UTILIZATION OF A FOUR-TIER DIAGNOSTIC TEST IN UNCOVERING MISCONCEPTIONS ON ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR CONCEPTS
Keywords:
atoms, molecules, misconceptions, four-tier diagnostic testAbstract
This study aims to analyze the misconceptions experienced by students using a four-tier diagnostic instrument. This study used a qualitative descriptive approach to map the different types of misconceptions on the concept of ions. The main instrument used is a four-tier diagnostic test, which consists of four tiers: the main question (first tier), the student's level of confidence in answering (second tier), the reason for choosing the answer in the first tier (third tier), and the confidence in the answer of the reason (fourth tier). The test questions are presented using multiple representations, including macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic. The results of validation by experts showed that the instrument was valid, with a reliability of 0.6. The study involved junior high school grade IX students who had learned the concepts of atoms, molecules, and ions. The research findings revealed some major misconceptions related to the concept of atoms such as the atomic nucleus is neutral, atoms are the constituent particles of matter that cannot be subdivided, each atom has a certain color, mass number shows the number of electrons, protons, and neutrons, isotopes are atoms with the same mass number, mass number shows the number of electrons, protons, and neutrons, the number of neutrons is equal to the number of electrons, isotopes are elements with different atomic numbers, atomic size depends on the number of electrons. While for the concept of molecules misconceptions that were successfully identified, molecules change shape with phase changes, the temperature of the substance affects the properties of molecules, atoms and molecules are synonymous terms, compounds consist of several types of molecules The results of this study provide deep insight into conceptual errors that need to be addressed to improve student understanding
References
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.
Bayrak, B.K. (2013). Using Two-Tier Test to Identify Primary Students" Conceptual Understanding and Alternative Conceptions in Acid Base. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 3 (2): 19-26
Bergey, B. W., Cromley, J. G., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Teaching High School Biology Students to Coordinate Texts and Diagrams: Relations With Transfer, Effort, and Spatial Skill. Education Research and Practice, 37(15), 2476-2502.
Carter, C. & Brikhouse, N. W. (1989). What makes chemistry difficult: Journal of Chemical Education, 66(3), 223-225.
Costu, B., Niaz, M. (2009). Presentation of Atomic Structure in Turkish General Chemistry Textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(3), 233-240.
Hilton, A., & Nichlos, K. (2014). Representational Classroom Practices that Contribute to Student's Conceptual and Representational Understanding of Chemical Bonding. International Journal of Sciences Education, 33(16), 2215-2246.
Irby, S., Phu, A., Borda, E., Haskell, T., Steeda, N., and Meyera, Z. (2016). Use Of A Card Sort Task To Assess Students' Ability To Coordinate Three Levels of Representation In Chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 337-352.
Kaltacki-Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., McDermott, L.C. (2017). Developmnet and Application of a Four-Tier Test to Assess Pre-service Physics Teacher's Misconceptions About Geometrical Optics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(2).
Lin, Y. I., Son, J., & Rudd II, J. A. (2016). Asymmetric Translation Between Multiple Representations In Chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 38(4), 688-689.
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
Ozmen, H. (2011). Turkish primary students' conceptions about the particulate nature of matter. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6(1), 99-121.
Samsudin A., Suhandi, A., Kaniawati, I., Rusdiana, D. (2017). PDEODE*E Learning Strategy & Design. Bandung: UPI Physics Department.
Samsudin, A., Suhandi, A., Rusdiana D., Kaniawati I. & Costu B. (2017). Promoting Conceptual Understanding on Magnet ic Field Concepts through Interactive Conceptual Instruction (ICI) with PDEODE*E Tasks. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN 2146-7242.
Savinainen, A., Makynen, A., Nieminen, P., Viiri, J. (2017). The Effect of Using a Visual Representation Tool in Teaching-Learning Sequence for Teaching Newton's Third Law Research Science Education, 47(1), 119-135.
Won, M., Yoon, H., Treagust, D. F. (2014). Student's Learning Strategies With Multiple Representation: Explanations of the Human Breathing Mechanism. Science Education, 98, 840-866.Sekarningrum, B., Sugandi, Y., & Yunita, D. (2021). Application of the "kangpisman corner" waste management model. Kumawula Journal of Community Service, 3(3), 548. https://doi.org/10.24198/kumawula.v3i3.29740
