Advertisement

Deciphering Students’ Thinking on Ionisation Energy: Utilising a Web-Based Diagnostic Instrument

  • Kim Chwee Daniel TanEmail author
  • Keith S. Taber
  • Yong Qiang Liew
  • Kay Liang Alan Teo
Chapter

Abstract

Chemistry is a difficult subject to learn, in part because explanations for chemical phenomena are abstract, involving the interactions of invisible particles. Thus, students may construct ideas and explanations of chemical phenomena that are inconsistent with those accepted by the scientific community; these ideas may be resistant to change as they are based on the ways students perceive how and why things behave. It is important to identify students’ alternative conceptions so that measures can be taken to help students construct more scientifically acceptable concepts. Studies have been conducted to determine students’ alternative conceptions over a wide range of topics in chemistry, including ionisation energy. In a previous study, a pen-and-paper two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument on ionisation energy was developed for use in the classroom. This chapter describes the further development and use of a web-based version of the instrument to determine students’ thinking in the topic. Such web-based instruments are easily made available on the internet, readily administered to students and the results can be automatically collated, saving the time and effort of researchers as well as teachers. This is one way in which the use of educational research by teachers can be facilitated, impacting practice in the classroom.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the teachers, students and school leaders involved in facilitating this study, enabling the research to be successfully completed.

References

  1. Abimbola, I. O. (1988). The problem of terminology in the study of student conceptions in science. Science Education, 72(2), 175–184.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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(4), 513–544.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.636084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Brandriet, A. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2014). Measuring meta-ignorance through the lens of confidence: Examining students’ redox misconceptions about oxidation numbers, charge, and electron transfer. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 729–746.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00129J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010a). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939–961.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902890130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caleon, I. S., & Subramaniam, R. (2010b). Do students know what they know and what they don’t know? Using a four-tier diagnostic test to assess the nature of students’ alternative conceptions. Research in Science Education, 40(3), 313–337.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9122-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Claxton, G. (1993). Minitheories: A preliminary model for learning science. In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas (Eds.), Children’s informal ideas in science (pp. 45–61). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105–225.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267808559857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37–60.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267808559857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105–122.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268608559933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 46–69). Chicago, IL: The National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  15. Erman, E. (2017). Factors contributing to students’ misconceptions in learning covalent bonds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 520–537.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fetherstonhaugh, T., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Students’ understanding of light and its properties: Teaching to engender conceptual change. Science Education, 76(6), 653–672.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabel, D. L. (1989). Let us go back to nature study. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(9), 727–729.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ed066p727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Griffard, P. B., & Wandersee, J. H. (2001). The two-tier instrument on photosynthesis: What does it diagnose? International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1039–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110038549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hasan, S., Bagayoko, D., & Kelley, E. L. (1999). Misconceptions and the Certainty of Response Index (CRI). Physics Education, 34(5), 294–299.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/34/5/304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hewson, P. J. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 383–396.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528810304004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry—Logical or psychological? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9–15.  https://doi.org/10.1039/A9RP90001B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin, J.-W. (2016). Development and evaluation of the diagnostic power for a computer-based two-tier assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 497–511.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9609-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loh, A. S. L., Subramaniam, R., & Tan, K. C. D. (2014). Exploring students’ understanding of electrochemical cells using an enhanced two-tier diagnostic instrument. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(2), 229–250.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2014.916669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Osborne, R. J., Bell, B. F., & Gilbert, J. K. (1983). Science teaching and children’s views of the world. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528830050101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palmer, D. H. (1999). Exploring the link between students’ scientific and nonscientific conceptions. Science Education, 83(6), 639–653.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199911)83:6%3c639:AID-SCE1%3e3.0.CO;2-O.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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(4), 301–314.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2000). Interpreting experimental data: The views of upper secondary school and university science students. International Journal of Science Education, 22(10), 1069–1084.  https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900429448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Solomon, J. (1993). The social construction of children’s scientific knowledge. In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas (Eds.), Children’s informal ideas in science (pp. 85–101). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Sreenivasulu, B., & Subramaniam, R. (2013). University students’ understanding of chemical thermodynamics. International Journal of Science Education, 35(4), 601–635.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.683460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taber, K. S. (1999). Ideas about ionisation energy: A diagnostic instrument. School Science Review, 81(295), 97–104.Google Scholar
  32. Taber, K. S. (2000). Chemistry lessons for universities?: A review of constructivist ideas. University Chemistry Education, 4(2), 63–72.Google Scholar
  33. Taber, K. S. (2003). Understanding ionisation energy: Physical, chemical and alternative conceptions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taber, K. S. (2006). Beyond constructivism: The progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42(1), 125–184.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260608560222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taber, K. S. (2013). Modelling learners and learning in science education: Developing representations of concepts, conceptual structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and research. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taber, K. S. (2014). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and development of learners’ ideas. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taber, K. S., & Tan, K. C. D. (2007). Exploring learners’ conceptual resources: Singapore A level students’ explanations in the topic of ionisation energy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 375–392.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9044-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic instrument to assess high school students’ understanding of inorganic chemistry qualitative analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 283–301.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tan, K. C. D., Taber, K. S., Goh, N. K., & Chia, L. S. (2005). The ionisation energy diagnostic instrument: A two tier multiple-choice instrument to determine high school students’ understanding of ionisation energy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(4), 180–197.  https://doi.org/10.1039/B5RP90009C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tan, K. C. D., Taber, K. S., Liew, Y. Q., & Teo, K. L. A. (in press). The web-based ionisation energy diagnostic instrument: Exploiting the affordances of technology. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00215K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tan, K. C. D., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Evaluating students’ understanding of chemical bonding. School Science Review, 81(294), 75–83.Google Scholar
  42. Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 327–346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Overview: Research on students’ preinstructional conceptions—The driving force for improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 1–14). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  44. 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(2), 160–176.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2%3c160:AID-TEA5%3e3.0.CO;2-M.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yan, Y. K., & Subramaniam, R. (2018). Using a multi-tier diagnostic test to explore the nature of students’ alternative conceptions on reaction kinetics. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 213–226.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00143F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ye, L., & Lewis, S. E. (2014). Looking for links: Examining student responses in creative exercises for evidence of linking chemistry concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 576–586.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00086B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim Chwee Daniel Tan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Keith S. Taber
    • 2
  • Yong Qiang Liew
    • 3
  • Kay Liang Alan Teo
    • 4
  1. 1.National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Millennia InstituteSingaporeSingapore
  4. 4.Hwa Chong InstitutionSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations