The Changes in Students' Conception on the Concept of Reaction Order in the Implementation of Conceptual Change Model Supported By Worksheets
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v14i3.21875Keywords:
Misconception, Reaction order, Conceptual change model, Preservice chemistry teachers, Within-person trajectoriesAbstract
Misconceptions about reaction order can persist among preservice chemistry teachers, yet evidence remains limited on how individual conceptions change across successive stages of a conceptual-change intervention. This study explored within-person trajectories during a conceptual change model (CCM) implemented through a conceptual change module (CCMo) and a separate ontology–epistemology–axiology (OEA) worksheet. This exploratory embedded multiple-case study used a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods approach. Six preservice chemistry teachers were purposively selected based on misconception-classified responses to a 16-item four-tier diagnostic test. Qualitative evidence from verification, cognitive-conflict, equilibration, worksheet, and final-reconstruction activities was integrated with descriptive diagnostic-test counts and participant questionnaires. At the first verification, one participant was classified as having a misconception, one as not knowing the concept, and four as knowing the concept; at the second verification, five were classified as having a misconception and one as not knowing the concept. During standard CCMo-supported equilibration, five participants achieved full performance, whereas only one achieved full performance on the OEA worksheet. Final reconstruction was rated sufficient for two participants and poor for four. On the final diagnostic test, five participants showed fewer misconception-classified responses than at baseline, while one participant increased from three to five. These heterogeneous patterns indicate that correct task performance during equilibration did not consistently persist into later reconstruction or diagnostic assessment. The findings provide process-level evidence for individualized remediation and support future controlled studies, but they do not establish the causal effectiveness of the CCM or the added value of the worksheet.
References
Adams, A., & Barth-Cohen, L. (2024). Exploring student sensemaking when engaging with anomalous data. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23(4), ar63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-08-0208
Addido, J., Burrows, A., & Slater, T. (2022). The effect of the conceptual change model on conceptual understanding of electrostatics. Education Sciences, 12(10), 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100696
Bain, K., Rodriguez, J.-M. G., & Towns, M. H. (2019). Investigating student understanding of rate constants: When is a constant “constant”? Journal of Chemical Education, 96(8), 1571–1577. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00005
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. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00176E
Barke, H.-D., Hazari, A., & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Misconceptions in chemistry: Addressing perceptions in chemical education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70989-3
Borich, G. D. (2003). Observation skills for effective teaching (4th ed.). Merrill/Prentice Hall.
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
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Pendekatan penelitian kualitatif, kuantitatif, dan mixed (A. Fawaid, Trans.). Pustaka Pelajar.
DeGlopper, K. S., & Stowe, R. L. (2024). Modeling students’ epistemic cognition in undergraduate chemistry courses: A review. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25(3), 594–612. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00348E
Diakidoy, I. A. N., & Kendeou, P. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: A comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and Instruction, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00011-6
Diani, R., Alfin, J., Anggraeni, Y. M., Mustari, M., & Fujiani, D. (2019). Four-tier diagnostic test with certainty of response index on the concepts of fluid. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1155(1), 012078. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1155/1/012078
Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, University of Kiel. https://archiv.leibniz-ipn.de/stcse/
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Herron, J. D., Cantu, L. L., Ward, R., & Srinivasan, V. (1977). Problems associated with concept analysis. Science Education, 61(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730610210
Ibrahim, M. (2012). Konsep, miskonsepsi, dan cara pembelajarannya. Unesa University Press.
Ikenyirimba, O. J., & Talanquer, V. (2026). Conceptual reframing in action: How students build and revise predictions about a simple chemical reaction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 27(3), 953–967. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5RP00440C
Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000021001.77568.b3
Kaya, E., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Facilitating conceptual change in rate of reaction concepts using conceptual change oriented instruction. Education and Science, 37(163), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.15390/ES.2012.1014
Kolomuç, A., & Tekin, S. (2011). Chemistry teachers’ misconceptions concerning concept of chemical reaction rate. International Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 3(2), 84–101. https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v3i2.194
Kösterelioğlu, İ., & Dağdelen, O. (2015). Effect of conceptual change texts for overcoming misconceptions in the “People and Management” unit. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(1), 99–112.
Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S. S., Kim, J. W., Kwon, H. G., & Park, H. K. (2003). Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary-level science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 585–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10099
Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 357–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2
Marzabal, A., Delgado, V., Moreira, P., Barrientos, L., & Moreno, J. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge of chemical kinetics: Experiment selection criteria to address students’ intuitive conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(8), 1245–1249. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00296
Olaogun, O. P., & Hunsu, N. J. (2025). A systematic review of factors that predict and mediate conceptual change. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 40(2), Article 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-025-00959-1
Özmen, H., & Naseriazar, A. (2018). Effect of simulations enhanced with conceptual change texts on university students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 83(1), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.2298/JSC161222065O
Permatasari, R. E., Suyono, & Yuanita, L. (2024). Investigating students’ conception of acid-base indicators using three scientific questions-enhanced conceptual change model. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 25(1), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v25i1.pp341-350
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
Rushton, G. T., Criswell, B. A., McAllister, N. D., Polizzi, S. J., Moore, L. A., & Pierre, M. S. (2014). Charting an alternate pathway to reaction orders and rate laws in introductory chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3006743
Shallcross, D. E., Davies-Coleman, M. T., Lloyd, C., Heslop, B., Eastman, J., Baldwin, T., Thistlethwaite, I., & Franklin, S. D. (2024). Smart worksheets and their positive impact on a second-year chemical kinetics course. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(4), 1735–1740. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00934
Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.005
Talanquer, V. (2026). The importance of fostering conceptual reframing in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 27(2), 693–700. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5RP00421G
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. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00008H
Vosniadou, S. (2019). The development of students’ understanding of science. Frontiers in Education, 4, Article 32. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00032
Wu, M.-Y. M., & Yezierski, E. J. (2023). Secondary chemistry teacher learning: Precursors for and mechanisms of pedagogical conceptual change. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24(1), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RP00160H
Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2013). Preservice chemistry teachers in action: An evaluation of attempts for changing high school students’ chemistry misconceptions into more scientific conceptions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP20109G
Yan, Y. K., & Subramaniam, R. (2018). Using a multi-tier diagnostic test to explore the nature of students’ alternative conceptions on reaction kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00143F
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rosalina Eka Permatasari, Wiwin Putriawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
