Diagnosing Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Multiple Representational Understanding of Chemical Bonding
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14421/jtcre.2026.81-06Keywords:
chemical bonding, diagnostic assessment, multiple representations, pre-service science teachersAbstract
Chemical bonding is an abstract and conceptually demanding topic because learners must connect symbolic notation, particle-level mechanisms, and visual models. This study aimed to diagnose pre-service science teachers’ multiple representational understanding of chemical bonding using a quantitative descriptive method. Data were collected using a 23-item multiple-choice test on chemical bonding representations. From 43 initial respondents, 41 valid complete responses were analyzed after data screening. Each item was scored dichotomously and analyzed through descriptive statistics, performance categorization, construct-level accuracy, item difficulty, item discrimination, point-biserial correlation, and dominant distractor patterns. The instrument showed high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha/KR-20 of 0.879. The results showed a mean score of 17.20 out of 23, equivalent to 74.76%, indicating generally high performance. Symbolic recognition showed the highest accuracy at 80.49%, followed by representational interpretation at 75.30% and submicroscopic reasoning at 70.46%. Item-level findings revealed difficulties in selecting ionic bonding models, explaining electrostatic attraction, interpreting ionic lattices as extended networks, and recognizing representational equivalence beyond surface features. These findings suggest the need for explicit representational scaffolding in science teacher education.
References
Aggarwal, R., & Ranganathan, P. (2019). Study designs: Part 2—Descriptive studies. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 10(1), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18
Amalia, E., & Habiddin, H. (2024). Four-tier chemical bonding instrument: Its development and validation. Edu Sains: Jurnal Pendidikan Sains & Matematika, 12(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.23971/eds.v12i1.5048
Bergqvist, A., & Chang Rundgren, S.-N. (2017). The influence of textbooks on teachers’ knowledge of chemical bonding representations relative to students’ difficulties understanding. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(2), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1295934
Bloomfield, J., & Fisher, M. J. (2019). Quantitative research design. Journal of the Australasian Rehabilitation Nurses’ Association, 22(2), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.33235/jarna.22.2.27-30
Braun, I., Langner, A., & Graulich, N. (2022). Let’s draw molecules: Students’ sequential drawing processes of resonance structures in organic chemistry. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 1055280. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1055280
Farheen, A., & Lewis, S. E. (2021). The impact of representations of chemical bonding on students’ predictions of chemical properties. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(4), 1035–1053. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00070E
Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2020). Students’ competence in translating between different types of chemical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00301G
Gurung, E., Jacob, R., Bunch, Z., Thompson, B., & Popova, M. (2022). Evaluating the effectiveness of organic chemistry textbooks for promoting representational competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(5), 2044–2054. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c01054
Hasanah, D., Wiji, W., Mulyani, S., & Widhiyanti, T. (2024). Multiple representations analysis of chemical bonding concepts in general chemistry books. KnE Social Sciences, 9(8), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i8.15554
Hunter, K. H., Rodriguez, J.-M. G., & Becker, N. M. (2022). A review of research on the teaching and learning of chemical bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(7), 2451–2464. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00034
Joki, J., & Aksela, M. (2018). The challenges of learning and teaching chemical bonding at different school levels using electrostatic interactions instead of the octet rule as a teaching model. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(3), 932–953. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00110C
Kapıcı, H. Ö. (2023). From symbolic representation to submicroscopic one: Preservice science teachers’ struggle with chemical representation levels in chemistry. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 9(1), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3122
Kaufmann, I., Hamza, K. M., Rundgren, C.-J., & Eriksson, L. (2017). Developing an approach for teaching and learning about Lewis structures. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1601–1624. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1342053
Prodjosantoso, A. K., Hertina, A. M., & Irwanto, I. (2019). The misconception diagnosis on ionic and covalent bonds concepts with three tier diagnostic test. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1477–1488. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12194a
Putri, N. S., Wasih, D. A., & Sabekti, A. W. (2024). Challenges for learning chemical bonding materials based on the concept of electrostatic interaction and the octet rule. SPIN: Jurnal Kimia & Pendidikan Kimia, 6(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.20414/spin.v6i1.9303
Rahmawati, Y., Dianhar, H., & Arifin, F. (2021). Analysing students’ spatial abilities in chemistry learning using 3D virtual representation. Education Sciences, 11(4), Article 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040185
Rau, M. A. (2017). Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing STEM learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 717–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9365-3
Rizal, R., Wiji, Widhiyanti, T., & Islahiah, N. (2024). Multi-representation analysis of general chemistry books on chemical bonding subject. Orbital: Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia, 8(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.19109/ojpk.v8i1.21609
Rohmah, R. S., Sholichah, N., Pratiwi, Y. N., & Analita, R. N. (2022). Analysis of students’ chemical bonding misconception with a four-tier diagnostic test. JTK: Jurnal Tadris Kimiya, 7(2), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.15575/jtk.v7i2.20343
Rosyida, I., Rahayu, S., & Dasna, I. W. (2022). Instruments in identifying representational competence in chemistry: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 23(3), 1099–1111. https://doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v23i3.pp1099-1111
Siedlecki, S. L. (2020). Understanding descriptive research designs and methods. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 34(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000493
Sunyono, S., & Meristin, A. (2018). The effect of multiple representation-based learning to increase students’ understanding of chemical bonding concepts. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(4), 399–406. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v7i4.16219
Syahri, W., Yusnaidar, Y., Epinur, E., Muhaimin, M., & Habibi, A. (2021). Effectiveness of multimedia based on multiple representation of Hess’ law: Concept and skills of pre-service science teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14326a
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Tsaparlis, G., Pappa, E. T., & Byers, B. (2018). Teaching and learning chemical bonding: Research-based evidence for misconceptions and conceptual difficulties experienced by students in upper secondary schools and the effect of an enriched text. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(4), 1253–1269. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00035B
Upahi, J. E., & Ramnarain, U. (2019). Representations of chemical phenomena in secondary school chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00191J
van Dulmen, T. H. H., Visser, T. C., Coenders, F. G. M., Pepin, B., & McKenney, S. (2023). Learning to teach chemical bonding: A framework for preservice teacher educators. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24(3), 896–913. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RP00049K
Vrabec, M., & Prokša, M. (2016). Identifying misconceptions related to chemical bonding concepts in the Slovak school system using the bonding representations inventory as a diagnostic tool. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(8), 1364-1370.
Widarti, H. R., Nuriyanti, D., Sari, M. E. F., Wiyarsi, A., Yamtinah, S., & Rokhim, D. A. (2024). Identification of learning difficulties and misconceptions of chemical bonding material: A review. Eclética Química, 49, e1508. https://doi.org/10.26850/1678-4618.eq.v49.2024.e1508
Yovanie, F. (2024). Learning chemical bonds in terms of identifying difficulties, misconceptions, learning media, and learning models: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 10(6), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i6.6823
.jpg){kind=small}
