CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING IN CHEMICAL EQUILIBRIUM OF SURFACE AND DEEP LEARNERS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v7.i6.2019.764Keywords:
Conceptual Understanding, Surface Learner, Deep Learner, Chemical Equilibrium, Learning ApproachAbstract [English]
This study aimed to determine and describe the conceptual understanding in chemical equilibrium among selected freshman students who were classified as surface and deep learners. Data were gathered utilizing study process questionnaire and conceptual understanding test. This study involved two intact classes of 58 engineering students enrolled in General Chemistry II and was conducted for three weeks. Using the study process questionnaire, students were classified as either surface or deep learners. After the lesson on chemical equilibrium, conceptual understanding test was given to the students. Students were then grouped into six based on their learning approaches and level of conceptual understanding.
The findings of the study revealed that majority of the class (53%) are deep learners while 47% are surface learners. Using t-test analysis, surface and deep learners differ in the scores they obtained on concepts about factors affecting equilibrium. Chi square test of independence also showed that surface and deep learners significantly differ from each other in terms of their level of conceptual understanding on factors affecting equilibrium concepts.
The results of t-test and chi-square test revealed that there could be times that differences between surface and deep learners could only be seen when tested across different concepts within a certain topic.
Downloads
References
Abraham, M.R., Grzybowski, E.B., Renner, J.W. & Marek, E.A. (1992). Understandings and misunderstandings of eight graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105-120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290203
Alvarez, M.L. (1998). Difficulties in solving chemical equilibrium problems. Unpublished Masteral Theses. University of San Carlos, Cebu City.
Bernardo, A.B.I. (2003). Approaches to learning and academic achievement of Filipino students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(1), 101-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221320309597506
Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne, Australia.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Learning and Open University Press.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433
Boujaoude, S. (1992). The relationship between students’ learning strategies and the change in their misunderstandings during a high school chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(7), 687-699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290706
Boujaode, S. (1993). Students’ systematic errors when solving kinetic and chemical equilibrium problems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Atlanta, GA, April 16-19.
Boujaoude, S. & Barakat, H. (2003). Students’ problem solving strategies in stoichiometry and their relationships to conceptual understanding and learning approaches. Electronic Journal of Chemical Education, 7(3). Retreived October 15, 2005 from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ boujaoude.pdf
Boujaoude, S., Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Relationship between selective cognitive variables and students problem solving ability. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 63-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070315
Brown, J. (2004). Making the most of understanding by design. USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Chin, C. & Brown, D. (2000). Learning in Science: a comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Education, 37(2), 109-138.
Darmofal, D., Soderholm, D., & Brodeur, D. (2002). Using concept maps and concept questions to enhance conceptual understanding. 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Boston, MA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2002.1157954
Dimagiba, E. (2004). Facilitating conceptual change on matter through constructivistic teaching. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. De La Salle University, Manila.
Hackling, M. & Garnett, P.J. (1985). Misconceptions of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 205-214.
Harrison, A. & De Jong, O. (2005). Exploring the use of multiple analogical models when teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1135-1159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20090
Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1997). Approaches to learning (2nd ed.). Edinburg: Scottish Academic Press.
Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. The outcome as a function of the learners’ conception of the task. British Journal of Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Mortimer, C. (1986). Chemistry (6th ed.). California: Wadsworth, Inc.
Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P. & Gertzog,W.(1982). Accomodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
Wheeler, A. & Kass, H. (1978). Student misconceptions in chemical equilibrium. Science Education, 62(2), 223-232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730620212
Zumdahl, S. (1992). Chemical principles. USA: D.C. Heath and Company.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
With the licence CC-BY, authors retain the copyright, allowing anyone to download, reuse, re-print, modify, distribute, and/or copy their contribution. The work must be properly attributed to its author.
It is not necessary to ask for further permission from the author or journal board.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
