The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
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
Abstract
A 15-item two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument was developed to evaluate secondary students’ ability to describe and explain seven types of chemical reactions using macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representations. A mixed qualitative and quantitative case study was conducted over four years involving 787 Years 9 and 10 students (15 to 16 years old). The instrument was administered to sixty-five Year 9 students after nine months of instruction to evaluate their use of multiple levels of representation. Analysis of the students’ responses demonstrated acceptable reliability of the instrument, a wide range of difficulty indices and acceptable discrimination indices for 12 of the items. The teaching program proved to be successful in that in most instances students were able to describe and explain the observed changes in terms of the atoms, molecules and ions that were involved in the chemical reactions using appropriate symbols, formulas, and chemical and ionic equations. Nevertheless, despite the emphasis on multiple levels of representation during instruction, 14 conceptions were identified that indicated confusion between macroscopic and submicroscopic representations, a tendency to extrapolate bulk macroscopic properties of substances to the submicroscopic level, and limited understanding of the symbolic representational system. [Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2007, 8 (3), 293-307.]
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1998) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 18,397
Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1968) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 5,195
Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem
Johnstone, A. H. (1991) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x · Cited by 1,321
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057267808559857 · Cited by 1,056
Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science
Treagust, D. F. (1988) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/0950069880100204 · Cited by 844
Self-citationKozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199711)34:9<949::aid-tea7>3.0.co;2-u · Cited by 779
Why some students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/ed069p191 · Cited by 724
The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand
Johnstone, A. H. (1993) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/ed070p701 · Cited by 709
Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry Education Research: A Look to the Future
Gabel, D. (1999) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/ed076p548 · Cited by 563
Grade‐12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules
Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.3660290609 · Cited by 480
Cited by
Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”
Talanquer, V. (2011) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690903386435 · Cited by 591
Menon, D. (2020) · Journal of Science Teacher Education · doi:10.1080/1046560x.2020.1718863 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M.
- Venue
- Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 293-307
- ISSN
- 1109-4028 (ISSN-L)
- 1756-1108
- OpenAlex
- W2056273322
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 15.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 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. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/b7rp90006f
- The paper
- 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. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. https://doi.org/10.1039/b7rp90006f
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.