Students&rsquo; Constructed Knowledge in General Inorganic Chemistry: An Analysis Using a Two-Tier Diagnostic Instrument

Edna  T. Salva,

Students’ Constructed Knowledge in General Inorganic Chemistry: An Analysis Using a Two-Tier Diagnostic Instrument

Abstract:

An analysis of students’ constructed knowledge in General Inorganic Chemistry was conducted using the developed and validated two-tier chemistry diagnostic instrument (TTCDI). The diagnosis focused on the learning domains: properties, behavior and changes of matter, atomic structure and periodicity, and chemical bonds. The panel of experts validated the face and content validity of the TTCDI draft composed of 25 first-tiers and 25 second-tiers multiple choice items. It was tried-out to 521 purposively selected college students from the 4 tertiary educational institutions in Davao City that offer Bachelor of Science in Chemistry, Bachelor of Science in Engineering and Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy. From 50 items, it was reduced to 18 items fit for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) which revealed that there are three factors affecting learning chemistry namely “Learner’s Macroscopic View”, “Learner’s Particle View”, and “Learner’s Symbolic View”. Analysis reveals that the instrument is substantially reliable (.67), composed of average difficult items (.47) with good discriminating index (.26). The constructed knowledge of the students was inadequate (below 50%) in all of the 3 topics in General Inorganic Chemistry: properties, behavior and changes of matter, atomic structure and periodicity, and chemical bonding. Through Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modeling; the psychometric properties of the TTCDI were portrayed by the macroscopic, particulate, and symbolic (MPS) Learner’s View Model. It best fits the 3 factors of learning affecting learning chemistry using the TTCDI. It shows that there is a strong relationship (.60) between learner’s macroscopic view and symbolic view; modest relationship (.11) between learner’s macroscopic view and particulate view; and also modest relationship (.28) between learner’s particulate view and symbolic view.