The Evaluation of Chemistry Competence for Freshmen at Technology Colleges in Taiwan

  • Ji-Chyuan Yang
  • Ching-Yun Hsu
  • Wen-Jyh Wang
  • Chia-Hui Tai
  • Hong-Hsin Huang
  • Ping-Chih Huang


The main purpose of this study is to assess the chemistry competence of freshmen at technology colleges in Taiwan. The results will provide references for preparing remedial materials in chemistry for technology college students. This study analyzes four versions of vocational school level chemistry textbooks to create test questions for freshmen at technology colleges. Twenty-two chemistry teachers in the chemical engineering department at various vocational schools across northern, central, and southern Taiwan as well as five chemistry professors in the chemical engineering department at technology colleges were sampled to complete two rounds of Delphi survey on the test questions created earlier. As a result, 60 final questions were selected. To establish expert validity, those questions were reviewed and modified by eight chemistry professors at technology colleges. Difficulty analysis was also used. The overall Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is 0.837, suggesting that those questions are highly reliable. In October 2009, researchers sampled 25 classes at six technology colleges across northern, central, and southern Taiwan to assess their chemistry competence using those 60 questions.

T-test was used to examine the difference in chemistry competence between freshmen in public and private technology colleges as well as between male and female students. The difference between public and private colleges is significant for all but the last seven questions related to industrial chemistry. No significant difference is observed between male and female students. This study also finds that the chemistry competence for freshmen at technology colleges is weak in some areas. Future study will focus on the weak part to create remedial materials and at the same time develop a learning assessment system and investigate reasons for learning difficulties.


Female Student Technology College Private College Chemistry Teacher Delphi Survey 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adelman, C. (1991). Women at thirty something. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Barbera, J., Adams, W. K., Weiman, C. E., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). Modifying and validating the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey for use in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(10), 1435–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  4. Bilgin, I., & Geban, O. (2006). The effect of cooperative learning approach based on conceptual change condition on students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodner, G. M. (1991). I have found you an argument. The conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(5), 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Çalýk, M., Ayas, A., & Ebenezer, J. V. (2005). A review of solution chemistry studies: Insights into students’ conceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassels, J. R. T., & Johnstone, A. H. (1985). Words that matter in science. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
  8. Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Children’s responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clifton, R. A., Perry, R. P., Roberts, L. W., & Peter, T. (2008). Gender, psychosocial dispositions, and the academic achievement of college students. Research in Higher Education, 49(8), 684–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ use of analogy and alternative conceptions for chemical bonding. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48(1), 24–32.Google Scholar
  11. Desouza, J. M. S., & Czemiak, C. M. (2002). Social implications and gender differences among preschoolers: Implications for science activities. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enman, M., & Lupart, J. (2000). Talented female students’ resistance to science: An exploratory study of post-secondary achievement motivation, persistence, and epistemological characteristics. High Ability Studies, 11, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felder, R., Felder, G., Mauney, M., Hamrin, C., & Dietz, J. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention: Gender differences in student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(2), 151–163. Retrieved April 12, 2004 from The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science at Case Western University.Google Scholar
  14. Fensham, P. (1988). Development and dilemmas in science education (5th ed.). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  15. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007). Nonscience majors learning science: A theoretical model of motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1088–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). Goal and orientations toward the future: Links to motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 91–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Husamettin, A., Asli, D., Cngiz, T., & Durak, F. (2006). Effects of computer based learning on students’ attitudes and achievement towards analytical chemistry. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), Article 6.Google Scholar
  19. Johnstone, A. H. (1984). New stars for the teacher to steer by? Journal of Chemical Education, 61(10), 847–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnstone, A. H., MacDonald, J. J., & Webb, G. (1977). Chemical equilibrium and its conceptual difficulties. Education in Chemistry, 14(6), 169–171.Google Scholar
  21. Lou, S. C., Yan, D. Z., & Wen, H. Z. (2004). Study of the chemistry learning stress among the nursing college students. Research and Development in Science Education Quarterly, 35, 21–37.Google Scholar
  22. Mattern, N., & Schau, C. (2002). Gender differences in science attitude-achievement relationships over time among white middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCarthy, W. C., & Widanski, B. B. (2009). Assessment of chemistry anxiety in a two-year college. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1447–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates’ bonding alternative conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 707–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16, 13–20.Google Scholar
  26. Schmidt, H. J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions – Looking for a pattern. Science Education, 81(2), 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shin, N., & McGee, S. (2002, November). The influence of inquiry-based multimedia learning environment on specific problem-solving skills among ninth grade students across gender differences. Paper presented at Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX. Retrieved from
  28. Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Turkish Science Education, 4(2), 2–20.Google Scholar
  29. Song, J., & Black, P. (1991). The effects of task contexts on pupils’ performance in science process skills. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suaalii, F., & Bhattacharya, M. (2007). Conceptual model of learning to improve understanding of high school chemistry. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(1), 101–110.Google Scholar
  31. Taasoobshirazi, G., & Carr, M. (2008). Gender differences in science: An expertise perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Taber, K. S. (2002). Alternative conceptions in chemistry: Prevention, diagnosis and cure? London: The Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
  33. Tai, C. H., Yang, J. C., Hsu, C. Y., Wang, W. J., Huang, H. H., & Huang, P. C. (2010, August). Studies on development of basic chemistry ability indicators required by freshmen at technology colleges in Taiwan. Paper presented at 21st International Conference on Chemical Education, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  34. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of sub-microscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1353–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zoller, U. (1990). Students’ misunderstandings and alternative conceptions in college freshman chemistry (general and organic). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1053–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ji-Chyuan Yang
    • 1
  • Ching-Yun Hsu
    • 2
  • Wen-Jyh Wang
    • 3
  • Chia-Hui Tai
    • 2
  • Hong-Hsin Huang
    • 2
  • Ping-Chih Huang
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Teacher EducationCheng Shiu UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Chemical & Materials EngineeringCheng Shiu UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Industrial Engineering & ManagementCheng Shiu UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations