the concept of conceptual profile zones as a tool to science teaching and learning
substance emerged as specific situations were presented in by structuring different modes of thinking indicating epistemo-
classroom discussion and we realize it more clearly in the logical, ontological and axiological commitments for them.
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.

interview. The discussion about different modes of thinking
seemed to be useful in helping him to make connection
between scientific knowledge and real situations.
Laura and Jose showed different processes of conceptualization
and learning pathways. On the one hand, Laura presented
difficulties to understand substance in an atomic–molecular
dimension, and she sought for articulation between macroscopic
and atomic–molecular dimensions. On the other hand, Jose
presented stabilized meanings related to the atomic–molecular
dimension for the concept of substance, but he seemed to have
difficulties in articulating this view with macroscopic aspects
and applications of the substances.
Finally, we point out that each student must present a
particular process of conceptualization with different learning
demands. This is an important point to consider when teachers
and researchers make proposals for science teaching. In addition,
it is relevant to the evaluation of science learning, when advances
in the understanding for scientific concepts occur without neces-
sarily overcoming informal conceptions or neglecting meanings
stabilized in sociocultural contexts. In this sense, an evolution of
the conceptual thinking could be evaluated taking into account
the expansion of the repertoire of ideas expressed by students, in
which ideas accepted in a scientific view for a specific concept
could be confronted to different ways of understanding this
concept that reach sense or meaning in other contexts.
Final comments
In this paper, we analyze the process of conceptualization
experienced by students when involved in activities in a TLS on
the concept of substance, considering the emergence of zones of
the conceptual profile. The results showed that the approaches on
different modes of thinking of substance enabled the teacher to
discuss and confront ideas, leading students to construct or share
meanings stabilized in a scientific view. The conceptual profile was
an important tool to design activities by creating discursive contexts
involving different modes of thinking about substance, which
contributed to raising specific discussions involving historical,
scientific and social settings to understand senses and meanings
for substances. Thus, we mark the relevance of the use of
The students’ process of conceptualization was dynamic and
continuous, and dependent on the individual characteristics of
students, their experiences and participation in the proposed activ-
ities in a TLS. The students’ participation in discursive interactions is
crucial to the articulation of senses and stabilized meanings for
scientific concepts. Therefore, it is quite important that teachers start
discussions in the classroom, and they act as mediators in this
process, in order to make the students aware of the heterogeneity of
ideas existing in the learning of scientific concepts. It is important to
highlight that students expressed different modes of thinking in
different moments in the TLS, and some of these ideas persist
during the process of understanding the scientific view for the
concept of substance. It appeared relevant to address these ideas
in the classroom discussion, because many times they come from
the experiences lived by students and have value in real life for them,
assuming an important role in the meaning-making process for
scientific concepts.
From the results in this work, we could point out some
issues. It seemed desirable that in science teaching and learning we
take into account discussions on scientific and nonscientific ideas
in the classroom, in order to promote a meaningful understanding
on scientific concepts and models, which could be articulated to
other forms of seeing and conceptualizing the world. In this sense,
science learning could be aligned with sociocultural contexts
contributing to inserting scientific knowledge in real situations
experienced by individuals.
The process of conceptualization is characterized as a
dynamic process in which different modes of thinking come
and go in a collective and individual search to share stabilized
meanings. It points to the importance of planning and design-
ing teaching and learning sequences seeking for promoting
discussions on diversity of ideas/situations in the classroom,
mainly allowing students to express their conceptions and
experiences. The evaluation of the learning does not seem to
follow a linear or progressive movement of conceptual change,
but a more complex and dynamic process in which continuously
new ideas are constructed in articulation with the previous ones.
Finally, the conceptual profile theory provides a consistent
basis to plan the TLS, to analyze the process of conceptualiza-
tion and to guide the teacher in leading discussion in the
classroom.

1026 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018

Paper
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.
Acknowledgements
To CNPq (Support for Research Project (478519/2011-7))/CAPES
(Postgraduate Scholarship) for financial support to this
research.
Notes and references
Abraham M. R., Williamson V. M. and Westbrook S. L., (1994),
A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry
concepts, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 31(2), 147–165.
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
Amaral E. M. R. and Mortimer E. F., (2007), Uma metodologia
para estudar a dinâmica entre as zonas de um perfil con-
ceitual no discurso da sala de aula [A methodology to study
the dynamics among conceptual profile zones in the class-
room discourse]. A pesquisa em ensino de ciências no Brasil e
suas metodologias, Ijuı́: UNIJUÍ, pp. 239–296.
André M., (2001), Pesquisa em educação: Bucando rigor e
qualidade, Cadernos de pesquisa, 113, 51–64.
Araújo D. X., Silva R. R. and Tunes E., (1995), O conceito de
substância quı́mica apreendido por alunos do ensino
médio, Quim. Nova, 1(18), 80–90.
Bachelard G., (1938/1996), A formação do espı́rito cientı́fico, Rio
de Janeiro: Contraponto Editora.
Bachelard G., (1940), A filosofia do não [The philosophy of no],
Coleção Os pensadores, São Paulo: Editora Abril Cultural.
Bachelard G., (1949/1977), O racionalismo aplicado [The applied
racionalism ], Rio de Janeiro: Zahar Editors.
Bakhtin M., (1981), The dialogic imagination, in Holquist M.
(ed.), Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin M., (1986), Speech genre and other essays, Austin: W.
McGee.
Bogdan R. and Biklen S. K., (2007), Qualitative research for
education, Needham Heights (Massachusetts): Allyn and
Bacon.
Chi M. T. H., (1992), Conceptual change within and across
ontological categories: examples from learning and discovery
in science, in Giere R. (ed.), Cognitive models of science:
Minnesota Studies in the philosophy of Science, Minnesota:
University of Minnesota Press.
Close H. and Scherr R., (2015), Enacting conceptual metaphor
through blending: Learning activities embodying the sub-
stance metaphor for energy, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 839–866.
De Vos W. and Verdonk A., (1987), A new road to reactions: the
substance and its molecules, J. Chem. Educ., 64, 692–69.
Dickinson D., (1987), The development of a concept of material
kind, Sci. Educ., 71(4), 615–628.
El-Hani C. N., Silva Filho W. J. and Mortimer E. F., (2014), The
Epistemological Grounds of the Conceptual Profile Theory,
in Mortimer E. F. and El-Hani C. N., Conceptual Profi les: A
Theory of Teaching and Learning Scientific Concepts, New
York: Springer, pp. 35–66.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
View Article Online
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Fonseca M. R., (2007), Quimica – Meio Ambiente – Cidadania, São
Paulo, Brasil: FTD, vol. 1.
Gagliardi R., (1988), Cómo utilizar la historia de las ciencias en
la enseñanza de las ciencias, Enseñanza de las ciencias:
revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas, 291–296.
Hashweh M., (1996), Effects of science teachers’ epistemological
beliefs in teaching, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 47–63.
Johnson P., (1996), What is a substance? Educ. Chem., 33,
41–42.
Johnson P., (2000), Children’s understanding of substances, part
1: recognizing chemical change, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 719–737.
Johnson P., (2002), Children’s understanding of substances, part
2: explaining chemical change, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 1037–1054.
Méheut M., (2005), Teaching–learning sequences tools for
learning and/or research, in Boersma K., Goedhart M., de
Jong O. and Ejkelhof H. (ed.), Research and the quality of
science education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 195–208.
Mortimer E. F., (1995), Conceptual change or conceptual profile
change? Sci. Educ., 4, 265–287, DOI: 10.1007/BF00486624.
Mortimer E. F., (1996), Construtivismo, mudança conceitual e o
ensino de ciências: Para onde vamos? [Constructivism, con-
ceptual change and teaching of science: Where do we go?],
Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 1, 20–39.
Mortimer E. F., (1997), Beyond chemical boundaries: a con-
ceptual profile for molecule and molecular structure, Quim.
Nova, 20(2), 200–207.
Mortimer E. F. and El-Hani C. N., (2014), Conceptual Profiles: A
Theory of Teaching and Learning, New York: Springer Science
& Business Media.
Mortimer E. F. and Wertsch J. V., (2003), The architecture and
dynamics of intersubjectivity in science classrooms, Mind,
Culture, and Activity, vol. 10, pp. 230–244.
Mortimer E. F., Scott P. and El-Hani C. N., (2011), Bases teóricas
e epistemológicas da abordagem dos perfis conceituais,
TED – Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis, 111–125.
Mortimer E. F., Scott P., Amaral E. M. and El-Hani C. N., (2014),
Conceptual Profiles: Theoretical-Methodological Bases of a
Research Program, in Mortimer E. F. and El-Hani C. N.,
Conceptual Profiles: A Theory of Teaching and Learning, New
York: Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 3–34.
Moura M. O., Araújo E. S., Moretti V. D., Panossian M. L. and
Ribeiro F., (2010), Atividade orientadora de ensino: unidade
entre ensino e aprendizagem, Revista Diálogo Educacional,
10(29), 205–229.
Ngai C., Sevian H. and Talanquer V., (2014), What is this
substance? What makes it different? Mapping progression
in students’ assumptions about chemical identity, Int. J. Sci.
Educ., 2438–2461.
Norman A., (1998), Seeing, semantics and social epistemic
practice, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci., 29, 501–513.
Oki M. d., (2002), O conceito de elemento da antiguidade à
modernidade, Quim. Nova Esc., 21–25.
Oliveira R. J., (1995), O mito da Substância, Quim. Nova Esc.,
8–11.
Padilla K., Ponce-de-Leo A. M., Rebado F. M. and Garritz A.,
(2008), Undergraduate professor’s pedagogical content
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028 | 1027

Chemistry Education Research and Practice
knowledge: the case of ‘amount of substance’, Int. J. Sci.
Educ., 30(10), 1389–1404.
Papagerogiou G. and Sakka D., (2000), Primary School Teachers’
Views on Fundamental Chemical Concepts, Chem. Educ. Res.
Pract., 237–247.
Posner G. J., Strike K. A., Hewson P. W. and Gertzog W. A.,
(1982), Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a
theory of conceptual change, Sci. Educ., 211–227.
Putnam H., (1995), Pragmatism: an open question, Oxford and
Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Sabino J. D. and Amaral E. M. R. d., (2018), Utilização do perfil
conceitual de substância no planejamento do ensino e na
análise do processo de aprendizagem, Investigação em Ensino
de Ciências, 23(1), 245–265.
Schutz A., (1967), The Phenomenology of the Social World,
Published on 07 May 2018. Downloaded on 4/21/2019 8:51:55 AM.
Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Silva J. R., (2011), Um perfil conceitual para o conceito de
substância, Dissertação de mestrado, Recife, Brasil: Universidade
Federal Rural de Pernambuco.
Silva, F. C. V., (2017a), Análise de diferentes modos de pensar e
formas de falar o conceito de ácido/base em uma experi-
ência socialmente situada vivenciada por licenciandos em
quı́mica, Tese de Doutorado, Recife: Universidade Federal
Rural de Pernambuco.
1028 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2018, 19, 1010--1028
View Article Online
Paper
Silva J. R., (2017b), Diversos modos de pensar o conceito de
substância quı́mica na história da ciência e sua visão
relacional, Ciência & Educação, 707–722.
Silva J. R. and Amaral E. M., (2010), Uma análise sobre
concepções de alunos e professores de quı́mica relativas
ao conceito de substância, Anais do XV Encontro Nacional de
Ensino de Quı́mica (XV ENEQ), Brası́lia-DF.
Silva J. R. and Amaral E. M., (2013), Proposta para um Perfil
Conceitual de substância, Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em
Educação em Ciências, 53–72.
Silva N. S. and Aguiar O., (2011), O uso dos conceitos de
elemento e substância por estudantes do ensino fundamental:
uma perspectiva de análise sociocultural, Revista Brasileira de
Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências.
Stains M. and Talanquer V., (2007), Classification of chemical
substances using particulate representations of matter: an
analysis of student thinking, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 29(5), 643–661.
Tulviste P., (1991), The cultural-historical development of verbal
thinking, Commak: Nova Science Publishers.
Vogelezang M. J., (1987), Development of the concept ‘chemical
substance’: some thoughts and arguments, Int. J. Sci. Educ.,
9(5), 519–528.
Vygotsky L. S., (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher
mental process, Cambridge: Havard Universit Press.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018