See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/255755777

Diagnostic assessment in chemistry Introduction

Article · April 2011

DOI: 10.1039/C1RP90016A

CITATION READS
1 164

2 authors:

David Treagust Mei-Hung Chiu

Curtin University National Taiwan Normal University
112 PUBLICATIONS 4,401 CITATIONS 105 PUBLICATIONS 2,285 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Security Body of Knolwedge View project

Facial micro-expressions in science education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Treagust on 17 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


INTRODUCTION www.rsc.org/cerp | Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Diagnostic assessment in chemistry
David F Treagusta and Mei-Hung Chiub
Received 26th March 2011, Accepted 28th March 2011
DOI: 10.1039/C1RP90016A
Research on diagnostic assessment in chemistry has been one
of our central interests for a number of years, and we appreciate
the opportunity to be guest editors of this special issue. Indeed,
October 2011
Published on 21 April 2011 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C1RP90016A
globally there is increasing interest in the need to provide
formative diagnostic assessment as a means to assist learners in
their efforts to develop a more comprehensive understanding of
the chemical concepts in the implemented curriculum.
Furthermore, there is increased interest by curriculum designers
and chemistry teachers, instructors and professors about the
importance of knowing the effectiveness of the curriculum and
its teaching at an early stage prior to summative assessment.
The authors contributing to this special issue have addressed
diagnostic assessment considering both the learners’ and the
teacher’s perspective. Each of the twenty-six papers submitted
has been seen by two or three reviewers. Ten of these papers
Downloaded on 10
were deemed either not suitable, or required too great a
reorientation to meet the criteria for this special issue.
We could discuss the sixteen papers in a number of different
ways, and have decided to do so in terms of the research
methods rather than the chemistry or the grade level (though
we mention both these to help provide a full picture of the
individual contributions).
Four papers describe a qualitative approach to diagnostic
assessment. Nyachwaya, Mohamed, Roehrig, Wood, Kern and
Schneider used an open drawing tool that required general
chemistry college students to draw particles to explain
chemical reactions. Lopez, Kim, Nandagopal, Cardin,
Shavelson and Penn examined the validity of using concept
maps as assessment tools to measure learning in university
organic chemistry. The concept learning scores were
significantly correlated with problem set scores and final
course grade. Turner, Van der Heide and Fynewever described
in considerable detail the personal accounts of two university
professors who implemented an assessment cycle when
teaching first year university students. S. Lewis, Shaw and
Freeman describe a diagnostic tool called creative exercises,
similar to concept maps, whereby students choose which
information from a set of prompts best connects to a statement
about some chemistry.
Eleven papers used pencil and paper assessment tools and
one used a computerized assessment tool, but these came in a
variety of different forms.
Four papers focussed on being able to diagnose a particular
level of competence of chemical knowledge. Using pencil and
paper test items for grades 6-12, Bernholt
a
Curtin University, Perth, Australia; e-mail: d.treagust@curtin.edu.au
b
National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan;
e-mai l: mhchiu@ntnu.edu.tw
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2011
View Online
and Parchmann developed a model with five levels of
complexity to show whether and to what extent the developed
complexity scheme was able to predict item difficulty. Ropohl,
Sumfleth and Walpuski examined standard-based test items in
chemical reactions that incorporated the chemistry taught to
grade 10 students dealing with the application of content
knowledge. Similarly, Herrmann-Abell and DeBoer used
diagnostic test items for middle school, and identified the most
prevalent misconceptions across grades 6-12. The above three
papers have in common the use of Rasch analyses. Potgeiter
and Davidowitz described the predictive purposes of a
chemical competence test used with first year chemistry
students that illustrated the difficulty that student have with the
three levels of representations in chemistry.
Cloonan and Hutchinson developed and described a
chemistry concept reasoning test for use with university general
chemistry students in a wide range of topics, which was able to
distinguish those test takers not proficient in chemical
understanding and reasoning. Villafañe, Loertscher,
Minderhout and J. Lewis describe research with university
biochemistry students that involved an assessment instrument
with twenty-one items covering seven different concepts in
chemistry that contained potentially persistent incorrect ideas
that limited future understanding of biochemistry. Regan,
Childs and Hayes describe an intervention program at
university level involving voluntary tutorials that demonstrated
positive outcomes on diagnostic tests for those students who
consistently attended the tutorials.
Four papers had a focus on diagnosing selected aspects of
chemistry. Cheung used seven multiple choice questions about
the lead-acid battery administered to a chemistry teaching
methods class comprising in-service and pre-service teachers,
which demonstrated that many teachers had difficulty with
several aspects of the chemistry of this common device. Liang,
Chou and Chiu looked at grade 8 and grade 9 students’ test
performance on the behaviour of gas particles in an enclosed
space, identifying inconsistent mental models used by students
in problem solving in different contexts. Further, there was a
mismatch between student test performance and teacher
predictions. Treagust, Chandrasegaran, Zain, Ong, Karpudevan
and Halim used a two-tier test administered to high school
students, university undergraduates and postgraduates to
examine student understanding of basic particle concepts. Only
a limited percentage of students across each of the year levels
had consistent understanding. Pappa and Tsaparlis diagnosed
the types of questions for the topics: intra- and intermolecular
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2011, 12, 119-120 | 119
 View Online

bonding in ten university -level general chemistry books; test using eight semantic differential type items to measure
teachers using such books need to consider that they often lack students’ emotional and intellectual attitudes towards
metacognitive questions and experimental procedures. chemistry; this test was available as pencil and paper and also
The only paper to diagnose changes in the affective domain, online.
that by Brandriet, Xu, Bretz and J Lewis., used a
October 2011
Published on 21 April 2011 on http://pubs.rsc.org | doi:10.1039/C1RP90016A
Downloaded on 10

120 | Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2011, 12, 119-120 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2011
View publication stats