Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
RESEARCH PAPER
Evaluating students’ ability in constructing scientific explanations on chemical phenomena
1
Department of Chemistry Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, INDONESIA
2
Postgraduate Program of Education Technology, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, INDONESIA
3
Department of Aquatic Resource Management, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, INDONESIA
Online publication date: 2023-08-04
Publication date: 2023-09-01
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2023;19(9):em2328
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Evaluation of students’ ability in constructing scientific explanations on scientific phenomena is essential as an effort to obtain information and feedback for innovation in learning process and curriculum development. Unfortunately, this issue is still left unexplored by researchers in chemistry education. Such is presumed to occur due to validated instruments, measurements, analysis techniques, and diverse epistemological values that leave much space to be investigated. Employing a Rasch model, we intended to validate test of ability in constructing scientific explanations on chemical phenomena, examine data fit with the Rasch model, evaluate difference in the students’ ability in constructing scientific explanations, investigate items with different functions, and diagnose causes for difference in item difficulty level. The respondents were 550 students from seven senior high schools in three regencies/cities and 153 university students in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Data were collected by 30 test items; each item consisted of three questions measuring students’ ability in proposing their knowledge (Q1), evidence (Q2), and reasoning (Q3). Their responses were assessed on criteria and analyzed using the Rasch partial credit model. This model applies an individual-centered statistical approach allowing researchers to measure up to item and individual level. Results suggested that data fit the Rasch model measurement. Also, students’ ability in constructing scientific explanations varied significantly. We found no items with different functions, signifying that sex and hometown do not influence students’ ability. However, based on item logit value grouping, it was discovered that item difficulty level also varied among students. This was particularly due to students’ lack of chemistry concepts mastery that lowered their ability and accuracy in constructing scientific explanation. This shows lack of epistemological engagement of students in learning process. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into students’ ability to construct scientific explanations and sheds light on factors that influence their performance in this area. Findings highlight need for targeted interventions that address students’ conceptual understanding and engagement with chemistry concepts, as well as promote critical thinking and scientific reasoning skills. This has important implications for science education and can inform curriculum development and evaluation policies.
REFERENCES (119)
1.
Adadan, E., & Savasci, F. (2012). An analysis of 16-17-year-old students’ understanding of solution chemistry concepts using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 513-544. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
2.
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/10.1080/095006....
3.
Aktan, D. C. (2013). Investigation of students’ intermediate conceptual understanding levels: The case of direct current electricity concepts. European Journal of Physics, 34(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0....
4.
Alamina, J. I., & Etokeren, I. S. (2018). Effectiveness of imagination stretch teaching strategy in correcting misconceptions of students about particulate nature of matter. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioral Science, 27(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.9734/jesbs/....
6.
Aryadoust, V., Ng, L. Y., & Sayama, H. (2021). A comprehensive review of Rasch measurement in language assessment: Recommendations and guidelines for research. Language Testing, 38(1), 6-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553....
7.
Bailey, C. P., Minderhout, V., & Loertscher, J. (2012). Learning transferable skills in large lecture halls: Implementing a POGIL approach in biochemistry. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20....
8.
Banghaei, P. (2008). The Rasch model as a construct validation tool. Rasch Measurement Transaction, 22(1), 1145-1162.
9.
Barbera, J. (2013). A psychometric analysis of the chemical concepts inventory. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(5), 546-553. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3004....
10.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20....
11.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
12.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8....
13.
Boone, W. J., & Noltemeyer, A. (2017). Rasch analysis: A primer for school psychology researchers and practitioners. Cogent Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/233118....
14.
Boone, W. J., & Staver, J. R. (2020). Advances in Rasch analyses in the human sciences. In D. M. Garner (Ed.), Advances in Rasch analyses in the human sciences (pp. 317-334). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-....
15.
Boone, W. J., Yale, M. S., & Staver, J. R. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94....
16.
Briggs, D. (2009). The psychometric modeling of ordered multiple-choice item responses for diagnostic assessment with a learning progression [Paper presentation]. The Learning Progressions in Science Conference.
17.
Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science and Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/026351....
18.
Chan, S. W., Looi, C. K., & Sumintono, B. (2021). Assessing computational thinking abilities among Singapore secondary students: A Rasch model measurement analysis. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(2), 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692....
19.
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293-307. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90....
20.
Cheng, M. M. W. (2018). Students’ vizualisation of chemical reactions-insights into the particle model and the atomic model. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 227-239. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00....
21.
Cheung, D. (2008). Developing a scale to measure students’ attitudes toward chemistry lessons. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(1), 50-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
22.
Chi, S., Liu, X., & Wang, Z. (2021). Comparing student science performance between hands-on and traditional item types: A many-facet Rasch analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 100998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stue....
23.
Chi, S., Wang, Z., & Liu, X. (2022). Assessment of context-based chemistry problem-solving skills: Test design and results from ninth-grade students. Research in Science Education, 53, 295-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165....
24.
Chi, S., Wang, Z., Luo, M., Yang, Y., & Huang, M. (2018a). Student progression on chemical symbol representation abilities at different grade levels (grades 10-12) across gender. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(4), 1111-1124. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp00....
25.
Chi, S., Wang, Z., Luo, M., Yang, Y., & Huang, M. (2018b). Student progression on chemical symbol representation abilities at different grade levels (grades 10-12) across gender. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(4), 1055-1064. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp00....
26.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)...<109::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-7.
27.
Chittleborough, G. D., Treagust, D. F., Mamiala, T. L., & Mocerino, M. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the role of models in the process of science and in the process of learning. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(2), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/026351....
28.
Clark, T. M., Dickson-Karn, N. M., & Anderson, E. (2022). Calculating the pH of a strong acid or a strong base before and after instruction in general and analytical chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(4), 1587-1595. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jc....
29.
Cooper, C. B. (2012). Links and distinctions among citizenship, science, and citizen science. Democracy and Education, 20(2), 1-4.
30.
Davidowitz, B., Chittleborough, G., & Murray, E. (2010). Student-generated sub-micro diagrams: A useful tool for teaching and learning chemical equations and stoichiometry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11(3), 154-164. https://doi.org/10.1039/c00546....
31.
Deng, Y., & Wang, H. (2017). Research on evaluation of Chinese students’ competence in written scientific argumentation in the context of chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 127-150. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00....
32.
Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Young, D. S., & Benefield, P. (2006). The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and Elsewhere. School Science Review, 87, 107-111.
33.
Ding, L. (2018). Progression trend of scientific reasoning from elementary school to university: A large-scale cross-grade survey among Chinese students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(8), 1479-1498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763....
34.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)...<287::aid-sce1>3.0.co;2-a.
35.
Duran, M., & Dokme, I. (2016). The effect of the inquiry-based learning approach on students’ critical thinking skills. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 12(12), 2887-2908. https://doi.org/10.12973/euras....
36.
Eckes, T. (2015). Introduction to many-facet Rasch measurement: Analyzing and evaluating rater-mediated assessments. Peter Lang.
37.
Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students’ use of decision-making strategies with regard to socio-scientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2), 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20....
38.
Emden, M., Weber, K., & Sumfleth, E. (2018). Evaluating a learning progression on “transformation of matter” on the lower secondary level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(4), 1096-1116. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp00....
39.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20....
40.
Gilbert, J K & Treagust, D. (Ed.). (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-....
41.
Grooms, J. (2020). A comparison of argument quality and students’ conceptions of data and evidence for undergraduates experiencing two types of laboratory instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(5), 1210-1222. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jc....
42.
Gulacar, O., Zowada, C., Burke, S., Nabavizadeh, A., Bernardo, A., & Eilks, I. (2020). Integration of a sustainability-oriented socio-scientific issue into the general chemistry curriculum: Examining the effects on student motivation and self-efficacy. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, 15, 100232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.....
43.
Hadenfeldt, Jan C, Bernholt, S., Liu, X., Neumann, K., & Parchmann, I. (2013). Using ordered multiple-choice items to assess students’ understanding of the structure and composition of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(12), 1602-1608. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3006....
44.
Hadenfeldt, Jan Christoph, Neumann, K., Bernholt, S., Liu, X., & Parchmann, I. (2016). Students’ progression in understanding the matter concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 683-708. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21....
45.
Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2011). Using distractor-driven standards-based multiple-choice assessments and Rasch modeling to investigate hierarchies of chemistry misconceptions and detect structural problems with individual items. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 184-192. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1rp90....
46.
Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & Deboer, G. E. (2016). Using Rasch modeling and option probability curves to diagnose students’ misconceptions [Paper presentation]. The 2016 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.
47.
Hoe, K. Y., & Subramaniam, R. (2016). On the prevalence of alternative conceptions on acid-base chemistry among secondary students: Insights from cognitive and confidence measures. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00....
48.
Hong, Z. R., Lin, H. shyang, Wang, H. H., Chen, H. T., & Yang, K. K. (2013). Promoting and scaffolding elementary school students’ attitudes toward science and argumentation through a science and society intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625-1648. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
49.
Jin, H., Yan, D., Mehl, C. E., Llort, K., & Cui, W. (2021). An empirically grounded framework that evaluates argument quality in scientific and social contexts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(4), 681-700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763....
50.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365....
51.
Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemical education research in Glasgow in perspective. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1039/b5rp90....
52.
Johnstone, A. H. (2010). You can’t get there from here. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed8000....
53.
Kane, M. T. (2016). Explicating validity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 23(2), 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/096959....
54.
Kapici, H. O., & Akcay, H. (2016). Particulate nature of matter misconceptions held by middle and high school students in Turkey. European Journal of Education Studies, 2(8), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo....
55.
Kinslow, A. T., Sadler, T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2018). Socio-scientific reasoning and environmental literacy in a field-based ecology class. Environmental Education Research, 4622, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/135046....
56.
Laliyo, L. A. R, Sumintono, B., & Panigoro, C. (2022). Measuring changes in hydrolysis concept of students taught by inquiry model: Stacking and racking analysis techniques in Rasch model. Heliyon, 8, e09126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heli....
57.
Laliyo, Lukman A R, Kilo, A. La, Paputungan, M., Kunusa, W. R., & Dama, L. (2022). Rasch modelling to evaluate reasoning difficulties, changes of responses, and item misconception pattern of hydrolysis. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(5), 817-835. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/....
58.
Laliyo, Lukman A. R, Tangio, J. S., Sumintono, B., Jahja, M., & Panigoro, C. (2020). Analytic approach of response pattern of diagnostic test items in evaluating students’ conceptual understanding of characteristics of particle of matter. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(5), 824-841. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/....
59.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/252931....
60.
Lewis, S. E. (2022). Considerations on validity for studies using quantitative data in chemistry education research and practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23, 764-767. https://doi.org/10.1039/d2rp90....
61.
Linacre, J. M. (2020). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS: MINISTEP Rasch-model computer programs program manual 4.5.1. www.winsteps.com.
62.
Ling Lee, W., Chinna, K., & Sumintono, B. (2020). Psychometrics assessment of HeartQoL questionnaire: A Rasch analysis. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 28(12), e1-e5. https://doi.org/10.1177/204748....
63.
Liu, X., & Boone, W. J. (2006). Applications of Rasch measurement in science education. JAM Press.
64.
Lu, S., & Bi, H. (2016). Development of a measurement instrument to assess students’ electrolyte conceptual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1030-1040.
65.
Lu, X., & Chen, Y. (2021). Using the Rasch model to assess the psychometric properties of an online reading comprehension test for Chinese EFL learners. Language Testing, 38(1), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553....
66.
Malone, K. L., Boone, W. J., Stammen, A., Schuchardt, A., Ding, L., & Sabree, Z. (2021). Construction and evaluation of an instrument to measure high school students biological content knowledge. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(12), em2048. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmst....
67.
Mao, L., Liu, O. L., Roohr, K., Belur, V., Mulholland, M., Lee, H. S., & Pallant, A. (2018). Validation of automated scoring for a formative assessment that employs scientific argumentation. Educational Assessment, 23(2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/106271....
68.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20....
69.
Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2014). An instrument for analyzing arguments produced in modeling-based chemistry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(2), 192-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21....
70.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2013). Dokumen kurikulum 2013 [2013 curriculum documents]. Kemendikbud.
71.
Mulford, D. R., & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 739. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p....
72.
Myford, C. M., & Wolfe, E. W. (2004). Detecting and measuring rater effects using many-facet Rasch measurement: Part II. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5(2), 189-227.
73.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. https://doi.org/10.17226/11625.
74.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.
75.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson.
76.
Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 162-188. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21....
77.
Nongna, C., Junpeng, P., Hong-ngam, J., Podjana, C., & Tang, K. (2023). Rasch analysis for standards-setting appraisal of competency level-based performance on the part of instructors in higher education. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 31(1), 319-338. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh....
78.
Opitz, A., Heene, M., & Fischer, F. (2017). Measuring scientific reasoning–a review of test instruments. Educational Research and Evaluation, 23(3-4), 78-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/138036....
79.
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20....
80.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20....
81.
Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019). Teaching practices for enactment of socio-scientific issues instruction: An instrumental case study of an experienced biology teacher. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 35-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165....
82.
Pentecost, T. C., & Barbera, J. (2013). Measuring learning gains in chemical education: A comparison of two methods. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(7), 839-845. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed4000....
83.
Rahayu, S. (2019). Argumentasi ilmiah: Implementasinya dalam pembelajaran kimia untuk meningkatkan keterampilan berkomunikasi [Scientific argumentation: Its implementation in chemistry learning to improve communication skills]. In Proceedings of the National Seminar on Chemistry 2019.
84.
Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. University of Chicago Press.
85.
Rickinson, M., Justin, D., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. National Foundation for Educational Research and King’s College London.
86.
Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (1999). University science students’ experiences of investigative project work and their images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 945-956. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
87.
Sadler, P. M. (1998). Psychometric models for student-conceptions in science: Reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-driver assessment instruments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 265-296. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)...<265::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-P.
88.
Salibašić Glamočić, D., Mešić, V., Neumann, K., Sušac, A., Boone, W. J., Aviani, I., Hasović, E., Erceg, N., Repnik, R., & Grubelnik, V. (2021). Maintaining item banks with the Rasch model: An example from wave optics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17, 010105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRe....
89.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326....
90.
Schwichow, M., Christoph, S., Boone, W. J., & Härtig, H. (2016). The impact of sub-skills and item content on students’ skills with regard to the control-of-variables strategy. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 216-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
91.
Soeharto, S., & Csapó, B. (2021). Evaluating item difficulty patterns for assessing student misconceptions in science across physics, chemistry, and biology concepts. Heliyon, 7(11), E08352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heli....
92.
Sovey, S., Osman, K., & Matore, M. E. E. M. (2022). Rasch analysis for disposition levels of computational thinking instrument among secondary school students. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science Technology Education, 18(3), em2088. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmst....
93.
Stevenson, C. E., Hickendorff, M., Resing, W. C. M., Heiser, W. J., & de Boeck, P. A. L. (2013). Explanatory item response modeling of children’s change on a dynamic test of analogical reasoning. Intelligence, 41(3), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inte....
94.
Stojanovska, M. I., Soptrajanov, B. T., & Petrusevski, V. M. (2012). Addressing misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter among secondary-school and high-school students in the Republic of Macedonia. Creative Education, 3(5), 619-631. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.201....
95.
Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2014). Aplikasi model Rasch untuk penelitian ilmu-ilmu sosial [Application of Rasch model in social sciences research]. Trim Publishing.
96.
Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2015). Aplikasi pemodelan Rasch pada assessment pendidikan [Application of Rasch modeling in educational assessment]. Trim Publishing.
97.
Szalay, L., & Tóth, Z. (2016). An inquiry-based approach of traditional “step-by-step” experiments. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 923-961. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00....
98.
Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions—Prevention, diagnosis, and cure. Royal Society of Chemistry.
99.
Taber, K. S. (2009). Challenging misconceptions in the chemistry classroom: Resources to support teachers. Educació Química [Chemical Education], 4, 13-20.
100.
Taber, K. S. (2014). Ethical considerations of chemistry education research involving “human subjects”. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 109-113. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4rp90....
101.
Talanquer, V. (2018). Progressions in reasoning about structure-property relationships. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(4), 998-1009. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7rp00....
102.
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/10.1080/095006....
103.
Tseng, W. T., Su, T. Y., & Nix, J. M. L. (2019). Validating translation test items via the many-facet Rasch model. Psychological Reports, 122(2), 748-772. https://doi.org/10.1177/003329....
104.
Uzuntiryaki, E., & Aydin, Y.C. (2009). Development and validation of chemistry self-efficacy scale for college students. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 539-551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165....
105.
Van Vo, D., & Csapó, B. (2021). Development of scientific reasoning test measuring control of variables strategy in physics for high school students: evidence of validity and latent predictors of item difficulty. International Journal of Science Education, 43(13), 2185-2205. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
106.
Wang, C. Y. (2015). Scaffolding middle school students’ construction of scientific explanations: Comparing a cognitive versus a metacognitive evaluation approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 237-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
107.
Wang, W. C., & Willson, M. (2005). Exploring local item dependence using a random-effects facet model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29(4), 296-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662....
108.
Wei, S., Liu, X., Wang, Z., & Wang, X. (2012). Using rasch measurement to develop a computer modeling-based instrument to assess students’ conceptual understanding of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(3), 335-345. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed1008....
109.
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/978141....
110.
Wilson, M. (2008). Cognitive diagnosis using item response models. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie [Journal of Psychology], 216(2), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3....
111.
Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716-730. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20....
112.
Wind, S. A., & Gale, J. D. (2015). Diagnostic opportunities using Rasch measurement in the context of a misconceptions-based physical science assessment. Science Education, 99(4), 721-741. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21....
113.
Wind, S. A., Tsai, C. L., Grajeda, S. B., & Bergin, C. (2018). Principals’ use of rating scale categories in classroom observations for teacher evaluation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(3), 485-510. https://doi.org/10.1080/092434....
114.
Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
115.
Yang, J., Chang, H. H., & Cheng, Y. (2021). Current trends in Rasch modeling in educational research: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 33, 100406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edur....
116.
Yao, J. X., & Guo, Y. Y. (2018). Validity evidence for a learning progression of scientific explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 299-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21....
117.
Yasar, I. Z., Ince, E., & Kirbaslar, F. G. (2014). 7. class science and technology course “structure of atom” subject readiness improvement test. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 662-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsp....
118.
Yildirir, H. E., & Demirkol, H. (2018). Identifying mental models of students for physical and chemical change. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(6), 986-1004. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/....
119.
Zhan, P., Jiao, H., & Liao, D. (2017). Cognitive diagnosis modelling incorporating item response times. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 70(2), 332-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.1....
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
