Development of a two-tier diagnostic test to assess learners’ understanding of the particulate nature of gases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26534/kimika.v35i1.1-16Keywords:
alternative conceptions, particulate nature of gas, two-tier testAbstract
The particulate nature of matter is a basic concept in chemistry. It serves as the foundation for higher chemistry concepts that can be applied to gas behaviors and must be understood by the learners during instruction. The study aims to develop a valid and reliable tool to assess the understanding of grade eleven (11) learners on gas concepts as affected by temperature, pressure, and diffusion. Participants were STEM (n=96) and non-STEM (n=139), a total of two hundred and thirty-five (n=235) grade eleven (11) senior high school learners of an accredited private school. Classical Test Theory was used to analyze the initial form of sixteen (16) two-tier items. Difficulty and discrimination indexes were used in the item analysis, while the strength of association was determined using the Phi coefficient. Actions were made based on the combined results of those analyses, such as either selected, revisable, then selected, or deleted, resulting in ten (10) final forms with moderate reliability (r=.637). Learners' understanding of gas concepts was assessed, and alternative conceptions were revealed. The two-tier tools can help teachers analyze learners’ understanding of the gas concepts and challenge learners to achieve higher-order thinking skills.
References
Ali T. A case study of the common difficulties experienced by high school students in chemistry classroom in Gilgit-Baltistan (Pakistan). SAGE Open. 2012 May;1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012447299
Ayas A, Ozmen H, Calik M. Students’ conception of the particulate nature of matter at secondary and tertiary level. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2010 Feb; 8:165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9167-x
Aydeniz M, Pabuccu A, Cetin PC, Kaya E. Argumentation and students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2012 April; 10:1303–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9336-1
Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 3rd ed. New York:Routledge; 2015. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814698
Chandrasegaran AL, Treagust DF, Mocerino M. 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. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2007 June; 8(3):293–307. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2007/rp/b7rp90006f
Chiang W-W, Chiu M-H, Chung S-L, Liu C-K. Survey of high school students’ understanding of oxidation-reaction. J Baltic Sci Educ. 2014 March; 13(5):596-607. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9273/076429a710dae79d1adcf7b67e48ad7a0825.pdf
dela Pena Jr R, Musa L, Soco L, Sta. Maria MB, Politico V, Avelino D, Cruz VA, Martin E, Guno E, De Guzman M, Dimitui EA. Post-hoc analysis of the departmental final examinations for selected general education subjects for Arellano University, AY 2010-2011 [faculty research]. [Manila]:Arellano University; 2011. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316491151_POST-HOC_ANALYSIS_OF_THE_DEPARTMENTAL_FINAL_EXAMINATIONS_FOR_SELECTED_GEN_ED_SUBJECTS_FOR_ARELLANO_UNIVERSITY_AY_2010-11
Griffiths A K, Preston KR. Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. J Res Sci Teach. 1992 August; 29(6):611–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290609
Gronlund NE. How to make achievement tests and assessments. 5th ed. Allyn and Bacon; 1993.
Heer R. A model of learning objectives. Iowa State University; 2015. Available from: https://www.celt.iastate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RevisedBloomsHandout-1.pdf
Henriques L. Children’s misconceptions about weather: A review of the literature. School Sci Math. 2002 May; 102(5):202-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18143.x
Helmi, Rustaman NY, Tapilouw FS, Hidayat T. Misconception types analysis on mechanism of evolution. J Phys: Conf Ser. 2019; 1175:012169. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1175/1/012169
Jansoon N, Coll RK, Samsook E. Understanding mental models of dilution in Thai students. Int J Environ Sci Educ. 2009 April; 4(2):147–168. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ884390.pdf
Johnstone AH. The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. J Chem Educ. 1993 September; 70(9):701–705. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p701
Kumpha P, Suwannoi P, Treagust DF. Thai grade 10 students conceptual understanding of chemical bonding. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014 August; 143:657–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.458
Lee O, Eichinger DC, Anderson CW, Berkheimer GD, Blakeslee TD. Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. J Res Sci Teach. 1993 March; 30(3):249–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300304
Lin H, Cheng H, Lawrenz F. The assessment of students and teachers’ understanding of gas laws. J Chem Educ. 2000 February; 77(2):235–238. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p235
Lu S, Bi H. Development of a measurement instrument to assess students’ electrolyte conceptual understanding. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2016 September; 17:1030–1040. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00137h
Luxford C J, Brentz SL. Development of the bonding representations inventory to identify student misconceptions about covalent and ionic bonding representations. J Chem Educ. 2014 February; 91(3):312–320. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400700q
Magno C. Designing written assessment for student learning. Philippines: De La Salle Araneta University; 2010. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277405724_Designing_Written_Assessment_for_Student_Learning
Mehjabeen W, Alam S, Hassan U, Zafar T, Butt R, Konain S, Rizvi, M. Difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency in multiple choice questions. Ann Pak Inst Med Sci. 2018 January; 310-315. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323705126_Difficulty_Index_Discrimination_Index_and_Distractor_Efficiency_in_Multiple_Choice_Questions
Merritt J, Shwartz Y, Krajcik J. Middle school students’ development of the particle model of matter. National Association of Research in Science Teaching. 2007. http://www.umich.edu
Mutlu A, Sesen BA. Development of a two-tier diagnostic test to assess undergraduates’ understanding of some chemistry concepts. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2015 February; 174:629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.593
Niroj S, Srisawasdi N. A blended learning environment in Chemistry for promoting conceptual comprehension: A journey to target students’ misconceptions. In C. Liu, C, & et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 307–315). 2014. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280055130_A_Blended_Learning_Environment_in_Chemistry_for_Promoting_Conceptual_Comprehension_A_Journey_to_Target_Students'_Misconceptions
Odom AL, Barrow LH. High school Biology students’ knowledge and certainty about diffusion and osmosis concepts. School Sci Math. 2007 March; 107(3):94–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2007.tb17775.x
Oyehaug AB, Holt A. Students’ understanding of the nature of matter and chemical reactions – a longitudinal study of conceptual restructuring. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2013 February; 14:450–467. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00027c
Ozalp D, Kahveci A. Diagnostic assessment of student misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter from ontological perspective. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2015 May; 16:619–639. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00096c
Ozmen H, Ayas A, Costu B. Determination of the science student teachers’ understanding level and misunderstandings about the particle nature of matter. Educ Sci: Theory Pract. 2002 November; 2(2):506–529. https://www.academia.edu/194272/%C3%96zmen_H._Ayas_A._ve_Co%C5%9Ftu_B._Determination_of_the_Science_Student_Teachers_Understanding_Level_and_Misunderstandings_about_the_Particulate_Nature_of_the_Matter_Educational_Sciences_Theory_and_Practice_2_2_507-529_2002_
Ozmen H, Kenan O. Determination of the Turkish primary students’ views about the particulate nature of matter. Asia Pacific Forum Sci Learn Teach. 2007 June; 8(1):1–7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26516291_Determination_of_the_Turkish_primary_students’_views_about_the_particulate_nature_of_matter
Republic of the Philippines Department of Education. K to 12 Curriculum Guide SCIENCE. (2016). Available from: http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/page/2017/Science%20CG_with%20tagged%20sci%20equipment_revised.pdf
Salvucci S, Walter E, Conley V, Fink S, Saba M. Measurement error studies at the National Center for Education Statistics. US Department of Education. 1997 July. National Data Resource Center. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Measurement-Error-Studies-at-the-National-Center-Salvucci-Walter/59e91432e47e384c8f30a319ceef0c7cd6b72a1a
Sesli E, Kara Y. Development and application of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic test for high school students’ understanding of cell division and reproduction. J Biol Educ. 2012 May; 46(4):214-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2012.688849
She H-C. Facilitating changes in ninth grade students’ understanding of dissolution and diffusion through DSLM instruction. Res Sci Educ. 2004 December; 34(4):503–525. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ734233
Taber KS. Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2013 February; 14:156–168. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012E
Talanquer V. Macro, submicro, and symbolic: the many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. Int J Sci Educ. 2010 January; 33(2):179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435
Tatar E. Prospective primary school teachers’ misconceptions about states of matter. Educ Res Rev. 2011 February; 6(2):197–200. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tatar-Erdal/publication/268420412_Prospective_primary_school_teachers'_misconceptions_about_states_of_matter/links/55e6d65408ae3ad5dab2a6c4/Prospective-primary-school-teachers-misconceptions-about-states-of-matter.pdf
Tomazic I, Vidic T. Future science teachers’ understandings of diffusion and osmosis concepts. J Biol Educ. 2011 September; 46(2):66–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2011.617765
Tosuncouglu I. Importance of assessment in ELT. J Educ Training Studies. 2018 September; 6(9):163–167. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i9.3443
Treagust DF. Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. Int J Sci Educ. 1988 April; 10(2):159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204
Treagust DF. Diagnostic assessment in science as a means to improving teaching, learning and retention. UniServe Science Assessment Symposium Proceedings. 2014; 1–9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228369480
Treagust DF, Chandrasegaran AL, Crowley J, Yung BH, Cheong I, Othman J. Evaluating students’ understanding of kinetic particle theory concepts relating to the states of matter, changes of state and diffusion: A cross-national study. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2009 June ; 8:141–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9166-y
Treagust DF, Chandrasegaran AL, Halim L, Ong ET, Zain AM, Karpudewan M. Understanding of basic particle nature of matter concepts by secondary school students following an intervention programme. In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (Eds.), Concepts of matter in science education. Innovations in science education and technology Volume 19. Springer, Dordrecht. 2013. p 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5914-5_6
Treagust DF, Chandrasegaran AL, Zain AN, Ong ET, Karpuwedan M, Halim L. Evaluation of an intervention instructional program to facilitate understanding of basic particle concepts among students enrolled in several levels of study. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2011 February; 12:251–261. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90030G
Tsai C-C, Chou C. Diagnosing students’ alternative conceptions in science. J Comput Assisted Learn. 2002 June; 18:157–165. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00223.x
Verschaffel L, de Corte E, de Jong T, Elen J. (eds) Use of representations in reasoning and problem solving analysis and improvement. Routledge: London. 2010
Wah LK, Juen SC, Alagumalai S. Investigating students' understanding of the particulate nature of matter using interviewing and paper-and-pencil techniques. ERA Conference 1993. https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/15067/1/ERA-1993-LeeLKW.pdf
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
