Remediation of chemistry teachers’ misconceptions about covalent bonding using cognitive conflict interviews: A case study Scientific paper

Article Sidebar

Graphical Abstract
PDF (2,247 kB) Supplementary Material (2.20 MB)
Published: Nov 18, 2022
Updated: 18.11.2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/JSC220117073S
Keywords:
chemistry teacher conceptual changes contradicts phenomena

Main Article Content

Syahrial Syahrial
Chemistry Education Program, Postgraduate Program, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5545-9383
Mashfufatul Ilmah
Chemistry Education Program, Postgraduate Program, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2354-4943
Yahmin Yahmin
Department of Chemistry, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6763-5578
Munzil Munzil
Department of Chemistry, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7017-3175
Muntholib Muntholib
Department of Chemistry, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3335-5380

Abstract

Research has shown that most chemistry teachers have miscon­cept­ions about covalent bonding. This study investigates whether the cognitive con­flict inter­view technique could persuade teachers to revise their possible mis­con­cep­tions of covalent bonding. Eight chemistry teachers from different schools partici­pated in this study. Two validated instruments, cognitive conflict technique inter­view guidelines and the open-ended covalent bonding test, were employed for the data collection. The results showed that the cognitive conflict interviews could facilitate respondents to overcome their misconceptions about covalent bonding. Five of the eight respondents experienced a conceptual change from miscon­ceptions to scientific conceptions, and three others experi­enced a partial conceptual change. Six concepts which previously caused mis­conceptions were eliminated and turned into a scientific concept instead. Of the 46 cases of misconceptions, 41 cases turned into scientific conceptions. The result of this study serves as an initial perspective for exploring the effect­iveness of cognitive conflict interviews more broadly.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Article Details

How to Cite
[1]
S. Syahrial, M. Ilmah, Y. Yahmin, M. Munzil, and M. Muntholib, “Remediation of chemistry teachers’ misconceptions about covalent bonding using cognitive conflict interviews: A case study: Scientific paper”, J. Serb. Chem. Soc., vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 211–221, Nov. 2022.
Issue
Vol. 88 No. 2 (2023)
Section
History of & Education in Chemistry
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons лиценца
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Read more....

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

H. S. Dhindsa, D. F. Treagust, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 15 (2014) 435 (https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00059E)

H. Özmen, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13 (2004) 147 (https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000031255.92943.6d)

C. J. Luxford, S. L. Bretz, J. Chem. Educ. 91 (2014) 312 (https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400700q)

M. Vrabec, M. Prokša, J. Chem. Educ. 93 (2016) 1364 (https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00953)

M. M. Cooper, N. Grove, S. M. Underwood, M. W. Klymkowsky, J. Chem. Educ. 87 (2010) 869 (https://doi.org/10.1021/ed900004y)

E. Erman, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54 (2017) 520 (https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21375)

M. Kousathana, M. Demerouti, G. Tsaparlis, Sci. Educ. 14 (2005) 173 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-5719-9)

E. J. Marsh, E. D. Eliseev, Correcting student errors and misconceptions, The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education, Cambridge, 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.018)

W. C. Galley, J. Chem. Educ. 81 (2004) 523 (https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p523)

D. Cheung, H. Ma, J. Yang, Int J. Sci. Math. Educ. 7 (2009) 1111 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9151-5)

M. Muntholib, M. Ilmah, Y. Yahmin, J-PEK 5 (2020) 108 (https://doi.org/10.17977/um026v5i22020p108)

A. Bergqvist, S. N. Chang Rundgren, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 35 (2017) 215 (https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1295934)

H. Kang, L. C. Scharmann, S. Kang, T. Noh, IJESE 5 (2010) 383

R. B. Bucat, in Chemistry Education: Best Practices, Opportunities and Trends, J. García-Martínez, E. Serrano-Torregrosa, Eds., Wiley, NewYork, 2015 (https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527679300.ch18)

K. S. Taber, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 14 (2013) 156 (https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00012e)

E. Akpınar, D. Erol, B. Aydoğdu, Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci. 1 (2009) 2402 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.039)

Soeharto, B. Csapó, E. Sarimanah, F. I. Dewi, T. Sabri, J. Pendidik. IPA Indones. 8 (2019) 247 (https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v8i2.18649)

D. K. Gurel, A. Eryilmaz, L. C. McDermott, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Tech. Ed. 11 (2015) 989 (https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a)

K. J. Linenberger, S. L. Bretz, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13 (2012) 172 (https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90064A)

E. A. R. Adhabi, C. B. L. Anozie, Int. J. Educ. 9 (2017) 86 (https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v9i3.11483)

U. T. Jankvist, M. Niss, Educ. Sci. 8 (2018) 53 (https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020053)

R. Zazkis, E. J. Chernoff, Cognitive Conflict and Its Resolution Via Pivotal/Bridging Example, PME-NA Org. 2, 2006

J. W. Creswell, J. D. Creswell, Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, 2018 (ISBN 9781506386706)

E. Gudyanga, T. Madambi, Int. J. Sec. Educ. 2 (2014) 11 (https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20140201.13)

D. F. Polit, C. T. Beck, Res. Nurs. Health 29 (2006) 489 (https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147)

M. M. Cooper, S. Sandi-Urena, J. Chem. Educ. 86 (2009) 240 (https://doi.org/10.1021/ed086p240)

J. Lee, C. Lim, H. Kim, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 65 (2017) 427 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9502-1)

M. R. Lynn, Nurs. Res. 35 (1986) 382 (https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017)

M. S. B. Yusoff, Educ. Med. J. 11 (2019) 49 (https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6)

L. L. Davis, Appl. Nurs. Res. 5 (1992) 194 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4)

J. R. Landis, G. G. Koch, Biometrics 33 (1977) 159 (https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310)

D. A. Regier, W. E. Narrow, D. E. Clarke, H. C. Kraemer, S. J. Kuramoto, E. A. Kuhl, D. J. Kupfer, Am. J. Psychiatry 170 (2013) 59 (https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999)

M. R. Abraham, E. B. Grzybowski, J. W. Renner, E. A. Marek, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 29 (1992) 105 (https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290203)

J. W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Pearson, Boston, MA, 2012 (ISBN: 9780131367395)

P. Kowalski, A. K. Taylor, Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 3 (2017) 90 (https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000082)

Effendy, Ilmu Kimia untuk Siswa SMA dan MA Kelas X, Indonesian Academic Publishing, Malang, 2016 (ISBN: 978-602-74830-2-6) (in Indonesian)

B. Jacka, J Educ Res. 78 (1985) 224 (https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1985.10885606)

A. B. P. Lever, J. Chem. Educ. 49 (1972) 819 (https://doi.org/10.1021/ed049p819)

A. K. Prodjosantoso, A. M. Hertina, Irwanto, Int. J. Instr. 12 (2019) 1477 (https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.1219)

G. Nicoll, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23 (2001) 707 (https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010025012).