Conceptual Difficulties Experienced by First-Year Undergraduate Chemistry Students in Assigning Oxidation Number: A Case Study of High School Chemistry Textbooks

Rahmat Basuki

doi:10.22146/ijc.36695

Conceptual Difficulties Experienced by First-Year Undergraduate Chemistry Students in Assigning Oxidation Number: A Case Study of High School Chemistry Textbooks

https://doi.org/10.22146/ijc.36695

Rahmat Basuki^(1*)

(1) Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Jambi, Jl. Jambi-Muara Bulian Km. 15, Mendalo, Jambi 36361, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to investigate first-year undergraduate chemistry students’ understanding in assigning oxidation number following a case-study course instruction. A list of multiple choice question and interview section was formulated to identify the initial knowledge as representative of their conceptual understanding in assigning oxidation number obtained from their chemistry textbooks. This study revealed that most of 34 students who participated were confused about the nature of oxidation number. In the section of the interview which focused on applying “The Rules”, many students experienced more problems in assigning oxidation number of sulfur in S₂O₃^2– ion. Several misconceptions relating to the inappropriate assumption in assigning oxidation number were identified. The data illustrated how students attempt to make sense of the concept obtained from High School with the knowledge they had already constructed in solve of a given question. The research implied that the teachers, lecturers, curriculum developers, and High School Chemistry textbooks authors need to be cognizant of the importance of related concept (electronegativity and dot-Lewis structure) with oxidation number. The high school and chemistry textbook authors were recommended to introduce this interconnection (including formal charge) to minimize the misconception and conceptual difficulties experienced by first-year undergraduate chemistry students in assigning oxidation number.

Keywords

conceptual difficulties; assigning oxidation number; misconception; case study of chemistry program students

Full Text:

Full Text PDF

References

[1] Tytler, R., 2000, A comparison of year 1 and year 6 students’ conceptions of evaporation and condensation: Dimensions of conceptual progression, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 22 (5), 447–467.

[2] Zikovelis, V., and Tsaparlis, G., 2006, Explicit teaching of problem categorisation and a preliminary study of its effect on student performance – the case of problems in colligative properties of ideal solutions, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 7 (2), 114–130.

[3] Van Driel, J.H., 2002, Students’ corpuscular conceptions in the context of chemical equilibrium and chemical kinetics, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 3 (2), 201–213.

[4] Cakmakci, G., Leach, J., and Donnelly, J., 2006, Students’ ideas about reaction rate and its relationship with concentration or pressure, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28 (15), 1795–1815.

[5] Azizoğlu, N., Alkan, M., and Geban, Ö., 2006, Undergraduate pre-service teachers’ understandings and misconceptions of phase equilibrium, J. Chem. Educ., 83 (3), 947–953.

[6] Canpolat, N., 2006, Turkish undergraduates’ misconceptions of evaporation, evaporation rate, and vapour pressure, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28 (15), 1757–1770.

[7] Canpolat, N., Pinarbasi, T., and Sozbilir, M., 2006, Prospective teachers’ misconceptions of vaporization and vapor pressure, J. Chem. Educ., 83 (8), 1237–1242.

[8] Sozbilir, M., and Bennett, J.M., 2006, Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ misunderstandings of enthalpy and spontaneity, Chem. Educ., 11 (5), 355–363.

[9] Carson, E.M., and Watson, J.R., 2002, Undergraduate students’ understanding of entropy and Gibbs free energy, Univ. Chem. Educ., 6, 4–12.

[10] Bennett, J.M., and Sozbilir, M., 2007, A study of Turkish chemistry undergraduates’ understanding of entropy, J. Chem. Educ., 84 (7), 1204–1208.

[11] Sozbilir, M., 2002, Turkish chemistry undergraduate students’ misunderstandings of Gibbs free energy, Univ. Chem. Educ., 6, 73–83.

[12] Frailich, M., Kesner, M., and Hofstein, A., 2009, Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 46 (3), 289–310.

[13] Pinarbasi, T., Sozbilir, M., and Canpolat, N., 2009, Prospective chemistry teachers’ misconceptions about colligative properties: Boiling point elevation and freezing point depression, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 10 (4), 273–280.

[14] Tsaparlis, G., 2005, Non-algorithmic quantitative problem solving in university physical chemistry: A correlation study of the role of selective cognitive factors, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 23 (2), 125–148.

[15] Cakmakci, G., Leach, J., and Donnelly, J., 2006, Students’ ideas about reaction rate and its relationship with concentration or pressure, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28 (15), 1795–1815.

[16] Harle, M., and Towns, M., 2011, A review of spatial ability literature, its connection to chemistry, and implications for instruction, J. Chem. Educ., 88 (3), 351–360.

[17] Singer, S., and Smith, K.A., 2013, Discipline‐based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering, J. Eng. Educ., 102 (4), 468–471.

[18] Taber, K.S., 2013, Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14 (2), 156–168.

[19] Doymus, K., Karacop, A., and Simsek, U., 2010, Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on students’ understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 58 (6), 671–691.

[20] Regan, Á., Childs, P., and Hayes, S., 2011, The use of an intervention programme to improve undergraduate students' chemical knowledge and address their misconceptions, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12 (2), 219–227.

[21] Cakir, M., 2008, Constructivist approaches to learning in science and their implications for science pedagogy: A literature review, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ., 3 (4), 193–206.

[22] Widarti, H.R., Permana, A., and Mulyani, S., 2016, Student misconception on redox titration (a challenge on the course implementation through cognitive dissonance based on the multiple representations), Indones. J. Sci. Educ., 5 (1), 56–62.

[23] Taber, K.S., 2001, Building the structural concept of chemistry: Some consideration from educational research, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2 (2), 123–158.

[24] Tobin, K.G., 1994, "Constructivism as a Referent for Teaching and Learning” in The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education, 1^st ed., Routledge, New York, 20.

[25] Wheatly, G.H., 1991, Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning, Sci. Educ., 75 (1), 9–21.

[26] Michael, J., 2006, Where’s the evidence that active learning works?, Adv. Physiol. Educ., 30 (4), 159–167.

[27] Park, S., and Oliver, J.S., 2007, Revisiting the conceptualization of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals, Res. Sci. Educ., 38 (3), 261–284.

[28] Setyawati, A.A., 2009, Kimia – Mengkaji fenomena Alam untuk Kelas X SMA/MA, Pusat Perbukuan Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Jakarta, 131–140.

[29] Permana, I., 2009, Memahami Kimia 1: SMA/MA untuk Kelas X Semester 1 dan 2, Pusat Perbukuan Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Jakarta, 105–112.

[30] Sunarya, Y., and Setiabudi, A., 2009, Mudah dan Aktif Belajar Kimia 1 untuk Kelas X SMA/MA, Pusat Perbukuan Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Jakarta, 123–137.

[31] Utami, B., Saputro, A.N.C., Mahardiani, L., Yamtinah, S., and Mulyani, B., 2009, Kimia 1 untuk Kelas X SMA/MA, Pusat Perbukuan Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Jakarta, 143–164.

[32] Harnanto, A., and Ruminten, 2009, Kimia 1 untuk Kelas X SMA/MA, Pusat Perbukuan Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Jakarta, 131–142.

[33] Sudarmo, U., and Sariwati, E., 2015, Buku Siswa: Kimia untuk Kelas X SMA/MA (kelompok peminatan matematika dan ilmu alam) K2013, Erlangga, Jakarta.

[34] Purba, M., and Sarwiyati, E., 2016, Kimia 1 untuk Kelas X SMA/MA (kelompok peminatan matematika dan ilmu alam) K2013, Erlangga, Jakarta. p. 208-228.

[35] Muchtariadi, 2016, Kimia 1 Kelas X SMA (edisi revisi 2016), Yudhistira, Jakarta. 181–193.

[36] Watoni, H., Kurniawati, D., and Juniastri, M., 2016, Kimia untuk kelas X SMA/MA kelompok peminatan matematika dan ilmu-ilmu alam, Yrama Widya, Bandung.

[37] Hmelo-Silver, C.E., 2004, Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 16 (3), 235–266.

[38] Özkaya, A.R., 2002, Conceptual difficulties experienced by prospective teachers in electrochemistry: Half-cell potential, cell potential, and chemical and electrochemical equilibrium in galvanic cells, J. Chem. Educ., 79 (6), 735–738.

[39] Mahaffy, P., 2004, The future shape of chemistry education, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 5 (3), 229–245.

[40] Garnet, P.J., and Treagust, D.F., 1992, Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electric circuits and oxidation-reduction equations, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 29 (2), 121–142.

[41] Parkin, G., 2006, Valence, oxidation number, and formal charge: three related but fundamentally different concept, J. Chem. Educ., 83 (5), 791–799.

[42] Mann, J.B., Meek, T.L., and Allen, L.C., 2000, Configuration energies of the main group elements, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 122 (12), 2780–2783.

[43] Pauling, L., 1960, “The Partial Ionic Character of Covalent Bonds and the Relative Electro-negativity of Atoms” in The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals: An Introduction to Modern Structural Chemistry, 3^rd ed., Cornell University Press, New York, 64–107.

[44] Shehu, G., 2015, Two ideas of redox reaction: Misconceptions and their challenges in chemistry education, IOSR-JRME, 5 (1), 15–20.

[45] Nakleh, M.B., 1992, Why some student don’t learn chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 69 (3), 191–196.

[46] Basuki, R., Amanda, H., Bemis, R., Lisma, A., and Yusnaidar, Y., 2018, Incomplete explanation in determining oxidation number: A case study on chemistry program students, Indones. J. Sci. Educ., 7 (3), 333–340.

[47] Francisco, J.S., Nakleh, M.B., Nurrenbern, S.C., and Miller, M.L, 2002, Assessing student understanding of general chemistry with concept mapping, J. Chem. Educ., 79(2), 248-257.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/ijc.36695