Verifying the Weight of Different Learning Tasks in Student Assessment by Chemistry Teachers

[1] Johnstone AH. Introduction. In: Wood C, Sleet R, editors. Creative Problem Solving in Chemistry. London: The Royal Society of Chemistry; 1993. ISBN: 9781870343282.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, et al. A Taxonomy for Learning Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (complete edition). New York: Longman; 2001. ISBN: 9780321084057.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Reid N, Yang MJ. The solving of problems in chemistry: the more open-ended problems. Res Sci Tech Educ. 2002;20(1):83-98. DOI: 10.1080/02635140220130948.10.1080/02635140220130948Search in Google Scholar

[4] Tobias S. They´re not Dumb. They´re Different: Stalking the Second Tier. Research Corporation: Tucson. AZ, 1994. ISBN: 9780963350404.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Nakhleh MB. Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? J Chem Educ. 1993;70(1):52-5. DOI: 10.1021/ed070p52.10.1021/ed070p52Search in Google Scholar

[6] Papaphotis G, Tsaparlis G. Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: The case of basic quantum chemical concept. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2008; 9(4):332-40. DOI: 10.1039/b818468m.10.1039/B818468MSearch in Google Scholar

[7] Cracolice MS, Deming JC, Ehlert B. Concept learning versus problem solving: A cognitive difference. J Chem Educ. 2008;85(6):873-8. DOI: 10.1021/ed085p873.10.1021/ed085p873Search in Google Scholar

[8] Cetin-Dindar A, Omer Geban O. Development of a three-tier test to assess high school students’ understanding of acids and bases. Proc Soc Behav Sci. 2011;15:600-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.147.10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.147Search in Google Scholar

[9] Habiddin H, Page EM. Development and validation of a four-tier diagnostic instrument for chemical kinetics (FTDICK). Indones J Chem. 2019;19:720-36. DOI: 10.22146/ijc.39218.10.22146/ijc.39218Search in Google Scholar

[10] Lawson AE. Predicting science achievement: The role of developmental level, disembedding ability, mental capacity, prior knowledge and beliefs. J Res Sci Teach. 1983;20(2):117-29. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660200204.10.1002/tea.3660200204Search in Google Scholar

[11] Niaz M, Robinson WR. Teaching algorithmic problem solving or conceptual understanding: Role of developmental level. mental capacity and cognitive style. J Sci Educ Technol. 1993;2(2):407-16. DOI: 10.1007/bf00694529.10.1007/BF00694529Search in Google Scholar

[12] Surif J, Ibrahim NH, Dalim SF. Problem solving: algorithms and conceptual and open-ended problems in chemistry. In: 5th World Conference on Educational Sciences. Book Series: Proc Soc Behav Sci. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2014;116:4955-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1055.10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1055Search in Google Scholar

[13] Chiu MH. Algorithmic problem solving and conceptual understanding of chemistry by students at a local high school in Taiwan. Proc Natl Sci Counc. 2001;11(1):20-38. Available from: https://ejournal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/items/download?viId=A384FBF4-F44C-47DD-A8D4-5353BAEE1490.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Bodner GM. The role of algorithms in teaching problem solving. J Chem Educ. 1987;64(6):513-4. DOI: 10.1021/ed064p513.10.1021/ed064p513Search in Google Scholar

[15] Frank DV, Baker CA, Herron JD. Should students always use algorithms to solve problems? J Chem Educ. 1987;64(6):514-5. DOI: 10.1021/ed064p514.10.1021/ed064p514Search in Google Scholar

[16] Yavuz Mumcu H, Suheda Yildiz S. The investigation of algorithmic thinking skills of fifth and sixth marks at a theoretical dimension. J Math Educ. 2018;3(1):41-8. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1475/c3401d083b2e0b5a85637500b023300fdc12.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Nurrenbern SA, Pickering M. Concept learning versus problem solving: is there a difference? J Chem Educ. 1987;64(6):508. DOI: 10.1021/ed064p508.10.1021/ed064p508Search in Google Scholar

[18] Nuzulia, Hasan M, Ismayani A. Assessing conceptual and algorithmic understanding of students in senior high school. J Phys. Conf Series. 2018; 1088.012092. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012092.10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012092Search in Google Scholar

[19] Niaz M. Relationship between student performance on conceptual and computational problems of chemical equilibrium. Int J Sci Educ. 1995;17(3):343-55. DOI: 10.1080/0950069950170306.10.1080/0950069950170306Search in Google Scholar

[20] Sawrey BA. Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. J Chem Educ. 1990;67(3):253. DOI: 10.1021/ed067p253.10.1021/ed067p253Search in Google Scholar

[21] Herron JD, Nurrenbern SA. Chemical education research: Improving chemistry learning. J Chem Educ. 1999;76(10):1354-61. DOI: 10.1021/ed076p1353.10.1021/ed076p1353Search in Google Scholar

[22] Johnstone AH. Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comp Assist Learning. 1991;7(2):75-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x.10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.xSearch in Google Scholar

[23] Garnett PJ, Hacking MW. Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: a review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Stud Sci Educ. 1995;25(1):69-95. DOI: 10.1080/03057269508560050.10.1080/03057269508560050Search in Google Scholar

[24] Calyk M, Ayas A, Ebenezer JV. A review of solution chemistry studies: Insights into students’ conceptions. J Sci Educ Technol. 2005;14:29-50. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-005-2732-3.10.1007/s10956-005-2732-3Search in Google Scholar

[25] Prokša M, Haláková Z, Drozdíková A. Chemical equilibrium in terms of its conceptual understanding in the context of submicroscopic, macroscopic and symbolic interpretation by learners. Science and Technology Education: Engaging the New Generation. Proc 2nd Int Baltic Symp Sci Technol Educ (BalticSTE 2017). Siauliai: Scientia Socialis. 2017; 104-7. ISBN: 9786099551340.10.33225/BalticSTE/2017.104Search in Google Scholar

[26] Prokša M, Drozdíková A, Haláková Z. Learners’ understanding of chemical equilibrium at submicroscopic, macroscopic and symbolic levels. Chem Didact Ecol Metrol. 2018;23(1-2):97-111. DOI: 10.1515/cdem-2018-0006.10.1515/cdem-2018-0006Search in Google Scholar