Proton Transfer: The First-Year Students’ Conceptual Understanding


Asih Widi Wisudawati(1*), Hans-Dieter Barke(2)

(1) Department of Chemistry Education, UIN Sunan Kalijaga, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(2) Institute of Chemistry Education, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Modern Chemistry education shows acid-base reactions by proton transfer with regard to Bronsted’s theory. Understanding how protons can be transferred by particles in solutions is quite challenging. The study aims to presents how university-first-year students are figuring out involved particles which take and give protons. Further, the enrolled participants in this study should explain how the process of proton transfer is running by selected particles but not by substances. Fifty-four students participated in this study that started from revealing participant’s experiences on their previous education at senior high school. Subsequently, researchers conducted a pretest, learning planning, and learning implementation, finally a posttest. Qualitative analysis is preferred to analyze students’ conceptions on particle level. The result shows us that there are two categories of participant’s difficulties. First is determining the involved particles either all particles or reacting particles. The difficulties dominate on mixing terminology of atoms, ions, and molecules, also on preferences of memorizing and calculating oxidation state for chemical equations. The subsequent difficulty is the proton transfer process that caused by participant’s failure on how they selected reacting particles. The systematic sequence on introducing and interpreting chemical equations has also presented as breakthrough.  


Keywords


chemical equation understanding; first-year students; misconceptions; proton transfer

Full Text:

PDF

References


Agung, S., & Schwartz, M. S. (2007). Students’ understanding of conservation of matter, stoichiometry and balancing equations in Indonesia. International Journal of Science Education, 29(13), 1679-1702. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601089927

Barke, H.-D. & Buechter, J. (2018). Laboratory Jargon of lectures and misconceptions of students. African Journal of Chemical education, 8(1), 28–38. Retrieved from https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajce/article/view/166220

Barke, H.-D., Hazari, A. & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Misconceptions in Chemistry. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70989-3

Barke, H.-D., Wisudawati, A.W., Awilag, M.H., Buechter, J. & Rahmawati, Y. (2019). Acid-base and redox reactions on submicro level: Misconceptions and challenge. AJCE, 9(1), Artikel 1, 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527679300.ch16

Chang, R. & Goldsby, K. (2014). General Chemistry: The essential concepts (7. ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Cokelez, A. (2010). A Comparative Study of French and Turkish Students' Ideas on Acid−Base Reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed800017b

Drechsler, M. & Schmidt, H.-J. (2005). Textbooks and teachers’ understanding of acid-base models used in chemistry teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1039/b4rp90002b

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

Huheey, J. E., Keiter, E. A., & Keiter, R. L. (1993). Inorganic chemistry: Principles of structure and reactivity (4th ed). Harper Collins College Publishers.

Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemical education research in Glasgow in perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1039/B5RP90021B

Kelly, R. M. & Akaygun, S. (2016). Insights into How Students Learn the Difference between a Weak Acid and a Strong Acid from Cartoon Tutorials Employing Visualizations. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(6), 1010–1019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00034

Kern, A. L., Wood, N. B., Roehrig, G. H. & Nyachwaya, J. (2010). A qualitative report of the ways high school chemistry students attempts to represent a chemical reaction at the atomic/molecular level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(3), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1039/c005465h

Kim, S., Choi, H. & Paik, S.-H. (2019). Using a Systems Thinking Approach and a Scratch Computer Program To Improve Students’ Understanding of the Brønsted–Lowry Acid-Base Model. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), 2926–2936. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00210

Maratusholihah, N.F., Rahayu, S. & Fajaroh, F. (2017). Analisis Miskonsepsi Siswa SMA pada Materi Hidrolisis Garam dan Larutan Penyangga. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan (in Bahasa), 2, Artikel 7, 919–926. http://journal.um.ac.id/index.php/jptpp/article/view/9645

Mayer, R. E. (Hg.). (2012). Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.

Nyachwaya, J. M., Warfa, A.-R. M., Roehrig, G. H. & Schneider, J. L. (2014). College chemistry students' use of memorized algorithms in chemical reactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00114h

Orgill, M., York, S. & MacKellar, J. (2019). Introduction to Systems Thinking for the Chemistry Education Community. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), 2720–2729. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00169

Ortiz Nieves, E. L., Barreto, R. & Medina, Z. (2012). JCE Classroom Activity #111: Redox Reactions in Three Representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(5), 643–645. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100694m

Peters, E. I. (1990). Introduction to chemical principles (5. Aufl.). Saunders golden sunburst series. Saunders College Pub.

Prodjosantoso, A. K., Hertina, A. M. & Irwanto, I. (2019). The Misconception Diagnosis on Ionic and Covalent Bonds Concepts with Three Tier Diagnostic Test. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1477–1488. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12194a

Romine, W. L., Todd, A. N., & Clark, T. B. (2016). How Do Undergraduate Students Conceptualize Acid-Base Chemistry? Measurement of a Concept Progression: How Do Undergraduate Students Conceptualize. Science Education, 100(6), 1150–1183. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21240

Schwedler, S. & Kaldewey, M. (2020). Linking the submicroscopic and symbolic level in physical chemistry: how voluntary simulation-based learning activities foster first-year university students’ conceptual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00211a

Sutar, D. H., Kam, O. R., Bakouan, C., Zongo, I., Guel, B., Bren, V. A., Dubonosov, A. D., Popova, O. S., Cao, C., Li, Z., Li, L., Du, L., Nanda, N., Malini, S., Kumar, P., Gowda, N. M. M., Iyiola, E. A., Owoyemi, J. M., Saliu, T. P., . . . Kammili, R. (2020). Current Research and Development in Chemistry Vol. 1. Book Publisher International (a part of SCIENCEDOMAIN International). https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/crdc/v1

Wilson, J.G. & Newall, A. B. (1968). General and Inorganic Chemistry. Cambridge University Press.

Ye, J., Lu, S. & Bi, H. (2019). The effects of microcomputer-based laboratories on students’ macro, micro, and symbolic representations when learning about net ionic reactions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00165K




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15575/jtk.v7i2.21029

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 asih widi wisudawati, Hans-Dieter Barke

Journal  Tadris Kimiya Is Indexed By : 

Lisensi Creative Commons

Pendidikan Kimia: Jurnal Tadris Kimiya  dilisensikan dengan Lisensi Internasional Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 . Hak cipta dilindungi undang-undang . p-ISSN: 2527-6816 | e-ISSN: 2527-9637