Analyzing Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Understanding and Misconceptions of Reaction Rates Using a Four-Tier Diagnostic Instrument

Article Sidebar

pdf
Published: Jun 28, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.19109/ojpk.v9i1.27811
Keywords:
chemical kinetics, four-tier diagnostic test, misconceptions, pre-service chemistry teachers, reaction rate

Main Article Content

Moh. Ismail Sholeh
Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Fatah Palembang
Pandu Jati Laksono
Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Fatah Palembang
Rici Rahmawati
Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Fatah Palembang
Fadhilah Amelia
Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Fatah Palembang

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the understanding and misconceptions of prospective chemistry teacher students regarding the concept of reaction rate using the four-tier diagnostic instrument FTDICK (Four-Tier Diagnostic Instrument for Chemical Kinetics). The study was conducted descriptively quantitatively involving 115 students from four academic levels at a university in Palembang. Data were obtained through the FTDICK diagnostic test which has been validated and translated into Indonesian. This instrument measures conceptual understanding, reasons for answers, and the level of confidence in the answers and reasons. The results of the analysis showed that only 6–7% of respondents answered correctly consistently in three main conceptual categories: reaction order, rate law, and factors that affect reaction rate. The level of understanding of Tier 1 (conceptual answers) was high, but the reasons (Tier 3) tended to be low, indicating deep-rooted misconceptions. Common misconceptions include the assumption that reaction order is determined by stoichiometric coefficients, that increasing temperature increases activation energy, and ignorance of catalyst mechanisms. Although final year students showed increased understanding, misconceptions were still found at all levels. These findings indicate the need for cognitive conflict-based learning strategies, the use of simulations, and contextual approaches in chemistry teacher education. This study recommends strengthening diagnostic instruments and learning interventions to prevent the spread of scientific misconceptions to school students by future chemistry teachers.

Article Details

How to Cite
Moh. Ismail Sholeh, Laksono, P. J., Rici Rahmawati, & Fadhilah Amelia. (2025). Analyzing Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Understanding and Misconceptions of Reaction Rates Using a Four-Tier Diagnostic Instrument. Orbital: Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia, 9(1), 14-28. https://doi.org/10.19109/ojpk.v9i1.27811
Issue
Vol. 9 No. 1 (2025): Orbital: Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite

Moh. Ismail Sholeh, Laksono, P. J., Rici Rahmawati, & Fadhilah Amelia. (2025). Analyzing Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Understanding and Misconceptions of Reaction Rates Using a Four-Tier Diagnostic Instrument. Orbital: Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia, 9(1), 14-28. https://doi.org/10.19109/ojpk.v9i1.27811

References

Achterberg, P., de Koster, W., & van der Waal, J. (2017). A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 704–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515617367

Adadan, E., & Oner, D. (2014). Exploring the progression in preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge representations: the case of “behavior of gases.” Research in Science Education, 44(6), 829–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9401-6

Ahiakwo, M. J., & Isiguzo, C. Q. (2015). Students’ conceptions and misconceptions in chemical kinetics in port harcourt metropolis of nigeria. African Journal of Chemical Education, 5(2), 112–130.

Bain, K., Bender, L., O., B., P. D., Caballero, M. D., Carmel, J. H., Duffy, E. M., Ebert-May, D., Fata-Hartley, C. L., Herrington, D. G., Laverty, J. T., Matz, R. L., Nelson, P. C., Posey, L. A., Stoltzfus, J. R., Stowe, R. L., Sweeder, R. D., Tessmer, S. H., Underwood, S. M., Urban‐Lurain, M., & Cooper, M. M. (2020). Characterizing college science instruction: the three-dimensional learning observation protocol. Plos One, 15(6), e0234640. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234640

Bain, K., & Towns, M. H. (2016). A review of research on the teaching and learning of chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 246–262.

Bretz, S. L. (2001). Novak’s Theory of education: human constructivism and meaningful learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107-1116. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p1107.6

Cakmakci, G. (2010). Identifying alternative conceptions of chemical kinetics among secondary school and undergraduate students in turkey. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(4), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed8001336

Cakmakci, G., & Aydogdu, C. (2011). Designing and evaluating an evidence-informed instruction in chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 15–28.

Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005). A comparison of level of understanding of eighth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20076

Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293–307.

Cooper, M. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2013). The trouble with chemical energy: why understanding bond energies requires an interdisciplinary systems approach. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(2), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-10-0170

Darby-White, T., Wicker, S., & Diack, M. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of virtual chemistry laboratory (VCL) in enhancing conceptual understanding: Using VCL as pre-laboratory assignment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 38(1), 31–48.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016

Firdaus, N. R., Kirana, T., & Susantini, E. (2021). A four-tier test to identify students’ conceptions in inheritance concepts. IJORER: International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 2(4), 402–415.

Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2011). Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 5–14.

Habiddin, H., & Page, E. M. (2019). Development and validation of a four-tier diagnostic instrument for chemical kinetics (FTDICK). Indonesian Journal of Chemistry, 19(3), 720–736.

Habiddin, H., & Page, E. M. (2023). Uncovering students’ genuine misconceptions: evidence to inform the teaching of chemical kinetics. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 70(2).

Inaltekin, T., & Akcay, H. (2021). Examination the knowledge of student understanding of pre-service science teachers on heat and temperature. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(2), 445–478.

Johnstone, A. H., Sleet, R. J., & Vianna, J. F. (1994). An information processing model of learning: Its application to an undergraduate laboratory course in chemistry. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382163

Jusniar, J., Effendy, E., Endang, B., & Sutrisno, S. (2020). Misconceptions in rate of reaction and their impact on misconceptions in chemical equilibrium. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(4), 1405–1423.

Justi, R. (2003). Teaching and learning chemical kinetics. In J. K. Gilbert, O. Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice (Vol. 17, pp. 293–315). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47977-X_13

Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.

Laksono, P. J. (2018). Pengembangan dan penggunaan instrumen two-tier multiple choice pada materi termokimia untuk mengukur kemampuan berpikir kritis. Orbital: Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia, 2(2), 80–92.

Laksono, P. J. (2019). Pengembangan Three-Tier Multiple Choice Test Pada Materi Kesetimbangan Kimia Mata Kuliah Kimia Dasar Lanjut. UIN Raden Fatah Press.

Leonard, M. J., Kalinowski, S. T., & Andrews, T. C. (2014). Misconceptions yesterday, today, and tomorrow. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0244

Lestari, L. A., Subandi, S., & Habiddin, H. (2021). Identifikasi miskonsepsi siswa pada materi laju reaksi dan perbaikannya menggunakan model pembelajaran learning cycle 5E dengan strategi konflik kognitif. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, Dan Pengembangan, 6(6), 888-894.

Liebermeister, W., & Klipp, E. (2006). Bringing metabolic networks to life: Convenience rate law and thermodynamic constraints. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 3(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-3-41

Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2013). Potential changes in prospective chemistry teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning—a cross-level study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 979–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9417-9

Maskiewicz, A. C., & Lineback, J. E. (2013). Misconceptions are “so yesterday!” CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-01-0014

Nieswandt, M. (2007). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 908–937. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20169

Plass, J. L., Milne, C., Homer, B. D., Schwartz, R. N., Hayward, E. O., Jordan, T., Verkuilen, J., Ng, F., Wang, Y., & Barrientos, J. (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 394–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21008

Rahmawati, Y., Widhiyanti, T., & Mardiah, A. (2019). Analisis miskonsepsi mahasiswa calon guru kimia pada konsep particulate of matter. JTK (Jurnal Tadris Kimiya), 4(2), 121–135.

Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1999). An analysis of college chemistry textbooks as sources of misconceptions and errors in electrochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(6), 853-860. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p853

Sugiyono, S. (2018). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif dan R & D. Alfabeta, Bandung.

Taber, K. (2002). Chemical misconceptions: Prevention, diagnosis and cure (Vol. 1). Royal Society of Chemistry.

Taber, K. S. (2017). The nature of student conceptions in science. In Science education: An international course companion (pp. 119–131). SensePublishers Rotterdam.

Tal, M., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2021). Assessing teachers’ knowledge: Incorporating context-based learning in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(4), 1003–1019.

Talanquer, V. (2023). What have we learned about student reasoning in chemistry? Educación Química, 34(4), 3–15.

Taştan, Ö., Yalçinkaya, E., & Boz, Y. (2010). Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Ideas about Reaction Mechanism. Journal of Turkish Science Education (TUSED), 7(1), 47-60

Tümay, H. (2016). Reconsidering learning difficulties and misconceptions in chemistry: Emergence in chemistry and its implications for chemical education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 229–245.

Voska, K. W., & Heikkinen, H. W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 160–176.

Wang, C., OuYang, J., & Wu, F. (2021). Subgroups of assessor and assessee: the relationship between students’ peer assessment roles and perceptions of MSCL in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(6), 816–828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09922-3

Wardah, A. C., Wiyarsi, A., & Prodjosantoso, A. K. (2020). Analysis of prospective chemistry teachers’ understanding about rate of reaction concept. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1440(1), 242-246. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1440/1/012004/meta

Wu, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1033

Yonata, B. (2021). Four-Tier Diagnostic Test on Chemical Kinetics Concepts for Undergraduate Students. International Joint Conference on Science and Engineering 2021 (IJCSE 2021), 457–463. https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/ijcse-21/125966491

Most read articles by the same author(s)