Qualitative Analysis of Conceptual Errors of Ionic Compounds and Covalent Compounds in Student Argumentation on Basic Chemistry Practicum Report
Abstract
Understanding the concept of ionic and covalent compounds is a fundamental foundation in basic chemistry education, as these concepts underpin the structure, properties of compounds, and their applications in daily life. Misconceptions about ionic and covalent bonding are common and negatively impact students' ability to analyze compound properties, critical thinking skills, and scientific argumentation. On the other hand, Generation Z demonstrates weaknesses in deeply reflecting on conceptual errors, as evident in basic chemistry lab reports. Lab reports can reveal both the depth of understanding and the patterns of conceptual errors experienced by students. This study aims to analyze students' conceptual errors related to ionic and covalent compounds in Basic Chemistry I lab reports. The research employs a case study method with a qualitative descriptive approach. The researcher acts as an instrument to assess students' conceptual errors by discussing their lab reports. The findings reveal three conceptual errors in the sub-topic of melting point comparison and five conceptual errors in the sub-topic of solubility.
Downloads
References
Burrows, N. L., & Mooring, S. R. (2015). Using concept mapping to uncover students’ knowledge structures of chemical bonding concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00180J
Coppo, P. (2017). Lithium Ion Battery Cathode Materials as a Case Study To Support the Teaching of Ionic Solids. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(8), 1174–1178. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00569
Dániel Gergő, P. (2016). Various challenges of science communication in teaching generation Z: an urgent need for paradigm shift and embracing digital learning. Opus et Educatio, 3(6). https://doi.org/10.3311/ope.146
Dhindsa, H. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2014). Prospective pedagogy for teaching chemical bonding for smart and sustainable learning. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15(4), 435–446. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00059E
Emsheimer, P., & Silva, N. L. De. (2011). Preservice Teachers´ Reflections on Practice in Relation to Theories. In A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education (pp. 147–167). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-711-0_8
Erman, E. (2017). Factors contributing to students’ misconceptions in learning covalent bonds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21375
Ferguson, A. L., Debenedetti, P. G., & Panagiotopoulos, A. Z. (2009). Solubility and Molecular Conformations of n -Alkane Chains in Water. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 113(18), 6405–6414. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp811229q
Gouvea, J., Appleby, L., Fu, L., & Wagh, A. (2022). Motivating and Shaping Scientific Argumentation in Lab Reports. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-11-0316
Henderleiter, J., Smart, R., Anderson, J., & Elian, O. (2001a). How Do Organic Chemistry Students Understand and Apply Hydrogen Bonding? Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1126. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p1126
Henderleiter, J., Smart, R., Anderson, J., & Elian, O. (2001b). How Do Organic Chemistry Students Understand and Apply Hydrogen Bonding? Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1126. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p1126
Kroon, M. C., Buijs, W., Peters, C. J., & Witkamp, G.-J. (2006). Decomposition of ionic liquids in electrochemical processing. Green Chem., 8(3), 241–245. https://doi.org/10.1039/B512724F
Lahlali, A., Chafiq, N., Radid, M., Atibi, A., El Kababi, K., Srour, C., & Moundy, K. (2023). Students’ Alternative Conceptions and Teachers’ Views on the Implementation of Pedagogical Strategies to Improve the Teaching of Chemical Bonding Concepts. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (IJEP), 13(6), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v13i6.41391
Lee, M., & Fortune, A. E. (2013). Do We Need More “Doing” Activities or “Thinking” Activities in the Field Practicum? Journal of Social Work Education, 49(4), 646–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2013.812851
Mufidah, M., Sadiani, N., Akina, A., Nuraini, N., & Khairunnisa, K. (2023). Analysis of Conceptual, Factual, Principle, and Skill Errors Based on Students’ Thinking Ability: How is it Connected to Science Learning? Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(5), 3815–3823. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i5.3209
Peterson, R. F., & Treagust, D. F. (1989). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(6), 459. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed066p459
Rachuru, S., & Vandanapu, J. (2020). Do phase transition temperatures Tmp and Tbp obey linear free energy relationships? Journal of Molecular Liquids, 302, 112496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2020.112496
Rini, E. F. S., & Aldila, F. T. (2023). Practicum Activity: Analysis of Science Process Skills and Students’ Critical Thinking Skills. Integrated Science Education Journal, 4(2), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.37251/isej.v4i2.322
Salame, I. I., & Nikolic, D. (2020). Examining Some of the Challenges Students Face in Learning about Solubility and the Dissolution Process. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(3), e2237. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/9333
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The Quality of Students’ Use of Evidence in Written Scientific Explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
Schivell, A. (Mandy) E. (2022). Electron Location, Location, Location: Understanding Biological Interactions. CourseSource, 9. https://doi.org/10.24918/cs.2022.6
Shtepura, A. (2022). Main Characteristics and Stereotypes of Generation Z: Analysis of Foreign Experience. Comparative Professional Pedagogy, 12(1), 86–93. https://doi.org/10.31891/2308-4081/2022-12(1)-9
Üce, M., & Ceyhan, İ. (2019). Misconception in Chemistry Education and Practices to Eliminate Them: Literature Analysis. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7(3), 202. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v7i3.3990
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
Wang, C.-Y., & Barrow, L. H. (2013). Exploring conceptual frameworks of models of atomic structures and periodic variations, chemical bonding, and molecular shape and polarity: a comparison of undergraduate general chemistry students with high and low levels of content knowledge. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14(1), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP20116J
Zwyssig, A. (2023). Molecules Are Not Enough! Overcoming Students’ Overgeneralization Tendencies by Comparing and Contrasting. CHIMIA, 77(10), 679–682. https://doi.org/10.2533/chimia.2023.679
Copyright (c) 2024 Fatchiyatun Ni'mah, Anggi Ristiyana Puspita Sari, Maya Erliza Anggraeni, Yoan Theasy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Ⓒ Author
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1726-3651
