利用在线三层诊断测试评估电离能概念

IF 0.2 Q4 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
N. Suprapto, Azmil Abidah
{"title":"利用在线三层诊断测试评估电离能概念","authors":"N. Suprapto, Azmil Abidah","doi":"10.52571/ptq.v17.n36.2020.212_periodico36_pgs_196_212.pdf","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe term describing the students’ notions of scientific concepts dissimilar from scientifically acceptable by the scientist is still debated. This study explores of how scientific concepts performed by high school students (HSSs), pre-service teachers (PSTs), and in-service teachers (ISTs) simultaneously to make clear between their conception vs. scientists’ conception, especially in the ionization energy concept. Therefore, it is crucial to raise the position of scientific conception and misconception. For diagnosing the misconceptions, some methods can be used: concept maps, interviews, multiple-choice tests (one-tier), multiple-tier tests (two-tier, three-tier, fourtiers), open-ended tests, and others. This study utilized multiple-tier tests with three-tier. Totally, 326 participants from Indonesia, including 118 HSSs, 165 PSTs, and 43 ISTs majoring in chemistry, were invited to complete an online -Ionization Energy Diagnostic-Modification (IEDI*M) test. The test consisted of 12 three-tier diagnostic items. The study indicated four substantial alternative conceptions were acknowledged: conservation of energy, half-filled sub-shells or stable fully-filled, octet rule framework, and relation-based reasoning. ISTs performed better than HSSs and PSTs on the understanding of ionization energy. The study has also specified the distribution of ionization energy conceptions of Group 1 and 2, and Period 2 and 3 on the periodic system. By utilizing the IEDI*M, the percentages of alternative concepts decreased from one-tier to two-tier and from two-tier to three-tier. This study gives some implications for the government, policy-makers, chemistry teachers, preservice teachers, and university faculty members.\n","PeriodicalId":45103,"journal":{"name":"Periodico Tche Quimica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"USING ONLINE THREE-TIER DIAGNOSTIC TEST TO ASSESS CONCEPTIONS OF IONIZATION ENERGY\",\"authors\":\"N. Suprapto, Azmil Abidah\",\"doi\":\"10.52571/ptq.v17.n36.2020.212_periodico36_pgs_196_212.pdf\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe term describing the students’ notions of scientific concepts dissimilar from scientifically acceptable by the scientist is still debated. This study explores of how scientific concepts performed by high school students (HSSs), pre-service teachers (PSTs), and in-service teachers (ISTs) simultaneously to make clear between their conception vs. scientists’ conception, especially in the ionization energy concept. Therefore, it is crucial to raise the position of scientific conception and misconception. For diagnosing the misconceptions, some methods can be used: concept maps, interviews, multiple-choice tests (one-tier), multiple-tier tests (two-tier, three-tier, fourtiers), open-ended tests, and others. This study utilized multiple-tier tests with three-tier. Totally, 326 participants from Indonesia, including 118 HSSs, 165 PSTs, and 43 ISTs majoring in chemistry, were invited to complete an online -Ionization Energy Diagnostic-Modification (IEDI*M) test. The test consisted of 12 three-tier diagnostic items. The study indicated four substantial alternative conceptions were acknowledged: conservation of energy, half-filled sub-shells or stable fully-filled, octet rule framework, and relation-based reasoning. ISTs performed better than HSSs and PSTs on the understanding of ionization energy. The study has also specified the distribution of ionization energy conceptions of Group 1 and 2, and Period 2 and 3 on the periodic system. By utilizing the IEDI*M, the percentages of alternative concepts decreased from one-tier to two-tier and from two-tier to three-tier. This study gives some implications for the government, policy-makers, chemistry teachers, preservice teachers, and university faculty members.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45103,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Periodico Tche Quimica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Periodico Tche Quimica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52571/ptq.v17.n36.2020.212_periodico36_pgs_196_212.pdf\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Periodico Tche Quimica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52571/ptq.v17.n36.2020.212_periodico36_pgs_196_212.pdf","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

描述学生对科学概念的概念与科学家在科学上可接受的概念不同的术语仍然存在争议。本研究探讨了高中生(HSS)、职前教师(PSTs)和在职教师(ISTs)如何同时执行科学概念,以明确他们的概念与科学家的概念,特别是在电离能概念方面。因此,提高科学观念和误区的地位至关重要。为了诊断误解,可以使用一些方法:概念图、访谈、多项选择测试(一级)、多层测试(两级、三级、四级)、开放式测试等。这项研究采用了三层的多层测试。共有326名来自印度尼西亚的参与者,包括118名HSS、165名PST和43名化学专业IST,被邀请完成在线电离能量诊断修改(IEDI*M)测试。该测试由12个三级诊断项目组成。研究表明,有四个实质性的替代概念得到了认可:能量守恒、半填充子壳或稳定完全填充、八隅体规则框架和基于关系的推理。在对电离能的理解上,IST比HSS和PSTs表现得更好。研究还明确了第1族和第2族以及第2周期和第3周期电离能概念在周期系统中的分布。通过使用IEDI*M,替代概念的百分比从一层下降到两层,从两层下降到三层。这项研究对政府、决策者、化学教师、职前教师和大学教职员工提供了一些启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
USING ONLINE THREE-TIER DIAGNOSTIC TEST TO ASSESS CONCEPTIONS OF IONIZATION ENERGY
The term describing the students’ notions of scientific concepts dissimilar from scientifically acceptable by the scientist is still debated. This study explores of how scientific concepts performed by high school students (HSSs), pre-service teachers (PSTs), and in-service teachers (ISTs) simultaneously to make clear between their conception vs. scientists’ conception, especially in the ionization energy concept. Therefore, it is crucial to raise the position of scientific conception and misconception. For diagnosing the misconceptions, some methods can be used: concept maps, interviews, multiple-choice tests (one-tier), multiple-tier tests (two-tier, three-tier, fourtiers), open-ended tests, and others. This study utilized multiple-tier tests with three-tier. Totally, 326 participants from Indonesia, including 118 HSSs, 165 PSTs, and 43 ISTs majoring in chemistry, were invited to complete an online -Ionization Energy Diagnostic-Modification (IEDI*M) test. The test consisted of 12 three-tier diagnostic items. The study indicated four substantial alternative conceptions were acknowledged: conservation of energy, half-filled sub-shells or stable fully-filled, octet rule framework, and relation-based reasoning. ISTs performed better than HSSs and PSTs on the understanding of ionization energy. The study has also specified the distribution of ionization energy conceptions of Group 1 and 2, and Period 2 and 3 on the periodic system. By utilizing the IEDI*M, the percentages of alternative concepts decreased from one-tier to two-tier and from two-tier to three-tier. This study gives some implications for the government, policy-makers, chemistry teachers, preservice teachers, and university faculty members.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Periodico Tche Quimica
Periodico Tche Quimica CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, short communications (scientific publications), book reviews, forum articles, announcements or letters as well as interviews. Researchers from all countries are invited to publish on its pages.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信