Affiliation:
1. Department of Chemistry , University of Ioannina , GR-451 10 , Ioannina , Greece
2. Department of Chemistry , University of Ionannina , GR-451 10 , Ioannina , Greece
Abstract
Abstract
The identification of undergraduate chemistry students’ conceptual difficulties and common mistakes with basic concepts and problems in chemical kinetics provided the aim for this study, which involved 2nd-year/4th semester students who had passed the chemical kinetics component of a physical chemistry course. The study involved the analysis, evaluation and interpretation of students’ answers to the final examination in chemical kinetics. Three achievement groups, for the various topics, were identified: Group A, high achievement (mean ≈ 85%): (a) the steps in a chain-reaction mechanism, (b) integrated 1st- and 2nd-order rate laws; and (c) the Lindemann–Hinshelwood mechanism. Group B, intermediate achievement (mean ≈ 74%): (a) half-life, (b) instantaneous rate and the extent of reaction variable (ξ), (c) the Michaelis–Menten mechanism, and (d) theoretical rate law not asking for a final formula. Group C, low achievement (mean ≈ 54%): (a) experimental rate law and the reaction rate constant on the basis of an experimental-data table, (b) extracting the theoretical rate law, and (c) the Arrhenius equation. Students’ errors and misconceptions have also been identified. Successful students tended to respond well to straightforward questions on the theory of the subject, but had difficulties when solving problems. It is essential that teachers understand the potential of their students, especially possible misconceptions they may hold, and the teaching approaches that may contribute to overcoming the student difficulties. Problems in chemical kinetics can be very demanding both in terms of algebraic manipulations and conceptually. Teaching should focus on problem solving, with the emphasis on students themselves trying to solve the problems.
Subject
Education,Chemistry (miscellaneous)
Reference44 articles.
1. Atabek-Yigit, E. (2018). Can cognitive structure outcomes reveal cognitive styles? A study on the relationship between cognitive styles and cognitive structure outcomes on the subject of chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(3), 746–754. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp00018b.
2. Atkins, P. W. (1989). Physical chemistry (3rd ed.) (translated into Greek). Crete University Press, Herakleion, Crete, Greece (Edition in English: 1986).
3. Atkins, P. W. (1998). Physical chemistry (6th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4. Atkinson, M. B., & Bretz, S. L. (2021). Measuring changes in undergraduate chemistry students’ reasoning with reaction coordinate diagrams: A longitudinal, multi-institution study. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(4), 1064–1076. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01419.
5. Bain, K., Rodriguez, J.-M. G., Moon, A., & Towns, M. A. (2018). The characterization of cognitive processes involved in chemical kinetics using a blended processing framework. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(2), 617–628. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7rp00230k.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献