Description of Senior High School Students' Understanding Categories about Chemical Bonds Using Two-Tier Multiple Choice Diagnostic Instrument

Natia Afriana Suri, Minda Azhar

Abstract


Abstract - Chemical bonds are an abstract concept in chemistry which many students have difficulty understanding. Therefore, it will be great potential to form some student’s understanding category which is different from textbooks and said by the teacher. The research purpose was to describe the student’s understanding category about chemical bonds and to determine their misconceptions level. The research type was descriptive that used a diagnostic instrument (15 questions of two-tier multiple choices). The questionnaire was applied to 36 students from SMAN 1 Padang in West Sumatra. The results showed that some students had many misconceptions and some of them also do not understand the chemical bonds concept,  especially on Lewis structure, how ionic bonds were formed, how covalent bonds were formed, and how to type a molecular shaped. So, many of them are still misunderstanding in the learning process. This research result can be used by teachers to aware of student’s misunderstanding and to see the level of student’s misconceptions in learning so that the teachers can solve any understanding problem of students in the chemical bonds concept.

Keywords


diagnostic instrument, two-tier mutiple choices, chemical bonds, chemistry learning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arikunto, S. 2010. Prosedur Penelitian, Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta Algensido.

Aydeniz, M., Bilican, K. & Kirbulut, Z.D. (2017). Exploring pre-service elementary science teachers‟ conceptual understanding of particulate nature of matter through three-tier diagnostic test. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 5(3), 221-234. DOI:10.18404/ijemst.296036.

Brady, James E. 2009. Chemistry: Matter and Its Changes. 5th edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cittleborough, G. D. 2004. The Role Of Teaching Model And Chemical Representation Developing Students' Mental Models Of Chemical Phenomena. Australia: Curtin University of Technology.

Coll, R. K and Taylor, N. 2002. Mental Models in Chemistry: Senior Chemistry Students’ Mental Models of Chemical Bonding. Chemistry Education: Research And Practice In Europe. Vol. 3, no. 2, hlm. 175-184.

Coll, R.K. and Treagust, D.F. 2003. Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate and graduate learners´ mental models of ionic bonding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), pp. 464-486.

Csepni, S., O€zsevgec, T., & Cerrah, L. 2004. Turkish middle school students’ cognitive development levels in science. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning andTeaching, 5(1), article 1, p1–p24.

De Posada, I. M. 1999. The presentation ofmetallic bonding in high school science textbooks during three decades: science educational reforms and substantive changes of tendencies. Science Education, 83,423-447.

Erman, Erman. 2016. Factors Contributing to Students’ Misconceptions in Learning Covalent Bonds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. DOI 10.1002/tea.21375.

Fahmi and Irhasyuarna, Y. 2017. The Misconceptions of Senior High School Students in Banjarmasin on Chemical Bonding. Journal of Education and Practice, vol.8, No.17, pp. 32-39.

Frailich, Marcel. et al. Enhancing Students’ Understanding of the Concept ofChemical Bonding by Using Activities Provided on an Interactive Website. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 46, No. 3, PP. 289–310.

Hariyanto & Basuki. 2015. Assesmen Pembelajaran. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Herron, J. D. 1975. Piaget for chemist; explaining what good student cannot understand. Journal of Chemical Education, 52, 146–150.

Jespersen, N., et al. 2012. Cemistry, The Molecular Nature of Matter Sixth Edition. Unites States of America: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Nahum, T. L., et al. 2010. Teaching and Learning The Concept of Chemical Bonding. Studies in Science Education, 46:2, 179-207.

Nicoll, G. 2001. A report of undergraduates´ bonding misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), pp. 707-730.

[Nicoll, G. 2003. A qualitative investigation of undergraduate chemistry students' macroscopic interpretations of the submicroscopic structures of molecules. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(2), pp. 205-213.

Othman, J., et al. 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(11), pp. 1531-1550.

Pabuccu, A. and Geban, O. 2006. Remediating misconceptions concerning chemical bonding through conceptual change text. H.U. Journal of Education, 30, 184-192.

Pabuçcu, A. and Geban, Ö. 2012. Students’ Conceptual Level of Understanding on Chemical Bonding. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4 (3), hlm. 563-580.

Peterson, R.F and Treagust, D. 1989. Development and Application of a Diagnostic Instrumen to Evaluate Grade 11 and 12 Students Concepts of Covalent Bonding and Structure Following a Course of Instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 26, No. 4, Pp. 301-314.

Shayer, M., & Adey, P. S. 1993. Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school student IV: Three years after a two-year intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 351–366.

Sukardi. 2014. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Taber, K. S., et al. 2012. Student conceptions of ionic bonding: patterns of thinking across three European contexts, International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), pp. 2843–2873.

Tan, K.C.D. and Treagust, D.F. 1999. Evaluating Students´ Understanding of Chemical Bonding. School Science Review, 81 (294), pp. 75-83.

Treagust, D. F. 1988. Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science, International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), hlm. 159-169.

Treagust, D. F. 2006. Diagnostic Assessment in Science as a Means to Improving Teaching, Learning and Retention. Uniserve Science-Symposium Proceedings: Assessment in Science Teaching and Learning. Australia: Universe Science.

Trianto. 2011. Pengantar Penelitian Pendidikan Bagi Pengembangan Profesi Pendidikan dan Tenaga Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana

Tuysuz, C. 2009. Development of Two Tier Diagnostic Instrument and Assess Students’ Understanding in Chemistry. Scientific Research and Essay, 4(6), hlm. 626-631.

Uyulgan, M.A., et al. 2014. Assessing the students' understanding related to molecular geometry using a two-tier diagnostic test. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), pp. 839-855.

Wu, H., Kajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. 2001. Promoting understanding of chemical representation: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821–842.

Zafri. 1999. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Padang: UNP.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Natia Afriana Suri, Minda Azhar

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