Advertisement

Insights and Teacher Perceptions Regarding Students’ Conceptions as They Enter Tertiary Chemistry Studies: a Comparative Study

  • Gwendolyn A. Lawrie
  • Madeleine Schultz
  • Anthony H. Wright
Article

Abstract

The successful transition from high school to tertiary chemistry studies relies on a student’s ability to transfer prior understanding since many topics are extended during first year general chemistry. It was therefore of interest to investigate the perspectives of high school and tertiary teachers regarding which topics and concepts they perceived to be the most important and their views of student preparation. This study was paralleled by the refinement of a diagnostic concept instrument to explore chemistry preconceptions held by leaving high school students and incoming first year students across two institutions. This instrument has been shown to be valid, reliable, and consistent and has provided formative feedback to faculty and students in regard to alternate conceptions over several years. A mismatch was found between the perceptions of high school teachers regarding their students’ preparation and commencing students’ achievement on the instrument. The most important topic to high school teachers was how electron configuration relates to structure whereas for tertiary teaching faculty, it was the conservation of matter. The position and response of equilibrium to change was of lowest importance to both groups. Student misconceptions, attributable to different learning impediments, are considered and a series of recommendations is proposed to support chemistry teachers who practice each side of the secondary-tertiary transition.

Keywords

Chemistry concepts Diagnostic instrument Concept transfer Alternate conceptions Secondary-tertiary transition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The support of the first year chemistry coordinators: Mary Garson, Shih-Chun Lo, Ross McGeary, and Craig Williams (The University of Queensland) and John McMurtrie, Wayde Martens, and Eric Waclawik (Queensland University of Technology) in the delivery of the diagnostic instruments to their students across multiple years is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank the Queensland high school teachers and students for their participation. Chantal Bailey and William Macaskill assisted in data collection and statistical analysis. This work was supported financially through a UQ New Staff Startup Grant.

Supplementary material

10763_2017_9853_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.6 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 3713 kb)

References

  1. Adadan, E., & Savasci, F. (2012). An analysis of 16–17-year-old students’ understanding of solution chemistry concepts using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 513–544.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.636084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1289–1312.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.512369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arjoon, J. A., Xu, X., & Lewis, J. E. (2013). Understanding the state of the art for measurement in chemistry education research: Examining the psychometric evidence. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 536–545.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3002013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 487–494.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbera, J. (2013). A psychometric analysis of the Chemical Concepts Inventory. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 546–553.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3004353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartlett II, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19, 43–50.Google Scholar
  7. Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium: What written test answers do not reveal. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 1000–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed067p1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodner, G. M. (1991). I have found you an argument: The conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. Journal of Chemical Education, 68, 385–388.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed068p385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandriet, A. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2014). The development of the Redox Concept Inventory as a measure of students’ symbolic and particulate redox understandings and confidence. Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 1132–1144.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500051n.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001061.Google Scholar
  11. Bretz, S. L. (2014). Designing assessment tools to measure students’ conceptual knowledge of chemistry. In D. M. Bunce & R. S. Cole (Eds.), Tools of chemistry education research (pp. 155–168). Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
  12. Bridle, C. A., & Yezierski, E. J. (2012). Evidence for the effectiveness of inquiry-based, particulate-level instruction on conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 192–198.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100735u.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brinkworth, R., McCann, B., Matthews, C., & Nordström, K. (2009). First year expectations and experiences: Student and teacher perspectives. Higher Education, 58, 157–173.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9188-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8, 293–307.  https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90006F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, M. M. (2015). Why ask why? Journal of Chemical Education, 92, 1273–1279.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970–977.  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Berg, K. (2012). A study of first-year chemistry students’ understanding of solution concentration at the tertiary level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 8–16.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c1rp90056k.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drechsler, M., & van Driel, J. H. (2008). Experienced teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of teaching acid–base chemistry. Research in Science Education, 38, 611–631.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9066-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40, 117–128.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans, M. (2000). Planning for the transition to tertiary study: A literature review. Journal of Institutional Research, 9(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  21. Frey, B. B., Petersen, S., Edwards, L. M., Pedrotti, J. T., & Peyton, V. (2005). Item-writing rules: Collective wisdom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 357–364.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research, 42, 119–139.  https://doi.org/10.1080/001318800363773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 817–837.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.493185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61–98.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gliem, J. S. & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert-type scales. Paper presented at the 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  26. Hadenfeldt, J. C., Bernholt, S., Liu, X., Neumann, K., & Parchmann, I. (2013). Using ordered multiple-choice items to assess students’ understanding of the structure and composition of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 1602–1608.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3006192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hand, B. M., & Treagust, D. F. (1988). Application of a conceptual conflict teaching strategy to enhance student learning of acids and bases. Research in Science Education, 18, 53–63.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heredia, K., Xu, X., & Lewis, J. E. (2012). The application and evaluation of a two-concept diagnostic instrument with students entering college general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 30–38.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C0RP90017F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holme, T., & Murphy, K. (2012). The ACS exams institute undergraduate chemistry anchoring concepts content map 1: General chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 721–723.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300050q.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, P. (1998). Children’s understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, part 1: Boiling water and the particle theory. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 567–583.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010). Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE—a case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v1i1.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.rsc.org/images/Misconceptions_update_tcm18-188603.pdf.
  35. Kind, V. (2014). A degree is not enough: A quantitative study of aspects of pre-service science teachers’ chemistry content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 1313–1345.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.860497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kirbulut, Z. D., & Beeth, M. E. (2013). Consistency of students’ ideas across evaporation, condensation, and boiling. Research in Science Education, 43, 209–232.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9264-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krause, S., Birk, J., Bauer, R., Jenkins, B., & Pavelich, M. J. (2004). Development, Testing and Application of a Chemistry Concept Inventory. Paper presented at the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Savannah, Georgia, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Krause, S., Kelly, J., Corkins, J., & Tasooji, A. (2009). The Role of Prior Knowledge on the Origin and Repair of Misconceptions in an Introductory Class on Materials Science and Engineering. Paper presented at the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Palm Cove, QLD Australia.Google Scholar
  39. Kruse, R. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2005). A comparison study: assessing teachers’ conceptions with the Chemistry Concepts Inventory. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 1246–1250.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lawrie, G., Wright, A., Schultz, M., Dargaville, T., O’Brien, G., Bedford, S., ... Thompson, C. (2013). Using formative feedback to identify and support first year chemistry students with missing or misconceptions. A practice report. International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 4, 111–116.  https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v4i2.179.
  41. Lawrie, G. A., Schultz, M., Bailey, C. H., Mamun, A. A., Micallef, A. S., Williams, M., & Wright, A. H. (2016). Development of scaffolded online modules to support self-regulated learning in chemistry concepts. In M. Schultz, T. A. Holme, & S. Schmid (Eds.), Technology and assessment strategies for improving student learning in chemistry (pp. 1–21). Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
  42. Libarkin, J. (2008). Concept Inventories in Higher Education Science. Paper presented at the National Research Council Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education Workshop 2, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  43. Linacre J. M. (2010). Winsteps (Version 3.67.0 Software), Beaverton, OR.Google Scholar
  44. Lovatt, J., & Finlayson, O. (2013). Investigating the transition into third level science—identifying a student profile. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 62–72.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp20107k.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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, 312–320.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400700q.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maher, J. M., Markey, J. C., & Ebert-May, D. (2013). The other half of the story: Effect size analysis in quantitative research. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12, 345–351.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-04-0082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marbach-Ad, G., McAdams, K. C., Benson, S., Briken, V., Cathcart, L., Chase, M., . . . Smith, A. C. (2010). A model for using a concept inventory as a tool for students’ assessment and faculty professional development. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 408–416.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-05-0069.
  48. McClary, L. M., & Bretz, S. L. (2012). Development and assessment of a diagnostic tool to identify organic chemistry students’ alternative conceptions related to acid strength. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2317–2341.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.684433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18, 5–11.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018002005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mulford, D. R., & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 739–744.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Naah, B. M., & Sanger, M. J. (2013). Investigating students’ understanding of the dissolving process. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 103–112.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9379-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Neumann, I., Neumann, K., & Nehm, R. (2011). Evaluating instrument quality in science education: Rasch-based analyses of a Nature of Science test. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1373–1405.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.511297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Novak, J. D. (1984). Application of advances in learning theory and philosophy of science to the improvement of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 61, 607–612.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed061p607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86, 548–571.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Osborne, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 825–838.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Othman, J., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2008). An investigation into the relationship between students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter and their understanding of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1531–1550.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701459897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pavelich, M. J., Jenkins, B., Birk, J., Bauer, R., & Krause, S. (2004). Development of a Chemistry Concept Inventory for Use in Chemistry, Materials and other Engineering Courses. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.Google Scholar
  59. Pentecost, T. C., & Barbera, J. (2013). Measuring learning gains in chemical education: A comparison of two methods. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 839–845.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400018v.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pentecost, T. C., & Langdon, L. S. (2008). Development of a Covalent Bonding and Molecular Structure Learning Progression and Concept Inventory for First Semester General Chemistry. Paper presented at the 20th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, Bloomington, Indiana. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/sei/documents/EOY/ChemistryConceptSurveyPoster.pdf.
  61. Peterson, R. F., Treagust, D. F., & Garnett, P. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade 11 and 12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 301–314.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Potgieter, M., & Davidowitz, B. (2011). Preparedness for tertiary chemistry: Multiple applications of the Chemistry Competence Test for diagnostic and prediction purposes. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 193–204.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90024B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Prince, M., Vigeant, M., & Nottis, K. (2012). Development of the Heat and Energy Concept Inventory: Preliminary results on the prevalence and persistence of engineering students’ misconceptions. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 412–438.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00056.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Regan, Á., Childs, P., & Hayes, S. (2011). The use of an intervention programme to improve undergraduate students’ chemical knowledge and address their misconceptions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12, 219–227.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90027G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ross, B., & Munby, H. (1991). Concept mapping and misconceptions: A study of high-school students’ understandings of acids and bases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 11–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schmidt, H.-J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions—looking for a pattern. Science Education, 81, 123–135.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2<123::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-H.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schmidt, H.-J., Kaufmann, B., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Students’ understanding of boiling points and intermolecular forces. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 265–272.  https://doi.org/10.1039/B920829C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schroeder, J., Murphy, K., & Holme, T. (2012). Investigating factors that influence item performance on ACS exams. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 346–350.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed101175f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schultz, M., Lawrie, G. A., Bailey, C. H., Bedford, S. B., Dargaville, T. R., O’Brien, G., ... Wright, A. H. (2017a). Evaluation of diagnostic tools that tertiary teachers can apply to explore their students’ conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 39, 565–586.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1296980.
  71. Schultz, M., & O’Brien, G. (201b7). The Australian Chemistry Discipline Network - A supportive community of practice in a hard science. In J. McDonald & A. Cater-Steel (Eds.), Implementing communities of practice in higher education - Dreamers and schemers (pp. 501–530). Singapore: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
  72. Schwartz, P., & Barbera, J. (2014). Evaluating the content and response process validity of data from the chemical concepts inventory. Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 630–640.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400716p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sheppard, K. (2006). High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acid-base phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 32–45.  https://doi.org/10.1039/B5RP90014J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107–120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/S11336-008-9101-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, D. C: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  76. Smith, A. C., & Marbach-Ad, G. (2010). Learning outcomes with linked assessments—an essential part of our regular teaching practice. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 11, 123–129.  https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v11i2.217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stains, M., Escriu-Sune, M., de Santizo, M. L. M. A., & Sevian, H. (2011). Assessing secondary and college students’ implicit assumptions about the particulate nature of matter: Development and validation of the structure and motion of matter survey. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 1359–1365.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed1002509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Taber, K. S. (2001). The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learner’s conceptions: A typology of learning impediments. Educational Studies, 27, 159–171.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690120050392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Taber, K. S. (2005). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89, 94–116.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 156–168.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00012e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Taber, K. S., & Tan, L. C. D. (2011). The insidious nature of ‘hard core’ alternative conceptions: Implications for the constructivist research programme of patterns in high school students’ and pre-service teachers’ thinking about ionisation energy. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 259–297.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003709880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tasker, R. (2014). Visualising the molecular world for a deep understanding of chemistry. Teaching Science, 60, 16–27.Google Scholar
  83. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55.  https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 951–970.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9203-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Torenbeek, M., Jansen, E., & Hofmann, A. (2011). The relationship between first-year achievement and the pedagogical-didactical fit between secondary school and university. Educational Studies, 37, 557–568.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.539780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159–169.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Treagust, D. F., Chandrasegaran, A. L., Zain, A. N. M., Ong, E. T., Karpudewan, M., & Halim, L. (2011). Evaluation of an intervention instructional program to facilitate understanding of basic particle concepts among students enrolled in several levels of study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12, 251–261.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90030G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tyson, L., Treagust, D. F., & Bucat, R. B. (1999). The complexity of teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 554–558.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Undersander, M. A., Lund, T. J., Langdon, L. S., & Stains, M. (2016). Probing the question order effect while developing a chemistry concept inventory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00228a.
  90. van Driel, J. H., de Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Teacher Education, 86, 572–590.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10010.Google Scholar
  91. Voska, K. W., & Heikkinen, H. W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 160–176.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<160::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wren, D., & Barbera, J. (2013). Gathering evidence for validity during the design, development, and qualitative evaluation of thermochemistry concept inventory items. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 1590–1601.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400384g.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Yezierski, E. J., & Birk, J. P. (2006). Misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter: Using animations to close the gender gap. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 954–960.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Chemistry & Molecular BiosciencesThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Science and Engineering FacultyQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.School of EducationThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations