Instruments in Identifying Representational Competence in Chemistry: A Systematic Literature Review
), Sri Rahayu(2), I Wayan Dasna(3)
| 
Country:
(1) Universitas Negeri Malang, Iran, Islamic Republic of
(2) Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
(3) Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Corresponding Author
This literature review research aims to determine the instrument test in identifying representational competence in chemistry. The identified abilities involve how students can use, interpret, translate, and connect multiple representations to improve representation competence. The method used in this present study is SLR method by using meta-analysis approach by comparing information in some research literature study from 2011-2021 in the ERIC database, google scholar, and SINTA. Based on the results of research on 7 reviewed articles, it showed that several open-ended questions (57.14%) and multiple-choice instruments (57.14%) are the most widely used instruments to identify students' representational competence. The findings of the research show that there are several instruments that are combined with other instruments to strengthen the analytical method in obtaining data and completing the shortcomings of other instruments. In addition, there are several instruments made by aspects to measure how far the students' representational competence are. The information obtained from the use of the instrument can be used to determine the development of students' abilities in understanding chemistry using representations.
Keywords: representational competence in chemistry, instrument test, literature review.
Al-Kilidar, H., Cox, K., & Kitchenham, B. (2005). The use and usefulness of the ISO/IEC 9126 quality standard. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE 2005), 17–18 November 2005, Noosa Heads, Queensland, Australia: IEEE.
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293–307.
Chang, H. Y. (2018). Students’ representational competence with drawing technology across two domains of science. Science Education, 102(5), 1129–1149.
Chi, S., Wang, Z., Luo, M., Yang, Y., & Huang, M. (2018). Student progression on chemical symbol representation abilities at different grade levels (Grades 10–12) across gender. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(4), 1055–1064.
Gabel, D. L. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry educational research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–554.
Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2019). Students’ competence in translating between different types of chemical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1), 307–330.
Hilton, A., & Nichols, K. (2011). Representational classroom practices that contribute to students’ conceptual and representational understanding of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 33(16), 2215–2246.
Irby, S. M., Phu, A. L., Borda, E. J., Haskell, T. R., Steed, N., & Meyer, Z. (2016). Use of a card sort task to assess students’ ability to coordinate three levels of representation in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 337–352.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.
Kean, & Middlecamp. (2010). Panduan belajar kimia dasar. Jakarta: Gramedia.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (Vol. 7, pp. 121–145).
Mathewson, J. H. (2005). The visual core of science: Definitions and applications to education. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 529–548.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.
Olimpo, J. T., Kumi, B. C., Wroblewski, R., & Dixon, B. L. (2015). Examining the relationship between 2D diagrammatic conventions and students’ success on representational translation tasks in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 143–153.
Perry, & Hammond. (2002). Systematic reviews: The experiences of a PhD student. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 2(1), 32–35.
Rahayu, S., & Kita, M. (2010). An analysis of Indonesian and Japanese students’ understandings of macroscopic and submicroscopic levels of representing matter and its changes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(4), 667–688.
Sim, J. H., Gnanamalar, E., & Daniel, S. (2014). Representational competence in chemistry: A comparison between students with different levels of understanding of basic chemical concepts and chemical representations. Cogent Education, 991180(1), 1–17.
Susilaningsih, E., Alawiyah, N., Sulistyaningsih, T., Nada, E. I., & Drastisianti, A. (2019). An analysis of students' conceptual understanding of submicroscopic level in solubility and solubility product constant (Ksp) using three-tier multiple choice test. International Conference on Mathematics, Science and Education, 8–9 Oktober 2018, Kuta, Bali, Indonesia: IOP Science.
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet.” International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195.
Wang, Z., Chi, S., Luo, M., Yang, Y., & Huang, M. (2017). Development of an instrument to evaluate high school students’ chemical symbol representation abilities. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 875–892.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.