Mapping the Evolution of Students’ Submicroscopic Representations: A Correspondence Analysis of Solute–Solvent Interactions
), Ruli Meiliawati(2)
| 
Country:
(1) Department of Chemistry Education, University of Palangka Raya, Indonesia
(2) Department of Chemistry Education, University of Palangka Raya, Indonesia
Corresponding Author
Understanding the particulate nature of matter in solutions requires integrating macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic representations, a domain in which students often encounter misconceptions. This study investigated high school students’ conceptions of solute-solvent particle behavior in sugar and sodium chloride (NaCl) solutions using student-generated drawings. A total of 253 students from Grades 10, 11, and 12 in Palangka Raya, Indonesia, participated in a descriptive-comparative cross-sectional study. The open-ended pictorial test was validated by experts (Aiken’s V = 0.91), demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s κ = 0.753 for SSR; κ = 0.779 for CIR; p < .001), providing strong evidence of construct validity. Students’ representations were categorized into two dimensions: (1) Spatial Structural Representations (SSR): Regular-Loose (Rel), Regular-Dense (Red), Random (Ran), and Invisible/Disappeared (Dis); and (2) Chemical Interaction Representations (CIR): Molecular (MOR), Partial Ionic (PIR), Scientific Ionic (SIR), and Complex Mixed Ionic (MIR). Chi-square analysis revealed a significant relationship between grade level and both representational dimensions (SSR: χ²(6) = 29.079, p < .001, Cramer's V = 0.24, inertia = 0.115; CIR: χ²(6) = 61.612, p < .001, Cramer’s V = 0.349, inertia = 0.244). Correspondence analysis further revealed a progressive conceptual shift: Grade 10 students predominantly depicted Regular-Loose (solid-like) structures, whereas Grade 12 students more frequently produced Random (scientific) representations. Similarly, development in CIR moved from molecular (MOR/PIR) to scientifically accurate ionic forms (SIR/MIR). These findings highlight the need for multi-representational, visually oriented instruction, such as animations, augmented-reality simulations, and drawing-based assessments, to support conceptual change and strengthen coherence across representation levels.
Keywords: particulate nature of matter, solution chemistry, correspondence analysis, representational competence, conceptual change.
Adadan, E., & Savaşcı, F. (2012). An analysis of 16–17-year-old students' understanding of solution chemistry concepts using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 513–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.636084
Adadan, E. (2014). Investigating the influence of model-based instruction on preservice chemistry teachers' understanding of the particulate nature of matter. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00106K
Aykutlu, I., & Bezen, S. (2010). Misconceptions of high school students related to chemical bonding. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 766–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.100
Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C., & Baur, M. E. (1993). Students’ preconceptions of the nature of gases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(6), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300605
Berg, K. de. (2012). A study of first-year chemistry students’ understanding of solution concentration at the tertiary level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90057J
Bobbitt, Z. (2024, February 12). How to interpret Cramer's V (with examples). Statology.
Çalik, M., Ültay, N., Bağ, H., & Ayas, A. (2023). Effectiveness of particulate nature of matter (PNM)-based intervention studies in improving academic performance: A meta-analysis study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24(4), 1221–1236. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00083A
Center for Curriculum and Textbooks. (2022). Science learning outcomes (Phase D) for junior high school. Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology.
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. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90006F
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2011). Facilitating high school students' use of multiple representations to describe and explain simple chemical reactions. Teaching Science, 57(3), 13–20.
Chen, X., Goes, L. F. de, Treagust, D. F., & Eilks, I. (2019). An analysis of the visual representation of redox reactions in secondary chemistry textbooks from different Chinese communities. Education Sciences, 9(3), 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030180
Chiu, M. H. (2007). A national survey of students’ conceptions of chemistry in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 421–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601080736
Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). The modeling abilities of non-major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90035F
Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common χ² tests. Biometrics, 10(4), 417–451. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001616
Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052063
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Open University Press.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007005
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Conceptual change: Still a powerful framework for improving the practice of science instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.620379
Ebbing, D. D., & Gammon, S. D. (2009). General chemistry (9th ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (Vol. 1, pp. 9–27). Springer.
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Hamerská, L., Matěcha, T., Tóthová, M., & Rusek, M. (2024). Between symbols and particles: Investigating the complexity of learning chemical equations. Education Sciences, 14(6), 570.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In J. K. Gilbert et al. (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 189–212). Kluwer Academic.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are rarely what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x
Kelly, R. M., Barrera, J. H., & Mohamed, S. C. (2010). An analysis of undergraduate general chemistry students’ misconceptions of the submicroscopic level of representing matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 91–97.
Levy, J. (2024). An augmented reality application for understanding 3D molecular models (MoleculAR). Journal of Chemical Education. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00312
Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Andersen, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D. (1993). Changing middle school students’ conception of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 249–269.
Malone, L. J., & Dolter, T. O. (2010). Basic concepts of chemistry (8th ed.). Wiley.
Mandrekar, J. N. (2011). Measures of interrater agreement. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 6(1), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e318200fca4
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia. (2017). Core and basic competencies for junior high school (Revised 2017). Ministry of Education and Culture.
Moju, M., Taylor, L., & Iweuno, B. N. (2025). Tackling the challenges of chemical representations through sensemaking practices in chemistry education. Discover Education, 4, 352.
Naah, B. M., & Sanger, M. J. (2012). Investigating high school students’ mental models of solution chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(3), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100622d
Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross-age study. Science Education, 65(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730650207
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results: What students know and can do (Vol. 1). OECD Publishing.
Özmen, H. (2013). Preservice science teachers’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 8(3), 461–480.
Paçacı, Ç. (2022). Effectiveness of conceptual change strategies in science education: A meta-analysis [Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University]. Middle East Technical University Institutional Repository.
Peperkorn, Y., et al. (2024). Comparing drawing tasks and simulation-based learning. Research in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00089F
Petrucci, R. H., Herring, F. G., Madura, J. D., & Bissonnette, C. (2017). General chemistry: Principles and modern applications (11th ed.). Pearson.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Radzuan, N. A., & Hanri, M. (2024). Science students' misconceptions of basic concepts of chemistry on matter and its particulate properties. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v13-i1/20075
Retnawati, H. (2016). Quantitative analysis of research instruments. Parama Publishing.
Sanchez, J. M. P. (2025). Multiple representations framework in technology acceptance: A structural equation modeling of science educational videos in teaching and learning redox reactions. STEM Education, 5(5), 855–881.
Sidauruk, S. (2002). Students’ conceptions of gas. Journal of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Education, 3(1), 45–52.
Stammes, H. (2025). Drawing meaning from student-generated drawings. Research in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5RP00045A
Stojanovska, M., Malkovska, S., & Jovanovski, T. (2017). Students’ representations of the structure of matter. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00231E
Suparno, P. (1997). Constructivist philosophy in education. Yogyakarta; Kanisius Publisher.
Taber, K. S. (2002). Chemical misconceptions: Prevention, diagnosis and cure (Vol. 1). Royal Society of Chemistry.
Wu, M.-Y., & Yezierski, E. J. (2022). Secondary chemistry teacher learning: Precursors for and mechanisms of pedagogical conceptual change. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23(4), 736–750. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RP00012C
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.