Identification of Misconceptions through Multiple Choice Tasks at Municipal Chemistry Competition Test

Dušica D Milenković, Tamara N Hrin, Mirjana D Segedinac, Saša Horvat

Abstract


In this paper, the level of conceptual understanding of chemical contents among seventh grade students who participated in the municipal Chemistry competition in Novi Sad, Serbia, in 2013 have been examined. Tests for the municipal chemistry competition were used as a measuring instrument, wherein only multiple choice tasks were considered and analyzed. Determination of the level of conceptual understanding of the tested chemical contents was based on the calculation of the frequency of choosing the correct answers. Thereby, identification of areas of satisfactory conceptual understanding, areas of roughly adequate performance, areas of inadequate performance, and areas of quite inadequate performance have been conducted. On the other hand, the analysis of misconceptions was based on the analysis of distractors. The results showed that satisfactory level of conceptual understanding and roughly adequate performance characterize majority of contents, which was expected since only the best students who took part in the contest were surveyed. However, this analysis identified a large number of misunderstandings, as well. In most of the cases, these misconceptions were related to the inability to distinguish elements, compounds, homogeneous and heterogeneous mixtures. Besides, it is shown that students are not familiar with crystal structure of the diamond, and with metric prefixes. The obtained results indicate insufficient visualization of the submicroscopic level in school textbooks, the imprecise use of chemical language by teachers and imprecise use of language in chemistry textbooks.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Allen, M. (2010). Misconceptions in primary science. London: Open university press.

Barke, H. D., Hazari, A., & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Misconceptions in Chemistry: Addressing Perceptions in Chemical Education. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Barker, V. (2000). Beyond Appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.

Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(12), 1000–1003.

Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: a theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878.

Boo, H. K. (1998). Students’ understandings of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 3–12.

Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2009). Emphasizing multiple levels of representation to enhance students’ understandings of the changes occurring during chemical reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1433–1436.

Chittleborough, G. D. (2004). The role of teaching models and chemical representations in developing students’ mental models of chemical phenomena (Doctoral disertation). Retrieved from Curtin University. (PID: 15381).

Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ pre-conceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257.

Costu, B., Ünal, S., & Ayas, A. (2007). A hands-on activity to promote conceptual change about mixtures and chemical compounds. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(1), 35–46.

Dhindsa, H., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Conceptual understanding of Bruneian tertiary students: Chemical bonding and structure. Brunai International Journal of Science and Mathematical Education, 1(1), 33–51.

Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement (5th edition), 220–240. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.

Gabel D. (1998). The Complexity of Chemistry and Implications for Teaching. In: B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education, 233–248. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gabel, D. L., (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554.

Gilbert, J. K. (1977). The study of student misunderstandings in the physical sciences. Research in Science Education, 7(1), 165–171.

Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In: J. K. Gilbert, D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education, 1–8. Berlin: Springer.

Institute for the Advancement of Education (2012). Retrieved from: http://www.zuov.gov.rs/no-visajt2012/dokumenta/CRPU/Osnovne_skole_PDF/Drugi_ciklus_osnovnog_obrazovanja_i_v aspitanja/4_Nastavni_program_za_sedmi_razred_osnovnog_obrazovanja_i_vaspitanja.pdf (29.1.2015.).

Integrated Physics and Chemistry Modeling Workshop, (2001). Retrieved from: https://bscw.alp.dillingen.de/pub/bscw.cgi/d6067875/chemistrymisconceptions_arizona.pdf (4.3.2015.)

Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of computer assisted learning, 7(2), 75–83.

Luxford, C. J., & Bretz, S. L. (2014). Development of the Bonding Representations Inventory to Identify Student Misconceptions about Covalent and Ionic Bonding Representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(3), 312–320.

Murphy K. R., & Davidshofer C. O. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles and applications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Nelson, P.G. (2002). Teaching chemistry progressively: From substances, to atoms and molecules, to electrons and nuclei. Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 215– 228 and references therein.

Ozmen, H. (2008). Determination of students’ alternative conceptions about chemical equilibrium: a review of research and the case of Turkey. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 225–233.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.

Sheehan, M., & Childs, P. (2013). A survey of the chemistry misconceptions held by Irish preservice science teachers and the development of strategies and materials to promote understanding. Ebook proceedings of the ESERA 2013 conference, 664–672.

Stojanovska, M., Petruševski, V. M., & Šoptrajanov, B. (2014). Study of the use of the three levels of thinking and representation. Contributions, 35(1), 37–46.

Trumper, R. (1997). Applying conceptual conflict strategies in learning of the energy concept. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15(1), 5–18.

Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic and molecular structure in chemical education: A critical analysis from various perspectives of science education. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(8), 922–925.

Van Berkel, B., Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. M. W. (2009). Micro-macro thinking in chemical education: Why and how to escape. In: J. K. Gilbert, & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education, 31–54. Berlin: Springer.

Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4), 381– 419.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.55468

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 Journal of Subject Didactics

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Free counters