Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade‐11 and ‐12 students' concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction

Abstract

This article initially outlines a procedure used to develop a written diagnostic instrument to identify grade-1 1 and -12 students' misconceptions and misunderstandings of the chemistry topic covalent bonding and structure. The content to be taught was carefully defined through a concept map and propositional statements. Following instruction, student understanding of the topic was identified from interviews, student-drawn concept maps, and free-response questions. These data were used to produce 15 two-tier multiple-choice items where the first tier examined content knowledge and the second examined understanding of that knowledge in six conceptual areas, namely, bond polarity, molecular shape, polarity of molecules, lattices, intermolecular forces, and the octet rule. The diagnostic instrument was administered to a total of 243 grade-11 and -12 chemistry students and has a Cronbach alpha reliability of 0.73. Item difficulties ranged from 0.13 to 0.60; discrimination values ranged from 0.32 to 0.65. Each item was analyzed to ascertain student understanding of and identify misconceptions related to the concepts and propositional statements underlying covalent bonding and structure.

Students' progression of understanding the matter concept from elementary to high school

“…This large body of knowledge revealed students' alternative conceptions on the following major aspects of the matter concept: conservation (BouJaoude, 1991;Stavy, 1990;Watson, Prieto, & Dillon, 1995), composition and structure (Benson, Wittrock, & Baur, 1993;Coll & Treagust, 2003;Doran, 1972;Griffiths & Preston, 1992;Krnel, Glazer, & Watson, 2003;Krnel, Watson, & Glazar , 1998;Novick & Nussbaum, 1978, 1981Nussbaum, 1985;Peterson, Treagust, & Garnett, 1989;Stavy, 1991;Taber, 2003), physical properties and change (Haidar & Abraham, 1991;Krnel, Watson, & Glazar, 1998;Lee et al, 1993;Osborne & Cosgrove, 1983;Shepherd & Renner, 1982), and chemical properties and change (Boo & Watson, 2001;BouJaoude, 1991;Hesse & Anderson, 1992;Johnson, 2000Johnson, , 2002Nieswandt, 2001;Solomonidou & Stavridou, 2000;Stavridou & Solomonidou, 1989Voelker, 1975;Watson, Prieto, & Dillon, 1995). This large body of knowledge covers grade levels from elementary to university and diverse cultural backgrounds.…”

Exploring Chemistry Student Teachers’ Diagnostic Competence—A Qualitative Cross-Level Study

“…In the literature, some diagnostic instruments are used to explore or determine students' misconceptions in chemistry or science teaching (e.g., [33,34]). Barke et al (2009) [8] and Taber (2002) [9] both give an overview of misconceptions and diagnostic instruments for them.…”

Untitled

“…Diagnostic instrument for ionic bonding that were administered to the participants for pre-and post-test contained two parts (Part A and Part B). The researcher used the Taber's diagnostic test for Part A and two-tier multiplechoice developed by Peterson & Treagust [12] and Tan & Treagust [13] for Part B. The items in twotier multiple-choice diagnostic instruments are specifically designed to identify students' misconceptions and misunderstandings in a limited content area.…”