The Model of Educational Reconstruction: Students’ Conceptual Knowledge on Solid State Chemistry Domain

E. Nursa'adah, L. Liliasari, A. Mudzakir, H. D. Barke

Abstract

Solid state chemistry (SSC) concept is abstract yet makes it difficult for students. Considering students’ and scientist conception in designing a learning sequence, it is important to make scientific knowledge to be comprehensible for students. Model of Educational Reconstruction (MER) was adopted to define learning in order to develop students’ Conceptual Knowledge (CK) of the SSC concept. A sequence of learning activities was designed based on the MER.  The purpose of this study was to examine the use of MER in developing students’ CK. One group pre- and post-test experimental design employed in this study. CK on SSC structured essay test consisting of 26 items were developed to measure students’ CK before and after their involvement in learning. Paired sample t-tests were employed and the results showed significant differences in the overall domain-knowledge (p < .001).  In detail, students’ CK categorized into complete (C), incomplete (IC), misconception (M), incorrect (I), and no answer (NA). After the intervention, the number of students that answered correctly increased (57,4% complete and 21% incomplete). This study showed that MER was an effective learning design to develop students’ conceptual knowledge of chemistry concepts.

Keywords

Conceptual Knowledge; Model of Educational Reconstruction; Solid State Chemistry

Full Text:

PDF

References

Adadan, E. (2014). Investigating the Influence of Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Understanding of the Particle Nature of Matter on Their Conceptual Understanding of Solution Chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 219-238.

Adesoji, F. A., & Omilani, N. A. (2012). A Comparison of Secondary School Students’ Level of Conception of Qualitative and Quantitative Inorganic Analysis. American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 3(2), 56-61.

Barke, H. D., Hazari, A., & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Students’ Misconceptions and How to Overcome Them. In Misconceptions in Chemistry (pp. 21-36). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Battle, G. M., Allen, F. H., & Ferrence, G. M. (2010). Teaching Three-Dimensional Structural Chemistry Using Crystal Structure Databases. 1. An Interactive Web-Accessible Teaching Subset of the Cambridge Structural Database.

Journal of Chemical Education, 87(8), 809-812.

Bennett, J. W., & Rabe, K. M. (2012). Integration of First-Principles Methods and Crystallographic Database Searches for New Ferroelectrics: Strategies and Explorations. Journal of Solid State Chemistry, 195, 21-31.

Bergqvist, A., & Chang Rundgren, S.-N. (2017). The Influence of Textbooks on Teachers’ Knowledge of Chemical Bonding Representations Relative to Students’ Difficulties Understanding. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(2), 215-237.

Bergqvist, A., Drechsler, M., & Chang Rundgren, S.-N. (2016). Upper Secondary Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Chemical Bonding Models. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 298-318.

Bergqvist, A., Drechsler, M., De Jong, O., & Rundgren, S.-N. C. (2013). Representations of Chemical Bonding Models in School Textbooks–Help or Hindrance for Understanding? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 589-606.

Cheng, M. M., & Oon, P.-T. (2016). Understanding Metallic Bonding: Structure, Process and Interaction by Rasch Analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 1923-1944.

Croft, M., & de Berg, K. (2014). From Common Sense Concepts to Scientifically Conditioned Concepts of Chemical Bonding: An Historical and Textbook Approach Designed to Address Learning and Teaching Issues at The Secondary School Level. Science & Education, 23(9), 1733-1761.

Cushman, C. V., & Linford, M. R. (2015). Using the Plan View To Teach Basic Crystallography in General Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1415-1418.

Dhindsa, H. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2014). Prospective Pedagogy for Teaching Chemical Bonding for Smart and Sustainable Learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 435-446.

Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I. (2012). The Model of Educational Reconstruction–A Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning Science. In Science Education Research and Practice in Europe (pp. 13-37). SensePublishers, Rotterdam.

Eymur, G., & Geban, Ö. (2017). The Collaboration of Cooperative Learning and Conceptual Change: Enhancing the Students’ Understanding of Chemical Bonding Concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 853-871.

Ganasen, S., & Karpudewan, M. (2017). The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) in Promoting Pre-university Students’ Understanding of Chemical Bonding and Remediating Their Misconceptions Overcoming Students’ Misconceptions in Science (pp. 111-132): Springer.

Glynn, S.M., Brickman, P., Amstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with Science Major and Nonscience Majors. Journal of Research and Science Teaching, 48(10), 1159-1176.

Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the Impact of Student Use of Multiple Modal Representations in Constructing Argumentsin Organic Chemistry Laboratory Classes. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 29-44.

Housecroft, C,E & Sharpe, A.G (2012). Inorganic Chemistry (Fourth Edition). Pearson Pretice Hall. England.

Karacop, A., & Doymus, K. (2013). Effects of Jigsaw Cooperative Learning and Animation Techniques on Students’ Understanding of Chemical Bonding and Their Conceptionsof the Particulate Nature of Matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(2), 186-203.

Linenberger, K. J., & Bretz, S. L. (2012). Generating Cognitive Dissonance in Student Interviews through Multiple Representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 172-178.

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.

Madden, S. P., Jones, L. L., & Rahm, J. (2011). The Role of Multiple Representations in the Understanding of Ideal Gas Problems. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(3), 283-293.

Miessler, G.L., Fischer, P.J., & Tarr, D.A. (2014). Inorganic Chemistry (Fifth Edition). Pearson.

Niebert, K., & Gropengiesser, H. (2013). The Model of Educational Reconstruction: A Framework for the Design of Theory-Based Content Specific Interventions. The example of climate change. Educational Design Research. Netherlands: SLO.

Nimmermark, A., Öhrström, L., Mårtensson, J., & Davidowitz, B. (2016). Teaching of Chemical Bonding: A Study of Swedish and South African Student Conceptions of Bonding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 985-1005.

Pérez, J. B., Pérez, M. B., Calatayud, M., García-Lopera, R., & Sabater, J. (2017). Student’s Misconceptions on Chemical Bonding: A Comparative Study between High School and First Year University Students. Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning (ISSN: 2321–2454), 5(01), 1-16.

Pinto, G. (2012). An Example of Body-Centered Cubic Crystal Structure: The Atomium in Brussels as an Educative Tool for Introductory Materials Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 921-924.

Ramnarain, U., & Joseph, A. (2012). Learning Difficulties Experienced by Grade 12 South African Students in the Chemical Representation of Phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(4), 462-470.

Reinfried, S., Aeschbacher, U., Kienzler, P. M., & Tempelmann, S. (2015). The Model of Educational Reconstruction–A Powerful Strategy to Teach for Conceptual Development in Physical Geography: The Case Of Water Springs. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(3), 237-257.

Sam, A. (2017). The Double-Pan Balance Approach: A Duplicate Key to Understand the Model of Educational Reconstruction in Tertiary Education. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences, 5(1), 58-65.

Sam, A., Niebert, K., Hanson, R., & Aryeetey, C. (2016). Fusing Scientists’ and Students’ Conceptual Correspondences to Improve Teaching of Metal Complex Isomerism in Higher Education-An Educational Reconstructive Process. International Journal of Academic and Reflection, 4(1), 54-64.

Sam, A., Niebert, K., Hanson, R., & Twumasi, A. K. (2015). The Model of Educational Reconstruction: Scientists’ and Students’conceptual Balances to Improve Teaching of Coordination Chemistry in Higher Education. International Journal of Academic and Reflection, 3(7), 67-77.

Sen, S., & Yilmaz, A. (2017). The Development of a Three-tier Chemical Bonding Concept Test. Journal of Turkish Science Education (TUSED), 14(1), 110-126.

Stojanovska, M., Petruševski, V. M., & Šoptrajanov, B. (2017). Study of the Use of the Three Levels Of Thinking and Representation. Contributions, Section of Natural, Mathematical and Biotechnical Sciences, 35(1), 37-46.

Wilson, F.R., Pan, W., & Schumsky, D. A (2012).

Recalculation of the Critical Values for Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(3), 197-210

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v7i2.14297

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share