A systematic review of diagnostic tools for identifying chemistry misconceptions among undergraduate students

Khitam Hamzeh Altawalbeh

doi:10.29333/pr/18927

Full Text (PDF)

Khitam Hamzeh Altawalbeh ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ Jadara University, JORDAN^* Corresponding Author

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.

Keywords

misconceptions
diagnostic tests
chemistry concepts
systematic review

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Review Article

PEDAGOGICAL RES, Volume 11, Issue 3, July 2026, Article No: em0276

https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18927

Publication date: 06 Jul 2026

Article Views: 6

Article Downloads: 3

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Akkuzu, N., & Uyulgan, M. A. (2016). An epistemological inquiry into organic chemistry education: exploration of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of functional groups‏. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 36-57. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00128E
Allen, M., & Coole, H. (2012). Experimenter confirmation bias and the correction of science misconceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(4), 387-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10972-012-9277-0
Aydeniz, M. (2011). Understanding the impact of formative assessment strategies on first-year university students’ conceptual understanding of chemical concepts. Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 18-41. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/balikesirnef/issue/3373/46551
Azizoğlu, N., Alkan, M., & Geban, Ö. (2006). Undergraduate pre-service teachers’ understandings and misconceptions of phase equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Engineering, 83(6), Article 947. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p947
Banerjee, A. C. (2007). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 487-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130411
Basuki, R. (2019). Conceptual difficulties experienced by first-year undergraduate chemistry students in assigning oxidation number: A case study of high school chemistry textbooks. Article in Indonesian Journal of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.22146/ijc.36695
Bolderston, A. (2012). Conducting a research interview. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 43(1), 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMIR.2011.12.002
Brown, T. L., LeMay, H. E., Bursten, B. E., & LeMay, B. E. (2000). Chemistry: The central science (8th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Bryan, L. (2007). Identifying students’ misconceptions in A-level organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education.
Canpolat, N. (2006). Turkish undergraduates’ misconceptions of evaporation, evaporation rate, and vapour pressure. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1757-1770. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600779957
Carbó, A. D., Vicente, J., Adelantado, G., & Reig, F. B. (2010). Black boxes in analytical chemistry: University students’ misconceptions of instrumental analysis. Online Submission, 7(7), 15-29.
Danielson, K., & KD Tanner. (2015). Investigating undergraduate science students’ conceptions and misconceptions of ocean acidification‏. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(3), Article ar29. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe-14-11-0209
Davis, B. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered. National Academy Press.
Derkach, T. M. (2021). The origin of misconceptions in inorganic chemistry and their correction by computer modelling. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1840(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1840/1/012012
Deshmukh, M., & Gadre, S. R. (2009). Estimation of N−H···O═C intramolecular hydrogen bond energy in polypeptides. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 113(27), 7927-7932. https://doi.org/10.1021/JP9031207
Durmaz, M. (2018). Determination of prospective chemistry teachers’ cognitive structures and misconceptions about stereochemistry. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(9), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i9.3353
Eggen, P. O., Persson, J., Jacobsen, E. E., & Hafskjold, B. (2017). Development of an inventory for alternative conception among students in chemistry. International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 5(1), 1-11. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=chemistry+misconceptions&pr=on&ft=on&ff1=subCollege+Students&id=EJ1227621
Gonen, S., & Kocakaya, S. (2010). A physics lesson designed according to 7E model with the help of instructional technology (Lesson plan). Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 98-113. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ886456
Griffiths, A., & KR Preston. (1992). Grade‐12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules‏. Journal of Research in Science, 29(6), 611-628. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tea.3660290609
Gultepe, N., Celik, A., & Z Kilic. (2013). Exploring effects of high school students’ mathematical processing skills and conceptual understanding of chemical concepts on algorithmic problem solving‏. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38 (10), 106-122. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n10.1
Hanson, R. (2019). The impact of two-tier instruments on undergraduate chemistry teacher trainees: An illuminative assessment‏. International Journal for Infonomics, 12(4), 1920-1928. https://infonomics-society.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Impact-of-Two-tier-Instruments-on-Undergraduate-Chemistry-Teacher-Trainees.pdf
Jenkins, J. L., & Shoopman, B. T. (2019). Identifying misconceptions that limit student understanding of molecular orbital diagrams. Science Education International, 30(3), 152-157. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v30.i3.1
Kaltakci Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 989-1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
Karonen, M., Murtonen, M., Södervik, I., Manninen, M., & Salomäki, M. (2021). Heuristics hindering the development of understanding of molecular structures in university level chemistry education: The lewis structure as an example. Education Sciences, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060258
Khandagale, V. S., & Shinde, A. V. (2021). Investigation of misconceptions for valency and chemical bonding among high school students. Online Submission, 8(3), 539-544.
Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas (2nd Edn.).
Kind, V., & Kind, P. M. (2011). Beginning to teach chemistry: How personal and academic characteristics of pre-service science teachers compare with their understandings of basic chemical ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2123-2158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.542498
Kolomuç, A., & Tekin, S. (2011). Chemistry teachers’ misconceptions concerning concept of chemical reaction rate‏. International Journal of Physics & Chemistry, 3(2), 84-101. http://ijpce.org/index.php/IJPCE/article/view/194
Manneh, I. A., Rundgren, C.-J., Hamza, K. M., & Eriksson, L. (2018). Tutor-student interaction in undergraduate chemistry: a case of learning to make relevant distinctions of molecular structures for determining oxidation states of atoms) Tutor-student interaction in undergraduate chemistry: a case of learning to make relevant distinctions of molecular structures for determining oxidation states of atoms. International Journal of Science Education, 40, 2023-2043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1517423
Martin, R. E., Sexton, C., Franklin, T., Gerlovich, J., & McElroy, D. (2001). Teaching science for all children. Allyn and Bacon.
Marx, J. (1998). Creation of a diagnostic exam for introductory, undergraduate electricity and magnetism. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. https://search.proquest.com/openview/e3c8a762e96be19709b32424aaf8269b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Milenković, D., Hrin, T., Segedinac, M. D., Horvat, S. (2016). Development of a three-tier test as a valid diagnostic tool for identification of misconceptions related to carbohydrates‏. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(9), 1514-1520. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00261
Mubarak, S., & Yahdi, Y. (2020). Identifying undergraduate students’ misconceptions in understanding acid base materials‏. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 9(2), 276-286. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v9i2.23193
Mustari, M., Anggereni, S., Sodikin, Fitria, & Yusandika, A. D. (2020). Identification of students’ misconceptions using the Certainty of Response Index (CRI) from work and energy material. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1572(1), Article 012038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1572/1/012038
Nazar, M., Sulastri, S., Winarni, S., Fitriana, R. (2010). Identifikasi miskonsepsi siswa SMA pada konsep faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi laju reaksi [Identification of high school students' misconceptions about the concept of factors that influence reaction rates]. Biologi Edukasi: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Biologi, 2(3), 49-53.
Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates’ bonding misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 707-730. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010025012
Nottis, K. E. K., Prince, M. J., Vigeant, M. A., Nottis, K. E. K., & Prince, M. J. (2008). Addressing misconceptions about heat transfer in undergraduate chemical engineering instruction‏. Northeastern Educational Research Association (NERA) Annual Conference, 18, 10-23. http://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=nera_2008
Omwirhiren, E. M., & Ubanwa, A. O. (2016). An analysis of misconceptions in organic chemistry among selected senior secondary school students in zaria local government area of Kaduna State, Nigeria. International Journal of Education and Research, 4(7), 247-266.
Pabuçcu, A., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Students’ conceptual level of understanding on chemical bonding. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 43, 563-580. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259850382_Students'_conceptual_level_of_understanding_on_chemical_bonding
Pérez García, M., Luxford, C. J., Windus, T. L., & Holme, T. (2016). A quantum chemistry concept inventory for physical chemistry classes‏. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(4), 605-612. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00781
Pinarbasi, T., Sozbilir, M., & Canpolat, N. (2009). Prospective chemistry teachers’ misconceptions about colligative properties: boiling point elevation and freezing point depression‏. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(4), 273-280. https://doi.org/10.1039/b920832c
Putri, S. R., Hofifah, S. N., Chelvina, G., Girsang, S., Bayu, A., & Nandiyanto, D. (2021). How to identify misconception using Certainty of Response Index (CRI): A study case of mathematical chemistry subject by experimental demonstration of adsorption. Indonesian Journal of Multidiciplinary Research. Indonesian Journal of Multidiciplinary Research, 2(1), 143-158. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijomr.v2i1.38738
Ramon, J., Ies, B., Rodanes, L., García, R., Ballester Pérez, J. R., Ballester Pérez, M. E., Calatayud, M. L., García-Lopera, R., Montesinos, J. V. S., & Gil, E. T. (2017). Student’s misconceptions on chemical bonding: A comparative study between high school and first year university students. Asian Journal of Education and E-Learning, 2321-2454. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316877275
Romine, W., & Todd, T. C. (2016). How do undergraduate students conceptualize acid–base chemistry? Measurement of a concept progression‏. Science Education, 100(6), 1150-1183. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sce.21240
Sadhu, S., Tima, M. T., Cahyani, V. P., Laka, A. F., Annisa, D., & Fahriyah, A. R. (2017). Analysis of acid-base misconceptions using modified Certainty of Response Index (CRI) and diagnostic interview for different student levels cognitive. In International Journal of Science and Applied Science: Conference Series, 1(2), Article 91. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijsascs.v1i2.5126
Topal, G., Oral, B., & Ozden, M. (2007). University and secondary school students’ misconceptions about the concept of “aromaticity” in organic chemistry. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2(4), 135-143.
Türkoguz, S. (2020). Investigation of three-tier diagnostic and multiple choice tests on chemistry concepts with response change behaviour. International Education Studies, 13(9), 10-22. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v13n9p10
Waluyo, E. M., Muchyidin, A., & Kusmanto, H. (2019). Analysis of students misconception in completing mathematical questions using Certainty of Response Index (CRI). Tadris: Jurnal Keguruan Dan Ilmu Tarbiyah, 4(1), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v4i1.2988
Wang, C., & Barrow, L. H. (2013). Exploring conceptual frameworks of models of atomic structures and periodic variations, chemical bonding, and molecular shape and polarity: a comparison of undergraduate general chemistry students with high and low levels of content knowledge. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(1), 130-146. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp20116j
Watson, S., Peters, M. L., Watson, S. W., & Dubrovskiy, A. V. (2020). Increasing chemistry students’ knowledge, confidence, and conceptual understanding of pH using a collaborative computer pH simulation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2, 528-535. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00235A
Widarti, H. R., Permanasari, A., & Mulyani, S. (2017). Undergraduate students’ misconception on acid-base and argentometric titrations: A challenge to implement multiple representation learning model with cognitive dissonance strategy. International Journal of Education, 9(2), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v9i2.5464

How to cite this article

APA

Altawalbeh, K. H. (2026). A systematic review of diagnostic tools for identifying chemistry misconceptions among undergraduate students. Pedagogical Research, 11(3), em0276. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18927

Vancouver

Altawalbeh KH. A systematic review of diagnostic tools for identifying chemistry misconceptions among undergraduate students. PEDAGOGICAL RES. 2026;11(3):em0276. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18927

AMA

Altawalbeh KH. A systematic review of diagnostic tools for identifying chemistry misconceptions among undergraduate students. PEDAGOGICAL RES. 2026;11(3), em0276. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18927

Chicago

Altawalbeh, Khitam Hamzeh. "A systematic review of diagnostic tools for identifying chemistry misconceptions among undergraduate students". Pedagogical Research 2026 11 no. 3 (2026): em0276. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18927

Harvard

Altawalbeh, K. H. (2026). A systematic review of diagnostic tools for identifying chemistry misconceptions among undergraduate students. Pedagogical Research, 11(3), em0276. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18927

MLA

Altawalbeh, Khitam Hamzeh "A systematic review of diagnostic tools for identifying chemistry misconceptions among undergraduate students". Pedagogical Research, vol. 11, no. 3, 2026, em0276. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18927