Diagnosing teacher candidates’ reasoning on solution concentration: a theoretical analysis of definitional and procedural difficulties

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Nejla Gültepe and Ali Rıza Erdem
{"title":"Diagnosing teacher candidates’ reasoning on solution concentration: a theoretical analysis of definitional and procedural difficulties","authors":"Nejla Gültepe and Ali Rıza Erdem","doi":"10.1039/D5RP00422E","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >This study examines teacher candidates’ reasoning about solution concentration units (mass percent, molarity, and molality), with a focus on difficulties seen in definitional tasks and item-based applications. A 12-item diagnostic test informed by Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), Dual Process Theory (DPT), Conceptual Change Theory (CCT), and Representational Competence Theory (RCT) was administered to 152 teacher candidates. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposefully selected teacher candidates to clarify the reasoning routes underlying their response choices. Quantitative findings showed an overall accuracy of 70.29%, but performance was notably low on some items (<em>e.g.</em>, Item 5: 32.30%), particularly when tasks required coordinating unit meaning with the correct referent and managing conversions and proportional reasoning. Error coding revealed recurring response patterns across five categories: definitional confusion (DC), unit mistake (UM), ratio-reasoning mistake (RR), superficial decision (SD), and computational mistake (CM). Interview evidence suggested that, within the formats of this instrument, some teacher candidates relied on cue-based responding and limited checking rather than explicitly grounding choices in the intended referent meaning (<em>e.g.</em>, solution volume <em>vs.</em> solvent mass). Interpreted through CLT, DPT, CCT, and RCT, the findings suggest that effective instruction may require more than definitional recall and routine calculation. It may also benefit from supports that explicitly connect formula, unit, and problem context and encourage checking during problem solving. The study aims to contribute to chemistry education research by offering a theory-informed interpretation of recurring error patterns in concentration tasks based on integrated test and interview evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":69,"journal":{"name":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","volume":" 3","pages":" 1073-1088"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2026/rp/d5rp00422e?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2026/rp/d5rp00422e","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines teacher candidates’ reasoning about solution concentration units (mass percent, molarity, and molality), with a focus on difficulties seen in definitional tasks and item-based applications. A 12-item diagnostic test informed by Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), Dual Process Theory (DPT), Conceptual Change Theory (CCT), and Representational Competence Theory (RCT) was administered to 152 teacher candidates. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposefully selected teacher candidates to clarify the reasoning routes underlying their response choices. Quantitative findings showed an overall accuracy of 70.29%, but performance was notably low on some items (e.g., Item 5: 32.30%), particularly when tasks required coordinating unit meaning with the correct referent and managing conversions and proportional reasoning. Error coding revealed recurring response patterns across five categories: definitional confusion (DC), unit mistake (UM), ratio-reasoning mistake (RR), superficial decision (SD), and computational mistake (CM). Interview evidence suggested that, within the formats of this instrument, some teacher candidates relied on cue-based responding and limited checking rather than explicitly grounding choices in the intended referent meaning (e.g., solution volume vs. solvent mass). Interpreted through CLT, DPT, CCT, and RCT, the findings suggest that effective instruction may require more than definitional recall and routine calculation. It may also benefit from supports that explicitly connect formula, unit, and problem context and encourage checking during problem solving. The study aims to contribute to chemistry education research by offering a theory-informed interpretation of recurring error patterns in concentration tasks based on integrated test and interview evidence.

诊断教师候选人对溶液浓度的推理:对定义和程序困难的理论分析
本研究考察了教师候选人对溶液浓度单位(质量百分比、摩尔浓度和摩尔浓度)的推理,重点是在定义任务和基于项目的应用中看到的困难。采用认知负荷理论(CLT)、双过程理论(DPT)、概念变化理论(CCT)和表征能力理论(RCT)对152名教师候选人进行了12项诊断测试。此外,我们对有目的地选择的教师候选人进行了半结构化访谈,以澄清他们的回答选择背后的推理途径。定量结果显示,总体准确率为70.29%,但在某些项目上的表现明显较低(例如,项目5:32.30%),特别是当任务需要协调单位意义与正确的指称,管理转换和比例推理时。错误编码揭示了五个类别中反复出现的响应模式:定义混淆(DC)、单位错误(UM)、比率推理错误(RR)、肤浅决策(SD)和计算错误(CM)。访谈证据表明,在该工具的格式中,一些教师候选人依赖于基于线索的回答和有限的检查,而不是明确地根据预期的参考意义进行基础选择(例如,溶液体积与溶剂质量)。通过CLT、DPT、CCT和RCT解释,研究结果表明有效的教学可能需要更多的定义回忆和常规计算。它还可以从明确地连接公式、单元和问题上下文的支持中获益,并鼓励在解决问题期间进行检查。本研究旨在通过基于综合测试和访谈证据对集中任务中反复出现的错误模式提供理论依据的解释,为化学教育研究做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
26.70%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal for teachers, researchers and other practitioners in chemistry education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书