A systematic review of diagnostic tools for identifying chemistry misconceptions among undergraduate students
Abstract
The purpose of writing this paper is to identify the most diagnostic methods used in the literature to address chemistry misconceptions, the pros and cons of each diagnostic test, and the topics of chemistry that were studied for misconception. The research discussed (35) articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 2001-2021. This paper analyzed the studies to achieve the goals of the study. The articles were obtained from Google Scholar, ERIC, Elsevier, and Tylor and Francis. The results showed that the diagnostic methods to address chemistry misconceptions were used are multiple-choice questions which are the most popular, and tier-questions, interviews, open-ended questions, and combined diagnostic tests. According to the study, each diagnostic evaluation method has its own set of strengths and limitations. As a result, it is assumed that a mixture of various techniques is superior to a single method; MCQs with an interview, MCQs with CRI, or other combined tests. The findings showed that several chemistry topics were investigated for misconceptions; general and inorganic chemistry has the highest percentage of misconceptions, followed by physical chemistry, and the least percentage of misconceptions found in organic and analytical chemistry.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Chaos and quantum thermalization
- The Dalton quantum chemistry program system
- Cord Blood Leptin and Adiponectin as Predictors of Adiposity in Children at 3 Years of Age: A Prospective Cohort Study
- Quantitative metabolomics by H-NMR and LC-MS/MS confirms altered metabolic pathways in diabetes
- Stable adiabatic quantum batteries
- A novel self-lipid antigen targets human T cells against CD1c(+) leukemias
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.