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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Taber, K. S. (1999). Ideas about ionisation energy: A diagnostic instrument. School Science Review, 81(295), 97–104.
Taber, K. S. (2000). Chemistry lessons for universities?: A review of constructivist ideas. University Chemistry Education, 4(2), 63–72.
Taber, K. S. (2003). Understanding ionisation energy: Physical, chemical and alternative conceptions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 4(2), 149–169.
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.
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.
Taber, K. S. (2014). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and development of learners’ ideas. New York: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tan, K. C. D., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Evaluating students’ understanding of chemical bonding. School Science Review, 81(294), 75–83.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tan, K.C.D., Taber, K.S., Liew, Y.Q., Teo, K.L.A. (2019). Deciphering Students’ Thinking on Ionisation Energy: Utilising a Web-Based Diagnostic Instrument. In: Schultz, M., Schmid, S., Lawrie, G. (eds) Research and Practice in Chemistry Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6998-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6998-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6997-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6998-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)