Affiliation:
1. Austrian Educational Competence Center Chemistry , University of Vienna , Porzellangasse 4/2, 1090 , Vienna , Austria
Abstract
Abstract
For centuries, chemists have researched acid-base reactions and developing numerous different acid-base concepts. Consequentially, it is difficult to teach about acid-base reactions in a clear and conceptually coherent manner. We aim at contributing to teaching about acid-base chemistry by an intervention introducing upper secondary school chemistry students to an acid-base concept that is scientifically appropriate and learner-centred. This modernized version of the Brønsted-Lowry acid-base concept appears sufficiently complex for the target group. Additionally, it emphasizes the donor-acceptor concept and the reaction mechanism. In order to evaluate the gain in declarative knowledge during our intervention, we developed and piloted a multiple-choice knowledge test with Austrian upper secondary students (N = 136). By estimating a Rasch model (WLE-Rel. = 0.63, Infitmin = 0.90, Infitmax = 1.02, Outfitmin = 0.89, Outfitmax = 1.00, d = −0.44–1.8), we constructed a pre-test (11 MC items, 6 open-ended questions) and a post-test (11 MC items, 6 open-ended questions) based on key concepts of the topic for our intervention study (N = 57). Overall, the test proved a reliable tool to estimate learners’ declarative knowledge about acid-base reactions in the course of the intervention study, showing a significant knowledge increase.
Subject
Education,Chemistry (miscellaneous)
Reference56 articles.
1. Alvarado, C., Cañada, F., Garritz, A., & Mellado, V. (2015). Canonical pedagogical content knowledge by CoRes for teaching acid–base chemistry at high school. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 16(3), 603–618. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00125G
2. Barke, H.-D. (2015). Brönsted-Säuren und Brönsted-Basen. Chemie & Schule, 30(1), 10–15.
3. Barke, H.-D., & Harsch, N. (2016). Donor-acceptor reactions: Goodbye to the laboratory jargon. African Journal of Chemistry Education, 8(1), 17–30.
4. Bianchini, J. A. (2017). Equity in science education. In K. S. Taber, & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education (pp. 455–464). SensePublishers.
5. Boone, W. J. (2016). Rasch analysis for instrument development: Why, when, and how? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-04-0148.