Development of the three-tiers diagnostic test and students level of understanding and misconception in genetics
<p>This study is aimed to develop a valid and reliable three-tiers diagnostic test in genetics.</p><p>The study also aimed to assess pre-university students level of understanding and</p><p>misconception in genetics by utilising t...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | thesis |
| Language: | eng |
| Published: |
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=9505 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| id |
oai:ir.upsi.edu.my:9505 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
uketd_dc |
| institution |
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| collection |
UPSI Digital Repository |
| language |
eng |
| topic |
QH Natural history |
| spellingShingle |
QH Natural history Nurhazwani Mohd Shukri Development of the three-tiers diagnostic test and students level of understanding and misconception in genetics |
| description |
<p>This study is aimed to develop a valid and reliable three-tiers diagnostic test in genetics.</p><p>The study also aimed to assess pre-university students level of understanding and</p><p>misconception in genetics by utilising the developed test and to explore the</p><p>misconception issue. It has employed a developmental design involving adaptation,</p><p>validation and pilot study phase. The test named as Three-Tiers Diagnostic Test in</p><p>Genetics (3-TDTG) consists of 15 questions was administered in the empirical study.</p><p>Ten biology experts and 30 pre-university students were involved in the developmental</p><p>phase, whereas 455 students of a matriculation college in northern peninsular Malaysia</p><p>involved in the empirical study. Seven of them were purposely selected to be</p><p>interviewed, along with six biology lecturers. The findings suggest the 3-TDTG to be</p><p>valid with S-CVI values of 0.98 and 0.96 for face and content validity respectively. The</p><p>false positive and negative value was minimised to 10.90% and 5.44%. Excellent</p><p>construct validity was observed as Pearson correlation suggests a significant moderate</p><p>positive relationship between the U2 and CS score, r(453) =.44, p<.01. Reliability of 3-</p><p>TDTG is high with Cronbachs alpha value of 0.78, items mean difficulty index of</p><p>0.37, and mean point-biserial correlation of 0.38. Students exhibited highest</p><p>understanding on monohybrid inheritance and allele concept (U3=86.15%) while</p><p>dihybrid inheritance recorded the highest misconception (M3=18.9%). The interview</p><p>analysis suggests the misconception was due to complex genetics terminologies,</p><p>complex application of multilevel thinking, dissociation of meiotic knowledge,</p><p>memorisation and familiarisation, and poor internalisation of new concepts. To</p><p>conclude, 3-TDTG is valid and reliable to asses students genetics understanding and</p><p>misconception, and the misconception issues were successfully addressed. Finally, the</p><p>study has the implication on teachers where they can utilise 3-TDTG prior to the lesson</p><p>for better lesson planning, while researcher can employ the test to expand the</p><p>knowledge in wider scope.</p> |
| format |
thesis |
| qualification_name |
|
| qualification_level |
Master's degree |
| author |
Nurhazwani Mohd Shukri |
| author_facet |
Nurhazwani Mohd Shukri |
| author_sort |
Nurhazwani Mohd Shukri |
| title |
Development of the three-tiers diagnostic test and students level of understanding and misconception in genetics |
| title_short |
Development of the three-tiers diagnostic test and students level of understanding and misconception in genetics |
| title_full |
Development of the three-tiers diagnostic test and students level of understanding and misconception in genetics |
| title_fullStr |
Development of the three-tiers diagnostic test and students level of understanding and misconception in genetics |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Development of the three-tiers diagnostic test and students level of understanding and misconception in genetics |
| title_sort |
development of the three-tiers diagnostic test and students level of understanding and misconception in genetics |
| granting_institution |
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| granting_department |
Fakulti Sains dan Matematik |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| url |
https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=9505 |
| _version_ |
1783730269880057856 |
| spelling |
oai:ir.upsi.edu.my:95052023-09-14 Development of the three-tiers diagnostic test and students level of understanding and misconception in genetics 2022 Nurhazwani Mohd Shukri QH Natural history <p>This study is aimed to develop a valid and reliable three-tiers diagnostic test in genetics.</p><p>The study also aimed to assess pre-university students level of understanding and</p><p>misconception in genetics by utilising the developed test and to explore the</p><p>misconception issue. It has employed a developmental design involving adaptation,</p><p>validation and pilot study phase. The test named as Three-Tiers Diagnostic Test in</p><p>Genetics (3-TDTG) consists of 15 questions was administered in the empirical study.</p><p>Ten biology experts and 30 pre-university students were involved in the developmental</p><p>phase, whereas 455 students of a matriculation college in northern peninsular Malaysia</p><p>involved in the empirical study. Seven of them were purposely selected to be</p><p>interviewed, along with six biology lecturers. The findings suggest the 3-TDTG to be</p><p>valid with S-CVI values of 0.98 and 0.96 for face and content validity respectively. The</p><p>false positive and negative value was minimised to 10.90% and 5.44%. Excellent</p><p>construct validity was observed as Pearson correlation suggests a significant moderate</p><p>positive relationship between the U2 and CS score, r(453) =.44, p<.01. Reliability of 3-</p><p>TDTG is high with Cronbachs alpha value of 0.78, items mean difficulty index of</p><p>0.37, and mean point-biserial correlation of 0.38. Students exhibited highest</p><p>understanding on monohybrid inheritance and allele concept (U3=86.15%) while</p><p>dihybrid inheritance recorded the highest misconception (M3=18.9%). The interview</p><p>analysis suggests the misconception was due to complex genetics terminologies,</p><p>complex application of multilevel thinking, dissociation of meiotic knowledge,</p><p>memorisation and familiarisation, and poor internalisation of new concepts. To</p><p>conclude, 3-TDTG is valid and reliable to asses students genetics understanding and</p><p>misconception, and the misconception issues were successfully addressed. Finally, the</p><p>study has the implication on teachers where they can utilise 3-TDTG prior to the lesson</p><p>for better lesson planning, while researcher can employ the test to expand the</p><p>knowledge in wider scope.</p> 2022 thesis https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=9505 https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=9505 text eng closedAccess Masters Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris Fakulti Sains dan Matematik <p>Adi, Y. K., & Oktaviani, N. M. (2019). Faktor-faktor penyebab miskonsepsi siswa SD pada materi Life Processes and Living Things. Profesi Pendidikan Dasar, 1(1), 91104. https://doi.org/10.23917/ppd.v1i1.7988</p><p>Ainiyah, M., Ibrahim, M., & Hidayat, M. T. (2018). The profile of student misconceptions on the human and plant transport systems. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 947(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012064</p><p>Arslan, H. O., Cigdemoglu, C., & Moseley, C. (2012). A three-tier diagnostic test to assess pre-service teachers misconceptions about global warming, greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 16671686. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.680618</p><p>Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. (2018). DSKP KSSM Biologi Tingkatan 4 dan 5.</p><p>Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 8486. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1999.9655648</p><p>Bayuni, T. C., Sopandi, W., & Sujana, A. (2018). Identification misconception of primary school teacher education students in changes of matters using a five-tier diagnostic test. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1013(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012086</p><p>Bormanaki, H. B., & Khoshhal, Y. (2017). The role of equilibration in Piagets theory of cognitive development and its implication for receptive skills: a theoretical study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(5), 996. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0805.22</p><p>Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2012) Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57-71). American Psychological Association.</p><p>Buske, R., & Bartholomei-Santos, M. L. (2019). What is worse: to mislearn or to forget? Knowledge about mendelian inheritance among high school senior students. Journal of Biological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2019.1707260</p><p>Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010a). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939961. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902890130</p><p>Caleon, I. S., & Subramaniam, R. (2010b). Do students know what they know and what they dont know? Using a four-tier diagnostic test to assess the nature of students alternative conceptions. Research in Science Education, 40(3), 313337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9122-4</p><p>Cataloglu, E. (2002). Development and validation of an achievement test in introductory quantum mechanics: The quantum mechanics visualization instrument (QMVI). The Pennsylvania State University.</p><p>Chang, C. Y., Yeh, T. K., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2010). The positive and negative effects of science concept tests on student conceptual understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 265282. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802650055</p><p>Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2004). A guide to teaching practice. Routledge Falmer.</p><p>Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison K. (2007). Research methods in education. (6th ed.). Routledge.</p><p>Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.</p><p>Denzin, N.K. (2015). Triangulation. In, G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeost050.pub2</p><p>Dichoso, A. A., & Cabauatan, R. J. M. (2020). Test item analyzer using point-biserialcorrelation and p-values. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 9(4), 2122-2126.</p><p>Dikmenli, M. (2010). Misconceptions of cell division held by student teachers in biology: a drawing analysis. Scientific Research and Essay, 5(2), 235247. http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE</p><p>Elangovan, T. (2017). Comparison between realistic and non-realistic simulations in reducing secondary school students misconceptions on mitosis and meiosis processes. In Karpudewan, M., Ahmad Nurulazam, M. Z., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (Eds), Overcoming Students' Misconceptions in Science: Strategies and Perspectives from Malaysia (pp. 307-322). Springer.</p><p>Fadzilah, A.-K., Makdi, M., Azlinah, M., Muhamad Azlan, D., & Nur Ramziahrazanah, J. (2016). Difficulties experience by science foundation students on basic mendelian genetics topic: a preliminary study. Transactions on Science and Technology, 3(2), 283290. http://transectscience.org/</p><p>Fajarini, Utari, S., & Prima, E. C. (2018). Identification of students misconception against global warming concept. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, 3. http://science.conference.upi.edu/proceeding/index.php/ICMScE/issue/view/3|ICMScE2018</p><p>Finch, R., & Vieira, A. R. (2018). Exploring teaching of genetic inheritance in high school. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/</p><p>Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: a psychological theory of learning. In Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives and Practice (pp. 838). Teachers College Press.</p><p>Ganasen, S., & Shamuganathan, S. (2017). The effectiveness of physics education technology (phet) interactive simulations in enhancing matriculation students understanding of chemical equilibrium and remediating their misconceptions. In Karpudewan, M., Ahmad Nurulazam, M. Z., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (Eds), Overcoming Students' Misconceptions in Science: Strategies and Perspectives from Malaysia (pp. 157-178). Springer.</p><p>Ghazali, D., & Sufean, H. (2021). Metodologi Penyelidikan Dalam Pendidikan: Amalan dan Analisis Kajian. (3rd ed.). Penerbit Universiti Malaya.</p><p>Gurel, D. K., 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), 9891008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a</p><p>Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA.</p><p>Hasan, S., Bagayoko, D., & Kelley, E. L. (1999). Misconceptions and the Certainty of Response Index (CRI). Physics Education, 34(5), 294299. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/34/5/304</p><p>Haskel-Ittah, M., & Yarden, A. (2018). Students conception of genetic phenomena and its effect on their ability to understand the underlying mechanism. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-01-0014</p><p>Helmi, Rustaman, N. Y., Sudargo Tapilouw, F., & Hidayat, T. (2019). Misconception types analysis on mechanism of evolution. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1175(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1175/1/012169</p><p>Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller. The physics teacher, 33(8), 502-502.</p><p>Hickey, D., Wolfe, E. W., & Kindfield, A. C. H. (2000). Assessing learning in a technology-supported genetics environment: evidential and consequential validity issues. Educational Assessment, 6(3), 155196. http://genscope.concord.org/</p><p>Jalmo, T., & Suwandi, T. (2018). Biology education students mental models on genetic concepts. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(3), 474485.</p><p>Jia, Q. (2010). A brief study on the implication of constructivism teaching theory on classroom teaching reform in basic education. In International Education Studies (Vol. 3, Issue 2). www.ccsenet.org/ies</p><p>Johnstone, A. H., & Mahmoud, N. A. (1980). Isolating topics of high perceived difficulty in school biology. Journal of Biological Education, 14(2), 163166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1980.10668983</p><p>Kalas, P., ONeill, A., Pollock, C., & Birol, G. (2013). Development of a Meiosis Concept Inventory. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 655664. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-10-0174</p><p>Kalimuthu, I. (2017). Improving understanding and reducing secondary school students misconceptions about cell division using animation-based instruction. In Karpudewan, M., Ahmad Nurulazam, M. Z., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (Eds), Overcoming Students' Misconceptions in Science: Strategies and Perspectives from Malaysia (pp. 283-306). Springer.</p><p>Kamilah, O. (2017). Addressing secondary school students misconceptions about simple current circuits using the learning cycle approach. In Karpudewan, M., Ahmad Nurulazam, M. Z., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (Eds), Overcoming Students' Misconceptions in Science: Strategies and Perspectives from Malaysia (pp. 223-242). Springer.</p><p>Karagoz, M., & akir, M. (2011). Problem solving in genetics: conceptual and procedural difficulties. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(3), 16681674.</p><p>Karpudewan, M., Roth, W. M., & Chandrakesan, K. (2015). Remediating misconception on climate change among secondary school students in Malaysia. Environmental Education Research, 21(4), 631648. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.891004</p><p>Khairina, S. (2017). Improving understanding and reducing matriculation students misconceptions in immunity using the flipped classroom approach. In Karpudewan, M., Ahmad Nurulazam, M. Z., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (Eds), Overcoming Students' Misconceptions in Science: Strategies and Perspectives from Malaysia (pp. 265-282). Springer.</p><p>Kili, D., & Saglam, N. (2009). Development of a two-tier diagnostic test concerning genetics concepts: the study of validity and reliability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 26852686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.474</p><p>Kili, D., Taber, K. S., & Winterbottom, M. (2016). A cross-national study of students understanding of genetics concepts: implications from similarities and differences in England and Turkey. Education Research International, 2016, 114. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6539626</p><p>Kirbulut, Z. D., & Geban, O. (2014). Using three-tier diagnostic test to assess students misconceptions of states of matter. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(5), 509-521.</p><p>Knippels, M. C. P. J. (2002). Coping with the abstract and complex nature of genetics in biology education the yo-yo learning and teaching strategy. (Phd Thesis). Utrecht University. Utrecht, The Netherlands.</p><p>Knippels, M. C. P. J., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2005). Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics. In Journal of Biological Education (Vol. 39, Issue 3, pp. 108112). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655976</p><p>Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.</p><p>Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. In Handbook of Survey Research (pp. 263313). Emerald.</p><p>Lawson, A. E. (1992). What do tests of formal reasoning actually measure? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(9), 965983. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290906</p><p>Liampa, V., Malandrakis, G. N., Papadopoulou, P., & Pnevmatikos, D. (2019). Development and evaluation of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess undergraduate primary teachers understanding of ecological footprint. Research in Science Education, 49(3), 711736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9643-1</p><p>Maclellan, E., & Soden, R. (2004). The importance of epistemic cognition in student-centred learning. Instructional Science, 32(3), 253268. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000024213.03972.ce</p><p>Maimunah, N., Hashimah, M. Y., & Norizan, E. (2014). Mengesan miskonsepsi murid tingkatan enam dalam genetik dengan menggunakan ujian diagnosis genetik dua-aras. International Postgraduate Colloquium of Research in Education (IPCoRE). 68-80.</p><p>Matriculation Division MOE. (2019). Panduan Program Matrikulasi KPM. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.my</p><p>Mills Shaw, K. R., Van Horne, K., Zhang, H., & Boughman, J. (2008). Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content. Genetics, 178(3), 1157-1168.</p><p>MOE. (2017). Dasar Pendidikan Kebangsaan. www.moe.gov.my/bppdp</p><p>Mohd Nor Syahrir, A., Nur Atikah, M. N. & Farhana, M. H. (2017). A Study on Addressing Students Misconceptions About Condensation Using the Predict-Discuss-Explain-Observe-Discuss-Explain (PDEODE) Strategy. In Karpudewan, M., Ahmad Nurulazam, M. Z., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (Eds), Overcoming Students' Misconceptions in Science: Strategies and Perspectives from Malaysia (pp. 51-69). Springer.</p><p>National Research Council. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. In Science Teaching Reconsidered. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/5287</p><p>Noraini, I. (2013). Penyelidikan dalam pendidikan. (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.</p><p>O. Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and evolution, 9(1), 20-32.</p><p>Oberoi, M. (2017). Construction and standardization of Three Tier Concept Achievement Test CAT in science. In International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing. http://ijesc.org/</p><p>Osman, E., BouJaoude, S., & Hamdan, H. (2017). An investigation of Lebanese G7-12 students misconceptions and difficulties in genetics and their genetics literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(7), 12571280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9743-9</p><p>Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in nursing & health, 30(4), 459-467.</p><p>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. International Journal of Science and Applied Science: Conference Series, 1(2), 91. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijsascs.v1i2.5126</p><p>Sewell, A. (2002). Constructivism and student misconception: Why every teacher needs to know about them. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48(4), 2428.</p><p>Smith, J. P., Disessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115163.</p><p>Smith, M. K., & Knight, J. K. (2012). Using the genetics concept assessment to document persistent conceptual difficulties in undergraduate genetics courses. Genetics, 191(1), 2132. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.137810</p><p>Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). The Genetics Concept Assessment: A new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBELife Sciences Education, 7, 422430. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08</p><p>Soeharto, Csap, B., Sarimanah, E., Dewi, F. I., & Sabri, T. (2019). A review of students common misconceptions in science and their diagnostic assessment tools. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(2), 247266. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v8i2.18649</p><p>Stevens, A. M., Smith, A. C., Marbach-Ad, G., Balcom, S. A., Buchner, J., Daniel, S. L., DeStefano, J. J., El-Sayed, N. M., Frauwirth, K., Lee, V. T., McIver, K. S., Melville, S. B., Mosser, D. M., Popham, D. L., Scharf, B. E., Schubot, F. D., Seyler, R. W., Shields, P. A., Song, W., Yarwood, S. A. (2017). Using a concept inventory to reveal student thinking associated with common misconceptions about antibiotic resistance. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1281</p><p>Suprapto, N. (2020). Do we experience misconceptions?: An ontological review of misconceptions in science. 1(2), 5055. https://doi.org/10.46627/sipose</p><p>Susanti, R. (2018). Misconception of biology education student of teacher training and education of Sriwijaya University to the concept of photosynthesis and respiration. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1022(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1022/1/012056</p><p>Taber, K. S. (2015). Alternative Conceptions/Frameworks/Misconceptions. In Encyclopedia of Science Education (pp. 3741). Springer- Verlag.</p><p>Taufiq, L., Sriyati, S., & Priyandonko, D. (2017). Students conceptual change on human reproduction concept using scientific approach. International Journal of Science and Applied Science: Conference Series, 2(1), 216. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijsascs.v2i1.16714</p><p>Todd Hartle, R., Baviskar, S., & Smith, R. (2012). A field guide to constructivism in the college science classroom: four essential criteria and a guide to their usage. Bioscene, 38, 3135.</p><p>Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204</p><p>Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. (2010). Evaluating secondary students scientific reasoning in genetics using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 10731098. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902951429</p><p>ce, M., & Ceyhan, I. (2019). Misconception in chemistry education and practices to eliminate them: literature analysis. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7(3), 202. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v7i3.3990</p><p>Varma, S. (2006). Preliminary item statistics using point-biserial correlation and p-values. Educational Data Systems Inc. Morgan Hill.</p><p>Verkade, H., Mulhern, T. D., Lodge, J. M., Elliott, K., Cropper, S., Rubinstein, B., Horton, A., Elliott, C., Espiosa, A., Dooley, L., Frankland, S., Mulder, R., & Livett, M. (2017). Misconceptions as a trigger for enhancing student learning in higher education: A Handbook for Educators. University of Melbourne.</p><p>Vlckova, J., Kubiatko, M., & Muhammet, U. (2016). Czech high school students misconceptions about basic genetic concept: Preliminary result. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(6), 738745.</p><p>Yazdanmehr, E., & Akbari, R. (2015). An expert EFL teachers class management. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3(2), 1-13.</p><p>Yilmaz, K. (2008). Constructivist suggestions constructivism: its theoretical underpinnings, variations, and implications for classroom instruction. Educational HORIZONS, 86, 161-172., 86, 161172.</p><p></p> |