Analysis of acid-base misconceptions using modified certainty of response index (CRI) and diagnostic interview for different student levels cognitive

Abstract

Abstract. The authors in this paper draw attention to the importance of an instrument that can analyze student's misconception.This study described the kind of the misconception in acid-base theory, and the percentage students' misconception occur in every subconcept of acid-base theory. The design of this study is a descriptive method, involved 148 of 11 th grade science students from Senior High School, which divided into two classes are high cognitive and low cognitive. Further analysis of using Modified Certainty of Response Index (CRI) as a diagnostic instrument is used to explore misconception which in that test included evaluating only content knowledge with considering the reason behind the students' choice of response and their certainty of response in every question. The result of data analysis has shown that misconception occurred in high cognitive class, gained 43,86% and misconception occurred in low cognitive class, gained 24,63%. Based on the diagnostic interview has shown that misconception occurred in students due to students does not understand the concept well and they related the one concept to the other concepts with partial understanding, the result students make the failed conclusions. The type of misconception occurred is a conceptual misunderstanding. According to the data analysis showed that Modified Certainty of Response Index (CRI) is effective used to analyze students' misconceptions and the diagnostic interview is effective used to know the reasons that caused students which having misconceptions.

A Review of Students’ Common Misconceptions in Science and Their Diagnostic Assessment Tools

“…To cope with the limitations of multiple-choice tests, a multiple-tiers test was developed in various recent studies. Energy and momentums (Dalaklioğlu & Sekercioğlu, 2015) Fluid static (Kusairi et al, 2017) Impulse and momentums (Soeharto, 2016;Samsudin et al, 2015) Temperature and heat (Madu & Orji, 2015;Asri et al, 2017) Sport physics (Kartiko, 2018) Energy and force (Nwafor et al, 2015) Newtons' Law (Ergin, 2016) Electric circuits (Sadler & Sonnert, 2016) Gases (Çetin et al, 2009) Physical concept (Wind & Gale,2015) Heat transfer (Wibowo et al, 2016) Thermal physics (Malik et al, 2019) Moon phase (Saenpuk & Ruangsuwan, 2019) Energy material (Wijayanti et al, 2018) Light (Wartono & Putirulan, 2018) Heat concept (Haryono, 2018) Solid matter and pressure liquid substances (Handhika et al, 2018) Sound (Eshach et al, 2018) Hydrostatic pressure and Archimedes law (Berek et al, 2016) Chemistry Municipal chemistry (Milenković et al, 2016b) Chemical bonding (Vrabec & Proksǎ, 2016;Enawaty & Sartika, 2015) Enzyme Interacts (Linenberger & Bretz, 2015) Chemical bonding and spontaneity (Ikenna, 2015) Electrochemistry (Önder, 2017) Acid-base (Sadhu et al, 2017;Sadhu, 2019) Acid-base and solubility equilibrium. (Masykuri & Rahardjo, 2018) Biology Photosynthesis (Orbanić et al, 2016) Evolution of biology (Putri et al, 2017;Helmi et al, 2019) Natural science (Subayani, 2016;Murti & Aminah, 2019) Global warming (Fajarini et al, 2018) Ecology…”

Dampak Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning (POGIL) terhadap Pengetahuan Metakognitif Siswa pada Topik Asam-Basa

“…Sejumlah kesulitan yang dialami siswa di antaranya kesulitan mengaitkan simbol H dan OH dengan sifat asam-basa; kurang memahami perbedaan asambasa lemah dan kuat; dan tidak mampu membedakan partikel ion dan senyawa dalam reaksi asam-basa (Damanhuri et al, 2016;Haudek et al, 2012). Miskonsepsi pada topik asam-basa diantaranya adalah tidak mempertimbangkan semua factor dalam menentukan kekuatan asam; titrasi asam-basa hanya melibatkan senyawa; dan pemahaman parsial pada teori-teori asam-basa (Sadhu et al, 2017;Tümay, 2016;Widarti et al, 2017).…”

Sensitivity of two-tier and three-tier tests in detecting student’s misconceptions of chemical bonding

“…Rubric Analysis of Two-Tier Multiple-Choice Test with CRI modification is a rubric proposed by Hasan et al (1999); Sadhu et al (2017) with modified CRI, with the provisiona as Table 3.…”

“…With this test, the teacher will know the extent to which lessons can be followed by students One of the test methods that can be used as a test instrument to determine student understanding is to use the certainty of response index (CRI) method. This method was introduced by Hasan et al (1999); Sadhu et al (2017), according to them distinguishing students who did not understand the concept and the Misconception was quite difficult, therefore they made a method to distinguish the conceptual understanding, Misconception and don't understand the concept. From the results of these studies, they prove that the CRI method is effective for distinguishing students' understanding of concepts where the understanding of the concept can be identified based on the level of student confidence.…”

“…In this case, students answer questions and fill in data for CRI. Each test question based on the combination of correct answers and wrong, and CRI high and low, by combining the CRI and the students' answers can be seen how the understanding of students in the learning process.Following are the CRI modified three-tier category developed by Hasan et al (1999); Sadhu et al (2017), with the provisions as in Tabel 1. The number 0 signifies not knowing the concept at all to answer a question (answers are guessed in total), while the number 5 indicates full confidence in the truth of the concept.…”