clock reaction dalam pembelajaran kimia

(1)

Structured Clock Reaction Demonstration Implementation on Assessing Student’s

Understanding of Atomic Structure, Chemistry Bond, Thermochemistry, and Acid and

Base Concepts

By Suyant a, Sukisman Purt adi and Lis Permana Sari

Int roduction

Chemist ry educat ion paradigm in Indonesia has shift ed from behaviorism int o const ruct ivism. This shift has som e effect t o all of t he aspect s inside. Accor ding t o t he last paradigm, know ledge has t o be const ruct ed by st udent s t hemselves.

Know ledge const ruct ion is st art ed w it h a phenomena or object observat ion based on t heir prior know ledge. St udent gives a meaning t o w hat ever phenom ena t hey found. Const ruct ion pr ocess w ill run cont inuously, so cognit ive st r uct ure w ill develop and becom e more det ail. Concept is a proposit ion set t hat has a f unct ion t o give a meaning on part icular t opic (Nakhleh, 1992). Concept consist s of int er relat ed simple declarat ive st at ement (proposit ion) r epresent st udent know ledge const r uct ion.

Concept lear ning is a process happens nat urally on all human age level. This process includes discovery t he similarities of t he object s on t he w or ld, cat egory creat ing based on t he similarit y, and cat egory abst r act ion. But it does not m ean t hat it can happen aut omat ically and easily. Even somet im e, t eacher effort s on helpi ng t his process make it mor e difficult (Eggen & Kauchak, 1979).

Abraham et . al._{(1992) divided st udent undest anding of concept i nt o six degr ee as show n on t he} t able here.

Degree of underst anding Scoring crit eria

No r esponse Blank

I don’t know I don’t underst and No underst anding Repeat s quest ion

Irrelevant or unclear r esponse

Specific misconcept ion Responses t hat include illogical or incorrect Informat ion

Part ial underst andi ng w it h specific misconcept ion

Responses t hat show underst anding of t he concept but also make st at em ent s w hich demonst rat e a misunderst anding

Part ial underst andi ng Responses t hat include at least one of t he component s of t he validat ed response,‘but not all t he component s

Sound underst andi ng Responses t hat include all component s of t he validat ed response

M any st udies has t aken a f ocus on misconcept ions. The const r uct ivist view s t hat on const r uct ing t he know ledge, st udent does not alw ays make it succesf ully. Ther e can be a misconcept ion t hat w ill lead t o some dif ficult ies on learning process. For t hat case, st udent ’ s underst anding of chemist ry concept m ust be

(2)

ident ified w it h an assessm ent t hat can cover st udent underst anding w ider. Ident ificat ion result can be used t o improve t eaching and learning process on chemist ry.

There are many st udies on st udent underst anding of chem ist ry concept ident if icat ion. Among of t hem are m ult iple choices w it h r eason t est and i nt erview . But , paper and pencil based t est give st udent s chanche on cheat ing or guessing t he right answ er. To ident ify st udent underst andi ng of chemist y concept , it is necessary t o develop a m et hod t hat has chemist ry charact erist ics. It alw ays relat e t o mat t er and it s change, and ener gy. Beside t hat , t his m et hod has t o have sensit ivit y on st udent cognit ive st ruct ure r egulat ion and rest ruct urisat ion.

Demonst rat ion assessm ent becom es a choice. Demonst rat ion has been im plem ent ed in chemist ry classroom t o at t ract st udent at t ent ion, and it can nurt ure st udent underst anding ef fect ively. Teacher can show phenom ena illust rat ion happened i n t heir day life t o st imulat e st udent mind, nurt ur e t he curiosit y and apt it ude t ow ard chemist ry. Demonst rat ion gives st udent chance t o observe t he change on react ion, analyze dat a, make a conclusion t o propose some hypot hesis (M iller, 1993), and make a r elat ionship bet w een macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic w orld (Deese et . al._,_2000).

Demonst rat ion clock react ion is t he react ion t hat give simple underst ood sign in i nit ial react ion before product concent r at ion get it signif icant (Shakhashiri, 1984; Billingham & Needham, 1992). St r uct ured clock react ion demonst r at ion (SCRD) is modified f rom t his definit ion.

Purposes

This st udy aims t o know :

1. Profile of st udent underst anding of concept explored by st r uct ured clock react ion demont rat ion (SCRD).

2. St udent misconcept ion pat t erns ident ified by SCRD.

Experiment

This is a descript ive st udy w it h t he follow ing st eps.

a. Ident ifying and analising t he demonst r at ion t hat w ill be implement ed t o assess st udent underst andi ng of chemist ry concept . The follow ing is t he demont rat ion and concept relat ed t o be im plem ent ed on t his st udy.

Tabel 1. Demonst rat ion and t he concept ident ified No Demonst rat ion t it le Concept

1 Chemist ry of Respirat ion Indicat or pH r ange 2 M agic Glass Acid-bases neut r alizat ion 3 Solut ion chemist ry Buffer solut ion

4 Dramat ic Show Acid-base react ion

5 M agic Balloon At omic st ruct ure

(3)

7 Float ing Ball Chemical bonding

8 M agic M oney M iscibilit y

9 Wood Ice Thermochemist ry

b. M ake demonst rat ion w orksheet and assessment gui de. Score range of every underst anding degree on each demonst rat ion are different . It fit s t o num ber of requirem ent s and explanat ion. Scor e range show n here.

Tabel 2. Score range on underst anding level for every

No Cat egory Scor e range

Demo 1

Demo 2

Demo 3

Demo 4

Demo 5

Demo 6

Demo 7

Demo 8

Demo 9

1. NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. NU 1 – 2 1 – 8 1 – 4 1 – 8 1-4 1-6 1-4 1-5 1-6

3. SM 3 – 6 9 – 14 5 – 10 9 – 12 5-13 7-13 5-10 6-9 7 -12 4. UM 7 – 13 15-22 11- 20 13 -21 14-18 14-18 11-16 10-14 13-17 5. PU 14 –17 23 –26 21 –24 22 –25 19-24 19-24 17-24 15-24 18-24

6. SU 18 27 25 30 25 25 25 25 25

w her e

NR : No response Demo2 : M agic Glass

NU : No underst anding Demo3 : Solut ion chemist ry

SM : Specific misconcept ion Demo4 : Dram at ic Show UM : Part ial underst anding w it h specific Demo5 : M agic Balloon

misconcept ion Demo6 : Smoke Ring

PU : Part ial underst anding Demo7 : Float ing Ball

SU : Sound underst anding Demo8 : M agic M oney

Demo1 : Chem ist ry of Respir at ion Demo9 : Wood Ice

c. M ake t w o st udent w orksheet s.

1) First w orksheet , t his w orksheet is f illed af t er t hey observe on t he fir st st age demonst rat ion but before t hey know t he result of t he last st age.

2) Second w orksheet , t his w orksheet is f illed aft er t hey know t he result and t hey have t o explain t he similarit ies and diffeerences bet w een t heir predict ion and dem onst rat ion result .

d. Do demonst rat ion t o assess st udent underst anding. St ruct ured demonst rat ion w as divided int o t w o st age. First , observat ion st age. This st age led st udent at t ent ion t o t he concept w ill be assessed. They make an observasion not e, int egrat e t heir observat ion t o t he t heory t hey get in t he class. It w ill be used t o make a predict ion on t he next st age. Demonst rat ion w as done w it h t he follow ing st eps: 1) Give st udent s direct ion and w orksheet s.

(4)

2) Int roduce all equi pm ent s used on t he demonst rat ion. 3) Do SCRD for observat ion st age.

4) Give st udent t ime t o make a not e on t heir obser vat ion. 5) Do t he beggini ng of t he main assessm ent demonst rat ion

6) Ask a quest ion as w rit en on t he w orksheet and demonst rat ion guide.

7) Give st udent t ime t o w rit e dow n t he answ er of quest ion and make a pr edict ion w hat goi ng t o happen, on w orksheet (max 5 minut es)

8) Collect st udent s answ er sheet .

9) Cont inue t he main demonst rat ion t o show t he fact .

10) Give st udent s t ime t o explain if t heir predict ion fit t o t he fact or t heir explanat ion of t he fact , com pare w it h t heir predict ion.

11) Collect t heir explanat ion. 12) Prepare t he next demonst rat ion

e. Scor e st udent answ er and clasify t hem int o degr ee of under st anding. f . Analyze st udent s answ er t o find som e misconcept ion

Result

Here ar e t he result , aft er w e analysed all of st udent s answ er s carefully. No Demonst r at ion Concept %

NR NU SM UM PU SU

1 Chemist ry of Respirat ion

Indicat or pH r ange

0 0 14,29 85,71 0 0

2 M agic Glass Acid-bases

neut ralizat ion 0 0 21,05 68,42 7,89 2,63 3 Solut ion

chemist ry

Buffer solut ion

0 0 11,76 70,59 17,65 0

4 Dramat ic Show Acid-base react ion 0 5,56 83,33 11,11 0 0 5 M agic Balloon At omic st ruct ure 0 2,78 77,78 19,44 0 0

6 Smoke Ring Chemical bonding 0 66,67 30,55 2,78 0 0

7 Float ing Ball Chemical bonding 0 0 64,71 29,41 0 5,88

8 M agic M oney M iscibilit y 0 47,06 23,53 29,41 0 0

9 Wood Ice Thermochemist ry 0 17,64 41,18 41,18 0 0

St udent s w orksheet s w ere analysed furt her t o explore st udent misconcept ions t erm. Here t he list of st udent misconcept ions.

Tabel 3. M isconcept ions t ype explored w it h Clock React ion

Demonst rat ion M isconcept ion

Chemist ry of Respirat ion St udent s do not know how t o w rit e t he react ion: 2NaOH + CO2

→

Na2O + HCOO

(5)

aquadest addit ion

2. M ixing of w eak acid and st rong base makes neut ral salt . 3. Weak acid w ill be up w hen it is react ed t o st rong base

4. M ixt ure of sodium hydroxide solut ion and acet ic acid on t he same concent rat ion w ill makes neut ral salt

Chemist ry of Solut ion 1. Acid-base indicat or change solut ion pH

2. Buff er solut ion is a solut ion t hat has pH = 7 (neut ral) Dramat ic Show 1. Carbon dioxide gases neut ralize phenolpht alein so sodium

hydroxide solut ion becomes colourless. 2. The for mula of sodium bicarbonat e is Na(HCO)3

3. Chloride acid Asam klorida dit ambah indikat or met il orange menghasilkan gas karbon dioksida

4. The react ion bet w een chloride acid solut ion and sodium bicarbonat e causes pr ecipit at ion

M agic Balloon



Elect romagnet ic f orce makes paper pieces at t ract ed t o balloon



Elect ron t ransfer f rom hair int o balloon makes balloon has posit ive charges



At om consist s of negat ive and posit ive ions Smoke Ring



Cold w at er is light er t han hot w at er

Float ing Ball



Wat er and oil cannot mix up because t hey are non polar



Wat er and oil cannot mix up because t her e ar e no bonding elect ron pairs

M agic M oney



Wat er cannot be burnt out because it does not cont ain O2



M et hanol can be burnt out because it cont ains O2



Wat er and m et hanol can be mixed up easily because t hey have same concent rat ion

Wood Ice



Endot hermic react ion can be signalled from heat emit t ed f rom syst em t o it s surround



All react ion t hat produce gas is exot hermic r eact ion

1. Student understanding of concept profile explored with structured clock reaction demonstration On at t r act ing st udent at t ent ion t o t he new concept , som et ime t eacher s use single demonst r at ion only. Teacher gives some com ment or explanat ion, t hen, t o enforce concept t o underst and. It cannot w ork on assessm ent , because a demonst rat ion can be view ed from diff erent w ays and w e do not give st udent s explanat ion. St udent can t hi nk different concept w e m ean, and it w ill make t hem conf use w hen t hey face t he quest ion w e serve. M ay be, t hey can answ er w hat t hey t hink, but it w ill give us a w ide range concept t o analyze.

To get our focus, w e done t he demonst rat ion as assessm ent in st r uct ur ed manner. That m eans t hat w e had a st ruct ured answ er sheet t o hel p st udent focus w hat t hey need t o answ er t he quest ion t o com e and a set of demonst rat ion cont ain observat ion and main demonst rat ion. W e did demonst rat ion(s) on t he observat ion st age t o help st udent get t he dat a t hey need. W e had st udent t o w rit e cert ain dat a on t he answ er sheet . It does not mean t hey cannot t ake ot her dat a, t hey st ill have a chance t o t ake a not e as demonst r at ion goes on.

The demonst rat ion of Chemist ry of Respirat ion is aimed t o ident ify st udent s underst andi ng of indi cat or pH range concept . On t he observat ion st age, st udent had t o observe t he colour of indicat ors differences on acid, base, and neut ral condit ion and w rit e dow n t he dat a on t heir answ er sheet . On t he

(6)

main demonst rat ion, t hey have t o make a predict ion about w hat w ill happen if w e blow a base (sodi um hydroxide) solut ion w it h indicat or added. It looks like so simple t o be underst ood, but t he result show s t hat t here are 14.29% of st udent on SM and 85.71% of st udent s on UM level.

Chemist ry of solut ion w as used t o explore st udent under st anding of buff er solut ion concept . St udent w as faced t o t he colour changes of indicat or in aquadest on aci d and base addit ion. Then, t hey asked t o predict w hat w ill happen t o t he colour of indicat or in buffer solut ion w hen acid and base solut ion is added. The r esult show ed t hat t her e are 11.76% of st udent on SM and 70.59% on UM level.

M agic Glass Demonst r at ion is aimed t o explore st udent underst anding of acid base neut ralizat ion r eact ion. On observat ion st age st udent had t o observe phenolpht halein colour on base, neut ral, and aci d solut ion. Then, t hey t old t hat t here w ere a solut ion cont ains sodium hydroxide and indicat or in one glass and acet ic acid solut ion on t he ot her glass. The acid had concent rat ion higher t hen base. St udent had t o predict t he colour change w hen t he solut ion cont ains sodium hydroxide and indicat or is added t o acet ic acid on t he sam e volume. The result show ed t hat st udent underst anding of t his concept is more variet ies. There are 21.05% of st udent on SM , 68.42% on UM , 7.89% on PU, and 2.63% on SU.

Dramat ic show w as aimed t o explor e st udent underst anding of acid and base concept . St udent f aced t he r eact ion bet w een hydrochloride acid and sodi um bicarbonat e solut ion on observat ion st age. They asked t o observe t he colour changes of indicat or on t his react ion. Then, on t he main demonst rat ion, t hey had t o pr edict w hat w ill happen w hen carbon dioxide gas flow n i nt o t he sodium hydroxide solut ion. The result show s t hat num ber of st udent had misconcept ion on t his concept is highest , nam ely 83.33% of st udent .

M agic balloon explores st udent underst anding of at omic st ruct ur e concept , especially on elect ron t ransfer. St udent observe t he int eract ion bet w een balloon t hat inhibit ed on hair w it h paper. Aft er t hat , st udent predict ed w hat happen if t he balloon int eract ion w it h coin money and lit t le st ick f or t oot h i n t he plast ic bot t le.

Almost all st udent get w rong pr edict ion. Ther e are 77.78% st udent s t hat keep t heir preconcept ion t hat magnet ism is t he only f orce t o make at t ract ion happened. M eanw hile, t here ar e 19.44% st udent s able t o use right concept t o make explanat ion aft er t hey know t he r esult of t he demonst rat ion. The rest of t hem cannot give t he cl ear answ er, evenly aft er t hey know t he result of t he end demonst rat ion.

Smoke ring demonst rat ion explor e st udent underst andi ng of molecule mot ion concept . On t he observat ion st age t hey observe hot red w at er spr ead out quickly int o cold w at er. Then, st udent have t o predict w hat w ill be happened w hen green cold w at er is dropped int o col d w at er . We hoped t hat st udent can com par e t he spread rat e bet w een red hot w at er and green col d w at er . M ore t han 50% of st udent s seem t o get diff icult y on t he concept of t his demonst rat ion. Almost of t hem predict t hat col d w at er w ill f loat on hot w at er. They failed t o underst and t hat cold w at er is heavier t han hot w at er. It show s t hat t hey mixed up cold w at er and ice propert ies.

Float ing ball demonst rat ion explore st udent underst anding of chemical bonding concept , especially on polar and non polar bonding. On t he main demonst rat ion st udent have t o make t w o

(7)

predict ions. First , st udent s have t o pr edict w hat w ill be happened w hen gr een w at er is dropped int o a glass cont ains w at er and f ried oil. Then t hey have t o predict w hat w ill be happened w hen t he green w at er ball is pushed int o t he w at er layer. In fact , t his demonst rat ion comes fr om st udent daily lif e but t hey st ill do not know w hat t he concept s inside. There are only 5.88% of st udent s w ho underst and t his concept .

M agic money demonst rat ion gives magic sensat ion. First , st udent faces t o t he differences bet w een w at er and m et hanol propert ies w hen t hey are burnt . Then t hey have t o predict w hat w ill be happened w hen a money (paper) soaked int o w at er-m et hanol mixt ure is bur nt . Almost all st udent s t ake a w rong predict ion and explanat ion and t here is only 29.41% of st udent s can change t heir concept aft er t he demonst r at ion up.

The last demonst rat ion is w ood ice. This demonst rat ion explore st udent underst anding of t hermochemist ry concept . St udent faced a common demonst rat ion on t hermochemist ry concept . Ba(OH)2.8H2O and NH4SCN pow der w as mixed up. They had know n before t hat t his react ion w ill give a drast ically t emperat ur e decr ease. This demonst rat ion is modif ied, w e put t he beaker glass on t he w et w ood plat e before w e mix t he pow der. M any st udent get misconcept ions, even t here are 17.64% of st udent s w as classified int o no underst andi ng level.

This f oundi ng is int erest ing, because it seems t hat t hey had learnt all of t he concept s on t he classroom. This condit ion show s t hat t here are st ill so many misconcept ion experienced by st udent . They cannot apply t heir concept t o a ‘real’ w orld like demonst rat ion. We used t o say t hat our st udent had underst ood because t hey can do t he final exam or get a good mar k. We cannot imagine t hat our st udent make a w rong const ruct ion about chemist ry.

2. Terms of Student M isconceptions Explored w ith SCRD

We analyzed st udent st at ement s w rit t en on t heir answ er sheet t o f ind any sent ences t hat had possibilit y t o lead t o misconcept ion. We began w it h st udent answ er sheet t hat had been cat egorized int o misconcept ion level. From t his It w ill t ake t im e t o present all of st udent misconcept ion sent ences. We classified t hem int o t hr ee groups of concept component s, namely definit ion, at t ribut ion, and applicat ion.

The st at em ent of “ buf fer solut ion is a solut ion t hat has pH = 7” , is an exam ple of misconcept ion on definit ion level w e found. This st at ement show s conf usion happened on buffer solut ion char act erist ic. They knew t hat adding acid makes w at er becom e aci d solut ion, and base makes base solut ion. Yet , buffer solut ion can maint ain pH value on acid and base addit ion. They make correlat ion bet w een t hese t w o princi ples, make t hem t ook a w rong conclusion t hat buf f er solut ion has pH = 7. This st at ement di d not cam e on t he fir st w orksheet , befor e t hey know t he result but also on t he last w orksheet w here t hey have t o explain t he fact w it h t heir underst andi ng. This st at em ent show s t hat t hey did not under st and t he idea t o r epresent at ion concept , even t hough t hey have had t he dat a from t he observat ion.

The st at ement of “ sodium hydroxide becom es unoriginal aft er w at er addit ion’ is anot her example of misconcept ion on definit ion level. This sent ence show s t hat st udent mix up solut ion and dilut ion t erm. The st udent experienced t he difficult y w hen being poi nt ed i n t he use of chemical t erms t hat had different fr om

(8)

everyday life. St udent seem ed t o assum e t hat all chemical in t he laborat ory is in t he pure condit ion. This brought a consequence t o t hat st at em ent t o explain t he phenomena t hey f aced in t he main demonst r at ion.

St udent does not underst and t he concept of st oichiomet r y of solut ion and neut r alizat ion react ion. They do not consider t he quant it y of acid and base. Their answ er s show inconsist ency on problem solving. Some st udent s said t hat t he mixt ure of sodi um hydroxide and acet ic aci d on t he sam e concent rat ion w ill becom e a neut ral salt (solut ion).

M isconcept ion t ype on definit ion level also com es w hen st udent s find similar t erm. For exam ple, on t he sent ence of “ El ect r omagnet ic force makes paper pieces at t ract ed t o balloon “ . This sent ence, clear ly, show s confusion experienced by st udent on el ect r omagnet ic and at t ract ion force happened bet w een t w o charges (elect rost at ic force). St udent had know n befor e, t hat magnet ism can make t w o t hings at t ract each ot her. This ‘know ledge’ gives st udent s prior know ledge t hat all at t ract ion force is magnet ism. This underst anding becomes resist i n t heir mind so w hen t hey fi nd at t ract ion case bet w een t w o t hings t hey w ill say t hat it is magnet ism. Unfor t unat ely, t hey know t hat t he charge (elect ron) t ake role on t he demonst r at ion, so t hey mixed up t he concept magnet ism and elect romagnet ism. They t hought t hat elect r omagnet ism is at t ract ion bet w een t w o charges. None of t hem did ment ion elect rost at ic t erm.

The sent ence “ t he elect ron t ransf er from hairs int o balloon makes balloon has posit ive charge” , show s t hat st udent has not underst ood yet t he t erm elect ron and char ge def init ions. St udent has ment ioned on elect ron t ransfer, it means t hat if t here is no misconcept ion happened here, t hey have t o conclude t hat balloon w ill have posit ive charge. Anot her example of misconcept ion on definit ion l evel is “ At om consist s of negat ive and posit ive ions” . St udent assumed t hat el ect ron is negat ive ion and prot on is posit ive ion.

A misconcept ion on applicat ion level can be seen on t he follow ing st at em ent . “ r ed cabbage indi cat or w ill change pH val ue” , “ m et hyl or ange indicat or w ill change pH value” , “ car bon dioxide gas w ill neut ralize phenol pht halein indicat or so t hat sodium hydroxide solut ion becom es colourless” , and “ hydrochloride acid w ill produce carbon dioxide w hen it react s w it h m et hyl orange indicat or” . These sent ence show t hat st udent do not underst and acid-base concept .

It also show t hat , in fact , st udent has know n t hat an i ndicat or is a w eak acid or base. But t his underst anding leads st udent t o w rong decision, t hat indicat or acid w ill change pH value. The st at em ent of “ hydrochloride aci d w ill pr oduce carbon dioxide w hen it react s w it h met hyl orange indicat or” even far from concept underst anding. This answ er cannot explain t he dat a t hey observed before. They did not underst and indicat or behaviour exact ly.

Anot her misconcept ion on applicat ion level is “ t he react ion of hydrochloride acid and sodium bicarbonat e w ill produce precipit at ion” . This st at ement show s t hat t hey cannot make a predict ion on product of a react ion. This can be caused by t he assum pt ion t hat every acid base react ion produces salt . Salt , on t heir know ledge, is a solid and precipit at e.

(9)

M ixt ur e or miscibilit y concept seem s t o be mixed up w it h ot her concept s. Som e st udent gave t his st at em ent : “ w at er and oil cannot be mixed up because t hey do not have bonding pair elect ron” . This st at em ent is conf using. They did not use polarit y concept t o explain t his case. The ot her st udent s seem t o mix t he concept w it h limit ed react ion, it is show n on t his st at em ent : ” Wat er and met hanol can be mixed up because t hey have same concent rat ion” .

Conclusion

This r esult show ed t hat misconcept ions case is so com plex. This can r esist st udent t o underst and t he concept . This st udy proves t hat paper and pencil based t est is not enough t o explor e st udent misconcept ion. It needs an alt ernat ive assessm ent like t his demonst rat ion assessm ent t o do t hat . This st ruct ured demonst rat ion help st udent t o t hink scient ifically, and help t hem t o revise t heir concept underst anding

All misconcept ions above show t hat st udent may be give t he right answ er on t heoret ical t est . Paper-pencil based t est make t hem t o r ot e t he concept w it hout underst anding. If w e alw ays make t he paper and pencil based t est as a measurem ent of achievem ent w e w ill find st udent pass t he exam w it hout underst and t he concept , and of course t he science process included. On doing SCRD t est , st udent has t o know t he concept conclude on t he demonst rat ion, com bine t heir t heory underst anding and dat a f rom t he observat ion, and predict t he f ut ure happen. This t est is an inst rum ent of assessment t hat has chemist ry charact erist ic. This t est give st udent chance t o do self assessment

References.

Abraham,

et. al.

(1992). “Understanding and Misunderstanding of Eight Grades of Five Chemistry

Concept in Text Book”.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

. 29(12).

Arends, R.I. (2001).

Models of Teaching

5 .ed. Singapore: Mc Graw Hill.

Banerjee, A. (1991). “Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium”.

International Journal of Science Education

. 3(13). Hlm. 355-362.

Billingham, J., & Needham, D. J. (1992). “Mathematical Modelling of Chemical Clock Reactions:

Induction, Inhibition and the Iodate--Arsenous-Acid Reaction”. Diakses melalui

http://www.jstor.org/pss/54036

pada tanggal 9 Januari 2008.

Bradley, J.D., & Mosimege, M.D. (1998). “Misconceptions in acids and bases”.

Journal of Science

Education

and

Technology

.

Diakses

melalui

www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_kau_diva-783-1__fulltext.pdf

pada tanggal 27

Januari 2008.

Calatayud, María-Luisa & Bárcenas, Sergio L. (2007). “Surveying Students’ Conceptual and

Procedural Knowledge of Acid–Base Behavior of Substances”.

Journal of Chemical

(10)

Chang, Raymond. (2005).

Kimia Dasar: Konsep-konsep Inti

, Alih Bahasa Suminar SA. Jakarta:

Penerbit Erlangga.

Chiu, Mei-Hung. (2005). “A National Survey of Students’ Conceptions in Chemistry in Taiwan”.

Chemical

Education

International.

1(6).

Hlm.

2-3.

Diakses

melalui

www.iupac.org/publications/cei

pada tanggal 17 Maret 2008.

Deese, William C.,

at. al.

(2000). “Using Demonstration Assessments to Improve Learning”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 11(77). Hlm. 1516.

Eggen, Paul D., & Kauchak, Donal P. (1979).

Strategies For Teachers: Information Processing

Models in the Classroom

. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Gensler, W. (1970). “Physical Versus Chemical Change”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 2 (47).

Hlm. 154 – 155.

Herron, J.D., & Nurrenbern, S.C. (1999). “Chemical Educational Research: Inproving Chemistry

Learning”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 76(10). Hlm. 1353-1361.

Hill, John W., & Kolb, Doris K. (2007).

Chemistry for Changing Times

. New Jersey: Person

Education.

Holtzclaw, J. R.,

at. al

. (1984).

General Chemistry.

7 . ed. Toronto: D. C. Heath & Company.

Horton, Christopher. (2004). “Misconception in Chemistry (Student Alternative Conception in

Chemistry)”.

Journal

of

Chemical

Education

.

Diakses

melalui

http://urip.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/miskonsepsi-kimia/#more-121

pada tanggal 29

Oktober 2007.

Joyce, Bruce & Weill, Marsha. (1980).

Model of Teaching

. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kean, E. & Middlecamp, C. (1988). “Problem and “That Other Stuff”: Types of Chemical

Content”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 1(65). Hlm. 53-54.

Kind, Vanessa. (2004). “Beyond Appearances: Student’s Misconceptiobns About Basic Chemical

Ideas”. Diakses melalui http:

www.JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu

online pada tanggal 21 Maret

2008.

Loeffler P.A. (1989). “Fundamental Concepts In The Teaching Of Chemistry”.

Journal of

Chemical Education

. 11(66). Hlm. 928 – 930.

Miller, Theodore L. (1993). “Demonstration-Exploration-Discussion: Teaching Chemistry with

Discovery and Creativity”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 3(70).

Nakhleh, Mary. (1992). “Why Some Students Don't Learn Chemistry”.

Journal of Chemical

Education

.

3(69). Hlm. 191-196.

Nakhleh, M. & Krajcik, J.S. (1994). “Influence on Levels of Information as Presented by Different

Technologies on Students’ Understanding of Acid, Base, and pH Concepts”.

Journal

of

Research in Science Teaching

. 10(31). Hlm. 1077-1096.

Novak, Joseph D., & Gowin, D Bob. (1984).

Learning How to Learn

. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

(11)

Paul Suparno. (1996). “Konstruktivisme dan Dampaknya Terhadap Pendidikan.” Diakses melalui

www.hamline.edu

pada tanggal 13 Februari 2008.

Peterson, R.F., & Treagust, D.F. (1989). “Grade-12 Students' Misconceptions of Covalent

Bonding”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 6(66). Hlm. 459 – 460.

Pierce, David T., & Pierce, Thomas W. (2007). “Effective Use of Demonstration Assessments in

the Classroom Relative to Laboratory Topics”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 7(84).

Hlm. 1153.

Proksa, Miroslav & Anna Tothova. (2006). “Using Balloons for a Dramatic Presentation of the

Acid-Bicarbonate Reaction”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 10(83).

Rand, Ayn. (2003). Pengantar Epistemologi Objektif. Yogyakarta: Bentang Budaya.

Roadruck, Michael D. (1993). “Chemical Demonstration: Learning Theories Suggest Caution”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 12(70). Hlm. 1026.

Robinson, W.R. (1998). “New Paradigms, New Technology, New Texts”.

Journal of Chemical

Education

. 75(12). Hlm. 1528.

Ross, B., & Munby, H. (1991). “Concept mapping and misconceptions: a study of high-school

students’understanding of acids and bases”.

International Journal of Science Education

.

1(13). Hlm 11-23.

Sanger, M.J., & Greenbowe, T.J. (1997). “Common Student Misconception in Electrochemistry:

Galvanic, Electrolytic, and Concentration Cells”.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

(JRST). 4(34). Hlm. 377-398.

Schmidt, H. (1997) “Students’ Misconceptions: Looking for a Pattern

”. Journal of Science

Teaching

.

Schmidt, H. (1991). “A Label as a Hidden Persuader: Chemists’ Neutralization Concept”.

International Journal of Science Education

. 4(13). Hlm 459-471.

Strong, L.E. (1970). “Differentiating Physical and Chemical Changes”.

Journal of Chemical

Education

. 10(47). Hlm. 689-690.

W. Harjadi. (1990).

Ilmu Kimia Analitik Dasar

. Jakarta: Penerbit PT Gramedia.

Wilbraham, Antony C.,

at. al.

(1993).

Chemistry

. 3

.ed. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing

Company.

(1)

Float ing ball demonst rat ion explore st udent underst anding of chemical bonding concept , especially on polar and non polar bonding. On t he main demonst rat ion st udent have t o make t w o

(2)

2. Terms of Student M isconceptions Explored w ith SCRD

(3)

(4)

Conclusion

References.

Abraham,

et. al.

(1992). “Understanding and Misunderstanding of Eight Grades of Five Chemistry

Concept in Text Book”.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

. 29(12).

Arends, R.I. (2001).

Models of Teaching

5 .ed. Singapore: Mc Graw Hill.

Banerjee, A. (1991). “Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium”.

International Journal of Science Education

. 3(13). Hlm. 355-362.

Billingham, J., & Needham, D. J. (1992). “Mathematical Modelling of Chemical Clock Reactions:

Induction, Inhibition and the Iodate--Arsenous-Acid Reaction”. Diakses melalui

http://www.jstor.org/pss/54036

pada tanggal 9 Januari 2008.

Bradley, J.D., & Mosimege, M.D. (1998). “Misconceptions in acids and bases”.

Journal of Science

Education

and

Technology

.

Diakses

melalui

www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_kau_diva-783-1__fulltext.pdf

pada tanggal 27

Januari 2008.

Calatayud, María-Luisa & Bárcenas, Sergio L. (2007). “Surveying Students’ Conceptual and

Procedural Knowledge of Acid–Base Behavior of Substances”.

Journal of Chemical

(5)

Chang, Raymond. (2005).

Kimia Dasar: Konsep-konsep Inti

, Alih Bahasa Suminar SA. Jakarta:

Penerbit Erlangga.

Chiu, Mei-Hung. (2005). “A National Survey of Students’ Conceptions in Chemistry in Taiwan”.

Chemical

Education

International.

1(6).

Hlm.

2-3.

Diakses

melalui

www.iupac.org/publications/cei

pada tanggal 17 Maret 2008.

Deese, William C.,

at. al.

(2000). “Using Demonstration Assessments to Improve Learning”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 11(77). Hlm. 1516.

Eggen, Paul D., & Kauchak, Donal P. (1979).

Strategies For Teachers: Information Processing

Models in the Classroom

. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Gensler, W. (1970). “Physical Versus Chemical Change”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 2 (47).

Hlm. 154 – 155.

Herron, J.D., & Nurrenbern, S.C. (1999). “Chemical Educational Research: Inproving Chemistry

Learning”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 76(10). Hlm. 1353-1361.

Hill, John W., & Kolb, Doris K. (2007).

Chemistry for Changing Times

. New Jersey: Person

Education.

Holtzclaw, J. R.,

at. al

. (1984).

General Chemistry.

7 . ed. Toronto: D. C. Heath & Company.

Horton, Christopher. (2004). “Misconception in Chemistry (Student Alternative Conception in

Chemistry)”.

Journal

of

Chemical

Education

.

Diakses

melalui

http://urip.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/miskonsepsi-kimia/#more-121

pada tanggal 29

Oktober 2007.

Joyce, Bruce & Weill, Marsha. (1980).

Model of Teaching

. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kean, E. & Middlecamp, C. (1988). “Problem and “That Other Stuff”: Types of Chemical

Content”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 1(65). Hlm. 53-54.

Kind, Vanessa. (2004). “Beyond Appearances: Student’s Misconceptiobns About Basic Chemical

Ideas”. Diakses melalui http:

www.JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu

online pada tanggal 21 Maret

2008.

Loeffler P.A. (1989). “Fundamental Concepts In The Teaching Of Chemistry”.

Journal of

Chemical Education

. 11(66). Hlm. 928 – 930.

Miller, Theodore L. (1993). “Demonstration-Exploration-Discussion: Teaching Chemistry with

Discovery and Creativity”.

Journal of Chemical Education

. 3(70).

Nakhleh, Mary. (1992). “Why Some Students Don't Learn Chemistry”.

Journal of Chemical

Education

.

3(69). Hlm. 191-196.

Nakhleh, M. & Krajcik, J.S. (1994). “Influence on Levels of Information as Presented by Different

Technologies on Students’ Understanding of Acid, Base, and pH Concepts”.

Journal

of

Research in Science Teaching

. 10(31). Hlm. 1077-1096.

Novak, Joseph D., & Gowin, D Bob. (1984).

Learning How to Learn

. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

(6)