DEPARTMENT OF MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

FACULTY OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY MALAYA

MISCONCEPTIONS OF PRE-SERVICE CHEMISTRY TEACHERS

ON CHEMICAL REACTION

Hilman Qudratuddarsi (POC170001)

Supervisors:
Dr. Renuka V Sathasivam
Dr. Hutkemri
 2

01
 3

when hydrochloric acid and grey iron
powder are combined, the observable
macro Submicro Symbol phenomenon is the occurrence of vigorous
effervescence, the disappearance of iron,
and light green solution (macroscopic)
the scientific reason is the forming
of iron(II) chloride and the
presence of Fe2+ from its salts
(sub-microscopic)
it can be presented by using
chemical reaction: HCl(aq) + Fe(s) 
FeCl2(aq) + H2(g) (symbolic
representation)

MISCONCEPTIONS

All topics in chemistry

1) meddles learning process 2) It engages strongly (emotion including chemical reaction,
or intellectual) and possesses epistemological and ontolo
gical support (Vosniadou,2012) Not only high school
Masson et al (2014) and Shtulman & Valcarcel (2012) students, but also pre and
in-service teachers
 4

One of the instrument is

Representational
2TMC 3TMC 4TMC Systems and Chemical
Trends of assessment in diagnostics test Reactions Diagnostic
60 Instrument (RSCRDI)

50

40

30

20
Complicated
10 Ordered multiple choice question (OMC)
(Briggs et al 2006)
0
Distractor rationale taxonomy (Lin et al,
2010)
Misconception-driven distractor multiple
choice question (Wind and Gale 2015)

1994 1980-2014 2015-2019 Simple

 5

To determine if there is a significant difference of misconception number between first,

second and third year of selected pre-service chemistry teachers’ on chemical reactions.

To reveal selected pre-service chemistry teachers’ misconception on a chemical reaction

by analysing distractor of phenomenon and reasoning tier.
 6

Is there any significant difference of misconception number between first, second and t
hird year of selected pre-service chemistry teachers’ on chemical reactions.

Which misconceptions of selected pre-service chemistry teachers’ misconception on a c

hemical reaction by analysing distractor of phenomenon and reasoning tier.
 7

02
 8

Component of Form of Level of conceptual

instrument instrument (IV) understanding (DV)
 9

The base theory for the study

to identify misconception

Different, focus on
comparison

Help to decide
 10

03
 11
Research Design, Population and Sample

Research design
Sample
This study is a quantitative
study with survey design. Stratified random sampling

It is influenced by the nature of

the study and research gap
Number of sample
Result of G powerG* where data analysis is one way ANOVA, effect size
0.40 and alpha value 0.05 (minimum 102)

Population
Characteristics Population Number
Pre-service chemistry teachers
in West Nusa Tenggara in 1st, 1st year 130 84 (40.19%)
2nd , 3rd year.
2nd year 103 67 (32.06%)
3rd year 90 58 (27.75%)
Total 323 209 (100%)
 12

Reliability and Separation

Value
Cronbach's Alpha .65
01 Person Reliability
Item Reliability
.60
.76
Two-tier multiple choice (2TMC)
It is taken from Chandrasegaran et al. (2007) Person separation 1.23
because it emphasize on multiple representation Item Separation 1.80
and the opportunity to analyse distractors
Construct Validation
Infit Outfit
02 Item MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD Pt Mea Corr
Translation of the instrument 1 0.8 -1.3 0.88 -0.6 0.38*
Using back translation and Chemists. It was firstly 2 1.19 1.5 1.21 1.5 0.35*
translated by the author, reviewed by Chemists 3 0.95 -0.3 0.89 -0.6 0.58
and translated back by chemists too
4 0.76 -2 0.77 -1.8 0.38*
5 0.93 -0.5 0.91 -0.6 0.55
6 0.75 -2.1* 0.76 -1.8 0.43
7 1.17 1.3 1.16 1.2 0.48
8 1.08 0.7 1.07 0.5 0.32*
 13
Data analysis

Comparison of Data transformation from ordinal into interval

misconception number Comparison using one way ANOVA

Comparison of ability in phenomenon and reasoning tier using ANOVA

Distractor analysis
Coding and figure out item option characteristics curve (IOCC)

Phenomenon tier Reasoning tier

CORRECT CORRECT
Phenomenon tier
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Reasoning tier Phenomenon tier
INCORRECT INCORRECT
Reasoning tier
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER

Alternative answer Alternative answer

 14

04
 15

MI-1 MI-2 MI-1 ANOVA result

Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between 18.843 2 9.421 11.269 .000
Groups
Within 152.166 182 .836
Groups
Total 171.009 184

MI-1 Post Hoc Analysis

1st year 2nd year 3rd year

 16

MI-2 ANOVA result

Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between 21.516 2 10.758 15.954 .000
Groups
Within 122.730 182 .674
Groups
Total 144.246 184

MI-2 Post Hoc Analysis

1st year 2nd year 3rd year

17
 18

(1) Combustion of metals

(2) Chemical reactions between dilute acids and reactive metals
(3) Neutralization reactions between strong acids and strong alkalis
(4) Neutralization reactions between dilute acids and metal oxides
(5) Chemical reactions between dilute acids and metal carbonates
(6) Ionic precipitation reactions, and
(7) Metal-ion displacement reactions.
 19

Unexpected curve Inconsistency of strongest distractor