Analysis of Students' Chemical Bonding Misconception (2022) PDF
Analysis of Students' Chemical Bonding Misconception (2022) PDF
Analysis of Students' Chemical Bonding Misconception (2022) PDF
Website: http://journal.uinsgd.ac.id/index.php/tadris-kimiya/index
ISSN 2527-9637 (online) ISSN 2527-6816 (print)
Rosyidah Syafaatur Rohmah 1*, Nikmatin Sholichah2, Yunilia Nur Pratiwi3, and Rizki
Nur Analita4
1Department of Chemical Education, Universitas Billfath, Lamongan, Indonesia
2Department of Physics, Universitas Billfath, Lamongan, Indonesia
3SMA Ar-Rohmah Islamic Boarding School, Malang, Indonesia
4Department of Chemical Education, Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin,
Indonesia
*E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Students had difficulty understanding the chemical bonding concept because of its complex and abstract
nature. This difficulty could lead to chemical bonding misconceptions. This study aimed to investigate basic
chemistry students' misconceptions of chemical bonding. This study used a descriptive research design with a
four-tier diagnostic test. The research’s subjects were basic chemistry students. Chemical Bonding Diagnostic
Tool (CBDT) was used as an instrument to determine students' misconceptions. The results showed that
students who had misconceptions about ionic, covalent, and coordinate covalent bonding were 48.9%, 53.0%,
and 37.5%, respectively. The misconception in this course is that students need to learn about ionic bonds
formed by electrostatic forces between cations and anions. As a result, students cannot determine the
difference in electronegativity values in ionic and covalent bonds and the number of valence electrons of each
atom in a chemical bonding. Therefore, the misconception is in the moderate category.
DOI : https://doi.org/10.15575/jtk.v7i2.20343
and anions, HCl molecules had ionic bonds, chemical bonds (Fatokun, 2016). Structured
there were coordinate covalent bonds in essay tests were used to detect
ammonia molecules, the compounds misconceptions. Misconceptions include:
potassium hydroxide and sodium nitrate had atoms were attracted to each other and
only ionic bonds. formed ionic or covalent bonds; covalent
compounds were compounds in which each
Research conducted by Fahmi and Irhasyuarna atom contributes one electron to form a
(2017) on students of class X senior high covalent bond; the sodium chloride molecule
school in Banjarmasin, showed that students was represented by NaCl where the sodium
could not distinguish between ionic and atom donates one electron to the chlorine
covalent bonds, as well as molecules and atom; Na+Cl- bonds do not break when
atoms; students could not distinguish dissolved in water, only the intermolecular
between covalent and molecular lattices; the bonds were broken. This explains why we can
general concept of ionic bonds being stronger recover NaCl if water is removed; the
than covalent bonds; students cannot formation of the bonding electrons in a
distinguish between intramolecular forces and covalent bond can be identified and shared
intermolecular forces; students did not equally between the two bonding atoms; HCl
understand that only three of the four is an ionic compound because it can conduct
electrons of graphite were involved in electricity in water; Metallic bonds are bonds
bonding, of which one electron is delocalized, between metals. The presence of metallic
which causes the graphite to have an electric bonds increases the boiling point of a
charge. The students’ misconceptions were compound.
collected by administrating closed-reasoned
multiple-choice tests. To find out the students' misconceptions
about chemical bonding, a diagnostic test was
Research by Luxford and Bretz (2014) and used. A diagnostic test was an assessment tool
Vrabec and Proksa (2016) used the Bonding used to find out the difficulties of students and
Representations Inventory (BRI) to identify the the causes of these difficulties (Gurel et al,
misconception. The following misconceptions 2015). The forms of diagnostic tests that were
experienced by high school and college often used are interviews (Unal et al, 2010),
students are: covalent bonding had a large open-ended tests (Sampurna et al, 2020;
electronegativity difference, carbon is more Fatokun, 2016), multiple-choice tests (Rahayu
electronegative than chlorine, NaCl et al, 2021; Fahmi & Irhasyuarna, 2017; Perez
compounds share electrons, the small et al, 2017), and multiple-tier tests (Widarti et
electronegativity differences indicate the use al, 2018; Suri & Azhar, 2020; Noviani &
of shared electrons, in carbon tetrachloride an Istiyadji, 2017; Setiawan et al., 2017; Mellyzar,
electron transfer occurs, in phosphorus 2021; Sugiarti & Sanjaya, 2015). The form of
pentachloride an electron transfer occurs, diagnostic test used in this study was a four-
electrons were transferred to neutralize the tier multiple choice.
charge, electron transfer is more accurate than
attraction, cations release electrons to make According to Bakti and Analita (2020), and Yan
them more stable, bonds are formed by and Subramaniam (2018), the instrument in
sharing and transferring electrons the form of a four-tier diagnostic test had
simultaneously, ions of the same type attract several advantages, including (1) it can
each other, two electrons are attracted to each determine the level of confidence in each
other to form a bond, a bond is formed to gain question and the reasons for the research
eight electrons, only one Na and one Cl can subject; (2) more accurate in analyzing each
bond. research subject's answers and beliefs when
compared to other types of diagnostic
Students majoring in chemistry education in instruments; and (3) more efficient and
the 3rd and 4th years of Universities in Nigeria effective in analyzing the conceptual
still experience the misconception about understanding of research subjects when
compared to open-ended questions and and not cause misconceptions in the next
interviews. The four-tier diagnostic test to find concept.
out the misconception of chemical bonding in
Basic Chemistry students is still rarely used. 2. Research Method
The research objectives were to determine The research method used was descriptive
misconceptions about chemical bonding research to identify students’ misconceptions
experienced by basic chemistry students. The by a four-tier diagnostic test. There were 20
urgency of the research is to find out the basic chemistry students, Department of
misconceptions about chemical bonding that Chemistry Education, Universitas Billfath, used
students had so that they could be corrected as research subjects.
Chemical Bonding Diagnostic Tool (CBDT), The analysis was carried out to determine
developed by Analita et al. (2022), was used as students who had misconceptions using the
a research instrument. The CBDT instrument percentage technique. The categories of
had a content validity of 94.63%, which was students' level of misconceptions were
considered a very high criterion. CBDT presented in Table 2 adapted from Putri and
reliability was 0.679, which had high criteria. Subekti (2021) and Istighfarin et al. (2015).
The CBDT instrument was valid and reliable.
Table 2. Categories of Students’ Misconceptions
The research data analysis technique was Level
Percentage of Category of
descriptive analysis. Descriptive analysis was
Misconceptions Misconceptions
used to find the students' misconceptions
61%-100% High
about chemical bonding (Susanti, 2021; Fikri et 31%-60% Moderate
al., 2022; Setiawan & Ilahi, 2022; Jusniar et al., 0%-30% Low
2020; Fauziah et al., 2021). The identification of
students' misconceptions was based on Table
3. Result and Discussion
1. Combination of Four-Tier Test Answers
adapted from Jannah and Rahmi (2020).
A CBDT was used to find students'
misconceptions. The CBDT consists of 16
questions in a four-tier test. Each question answer and the wrong reason and they are
consists of a question, answer choices (1st tier), sure about their answer then it categorized as
confidence answer choices (2nd tier), answer having a misconception. So, in question No. 1,
reason choices (3rd tier), and answer 80% of students had a misconception.
confidence reason choices (4th tier).
to oxygen atoms, then bond. In general, not understand that ionic bonds are formed
students do not understand the formation of from electrostatic forces between cations and
ionic bonds. This follows previous studies anions. Cations can come from metals such as
(Pikoli, 2018; Widarti et al., 2018; Vladusic et K+, Na+, Mg2+, and non-metals such as NH4+
al., 2016; Suri & Azhar, 2020; Taber, 2002; (Effendy, 2008; Robinson et al., 2020; Chang,
Nahum et al., 2010). Students understand that 2010; Silberberg & Amateis, 2018). This is
ionic bonds are composed of cations and similar to the research of Yastophi and Ritonga
anions, but students assume that cations (2019) which states that students do not
always come from metals, and electron understand the effect of electrostatic forces on
transfer occurs between atoms. Students do bond formation.
Based on Table 4, it is known that students Based on question No. 7 it is known that as
experience the most misconception about many as 55% of students think that HI
covalent bonding in questions No. 7, 8, and 15. compounds tend to be ionic rather than
Fahmi, & Irhasyuarna, Y. (2017). The Jannah, R., & Rahmi, I. (2020). Pengembangan
misconceptions of senior high school e-diagnostic four tier test untuk
students in Banjarmasin on chemical mengidentifikasi miskonsepsi peserta
bonding. Journal of Education and didik. Natural Science: Jurnal Penelitian
Practice, 8(17), 32-39. Retrieved from Bidang IPA dan Pendidikan IPA, 6(2),
https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.ph 151-160. Retrieved from
p/JEP/article/view/37464 https://ejournal.uinib.ac.id/jurnal/index.
php/naturalscience/article/view/1721
Fatokun, K. V. F. (2016). Instructional
misconceptions of prospective Jusniar, J., Effendy, E., Budiasih, E., & Sutrisno,
chemistry teachers in chemical bonding. S. (2020). Misconceptions in rate of
Intermational Journal of Science and reaction and their impact on
Technology Educational Research, 7(2), misconceptions in chemical equilibrium.
18-24. European Journal of Educational
https://doi.org/10.5897/IJSTER2016.035 Research, 9(4), 1405-1423.
7 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.4.1405
Fauziah, S. R., Sumari, S., Budiasih, E., Luxford, C. J., & Bretz, S. L. (2014).
Sukarianingsih, D., Santoso, A., & Asrori, Development of the bonding
M. R. (2021). Student misconception representations inventory to identify
analysis on the concept of colligative student misconceptions about covalent
properties of solutions using a digital and ionic bonding representations.
three-tier multiple-choice diagnostic Journal of Chemical Education, 91(1),
test. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2330, 312-320.
020050. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400700q
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0043415
Mellyzar. (2021). Analysis of understanding
Fikri, R. A, Suwono, H., & Susilo, H. (2022). chemical bond concepts in students with
Online three-tier diagnostic test to three-tier multiple choice. Journal of
identify misconception about virus and Educational Chemistry, 3(1), 53-66.
COVID-19. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi https://doi.org/10.21580/jec.2021.3.1.75
Indonesia (JPBI), 8(2), 129-141. 60
https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v8i2.1889
5 Mellyzar, & Muliaman, A. (2020). Analisis
kesalahan mahasiswa dalam
Gurel, D. K., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. menyelesaikan soal ikatan kimia.
(2015). A review and comparison of Lantanida Journal, 8(1), 41-52.
diagnostic instrument to identify http://dx.doi.org/10.22373/lj.v8i1.6420
students’ misconceptions in science.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science Nahum, T. L., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A.,
and Technology Education, 11(5), 989- Taber, K. S. (2010). Teaching and
1008. learning the concept of chemical
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1 bonding. Studies in Science Education,
369a 46(2), 179-207.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2010.
Istighfarin, L., Rachmadiarti, F. & Budiono, J. D. 504548
(2015). Profil miskonsepsi siswa pada
materi struktur dan fungsi jaringan Noviani, M. W., & Istiyadji, M. (2017).
tumbuhan. BioEdu, 4(3), 991–995. Miskonsepsi ditinjau dari penguasaan
Retrieved from pengetahuan prasyarat untuk materi
https://jurnalmahasiswa.unesa.ac.id/ind ikatan kimia pada kelas X. QUANTUM,
ex.php/1/article/view/13430 Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Sains, 8(1), 63-
Openhotman, Sihaloho, M., & Isa, I. (2017). Rahayu, M., Silfianah, I., Arsyka, A. A., & Rettob,
Analisis Pemahaman Siswa pada Konsep A. L. (2021). Analisis Pemahaman Konsep
Ikatan Kimia Menggunakan Tes Paralel. Mahasiswa Tadris Biologi Tahun Pertama
Jurnal Entropi, 12(2), 149-155. Retrieved Pada Topik Ikatan Ionik dan Kovalen.
from Musamus Journal of Science Education,
https://garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/docum 3(2), 84-91. Retrieved from
ents/detail/977896 https://garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/docum
ents/detail/2112331
Pabucu, A., & Geban, O. (2012). Students’
conceptual level of understanding on Robinson, J. K., McMurry, J. E., & Fay, R. C.
chemical bonding. International Online (2020). Chemistry, eight edition.
Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
563-580. Retrieved from
https://iojes.net/?mod=makale_ing_oze Rohmah, R. S. (2019). Kesalahan konsep
t&makale_id=41176 mahasiswa kimia anorganik fisik tentang
materi dan perubahannya. Karangan:
Perez, J. R., Perez, M. E., Calatayud, M. L., Jurnal Kependidikan, Pembelajaran, dan
Garcia-Lopera, R., Montesinos, J. V., & Pengembangan, 1(1), 24-30.
Gil, E. T. (2017). Students' https://doi.org/10.55273/karangan.v1i0
misconceptions on chemical bonding: A 1.4
comparative study between high school
and first year university students. Asian Rohmah, R. S., Fariati, & Ibnu, S. (2020). Effect
Journal of Education and e-Learning, of conceptual change text on physical
5(1), 1-15. Retrieved from inorganic chemistry students'
https://www.ajouronline.com/index.php misconceptions of matter and its
/AJEEL/article/view/4327 changes. AIP Conference Proceedings,
2215, 020020.
Pikoli, M. (2018). Miskonsepsi tentang https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000492
pembentukan ikatan kovalen dan ionik
pada mahasiswa Pendidikan Kimia UNG. Rohmah, R. S., & Virtayanti, I. A. (2021). Effect
Jurnal Entropi, 13(1), 115-120. Retrieved of conceptual change text on basic
from chemistry students’ understanding of
https://garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/docum acid and base in online learning. AIP
ents/detail/977825 Conference Proceedings, 2330, 020002.
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0043141
Prodjosantoso, A. K., Hertina, A. M., & Irwanto.
(2019). The misconception diagnosis on Sampurna, A. M., Mulawi, & Sadiana, I. M.
ionic and covalent bonds concepts with (2020). Profil penguasaan konsep ikatan
three tier diagnostic test. International kimia pada siswa kelas X SMA Negeri 4
Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1477-1488. Palangka Raya tahun ajaran 2017/2018.
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12194 Jurnal Ilmiah Kanderang Tingang, 11(1),
a 14-29.
https://doi.org/10.37304/jikt.v11i1.69
Putri, R. E., & Subekti, H. (2021). Analisis
miskonsepsi menggunakan metode Setiawan, D., Cahyono, E., & Kurniawan, C.
four-tier certainty of response index: (2017). Identifikasi dan analisis
Studi eksplorasi di SMP Negeri 60 miskonsepsi pada materi ikatan kimia
Surabaya. Pensa E-Jurnal: Pendidikan menggunakan instrumen tes diagnostik
three-tier. Journal of Innovative Science Unal, S., Costu, B., & Ayas, A. (2010). Secondary
Education, 6(2), 197-204. Retrieved from school students´ misconceptions of
https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.ph covalent bonding. Journal of Turkish
p/jise/article/view/15580/9317 Science Education, 7(2), 3-29. Retrieved
from
Setiawan, N. C. E., & Ilahi, P. R. (2022). https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused
Identification of misconceptions in /article/view/508
chemical bonding materials using three
tier diagnostic test. Journal of Natural Vladusic, R., Bucat, R. B., & Ozic, M. (2016).
Science and Integration, 5(1), 77-89. Understanding ionic bonding- A scan
http://dx.doi.org/10.24014/jnsi.v5i1.168 across the Croatian education system.
60 Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, 17(4), 685-699.
Silberberg, M. S., & Amateis, P. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00040A
Chemistry: The molecular nature of
matter and change with advance topics. Vrabec, M., & Proksa, M. (2016). Identifying
New York: McGraw-Hill Education. misconceptions related to chemical
bonding concepts in the slovak school
Sugiarti, A. C., & Sanjaya, I. G. M. (2015). The system using the bonding
development of three tier diagnostic representations inventory as a
test to identify student misconception in diagnostic tool. Journal of Chemical
chemical bonding on 10th grader. Education, 93(8), 1364-1370.
UNESA Journal of Chemical Education, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b
4(3), 456-465. Retrieved from 00953
https://ejournal.unesa.ac.id/index.php/j
ournal-of-chemical- Widarti, H. R., Safitri, A. F., Sukarianingsih, D.
education/article/view/13280 (2018). Identifikasi pemahaman konsep
ikatan kimia. Jurnal Pembelajaran Kimia,
Suri, N. A., & Azhar, M. (2020). Description of 3(1), 41-50.
senior high school students’ http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um026v3i12
understanding categories about 018p041
chemical bonds using two-tier multiple
choice diagnostic instrument. Yan, Y. K., & Subramaniam, R. (2018). Using a
International Journal of Progressive multi-tier diagnostic test to explore the
Science and Technologies (IJPSAT), nature of students' alternative
21(1), 26-34. Retrieved from conceptions on reaction kinetics.
https://ijpsat.org/index.php/ijpsat/articl Chemistry Education Research and
e/view/1847 Practice, 19(1), 213–226.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00143F
Susanti, M. M. I. (2021). The Analysis of
mastering of concepts and Yastophi, A., & Ritonga, P. S. (2019).
misconceptions in elementary teacher Pengembangan instrumen test
education students. Jurnal Pendidikan diagnostik multiple choice four tier pada
Indonesia (JPI), 10(1), 163-171. materi ikatan kimia. Konfigurasi, 3(1),
https://doi.org/10.23887/jpi- 23-31.
undiksha.v10i1.26740 http://dx.doi.org/10.24014/konfigurasi.v
3i1.6797
Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions -
prevention, diagnosis and cure. London:
Royal Society of Chemistry.