Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

High School and Preservice Chemistry Teacher Education Students’ Understanding of Voltaic and Electrolytic Cell Concepts: Evidence of Consistent Learning Difficulties Across Years

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

High school students learn the basic voltaic and electrolytic cell concepts during their last year prior to entering an undergraduate teacher-education science degree. During the 4 years of university, students complete a sequence of topics designed to build on conceptual understanding presented in previous years. At the end of their degrees, graduating students are expected to have developed a comprehensive understanding of the subject that they are required to teach. In this research, we designed and developed a 12-item diagnostic instrument which addressed 10 propositional content knowledge statements based on the grade 12 chemistry curriculum that will be taught. In this cross-section study, 50 grade 12 high school students and 216 preservice chemistry teacher education undergraduates in years 1–4 responded to the Electrochemistry Conceptual Test (ECT) consisting of 12 two-tier multiple-choice items. The instrument was content validated by authors and peers prior to administration and when implemented had a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.64. Overall, the students across years possessed basic knowledge about electrochemical cells but frequently were unable to explain their knowledge. While the grand mean trend in understanding electrochemistry concepts from high school through university study did show some improvement, the mean scores remained relatively low, and the year group means per item showed no such trend exacerbated by items having varying levels of difficulty. Based on this research, the lack in understanding about electrochemical concepts suggests that instruction in high school and ongoing university chemistry education faces ongoing challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2007). Effect of cooperative learning strategies on students’ understanding of concepts in electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 349–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9046-7

  • Adadan, E., & Yavuzkaya, M. N. (2018). Examining the progression and consistency of thermal concepts: A cross age study. International Journal of Science Education, 40(4), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1423711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1289–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.512369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akram, M., Surif, J., & Ali, M. (2014). Conceptual difficulties of secondary school students in electrochemistry. Asian Social Science, 10(19), 276–281. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n19p276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayas, A., Ozmen, H., & Calik, M. (2010). Students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter at secondary and tertiary level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9167-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-824-7

  • Amponsah, K. D., Kotoka, J. K., Beccles, C. & Dlamini, S. N. (2018). Effectiveness of collaboration on low and high achieving school students’ comprehension of electrochemistry in South Africa. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(2), 04. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/2685.

  • Amponsah, K. D. (2020). South African twelfth grade students’ conceptions regarding electrochemistry. Journal of Education and Learning, 14(3), 362–368. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v14i3.16273

  • Ball, D. W. (2015). Physical chemistry (2nd ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

  • Birk, J. P., & Kurtz, M. J. (1999). Effect of experience on retention and elimination of misconceptions about molecular structure and bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bong, A. Y. L & Lee, T. T. (2016). Form four students’ misconceptions in electrolysis of molten compounds and aqueous solutions. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 17(1). https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/

  • Bradley, J. D., & Ogude, N. A. (1996). Electrode processes and aspects relating to cell emf, current, and cell components in operating electrochemical cells: Precollege and college student interpretation. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(12), 1145. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed073p1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. L., LeMay, H. E., Bursten, B. E., Murphy, C. J., Woodward, P. M., Stoltzfus, M. W., & Lufaso, M. W. (2018). Chemistry: The central science. Pearson.

  • Carr, M. (1984). Model confusion in chemistry. Research in Science Education, 14, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356795.

  • Castellan, G. W. (1983). Physical chemistry (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley.

  • Chang, R., & Overby, J. (2011). General chemistry: The essential concepts (6th ed.). McGraw Hill.

  • Cheung, D. (2011). Using diagnostic assessment to help teachers understand the chemistry of the lead-acid battery. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90028E

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childs, P. E., & Sheehan, M. (2009). What’s difficult about chemistry? An Irish perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(3), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1039/B914499B

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christian, G. D., Dasgupta, P. K., & Schug, K. A. (2014). Analytical chemistry (7th ed.). Wiley.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Cole, M. H., Rosenthal, D. P., & Sanger, M. J. (2019). Two studies comparing students’ explanations of an oxidation-reduction reaction after viewing a single computer animation: The effect of varying the complexity of visual images and depicting water molecules. Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 20, 738–759. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00065H

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. H., Fuller, D. K., & Sanger, M. J. (2021). Does the way charges and transferred electrons are depicted in an oxidation–reduction animation affect students’ explanations? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00140f

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research (4th ed.). Pearson Education Inc.

  • De Jong, O., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The teaching and learning of electrochemistry. In J. G. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 317–338). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

  • Garnett, P. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electrochemical and electrolytic cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1079–1099. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660291006

  • Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25(1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269508560050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Günter, T., & Alpat, S. K. (2017). The effects of problem-based learning (PBL) on the academic achievement of students studying ‘Electrochemistry’. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18, 78–98. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00176A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (2000). Modern analytical chemistry. McGraw-Hill.

  • Herga, N. R, Čagran, B., & Dinevski, D. (2016). Virtual laboratory in the role of dynamic visualisation for better understanding of chemistry in primary school. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(3), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1224a.

  • Huddle, P. A., & White, M. D. (2000). Using a teaching model to correct known misconceptions in electrochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(1), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen, C., Couture, S., El Meseh, N. A., & Sevian, H. (2020). Connecting theory to life: Learning greener electrochemistry by taking apart a common battery. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(4), 934–942. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavine, I. N. (2009). Physical chemistry (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  • Lavrakas, P. J. (2011). Interrater reliability. In Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (pp. 360–362). Sage Publications.

  • Lee, T. T. & Osman, K. (2017). Misconceptions in electrochemistry: How do pedagogical agents help? In M. Karpudewan, A. N. Md Zain, & A. L. Chandrasegaran (Eds.), Overcoming students’ misconceptions in science: Strategies and perspectives from Malaysia (pp. 91–110). Springer.

  • Loh, A. S. L., & Subramaniam, R. (2018). Mapping the knowledge structure exhibited by a cohort of students based on their understanding of how a galvanic cell produces energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(6), 777–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMurray, J. E., Fay, R. C., & Robinson, J. K. (2016). Chemistry (7th ed.). Pearson.

  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2002). Facilitating conceptual change in students’ understanding of electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110074044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M., & Chacón, E. A. (2003). Conceptual change teaching strategy to facilitate high school students’ understanding of electrochemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023983626388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  • Önder, İ. (2017). The effect of conceptual change texts supplemented instruction on students’ achievement in electrochemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(4), 969–975. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2017.04.006.

  • Osman, K., & Lee, T. T. (2014). Impact of interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agents on students’ understanding and motivation in the learning of electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9407-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 735–738. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özkaya, A. R., Üce, M., Sarıçayır, H., & Sahin, M. (2006). Effectiveness of a conceptual change-oriented teaching strategy to improve students’ understanding of galvanic cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(11), 1719–1723. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahayu, S., Treagust, D. F., Chandrasegaran, A. L., Kita, M. & Suhadi Ibnu, S. (2011). Assessment of electrochemical concepts: A comparative study involving senior high schoolstudents in Indonesia and Japan. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2010.536949

  • Rosenthal, D. P., & Sanger, M. J. (2012). Student misinterpretations and misconceptions based on their explanations of two computer animations of varying complexity depicting the same oxidation–reduction reaction. Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 13(4), 471–483. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP20048A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, R. W., Crettol, G. L., Brown, J. D., Plummer, P. T., Schendorf, T. M., Oliphant, A., Swithenbank, S. B., Ferrante, R. F., & Gray, J. P. (2018). Teaching electrochemistry in the general chemistry laboratory through corrosion exercises. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(5), 842–846. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions in electrochemistry: Current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(4), 819–823. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed074p819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sia, D. T., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2012). High school students’ proficiency and confidence levels in displaying their understanding of basic electrolysis concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1325–1345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9338-z

  • Schmidt, H. J., Marohn, A., & Harrison, A. G. (2007). Factors that prevent learning in electrochemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (2018). Learning progressions as tools for assessment and learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 31(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2017.1408628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirhan G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4, 2–20. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/664

  • Soeharto, Csapo, B., Sariminah, E., Dewi, F. I., & Sabri, T. (2019). A review of students’ common misconceptions in science and their diagnostic assessment tools. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v8i2.18649.

  • Tien, L. T., & Osman, K. (2017). Misconceptions in electrochemistry: How do pedagogical agents help? In M. Karpudewan, A. N. Md Zain, & A. L. Chandrasegaran (Eds.), Overcoming students’ misconceptions in science (pp. 91–110). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3437-4_6

  • Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students' misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204

  • Tsaparlis, G. (2019). Teaching and learning electrochemistry. Israeli Journal of Chemistry, 59, 478–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijch.201800071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, E.-M., Andre, T., Greenbowe, T. J., & Tibell, L. (2003). Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145738b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. (2001). Introductory thermal concept evaluation: Assessing students’ understanding. The Physics Teacher, 39(8), 496–504. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1424603

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

During the time of this research, our dear colleague Dr A. L. Chandrasegaran became ill and passed away in Perth. Chandra played an essential role in the development of the Electrochemistry Conceptual Test and the analysis of the data. We honour this important work by including him as a co-author.

We thank Cety Widyorini, a Masters of Chemistry Education student in the Chemistry Department at the Universitas Negeri Malang, for her help in making the graphs and tables.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chemistry Department, Faculty of Mathematics & Science, Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, Indonesia

    Sri Rahayu

  2. School of Education, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia

    David F. Treagust & A. L. Chandrasegaran

Authors
  1. Sri Rahayu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David F. Treagust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. L. Chandrasegaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sri Rahayu.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 392 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahayu, S., Treagust, D.F. & Chandrasegaran, A.L. High School and Preservice Chemistry Teacher Education Students’ Understanding of Voltaic and Electrolytic Cell Concepts: Evidence of Consistent Learning Difficulties Across Years. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 20, 1859–1882 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10226-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10226-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation