UNIVERSITY of LIMERICK

OLLSCOIL LUIMNIGH

‘‘Identification of difficult topics in the teaching

and learning of Chemistry in Irish schools and the
development of an intervention programme to target
some of these difficulties'

_____________________________________

Maria Sheehan

PhD. 2010

i
 Table of Contents

Title Page No.

Abstract xi
Declaration xii
Acknowledgements xiii
List of Tables xiv
List of Figures xxix
List of Abbreviations xxxvii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

1.1 The Structure and Place of Chemistry in the Irish Education

System 5

1.2 Science and Chemistry at Irish Primary and Secondary Levels 7

1.2.1 Junior Certificate Science 7

1.2.2 The Popularity of Leaving Certificate Science Subjects 9
1.2.3 Leaving Certificate Chemistry 10
1.2.4 Trends in the Study of Leaving Certificate Chemistry 12
1.2.5 Pupils Performance in Leaving certificate Chemistry 14
1.2.6 Summary of Important Points 15

1.3 Chemistry Uptake at Third Level 16

1.4 Reasons for Not Pursuing the Study of Chemistry 18

1.4.1 Lack of Relevant Research 18

1.4.2 The Lack of Relevancy of Chemistry 19
1.4.3 A General Perception that Chemistry is Difficult 20

1.5 Aims and Structure of this Project 22

1.5.1 Development of Questionnaires to Identify Difficult

Topics 23
1.5.2 Determining Why Certain Chemistry Topics are Difficult 23
1.5.3 Development, Implementation and Evaluation of
Teaching Strategies 24

1.6 The Structure of the Thesis 25

ii
 Table of Contents (contd.)

Title Page No.

Chapter 2 Literature Review 27

2.1 The Irish Science and Chemistry Curricula 28

2.1.1 Primary School Science 28

2.1.2 Junior Certificate Science 30
2.1.3 Leaving Certificate Chemistry 33
2.1.4 Third Level Science and Chemistry 35
2.1.5 Irish Pupils’ Performance in Science and Mathematics in
Comparison to International Standards 35

2.2 Research into Identifying Areas of Difficulty in Chemistry 37

2.2.1 Identifying Difficult Topics in Chemistry – Investigations

From England 37
2.2.2 Identifying Difficult Topics in Chemistry – Investigations
From Scotland 41
2.2.3 Identifying Difficult Topics in Chemistry – Investigations
From Nigeria 42
2.2.4 Irish Chief Examiners Report in Chemistry 44
2.2.5 Summary of Research into Identifying Difficult Topics
In Chemistry 48

2.3 Why is Chemistry Difficult? 49

2.3.1 Difficulties Caused by the Intrinsic Nature of Chemistry 49

2.3.2 Difficulties Caused by Human Learning in Chemistry 51
2.3.3 The Information Processing Ability and Working Space
Memory of the Pupil 52
2.3.4 The Chemical Misconceptions Pupils have and the Effect
of these Misconceptions on the pupils’ ability to Construct
Ideas and Their Understanding of Chemical Concepts 57
2.3.5 The Cognitive Development of the Chemistry Pupil 61
2.3.6 The Mathematical Ability of the Chemistry Pupil 71
2.3.7 A Summary of Explanations as to Why Pupils find
Chemistry Difficult 75

iii
 Table of Contents (contd.)

Title Page No.

2.4 Cognitive Development Intervention Programmes 79

2.4.1 Instrumental Enrichment (I.E.) 79

2.4.2 Philosophy for Children 80
2.4.3 Social Development Theory and Constructivism 80
2.4.4 Cognitive Acceleration (C.A.) 81
2.4.4.1 Cognitive Acceleration (C.A.): CASE and Related Projects 84
2.4.4.2 Related Projects 98

2.5 Development of and Intervention Programme Suitable for The

Irish School System 101

2.5.1 Chemical Misconceptions Relating to the Particulate

Nature of Matter and the Mole Concept 101
2.5.2 Increasing Thinking Skills in Chemistry (ITS Chemistry) 107

Chapter 3 Methodology 109

3.1 Phase One – The Identification of Chemistry Topics that are

Perceived as Being Difficult by Irish Pupils/Students 110

3.1.1 The Questionnaire 110

3.1.2 Distribution of Questionnaires 114
3.1.3 Description of Single Groups 115
3.1.4 Analysing the Questionnaires 117

3.2 Phase Two – An Assessment of the Cognitive Development of

Irish Pupils/Students and the Chemical Misconceptions they
Possess 118

3.2.1 Development of Test Instrument 119

3.2.2 Distribution of Test Instruments 126
3.2.3 Description of Sample Groups 127
3.2.4 Analysis of Test Instruments 129

iv
 Table of Contents (contd.)

Title Page No.

3.3 Development, Implementation and Evaluation of an

Intervention Programme Aimed to Alleviate Difficulties
Irish Pupils have in Chemistry 130

3.3.1 Evaluation of the ITS Chemistry Intervention Programme 132

3.4 Timeline of the Different Phases Involved in This Investigation 135

Chapter 4 Results and Analysis of Phase One of This

Investigation 136

4.1 Responses of Junior Certificate Pupils 137

4.1.1 Difficult and Very Difficult Chemistry Topics in Junior

Certificate Science 137
4.1.2 Links Between Mathematical Level and Perceived Difficulty
of a Chemistry Topic 140
4.1.3 Links Between Science Level and Perceived Difficulty of a
Chemistry Topic 141
4.1.4 Links Between Gender and Perceived Difficulty of a
Chemistry 143

4.2 Responses of Leaving Certificate Pupils 144

4.2.1 Difficult and Very Difficult Topics in Leaving Certificate

Chemistry 144
4.2.2 Links Between Mathematical Level and Perceived Difficulty
of a Chemistry Topic 149
4.2.3 Links Between Chemistry Level and Perceived Difficulty of
A Chemistry Topic 151
4.2.4 Links Between Gender and Perceived Difficulty of a
Chemistry Topic 154

v
 Table of Contents (contd.)

Title Page No.

4.3 Responses of Leaving Certificate Teachers 156

4.4 Responses of 1st Year University Chemistry Students 159

4.4.1 Difficult and Very Difficult Topics in First Year

University Chemistry 159
4.4.2 Links Between Previous Experience of Chemistry and
Perceived Difficulty of a Chemistry Topic 163
4.4.3 Links Between Mathematical Level and Perceived
Difficulty of a Chemistry Topic 166
4.4.4 Links Between Chemistry Level and Perceived Difficulty
Of a Chemistry Topic 168
4.4.5 Links Between Gender and Perceived Difficulty of a
Chemistry Topic 168

4.5 Responses of 2nd and 3rd Year University Chemistry Students 170

4.5.1 Difficult and Very Difficult Topics in Second and Third

Year University Chemistry 170
4.5.2 Links Between Mathematical Level and Perceived Difficulty
of a Chemistry Topic 175
4.5.3 Links Between Gender and Perceived Difficulty of a
Chemistry Topic 177

4.6 Analysis of the Results of Phase One of This Investigation 178

4.6.1 The Link Between Mathematical Ability on the Perceived

Difficulty of Different Chemistry Topics 185
4.6.2 The Link Between Science Ability and the Perceived
Difficulty of Different Chemistry Topics 187
4.6.3 The Link Between Gender and the Perceived Difficulty of
Different Chemistry Topics 187
4.6.4 Summary of the Effect of Mathematical Ability, Science
Ability and Gender on the Perceived Difficulty Chemistry
Topics 188

4.7 Summary of the Main Findings 189

vi
 Table of Contents (contd.)

Title Page No.

4.8 The Next Phase of This Investigation 190

4.8.1 The Cognitive Development of the Pupil 190

4.8.2 The Chemical Misconceptions Pupils Possess about
Threshold Concepts in Chemistry 191

4.9 Effect of Limitations in Phase One of This Investigation 192

4.9.1 Effect of Limitations in the Junior Certificate Study 192

4.9.2 Effect of Limitations in the Leaving Certificate Study 193
4.9.3 Effect of Limitations in the 3rd Level Study 193

Chapter 5 Results and Analysis of Phase Two of This

Investigation 194

5.1 Results of Cognitive Tests 195

5.1.1 Cognitive Profile of the Different Cohorts Involved

In This Study 196
5.1.2 Cognitive Development versus Gender 199
5.1.3 Cognitive Development versus Mathematical Ability 203
5.1.4 Cognitive Development versus Science/Chemistry Ability 208
5.1.5 Cognitive Development versus Course of Study at 3rd Level 213
5.1.6 Cognitive Development versus Age 214
5.1.7 Summary of the Finding from the Cognitive Test results 216
5.1.8 Implications for the Teaching and Learning of Chemistry 217

vii
 Table of Contents (contd.)

Title Page No.

5.2 Results of chemical misconceptions tests 218

5.2.1: Overall performance of Junior and Leaving Certificate

pupils in the misconceptions test 218
5.2.2: A closer look at the responses from the Junior
Certificate pupils’ misconceptions test 220
5.2.3: Significant Factors that emerged from results from
Junior Certificate test instruments 237
5.2.4: A closer look at the responses from the Leaving
Certificate pupils’ misconceptions test 238
5.2.4.1: Misconceptions possessed by Leaving Certificate
pupils about the Particulate Nature of Matter 239
5.2.4.2: Misconceptions possessed by Leaving Certificate
pupils relating to Equilibrium 249
5.2.4.3: Misconceptions possessed by Leaving Certificate pupils
relating to The Mole concept 254
5.2.5: Significant Factors that emerged from results of the
Leaving Certificate test instruments 260
5.2.6: Similarities between Junior Certificate and
Leaving Certificate Responses 261
5.2.6.1: Summary of the Main Misconceptions Held by Both Junior
and Leaving Certificate Pupils 266

5.3 Summary of the Main Findings of Phase Two of This

Investigation 268

5.4 Effect of Limitations in Phase Two of This Investigation 269

5.4.1: Effect of Limitations in the Junior Certificate Study 269

5.4.2: Effect of Limitations in the Leaving Certificate Study 269
5.4.3: Effect of Limitations in the 3rd level Study 270

Chapter 6: The Development of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ Intervention

Programme 271

6.1 Chemistry Education Research that Inspired the Development

Of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ Intervention Programme 273

6.1.1: Detailed Analysis of an Actual ‘ITS Chemistry’ Lesson 291

viii
 Table of Contents (contd.)

Title Page No.

6.2 Implementation of the ITS Chemistry Intervention

Programme 293

Chapter 7: Results of Phase Three 297

7.1 Comparison of trends between phase two and phase three of

this investigation 299

7.2 Can the control and experimental groups be compared? 300

7.3 The effect of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme

on the cognitive ability of the pupil 302

7.4 The effect of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme

on the Chemical misconceptions held by pupils 308
7.4.1: A closer look at the responses of pupils in the
misconceptions test 313
7.4.2: Summary of the effect of participation in the
‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme 333
7.4.3: Factors that May have Enhanced Scores Achieved by
the Experimental Group 337

7.5 Teachers’ attitudes towards the ITS Chemistry programme 345

7.5.1: Personal reflections on the implementation of the
‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme 347

7.6 Summary of findings of phase three of the investigation 349

7.7 Limitations to phase three of the investigation 350

Chapter 8 Conclusion 351

8.1 How the findings of phase one influenced the direction of

phases two and three of this investigation 352

8.2 How the findings of phase two influenced the direction of

phase three of this investigation 354

ix
 Table of Contents (contd.)

Title Page No.

8.3 How the findings of phase three can influence the teaching
and learning of Chemistry in the Irish school system 358

8.4 Recommendations arising from this study 359

8.5 Suggestions for further work 360

References 362

Appendices 380

Appendix A ~ Questionnaires used in phase one of this investigation

Appendix B ~ Original Science Reasoning Task 4 ~ ‘Equilibrium in

the Balance’ NFER, (1976)

Appendix C ~ Questionnaires used in phase two of this investigation

Appendix D ~ Questionnaires used in phase three of this investigation

Appendix E ~ Example of an ‘ITS Chemsitry’ Lesson

x
 ‘Identification of difficult topics in the teaching and learning of Chemistry in Irish
schools and the development of an intervention programme to target some of these
difficulties'

Maria Sheehan

The purpose of this investigation was to identify the topics in Chemistry that the majority of
Irish pupils find difficult from Junior Certificate level right through to Third Level. It was
then hoped to determine the reasons why pupils find these topics difficult. Finally it was
intended to develop, implement and evaluate materials and strategies that aimed to alleviate
difficulties in the learning and understanding of these topics for pupils studying Chemistry
in Ireland.

There were three distinct phases in this investigation. Phase one involved the development
of four questionnaires: for pupils at Junior Cycle, Leaving Cycle, Leaving Certificate
Chemistry teachers and third level science and engineering students. These questionnaires
consisted of a list of the different Chemistry topics studied at each level attached to a Likert
scale, which asked pupils to give their opinion on the level of difficulty of the Chemistry
topics. The views of practicing Chemistry teachers were also sought as to the topics they
think students find most difficult. Findings from this phase of the investigation indicate that
pupils have difficulty with the majority of topics in the different Chemistry courses, and that
these difficulties persist from Junior Certificate level right through to third level education.

Phase two of this investigation involved the development and implementation of instruments
that would determine why those studying Chemistry find these topics difficult. The
instrument was a pen and paper tool and was fashioned to assess the cognitive development
of Irish pupils and also to determine the type of chemical misconceptions Irish pupils
possess about the difficult Chemistry topics identified in phase one of the investigation. The
literature has identified the areas of cognitive development and alternative conceptions
(misconceptions) as having a major effect on how easy or difficult pupils find Chemistry
topics. Results from phase two indicate that the majority of pupils/students in this study
were operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development and that they
possessed many Chemical misconceptions relating to fundamental Chemistry topics such as
the Mole and the Particulate Nature of Matter.

Phase three of this investigation involved the development, implementation and evaluation
of teaching strategies, activities and materials to alleviate difficulties pupils have with some
of the identified difficult topics. This took the form of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme, which addressed the Particulate nature of Matter and the Mole concept.
Evaluation of the intervention programme ‘ITS Chemistry’ showed that, within the
limitations of the evaluation, it did indeed have some positive effects on the cognitive
development of participating pupils. It was also shown to have a positive effect in the
reduction of the number of chemical misconceptions held by pupils. The results suggest that
such a research-based intervention strategy can alleviate, at least partially, some of the
factors that make Chemistry topics difficult.

xi
 Declaration

The material presented here in this thesis is the original work of the author, except where
reference and acknowledgement has been made, where necessary, to the work of others.

Maria Sheehan
_________________________ _______________________
Author Date

Department of Chemical and Environmental Sciences,

University of Limerick,
Ireland.

xii
 Acknowledgements

Without the help and encouragement of many people I can safely say I would not have
been able to complete the following project. Thank you most sincerely for everything.

To my Mam and Dad, for understanding why I haven’t visited that often over the last
three and a half years and for their continued help and support.

To Colm, for everything, x.

To the management, staff and pupils of St Caimins’ Community school, for the
constant encouragement.

To the CES department, University of Limerick, for the much needed support during
this project.

To the Teaching Council of Ireland, without whom, phase three of this investigation
would have been very difficult to complete and for recognising the value of Science
education research in Ireland.

To Marie Walsh, Limerick Institute of Technology, for all the practical advice, many
chats and for her interest in my work and support during this project.

The Dr. Peter Childs, for the encouragement to first of all do this project, all the
advice and also for the many opportunities and experiences this project has given me.

xiii
 List of Tables

Title Page No.

Table 1.1: Breakdown of participation rates in Junior Certificate Science 8

according to Gender from 2001 to 2009
(Figures sourced from www.examinations.ie)

Table 1.2: Gender breakdown of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry cohort

(Combination of the Chief Examiners report 2002,
2005 and 2008) 12

Table 1.3: Distribution of grade by percentage in grade bands A to C, D,

and E to NG for Higher and Ordinary Level candidates
(Chief Examiners Report in Chemistry, 2005) 14

Table 1.4: CAO Applications and Acceptances to Science and Applied

Science Courses 2002-2007 (Data Sourced from www.cao.ie) 16

Table 1.5: Courses in which there was a drop in the points required to
gain entry into that course in 2007 (McGinnity, 2007) 17

Table 1.6: Data showing 15-year-old pupils’ views about Science.

(Osborne, 2003) 20

Table 2.1: Strand and strand units of the primary Science Curricula
(www.ncca.ie) 29

Table 2.2: Chemistry Concepts covered at the Primary Education

(www.ncca.ie) 29

Table 2.3: Chemistry topics and concepts covered at Junior

Certificate Level (Junior Certificate Science syllabus) 31

Table 2.4: List of Leaving Certificate Chemistry Topics 34

xiv
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 2.5: List of topics in order of difficulty by more than 33% of students
(n=199); 30% of teachers (n=50) and 45% of examiners (n=35)
(Ratcliffe, 2002) 38

Table 2.6: Topics identified as difficult in O and A Level Chemistry

(Bojezuk, 1982) 39

Table 2.7: Chemistry topics that teachers feel present difficulty to

pupils (Bojezuk, 1982) 40

Table 2.8: Troublesome Chemistry topics identified by students in

Scotland (Johnstone, 2006) 42

Table 2.9: Difficult Chemistry topics as identified by Nigerian

secondary school pupils (Jimoh, 2005) 43

Table 2.10: Chemistry Topics identified as being difficult by pupils

in two or more of the studies 43

Table 2.11: Chemistry Topics identified as being difficult by teachers

in two or more of the studies 44

Table 2.12: % attempts made to answer topics on the Leaving Certificate

Examinations in 2002, 2005 and 2008 (Chief Examiner’s
Reports in Chemistry, 2002, 2005 and 2008) 45

Table 2.13: Average mark received in each topic in the 2002, 2005
and 2008 LeavingCertificate Examinations (Chief
Examiner’s Reports in Chemistry, 2002, 2005 and 2008) 47

xv
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 2.14: Causes of Difficulty when Learning Chemistry (Brousseau, 2005) 49

Table 2.15: Description of the three levels of multi level thought in Chemistry
(adapted from Johnstone, 2000) 50

Table 2.16: List of research papers investigating misconceptions in a number

of different Chemistry topics 59

Table 2.17: Summary of concrete thinking skills (Cracolice, 2005) 63

Table 2.18: Summary of formal thinking skills (Cracolice, 2005) 64

Table 2.19: Concrete versus Formal Reasoning patterns (Karplus, 1977) 65

Table 2.20: The Curriculum Analysis Taxonomy (CAT) for Organic

Chemistry, (Adey and Shayer, 1981) 68

Table 2.21: Mean pre- to delayed post-test gains for schools and groups
(Adey and Shayer, 1994) 91

Table 2.22: Misconceptions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter

and the Mole Concept 105

Table 3.1: Likert Scales used by Johnstone (2006), Ratcliffe (2002),

Bojezuk (1982) And Jimoh (2005) 111

Table 3.2: A list of the additional information obtained in the different

questionnaires 113

Table 3.3: Summary of the Number of Schools that Received and Returned
Questionnaires 115

xvi
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 3.4: The Breakdown of the number of Junior and Leaving Certificate
Pupils involved in this study according to Gender and School Type 115

Table 3.5: Breakdown of University students who took part in this

investigation according to gender and chemistry experience 116

Table 3.6: Summary of the steps involved in the development of the Junior
and Leaving Certificate test instruments 119

Table 3.7: Relationship between the pupils score on test instrument and
pupils’ cognitive development (Science Reasoning Task IV) 120

Table 3.8: Structure of the Junior Certificate test instrument and the source
of the question that tested individual misconceptions 122

Table 3.9: Structure of the Leaving Certificate test instrument and the
source of the question that tested individual misconceptions 123

Table 3.10: Types of Questions included in the Junior and Leaving

Certificate Test Instruments 125

Table 3.11: Distribution of Test Instruments according to School Type 127

Table 3.12: General profile of the Junior and Leaving Certificate cohorts
involved in phase two of investigation 127

Table 3.13: General profile of the 1st year University and Institute of
Technology cohorts involve in phase two of investigation 128

Table 3.14: Structure of the Post-Test Instrument, completed by both control

And Experimental Groups, to Analyse the Effectiveness of the
ITS Chemistry Intervention Programme 133

Table 3.15: Profile of the Experimental Group that Participated in the ITS
Chemistry Implementation Programme 134

Table 3.16: Profile of the Control Group that Participated in Phase Three
of this Investigation 134

xvii
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 4.1: Breakdown of Junior Certificate Science Group by Gender and

Mathematics and Science Level (n=607) 137

Table 4.2: Chemistry topics (out of a total of 33 topics) that were

identified as being difficult by Junior Certificate pupils (n=607) 138

Table 4.3: Top ten Junior Certificate Science topics, which received the
highest amount of ‘number 4 and 5’ or ‘difficult and very
difficult’ responses (n=607) 139

Table 4.4: Junior Certificate Science topics that received the highest
number of ‘difficult and very difficult’ combined responses
(n=607) 140

Table 4.5: Topics that Ordinary Level Mathematics Pupils are more
likely to perceive as difficult in Junior Certificate Science 141

Table 4.6: Topics that Ordinary Level Science Pupils are more likely to
perceive as difficult in Junior Certificate Science 152

Table 4.7: Topics that female pupils are more likely to perceive as difficult
in Junior Certificate Science 143

Table 4.8: Breakdown of Leaving Certificate Chemistry group by Gender

and Mathematics and Chemistry Level (n=424) 144

Table 4.9: Chemistry topics (out of a total of 60 topics) that were identified
as being difficult by Leaving Certificate pupils (n= 424) 145

Table 4.10: Top ten Leaving Certificate Chemistry topics, which received
the highest amount of ‘number 4 and 5’ or ‘difficult and very
difficult’ responses (n=424) 146

Table 4.11: Leaving Certificate Chemistry topics that received the highest
number of ‘difficult and very difficult’ combined responses
(n=424) 147

xviii
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 4.12: Topics that Ordinary Level Mathematics Pupils are more likely
to perceive as difficult in Leaving Certificate Chemistry 149

Table 4.13: Topics that Ordinary Level Chemistry Pupils are more likely
to perceive as difficult in Leaving Certificate Chemistry 151

Table 4.14: Topics that female pupils are more likely to perceive as difficult
in Leaving Certificate Chemistry (p value < 0.05 = significant) 154

Table 4.15: Topics that male pupils are more likely to perceive as difficult
in Leaving Certificate Chemistry (p value < 0.05 = significant) 154

Table 4.16: Leaving Certificate Chemistry topics, which teachers feel

are ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ for Chemistry pupils (n=30) 156

Table 4.17: Leaving Certificate Chemistry topics that received the

highest number of ‘difficult and very difficult’ combined
responses (n=30) 157

Table 4.18: Breakdown of 1st Year University Chemistry Group by

Gender and Mathematics and Chemistry ability (n=136) 159

Table 4.19: Chemistry topics (out of a total of 60 topics) that were

identified as being difficult by 1st Year University students
(n= 136) 160

Table 4.20: First Year University Chemistry topics which received the
highest amount of ‘number 4 and 5’ or ‘difficult and very
difficult’ responses (n=136) 161

Table 4.21: First Year University Chemistry topics that received the highest
number of ‘difficult and very difficult’ combined responses
(n=136) 162

Table 4.22: Topics that Students who had not taken Chemistry as a Leaving
Certificate subject are more likely to perceive as difficult 164

xix
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 4.23: Topics that Ordinary Level Mathematics Students are more
likely to perceive as difficult in First Year University Chemistry 166

Table 4.24: Topics that Ordinary Level Chemistry Students are more likely
to perceive as difficult in First Year University Chemistry 168

Table 4.25: Topics that female students are more likely to perceive as difficult
in First Year University Chemistry 168

Table 4.26: Breakdown of 2nd and 3rd Year University Chemistry Group
by Gender and Mathematics ability and Chemistry Experience 170

Table 4.27: Chemistry topics (out of a total of 60 topics) that were identified
as being difficult by 2nd and 3rd Year University students (n= 55) 171

Table 4.28: Second and Third Year University Chemistry topics which
received the highest amount of ‘number 4 and 5’ or ‘difficult
and very difficult’ responses (n=55) 172

Table 4.29: Second and Third Year University Chemistry topics that
received the highest number of ‘difficult and very difficult’
combined responses (n=55) 173

Table 4.30: Topics that Ordinary Level Mathematics Students are more
likely to perceive as difficult in Second and Third Year University
Chemistry 175

Table 4.31: Topics that were identified as being either difficult or very
difficult by Junior Certificate, Leaving Certificate and Third
Level Chemistry pupils/students 179

Table 4.32: Summary of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry topics that

the majority of pupils listed in their top five most difficult
Chemistry topics list (n=424) 181

Table 4.33: Chemistry topics that emerged as being difficult from

Sections 1 and 2 of the Leaving Certificate Questionnaire 182

xx
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 4.34: Summary of the effect of pupils/students Mathematical
ability on the perception of difficulty of different Chemistry
topics 185

Table 4.35: Summary of factors that had a significant effect on how easy
or difficult a pupil/student perceived a Chemistry topic 188

Table 5.1: Results of significance tests between cognitive development

and gender (p value < 0.05 = significant) 202

Table 5.2: Results of significance testes between cognitive development

and Mathematical ability (p value < 0.05 = significant) 207

Table 5.3: Results of significance tests between cognitive development

and Science/Chemistry ability (p value < 0.05 = significant) 212

Table 5.4: Summary of responses to question 14 in the Junior Certificate

Test Instrument 221

Table 5.5: Summary of responses to question 19 in the Junior Certificate

Test Instrument 222

Table 5.6: Summary of questions relating to misconceptions about phase

change at a particulate level in the Junior Certificate Test
Instrument 223

Table 5.7: Summary of responses to question 26 in the Junior Certificate

Test Instrument 228

Table 5.8: Summary of responses for questions relating to pupils ability

to conserve volume and mass at a particulate level in the
Junior Certificate Test Instrument 229

Table 5.9: Summary of responses to question 34 in the Junior Certificate

Test Instrument 230

Table 5.10: Summary of responses to question 31 in the Junior Certificate

Test Instrument 231

xxi
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 5.11: Summary of responses to question 33 in the Junior Certificate
Test Instrument 233

Table 5.12: Summary of responses to questions 15 and 16 in the Junior

Certificate Test Instrument 234

Table 5.13: Summary of responses to question 35 in the Junior Certificate

Test Instrument 235

Table 5.14: Significant relations between Variables emerging from the Junior
Certificate Test Instrument (p-Value <0.05 = significant) 237

Table 5.15: Summary of responses to question 12 in the Leaving Certificate

Test Instrument 239

Table 5.16: Summary of responses to question 16 in the Leaving Certificate

Test Instrument 240

Table 5.17: Summary of responses to questions relating to phase change at

the particulate level in the Leaving Certificate Test Instrument 241

Table 5.18: Summary of responses to question 23 in the Leaving Certificate

Test Instrument 245

Table 5.19: Summary of responses to question 25 in the Leaving Certificate

Test Instrument 246

Table 5.20: Summary of responses to questions 24, 26 and 27 in the

Leaving Certificate Test Instrument 247

Table 5.21: Summary of responses to question 28 in the Leaving Certificate

Test Instrument 248

Table 5.22: Summary of responses to questions relating to the dynamic nature

of Chemical Equilibrium in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument 249

xxii
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 5.23: Summary of responses to question 29 (a) in the Leaving Certificate

Test Instrument 251

Table 5.24: Summary of responses to question 32 in the Leaving Certificate

Test Instrument 251

Table 5.25: Summary of responses to question 30 and 31 in the Leaving

Certificate Test Instrument 252

Table 5.26: Summary of responses to question 33 a and c in the Leaving

Certificate Test Instrument 253

Table 5.27: Summary of responses to question 34 and 35 in the Leaving

Certificate Test Instrument 254

Table 5.28: Summary of responses to question 36, 37 and 43 in the Leaving

Certificate Test Instrument 268

Table 5.29: Summary of responses to questions in the test instrument relating

to reacting masses and Stoichiometry in the Leaving Certificate
Test Instrument 256

Table 5.30: Summary of responses to question 41 and 44 in the Leaving

Certificate Test Instrument 257

Table 5.31: Significant relations between Variables emerging from the

Leaving Certificate test instrument (p-Value <0.05 = significant) 260

Table 5.32: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils

to repeated question one 261

Table 5.33: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils

to repeated question two 262

xxiii
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 5.34: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils

to repeated question three 263

Table 5.35: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils

to repeated question four 264

Table 5.36: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils

to repeated question five 265

Table 5.37: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to

repeated question six 266

Table 6.1: The Curriculum Analysis Taxonomy (CAT) for the Particulate
Nature of Matter 280

Table 6.2: The Curriculum Analysis Taxonomy (CAT) for Stoichiometry 281

Table 6.3: Description of the the Curriculum Outcomes that would be

Achieved in the Periodic Table and Atomic Structure Section
of the Leaving Certificate Curriculum that would be Achieved
by the ‘ITS Chemistry’ Intervention Programme 285

Table 6.4: Description of the Curriculum Outcomes that would be Achieved

in the Chemical bonding section of the Leaving certificate
Curriculum that would be achieved by the ‘ITS Chemistry’
Intervention programme 286

Table 6.5: Description of the Curriculum Outcomes that would be Achieved

in the Stoichiometry, Formulas and Equations section of the Leaving
certificate Curriculum that would be achieved by the ‘ITS Chemistry’
Intervention programme 287

Table 6.6: Description of the Curriculum Outcomes that would be Achieved

in the volumetric analysis section of the Leaving certificate
Curriculum that would be achieved by the ‘ITS Chemistry’
Intervention programme 288

xxiv
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 6.7: Structure of the Sequencing of Content in Each of the Units in

The ‘ITS Chemistry’ Intervention Project 290

Table 6.8: A description of the Cognitive Demands in Lesson 2 – Unit 1

of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ Intervention Programme 292

Table 6.9: Description of the Contents of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ Resource Kit
and the Uses of Each Piece of Equipment 294

Table 6.10: Timeline for the Implementation of the ‘ITS Chemistry’

Programme 296

Table 7.1: Results of significance tests on trends that emerged as significant

in phase two of the investigation with responses of pupils in the
control and experimental group in phase three of the investigation
(p value < 0.05 = significant) 299

Table 7.2: Results of significance tests to determine if the control and

experimental groups in phase three of this investigation were
comparable with each other (p value < 0.05 = significant) 300

Table 7.3: Results of the significance tests between the cognitive profile
of the experimental group before and after participation in the
‘ITS Chemistry’ programme 304

Table 7.4: Results of significance tests between cognitive change and

other factors that may have been influenced by participation in
the programme (p value < 0.05 = significant) 306

Table 7.5: Results of significance tests between Control/Experimental

group and performance in the Chemical misconceptions test
(p value < 0.05 = significant) 311

Table 7.6: Results of Significance tests between performance in the

Chemical misconceptions test and an increase in cognitive
levels after participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme 311

xxv
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 7.7: Summary of responses to question 12 by the control and

Experimental groups involved in phase three of this
Investigation 314

Table 7.8: Summary of responses to question 15 by the control and

Experimental groups involved in phase three of this
Investigation 315

Table 7.9: Summary of responses to phase change questions relating

to what occurs at a particulate level when a solid changes
to a liquid 316

Table 7.10: Summary of responses to phase change questions relating to

what occurs at a particulate level when a liquid changes to a gas 317

Table 7.11: Summary of responses to phase change questions relating to the

energy particles have at different phases (*these questions
appeared in the Junior Certificate test instrument in phase two
of this investigation) 318

Table 7.12: Summary of responses to phase change questions relating to

how phase change affects the size and mass of a particle 319

Table 7.13: Summary of responses to phase change questions relating

to how phase change affects the chemical make-up of a
substance 320

Table 7.14: Summary of responses to question 25 by the control and

Experimental groups involved in phase three of this
investigation 321

Table 7.15: Summary of responses to questions 26, 27 and 40 by the

control and experimental groups involved in phase three of
this investigation 322

xxvi
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 7.16: Summary of responses to questions 32 and 38 by the control

and experimental groups involved in phase three of this
investigation 323

Table 7.17: Summary of responses to questions 34, 35 and 36 by the control

and experimental groups involved in phase three of this
investigation 324

Table 7.18: Summary of responses to question 37 by the control and

Experimental groups involved in phase three of this investigation 325

Table 7.19: Summary of responses to question 41 by the control and

Experimental groups involved in phase three of this investigation 326

Table 7.20: Summary of responses to questions 22, 23 and 24 by the control

and experimental groups involved in phase three of this
investigation 327

Table 7.21: Summary of responses to question 39 by the control and

Experimental groups involved in phase three of this
investigation 328

Table 7.22: Summary of responses to questions 42 and 47 by the control

and experimental groups involved in phase three of this
investigation 329

Table 7.23: Summary of responses to questions 43 and 46 by the control

and experimental groups involved in phase three of this
investigation 330

Table 7.24: Summary of responses to question 48 by the control and

Experimental groups involved in phase three of this investigation 331

xxvii
 List of Tables (contd.)

Title Page No.

Table 7.25: Summary of responses to questions 44, 45 and 50 by the control
and experimental groups involved in phase three of this
investigation 331

Table 7.26: Summary of responses to question 49 by the control and

experimental groups involved in phase three of this investigation 332

Table 7.27: A Comparison of the Percentage of Correct Responses given by the

Control and Experimental Groups for Questions 17 and 19
of the Test Instrument 338

Table 7.28: A Comparison of the Percentage of Correct Responses given by

the Control and Experimental Groups for Questions 23 and 36
of the Test Instrument 339

Table 7.29: A Comparison of the Percentage of Correct Responses given by

the Control and Experimental Groups for Questions 27 and 39
of the Test Instrument 340

Table 7.30: A Comparison of the Percentage of Correct Responses given by

the Control and Experimental Groups for Questions 27 and 39
of the Test Instrument 342

Table 7.31: A Comparison of the Percentage of Correct Responses given by

the Control and Experimental Groups for Questions 32 and 38
of the Test Instrument 343

Table 7.32: Opinions and Views of Implementating Teachers on the ‘ITS

Chemistry’ Intervention Programme (n=3) 346

Table 7.33: An Analysis of the Effect of Having the Author Implement the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ Intervention Programme versus the Implementation by Other
Teachers for Phase Three of this Investigation 348

xxviii
 List of Figures

Title Page No.

Figure 1.1: The structure and place of Chemistry in the Irish Education
System 5

Figure 1.2: Enrolment in Junior Certificate Science from 1992 to 2009

(Report of the Task Force on the Physical Sciences, 2002 and
Chief Examiners Report in Science, 2006) 7

Figure 1.3: Participation rates in Leaving Certificate Biology, Chemistry and

Physics from 1999 to 2009 10

Figure 1.4: Enrolment in Leaving Certificate Chemistry 1987 to 2009

(Data Sourced from Chief Examiners Report in Chemistry,
2005 and Lyons, 1995) 11

Figure 1.5: Division of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry cohort between

Ordinary and Higher levels from 1987-2009 (Data sources
from Chief Examiners Report in Chemistry, 2005, Lyons, 1995
and www.examinations.ie) 13

Figure 1.6: Flow Chart representing the different phases involved in this
Investigation 22

Figure 2.1: Triangle of Multilevel Thought (Johnstone, 1991) 50

Figure 2.2: The Information Processing Model (Mancy et al, 2004) 52

Figure 2.3: Effect of Field Dependence on available working space

memory (Johnstone, 2006) 54

Figure 2.4: Conservation of volume is understood by Concrete

operational learners 63

Figure 2.5: Change in Piagetian level for boys and girls between 1976 and
2003 (Shayer et al., 2007) 69

Figure 2.6: Sample word problem (Bunce, 2005) 71

Figure 2.7: The mathematical requirements of the Leaving Certificate

Chemistry Course (Leaving Certificate Chemistry Syllabus) 73

xxix
 List of Figures (contd.)

Title Page No.

Figure 2.8: The interaction between the Triangle of Multilevel Thought and
the Information Processing Model can explain why pupils find
certain topics in Chemistry difficult 76

Figure 2.9: The Thought Processes of an Unsuccessful Learner in Chemistry 77

Figure 2.10: The Thought Processes of a Successful Learner in Chemistry 78

Figure 2.11: Proportion of children at different Piagetian stages in a

representative British child population (Shayer and Adey, 1981) 82

Figure 2.12: Proportion of pupils showing early formal (3A) thinking in the
three different populations; a, b and c (Shayer and Adey, 1981) 82

Figure 2.13: Proportion of boys and girls at different Piagetian stages in a

representative British population on SRT III:
The Pendulum (NERF, 1978) 83

Figure 2.14: Structure of a CASE Lesson (Adey, 1999) 88

Figure 2.15: Residualized gain scores on successive tests after completion of

two-year CASE intervention, based on pre-cognitive tests
(Adey, 1999) 90

Figure 2.16: Cognitive development of CASE experimental group over two

and half years compared with a control group laboratory school
(Adey and Shayer, 1994) 91

Figure 2.17: GCSE 1999 Mean Science Grade Added-Value (Shayer, 2000) 92

Figure 3.1: Section One of Questionnaire ~ List of Chemistry Topics attached

to Likert scale 111

Figure 3.2: Section Two of the Questionnaire ~ The Free Response Question 112

Figure 3.3: Outline of the Timeframe over which this Investigation was
Carried Out 135

xxx
 List of Figures (contd.)

Title Page No.

Figure 4.1: Leaving Certificate pupil’s responses to the free response

question (n=424) 148

Figure 4.2: Responses to the free response question by Leaving Certificate

Pupils who are strong at Mathematics (n=210) 150

Figure 4.3: Responses to the free response question by Leaving Certificate

Ordinary Level Mathematics Pupils (n=199) 150

Figure 4.4: Responses to the free response question by Higher Level

Leaving Certificate pupils (n=348) 152

Figure 4.5: Responses to the free response question by Ordinary Level

Leaving Certificate pupils (n=59) 153

Figure 4.6: Responses to the free response question by Male Leaving

Certificate pupils (n=112) 154

Figure 4.7: Responses to the free response question by Female Leaving

Certificate pupils (n=309) 155

Figure 4.8: First Year University student’s responses to the free response
question (n=136) 163

Figure 4.9: The responses of 1st year University students who had studied
Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate to the free response question 165

Figure 4.10: The responses of 1st year University students who had NOT studied
Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate to the free response
question (n=74) 165

Figure 4.11: The responses of 1st year University students who are strong at
mathematics to the free response question (n=69) 166

Figure 4.12: The responses of 1st year University students who are weak at
Mathematics to the free response question (n=56) 167

Figure 4.13: The responses of male students in the 1st year University group to
the free response question (n=68) 169

xxxi
 List of Figures (contd.)

Title Page No.

Figure 4.14: The responses of female students in the 1st year University group
to the free response question (n=64) 169

Figure 4.15: Second and Third Year University student’s responses to the free
response question (n=55) 174

Figure 4.16: The responses of 2nd and 3rd Year University students who are
strong at Mathematics to the free response question (n=16) 176

Figure 4.17: The responses of 2nd and 3rd Year University students who are
weak at Mathematics to the free response question (n=36) 176

Figure 4.18: The responses of 2nd and 3rd Year males to the free response
question (n=20) 177

Figure 4.19: The responses of 2nd and 3rd Year females to the free response
question (n=33) 178

Figure 4.20: A snap shot of the Chemistry topics that Irish pupils and
students find difficult in Chemistry 184

Figure 5.1: Cognitive profile of the Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils 196

Figure 5.2: Cognitive profile of the University and Institute of Technology

students 197

Figure 5.3: An overview of the cognitive profiles of Irish second and third level
pupils and students 198

Figure 5.4: Cognitive profile of male and female Junior Certificate pupils 199

Figure 5.5: Cognitive profile of male and female Leaving Certificate pupils 200

Figure 5.6: Cognitive profile of male and female University students 201

Figure 5.7: Cognitive profile of male and female Institute of Technology

students 202

Figure 5.8: Cognitive profile versus Mathematics level for the Junior
Certificate cohort 203

xxxii
 List of Figures (contd.)

Title Page No.

Figure 5.9: Cognitive profile versus Mathematics level for the Leaving
Certificate cohort 204

Figure 5.10: Cognitive profile versus Mathematics level for the University
cohort 205

Figure 5.11: Cognitive profile versus Mathematics level for the University
Cohort 205

Figure 5.12: Summary of the cognitive profiles of higher level Mathematics

pupils/students 206

Figure 5.13: Summary of the cognitive profiles of ordinary level Mathematics

pupils/students 206

Figure 5.14: Cognitive profile versus Science level for the Junior Certificate
Cohort 208

Figure 5.15: Cognitive profile versus Chemistry level for the Leaving
Certificate cohort 209

Figure 5.16: Cognitive profile versus Chemistry level for the 1st year
University cohort 210

Figure 5.17: Cognitive profile versus Chemistry level for the 1st year Institute of
Technology cohort 210

Figure 5.18: Summary of the cognitive profiles of higher level Science/

Chemistry pupils/students 211

Figure 5.19: Summary of the cognitive profiles of ordinary level Science

/Chemistry pupils/students 211

Figure 5.20: Cognitive profile versus course of study for the University cohort 213

Figure 5.21: Age versus Cognitive Development for Irish pupils/students 215

Figure 5.22: Age versus Cognitive Development for Irish pupils/students 216

Figure 5.23: Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils overall performance in the
Misconceptions Test 218

xxxiii
 List of Figures (contd.)

Title Page No.

Figure 5.24: Breakdown of scores for questions on the Particulate Nature of

Matter for Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils 219

Figure 5.25: Breakdown of scores for the different Chemistry topics in the
Leaving Certificate test 219

Figure 6.1: Areas of Educational Research that Inspired the Development

of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ Intervention Programme 273

Figure 6.2: The Interaction between the Five Pillars in CASE Lesson 276

Figure 6.3: The Structure and Key Design Features of a Typical ‘ITS Chemistry
Lesson 276

Figure 6.4: Example of a ‘preparing the brain’ activity which appeared at the
Beginning of each ot the ‘ITS Chemistry’ Lessons 277

Figure 6.5: A Sample of the Models and the Visualisation Tools used in Lesson
2 – Unit 1 of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ Intervention Programme 293

Figure 6.6: The ‘ITS Chemistry’ Pupil Workbooks, Teacher’s Handbook and
IT Resources 294

Figure 6.7: The ‘ITS Chemistry’ the resource pack received by each
Participating School 295

Figure 7.1: Cognitive profile of the experimental group before and after
participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme 302

Figure 7.2: Cognitive profiles of the control and experimental groups based
on the responses to the post-test instrument 303

Figure 7.3: Summary of the changes in cognitive levels after participation

in the intervention programme 305

Figure 7.4: Cognitive profile of a number of the different cohorts analysed

in this investigation 306

Figure 7.5: Overall performance in the Chemical misconceptions test for pupils
in the control and experimental groups for phase three
of this investigation 308

xxxiv
 List of Figures (contd.)

Title Page No.

Figure 7.6: Breakdown of scores for questions relating to the Particulate
Nature of Matter for pupils in the control and experimental groups
for phase three of this investigation 309

Figure 7.7: Breakdown of scores for questions relating to the Mole concept
for pupils in the control and experimental groups for phase
three of this investigation 310

Figure 7.8: Graph of percentage of correct answers given by the

control and experimental groups versus question number 333

Figure 7.9: Graph of percentage of missing responses for the control and
experimental groups versus question number 335

Figure 8.1: Illustration of how phase 1 of this investigation effected the

direction and structure of phases 2 and 3 353

Figure 8.2: Illustration of how phase 2 of this investigation effected the

direction and structure of phase 3 356

xxxv
 List of Appendices

Appendix A ~ Questionnaires used in phase one of this investigation

Appendix B ~ Original Science Reasoning Task 4 ~ ‘Equilibrium in the Balance’

NFER, (1976)

Appendix C ~ Questionnaires used in phase two of this investigation

Appendix D ~ Questionnaires used in phase three of this investigation

Appendix E ~ Example of an ‘ITS Chemsitry’ Lesson

xxxvi
 Abbreviations

ACTS: Activating Children’s Thinking Skills

ARTS: The Wigan Arts, Reasoning and Thinking Skills programme

CA: Cognitive Acceleration

CAO: Central Applications Office

CAME: Cognitive Acceleration through Mathematics

CASE: Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education

CAT: Cognitive Analysis Taxonomy

CATE: Cognitive Acceleration through Technology Education

CSMS: Concepts in Secondary Mathematics and Science

CSO: Central Statistics Office

C.Z.O: Construction Zone Activity

ERSI: Economic and Social Research Institute

GCSE: General Certificate of Secondary Education

IBEC: Irish Business and Employers Confederation

ICT: Information and Communications Technology sector in Ireland

I.E: Instrumental Enrichment

IPCMF: The Irish Pharmaceuticals and Chemical Manufacturers Federation

ISTA: Irish Science Teachers Association

ITS Chemistry: Increasing Thinking Skills in Chemistry

JCSS: Junior Certificate Science Syllabus

M.K.O: More Knowledgeable Other

M.L.E: Mediated Learning Experiences

xxxvii
 Abbreviations (contd.)

n: Sample number

NCCA: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment

NFER: National Foundation for Educational Research Publishing

OECD: Organisation for economic co-operation and development

PISA: Programme for International Student Assessment

P4C: Philosophy for Children

RIA: Royal Irish Academy

ROSE: The Relevance of Science Education in Ireland Project

SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

SRT: Science Reasoning Task

STEP: Scientific Thinking Enhancement Project

STS: Science-Technology-Society

ZPD: Zone of Proximal Development

xxxviii
Chapter One:
Introduction

1
 Chapter One ~ Introduction

To date little research has been carried out, in Ireland, into the areas of difficulty in the study of
Chemistry. This project aims to investigate the main areas of difficulty for the Irish Chemistry
pupil/student and then will attempt to determine why these topics are causing problems for
those studying Chemistry. Finally this investigation aims to develop methodologies and
strategies that will alleviate the difficulties pupils are having with the subject. It is hoped that
this investigation will improve pupils’ overall attitudes towards the study of Chemistry.

At present, continuous effort is being made to increase the number of Irish pupils studying
Science and in particular Chemistry. Since the 1980’s there has been a marked reduction in
those studying Chemistry in our schools and third level institutions. This trend has serious
consequences for the Irish economy and must be reversed as a matter of urgency.
Ó Dálaigh (2001) states that ‘Active participation in the society of the 21st century is predicated
on a knowledge and an awareness of science and technology that is unparalleled in times
past’. ‘A decreasing willingness to participate in the study of science has been experienced
amongst students in nearly all developed economies’, indicating that Ireland is not alone in this
experience (Report of the Task Force on the Physical Sciences, 2002). A decline in the uptake
of science in secondary and tertiary level has potentially severe economic and social impacts.
Osborne (2003) states that ‘the nations’ standards of achievement and competitiveness is based
on a highly educated, well trained and adaptable workforce’ and he feels ‘that the low uptake
of mathematics and science and the negative attitudes towards these subjects poses a serious
threat to economic prosperity’. This view is also supported by Irish Business and Employers
Confederation (IBEC) which claimed that decreasing participation in Chemistry and Science
‘will have a significant negative impact on our long-term competitiveness in the information
technology/ communications and pharmachem sectors’ (Irish Independent, 2001).

Despite the present recessionary conditions that prevail in Ireland the Pharmachem sector
remains relatively strong. ‘Export figures for 2008 recently published by the Central Statistics
Office (CSO) reveal that this sector exported products to the value of €44.17 billion, which
represents 51.2% of the national total. (IBEC, 2009 a). The reason for Irish success in the

2
Pharmachem sector is a result of the ‘superb quality of our workforce especially that of our
science graduates’. As far back as 2000, concern had been expressed that ‘now when the
industry needs chemistry graduates more than ever we see the numbers studying the subject
falling off dramatically at second level. This problem is one of grave concern to employers in
this sector.’ (IBEC, 2000).

Very worryingly, it has also been noted that Irish pupils’ performance in Mathematics is
deteriorating. In order for pupils to successfully pursue disciplines such as Science, Engineering
and Technology a strong foundation in Mathematics is imperative. The results from the Leaving
Certificate 2009 give cause for serious concern. Out of a cohort of 54,363 students, just 16%
took the higher level mathematic paper and 12.5% of these pupils managed to secure an honours
grade. ‘Honours papers with a high mathematical component such as physics (8.2%) and
chemistry (10.5%) also attracted low interest from students’ (IBEC, 2009 b). Low participation
levels in higher level Mathematics have serious consequences for the development of Ireland’s
‘knowledge based economy’, as it means that only a small number of pupils are eligible for
Science, Technology and related courses at third level, which require a C3 grade minimum in
higher level Mathematics. If the ‘low numbers taking higher level mathematics is not addressed,
we run the risk of reducing the attractiveness of Ireland as a location for R&D, particularly in
the field of engineering and science’ (ICT, 2009).

There is also a concern about the number of students who perform badly or drop out of 3rd level
courses in Science, Mathematics and Engineering. ‘Huge numbers of university students are
dropping out of science and technology courses after their first year in college’ (Flynn, 2009).
According to Flynn (2009) ‘the drop-out rate from science, technology, engineering and
mathematics courses was high across the seven universities in the State, averaging more than 20
per cent’. IBEC maintains this high drop out rate was inevitable due to the declining number of
students taking science/technology courses and the lower Central Applications Office (CAO)
points required to secure entry into these courses which would ‘result in entry by some students
who were ill-equipped to take these courses’ (Flynn, 2009).
If Ireland is to develop economically in the future, the number of people qualified in Science
and Technology need to increase. This will only occur if pupils’ performance in Mathematics

3
and Science subjects in second level schools improves. Increasing the numbers studying
Science and Chemistry will have a positive effect on Ireland’s industrial strength and economic
success. It is important ‘that school students recognise that science is a gateway to a wide
range of fulfilling careers’ (IPCMF, 2003). ‘Chemistry is a passport into one of the country’s
most valuable and successful industries, it is also a launching point for a whole variety of other
careers ranging from medicine through forensic science right the way through to financial
analysis’. (IPCMF, 2003). ‘Ensuring that school-leavers have a firm grasp of mathematics is
vital if Ireland is to develop as a leading Smart Economy, which supports knowledge-driven
jobs’ (IBEC, 2009 b).

Uptake levels in Chemistry are low partly because it is perceived as being a difficult subject
that pupils tend to shy away from. This investigation involves determining the main areas of
difficulty faced by Irish pupils studying Chemistry, the reasons for these difficulties and the
development of teaching and learning strategies to alleviate these difficulties. This chapter
gives a brief overview of the uptake levels of Science and Chemistry in Irish second and third
level institutions over the last twenty years. It also illustrates the importance of reviving and
strengthening uptake levels in Chemistry and gives a description of the aims and overall
structure of this project.

4
Section 1.1: The Structure and Place of Chemistry in the Irish Education System

Primary School

⇒ Duration of Primary Education = Science in Primary School

8 years
⇒ Pupils aged between 4 –12 years Pupils study Science through Social, Environmental and Scientific
of age Education. The areas of Chemistry that pupils study include
Properties and Characteristics of Materials and Materials and
Change. This syllabus was introduced in 2003
Second Level School
⇒ Duration of Secondary Education
= 5 to 6 years
⇒ Pupils aged between 13 and 17/18
years of age History of Junior Cycle Science
⇒ Divided into a Junior Cycle (3
years) and Senior Cycle (2 years) • Before 1989 three separate science syllabus were on offer at
Junior Cycle
Year 1-3 ~ Junior Cycle • In 1989 a new Junior Certificate syllabus was introduced. It is
offered at two levels – higher and ordinary level. The new
⇒ Pupils study a general Science syllabus includes Biology, Chemistry and Physics as core
subject for the Junior Certificate. subjects along with five extensions (Food, Earth Science,
Science includes aspects of Horticulture, Electronics and Material Science).
Biology, Chemistry and Physics • In 2003 the Junior Science syllabus was revised to include a new
⇒ Pupils sit their first state aspect ~ practical assessment. Due to an initial refusal of teachers
Examination after their third year; to assess their pupils’ work, schools had the option of offering
this is called the Junior Certificate either the 1989 syllabus or the 2003 syllabus. The 2003 syllabus
was examined for the first time in 2006 and the 1989 syllabus
Exam was examined for the last time in 2008.

Year 4 ~ Transition Year

⇒ Pupils have the option of doing an
extra year ~ Transition Year ~
after completion of the Junior History of Leaving Certificate Chemistry
Certificate
Year 5-6 ~ Senior Cycle • The former Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus was
⇒ Pupils can then choose to study introduced into schools in 1983.
the following or a combination of • A new revised Chemistry syllabus was introduced in 2000 and
the following Science subjects for examined for the first time in 2002. The revised Chemistry
their Leaving Certificate: syllabus is practically and experimentally based with specified
Biology, Chemistry, Physics, mandatory experiments.
PhysChem or Agricultural • Along with core topics the new syllabus includes two options:
Science Industrial Chemistry & Atmospheric Chemistry and Materials
⇒ Pupils sit the Leaving Certificate &Electrochemistry and Extraction of metals
after two years at senior cycle • A revision of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry is currently been
undertaken.
Exam

Figure 1.1: The structure and place of Chemistry in the Irish Education System

5
Figure 1.1 illustrates the structure of the Irish education system and the place of Science and
Chemistry as subjects within it. Pupils attend primary school for eight years, from the age of
four to twelve. Once they have completed primary school they enter a second level school.
Pupils spend from five to six years in a second level school. Second level schools are broken
into the Junior and Senior Cycle. For the first three years pupils are in the Junior Cycle. At the
end of Junior Cycle they sit their first state examination ~ The Junior Certificate. Pupils then
have the option of entering the Senior Cycle or taking an extra year called the Transition Year
option. Transition Year offers pupils the opportunity to pursue different activities outside of the
normal school curriculum and is taken by approximately 50% of pupils. The Senior Cycle is
two years long and ends with pupils’ second state examination ~ The Leaving Certificate.
In primary school pupils study a general Science subject called Social, Environmental and
Scientific Education. This has been on the primary school curriculum since 2003.
In the Junior Cycle pupils study Science. Science composes of elements of Biology, Chemistry
and Physics. The new Science syllabus was introduced in 2003. It is offered at higher and
ordinary level and encompasses a written and practical assessment for the Junior Certificate. It
was examined for the first time in 2006. The Junior Certificate Science course is the only
Science course at second level that involves assessment of practical work.
For the Leaving Certificate pupils have the option of studying one or a combination of five
Science subjects. These subjects are Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Physics with Chemistry and
Agricultural Science. The new Chemistry syllabus was examined in 2002 and is examined by a
written paper for the Leaving Certificate. There is no practical assessment in any of the
Leaving Certificate Science subjects as of yet, however this is subject to change in the future as
a review of all senior level Science subjects is currently being undertaken..
Pupils who wish to study Chemistry at third level apply through the CAO (Central
Applications Office) for a place in the third level institution and course of their choice. They
will be accepted onto this course if they achieve the appropriate number of points in their
Leaving Certificate. Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate is not a requirement to study
Chemistry at third level. Any Leaving Certificate Science subject will do, together with
specified achievement in Leaving Certificate Mathematics. However, Chemistry is a specific
requirement for entry into Medicine and a number of other courses (e.g. Dentistry).

6
Section 1.2: Science and Chemistry at Irish Primary and Secondary levels
Pupils first experience Science in Irish primary schools. The inclusion of Science in the
primary school curriculum is relatively new and little information regarding its implementation
is currently available. The introduction of Science into the primary curriculum is an important
development. Early in their education, children are introduced to basic concepts in Science and
investigative and observation skills are developed but there is very little ‘Chemistry’ per se. A
detailed description of primary school Science is given in section 2.1.1.

1.2.1: Junior Certificate Science

‘Unlike many other European countries, science is not a compulsory subject at lower
secondary level’ (Smyth et al, 2006). Figure 1.2 illustrates the participation rates in Junior
Certificate Science from 1992 to 2009.

Figure 1.2: Enrolment in Junior Certificate Science from 1992 to 2009 (Report of the Task Force on
the Physical Sciences, 2002 and Chief Examiners Report in Science, 2006)

From Figure 1.2 it can be seen that pupil enrolment in Science has been relatively steady over
the last seventeen years with an average of 88% of pupils taking Science for their Junior

7
Certificate. The Task Force for the Physical Sciences, in its report, recommended that Science
become a compulsory subject at Junior Cycle. If this were to happen we would increase the
percentage of pupils doing Science from 88% to almost 100%, which would bring us in line
with other European countries. This increase in participation rates at Junior Certificate Science
would undoubtedly have a positive effect on participation rates in Leaving Certificate Science
subjects, particularly among girls. A revised Junior Certificate Science syllabus was introduced
in 2003 and reflects international trends towards a more investigative approach to Science. The
new syllabus includes aspects of practical and project work, theoretically making Science more
appealing, which may in turn encourage pupils continue Science subjects at Leaving Certificate
level. Coursework now constitutes 35% of the overall assessment and is based on completion
of mandatory experiments and project work. The fact that Science is not compulsory at Junior
Certificate Level may also have resulted in the gender imbalance in the pupils taking Science at
Junior Certificate level. Concern has been expressed about the numbers of female pupils taking
Science for the Junior Certificate, as it is far less than the number of males taking the subject.
This gender imbalance at Junior Certificate level can be seen below in Table 1.1.

Year No. of Pupils No. of Pupils taking No. of Female Pupils No. of Male Pupils
sitting the Junior Certificate sitting Junior sitting Junior
Junior Science (% of Pupils Certificate Science (% Certificate Science (%
Certificate taking Junior of Females Taking of Males Taking Junior
Exam Certificate Science) Junior Certificate Certificate Science^)
Science*)
2001 58,873 50,578 (88.4%) 23,836 (81.5%) 26,742 (90.2%)
2002 58,826 52,092 (87.6%) 24,757 (84.4%) 27,335 (92.7%)
2003 57,882 51,092 (86.1%) 24,178 (83.9%) 26,912 (92.5%)
2004 55,473 47,726 (83.9%) 22,725 (82.2%) 25,001 (89.9%)
2005 56,792 48,151 (86.3%) 22,898 (81.6%) 25,253 (87.9%)
2006 57,944 49,928 (86.6%) 23,571 (82.5%) 26,357 (89.6%)
2007 57,395 50,106 (87.9%) 28,204 (85.4%) 28,467 (91.1%)
2008 56,000 48,950 (87.4%) 27,292 (85.9%) 28,003 (91.1%)
2009 54,862 48,531 (88.2%) Not available Not available
Table 1.1: Breakdown of participation rates in Junior Certificate Science according to Gender from
2001 to 2009 (Figures sourced from www.examinations.ie)
* % of Females studying Science expressed as a % of the no. of females doing the Junior Certificate
^ % of Males studying Science expressed as a % of the no. of males doing the Junior Certificate

8
From Table 1.1 it can be seen that there is a gender imbalance in the numbers of pupils taking
Junior Certificate Science. On average 7.8% more males take Junior Certificate Science than
females. Looking at the detailed breakdown of the 2008 cohort, (complete date was not
available for the 2009 cohort), it can be seen that 91.1% of male pupils, sitting the Junior
Certificate Examination, studied Junior Certificate Science. 85.9% of female pupils, sitting the
Junior Certificate Examination in 2009, studied Science for this examination. The provision of
Science as a subject in single sex girls’ schools has been credited with the development of this
gender difference and not necessarily student choice. The report of the Task Force on the
Physical Science (2002) highlighted that ‘the take-up rate for girls in single sex schools is
much lower than for girls in mixed gender school, where it equals that of boys’. Therefore
females in a single sex school are more likely not to study Science for the Junior Certificate, as
it may not be offered to them as a subject or offered against Home Economics. If Science were
to become a mandatory subject at Junior Certificate level, this gender imbalance would be
addressed.

1.2.2: The popularity of Leaving Certificate Science Subjects

Worryingly there is a major gap between the numbers of pupils doing Science for the Junior
Certificate and the numbers doing Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate. Less that one in seven
pupils who studied Science at Junior Certificate level select Chemistry as a subject for the
Leaving Certificate. On completion of the Junior Certificate Examination pupils can now opt to
study one or more of the following Science subjects for the Leaving Certificate:
- Biology
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Physics with Chemistry
- Agricultural Science

Biology, Chemistry and Physics are the most popular of these Science subjects at Leaving
Certificate level. Approximately 1% of pupils study Physics & Chemistry and Agricultural
Science. Figure 1.3 illustrates the participation rates in Leaving Certificate Biology, Chemistry
and Physics from 1999 to 2009.

9
 Figure 1.3: Participation rates in Leaving Certificate Biology, Chemistry and Physics from 1999 to
2009

From Figure 1.3 it can be seen that, by far and away, the most popular Science subject at
Leaving Certificate level is Biology. This imbalance between Biology and the Physical
Sciences is much greater than in other countries. Physics was more popular than Chemistry in
the years between 1999 and 2004. Since 2005 Physics and Chemistry have had approximately
the same percentage of pupils studying them. As this project deals with Leaving Certificate
Chemistry, a closer look will now be taken at Irish Chemistry statistics over the last number of
years.

1.2.3: Leaving Certificate Chemistry

The percentage of pupils studying Chemistry at Leaving Certificate level averaged over 20% in
the 1980’s. However a ‘gradual decline in participation rates in Chemistry since the late
1980’s has been the subject of much comment’ (Chief Examiner’s Report in Chemistry, 2005).
Figure 1.4 shows the participation rates in Chemistry form 1987 to 2009.

10
 Figure 1.4: Enrolment in Leaving Certificate Chemistry 1987 to 2009 (Data Sourced from Chief
Examiners Report in Chemistry, 2005 and Lyons, 1995)

From Figure 1.4 the decline in the numbers studying Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate
from the 1980’s to present day can be seen clearly. Participation rates between the years 1987
and 1995 dropped from 20.40% to 14.0%. In 1999 participation rates plummeted to a low of
11.1%. After 1999 numbers studying Chemistry increased slightly each year to a current
participation rate in 2009 of 13.7%.
2000 saw the introduction of a new Chemistry syllabus by the Department of Education. This
syllabus is practically and experimentally based with specified mandatory experiments. The
examination paper itself became more user friendly and the assessment emphasized the
practical aspects of the course. The new syllabus was examined for the first time in 2002. The
slight increase in the numbers and percentage of pupils studying Chemistry at Leaving
Certificate level from 2000 to 2009 is positive and this increase needs to be maintained. Part of
this increase may be due to the new syllabus introduced in 2000 and examined for the first time
in 2002.

11
1.2.4: Trends in the Study of Leaving Certificate Chemistry
In order to address the issue of participation levels we must first of all look at the type of pupils
currently taking Chemistry as a Leaving Certificate subject. Initially there was a gender
imbalance with more males taking Chemistry than females. This imbalance has been redressed
in the last number of years. Table 1.2 looks at the gender break down of those taking
Chemistry for the years between 1996 and 2008. Figures in this table are an amalgamation of
the findings of the Chief Examiner’s Reports in Chemistry 2002 and 2005.

Year Percentage of female pupils Percentage of male pupils studying

studying Chemistry Chemistry
1996 48.3% 51.7%
1997 50.1% 49.9%
2002 53.5% 46.5%
2005 56.1% 43.9%
2008 56.1% 43.9%
Table 1.2: Gender breakdown of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry cohort (Combination of the Chief
Examiners report 2002, 2005 and 2008)

Over the last ten years there has been a steady increase in the number of females studying
Chemistry at Leaving Certificate level. ‘The statistics show that the overall increases in the
number taking Chemistry is characterized by a steady increase towards females’ participation
in the subject’ (Chief Examiner’s Report in Chemistry, 2005). As can be seen from Table 1.2 a
gender imbalance in the opposite direction is now developing and this trend must be
monitored. The loss of male pupils to other subjects such as Physics may be contributing to the
lower numbers of males taking Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate. If male pupils can be
attracted back into Chemistry this would have a positive effect on participation levels.

Another increasing imbalance in Chemistry is between the numbers of pupils taking ordinary
level and higher level Chemistry. For the Leaving Certificate candidates in Chemistry are
offered a choice of taking a higher level or an easier ordinary level paper. The choice of which
examination paper is taken can be deferred to the day of examination. Figure 1.5 gives the
breakdown of the numbers taking each paper from 1987 to 2009.

12
 Figure 1.5: Division of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry cohort between Ordinary and Higher
levels from 1987-2009 (Data sources from Chief Examiners Report in Chemistry, 2005, Lyons, 1995
and www.examinations.ie)

Between the years of 1987 and 1999, the numbers taking ordinary level Chemistry decreases
while there is an increase in the numbers taking higher level Chemistry during this period. In
2002 and 2004 only 14% of pupils are taking the ordinary level paper. This number increased
to 18.1% in 2005 and 19.3% in 2006. In 2009 18.5% of pupils took the ordinary level
Chemistry paper.

Lyons (1995) highlights that ‘Chemistry has become steadily more elitist as the proportion
taking the Ordinary level course has dwindled’. The Chief Examiner in Chemistry (2005) also
states that ‘the overall increase in numbers taking Chemistry is a very welcome trend but the
relatively low numbers taking ordinary Level paper remains a cause for concern’.
The real imbalance is not an imbalance between the numbers taking each paper. It is in fact an
imbalance based on the quality of pupils taking Chemistry. Weaker pupils are not choosing to
study Chemistry as a Leaving Certificate subject. Chemistry is evolving into a subject solely
for stronger pupils and this elitist image may be inhibiting a rise in participation levels.

13
1.2.5: Pupils performance in Leaving Certificate Chemistry
Pupil’s success at Chemistry in the Leaving Certificate also needs to be discussed to highlight
this imbalance. Table 1.3 looks at the grades achieved in the higher and ordinary level papers
in Chemistry for the years between 1998 and 2009.

Higher Level Chemistry

Year Percentage A – C Percentage D Grades Percentage E – NG Grades
Grades
1998 69.9 % 20.1 % 9.9 %
1999 69.3 % 22.6 % 8.1 %
2000 72.7 % 19.3 % 7.9 %
2001 74.9 % 17.4 % 7.6 %
2002 77.1 % 16.0 % 6.9 %
2003 78.8 % 15.2 % 5.8 %
2004 76.0 % 16.3 % 7.8 % New
2005 76.8 % 16.5 % 6.8 % Syllabus
2006 75.6 % 17.1 % 7.4 %
2007 78.8 % 15.5 % 5.6 %
2008 79.1 % 15.5 % 5.8 %
2009 77.5 % 15.6 % 7.0 %
Ordinary Level Chemistry
Year Percentage A – C Percentage D Grades Percentage E – NG Grades
Grades
1998 46.5 % 31.7 % 21.5 %
1999 68.7 % 17.6 % 13.6 %
2000 78.6 % 14.5 % 6.8 %
2001 68.4 % 21.1 % 10.4 %
2002 55.7 % 26.3 % 17.9 %
2003 78.7 % 14.6 % 6.6 %
2004 70.1 % 20.9 % 9.0 %
2005 63.7 % 24.5 % 12.0 % New
2006 59.7 % 24.5 % 15.5 % Syllabus
2007 58.5 % 24.7 % 16.8 %
2008 67.8 % 18.5 % 13.9 %
2009 63.1 % 21.5 % 15.3 %
Table 1.3: Distribution of grade by percentage in grade bands A to C, D, and E to NG for Higher and
Ordinary Level candidates (Chief Examiners Report in Chemistry, 2005)

14
From Table 1.3 a common trend is that the proportion of A+B+C combined grades for higher
level pupils is higher than for the ordinary level pupils. On the other hand D+E+NG combined
grades are higher for the ordinary levels pupils. In short, higher level pupils receive better
grades than ordinary level pupils. These figures show an imbalance that exists between the
weak and strong pupils that choose to study Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate. Not only do
weaker pupils avoid Chemistry but those who do take it up, struggle to achieve good grades in
the subject. This compounds the elitism of Chemistry.

1.2.6: Summary of Important Points

Before leaving this section it is important to summarize the above information on uptake,
performance and gender trends in Chemistry in Irish Second Level schools.
- In the last number of years there has been an increase in the number of pupils studying
Chemistry for their Leaving Certificate. In 2009 this figure was 13.7%. While the increase
is welcomed it is a good distance from the 20.4% of pupils that studied Chemistry in 1987.
- The increase in the percentage of females studying Chemistry is a positive trend; however
attention must be paid to the lower percentage of males taking Chemistry for the Leaving
Certificate.
- The low numbers of pupils taking the ordinary level paper is a cause for concern. As
mentioned above there is a danger that Chemistry is becoming more elite and thus less
attractive to weaker pupils.
- Finally, student performances in the Leaving Certificate Chemistry examination highlight
discrepancies that exist between higher and ordinary level Chemistry. At higher level the
combined A+B+C grades for the last 12 years average at about 75.5%, the corresponding
figure at ordinary level is 64.9%. Similarly the percentage of pupils obtaining E or NG
Grades at higher level is 7.2%, the corresponding value at ordinary level is 13.3%. These
again indicate marked differentiation within Chemistry, where the more able pupils do well
and the small numbers of weak pupils that study Chemistry do not do as well.

15
Section 1.3: Chemistry Uptake at Third Level
After the Leaving Certificate examination pupils decide on a career path and may possibly
attend a third level institution. If pupils wish to attend a third level institution they apply
through the Central Applications Office (CAO) for a place in the university course of their
choice. If pupils attain enough points in the Leaving Certificate, they will gain entry into their
first preference course. The points required for each course depend on the number of places
available and the demand. Over the last number of years there has been a change in the student
cohort with a larger number of students now progressing to third level education. In Ireland
over 60% of pupils now go on to some 3rd level course.

The numbers enrolled in Science and Applied Science honours degree (level 8) and ordinary
degree/certificate (level 7 and 6) courses in Ireland has remained steady over that last number
of years despite the increase in the percentage of students attending third level institutions.
However, these percentages, while remaining steady, are lower than desired. Table 1.4 looks at
the percentage of pupils whose first preference choice was either a Science or Applied Science
course from 2002 to 2009.

Science and Applied Science Degree Science and Applied Science Diploma
Courses or Certificate Courses

Year % of First Preference % of Acceptances % of First Preference % of Acceptances

Choices for Science into Science or Choices for Science or into Science or
or Applied Science Applied Science Applied Science Applied Science
Courses * Courses ** Courses* Courses **
2002 9.5 % 6.7 % 8.1 % 2.9 %
2003 8.3 % 6.3 % 8.9 % 2.7 %
2004 8.3 % 6.8 % 9.0 % 2.7 %
2005 8.8 % 6.9 % 8.3 % 2.8 %
2006 9.3 % 6.9 % 9.0 % 2.9 %
2007 8.6 % 6.7 % 12.2 % 2.9 %
2008 8.9 % 6.9 % 12.4 % 2.9 %
2009 10.2 % Not available 14.4 % Not available
Table 1.4: CAO Applications and Acceptances to Science and Applied Science Courses 2002-2007
(Data Sourced from www.cao.ie)
* = first preference choices as a percentage of total number of applications
** = acceptances as a percentage of total numbers of applications

16
From Table 1.4 it can be seen that only a small percentage of Leaving Certificate pupils’ first
preference choices are in Science or Applied Science courses. The percentage of pupils
accepting a place in a Science or Applied Science course in third level is even less. On average
9% of Leaving Certificate pupils from 2002 to 2009 first preference choices are for Science or
Applied Science courses. Approximately 6.7% actually accept a place in Science or Applied
Science courses at third level. In 2009, a very positive trend has emerged, as there was an
increase to 14.4% of first preference choices for ordinary degree or certificate courses in
Science. The corresponding figure for honours degree courses was 10.2%. This trend was also
mirrored in an increase to the number of points required to gain entry into Science courses
nationwide.

The number of points required by the pupil to gain entry into a third level course increases as
the popularity of a certain course increases. Initially, from the late nineties to 2002 there was an
increase in the number of pupils wishing to study Information Technology courses. In more
recent times there has been a shift from Information Technology to the more traditional careers
in the areas of Medicine, Law and Education. Table 1.5 looks at the courses in which there
were the highest recorded drops in points from 2006 to 2007. As can be seen the majority of
courses in which there was a drop in entry points were Science courses.
University Course Points required in Points required Difference
2006 to gain entry in 2007 to gain
into course entry into course
UCC Bio/Chem Science 395 345 Down 50
DCU Science - International 375 365 Down 10
UCD Science 325 305 Down 20
UCD Math Science 390 335 Down 55
NUIG Science 300 280 Down 20
NUIG Biotechnology 315 290 Down 25
UL Computer Systems 325 305 Down 20
IT Sligo Pharma Science 280 280 No Change
Table 1.5: Courses in which there was a drop in the points required to gain entry into that course in
2007 (McGinnity, 2007)

In 2009, only two years later, this trend has changed and ‘CAO points for places in most third-
level science courses surged after much stronger demand from students’ (Flynn, 2009). This
trend probably reflects the difficult economic times, that have hit globally, but especially in

17
Ireland, in the last two years and as a result ‘the class of 2009 have deserted property-related
courses in their droves, resulting in a massive slump in points for these courses’ (Flynn, 2009).
Ireland in the last number of years has been slowly noticing positive increases, though small, in
the numbers of pupils studying Chemistry for their Leaving Certificate and in the numbers of
students studying Science courses at third level. These are trends that need to continue and
increase in order to develop Ireland’s knowledge-based economy.

Section 1.4: Reasons for not pursuing the study of Chemistry

It is important now more than ever to determine the reasons why pupils are not selecting to study
Chemistry. A number of reasons have been cited in the research literature as an explanation for
opting out of Science subjects and in particular Chemistry. These reasons include:
- A lack of relevant research in the teaching and learning of Chemistry and a failure to
implement findings of studies that have been carried out.
- The lack of relevance of Chemistry to the everyday life of the pupil.
- A general perception that Chemistry is difficult.

1.4.1: Lack of Relevant Research

Bucat (2004) said: “Research has not had the impact on science teaching that we would have hoped.
Furthermore, science education research seems to be looking for direction. Much of chemical
education research has used subject matter simply as a vehicle to develop domain-independent
pedagogical theory.” He went on to say that ‘advances have not in general been translated to the
classroom and Chemistry education seems unsure of its direction.” In general a lack of relevant
research and a lack of responsiveness to the research that has been carried out is proving a major
inhibitor to the improvement of teaching and learning in Chemistry. First of all, it can be suggested
that as a consequence of not properly addressing the areas of difficulty in Chemistry, the number of
pupils studying Chemistry is low. The majority of Irish teachers are unaware of research that has been
carried out in the area of teaching and learning in Chemistry. As a result, little has changed in how
chemistry has been taught over the last number of years. Inherent problems in the learning of
Chemistry remain unidentified and therefore unsolved. For those problems that have been reported on
in the research, little is available on how to implement findings and few teachers are aware of this
research in the first place. It would also be fair to say that research into the teaching and learning of

18
Chemistry in Ireland is in short supply. As a result of this the Irish Chemistry teacher is not well
informed on relevant issues in Chemistry Education relating to the teaching and learning of
Chemistry.

1.4.2: The lack of relevance of Chemistry

Holbrook (2005) feels that understanding in Chemistry courses ‘tends to be geared to internal
concepts within the subject itself’. The fact that concepts are not made relevant to the everyday
life of the learner causes problems in the learning of Chemistry. He points out that ‘concepts
such as atomic number, or chemical bonding are almost universally section headings in
Chemistry courses, yet in daily life, for example – improving the quality of the air for our
health, is potentially a much more relevant starting point. Generally, Chemistry curricula tend
to put the subject first, and applications a poor second’ (Holbrook, 2005).
Chemistry can be over theoretical and not relevant in the lives of pupils. This is true of the
situation in Ireland. The Chemistry syllabus, which in turn influences the content of Irish
textbooks, is segmented and compartmentalised into neat sections. These sections do little in
making Chemistry relevant to the pupil’s everyday experiences. Results from the international
Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) project in Ireland show that ‘students are convinced
of the importance of science and technology however when students were asked “Would you
like to become a scientist?” the more developed the country, the less interested its young
population were in a career in science and technology’ (International Review Panel, 2009). In
a study carried out by the ERSI (2007) into the experiences of students in the third year of
junior cycle and in transition to senior cycle, results also indicate a positive view of Science
held by Irish pupils. In this study pupils viewed science as both one of the ‘useful’ and
‘interesting’ subjects in the school curriculum. One useful recommendation from the ROSE
project stated that the key issue in promoting interest in Science subjects is to place ‘the
personal/human relevance of science at the heart of science education, rather than creating
and maintaining a curriculum that sees its major concern as the development of theoretical
framework of the sciences’ (Matthews, 2007). Pupils’ interest in Science subjects in Ireland
may be lessened by the fact that the interest that is promoted by practical activities in the
laboratory is ‘snuffed out by the level of theory with which the practical becomes entangled’
(Matthews, 2007).

19
1.4.3: A General perception that Chemistry is Difficult
It is wonderful that pupils appear to find Science interesting and fun and ‘a strong feature of
the literature is the apparent contradiction between student’s attitudes towards science in
general and their attitudes towards school science itself. Many surveys show repeatedly that
students’ attitudes towards Science itself are positive’’ (Osborne, 2003). Osborne goes on to
explain that the ‘majority of 15-year-old pupils find science both ‘interesting’ and ‘useful for
jobs’ even though it is not considered ‘easy’ (Osborne, 2003). The positive attitude of pupils
towards science is encouraging and should make increasing participation levels a little easier.

Table 1.6: Data showing 15-year-old pupils’ views about Science. (Osborne, 2003)

However, from Table 1.6 we can see that an overwhelming majority of pupils find science
subjects difficult, with only 1% of girls surveyed indicating that Chemistry was easy. This
indeed could be a major reason as to why pupils choose not to pursue the study of Chemistry
even though they may find it enjoyable and interesting. A report by the Royal Irish Academy
(RIA, 2005) indicates that ‘the general perception amongst 15-year-olds is that science is
difficult, and time-consuming; they are thus only too happy to drop the subject at the first
available opportunity i.e. after the Junior Certificate or Transition Year’. Supporting this view
Smyth et al (2006) state that ‘Chemistry appears to be a somewhat elite subject in terms of the
students who take it. Those with a more positive view of their abilities (academic self-image)
are more likely to take Chemistry, a pattern that holds for both male and female students’.

20
In an Irish context these results are mirrored by the findings of the ERSI report (2007) which
showed that ‘Mathematics, Science, Irish, French and German were considered by students to
be the most difficult subjects’. Many Leaving Certificate pupils say they ‘did not choose
Physics or Chemistry because of the difficulty of the subjects. They also agreed that they would
be more likely to choose these subjects if it was easier to get good Leaving Certificate grades
and if the subjects involved less mathematics’ (Report of the Task Force on the Physical
Science, 2002). The study of Mathematics and Science are inextricably linked. The effect of
poor performance in Mathematics plays a role in the participation of pupils in Science at
second and third level. ‘Students’ perception of mathematics difficulty and students’ poor
performance in mathematics both act as barriers to participation and success in science at
second and at third level’ (Report of the Taskforce on the Physical Science, 2002). If the
problem with Mathematics is not addressed, reform in Science education will be greatly
hindered if not made impossible entirely.

Another reason why Chemistry uptake levels are lower than we would wish, which is linked
with the perceived difficulty of the subject, is that ‘Chemistry is perceived as a difficult subject
which students tend to avoid choosing at Leaving Certificate level in the hope of obtaining
points with another subject’ (IPCMF, 2003). Leaving Certificate pupils choose subjects where
they hope they will achieve high points. They deem Chemistry to be a difficult subject to
acquire high points in. This fact is supported by the authors of the Report of the Task Force on
the Physical Sciences (2002) who concluded that ‘candidates sitting the physical sciences are
generally less likely to perform as well as those sitting other subjects. Students sitting higher-
level Chemistry and Physics in LCs 2000 and 2001 did consistently less well in these subjects
than they did in other higher level subjects that they sat’. Millar and Kellaghan (2003) went on
to do a more detailed report on this discrepancy between grades achieved in the Physical
Science subjects other subjects for the Leaving Certificate examination. .

It should be noted that other possible reasons why Chemistry remains an unpopular subject
with pupils could be related to the manner in which it is taught, the layout and content of Irish
textbooks, the structure of the Syllabus, the fact that Chemistry is over-theoretical and the lack
of relevant research into the teaching and leaning of Chemistry.

21
 Section 1.5: Aims and Structure of this Project
This project aims to identify the areas and topics in Chemistry that are causing difficulty for the
majority of Irish Chemistry pupils. It investigates the reasons why these topics are posing
difficulty and aims to develop teaching strategies, methodologies and resources that will help
Irish teachers in the successful delivery of these topics. The overall aims of this project are to:
a. Identify the topics in Chemistry that Irish pupils find the most difficult from Junior
Certificate level right through to third level,
b. Determine the reasons why pupils find the topics identified difficult,
c. Develop, implement and evaluate materials and strategies that will make the learning
and understanding of the topics identified a little less difficult for pupils.

Figure 1.6 represents the main phases in this investigation and shows how they relate to each other.

Phase One ~ Identification of Difficult Chemistry Topics

This phase of the investigation will determine the Chemistry topics that the majority of
Irish Chemistry pupils/students have difficult with.

1 Topics identified in phase will

3 form the basis of test questions
for phase two

The
intervention Phase Two ~ Determination of the reasons why pupils find the
programme Chemistry topics identified in phase one of this investigation
will difficult
alleviate This phase of the investigation will analyse the effect of cognitive
topics that development and the existence of Chemistry misconceptions on
the majority pupils understanding of topics identified in phase one and their
of Irish perceived difficulty of these topics
pupils
perceive as
being
difficult If it emerges these aspects are causing
2 difficulty for pupils strategies to address these
areas will be developed

Phase Three ~ The development, implementation and evaluation of an intervention programme aimed at
alleviating difficulties pupils have with topics that were identified as being difficult in phase one
This phase of the investigation will take into account findings from both phase one and two. Topics identified as being
difficult will be developed with teaching strategies aimed at increasing the pupils thinking skills and altering
misconceptions they posses about these topics.

Figure 1.6: Flow Chart representing the different phases involved in this investigation

22
From Figure 1.6 it can be seen that this project has been divided into three distinct phases. The
following is a more detailed description of these phases.

1.5.1: Development of Questionnaires to Identify Difficult Topics

This phase involves the development of four questionnaires to be administered to second and
third level pupils/students. These questionnaires consist of a list of the different Chemistry
topics studied at each level attached to a Likert scale, which asks pupils to give their opinion
on the easiness or difficulty of the Chemistry topics. They are also asked to identify the five
topics they found most difficult. Distributing these questionnaires to pupils at Junior and
Leaving Certificate level and students at third level will give a snapshot of the different
Chemistry topics that are causing difficulties for those studying Chemistry at each of the
different levels and as they progress in their study of Chemistry. Once a set of topics that
appears to cause the most difficulty for Chemistry students has been identified, the project will
move into phase two. The views of practicing Chemistry teachers will also be sought as to the
topics they think students find most difficult.

1.5.2: Determining why certain Chemistry Topics are Difficult

In this phase of the investigation, test instruments (of pen and paper nature) will be developed
and implemented to assess the cognitive development of Irish pupils and also to determine the
number, and the type of Chemical misconceptions Irish pupils possess about the difficult
Chemistry topics identified in phase one of the investigation. The cognitive development of
Irish pupils was assessed, as the majority of topics emerging as being difficult from phase one
were abstract Chemistry topics, which pupils operating at the concrete operational stage of
cognitive development would find difficult. The pupils Chemical misconceptions were
assessed in order to determine if Irish pupils held an incorrect understanding of fundamental
topics in Chemistry that would adversely affect pupils understanding in more advanced topics.
Findings from this phase will play a major role in phase three.

23
1.5.3 Development, Implementation and Evaluation of Teaching Strategies
Once the topics that cause the most difficulty for Irish pupils have been identified and the
reasons that Irish pupils find these topics difficult have been determined phase three will be
developed. Phase three will involve the development, implementation and evaluation of
teaching strategies, activities and materials to alleviate difficulties pupils are having with the
identified difficult topics. This will involve selecting certain topics as case studies for the
effectiveness of intervention strategies, rather than dealing with all the different topics. It is
hoped that this project will address recurring problems Irish pupils are having in Chemistry.
It will also develop materials that are effective in dealing with the difficult areas in Chemistry
and that will be made widely accessible to Irish Chemistry teachers. The material will also be
useful to those teaching introductory Chemistry courses at third level. The overall aim is to
improve the teaching and learning of Chemistry in Ireland.

24
Section 1.6: The Structure of the Thesis

Chapter 1: Introduction ~ This chapter looked at the place of Science, and in particular
Chemistry in the Irish education system. It gave a description of the participation rates in
Science and Chemistry over the last number of years and highlighted the need to increase these
rates in the future. It emphasized how low participation rates in Science and Chemistry will
have a negative effect on Ireland’s economic future and will inhibit the building of a
knowledge-based society. It also offered a number of suggestions as to why participation rates
in Chemistry are low. Many pupils avoid Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate and regard it
as a difficult subject, which is high in mathematical content and difficult to obtain high points
in. Chemistry is avoided by weaker pupils and also by boys. This chapter also gave an outline
of the aims and structure of this investigation.

Chapter 2: Literature Review ~ This chapter gives a description of the aims, objectives and
structure of the Primary Science, the Junior Certificate Science and Leaving Certificate
Chemistry syllabi. It describes the findings of similar studies that have been carried out
internationally in identifying topics that pupils perceive as being difficult in Chemistry.
Chapter 2 also gives an in-depth description of the factors that make Chemistry difficult to
learn, as identified by previous research. It looks at how the cognitive development of the
pupil, the pupils’ mathematical ability, the working space memory of the pupil and the
misconceptions that they bring into the classroom work in the mind of the learners to cause
problems in the learning of Chemistry. It also details a number of intervention programmes that
have been successful in developing the cognitive ability of pupils and which inspired the
intervention programme developed in phase three of this investigation.

Chapter 3: Methodology ~ This chapter describes how the three phases of this investigation
were carried out. It looks at how questionnaires and test instruments were developed, distributed
and analysed. It also details the development, implementation and evaluations of the intervention
programme. Descriptions of the sample groups that were used in this study are also outlined.

25
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion of Phase One ~ This chapter concentrates on the results
obtained from the different sample groups for phase one of this investigation. It gives a detailed
description of the main findings and discusses the significance and implications of these findings
for the teaching and learning of Chemistry in the Irish school system, and at third level.

Chapter 5: Results and Discussion of Phase Two ~ This chapter concentrates on the results
obtained from the different sample groups for phase two of this investigation. It gives a detailed
description of the main findings and discusses the significance and implications of these findings
for the teaching and learning of Chemistry in the Irish school system and at third level.

Chapter 6: The Development of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme ~ This chapter
outlines the inspiration factors that led to the development of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme. It analyses a sample lesson and includes a rationale for the approaches taken.

Chapter 7: Results and Discussion of Phase Three ~ This chapter concentrates on the results
obtained for control and experimental groups which participated in phase three of this
investigation. It gives a detailed description of the main findings and discusses the significance
and implications of these findings for the teaching and learning of Chemistry in the Irish school
system.

Chapter 8: The links between the different phases in this investigation ~ This chapter
summarises the results and implications of the different phases of this investigation and discusses
the links between the different phases involved in this investigation.

NOTE: In this thesis the term pupil is used to describe an individual in second level education,
while the term student is used to describe those in third level education.

26
 Chapter Two:
Literature Review

27
 Chapter Two ~ Literature Review

This chapter is an overview of Science and Chemistry in the Irish Education System.
It looks at the Science and Chemistry syllabi and highlights different Chemistry topics
pupils study at each phase of their primary and secondary education.
The chapter then looks at research that has been carried out internationally in
identifying difficult topics in Chemistry. The chapter concludes with a look at
research that may help explain why pupils find particular areas of Chemistry difficult
and a description of a number of different intervention programmes that have been
carried out internationally, which aimed to develop teaching and learning in
Chemistry.

Section 2.1: The Irish Science and Chemistry Curricula

Irish children enter primary education at approximately age four or five. Compulsory
education starts at age 6. Primary education lasts eight years and then pupils enter
second level education. Second level education is divided into Junior Cycle (3-4
years) and Senior cycle (2 years). At the end of second level education pupils may
choose to enter a third level institution and continue on in a particular area of study.
The study of Science is now a key aspect in the primary and secondary curricula and
this section will look at Science and in particular aspects of Chemistry at each level.

2.1.1: Primary School Science

Since 2003 Science has been reintroduced into the primary school curriculum. It is
studied through a broad science syllabus called Social, Environmental and Scientific
Education. The primary Science curriculum is divided into four strands, which are
explored at varying degrees of difficulty throughout the eight years of primary
education. The four strands are as follows: Living things, Energy and forces,
Materials and Environmental awareness and care. Each strand is subdivided into
strand units, which focus on particular concepts. Table 2.1 highlights the four strands,
the strand units and the concepts explored from infant classes’ right through to fifth
and sixth classes. The Materials section of Table 2.1 is the strand which mainly deals
with Chemistry issues in primary school Science. Table 2.2 illustrates the Chemistry
topics covered and the learning outcomes, which are reached by the end of primary
education.

28
 Strand Infant Classes and Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth classes
First and Second classes
Living things
Myself
Human life

Plants and animals
Plants and animals

Energy and forces
Light
Light

Sound
Sound

Heat
Heat

Magnetism and electricity
Magnetism and electricity
Forces
Forces

Materials
Properties and
Properties and characteristics of

characteristics of materials
materials
Materials and change

Materials and change
Environmental
Caring for myself and my
Environmental awareness
awareness and care locality
Science and the environment

Caring for the environment

Table 2.1: Strand and strand units of the primary Science Curricula (www.ncca.ie)

Properties and Characteristics of Materials and Change

Materials
Junior
Children should be introduced to,
Pupils will develop an awareness of the
Classes and be able to recognise, common changes that may occur to solids and
materials in the immediate liquids through heating and cooling.
environment

Pupils should become aware that
each material has its own
characteristics or properties
Third and
Children will be aware that some Pupils may also conclude that some


Fourth materials occur naturally while materials can be changed permanently
Classes others are manufactured by heating but in other materials the
changes can be reversed by cooling
Fifth and
Children will categorise materials
Children should investigate water as a
Sixth according to the state in which they material in its different states
Classes normally exist, that is, solid, liquid,
Appreciate that air is composed of
or gas. different gases and should become

They will appreciate that solids have aware of some of the practical
definite shapes and may come in applications of different gases in
different forms everyday use
Table 2.2: Chemistry Concepts covered at the Primary Education (www.ncca.ie)

The Chemistry subject content of primary Science involves an introduction to matter, the
different states of matter and changes of state. Pupils become aware of and appreciate different
substances around them and understand the effects of heating and cooling different substances.
There is no formal examination for pupils between primary school and secondary school. As

29
Science at primary level in Ireland is in its infancy, little has been reported about the success of
the syllabus to date. Initial feelings indicate that there is little connection between practical
activities that occur in the classroom and the concepts that these activities are demonstrating.
Pupils leaving primary school may have little understanding of these Chemistry topics due to a
lack of elaboration in the classroom. The majority of primary schools also participate in the
Discover primary Science initiative, which similarly has little Chemistry content but does
encourage an investigative approach.

2.1.2: Junior Certificate Science

‘Unlike many other European countries, science is not a compulsory subject at lower
secondary level’ (Smyth and Hannon, 2006). Approximately 88% of Irish pupils study Science
for their Junior Certificate. The Task Force on the Physical Sciences in its report in 2002
recommended that Science should become a compulsory subject at Junior Certificate level, if
participation levels in senior cycle Science subjects are to increase. The revised Syllabus for
Junior Certificate Science was introduced in schools in September 2003 and was examined in
June 2006. Prior to the introduction of the revised Junior Certificate Science syllabus, pupils
studied either Science (with Local Studies) or Science (without Local Studies), which were
introduced in 1989. June 2008 saw the last examination of the two 1989 syllabi. In the revised
Junior Certificate Science syllabus, topics are presented under three headings: Biology,
Chemistry and Physics. Each of these areas are sub-divided into three sections as follows:
Biology:
1. Human biology – food, digestion and associated body systems
2. Human biology – the skeletal/muscular system, the senses and human reproduction
3. Animals, plants and micro-organisms

Physics:
1. Force and energy
2. Heat, light and sound and
3. Magnetism, electricity and electronics

Chemistry:
1. Classification of substances
2. Air, oxygen, carbon dioxide and water
3. Atomic structure, reactions and compounds

30
Focusing on the Chemistry section of the Junior Certificate Science syllabus, Table
2.3 illustrates the Chemistry topics that are incorporated into the three Chemistry sub-
sections listed above.

Classification of Substances Air, Oxygen, Carbon Atomic structure, reactions

Dioxide and Water and compounds

- Materials - Air and Oxygen - Basic Atomic Structure

- Mixtures - Carbon Dioxide - Bonding
- Classifications of substances, - Hardness of Water - Rusting and Corrosion
elements and compounds - Electrolysis of water - Metals
- Metals - Acids and Bases - Hydrocarbons and Acid
- Non-metals Rain
- Mixtures and Compounds
- Water and Solutions
- Acids and Bases
Table 2.3: Chemistry topics and concepts covered at Junior Certificate Level (Junior
Certificate Science syllabus)

The aim of the course is to introduce in more detail the classification of substances such
as acids and bases and metals and non-metals. It also introduces basic atomic structure
and bonding to pupils for the first time. This three-year programme culminates in the
Junior Certificate Examination. The Junior Certificate Science exam involves a written
paper and also a practical exam. The written exam counts for 65% of the pupils mark and
the practical aspect counts for 35%. The terminal exam is weighted equally between
Biology, Chemistry and Physics. The practical exam consists of two separate aspects:

Coursework A: involves the completion and reporting of 30 mandatory investigations

carried out throughout the three years of the Junior Certificate Science course.

Coursework B: involves the completion of reports on two investigations set by the

State Examinations Commission (from a list containing three investigations in
Biology, Chemistry and Physics) or a report on one larger investigation of the
candidate’s own choice.

31
The revised Junior Certificate Science Syllabus (JCSS) has only been implemented
since 2003 and is the first time practical aspects of Science have been examined. The
revised JCSS was designed to be less content-based, and more outcome-based. There
was also an increased emphasis on the Science-Technology-Society (STS) approach,
which links scientific facts to everyday life.

Little has been reported on the success of this new revised syllabus. In a recent
investigation carried out by the Irish Science Teachers Association (ISTA) to
ascertain the views of Junior Certificate Science teachers on coursework A and B, a
dissatisfaction with the new syllabus has been identified. 68.7% of the responding
teachers strongly disagreed that ‘Coursework B is an accurate indicator of students’
ability to carry out science investigation’ (Higgins, 2009). Another opinion held by
Junior Certificate Science teachers is that ‘the Junior Certificate Science examination
is punishing the top student and favouring the weak student this then gives the weak
student a false idea of his/her ability’ (Higgins, 2009).

Unfortunately it should also be noted that the Junior Certificate Science course does
not successfully build foundations for the study of Science subjects at Leaving
Certificate level. There is a large gap between the concepts covered in the Junior
Certificate Science syllabus and those covered in the Leaving Certificate Science
subjects. As a result the transition between Junior Certificate and Leaving Certificate
Science subjects is difficult for many pupils, and for a majority it is a step too far.

32
2.1.3: Leaving Certificate Chemistry
For the final two years of their secondary education pupils have a choice to study one
or a combination of the following Science subjects:
- Biology
- Chemistry
- Physics
- Agricultural Science
- Physics with Chemistry (combined course)

This period of their education culminates in the Leaving Certificate Examination.

According to the Department of Education the Chemistry syllabus aims:
- To stimulate and sustain students’ interest in, and enjoyment of, chemistry
- To provide a relevant course for those students who will complete their study of
chemistry at this level
- To provide a foundation course in chemistry for those students who will continue
their studies in chemistry or in related subjects
- To encourage an appreciation of the scientific, social, economic, environmental and
technological aspects of chemistry and an understanding of the historical
development of chemistry
- To illustrate generally how humanity has benefited from the study and practice of
chemistry
- To develop an appreciation of scientific method and rational thought
- To develop skills in laboratory procedures and techniques, carried out with due
regard for safety, together with the ability to assess the uses and limitations of these
procedures. To develop skills of observation, analysis, evaluation, communication
and problem solving
(Leaving Certificate Chemistry Syllabus)

The content in the Leaving Certificate Chemistry Syllabus is based on the major areas of
Chemistry. The Chemistry topics that pupils study in the Senior Cycle are listed in Table
2.4

33
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry Topics
Core Topics:
- Periodic Table and Atomic Structure
- Chemical Bonding
- Stoichiometry, Formulas and Equations
- Volumetric Analysis (Acids and Bases, Redox Reactions)
- Fuels and Heats of Reaction
- Rates of Reaction
- Organic Chemistry
- Chemical Equilibrium
- Environmental Chemistry: Water
Options:
- 1A = Additional Industrial Chemistry
- 1B = Atmospheric Chemistry
- 2A= Materials
- 2B = Additional Electrochemistry and the Extraction of Metals
Table 2.4: List of Leaving Certificate Chemistry Topics

As can be seen from the Table 2.4 the Leaving Certificate syllabus expands ideas
encountered in Junior Cycle Science e.g. Chemical bonding. Primarily though it introduces
new topics such as Organic Chemistry, Volumetric Analysis and Rates of reaction. It is
made up of a core volume of topics and options. Pupils select two option topics to study.
Chemistry is examined through a written paper, which is available at higher and ordinary
level. As yet there is no practical aspect to the exam but this is expected to change in the
future. Practical assessment was proposed when the syllabus was first introduced but
agreement on this could not be reached. There are a number of problems with the teaching
and learning of Chemistry in Ireland. One main dilemma is the amount of respect paid to
the final Leaving Certificate examination. Many pupils do not understand the chemical
concepts they are studying; instead they learn by rote formulae and definitions that help
them to answer exam questions successfully. Pupils’ chemical understanding is not
assessed in the terminal exam; instead the pupil’s memory and retention skills are assessed.
As a result of this, application of chemical concepts and problem solving is difficult for
most Irish pupils. Questions that deviate from the norm pose a major difficulty for many,
and indeed are subject to public protest and media coverage.

34
2.1.4: Third Level Science and Chemistry
At third level in Ireland there is a growing number of Science and Chemistry courses
available to students. Entry to many of these courses does not require a student to
have studied Leaving Certificate Chemistry. The majority of courses specify
minimum requirements in Leaving Certificate Mathematics and the completion of any
Leaving Certificate Science subject. Many medical related courses and
engineering/technology courses also have similar pre-requisites, but rarely specify
Leaving Certificate Chemistry. Pupils wishing to study medicine and dentistry at third
level must have studied Chemistry at Leaving Certificate level. More places are
available on Science courses, at level 8 (Honours Degree) or level 6/7 (Higher
Certificate and Ordinary Degree) than there are qualified applicants. The small
number with grade C or higher in higher level Mathematics is also a limiting factor in
the uptake of Science and Engineering courses. However as mentioned in section 1.3,
recent trends have seen a positive increase in the numbers of students studying a
Science course at third level.

2.1.5: Irish pupils’ performance in Science and Mathematics in comparison to

international standards
‘The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an OECD project
designed to assess young adults’ knowledge and skills as they approach the end of
compulsory schooling. It is conducted every three years, is targeted at fifteen year old
students, and is conducted in three domains - science, reading and mathematics. The
focus of PISA is not on students’ knowledge of curriculum content, but rather on how
well they can apply knowledge and skills they have acquired to real-world situations.
Students complete a paper-and-pencil test and a student questionnaire’ (Eivers et al,
2006).

The results of PISA from 2006, which involved over 4,500 Irish 15-year-olds in 165
schools, show that Irish 15 year-old students are:

• Among the top performers when it comes to reading literacy;

• Slightly above the OECD average in science and

• At the OECD average in mathematics.

35
‘Irelands performance on scientific literacy was similar to performance in 2000 and 2003
- slightly, but significantly above the OECD average on the overall science scale. The
Irish mean score was 508, compared to the OECD average of 500. Ireland’s mean score
is the 14th highest of the 30 OECD countries and the 20th highest of all participating
countries’ (Eivers et al, 2006). The results of PISA also indicate that, unlike the average
across the OECD countries, where males significantly outperformed females, Irish males
and females had almost identical mean scores in Science.

The findings of the most current PISA report are promising as they also indicate that
Irelands’ mean Mathematics score was ‘not significantly different from the OECD
average’. Overall Irish pupils are performing just as well in terms of Science and
Mathematics as their European counterparts.

36
Section 2.2: Research into identifying areas of difficulty in Chemistry
As highlighted in the introduction chapter, there is a need to increase the numbers of pupils
studying Chemistry at Leaving Certificate and Third level. However the study of Chemistry
is generally considered to be difficult. Chiu (2005) describes Chemistry as ‘a world filled
with interesting phenomenon, appealing experimental activities, and fruitful knowledge for
understanding the natural and manufactured world. However it is complex.’ As a result of
the complex nature of Chemistry and the fact that it is one of the most conceptually
difficult subjects on the school curriculum, it is of major importance that anyone teaching
Chemistry is aware of the areas of difficulty in the subject. Chemistry teachers must be
conscious of the problematic topics for students.
Breuer (2002) states that Chemistry is difficult as it ‘demands more attention to be given to
a greater diversity of activities and skills (literacy, numeracy and experimental skills) than
many others’. This section looks at the research that has been carried out nationally and
internationally in identifying the topics in Chemistry that pose particular difficulty for those
studying it. In particular four studies, three from the UK and one from Nigeria, along with
the Chief Examiners’ reports on pupils’ performances in Leaving Certificate Chemistry
(Chief Examiners report in Chemistry, 2002, 2005 and 2008) will be discussed.

2.2.1: Identifying difficult topics in Chemistry ~Investigations from England

Ratcliffe (2002) carried out a survey on the Nuffield A-level Chemistry course where she
asked students to ‘prioritise chemical concepts within the syllabus they found difficult’. The
opinions of teachers and examiners were also gathered. In this study pupils were given a
questionnaire, which listed all the chemistry topics in the syllabus, ‘roughly in the order
that they were presented in the students’ books’ Ratcliffe (2002). It asked pupils to describe
the different Chemistry topics using the following five point Likert scale:
1 = Very Easy
2 = Easy
3 = Medium
4 = Difficult
5 = Very Difficult
The topics that received the most number 4 (difficult) and 5 (very difficult) responses were
then examined and a list was developed of the most difficult topics for each sample group.
The results obtained from students, teachers and examiners in this study are shown in Table
2.5.

37
 Topics % of Topics % of Topics % of
identified by pupils* identified by teachers* identified by examiners*
pupils as being teachers as examiners as
difficult being difficult being difficult
Organic 52% Chemical 56% Chemical 71%
Synthesis Equilibria Equilibria
Calculations Calculations
Complex Ions 46% Planning 56% Cell Reactions 71%
Experiments
Reactions of 43% Acid-Base 50% Planning 71%
Arenas Equilibria pH Experiments
NMR 39% Electrode 42% Organic 66%
Spectroscopy Potentials Synthesis
Planning 38% NMR 42% NMR 50%
Experiments Spectroscopy Spectroscopy
Halogen 36% Reaction rates: 40% Hess’s Law 54%
Chemistry Order of
Reaction
Transition 36% Halogen 38% Electrode 54%
Elements Chemistry Potentials
Shapes of 35% Chemical 34% Reaction rates: 51%
Molecules Equilibria: effect Order of
of temp etc. Reaction
Organic Reaction 34% Cell Reactions 34% Chemical 49%
Mechanisms Equilibria: effect
of temp etc.
Cell Reactions 34% Organic Reaction 30% Acid-Base 49%
Mechanisms Equilibria pH
Electrode 33% Reaction rates: 30% The Mole, 46%
Potentials effect of temp Volumetric
etc. Calculations
Polymers 30% Analysing 46%
Results of
Experiments
Table 2.5: List of topics in order of difficulty by more than 33% of students (n=199); 30%
of teachers (n=50) and 45% of examiners (n=35) (Ratcliffe, 2002)
* % of pupils, teachers and examiners that identified topic as being difficult

Examining the table above it can be seen that pupils ‘perceptions of the most difficult topics
did not necessarily coincide with teachers’ and examiners’ views of difficult topics’. (Ratcliffe,
2002). Three topics did appear in each group and are as follows: NMR Spectroscopy, Planning
Experiments and Electrode Potentials. Significant results from this study included the fact that
‘Students regarded the synoptic topics – i.e. those that bring together ideas from across the
course e.g. organic synthesis – as being the most difficult’ (Ratcliffe, 2002). Ratcliffe (2002)
suggests that it is probably ‘the synoptic element of bringing the range of reactions together
which is difficult for students rather than the individual reactions. It may be, however, that

38
insufficient time is available to develop synoptic ideas because many teachers’ volunteered
comments on the difficulty of doing justice to topics within the teaching time available’.

Bojezuk (1982) carried out an investigation into which topics pupils found difficult at O
and A Level Chemistry. A questionnaire was distributed which listed the different topics on
the O and A Level chemistry courses and ‘pupils were asked to estimate the difficulty
experienced when studying each topic by choosing one of the five given responses:
⇒ Very easy (topic understood first time with little effort)
⇒ Easy (topic understood after a little work)
⇒ Moderate (topic understood after a moderate amount of work)
⇒ Difficult (topic only understood after hard work and effort)
⇒ Very difficult (topic never understood – will need to be retaught)
Table 2.6 lists the topics that were identified in this study as being difficult at O and A levels.

O-Level Difficult Topics (n=186) % of A-Level Difficult Topics (n=277) % of

pupils* pupils*
Titration Calculations 33% Gibbs’ free energy as the driving 56%
force of a Chemical Reactions
Electrolysis Calculations 31% Problems on Organic Synthesis 56%
Pathways
Neutralisation as a Reaction 29% Order of Reaction and its 41%
involving the combination of H+ determination
and OH- ions
The Mole as a specific amount of 25% Organic Reaction Mechanisms 41%
substance
Calculations involving the 25% Preparation and Reaction of 35%
Formula Mass of a Compound Organic Compounds
Calculations from Equations 25% Calculations involving the use of 32%
Equilibrium Constants
Oxidation and Reduction in terms 24% Buffer Solutions and how to keep 31%
of loosing or gaining electrons the pH of a solution constant
Preparation of insoluble salts by 24% Calculations involving pH, Ka, Kb, 30%
precipitation Kw
Writing Ionic Equations 23% Finding the e.m.f. of cells from 27%
standard Electrode Potentials
The various methods of preparing 23% Writing Equations for Full and Half 27%
soluble salts Cell Reactions.
Table 2.6: Topics identified as difficult in O and A Level Chemistry (Bojezuk, 1982)
*% of pupils that identified topic as being difficult
There were also a number of interesting findings from this study. In O – Level Chemistry
‘it would seem that the two most difficult concepts, which a pupil meets at O-Level, are

39
ions and the mole. Teachers should bear this in mind when teaching topics involving
either concept’. (Bojezuk, 1982).

Bojezuk (1982) also made some findings related to gender. The following topics were
found ‘difficult by twice the proportion of girls than boys’ at O-Level.
⇒ Valency and Writing Formulae,
⇒ Calculations involving the Formula Mass of a Compound,
⇒ Calculations from Equations,
⇒ Electrolysis of Solutions and
⇒ Electrolysis Calculations

Reasons for this difference may have been ‘in the mathematical ability between the
boys and girls in the sample’ (Bojezuk, 1982). In the A-Level survey no gender
differences were recorded. Bojezuk (1982) explains that ‘any differences possibly due
to sex-related traits shown in the O-Level survey have probably been overcome by the
ability and motivation of the A-level student’.

Teachers were also asked for their opinions in this study and the topics that they
identified as presenting the most difficulty for their pupils are listed in Table 2.7.

Topics which present difficult at O- Topics which present difficult at A-

Level (n=40) Level (n=40)
Writing and balancing Equations Gibbs free energy as the driving force of
a Chemical Reactions
The Mole as a specific amount of Problems on Organic Synthesis
substance Pathways
Calculations from Equations Calculations involving pH, Ka, Kb, Kw
Titration Calculations Calculations involving the use of
Equilibrium Constants
Writing Ionic Equations Organic Reaction Mechanisms
Electrolysis calculations Use of X-rays to find crystal Structures
Oxidation and Reduction in terms of Buffer Solutions and how to keep the
losing of gaining electrons pH of a solution constant
Order of Reaction and its determination
Table 2.7: Chemistry topics that teachers feel present difficulty to pupils (Bojezuk, 1982)

40
Overall it can be seen that when comparing the topics that pupils and teachers
identified as being difficult (Tables 2.6 and 2.7), the results complement each other.
Pupils and teachers both identified titration calculations, writing and balancing
equations, Gibbs’ free energy and organic reaction mechanisms as topics that pose
difficulty in the study of Chemistry.
In a second aspect of this study pupils and teachers were also asked to rank seven
general topic areas in order of difficulty experienced when learning and teaching
them. The general topic areas were:
⇒ Atomic/Molecular structure
⇒ Reaction Kinetics
⇒ Thermochemistry
⇒ Electrochemistry
⇒ Equilibria
⇒ Acids, Bases and their equilibrium
⇒ Organic Chemistry
The ranking given by teachers and pupils were generally in agreement with each other
however the ‘ranking for Organic Chemistry must give cause for concern. Pupils
found this as the most difficult topic area to learn, whilst teachers found it one of the
easiest to teach’ (Bojezuk, 1982).

2.2.2: Identifying difficult topics in Chemistry ~Investigations from Scotland

This study by Johnstone (2000 a) collected the opinions of first year students at the
Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde. ‘Each student (n=1000) was given a list of
all the topics and sub-topics in the Chemistry curriculum and asked to categorise
each of them into one of four groups:
a. ‘I understood this easily’
b. ‘I had some difficulty but I now understand it’
c. ‘I have never understood this and will need to be taught it again’
d. ‘I have never been taught this’
The number of ‘c’ responses were plotted against the topic list and ‘the results gave almost
perfect agreement’ for the two University sample groups. The questionnaire was then
handed to seventeen-year-old pupils in secondary schools and ‘once more the frequency
pattern was the same as that derived from the two universities’ (Johnstone, 2006).

41
The topics that were identified as being difficult in this study are listed in Table 2.8.
‘All these topics had (c) frequencies in excess of 50% of all respondents’ (Johnstone,
2006).

Topics which respondents have never understood and will need to be taught again
Writing Formula and Equations, and doing calculations from them
Volumetric work involving molarities
Ion-electron Equations
Avogadro’s Number and the Mole
Heat of Reaction, Hess’s Law and Thermochemistry
Redox Reaction and Eo values
Equilibrium
Organic Formulae (various forms)
Table 2.8: Troublesome Chemistry topics identified by students in Scotland (Johnstone,
2006)

2.2.3: Identifying difficult topics in Chemistry ~Investigations from Nigeria

Research carried out by Jimoh (2005) to identify the perceived difficulty of Chemistry
topics in Nigerian secondary schools also helps in determining the topics that are
causing problems for Chemistry pupils. In this study a Chemistry Topic Assessment
Questionnaire which included 20 major topics from the syllabus covering physical,
organic, inorganic, environmental and practical Chemistry was completed by
participants. Pupils were asked to describe a topic by ticking one of three responses ~
difficult (D), average (A) and Easy (E). The level of difficulty of a topic was
determined by the value of the means as follows: means less that 1.5 (0≤ x ≥ 1.49) =
Easy, and means between 1.5 and 3.0 (1.5 ≤ x ≥ 3.0) = Difficult. The results of this
study are outlined in Table 2.9 below. Only topics with a means value of greater that
1.5 are included in Table 2.9.

42
 Chemistry Topic Means Value (> 1.5 =
Difficult)
Astronomical Chemistry 2.1
Chemical Combustion 1.95
Non – metals and their compounds 1.92
Gaseous state and Gas Laws 1.87
Thermo Chemistry 1.86
Nuclear Chemistry 1.8
Particulate nature of matter 1.73
Organic Chemistry 1.72
Quantitative Analysis 1.70
Qualitative Analysis 1.63
Rate of Chemical reaction 1.63
Structure and Energy level of the atom 1.56
Table 2.9: Difficult Chemistry topics as identified by Nigerian secondary school pupils
(Jimoh, 2005)

Findings from this study indicate that Chemistry pupils perceived more than half of
the senior secondary chemistry topics as difficult to learn. (Jimoh, 2005). The study
also revealed that gender differences of the students have no influence on perception
of difficult topics in chemistry curriculum.

Combining the findings of the studies of Radcliffe (2002), Bojezuk (1982), Johnstone
(2006) and Jimoh (2005) one can identify a number of topics that appear frequently.
While each set of results differ slightly there are indeed a number of similarities.
Variations can be accounted for in the differences between Chemistry syllabi in
Scotland and in England. Topics that pupils describe as difficult, in two or more of the
above studies, are listed in Table 2.10.

Topics identified as being difficult by Pupils

Organic Chemistry: (Organic Synthesis, Organic reaction Mechanisms, Organic Formulae,

Preparation and Reactions of organic Compounds)
The Mole and Avogadro’s Number

Equilibrium and Equilibrium calculations

Volumetric and Titration Calculations
Calculations from Equations (Writing formulae and Equations)
Redox Reactions
Table 2.10: Chemistry Topics identified as being difficult by pupils in two or more of the
studies

43
Topics that were identified as difficult by teachers in two or more of the above studies
are listed in Table 2.11.
Topics identified as being difficult by Teachers
Chemical Equilibrium: (Calculations, Equilibrium Constants, effect of temperature etc.)
Organic Reaction Mechanisms
Order of Reactions
Table 2.11: Chemistry Topics identified as being difficult by teachers in two or more of the
studies

2.2.4: Irish Chief Examiners Report in Chemistry

An indication of the topics that Irish pupils find difficult can be found by examining
the Chief Examiner’s Reports in Chemistry. The reports break down in detail the
quality of answers provided for each question (topic). It is fair to assume that
unpopular and poorly answered questions suggest low confidence in dealing with and
poor understanding of the topic. This in turn can be related to pupils finding particular
topics difficult. So far reports have been published for three years – 2002 (old
syllabus), 2005 and 2008 (new syllabus), as it is policy to publish reports only every 3
years in each subject. These reports relate to different Chemistry syllabi, however
they still describe the existence of similar problems faced by Chemistry pupils
regardless of the Chemistry syllabus they were studying.
Table 2.12 lists the percentage of attempts that were made to answer a particular
question/topic in the Higher and Ordinary Level Chemistry Examinations in 2002,
2005 and 2008. The percentage figures indicate the percentage of all Chemistry
candidates that attempted this question in the Leaving Certificate Exam at ordinary
and higher level.

44
 Higher Level Examination Ordinary Level Examination
% Attempts 2002 % Attempts 2005 % Attempts 2008 % Attempts 2002 % Attempts 2005 % Attempts 2008
Short items ~ 97% Short items ~ 90% Short items ~ 91% Short items ~ 78% Short items ~ 86% Short items ~ 91%
Volumetric~ 96% Volumetric ~ 75% Volumetric ~ 96% Volumetric ~ 99% Volumetric ~ 93% Volumetric ~ 88%

Redox, Equilibrium Equilibrium ~ 39% Equilibrium ~ 79% Equilibria, Stoichiometry Organic~ 66% Flame Tests ~ 88%
~ 92% ~ 72%
Fuels ~ 84% Fuels~ 85% Fuels ~ 94% Fuels ~ 78% Fuels, pH ~ 88% Fuels ~ 80%

Water ~ 77% Acids/Water ~ 93% Acids, Bases, Water ~ 43% Water ~ 88% Water ~ 99% Water ~ 71%

Rates ~ 74% Rates ~ 86% Rates ~ 80% Rates ~ 72% Rates ~ 83% Rates, Instrumentation
and Equilibria ~ 85.0%
Organic Organic (Mechanisms Organic (Mechanisms and Organic (Mechanisms and Organic (Mechanisms Organic (Mechanisms and
(Mechanisms and and Synthesis) ~ 80% Synthesis) ~ 48% Synthesis) ~ 41% and Synthesis) ~58% Synthesis) ~ 86%
Synthesis) ~ 65%
Organic Preparation Organic Preparations~ Organic Preparations ~ Organic Preparation~ 55% Organic Preparations ~ Organic Preparations ~
~ 60% 82% 72% 66% 74%

Ionisation energy ~ Atom ~ 83% Atomic Theory ~ 69% Radioactivity, pH ~ 88% Atom ~ 97% History of the Atom,
76% Fuels and Options ~ 88%
Instrumentation ~ Redox, Gases ~ 35% Water, Redox, Energy Instrumentation ~ 46% Chromatography, Acids ~ 73%
38% Levels ~ 69% Electrolysis ~ 61%

Stoichiometry ~ Stoichiometry, Ionisation Alcohols, Emissions, Elements ~ 98% Bonding ~ 77% Atoms and Bonding ~
90% energy ~54% Options ~ 55% 58%

Table 2.12: % attempts made to answer topics on the Leaving Certificate Examinations in 2002, 2005 and 2008 (Chief Examiner’s Reports in Chemistry,
2002, 2005 and 2008)

45
From Table 2.12 it can be seen that at higher level in 2002, 2005 and 2008 one of the
most popular questions is the short items question. Organic Chemistry questions are
among the least popular questions. In the ordinary level exam Volumetric Analysis
questions are among the most popular. However, Organic Chemistry questions still
remain unpopular. Bearing in mind that pupils will not attempt questions that they
find difficult, Table 2.12 indicates that in both higher and ordinary level Chemistry,
Organic Chemistry questions are avoided. This likely indicates a difficulty with
Organic Chemistry for Irish pupils and this is in agreement with the results of the
English and Scottish studies.

Table 2.13 looks at the average grade each question received in descending order in
the 2002, 2005 and 2008 in the higher and ordinary level Chemistry Exams. Here
again data has been taken from the Chief Examiners report in Chemistry 2002, 2005
and 2008.

46
 Higher Level Examination Ordinary Level Examination
Average mark (%) 2002 Average mark (%) Average mark (%) 2008 Average mark (%) 2002 Average mark (%) 2005 Average mark (%)
2005 2008
Short items ~ 70% Short items ~ 66% Short items ~ 70% Short items ~ 56% Short items ~ 54% Short items ~ 77%
Volumetric~ 56% Volumetric ~ 71% Volumetric ~ 73% Volumetric ~ 67% Volumetric ~ 69% Volumetric ~ 71%

Redox, Equilibrium ~ Equilibrium ~ 59% Equilibrium ~ 72% Equilibria, Stoichiometry Organic ~ 54% Flame Tests ~ 67%
68% ~ 48%

Fuels ~ 71% Fuels~ 69% Fuels ~ 69% Fuels ~ 48% Fuels, pH ~ 59% Fuels ~ 66%

Water ~ 68% Acids/Water ~ 77% Acids, Bases, Water ~ 63% Water ~ 51% Water ~ 69% Water ~ 50%

Rates ~ 62% Rates ~ 75% Rates ~ 62% Rates ~ 73% Rates ~ 70% Rates, Instrumentation
and Equilibria ~ 65%
Organic (Mechanisms Organic (Mechanisms Organic (Mechanisms and Organic (Mechanisms and Organic (Mechanisms and Organic (Mechanisms
and Synthesis) ~ 55% and Synthesis) ~ 75% Synthesis) ~ 50% Synthesis) ~ 60% Synthesis) ~65% and Synthesis) ~ 69%
Organic Preparation ~ Organic Preparations~ Organic Preparations ~ Organic Preparation ~ Organic Preparations ~ Organic Preparations ~
77% 67% 71% 52% 43% 54%
Ionisation energy ~ 57% Atom ~ 72% Atomic Theory ~ 70% Radioactivity, pH ~ 63% Atom ~ 58% History of the Atom,
Fuels and Options ~
69%
Instrumentation ~ 63% Redox, Gases ~ 49% Water, Redox, Energy Instrumentation ~ 45% Chromatography, Acids ~ 46%
Levels ~ 67% Electrolysis ~ 53%
Stoichiometry ~ 67% Stoichiometry, Alcohols, Emissions, Elements ~ 42% Bonding ~ 46% Atoms and Bonding ~
Ionisation energy ~66% Options ~ 65% 59%

Table 2.13: Average mark received in each topic in the 2002, 2005 and 2008 Leaving Certificate Examinations (Chief Examiner’s Reports in Chemistry,
2002, 2005 and 2008)

47
The trends from 2002 and 2008 at higher level Chemistry suggest that Organic
Chemistry questions seem to prove difficult for pupils to achieve high marks. The fact
that Organic Chemistry questions are not popular (Table 2.12) and do not rank high
on the average mark scale may be an indication that Irish pupils have difficulty with
this topic. Similar trends are noted in the ordinary level examination.

2.2.5: Summary of Research into identifying difficult topics in Chemistry

In examining the Irish Chief Examiner’s Reports in Chemistry along with studies
from England, Scotland and Nigeria it can be suggested that Organic Chemistry,
Equilibrium and Volumetric Analysis are found difficult across the board. It is no
wonder pupils find these topics difficult as they are abstract in nature and/or have a
high mathematical content. While these investigations offer useful information,
studies that are specific to the Irish Chemistry pupil/student are required, in order to
confirm directly the Chemistry topics that they find difficult and also to determine the
reasons why they find these particular topics problematic. This will be carried out in
phase one of this investigation.

48
Section 2.3: Why is Chemistry Difficult?
‘Chemistry has been regarded as a difficult subject by a variety of teachers,
researchers and educators. The reasons for this vary from the abstract nature of many
concepts to the difficulty of the nomenclature and symbology used in Chemistry’
(Pinarbasi and Canpolat, 2003). Brousseau (2005) highlights a number of causes of
difficulty in Chemistry. These are listed in Table 2.14 below.

Causes of Difficulty in learning Chemistry

- Abstract nature of chemistry - Use of mathematics
- Students’ cognitive development - Information overload
stage - Complexity of learning tasks in terms
- Symbolic and representational of information treatment
nature of chemistry - Communication and language
- Three levels of learning: (Sensorial - Lack of laboratory work
(macroscopic), Atomic and - Lack of discussion
molecular (microscopic) and - Students’ and teachers’
Symbolic (formula and algorithm)) misunderstandings of some
fundamental concepts

Table 2.14: Causes of Difficulty when Learning Chemistry (Brousseau, 2005)

The inherent difficulties in Chemistry are listed in Table 2.14 and again the abstract
nature of Chemistry, cognitive development and mathematical ability of the pupil are
cited as issues that cause difficulties for pupils when learning Chemistry. According
to Johnstone (2000 b) “Chemistry is a difficult subject for students. The difficulties
may lie in human learning as well as in the intrinsic nature of the subject.”

2.3.1: Difficulties cause by the intrinsic nature of Chemistry

One of the main reasons that Chemistry is difficult is because ‘it operates at three
thought levels: the macro, the micro and the symbolic’ (Mbajiorgu and Reid, 2006).
⇒ ‘The macro refers to phenomenological: what can be perceived by the senses
without the aid of instruments. This is usually concrete’ (Mbajiorgu and Reid,
2006).

49
⇒ The micro refers to that which can only be perceived with the aid of instruments
or that which is abstracted by inference from chemical processes. This is often
abstract’ (Mbajiorgu and Reid, 2006).
⇒ The symbolic refers to symbols, models and equations and these are often
representations’ (Mbajiorgu and Reid, 2006).

Alex Johnstone in 1984 was the first to introduce this concept of multilevel thought
and represented it as the points of a triangle, as seen in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Triangle of Multilevel Thought (Johnstone, 1991)

The triangle explains how chemical concepts interact between one level and the other
in the mind of the learner. Some pupils are uncomfortable with functioning at the sub-
micro and symbolic levels and hence they struggle to grasp a true understanding of
certain Chemical topics. For example a pupil would see a block of copper on the
laboratory bench (macro level). Some pupils would not understand that it is made up
of atoms of copper, as they cannot see them (sub-micro level). They cannot represent
it as Cu or write equations representing how it reacts with other substances (symbolic
level). Table 2.15 gives a detailed explanation of the different processes that occur at
these levels.
Macro Sub-Micro Symbolic
Concrete Abstract Abstract
Also Referred
Laboratory
Molecular
Representational
to as:
Macroscopic
Particulate
Description of Accounts for aspect Deals in Atoms, molecules, Phenomena and concepts
the Level of Chemistry that are ions and structures to are represented by
tangible, that can be explain what is happening symbols, formula
seen, touched and at the macroscopic level. equations, molarity,
smelt. mathematical
manipulation and graphs.
Table 2.15: Description of the three levels of multi level thought in Chemistry (adapted
from Johnstone, 2000 a)

50
In order for understanding to take place in Chemistry the three levels ‘interact and
have to be manipulated skilfully’ (Mbajiorgu and Reid, 2006). Gabel (1999) states that
‘the primary barrier to understanding chemistry, however, is not the existence of the
three levels of representing matter. It is that chemistry instruction occurs
predominantly on the most abstract level ~ the symbolic level’. It must also be noted
that ‘the novice has great difficulty in working at all three levels at the same time,
almost certainly because of information overload’ (Mbajiorgu and Reid, 2006).
Johnstone (1991) suggests that much of the difficulty associated with science learning
occurs because ‘so much of teaching takes place within the triangle where the three
levels interact in varying proportions and the teacher may be unaware of the demands
being made on the pupils’.

2.3.2: Difficulties caused by human learning in Chemistry

The manner in which a pupil learns is important in identifying why difficulties exist with
certain Chemistry topics. A large volume of research into human learning currently exists
and the following sections develop the link between difficulties in Chemistry and four
facets of this research. An understanding of the four areas of human learning, outlined
below, will help explain why topics like Organic Chemistry, Equilibrium and Volumetric
Analysis are found difficult by pupils. These areas are as follows:

1. The information processing ability and working space memory of the pupil

2. The misconceptions pupils have and the effect of these misconception on the
pupils ability to construct ideas, concepts and understanding of Chemical concepts

3. The cognitive development of the pupil

4. The mathematical ability of the pupil

The above theories can all be connected to the multi-level thought theory presented by
Johnstone as well as being interconnected among themselves; these interconnections
will be highlighted at the end of this chapter. These four factors have been selected as
there is a large body of research linking them to difficulties in Chemistry, it should be
noted there are other factors that contribute to the difficulty Chemistry poses to those
studying it.

51
2.3.3: The Information Processing Ability and Working Space Memory of the
Pupil
In the Information Processing model ‘learning is seen as a process of personal
knowledge construction and meaning making’ (Danili and Reid, 2006). ‘Information
processing is an attempt to suggest mechanisms for learning arising from a number of
psychological schools. It reminds us that perception (how we take a first view of
something) is controlled by what we already know and believe’ (Johnstone, 2000 b).
It also highlights that ‘memory is clearly important in learning’ (Mancy and Reid,
2004). It must also be stated that ‘whilst it is unlikely that models of information
processing accurately represent reality, they allow us to visualise the interaction of
different types of memory’ (Mancy and Reid, 2004). Figure 2.2 outlines the
information processing theory. While helping us to understand how learning takes
place it also helps us to realise where difficulties may lie in the learning of Chemistry.

Figure 2.2: The Information Processing Model (Mancy et al, 2004)

Stage One of Information Processing ~ Perception and Filtering of Information:

According to Johnstone et al (1998) ‘The first step in human processing and learning
is perception’. This is where information is admitted through our senses (See Stage 1
in Figure 2.2). This is a selective process in that ‘we do not attend to all of the
incoming stimuli’ (Johnstone et al, 1998). If the beginner were to respond to all
stimuli, confusion would be inevitable. ‘Selection is driven by criteria, which are
already available in the mind of the expert, his previous knowledge, interests,
misconceptions. In other words, our previous learning has an influence on new
learning’. (Johnstone et al, 1998). Perception not only has the function of selecting

52
the information perceived by our senses, it also has another function that of
‘enhancement and interpretation’ (Johnstone et al, 1998). Previously stored
information is important here also as it is ‘needed to flesh out imperfect signals’
(Johnstone et al, 1998). As can be seen from Figure 2.2 the filtered material is ‘then
admitted into the conscious part of our mind (Working Space) for further processing’
(Johnstone, 2000 b).

Stage Two of Information Processing ~ Working Space Memory:

‘Working space memory has a least two functions: to hold information temporarily
and to process it into a form that can be used or stored (Mancy and Reid, 2004). In
the Working Space Memory there is an interaction between it and the long term
memory as can be seen in Figure 2.2. The filtered information is ‘matched with things
we know, or modified into a form with which we are happy and then we decide,
consciously or otherwise, to store or reject the information’ (Johnstone, 2000 b).
According to Johnstone (1984) working space memory is ‘that part of the brain
where we hold information, work on it, organise it, and shape it, before storing it in
the long-term memory for further use’.

Stage Three of Information Processing ~ Long Term Memory:

Stage three involves putting away the new information in a form that is ‘easy to retrieve
and use’ (Johnstone at al, 1998). ‘If the synthesis of sense is achieved, it can be stored in
the long term memory’ (Johnstone, 2006). If we decide to store the new and processed
information ‘we look for clear attachments in our long term memory on which to fix our
new knowledge or experience’ (Johnstone, 2000 b). We can see that previously stored
information is important right throughout this process; it helps shape information
received by out senses and it influences how we process it in the working space memory.
‘Ausubel postulates that meaningful learning occurs when the learner’s appropriate
existing knowledge interacts with new learning. On the contrary, if such interaction does
not occur, the result is rote learning’. (Tsaparlis, 1997)
This model offers a number of explanations for problems that students have with
effective learning. The first problem is that the working space memory is ‘limited and
we can consciously handle only a limited amount of information in a given time. If we
try to manipulate too much information at once, learning can become faulty or not
take place at all, because we just overload and shut down’ (Johnstone, 2000 b)

53
‘Without continued rehearsal, items can be held in working memory for around 20
seconds’ (Brunning et al, 1995). As described above, the working space memory
holds and processes information. ‘Since working memory space is limited, the space
has to be shared between storage and processing. If too much information is to be
held, there is no capacity left for processing this information and this becomes
impossible. Working memory overload occurs when there is too much information or
too many manipulations are required simultaneously’ (Mancy and Reid, 2004).

Pupils can be classified as being field dependent or field independent learners. The
cognitive characteristic of the pupil influences the size of the working space memory
available to that pupil for processing information. Pupils that are field dependent are
‘easily affected by the ‘field’ against which the learning is done. They are easily
distracted by irrelevant material and have difficulty in discriminating between the
‘signal’ and the ‘noise’’ (Johnstone, 2006). Pupils who are field independent ‘can
focus sharply on the relevant and ignore the irrelevant noise’ (Johnstone, 2006).
Figure 2.3 illustrates how pupils that have a high working space memory but are field
dependent perform exactly as well as pupils who have a low working space memory
but who are field independent.

Figure 2.3: Effect of Field Dependence on available working space memory (Johnstone,
2006)

Figure 2.3 illustrates how ‘the Working Memory Space was effectively reduced by the
space taken up by the irrelevancies introduced by Field Dependence. The low
Working Memory Space students, who were Field Independent, had all the potential
space available for use’ (Johnstone, 2006). In conclusion ‘the field independent

54
person is capable of using his or her working memory space more efficiently simply
because it is not becoming cluttered with information irrelevant to the problem being
faced’ (Mancy and Reid, 2004).

Another problem that makes studying Chemistry difficult for pupils is the existence of
misconceptions they possess about different Chemical concepts from prior
experiences. The information processing model can explain the development of these
alternative frameworks. ‘If we try to store material in Long Term Memory and cannot
find existing knowledge with which to link it, we either ‘bend’ the knowledge to fit
somewhere (maybe completely wrong) or we try to store it unattached. The ‘bending’
process leads to Alternative Frameworks’ (Johnstone, 2000 b). Alternative
frameworks stored in the long term memory then go on to seriously affect the learning
and development of new Chemistry ideas and concepts as there is a constant
interaction between the long term memory and the perception filters and the working
space memory. The role of misconceptions and alternative frameworks in the learning
and the processing of new information will be discussed in further detail in the section
2.3.4.

So what can the Chemistry teacher take from the Information Processing Model?
Firstly this model offers an explanation as to why certain topics in Chemistry are
found difficult by pupils. These topics may either cause overload to the working space
memory of the pupil or may be affected by alternative frameworks within the long
term memory of the learner. Since working memory is of limited capacity, the teacher
must strive to maximize its usage. The teacher can also alleviate difficulties
experienced by the learner by reducing any unnecessary noise that distracts field
dependent learners. ‘Johnston and Wham (1982) suggested that working memory
overload appears to occur when the learner cannot differentiate the “message” or
important information from the “noise”; the non-essential and often irrelevant
information that the teacher is transmitting to the learners’ (Mancy et al, 2004).
Problems can be made more tangible and concrete to reduce the load placed on the
working space memory. Structured questions should be used to lead pupils through a
problem. More difficult topics should be left until the pupil is older, as the size of the
working space memory is age dependent as outlined above.

55
Ausubel et al (1978) describes two extremes in the learning processes. At one end is
‘rote learning, where students attempt to learn by placing information in memory by
repetition and in isolation from any other learned material’. The other extreme is
meaningful learning ‘in which new information is attached to existing learning,
making it richer, more interconnected and accessible through many cross references’.
The Chemistry teacher cannot underestimate the effect of previous experience and
ideas on the current learning of the pupil. If we want pupils to experience meaningful
learning, our teaching has to create the atmosphere and the opportunities for such
learning to take place. ‘If what is already in the students’ long term memory is so
crucial to the processing of new material, the preparation of long term memory before
learning is absolutely essential to enhance learning and to minimize mislearning’
(Johnstone et al, 1998).

56
2.3.4: The Chemical misconceptions pupils have and the effect of these misconceptions
on the pupils’ ability to construct ideas and their understanding of Chemical concepts
Ausubel et al (1978) who is noted for his work on problem solving stated that ‘if I had
to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I would say this: the
most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows.
Ascertain this and teach accordingly’. In our look at the Information Processing
Model the importance of what the learner has already stored in their long term
memory and its effect on the learning of new ideas and concepts has been highlighted.
Information stored in the long term memory, if incorrect, results in major difficulties
for the Chemistry pupil in learning new material. Any idea or concept that varies from
the scientifically accepted perception of the concept is deemed a ‘misconception’ or
an ‘alternative conception’. ‘Numerous researchers have discussed children’s
understanding of scientific concepts and a variety of terminologies have evolved to
describe these understandings. The terminologies include preconceptions (Driver and
Easley, 1978), children’s science (Gilbert et al.1982), misconceptions (Driver and
Easley, 1978), alternative frameworks (Driver and Erickson, 1982) and students’
descriptive and explanatory systems (Champagne et al. 1982)’ (Garnett and Garnett,
1990). For the purposes of this explanation the term misconception will be used.
Misconceptions exist as a result of the manner in which the person learns. ‘Students
either consciously or subconsciously construct their concepts as explanations for the
behaviour, properties, or theories they experience. They believe most of these
explanations are correct because these explanations make sense in terms of their
understanding of the behaviour of the world around them. Consequently, if students
encounter new information that contradicts their alternative conceptions it may be
difficult for them to accept the new information because it seems wrong’ (Mulford and
Robinson, 2002). New information may be discounted in a number of ways. ‘It may
be ignored, rejected, disbelieved, deemed irrelevant to the current issue, held for
consideration at a later time, reinterpreted in light of the student’s current theories,
or accepted with only minor changes in the student’s concept’ (Mulford and
Robinson, 2002).

When pupils study Chemistry they do not start with a blank canvas. They have a wide
variety of background knowledge. It is very important that the pupil constructs an
understanding of basic chemical concepts at the start of their studies, otherwise they

57
will have major problems understanding more advanced chemical concepts later on,
as the cognitive foundations laid are weak.

Garnett and Garnett (1990) noted this and stated that ‘the formation of misconceptions
will adversely affect an individual’s subsequent learning’. They also went on to point
out that ‘once incorrect concepts become established, they are resistant to change,
and influence and interact with the learning of related concepts’. Chemistry
inherently depends ‘on a hierarchical network of ideas’ and it follows that the
development of misconceptions has the potential to adversely affect student’
understanding of many chemical concepts to which they are introduced’ (Garnett and
Garnett, 1990). Ausubel (1978) is of the same opinion that ‘children’s ideas can be
amazingly tenacious and resistant to change’. (Ausubel et al, 1978)

The Constructivist theory can help explain why students bring misconceptions into the
classroom. It can also explain why misconceptions are difficult for pupils to alter or
change. Constructivism relies on the belief that ‘learning is an active process that
takes place in the mind of the learner, and during which information from sources in
the environment (including - but not limited to - teachers, textbooks and peers) is re-
interpreted in terms of existing knowledge and understanding’ (Taber, 2001)
Misconceptions are unacceptable conclusions, which appear quite acceptable to
learner who has successfully manipulated the (mis)concepts to fit into existing
frameworks. Misconceptions are so resistant to instruction as ‘each of us constructs
knowledge that fits our experiences. Once we have constructed this knowledge, simply
being told that we are wrong is not enough to make us change our (mis)concepts’
(Bodner, 1986).

There has been a vast amount of research carried out investigating the misconceptions
pupils possess about a vast amount of Chemistry topics. Table 2.16 outlines a number
of papers that have investigates the misconceptions associated with a number of
different Chemistry topics.

58
 Topic Author of Paper investigating misconceptions in that topic
(Year)
The Particulate Nature of - Barker (2000)
Matter - Gabel (2005)
- Jonathan et al. (2003)
- Merritt et al. (2007)
- Mulford and Robinson (2002)
- Osborne and Cosgrove (1983)
- Özmen (2004)
- Yezdan (2006)
- Yezierski and Birk (2006)
Molecules and - Garnett et al. (1995)
Intermolecular forces - Nakhleh (1992)
Chemical Equations - Garnett et al. (1995)
- Nakhleh (1992)
Chemical and Physical - Barker (2000)
Change - Eilks et al. (2007)
- Griffiths and Kirk (1992)
- Kikas and Hillar (2003)
- Mulford and Robinson (2002)
- Nakhleh (1992)
Equilibrium - Barker (2000)
- Garnett et al. (1995)
- Griffiths and Kirk (1992)
- Huddle and Pillay (1996)
- Mathabatha (2005)
- Nakhleh (1992)
Le Chateliers Principle - Barker (2000)
- Claesgens and Stacy (2003)
- Nakhleh (1992)
Stoichiometry - Barker (2000)
- Claesgens and Stacy (2003)
- Cheung and Bucat (2002)
- Gower et al.(1977)
- Griffiths and Kirk (1992)
- Huddle and Pillay (1996)
- MacDonald (1984)
Acids and Bases - Garnett et al. (1995)
- Griffiths and Kirk (1992)
Electrochemistry - Garnett et al. (1995)
- Griffiths and Kirk (1992)
Oxidation/Reduction - Garnett et al. (1995)

Table 2.16: List of research papers investigating misconceptions in a number of different

Chemistry topics

So what implications do misconceptions and the constructivist theory have for

teaching Chemistry? Firstly it is important that the teacher is aware of the
misconceptions pupils have about a topic. ‘The identification of students’ alternative

59
conceptions in chemistry has the potential to significantly improve teaching and
learning in the subject’ (Garnett et al. 1995). As misconceptions may form the mental
framework on which pupils develop new knowledge, it is important that
misconceptions are identified, confronted and replaced so that the scientific concepts
developed agree with common scientific thinking. Once misconceptions have been
identified the teacher must then, during the course of instruction, ‘provide counter-
examples, point out self contradictions and develop critical thought experiments’
(Taber, 2000). Discussion is of major importance in overcoming misconceptions. If a
student holds misconceptions they are unlikely to change them if they are just told
that their idea is incorrect. ‘Students will often need to be given time to understand
why their ideas are wrong, and why the orthodox scientific viewpoint is more
sensible’ (Taber, 2000). ‘The teacher has an important role in facilitating the social
discourse associated with science learning. This includes introducing phenomena and
the symbolism of science, helping students to establish links and bridges between their
current conceptions and those associated with more scientific conceptions, listening,
diagnosing and guiding’ (Garnett et al. 1995).

For the Chemistry teacher it is important to note that ‘the only way to get rid of an old
theory is by constructing a new theory that does a better job at explaining the
experimental evidence or finds a more appropriate set of experimental facts to
explain’ (Bodner, 1986). Teachers must help learners ‘gradually re-construct, for
themselves, the conceptual structure of a subject like chemistry. Deep foundations
must be firmly in place before any attempt is made to put together the higher
concepts. Often the metaphor of ‘scaffolding’ is used to describe the teachers’ role in
helping the learner build the edifice of a subject’ (Taber, 2001).
Teaching strategies that confront misconceptions include ‘the use of multiple
representations, discussion of demonstrations, group discussion, co-operative
learning, use of concept maps and v-diagrams and guided inquiry’ (Mulford and
Robinson, 2002). Strategies to deal with Chemical misconceptions will be discussed
further in sections 2.5.

It is also important that Chemistry teachers have confronted and overcome their own
misconceptions, and it is not always true that conventional education at school or third
level actually addresses this issue.

60
2.3.5: The Cognitive Development of the Chemistry Pupil
In the early part of the last century the prevailing view of children's cognitive activity
was that it was the same as that of adults and would become more efficient with use.
Piaget challenged this perspective by his claim that children's thinking passes through
a series of stages that progressively show greater sophistication. His idea that a child
thinks and learns in qualitatively different ways during particular developmental
periods was revolutionary at that time. In their book The Growth of Logical Thinking
from Childhood to Adolescence, Inhelder and Piaget outlined the transition of
children's thinking from the concrete operational period of childhood to the formal
operational period of adolescence. (Endler and Bond, 2001).
This work in the area of cognitive development has major implications for the
learning and teaching of Chemistry. ‘Piaget’s theory provides a framework for
understanding the difficulties that some students have. If it does not eventually show
us how to lead students to the promised land of understanding it can at least give
comfort to those in the agonies of ignorance, confusion and frustration’ (Herron,
1978) ‘Although Piaget’s work was conducted over thirty years ago, from it fruitful
research has been conducted, awakening serious implications for math and science
education’ (McLaughlin, 2003). Piaget’s work is based on how the learner develops
learning and reasoning abilities. This development is ‘constantly changing and
dependent upon the individual and on his or her interactions with the surroundings’
(Lippincott, 1978). Piaget identified four stages in the development of thought
processes. These stages are:

⇒ The Sensory Motor Stage (from birth -2 years)

⇒ The Pre-operational Stage (from 3 – 9 years)
⇒ The Concrete Operational Stage (from 7 – 11)
⇒ The Formal Operational Stage (from 11- upwards)

The ages given are approximations and dependent on the individual’s characteristics.
It is also believed that not all learners reach the formal operational stage of thought.
At second and third level education it is assumed that pupils have reached either the
concrete or formal levels of thought, therefore the sensory motor stage and the pre-
operational stage will not be discussed in great detail in this chapter.

61
The Sensory Motor Stage of cognitive development (from birth -2 years):
This period of cognitive development extends from the birth of an individual to two
years of age. ‘In this period a child learns about his or her relationship to various
objects. This period included learning a variety of fundamental movements and
perceptual activities. Knowledge involves the ability to manipulate objects such as
holding a bottle. In the later part of this period the child starts to think about events
which are not immediately present. In Piaget’s terms the child is developing meaning
for symbols’ (Wankat and Oreovicz, 1993).

The Pre-operational stage of cognitive development (from 3-9 years):

This stage lasts from two years of age to approximately nine years of age. ‘Piaget has
divided this stage into the preoperational phase and the intuitive phase. In the
preoperational phase children use language and try to make sense of the world but
have a much less sophisticated mode of thought than adults. They need to test
thoughts with reality on a daily basis and do not appear to be able to learn from
generalizations made by adults. Compared to adults, the thinking of a child in the
preoperational phase is very concrete and self-centred. The child’s reasoning is often
very crude, and he or she is unable to make very simple logical extensions’ (Wankat
and Oreovicz, 1993).

After this the child enters the intuitive phase. ‘In the intuitive phase the child slowly
moves away from drawing conclusions based solely on concrete experiences with
objects. However, the conclusions drawn are based on rather vague impressions and
perceptual judgments. At first, the conclusions are not put into words and are often
erroneous (and amusing to adults). Children are perception-bound and often very
rigid in their conclusions. Rational explanations have no effect on them because they
are unable to think in a cause-and-effect manner. During this phase children start to
respond to verbal commands and to override what they see. It becomes possible to
carry on a conversation with a child. Children develop the ability to classify objects
on the basis of different criteria, learn to count and use the concept of numbers (and
may be fascinated by counting), and start to see relationships if they have extensive
experience with the world. Unaware of the processes and categories that they are
using, children are still preoperational. Introspection and metathought are still
impossible’ (Wankat and Oreovicz, 1993).

62
The Concrete Operational stage of thought:
Is characterised by ‘the need to see physical objects or models of objects. Only then
can objects be imagined and thought about’ (Cracolice, 2005). The concrete
operational pupil can ‘conserve in all forms, numbers, area and liquid’. An example
is given in Figure 2.4 below where the child answers the conservation question
correctly and can give a logical reason as to why the amounts of liquid are the same in
each container.

Figure 2.4: Conservation of volume is understood by Concrete operational learners

Concrete Thinking Skills Description

Conservation of number The number of objects in a group remains the same no matter
their arrangement
Conservation of liquid amount The amount of liquid remains the same no matter the size or
shape of the container in which it is held
Conservation of solid amount The amount of solid remains the same no matter its shape
Conservation of area The area uncovered remains the same when equal numbers of
objects of equal area are placed on a two-dimensional surface,
no matter whether the objects are placed together or apart
Conservation of length The length of objects is the same no matter their shape or
position
Conservation of weight The weight of a solid remains the same no matter its shape

Conservation of displaces volume Displaced volume is equal to the volume of the displacing
object, no matter its density
Ordering An observable property can be used to establish an order
among objects, events, etc.
Correspondence Different objects can be related in number, size, amount, etc.

(Simple and Multiple) Objects can be classified into one- or two- dimensional
classification/class inclusion categories; a class can exist within another more inclusive
class
Table 2.17: Summary of concrete thinking skills (Cracolice, 2005)

63
‘Concrete Operational Concepts are concepts whose meaning can be developed from
first- hand experience with objects or events’ (Lawson and Renner, 1975). Table 2.17
above highlights tasks concrete operational thinkers are able to perform.

The Formal Operational stage of thought:

‘Formal thought is characterised by the ability to imagine unobservable entities. It is
not context bound. A formal thinker can read a description of an ion in water and
form a mental model of the solution’ (Cracolice, 2005). People in the formal
operational stage ‘can apply processes to more abstract problems and hypotheses’
(Cracolice, 2005). Formal operational thought is characterised by the ‘ability to go
beyond observable data and familiar objects, and to apply mental operations to
concepts, abstractions and theories in qualitative and quantitative ways’ (Lippincott,
1978). Table 2.18 highlights tasks formal operational thinkers are able to perform.

Formal Thinking Skills Description

Control and Exclusion of variables Holding independent variables and one dependent
variable in mind, and considering the possible effects of
each independent variable on the dependent variable
Classification The processes of understanding the possible ways that a
classification may be carried out, understanding that any
classification operation is part of a hierarchical system,
selecting different criteria for different purposes, and
understanding that one particular criterion does not
necessarily allow prediction of others
Ratio and proportion Ratio: y=mx (as x goes up, so must y):
Proportionality: Comparison of two ratios
Compensation and equilibrium Compensation: yx=m (as y goes up, x must cone down);
Equilibrium: ab=cd
Correlation Determination of correlation among variables
Probability Simple sampling procedures: acceptance of the
probabilistic nature of natural relationships.
Formal models Model: representation of something else; working model:
has different parts which move and which hold the same
relationships to one another as in the real thing; formal
model: a working model in which the moving parts are
abstract entities which have to be imagined.
Logical reasoning The ability to analyse the combinational relations present
in information giving
Hypothetico-deductive reasoning The ability to formulate and test alternative hypotheses
against given data.
Table 2.18: Summary of formal thinking skills (Cracolice, 2005)

64
‘A formal thinker need not consider reality only; a concrete thinker must. A formal
thinker places all information in the context of a form of thought, a concrete thinker
must utilise the concrete information he receives. Both can gather information
through explorations, understand and create conceptual inventions, and make
discoveries about those inventions. The concrete thinker’s inventions will deal only
with reality and formal thinker’s inventions will deal not only with reality but also
with the possible’ (Renner, 1976). Further difference between concrete and formal
thinkers are illustrated in table 2.19

Concrete Operational Thinking Formal Operational Thinking

Needs reference to familiar actions, objects, Can reason with concepts, relationships, abstract
and observable properties properties, axioms, and theories; uses symbols
to express ideas
Needs step-by-step instructions in lengthy Can plan a lengthy procedure given certain
procedure overall goals and resources
Is not aware of his own reasoning, Is aware and critical of his own reasoning;
inconsistencies among various statements he actively seeks checks on the validity of his
makes, or contradictions with other known conclusions by appealing to other known
facts information
Table 2.19: Concrete versus Formal Reasoning patterns (Karplus, 1977)

As outlined above the maturation of the child is a factor that has significant effect on the
cognitive development of the pupils. Other factors, as outlined by Piaget, that effect
cognitive development are:
- The everyday experiences of the pupil ~ according to Piaget (1973) it is
‘absolutely necessary that learners have at their disposal concrete material
experiences (and not merely pictures), and that they form their own hypotheses
and verify them (or not verify them) themselves through their own active
manipulations. The observed activities of others, including those of the teacher,
are not formative of new organizations in the child’
- Social interaction ~ Social interaction becomes an influential factor on cognitive
development when the learner accepts and processes the views of others. This
usually occurs between 6-7 years of age. Peer interactions become valuable
settings that stimulate cognitive conflict. Activities such as Role-playing and
group activities are situations that encourage social interactions.
- Equilibration ~ Assimilation, is the interpretation of new learning experiences
within existing cognitive structures. Accommodation is the modification of

65
 existing thinking/cognitive structures to take account of new learning experiences.
When a balance between these two processes occurs this is called equilibration.
Cognitive development is the progressive increase in equilibrium.

These factors interact to effect the cognitive development of the pupil. Maturation and
Equilibration are variables outside the control of the educator; however social
interaction and the experiences of the pupils can be altered and manipulated in the
classroom.

One of the primary indicators of formal operational thought is the ability of pupils to
work with proportions. ‘Piaget considers the ability to reason proportionally to be a
primary indicator of formal operational thought’ (McLaughlin, 2003). Chemistry
pupils need to be able to work with proportions. For example, they need to covert
moles to grams or molar volume to ppm. etc. Pupils encountering problems with
proportionality will invariably have problems with concepts like the mole. Shayer
(1970) ‘showed that a pupil must have reached Piaget’s formal operational stage to
be able to handle the proportionalities involved in early work with the mole. He
argued that even the top 20% of the ability range will not have reached the stage of
formal operations to any great extent by the beginning of the 3rd year when the mole
is introduced’.

Problem solving is another ‘higher order cognitive skill’ (Zoller, 1993). Problem solving
is a ‘process in which various reasoning patterns are combined, refined, extended and
invented. It is much more that substituting numbers in well-known and practiced
formulas; it deals with creativity, lateral thinking and formal knowledge’ (Cardellini,
2006) and hence is an area of difficulty for Chemistry students.
Other concepts that require formal operational reasoning as outlined by Piaget include
‘atomic and molecular structure, relative molecular mass, the mole, molar volume,
Avogadro’s constant, the building up of the periodic table on the basis of the atomic
(electronic structure, chemical bonds (ionic and covalent), chemical reactions,
stoichiometic calculations’ (Georgiadou and Tsaparlis, 2000).

Chemistry represents one of the most abstract and symbolic of disciplines and its study
therefore places high cognitive demands on learners (Johnstone, 1991). However

66
Chiappetta (1976) concluded after studying a number of investigations that most
adolescents and young adults have not attained the formal operational stage of cognitive
development. Most of our students operate at the concrete operational stage, although
teachers and curricula assume they are capable of formal operational thought. Therefore
it can be suggested that the difficulties pupils meet in Chemistry are a result of the failure
of a student at the concrete operational stage to operate on the formal operational stage
and deal with abstract concepts that are ingrained in Chemistry.

In Piaget’s theory of cognitive development it is also interesting to note that while not all
learners reach the formal operational stage of thought those that do, on occasion revert
back to the concrete operational stage. ‘Functioning below one’s intellectual potential
may be the rule rather than the exception, Farrell (1969) has stated that formal
operational individuals have the capacity to use formal operations but are not compelled
to do so. Individuals many times revert to earlier stages of functioning’ (Chiappetta,
1976). A point of interest for the Chemistry teacher it that regression from the formal
operational stage to the concrete operation stage ‘appears to occur when individuals are
confronted with subject matter that is new to them. Supposedly individuals return to their
general level of development after sufficient experience with the new subject matter’.
(Chiappetta, 1976). Bearing this in mind, it suggests that when introducing new material
it should be done in a concrete and tangible manner, as all pupils, both concrete and
formal thinkers, will benefit from this type of instruction.

‘One of the primary aims of science education is to promote intellectual development to

the point where individuals can function at the formal operational level, at least within
the content of science’ (Chiappetta, 1976). There are a number of practices that can
obstruct this development. ‘Rote, algorithmic-type teaching and learning hinders
chemistry students’ development of conceptual understanding and higher-level thinking
skills. Because they lack understanding of concepts in chemistry and the required
mathematical skills, many students are unable to draw the proper relations among the
various concepts and the quantitative representations of these concepts’ (Robinson,
2003). A lack of understanding of the introductory topics in Chemistry has further
implications as it ‘hinders understanding of subsequent topics and leads to even more
reliance on memorised techniques’. (Robinson, 2003). Current structures in Irish
Chemistry education promote the techniques of rote learning and memorisation, which as

67
can be seen have potential detrimental effect in the development of formal operational
students. 'The ability to classify students as concrete or formal is not as important as the
realisation that there are concrete operational students in our courses’ (Bodner, 1986). If
one is aware of the reasoning patterns needed to understand a particular topic ‘a teacher
can both identify the conceptual emphasis and demands of the subject matter and help
students develop more advanced reasoning patterns that they use currently’ (Karplus,
1977). It is also important that the Chemistry teacher is aware of the areas of the
Chemistry course that require pupils to function at the formal operational stage of
thought.

From section 2.2 one of the topics that emerged as being a major area of difficulty for
Chemistry pupils was Organic Chemistry. Work by Shayer and Adey (1981) can help
explain the difficulty pupils have with this topic in relation to cognitive development.
Shayer and Adey (1981) ran a Curriculum Analysis Taxonomy (CAT) on the Chemistry
curriculum which divided Chemistry topics according to the level of cognitive
development required to understand them. Table 2.20 shows the CAT for Organic
Chemistry.

Topic 2A: Early 2B: Late 3A: Early 3B: Late Formal
concrete Concrete Formal
Organic ---------- Names of Classification Reactions between
Chemistry simple of a few simple compounds, and
compounds, families in deductive/explanatory
and their terms of their model of properties of
physical common compounds in terms of
properties. functional their functional groups
group. and 3d structure.

Appreciates that there is

a system of possible
transformations between
different families of
compounds and can
begin to store
knowledge of a system
Table 2.20: The Curriculum Analysis Taxonomy (CAT) for Organic Chemistry, (Shayer and
Adey, 1981)

From Table 2.20 it can be seen that a high proportion of the content of Organic
Chemistry requires pupils to operate at the formal operational stage of cognitive

68
development. If pupils are not operating at this cognitive level, then it is not a surprise
that they would find this topic difficult.

With regard the work of Jean Piaget it should be highlighted that the stages of cognitive
development identified are not as readily applicable as first thought. Studies have shown
that as a result of the selective cohort used by Piaget in his study, the ages that pupils
reach the formal operational stage of thought as reported by Piaget are very ambitious. In
fact it would be fair to say that a relatively small percentage of pupils that have reached
the formal operational stage of thought by age 16 (end of compulsory education in
(Ireland). Shayer et al (1976) tested schoolchildren over a wide range of ability in the UK
and ‘found that by 16 years of age only about 30 percent of young people had achieved
early formal operations’. Figure 2.5 looks at the cognitive levels of male and female
pupils in the UK in 1976 and 2003. It shows that the majority of pupils operate at the
concrete levels of cognitive development and also shows there has been a gradual decline
in the cognitive development of pupils between 1976 and 2003 (Shayer et al., 2007).
Interestingly the difference between boys and girls in 1976 has disappeared in 2003.

Figure 2.5: Change in Piagetian level for boys and girls between 1976 and 2003 (Shayer et
al., 2007)

In two separate studies carried out in Botswana (Prophet and Vlaardingerbroek, 2003)
and Turkey (Cepni et al, 2003) results also indicate that a very small percentage of pupils
have reached the formal operational stage of cognitive development. Prophet and
Vlaardingerbroek (2003) indicate that 14% of junior secondary school pupils (14-17

69
years of age) and 30% of senior secondary school pupils (17-19 years of age) had reached
the early formal operational stages of cognitive development. 13.1% of Turkish middle
school pupils (approximately 11 years of age) had reached this stage of formal
operational development. These results show that original ages speculated by Piaget in
his work were over ambitious, due to his use of a selective school population.

Chemistry is an abstract subject and much of it requires formal operational thought. As a

result of over-estimating the cognitive ability of our pupils, we have created the problem
that Chemistry is perceived as being a difficult subject. By teaching in a way accessible
only to a small percentage of our brightest pupils we convince the rest that Chemistry is
too difficult for them.

Chemistry teachers must remember that ‘a concrete thinker does not become a formal
operational thinker by constantly being confronted with formal operational tasks and
concepts’ (Lawson and Renner, 1975). It is of major importance that the teacher realises
that all learners’ process new information at the concrete level first, before moving it onto
the formal operational stage. In a study by Chiappetta (1976) it was discovered that
‘formal operational subjects achieved significantly higher scores as a result of concrete
instruction than from formal instruction’. The learner must meet situations that are at the
‘concrete level but which also will add to and challenge his thinking ability to promote
progress to higher levels’ (Lawson and Renner, 1975).‘It seems clear that most of the
subject matter taught in chemistry courses is developed on a abstract, conceptual level,
but many students can reason only at a lower cognitive level’ (Goodstein and Howe,
1978). In conclusion ‘meaningful learning of a concept can result only when the
individual has available the cognitive skills necessary to develop an understanding of
that concept’ (Bearison, 1975). The Chemistry teacher must be aware of the different
cognitive levels present in their classroom. They must also differentiate between the
topics in Chemistry that require lower order cognitive skills and higher order cognitive
skills. This is vital when sequencing topics over the course of the year’s instruction or
over a two or three year course. More concrete subject matter should be introduced first
and then followed by abstract ideas. The Chemistry teacher also needs to be aware of
strategies that bring about the development of a pupil from the concrete operational stage
of reasoning to the formal operational stage. The traditional manner in which many
abstract Chemistry topics are currently taught can be easily introduced by the Chemistry

70
teacher in a more concrete manner. This would be of benefit to everyone in the Chemistry
classroom, whatever their cognitive level.

Criticisms of the work of Piaget are well documented. As mentioned above, much
speculation surrounds the proposed age at which pupils reach the formal operational stage
of cognitive development also. Donaldson (1978) feels that similar work done on the
development of thinking with pre-school children suggests that young children are
capable of much more sophisticated thinking than Piaget's theory proposed. Younger
pupils’ results in studies carried out by Piaget may have been affected by the difficult
language used in the assessment tasks. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development may
have inherent flaws. However, it is indeed a useful theory in understanding how one
learns and should influence the structure and sequencing of our school Science and
Chemistry curriculum. Material that is beyond the pupils’ present stage of cognitive
development should not be taught until the pupil has the cognitive structures available to
deal with the topic. For the teacher, the sequence and way in which they teach topics in
Chemistry should be influenced by this.

2.3.6: The Mathematical Ability of the Chemistry Pupil

Chemistry is regarded as being difficult because of its abstract nature but also cited as a
reason for its difficulty is its mathematical content. Work by Coll et al (2006) indicates that
‘numeracy is the major issue’ for Chemistry students. ‘Research suggests that science
students frequently struggle with numerical calculations for chemistry topics such as
stoichiometry and equilibrium, and that this is associated with generally weak
mathematical skills’ (Coll et al, 2006). The content knowledge of Chemistry is often tested
with mathematically-based questions. These questions usually take the form of word
problems. A word problem ‘defines some given state and goal with no obvious or
immediate methods of getting from the former to the latter’ (Bunce, 2005). An example of a
word problem is given in Figure 2.6 below.

Phosphoric acid (H3 PO4 ) is used in detergents, fertilisers, toothpastes, and

carbonated beverages. Calculate the percent composition by mass of H, P and O in
this compound.

Figure 2.6: Sample word problem (Bunce, 2005)

71
A pupil’s mathematical ability is closely associated with their cognitive development.
A number of papers demonstrate that formal thought is imperative for mathematic and
Chemistry problem solving (Boujaoude et al, 2004 and Lewis et al, 2007). As cited
above, Piaget deems proportionality as an indicator of someone being able to function
on the formal operational level. ‘The scheme of proportions is one of the grand
concepts of mathematics’ (Goodstein, 1983). Piagets’ work particularly suited the
thinking needed in Mathematics and Science. Many topics in Chemistry require the
use of proportionality e.g. Mole calculations, gas law problems etc. Pupils operating
at concrete operational stage of cognitive development may then find many aspects of
the Chemistry curriculum difficult as a result of the Mathematical content inherent in
many Chemistry topics.

A current characteristic of Chemistry pupils, which is causing massive difficulty in dealing

with problems such as the one above, is that students have a tendency to ‘doggedly memorise
one kind of problem for application to the next kind’ (Goodstein, 1983). This may be a
learning response in individuals with a poor cognitive structure, which helps them cope with
the mathematical content of some topics. Pupils feel that one formula fits all, when in fact it
doesn’t and issues arise when concepts are changed slightly or new concepts are introduced.
As a result of this pupils are ‘unable to link concepts, or to work out problems that they have
not encountered before. If they are unable to make links between concepts (e.g. relationships
between the mole, molar mass and mass) they are unlikely to be able to select appropriate
algorithms or manipulate equations to achieve the solution to a complex scientific
mathematic problems’ (Coll et al, 2006). Figure 2.7 highlights the mathematical requirement
in the Leaving Certificate as outlined by the Department of Education.

72
Figure 2.7: The mathematical requirements of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry Course
(Leaving Certificate Chemistry Syllabus)

73
As can be seen in Figure 2.7, pupils need an understanding of basic arithmetic and algebra
in order to be able to deal with the mathematics in Chemistry. Proportionality underlies a
large number of mathematical problems in arithmetic and algebra, therefore pupils need to
master this mathematical concept, otherwise they will face difficulties in a large number of
Chemistry calculations. There is clearly a close link between Mathematical ability and the
cognitive level of pupils.

Cotton (2000) states that ‘students with little mathematical background feel disadvantaged
and, indeed, resentful’ in the Chemistry class. He noted that ‘even those with AS or A-
Level mathematics were not confident in their handling of the mathematical parts of
Chemistry. There was a widespread feeling that lack of experience of calculations
involving, say, percentage yield or pKa, coupled with an over-reliance on calculators, has
bred a generation of A-Level chemistry who have very little intuitive feel for numbers.’
Cotton then makes a very valid point that ‘if the handling of significant figures and units is
poor, what chance do students have of making intelligent estimates of errors?’

It is also important to acknowledge the gender difference that exists in mathematical

ability, as invariably these differences will have an effect on how male and female students
deal with the mathematical aspects of different Chemistry topics. ‘Many surveys at an
international and cross-national level in mathematics have confirmed previous knowledge
about gender differences in performance. These differences suggest that, on average, males
and females in the earlier stages of schooling perform similarly in mathematics but as age
increases males generally outperform females, and by 15/16 males achieve better
performances in virtually all aspects of mathematics tested’ (Elwood and Carlisle, 2001).
Research by Boli et al. (1985) found some persistent differences between males and
females and suggests that ‘girls perform better at computational tasks and boys perform
better at higher level cognitive tasks’. This view has been refuted with other researchers
finding little difference in mathematical ability between the genders. One aspect that
researchers agree on is that males do have a better view of their ability than females. ‘The
largest differences between boys and girls with respect to mathematics lie in the affective
domain, that is, in their attitudes towards and self-confidence regarding mathematics
(Eccles, 1982). Boys are more self-confident about mathematics than girls (Fox, Tobin, &
Brody, 1979), less likely to "explain away" their success in mathematics as a matter of luck

74
(Wolleat, Pedro, Becker, & Fennema, 1980), and feel that studying mathematics is more
likely to be useful later on (Fox, 1980)’ (Boli et al, 1985).

So what does this mean for the Chemistry teacher? First of all, it is important that the
teacher realises that pupils’ mathematical ability affects those pupils’ performance in
chemistry and their ability to handle certain Chemistry topics. It is most certainly related to
the pupil’s cognitive development and their ability to deal with abstract concepts. The rote
learning of formulae is not of any benefit to pupils. Pupils need to be able to link concepts
together and develop their own thought strategies for tackling the mathematical aspects of
Chemistry. ‘Pupils’ confidence in mathematics has a massive influence on how they deal
with numerical concepts in Chemistry and the teacher must be aware that females are more
likely to be less confident than males in this regard’ (Bunce,2005). A number of sub-skills
that are necessary for the solving of mathematical word problems, which may be of use to
the teacher were listed by Bunce (2005). They are as follows:
1. Visualising and constructing a diagram of the problem situation
2. Identifying the underlying concepts/principles of the problems
3. Developing a solution plan
4. Computing the answer
5. Checking the answer and solution plan for accuracy and logic

2.3.7: A summary of explanations as to why pupils find Chemistry difficult

The reasons why pupils find certain Chemistry topics difficult have been discussed in
great detail above. However, it is important to point out that these reasons are
definitely interconnected. Problems initially arise for pupils as they struggle to move
between the macro, sub-micro and symbolic levels of Chemistry. This movement
between the three different levels is particularly difficult for pupils who operate at a
concrete operational level. Pupils who operate at the concrete operational stage will
most likely struggle with the ‘symbolic’ and ‘submicro’ corners of the triangle.
There is a major interaction between the multilevel thought aspect of Chemistry and
the Information Processing model for learning that was developed by Johnstone
(1991).

75
 Figure 2.8: The interaction between the Triangle of Multilevel Thought and the
Information Processing Model can explain why pupils find certain topics in Chemistry
difficult

It has been noted that overload occurs due to the multilevel nature of Chemistry.
‘Inside the triangle lies the potential for gross overload of Working Memory Space’
(Johnstone, 2006). ‘Experienced chemists can manipulate all three, but this is not so
for the learner’ (Johnstone, 2000 a). Another result of the relationship between the
concept of multilevel thought and the information processing model is that ‘when the
learner tries to store this triple layer sandwich of information, it is unlikely that he is
going to find useful or useable points of attachment in the long term memory and so
there is an attempt to bend or manipulate the information into a more tangible form’
(Johnstone, 2000 b). This results in the development of alternative frameworks and
misconceptions that were shown above to have a negative effect on future learning.

In short pupils who operate only on the concrete operational level, are more likely to
be unable to move between the three levels of thought in Chemistry and are more
likely to overload their working space memory when learning and studying difficult
Chemistry topics. They are also likely to have unstable and incorrect structures in
their long term memory that will hinder understanding of topics and make the study of
Chemistry very difficult for that pupil. Figure 2.9 and 2.10 represent in a schematic
form the thought processes of an unsuccessful learner and a successful learner in
Chemistry based on the learning theories put forward by Johnstone and Piaget.
The diagrams illustrate how the Multilevel Thought Theory and the Information
Processing Model interact in the learning of Chemistry. Figure 2.9 shows where
difficulties arise in the learning of Chemistry and how memory overload and the
development of misconceptions can occur.

76
 Figure 2.9: The Thought Processes of an Unsuccessful Learner in Chemistry

From Figure 2.9 it can be seen that the unsuccessful learner in Chemistry has a very
unstable base from which to work. An unsuccessful learner finds it difficult to move
between the three thought levels in Chemistry. The learner is comfortable with
concrete tangible topics however when interaction between the other levels is required
for further learning, the pupil faces major difficulties. In the case of a pupil who
operates at the concrete operational stage, interaction between the macro, sub-micro
and symbolic levels results in the overloading of the Short Term Memory. The Long
Term Memory of an unsuccessful learned in Chemistry is fragile as a result, and may
possess numerous misconceptions that will not support new information being
processed in the Short Term Memory.

77
 Figure 2.10: The Thought Processes of a Successful Learner in Chemistry

From Figure 2.10 it can be seen that the successful learner in Chemistry has a much
more stable base on which to work in comparison to the unsuccessful Chemistry
learner. The Successful learner in Chemistry can move easily between the sub-micro,
symbolic and macro levels of thought. This movement does not cause overload of the
Working Space Memory and the interaction between the Working Space Memory and
the strong Long Term Memory (which is mostly free of misconceptions) results in
pupils successfully understanding a topic in Chemistry that may be perceived as
difficult by other pupils.

It is imperative to assess the cognitive level, working space memory capabilities and
previous conceptions of Chemistry pupils in order to determine the effect each is
having on learning. Results of these tests will help format, shape and develop teaching
materials and strategies which will aim to avoid overload, encourage the development
of formal thinkers and minimise the effect misconceptions have on pupils learning. As
a result of these interventions it is hoped that topics in Chemistry that were previously
perceived as being difficult will no longer pose as much of a problem for Chemistry
pupils and promote positive attitudes towards the subject.

78
Section 2.4: Cognitive Development Intervention Programmes
‘It seems clear that most of the subject matter taught in chemistry courses is developed on a
abstract, conceptual level, but many pupils can reason only at a lower cognitive level’
(Goodstein and Howe, 1978). Much research has been carried out in the area of teaching
thinking skills and the development of ones cognitive ability. Over the past number of
years the programmes which have attracted most attention and indeed have been successful
in this aim are described below:

2.4.1: Instrumental Enrichment (IE)

This approach was developed by Feuerstein et al over fifty years ago is described as a
context independent intervention. ‘Remedial in its outlook and initially intended for slow
learning adolescents, it is now used across wider age groups and abilities. Extensive
evaluations of IE show positive effects primarily on measures of non-verbal reasoning.
Studies also show the importance of training for teachers, substantial exposure to IE
materials (1-2 years) and IE taught in conjunction with topics of interest and importance to
the students’ (McGuinness, 1999). ‘Its major goal sought to increase the capacity if the
human organism to become modified through direct exposure to stimuli and experiences
provided by the encounters with life events and with formal and informal learning
opportunities’ (Maume and Mathews, 2000). The Instrumental Enrichment course consists
of ten instruments each having a number of lessons. Each lesson lasts for approximately
one hour. The lessons were administered to students three to five times a week for two
years. This programme was developed from three different theories: Piagetian psychology,
the Information processing model and the work of Vygotsky. The IE model stressed the
importance of Mediated Learning Experiences (MLE), where adults played a central role in
mediating between environmental stimuli and the students. ‘MLE were thought to give the
skills and capabilities necessary to learn efficiently from exposure to stimuli. When
performance of control and experimental subjects was measured it was found that on
various psychological tests, experimental sybjects did substantially better than the control
group’ (Feuerstein et al, 1980). Instrumental Enrichment influenced and inspired a number
of other approaches to increasing pupils thinking skills. One of these programmes (CASE)
will be discussed in detail in the following sections.

79
2.4.2: Philosophy for Children (P4C):
P4C is an example of a cognitive education approach from a philosophical perspective and
is described as a context delivered approach. It is critical thinking skills course developed
by Michael Lipman. The goal of P4C is to ‘improve children’s reasoning abilities and
judgement by having them think about thinking as they discuss concepts of importance to
them’. The approach can be used across the curriculum particularly in the context of social
and moral education where the philosophical emphasis on questions and questioning is
important’ (McGuinness, 2005).
McGuinness (2005) states that P4C lessons require a stimulus to promote children’s
curiosity, questioning and wonder. Lessons consist of stories about children and
adolescents who are figuring out for themselves the laws of reasoning, producing counter-
examples, looking for evidence, examining different points of view etc. Evaluations show
positive effects along many dimensions other than standard achievement tests, for example,
in terms of the quality of children’s discussion and argumentative skills, ability to
formulate questions, self-esteem, and so on’ (Fisher, 1998)

2.4.3: Social development theory and Constructivism:

Constructivism is a theory of knowledge which is based on the idea that humans
generate knowledge and meaning from experiences in their everyday life. The social
development theory explains that consciousness and cognition are the end products of
socialization and social behaviour. This theory was developed by Lev Vygotsky, who
focused on the connections between people and the sociocultural context in which
they act and interact in shared experiences (Crawford, 1996). The social development
theory asserts three major themes ~ social interaction, the more knowledgeable other
and the zone of proximal development:
1. Social interaction: plays a fundamental role in the process of cognitive
development. Vygotsky felt social learning precedes development. He states:
“Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the
social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people and then
inside the child.” (Vygotsky, 1978).
2. The More Knowledgeable Other (MKO): The MKO refers to anyone who has a
better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner, with respect to a
particular task, process, or concept. The MKO is normally thought of as being a

80
 teacher, coach, or older adult, but the MKO could also be peers, a younger person,
or even computers.
3. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): The ZPD is the distance between a
student’s ability to perform a task under adult guidance and/or with peer
collaboration and the student’s ability to solve the problem independently.
According to Vygotsky, learning occurs in this zone. The developers of the
Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) programme (outlined
below in section 2.4.4) were influenced by this concept of the Zone of Proximal
Development.

2.4.4: Cognitive Acceleration (C.A):

1973 saw the establishment of Concepts in Secondary Mathematics and Science
(CSMS), which aimed to determine the cognitive profile of pupils in the UK, which
until this point had not yet been investigated. Science Reasoning Tasks (SRTs) were
developed and published to assess the ability of children or adults to use concrete and
formal reasoning strategies, as described by Piaget. In total seven tasks were developed
to assess an individual’s level of cognitive development. The tasks were not content
specific and each task can assess a selected number of reasoning strategies, associated
with a specified Piagetian stage of cognitive development. From 1974 – 1976 the
members of the CSMS team surveyed 14, 000 pupils between the ages of 10 and 16
years. The results of this investigation are shown in Figure 2.11. The results show the
proportion of children at each age, who are at or above each stage of development. For
example, the late concrete line in Figure 2.11 shows that approximately 35 percent of
10 year olds were at or above that stage, while over 80 per cent of 15 year olds had
reached this stage. The last formal line shows that the late formal stage only becomes
significantly noticeable between ages 12 and 13 and by age 15 only approximately 10%
have reached this stage.

81
Figure 2.11: Proportion of children at different Piagetian stages in a representative British
child population (Shayer and Adey, 1981)

Figure 2.12 shows the percentage of pupils, from different school types, at a particular
stage of cognitive development. The school types were as follows:
(a) The sample representative of all pupils in England and Wales,
(b) A sample drawn from grammar schools (typically only students in the top 15 to 20
percent ability range are selected to attend such schools) and
(c) A sample drawn from schools that typically select students in the top 8 per cent ability
range

Figure 2.12: Proportion of pupils showing early formal (3A) thinking in the three different
populations; a, b and c (Shayer and Adey, 1981)

82
Figure 2.12 clearly shows the difference in cognitive ability between highly selective
and non-selective schools. On analysis of the results from the CSMS it emerged that
only about 30 percent of students at the ages of 14/15 years demonstrated formal
operational thinking. The study also found, for SRTs I and II, small but significant
gender differences. Overall girls performed worse than boys from ages 9 to 15+.
Results of SRT III showed no such gender difference up until age 13+. After this there
seemed to be a plateau in girl's cognitive development, one year earlier than for boys.
These results can be seen in Figure 2.13.

Figure 2.13: Proportion of boys and girls at different Piagetian stages in a representative
British population on SRT III: The Pendulum (NERF, 1978)

Based on the results of the SRT, the next step involved an analysis of the current
curriculum to establish the cognitive demands made on the pupil by that curriculum.
They called this the Cognitive Analysis Taxonomy (CAT). On comparing the results
of SRTs and the CAT it emerged that ‘there was a significant mismatch between the
demands of the curriculum and they type of thinking available in the population’
(Adey, 1999).This mismatch between expectations made of students and their ability
prompted Adey and Shayers’ belief that an intervention was needed. The work of
Piaget and Vygotsky's outlined above, in the area of cognitive development

83
influenced Adey and Shayers’ work in developing methods to accelerate cognitive
development. This is discussed in section 2.3.5 and 2.4.3.

2.4.4.1: Cognitive Acceleration (C.A): CASE and related projects:

The Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) project has been the
most successful approach in promoting formal operational thinking. CASE is an
‘innovative teaching approach elaborated out of research into cognitive development
based largely on the work of Piaget and also incorporated fundamental tenets of
Vygotsky’s theories of learning. The programme aims to improve children’s thinking
processes by accelerating progress towards higher order thinking skills or what Piaget
termed formal operations’ (Adey, 1999). CASE was developed in the 1970’s at Chelsea
College in London as a response to the fact that the science curriculum in the UK made
demands beyond the intellectual capabilities of most of the students. The aim of the
CASE project was to develop the thinking abilities of students, initially among 11-14
year olds, in order for them to better attain the objectives of the curriculum. The authors
of the CASE programme (Michael Shayer, Philip Adey and Paula Yeats) were strongly
influenced by the Instrumental Enrichment programme, developed by Feuerstein et al,
and Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development. The founding group in Chelsea College,
led by Professor Michael Shayer, were also influenced by the work of Piaget in the area
of cognitive development and as a result explored the possibility of accelerating pupils’
cognitive development through an intervention programme. Some of the starting
assumptions of the CASE study were that:

o It is valid to work on the basis of some general intellectual function in children

which had a context-independent component;
o This function develops through a process of interaction between maturation and
environmental conditions; and
o Children’s intelligence (or stage of cognitive development relative to age norms)
was sufficiently flexible to be amenable to change by a well-designed intervention
which provided a cognitively stimulating environment.
(Adey et al, 2002)

84
The CASE team worked on the ‘premise that it was possible to teach general thinking
skills that would benefit the students by developing their higher order thinking skills’
(Maume and Mathews 2000). The CASE project began with an exploratory project
known as CASE I (1981-1983). The main project, CASE II (1984-1989), measured
the short and long term effects of participation in the CASE the programme. The
results indicate that teachers can indeed enhance reasoning ability in their pupils.
These results will be discussed in detail in the next section. As mentioned above,
lessons in the CASE project dealt with formal, abstract topics and the following are
the key aspects of the CASE curricula.

Structure of the CASE intervention programme:

CASE is a two year intervention programme consisting of 32 lessons. The programme
of lessons associated with the CASE project was titled ‘Thinking Science’. These
lessons were delivered at a rate of one every two weeks over the two year period.
CASE is an intervention programme taught through Science, however, the subject that
it is taught through is not important. The authors stipulate that it is the thinking that is
important. CASE lessons are separate from the main Science curriculum. ‘The CASE
curriculum is designed to challenge the students’ present concepts in Science and
present them with problems that they are unable to solve using their current
strategies. The teaching method involves specific management of classes so that every
pupil participates in constructing ideas while working on task in small groups and
then listens while these ideas are shared in whole class discussion (Adey, 1999).

The lessons of the CASE intervention were designed around the schema of formal
operations. The main reasoning patterns of formal operations can be classified as follows:
1. Handling of variables, which include control and exclusion of variables and
classification.
2. Relationship between variables, which involves ratio and proportionality,
compensation and equilibrium, correlation and probability and
3. Formal models which focus on construction and use of formal models and logical
reasoning.

A description of these formal operations are as follows:

85
- Control of Variables: Pupils understand that good experimental design relies on
changing one variable at a time, while others are kept the same in order to identify
the cause and effect by elimination.
- Classification: Formal operational thinking allows a person to realise that any
classification operation involved inclusion and exclusion and is part of a
hierarchy. The person needs ‘to stand outside’ the process of classifying to
observe the nature of the process itself.
- Proportionality: Ratios describe constant multiplicative relationships between two
variables. Proportionality requires the comparison of two ratios. Both are
reasoning patterns carried out by formal operational learners.
- Inverse Proportionality and Equilibrium: Inverse proportional reasoning relies on a
sound concept of ratios and proportionality. Equilibrium is more complicated because
it involves thinking about two ratios describing two inverse proportionalities at the
same time. Both are important scientific skills.
- Correlation probability: Understanding probability models requires an understanding
of chance and causality. Correlation patterns describe the strength of associations
between input and outcome variables when it has been shown that differences in
populations are not due to chance alone. The two ideas, probability and correlation,
are central to objective evaluation of evidence of cause and effect in ‘real life’.
- Formal Models: These are working models in which the ‘moving parts’ are abstract
entities which have to be imagined. The models are used to explain and predict
phenomena, to use abstract modelling, the thinker enters into a ‘micro world’ in
which she can relate actions on any part of that world to the effects and repercussions
on other parts of the world. It requires the ability to think about dynamic systems.
(Adey et al, 2001)

None of the schemata listed above were taught in a direct way to pupils. Each lesson
had one of these reasoning patterns as their main focus. Adey and Shayer (1994) also
compiled five features, which formed the structure of each CASE lesson and these
features became known as `pillars'. Maume and Mathews (2002) describes these
pillars as follows:

86
Concrete preparation: "Concrete preparation means establishing familiarity with the
vocabulary, apparatus and framework in which a problem situation will be set".
During concrete preparation, new vocabulary is introduced and the task is described.
This is teacher-directed and involves the whole class. Keywords are introduced. The
problem is given meaning and context in the mind of the learner, which stimulates
interest in the mind of the learner to solve this problem. Concrete preparation in the
lesson ensures that any difficulties encountered in the lesson are purely intellectual
and not due to misunderstandings regarding vocabulary or equipment used during the
lesson.

Cognitive conflict: This is the term used to describe the situation where the student
observes an event which does not correspond with his or her view of reality; the
assumption is that the student is forced to rethink (and possibly change) his or her
conceptual framework’ (Maume and Mathews, 2002). Cognitive conflict is a
perceptual state in which one notices the discrepancy between one’s cognitive
structure and the environment (external information), or among the different
components of one’s cognitive structure (Lee et al, 2003). Cognitive conflict is
created by an unexpected finding i.e. when observations do not fit expectations.
Students are presented in each lesson with an event that they find confusing and
which contradicts their previous understanding. Cognitive conflict is based on the
Piagetian idea of equilibration and Vygotskys idea of ZPD. Fensham and Kass (1988)
stated that cognitive conflict must be ‘within a context that is somewhat familiar to
students and, not too far ahead of student's cognitive capabilities while still making a
real cognitive demand’.

Construction: This principle is based on Feuerstein's MLE and Vygotsky's ZPD. Once
cognitive conflict has been generated the students have to solve the conflict by
reasoning mediated by peers, by the teacher or by a combination of both. This process
is described as Construction Zone Activity (CZA). Construction is the resolution of the
conflict above by a process of forming new reasoning patterns. This can be done as a
teacher-mediated class discussion or in small groups. The overall aim of construction
is to maximise the opportunity that each student has for constructing their reasoning
schemata, which will lay the foundation for more powerful thinking in the future. In
order to be effective, lessons must include a large amount of discussion and

87
constructive argument. Pupils must learn how to put their ideas across in a clear
manner and to listen to others. Pupils are also helped to challenge ideas in a
constructive way.

Metacognition: This is the process by which the students are taught to become aware
of their own thinking processes. In CASE metacognition is mediated, for example, by
the teacher not just asking the question "was that difficult?" but "why was that
difficult?" and "how did you solve that problem?’ Metacognition is thinking (and
talking) about thinking. It is important that the learner becomes conscious of the
thinking they employed to solve different problems. ‘Metacognition is the most
difficult pillar of CASE for teachers to manage’ (Adey, 2004).

Bridging: This is the final process that occurs in the intervention activities where the
teacher expands the problems that the students have undertaken to show where
similar problems occur in other areas of the science curriculum or in everyday life’.
(Maume and Mathews, 2002).Bridging involves applying new reasoning patterns to
different contexts. Bridging was inspired by Feuerstein's Instrumental Enrichment and
Shayer suggests that bridging may be responsible for long-term, large-scale effects of
cognitive acceleration, rather than the lessons themselves.

Figure 2.14: Structure of a CASE Lesson (Adey, 1999)

Figure 2.14 looks at the structure and flow of a CASE lesson. ‘The relationship of
cognitive conflict to construction, shown in Figure 2.13 by a spiral arrow, is not
straightforward. When we are presented with a problem with any sort of difficulty in

88
thinking to which we cannot readily produce a solution, it is in the general nature of
humankind to seek simple solutions. We ‘short-circuit’ a full analysis of the problem in
order to reach an accommodation that will meet the immediate needs of the situation.
Students on their own will rarely seek full understanding of a situation but will tend to
settle for the minimum solution that will meet the immediate demands of the problem in
question. Thus cognitive conflict by itself does not automatically lead to reconstruction of
concepts or to reaching a full understanding. The cognitive conflict must be maintained
and this can only be done by the teacher through close questioning’ (Adey, 1999).
Each ‘pillar’ had its own separate reason for inclusion. Concrete preparation was seen
as a necessity for success in any lesson. Cognitive conflict was included as it was
deemed a central process of cognitive acceleration. The importance of metacognition
within the CASE lessons grew throughout the project and became an essential feature
of the CASE methodology, and bridging allowed the application of newly developed
schemata into other areas of the pupils’ learning. The work of Piaget heavily
influenced the inclusion of the schemata of formal operations in the CASE lessons.
He also influenced the authors in the areas of concrete preparation, cognitive conflict
and construction. The work of Vygotsky and Feuerstein also influenced the inclusion
of cognitive conflict and construction as integral aspects of the CASE lessons along
with the areas of metacognition and bridging.

Results of CASE:
The CASE II programme was extensively researched in terms of the effectiveness of
the programme on pupils’ cognitive development and examination performance.
Researchers carried out pre-tests, post-tests (immediately after end of the intervention
lessons) and delayed post-tests (one year after the intervention lessons) with both
experimental and control groups in Year 7 (with ages 11+) and Year 8 (with ages
12+) at second level. SRTs outlined above were used in the testing of pupils. Finally,
the national General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examination results,
which pupils completed two years later, were obtained for both the Year 7 and Year 8
control and experimental groups. The results of these tests are shown in Figure 2.15.

89
 Figure 2.15: Residualized gain scores on successive tests after completion of two-year
CASE intervention, based on pre-cognitive tests (Adey, 1999)

Results from the post-tests, administered directly after completion of the CASE lessons,
showed limited gains for pupils in the experimental group. Male pupils aged 12+ were
the only group to make significant gains. Initially results of the delayed tests showed
no overall difference between the control and experimental groups. Upon investigation
it was shown these results may have been affected by the fact that two of the control
groups were not tested. Table 2.21 shows the mean pre- to delayed post test gains for
the schools and groups involved in the intervention. (Adey and Shayer, 1994) It can be
seen that the differences in the experimental and control groups are still maintained. In
school 9, the control group had a higher mean (1.41) than that of the experimental
group (1.04). This was explained by Shayer and Adey (1994) as a result of the CASE
teacher in this school also teaching the control group.

90
 School CASE Control Predicted
Mean Number Mean Number mean
3 0.76 25 ----------------------------- 0.60
7 0.93 19 0.63 19 0.62
8 1.71 21 ----------------------------- 0.62
9 1.04 25 1.41 45 0.62
11 1.24 19 0.72 22 0.66
Table 2.21: Mean pre- to delayed post-test gains for schools and groups (Adey and
Shayer, 1994)

Figure 2.16 looks at the cognitive changes of pupils involved in schools where two of
the investigators (Philip Adey and Carolyn Yates) implemented the CASE lessons. It
shows how pupils in the experimental group made cognitive gains throughout the
period of implementation. It shows that these gains also continued after the completion
of the intervention lessons, to the point that they finished at a higher level of cognitive
development in comparison to the control group, after having started out at a much
lower cognitive level than the control group.

Figure 2.16: Cognitive development of CASE experimental group over two and half years
compared with a control group laboratory school (Adey and Shayer, 1994)

91
Analysis of pupils’ GCSE results show that for ‘the 12+ group is stronger than those
reported in the delayed science achievement results. This 12+ group averages one
grade higher than the control group after individual pre-test differences are taken
into account’ (Adey and Shayer, 1994). There was a strong `far transfer effect with
significant gains not only in science, but in mathematics and English for the 11+ girls
and 12+ boys. The results for English show significant effects in three out of the four
groups. (Adey and Shayer, 1994). ‘Far transfer’ refers to gains not only in Science but
also in other subjects studied by pupils and shows that the intervention lessons
produced significant effects on pupil’s achievements in other subjects, i.e.
Mathematics and English as well as in Science. These results show the broad effects
the intervention programme had on the pupils ‘intellectual functioning’.

Results from a later study (Shayer, 2000) confirmed the gains in GCSE results for
pupils who participated in the intervention lessons achieved. Figure 2.17 shows the
plot of the average science grade added-value. The average added-values were
equivalent to 1.02 grades and must be due to the CASE intervention. The added-value
in Mathematics for CASE schools in this study is similar to that of science, with an
added-value grade of 0.95. Also, there was an effect on GCSE English with a mean
added-value of 0.90.

Figure 2.17: GCSE 1999 Mean Science Grade Added-Value (Shayer, 2000)

92
The results of the effect of CASE intervention lessons can be summarised as follows:
- There is a strong correlation on an individual student basis between cognitive gains
over the two-year intervention programme and subsequent gains in GCSE scores.
- In spite of the moderate immediate effects, there is a long-term, and apparently growing,
effect of the intervention on students’ academic achievement. In principle, this is what
might be expected from an intervention programme which increases students’ general
thinking capability. The effect of the raised cognitive levels will be, starting at the end of
the intervention, to improve students’ ability to benefit from normal classroom
instruction. Such improvement is likely to be cumulative as better understood conceptual
learning provides a sounder platform for further learning, and so on.
- There is a strong ‘far transfer’ effect. That is, an intervention programme delivered
by science teachers through activities with a strong scientific context has produced
effects on students’ achievement in Mathematics and in English literature. This is a
rare effect in the psychological literature, perhaps because few studies have taken
such a long-term view of experimentation and measurement as we have in the CASE
project. Such transfer implies that the CASE intervention has tapped into and
influenced a deep-seated function of the mind, which has a broad effect on students’
intellectual functioning.
- There seems to be an age/gender interaction effect, in that the intervention is most
effective with younger girls and with older boys. Although this notion fits neatly with
a model of a cognitive window of opportunity for the promotion of formal operations,
which in line with their generally earlier maturity at this age comes earlier for girls
than it does for boys, we must be very careful before drawing such a conclusion. For
one thing, the 11+ group was actually more able overall than the 12+ group, both
age groups starting the intervention at about the same mean level of cognitive
development. For another, more recent data do not show anything like the same
gender effect.
- The distribution of gains within any group (not shown here, but see Adey and Shayer,
1994) is often bimodal. That is, some of the students make very large gains, around
two standard deviations, whilst others make gains little more than the controls. We do
not know why this is, but it may possibly be due to the ‘fit’ of the Thinking Science
methods with different motivational styles of individual students (Leo & Galloway,
1995).
(Adey, 1999)

93
This work showed that it is possible to ‘significantly restructure the thinking capacity
of students by interventions over a considerably longer time scale. The results of the
CASE Thinking Science project in the UK were quite remarkable. Following extensive
trials in schools, clear evidence was obtained of improved scholastic achievement.
Pupils in eight British comprehensive schools who experienced Thinking Science
lessons achieved much better grade in science, mathematics and English than fellow
pupils in the 1989 and 1990 General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE)
examinations’ (Endler and Bond, 2001). The results indicate that teachers can indeed
enhance reasoning ability in their students. As mentioned above lessons dealt with
formal and abstract topics. The CASE materials ‘Thinking Science’ have been
published and are available from Nelson Thornes publishers.

Arguments against CASE:

Results published from the Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education
(CASE) project suggest enhanced cognitive development and science achievement for
between 25% and 50% of the participants. However more participants showed less or
no improvement when compared with the control groups. The effects and results of
CASE have focused upon children who experienced gains after participation in the
intervention programme. A number of researchers have questioned the results of
CASE and wonder if it was actually successful in the area of developing cognitive
structure or if others factors inherent in the lessons appealed to some pupils and not
other. The main arguments put forward to question the actual effects of CASE centre
around the following:
o Motivation of those participating
o The confidence of participants and the
o Direct training effect causing gains in English

Motivation:
Leo and Galloway (1995) describe three types of motivational styles in the classroom:
1. Learned helplessness ~ students who perceive failure as inevitable.
2. Self-worth motivation ~ students who are concerned with the impact of their
performance in a task on their self-esteem.
3. Mastery oriented ~ students who perceive learning as valuable and intrinsically
worth-while.

94
They suggest that CASE requires children to be mastery oriented before successful
intervention or that CASE changes children's motivational styles from the learned
helplessness and self-worth motivation to mastery oriented. Leo and Galloway (1995)
feel that the CASE teaching techniques may have less of an impact on self-worth
motivated children, unless their perceptions of the classroom environment has
changed significantly. They also suggest that the post-intervention effects on girls
may be due to their learned helplessness motivational style in science. Adey (1996)
argues that motivation style, at least as described by Leo and Galloway, does not offer
an explanation for the results of CASE. Adey critiques Leo and Galloway's attempted
explanations due to their un-testability. Leo and Galloway do not describe how the
motivational style of children might be assessed in one domain. In order to do so, it
was suggested that researchers would need to assess the motivational style of each
child in a class, make predictions about how they would interact with a CASE class
and then test their predictions against gains in cognitive development over a one to
two year period. In a study carried out by McLellan (2006) looking at the relationship
between motivation and cognitive gain arising from the CASE programme results
show ‘that motivation can only provide a partial explanation for cognitive
acceleration effects’ but she accounted for improved motivation in 75 percent of the
students in CASE schools’ (McLellan, 2006)

Confidence:
Some feel that the pupils’ confidence may provide an explanation for the effects of
the CASE intervention. However the authors of the CASE programme dismiss this as
an effect. The feel that ‘that confidence developed in science is unlikely to affect
performance in other subjects’ (Adey and Shayer, 1994). Adey and Shayer (1994)
suggest ‘that if confidence was the cause of, or partially the cause of, increased
cognitive development then the immediate post-test scores would be considerably
higher than those of the group that had not received the intervention. This evidence
however is not the case and differences really only become apparent between one to
three years after the intervention has being completed’. Adey and Shayer (1994)
were content to conclude that confidence was not an explanation to support the
positive findings of the CASE intervention.

95
Direct training effect
It has been proposed that the gains made by participants in GCSE English results were
as a result of the exploration and use of new vocabulary to describe physical events in
the intervention programme. However, Adey and Shayer (1993 and 1994) reject this
language development effect as being the main reason for this enhanced achievement.
The proposal that the intervention programme ‘affected scientific, mathematical and
linguistic capabilities, in parallel to one another, and almost incidentally without
being linked to some central processing mechanism seems unlikely’ (Adey and
Shayer, 1993). Adey and Shayer (1993) suggest that the ‘intervention may enhance
student's linguistic development, so new linguistics skills would be more easily
acquired. This in turn would allow for improved learning in language and hence
greater achievement in English.’

While a number of researchers remain sceptical about the effects of CASE, studies
replicated in other countries have recorded some positive results. The following is a
description of CASE like studies carried out in Ireland, Australia and the US.

CASE in Ireland:
Maume and Mathews (2000) conducted research that involved the implementation of
the CASE programme for one year in 1st year of second level education. Thirty CASE
lessons were taught to a group of boys twelve years and older both within and outside
of normal class time. Results from this study indicate that the CASE intervention
programme can work in Irish second level schools as an increase in cognitive ability
was found on comparison of the control and experimental groups. Results showed that
‘the short term effect of the CASE programme as shown in the work of Adey and Shayer
(1993) were also present at the end of this one-year implementation. An increase in the
cognitive ability of the students who undertake the programme was almost one
standard deviation greater than the non intervention students.’ There was no
significant difference between the control and experimental group in terms of
mathematical ability or science examination results. However, Maume and Mathews
(2000) showed that ‘it is possible and practical to implement the CASE materials in one
academic year in an Irish secondary school’. They did not report on the long-term
effects of the intervention on the pupils’ examination performance.

96
Another study carried out by McCormack (2009) involved an investigation into the
cognitive development of sixth class primary level pupils (age approximately 11 years)
and 1st year second level pupils (age approximately 12 years). Results of this study
show that less than 10 percent of 1st year pupils (age 12.3 year) had reached the formal
operational level of cognitive development. In response to this, McCormack et al
(2009) adapted the CASE materials for use in the final year of primary school and in
the first year of secondary school. These intervention programmes were called
‘Thinking Science 1’ for primary level pupils and ‘Thinking Science 2’ for second level
pupils. Results of both these programmes were positive. At the primary school level an
increase in the percentage of pupils in the experimental group operating at the concrete
generalisation stage (2B*) of cognitive development was observed, suggesting that the
‘Thinking Science 1’ programme was successful in positively effecting the cognitive
development of pupils. Results of the ‘Thinking Science 2’ programme show that the
majority of the students (51 percent) at the time of pre-test, were at the mature concrete
stage of cognitive development (2B), but at the time of post-test the majority (56
percent) were at the concrete generalisation (2B*) stage of cognitive development. The
results of the ‘Thinking Science 1’ and ‘Thinking Science 2’ programmes showed
positive effects in terms of cognitive development for pupils. The programme had
positive effects on both the male and female cohorts, with no significant difference
between the genders being observed. In order to increase the use of the CASE
methodology at second level, another intervention programme ‘Thinking through
Science’ programme was developed. In this programme the CASE methodology was
embedded into 2nd year science topics, with the aim of increasing the cognitive
development of pupils. The results of the ‘Thinking through Science’ programme were
also positive with cognitive development gains being noted for the experimental group
in comparison to control groups.

CASE in Australia:
Endler et al (2001) investigated student's cognitive development over a 5 year period
and subsequently examined the influence that the CASE Thinking Science programme
had on the students' development and on their scholastic achievement. The sample
group was from a private school in Queensland. As before ‘results showed significant
increases in cognitive development over the 5 years and the greatest change occurred
between the ages of 13+ and 15+’ (Endler and Bond, 2001).

97
CASE in the US:
The US version of the CASE programme was called the Scientific Thinking
Enhancement Project (STEP).Very little teacher training was given in this
investigation and the number of different lessons administered depended on the
individual teacher. Lessons were given at a rate of one every three weeks over a 32
month period. The number of lessons delivered varied from 13 – 21. Results again
proved positive for the CASE intervention classes, despite the incomplete manner in
which the intervention programme was delivered. ‘Results showed that, the
experimental groups had higher mean cognitive developmental scores than the control
group’ (Endler and Bond, 2007).

2.4.4.2: Related projects:

(1) Cognitive Acceleration through Mathematics (CAME):
In addition there are several CA programmes developed for use in different contexts,
including CAME (Cognitive Acceleration through Mathematics Education), CATE
(Cognitive Acceleration through Technology Education) and The Wigan Arts, Reasoning and
Thinking Skills (ARTS) project. These programmes are designed to promote formal
operational thinking with adolescents, between the ages of 11 and14 years. The CAME
project aimed to contribute to the teaching of mathematics in the years 7 and 8 and provide
pupils with intellectual development in the context of mathematics. The CAME activities
called ‘Thinking Maths’ were initially trialled, revised, further trialled and finally adapted
into their present form. The 30 activities are intended to be used at a rate of 4 - 5 a term, it
was also recommended that the ‘Thinking Maths’ activities are kept separate from regular
content curriculum lessons and taught in the order presented. Each ‘Thinking Maths’ activity
lasts from 60 to 90 minutes. The researchers found that "over half the 78 classes involved in
the project showed larger than expected gains in mathematics tests at the end of Year 8 and
furthermore, after a further three years GCSE pass rates in mathematics were significantly
higher than those in control schools" (Shayer and Adhami, 2007). Closer examination of the
results reveal that out of 78 classes only ‘11 showed large improvements, 37 classes showed
moderate improvements whilst in 30 classes there was no effect’ (Shayer and Adhami, 2007).
The results also showed that it was the "higher ability students, in particular, who made the
most substantial gains"(Shayer and Adhami, 2007). There were also some unexpected
outcomes as the pupils GCSE results in science and English also improved.

98
(2) The Infusion Approach to developing thinking skills:
By definition infusion means to ‘introduce into one thing a second thing that gives it extra
life, vigour and a new significance’. ‘Infusion approaches contextualize thinking directly
within a curricular area so that the goals of topic understanding and developing thinking are
simultaneously and – in the longer term – are seamlessly pursued’ (McGuinness, 2005). The
benefits of infusion are seen as:
- Matching thinking skills directly with topics in the curriculum;
- Invigorating content instruction leading to deeper understanding;
- Using classroom time optimally;
- Directly supporting teaching for thoughtfulness across the curriculum and;
- Facilitating transfer and reinforcement of learning’. (McGuinness, 2000)
There are a number of programmes which have incorporated the development of
thinking skills into the context of school learning. These are as follows:
o ACTS ~ Activating Children’s Thinking Skills
o CoRT ~ Cognitive Research
o Somerset Thinking Skills Trust

Each of these will now be discussed.

ACTS ~ Activating Children’s Thinking Skills:

ACTS is a project to develop and trial a methodology for enhancing thinking skills in
upper primary classrooms in schools in Northern Ireland. Its aim is to infuse thinking
skills across the curriculum. ‘ACTS is based on the idea that if we want students to
learn meaningfully, to think flexibly and to make reasoned judgements, then we
cannot leave these important learning outcomes to chance. We must make clear what
we mean by these types of thinking and then set out to teach them explicitly’
(McGuinness, 2000). ACTS is a methodology, not a package and involves the
planning of lessons focused on metacognition. ‘The pedagogy includes the need to
focus on classroom dialogue, to engage learners in open ended activities in
collaborative activities and in joint meaning making. Making thinking more visible in
classroom is considered crucial so that metacognitive perspective can be adopted and
transfer of learning optimised. The consequences for cultures of classrooms and for
teacher development are noted…… There is increasing emphasis on the role of
metacognition on learners’ abilities to appraise, monitor and regulate their own

99
thinking – and on mediation by peers and adults’. (McGuinness, 2005). Teachers
using this approach ‘clearly report changes in pupils’ thinking, teaching strategies
and classroom interaction in the direction of higher quality teaching and learning’
(McGuinness, 2000). However, evaluation work remains to be done ‘linking the
methodology with children learning achievements and with other characteristics of
the learning environment’ (McGuinness, 2000).

CoRT ~ Cognitive Research:

CoRT aimed to develop creative and lateral thinking (De Bono, 1976). The
programme consists of six sections, each containing ten lessons. Each section covers
one aspect of De Bono’s definition of thinking (breath, organisation, interaction,
creativity, information and feeling, and action). Each lesson builds on the skill
addressed in the previous lesson. Lessons encourage pupils to consider the views of
others involved in the situation. Its overall aim is to translate thinking which ‘a pretty
nebulous subject and needs anchoring with some focus of attention by use of
structured exercises’ (De Bono, 1991). Evaluation of the programme showed ‘no
statistical difference between experimental and control classes in achievement post-
tests of reading comprehension, arithmetical and logical reasoning. In tests of
creativity - the model underlying the intervention the differences were also negligible’
(Hunter-Grundin, 1985). Edwards (1991) ‘concluded that the design of the testing
procedures were weak and could not provide a basis for the detailed evaluation of the
effects of CoRT’.

Somerset Thinking Skills Trust

The Somerset Thinking Skills Course is a general thinking skills course. It consists of
a handbook and several modules including the foundations of problem-solving,
analysing and synthesising, propositions in space and time, predicting and deciding
etc. ‘The exercises may be used as a free-standing programme or integrated across
the curriculum, usually in the upper primary school or with mixed ability groups in
secondary schools. Unlike the Instrumental Enrichment Programme which presents
abstract concepts, the Somerset course is pictorial and naturalistic’ (Blagg et al,
1988). Evaluations show positive effects on a range of cognitive and related outcomes
however no large-scale evaluation of the effects of this course on subsequent
intellectual performance has been carried out.

100
Section 2.5: Development of an Intervention programme suitable for the Irish
school system
It is proposed to develop, implement and evaluate an intervention programme in the
Irish schools system that will incorporate elements of the intervention programmes
outlined above in section 2.4. The intervention programme will be incorporated into
the Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus and will aim to develop pupils’ cognitive
ability, thinking skills and eliminate misconceptions that may presently be hindering
pupils’ performance in Chemistry. The topics selected as vehicles for this intervention
programme will the Particulate Nature of Matter and The Mole. These topics were
selected as they emerged as difficult topics in the first phase of this investigation and
also because there are seen as threshold concepts in Chemistry. ‘A threshold concept
opens up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something. It
represents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something
without which the learner cannot progress’. (Meyer and Land, 2003). This is true of
the Particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole in Chemistry, as failure to grasp either
concept prevents true and correct understanding of other topics. In fact failure to
understand these concepts may create a barrier to any further study of Chemistry.

2.5.1: Chemical misconceptions relating to the Particulate nature of Matter and the
Mole Concept
In order to understand the difficulties associated with these topics, further analysis of the
literature had to be carried out. This involved a detailed look at the misconceptions pupils
possess about the Particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole, a look at how these topics are
dealt with in a number of widely used textbooks and an investigation of the teaching
strategies and methodologies that have been successful in the teaching of these topics. The
National Research Council (1997) categorized misconceptions under the following
headings.
- Preconceived notions are popular conceptions rooted in everyday experiences. For
example, many people believe that water flowing underground must flow in streams
because the water they see at the earth's surface flows in streams. Preconceived notions
plague students' views of heat, energy, and gravity (Brown and Clement, 1991), among
others.
- Nonscientific beliefs include views learned by students from sources other than
scientific education, such as religious or mythical teachings. For example, some

101
 students have learned through religious instruction about an abbreviated history of the
earth and its life forms. The disparity between this widely held belief and the scientific
evidence for a far more extended pre-history has led to considerable controversy in the
teaching of science.
- Conceptual misunderstandings arise when students are taught scientific information in
a way that does not provoke them to confront paradoxes and conflicts resulting from
their own preconceived notions and non-scientific beliefs. To deal with their confusion,
students construct faulty models that usually are so weak that the students themselves
are insecure about the concepts.
- Vernacular misconceptions arise from the use of words that mean one thing in everyday
life and another in a scientific context (e.g., "work"). A geology professor noted that
students have difficulty with the idea that glaciers retreat, because they picture the
glacier stopping, turning around, and moving in the opposite direction. Substitution of
the word "melt" for "retreat" helps reinforce the correct interpretation that the front end
of the glacier simply melts faster than the ice advances.
- Factual misconceptions are falsities often learned at an early age and retained
unchallenged into adulthood. If you think about it, the idea that "lightning never strikes
twice in the same place" is clearly nonsense, but that notion may be buried somewhere
in your belief system.

It is important to remember that it is not effective for a teacher simply to insist that the
learner dismiss their previous ideas about a concept. ‘Recent research on students'
conceptual misunderstandings of natural phenomena indicates that new concepts cannot be
learned if alternative models that explain a phenomenon already exist in the learner's
mind’ (National research Council, 1997). According to the National Research Council
(1997) in order to address misconceptions the teacher must:
- Identify students' misconceptions.
- Provide a forum for students to confront their misconceptions.
- Help students reconstruct and internalize their knowledge, based on scientific models.
Much research has been carried out in the area of identifying common chemical
misconceptions and many researchers have compiled lists of commonly encountered
misconceptions. Also a number of conceptual tests have been developed to identify
students' misconceptions. Table 2.22 below lists the misconceptions that have been
identified in the area of the Particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole Concept.

102
 Chemistry Topic Misconceptions that exist in this topic Studies from
which
information on
misconceptions
was obtained
was obtained
The Particulate - Some pupils fail to recognises matter as being made ⇒ Barker
Nature of Matter up of particles, they view is as being continuous in (2000)
nature
⇒ The nature of - Particles cannot be seen therefore they do not exist ⇒ Jonathan et al
matter. Matter as in a functioning model to explain the behaviour of (2003)
continuous matter.
versus the - Substances contain particles (like blueberries in a ⇒ Merritt et al
existence of muffin) rather than consist of particles. For (2007)
particles, example, pupils think water has particles in it, with
water or air between the particles. Similarly, pupils ⇒ Yezierski and
believe air has oxygen particles in it, with air Birk (2006)
between the particles.
- Particles are comparable in size to cells, dust specks,
etc. and they can be seen with an optical microscope
- Other researches suggest that students in secondary
education hold the view that matter is continuous
(not made from discrete particles) and accept the
particle model (atoms and molecules) in very
limited contexts.
- The nature and behaviour of particles within the
conceptual framework of children and students are
different from the scientifically accepted ones. It is
usual for students to attribute macroscopic
properties such as melting, dissolving, expanding to
microscopic particles.
-
⇒ Difference - Some pupils fail to recognize the difference between ⇒ Barker
between compounds, elements and mixtures (2000)
compounds,
elements and
mixtures

⇒ The energy - Some pupils fail to link the energy particles have ⇒ Barker
particles have and the phase in which the substance exists. (2000)
- Additional studies show that students have difficulty
relating macroscopic properties to the movement ⇒ Jonathan et al
and arrangement of particle, even after engaging in (2003)
substantial chemistry instruction
- Students seen to use the notion of forces between ⇒ Yezierski and
particles rather that constant motion to explain gas Birk (2006)
behaviour. Some feel that attractive forces between
gas particles explain air pressure. Some suggest
strength of force is temperature dependent

103
 Chemistry Topic Misconceptions that exist in this topic Studies from
which
information on
misconceptions
was obtained
was obtained
⇒ What the space - Some pupils possess misconceptions about what ⇒ Barker
between fills the space between particles (2000)
particles is
⇒ Yezierski and
Birk (2006)

⇒ Macroscopic and - Some pupils believe that copper atoms melt when ⇒ Kikas and
Microscopic copper melts. They also believe that atoms have Hillar (2003)
colour.
⇒ Mulford and
Robinson
(2002)

- Some pupils still fail to conserve matter in physical ⇒ Mulford and

⇒ Conservation of and chemical reactions. : Robinson
matter and mass - Some pupils believe that air has no weight (mass). (2002)
in reactions - Some pupils believe that air is nothing.
- Some pupils believe that gases are not matter
because they are invisible.
- Some pupils believe that when something is burned
it is used up and nothing remains.
- Some pupils believe that when nails get rusty they
lose weight

⇒ Phase Change - Some pupils believe that particles of the same ⇒ Gabel (2005)
(melting, substance in different states (solid, liquid, and gas)
evaporation, have different properties. (For example, some pupils ⇒ Mulford and
freezing etc and believe ice particles are cold and hard, liquid water Robinson
how these relate particles have expanded and are larger and softer, (2002)
to the particulate while water vapor particles are very large and
nature of matter) squashy). Some pupils believe that liquids have ⇒ Osborne and
smaller (or larger) and/or softer particles than solids. Cosgrovel
- Some pupils believe that gases have smaller (or (1983)
larger) and/or softer particles than liquids. Some
pupils believe that when water evaporates it splits ⇒ Özmen
up into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. (2004)
- Some pupils believe that in evaporation and
condensation water disappears as it evaporates. ⇒ Yezdan
- Some pupils believe that that in evaporation and (2006)
condensation the weight of a substance changes as it
melts or evaporates. ⇒ Yezierski and
- Some pupils believe that in evaporation and Birk (2006)
condensation a sealed container with a bit of liquid
in it weighs more than after the liquid has
evaporated. Some pupils believe that the drops of
water on the outside of a cold bottle of water come
from inside the bottle.

104
 Chemistry Topic Misconceptions that exist in this topic Studies from
which
information on
misconceptions
was obtained
was obtained
⇒ Solubility - Some pupils believe that things dissolve by crushing ⇒ Mulford and
and mixing them in water. Robinson
- Some pupils believe that salt is not hard (or dense) (2002)
enough to resist dissolving. Some pupils believe that
chalk won't dissolve because it is too heavy (or
hard). Some pupils believe that water has the force
to dissolve salt.
- Some pupils believe that melting and dissolving are
the same thing.
- Some pupils believe that salt becomes liquid salt
when it dissolves.
- Some pupils believe that when sugar is dissolved in
water the water takes on properties of the sugar.

- Some pupils fail to recognise the difference between ⇒ Barker

⇒ Chemical versus chemical change and change of state (physical (2000)
Physical change)
Changes - Chemical reactions are often considered as a process ⇒ Eilks et al.
of mixing the initial substance, because the (2007)
relationship between the macroscopic worlds and
the particulate level of matter is not clearly
understood. Students tend to make no clear
distinctions between physical and chemical changes
The Mole Concept ⇒ Studies have shown that a high number of pupils ⇒ Barker
have difficulty in understanding the Mole concept. (2000)
⇒ Understanding Pupils have difficult with using the Mole as a
the Mole counting unit, linking mass and the Mole, using ⇒ Cheung and
reacting masses, linking Moles to equations and Bucat (2002)
Molar Volumes. Problems exist as the Mole concept
is too abstract for the majority of pupils. A pupil ⇒ Gower et al.
who cannot manipulate numbers readily is unlikely (1977)
to be successful in learning about moles. Shayer
(1970) believes that pupils who have not reached ⇒ MacDonald
Piagets formal operational stage of thinking cannot (1984)
learn about moles because cognitive skills such as
proportional reasoning are undeveloped.

Table 2.22: Misconceptions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole Concept

Once the misconceptions that pupils possess have been identified it is important to get
pupils to confront these misconceptions. The National Research Council (1997)
concluded that it is useful to review and think about possible misconceptions before
teaching a class or laboratory in which new material is introduced. The use of

105
questions to probe for additional misconceptions is also recommended.
‘Misconceptions are often deeply held, largely unexplained, and sometimes strongly
defended. To be effective, a science teacher should not underestimate the importance
and the persistence of these barriers to true understanding. Confronting them is
difficult for the student and the teacher’ (National Research Council 1997).
Misconceptions can be also be uncovered by asking students to sketch or describe
some object or phenomenon.

Garnett et al. (1995) believes that if careful attention is paid to a number of issues the
teacher can improve students’ understanding of Chemistry concepts and prevent the
formation of misconceptions. The issues identified by Garnett et al. (1995) are as
follows:
1. The use of everyday language in a scientific context ~ Educators need to use words
that are unambiguous and which accurately describe the subject matter being considered.

2. The over simplification of concepts and the use of unqualified, generalised

statements ~ Alternative conceptions arise when educators, in attempting to simplify
concepts, provide descriptions which may be limited or even misleading.

3. The use of multiple definitions and models ~ there is a need to use alternative
models with care and to clearly enunciate the limitations of these models.

4. The rote application of concepts and algorithms ~ Material should be presented in

ways that encourage student understanding of concepts, rather than in ways which
promote rote learning and the unthinking application of algorithms.

5. Students’ preconceptions from prior world experiences ~ the teacher needs to be

aware of these in the classroom.

6. The over lapping of similar concepts ~ Students have a tendency to confuse related
concepts.

106
7. The endowing of objects with human/animal characteristics ~ There is a need for
more precise use of language and, possibly, greater emphasis on the mechanistic
nature of particle behaviour.

8. Inadequate prerequisite knowledge ~ the lack of important prerequisite knowledge

is another factor which can lead to alternative conceptions as new concepts are
introduced.

9. Students’ inability to visualise the particulate /submicroscopic nature of matter

~ This represents a major area of difficulty in developing a sound conceptual
understanding of Chemistry

10. General teaching strategies and conceptual change ~ White and Gunstone (1989)
have stressed the importance of using strategies which support sustained reflection
such as the use of concept maps and ‘what-if’ questions.

Helping students to reconstruct their conceptual frame work is a difficult task. The National
Research Council (1997) recommends that the teacher anticipates the most common
misconceptions about the material and be alert for others. They should also encourage
students to test their conceptual frameworks in discussion with other students and by
thinking about the evidence and possible tests. Teachers should use demonstrations and lab
work to think about how to address common misconceptions and revisit common
misconceptions as often as they can.

2.5.2: Increasing Thinking Skills in Chemistry (ITS Chemistry)

The merits of the effects of the CASE programme on the learner have been discussed in
section 2.4.3. In an ideal world participation in this intervention would have major
advantages for Irish pupils. However, this is not possible as there are a number of
problems with running the ‘Thinking Science’ lessons in the Irish classroom. First off
‘‘Thinking Science’ activities are separate to the curriculum. Running the programme
would take from the time allocated for the completion of an already over crowded
Science or school curriculum. Secondly ‘Thinking Science’ lessons require a class of 70
minutes every two weeks A 70 minute slot every two weeks in a school laboratory might
not be possible for all schools to achieve. As a result, it is proposed that the philosophies

107
and strategies of CASE be integrated with the school Chemistry curriculum in order to
bring about similar gains for Irish pupils. The design of this intervention programme will
be discussed in greater detail in section 3.3 of this thesis.

Much research has been carried out in the area of misconceptions and cognitive
development and their respective knock-on effects for the learning and understanding
of Chemistry. This project aims to link a number of these research findings and
present them to the Irish Chemistry teacher in a way suitable for application in their
classroom. A common problem with much Chemical Education research that is
carried out at present is that it never reaches these classrooms. If proven effective
strategies are built into the current Chemistry curriculum, thus removing the fears
teachers possess about not being able to complete their Chemistry curriculum, there
may be positive outcomes for pupils studying the subject.

Chapter three will discuss the research methodologies used in the three different
phases of this investigation.

108
Chapter Three:
Methodology

109
 Chapter Three ~ Methodology

This chapter will outline the methods used for the collection and analysis of results for
phase one, two and three of this investigation. It will give a description of each of the
sample groups and an explanation on how each of the different questionnaires, test
instruments and intervention programmes were developed, administered and analysed.

Section 3.1: Phase One ~ The identification of Chemistry topics that are perceived as
being difficult by Irish pupils/students
This phase of the investigation aimed to identify the Chemistry topics that were
posing problems for the majority of Irish second level pupils and third level students.
The views of second level Chemistry teachers were also collected.

3.1.1: The Questionnaire

A pen and paper questionnaire was used to collect opinions on the difficulty of
different Chemistry topics at the various stages of second level and third level
Chemistry education. Four different questionnaires were designed and administered to
the different sample groups in order to obtain the information. The questionnaires
were developed for and administered to:
1. Junior Certificate Pupils (in their final year – 3rd year- of their Junior Certificate
Science Course),
2. Leaving Certificate Pupils (in their final year – 2nd year- of their Leaving
Certificate Chemistry Course),
3. Leaving Certificate Chemistry Teachers,
4. Third Level Students (One group who had just completed an introductory
Chemistry module in first year and also a group of second and third year students
who had completed six Chemistry modules at Third Level as part of their course
of study).
The questionnaire took twenty minutes to complete and consisted of two different
sections. The first section of the questionnaire listed the different Chemistry topics
that pupils and students had studied at that stage of their Chemistry education. This
list of Chemistry topics was attached to a six point Likert scale and pupils were asked
to describe the difficulty of the Chemistry topic under one of the six headings. The
Likert scale was an amalgamation of the ones used by Johnstone (2006), Ratcliffe

110
(2002) and Bojezuk (1982). The original Likert scales used by Johnstone (2006),
Ratcliffe (2002) and Bojezuk (1982) can be seen in Table 3.1

Likert Scale used by Likert Scale Likert Scale used by Bojezuk Likert Scale used by
Johnstone (2006) used by (1982) Jimoh (2005)
Ratcliffe
(2002)
- ‘I understood this - Very - Very easy (topic - Easy
easily’ Easy understood first time with - Average
- ‘I had some - Easy little effort) - Difficult
difficulty but I - Medium - Easy (topic understood
now understand it’ - Difficult after a little work)
- ‘I have never - Very - Moderate (topic
understood this Difficult understood after a
and will need to be moderate amount of work)
taught it again’ - Difficult (topic only
- ‘I have never been understood after lots of
taught this’ hard work and effort)
- Very difficult (topic never
understood – will need to
be retaught

Table 3.1: Likert Scales used by Johnstone (2006), Ratcliffe (2002) Bojezuk (1982) and
Jimoh (2005)

The Likert scale used in this investigation, which was inspired by the above scales, is
seen in Figure 3.1 below. It is important to note pupils were not guided in the
questionnaire as to what the term ‘easy’ or ‘difficult’ imply.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Topic Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very Never
easy nor Difficult studied it
difficult

Acid/Base Equilbria 1 2 3 4 5 6
Acids and Bases, 1 2 3 4 5 6
(Arrhenius, Bronsted-
Lowry)
Activation energy 1 2 3 4 5 6
Alkanes and alkenes 1 2 3 4 5 6
Analysing results of 1 2 3 4 5 6
experiments
Atomic structure 1 2 3 4 5 6
Balancing equations 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 3.1: Section One of Questionnaire ~ List of Chemistry Topics attached to Likert scale

111
If pupils found Acid/Base Equilibria very difficult they would circle number 5 opposite
Acid/Base Equilibria. If they had never studied Balancing Equations they would circle
number 6 opposite Balancing Equations and so on. The topics were listed in alphabetical to
encourage pupils to think about the topic they were referring to. The topics in each test
instrument were specific to the course being studied by that cohort of pupils/students. Section
Two of the Questionnaire was a free response question and invited pupils to identify the top
five most difficult Chemistry topics in their opinion, number one being the most difficult
topic, two being the second most difficult topic etc. This question was used to assess the
validity of the results obtained from the first part of the questionnaire and to give students an
opportunity to identify the topics they found most difficult. Figure 3.2 below illustrates
Section Two of the Questionnaire.

Figure 3.2: Section Two of the Questionnaire ~ The Free Response Question

Additional information was also obtained from each group. This additional information
differed from each sample group to the next. A list of the additional information obtained
from each groups is given in Table 3.2 below.

112
 Junior Certificate Leaving Certificate Teacher University
Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire
- Gender - Gender - School Type - Gender
- Age - Age - Age
- Type of School - Type of School - Did they take
- Mathematics Level to - Mathematics Level to Chemistry for the
be taken in the Junior be taken in the Leaving Certificate
Certificate Leaving Certificate - Leaving Certificate
Examination (Ordinary Examination (Ordinary Mathematics grade
or Higher level) or Higher level) and level
- Science level to be - Chemistry level to be - Leaving Certificate
taken in the Junior taken in the Leaving Chemistry grade
Certificate Certificate and level (if
Examination (Ordinary Examination (Ordinary applicable)
or Higher level) or Higher level)

Table 3.2: A list of the additional information obtained in the different questionnaires

Gender, School type, Age, Mathematics, Science and Chemistry grade or level were
collected in order to determine if any of them have a significant effect on how easy or
difficult a pupil, or student finds a particular Chemistry topic. Science/Chemistry and
Mathematical level; refer to pupils who intended taking higher or ordinary level in
this subject for the Junior or Leaving Certificate examination. At this point in the year
pupils would have settled on an examination level based on their ability and were
unlikely to change this level close to the examination. University students who had
received a C3 grade or more in higher level Mathematics or Chemistry were deemed
strong at that subject. Students with grades lower than a C3 in the higher level
examination and ordinary level Mathematics and Chemistry students were deemed
weak at that subject. Leaving Certificate Chemistry teachers completed questionnaires
very similar to the Leaving Certificate pupils’ questionnaire and were asked to label
topics based on their experience of how easy or difficult pupils found them. A copy of
the four questionnaires can be seen in Appendix A.

113
3.1.2: Distribution of Questionnaires
Questionnaires were distributed to groups of pupils and students at second and third level in
the Irish Education System. For the distribution of questionnaires at second level there were
two main methods of recruiting volunteers. Firstly schools were recruited by means of a
letter that accompanied the winter 2006 edition of the Chemistry In Action! magazine.
Teachers were invited in this letter to take part in this study. The second method of
recruiting schools was to contact the Chemistry teacher directly. A list of second level
schools offering Chemistry as a subject was obtained from the Department of Education
and Science and schools were randomly selected from this list and contacted. It was
important to ensure during recruitment at second level that the sample groups were
representational of the types of schools in the Irish Education system. Currently there are
three different school types in Ireland 9the percentage of each is indicated in the brackets):

- Secondary Schools (53.6% Male: 14.9%, Female: 19.9 %, Mixed: 65.2%)

- Vocational Schools (33.7%) and
- Community and Comprehensive Schools (12.3%)

The above data had to be taken into account when distributing questionnaires. A total of 59
schools received questionnaires to distribute to their Junior Certificate and Leaving
Certificate pupils. Questionnaires were distributed to second level schools in April 2007.
Teachers were asked to return these questionnaires as soon as possible. April was identified
as a good time to distribute questionnaires, as at this point in the school year pupils will
have completed their Junior Certificate Science and Leaving Certificate Chemistry courses
and will be familiar with all of the Chemistry topics listed on the questionnaires.

For the third level sample groups, students at various stages of study from the University of
Limerick were used. The first sample group were a group of first year students who had
just completed an introductory level Chemistry module. The next group were students in
their second and third year at the University of Limerick. University lecturers were
approached directly and asked if they would distribute questionnaires to their teaching
groups. Questionnaires were distributed to third level students in January 2007 just after
completion of their respective Chemistry modules.

114
Section 3.1.3: Description of Sample Groups
The following is a description of the sample groups used in Phase One of this
investigation. For the second level sample groups a summary of the schools that
returned questionnaires can be seen in Table 3.3.

School Type No. Of Schools No. Of Schools % Of Schools % Of % Of

who received who returned who returned School School
Questionnaires Questionnaires Questionnaires Type in Type in
(n=59) (n=36) Study Study
(Ideal) (Actual)

Secondary 31 18 58% 53% 50%

Schools
Vocational 18 10 56% 30% 27%
Schools
Community and 10 8 80% 17% 22%
Comprehensive
Schools

Table 3.3: Summary of the number of Schools that received and returned Questionnaires

As can be seen from Table 3.3 the number of schools involved in this study is almost
representative of the three school types present in the Irish Education System. Thirty-
six schools returned questionnaires from pupils in their Leaving and Junior
Certificate. The breakdown of the number of Leaving and Junior Certificate pupils
involved in this study can be seen in Table 3.4.

Junior Certificate Science Group Leaving Certificate Chemistry

Group
Total Number of N = 607 N = 424
Responses
Number of Male 215 (36%) 112 (27%)
Responses (valid % of
group)
Number of Female 382 (64%) 309 (73%)
Responses (valid % of
group)
Number of Responses Secondary Schools: 369 (59%) Secondary Schools: 217 (51%)
according to School Type
(valid % of group) Vocational Schools: 140 (23%) Vocational Schools: 106 (25%)

Community and Comprehensive Community and Comprehensive

Schools: 108 (18%) Schools: 101 (24%)

Table 3.4: The Breakdown of the number of Junior and Leaving Certificate Pupils involved
in this study according to Gender and School Type

115
There are four hundred and twenty four Leaving Certificate Chemistry pupils and six
hundred and seven Junior Certificate Science pupils involved in this study. The opinions
of thirty Leaving Certificate Chemistry teachers on how easy or difficult pupils found
certain Chemistry topics were also collected. The breakdown of the number of University
students involved in this study can be seen in Table 3.5. There were two different groups
of third level Chemistry students surveyed at third level. Group one were first year
students who had just completed an Introductory General Chemistry Module. The second
group consisted of second year Environmental Science students and third year Science
Education students who had completed six Chemistry modules during their course of
study at the University of Limerick.

Group One (1st year Group Two (2nd and 3rd year
students) students)
Total Number of N = 136 N= 55
Responses
Number of Male 68 (51.5%) 20 (37.7%)
Responses (% of group)
Number of Female 42 (48.5%) 33 (62.3%)
Responses (% of group)
Number who had 63 (45.6%) 15 (27.3%)
Studied Chemistry for
the Leaving Certificate
(% of group)
Number who had not 74 (54.4%) 40 (72.7%)
Studied Chemistry for
the Leaving Certificate
(% of group)
Types of Chemistry - General Introductory - General Chemistry module
Modules completed At Chemistry Module - Inorganic Chemistry Module
the University of - Possibly Chemistry for the - Environmental Chemistry
Limerick Leaving Certificate Module*
- Organic Chemistry Module
- Analytical Chemistry Module
- Physical Chemistry Module
(* Not completed by Science
Education Students)
Table 3.5: Breakdown of University students who took part in this investigation according
to gender and chemistry experience

There are one hundred and thirty six first year students and fifty-five second and third year
students in the University cohorts involved in this investigation. In this sample group the
Introductory General Chemistry Module was the first experience that seventy-four students
had with Chemistry, as they had not taken Chemistry for their Leaving Certificate.

116
3.1.4: Analysing the Questionnaires
Responses were firstly inputted into Excel and then imported from there to SPSS 13.0 for
Windows for further examination. Initially the average mean score for each topic was
also calculated. Topics which receive a mean score of 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0 were used to
determine which topics are generally perceived as being difficult by Irish pupils/students.
Next the individual responses to each topic were analysed and the topics, which appeared
as being very difficult for the majority of students, were identified. Topics, which were
perceived as difficult for pupils and student who are weak at Chemistry and Mathematics,
were also identified. The next stage of analysis involved determining if any of the
following played a significant role in pupils or students perceiving particular Chemistry
topics as being difficult: Gender, Mathematical level, Science/Chemistry level, School
Type and having taken Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate * (*for university students
only)

All responses, except responses to the free response questions, were numerically coded
and the data imputed into SPSS for analysis in the conventional manner (Coakes and
Steed, 2001; Millar et al., 2002). The survey generated a large amount of data and
provided a valuable recourse for detailed analysis. The data was first examined to view
frequencies of responses before further analysis was completed. The data was described
using charts and tables of frequencies due to the nature of the data. The data was also
analysed to explicate whether differences existed between the types of students on a
number of levels through the cross-tabulation function in SPSS. The data collected was
categorical; therefore, non-parametric statistical analysis was conducted incorporating the
Chi-squared test of association. The Chi-squared (χ2), is shorthand for Pearson's chi-
square test, and was used to compare the observed frequencies of cases with those
expected in a variable which has two or more categories. Essentially it assesses whether
there is a statistically significant relationship between two categorical variables. It
indicates the extent to which a value of one measurement tends to go along with a large
value in another measurement. The p-value reveals whether the relationship or correlation
between the variables is significantly sound. A p-value less than 0.05 is deemed
significant. This correlation was also used in the analysis of responses given in phase two
and three of this investigation. It must be noted that a correlation says nothing about why
such a pattern exists and never indicates, on its own, any cause and effect in the
relationship.

117
Section 3.2: Phase Two ~ An assessment of the Cognitive Development of Irish
pupils/students and the Chemical Misconceptions they possess
After an analysis of the literature in the area of Chemistry education a number of theories
emerged to explain why pupils find Chemistry difficult. These theories are discussed in
section 2.3 of this document. After phase one of this investigation it was proposed to analyse
the effect of two of these theories on Irish pupils opinions of and performance in Chemistry.

For the purposes of phase two of the investigation theories relating to the cognitive
development of the pupil and the chemical misconceptions that they possess will be
investigated. Cognitive development was chosen for further investigation as a large number
of topics that emerged from phase on of the investigation as being difficult were abstract in
nature. It was also chosen as the work of Piaget, Shayer and Adey was focused in the area of
Mathematics and Science and a number of intervention programmes (CASE etc) have been
carried out in the area of cognitive development, whose philosophies could be applied to the
intervention programme that would be developed in phase three of this investigation. It was
decided not to determine the working space memory of the pupil and its effects on
understanding in Chemistry due to lack of comparable intervention programmes, however it
is recognised pupils inability to cope with an overload of information does indeed create
difficulty when studying Chemistry. The area of chemical misconceptions was chosen to
determine pupils’ true understanding of some of the fundamental topics in Chemistry that
underpin all other Chemistry topics. Poor understanding of fundamental topics, will
adversely effect the development of understanding in more advanced Chemistry topics.

The topics that will be assessed in the misconceptions test will be as follows:
- The Particulate Nature of Matter ~ as it is a threshold concept that needs to be fully
understood if more advance topics in Chemistry are to be understood
- The Mole ~ as again it is a topic that underpins all other topics in Chemistry and also
because it emerged from phase one of this investigation as a topic that causes difficulty
for the majority of pupils/students and
- Chemical Equilibrium ~ as it emerged in all stages of the education system as being
difficult.

118
A test instrument was developed to assess these theories and was administer to Junior and
Leaving Certificate Science and Chemistry pupils. The stages in the development of the test
instruments for the Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils are summarised in Table 3.6.

Stage Description of Stage

Stage One: Cognitive Research was carried out in the area of cognitive development and
Development Research how ones cognitive ability could be tested
Stage Two: Selection and Task IV (NERF, 1979), Equilibrium in the Balance, was selected for
Modification of cognitive use in this study. This test had to be modified slightly so that it could
abilities test be administered as a total paper and pen test. The demonstration
aspects of the original test were altered into sample questions.
Stage Three: Identification The topics that were chosen to be investigated in the misconceptions
of topics to be included in section of the test instrument were the Particulate Nature of Matter for
the misconceptions aspect Junior Certificate pupils, and the Particulate Nature of Matter,
of the test instrument Chemical Equilibrium and The Mole Concept for the Leaving
Certificate pupils. These were selected as they emerged from phase
one of this investigation as being perceived as being difficult topics in
Chemistry.
Stage Four: Research on A review of the literature in the area of misconceptions in Chemistry
the misconceptions that was carried out and a list of the most common misconceptions in the
exist in these topic areas selected topics was drawn up.
Stage Five: Development Questions were selected and developed based on the list of common
of multiple choice misconceptions that exist about each topic. These questions aimed to
questions for each topic and determine if Irish pupils held similar misconceptions as those
selection of distracters that mentioned in the literature.
should be included
Stage Six: Administration Test instruments were distributed nationwide to second level schools
of test instruments and were completed by Junior and Leaving Certificate
Science/Chemistry pupils. A separate cognitive test was also given to
first year University and Institute of Technology students.
Stage Seven: Analysis of On analysis of pupils’ responses to the different questions, pupils’
Responses cognitive ability was established. The misconceptions that they possess
about the Particulate Nature of Matter, Chemical Equilibrium and The
Mole Concept were also determined.
Table 3.6: Summary of the steps involved in the development of the Junior and Leaving
Certificate test instruments

3.2.1 Development of test instrument

A) Cognitive level of pupils:
The first section of the Test Instrument was developed to assess the cognitive
development of the pupils. Major research has been carried out in the areas of testing the
cognitive ability of pupils and leading this field of research are Michael Shayer and Philip
Adey in the UK. It was decided to use ‘Task IV ~ Equilibrium in the Balance’ Science
Reasoning Task (SRT), (NERF, 1979), for this section of the test instrument. Alterations
had to be made to this test in order to use it for this study. It was modified for ease of

119
distribution to Irish second level schools. The original involved a demonstration by the
teacher before the pupils completed the test. The test used in this investigation substituted
this demonstration with a number of practice questions, to which the answers were given.
A copy of the original test developed by Shayer and Adey and the test instrument
developed for phase two of this investigation are included in Appendix B and C of this
document, respectively. In total there were eleven questions in this cognitive ability test
used in this investigation. Pupils’ cognitive ability was then calculated on analysis of the
responses they gave to these questions. If a pupil gave the correct answer to a question
they were awarded one mark, a correct answer to question one however was awarded two
marks. Pupils’ scores were then added and pupils were assigned a level of cognitive
ability based on their overall score. Table 3.7 outlines how the overall score equates to
level of cognitive development.

Total No. of Piagetian Scale Piagetian Level

correct Items
Level of Cognitive Development Shorthand

1 4.57 Mature Concrete Operational 2B

2 5.29 Mature Concrete Operational 2B
3 5.77 Mature Concrete Operational 2B
4 6.15 Concrete Generalisation Operational 2B*
5 6.48 Concrete Generalisation Operational 2B*
6 6.79 Concrete Generalisation Operational 2B*
7 7.1 Early Formal Operational 3A
8 7.41 Early Formal Operational 3A
9 7.75 Early Formal Operational 3A
10 8.13 Mature Formal Operational 3A/3B
11 8.61 Mature Formal Operational 3A/3B
12 9.3 Formal Generalisation Operational 3B
Table 3.7: Relationship between the pupils score on test instrument and pupils’ cognitive
development (Science Reasoning Task IV)

It is important to note that the modification of this test will have an effect on the
frequencies of pupils operating at the different stages of cognitive development. As
pupils/students will be generally categorised as either being in the concrete or formal
operational stage of cognitive development, the effects of modifying the test
instrument will be minimised. It is proposed that the percentages of those found to be
operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive development for groups
analysed in this investigation will be less as a result of the modifying the test.

120
B) Chemical misconceptions held by pupils:
The second section of the test instrument was a selection of questions used to assess
misconceptions that may exist in certain Chemistry topics. It was not possible to assess
the misconceptions held about every Chemistry topic in this study; therefore certain
topics were selected for each group. The results from phase one of this study for Junior
Certificate pupils showed that the majority of Junior Certificate pupils had difficult with
topics that involved The Atom, Bonding, Compounds, Elements and Electronic
Configuration. In fact on analysis of the topics that emerged as being difficult from
phase one, it was clear that Junior Certificate pupils had problems with Chemistry
topics that required a good understanding of the Particulate Nature of Matter in order to
be fully understood. Therefore it was decided to assess the misconceptions that Junior
and Leaving Certificate pupils’ possess about the Particulate Nature of Matter. The
Particulate Nature of Matter is described as a threshold concept, one in which clear
understanding is required and in which failure to understand has negative effects for the
learning and understanding of many other Chemistry topics.

At Leaving Certificate level, misconceptions in the areas of Chemical Equilibrium and

The Mole Concept were also assessed, as these were identified in phase one as major
areas of difficulty.

In order to develop section two of the test instrument, research had to be carried out in
the area of misconceptions that exist in these three areas. On analysis of studies carried
out in the area of misconceptions in Chemistry it was possible to develop a list of
common misconceptions that pupils possess about The Particulate Nature of Matter,
Chemical Equilibrium and The Mole Concept. A detailed description of the
misconceptions that exist in these areas is given in section 2.5.1 of this document.

Once the most common misconceptions pupils possess about the Particulate Nature of
Matter, Chemical Equilibrium and The Mole Concept were identified, questions that
would test if Irish pupils held these misconceptions were identified and developed. Table
3.8 and 3.9 show the structure of the misconceptions tests administered the Junior and
Leaving Certificate pupils in phase two of this study. Table 3.8 outlines the structure of
the Junior Certificate instrument. It shows the question number, the misconception being
tested and the source of the question.

121
Question Number Concept being tested Source of Question

Q:1 - 11 Cognitive Development Questions (NERF, 1979)

Q: 14 Pupils ability to distinguish between Developed by Author

compounds, elements and mixtures

Q: 19 Pupils ideas about what fills the spaces Yezierski and Birk (2006)
between particles

Q: 12, 13, 17, 18, Misconceptions relating to Phase Change Yezierski and Birk (2006))
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, Mulford and Robinson (2002)
25, 27, 28 Yezden (2006)
Osborne and Cosgrove (1983)
Gabel (2005)

Q: 26 Pupils understanding of solubility and Mulford and Robinson (2002)

concentration

Q: 29, 30, 32 Pupils ability to conserve of mass, volume Mulford and Robinson (2002)
and matter
Q: 34 Pupils understanding of Chemical Nakhleh (1992)
Reactions
Q: 31 Pupils understanding of the macroscopic Developed by Author
versus the microscopic

Q: 33 Pupils ability to distinguish between Developed by Author

Chemical and Physical Change

Q: 15, 16 Pupils understanding of Atoms and Developed by Author

Molecules
Q: 35 Pupils understanding of Ionic and Covalent Developed by Author
Bonding

Table 3.8: Structure of the Junior Certificate test instrument and the source of the
question that tested individual misconceptions

Table 3.9 outlines the structure of the Leaving Certificate instrument. It shows the question
number, the misconception being tested and the source of the question.

122
 Concept Area Question Concept being tested Source of Question
Number
Cognitive Q: 1 - 11 Cognitive Development of (NERF, 1979)
Development the pupil (SRT IV ~
Questions Equilibrium in the Balance)

Particulate Q: 12 Pupils understanding of the Merritt et al (2007)

Nature of Matter nature of matter
Q: 16 Pupils ideas about what fills Yezierski and Birk (2006)
the spaces between particles
Q: 13, 14, Misconceptions relating to Yezierski and Birk (2006)
15, 17, 18, Phase Change Merritt et al (2007)
19, 20, 21, Mulford and Robinson (2002)
22 Ozmen (2004)
Gabel (2005)
Q: 23 Pupils understanding Chemistry Concepts
concentration of solutions Inventory
Q: 25 Pupils ability to conserve of Mulford and Robinson (2002)
mass, volume and matter
Q: 24, 26, Pupils understanding of Mulford and Robinson (2002)
27 Chemical Reactions
Q: 28 Pupils understanding of the Mulford and Robinson (2002)
macroscopic versus the
microscopic
Equilibrium Q: 29 (b), Pupils understanding of the Developed by Author
29(c), 33 dynamic nature of
(b), 33(d) Equilibrium
Q: 29(a), Misconceptions relating to Developed by Author
29(c) viewing equilibrium reactions
as 2 separate reactions
Q: 32 Misconceptions relating to Developed by Author
LeChatliers Principle
Q: 30, 31 Misconceptions relating to Developed by Author
the Equilibrium Constant Mathabatha (2005)
Q: 33(a), Misconceptions relating to Developed by Author
33(c) Rate Versus Equilibrium
The Mole Q: 34, 35 Pupils understanding of what Claesgens and Stacy (2003)
Concept the Mole is Gower et al (1977)
Q: 36, 37, Pupils ability to use the Mole Gower et al (1977)
43 as a counting Unit McDonald (1984)
Claesgens and Stacy (2003)
Q: 38, 39, Pupils understanding of the McDonald (1984)
40, 42, 45 relationship between reacting Gabel (2005)
masses ~ Stiochiometry Briggs and Holding (1986)

Q: 41 , 44 Pupils understanding of McDonald (1984)

Molar Volumes
Table 3.9: Structure of the Leaving Certificate test instrument and the source of the
question that tested individual misconceptions

123
Questions used in this test instrument were designed and structured based on the following
ideas. Firstly the questions included in this test instrument were for the most part higher-
order in nature. It was important that pupils were not merely asked to recall information
learned from their Chemistry book. The higher-order questions included in this test
instrument required pupils to:
• Translate information from words to symbols and vice versa
• Extrapolate in order to infer consequences
• Apply principles to new problems or situations
• Interpret information in order to select relevant data
• Analyse information for underlying principles and relationships in order to address a
problem

The manner in which the questions were structured also needed to be varied. How a
question is structured can affect the answer that a pupil gives. It is important to rule out the
effect the style of a question may have on a pupil’s answer in order to develop an accurate
list of misconceptions possess by Irish Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils. The test
instruments were designed using the philosophy of the Chemistry Concepts Inventory,
available from the Journal of Chemical Education website
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/index.html. The structure of the different types of questions
that were used in the test instruments are listed in Table 3.10.

124
 Type of Question Description of Question
Tiered Multiple Choice Tiered multiple choice questions consist of a pair of questions that
ask a student what will happen in the first question and ask them to
provide a reason in the following question. One benefit of the two-
tiered format is that it allows for the probing of two aspects of the
same phenomenon. In the first question students are asked to
predict the outcome of a physical or chemical change. The second
question asks for an explanation. This allows the probing of the
phenomenological domain with the first question and the
conceptual domain with the second
Particulate question A chemical situation is represented on the atomic or molecular
(particulate) level using circles or spheres of different sizes or
colours, as necessary, to represent the particles
Demonstration Question Students answer questions having observed a demonstration,
video, or simulation.
Symbolic Questions Questions using formula, equations and symbols
Macroscopic Questions Everyday phenomena describe in words
Laboratory Question Students use graphs, tables, and other data to predict and/or explain
what happens in an experimental situation. Much of the analysis
and interpretation of laboratory work could be used as a basis for
assessing conceptual understanding if the laboratory is not
constructed in a cookbook fashion.
Analogy Question These questions are based on completing an analogy (A is to B as
C is to D). The stem of the question contains the first part of the
analogy (A is to B as) and the student selects the alternate that best
completed the analogy (C is to D).
Series Completion These questions ask a student to select an item that best completes
Question a series. These questions require that the student recognize the
common feature in the series and use that feature to complete the
series.
Free Response Questions These question required pupils to explain phenomena in their own
words.
Table 3.10: Types of Questions included in the Junior and Leaving Certificate Test Instruments

The majority of questions in the misconceptions section of the Test Instrument were
multiple choice questions. As a result of the large body of literature available on
misconceptions in Chemistry, distracters could be designed to test for these known
misconceptions. Each multiple choice question had five possible answers. When
developing these multiple choice questions it was important to structure the stem of the
question properly and also put a lot of thought into the five possible responses. Work
carried out by Cheung and Bucat (2002) was very useful in the development of this test
instrument. When making the multiple choice questions according to Cheung and Bucat
(2002) it is important to ensure that:

125
• The stem of the questions is meaningful by itself and does present a definite
problem
• The use of internal or beginning blanks in completions of multiple choice stems is
avoided
• A negatively stated stem is only used when significant learning outcomes require it
• Irrelevant difficulty is avoided
• All distractions are plausible
• The use of a complex multiple choice format is avoided
• The relative length of the options does not provide a clue to the answer
• Using ‘none of the above’ or ‘all of the above’ as a option is avoided if possible

Additional information was also collected with the test instruments. Information such as the
subject’s date of birth, their gender and the Mathematics and Science/Chemistry level that
they were taking for the Junior/Leaving Certificate was collected in order to determine if any
of these factors influence the cognitive development of the pupil and the number and types of
chemical misconceptions they possess.

3.2.2: Distribution of Test Instruments:

Test Instruments were distributed to groups of pupils at second level in the Irish
Education System. For the distribution of test instruments at second level there were
two main methods of recruiting volunteers. Firstly, schools that participated in phase
one of this investigation were approached and asked if they would be interested in
taking part in the follow-on study. The second method of recruiting schools was to
contact the Chemistry teacher using a list of second level schools obtained from the
Department of Education and Science. As before it was important to ensure during
recruitment at second level that the sample groups were representational of the types
of schools in the Irish Education system. The break-up of distribution of Test
Instruments according to school type is shown in Table 3.11

126
 School Type No. Of Schools % Of School Type in
(n=20) Study
Secondary Schools 9 45%
Vocational Schools 4 20%
Community and Comprehensive Schools 7 35%
Table 3.11: Distribution of Test Instruments according to School Type

Test Instruments were distributed to second level schools in April 2008. Teachers were asked
to return these test instruments as soon as possible. April was identified as a good time to
distribute test instruments, as at this point in the school year pupils will have completed their
Junior Certificate Science and Leaving Certificate Chemistry courses and will be familiar
with all of the Chemistry topics included in the test instruments.

3.2.3: Description of Sample Groups

There were three hundred and twenty three Junior Certificate Science pupils and two hundred
and twenty eight Leaving Certificate Chemistry pupils involved in this section of the
investigation. Table 3.12 outlines the general profiles of the Junior and Leaving Certificate
cohorts.

Junior Certificate Cohort Leaving Certificate

(n=323) Cohort (n=228)
Age Profile 14 Years Old = 10.8% 16 Years Old = 7.5%
15 Tears Old = 41.2% 17 years Old = 32.5%
16 Years Old = 45.8% 18 Years Old = 46.9%
Missing = 2.2% 19 years Old =12.7%
Missing = 0.4%
Gender Profile Male = 149 (46.1%) Male = 62 (27.2%)
Female = 174 (53.9%) Female = 164 (71.9%)
Missing = 0.9%
Breakdown of pupils doing Higher Level = 194 (60.1%) Higher Level = 127
Ordinary or Higher level Ordinary Level = 105 (32.5%) (55.7%)
Mathematics Missing =7.4% Ordinary Level = 100
(43.9%)
Missing = 0.4%
Breakdown of pupils doing Higher Level = 255 (78.9%) Higher Level = 206
Ordinary or Higher level Ordinary Level = 45 (13.9%) (90.4%)
Science/Chemistry Missing = 7.2% Ordinary Level = 21 (9.2%)
Missing = 0.4%
Table 3.12: General profile of the Junior and Leaving Certificate cohorts involve in phase
two of investigation

127
From Table 3.13 it can be seen that majority of Junior Certificate pupils involved in
this study are aged between 15 and 16 years of age. The majority of Leaving
Certificate pupils are 18 years of age. At Junior Certificate level the majority of pupils
are taking higher level Science for the Junior Certificate. At Leaving Certificate level
only 9.2% of the pupils are taking ordinary level Chemistry. 60.1% of Junior
Certificate and 55.7 % of Leaving Certificate pupils are taking higher level
Mathematics.

A separate investigation was also carried out into the cognitive development of 1st
year University and Institute of Technology students. These students also completed
the modified Science Reasoning Task, ‘Task IV ~ Equilibrium in the Balance’
(NERF, 1979). Table 3.13 outlines the general profiles of the 1st year University and
Institute of Technology students.

1st Year University Students 1st year Institute of Technology

(n=336) Students (n=67)
Age Profile 17 Years Old = 8.0 % 17 Years Old = 11.9%
18 Years Old = 42.6 % 18 Years Old = 37.3%
19 Years Old = 34.5% 19 Years Old = 11.9%
> 19 Years Old = 13.1% > 19 Years Old = 34.4%
Missing = 1.8% Missing = 4.5%
Gender Profile Male = 208 (62%) Male = 24 (36%)
Female = 128 (38%) Female = 43 (64%)
Students who had Higher Level Mathematics = Higher Level Mathematics =
achieve a C3 grade 62.2% of students 19.4% of students
or higher in higher
level Mathematics C3 grade or higher of total cohort C3 grade or higher of total cohort
for the Leaving in higher level Mathematics = 55% in higher level Mathematics =
Certificate 15%
Students who had Percentage of students who had not Percentage of students who had
achieve a C3 grade taken Chemistry for the Leaving not taken Chemistry for the
or higher in higher Certificate = 54.8% Leaving Certificate = 52.2%
level Chemistry for
the Leaving C3 grade or higher of total cohort C3 grade or higher of total cohort
Certificate in higher level Chemistry = 37.4% in higher level Chemistry =
26.9%
Type of Course in Engineering Course = 120 (35.7%) Science Course = 67 (100%)
University/Institute Science Course = 132 (39.3%)
of Technology Education Course = 78 (23.2%)
Missing = 6 (1.8%)
Table 3.13: General profile of the 1st year University and Institute of Technology
cohorts involve in phase two of investigation

128
3.2.4: Analysis of Test Instruments
Responses to section one were analysed using SPSS for Windows. The Cognitive
Abilities test was corrected and pupils were given a score out of 12. Each correct
answer in the test was worth one point, except question one which was worth two
points. Pupil’s cognitive level was then also recorded in SPSS. The final section of the
test instrument was again correct manually and pupils’ responses were imputed into
SPSS. Pupil’s individual responses to each question were analysed along with their
overall performance in the misconceptions test.
The final stage of analysis involved determining any link between the pupils’
cognitive ability and the number of misconceptions that they possess. Links between
age, gender, and cognitive development were also analysed. SPSS 14.0 for Windows
was the software package used to determine significant links between the above
factors. The Chi-squared (χ2) test was used to compare the observed frequencies of
cases with those expected in a variable which has two or more categories. The p-value
tells you whether the relationship or correlation between the variables is significantly
sound. A p-value less than 0.05 is deemed significant.

129
Section 3.3: Development, Implementation and Evaluation of an intervention
programme aimed to alleviate difficulties Irish pupils have in Chemistry
Based on the results obtained in phases one and two, phase three saw the development
of an intervention programme aimed at improving the thinking that occurs in a
Chemistry class and as a result alleviate difficulties Chemistry pupils are having.
Increasing Thinking Skills in Chemistry ‘ITS Chemistry’ is an intervention
programme aimed at improving pupils understanding in Chemistry lessons. It aims to
improve the thinking skills of the pupil and address the chemical misconceptions
present that have a negative impact on the learning and understanding of many topics
in Chemistry. ITS Chemistry differs from previous intervention programmes such as
CASE as it is incorporated into the Leaving Chemistry syllabus. Many teaching
strategies and philosophies, that have been proven successes in the area of developing
thinking skills, have been included in this programme and applied to two Chemistry
topics in the current Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus. The steps involved in
this phase of the investigation are as follows:

Step One: Selection of content to be covered in this intervention programme. The

topics to be included in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme are the
particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole concept. These topics were chosen as they
are topics that underpin all Chemistry topics. They are fundamental topics in which
pupils need to have constructed a good understanding if they are to understand more
advanced topics in Chemistry. They are also topics that are introduced quite early in
senior cycle Chemistry and therefore it seems logical place to intervene. An analysis
was performed on how these topics are currently sequenced in the curriculum and a
number of Science/Chemistry text books were examined. A Cognitive Analysis
Taxonomy (CAT) was also carried out on these topics. The CAT is very useful for
teachers of Chemistry as it allows one to determine the cognitive demand of different
aspects of each of the topics and as a result indicates the level of thinking required to
understand that topic. It is also useful in determining a logical progression from one
idea to the next.

Step Two: Development and structuring of lessons. An account was taken of previous
successful philosophies and methodologies in structuring of content. The lessons also
took account of common misconceptions in the Particulate Nature of Matter and the

130
Mole concept and employed strategies to reduce and avoid the formation of Chemical
misconceptions. Materials were developed for pupils covering twelve weeks of work,
to be studied at the very beginning of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry course.
Teaching resources including a pupil and teacher handbook were published and
packaged for ease of use in the classroom.

Step Three: Training of teachers involved in testing this intervention programme.

Teachers who were to implement this programme underwent training at the start of
the school year 2009 – 2010. Training involved a look at the history of this project,
and a look at the structure of the intervention programme and how it fits in with the
established Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus. The philosophy and the
methodology of the project were explained to teachers. The structure and use of
teaching materials was described.

Step Four: Implementation and evaluation of the intervention programme. These

Chemistry teachers plus the author then implemented the ITS Chemistry programme
in their schools in the first term of the 2009 – 2010 school year. At the very beginning
of this intervention programme the cognitive development of pupils was assessed
using Science Reasoning Task Three (Shayer and Wylan, 1976). They then completed
the 12 week programme and afterwards completed a post-test. The post-test took the
form of another Science Reasoning Task and a misconceptions test and these scores
were compared with the pre-test scores. The types and numbers of misconceptions
were compared with a control group which did not participate in the intervention
programme, but covered the same material in the traditional way. The teachers’ views
were collected through a teacher’s diary and a short questionnaire at the end of the
project. The following is a detailed description of the stages involved in the
development, implementation and evaluation of the ITS Chemistry programme.

Factors that influenced the development of the intervention programme and a detailed
description of the contents of the programme will be discussed in Chapter 6 of this
document.

131
3.3.1: Evaluation of the ITS Chemistry intervention programme:
At the very beginning of this intervention programme, pupils in the experimental group
completed a pre-test which assessed their cognitive development. Science Reasoning
Task Three (SRT III ~ The Pendulum) was used for this pre-test. Pupils in the control
group did not complete this pre-test. Pupils in the experimental groups then participated
in the 12 week programme and afterwards completed a post-test. The post-test took the
form of another Science Reasoning Task (SRT IV ~ Equilibrium in the Balance) which
was modified for ease of implementation and a chemical misconceptions test similar to
the one used in phase two of this investigation. Cognitive development scores of the
experimental group were compared with the pre-test scores in order to determine if the
intervention programme had any effect on cognitive ability. The second part of the test
instrument was a set of questions used to assess the chemical misconceptions held by
pupils about topics included in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme. The types
and numbers of incorrect answers given by the experimental group were compared with
a control group, which did not participate in the intervention programme, but which
covered the same material in the traditional way. The structure of the post-test used to
analyse the effectiveness of the ITS Chemistry intervention programme is outlined in
Table 3.14.

132
 Concept Area Question Concept being tested Source of Question
Number
Cognitive Q: 1 - 11 Cognitive Development of the NERF, 1979)
Development pupil (modified SRT IV ~
Questions Equilibrium in the Balance)
Particulate Q: 12 Pupils understanding of the Merritt et al (2007)
Nature of nature of matter
Matter Q: 15 Pupils ideas about what fills the Yezierski and Birk (2006)
spaces between particles
Q: 13, 14, 16, Misconceptions relating to Yezierski and Birk (2006))
17, 18, 19, 20, Phase Change Merritt et al (2007)
21, 28, 29, 30, Mulford and Robinson (2002)
31 and 33 Ozmen (2004)
Gabel (2005)
Q: 25 Misconceptions relating to Developed by Author
elements, compounds and
mixtures
Q: 26, 27 and 40 Misconceptions relating to Developed by Author
atoms and molecules
Q: 32 and 38 Pupils understanding Chemistry Concepts
concentration of solutions Inventory
Q: 34, 35 and 36 Pupils ability to conserve of Mulford and Robinson (2002)
mass, volume and matter
Q: 37 Pupils understanding of Developed by Author
chemical and physical change
Q: 41 Pupils understanding of Developed by Author
Chemical formulae
Q: 22, 23 and 24 Pupils understanding of Mulford and Robinson (2002)
Chemical Reactions
Q: 39 Pupils understanding of the Developed by Author
macroscopic versus the
microscopic
The Mole Q: 42 and 47 Pupils understanding of what Claesgens and Stacy (2003)
Concept the Mole is Developed by Author
Q: 43 and 46 Pupils ability to use the Mole Gower et al (1977)
as a counting Unit Caesgens and Stacy (2003)
Q: 48 Pupils understanding of Developed by Author
percentage composition
Q: 44, 45 and 50 Pupils understanding of the McDonald (1984)
relationship between reacting Gabel (2005)
masses ~ Stiochiometry Briggs and Holding (1986)
Q: 49 Pupils understanding of Molar McDonald (1984)
Volumes
Table 3.14: Structure of the post-test instrument, completed by both control and experimental
groups, to analyse the effectiveness of the ITS Chemistry intervention programme

Results relating to the effect that the ITS Chemistry programme had on the cognitive ability
of the pupil will merely provide evidence of the cognitive effect that the intervention
programme had, the actual extent of this cognitive effect could not be measured as the

133
control group did not complete a pre-test. This is one of the limitations of this phase of the
investigation. The post-test for the experimental group and the control group were
identical. These pre- and post- test instruments are available in Appendix D. The teachers’
views were collected through a teacher’s diary and a short questionnaire at the end of the
implementation phase of the programme. In total 5 schools (6 different class groups)
trialled the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme. One of these schools involves the
implementation of the programme by one of the researchers (MS). The profile of the
experimental group involved in the implementation of the ITS Chemistry programme is
seen below in table 3.15.

Profile of Experimental group for phase

three of this investigation (n= 93)
Age Profile 15 Years Old = 24.7%
16 Tears Old = 71.0%
17 Years Old = 2.2%
Missing = 2.2%
Gender Profile Male = 42 (45.2%)
Female = 51(54.8%)
Breakdown of pupils Mathematics level for Higher Level = 54 (58.1%)
the Junior Certificate Examination Ordinary Level = 37 (39.8%)
Missing = 2 (2.2%)
Breakdown of pupils Science level for the Higher Level = 77 (82.8%)
Junior Certificate Examination Ordinary Level = 14 (15.1%)
Missing = 2 (2.2%)
Table 3.15: Profile of the experimental group that participated in the ITS Chemistry
implementation programme

Table 3.16 shows the profile of the control group used in this phase of the investigation.
Profile of the control group for phase three of
this investigation (n= 57)
Age Profile 15 Years Old = 17.5%
16 Tears Old = 50.9%
17 Years Old = 26.3%
Missing = 5.3%
Gender Profile Male = 38 (66.7%)
Female = 19 (33.3%)
Breakdown of pupils Mathematics level for Higher Level = 41 (71.9%)
the Junior Certificate Examination Ordinary Level = 13 (22.8%)

Breakdown of pupils Science level for the Higher Level = 54 (94.7%)

Junior Certificate Examination Ordinary Level = 3 (5.3%)

Table 3.16: Profile of the control group that participated in phase three of this investigation

134
Section 3.4: Timeline of the different phases involved in this investigation
Figure 3.3 outlines the time frame over which this investigation was carried out.

- Sept 2006 – Dec 2006: Design of 3rd level questionnaire

- Jan 2007: Distribution and analysis of 3rd level
questionnaires
Phase One
(September 2006 – - Feb 2007 – April 2007: Development of 2nd level teacher
September 2007) and pupil questionnaires
- April 2007: Distribution of second level questionnaires
- May 2007 – Sept 2007: Analysis of second level
questionnaires

- Sept 2007 – Dec 2007: Investigation of literature relating

Phase Two to cognitive development and chemical misconceptions
(September 2007 – - Jan 2008 – April 2008: Development of test instruments
December 2008)
used in phase two
- April 2008: Distribution of test instruments.
- May 2008 – December 2008: Analysis of responses to
cognitive and chemical misconceptions tests.

- Jan 2009 – May 2009: Analysis of literature into

cognitive development programmes and strategies
relating to chemical misconceptions
- May 2009 – Aug 2009: Development of the ITS

Phase Three Chemistry programme

(January 2009 – - Sept 2009: Training of teachers and pre-test distribution
January 2010)
- Sept 2009 – Dec 2009: Implementation of the ITS
Chemistry programme
- Dec 2009: Distribution of post-tests
- Jan 2010: Analysis of the effectiveness of the ITS
Chemistry programme

Figure 3.3: Outline of the timeframe over which this investigation was carried out

Chapter four, five and seven will outline and discuss the results and findings of phase
one, two and three of this investigation respectively.

135
 Chapter Four:
Results of Phase One

136
 Chapter Four ~ Results and Analysis of Phase One of this Investigation

The aim of the first phase of this investigation was to determine the Chemistry topics that
are perceived as being difficult by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils and University
students. This phase will give a snapshot of the topics pupils find difficult at the various
stages of the study of Chemistry in the Irish Education system. The following are the
results obtained by the different sets of questionnaires described in section 3.1.1 of this
document. First we will look at the responses of Junior Certificate pupils, then Leaving
Certificate pupils and teachers and finally we will examine the responses of the
University students.

Section 4.1: Responses of Junior Certificate Pupils

Six hundred and seven Junior Certificate pupils completed questionnaires. Table 4.1
shows the breakdown of the Junior Certificate group by gender and by Mathematics
and Science level.

No. of Male Pupils (% of Pupils) No. of Female Pupils (% of Pupils)

Gender 220 (36.2%) 387 (63.7%)

No. of pupils taking Higher Level No. of pupils taking Ordinary Level
Mathematics 326 (53.7%) 225 (37.1%)
Level
Note: Missing = 56 (9.2%)
Science Level 502 (82.7%) 73 (12.0%)
Note: Missing = 32 (5.3%)
Table 4.1: Breakdown of Junior Certificate Science Group by Gender and Mathematics
and Science Level (n=607)

4.1.1: Difficult and Very Difficult Chemistry Topics in Junior Certificate Science
Responses to the Junior Certificate questionnaires will be analysed in two ways.
Firstly topics that received a mean rating between 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0 will be listed in order
to follow the manner in which Jimoh (2005) analysed the results of his investigation,
and to highlight all the Chemistry topics that present some level of difficulty to Irish
Junior Certificate pupils. Secondly a list of the top ten topics that received the highest
percentage of ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ responses will then be presented.
Table 4.2 lists the Chemistry topics that received a mean rating between 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0
from analysis of the Junior Certificate responses.

137
 Junior Certificate Topic Mean Junior Certificate Topic Mean
(n=607) value* (n=607) value*
Chemical equations 3.83 Electronic configuration 2.83
Covalent compounds 3.29 Groups of elements 2.68
Ionic compounds 3.20 Crystallisation 2.66
Chemical changes 3.20 Carbon dioxide 2.63
Covalent bonding 3.18 Solutions 2.62
Isotopes 3.11 Periodic Table 2.58
Atoms 3.09 Physical changes 2.58
Reactions of elements 3.05 Elements 2.58
Atomic number 3.02 Acids and bases 2.51
Ionic bonding 3.02 Plastics 2.54
Compounds 2.98
Neutralisation reactions 2.94
Table 4.2: Chemistry topics (out of a total of 33 topics) that were identified as being
difficult by Junior Certificate pupils (n=607) *Mean values 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0

From Table 4.2 it can be seen that twenty-three topics received a mean rating between
2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0. It can be seen that the topics that received the highest mean values were
Chemical Equations, Covalent and Ionic Compounds, and Bonding. The topics listed
in Table 4.2 are the most abstract and conceptually difficult topics at Junior
Certificate level and it is unsurprising that the majority of pupils have difficulty with
these topics.

Pupils were asked to rate different Chemistry topics on a scale from one to six. The
number of pupils that chose responses four and five are the numbers of most interest.
Response four refers to topics being difficult while response five refers to topics being
very difficult. The topics, which got the highest amount of ‘number four’ and ‘number
five’ responses from Junior Certificate pupils are listed in Table 4.3.

138
 Topic Valid % of Group Topic Valid % of Group
who find the topic who find the topic
Difficult ~ (response 4) Very Difficult
~(response 5)
Chemical Equations 37.8% Chemical 27.7%
Equations
Ionic Compounds 31.9% Covalent Bonding 12.7%
Covalent Compounds 29.4% Atoms 12.0%
Chemical Change 27.9% Covalent 11.7%
Compounds
Covalent Bonding 27.7% Atomic Number 10.4%
Ionic Bonding 26.0% Chemical Change 9.6%
Atoms 25.5% Isotopes 9.4%
Atomic Number 25.2% Ionic Compounds 9.3%
Neutralisation 23.0% Electronic 9.0%
Reactions Configuration
Isotopes 22.9% Ionic Bonding 8.2%
Table 4.3: Top ten Junior Certificate Science topics, which received the highest amount of
‘number 4 and 5’ or ‘difficult and very difficult’ responses (n=607)

Valid percentage refers to the percentage of the group that gave this response for this
particular topic and does not include missing responses. This valid percentage value
will be used throughout this chapter. Over twenty six percent of the group identified
Chemical Equations, Ionic and Covalent Compounds, Chemical Change and Covalent
and Ionic bonding as being difficult. The topic that received the highest amount of
number four responses was Chemical Equations. Almost thirty eight percent of Junior
Certificate pupils find Chemical Equations difficult. Chemical Equations again
received the highest amount of ‘number five’ responses. Almost twenty eight percent
of pupils perceive Chemical Equations as being very difficult. This is twice the
number of pupils that perceived any other topic as being very difficult. This indicates
that Chemical Equations is perhaps a topic that is found difficult by a large proportion
of Junior Certificate pupils.

On combining the number of difficult and very difficult responses, a list of topics
causing problems for Junior Certificate pupils can be developed. Table 4.4 is a list of
the topics that received the highest ‘difficult and very difficult’ combined responses
from Junior Certificate pupils.

139
 Topic No. of No. of Very Total no. of Valid % of
Difficult Difficult Pupils who Group who
Responses Responses find the topic find the topic
Difficult or Difficult or
Very Difficult Very Difficult
Chemical Equations 224 164 388 63.9%
Ionic Compounds 188 55 243 40.0%
Covalent Compounds 171 68 239 39.4%
Covalent Bonding 164 75 239 39.4%
Atoms 152 73 225 37.1%
Chemical Change 162 56 218 35.9%
Atomic Number 148 61 209 34.4%
Ionic Bonding 155 49 204 33.6%
Isotopes 134 55 189 31.1%
Electronic 130 53 183 30.1%
Configuration
Table 4.4: Junior Certificate Science topics that received the highest number of ‘difficult
and very difficult’ combined responses (n=607)

Again, Chemical Equations received far more responses than any other topic at 64%,
compared to 40% for Ionic Compounds. Chemical Equations is clearly perceived as
being difficult for Junior Certificate pupils. Ionic and Covalent Bonding and
Compounds also appear as being perceived difficult or very difficult by a significant
percentage of Junior Certificate pupils. It is interesting to note that the majority of
topics on the list in Table 4.4 are among the most abstract in the Junior Certificate
Syllabus. These topics require pupils to operate at the formal operational stage of
thought as described by Piaget. The vast majority of pupils at the end of the Junior
Certificate may still be operating at the concrete operational stage of thought and this
may be a reason why the above topics are difficult.

4.1.2: Links between Mathematical Level and perceived difficult of a Chemistry topic
Table 4.5, shows the topics that appeared as significant when correlations were
carried out between Mathematics level and perceived difficulty of a Chemistry topic.

Table 4.5 lists the topics that emerged in correlation tests between ordinary level
Mathematics pupils and the difficulty of a Chemistry topic. A p-value less that 0.05 is
significant.

140
 Topic p-value Topic p-value
Acid Rain 0.000 Ionic Compounds 0.000
Atomic Number 0.000 Isotopes 0.041
Atoms 0.001 Matter 0.000
Changes of State 0.000 Metals 0.040
Chemical Change 0.000 Mixtures 0.000
Compounds 0.008 Neutralisation Reactions 0.000
Covalent Bonding 0.002 Oxygen 0.009
Covalent Compounds 0.035 Periodic Table 0.000
Crystallisation 0.000 pH 0.000
Electronic Configuration 0.000 Physical Changes 0.004
Elements 0.000 Separating Mixtures 0.000
Groups of Elements 0.000 Solutions 0.001
Ionic Bonding 0.011 States of Matter 0.000
Table 4.5: Topics that ordinary level Mathematics pupils are more likely to perceive as
difficult in Junior Certificate Science (p value < 0.05 = significant)

There are a large and varied number of topics listed in Table 4.5. This is a significant
result and indicates a possibility that topics such as those listed in Table 4.5 may
cause difficulty to ordinary level Mathematics pupils.

4.1.3: Links between Science Level and perceived difficult of a Chemistry topic
It would be expected that a pupils’ ability at Science does affect how easy or difficult
a pupils finds a particular topic in Science. Table 4.6 lists the topics that emerged in
correlation tests between ordinary level Science pupils and the difficulty of a
Chemistry topic.

141
 Topic p-value Topic p-value
Acid Rain 0.000 Isotopes 0.000
Acids and Bases 0.006 Matter 0.000
Atomic Number 0.000 Metals 0.012
Atoms 0.000 Mixtures 0.024
Changes of State 0.001 Neutralisation Reactions 0.007
Compounds 0.018 Periodic Table 0.000
Covalent Bonding 0.020 pH 0.000
Crystallisation 0.028 Physical Changes 0.000
Electronic Configuration 0.003 Separating Mixtures 0.000
Elements 0.003 Solutions 0.001
Groups of Elements 0.003 States of Matter 0.000
Ionic Bonding 0.010 Plastics 0.004
Ionic Compounds 0.001
Table 4.6: Topics that ordinary level Science pupils are more likely to perceive as difficult in Junior
Certificate Science (p value < 0.05 = significant). NOTE: The topics highlighted in red also showed
up as significant when Mathematical ability was linked with perceived difficulty of a topic

Table 4.6 lists a large number of topics that ordinary level Science pupils are more
likely to find difficult. Results of correlation tests indicate that pupils who take
ordinary level Mathematics are more likely to take ordinary level Science for the
Junior Certificate. The significance value for this correlation was p= 0.01. The topics
highlighted in red in table 4.6 are topics that also showed up as significant when
Mathematical level was linked with perceived difficulty of a topic.

142
4.1.4: Links between gender and perceived difficult of a Chemistry topic
Correlation tests were carried out between gender and perceived difficulty of a
Chemistry topics. Table 4.7 lists the Chemistry topics that emerged in correlation tests
between gender and perceived difficult of a topic.

Topic p-value
Air 0.013
Chemical Change 0.005
Chemical Equations 0.007
Covalent Bonding 0.003
Covalent Compounds 0.029
Ionic Compounds 0.005
Oxygen 0.000
Table 4.7: Topics that female pupils are more likely to perceive as difficult in Junior
Certificate Science (p value < 0.05 = significant)

Significance tests indicate that female pupils are more likely to find Air, Chemical
Change, Chemical Equations, Covalent Bonding, Covalent Compounds, Ionic
Compounds and Oxygen difficult. Males on the other hand perceive the Periodic
Table (p-value= 0.037) as difficult and female pupils do not. Links between gender
and perceived difficult are not conclusive and appear to indicate that gender does not
affect the perception of how easy or difficult Science topics at Junior Certificate level
are.

143
Section 4.2: Responses of Leaving Certificate Pupils
Four hundred and twenty four Leaving Certificate pupils completed questionnaires.
Table 4.8 shows the breakdown of the Leaving Certificate group by gender and by
Mathematics and Chemistry level.

No. of Male Pupils (% of Pupils) No. of Female Pupils (% of Pupils)

Gender 112 (26.4%) 309 (72.9%)

No. of pupils taking Higher Level No. of pupils taking Ordinary Level

Mathematics 201 (47.4%) 199 (46.9%)

Level Note: Missing = 24 (5.7%)
Chemistry 348 (82.1%) 59 (13.9%)
Level Note: Missing = 17 (4.0%)
Table 4.8: Breakdown of Leaving Certificate Chemistry group by Gender and Mathematics
and Chemistry Level (n=424)

4.2.1: Difficult and Very Difficult Topics in Leaving Certificate Chemistry

Responses to the Leaving Certificate questionnaires will be analysed in three ways.
Firstly topics that received a mean rating between 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0 will be listed in order
to follow the manner in which Jimoh (2005) analysed the results of his investigation,
and to highlight all the Chemistry topics that present some level of difficulty to Irish
Leaving Certificate pupils. Secondly a list of the top ten topics that received the
highest percentage of ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ responses will then be presented.
Finally pupils’ responses to the free response question will be analysed.
Table 4.9 lists the 45 Chemistry topics (out of a total of 60) that received a mean
rating between 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0 from analysis of the Leaving Certificate responses.

144
 Leaving Certificate Topic (n= Mean Leaving Certificate Mean value*
424) value* Topic (n= 424)

Organic reaction mechanisms 3.67 Transition elements 2.90

Organic synthesis 3.60 Hess’s law 2.90
Electrochemistry 3.44 Equilibrium constant 2.90
Chemical equilibria calculations 3.33 Intermolecular forces 2.88
Infra red spectroscopy 3.33 Industrial chemistry 2.87
Carboxylic acids 3.25 Shapes of molecules 2.84
Reactions of alcohols 3.25 Writing chemical 2.83
formulae
Stoichiometry 3.25 Gas laws 2.79
Carbonyl group 3.21 The Mole 2.79
Haloalkanes 3.20 Naming organic 2.79
compounds
Polymers 3.20 Acid/base equilibria 2.66
Halogen chemistry 3.18 Analysing results of 2.61
experiments
Materials 3.07 Le Chatelier’s principle 2.58
Chromatography 3.07 Covalent bonding 2.59
Hydrocarbons 3.06 Mass spectrometry 2.59
Redox reactions 3.04 Activation energy 2.54
Percentage yields 3.04 Oxidation numbers 2.54
Isomerism 3.00 Electronegativity and 2.54
trends on the periodic
table
Volumetric calculations 2.96 Atmospheric chemistry 2.53
Equilibrium 2.97 Ionisation energy 2.53
Chemical equilibria 2.96 Balancing equations 2.52
Concentration of solutions 2.95 Oil refining and fuels 2.51
Reaction rates, order of reaction 2.94
Table 4.9: Chemistry topics (out of a total of 60 topics) that were identified as being
difficult by Leaving Certificate pupils (n= 424) *Mean values 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0

In total forty-five topics received a mean value between 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0 from the
Leaving Certificate responses, a significant majority.

Pupils were asked to rate different topics on the Leaving Certificate Chemistry course
on a scale from one to six. The number of pupils that chose responses four and five
are the numbers of most interest. Response four refers to topics being difficult while
response five refers to topics being very difficult. The topics, which got the highest
amount of ‘number four’ and ‘number five’ responses from Leaving Certificate pupils
are listed in Table 4.10.

145
 Topic Valid % of Group Topic Valid % of Group
who find the topic who find the topic
Difficult ~ Very Difficult
(response 4) ~(response 5)
Carbonyl groups 33.1% Organic Reaction 27.8%
Mechanisms e.g. addition
Organic Synthesis 31.4% Organic Synthesis 19.1%
Reaction of Alcohols 32.8% Chemical Equilibria: 17.8%
Calculations
Organic Reaction 29.9% Stoichiometry 17.0%
Mechanisms e.g.
addition
Chemical Equilibria: 29.3% Hydrocarbons, aliphatic 11.8%
Calculations and aromatic
Redox Reactions 28.4% Percentage Yield 11.5%
Intermolecular Forces 26.5% Volumetric Calculations 11.1%
Concentration of 25.5% Infrared Spectroscopy 10.6%
Solutions, %w/w,
%w/v, %v/v and ppm
Volumetric 24.9% Equilibrium and 10.6%
Calculations Equilibrium Constants,
Kc
Polymers 24.7% The Mole 10.4%
Table 4.10: Top ten Leaving Certificate Chemistry topics, which received the highest
amount of ‘number 4 and 5’ or ‘difficult and very difficult’ responses (n=424)

In general it can be seen that Organic Chemistry topics received the highest number of
difficult responses. Over thirty percent of pupils perceive Carbonyl Groups, Organic
Synthesis, Reaction of Alcohols and Organic Reaction Mechanisms as difficult. Other
topics, which appear high in the difficult list, are Chemical Equilibrium Calculations,
Volumetric Calculations and Concentration of Solutions. Over twenty five percent of
pupils found these topics difficult. Also from Table 4.10 it can be seen that over
twenty seven percent of pupils perceive Organic Reaction Mechanisms as being very
difficult. On combining the number of difficult and very difficult responses, a list of
topics causing problems for Leaving Certificate pupils can be developed. Table 4.10
was included to illustrate the topics that received the highest amount of number 4 and
number 5 responses Table 4.11 is a list of the topics that received the highest
combined amount of number 4 and 5 responses ‘difficult and very difficult’
combined responses from Leaving Certificate pupils.

146
 Topic No. of No. of Very Total no. of Valid % of
Difficult Difficult Pupils who find Group who
Responses Responses the topic find the topic
Difficult or Difficult or
Very Difficult Very Difficult
Organic Reaction 125 116 241 57.7%
Mechanisms e.g.
addition
Organic Synthesis 128 78 206 50.5%
Chemical Equilibria: 120 73 193 47.2%
Calculations
Carboxylic acids 144 31 175 43.1%
Reaction of Alcohols 134 34 168 41.1%
Stoichiometry 95 68 162 40.8%
Carbonyl groups 135 29 164 40.2%
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic 100 48 148 36.4%
and aromatic
Redox Reactions 119 33 152 36.3%
Volumetric Calculations 103 46 149 36.0%
Concentration of 108 41 149 35.7%
Solutions, %w/w, %w/v,
%v/v and ppm
Table 4.11: Leaving Certificate Chemistry topics that received the highest number of
‘difficult and very difficult’ combined responses (n=424)

Over fifty percent of Leaving Certificate pupils find Organic Reaction Mechanisms
and Organic Synthesis difficult or very difficult topics in Chemistry. Other Organic
Chemistry topics that received high amounts of difficult or very difficult responses
include Carboxylic acids, Carbonyl groups, Hydrocarbons (aliphatic and aromatic)
and Reaction of Alcohols. This indicates a problem with Organic Chemistry for
Leaving Certificate Chemistry pupils. Mathematical based topics like Chemical
Equilibrium (Calculations), Stoichiometry, Volumetric Calculations and
Concentration of Solutions are also perceived as being difficult or very difficult by
over thirty five percent of leaving certificate Chemistry pupils.

The second part of the Questionnaire was a free response question that asked pupils to
list in order of difficulty the top five most difficult Chemistry topics in their opinion.
The first topic on their list was the first most difficult, the second topic was the second
most difficult and so on. Figure 4.1 shows the responses of the Leaving Certificate
pupils to this free response question. The responses have been combined so that the
overall perception of difficulty can be seen. As with the other sample groups in this

147
chapter, the top ten topics that appeared most frequently in the free response question
have been included in the free response question graphs.

Figure 4.1: Leaving Certificate pupil’s responses to the free response question (n=424)

Thirty two percent of the Leaving Certificate group listed Organic Reaction
Mechanisms in their top five most difficult topics. The highest number of pupils also
ranked it as the first most difficult topic. Twenty percent of pupils listed Organic
Synthesis in their list. The second highest number of pupils ranked Organic Synthesis
in first position. Equilibrium and Chemical Equilibria Calculations also appeared in
this list along with Volumetric Calculations and The Mole. This clearly brings out the
fact that students perceive Organic Chemistry and topics involving the Mole concept
and calculations as most difficult.

148
4.2.2: Links between Mathematical Level and perceived difficult of a Chemistry
topic
Table 4.12 lists the topics that shows significant links with Mathematical ability after
correlation tests between Mathematics level and perceived difficulty of a Chemistry topic
were carried out. A p-value less than 0.05 is significant.

Topic p-value Topic p-value

Carbonyl Groups 0.001 Oxidation Number 0.026
Carboxylic Acids 0.047 Percentage Yields 0.030
Chemical Equilibria: Calculations 0.000 Polymers 0.003
Concentration of Solutions 0.000 Radioactivity 0.009
Electronegativity 0.025 Stoichiometry 0.000
Halogen Chemistry 0.003 The Mole 0.000
Halogenalkanes 0.029 Transition Elements 0.024
Hess’ Law 0.012 Volumetric Calculations 0.001
Ionisation Energy 0.002 Writing Chemical Formula 0.012
Isomerism 0.021 Materials 0.041
Table 4.12: Topics that ordinary level Mathematics pupils are more likely to perceive as
difficult in Leaving Certificate Chemistry (p value < 0.05 = significant)

As can be seen from Table 4.12 there are many topics that ordinary level Mathematics
pupils may find difficult in comparison to higher level Mathematics pupils. It is not
surprising to see topics like Chemical Equilibria Calculations, Concentration of
Solutions, Electronegativity, Hess’ Law, Percentage Yields, Stoichiometry, The Mole
and Volumetric Calculations in the above list, as all of these are Chemistry topics that
are high in mathematical content.

The responses of ordinary and higher level Mathematics pupils for the free response
question also prove interesting. Figure 4.2 illustrates the topics that appeared in the
top five most difficult topics for higher level Mathematics pupils. The top six topics
that were identified most frequently by these pupils have been illustrated in this graph.
This format will apply to the free response graphs relating to gender, Science ability,
Chemistry ability and previous experience of Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate
pupils and University students throughout this chapter.

149
Figure 4.2: Responses to the free response question by Leaving Certificate pupils who are
strong at Mathematics (n=210)

Organic Reaction Mechanisms was ranked by over thirty three percent of higher level
Mathematics pupils in their top five most difficult Chemistry topics list. It also
received the highest number of first most difficult places. Organic Synthesis received
the second highest number of mentions in the pupils list. Figure 4.3 illustrates the
responses of ordinary level Mathematics pupils to the free response question.

Figure 4.3: Responses to the free response question by Leaving Certificate ordinary level
Mathematics pupils (n=199)

150
Organic Reaction Mechanisms also appear for ordinary level Mathematics pupils as
being the topic that received the highest number of mentions in the pupils top five
most difficult Chemistry topics list. Thirty four percent of ordinary level Mathematics
pupils mention Organic Reaction Mechanisms in their top five most difficult topics
list. It is significant that topics like Volumetric Calculations, Stoichiometry,
Percentage Yields, Chemical Equilibria Calculations and Concentration of Solution
also appear in this list as all these topics contain high mathematical content. Organic
Reaction Mechanisms and Organic Synthesis appear for both groups and indicates
that these topics are difficult for pupils regardless of their mathematical level. For
ordinary level Mathematics pupils, topics which have a high mathematical content
such as Volumetric Calculations, Concentration of Solutions, Chemical Equilibria
Calculations, The Mole and Percentage Yield all, appear in the top six. Stoichiometry
and Chemical Equilibria Calculations are the mathematical topics that appear in both
Figures.

4.2.3: Links between Chemistry Level and perceived difficult of a Chemistry topic
Table 4.13 lists the topics that emerged as having a significant link with Chemistry
level when correlation tests between higher and ordinary Chemistry pupils were
carried out against perceived difficult in a Chemistry topic.

Topic p-value Topic p-value

Acid Base Equilibria 0.003 Infrared Spectroscopy 0.031
Alkanes and Alkenes 0.006 Ionic Bonding 0.013
Balancing Equations 0.042 Isomerism 0.000
Chemical Equilibria: Calculations 0.005 Mass Spectrometry 0.043
Chromatography 0.034 Radioactivity 0.000
Concentration of Solutions 0.002 Stoichiometry 0.001
Electronic Structure of the Atom 0.036 The Mole 0.002
Equilibrium 0.042 Transition Elements 0.023
Halogenalkanes 0.001 Volumetric Calculations 0.049
Hess’ Law 0.000 Writing Chemical Formula 0.009
Table 4.13: Topics that Ordinary level Chemistry pupils are more likely to perceive as
difficult in Leaving Certificate Chemistry (p value < 0.05 = significant)

151
The Mole, Stoichiometry, Chemical Equilibria Calculations and Volumetric Calculations
appear in Table 4.13. The topics highlighted in red also appeared in Table 4.12. It can be
suggested that ordinary level Chemistry and Mathematics pupils will most likely perceive
these topics as being difficult or very difficult. Looking at the free response question as
answered by ordinary and higher level Chemistry pupils there are a number of interesting
points. Figure 4.4 shows the responses given to the free response question by higher level
Chemistry pupils.

Figure 4.4: Responses to the free response question by Higher Level Leaving Certificate
pupils (n=348)

Nearly thirty five percent of higher level pupils listed Organic Reaction Mechanisms
in their top five most difficult list. Here again it also received the highest number of
number one placings. Stoichiometry, Organic Synthesis, Equilibrium, Chemical
Equilibria Calculations and Volumetric Calculations also appear frequently in higher
level pupils list of difficult topics. Figure 4.5 illustrates the responses given by
ordinary level Chemistry pupils.

152
Figure 4.5: Responses to the free response question by Ordinary Level Leaving Certificate
pupils (n=59)

A large percentage (42.4%) of ordinary level pupils find Stoichiometry very difficult.
Other topics that appear in Ordinary level Chemistry pupils top six difficult Chemistry
topics list are Organic reaction mechanisms, Equilibrium, Volumetric Calculations,
Chemical Equilibria Calculations and balancing Chemical equations. The topics in
both Figures 4.4 and 4.5 are quite similar, however, the difference lies in the
frequency at which a topic appears. For higher level Chemistry pupils, 22.9% listed
Stoichiometry in their top five most difficult topics list. This compares to 42.4%
ordinary level Chemistry pupils.

As was seen in the Junior Certificate responses, there is also a significant link
between Mathematical ability and Chemistry level. Pupils, who are stronger at
Mathematics, are also stronger at Chemistry. The significance value for this
correlation was p= 0.02.

153
4.2.4: Links between gender and perceived difficult of a Chemistry topic
Table 4.14 and 4.15 lists the topics that emerged as significant when correlation tests
were carries out between gender and perceived difficult of a Chemistry topic. As
before the results of tests are inconclusive and gender does not appear to have an
effect on how easy or difficult a pupil perceives a topic in Chemistry.

Topic p-value
Alkanes and Alkenes 0.022
Carboxylic Acids 0.046
Chemical Equilibria: Calculations 0.026

Table 4.14: Topics that female pupils are more likely to perceive as difficult in Leaving
Certificate Chemistry (p value < 0.05 = significant)

Topic p-value
. Carrying Out Experiments 0.024
Le Chatelier's Principle 0.014
Planning Experiments 0.024
Industrial Chemistry 0.016

Table 4.15: Topics that male pupils are more likely to perceive as difficult in Leaving
Certificate Chemistry (p value < 0.05 = significant)

Figure 4.6 and 4.7 illustrate the responses given by male and female pupils respectively
to the free response question on the second part of the questionnaire.

Figure 4.6: Responses to the free response question by Male Leaving Certificate pupils
(n=112)

154
 Figure 4.7: Responses to the free response question by Female Leaving Certificate pupils
(n=309)

From Figures 4.6 and 4.7 one can see that both male and female Chemistry pupils
include Organic Reaction Mechanisms, Stoichiometry, Chemical Equilibria
Calculations and Volumetric Calculations in their top six most difficult Chemistry
topics list. There is little or no difference in the frequency at which these topics appear
in the male and females lists. This further emphasises that Gender does not influence
the perception of the difficulty of a certain topic.

155
Section 4.3: Responses of Leaving Certificate Teachers
Thirty Leaving Certificate Chemistry teachers from participating schools completed
questionnaires. Teachers, like pupils, were asked to rate different topics on the
Leaving Certificate Chemistry course on a scale from one to six. The topics, which
got the highest amount of ‘number four’ and ‘number five’ responses from Leaving
Certificate teachers are listed in Table 4.16.

Topic Valid % of Group who Topic Valid % of Group who

find the topic Difficult find the topic Very
~ (response 4) Difficult ~(response 5)
Chemical Equilibria: 53.3% Chemical 40.0%
Calculations Equilibria:
Calculations
Volumetric 50.0% Organic Reaction 26.7%
Calculations Mechanisms e.g.
addition
Balancing Equations 46.7% Organic Synthesis 23.3%
Equilibrium Constants: 43.3% Equilibrium 16.7%
Kc Constants: Kc
Intermolecular Forces 43.3% Percentage Yield 13.3%
Organic Reaction 43.3% The Mole 13.3%
Mechanisms e.g.
addition etc
Organic Synthesis 43.3% Shapes of 10.0%
Molecules
The Mole 43.3% Redox reactions 10.0%
Equilibrium 40.0% Mass Spectrometry 10.0%
Gas Laws 40.0% Gas Laws 10.0%
Table 4.16: Leaving Certificate Chemistry topics, which teachers feel are ‘difficult’ or ‘very
difficult’ for Chemistry pupils (n=30)

Over fifty percent of teachers feel that Chemical Equilibria Calculations and
Volumetric Calculations are difficult for Chemistry pupils. They also feel that
Organic Chemistry topics like Organic Reaction Mechanisms and Organic Synthesis
also cause difficulty for pupils. Forty three percent of teachers feel that the Mole is
difficult for pupils, while forty percent of teachers also cited Equilibrium and Gas
Laws as being difficult topics for pupils. As can also be seen from Table 4.16
Chemical Equilibria Calculations again received the highest number of ‘very difficult’
responses. Over forty percent of teachers feel that it is a very difficult topic for
Chemistry pupils. Organic Reaction Mechanisms and Organic Synthesis received the
second and third highest number of ‘very difficult’ responses respectively.

156
On combining the number of difficult and very difficult responses, a list of the top ten
topics that Leaving Certificate Chemistry teachers feel cause problems for Leaving
Certificate pupils can be developed. Table 4.17 is a list of the topics that received the
highest ‘difficult and very difficult’ combined responses from Leaving Certificate
teachers.

Topic No. of No. of Very Total no. of Valid % of

Difficult Difficult Teachers who Teachers who
Responses Responses feel the topic is feel the topic is
Difficult or Very Difficult or Very
Difficult for Difficult for
Pupils Pupils
Chemical Equilibria: 16 12 28 93.3%
Calculations
Organic Reaction 13 8 21 70.0%
Mechanisms e.g. addition

Organic Synthesis 13 7 20 66.7%

Equilibrium Constants: Kc 13 5 18 60.0%

The Mole 13 4 17 56.7%

Balancing Equations 14 3 17 56.7%
Gas Laws 12 3 15 50.0%
Shapes of Molecules 11 3 14 46.7%
Redox reactions 9 3 12 40.0%
Equilibrium 3 8 11 36.6%
Table 4.17: Leaving Certificate Chemistry topics that received the highest number of
‘difficult and very difficult’ combined responses (n=30)

According to teachers the main topics that are of major difficulty for pupils are Chemical
Equilibrium Calculations, Organic Reaction Mechanisms and Organic Synthesis. Ninety
three percent of teachers feel that their pupils find Chemical Equilibrium Calculations
difficult or very difficult. This is a very significant result and shows that Chemical
Equilibria Calculations pose serious problems for pupils. Comparing the responses of
Leaving Certificate Chemistry pupils (Table 4.10) to those of their teachers it can be seen
that the top three topics are the same in both, further evidence that Chemical Equilibria:
Calculations, Organic Reaction Mechanisms e.g. addition and Organic Synthesis are
areas of major difficulty for Leaving Certificate Chemistry pupils. The results of the
teacher questionnaires indicate that Irish Chemistry teachers are, on the whole, conscious
of the Chemistry topics that are a source of difficulty for their pupils. Like the topics

157
identified by Irish Chemistry pupils as being difficult, the topics identified by Irish
Chemistry teachers can be categorised into the following areas:
1. Organic Chemistry topics
2. Chemistry topics that involve Calculations
3. Topics that relate to the particulate nature of matter.

Responses from the Chemistry teachers’ questionnaires further validate the

conclusion that Irish Chemistry pupils have difficulty with Organic Chemistry topics
and topics that involve mathematical calculations.

158
Section 4.4: Responses of 1st Year University Chemistry Students
One hundred and thirty six first year Chemistry students from the University of
Limerick completed questionnaires. Table 4.18 shows the breakdown of this group by
gender and by Mathematics and Chemistry ability.

No. of Male Students (% of No. of Female Students (% of

Students) Students)
Gender 68 (50.0%) 64 (47.1%)

Did study Chemistry for Leaving Did NOT study Chemistry for
Certificate Leaving Certificate
Studied Leaving 63 (46.3%) 73 (53.7%)
Certificate Chemistry
% Higher level students % Ordinary level students
Mathematics 69 (50.7%) 56 (41.2%)
Note: Missing = 11 (8.1%)
Chemistry 49 (36.0%) 11 (8.1%)
Note: Missing = 76 (55.9%)
Table 4.18: Breakdown of 1st Year University Chemistry Group by Gender and
Mathematics and Chemistry ability (n=136)

Students completed questionnaires at the end of an Introductory General Chemistry

module in the University of Limerick. Students were deemed to be strong at
Mathematics or Chemistry if they received a C3 grade of more in the higher level
Leaving Certificate exam. Seventy four students had not studied Chemistry for their
Leaving Certificate whereas sixty four had. There are almost equal numbers of
females to males in this sample group.

4.4.1: Difficult and Very Difficult Topics in First Year University Chemistry
Responses to the 1st year University questionnaires will be analysed in three ways. Firstly
topics that received a mean rating between 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0 will be listed in order to follow the
manner in which Jimoh (2005) analysed the results of his investigation, and to highlight all
the Chemistry topics that present some level of difficulty to Irish University students.
Secondly, a list of the top ten topics that received the highest percentage of ‘difficult’ or
‘very difficult’ responses will then be presented. Finally students’ responses to the free
response question will be analysed. Table 4.19 lists the Chemistry topics that received a
mean rating between 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0 from analysis of the Leaving Certificate responses.

159
 1st year University Topic (n= Mean 1st year University Topic (n= 136) Mean
136) value* value*

Percentage yields 3.71 The Mole 3.24

Organic reaction mechanisms 3.70 Isomerism 3.23
Reactions of alcohols 3.69 Gas laws 3.22
Chemical equilibria calculations 3.67 Alkanes and alkenes 3.22
Halogen chemistry 3.66 Acid/base equilibria 3.22
Carbonyl group 3.63 Intermolecular Forces 3.20
Electrolysis 3.62 Organic synthesis 3.20
Carboxylic acids 3.60 Le Chatelier’s principle 3.20
Redox reactions 3.58 Oxidation numbers 3.20
Concentration of solutions 3.56 Electronic structure of atoms 3.18
Transition elements 3.56 Reaction rates: effect of temperature 3.17
Haloalkanes 3.55 Radioactivity 3.09
Electrochemical cell 3.55 Analysing results of experiments 3.02
Hydrocarbons 3.51 Activation energy 3.02
Reaction rates, order of reaction 3.51 Catalysis 2.96
Chromatography 3.50 Acid/base theory 2.91
Faraday’s law 3.49 Oil refining and fuels 2.88
Writing chemical formulae 3.49 Ionic bonding 2.87
Equilibrium constant 3.47 Ionisation energy 2.85
Volumetric calculations 3.47 Water analysis, hardness etc 2.79
Polymers 3.45 Atomic structure 2.78
Shapes of molecules 3.42 Planning experiments 2.74
Hess’s law 3.40 Covalent bonding 2.73
Naming organic compounds 3.40 Balancing equations 2.72
Infrared spectroscopy 3.38 Patterns and trends on the Periodic 2.71
Table
Mass spectrometry 3.31 Water treatment 2.65
Equilibrium 3.29 pH scale 2.60
Chemical equilibria 3.28
Table 4.19: Chemistry topics (out of a total of 60 topics) that were identified as being
difficult by1st Year University students (n= 136) *Mean values 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0

As can be seen from Table 4.19 fifty-five topics out of sixty received a mean value
between 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0 indicating that the majority of topics are found difficult by
students. Students were asked to rate different topics on the 1st year University
Chemistry course on a scale from one to six. The number of students that chose
responses four and five are the numbers of most interest. Response four refers to
topics being difficult while response five refers to topics being very difficult. The

160
topics, which got the highest amount of ‘number four’ and ‘number five’ responses
from 1st year University students, are listed in Table 4.20.
Topic Valid % of Group Topic Valid % of Group
who find the topic who find the topic
Difficult ~ Very Difficult
(response 4) ~(response 5)
Chemical Equilibria: 34.6% Redox Reactions 20.6%
Calculations
Equilibrium 32.8% Chemical Equilibria: 20.3%
Constants: Kc Calculations
Redox Reactions 32.5% Writing Chemical 20.2%
Formulae
Electrolysis 32.3% Volumetric Calculations 19.4%
Transition Elements 30.4% Shapes of Molecules 18.0%
Equilibrium 30.0% The Mole 18.0%
Electronic Structure 29.0% Reaction Rates: effect of 17.1%
of Atoms, energy temp, particle size etc
levels etc
Chemical 28.2% Percentage Yields 16.9%
Equilibrium, effects
of temp etc.
Concentration of 27.8% Equilibrium Constants: 16.8%
Solutions, %w/w, Kc
%w/v, %v/v and ppm
Acid- Base Equilibria 27.6% Concentration of 16.5%
Solutions, %w/w, %w/v,
%v/v and ppm
Table 4.20: First Year University Chemistry topics which received the highest amount of
‘number 4 and 5’ or ‘difficult and very difficult’ responses (n=136)

Chemical Equilibria Calculations are perceived as being difficult by thirty four percent of
the group. The topics that received the second highest amount of number four responses is
also an Equilibrium-based topic. Thirty two percent of the group find Equilibrium
Constants difficult. In fact five topics based on Equilibrium appear in the top ten difficult
list in Table 4.20. They are Chemical Equilibria Calculations, Equilibrium Constants (Kc),
Equilibrium, Chemical Equilibrium ~ effects of temp etc and Acid- Base Equilibria. This
indicates that Equilibrium is a problem for first year Chemistry students in the University
of Limerick. From Table 4.20 it can also be seen that Equilibrium topics again received a
high proportion of number five responses. This list also contains mathematical based topics
such as Volumetric Calculations, The Mole, Percentage Yields and Concentration of
Solutions. Redox Reactions received the highest amount of ‘number five’ responses with
over twenty percent of the group perceiving it as very difficult. On combining the number

161
of difficult and very difficult responses, a list of topics causing problems for First Year
University Chemistry students can be developed.

Table 4.21 is a list of the topics that received the highest ‘difficult and very difficult’
combined responses from First Year University Chemistry students.

Topic No. of No. of Very Total no. of Valid % of

Difficult Difficult Students who Group who
Responses Responses find the topic find the topic
Difficult or Difficult or
Very Difficult Very Difficult
Chemical Equilibria: 46 27 73 54.9%
Calculations
Redox Reactions 41 26 67 53.2%
Equilibrium Constants: 43 22 65 49.6%
Kc
Electrolysis 41 20 61 48.0%
Volumetric Calculations 34 25 59 45.7%
Shapes of Molecules 35 23 58 45.3%
Concentration of 37 22 59 44.4%
Solutions, %w/w, %w/v,
%v/v and ppm
Writing Chemical 31 26 57 44.2%
Formulae
The Mole 33 23 56 43.8%
Equilibrium 39 17 56 43.1%
Table 4.21: First Year University Chemistry topics that received the highest number of
‘difficult and very difficult’ combined responses (n=136)

Over fifty percent of this group feel that Chemical Equilibria Calculations and Redox
Reactions are difficult or very difficult. Along with Chemical Equilibria Calculations
other Equilibrium based topics that appear in this list are Equilibrium Constants (K c) and
Equilibrium. Almost forty four percent of this group perceived The Mole as being
difficult or very difficult. It is interesting to note the absence of any Organic Chemistry
topics in this list. This could be explained by the nature of the modules students are
currently studying. It does however appear in responses to the in the free response
question.

The second part of the Questionnaire was a free response question that asked students
to list in order of difficulty the top five most difficult Chemistry topics in their
opinion. The first topic on their list was the first most difficult, the second topic was

162
the second most difficult and so on. Figure 4.8 shows the responses of the First Year
University of Limerick students to this free response question.

Figure 4.8: First Year University student’s responses to the free response question (n=136)

Thirty percent of students listed The Mole in their top five list of difficult Chemistry
topics. It also received the highest amount of first most difficult rankings. Volumetric
Calculations and Chemical Equilibria Calculations were other topics that appeared
frequently in students’ top five difficult Chemistry topics list.

4.4.2: Links between previous experience of Chemistry and perceived difficulty of a

Chemistry topic
A student who has taken Chemistry as a Leaving Certificate subject has two years
extra experience in Chemistry, ahead of others who did not study it for their Leaving
Certificate. During the students first year in University, it is expected that this will
significantly affect the topics that a student perceives as difficult in Chemistry. It is to
be expected that students without Leaving Certificate Chemistry will find the majority
of Chemistry topics difficult as they are now only experiencing them for the first time.
They have not as yet developed the fundamentals of the subject and will not be
familiar with the language of Chemistry. Table 4.22 illustrates the topics that students

163
who have not taken Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate are more likely to perceive
as difficult. A p-value of less than 0.05 is significant.

Topic p-value Topic p-value

Acid Base Equilibria 0.000 Ionisation Energy 0.000
Acid Base Theory 0.000 Le Chatliers principle 0.000
Activation Energy 0.000 Mass Spectroscopy 0.000
Alkanes and Alkenes 0.001 Naming Organic Compounds 0.030
Analysing results of Experiments 0.042 Organic reaction mechanisms 0.037
Atomic Structure 0.002 Oxidation Number 0.000
Balancing Equations 0.001 Periodic Table 0.000
Carbonyl Group 0.016 Radioactivity 0.000
Carrying out Experiments 0.040 Rates of Reaction ~ effect of 0.000
temp
Chemical Equilibria ~ effect of temp. 0.001 Reaction of Alcohols 0.011
Chromatography 0.003 Redox Reactions 0.003
Concentration of Solutions 0.032 Shapes of Molecules 0.001
Covalent Bonding 0.000 The Mole 0.020
Electronic Structure of the Atom 0.000 Transition Elements 0.004
Equilibrium 0.018 Volumetric Calculations 0.005
Halogen Chemistry 0.001 Water Treatment 0.020
Intermolecular Forces 0.001 Writing Chemical Formulae 0.000
Ionic Bonding 0.006
Table 4.22: Topics that Students who had not taken Chemistry as a Leaving Certificate
subject are more likely to perceive as difficult (p value < 0.05 = significant)

Table 4.22 lists a large number of topics that students who had not taken Chemistry
for the Leaving Certificate perceive as being difficult. It can thus be said that having
studied Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate is an advantage during the first year in a
University Chemistry course, as you are more likely to find topics easier.

Figure 4.9 illustrates the topics that pupils who had taken Leaving Certificate
Chemistry listed in their top five difficult Chemistry topics list.

164
Figure 4.9: The responses of 1st year University students who had studied Chemistry for the
Leaving Certificate to the free response question (n=62)

Over twenty five percent of students who had studied Chemistry for the Leaving
Certificate still perceive Volumetric Calculations and The Mole as difficult topics. The
topic that received the highest amount of number one placings was Organic Reaction
Mechanisms. Figure 4.10 illustrates the topics that pupils who had not taken Leaving
Certificate Chemistry listed in their top five difficult Chemistry topics list.

Figure 4.10: The responses of 1st year University students who had NOT studied Chemistry
for the Leaving Certificate to the free response question (n=74)

Thirty five percent of students, who had not taken Chemistry for the Leaving Certificate,
perceive The Mole as being difficult. The Mole also received the highest amount of
number one places on the students list.

165
4.4.3: Links between Mathematical Level and perceived difficult of a Chemistry
topic
A student who received a C3 grade or higher, in the higher level Mathematics exam for
the Leaving Certificate, are deemed as being strong at Mathematics. Students with a
lower grade are deemed as being weak at Mathematics. Unlike tests carried out with the
second level cohorts, results of significance tests for the third level cohort only identify
a small number of Chemistry topics that are significantly linked with Mathematical
ability. Table 4.23 lists the topics that will be more likely to be perceived as difficult by
ordinary level Mathematics students. A p-value less than 0.05 is significant.

Topic p-value
Analysing results of Experiments 0.017
Balancing Equations 0.001
Catalysis 0.008
Faradays Law 0.022
Gas Law Calculations 0.039
Ionic Bonding 0.020
The Mole 0.001
Water Treatment 0.016
Writing Chemical Formulae 0.049
Table 4.23: Topics that ordinary level Mathematics students are more likely to perceive as
difficult in First Year University Chemistry (p value < 0.05 = significant)

Figure 4.11 shows the responses students who are strong at Mathematics to the free
response question.

Figure 4.11: The responses of 1st year University students who are strong at mathematics to
the free response question (n=69)

166
From Figure 4.11 it is interesting to note that students who are strong at Mathematics
still find a mathematical topic like the Mole the most difficult. Twenty three percent
of students who are strong at Mathematics included the Mole in their top five most
difficult topics. The topic that received most number one places on students’ lists was
Organic Reaction Mechanisms. Figure 4.12 shows the responses of ordinary level
Mathematics students to the free response question.

Figure 4.12: The responses of 1st year University students who took ordinary level
mathematics for the Leaving Certificate to the free response question (n=56)

As can be seen from Figure 4.12 the Mole is again the topic that appeared most
frequently in the students top five list. This time however over forty six percent of
ordinary level Mathematics students included it in their top five most difficult topics
list. This is an increase from the twenty three percent of students who are strong at
Mathematics from Figure 4.11. Other topics such as Volumetric calculations,
Concentration of Solutions, Chemical Equilibria Calculations, Gas Law Calculations,
Balancing Equations, Oxidation Number and Percentage Yields appeared most
frequently for ordinary level Mathematics pupils in their top five most difficult topics
list. This is not surprising as each of these topics involves high mathematical content.

167
4.4.4: Links between Chemistry Level and perceived difficult of a Chemistry topic
Students’ ability at Chemistry does not appear to be as significant as it had been at
Junior and Leaving certificate level. Table 4.24 lists the topics that emerged as having
significant links with Chemistry ability after correlation test had been carried out
between Chemistry level and perceived difficult of a Chemistry topic. A p-value of
less than 0.05 is significant.

Topic p-value
Carbonyl Group 0.042
Carboxylic Acid 0.014
Catalysis 0.022
Table 4.24: Topics that ordinary level Chemistry students are more likely to perceive as
difficult in First Year University Chemistry (p value < 0.05 = significant)

4.4.5: Links between gender and perceived difficult of a Chemistry topic

Results of correlation tests between gender and perceived difficulty of a topic indicate
that gender has a very negligible effect on the number and types of Chemistry topics
that students perceive as being easy or difficult. Table 4.25 lists the topics that
females may find difficult in comparison to male students. A p-value of less than 0.05
is significant.

Topic p-value
Chemical Equilibria: Calculations 0.013
Electrolysis 0.017
Gas Law Calculations 0.030
Ionic Bonding 0.011
Polymerisation 0.021
Table 4.25: Topics that female students are more likely to perceive as difficult in First Year
University Chemistry (p value < 0.05 = significant)

Figures 4.13 and 4.14 list the responses of male and female students to the free
response question of the questionnaire.

168
 Figure 4.13: The responses of male students in the 1st year University group to the free
response question (n=68)

Figure 4.14: The responses of female students in the 1st year University group to the free
response question (n=64)

Both male and female students feel that the Mole is difficult. It appeared most
frequently in both groups’, top five most difficult Chemistry topics list. Other topics
that appeared frequently in both groups’ lists are Volumetric Calculations and
Chemical Equilibria Calculations.

169
Section 4.5: Responses of 2nd and 3rd Year University Chemistry Students
Fifty five second and third year Chemistry students from the University of Limerick
completed questionnaires. Table 4.26 shows the breakdown of this group by gender
and by Mathematics ability.
No. of Male Students No. of Female Students
Gender 20 (36.4%) 33 (60%)

Did study Chemistry for Leaving Did NOT study Chemistry for
Certificate Leaving Certificate
Studied Leaving 15 (27.3%) 40 (72.7%)
Certificate
Chemistry
% Higher level students % Ordinary level students

Mathematics 16 (29.1%) 36 (65.5%)

Note: Missing = 3 (5.5%)
Table 4.26: Breakdown of 2nd and 3rd Year University Chemistry Group by Gender and
Mathematics level and Chemistry Experience (n=55)

Students completed questionnaires during their first semester in second and third year at
the University of Limerick. The second year group was composed of students studying
Environmental Science and Health and Safety courses. The third year group composed of
Science Education students. Both the second and third year group had equal numbers and
similar types of Chemistry modules completed when questionnaires were distributed.
Students were deemed to be strong at Mathematics if they received a C3 grade or more in
the higher level Leaving Certificate exam. Forty students had not studied Chemistry for
their Leaving Certificate whereas fifteen had. At this point in their University Education
it does not suffice to say students are strong at Chemistry if they received a C3 grade or
higher in the Leaving Certificate exam. This is due to the fact that students now have a
greater experience of Chemistry and therefore could have developed ability at the subject
since the Leaving Certificate exam. In order to determine student’s Chemistry ability
further tests would have to be completed.

4.5.1: Difficult and Very Difficult Topics in Second and Third Year University
Chemistry
Responses to the 2nd and 3rd year University questionnaires will be analysed in three
ways. Firstly topics that received a mean rating between 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0 will be listed in
order to follow the manner in which Jimoh (2005) analysed the results of his

170
investigation, and to highlight all the Chemistry topics that present some level of
difficulty to Irish University students. Secondly a list of the top ten topics that
received the highest percentage of ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ responses will then be
presented. Finally students’ responses to the free response question will be analysed.
Table 4.27 lists the Chemistry topics that received a mean rating between 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0
from analysis of the Leaving Certificate responses.

2nd and 3rd year University Mean value* 2nd and 3rd year University Mean
Topic Topic value*
(n= 55) (n= 55)
Chemical equilibria calculations 3.84 Hess’s law 3.26
Volumetric calculations 3.74 Polymers 3.26
Concentration of solutions 3.71 Catalysis 3.23
Percentage yields 3.60 Carboxylic acids 3.20
Analysing results of 3.59 Le Chatelier’s principle 3.19
experiments
Mass spectrometry 3.57 Reaction rates: effect of 3.15
temperature
Writing chemical formulae 3.53 Faraday’s law 3.13
Electrolysis 3.52 Isomerism 3.13
Stoichiometry 3.52 Intermolecular forces 3.08
Equilibrium constant 3.49 Electronic structure of atoms 3.04
Acid/base equilibria 3.48 Ionic bonding 3.02
Transition elements 3.48 Haloalkanes 3.00
Organic reaction mechanisms 3.46 Naming organic compounds 3.00
Organic synthesis 3.45 Patterns and trends on the 3.00
Periodic Table
Redox reactions 3.45 Covalent bonding 2.96
Electrochemical cell 3.41 Activation energy 2.92
Acid/base theory 3.38 Hydrocarbons 2.92
Reactions of alcohols 3.38 Ionisation energy 2.92
Shapes of molecules 3.38 Carrying out experiments 2.91
Halogen chemistry 3.37 Oxidation numbers 2.91
Equilibrium 3.36 Radioactivity 2.89
Reaction rates, order of reaction 3.35 Alkanes and alkenes 2.88
Infrared spectroscopy 3.32 Gas laws 2.83
Chemical equilibria 3.31 Balancing equations 2.81
Chromatography 3.31 Planning experiments 2.78
Carbonyl group 3.29 Oil refining and fuels 2.57
The Mole 3.28 pH scale 2.55
Table 4.27: Chemistry topics (out of a total of 60 topics) that were identified as being
difficult by 2nd and 3rd Year University students (n= 55) *Mean values 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0

171
Overall fifty- seven topics out of sixty received a mean value between 2.5 ≤x ≤ 5.0.
The three topics that did not emerge on this list were water treatment and analysis and
Atomic structure. Students were asked to rate different Chemistry topics on a scale
from one to six. The number of students that chose responses four and five are the
numbers of most interest. Response four refers to topics being difficult while response
five refers to topics being very difficult. The topics, which got the highest amount of
‘number four’ and ‘number five’ responses from 2nd and 3rd year University students,
are listed in Table 4.28.

Topic Valid % of Group Topic Valid % of Group

who find the topic who find the topic
Difficult ~ Very Difficult
(response 4) ~(response 5)
Concentration of 44.4% Volumetric 29.6%
Solutions, %w/w, %w/v, Calculations
%v/v and ppm.
Electrolysis 43.1% Writing Chemical 25.5%
Formula
Transition Elements 42.3% Percentage Yield 22.2%
Catalysis 41.2% Chemical Equilibria: 21.8%
Calculations
Chemical Equilibria: 40.0% The Mole 20.4%
Calculations
Reaction Rates: order of 38.9% Analysing Results of 20.4%
Reaction Experiments
Chemical Equilibria: 38.2% Concentration of 18.5%
effect of temp. etc. Solutions, %w/w,
%w/v, %v/v and ppm
Redox Reactions 38.2% Redox Reactions 18.2%
Shapes of Molecules 37.7% Mass Spectroscopy 16.7%
Percentage Yield 37.0% Equilibrium 13.2%
Constants: Kc
Table 4.28: Second and Third Year University Chemistry topics which received the highest
amount of ‘number 4 and 5’ or ‘difficult and very difficult’ responses (n=55)

Forty four percent of the group found Concentration of Solutions a difficult topic.
Chemical Equilibria Calculations are perceived as difficult by forty percent of the
sample group, while thirty eight percent find Chemical Equilibria ~ effect of temp.
etc. difficult. The topics, which got the highest amount of ‘number five’ responses
from second and third year University Chemistry students i.e. the topics that students
find very difficult, were mathematical topics like Volumetric Calculations, Percentage
Yield and Concentration of Solutions. Chemical Equilibria Calculations also appears

172
in this list, with over twenty percent of the group perceiving the topic to be very
difficult. Note that here again Organic Chemistry topics do not appear in the students
lists, they do however appear in the students responses to the free response question.
On combining the number of difficult and very difficult responses, a list of topics
causing problems for Second and Third Year University Chemistry students can be
developed. Table 4.29 is a list of the topics that received the highest ‘difficult and
very difficult’ combined responses from Second and Third Year University Chemistry
students

Topic No. of No. of Very Total no. of Valid % of

Difficult Difficult Students who Group who find
Responses Responses find the topic the topic
Difficult or Difficult or
Very Difficult Very Difficult
Volumetric Calculations 19 16 35 64.8%
Concentration of 24 10 34 63.0%
Solutions, %w/w, %w/v,
%v/v and ppm
Chemical Equilibria: 22 12 34 61.8%
Calculations
Percentage Yield 20 12 32 59.3%
Redox Reactions 21 10 31 56.4%
Writing Chemical 17 14 31 56.4%
Formula
Analysing Results of 17 11 28 51.9%
Experiments
Electrolysis 22 4 26 51.0%
Reaction Rates: order of 21 5 26 48.1%
Reaction
Shapes of Molecules 20 5 25 47.2%
Table 4.29: Second and Third Year University Chemistry topics that received the highest
number of ‘difficult and very difficult’ combined responses (n=55)

Over sixty percent of the group feel that Volumetric Calculations, Concentration of
Solutions and Chemical Equilibria Calculations are difficult or very difficult. This is a
major percentage of the group and indicates a possible problem with Chemistry topics
that are high in mathematical content and/or depend on the understanding the
Particulate Nature of Matter.

The second part of the Questionnaire was a free response question that asked students
to list in order of difficulty the top five most difficult Chemistry topics in their

173
opinion. The first topic on their list was the first most difficult, the second topic was
the second most difficult and so on. Figure 4.15 shows the responses of the 2nd and 3rd
Year University of Limerick students to this free response question.

Figure 4.15: Second and Third Year University student’s responses to the free response
question (n=55)

Forty percent of this group listed Volumetric Calculations in their top five most
difficult Chemistry list. Writing Chemical Formulae received the highest amount of
first most difficult placings. Other topics that appeared frequently in the second and
third year students list were Percentage Yields, Analysing results of Experiments,
Concentration of Solutions, The Mole and Redox Reactions. Note that Organic
Reaction Mechanisms does appear in the top ten of this list.

174
4.5.2: Links between Mathematical Level and perceived difficult of a Chemistry
topic
Some significant links were discovered on analysis of the responses of the 2nd and 3rd
year University students’ responses in terms of Mathematical ability. Results of
correlation tests indicate that links may exist between the topics that a student
perceives as being difficult and whether they took ordinary or higher level
Mathematics for the Leaving Certificate. Table 4.30 lists the topics that ordinary level
Mathematics students are more likely to perceive as being difficult. A p-value of less
than 0.05 is significant.

Topic p-value
Analysing Results of Experiments 0.034
Volumetric Calculations 0.004
Chemical Equilibria: Calculations 0.019
Percentage Yield 0.001
Writing Chemical Formulae 0.038
Acid Base Equilibria 0.012
Acid Base theory 0.023
Halogenalkanes 0.033
Oxidation Number 0.009
Table 4.30: Topics that ordinary level Mathematics students are more likely to perceive as
difficult in Second and Third Year University Chemistry (p value < 0.05 = significant)

From Table 4.30 it can be seen that topics that are high in mathematical content such
as Analysing Results of Experiments, Volumetric Calculations, Chemical Equilibria
Calculations, Percentage Yield, Writing Chemical Formulae and Oxidation Number
are all found easier by students who took higher level Mathematics. Figure 4.16
shows the responses of students who are strong at Mathematics to the free response
question in the questionnaire.

175
 Figure 4.16: The responses of 2nd and 3rd Year University students who are strong at
Mathematics to the free response question (n=16)

Twenty five percent of students who are strong at Mathematics listed Concentration
of Solutions, Organic Reaction Mechanisms and Writing Chemical Formulae in their
top five most difficult Chemistry topics list. Figure 4.17 shows the response of
ordinary level Mathematics students to the free response question.

Figure 4.17: The responses of 2nd and 3rd Year University ordinary level Mathematics
students to the free response question (n=36)

176
Ordinary level Mathematics pupils listed Volumetric Calculations, Writing Chemical
Formula, percentage Yield and The Mole most frequently in their top five most difficult
topics list. All these topics are high in mathematical content and hence it follows that
ordinary level Mathematics students would perceive these topics as being difficult. Over
fifty percent of the group listed Volumetric Calculations in their top five difficult topics
list. This is a high percentage of the group.

4.5.3: Links between gender and perceived difficult of a Chemistry topic

In this sample group gender no longer seems to influence the topics that students find
easy or difficult. Figures 4.18 and 4.19 list the responses of males and females to the free
response question in the questionnaire.

Figure 4.18: The responses of 2nd and 3rd Year males to the free response question (n=20)

177
Figure 4.19: The responses of 2nd and 3rd Year females to the free response question (n=33)

From Figures 4.18 and 4.19 it can be seen that over forty percent of males and females
listed Volumetric Calculations as being in their top five most difficult topics list.
Writing Chemical Formulae also appeared frequently in both lists. Over thirty percent
of females listed Percentage Yields and The Mole in their top five difficult topics list
also. An interesting point to note, from analysis of the 2nd and 3rd year responses is that
neither Chemistry ability nor having taken Chemistry as a Leaving Certificate subject
significantly affected the Chemistry topics that second and third year university
Chemistry students perceived as being difficult.

Section 4.6: Analysis of the results of phase one of this investigation

The overall aim of this phase of the investigation was to determine the Chemistry
topics that the majority of Irish pupils/students find difficult. Table 4.31 lists the top
ten Chemistry topics found difficult or very difficult by Junior Certificate pupils,
Leaving certificate pupils, 1st year University students and 2nd and 3rd year University
students. Topics highlighted in red are topics that emerged as being difficult for both
Leaving Certificate pupils and University students.

178
 Junior Certificate Responses Leaving Certificate Responses (n=424) 1st year University Students Responses 2nd and 3rd Year University Students
(n=136) Responses (n=55)
(n=607)
Topic % Of Topic % Of Topic % Of Topic % Of
Difficult/Very Difficult/Very Difficult/Very Difficult/Very
Difficult Difficult Difficult Difficult
Responses Responses Responses Responses
Chemical 63.9% Organic Reaction 57.7% Chemical Equilibria: 54.9% Volumetric 64.8%
Equations Mechanisms e.g. Calculations Calculations
addition
Ionic Compounds 40.0% Organic Synthesis 50.5% Redox Reactions 53.2% Concentration of 63.0%
Solutions
Covalent 39.4% Chemical Equilibria: 47.2% Equilibrium 49.6% Chemical 61.8%
Compounds Calculations Constants: Kc Equilibria:
Calculations
Covalent Bonding 39.4% Carboxylic acids 43.1% Electrolysis 48.0% Percentage Yield 59.3%
Atoms 37.1% Reaction of Alcohols 41.1% Volumetric 45.7% Redox Reactions 56.4%
Calculations
Chemical Change 35.9% Stoichiometry 40.8% Shapes of Molecules 45.3% Writing 56.4%
Chemical
Formula
Atomic Number 34.4% Carbonyl groups 40.2% Concentration of 44.4% Analysing 51.9%
Solutions Results of
Experiments
Ionic Bonding 33.6% Hydrocarbons, 36.4% Writing Chemical 44.2% Electrolysis 51.0%
aliphatic and aromatic Formulae
Isotopes 31.1% Redox Reactions 36.3% The Mole 43.8% Reaction Rates: 48.1%
order of Reaction
Electronic 30.1% Volumetric 36.0% Equilibrium 43.1% Shapes of 47.2%
Configuration Calculations Molecules
Table 4.31: Topics that were identified as being either difficult or very difficult by Junior Certificate, Leaving Certificate and Third Level Chemistry
pupils/students

179
One of the key findings outlined by the ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education in
Ireland) report was that about ‘50% of students regard Junior Certificate Science as a
demanding, difficult subject’ (Mathews, 2007). From Table 4.31 it can be seen that 63.9% of
Junior Certificate pupils find Chemical Equations ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’. Over 30% of
Junior Certificate pupils surveyed find the remaining topics on this list either ‘difficult’ or
‘very difficult’. The difficult topics listed for Junior Certificate pupils in Table 4.31 can be
classified into three distinct areas. These areas are:

- The structure of the atom

- Bonding
- Chemical Equations and Symbols.

Results obtained in the ROSE Project (Mathews, 2007) substantiate the above findings.
According to the report, topics such as atoms and molecules, which are at the heart of the
Chemistry portion of the syllabus received the ‘lowest rating by girls and the third lowest
rating by boys’ in terms of popularity. It is unsurprising that the topics listed in Table 4.31
are found difficult by a large proportion of Junior Certificate pupils. It can be said that these
topics are among the most conceptually difficult on the Junior Certificate Chemistry course.
The topics listed in Table 4.31 for Junior Certificate pupils are abstract in nature and prove
difficult for pupils operating at the concrete operational stage of development, as they fail to
get a substantial grasp on them. In order for pupils to understand these topics, they need to
function at the formal operational stage of thought. The majority of pupils at Junior
Certificate level are quite unlikely to have reached this stage of cognitive development and
this could explain why these particular topics are perceived as being difficult. In fact it is
highly likely that the majority of Junior Certificate pupils operate at the concrete operational
stage of thought. Shayer and Adey (1981) reported the findings of their large survey of
British schools children, ‘showing that a majority of adolescents have concrete – whilst only
a minority have formal – operational abilities’ (Smith, 1986). It is believed that Irish
adolescents are in a similar position regarding operational abilities. This is a research area
that the second phase of this project hopes to investigate in greater detail. Success at
understanding the topics listed in Table 4.31 is predicated on having a strong understanding
of the particulate nature of matter. ‘Science educators would agree that appropriate
understanding of the particulate nature of matter is essential to the learning of chemistry

180
concepts’ (Valanides, 2000). It is suggested, that as a matter of utmost importance, if Junior
Certificate pupils are to be successful in the further study of Chemistry, that the topics listed
in Table 4.31 need to be understood better by pupils.

Over 45% of the Leaving Certificate pupils surveyed perceive Organic Reaction
Mechanisms, Organic Synthesis and Chemical Equilibria Calculations to be ‘difficult’ or
‘very difficult’. Over 35% of Leaving Certificate pupils find the remaining topics listed in
Table 4.31 ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’. Pupils’ responses to the free response question,
in the second part of the questionnaire, also provides useful information on the Chemistry
topics that Leaving Certificate pupils perceive as being difficult. The free response
question offers a manner to assess the validity of the results obtained from the first part of
the questionnaire. The Chemistry topics that the majority of Leaving Certificate pupils
included in their top five most difficult topics list are shown in Table 4.32.

Topic Percentage of Leaving

Certificate pupils who listed
this topic in their top five most
difficult topics list.
Organic Reaction Mechanisms e.g. Addition 32.0 %
Stoichiometry 24.8 %
Organic Synthesis 20.0 %
Equilibrium 16.3 %
Chemical Equilibrium: Calculations 15.6 %
Volumetric Calculations 15.6 %
The Mole 12.7 %
Redox Reactions 12.5 %
Percentage Yields 12.0%
Concentration of Solutions, %w/w, %w/v, %v/v and ppm 12.0 %
Table 4.32: Summary of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry topics that the majority of pupils
listed in their top five most difficult Chemistry topics list (n=424)

Chemistry topics that emerged as being ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ from the first part of
the questionnaire and that also were included in the responses to the free response question
are listed in Table 4.33.

181
 Topic
Organic Reaction Mechanisms
Organic Synthesis
Chemical Equilibria Calculations
Volumetric Calculations
Redox Reactions
Concentration of Solutions, %w/w, %w/v, %v/v and ppm
Table 4.33: Chemistry topics that emerged as being difficult from Sections 1 and 2 of the
Leaving Certificate Questionnaire (n=424)

Combining the results of the first part of the questionnaire and the free response
question, the topics that Leaving Certificate pupils perceive as being difficult can be
divided into three separate categories. These categories are:

- Organic Chemistry Topics

- Topics that need a good understanding of the Particulate Nature of Matter
- Chemistry Topics that involve Mathematical Calculations.

The responses to the Leaving Certificate questionnaires are compatible with the
results of international studies mention in Section 2.2 of this document. Findings from
this investigation suggest that, like Chemistry pupils in other countries and trends
expressed in the Chief Examiners’ Reports in 2002 and 2005, Irish pupils find the
following Chemistry topics difficult:

- Organic Chemistry: (Organic Synthesis, Organic reaction Mechanisms, Organic

Formulae, Preparation and Reactions of organic Compounds)
- The Mole and Avogadro’s Number
- Equilibrium and Equilibrium calculations
- Volumetric and Titration Calculations
- Calculations from Equations (Writing formulae and Equations) and
- Redox Reactions

As with Junior Certificate pupils, there is a high possibility that the topics found
difficult by Leaving Certificate pupils are difficult as a result of pupils not having the
cognitive frameworks to be able to understand these topics. As seen in section 2.3.5 of

182
this document, the majority of Organic Chemistry requires formal operational thought
in order to be understood. It is proposed that the majority of Leaving Certificate pupils
have not yet reached this stage of cognitive development and as a result it is
unsurprising that it appears at the top of the difficult topics list for Leaving Certificate
pupils. Pupils’ understanding of the Particulate Nature of Matter may also have a
major effect on how difficult some topics are. The Particulate Nature of Matter
underpins many Chemistry topics and poor understanding of this concept may have
negative effects on further learning in this subject.

The responses by 1st year University students and 2nd and 3rd year University students
show similar trends to the responses of the Leaving Certificate cohort except with
regard to Organic Chemistry topics. Topics that were identified by the majority of
pupils/students in all three cohorts were:

- Chemical Equilibria (Calculations)

- Volumetric Calculations and
- Redox Reactions

These topics are very abstract topics which require formal operational thought and are
high in Mathematical content and possibly as a result prove difficult for the pupil/student.
From Table 4.21, 43.8% of 1st year University students perceive the Mole as being
‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’. In the free response question the highest number of students
(30.9 %) ranked it in their top five most difficult Chemistry topics list. In fact that the
highest number of students ranked The Mole as their first most difficult Chemistry topic.
It is both interesting and worrying to note that students in 1st year in University still have
major difficulty with one of the most fundamental topics in Chemistry. ‘The argument is
that students must be well advanced into the formal operational stage of thinking before
they can understand the formal operational concept such as the ‘mole’’ (Rowell et al,
1980). One hypothesis is that many first year university students have not reached this
level of thought and therefore find topics like the Mole difficult.

Figure 4.20 gives a snap shot of the Chemistry topics that Irish pupils/students find
difficult. The topics highlighted in blue appear throughout the education system and
indicate that difficulties associated with these topics have never fully been addressed.

183
Figure 4.20: A snap shot of the Chemistry topics that Irish pupils and students find difficult
in Chemistry

To summarise the responses of the different cohorts, it can be said that the Chemistry
topics that the majority of Irish pupils/students perceive as being difficult are topics
that:

- Relate to the Particulate Nature of Matter

- Have high Mathematical content and
- Require pupils/students to operate at the formal operational stage of cognitive
development as a result of the abstract nature and high cognitive load of that topic.

184
4.6.1: The link between Mathematics level and the perceived difficulty of different
Chemistry topics
Throughout all cohorts examined in this investigation it can be said that Mathematics
level is one factor that has been linked significantly with perceived difficulty of a
Chemistry topic. Pupils/students who took ordinary level Mathematics for the Leaving
and Junior Certificate may be more likely, based on results of correlation tests, to find
Chemistry a difficult subject. Table 4.34 compares the topics that were identified as
being difficult by each cohort with the topics that showed up as being significantly
affected by Mathematics level in correlation tests.

List of Chemistry Topics Chemistry topics that will Chemistry topics

identified as being be found more difficult by that are found
difficult by the majority of ordinary level difficult regardless of
pupils/students Mathematics Mathematics level
pupils/students
Junior -Chemical Equations, - Ionic Compounds, -Chemical Equations
Certificate -Ionic Compounds, - Covalent Compounds
-Covalent Compounds, - Atoms,
-Covalent Bonding, - Chemical Change,
-Atoms, - Atomic Number
-Chemical Change, - Ionic Bonding
-Atomic Number - Isotopes
-Ionic Bonding, - Electronic Configuration
-Isotopes and
-Electronic Configuration.
Leaving -Organic Reaction -Chemical Equilibria -Organic reaction -
Certificate Mechanisms, Calculations, Mechanisms,
-Organic Synthesis, -Volumetric Calculations -Organic Synthesis,
-Chemical Equilibria -Concentration of Solutions -Redox Reactions.
Calculations,
-Volumetric Calculations,
-Redox Reactions and
-Concentration of Solutions
1st Year -The Mole, -The Mole -Volumetric
University -Volumetric Calculations, -Writing Chemical Formula Calculations
-Chemical Equilibria -Chemical Equilibria
Calculations, Calculations
-Concentration of Solutions, -Concentration of
-Redox Reactions and Solutions
-Writing Chemical Formula -Redox Reactions
2nd and -Volumetric Calculations, - Volumetric Calculations -Concentration of
3rd year -Writing Chemical Formulae, - Percentage Yield Solutions
University -Percentage Yield, - Analysing Results of -Redox reactions
-Analysing Results of Experiments
Experiments, -Writing Chemical Formulae
-Concentration of Solutions
and
-Redox Reactions.
Table 4.34: Summary of the effect of pupils/students Mathematics level on the perception of
difficulty of different Chemistry topics

185
Overall, higher level Mathematics pupils seem to find a fewer number of Chemistry
topics difficult in comparison to ordinary level Mathematics pupils. At Junior
Certificate level, when looking at the significance link between Mathematical level
and perceived difficulty, ordinary level Mathematics pupils were likely to perceive a
total of 26 Chemistry topics ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ when compared to the
responses of higher level Mathematics pupils. This figure was 20 at Leaving
Certificate level. Looking at the results for Leaving Certificate pupils in Table 4.34, it
is unsurprising that topics such as Chemical Equilibria Calculations, Concentration of
Solutions and Volumetric Calculations Chemistry prove difficult for pupils, who took
ordinary level Mathematics as these topics are high in mathematical content.
This trend continues from second level through to third level. Overall students that
received a C3 grade or higher in higher level Mathematics for the Leaving Certificate
were shown to find a smaller number of Chemistry topics difficult in comparison to
students who had received lower grades in Mathematics. The effect of Mathematical
level on the Chemistry topics that 1st year university students perceive as being
difficult is not as large as it is at secondary school level, however the effect is still
present. Referring to Table 4.23 it can be seen that ordinary level Mathematics
students were likely to perceive 9 Chemistry topics ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ in
comparison to students who are strong at Mathematics.
Students in 2nd and 3rd year University who took ordinary level Mathematics were
likely to perceive nine Chemistry topics ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ in comparison to
students who are strong at Mathematics (see Table 4.30). Some topics are not linked
with Mathematical level and are perceived as being difficult by pupils/students
regardless of this. At Junior Certificate level Chemical Equations are found difficult
by both higher and ordinary level Mathematics pupils. At Leaving Certificate Organic
Reaction Mechanisms, Organic Synthesis and Redox Reactions are perceived as being
difficult regardless of pupils’ Mathematical level. At University level Volumetric
Calculations, Chemical Equilibria Calculations, Concentration of Solutions and
Redox Reactions are found difficult regardless of Mathematical level.

186
4.6.2: The link between Science level and the perceived difficulty of different
Chemistry topics
Pupils/students Science or Chemistry level only showed links between perceived
difficulty of a topic and the level of Science/Chemistry they were taking for the Junior
and Leaving Certificate examination. At Junior Certificate level, referring to Table
4.6, ordinary level Science pupils are more likely to perceive 25 Chemistry topics as
difficult in comparison to higher level Science pupils who find these topics easy. At
Leaving Certificate level, referring to Table 4.13, it can be seen that ordinary level
Chemistry pupils were likely to perceive a total of 20 Chemistry topics ‘difficult’ or
‘very difficult’ in comparison to higher level Chemistry pupils.
Many of the topics identified as being difficult by ordinary level Science/Chemistry
pupils were also identified by pupils who took Ordinary level Mathematics. It must be
noted that at Junior and Leaving Certificate level, there was a significant link between
Science/Chemistry level and Mathematical level. Ordinary level Mathematics pupils
are more likely to take Ordinary level Science/Chemistry.

4.6.3: The link between Gender and the perceived difficulty of different Chemistry
topics
The only cohort for whom gender appeared as a significant factor was the Junior
Certificate cohort. Gender may play a small role in determining how easy or difficult
a pupil perceives a particular Chemistry topic at Junior Certificate level. Results from
significance tests indicate that female pupils are more likely to perceive topics such as
Air, Chemical Change, Chemical Equations, Covalent Bonding, Covalent
Compounds, Ionic Compounds and Oxygen difficult in comparison to male pupils.
On analysing the responses of the Leaving Certificate questionnaires it was seen that
gender does not affect pupils’ perception of difficulty in the same manner that
Chemistry and Mathematical level do. This finding equates to the work of Bojezuk
(1982) in the UK, which was discussed in section 2.2 1. He found little difference in
the responses of male and female A-Level pupils and explained this finding as being a
result of ‘any differences due to sex-related traits shown in the O-Level survey have
probably been overcome by the ability and motivation of the A-level student’
(Bojezuk, 1982). Developmental differences are most marked at Junior Certificate
level and have largely disappeared by Leaving Certificate level.

187
4.6.4: Summary of the effect of Mathematical level, Science level and Gender on
the perceived difficulty of different Chemistry topics
Table 4.35 summaries the factors that significantly effect a pupils/students perception
of how easy or difficult a Chemistry topic is.

Junior Leaving 1st Year 2nd and 3rd

Certificate Certificate University Year
University
Chemistry/Science Significant Significant Not Not
level Significant Significant

Mathematics level Significant Significant Significant Significant

(~rough (~rough
estimation of estimation of
students students
Mathematical Mathematical
level) level)
Gender Significant Only slightly Not Not
Significant Significant Significant

Having taken Not Not Significant Not

Chemistry as a Applicable Applicable Significant
Leaving Certificate
subject

Table 4.35: Summary of factors that had a significant effect on how easy or difficult a
pupil/student perceived a Chemistry topic

For all cohorts the level of Mathematics pupils/students had taken for the Junior and
Leaving Certificate examination appeared to influence the number and types of
Chemistry topics that pupils’/students’ perceived as being difficult. Ordinary level
Mathematics pupils were more likely to perceive a larger number of topics difficult in
comparison to pupils/students who are strong at Mathematics.

188
Section 4.7: Summary of the Main Findings
A summary of the main finding s of this phase on the investigation is as follows:

- The Chemistry topics that the majority of Junior Certificate pupils perceive as
being difficult are topics that relate to atomic structure, chemical equations and
chemical bonding. The Chemistry topics that the majority of Leaving Certificate
Chemistry pupils identified as being difficult are topics that involve Organic
Chemistry, topics that involve mathematical calculations and topics that require an
understanding of the particulate nature of matter.
- The topics that pupils in second level find difficult are also found difficult by
Chemistry students in 3rd level indicating a persistence of difficulty throughout the
system.
- Results of correlation tests indicate a significant link between Mathematical
ability and the number and types of Chemistry topics that pupils perceive as being
difficult. Results indicate the ordinary level Mathematics pupils may find more
topics in Chemistry difficult. It must be noted however that the measure of
Mathematical ability is only a rough estimation and refers to the level
pupils/students study Mathematics for the Junior and Leaving Certificate
examination.
- Results of significance tests indicate a link between Mathematical level and
Science/Chemistry level. Pupils taking higher level Mathematics are more likely
to take higher level Science/Chemistry. Higher level Science/Chemistry pupils
may also perceive fewer topics difficult than ordinary level Science/Chemistry
pupils.
- Results of correlation tests indicate that gender has little or no effect on how easy
or difficult a pupil/student finds a Chemistry topic. At Junior Certificate level
results of correlation tests indicate that female pupils are more likely to perceive
more topics difficult than male pupils however it must be noted this link may only
be coincidental.

189
Section 4.8: The next phase of this investigation
This study has revealed that Irish Chemistry pupils have difficulty with topics that fall
under one or more of the following areas:
• Organic Chemistry
• Topics that involve numerical manipulations and
• Topics that relate to the particulate nature of matter.

Possible suggestions that explain why Irish pupils have difficulty with the Chemistry topics
identified in phase one of this investigation have been discussed in Section 2.3 of this
document. It is now time to focus on two of these areas for further investigation. These
areas are as follows:
- The Cognitive development of the pupils and
- The Chemical misconceptions pupils possess about threshold concepts in Chemistry.

4.8.1: The Cognitive Development of the pupil:

Results of phase one indicate that Irish pupils are more comfortable in dealing with
concrete topics in Chemistry. This indicates that they may still not have reached the
formal operational stage of thought as outlined by Piaget and function at the concrete
operational stage of thought. The fact the Irish pupils have little difficulty with
concrete topics in Chemistry also indicates that they are comfortable with the Macro
level of the multi-level thought triangle developed by Johnstone (2006). It can be
suggested that Irish Chemistry pupils experience problems with topics that require the
learner to move between the Macro, Sub-micro and Symbolic levels. The majority of
Junior Certificate Science pupils find topics that relate to the atom, molecules and
bonding difficult, possibly as a result of not being able to shift their thought processes
from the Macro level to the Sub-micro level. Leaving Certificate pupils and
University students have difficulty with topics like Volumetric Analysis, Redox
Reactions, Equilibrium, Concentration of Solutions and Stoichiometry, again possibly
as a result of not being able to move between the Symbolic and Sub-micro level. The
majority of the topics identified by Chemistry pupils as difficult require an
understanding of the Mole concept and mathematical manipulation and this perhaps
signals problems Irish pupils have with working on the Symbolic level. Further

190
studies would need to be carried out in order to assess the validity of the above
remarks. These studies must include:

- An assessment of Irish pupils’ cognitive level ~ It is important to determine the

numbers of Irish pupils that function at the concrete and formal operational stages of
thought at different educational stages. Inability to function at the formal operational
stage of thought could explain why Irish pupils have difficult with certain topics in
Chemistry
- An assessment of Irish pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter ~ A
lack of understanding of the particulate nature of matter could be linked to pupils’
inability to work on the Sub-micro level of the multilevel thought triangle. Interaction
between all levels of the triangle is imperative for successful understanding in
Chemistry. If Irish pupils face a particular difficulty with one side of this triangle it
could explain why they have difficulty with certain topics in Chemistry.
- An assessment of pupils’ ability to use the Mole concept and carry out simple
proportion problems. Proportional reasoning has been identified as a main indicator
of whether a pupil is capable of formal operational thought. It is also an indicator of
whether they can function at the Symbolic level of the multilevel thought triangle. ‘In
many ways mathematics is the symbolic language of the physical sciences’ (Childs,
2006). If pupils rate poorly in mathematical manipulation tests it could offer another
explanation as to why certain topics in Chemistry are perceived as being difficult.

4.8.2: The Chemical misconceptions pupils possess about threshold concepts in

Chemistry

The research indicates that a previous conception held by the learner about a certain
topic, often prevents them from learning new material and developing deeper
understanding in Chemistry. In particular topics that relate to the particulate nature of
Chemistry such as Equilibrium, Concentration of Solutions etc are affected by
misconceptions that the learner has stored in their long term memory. In order to assess
the effect that such misconceptions play in how easy or difficult an Irish Chemistry pupil
finds a certain Chemistry topics, further tests on pupils’ previous understandings must be
carried out. These studies must include an assessment of pupils’ previous understanding
of the particulate nature of matter. This will determine the effect of previous conceptions
on new learning and may highlight misconceptions that hamper or halt the learning and

191
understanding of new material. In turn it could highlight ideas that prevent pupils moving
to the Sub-micro level of the multilevel thought triangle.

Phase two of this investigation will as a result investigate the cognitive development of
pupils and determine the Chemical misconceptions they possess about the Particulate
Nature of Matter, the Mole and Chemical Equilibrium. The reasons these topics have
been selected is because they emerged as being persistently difficult in phase one of this
investigation for Irish pupils/students and because they are topics that underpin
underrating in more advance Chemistry topics.

Section 4.9: Effect of limitations in phase one of this investigation:

On evaluation of the questionnaires it can be seen that they are an effective tool in
determining the Chemistry topics that pupils find difficult at different stages of their
Chemistry education in Ireland. Findings from section one of the questionnaire, as a
whole, were complemented by the responses to the free response question. The free
response question aimed to assess the validity of section one, and as a result, it can be
said that the questionnaire will generate fair and valid representations of the views of
Irish Chemistry pupils and students. Overall results obtained give a solid indication of the
Chemistry topics that Irish pupils and students find difficult. Results obtained also
provide a solid foundation on which to base the remaining phases of this investigation.
However, there were a number of limitations to this study.

4.9.1: Effect of limitations in the Junior Certificate Study

The validity of the results obtained from the Junior Certificate cohort could be greater:
- If questionnaires had also been developed and given to Junior Certificate Science
teachers, and
- If free response question had been included in the Junior Certificate Pupils
questionnaires.

192
4.9.2: Effect of limitations in the Leaving Certificate Study
The validity of the results obtained from the Leaving Certificate cohort could be greater:
- If a larger sample group had been used. This group represented 6% of the Leaving
Certificate cohort. It was hoped to obtain a sample group representing 10% of the
Leaving Certificate cohort. Failure of a number of schools to return questionnaires
made it difficult to reach this value.
- If a more accurate measurement of pupils’ mathematical and Chemistry ability had
been taken. Basing their ability on the whether they are taking the higher or lower
level paper offers a rough indication of their ability, but not an accurate one.
- If a larger number of Leaving Certificate Chemistry teachers had been surveyed, and
- If the Leaving Certificate teachers had been given a free response question in their
questionnaire.

4.9.3: Effect of limitations in the 3rd level Study

The validity of the results obtained from the 3rd level cohort could be greater:
- If a larger sample group for each year had been used.
- If students from different 3rd level institutions had been used
- If a more accurate measurement of students’ mathematical and Chemistry ability had
been taken. Basing their ability on the whether they took the higher or lower level
paper for the Leaving Certificate, at this point only gives a vague indication of their
ability. Specially designed assessments are needed for accurate measurements, and
- If the 3rd level Chemistry lecturer’s opinions had been collected.

Chapter five will outline and discuss the results and findings of phase two of this
investigation.

193
 Chapter Five:
Results of Phase Two

194
 Chapter Five ~ Results and Analysis of Phase Two of this Investigation

Phase two of this investigation analysed a number of factors that could contribute to Irish
pupils having difficulty with the topics that emerged from phase one of this investigation as
being difficult. The chemical misconceptions possessed by Junior and Leaving Certificate
Science/Chemistry pupils along with their level of cognitive development were determined.
The cognitive development of first year University students was also assessed. This was
achieved by the administration of a test instrument. The first part of the test instrument took
the form of a modified cognitive development test. Section two of the questionnaire required
pupils to answer multiple choice questions on the Particulate Nature of Matter, The Mole and
Chemical Equilibrium in order to determine the misconceptions they held about these topics.
University students only completed the first section of this test instrument.

Section 5.1: Results of Cognitive tests

As mentioned in section 3.2.1 of this document, pupils cognitive development was measured
by using a modified version of the Science Reasoning Task (SRT) number four ~
Equilibrium in the Balance. The cognitive development of four cohorts was measured using
this test. The four different cohorts were as follows:
- A sample of Junior Certificate pupils (n=297)
- A sample of Leaving Certificate pupils (n=221)
- A sample of 1st year University general Chemistry students (n=336) and
- A sample of a 1st year Institute of Technology general Chemistry students (n=67)
The answers were scored and used to assign a cognitive level as shown in Table 3.8.
This SRT was modified for ease of administration and for a valid comparison between all
cohorts. The original test included a practical demonstration and would have required teacher
training in order for it to be administered. The modified SRT replaced this demonstration
with worked examples. As a result of this modification a certain level of error is expected. It
is proposed that had the original SRT been administered, more pupils would have scored
higher in terms of cognitive level, however it is not expected that these scores are much
greater than those obtained by using the modified test. Tests carried out in Ireland by
McCormack (2009), on similar cohorts, using the original SRT, produced similar results to
those obtained in this investigation; therefore results obtained in this study give a good
indication of the cognitive level of Irish Chemistry pupils/students tested.

195
5.1.1: Cognitive profile of the different cohorts involved in this study
Figure 5.1 represents the cognitive profiles of Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils. As can
be seen from the graph, the majority of Science and Chemistry pupils in second level
education in Ireland are operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive
development. In total 91.3% of Junior Certificate and 82.3% of Leaving Certificate pupils
sampled are operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development. Only
8.4% of Junior Certificate and 17.7% of Leaving Certificate pupils are operating at the
formal operational stage of cognitive development.

Figure 5.1: Cognitive profile of the Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils

Results for the Junior Certificate cohort above compare with those found by
McCormack (2009) when they looked at the cognitive development of second year
Science pupils. In their study 92.0% of second year pupils were found to be operating at
the concrete operational stage of cognitive development and 8.0% were operating at the
formal operational stage of cognitive development. Figure 5.2 represents the cognitive
profiles of the first year University and Institute of Technology students. As can be seen
from the graph, the majority of Chemistry students in this sample are still operating at
the concrete operational stage of cognitive development. In total 61.4% of University
and 92.5% of the Institute of Technology students sampled are operating at the concrete
operational stage of cognitive development. Only 38.1% University and 7.5% of the

196
Institute of Technology students are operating at the formal operational stage of
cognitive development.

Figure 5.2: Cognitive profile of the University and Institute of Technology students

As before results for the University students in this cohort are similar to the findings
of McCormack (2009). In that investigation it was found that 43.0% of University
students were operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development.
57.0% of the students had reached the formal operational stage of cognitive
development, 2% of student had reached the highest stage of cognitive development,
formal generalisation. It is worrying that at University level only a very small
proportion of students have reached the late formal operational stage of cognitive
development, which is necessary for competence in formal operations such as
proportionality, equilibrium and formal modelling.

Figure 5.3 summarises the cognitive profiles of Irish Science and Chemistry
pupils/students at different stages, for comparison. An overall trend emerges in this
graph, it can be seen that as one moves up through the education system, there are a
higher proportion of the cohort operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive
development. One exception to this trend is the Institute of Technology group and this
could be attributed to lower entry requirements in this type of Institution. However,

197
this sample was small and further studies including more Institutions of similar type
would be needed to verify this finding. However, at no stage is a majority of
pupils/students operating at a formal operational level despite the fact that the Leaving
Certificate and University samples represent selective samples of pupils/students who
have chosen to study Science subjects. If a broader sample were taken of the whole
age cohort we would probably find smaller percentages operating at the formal
operational level.

Summary of the cognitive profiles of Junior Certificate, Leaving Certificate, 1st year University
and 1st year Institute of Technology pupils/students

100
8.7% 7.5%
90 17.7%

80 38.7%

70
% o f pupils

60
Formal Operational
50
91.3% 92.5% Concrete Operational
40 82.3%

30 61.3%

20
10
0
Junior Certificate Leaving Certificate University Group Institute of Technology
(n=297) (n=221) (n=336) Group (n=67)

Figure 5.3: An overview of the cognitive profiles of Irish second and third level pupils and
students

198
5.1.2: Cognitive development versus gender
Examining the cognitive profiles of Irish second and third levels pupils/students against
gender also produced some interesting trends. Figure 5.4 looks at the cognitive
development of male and female Junior Certificate pupils.

Figure 5.4: Cognitive profile of male and female Junior Certificate pupils

As can be seen from Figure 5.4, at Junior Certificate level there are slightly more females
operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive development than males. Overall
93.3% of male pupils and 89.8% of female pupils are operating at the concrete
operational stage of cognitive development. 6.7% of male Junior Certificate pupils and
10.5% of female Junior Certificate pupils are operating at the formal operational stage of
cognitive development. Results of this investigation compare with another study carried
out on Irish pupils by McCormack (2009). In this investigation it was found that 95.0%
of first year male pupils and 88.0% of female pupils were operating at the concrete
operational stage of cognitive development. 4.0% of males and 11.0% of female first year
secondary school pupils in the investigation by McCormack (2009) had reached the
formal operational stage of cognitive development. This trend may be explained by the
earlier maturation of females, who are more mature than boys at this age. This situation
changes, however, when we move from the Junior Certificate to the Leaving Certificate
cohort. Figure 5.5 outlines the cognitive development of male and female Leaving

199
Certificate pupils. As before, the majority of pupils are operating at the concrete
operational stage of cognitive development. In the Leaving Certificate cohort, however,
more male pupils than female pupils are now operating at the formal operational stage of
cognitive development. This is a reverse of the trend shown above in the Junior
Certificate results. At Leaving Certificate level there are 75.0% of male pupils and 85.5%
of female pupils operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development. In
total 25.0% of male and 14.5% of female Leaving Certificate pupils have reached the
formal operational stage of cognitive development. In this sample male pupils have
caught up and passed female pupils.

Figure 5.5: Cognitive profile of male and female Leaving Certificate pupils

This trend also emerges in the analysis of the University results. From Figure 5.6, it can
again be seen that a higher number of male students are operating at the formal
operational stage of cognitive development. In total 48.3% of the males and 22.8% of
the females tested had reached the formal operational stage of cognitive development.
This is a very pronounce gender effect. 51.7% of male students and 77.0% of female
University students were still functioning at the concrete operational stage of cognitive
development. The gap in the cognitive development of Irish male and female
University students was also described by McCormack (2009). In that investigation it
was found that 73.0% of male students and 47.0% of female students had reached the
formal operational stage of cognitive development. In that investigation only 27.0% of

200
male students operated at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development. This
compared to 53.0% of female students. While there is a large discrepancy in the figures
between these two studies, it is clear that at University level more male students are
operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive development than female
students.

Figure 5.6: Cognitive profile of male and female University students

This trend between gender and cognitive development is also visible in the results of the
Institute of Technology students. However, it must be noted that the Institute of
Technology cohort deviates from the overall trend of increased numbers operating at the
formal operational stage of cognitive development at third level education. In fact there are
more Leaving Certificate pupils operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive
development than in this sample of Institute of Technology students. Figure 5.7 illustrates
the cognitive development of male and female Institute of Technology students.

201
 Figure 5.7: Cognitive profile of male and female Institute of Technology students

As can be seen from Figure 5.7, 83.4% of male and 97.7% of female students in the
Institute of Technology group are functioning at the concrete operational stage of
cognitive development. This compares to 16.7% of males and 2.3% of females who have
reached the formal operational stage of cognitive development, an even greater imbalance
for the University student. While the above figures highlight the trends of cognitive
development versus gender in the different cohorts examined in this investigation, Table
5.1 illustrates the results of correlation tests between cognitive development and gender.

Group p-value

Junior Certificate cohort (n=297) 0.029

Leaving Certificate cohort (n=221) 0.283
1st year University cohort (n=336) 0.306
1st year Institute of Technology cohort (n=67) 0.134
Table 5.1: Results of significance tests between cognitive development and gender (p value < 0.05
= significant)

The results of significance tests illustrate a significant connection between gender and
cognitive development for the Junior Certificate cohort only. Trends suggest that at
Junior Certificate level more female pupils were found to be operating at the formal
operational stage of cognitive development than were expected.

202
5.1.3: Cognitive development versus Mathematical ability
Much of the content of the Mathematics curriculum requires formal operational thought
as it operates at a symbolic and conceptual level. We might thus expect to find a link
between Mathematics performance and cognitive level. On analysis of the cognitive
profiles of the different cohorts, significant links were made between the Mathematical
level that the pupil/students studied and cognitive development. In Ireland at both
Junior and Leaving Certificate levels, pupils can chose to study and be examined in
Mathematics at either higher or ordinary level. Figures 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 illustrate
the cognitive profiles of higher and ordinary level mathematics pupils/students in each
of these four cohorts. Figure 5.8 looks at the level of Mathematics taken by Junior
Certificate pupils versus cognitive development. In total 11.2% of higher level
Mathematics and 4.3% of ordinary level Mathematics pupils are operating at the formal
operational stage of cognitive development. 88.8% of higher level Mathematics and
95.7% of ordinary level Mathematics pupils are operating at the concrete operational
stage of cognitive development.

Figure 5.8: Cognitive profile versus Mathematics level for the Junior Certificate cohort

In general it can be seen that a higher percentage of pupils who take higher level
Mathematics are operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive development.
This trend continues from Junior Certificate level to Leaving Certificate and also onto

203
third level. Figure 5.9 looks at the level of Mathematics taken by Leaving Certificate
Chemistry pupils versus cognitive development. In total 22.3% of higher level
Mathematics and 11.6% of ordinary level Mathematics pupils are operating at the
formal operational stage of cognitive development. 77.7% of higher level Mathematics
and 88.4% of ordinary level Mathematics pupils are operating at the concrete
operational stage of cognitive development.

Figure 5.9: Cognitive profile versus Mathematics level for the Leaving Certificate cohort

Figure 5.10 looks at the level of Mathematics taken by University students at school
versus cognitive development. In total 55.0 % of students who have taken higher level
Mathematics and 11.9% of ordinary level Mathematics students are operating at the
formal operational stage of cognitive development in the University cohort. 44.9% of
higher level Mathematics and 88.0% of ordinary level Mathematics students are
operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development.

204
 Figure 5.10: Cognitive profile versus Mathematics level for the University cohort

Figure 5.11 looks at the level of Mathematics taken at school by the Institute of
Technology students versus cognitive development. In total 23.0 % of students who had
taken higher level Mathematics and 4.2% of ordinary level Mathematics students at school
are operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive development in the Institute of
Technology cohort. 76.9% of higher level Mathematics and 95.7% of ordinary level
Mathematics students are operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive
development.

Figure 5.11: Cognitive profile versus Mathematics level for the Institute of Technology cohort

205
Figure 5.12 and 5.13 illustrate the cognitive profiles of ordinary and higher level
Mathematics pupils/students for the different cohorts. .

Cognitive Profile of Higher Level Mathematicsl pupils/students

100
88.8%
90
77.7% 76.9%
80
% of pupils/students

70
60 55.1%
44.9% Concrete Operational
50
Formal Operational
40
30 22.3% 23.1%
20 11.2%
10
0
Junior Certificate HL Leaving Certificate HL 1st year University HL 1st year IT HL (n=13)
(n-188) (n=126) ((n=209)

Figure 5.12: Summary of the cognitive profiles of higher level Mathematics pupils/students

Cognitive Profile of ordinary Level Mathematics pupils/students

120

95.7% 95.7%
100
88.4% 88.1%
% of pupils/students

80

Concrete Operational
60
Formal Operational

40

20 11.6% 11.9%
4.3% 4.2%
0
Junior Certificate OL Leaving Certificate OL 1st year University 1st year IT OL (n=47)
(n=92) (n=95) OL( n=117)

Figure 5.13: Summary of the cognitive profiles of ordinary level Mathematics

pupils/students

206
From Figure 5.12 and 5.13 it can be seen, that at each level of the education system,
there is a greater number of higher level Mathematics pupil/students operating at the
formal operational stage of cognitive development than ordinary level Mathematics
pupils/students. From Figure 5.12, it can also be seen that the percentage of higher
level Mathematics pupils/students operating at the formal operational stage of
cognitive development also increases from group to group (with the exceptions of the
Institute of Technology students), whereas the number of ordinary level Mathematics
pupils/students operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive development
remains relatively constant from group to group (see Figure 5.13). At Junior
Certificate level 11.2% of the higher level Mathematics pupils surveyed operated at
the formal operational stage of cognitive development. This figure increased to 22.3%
for the Leaving Certificate cohort and 55.1% for the University cohort.
While the above figures highlight the trends of cognitive development versus mathematical
ability in the different cohorts examined in this investigation, Table 5.2 illustrates the
results of significance tests between cognitive development and Mathematical ability. At
Junior and Leaving Certificate level, results of correlations tests indicate a link between
Mathematical level (higher or ordinary) taken for the Junior/Leaving Certificate versus
cognitive level. Results of these tests suggest that higher level Mathematics pupils/students
are more likely to operate at the formal operational stage of cognitive development. It is
important to note however, level of Mathematics taken for the Junior and Leaving
Certificate are only a rough indication of the pupils/students Mathematical ability.

Group p-value

Junior Certificate cohort (n=297) 0.186

Leaving Certificate cohort (n=221) 0.011
1st year University cohort (n=336) 0.010
1st year Institute of Technology cohort (n=67) 0.021
Table 5.2: Results of significance tests between cognitive development and Mathematical
ability (p value < 0.05 = significant)

At Junior Certificate level there was no significance found between Mathematical

ability and cognitive development, however for the other three cohorts’ links have
been made between Mathematical ability and cognitive development. For the Leaving

207
Certificate and 3rd level cohorts, higher level Mathematics pupils were more likely to
operate at the formal operational stage of cognitive development. It must be noted
that at Leaving Certificate and 3rd level pupils/students are in selective courses that
they like or feel confident with. Given the Mathematical content of these courses, it is
not surprising that a link has emerged between cognitive development and
Mathematical ability.

5.1.4: Cognitive development versus Science/Chemistry ability

Figure 5.14 outlines the cognitive profile of higher and ordinary level Science pupils at
Junior Certificate level.

Figure 5.14: Cognitive profile versus Science level for the Junior Certificate cohort

As can be seen from Figure 5.14, the majority of both higher and ordinary level Science
pupils are operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development.
However, 10.1% of higher level Science pupils are operating at the formal operational
stage of cognitive development, this compares with no ordinary level Science pupils
operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive development. This trend is also
true for Leaving Certificate Chemistry pupils. Figure 5.15 outlines the cognitive profile
of higher and ordinary level Chemistry pupils at Leaving Certificate level.

208
 Figure 5.15: Cognitive profile versus Chemistry level for the Leaving Certificate cohort

As can be seen from Figure 5.15, the majority of higher and ordinary level Chemistry
pupils are again operating at the concrete stage of cognitive development. However, 18.9%
of higher level Chemistry pupils have reached the formal operational stage of cognitive
development, this compares with 5.3% of ordinary level Chemistry pupils.
At 1st year University level, the trends outlined above also emerge, with a higher proportion
of higher level Chemistry students operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive
development. Figure 5.16 shows that 41.7% of students at 1st year University level in this
cohort, have reached the formal operational stage of cognitive development. This compares
with 20.0% of ordinary level students in the same cohort.

209
 Figure 5.16: Cognitive profile versus Chemistry level for the 1st year University cohort

Figure 5.17 outlines the cognitive profiles of higher and ordinary level Chemistry students
in the Institute of Technology cohort. This cohort deviates slightly from the trends seen
above. However as before the majority of higher and ordinary level Chemistry students are
operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development. Only a small
percentage of higher level Chemistry students, 10.6%, have reached the formal operational
stage of cognitive development. This compares with no ordinary level Chemistry students
having reached the formal operational stage of cognitive development.

Figure 5.17: Cognitive profile versus Chemistry level for the 1st year Institute of Technology
cohort

210
There are clear trends between the level of Science/Chemistry a pupil/student takes for
their state examinations and cognitive level. This can be seen from Figure 5.18 and 5.19.

Cognitive Profile of HigherLevel Science/Chemistry pupils/students

100 89.8% 89.5%

90
81.2%
80
% of pupils/students

70
58.2%
60
Concrete Operational
50
41.8% Formal Operational
40
30
18.9%
20
10.1% 10.6%
10
0
Junior Certificate HL Leaving Certificate HL 1st year University HL 1st year IT HL (n=19)
(n=247) (n=201) ((n=139)

Figure 5.18: Summary of the cognitive profiles of higher level Science/Chemistry pupils/students

Cognitive profile of Ordinary Level Science/Chemistry pupils/students

120
100.0% 100.0%
100 94.7%

80.0%
% of pupils/students

80

Concrete Operational
60
Formal Operational

40
20.0%
20
5.3%
0.0% 0.0%
0
Junior Certificate OL Leaving Certificate OL 1st year University 1st year IT OL (n=10)
(n=35) (n=19) OL( n=5)

Figure 5.19: Summary of the cognitive profiles of ordinary level Science/Chemistry pupils/students

From Figure 5.18 and 5.19 it can be seen, that at each level of the education system,
there is a greater number of higher level Science/Chemistry pupil/students operating
at the formal operational stage of cognitive development than ordinary level
Science/Chemistry pupils/students. From Figure 5.18, it can also be seen that the
number of higher level Science/Chemistry pupils/students operating at the formal
operational stage of cognitive development also increases from group to group (with

211
the exceptions of the Institute of technology students), whereas the number of
ordinary level Science/Chemistry pupils/students operating at the formal operational
stage of cognitive development remains low from group to group (see Figure 5.19).
At Junior Certificate level 10.0% of the higher level Science/Chemistry pupils
surveyed operated at the formal operational stage of cognitive development. This
figure increased to 18.9% for the Leaving Certificate cohort and 41.8% for the
University cohort. These trends were also noticed when cognitive development was
compared with Mathematical ability.

While the above figures highlight the trends of cognitive development versus
Science/Chemistry ability in the different cohorts examined in this investigation,
Table 5.3 illustrates the results of correlation tests between cognitive development
and Science/Chemistry ability. At Junior and Leaving Certificate level, significance
tests were carried out between the Science/Chemistry level (higher or ordinary) taken
for the Junior/Leaving Certificate whereas for the 3rd level cohorts these significance
tests were carried out versus the grade the student had achieved at Leaving Certificate
Chemistry.

Group p-value

Junior Certificate cohort (n=297) 0.035

Leaving Certificate cohort (n=221) 0.013
1st year University cohort (n=336) 0.069
1st year Institute of Technology cohort (n=67) 0.219
Table 5.3: Results of significance tests between cognitive development and
Science/Chemistry ability (p value < 0.05 = significant)

Significant links emerged at Junior and Leaving Certificate level between cognitive
development and Science/Chemistry ability. Higher level Science/Chemistry pupils
were more likely to be functioning at the formal operational stage of cognitive
development.

212
5.1.5: Cognitive development versus Course of study at 3rd level
On further analysis of the courses studied by University students an interesting trend
emerged that could be linked with the results found when comparing Mathematical
ability and cognitive development. Figure 5.20 looks at the breakdown of the type of
course studied versus the level of cognitive development of the University students.
In total students from 18 courses were assessed using the test instrument. These
courses fell into three distinct groups of discipline:
- Engineering courses,
- Science courses and
- Education courses

The Education courses include students taking teacher education degrees in either
Science or Engineering disciplines. The three types of courses have distinct profiles
of cognitive ability. Figure 5.20 shows that the majority of those studying an
engineering course are operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive
development.

Figure 5.20: Cognitive profile versus course of study for the University cohort

Overall 59.5% of engineering students, 22.7 % of Science students and 32.1% of

education students have reached the formal operational stage of cognitive
development, meaning that 40.5% of engineering students, 77.3% of science students

213
and 67.9% of education students are operating at the concrete operational stage of
cognitive development. When significance tests between course of study and
cognitive development were carried out, a p-value = 0.01 confirmed the significant
link outlined by the trends above. As engineering courses have a high mathematical
demand, it is of no surprise that the majority of students in engineering courses have
reached the formal operational stage of cognitive development, as these courses are
highly selective for Mathematical ability. Indeed pupils’ prior knowledge in Physics
had not been taken into account, which could have exaggerated the cognitive ability
of pupils in the engineering courses. The test used to measure the cognitive ability of
students was based around the law of the lever, a topic covered in the Physics courses.
Therefore Physics students would have had an advantage over students that would not
have come across this subject. As a result these pupils may score higher in the
cognitive ability test due to prior knowledge and not because they had reached this
stage of cognitive development.

5.1.6: Cognitive development versus age

Previous investigations by Inhelder and Piaget (1958) and Shayer and Adey (1981)
have shown a direct correlation between age and cognitive development. As a pupil
gets older they move from one stage of cognitive development to the next. It must be
noted that some educational psychologists feel that some individuals never reach the
formal operational stage of cognitive development (Chiappetta, 1976). There is
evidence from the Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) project
that the rate of cognitive development can be increased by participation in an
intervention programme (Adey and Shayer, 1994). The final level attained depends
on age, educational experience and probably genetic inheritance. Results from this
study indicate that as pupils move through the education system, there are higher
numbers operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive development. Figure
5.21 is an analysis of cognitive development versus age for Irish pupil/students, from
14 to over 20 years of age, obtained by accumulating the data from all four sample
groups.

214
 Age versus Cognitive Development of all groups

90

80

70
% of pupils/students

60
Early/Mid Concrete Operational
50
Concrete Operational
40
Formal Operational
30

20

10

0
14 years 15 years 16 years 17 years 18 years 19 years 20 years
(n=36) (n=133) (n=165) (n=110) (n=275) (n=153) (n=32)

Figure 5.21: Age versus Cognitive Development for Irish pupils/students

Figure 5.22 is a summary of the trends in Figure 5.21. As can be seen, there are a higher
percentage of older pupils/students who have reached the formal operational stage of
cognitive development in comparison to younger pupils. From Figure 5.21 it can be seen
that as age increases the percentage of pupils/students operating at the concrete operational
stage decreases and the percentage of pupils/students operating at the formal operational
stage of cognitive development increases. A deviation from the expected trends in Figure
5.21 is that the percentage of pupils/students operating at the early/mid concrete stage of
cognitive development increases with age, this could be explained by the type and number
of older pupils/students analysed in this sample. Numbers of older students analysed were
very small. In this sample these are mature students, who have come back into education
and have varied educational backgrounds. Regardless of this deviation, there is still an
evident link between the age of a person and their level of cognitive development.

215
 Figure 5.22: Age versus Cognitive Development for Irish pupils/students

Results of correlation tests carried out between age and cognitive development for the
different cohorts proved inconclusive, however the general tends outlines in Figure 5.22, fit
with the results and findings of other studies carried out comparing age and cognitive
development.

5.1.7: Summary of the finding from the Cognitive test results

From this section of the investigation a number of important findings have emerged.
They are as follows:
- The majority of Irish pupils/students in this study are operating at the concrete
operational stage of cognitive development at all levels of the education system.
- There is a clear increase in the number of pupils/students operating at the formal
operational stage of cognitive level as they progress through the educational levels.
- This investigation shows a possible link between cognitive level and the
pupil’s/student’s Mathematical level. More pupils/students who studied higher level
Mathematics courses for the state examinations were operating at the formal
operational stage of cognitive development.
- This investigation shows a possible link between cognitive level and the
pupils/students Science/Chemistry level. More pupils/students who studied higher

216
 level Science/Chemistry courses for the state examinations were operating at the
formal operational stage of cognitive development.
- At Junior Certificate level, a possible link between gender and cognitive developed
emerged where more female pupils were operating at a higher level of cognitive
development than male pupils. This has evened out by Leaving Certificate level,
where there is no significant relationship between gender and cognitive
development. This could be explained by the different physical and mental
development of males and females, which has evened out by age 17/18 years.
- Previously recorded links between cognitive development and age also emerged
from analysis of the responses given by cohorts tested in this investigation.

5.1.8: Implications for the teaching and learning of Chemistry

With the majority of Irish pupils/students operating at a concrete operational stage of
cognitive development at all levels of education, it is not surprising that pupils/students
have difficulty with abstract and conceptually difficult subjects, especially those which
also involve Mathematics such as Chemistry and in particular with the topics identified
in phase one of this investigation. Traditional methods that favour the rote learning of
formulae and prescribed methods for answering questions, prevent growth of
understanding in Chemistry and also prevents the pupils’ cognitive development. It is
time to ask questions about the structuring and sequencing of the content of Junior and
Leaving Certificate Science/Chemistry syllabi and the teaching and examination
strategies employed. The results and findings of this investigation are useful in that they
give a better insight to the type of pupil/student present in our classes. This information
should help Chemistry teachers take account of the cognitive ability of their pupils and
help relate this to the areas of the Chemistry course that require pupils to function at the
formal operational stage of thought. The results should inform the development of the
Chemistry syllabus at second level and the Chemistry curriculum at third level. It is
important to tailor the courses studied to the type and ability of the pupil/student taking
that course. Poor results and high drop-out rates indicate that current courses are
mismatched to the cognitive ability of the students.

217
Section 5.2: Results of chemical misconceptions tests
5.2.1: Overall performance of Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils in the
misconceptions test
In total 323 Junior Certificate pupils took part in this investigation. There were a total of 24
questions in the misconceptions part of their test instrument relating to the Particulate Nature
of Matter. Overall 228 Leaving Certificate pupils completed the test instrument that contained
34 misconceptions questions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter (17 questions),
Chemical Equilibrium (5 questions) and The Mole (12 questions). Figure 5.23 shows Junior
and Leaving Certificate pupils overall performance in the misconceptions test as a percentage
of correct answers.

Figure 5.23: Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils overall performance in the Misconceptions Test

It is clearly evident from Figure 5.23 that both the Junior and Leaving Certificate cohorts
scored poorly in the misconceptions tests. In both groups, no pupil scored higher than 80% in
the test instrument. At Junior Certificate level 67.2% of pupils scored between 0% and 39% in
the test. At Leaving Certificate level results of the tests show that the majority of pupils,
63.8%, again scored between 0% and 39% in the misconceptions test. This would indicate that
a majority of Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils possess a high number of Chemical
misconceptions. Figure 5.24, looks at the results of Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils for
questions relating to misconceptions about the Particulate Nature of Matter only. As can be
seen from the graph, 32.9% of Junior Certificate pupils and 50.1% of Leaving Certificate

218
pupils scored above 40% in the test questions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter.
While trends indicate a large number of Chemical misconceptions exist, it can be seen that
there are less misconceptions at Leaving Certificate level than at Junior Certificate level.

Figure 5.24: Breakdown of scores for questions on the Particulate Nature of Matter for Junior and
Leaving Certificate pupils

Figure 5.25, looks at the breakdown of scores for the different topics in the Leaving Certificate
test.

Figure 5.25: Breakdown of scores for the different Chemistry topics in the Leaving Certificate test

219
As can be seen from Figure 5.25, 48.6% of pupils scored over 40% in the Equilibrium
questions, 45.6% of pupils scored over 40% in the Particulate Nature of Matter
questions and 33.7% of pupils scored over 40% in the questions relating to the Mole
in the test instrument. Trends here would indicate that there are a high number of
Chemical misconceptions in the minds of Leaving Certificate pupils and that the
Chemistry topic that pupils seem to possess the most misconceptions about is the
Mole.

5.2.2: A closer look at the responses from the Junior Certificate pupils’ misconceptions
test
The Junior Certificate test instrument (Appendix C) was designed to assess and identify
the misconceptions pupils possess relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter. There were
ten aspects of the Particulate Nature of Matter that were assessed for misconceptions,
which are as follows:

- Misconceptions relating to compounds, elements and mixtures

- Misconceptions relating to the space between particles
- Misconceptions relating to phase change at a particulate level.
- Misconceptions relating to solubility and concentration at a particulate level
- Misconceptions relating to conservation of volume and mass at a particulate level
- Misconceptions relating to chemical reactions
- Misconceptions relating to macroscopic and microscopic views of particles
- Misconceptions relating to what constitutes a physical and chemical change
- Misconceptions relating to atoms and molecules and
- Misconceptions relating to ionic and covalent bonding

The misconceptions Irish pupils have relating to these areas were investigated using
designated questions on the test instrument. The following sections will discuss in detail
the responses given by Irish Junior Certificate pupils to the different questions on the test
instrument and will highlight the misconceptions they possess about the Particulate
Nature of Matter. In reporting these results, the percentage of correct answers, the
percentage of the sum of incorrect answers, the percentage of missing responses and the
most popular incorrect answer have been listed.

220
Misconceptions relating to compounds, elements and mixtures
Question 14 in the test instrument was used to determine Irish pupils’ understanding of
this topic. Table 5.4 summaries the response to question 14.

Concept being Questions % of Correct % and type of most % of missing

Tested Number Responses popular incorrect responses
answer
Compounds, Q.14 a 58.1% classified 26.9% classified oxygen 14.9%
Elements and oxygen as an as an compound
Mixture element

Q.14 b 58.2% classified 26.9% classified water 15.2%

water as a as an element
compound
Q.14 c 66.3% classified 18.9% classified carbon 14.9%
carbon dioxide as dioxide as an element
a compound
Q.14 d 41.2% classified 43.7% of pupils felt that 15.2%
methane as a methane was an
compound element.
Table 5.4: Summary of responses to question 14 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument

In general, results show that pupils’ ability to categorise a substance as a compound

or an element was poor. 58.1% of pupils identified oxygen as an element, 58.2% of
pupils identified water as a compound, 66.3% of pupils identified carbon dioxide as a
compound and 41.2% of pupils identified methane as a compound.
26.9% of pupils felt oxygen was a compound, 26.6% of pupils felt water was an
element, 18.9% of pupils felt carbon dioxide was an element and 43.7% of pupils felt
that methane was an element. These results indicate a failure of a large number of
pupils to understand the difference between elements and compounds. This is one of
the fundamental ideas in Chemistry and failure to grasp this concept will make further
learning in Chemistry very difficult.

Misconceptions relating to the space between particles

Previous work (Griffiths and Kirk, 1992) into misconceptions pupils possess about
the Particulate Nature of Matter has indicated that pupils possess misconceptions
about what fills the space between particles of different substances. Question 19 was
used to assess Irish pupils’ understanding of this concept. Table 5.5 summarises the
response to question 19.

221
 Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
What fills the Q.19 23.2% 18.6% of pupils felt that 17.0%
space between air fills the space
particles? between oxygen
molecules in a sample of
oxygen gas.
Table 5.5: Summary of responses to question 19 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument

Overall 23.2% of pupils indicated that there was nothing between oxygen molecules in a
pure sample of oxygen gas and 59.8% of pupils got this question incorrect. The main
incorrect answer was that air filled the space between the oxygen particles in the sample:
18.6% of pupils chose this response. 15.8% felt the space was filled by matter, 15.5% felt
water vapour filled the space and 9.9% felt that space between molecules was occupied by
atmosphere. Once again the majority of the pupils surveyed got this question incorrect.

Misconceptions relating to phase change at a particulate level

A large quantity of research carried out relating to misconceptions about the Particulate
Nature of Matter focuses on the concept of phase change (Griffiths and Kirk, 1992). Much
has been documented on pupils’ explanations of what happens when solids change to
liquids, liquids change to gases and also when the reverse of each occurs. Questions 12, 13,
17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 28 were all used in the test Instrument to determine
pupils’ understanding of different ideas associated with phase change. Table 5.6
summaries the responses to each of these questions.
The misconceptions associated with phase change can be classified into:
- Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a solid changes to a
liquid (Question 12 and 27)
- Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a liquid changes to a
gas (Question 13 and 24)
- Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a gas changes to a
liquid (Question 25)
- Misconceptions relating to the energy particles have at different phases (Question 17
and 18)
- Misconceptions’ relating to how phase change affects the size and mass of a particle
(Question 20, 21 and 23)
- Misconceptions’ relating to how phase change affects the chemical make-up of a
substance (Question 22 and 28)

222
Concept Questions % of % and type of most popular incorrect % of missing
being Number Correct answer responses
Tested Responses
Phase Q.12 18.6% 22% of pupils chose response D, which 16.7%
Change was a model of liquid ice with large
spaces between the molecules (they
chose the model of how the ice would
look in the gas phase).
Q.13 19.5% 27.6% of pupils chose response C, 18.6%
which indicated they felt water
molecules disappear completely when it
changes from a liquid to a gas.
Q.17 60.1% 24.5% of pupils felt there was no 15.5%
difference, in terms of particles between (32.% offered
water at 10ºC and 90ºC. No pupil could no explanation)
explain their answer correctly.
Q.18 39.0% 21.1% of pupils felt that water 19.8%
molecules in the liquid phase move
faster that water molecules in the
gaseous phase.
Q.20 6.5% 59.8% of pupils felt that freezing will 16.7%
make water molecules larger.
Q.21 20.4% 25.4% of pupils felt that when water 16.7%
molecules are heated in the gaseous
phase, they will become lighter.
Q.22 9.0% 26.6% of pupils felt that the bubbles in 18.9%
a beaker of hot water are oxygen.
Q.23 11.1% 40.9% of pupils felt that the water 21.1%
molecule in the gas phase is lighter than
the water molecule in the solid phase
Q.24 24.1% 29.7% of pupils felt that when water 22.0%
evaporates off a wet bench, it is
changing into oxygen and hydrogen.
Q.25 23.2% 26.0% felt that when water undergoes 23.5%
condensation, the coldness causes
oxygen and hydrogen from the air to
combine and form water
Q.27 43.7% 15.8% of pupils felt that grains of salt 28.5%
dissolving in water and sugar being
placed on ones tongue were examples
of a substance melting.
Q.28 17.0% 31.0% of pupils felt that when water is 28.8%
vaporised it changes into hydrogen and
oxygen.
Table 5.6: Summary of questions relating to misconceptions about phase change at a
particulate level in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument

223
Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a solid changes to
a liquid
Analysing the responses to question 12 it can be seen that few pupils have a correct
understanding of what occurs at the particulate level when a solid changes to a liquid.
Overall only 18.6% of pupils chose the correct response and 64.7% of the group got
the question incorrect. The majority of those that got this question incorrect (22.0%)
chose response D. This response indicates that pupils feel that there are large gaps
between water molecules in the liquid phase. 19.8% of pupils chose response B. This
indicates that pupils believe that as ice changes to water the atoms in a molecule of
water split completely into separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms. On a similar train of
thought, 19.2% of pupils chose response E. This response indicates that pupils believe
that as a solid changes to a liquid, the water molecules split and that hydrogen atoms
combine with the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atoms combine with oxygen atoms.
Question 27 also looked at the phase change from a solid and to a liquid. While
question 12 focused on the microscopic aspects of a solid changing to a liquid,
question 27 looked at the macroscopic aspects of melting. Overall 43.7% of the
pupils’ surveyed got question 27 correct and identified ‘chocolate being placed in the
sun’ as an example of melting. 15.8% of pupils chose response D which meant that
they felt two of the three examples given were examples of melting. 5.3% of the
group felt that ‘a few grains of salt in water disappearing’ was an example of
melting, while 3.4% of pupils felt that ‘sugar being placed on your tongue and
producing a sweet taste’ was an example of melting. Comparing the results of these
two questions it is clearly evident that pupils have a better conception of melting at a
macroscopic level than they do of it at a microscopic level.

Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a liquid changes

to a gas
Questions 13 and 24 assessed pupils’ understanding of the phase change from a liquid
to a gas. 19.5% of pupils got question 13 correct. The most popular incorrect response
was response D, with 20.4% of pupils choosing this response. This indicates a
misconception that as water goes from a liquid to a gas, the water molecule splits into
hydrogen and oxygen atoms. In fact this is similar to findings from the responses to
question 12 where 19.8% of pupils chose the diagram that indicated that a water
molecule splits into hydrogen and oxygen atoms as the phase changes from a solid to

224
a liquid. 27.6% of pupils chose response C to this question, which indicated they felt
that as water goes from a liquid to a gas, the molecules disappear completely. Overall
61.9% of pupils gave an incorrect answer to question 13. The responses of Irish
pupils are consistent with the pupils who took this question in the paper it originated
from. The results from Mulford and Robinson (2002) showed that a high percentage
of pupils (37%) selected responses A, B or D. This indicates that both sets of pupils
possess similar misconceptions.
24.1% of pupils got the answer to question 24 correct. They correctly identified that if
a wet dish is left it dry on a bench that that water that does not drip onto the bench
‘goes into the air as very small bits of water’ . Overall 53.9% of pupils got this
question incorrect. 29.7% of these pupils stated that the water that does not drip onto
the bench ‘changes into oxygen and hydrogen in the air’. 13.0% of pupils who got
question 24 incorrect felt that the water ‘dries up and no longer exists as anything’.
Here we see a failure of 13.0% of pupils to conserve matter. 7.1% of pupils felt that
the water ‘stays on the surface of the saucer as dry water’ and 4.0% of pupils stated
that ‘it goes into the saucer’. A common misconception that Irish pupils seem to
possess regarding phase change has been identified on analysis of the responses of
question 12, 13 and 24. A substantial amount of pupils feel that as a water molecule
changes state from a solid to a liquid and a liquid to a gas, the water molecules split
into hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a gas changes to a

liquid
Question 25 examined pupil’s ideas of what occurs during the phase change from a
gas to a liquid. 23.2% of pupils correctly chose response C to this question. Overall
53.5% of pupils got question 25 incorrect. 26.0% of pupils felt that the liquid that
forms on the outside of a cold glass of milk was as a result of the ‘coldness causing
oxygen and hydrogen from the air to combine on the glass forming water’. 15.2% of
pupils stated incorrectly that the liquid was ‘water evaporating from the milk and
condensing on the outside of the glass’. 7.7% of the pupils that responded incorrectly
to this question stated that the water on the outside of the glass felt that the ‘glass
acted as a semi-permeable membrane and allowed the water to pass through but not
the milk’. 4.3% of pupils felt that liquid on the outside was actually ‘a mixture of milk
and water that had passed out though the glass’. In the original study by Mulford and

225
Robinson (2002) that included this question, 67% of students attributed the sweat to
condensation. One incorrect response ‘the coldness causes oxygen and hydrogen
from the air to combine on the glass forming water’ was selected by 25% of the
group’. Overall on analysis of the responses that pupils gave to questions 12, 13, 17,
24, 25 and 27 indicate a large number of misconceptions exist regarding basic phase
changes.

Misconceptions relating to the energy particles have at different phases

Research has shown that pupils fail to recognise how the energy of a particle of a
substance relates to the phase or state that the substance is in. 60.1% of pupils gave
the correct response to question 17. They correctly felt that there was indeed a
difference between particles of water at 10ºC and 90ºC. 24.5% of pupils felt that there
was no difference. When asked to explain their answer, no pupil was able to give a
correct answer. 7.4% of pupils were vaguely correct, while 60.0% of pupils gave an
incorrect explanation for the difference between particles. Responses to this question
indicate that pupils fail to recognise the energy that particles have in different phases.
The existence of this misconception among Junior Certificate pupils was further
strengthened by responses to question 18. Question 18 was used to determine if Irish
pupils can make the connection between the phase a substance was in and the energy
the particles of that substance had. Overall 39.0% of pupils felt that ‘water molecules
in the liquid phase move slower than the water molecules in the gaseous phase’.
41.2% of pupils got this question incorrect. The main incorrect answer was that
‘water molecules in the liquid phase move faster than the water molecules in the
gaseous phase’ with 21.1% of pupils choosing this as their answer. 6.5% of pupils
felt that ‘water molecules in the liquid phase move at the same speed as the water
molecules in the gaseous phase’, 8.0% of pupils felt that ‘water molecules in the
liquid phase move more randomly than the water molecules in the gaseous phase’,
and 6.5% of pupils felt that ‘water molecules in the liquid phase travel in the same
direction as the water molecules in the gaseous phase’. Overall, more pupils got this
question incorrect than correct. 41.2% of pupils surveyed possess a misconception
about the energy a particle has in different phases. The distracters provided in this
question have also thrown up another misconception about the manner and directions
in which particles move at different phases.

226
Misconceptions relating to how phase change affects the size and mass of a particle
Another aspect of phase change that has been identified in the literature as a major
area of misconception is how phase change affect the size of an atom, molecule etc.
Questions 20, 21 and 23 were all used to determine pupils’ ideas of this concept.
Question 20 was correctly answered by only 6.5% of pupils. Overall 76.8% of pupils
got this question incorrect. The majority of pupils that got this question incorrect felt
that freezing was a process that would cause a water molecule to become larger.
59.8% of pupils chose this response. 7.1% of those that got the question incorrect felt
that evaporation would cause a water molecule to become larger. 5.9% of pupils
chose melting and 4.0% of pupils chose condensation.
The responses given to question 21 were similar. On analysis of the responses to
question 21, 20.4% of pupils got this question correct. However 62.8% of pupils got
this question incorrect. 25.4% of pupils felt that heating a water molecule in a gas phase
would cause the water molecule to become lighter. 21.7% of pupils felt that heating
water molecules in a gas phase would cause the water molecule to expand. 8.0% of
pupils that heating the water molecule would cause it to change into a liquid, whereas
7.7% of pupils felt that heating the water molecule would cause it to release air.
On analysis of the responses to question 23, another misconception can be identified.
Overall 11.1% of pupils got the question correct. These pupils correctly stated that a
water molecule in a gas phase is the same mass as a water molecule in a solid phase.
67.8% of pupils got this question incorrect. 40.9% of pupils felt that a water molecule
in a liquid phase is lighter than a water molecule in a solid phase. 10.5% of pupils
felt that the water molecule was smaller in the liquid phase than in the solid phase.
9.6% of pupils felt that the water molecule would be heavier in the liquid phase and
6.8% of pupils stated that the water molecule would be larger in the liquid phase than
in the solid phase. Overall responses the question 21, 21 and 23 show a large amount
of misconceptions relating to the effect that phase change has on the size and mass of
the particle.

Misconceptions relating to how phase change affects the chemical make-up of a

substance
The final aspect of phase change that was tested using this instrument was how phase
change affects the chemical make-up of the substance. Questions 22 and 28 were used
to determine misconceptions relating to this idea. Already in this section we have

227
seen how pupils have felt that phase change causes a water molecule to split into
hydrogen and oxygen atoms (questions 12, 13 and 24). Only 9.0% of pupils got
question 22 correct. They correctly identified the bubbles that appear in a pot of water
that is being heated as steam. 72.1% of the group got this question incorrect. 26.6% of
the group felt the bubbles were oxygen bubbles, 21.7% of the group felt that the
bubbles were bubbles of oxygen and hydrogen gas. Here again we see this
misconception of the splitting of water into oxygen and hydrogen when a sample of it
is heated. 15.2% of pupils felt that the bubbles were air bubbles and 8.7% of the
group felt that the bubbles were bubbles of heat. These results are consistent with the
results from the study the question originated from. The work carried out by
Yezierski and Birk (2000) showed that the most ‘common incorrect responses were
hydrogen and oxygen gas followed by oxygen and air’.
Question 28 once again looked at the effect of heat on the chemical make-up of a
water sample. 17.0% of pupils got question 28 correct. They correctly stated that
when water is vaporised it is converted to gaseous water. 54.2% of pupils got this
question incorrect. 31.0% of these felt that vaporised water was converted to
hydrogen and oxygen. 11.5% of pupils felt that it was converted into Air, hydrogen
and oxygen. 7.7% of the group felt that it was converted into hydrogen only and 4.0%
felt it was converted into oxygen only.

Misconceptions relating to solubility and concentration at a particulate level

Question 26 was used to determine pupils’ understanding of what happens at a
particulate level for a very basic example of solubility. Table 5.7 summarises the
responses to questions 26.
Concept Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
being Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Solubility and Q.26 24.8% 43.7% of pupils got this 31.6%
Concentration question about the
concentration of a sugar
solution incorrect
Table 5.7: Summary of responses to question 26 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument

Overall 24.8% of pupils surveyed got this question correct. 43.7% of the group got
this question incorrect. Pupils failed to link the number of particles present with the
quantity of water that they were in. 14.6% of the group chose response E and 13.3%

228
chose response C, which indicates that pupils felt that the number of sugar particles
increased when extra water was added. 12.1% of the group chose response D which
indicates that they felt that increasing the quantity of water had no effect on the
concentration of sugar particles. 3.7% of pupils chose response A, indicating that they
felt that the sugar particles would disappear completely when water was added.

Misconceptions relating to conservation of volume and mass at a particulate level

Questions 29, 30 and 32 were used to assess pupils’ ability to conserve mass and
volume. Table 5.8 summaries the responses for the above questions.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Conservation Q.29 8.4% 52.0% felt that when ice 29.4%
of mass and melts in a beaker of
volume water the water level
will rise (failure to
conserve volume)
Q.30 8.4% 37.5% of pupils 30.8%
explained their answer
to question 29 with the
following explanation
‘the water from the ice
melting changes the
water level’.
Q.32 17.4% 21.7% of pupils failed 38.5%
to conserve mass and
felt that when a sample
of iodine in a sealed
contained evaporated
the mass of the
contained would be less
than it had been at the
beginning.
Table 5.8: Summary of responses for questions relating to pupils ability to conserve volume
and mass at a particulate level in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument

Overall the results of these questions indicate an inability on the part of the pupil to
conserve the mass and volume of substances. 8.4% of pupils got question 29 correct.
62.4% of pupils got this question incorrect. The majority of pupils (52.0%) felt that
the level of water would be higher after the ice had melted. 9.9% of pupils felt that
the level of the water would be lower. The responses to the question highlight an
inability to conserve volume. These responses are also worrying as a much higher
percentage of Irish pupils got this question incorrect when compared to the study the

229
question originated from. In the work carried out by Mulford and Robinson (2002)
‘when asked about the change in water level as the ice melts in a mixture of ice and
water only 36% indicated that it would stay the same’. Only 8.4% of Junior
Certificate pupils managed this. Question 30 asked pupils to explain their response to
question 29. Here again only 8.4% of pupils got this question correct. These were the
pupils who gave the correct answer to question 29. Overall 60.7% of pupils got
question 30 incorrect. The most popular incorrect response was response D where
37.5% of pupils felt that the melting ice causes the water level to change. The
responses to question 32 were similar. Here again the majority of pupils failed to
conserve the mass of the tube. 17.4% of pupils got this question correct. 44.0% of
pupils got this question incorrect. The majority of pupils (21.7%) who got this
question incorrect felt that the tube would be less than 26g after heating. In the study
that this question was originally used in by Mulford and Robinson (2002) 29% of
pupils indicated that the weight would be less. 9.6% of the Junior Certificate pupils
surveyed stated that it would be 26g, indicating that heating the Iodine would cause a
change to its mass. 8.7% of pupils felt that heating the Iodine and the tube would
cause an increase in mass to 28g. 4.0% of the group felt that the mass would be
greater than 28g after heating. Responses to the above questions indicate another
misconception that exists as a result of pupils failing to conserve mass and volume.
The ability to conserve such physical properties has also been linked to pupils’
cognitive level. It must be noted that a large number of pupils opted not to answer
these questions which may indicate pupils are having major difficulty with this topic.

Misconceptions relating to Chemical Reactions

Question 34 examined pupils understanding of what occurs during a basic chemical
reaction involving Copper. Table 5.9 summaries the responses to questions 34.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Chemical Q.34 31.9% 10.8% of pupils felt that 39.0%
Reactions shiny copper pipes turn
dull and tarnish because
of heat.
Table 5.9: Summary of responses to question 34 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument

230
Overall 31.9% of pupils correctly stated that Copper water pipes tarnish as a result of
a reaction between oxygen and copper to form copper oxide. In total 29.1% of pupils
got this question incorrect. 10.8% of pupils felt that the tarnishing of the Copper pipes
was as a result of heat. 8.7% of those who got this question incorrect felt that the
tarnishing was as a result of the Copper atoms going from a shiny colour to a duller
colour. (This response could also be as a result of confusion between pupils’
macroscopic and microscopic understanding of atoms). 6.5% of pupils stated that the
tarnishing was as a result of a ‘coating from the air covering the pipe’. 3.1% of pupils
felt that during tarnishing the Copper atoms ‘changed into a new type of atom’. It
must be noted that a large number of pupils opted not to answer this question which
may indicate pupils are having major difficulty with this topic.

Misconceptions relating to macroscopic and microscopic views of particles

Question 31 was used to analyse pupils’ macroscopic and microscopic understanding of
the particulate nature of matter. Table 5.10 summaries the responses to question 31.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
The Q.31 a 24.5% 37.8% of pupils felt that 37.5%
macroscopic copper atoms have the
versus the same physical
microscopic properties as a bar of
view of matter copper
Q.31 b 38.7% 23.5% felt that gold 37.8%
atoms were gold in
colour
Q.31 c 35.9% 26.6% felt that atoms 37.5%
can be seen using a light
microscope
Q.31 d 51.1% 11.1% did not aggress 37.8%
that atoms contained
electrons, protons and
neutrons
Q.31 e 23.5% 38.7% did not agree that 37.8%
atoms are made up of
mostly empty space
Q.31 f 32.2% 29.4% felt that the space 38.4%
between protons,
electrons and neutrons
in the atom are filled
with air.
Table 5.10: Summary of responses to question 31 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument

231
37.8% of pupils incorrectly stated that Copper atoms have the same physical
properties as a bar of copper. 23.5% of pupils also felt that Gold atoms were gold in
colour. These two statements indicate that a high number of pupils attribute
microscopic properties to macroscopic situations. When asked if atoms can be seen
using a light microscope, 26.6% of pupils felt that this was possible.
51.1% of pupils correctly stated that atoms consist of protons, neutrons and electrons
and only 11.1% of pupils got this incorrect. 38.7% of pupils felt that atoms were not
‘mostly made up of empty space’. 23.5% of pupils on the other hand felt that atoms
were mostly made up of empty space. 29.4% of pupils felt that space ‘between
protons, neutrons and electrons in an atom was filled with air’. 32.2% disagreed with
this statement and chose the correct answer. Overall responses to question 31 have
highlighted a number of misconceptions that Irish pupils have when they are asked to
move between the microscopic and macroscopic realms of thought. It must be noted
that a large number of pupils opted not to answer these questions which may indicate
pupils are having major difficulty with this topic.

232
Misconceptions relating to what constitutes a physical and chemical change
Research (Griffiths and Kirk, 1992) has shown that pupils have a difficulty in
identifying a physical and chemical change. Question 33 was used to determine if
Irish pupils had a similar problem. Table 5.11 summaries the responses to questions
33.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect answer responses
Responses
Chemical Q.33 a 31.9% 24.1% felt that water 44.0%
versus physical changing to water to ice
change was a chemical change
Q.33 b 50.8% 5.3% felt that cutting wood 44.0%
was a chemical change
Q.33 c 35.6% 19.8% felt that a candle 44.6%
burning was a physical
change
Q.33 d 17.0% 38.4% felt that diluting a 44.6%
fruit juice was a chemical
change
Q.33 e 29.4% 26.3% felt that an ice cube 44.3%
melting was a chemical
change
Q.33 f 0.3% The majoring of pupils
could not explain that a
chemical change has
occurred when a new
substance is formed.
Table 5.11: Summary of responses to question 33 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument

Question 33 was a two-tiered question and required pupils to explain their answers.
31.9% of pupils correctly identified water changing to ice as a physical change;
however 24.1% of pupils incorrectly identified it as a chemical change. 50.8% of
pupils correctly identified cutting wood as a physical change; however 5.3% of pupils
incorrectly identified it as a chemical change. 35.6% of pupils correctly a candle
burning as a chemical change, however 19.8% of pupils incorrectly identified it as a
physical change. 17.0% of pupils correctly identified diluting a fruit juice as a
physical change; however, a massive 38.4% of pupils incorrectly identified it as a
chemical change. 29.47 of pupils correctly identified an ice cube melting as a
physical change; however, 26.3% of pupils incorrectly identified it as a chemical
change. Overall results indicate approximately half of the responses given are
incorrect responses and as a result half of the pupils tested have problems
distinguishing between physical and chemical changes. In fact responses to part B of

233
this question indicate pupils have a very poor understanding of what physical changes
and chemical changes actually are. Overall 0.3% of pupils gave a correct answer as to
how one knows when a chemical change has occurred. 8.4% of pupils gave a half
correct response, while 21.7% of pupils gave an incorrect response. It must be noted
that a large number of pupils opted not to answer these questions which may indicate
pupils are having major difficulty with this topic.

Misconceptions relating to atoms and molecules

Questions 15 and 16 look at pupils’ understanding of atoms and molecules. Table
5.12 summaries the responses to questions 15 and 16.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect answer missing
Responses responses
Atoms versus Q.15 39.9% 42.7% incorrectly stated 17.0%
Molecules the number of atoms
present in a water
molecule. The majority of
incorrect answers stated
that there were 2 atoms
present in one water
molecule.
Q.16 a 31.9% 53.9% of pupils felt that an 14.2%
element always consists of
just atoms indicating a lack
of awareness of the
existence of molecules.
Q.16 b 44.0% 41.2% felt that elements 14.9%
and compounds are not
made up of molecules.
Q.16 c 31.9% 52.9% felt that molecules 15.2%
can only contain one type
of atom.
Table 5.12: Summary of responses to questions 15 and 16 in the Junior Certificate Test
Instrument

Overall 39.9% of pupils in their responses to question 15 correctly indicated that there
are three atoms present in one molecule of water. However 42.7% of pupils failed to
answer this question correctly, highlighting a problem in the very basic understanding
of atoms and molecules. Pupil’s responses to question 16 further highlight problems
in the understanding of atoms and molecules and the differences between them.
31.9% of pupils correctly indicated that an element does not always consist of just
atoms. 53.9% of pupils however felt that elements always consist of just atoms.

234
44.0% of pupils correctly stated that ‘elements and compounds can both be made up
of molecules’. 41.2% of pupils got this incorrect. 31.9% of pupils correctly stated that
molecules can consist of atoms of more than one element. A massive 52.9% of pupils
got this incorrect and felt that ‘molecules must always consist of atoms of more than
one element’. Question 15 and 16 show misconceptions exist in the area of atoms and
molecules among Irish Junior Certificate pupils.

Misconceptions relating to Ionic and Covalent bonding

Question 35 was used to assess this concept. Table 5.13 summaries the responses to
question 35.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Ionic and Q.35 18.0% 15.8% of pupils 41.2%
covalent represented a model of
bonding an ionic substance as
molecules.
Table 5.13: Summary of responses to question 35 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument
Overall 18.0% of pupils correctly identified the structure of the product in the
reaction between sodium and chlorine atoms. 40.9% of pupils however failed to
identify the structure of the product correctly. 15.8% of pupils felt that the sodium
and chlorine atoms would bond individually to produce one neutral molecule
(response A). 12.1% of pupils felt that the sodium and chlorine atoms would bond
individually to produce polar molecules (response C). 7.1% felt the structure of the
product would consist of sodium and chlorine atoms joined randomly to each other
(response E) while 5.9% of pupils stated that the product would consist of individual
ions of sodium and chlorine in random positions (response D). It must be noted that a
large number of pupils opted not to answer this question which may indicate pupils
are having major difficulty with this topic.

235
Summary of Main Misconceptions held by Junior Certificate Pupils
From the above analysis of responses of Junior Certificate pupils to questions in the
Test Instrument a number of common misconceptions emerge. The following is a list
of the main misconceptions Junior Certificate pupils possess about the Particulate
Nature of Matter that emerged from analysis of responses to the Test Instrument.
1. The majority of Junior Certificate pupils have difficulty in understanding the
difference between elements and compounds.
2. Junior Certificate pupils also possess misconceptions about what fills the space
between the particles of a substance.
3. Pupils have a poor understanding of what occurs at a particulate level during
phase change.
4. Overall pupils have a poor understanding of phase change when it is presented at
a particulate level; they possess a much better understanding of phase change at
the macroscopic level.
5. Pupils have misunderstandings about the energy particles have in different phases.
6. Junior Certificate pupils possess misconceptions about how phase change affects
the size of a particle.
7. Junior Certificate pupils show an inability to conserve mass.
8. Overall pupils have a poor understanding of solubility and concentration of
solutions at a particulate level.
9. Quite a high percentage of pupils, have incorrect ideas about the physical
properties of the atoms of a substance. The majority of pupils incorrectly attribute
physical properties such as colour to one atom of a substance.
10. A high percentage of Junior Certificate pupils cannot distinguish between
physical and chemical changes.
11. When compared with the results of studies that the questions originally appeared
in, the number of correct answers given by Irish pupils is much lower than the
number of correct answers given by the pupils in the original study. This would
suggest that more Irish pupils possess misconceptions, such as those listed here,
than pupils from other countries.

236
5.2.3: Significant Factors that emerged from results from Junior Certificate test
instruments:
On analysis of the Junior Certificate responses to the test instrument a number of
factors emerged as having a significant effect on another factor. Table 5.14 lists the
different significant factors that emerged as being linked after correlation tests had
been carried out on the data obtained in this phase of the investigation.

Significant Relationship p-Value Meaning

(<0.05 =
Significant)
Cognitive Level versus Number of 0.018 Junior Certificate pupils operating at
Misconceptions the pupils possess higher cognitive levels were more
about the Particulate Nature of likely to possess fewer misconceptions
Matter about the Particulate Nature of Matter.
Mathematics Level versus Number 0.001 Pupils taking higher level Mathematics
of Misconceptions the pupils for the Junior Certificate were more
possess about the Particulate Nature likely to possess fewer misconceptions
of Matter about the Particulate Nature of Matter.
Gender versus Number of 0.031 Female pupils were more likely to
Misconceptions the pupils possess possess fewer misconceptions about the
about the Particulate Nature of Particulate Nature of Matter in
Matter comparison to male pupils.
Table 5.14: Significant relations between Variables emerging from the Junior Certificate
Test Instrument (p-Value <0.05 = significant)

From Table 5.14 it can be seen that performance in the chemical misconceptions tests
emerged as being significantly linked with a number of factors, namely cognitive
level, mathematical ability and gender. Results indicate that pupils operating at a
higher level of cognitive development perform better in the Chemical misconceptions
test. From Table 5.14 it also emerged that female pupils at Junior Certificate level
were more likely perform better than male pupils in the misconceptions test. The
other factor that emerged from the responses as being linked with performance in the
misconceptions test was level of Mathematics study. Results indicate that higher level
Mathematics pupils did better in the misconceptions test than those studying ordinary
level Mathematics.

237
5.2.4: A closer look at the responses from the Leaving Certificate pupils’
misconceptions test
Misconceptions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter, Equilibrium and The
Mole Concept can be divided into different categories. These categories are:

Misconceptions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter:

- Misconceptions relating to the nature of matter (do pupils see matter as
continuous etc).
- Misconceptions relating to the space between particles.
- Misconceptions relating to phase change at a particulate level (sub-divisions of
this include misconceptions relating to melting, freezing, evaporation and
condensation. Also included are misconceptions relating to the effect of phase
change on the energy particle have, how phase change affects the size and mass of
a particle the effect of phase change on the chemical make-up of a substance).
- Misconceptions relating to concentration of solutions at a particulate level.
- Misconceptions relating to conservation of volume and mass at a particulate level.
- Misconceptions relating to Chemical Reactions.
- Misconceptions relating to macroscopic and microscopic views of particles.

Misconceptions relating to Equilibrium:

- Misconceptions relating to the dynamic nature of Equilibrium.
- Misconceptions which involve two separate reactions at Equilibrium.
- Misconceptions relating to Le Chateliers Principle.
- Misconceptions relating to the Equilibrium Constant.
- Misconceptions relating to Rate Versus Equilibrium.

Misconceptions relating to the Mole concept:

- Misconceptions relating to the meaning of the Mole is.
- Misconceptions relating to the Mole as a counting unit.
- Misconceptions relating to reacting masses and Stiochiometry.
- Misconceptions relating to Molar Volumes.

The misconceptions Irish Leaving Certificate pupils have about these areas were
investigated using the test instrument. The following sections will discuss in detail the

238
responses given by Irish Leaving Certificate pupils to the different questions on the
test instrument and will highlight the misconceptions they possess about the
Particulate Nature of Matter, Chemical Equilibrium and the Mole Concept. In
reporting these results, the percentage of correct answers, the percentage of the sum
of incorrect answers, the percentage of missing responses and the most popular
incorrect answer have been listed.

5.2.4.1: Misconceptions possessed by Leaving Certificate pupils about the

Particulate Nature of Matter
The following sections will discuss in detail the responses given by Irish pupils to the
different questions on the Test Instrument and will highlight the misconceptions they
possess about the Particulate Nature of Matter.

Misconceptions relating to the nature of matter

Research (Novick and Nussbaum, 1981) has shown that many pupils fail to recognise
that matter is made up of tiny particles. Instead they believe matter to be continuous
in nature. Question 12 was used to assess this misconception. Table 5.15 summaries
the responses to question 12.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
The particulate Q: 12 56.1% 32.0% of pupils did not 11.8%
nature of recognise the
matter continuous nature of
matter
Table 5.15: Summary of responses to question 12 in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument

Overall 56.1% of pupils got this question correct. They correctly drew a diagram
consisting of small particles in the circle provided. However it must be noted that
32.0% of the group got this question incorrect. Pupils who got this question incorrect
shaded in the circle region, an indication that they perceive matter to be continuous as
opposed to being made up of small particles. The results of this question indicate that
there are a high proportion of Leaving Certificate Chemistry pupils who have failed
to recognise that matter is made up of tiny particles and instead see it as one
continuous substance.

239
Misconceptions relating to the space between particles
Research (Griffiths and Kirk, 1992) in the area of misconceptions relating to the
Particulate Nature of Matter indicate pupils hold a misconception about what fills the
space between particles of a substance. Question 16 was included to assess the
misconceptions Irish pupils possess relating to this idea. Table 5.16 summaries the
responses to question 16.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most popular % of missing
Tested Number Correct incorrect answer responses
Responses
Spaces between Q: 16 37.7% 15.4% of the group chose 12.3%
particles response B and 15.4% of the
group chose response E. these
pulps felt that the space
between oxygen molecules in a
sample of oxygen gas is fill by
air or atmosphere respectively.
Table 5.16: Summary of responses to question 16 in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument
Overall 37.7% of the group got this question correct and selected response D, that there was
‘nothing’ between oxygen molecules in a pure sample of the gas. 50.0% of the group got this
question incorrect. The most popular incorrect answer were responses B (‘Air’) and E
(‘Atmosphere’), with 15.4% of the group each choosing these responses. 14.5% of the group
felt that the space between the oxygen molecules was filled with ‘matter’ the remaining 4.8%
felt that this space was occupied with ‘water vapour’. The majority of the pupils surveyed
got this question incorrect.

Misconceptions relating to phase change at a particulate level

A considerable quantity of research carried out relating to misconceptions about the
Particulate Nature of Matter focuses on the concept of phase change (Griffiths and Kirk,
1992). Much has been documented on pupils’ explanations of what happens when solids
change to liquids, liquids change to gases and also when the reverse of each occurs.
Questions 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 were all used in the test Instrument to
determine pupils’ understanding of different ideas associated with phase change. The ideas
associated with phase change can be classified into sections relating to:
- Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a solid changes to a
liquid (Question 14 and 22)
- Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a liquid changes to a
gas (Question 13, 18 and 21)

240
- Misconceptions relating to the energy particles have at different phases (Question 17
and 19)
- Misconceptions relating to how phase change affects the size and mass of a particle
(Question 15)
- Misconceptions relating to how phase change affects the chemical make-up of a
substance (Question 20)
Table 5.17 summarises the responses for the above questions relating to phase change
at the particulate level.
Concept Questions % of % and type of most popular incorrect % of missing
being Number Correct answer responses
Tested Responses
Phase Q: 13 28.1% 17.5% of pupils chose response C and 12.7%
Change 17.5% of pupils chose response D. both
of these responses depicted the liquid
ammonia splitting into nitrogen and
hydrogen when it changes phase from a
liquid to a gas.
Q: 14 29.8% 34.6% chose response B which depicted 13.6%
water splitting into hydrogen and
oxygen when it is heated.
Q: 15 13.6% 56.6% of pupils felt that freezing water 11.0%
will cause its molecules to enlarge.

Q: 17 a 70.2% 17.6% did not answer the question on 12.3%

diffusion rate correctly
Q: 17 b 7.9% 68.9% either gave a vague or incorrect 23.2%
explanation for questions 17 a
Q: 18 29.8% 21.9% of pupils chose the response that 14.9%
depicted water splitting into hydrogen
and oxygen when it evaporates.
Q: 19 6.6% 58.8% either vaguely or incorrectly 34.2%
explained why a football does not feel
hard after being left in the cold
overnight.
Q: 20 8.8% 35.1% of pupils felt that the bubbles in 13.2%
a glass of hot water were composed of
oxygen.
Q: 21 31.1% 40.4% of pupils felt that when water 13.6%
changes from a liquid to a gas energy is
required to break bonds between
oxygen and hydrogen atoms in the
molecule of water.
Q: 22 61.8% 10.7% felt that salt dissolving in water 14.9%
or sugar being places on ones tongue
were examples of melting.
Table 5.17: Summary of responses to questions relating to phase change at the particulate
level in the Leaving Certificate Test Instrument

241
Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a solid changes to
a liquid
Overall 29.8% of pupils got question 14 correct. In total 56.6% of the group got
question 14 incorrect. The majority of those (34.6%) that answered this question
incorrectly selected response B, which indicates that these pupils think that when
water changes state from a solid to a liquid, the water molecules split into separate
hydrogen and oxygen atoms. 9.6% of the group selected response D, which showed
the water molecules widely separated from each other. 6.1% of the group selected
response A, which was identical to the original diagram. This response indicates that
these pupils feel there is no change at a particulate level when water changes phase
from a solid to a liquid. 6.1% of the group also selected response E, which indicates
that pupils feel that when water changes phase from a solid to a liquid, water
molecules split and the hydrogen atoms bond with hydrogen atoms and that oxygen
atoms bond with oxygen atoms.
Question 22 also related to the phase change from a solid to a liquid. Whereas
question 14 focused on the microscopic aspects of melting, question 22 tested pupils’
macroscopic views of this phase change. Overall 61.8% of the group correctly
identified ‘chocolate placed in the sun’ as an example of melting. 23.2% of the group
got this question incorrect. The majority of those that got this question incorrect felt
that two of the examples given i.e. ‘a few grains of salt in water seemingly
disappear’, ‘chocolate placed in the sun’ and ‘sugar placed on your tongue
producing a sweet taste’ were examples of melting. Results of these questions give
two important findings. First of all the responses to these questions indicate that
pupils are more comfortable dealing with the macroscopic level than the microscopic
level. Another important finding from the responses to these questions indicates that
pupils at Leaving Certificate level share similar misconceptions to pupils at Junior
Certificate level about what happens to a water molecule as it changes state. Here
again quite a substantial number of pupils, 34.6%, feel that a water molecule splits
into hydrogen and oxygen atoms when they change phase from a solid to a liquid.

242
Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a liquid changes
to a gas
Questions 13, 18 and 21 test misconceptions possessed by pupils about the phase
change from a liquid to a gas. Overall 28.1% of pupils got question 13 correct,
however 59.2% of pupils got this question incorrect. 17.5% of pupils selected
response C, while 17.5% of pupils selected response D. The pupils that selected either
response C or D hold similar misconceptions, in that they believe that as ammonia
goes from a liquid to a gas, the molecules of ammonia split into nitrogen and
hydrogen atoms. Those that selected response C believe that in the gas phase
ammonia exists as separate atoms of nitrogen and hydrogen. Pupils that selected
response D believe that atoms of hydrogen bond with atoms of hydrogen and atoms
of nitrogen bond with atoms of nitrogen. Here again the misconception is that
changing phase results in the splitting up of a molecule emerge.
Overall 29.8% of pupils got question 18 correct. In total 55.3% of pupils got this
question incorrect. Here again the majority of incorrect responses, 21.9%, chose
response D, which illustrated water molecules separating into hydrogen and oxygen
atoms as water change phase from a liquid to a gas. 13.2% of the group chose response
A, which shows water molecule splitting into separate atoms and oxygen atoms
bonding with oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms bonding with hydrogen atoms. 12.7%
of the group chose response C and 7.5% of the group selected response B.
Question 21 was included to determine pupils’ understanding of what the energy is
required for when water changes phase from a liquid to a gas. Overall 31.1% of the
group got this question correct and selected response D ‘the energy is required to
break bonds between water molecules away from other water molecules’. Overall
55.3% of the group got this question incorrect. The most popular incorrect response
was response C. 40.4% of the group felt that the energy was required to ‘break the
bonds between oxygen and hydrogen atoms in the molecules’. Once again this
misconception has presented itself. Responses to question 13, 18 and 21 indicate
pupils possess a number of misconceptions about what occurs during phase change.

243
Misconceptions relating to the energy particles have at different phases
Questions 17 and 19 were included to determine pupils understating of the energy
particles possess during phase change. Overall 70.2% of pupils correctly stated that
one would be able to smell an air freshener in a warm room before one in a cold
room. When a deeper insight into pupils’ understanding of this phenomenon was
assessed, it was found that while 70.2% of the group got this question correct, only
7.9% of the group gave a correct explanation for their answer. 30.3% of the group
gave a vaguely correct answer, while 38.6% of the group gave a completely incorrect
answer.
The same was true of responses to question 19. Overall 6.6% of the group gave a
correct explanation as to why the football felt softer in the evening time. 25.0% of the
group gave a vaguely correct answer, with 33.8% of the group giving completely
incorrect answers. Comparing these responses with the responses from the study
where this question originated, it can be seen that results are similar. However, here
again a higher percentage of Irish pupils fail to understand the concept being tested.
In the original study by Ozmen (2004), ‘37% of pupils gave a partial understanding,
with 11% of pupils showing no understanding of the event that was happening’.
Responses to question 17 and 19 show that when a deeper look is taken into pupils
understanding of the energy particles have in different phases, many pupils cannot
explain, on a particulate level, what is occurring in simple everyday occurrences. The
majority of pupils may correctly answer the question as a direct result of everyday
experiences, but fail to offer an explanation for this occurrence.

Misconceptions relating to how phase change affects the size and mass of a particle
Question 15 was included in this test instrument to determine pupils’ misconceptions
relating to how phase change affects the size and mass of a particle of that substance.
Overall 13.6% of pupils got question 15 correct and chose response E. In total 75.4%
of pupils got this question incorrect. The majority of pupils, 56.6%, felt that freezing
would make a water molecule larger. 11.1% of pupils felt that evaporation was a
process that would cause a water molecule to increase in size. The responses to this
question have uncovered a major misconception relating to how phase change affects
the size of a molecule.

244
Misconceptions relating to how phase change affects the chemical make-up of a
substance
Question 20 was included in that test instrument to determine misconceptions pupil
may posses about how phase change affects the chemical make up of a substance.
8.8% of pupils got question 20 correct. A massive 78.1% of pupils got this question
incorrect. The majority of those that got question 20 incorrect, 35.1%, felt that the
bubbles in a pot of water being heated were bubbles of oxygen. 28.4% of the group
felt that the bubbles composed of oxygen and hydrogen gas. 12.7% of the group felt
that the bubbles were made up of air. Once again, the misconception that phase
change cause water to split into hydrogen and oxygen has emerged in the responses to
question 20.

Misconceptions relating to concentrations of solutions at a particulate level

Question 23 was included to determine pupils’ understanding of solubility and
concentrations of solutions. Table 5.18 summarises the responses to question 23.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Concentration Q: 23 17.5% of 42.5% of pupils got two 13.6%
of solutions pupils got all or more parts of this
aspects of question incorrect.
this question
correct
Table 5.18: Summary of responses to question 23 in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument

17.5% of the group got all 5 questions correct, 26.3% of the group got four questions
correct. In total 43.8% of the group got four or more responses correct. 42.5% of the
group got two or more question incorrect. As can be seen from these responses, while
there was a high percentage of the group with a good understanding of
concentrations, there is equally a high percentage of pupils with a poor understanding
of concentrations. Incorrect answers to this question could also be linked with pupils’
inability to conserve matter.

245
Misconceptions relating to conservation of matter at a particulate level
Question 25 was included in the test instrument to determine pupils’ ability to
conserve matter. Table 5.19 summarises the responses to question 25.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Conservation Q: 25 19.3% 18.9% felt that the only 18.9%
of mass/volume aspect to remain
constant during a
chemical reaction was
the sum of the masses
of all the substances.
Table 5.19: Summary of responses to question 25 in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument

Overall 19.3% of the group correctly selected response D. In total 61.8% of pupils got
this question incorrect. Those that selected responses A and C were half correct.
18.9% of pupils chose response A and felt that the only thing that had to be the same
before and after a chemical reaction was ‘the sum of the masses of all substances
involved’. 15.8% chose response C and felt that the only thing that had to remain the
same was ‘the number of atoms of each type involved’. 14.0% of pupils got this
question completely incorrect as they felt that the only thing that had to remain the
same before and after a chemical reaction was ‘the number of molecules of all
substances involved’. Responses to this question highlight an inability of pupils to
conserve matter during a chemical reaction. Responses from the study in which this
question originated (Mulford and Robinson, 2002) show that ‘the common mistake
was to assume that the total number of molecules is also conserved in a chemical
reaction’. Responses to this question may also highlight misconceptions that exist in
pupils’ understanding of the difference between atoms and molecules.

246
Misconceptions relating to Chemical Reactions
Table 5.20 summarises the responses of questions relating to chemical reactions.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Chemical Q: 24 8.3% 24.1% chose response 20.6%
Reactions C, indicating a failure to
conserve matter.
Q: 26 17.1% 28.1% of pupils felt that 18.9%
when a nail rusts the
mass of rust present
depends on the amount
of water and oxygen
present.
Q: 27 43.9% 13.6% of pupils felt that 18.4%
rust weights less than
iron.
Table 5.20: Summary of responses to questions 24, 26 and 27 in the Leaving Certificate
Test Instrument

Question 24 was a poorly answered question with only 8.3% of the cohort getting this
question correct. Overall 71.1% of pupils got this question incorrect. The incorrect
responses highlight an inability to connect what is occurring in a balanced chemical
equation (Symbolic level) with what is occurring at a Particulate level (Microscopic
Level). Research has shown pupils find it difficult to move between the Symbolic and
Microscopic levels and responses to this question highlight this difficulty. The
majority of pupils, 21.5%, that got this question incorrect selected response E. 24.1%
of pupils selected response C, 13.6% of pupils chose response B and 11.8% of pupils
selected response A. Responses A, C or E when chosen show an inability on behalf of
the pupils to conserve atoms. Incorrect responses may also show that pupils do not
understand the difference between the coefficient 2 and the subscript 3 in 2SO3.
When these responses are compared with the responses from the study that the
question originated in, it can be seen that Irish pupils possess the same
misconceptions as the pupils involved in the original study. In the original research
carried out by Mulford and Robinson (2002) 11% selected the correct response. 65%
of pupils from the original study chose responses A, C or E.
Question 26 and 27 are an example of a two tier question that require pupils to give
an explanation for the answer that they chose. 17.1% of pupils correctly stated that a
completely rusted nail would weigh ‘more than the nail it came from’. 64.1% of the
group got this question incorrect. The majority of pupils, 28.1%, that got this question

247
incorrect felt that ‘the mass of the rust would depend on the amount of water and
oxygen present’. 24.6% of pupils felt that the rust would weigh ‘less than the nail it
came from’. In fact this response was also chosen by 36% of the pupils that took part
in the study by Mulford and Robinson (2002) where this question originated from.
When asked to explain the reason for their answer in question 27, 43.9% of pupils
chose the correct explanation suggesting that more students know the composition of
rust than understand the mass relationships involved in its formation. However only
14.5% of pupils got both questions 26 and 27 correct. This indicates a poor
understating of a basic, everyday chemical reaction that pupils should be familiar
with. Quite a high percentage could identify that rust is composed of iron and oxygen;
however, very few could connect this with the effect rusting has on the mass of the
nail. This possibly indicates an inability to understand the conservation of mass.

Misconceptions relating to macroscopic and microscopic views of particles

Research has shown (Haidar and Abrahan, 1991) that many pupils have difficulty in
distinguishing the microscopic and macroscopic properties of a substance. In fact
many pupils believe than one atom of a substance possesses the macroscopic
properties of that substance. Question 28 was included to determine the
misconceptions Irish pupils possess relating to this idea. Table 5.21 summarises the
overall responses to question 28.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Macroscopic v Q: 28 16.2% 39.0% of pupils felt that 21.1%
Microscopic the properties of a
sample of sulphur are
identical to the
properties on one single
atom of sulphur.
Table 5.21: Summary of responses to question 28 in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument

Overall 16.2% of pupils got this question correct when they stated that the only
property an atom of Sulphur would have the same as a sample of Sulphur is that ‘it
combines with oxygen to form sulphur dioxide’. 62.7% of the cohort got this question
incorrect. 39.0% of the group felt that all the properties listed would be the same for
an atom of Sulphur and a sample of Sulphur. Results from the study in which this
question originated show are very similar to responses given by Irish pupils. In the

248
original study ‘only 19% could distinguish the properties of a macroscopic sample of
sulphur from that of a single atom, 81% indicated that a single atoms of sulphur was
a brittle, crystalline solid, had a melting point of 113 degrees Celsius; and/or had a
density of 2.1g per cubic centimetre’. Responses to this question confirm that Irish
pupils too possess misconceptions about the macroscopic and microscopic nature of
matter.

5.2.4.2: Misconceptions possessed by Leaving Certificate pupils relating to

Equilibrium
The following sections will discuss in detail the responses given by Irish pupils to the
questions on the Test Instrument relating to Chemical Equilibrium.

Misconceptions relating to the dynamic nature of Equilibrium

Research (Huddle and Pillay, 1998) has shown that many pupils fail to understand
that Equilibrium is dynamic in nature. Instead they believe that once a reaction
reaches equilibrium, that reaction has ceased. Questions 29(b), 29(c), 33(b) and 33(c)
were used to assess if Irish pupils hold these misconceptions about Equilibrium.
Table 5.22 summaries the responses to these questions.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Dynamic Q: 29 b 48.2% 21.5% felt that 30.3%
nature of equilibrium reactions go
Equilibrium to completion
Q: 29 c 41.7% 25.0% felt that the 33.3%
forward reaction goes to
completion before the
reverse reaction begins
and equilibrium is
reached.
Q: 33 b 53.1% 15.4% of pupils felt that 31.6%
at equilibrium both the
forward and backward
reactions stop.
Q: 33d 56.1% 11.8% of pupils felt that 32.0%
at equilibrium the
forward and backward
reactions have ceased.
Table 5.22: Summary of responses to questions relating to the dynamic nature of Chemical
Equilibrium in the Leaving Certificate Test Instrument

249
Overall 48.2% correctly stated that ‘equilibrium reactions do not go to completion’.
21.5% of the group felt that equilibrium reactions did go to completion, these pupils
failed to recognise the dynamic nature of Equilibrium reactions. When asked to
explain their answer only 1.3% of the group gave a complete, correct explanation for
their choice. 17.5% of pupils gave a vaguely correct answer, while 32.0% of the
group gave an incorrect explanation. In order to give a correct answer to question
29(b), pupils would have stated that an Equilibrium reaction is dynamic and is
constantly moving between products and reactants. Failure to give a fully correct
answer indicates misconceptions and an incomplete understanding of the dynamic
nature of Chemical Equilibrium.
Question 29(c) also tested pupils’ understanding of the dynamic nature of Equilibrium.
Overall 41.7% of pupils correctly stated that ‘the forward reaction does not go to
completion before the reverse reaction begins’. 25.0% felt that the ‘forward reaction
goes to completion before the reverse reaction begins and then Equilibrium is reached’.
Here again, only 1.3% of the group offered a full explanation for their answer. 11.0%
gave a vaguely correct answer, while 29.4% of the group gave an incorrect explanation.
53.1% of pupils correctly stated that the statement ‘At Equilibrium both the forward and
backward reactions stop’ in question 33(b) was false. 15.4% of pupils felt that this
statement was true. 56.1% of pupils correctly stated that the statement ‘At Equilibrium
both the forward and backward reactions are still taking place’ in question 33(d) was
true. 11.8% of pupils felt that this statement was true.
Overall responses to question 29(b), 29(c), 33(b) and 33(d) indicate that while the
majority of pupils have a basic understanding of Equilibrium, few possess the
understanding to explain their knowledge of Equilibrium. Few were able to explain
that their answers related to the fact that Equilibrium was dynamic in nature. This
might possibly suggest that pupils rote learn answers and facts about Equilibrium
without ever fully understanding it. It also probably indicates confusion with static
equilibrium found in Physics. It may also be linked with a poor understanding of the
Particulate Nature of Matter, as pupils fail to recognise that atoms and molecules are
in constant motion. It must be noted that a large number of pupils opted not to answer
these questions, which may indicate pupils are having major difficulty with this topic.

250
Misconceptions which involve two separate reactions at Equilibrium
Research (Huddle and Pillay, 1998) has also stated that pupils perceive a system at
Equilibrium to be composed of two separate reactions. Question 29(a) was used to
assess if Irish pupils held similar misconceptions. Table 5.23 summarises the
responses to questions 29 (a)
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Viewing Q: 29 a 21.9% 48.2% felt that in a 29.8%
Reactions as 2 system at equilibrium
separate there are two separate
phases reactions
Table 5.23: Summary of responses to question 29 (a) in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument

Overall 21.9% of pupils correctly stated that ‘in a system at equilibrium there are not
two separate reactions’. 48.2% of pupils felt that at Equilibrium, there were two
separate reactions. These answers correlate to research that has been carried out into
the topic of Equilibrium and show that the majority of Irish pupils possess similar
misconceptions to those possessed by pupils in international studies.

Misconceptions relating to Le Chatelier’s Principle

Many reports (Nakhleh, 1992) have been written about the misconceptions pupils
possess relating to Le Chatelier’s Principle. Question 32 was used to assess Irish
pupils understanding of Le Chatelier’s Principle. Table 5.24 summarises the
responses to question 32.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect answer missing
Responses responses
Le Chateliers Q: 32 a 48.2% 18.0% held misconceptions 33.8%
Principle about Le Chatelier’s
principle and concentration
Q: 32 b 18.9% 46.9% held misconceptions 34.2%
about Le Chatelier’s
principle and temperature
Q: 32 c 17.1% 48.2% held misconceptions 34.6%
about Le Chatelier’s
principle and pressure
Table 5.24: Summary of responses to question 32 in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument

251
In total 48.2% of pupils gave the correct answer to part A of the question, 18.9% of
pupils gave the correct answer to part B of the question and 17.1% of pupils gave the
correct answer to part C of the question. A large quantity of pupils gave an incorrect
response to parts B and C. 46.9% of pupils gave an incorrect response to part B and
48.2% of pupils gave an incorrect response to part C. Overall only 11.8% of the
cohort got all three parts of this question correct. This indicates a problem Irish pupils
have with understanding and applying Le Chatelier’s Principle.

Misconceptions relating to the Equilibrium Constant

Question 30 and 31were included in the test instrument to determine if pupils could
write and understand the meaning of the Equilibrium Constant (Kc) for the reaction
provided. Table 5.25 summarises the response to question 30 and 31.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect answer missing
Responses responses
Q: 30 34.6% 21.1% incorrectly wrote the 43.9%
Equilibrium equilibrium constant for a
Constant given reaction
Q: 31 18.0% 14.0% incorrectly started 39.0%
that there are equal amounts
of product and reactant in a
system at equilibrium
Table 5.25: Summary of responses to question 30 and 31 in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument

Overall 34.6% of the cohort was able to correctly provide the Kc value for the
reaction. 21.1% of the group answered this question incorrectly. Question 31 was
used to assess if pupils actually understood what the Kc value was. Overall 18.0% of
the group were able to state that if a reaction has a Kc value of 1.35x10-11mol/L that
‘there is more reactant present than product’. Overall 43.0% of the group got
question 31 incorrect. 12.7% of the group got both questions 30 and 31 correct. This
show that the majority of pupils who successfully provided the Kc value for the
reaction stated, failed to state what the Kc value actually meant. Here again it is likely
that pupils are rote learning formulae without ever fully understanding what they
mean. It must be noted that a large number of pupils opted not to answer these
questions which may indicate pupils are having major difficulty with this topic.

252
Misconceptions relating to Rate versus Equilibrium
Question 33(a) and 33(c) were used to determine if pupils understood the connection
and difference between rate and equilibrium. Table 5.26 summarises the responses to
these questions.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect answer missing
Responses responses
Rate Versus Q: 33 a 61.4% 7.5% did not feel that the 31.1%
Equilibrium rate of the forward reaction
in a system at equilibrium is
equal to the rate of the
backward reaction.
Q: 33 c 44.7% 23.2% felt that the addition 32.0%
of a catalyst will effect the
position of equilibrium.
Table 5.26: Summary of responses to question 33 a and c in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument

61.4% of the cohort successfully answered question 33(a), only 7.5% of the cohort
got this question incorrect. 44.7% of the group got question 33(c) correct, however
23.2% of the group got this question incorrect. 23.2% of the group feel that a catalyst
will affect the position of equilibrium. They fail to understand that the catalyst will
only affect the rate of the reaction, and bring about equilibrium sooner. This indicates
pupils may have failed to differentiate the difference between rate and equilibrium. It
must be noted that a large number of pupils opted not to answer these questions
which may indicate pupils are having major difficulty with this topic.

253
5.2.4.3: Misconceptions possessed by Leaving Certificate pupils relating to The
Mole concept
The following sections will discuss in detail the responses given by Irish pupils to the
different questions on the Test Instrument dealing with the Mole concept.

Misconceptions relating to the Mole concept

Question 34 and 35 were used to assess if pupils understood the meaning of the Mole
concept. Table 5.27 summarises the responses to these questions.
Concept Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
being Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Understanding Q: 34 68.9% 4.8% of pupils could 26.6%
the Mole not state that the mass
of one mole of water is
equal to 18 grams
Q: 35 24.1% 22.4% of pupils felt that 25.9%
the mass of a particle
affected the number of
particles in one mole of
that substance.
Table 5.27: Summary of responses to question 34 and 35 in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument

Overall 68.9% of pupils got question 34 correct and stated that one mole of Iron was
heavier than one mole of water. 57.0% of the group also gave a correct explanation as
to why one mole of iron was heavier. 4.8% of the group got part A of this question
incorrect, while 11.8% of the group got part B incorrect.
24.1% of the group got question 35 correct and selected response E. Overall 50.0% of
the group gave an incorrect response for question 35. The most common incorrect
answer, given by 22.4% of the group was response B, that ‘the mass of the particle
affects the number of particles in a mole of the substance’. 11.4% of the group felt
that ‘the type of particle (atoms, molecules, electrons etc) affected the number of
particles in one mole of a substance’. Responses to this question indicate a poor
understanding of the Mole concept. Combining the responses to questions 34 and 35,
there is an indication that pupils can perform basic mole/mass relationships but do not
show an understanding of what a mole of a substance actually is. It is possible many
pupils rote learn equations and formulae relating to the mole, but fail to understand
and explain the basic concept.

254
Misconceptions relating to the Mole as a counting unit
Questions 36, 37 and 43 were used to determine if pupils had the ability to use the
Mole as a counting unit. Table 5.28 summaries the responses to these questions.
Concept Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
being Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Q: 36 6.6% 39.5% felt that 12 27.2%
The Mole as a grams of carbon
Counting Unit contained a mole of
electrons.
Q: 37 25.9% 32.5% failed to 28.5%
recognise that there
are two atoms of
oxygen in one
molecule of oxygen.
Q: 43 11.4% 53.5% were unable to 35.1%
covert grams to moles
and then moles to
number of particles.
Table 5.28: Summary of responses to question 36, 37 and 43 in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument

Overall 6.6% of pupils got question 36 correct, 25.9% of pupils got question 37
correct and 11.47% of pupils got question 43 correct. Only 3.0% of pupils got both
questions 36 and 37 correct, while only one pupil got all three questions correct. This
indicates that pupils find the manipulation of the Mole as a counting unit difficult.
Answers to question 36 show that response A was the most popular incorrect answer
with 39.5% of pupils selecting this response. This was also the case in the study in
which the question originated (Gower at al, 1977). Failure to use the Mole as a
counting unit could be rooted in the pupils’ Mathematical and cognitive ability, as the
calculations involve proportion, which requires pupils to operate at the formal
operational stage of cognitive development.

Misconceptions relating to reacting masses and Stoichiometry

Questions 38 and 39 required pupils to work with reacting masses to determining the
formulae of the substance formed. These questions were not well answered. Table
5.29 summarises the responses to the questions in the test instrument relating to
reacting masses and Stoichiometry.

255
 Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect answer responses
Responses
Q: 38 19.3% 19.3% of pupils chose 30.0%
Reacting response A and 19.3% of
masses and pupils chose response E.
Stiochiometry These responses indicate
an inability to relate moles
to reacting masses.
Q: 39 25.0% 39.0% of pupils chose 28.9%
response D. This response
indicates an inability to
relate moles to reacting
masses.
Q: 40 42.5% 28.1% of the group failed 29.4%
to make a connection
between molar mass and
molecular formulae
Q: 42 53.1% 16.2% failed to answer 30.7%
this basic molar
relationship question
Q: 45 7.5% 39.0% of pupils failed to 45.2%
recognise the relationship
between the balance
equation and reacting
masses and merely just
added the two values to
get their answer.
Table 5.29: Summary of responses to questions in the test instrument relating to reacting
masses and Stoichiometry in the Leaving Certificate Test Instrument

19.3% of pupils correctly answered question 38, 50.4% of the group got question 38
incorrect. Overall 25.0% of pupils got question 39 correct. 46.1% of the cohort got
question 39 incorrect. Only 6.1% of the cohort got both question 38 and 39 correct.
Incorrect responses to question 39 show pupils have misconceptions about the chemical
formula of a substance. The pupils that chose response A to question 39 (34.2% of
pupils), tend to use the mass-ratio strategy (Cu:S = 1:1), pupils that selected option C
(4.8% of pupils) employ the molar-mass-ration strategy (Cu:S = 64:32).
Questions 40 and 42 were more successfully answered. 42.5% of pupils got question 40
correct with 28.1% getting question 40 incorrect. 53.1% of pupils got question 42
correct, with only 16.2% of pupils getting this question incorrect. These questions
required less mathematical manipulation than the previous two, and this possibly
accounts for the higher success rates in these questions. Question 45 was a poorly

256
answered question with only 7.5% of the group getting this question correct. 47.3% of the
group got this question incorrect. 39.0% of the group that got question 45 incorrect failed
to recognise the relationship between the equation and the reacting masses. 39.0% of the
group added the masses together to get an answer of 192g i.e. (112g+80g). Comparing
these responses to the responses of pupils involved in the study in which this question
originated, the responses of both sets of pupils is similar. From the study by Briggs and
Holding (1986) ‘about 50% of the group gave the correct answer, that 176g of Iron
Sulphide would be produced with some Sulphur remaining. The most common incorrect
response, given by 32%, was to add the two figures generating 192g. These students had
not realised the need to apply reacting mass reasoning’. The responses to these questions
highlight an inability by the majority of pupils to connect reacting masses to moles of
product. Here again, lack of success in these questions could be related back to the
mathematical ability of the pupil and or to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Mole.

Misconceptions relating to Molar Volumes

Questions 41 and 44 deal with the Mole concept in terms of molar volumes. Table
5.30 summaries the responses to questions 41 and 44.
Concept being Questions % of % and type of most % of missing
Tested Number Correct popular incorrect responses
Responses answer
Molar Volumes Q: 41 25.9% 25.0% chose response 30.3%
A. this involved the
addition of the
molarities of the
different solutions in
order to obtain the
molarity of the new
solution.
Q: 44 28.1% 13.2% felt that 35.1%
alcohols molecules
were roughly three
times heavier than
water molecules.
Table 5.30: Summary of responses to question 41 and 44 in the Leaving Certificate Test
Instrument

Overall 25.9% of the group got question 41 correct, with 43.9% of the group getting
this question incorrect. 28.1% of pupils got question 44 correct, with 36.8% of the
group getting this question incorrect. In total only 3.5% of pupils got both questions
correct. The high percentage of incorrect answers along with the low numbers getting

257
both questions correct highlight again problems Irish pupils are having in relation to
the Mole concept. As mentioned before a lack of understanding of what the Mole
actually is and weakness in Mathematics may be the source of the problems Irish
pupils are having. Questions relating to the Mole were poorly answered with a large
percentage of pupils opting not to answer them, this may mean pupils are having
major difficulty with this topic.

Summary of Main Misconceptions held by Leaving Certificate Pupils:

From the above analysis of responses of Leaving Certificate pupils to questions in the
test instrument a number of prevailing misconceptions emerge. The following is a list
of the main misconceptions Leaving Certificate pupils possess about the Particulate
Nature of Matter, Equilibrium and The Mole that emerged from analysis of responses
to the Test Instrument.
1. Over 30% of Leaving Certificate pupils, fail to recognise that matter is made up of
small particles.
2. Pupils possess misconceptions about what fills the space between the particles of a
substance.
3. Pupils have a very poor understanding of what occurs at a particulate level during
phase change.
4. Overall pupils have a weak understanding of phase change when it is presented at a
particulate level; they possess a much better understanding of phase change at the
macroscopic level.
5. A high percentage of pupils feel that particles in the liquid phase have more energy
that particles at the gas phase. This indicates pupils have made a poor connection
between phase and the energy particles have.
6. Pupils possess misconceptions about how phase change affects the size of a particle.
The majority of pupils feel freezing a substance increases the size of the particles in
that substance
7. A high percentage of pupils have a poor understanding, at a particulate level, of
concentration of solutions.
8. Problems exist relating to the conservation of mass, molecules and atoms during a
chemical reaction.

258
9. A high percentage of pupil, have incorrect ideas about the physical properties of the
atoms of a substance. The majority of pupils incorrectly attribute physical properties
such as melting point and density to one atom of a substance.
10. Pupils fail to recognise the dynamic nature of a system at Equilibrium..
11. Pupils view a system at equilibrium as two separate reactions.
12. Pupils have difficulty with understanding and applying Le Chatelier’s principle.
13. Pupils have a poor understanding of what the Equilibrium Constant, Kc, means.
14. Pupils have difficulty with using the Mole as a counting unit.
15. Pupils have difficult with reacting masses and Stoichiometry.
16. Pupils do not apply reacting mass reasoning when determining the amount of a
substance that form in a chemical reaction.

259
5.2.5: Significant Factors that emerged from results of the Leaving Certificate test
instruments:
On analysis of the Leaving Certificate responses to the test instrument a number of
factors emerged as having a significant effect on another factor. Table 5.31 lists the
different significant factors that emerged.

Significant Relationship p-Value Meaning

(<0.05 =
Significant)
Cognitive Level versus Number 0.000 Leaving Certificate pupils operating at
of Misconceptions the pupils higher cognitive levels were more likely to
possess about the Particulate possess fewer misconceptions about the
Nature of Matter Particulate Nature of Matter.
Cognitive Level versus Number 0.038 Leaving Certificate pupils operating at
of Misconceptions the pupils higher cognitive levels were more
possess about the Mole successful in answering questions relating
Concept to the Mole Concept.
Cognitive Level versus overall 0.000 Leaving Certificate pupils operating at
performance in the higher cognitive levels got a higher
misconceptions test percentage of questions in the
misconceptions test correct.
Mathematics Level versus 0.012 Pupils taking higher level Mathematics for
Number of Misconceptions the the Leaving Certificate were more likely to
pupils possess Chemical possess fewer misconceptions about
Equilibrium Chemical Equilibrium.
Mathematics Level versus total 0.008 Leaving Certificate pupils taking higher
number of misconceptions the level Mathematics for the Leaving
pupils possess Certificate performed much better in the
misconceptions test than ordinary level
Mathematics pupils.
Gender versus Number of 0.004 Male pupils were more likely to possess
Misconceptions the pupils fewer misconceptions about the Particulate
possess about the Particulate Nature of Matter. Male pupils
Nature of Matter outperformed female pupils in this section
of the test Instrument.
Table 5.31: Significant relations between Variables emerging from the Leaving Certificate
test instrument (p-Value <0.05 = significant)

From Table 5.31 it can be seen that a major factor that influences pupils’ performance
in the misconceptions test is their cognitive ability. Pupils operating at a higher level
of cognitive development are more likely to possess fewer misconceptions about the
Particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole Concept. As was seen in section 5.1 of this
report pupils operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive development were
more likely to take higher level Mathematics for the Leaving Certificate. Higher level
Mathematics pupils were also more likely to perform better in this test instrument.

260
Pupils operating at higher levels of cognitive development got higher scores in the
overall misconceptions test than pupils operating at lower levels of cognitive
development. These findings further strengthen the link between Mathematical ability
and cognitive development.

5.2.6: Similarities between Junior Certificate and Leaving Certificate Responses

In total there were six questions that were included in both the Junior Certificate and
Leaving Certificate Test Instruments. These questions were used to assess if Junior
and Leaving Certificate pupils held similar misconceptions relating to the particulate
nature of matter. The list below shows the questions on the Junior Certificate
Instrument that correspond to the same questions in the Leaving Certificate
Instrument.

Repeated Question One:

Table 5.32 summarises the responses of Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to the
repeated questions one.
Question that appeared in both Junior Certificate Leaving Certificate
Junior and Leaving certificate test Responses Responses
instruments.

Answer % of Answer % of
Responses Responses
A 3.7% A 6.1%
B 19.8% B 34.6%
C(correct) 18.6% C (correct) 29.8%
D 22.0% D 9.6%
E 19.2% E 6.1%
Missing 16.7% Missing 13.6%

Table 5.32: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to repeated
question one

This question appeared as question 12 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument and
question 14 in the Leaving Certificate Test Instrument. 18.6% of Junior Certificate
pupils and 29.8% of Leaving Certificate pupils got this question correct. However,
the majority of both groups got this question incorrect. 64.7% of Junior Certificate
pupils and 56.6% of Leaving Certificate pupils got this question incorrect. The most
popular incorrect answer for Junior Certificate pupils was response D, with 22.0% of

261
pupils selecting this answer. The second most popular incorrect answer for Junior
Certificate pupils was response B, with 19.8% of pupils selecting this response. The
most popular incorrect answer for Leaving Certificate pupils was response B, with
34.6% of pupils selecting this answer. This response indicates that at Leaving
Certificate level pupils believe that as water changes state from a solid to a liquid the
water molecule splits into separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The second most
popular response for Leaving Certificate pupils was response D, with 9.6% of pupils
selecting this answer. From these responses two trends can be identified. First of all
it is clear that the majority of pupils possess the same misconceptions relating to
phase change at the particulate level. They believe one of two things occur as water
changes phase from a solid to a liquid. Some pupils believe that the water molecules
spread a good distance from each other and others believe that the water molecules
split into separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The other trend that emerges from
these responses is that the number of pupils possessing these misconceptions
decreases, but only slightly, from Junior Certificate level to Leaving Certificate level.
There are also fewer missing responses at Leaving Certificate level, indicating more
confidence about the topic.

Repeated Question Two:

Table 5.33 summarises the responses of Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to the
repeated questions two.
Question that appeared in both Junior Certificate Leaving Certificate
Junior and Leaving certificate test Responses Responses
instruments.

Answer % of Answer % of
Responses Responses
A 5.6% A 13.2%
B 8.4% B 7.5%
C 27.6% C 12.7%
D 20.4% D 21.9%
E (correct) 19.5% E (correct) 29.8%
Missing 18.6% Missing 14.9%

Table 5.33: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to repeated
question two

262
This question appeared as question 13 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument and
question 18 in the Leaving Certificate Test Instrument. 19.5% of Junior Certificate pupils
and 29.8% of Leaving Certificate pupils got this question correct. However the majority
of both groups got this question incorrect. 61.9% of Junior Certificate pupils and 55.3%
of Leaving Certificate pupils got this question incorrect. The most popular incorrect
answer for Junior Certificate pupils was response C, with 27.6% of pupils selecting this
answer. The second most popular incorrect answer for Junior Certificate pupils was
response D, with 20.4% of pupils selecting this response. The most popular incorrect
answer for Leaving Certificate pupils was response D, with 21.9% of pupils selecting this
answer. This response indicates that at Leaving Certificate level pupils believe that as
water changes state from a liquid to a gas the water molecule splits into separate
hydrogen and oxygen atoms. From these responses it is clear that the majority of pupils
possess similar misconceptions relating to phase change at the particulate level.
Consistent with answers from 12 in the Junior Certificate Instrument and question 14 in
the Leaving Certificate Instrument, pupils believe that as water changes phase from a
liquid to a gas the water molecules split into separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Here
again we also see the trend that the number of pupils possessing these misconceptions
decreases, only slightly, from Junior Certificate level to Leaving Certificate level. Again
there is a small percentage of missing answers at Leaving Certificate level.

Repeated Question Three:

Table 5.34 summarises the responses of Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to the
repeated questions three.
Question that appeared in both Junior Certificate Leaving Certificate
Junior and Leaving certificate test Responses Responses
instruments.

Answer % of Answer % of
Responses Responses
A 15.8% A 14.5%
B 18.6% B 15.4%
C 15.5% C 4.8%
D 23.2% D 37.7%
(correct) (correct)
E 9.9% E 15.4%
Missing 17.0% Missing 12.3%
Table 5.34: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to repeated
question three

263
This question appeared as question 19 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument and
question 16 in the Leaving Certificate Test Instrument. 23.2% of Junior Certificate pupils
and 37.7% of Leaving Certificate pupils got this question correct. However the majority
of both groups got this question incorrect. 59.8% of Junior Certificate pupils and 50.0%
of Leaving Certificate pupils got this question incorrect. The most popular incorrect
answer for both Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils was response B. 18.6% of Junior
Certificate pupils and 15.4% of Leaving Certificate pupils selected this response. Here
again we see the trends that both Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils possess similar
misconceptions and that the numbers of pupils possessing these misconceptions
decreases, only marginally, from Junior Certificate level to Leaving Certificate level.

Repeated Question Four:

Table 5.35 summarises the responses of Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to the
repeated questions four.
Question that appeared in both Junior Certificate Leaving Certificate
Junior and Leaving certificate test Responses Responses
instruments.

Answer % of Answer % of
Responses Responses
A 59.8% A 56.6%
B 5.9% B 4.4%
C 7.1% C 11.0%
D 4.0% D 3.5%
E (correct) 6.5% E (correct) 13.6%
Missing 16.7% Missing 11.0%
Table 5.35: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to repeated
question four

This question appeared as question 20 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument and
question 15 in the Leaving Certificate Test Instrument. 6.5% of Junior Certificate pupils
and 13.6% of Leaving Certificate pupils got this question correct. However the majority of
both groups got this question incorrect. 76.8% of Junior Certificate pupils and 75.4% of
Leaving Certificate pupils got this question incorrect. The most popular incorrect answer
for both Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils was response A. Both sets of pupils felt that
freezing a water molecule will make a water molecule larger. 59.8% of Junior Certificate
pupils and 56.6% of Leaving Certificate pupils selected this response. It is clear from these
responses that this misconception is very persistent and is one held by the majority of our

264
Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils. As before, more Leaving Certificate pupils got this
question correct, compared to Junior Certificate pupils.

Repeated Question Five:

Table 5.36 summarises the responses of Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to the
repeated questions five.
Question that appeared in Junior Certificate Leaving Certificate
both Junior and Leaving Responses Responses
certificate test instruments.

Answer % of Answer % of
Responses Responses
A 8.7% A 1.3%
B 26.6% B 35.1%
C 15.2% C 12.7%
D 21.7% D 28.9%
E (correct) 9.0% E (correct) 8.8%
Missing 18.9% Missing 13.2%
Table 5.36: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to repeated
question five

This question appeared as question 22 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument and
question 20 in the Leaving Certificate Test Instrument. 9.0% of Junior Certificate pupils
and 8.8% of Leaving Certificate pupils got this question correct. However the majority of
both groups got this question incorrect. 72.1% of Junior Certificate pupils and 78.1% of
Leaving Certificate pupils got this question incorrect. The most popular incorrect answer
for both Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils was response B. 26.6% of Junior Certificate
pupils and 35.1% of Leaving Certificate pupils selected this response. The majority of
Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils believe that the bubbles that rise to the surface of a
pot of water being heated are bubbles of oxygen. The second most popular incorrect
response for both groups was Response D. 21.7% of Junior Certificate and 28.9% of
Leaving Certificate pupils chose this response. This response, mirrors misconceptions that
arose from answers to other questions and shows that pupils believe that as water changes
state, the water molecule splits into separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Here again we
see the trends that both Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils possess similar
misconceptions relating to phase change at a particulate level. However for the first and
only time, more Junior Certificate pupils got this question correct than Leaving Certificate
pupils.

265
Repeated Question Six:
Table 5.37 summarises the responses of Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to the
repeated questions six.
Question that appeared in both Junior Certificate Leaving Certificate
Junior and Leaving certificate test Responses Responses
instruments.

Answer % of Answer % of
Responses Responses
A 5.3% A 0.9%
B (correct) 43.7% B (correct) 61.8%
C 3.4% C 0.4%
D 15.8% D 10.7%
E 3.4% E 2.2%
Missing 28.5% Missing 14.9%
Table 5.37: Summary of responses by Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils to repeated
question six

This question appeared as question 27 in the Junior Certificate Test Instrument and
question 22 in the Leaving Certificate Test Instrument. 43.7% of Junior Certificate
pupils and 61.8% of Leaving Certificate pupils got this question correct. In this
question only 27.9% of Junior Certificate pupils and 23.2% of Leaving Certificate
pupils got this question incorrect. The most popular incorrect answer for both Junior
and Leaving Certificate pupils was response D. 15.8% of Junior Certificate pupils and
10.7% of Leaving Certificate pupils selected this response. Reponses to this question
indicate that pupils have a better understanding of phase change at a macroscopic
level than they do at a particulate level.

5.2.6.1: Summary of Main Misconceptions held by both Junior and Leaving

Certificate Pupils
From the analysis of responses given by both Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils
there are a number of misconceptions that are held by both groups relating to the
particulate Nature of Matter. These can be summarised as follows:
1. Both groups of pupils possess misconceptions about what fills the space between
the particles of a substance. Responses show that the majority feel the space is
occupied by air.

266
2. Both sets of pupils have a very poor understanding of what occurs at a particulate
level during phase change. Quite a high percentage of pupils believe that as water
changes phase from a solid to a liquid and from a liquid to a gas, that the water
molecule separates into separate atoms of hydrogen and oxygen
3. Overall pupils have a weak understanding of phase change when it is presented at
a particulate level; they possess a much better understanding of phase change at
the macroscopic level.
4. Responses show that pupils have a misunderstanding of the energy particles have
a different phases. Quite a high percentage of pupils feel that particles in the
liquid phase have more energy that particles at the gas phase. This indicates pupils
have made a poor connection between phase and the energy particles have.
5. Responses also show that both groups of pupils possess misconceptions about
how phase change affects the size of a particle. The majority of pupils feel
freezing a substance increases the size of the particles in that substance
6. Both sets of pupils possess misconceptions relating to the conservation of matter,
mass and volume.
7. Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils’ understanding of solutions and
concentration of solutions is also poor.

In summary, three main findings arise from the comparison of the responses of Junior
and Leaving Certificate pupils to questions that appeared in both Test Instruments.
First of all it is clear that the majority of pupils at both levels chose incorrect answers
in virtually every question. The second finding shows that the number of Leaving
Certificate pupils selecting the correct answers is slightly greater than the number of
Junior Certificate pupils selecting the correct answer. The decrease in the number of
pupils possessing misconceptions from Junior Certificate level to Leaving Certificate
level is however small, and this indicates a persistence of misconceptions right
throughout second level Chemistry education. The final finding that arose from these
comparisons is that for almost all of the identical questions, the majority of Junior and
Leaving Certificate pupils selected the same incorrect responses. This suggests that
misconceptions relating to the particulate nature of matter are similar at both levels.
In conclusion it can be said that the number of pupils and the types of misconceptions
pupils possess are similar at both Junior Certificate and Leaving Certificate levels,
and it clear that the teaching they have received has not adequately removed their

267
misconceptions. The percentage of missing responses is less for Leaving Certificate
pupils than for Junior Certificate pupils, indicating more confidence in answering
questions amongst the Leaving Certificate cohort. There is also a clear link to
cognitive ability and this may well be a major factor in developing Irish pupils’
understanding of these Chemical concepts.

5.3: Summary of the main findings of phase two of this investigation

The following are the main findings from this phase of the investigation.
- This study has shown that the majority of Junior and Leaving Certificate
Science/Chemistry pupils and 3rd level Chemistry students in this study are
operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development. While these
results may have been affected by the modification to the instrument used, it is
predicted that these errors are negligible and trends identified here are
representative of reality.
- Results of correlation tests indicate that higher level Mathematics and
Science/Chemistry pupils in this study are more likely to operate at the formal
operational stage of cognitive development.
- This study has shown that Junior and Leaving Certificate Science pupils in this
study possess a large number of Chemical misconceptions in the area of the
Particulate Nature of Matter, the Mole Concept and Chemical Equilibrium.
- Results also indicate that the misconceptions Junior and Leaving Certificate
pupils possess about the Particulate Nature of Matter are similar and persistent
from one level to the next. Leaving Certificate pupils possess fewer
misconceptions about this topics than Junior Certificate pupils.
- At both levels, results of correlation tests link cognitive ability and pupils’
performance in the Chemical misconceptions test indicate that pupils operating at
the formal operational stage of cognitive development achieved higher scores in
the misconceptions test.
- Results of correlation tests also link Mathematical ability with pupils’
performance in the Chemical misconceptions test. Higher level Mathematics
pupils achieved higher scores in the misconceptions test.

268
5.4: Effect of limitations in phase two of this investigation
Overall results obtained give a solid indication of the cognitive level and the Chemical
misconceptions of the Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils who took part in this phase of
the investigation. The results obtained also provide a solid foundation on which to base the
remaining phase of this investigation. However there, were a number of limitations to this
study.

5.4.1: Effect of limitations in the Junior Certificate Study

The validity of the results obtained from the Junior Certificate cohort could be greater:
- If a larger sample group had been used. This group represents only a small sample of
Junior Certificate pupils.
- If a more accurate measurement of pupils’ mathematical and Chemistry ability had
been taken. Basing their ability on whether they are taking the higher or lower level
paper offers a rough indication of their ability, but not an accurate one.
- If the Science Reasoning Task IV ~ Equilibrium in the Balance which measured pupils
cognitive development had not been altered slightly. The task was altered for ease of
administration to pupils but this may have had a slight effect on values obtained for the
cognitive development of Junior Certificate pupils.
- If all pupils had answered all the questions on the test instrument a more accurate set of
results could have been obtained, as there was a sizable number of missing responses.

5.4.2: Effect of limitations in the Leaving Certificate Study

The validity of the results obtained from the Leaving Certificate cohort could be greater:
- If a larger sample group had been used. This group represented 3.3% of the Leaving
Certificate cohort. It was hoped to obtain a sample group representing 10% of the
Leaving Certificate cohort. Failure of a number of schools to return questionnaires
made it difficult to reach this value.
- If a more accurate measurement of pupils’ mathematical and Chemistry ability had
been taken. Basing their ability on whether they are taking the higher or lower level
paper offers a rough indication of their ability, but not an accurate one.
- If an equal percentage of male and female pupils were studied. This sample consisted of
71.9% females and only 27.2% males. This difference may have affected results.
- If the Science Reasoning Task IV ~ Equilibrium in the Balance which measured pupils
cognitive development had not been altered slightly. The task was altered for ease of

269
 administration to pupils but as a result may have had a slight effect on values obtained
for the cognitive development of Leaving Certificate pupils.
- If all pupils had answered all the questions on the test instrument a more accurate set of
results could have been obtained.

5.4.3: Effect of limitations in the 3rd level Study:

The validity of the results obtained from the 3rd level cohort could be greater:
- If a larger sample group had been used and a larger number of Universities and
Institutes of Technology had been sampled.
- If a more accurate measurement of students’ mathematical and Chemistry ability had
been taken. Basing their ability on their Leaving Certificate grade offers a rough
indication of their ability, but not an accurate one. Also experiences in 3rd level may
have significantly affected their ability in these subjects since their Leaving Certificate.
- If the Science Reasoning Task IV ~ Equilibrium in the Balance which measured
students’ cognitive development had not been altered slightly. The task was altered for
ease of administration to pupils but as a result may have had a slight effect on values
obtained for the cognitive development of 3rd level students.
- If the Chemical misconceptions held by 3rd level students on the Particulate Nature of
Matter was assessed. These results would have allowed for comparison with results
from the Junior and Leaving Certificate tests.

Chapter six will outline and discuss the research and ideas that inspired the
development of the intervention programmed used in phase three of this investigation.
Chapter six will also analyse a sample lesson included in the intervention programme
and discuss key design features.

270
 Chapter Six:
The Development of the
‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme

271
 Chapter Six ~ The development of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme

‘ITS Chemistry’ is the name of the intervention programme developed, implemented and
evaluated as part of phase three of this investigation. It stands for Increasing Thinking
Skills in Chemistry. The aims of the programme were to develop the cognitive ability and
visualisation skills of participants and address the Chemical misconceptions identified
about the Particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole concept. ITS Chemistry is informed by
research carried out in the area of teaching and learning in Chemistry and infuses
successful strategies into the current Leaving Certificate syllabus.
It was decided to address the areas of cognitive development and chemical misconceptions
for the following reasons:
- Results of phase one of this investigation showed that pupils were having difficulty
with abstract Chemistry topics that would require the pupil to be operating at the formal
operational stage of cognitive development in order to be understood successfully.
- Results from phase two of the investigation showed that the majority of Irish Junior and
Leaving Certificate Science/Chemistry pupils in this study were operating at the
concrete operational stage of cognitive development. Pupils may have difficulty with
Chemistry topics such as those identified in phase one of this investigation as they
operate at a cognitive level below that required by the Chemistry curriculum.
- Results of phase two also indicate that Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils possess a
large number of Chemical misconceptions about fundamental Chemistry topics and
ideas that underpin understanding in other Chemistry areas.

The topics chosen were the Particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole concept. These
topics were selected for the following reasons:
- These topics were tested in phase two of this investigation and results indicate that
pupils had major misconceptions relating to these topics.
- These topics can be described as threshold topics. It is important to construct a proper
understanding of these fundamental topics if a pupil is to understand more difficult
Chemistry topics in the future and
- These topics are covered at the start of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry course and
this is the obvious place to intervene.

272
Section 6.1: Chemistry education research that inspired the development of the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ intervention programme
A number of different research projects inspired the development of the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme. Figure 6.1 outlines the different areas of research that inspired
the intervention programme.

Figure 6.1: Areas of educational research that inspired the development of the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme

Successful strategies were collected from different studies in the areas of research listed in
Figure 6.1 and were infused into the current Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus for the
Particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole concept. The advantage of infusing research on
thinking and learning into the syllabus is that not only is there an enrichment in the delivery
of content and the classroom learning experiences but also there is no loss of time in the
completion of the syllabus which will appeal to teachers who face constant pressures
relating to course completion and exam preparation. The research areas that inspired the
development of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme will now be discussed in
greater detail.

273
Dealing with misconceptions:
Initially it was important to determine the different chemical misconceptions that various
studies have shown pupils to possess about the topics to be covered in the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme. It was important to make teachers aware of these misconceptions
in order to address them. The programme then had to address the misconceptions pupils
already possessed and develop strategies to prevent misconceptions being developed in the
classroom. Peer debate, classroom discussion and group tasks have been shown to address
chemical misconceptions pupils already possess. Therefore elements of these strategies
would be included in intervention lessons. Participating teachers were also informed of a
number of ways to prevent further misconceptions developing in their classroom. These
tips are listed in section 2.5.1 of this document.

Constructivism:
Areas of the constructivist beliefs that were included in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme saw teachers facilitating pupils’ own inquiry rather than demonstrating the
correct way to solve a problem. Pupils were allowed to think of solutions to problems
themselves before the teacher showed them. In the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme the thinking and reasoning processes of the pupil were equally as important as
the specific curriculum content that the pupil was studying.

Modelling and Visualisation:

The ‘ITS Chemistry’ programme paid particular attention to the idea of using and building
models. ‘Models are a way into some key concepts and the process develops other skills
such as group talk and evaluation. If pupils understand the concept of producing models,
their progress in science will be enhanced’ (Walsh, 2009). Models are also useful in
presenting many concepts in a concrete tangible manner and allow pupils to visualise
complex ideas. Diagrams were also used to facilitate visualisation of abstract ideas. The
‘ITS Chemistry’ pack included a compact disk with PowerPoint presentations, to
complement the lessons in the intervention programme. These PowerPoints included
animations, models and diagrams to enhance pupils understanding of the different topics in
the ITS Chemistry programme. The use of multiple definitions and models for the same
concept were avoided as these are shown to increase the development of Chemical
misconceptions.

274
Infusion:
At the very heart of this programme lies the infusion of thinking strategies into the
everyday content of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus. The benefits of
infusion are seen as:
- Matching thinking skills directly with topics in the curriculum;
- Invigorating content instruction leading to deeper understanding;
- Using classroom time optimally;
- Directly supporting teaching for thoughtfulness across the curriculum and;
- Facilitating transfer and reinforcement of learning’. (McGuinness, 2000)
The infusion technique aims to achieve the goals of topic understanding and the
development of thinking simultaneously.

Metacognition:
Metacognition is defined as ‘cognition about cognition", or "knowing about knowing.
It can take many forms; ‘it includes knowledge about when and where to use particular
strategies for learning or for problem solving’ (Santrock, 2008). Developing these
skills will have positive gains for the participant in many aspects of their learning and
not just Chemistry. Metacognition was encouraged in this intervention programme as
part of the homework exercises and also in the allocation of time in the lesson and
space in the workbook to return and correct answers to questions which saw pupils
confront misconceptions. In the homework exercises pupils completed activities
relating to those studied in class and were encouraged to explain how they came up
with their answers.

Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE):

This is described in great detail in section 2.4.4 of this document. While the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ intervention programme did not use the content or the resources of the
CASE programme, it did take inspiration from the manner in which CASE lessons
were structured. Figure 6.2 outlines how the lessons included in the CASE
programme were structured.

275
 Figure 6.2: The interaction between the five pillars in a CASE lesson (Dickson, 2004)

These pillars are discussed in greater detail in section 2.4.4.1 of this document. The ‘ITS
Chemistry’ intervention programme paid particular attention to the concrete introduction of
topics along with cognitive conflict and the social interaction aspects of the CASE lessons.
This is because, not alone do these pillars promote the development of cognitive ability, but
they are also shown as techniques used to address and reduce Chemical misconceptions
pupils may possess.

The structure and key design features of a typical ‘ITS Chemistry’ lesson are shown in Figure
6.3.

Figure 6.3: The structure and key design features of a typical ‘ITS Chemistry’ lesson

276
From Figure 6.3 it can be seen that each ‘ITS Chemistry’ lesson began with a revision of
previous ideas and with an explanation of terms and equipment that the pupils would be
using during the lesson. This section of the lesson in the pupils’ handbook was titled
‘preparing the brain’ and was useful to focus pupils on what was to come next in the
lesson. Figure 6.4 illustrates an example of a ‘preparing the brain’ activity.

Figure 6.4: Example of a ‘preparing the brain’ activity which appeared at the beginning of each
of the ITS Chemistry lessons

Lessons also included practical, hands-on activities and tasks focused around social
interaction between pupils. They were used to provide pupils with an opportunity to
discuss what was happening and why. Cognitive conflict was initiated as a result of
social interaction and teacher intervention and was accommodated through group and
teacher led discussion. Discussion of ideas and concepts also play an important role in
the identification and altering of chemical misconceptions. It must be noted that while
many thinking philosophies influenced the ITS Chemistry programme, this
intervention programme is in fact an infusion approach aiming to develop thinking
skills within and through the course content. Metacognition was encouraged in this
intervention programme by allocating time in the lesson and space in the workbook to
return and correct answers to questions which saw pupils confront misconceptions. In

277
the homework exercises pupils completed activities relating to those studied in class
and were encouraged to explain how they came up with their answers.

Prior to the development of the recourse pack for this intervention programme a
number of tasks had to be carried out which are as follows:

1. A Cognitive Analysis Taxonomy (CAT) was carried out on the topics to be

included in the intervention programme in order to develop a logical progression
of the content through the lessons. More abstract ideas, that would require formal
operational skills, would be kept until the end of the intervention programme,
whereas more concrete topics would be taught towards the start of the
intervention.

2. A list of chemical misconceptions relating to the topics included in the

intervention programme had to be constructed in order to alert teachers to
alternative ideas that would need to be addressed in their lessons.

3. An analysis of the current Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus had to be

carried out in order to ensure the intervention programme was addressing specific
learning outcomes and mandatory activities included in the syllabus.

Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show the CAT of the content included in the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme.

278
 Topic 2A: Early concrete 2B: Late Concrete 3A: Early Formal 3B: Late Formal

Changes of A solid ‘turns to Ice melts to water. Water turns Application of kinetic theory Now kinetic theory model will be used
State water’, a liquid ‘turns to steam; each process can go under guidance, to the realisation deductively e.g. to explain how the
to gas’, as discrete bits back again on cooling. Heat that all materials might exist as particles in steam can be far apart and
of information causes the melting, cooling solids, liquids and gases yet the steam can easily be compressed,
causes the freezing. A simple depending on the state of their melting and vaporisation care
kinetic theory picture of particles. Liquifying means that equilibrium processed. Latent heat is the
molecules close together or far the particles move faster so they energy required to overcome the
apart, but not applied by can change their positions. You potential barrier between liquid and
translation to reality can measure how much energy is vapour. Different potential barriers in
needed to do this with, say, an different liquids may be compared by
immersion heater. comparing equimolar quantities.

Elements and Simplest purification Pure substances and purification Atoms have a structure. Some Measures of purity, limits of purity.
Particle Theory routines, but as learned routines. Element as atoms are the same as each other, Appreciation of the relation between
understood magically, substance which no one has others are different. Element as a experimental evidence and the various
not analytically. No been able to split into anything substance of one kind of atom, on models of the atom. Oil drop experiment
real sense of meaning simpler. Can order properties of a simple model of, ‘all red beads. for the length of fatty acid molecules.
of element. elements under guidance, and so Purity in a similar sense. The periodic table as a complex
grade ‘families’ of elements. Knowledge that 100 percent classificatory structure linking
purity unattainable, without properties of elements and compounds
appreciation of the scale or to each other, and to their atomic
numbers involved. The periodic structure. The reasoning involved in
table as a collection of ‘families’; grasping Avogadro’s hypothesis and its
appreciation of simpler examples application to formulae from volumes of
of two way gradation of reacting gases.
properties.

279
 Topic 2A: Early concrete 2B: Late Concrete 3A: Early Formal 3B: Late Formal

Compounds, Names used, but only Chemical combinations Can handle the conservation of The functional use of chemical symbols.
reactions and associatively. No remembered, without general elements in an exchange reaction, The Nuffield approach to equations –
their chemical content given to a rules being appreciated. A so for the first time has a model of from the experiment situation, through
representation chemical name, thus composition of compounds as a chemical reaction. Use of the nearest idealisation of the facts that
no representation kind of mnemonic, e.g. water is balanced chemical equations is fits the measurement, to a balanced
possible. made from hydrogen and possible, provided that plenty of equation. Mole concept usable
oxygen, and will produce drill is given in learning the rules deductively, and pupils can analyse
hydrogen and oxygen. Word of the game. The relationship of problem to see how to apply translation
equations could be used to chemical equations to reactions into moles or molarities and translation
indicate a reversible reaction will be perceived, but do not back into volumes or masses.
such as heat on hydrated copper expect pupils to know how to use Equilibrium, as a dynamic process
sulphate. But ‘copper’ in that them to estimate quantities except between reactants and products.
name is used only as a label, so by practice in specified situations.
word equation is used only a May use atomic structure to
statement of fact. account for chemical change.
Solutions Salt/sugar ‘dissolves’ The process is reversible The particles intermingle, but stay Saturation involves an equilibrium
in water. Mass of ‘the same’, so that each conserves situation, with precipitation rate =
solute (i.e. global idea volume, weight, and chemical solution rate.
of amount) is properties.
conserved; but volume
is not (for the pre-
operational child, the
solute simply
‘disappears’)

Table 6.1: The Curriculum Analysis Taxonomy (CAT) for the Particulate Nature of Matter (Shayer and Adey, 1981)

280
 Topic 2A: Early concrete 2B: Late Concrete 3A: Early Formal 3B: Late Formal

Stoichiometry -------------------------- Can remember chemical Can determine formulae of Able to use chemical symbols and write
formulae by rote without compounds from charges on ions out balanced equations functionally. Can
application of rules. Can use or form models. Can balance interpret symbolic equations. Can use
word equations but names of equations with help and see how the mole concept deductively to solve
elements and compounds taking rules are applied. problems. Can convert from moles into
part in a reaction are understood Can interpret symbolic equations masses and volumes and vice versa.
as labels. with assistance. Can define a mole Able to deduce empirical and molecular
using ideas of atomic structure but formulae of compounds. Can use mole
concept simply used as a label. concept to calculate stoichiometric
Can use developing ideas of reacting masses and volumes of matter.
compound to understand
conservation of mass of elements.
Can perform simple calculations
such a percentage composition of
a compound and percentage
purity.

Table 6.2: The Curriculum Analysis Taxonomy (CAT) for Stoichiometry (Prophet, 2003)

281
The majority of the topics outlined in tables 6.1 and 6.2 are taught early in the pupils’
Chemistry experience. To achieve an understanding of these topics, students need to be
capable of at least early formal operational thinking. ‘Chemistry places a high cognitive
demand upon students before they can enter into any meaningful learning of relatively
straightforward descriptive topics’ (Prophet, 2003). Many concepts such as atom,
molecule, compound, chemical bond and chemical formulae all need to be modelled in
formal operations in order to develop the basic understanding required for any
chemistry course. ‘The hierarchical nature of the subject means that without having
grasped these foundational ideas, students continue to be mystified by chemistry’
(Prophet, 2003).

The chemical misconceptions pupils possess about the Particulate Nature of Matter
and the Mole concept are listed in Table 2.22 in Chapter 2 of this document. The
misconceptions relating to the content of specific lessons was listed in the teacher
booklet in the description for that lesson.

Tables 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 show the content of the Leaving Certificate syllabus that
the intervention programme into which strategies to develop thinking skills and
understanding were infused.

282
 1. PERIODIC TABLE AND ATOMIC STRUCTURE
Content Depth of Treatment Activities Social and Applied
Aspects

1.1 Periodic Elements. Symbols of Arranging elements History of the idea of

Table elements1–36. in order of relative elements, including
The periodic table as a atomic mass; note the contributions of
(Time needed: 3 list of elements differences the Greeks, Boyle,
class periods) arranged so as to compared with the Davy and Moseley.
demonstrate trends in modern periodic History of the
Unit 3 of ITS their physical and table. periodic table,
Chemistry chemical properties. including the
Brief statement of the Demonstration of contributions of
principal resemblances the reaction with Dobereiner,
of elements within each water of lithium, Newlands,
main group, in sodium and Mendeleev and
particular alkali metals, potassium. Moseley. Comparison
alkaline earth metals, of Mendeleev’s table
halogens and noble with the modern
gases. periodic table.

Very brief outline of

the historical
1.2 Atomic Matter is composed of development of
Structure particles, which may be atomic theory
atoms, molecules or (outline principles
(Time needed: 6 ions. only; mathematical
class periods) Atoms. Minute size of treatment not
atoms. required):
Unit 4 of ITS Dalton: atomic
Chemistry Law of conservation of theory; Crookes:
mass. vacuum tubes,
cathode rays;
Properties of electrons, Stoney: naming of
protons and neutrons the electron;
(relative mass, relative Thomson: negative
charge, location within charge of the
atom). Calculation of electron; e/m for
approximate electrons
Atomic number (Z), relative atomic (experimental details
mass number (A), masses from not required);
isotopes; hydrogen and abundance of Millikan: magnitude
carbon as examples of isotopes of given of
isotopes. mass number (e.g. charge of electrons as
calculation of shown by oil drop
Relative atomic mass approximate experiment
(A r). The 12C scale relative atomic (experimental
for relative atomic mass of chlorine). details not required);
masses.

283
 1. PERIODIC TABLE AND ATOMIC STRUCTURE
Content Depth of Activities Social and Applied
Treatment Aspects
scattering
experiment;
discovery of protons
in nuclei of various
atoms;
Bohr: model of the
atom;
Chadwick: discovery
of the neutron.
Use of the mass
spectrometer in
determining relative
atomic mass.
Fundamental
processes that occur
in a mass
spectrometer:
vaporisation of
substance, production
of positive ions,
acceleration,
separation, detection
(mathematical
treatment excluded).
1.3 Radioactivity Alpha, beta and Demonstration of
gamma radiation properties – detection
(Time needed: 2 (nature and and penetrating Historical outline of
class periods) penetrating ability). power (this can be radioactivity: work of
One example each shown using an Becquerel (discovery
Unit 4 of ITS of: an α-emitter, appropriate videotape, of radiation from
Chemistry e.g. 241Am a β- if desired). uranium salts); Marie
emitter, e.g. 14C a (Principle of Geiger- and
γ-emitter, e.g. Müller tube not Pierre Curie
60Co. required.) (discovery of
polonium and
Distinction between radium).
chemical reaction Widespread
and nuclear occurrence of
reaction (simple radioactivity.
equations required
– confine examples Uses of radioisotopes
to alpha and beta (three examples).
emissions). 14C age
Radioisotopes. determination
Half-life (calculations not
required).

284
 1. PERIODIC TABLE AND ATOMIC STRUCTURE
Content Depth of Treatment Activities Social and Applied
Aspects

1.4 Electronic Energy levels in Mandatory

Structure of atoms. experiment 1.1*
Atoms Organisation of
particles in atoms of
(Time needed: 11 elements nos. 1–20
class periods) (numbers of electrons
in each main energy
level).
Unit 4 of ITS
Chemistry Classification of the
first twenty
elements in the
periodic table on the
basis of the number
of outer electrons.

Atomic orbitals.
Shapes of s and p
orbitals.

Building up of
electronic structure of
the first 36 elements.

Electronic
configurations of ions
of s- and p-block
elements only.
Arrangement of
electrons in
individual orbitals of
p-block atoms.

Table 6.3: Description of the curriculum outcomes that would be achieved in the Periodic table
and Atomic structure section of the Leaving Certificate curriculum that would be achieved by
the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme

285
 2. CHEMICAL BONDING
Content Depth of Treatment Activities Social and Applied
Aspects
2.1 Chemical Compounds. Simple Using the octet rule Uses of helium and
Compounds chemical formulas. to predict the argon related to their
Stability of noble gas formulas of simple chemical
(Time needed: 5 electron compounds – binary unreactivity.
class periods) configurations. compounds of the
Bonding and valency first 36 elements and
Unit 5 and 6 of in terms of the the hydroxides,
ITS Chemistry attainment of a stable carbonates, nitrates,
electronic structure. hydrogencarbonates,
Octet rule and its sulphites and
limitations. sulphates of these
elements (where such
exist).

2.2 Ionic Positive and negative Representation of

Bonding ions. ionic bonds using dot Ionic materials in
Minute size of ions. and cross diagrams. everyday life (two
(Time needed: 4 Ionic bonding as uses, e.g. salt tablets
class periods) electron transfer. Examination of a to replace salt lost by
Sodium chloride model of the NaCl sweating).
Unit 6 of ITS crystal structure. crystal.
Chemistry Characteristics of
ionic substances. Mandatory
experiment 2.1*

2.3 Covalent Molecules. Minute Representation of

Bonding size of molecules. covalent bonds using
Covalent bonding as dot and cross
(Time needed: 4 the sharing of pairs of diagrams.
class periods) electrons. Single, .
double and triple
Unit 6 of ITS covalent bonds.
Chemistry
Characteristics of
covalent substances.

Table 6.4: Description of the curriculum outcomes that would be achieved in the Chemical
bonding section of the Leaving Certificate curriculum that would be achieved by the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ intervention programme

286
 3. STOICHIOMETRY, FORMULAS AND EQUATIONS
Content Depth of Treatment Activities Social and Applied
Aspects

3.1 States of Motion of particles in NH3 and HCl, ink

Matter solids, liquids and and water, smoke and
gases. air.
(Time needed: 1 Diffusion (Graham’s
class period) law not required).

Unit 1 of ITS
Chemistry

3.3 The Mole Avogadro constant. Calculation of M r determination

The mole as the SI relative molecular using a mass
(Time needed: 9 unit for amount of mass from relative spectrometer (simple
class periods) substance containing atomic masses. treatment only –
the Avogadro number Converting moles to interpretation of mass
Unit 7 of ITS of particles. grams and number of spectra not required).
Chemistry molar mass, particles.
relative molecular Converting grams to
mass (M r). moles, and number of
particles to moles.
Converting moles to
Percentage number of atoms of a
composition by mass. molecular species.

3.5 Chemical Chemical equations. Calculations

Equations Balancing chemical Simple examples.
equations.
(Time needed: 11 Calculations based on Calculations in g and
class periods) balanced equations kg rather than tonnes.
using the mole Calculations
Unit 6 and 7 of concept (balanced involving masses.
ITS Chemistry equations will be Calculations
given for all involving excess of
calculations). one reactant.

Table 6.5: Description of the curriculum outcomes that would be achieved in the
Stoichiometry, Formulas and Equations section of the Leaving Certificate curriculum that
would be achieved by the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme

287
 4. VOLUMETRIC ANALYSIS
Content Depth of Treatment Activities Social and Applied
Aspects
4.1 Solutions. Expression Calculation of Use of % (v/v), e.g.
Concentration of of solution molarity from wine.
Solutions concentration in concentration in
mol/L (molarity), g/L grams per litre and
(Time needed: 8 and also in vice versa.
class periods) % (w/v), % (v/v), %
(w/w). Calculation of
Unit 7 of ITS number of moles
Chemistry Colour intensity as a from molarity and
function of volume. Simple
concentration (simple calculations
treatment only). involving percentage
concentrations.
Primary standards.
Standard solutions. Calculation of the
effect of dilution on
concentration.

Mandatory
experiment 4.1*

Table 6.6: Description of the curriculum outcomes that would be achieved in the Volumetric
Analysis section of the Leaving Certificate curriculum that would be achieved by the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ intervention programme

Once the cognitive nature of and the chemical misconceptions pupils possess about
the topics to be included in ITS Chemistry had been established the sequencing of the
content for the ITS Chemistry intervention programme was finalised in relation to the
specified content of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus. Table 6.7 looks at the
content of each of the units in the ITS Chemistry intervention project.

288
Title of Unit Number of Content of lessons
Lessons

Unit 1 ~ The 5 Defines matter, looks at the three states of matter and explores the
Particulate existence of small particles (diffusion and Brownian
Nature of motion).Explores the size of particles and looks and change of
Matter state from a solid to a liquid and gas and the reverse. Uses the
particulate nature of matter to explain phase change. Description
of Latent heat and an investigation of the physical properties of
solids, liquids and gases. A look at how heat affects solids at a
particulate level and an investigation into the conservation of mass
and matter.

Unit 2 ~ 5 Concrete introduction to atoms, elements, compounds and

Elements, mixtures. Use of models to represent elements, compounds and
Compounds mixtures microscopically. Exercises to develop pupils’
and Mixtures microscopic understanding of samples of different substances. A
look at solutions, solvent, solute and conservation of mass and a
simple microscopic understanding of what happens when
substances dissolve. Introduction to the structure of the atom. Use
of cooperative learning techniques to teach about atomic number,
mass number, isotopes and the nuclear structure of the atom.
Revision of all the main ideas. Development of the definitions for
atoms, elements, compounds and mixtures and an analysis of some
incorrect/incomplete definitions given for each of the above

Unit 3 ~ The 4 In this unit pupils will become familiar with the names, symbols
Periodic and uses of different elements. They will use the Periodic Table to
Table describe an element and also atoms of the element. Pupils will
also investigate properties of different elements and make
deductions on the relationships between different elements on the
Periodic Table. A look at the differences between metals and non
metals and the history behind the development of the modern
Periodic Table. Pupils will carry out flame tests on the salts of
different elements. Pupils will recognised the usefulness of flame
tests in identifying different metals and discuss everyday
applications of the colour different metals give off when they are
heated e.g. fireworks.

Unit 4 The 12 This unit aims to develop pupils’ understanding of sub-atomic

Atom particles and introduce the concept of ions Pupils will understand
the concept of relative atomic mass and be able to carry out
relative atomic mass calculations. In this unit pupils will revise the
concept of relative atomic mass and understand how scientists
calculate the percentage abundance of different isotopes using a
mass spectrometer. Pupils will also understand how a mass
spectrometer works. Pupils will develop laboratory techniques and
skills to test for a number of anions. Pupils will learn about the
people involved in the development of the structure of current
model of the atom, radioactivity, energy levels, orbitals and
electronic configurations.

289
Title of Unit Number of Content of lessons
Lessons

Unit 5 ~ 4 A look at the difference between physical and chemical change.

Reactions in They will also have a better understanding of what occurs at a
Chemistry particulate level in physical and chemical changes This unit aims
to help pupils realise that mass is conserved in chemical reaction
and introduce the idea of chemical equations.

Unit 6 ~ 6 After this unit pupils will understand the basics of balancing
Bonding chemical equations. They will recognise the coefficient, subscript
and symbols and be aware that in chemical equations the number
of atoms on the left hand side must be equal to the number of
atoms on the right hand side. They will also understand the octet
rule and be able to explain how ionic bonding occurs. Pupils will
also be able to write the chemical formulae for simple ionic
compounds. In this unit pupils will investigate the properties of
ionic and covalent substances. This unit aims to introduce pupils
also to covalent bonding.

Unit 7 ~ The 10 This unit aims to introduce pupils to: relative molecular mass, the
Mole mole as a counting unit and macroscopic examples of the mole.
Practical examples of converting moles to mass and vice versa.
After this unit pupils will be able to calculate the number of
molecules and particles in different substances. They will
understand the conversion from mole to number of particles and
vice versa. Pupils will also be introduced to the conversion
between grams to mole to number of particles and vice versa. This
unit aims to help pupils visualize the concept of the mole and to
practice calculations involving conversions from grams to moles
to number of particles This unit aims to help pupils understand the
idea of percentage composition. It also aims to help pupils make
the link between the number of moles of a substance and balanced
chemical equations in order to complete simple stoichiometric
problems. This unit also aims to introduce pupils to concentration
of solutions at a macroscopic and microscopic level. Pupils will be
able to do calculations on concentrations of solution after this
lesson and convert moles/L to grams/L and vice versa. This unit
also introduces a number of other units of concentration i.e. %w/v,
%v/v and %w/w This unit aims to revise the theory from previous
lesson on the concentration of solutions and introduce pupils to
primary standards, standard solutions and the procedure involved
in making up a standard solution. This unit will also explore
dilution.

Table 6.7: Structure and sequencing of content in each of the units in the ITS Chemistry
intervention project

290
The final product took the form of two pupil workbooks (volume 1 and 2) and a teacher
handbook. Volume one of the pupils’ workbook included units 1-4 listed in table 3.16.
Units 5-7 were included in volume two. These workbooks included practical activities and
tasks for pupils to carry out and probing questions relating to these activities which were
designed to improve pupils thinking skills in Chemistry. The teacher handbook included a
description of the different activities, directions on how to run the different lessons and the
answers to questions included in the pupils’ workbooks

6.1.1: Detailed analysis of an actual ‘ITS Chemistry’ lesson

The ‘ITS Chemistry’ lesson that will be analysed is Lesson 2 ~ Unit 1 which was titled ‘The
Different States of Matter’. The content of this lesson, along with the teacher description of
the lesson can be seen in Appendix E of this document.
The aims of this lesson were to:
- Develop an appreciation for the actual size of the particles that make up matter.
- Develop macroscopic and microscopic understanding of solids, liquids and gases.
- Develop an understanding of phase change.
- Use the particulate model to explain simple occurrences in everyday life.

The lesson began with a ‘Preparing the Brain’ exercise which revised what matter was, the
three states of matter and how one state of matter can be converted into another state.
Pupils then explored the structural differences between a solid, liquid and a gas. After this
pupils carried out a practical investigation to determine the melting and boiling point of a
number of different substances. They graphed their findings and then took part in a group
activity to explain what they had experienced. Finally pupils were encouraged to apply the
kinetic theory to the realisations that all materials might exist as solids, liquids and gases
depending on the state of their particles. The homework activity reinforced ideas pupils had
met in this lesson.

In this lesson the cognitive demand of the content moved from the late concrete to the early
formal operational level. Initially pupils were investigating the late concrete ideas listed in
Table 6.8, by the end of the lesson pupils were exploring the early formal ideas also listed
in Table 6.8.

291
 Topic 2A: Early 2B: Late Concrete 3A: Early Formal
concrete
Changes A solid ‘turns to Ice melts to water. Water Application of kinetic theory
of State water’, a liquid turns to steam; each process under guidance, to the
‘turns to gas’, as can go back again on cooling. realisation that all materials
discrete bits of Heat causes the melting, might exist as solids, liquids
information cooling causes the freezing. Aand gases depending on the
simple kinetic theory picture state of their particles.
of molecules close together orLiquefying means that the
far apart, but not applied by particles move faster so they
translation to reality can change their positions. You
can measure how much energy
is needed to do this with, say,
an immersion heater.
Table 6.8: A description of the cognitive demands in Lesson 2 ~ Unit 1 of the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme

The design features of this lesson that infuse areas of chemical education research into the
actual content of the Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus will now be discussed.

Cognitive Conflict: There are a number of areas in this lesson where pupils will experience an
event which does not fit with his/her view of reality. Initially some pupils will experience this
conflict when the class investigates the size of a particle. Pupils will also experience this in the
class exercises after the practical activity has been completed. Pupils will resolve this conflict
by interacting with class mates, peer discussion and debate. The teacher will act as a mediator
to ensure discussions stay on the correct path. The teacher is also aware of the Chemical
misconceptions pupils possess about these topics as they are listed at the start of the lesson
description in the teacher handbook. These misconceptions will also be addressed by peer
discussion and debate.

Metacognition: In the class activities, exercises have been replicated twice so as to allow
pupils to return to the same exercise with their new ideas and correct it once the class
discussion/debate has been complete. The homework activity also reinforces a similar problem
to those met in the classroom, encouraging pupils to solve a problem with thinking skills
developed in the lesson.

Visualisation tools and models: Many models were used in this lesson to illustrate the abstract
nature of the particles that make up a solid, liquid and gas. The PowerPoint presentation also
included a number of animations to help illustrate this concept in a more tangible, concrete
manner. Some of the representations and models are shown in the Figure 6.5.

292
 Figure 6.5: A sample of the models and the visualisation tools used in Lesson 2 ~ Unit 1 of the
‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme

Section 6.2: Implementation of the ITS Chemistry intervention programme

This intervention programme was developed for pupils who had just completed their
Junior Certificate and who had chosen to study Chemistry for their Leaving
Certificate examination. It is intended that this programme be implemented in the first
12 weeks of the pupils’ study of Chemistry i.e. at the start of fifth year in the Irish
school. The teachers that agreed to take part in the implementation of this programme
underwent training at the start of the school term. Training took place in a local
school laboratory and incorporated a description of the history of this project, a look
at the philosophies which influenced the project, a look at the structure of the
intervention programme and an explanation of how it fitted with the established
Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus. This training took two and a half hours to
complete and participating teachers were provided with a class set of pupil
workbooks, the teacher handbook and a resource kit full of materials needed for the
implementation of this programme. The contents of the resource kits and the lessons
for which they were used are found in Table 6.9

293
 Material Use Material Use
Acetates Ionic and covalent Moth balls Latent heat activity;
bonding activity change of state
activity
Alka Seltzer Conservation of mass Nuts and bolts Stoichiometry activity

Balloons Conservation of mass Paperclips The Mole Concept

activity
Building Blocks Models of elements, Periodic Tables General use
compounds and
mixtures
Chalk The Mole Concept Plasticine Models of atoms,
activity molecules activity;
The Mole Concept
activity
Chewing Gum Percentage mass Salt Substitute Radioactivity activity
activity
Hollow Spheres Relative atomic mass Staples The Mole Concept
activity; Isotope activity
activity
Marbles Models of particles in String For implementation of
a solid, liquid and gas the pre-test.
activity
Table 6.9: Description of the contents of the ITS Chemistry resource kit and the uses of each
piece of equipment

Figure 6.6 shows the pupil and teacher workbook for the ITS Chemistry intervention
programme, while Figure 6.7 illustrates the resource pack each participating school
received.

IT Resources
Teacher
Handbook

Pupil Workbook ~
Pupil Workbook ~ Volume 2
Volume 1

Figure 6.6: The ‘ITS Chemistry’ pupil workbooks, teacher’s handbook and IT Resources

294
Building Blocks
Hollow Spheres

Marbles

Figure 6.7: The ‘ITS Chemistry’ the resource pack received by each participating school

The overall timeline for the implementation of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ programme is
outlined in Table 6.10. The original sequence of lessons is based on five class periods
a week of Chemistry ~ 1 double and 3 single classes.

295
 Week One Single ~ Pre-test Single Double Single
Unit 1 ~ Lesson 1 Unit 1~ Lesson2 Unit 1 ~ Lesson 3
Week Two Single Single Double Single
Unit 1 ~ Lesson 4 Unit 1 ~ Lesson 5 Unit 2 ~ Lesson 1 Unit 2 ~ Lesson 2
Week Three Single Single Double Single
Unit 2~ Lesson 3 Unit 2 ~ Lesson Unit 2 ~ Lesson 5 Unit 3 ~ Lesson 1
4
Week Four Single Single Double Single
Unit 3 ~ Lesson 2 Unit 3~ Lesson 3 Unit 3 ~ Lesson 4 Unit 4~ Lesson 1
Week Five Single Single Double Single
Unit 4 ~ Lesson 2 Unit 4~ Lesson 3 Unit 4 ~ Lesson 4 Unit 4 ~ Lesson 5
Week Six Single Single Double Single
Unit 4 ~ Lesson 6 Unit 4~ Lesson 7 Unit 4 ~ Lesson 8 Unit 4 ~ Lesson 9
Week Seven Single Single Double Single
Unit 4 ~ Lesson 10 Unit 4~ Lesson Unit 4 ~ Lesson 12 Unit 5 ~ Lesson 1
11
Week Eight Single Single Double Single
Unit 5 ~ Lesson 2 Unit 5 ~ Lesson 3 Unit 5 ~ Lesson 4 Unit 6 ~ Lesson 1
Week Nine Single Single Double Single
Unit 6 ~ Lesson 2 Unit 6 ~ Lesson 3 Unit 6 ~ Lesson 4 Unit 6 ~ Lesson 5
Week Ten Single Single Double Single
Unit 6 ~ Lesson 6 Unit 7 ~ Lesson 1 Unit 7 ~ Lesson 2 Unit 7~ Lesson 3
Week Eleven Single Single Double Single
Unit 7 ~ Lesson 4 Unit 7 ~ Lesson Unit 7 ~ Lesson 6 Unit 7 ~ Lesson 7
5
Week Twelve Single Single Double Single ~ Post
Unit 7 ~ Lesson 8 Unit 7 ~ Lesson Unit 7 ~ Lesson 10 test
9
Table 6.10: Timeline for the implementation of the ITS Chemistry programme

Participating teachers underwent training at the start of the school year 2009 – 2010.
Pupils in the experimental group completed a pre-test (See Appendix D) in September
before the programme began. After 12 weeks they completed the post-test instrument.
A detailed analysis of how this programme was evaluated is available in section 3.3.1
of this document. The effects of participation in this intervention programme are
discussed in Chapter 7 of this document.

296
 Chapter Seven:
Results of Phase Three

297
 Chapter Seven ~ Results and Analysis of Phase Three of this Investigation

Phase three of this investigation saw the development, implementation and evaluation
of an intervention programme, ‘ITS Chemistry’, which aimed to positively influence
pupils’ thinking skills in Chemistry. At its core, this intervention programme focused
on addressing the Chemical misconceptions pupils may possess about fundamental
topics in Chemistry, as these can have a negative effect on pupils’ understanding of
many other topics in Chemistry. In addition the intervention project aimed to
positively affect the cognitive level of the pupil by infusing successful aspects of
chemical education research into the Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus.

In total 5 schools (6 different class groups) trialled the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme. Overall 93 pupils participated in the programme. Teacher training took
place at the start of September 2009 and the intervention programme was
implemented in schools from September 2009 to December 2009. Pupils in the
experimental group completed a pre-test (see Appendix D) prior to participating in the
programme and a post-test (see Appendix D) after the 12 week programme was
complete. The pre-test was a cognitive development assessment. The post-test was a
different cognitive development assessment along with a chemical misconceptions
test. Pupils in the control group only completed the post-test. There were a total of 57
pupils in the control group. These groups covered the same topics as the experimental
group but in the traditional manner. It had been intended that the sample size for both
the control and experimental group would be larger; however, a number of
participants dropped out during the investigation. Overall 7 teachers took part in the
training day for the intervention programme. Three of these failed to return pre- and
post-tests. In total 10 schools were contacted to participate as control groups. Out of
these 5 completed and returned the post-tests, and 5 did not.

The following chapter discusses the results and findings of these pre-and post tests. It
must be noted that when reference is made to pupils’ mathematical and science level,
this refers to the examination level that the pupils took for the Junior Certificate
examination. If pupils took higher level Mathematics or Science they were deemed to
be strong at the subject. If pupils took ordinary level Mathematics or Science they
were deemed to be weak at the subject. While these are not exact measures of their

298
ability at the subject, they do offer a general indication of pupils’ ability. For a more
detailed analysis of pupils mathematical or science ability, more in-depth tests would
have to be carried out.

Section 7.1: Comparison of trends between phase two and phase three of this
investigation
The post-test completed in this phase of the investigation was very similar to the one
used in phase two. Therefore a comparison of the factors that emerged as being
significantly linked with each other in phase two is useful to strengthen previous
findings. Factors that emerged as being significantly linked with each other from the
analysis of Junior and Leaving Certificate responses in phase two are listed in Table
7.1. Responses to the post-test instrument in phase three were analysed to determine if
any of these factors emerged again as being significantly linked to each other. The
results of these significance tests are also listed in Table 7.1.

p-value
Cognitive level versus gender 0.328
Cognitive level versus Mathematical Level 0.018
Cognitive level versus Science Level 0.725
Cognitive level versus overall performance in the 0.001
Chemical misconceptions test
Cognitive level versus performance in questions 0.001
relating to the Mole concept
Mathematical level versus overall performance in the 0.017
Chemical misconceptions test
Gender versus performance in questions relating to the 0.069
Particulate Nature of Matter
Mathematical level versus performance in questions 0.164
relating to the Mole
Table 7.1: Results of significance tests on trends that emerged as significant in phase two of
the investigation with responses of pupils in the control and experimental group in phase
three of the investigation (p value < 0.05 = significant)

From Table 7.1 it can be seen that a number of significant trends that emerged from
phase two of this investigation again emerge as being significant in a general analysis
of the responses given in phase three of this investigation. As before there is a
significant link between cognitive level and mathematical level (p-value = 0.018).
Correlations tests indicate that pupils taking higher level Mathematics for the Junior
Certificate examination are more likely to be operating at the formal operational stage

299
of cognitive development. Pupils’ cognitive level is also linked to their overall
performance in the Chemical misconceptions test (p-value = 0.001). Pupils operating at
the higher levels of cognitive development are more likely to perform better in the
chemical misconceptions test. Cognitive level and performance in questions relating to
the Mole Concept are also significantly linked (p-value = 0.001), with pupils operating
at the formal operational stage of cognitive development performing much better in
questions relating specifically to the Mole Concept. Finally, in agreement with the
results of phase two of this investigation, pupils’ mathematical level and their overall
performance in the chemical misconceptions tests also emerged as being linked (p-
value = 0.017). Links indicate that higher level mathematics pupils perform much better
in the chemical misconceptions tests than Ordinary level Mathematics pupils.

Section 7.2: Can the control and experimental groups be compared?

Prior to the analysis of the effectiveness of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention project it was
important to determine if the control and experimental groups used in phase three of this
investigation could be compared with each other. In order to determine this, cross
tabulation tests between the two cohorts were carried out using SPSS 16 for Windows.
Results of significance tests should have p-values greater than 0.05 to allow for these two
groups to be compared with each other. Table 7.2 shows the results of these significance
tests carried out between the control and experimental groups used in phase three of this
investigation.

p-value
Gender 0.010
Age profile 0.408
Mathematical Level 0.056
Science Level 0.004
Grade in Mathematics for the Junior Certificate 0.900
Grade in Science for the Junior Certificate 0.026
Cognitive profile of the control (from the post-test responses) and 0.262
experimental groups (from the pre-test responses)
Table 7.2: Results of significance tests to determine if the control and experimental groups in
phase three of this investigation were comparable with each other (p value < 0.05 = significant)

As can be seen from Table 7.2 a number of factors emerged with a p-value less than or
equal to 0.05. The age profile, cognitive profile, mathematical level and the grade of the

300
pupils in Mathematic for the Junior Certificate showed no significance from the control
and experimental group in phase three of this investigation. Gender, Science level and the
grade the pupils got in Science, however, did emerge as being significant. As a result of
the gender imbalance between the groups, it will not be possible to compare the
responses of each group in terms of gender. There are more higher level Science pupils in
the control group compared with the experimental group, meaning that the overall
Science level of the control group is higher than the experimental group. The same is true
of the pupils’ grades in the subject for the Junior Certificate examination. A higher
percentage of pupils in the control group got higher grades in Science than in the
experimental group. The fact that the trends lie in this direction mean that the two
cohorts can be compared with each other. Had the experimental group started out with a
higher Science level than the control group, analysis of responses given by the two
groups would not have been possible. A higher percentage of correct responses given by
the experimental group, in this case, could not have been credited to participation in the
‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme but merely because the pupils in the
experimental group were stronger at Science to begin with. Overall it is possible to
compare these two cohorts for phase three of this investigation, excluding an analysis of
responses linked to gender.

301
Section 7.3: The effect of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme on the
cognitive level of the pupil:
Figure 7.1 outlines the cognitive profile of the experimental group before and after
participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme.

Figure 7.1: Cognitive profile of the experimental group before and after participation in the
‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme

From Figure 7.1, it can be seen that the majority of pupils are operating at the concrete
operational stage of cognitive development. Prior to participation in the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ intervention programme 90.3% of pupils in this group were operating at the
concrete operational stage of cognitive development and 9.7% of pupils were at the
formal operational stage of cognitive development. After participation in the
programme this had changed to 66.3% operating at the concrete operational stage of
cognitive development and 33.7% of pupils operating at the formal operational stage of
cognitive development. While participation in the programme alone cannot be directly
linked with the increase in those pupils operating at the formal operational stage of
cognitive development, these are indeed positive results. More in-depth research and
analysis of this programme would need to be carried out to fully understand the effect
of this programme on the cognitive development of the pupil.
Figure 7.2 shows the cognitive profile of the experimental and the control group based
on scores achieved in the cognitive test aspect of the post-test instrument.

302
Figure 7.2: Cognitive profiles of the control and experimental groups based on the responses
to the post-test instrument

As can be seen from Figure 7.2 there is a large difference in terms of cognitive level
between the control and experimental group assessed in this investigation. Overall,
based on the results of these tests, 19.2% of the control group and 33.7% of the
experimental group are operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive
development.

Significance tests between the cognitive profile of the experimental group before and
after participation in the intervention programme also indicate a possible significant
link between participation in the programme and the cognitive development of the
participant. A p-value of 0.047 was recorded for this correlation; however more
accurate results would have been obtained had the control group also completed the
pre-test questionnaire. Table 7.3 outlined the results of the significance tests between
the cognitive profile of the experimental group before and after participation in the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ programme.

303
 Post-test cognitive level
>2B (early to 2B (mature 2B* (concrete 3A (early 3A/3B (mature 3B ( formal Total
mid concrete) concrete) generalisation) formal) formal) generalisation)
Pre- test >2B (early to Count 0 4 2 0 0 0 6
cognitive mid concrete) % within Pre- test .0% 66.7% 33.3% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
level cognitive level
2B (mature Count 2 13 13 12 0 0 40
concrete) % within Pre- test 5.0% 32.5% 32.5% 30.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
cognitive level
2B* (concrete Count 0 5 13 8 2 0 28
generalisation) % within Pre- test .0% 17.9% 46.4% 28.6% 7.1% .0% 100.0%
cognitive level
3A (early Count 0 0 3 4 1 1 9
formal) % within Pre- test .0% .0% 33.3% 44.4% 11.1% 11.1% 100.0%
cognitive level
Total Count 2 22 31 24 3 1 83
% within Pre- test 2.4% 26.5% 37.3% 28.9% 3.6% 1.2% 100.0%
cognitive level
Table 7.3: Results of the significance tests between the cognitive profile of the experimental group before and after participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’
programme

304
From Table 7.3 it can be seen that 66.7% of those operating at the early to mid concrete
operational stage of cognitive development in the pre-test had moved to the mature
concrete operational stage of cognitive development in the post-test. 33.3% of these
pupils had moved to the concrete generalisation stage of cognitive development. Out of
the pupils who had been classified as operating at the mature concrete level in the pre-
tests 32.5% remained at this level after the intervention programme, 32.5% had
increased to the concrete generalisation stage of cognitive development and 30.0% of
the group had increased to the early formal operational stage of cognitive development.
5.0% of this cohort had dropped to the early to mid concrete operational stage of
cognitive development. For those at the concrete generalisation stage of cognitive
development in the pre-test, 46.6% of these stayed at this level, 28.6% increased to the
early formal operational stage of cognitive development, 7.1% increased to the mature
formal operational stage of cognitive development and 17.9% of pupils dropped to the
mature concrete stage of cognitive development. Finally for those classified as being at
the early formal operational stage of cognitive development in the pre-test, 44.4% of
pupils stayed at this level, 11.1% increased to the mature formal operational stage of
cognitive development and 11.1% of pupils increased to the formal generalisation stage
of cognitive development. 33.3% of these pupils dropped to the mature concrete
operational stage of cognitive development. Figure 7.3 shows the summary of the
changes in cognitive levels after participation in the intervention programme.

Summary of the changes in the cognitive profile of the experimental group before and after the
intervention programme (n=93)

40 36.1%
31.3%
30

20.5%
20
% of pupils

10

0
Decreased by one level Stayed at the same level Increased by one level Increased by two levels

-10
12.1%
-20

Figure 7.3: Summary of the changes in cognitive levels after participation in the intervention
programme

305
Results of significance tests between the cognitive effect of the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme and other general factors indicate that gender, Mathematical
level and Science level are not linked with an increase or decrease in cognitive level.
Table 7.4 shows the results of significance tests between cognitive change and other
factors that may have been influenced by participation in the programme.
Factor p-value
Gender and cognitive change after participation 0.724
in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme
Mathematical level and cognitive change after 0.964
participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme
Science level and cognitive change after 0.552
participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme
Table 7.4: Results of significance tests between cognitive change and other factors that may
have been influenced by participation in the programme (p value < 0.05 = significant)

From Table 7.4 it can been said that pupils gender, prior mathematical level or Science
level did not effect the cognitive changes that occurred by participation in the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ programme. In other words, male and female pupils and pupils who are
strong or weak at Mathematics and Science were affected equally by participation in
this programme. Figure 7.4 outlines the cognitive profile of a number of the different
cohorts assessed during the course of this investigation.

Figure 7.4: Cognitive profile of a number of the different cohorts analysed in this
investigation

306
From Figure 7.4 it can be seen that the Leaving Certificate cohort, the control group
and the pre-test experimental group are similar in terms of their cognitive profiles.
These results strengthen previous findings that show that Irish Leaving Certificate
Chemistry pupils operate at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development.
The post-test results for the experimental group indicate a shift in the cognitive
development of the pupil towards the formal operational stage of cognitive
development. Ones cognitive level increases with age (as discussed earlier) so a certain
increase in cognitive level is expected during the time frame of the intervention
programme. However, this effect could not be quantified. The experimental group in
this investigation has shown a large value added effect in terms of cognitive
development compared to both the Leaving Certificate and control groups. As
mentioned previously, a more detailed analysis of the cognitive effect of the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ intervention programme would need to be carried out in order to determine
the exact effect participation in the programme has on the cognitive development of the
Chemistry pupil. However, it can be seen that just twice as many of the experimental
group are operating at the formal operational level after 12 weeks’ intervention,
compared to both the Leaving Certificate and control groups.

307
Section 7.4: The effect of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme on the
Chemical misconceptions held by pupils
Chemical misconceptions held by pupils about fundamental topics in Chemistry can
have a negative effect on pupils’ future understanding in the subject. The following
compares the types of Chemical misconceptions held by pupils in the control and
experimental groups used in phase three of this investigation. The number and types of
chemical misconceptions held by pupils in the control and experimental group were
assessed using the post-test (see Appendix D). Figure 7.5 outlines the performance of
pupils in the control and experimental group in the misconceptions test.

Figure 7.5: Overall performance in the Chemical misconceptions test for pupils in the
control and experimental groups for phase three of this investigation

From Figure 7.5 it can be seen that those in the experimental group did much better in
the chemical misconceptions test than those in the control group. This is very promising
considering that pupils in the control group were identified as being stronger at Science
than those in the experimental group (see section 7.2). Overall 42.1% of the control
group scored less than 40% in the Chemical misconceptions test. This compares with
15.2% of pupils from the experimental group. 20.3% of the pupils in the experimental
group achieve a grade higher than 80% in the test; no pupil from the control group
scored above 80%. Figures 7.6 and 7.7 look at the pupils’ scores to questions relating to
the particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole concept respectively.

308
 Figure 7.6: Breakdown of scores for questions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter
for pupils in the control and experimental groups for phase three of this investigation

As can be seen from Figure 7.6 pupils in the experimental group performed better in
questions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter than those in the control group.
79.7% of the pupils in the experimental group scored greater than 40% in the questions
relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter. This compares with 46.5% for the control
group. This indicates that pupils in the experimental group possess fewer Chemical
misconceptions about this topic than those in the control group.

The same trend can be seen in Figure 7.7 where pupils in the control group also
performed better than those in the control group in questions relating to the Mole
concept. As can be seen for Figure 7.6, 38.4% of pupils in the experimental group and
14.0% of pupils in the control group got over 40% in questions relating to the Mole
concept.

309
Figure 7.7: Breakdown of scores for questions relating to the Mole concept for pupils in the
control and experimental groups for phase three of this investigation

As can be seen from Figures 7.6 and 7.7, the percentage of correct answers is less for
questions relating to the Mole concept compared with those for the Particulate Nature
of Matter. This could be explained by the fact that the Mole concept is new to pupils
and also more difficult, thus the overall lower results are achieved. The Particulate
Nature of Matter is not new, thus the overall higher results for both groups. Overall,
however, pupils in the experimental group performed much better than those in the
control group for both topics. This indicates that participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’
programme has had a positive effect in reducing the numbers of Chemical
misconceptions held by pupils.

While these trends in Figures 7.5-7.7 are useful they do not indicate whether there is a
significant link between participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ programme and a decrease
in the chemical misconceptions held by a pupils. Therefore a number of significance
tests had to be carried out. Results of these significance tests, between the control and
experimental group is performance in the Chemical misconceptions tests, indicate that
participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme indeed had a positive
effect on the pupils performance in the chemical misconceptions test. Table 7.5 shows
the results of these significance tests.

310
 p-value
Control/Experimental group versus 0.001
overall percentage in questions relating to
the Particulate Nature of Matter
Control/Experimental group versus 0.001
overall percentage in questions relating to
the Mole concept
Control/Experimental group versus 0.002
overall percentage scores in the Chemical
misconceptions test
Table 7.5: Results of significance tests between Control/Experimental group and
performance in the Chemical misconceptions test (p value < 0.05 = significant)

From Table 7.5 results of correlation tests indicate a positive link between participation
in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme and pupils’ performance in the
Chemical misconceptions test. Other results indicate that those pupils who increased in
cognitive level from the pre-test to the post-test were more likely to perform better in
the Chemical misconceptions test. Table 7.6 outlines the link between performance in
the Chemical misconceptions test and an increase in cognitive levels after participation
in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme.

Change in Cognitive Level

decreased no increased by increased Total
by 1 level change 1 level by 2 level
Percentage 0-19% Count 0 4 0 0 4
obtained in Expected .5 1.5 1.3 .8 4.0
Misconception Count
test 20- Count 2 6 4 0 12
39% Expected 1.5 4.4 3.8 2.3 12.0
Count
40- Count 7 8 6 4 25
59% Expected 3.2 9.2 7.9 4.7 25.0
Count
60- Count 1 8 13 10 32
79% Expected 4.1 11.7 10.1 6.1 32.0
Count
80- Count 0 3 2 1 6
100% Expected .8 2.2 1.9 1.1 6.0
Count
Total Count 10 29 25 15 79
Expected 10.0 29.0 25.0 15.0 79.0
Count
Table 7.6 Results of Significance tests between performance in the Chemical misconceptions
test and an increase in cognitive levels after participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme

311
To interpret the results in Table 7.6 the scores between 60%-79% will be discussed. From
the Table 7.6 it can be seen that from those scoring between 60% and 79%, 4.1 pupils were
expected to score this value. In fact only 1 pupil in this group scored between 60% and
79% in the Chemical misconceptions test. For pupils who stayed at the same level of
cognitive development 11.7 were expected to score between 60% and 79%; however 8 was
the actual number. For pupils who increased by one cognitive level, 10.1 of these were
expected to score between 60% and 79% in the Chemical misconceptions test. This value
was actually higher than expected at 13. Finally for those who had increased by two
cognitive levels, 6.1 of these pupils were expected to score between 60% and 79% in the
Chemical misconceptions test. Again this value was higher than expected at 10. The p-
value for this test was 0.026 which indicates a very significant link between those who had
increased in cognitive level and their performance in the Chemical misconceptions test.
This finding further strengthens the links previously found between cognitive development
and the Chemical misconceptions held by a pupil (See Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.5).

312
7.4.1: A closer look at the responses of pupils in the misconceptions test
The test instrument was designed to assess and identify the Chemical misconceptions pupils
possess relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole concept. The responses to
the individual questions in the test, given by the control and experimental groups, will be
discussed now. The post-test instrument is available in Appendix D.
Misconceptions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole Concept can be
divided into different categories. These categories are as follows:

Misconceptions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter:

- Misconceptions relating to the nature of matter (do pupils see matter as continuous, etc).
- Misconceptions relating to the space between particles.
- Misconceptions relating to phase change at a particulate level (sub-divisions of this
include misconceptions relating to melting, freezing, evaporation and condensation. Also
included are misconceptions relating to the effect of phase change on the energy particle
have, how phase change affects the size and mass of a particle the effect of phase change
on the chemical make-up of a substance).
- Misconceptions relating to elements, compounds and mixtures.
- Misconceptions relating to atoms and molecules.
- Misconceptions relating to concentration of solutions at a particulate level.
- Misconceptions relating to conservation of volume and mass at a particulate level.
- Misconceptions relating to chemical and physical change.
- Misconceptions relating to Chemical formulae.
- Misconceptions relating to Chemical reactions
- Misconceptions relating to macroscopic and microscopic views of particles.
Misconceptions relating to the Mole concept:
- Misconceptions relating to the meaning of what the Mole is.
- Misconceptions relating to the Mole as a counting unit.
- Misconceptions relating to percentage composition.
- Misconceptions relating to reacting masses and Stiochiometry.
- Misconceptions relating to the Mole and concentration of solutions.

The following sections will look at the different responses given by the control and
experimental groups to the different questions on the post-test instrument. Tables provided
will contain the following information:

313
- The concept being tested and the question number.
- The percentage of correct responses given by the Junior and Leaving Certificate cohorts
assessed in phase two of this investigation (if this question appeared in the test
instruments used as part of phase two of this investigation).
- The % of correct responses for the control and experimental groups.
- The % and type of most popular incorrect answer for the control and experimental
groups.
- The % of missing responses for the control and experimental groups.

The following looks at the individual responses to each question on the post-test instrument.
Overall trends emerging from these responses will be discussed in section 7.4.2.

Misconceptions relating to the nature of matter (do pupils see matter as continuous etc)
Question 12 was used to assess pupils’ understanding of the nature of matter. As mentioned
in section 5.2.4.1, research has shown that many pupils fail to recognise that matter is made
up of tiny particles. Instead they view matter as continuous. Table 7.7 outlines the responses
of both the control and experimental group to question 12 on the post-test instrument.
Concept being tested The continuous nature of matter
Question Number = 12 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 47.4% 73.1% 56.1%
% of incorrect responses 36.8% 11.8% ----------------
% of missing responses 15.8% 15.1% ----------------
Table 7.7: Summary of responses to question 12 by the control and experimental groups
involved in phase three of this investigation

As can be seen from Table 7.7, a higher percentage of pupils in the experimental group gave
the correct response to this question. 73.1% of pupils in the experimental group and 47.4% of
pupils in the control group gave the correct answer to this question. When this question was
asked of Leaving Certificate pupils in phase two of this investigation 56.1% of pupils gave
the correct answer. One must remember that they have had two years more exposure to
Chemistry than pupils in both the control and experimental group for phase three of this
investigation. Responses to this question indicate that participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme has been successful in promoting the concept that matter is made up
of tiny particles.

314
Misconceptions relating to the space between particles
Question 15 was used to assess pupils’ understanding of what fills the space between
particles. Table 7.8 summaries the responses to question 15.

Concept being tested Spaces between particles

Question Number = 15 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 36.8% 44.1% 37.7%
% and type of most popular 19.3% selected 10.8% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response C response A
% of missing responses 7.0% 19.4% ----------------
Table 7.8: Summary of responses to question 15 by the control and experimental groups
involved in phase three of this investigation

As shown in Table 7.8, 36.8% of the control group and 44.1% of the experimental group
gave the correct response to this question. From the previous phase only 37.7% of Leaving
Certificate pupils got this answer correct. Here again the experimental group scored higher
than both the control group and the Leaving Certificate cohort used in phase two of this
investigation. As with responses to question 12, more Leaving Certificate pupils gave the
correct answer than pupils in the control group. This could be explained by the fact that
Leaving Certificate pupils in phase two have had more exposure to Chemistry than pupils in
the control group for phase three of this investigation. However the large number of missing
responses should be noted in the experimental group.

Misconceptions relating to phase change at a particulate level

Questions 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 33 were all used in the test
instrument to determine pupils’ understanding of different ideas associated with phase
change. The ideas associated with phase change can be classified into sections relating to:
- Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a solid changes to a
liquid.
- Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a liquid changes to a
gas.
- Misconceptions relating to the energy particles have at different phases.
- Misconceptions relating to how phase change affects the size and mass of a particle.
- Misconceptions relating to how phase change affects the chemical make-up of a
substance.

315
Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a solid changes to a liquid
Question 21 explored pupils’ understanding of phase change from a solid to a liquid i.e.
melting. It offered pupil a selection of events and pupils had to determine if these events
were in fact an example of melting. Table 7.9 outlines the responses to question 21.

Concept being tested Phase Change

Question Number = 21 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 66.7% 68.8% 61.8%
% and type of most popular 22.8% selected 11.8% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response D response D
% of missing responses 7.0% 16.1% ----------------
Table 7.9: Summary of responses to phase change questions relating to what occurs at a
particulate level when a solid changes to a liquid

As before a slightly higher percentage of pupils in the experimental group answered

this question correctly. Overall 68.8% of pupils in the experimental group and 66.7%
of pupils in the control group answered this question correctly. This compares with
61.8% of the Leaving Certificate cohort who answered this question correctly in
phase two of this investigation. Here again pupils that participated in the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ intervention seem to hold fewer misconceptions than those in the control
group and the Leaving Certificate cohort from the previous phase of this
investigation.

316
Misconceptions relating to what occurs at a particulate level when a liquid changes
to a gas
Questions 13, 17 and 20 were used to assess pupils’ understanding of what occurs
when a liquid changes to a gas. Table 7.10 outlines the responses of pupils in the
control and experimental group for these questions.

Concept being tested Phase Change

Question Number = 13 Control Experimental Leaving Certificate
Group (n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 24.6% 38.7% 28.1%
% and type of most popular 26.3% selected 17.2% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response D response B
% of missing responses 21.1% 20.4% ----------------
Question Number =17 Control Experimental Leaving Certificate
Group (n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 31.6% 48.4% 29.8%
% and type of most popular 24.6% selected 18.4% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response D response D
% of missing responses 7.0% 18.3% ----------------
Question Number = 20 Control Experimental Leaving Certificate
Group (n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 38.6% 39.8% 31.1%
% and type of most popular 26.3% selected 28.0% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response C response C
% of missing responses 14.0% 16.1% ----------------
Table 7.10: Summary of responses to phase change questions relating to what occurs at a
particulate level when a liquid changes to a gas

From Table 7.10 it can be seen that as before a higher percentage of correct answers
were recorded by pupils in the experimental group for questions 13, 17 and 20. A
larger percentage of the Leaving Certificate cohort assessed as part of phase two of
this investigation got this question correct when compared with the percentage of
correct answers given by the control group. Another interesting observation is that for
questions 17 and 20 the most popular incorrect answers were identical for each of the
three cohorts. For question 17 the most popular incorrect answers saw pupils believe
that as water is changed for a liquid to a gas it splits into hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
This misconception was reaffirmed by responses to questions 20, which saw the most
popular incorrect answer state the exact same explanation as a description of what
occurs when water is converted to a gas.

317
Misconceptions relating to the energy particles have at different phases
Questions 16, 18, 28 and 29 were included to assess pupils’ understanding of the
kinetic energy particles in a substance have at different phases. Table 7.11 outlines
the responses given by the control and experimental groups to these questions.

Concept being tested Phase Change

Question Number = 16 a Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 70.2% 73.1% 70.2%
% of missing responses 12.3% 20.4% ----------------
Question Number =16 b Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 42.1 % 60.2% 7.9%
% incorrect responses 31.6% 12.9% ----------------
% of missing responses 26.3% 24.7% ----------------
Question Number =18 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 26.3% 50.5% 6.6%
% incorrect responses 35.1% 15.1% ----------------
% of missing responses 38.6% 32.3% ----------------
Question Number = 28a* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 50.9% 51.6% 60.1%
% incorrect responses 28.1% 26.9% ----------------
% of missing responses 21.1% 21.5% ----------------
Question Number =28b* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 21.1% 40.9% 0.0%
% incorrect responses 36.8% 32.3% ----------------
% of missing responses 42.1% 26.9% ----------------
Question Number =29* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 66.7% 62.4% 39.0%
% and type of most popular 17.5% selected 8.6% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response A response A
% of missing responses 7.0% 20.4% ----------------
Table 7.11: Summary of responses to phase change questions relating to the energy
particles have at different phases (*these questions appeared in the Junior Certificate test
instrument in phase two of this investigation)

A similar trend, noted in the responses to previous questions above, is noted in Table 7.10.
From the six questions analysed in Table 7.11, the experimental group received the highest
percentage of correct answers in five of these questions compared to the control group.
Both cohorts in phase three of this investigation received a higher percentage of correct

318
responses compared with the Junior and Leaving Certificate cohorts questioned in phase
two of this investigation for five out of the six questions listed in Table 7.11. Responses to
these questions would indicate that the experimental group has a better understanding of
the kinetic energy particles have in different phases.

Misconceptions relating to how phase change affects the size and mass of a particle
Questions 14 and 30 appeared in the post-test to determine pupils’ understanding of how
phase change affects the size and mass of a particle of that substance. Table 7.12 outlines
the responses given to these questions by the control and experimental group.

Concept being tested Phase Change

Question Number =14 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 7.0% 29.0% 13.6%
% and type of most popular 77.2% selected 49.5% ----------------
incorrect answer response A.
% of missing responses 3.5% 15.1% ----------------
Question Number =30* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 38.6% 51.6% 20.4%
% and type of most popular 29.8% selected 19.4% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response A response A
% of missing responses 7.0% 21.5% ----------------
Table 7.12: Summary of responses to phase change questions relating to how phase
change affects the size and mass of a particle (*this question appeared in the Junior
Certificate test instrument in phase two of this investigation)

From Table 7.12, 39.0% of the experimental group answered question 14 correctly. This
compares with 7.0% for the control group and 13.6% for the Leaving Certificate cohort
assessed in phase two of this investigation. As seen in the responses of the Leaving
Certificate pupils, 77.2% of the control group and 49.5% of the experimental group felt that
freezing water will cause its molecules to enlarge and as a results selected response A to
this questions. Again in question 30, the highest percentage of correct answers is given by
the experimental cohort, with 51.6% of pupils correctly stating that water molecules in the
gas phase move faster when heated. This compares with 38.6% correct response from the
control group and 20.4% of correct responses form the Junior Certificate cohort surveyed
in phase two of this investigation.

319
Misconceptions relating to how phase change affects the chemical make-up of a substance
Questions 19, 31 and 33 were included in the post-test to assess pupils’ understanding of how
a change in phase affects the chemical make-up of a substance. Table 7.13 outlines the
responses of the pupils in the control and experimental group for these questions.

Concept being tested Phase Change

Question Number =19 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 7.0% 23.7% 8.8%
% and type of most popular 43.9% selected 33.3% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response D response B.
% of missing responses 5.3% 16.1% ----------------
Question Number =31* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 52.6% 62.0% 23.2%
% and type of most popular 21.1% selected 11.8% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response D response D
% of missing responses 8.8% 18.5% ----------------
Question Number =33* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 31.6% 47.3% 17.0%
% and type of most popular 38.6% selected 15.1% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response A response A
% of missing responses 8.8% 22.6% ----------------
Table 7.13: Summary of responses to phase change questions relating to how phase
change affects the chemical make-up of a substance (*this question appeared in the Junior
Certificate test instrument in phase two of this investigation)

Positive trends are noted in the responses to the above questions for pupils in the experimental
group. As before pupils in the experimental group who participated in the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme recorded the highest percentage of correct responses when compared
with the responses of the control group and the Junior and Leaving Certificate cohorts assessed
in phase two of this investigation. 23.7% of pupils in the experimental group gave the correct
answer to question 19 in comparison to 7.0% in the control group and 8.8% given by the pupils
in the Leaving Certificate cohort. 62.0% of the experimental group, 52.6% of the control group
and 23.2% of the Junior Certificate cohort gave the correct answer to questions 31. 47.3% of
the experimental group, 31.6% of the control group and 17.0% of the Junior Certificate cohort
gave the correct answer to questions 33. Analysis of the incorrect responses to question 19, 31
and 33 further confirm the problems pupils have in understanding what happens at a particulate
level when water changes from a liquid to a gas. Here again, the large percentage of missing
responses for the experimental group should be noted.

320
Misconceptions relating to elements, compounds and mixtures
Question 25 was used to assess pupils’ understanding of elements, compounds and mixtures.
Table 7.14 outlines the responses to this question by the control and experimental group.

Concept being tested Elements, Compounds and Mixtures

Question Number =25a* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 73.7% 75.3% 58.1%
% of incorrect responses 15.8% 6.5% ----------------
% of missing responses 10.5% 18.3% ----------------
Question Number =25b* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 84.2% 75.3% 58.2%
% of incorrect responses 5.3% 6.5% ----------------
% of missing responses 10.5% 18.3% ----------------
Question Number =25c* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 78.9% 62.4% 66.6%
% of incorrect responses 10.5% 19.4% ----------------
% of missing responses 10.5% 18.3% ----------------
Question Number =25d* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 71.9% 64.5% 42.1%
% of incorrect responses 17.5% 17.2% ----------------
% of missing responses 10.5% 18.6% ----------------
Table 7.14: Summary of responses to question 25 by the control and experimental groups
involved in phase three of this investigation (*this question appeared in the Junior
Certificate test instrument in phase two of this investigation)

Unlike previous trends where the higher percentage of correct answers was obtained by the
experimental group, the higher percentage of correct answers to question 25 were given by
the control group. Both the experimental group and the control group achieved a higher
percentage of correct answers in comparison to the Junior Certificate cohort assessed in
phase two of this investigation for three out of the four questions. This could be explained by
the fact that both the control and experimental group are more selective as these pupils have
chosen to study Chemistry and also they are older with a little more exposure to Chemistry.
Response to question 25 may indicate that the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme may
not have been as successful as hoped at explaining the concept of elements, compounds and
mixtures. This may be a question where prior knowledge was important; therefore it is not
surprising that the control group performed better as they had initially been shown to be
stronger at Science than the experimental group (see Section 7.2).

321
Misconceptions relating to atoms and molecules
Questions 26, 27 and 40 were used to assess pupils’ understanding of atoms and molecules.
Concept being tested Atoms and Molecules
Question Number =26* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 70.2% 62.4% 39.9%
% of incorrect responses 21.1% 12.9% ----------------
% of missing responses 8.8% 21.5% ----------------
Question Number =27a* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 21.1% 25.8% 31.9%
% of incorrect responses 66.7% 52.7% ----------------
% of missing responses 12.3% 21.5% ----------------
Question Number =27b* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 29.8% 60.2% 44.0%
% of incorrect responses 54.4% 19.4% ----------------
% of missing responses 15.8% 20.4% ----------------
Question Number =27c* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 35.1% 60.2% 44.0%
% of incorrect responses 52.6% 19.4% ----------------
% of missing responses 12.3% 20.4% ----------------
Question Number =40** Control Group Experimental ---------------
(n=57) Group (n=93)
% of correct responses 38.6% 50.5% ----------------
% and type of most popular 12.3% selected 8.6% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response E response E
% of missing responses 28.1% 29.0% ----------------
Table 7.15: Summary of responses to questions 26, 27 and 40 by the control and
experimental groups involved in phase three of this investigation (*this question appeared
in the Junior Certificate test instrument in phase two of this investigation, ** This question
is new to this post-test)

An analysis of the responses to question 26 in Table 7.15 show that the control group had
the higher percentage of correct responses, with 70.2% of the cohort getting this question
correct. 62.4% of the experimental group got this question correct, compared to 39.9% of
the Junior Certificate cohort who answered this question as part of phase two of this
investigation. The experimental group posted the highest percentage of correct answers to
two out of the three parts of question 27. For parts b and c of this question almost twice
the percentage of correct answers were posted by the experimental group in comparison
to the control group. 50.5% of the experimental group correctly identified the electronic
configuration for the Halogen group for question 40, this compares with 38.6% of the
control group.

322
Misconceptions relating to concentration of solutions at a particulate level
Questions 32 and 38 were used to assess pupils’ understanding of concentration of
solutions at a particulate level. Table 7.16 outlines the responses given to these questions.
Concept being tested Concentration of Solutions
Question Number =32* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 47.4% 52.7% 24.8%
% and type of most popular 17.5% selected 7.5% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response C response D
% of missing responses 8.8% 20.4% ----------------
Question Number =38 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of all correct responses 14.0% 28.0% 17.5%
% of missing responses 19.3% 23.7% ----------------
Table 7.16: Summary of responses to questions 32 and 38 by the control and experimental
groups involved in phase three of this investigation (*this question appeared in the Junior
Certificate test instrument in phase two of this investigation)

As shown in Table 7.16, for question 32, 52.7% of the experimental group, 47.4% of
the control group and 24.8% of the Junior Certificate cohort investigated in phase two
of this investigation got this question correct. For question 38, 28.0% of the
experimental group, 14.0% of the control group and 17.5% of the Leaving Certificate
cohort assessed in phase two of this investigation answered all aspects of this question
correctly.

323
Misconceptions relating to conservation of volume and mass at a particulate level
Questions 34, 35 and 36 were used to assess pupils’ ability to conserve mass and
volume. Table 7.17 summarises the responses given to these questions.
Concept being tested Conservation of Volume and Mass
Question Number =34* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 14.0% 38.7% 8.4%
% and type of most popular 71.9% selected 34.4% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response A response A
% of missing responses 7.0% 20.4% ----------------
Question Number =35* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 12.3% 38.7% 8.4%
% and type of most popular 43.9% selected 30.1% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response D response D
% of missing responses 8.8% 21.5% ----------------
Question Number =36* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 38.6% 55.9% 17.4%
% and type of most popular 31.6% selected 9.7% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response A response A
% of missing responses 8.8% 21.5% ----------------
Table 7.17: Summary of responses to questions 34, 35 and 36 by the control and
experimental groups involved in phase three of this investigation (*this question appeared
in the Junior Certificate test instrument in phase two of this investigation)

Table 7.17 mirrors trends outlined in previous questions, where the Experimental group
record the higher percentage of correct responses. It also shows the control group
recording a higher percentage of correct responses when compared with the responses
given by the Junior Certificate cohort used in phase two of this investigation. 38.7% of
pupils in the experimental group, 14.0% of pupils in the control group and 8.4% of
pupils in the Junior Certificate cohort answered question 34 correctly. 38.7% of pupils
in the experimental group, 12.3% of pupils in the control group and 8.4% of pupils in
the Junior Certificate cohort answered question 35 correctly. 55.9% of pupils in the
experimental group, 38.6% of pupils in the control group and 17.4% of pupils in the
Junior Certificate cohort answered question 36 correctly. Overall pupils in the
experimental group are more successful at conserving mass and volume, however well
over 50% of the experimental group failed to do this successfully. Conservation of
mass and volume is linked with cognitive development, pupils operating at the formal
operational stage of cognitive development have little difficulty with conservation of
mass and volume. This could be linked with the poor responses to these questions.

324
Misconceptions relating to chemical and physical change
Question 37 was used to assess pupils’ understanding of chemical and physical
change. Table 7.18 outlines the responses given to question 37.

Concept being tested Chemical and Physical Change

Question Number =37a* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 54.4% 54.8% 31.9%
% of incorrect responses 28.1% 15.1% ----------------
% of missing responses 17.5% 30.1% ----------------
Question Number =37b* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 78.9% 59.1% 50.8%
% of incorrect responses 3.5% 10.8% ----------------
% of missing responses 17.5% 30.1% ----------------
Question Number =37c* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 63.2% 57.0% 35.6%
% of incorrect responses 19.3% 12.9% ----------------
% of missing responses 17.5% 30.1% ----------------
Question Number =37d* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 24.6% 34.4% 17.0%
% of incorrect responses 57.9% 35.5% ----------------
% of missing responses 17.5% 30.1% ----------------
Question Number =37e* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 50.9% 60.2% 29.4%
% of incorrect responses 29.8% 9.7% ----------------
% of missing responses 19.3% 30.1% ----------------
Question Number =37f* Control Group Experimental Junior Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=323)
% of correct responses 10.5% 34.8% 0.3%
% of incorrect responses 40.4% 14.1% ----------------
% of missing responses 47.7% 51.1% ----------------
Table 7.18: Summary of responses to question 37 by the control and experimental groups
involved in phase three of this investigation (*this question appeared in the Junior
Certificate test instrument in phase two of this investigation)

On analysis of the figures outlined in Table 7.18, it can be seen that a higher
percentage of pupils in the experimental group answered all aspects of questions 37
correctly in comparison to the Junior Certificate cohort assessed in phase two of this
investigation. For four out of the six parts of questions 37, a higher percentage of the

325
pupils in the experimental group got the correct answer. For parts 37 b and 37 c, a
higher percentage of the control group answered correctly. As before, a higher
percentage of the control group answered all parts of question 37 correctly in
comparison to the Junior Certificate cohort analysed as part of phase two of this
investigation.

Misconceptions relating to Chemical formulae

Question 41 was used to assess pupils’ understanding of Chemical formulae. The
responses given to this question are outlined in Table 7.19.

Concept being tested Chemical Formulae

Question Number =41** Control Group Experimental ---------------
(n=57) Group (n=93)
% of correct responses 14.0% 30.1% ----------------
% and type of most popular 24.6% selected 15.1% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response A response C
% of missing responses 29.8% 40.9% ----------------
Table 7.19: Summary of responses to question 41 by the control and experimental groups
involved in phase three of this investigation (** this question is new to this post-test)

From Table 7.19 it can be seen that 30.1% of the experimental group and 14.0% of
the control group answered questions 41 correctly. Responses to this question indicate
that the majority of these groups have difficulty in determining the Chemical
Formulae of different substances. It also indicates that while the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme was successful on one level (i.e. a higher percentage of
pupils in the experimental group answered this question successfully), it was
unsuccessful as the majority of the experimental group failed to answer question 41
correctly.

326
Misconceptions relating to Chemical reactions
Questions 22, 23 and 24 were used to assess pupils’ understanding of Chemical
reactions. Table 7.20 outlines the responses given by the control and experimental
groups to these questions.

Concept being tested Chemical Reactions

Question Number =22 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 21.1% 26.9% 19.3%
% and type of most popular 22.8% selected 19.4% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response A response A
% of missing responses 12.3% 20.4% ----------------
Question Number =23 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 12.3% 15.1% 17.1%
% and type of most popular 31.6% selected 26.9% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response D response D
% of missing responses 14.0% 19.4% ----------------
Question Number =24 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 40.4% 35.5% 43.9%
% and type of most popular 15.8% selected % selected ----------------
incorrect answer response D response E
% of missing responses 15.8% 19.4% ----------------
Table 7.20: Summary of responses to questions 22, 23 and 24 by the control and
experimental groups involved in phase three of this investigation

26.9% of pupils in the experimental group, 21.1% of pupils in the control group and
19.3% of pupils in the Leaving Certificate cohort assessed as part of phase two of this
investigation got the correct answer to question 22. All cohorts had the same response
as the most popular incorrect response i.e. Response A, where they felt the only
aspect to remain the same in a Chemical reaction is the sum of all the masses of the
substances involved in the reaction. They failed to recognise that the number of
atoms of each substance involved must also remain the same. This question could
also have been analysed under pupils understanding of the conservation of matter.
The Leaving Certificate cohort analysed in phase two of this investigation got the
highest percentage of correct responses to questions 23 and 24. Overall participation
in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ programme did not have the same positive effect on
misconceptions relating to Chemical reactions as recorded for the other types of
Chemical misconceptions.

327
Misconceptions relating to macroscopic and microscopic views of particles
Question 39 was used to assess pupils’ understanding of the macroscopic and
microscopic views of particles. Table 7.21 outlines the responses to question 39.

Concept being tested Macroscopic and Microscopic views of particles

Question Number =39a** Control Group Experimental --------------
(n=57) Group (n=93)
% of correct responses 57.9% 60.2% ----------------
% incorrect responses 15.8% 6.5% ----------------
% of missing responses 26.3% 32.3% ----------------
Question Number =39b** Control Group Experimental --------------
(n=57) Group (n=93)
% of correct responses 63.2% 66.7% ----------------
% incorrect responses 10.5% 3.2% ----------------
% of missing responses 26.3% 30.1% ----------------
Question Number =39c** Control Group Experimental --------------
(n=57) Group (n=93)
% of correct responses 42.1% 58.1% ----------------
% incorrect responses 31.6% 9.7% ----------------
% of missing responses 26.3% 32.2% ----------------
Question Number =39d** Control Group Experimental --------------
(n=57) Group (n=93)
% of correct responses 40.4% 55.9% ----------------
% incorrect responses 33.3% 14.0% ----------------
% of missing responses 26.3% 30.1% ----------------
Question Number =39e** Control Group Experimental --------------
(n=57) Group (n=93)
% of correct responses 52.6% 58.1% ----------------
% incorrect responses 21.1% 10.8% ----------------
% of missing responses 26.3% 30.1% ----------------
Table 7.21: Summary of responses to question 39 by the control and experimental groups
involved in phase three of this investigation (** this question is new to this post-test)

On analysis of the responses given to question 39, it can be seen from Table 7.21 that
the highest percentage of correct responses was recorded by the experimental group
for all aspects of question 39. Overall it can be said that participation in the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ intervention programme may have positively affected pupils
understanding of the nature of matter at a particulate level.

328
Misconceptions relating to the meaning of the Mole
Questions 42 and 47 were used to assess pupils’ understanding of the Mole. Table
7.22 outlines the responses of the control and experimental group to these questions.

Concept being tested The Mole

Question Number =42 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 38.6% 60.2% 68.9%
% incorrect responses 3.5% 2.2% ----------------
% of missing responses 57.9% 37.6% ----------------
Question Number =47** Control Group Experimental -----------------
(n=57) Group (n=93)
% of correct responses 8.8% 20.4% ----------------
% and type of most popular 15.8% selected 11.8% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response E response D
% of missing responses 61.4% 48.4% ----------------
Table 7.22: Summary of responses to questions 42 and 47 by the control and experimental
groups involved in phase three of this investigation (** this question is new to this post-test)

From Table 7.22, it can be seen that the experimental group had a much higher
percentage of correct responses to questions 24 and 47 in comparison to the control
group used in this phase of the investigation. 60.2% of the experimental group and
38.6% of the control group answered question 42 correctly. This compares with
68.9% of the Leaving Certificate cohort assessed in phase two of this investigation. It
would be expected that the Leaving Certificate pupils assessed in phase two of this
investigation would be more successful at questions relating to the Mole concept due
to the larger amount of experience (approximately 2 years) they have with this topic,
in comparison to the pupils in the control and experimental groups who have only
completed 12 weeks of their Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus.
20.4% of pupils in the experimental group and 8.8% of pupils in the control group
answered question 47 correctly. This shows that participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme may have had a positive influence on pupils understanding of
what the Mole actually is.

329
Misconceptions relating to the Mole as a counting unit
Questions 43 and 46 were used to assess pupils’ understanding of the Mole as a
counting unit.
Concept being tested The Mole as a counting unit
Question Number =43 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 8.8% 17.2% 25.9%
% and type of most popular 17.5% selected 38.7% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response C response C
% of missing responses 52.6% 38.7% ----------------
Question Number =46 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 1.8% 20.4% 11.4%
% of incorrect responses 15.8% 29.0% ----------------
% of missing responses 82.5% 50.5% ----------------
Table 7.23: Summary of responses to questions 43 and 46 by the control and experimental
groups involved in phase three of this investigation

The trend outlined in Table 7.23 continues the trend observed in Table 7.22. Overall
the pupils in the experimental group performed much better than the pupils in the
control group who had not participated in the intervention programme. However
pupils in the Leaving Certificate cohort perform better in responding to questions 43
than pupils in the experimental group. This may be attributed to the greater Chemistry
experience held by the Leaving Certificate cohort assessed in phase two of this
investigation. On a positive note, 20.4% of the experimental group answered the first
section of question 46 correctly, compared with 1.8% of the control group and 11.4%
of the Leaving Certificate cohort.

330
Misconceptions relating to percentage composition
Questions 48 looks at pupils' understanding of percentage composition. This question
is new to this post-test instrument and responses to this question are outlined in Table
7.24.
Concept being tested Percentage Composition
Question Number =48** Control Group Experimental ---------------
(n=57) Group (n=93)
% of correct responses 19.3% 29.0% ----------------
% and type of most popular 10.5%selected 11.8%selected ----------------
incorrect answer response C response C
% of missing responses 57.9% 47.3% ----------------
Table 7.24: Summary of responses to question 48 by the control and experimental groups
involved in phase three of this investigation (** this question is new to this post-test)

Overall 29.0% of the experimental group and 19.3% of the control group answered
this question correctly. The most popular incorrect response selected by each group
was response C.

Misconceptions relating to reacting masses and Stiochiometry

Questions 44, 45 and 50 were used to assess pupils’ understanding of reacting masses
and Stoichiometry. Table 7.25 outlines the response given by the control and
experimental groups to questions 44, 45 and 50.
Concept being tested Reacting masses and Stiochiometry
Question Number =44 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 19.3% 32.3% 42.5%
% and type of most popular 14.0% selected 9.7% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response C response B
% of missing responses 54.4% 38.7% ----------------
Question Number =45 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 19.3% 40.9% 53.1%
% and type of most popular 10.5% selected 5.4% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response B response B
% of missing responses 56.1% 45.2% ----------------
Question Number =50 Control Group Experimental Leaving Certificate
(n=57) Group (n=93) cohort (n=228)
% of correct responses 1.8% 10.8% 7.5%
% of incorrect responses 7.0% 6.5% ----------------
% of missing responses 80.7% 71.0% ----------------
Table 7.25: Summary of responses to questions 44, 45 and 50 by the control and
experimental groups involved in phase three of this investigation

331
As before, the Leaving Certificate cohort assessed in phase two of this investigation
achieved the highest percentage of correct responses for questions 44 and 45. Overall
42.5% of Leaving Certificate pupils, 32.3% of pupils in the experimental group and
19.3% of pupils in the control group answered question 44 correctly. 53.1% of
Leaving Certificate pupils, 40.9%of pupils in the experimental group and 19.3% of
pupils in the control group answered question 45 correctly. While the percentage of
correct responses is lower for the experimental group than it is for the Leaving
Certificate cohort, it is positive to see that pupils in the experimental group are
outperforming pupils in the control group, indicating a possibly positive effect of
participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme. It is also positive to note
that the pupils in the experimental group outperformed pupils in the Leaving
Certificate cohort in responses to questions 50. Overall 10.8% of pupils in the
experimental group, 7.5% of pupils in the Leaving Certificate cohort assessed as part
of phase two of this investigation and 1.8% of pupils in the control group gave correct
responses to question 50.

Misconceptions relating to the Mole and concentration of solutions

Question 49 was used to assess pupils’ understanding of the Mole and concentration
of solutions. Table 7.26 outlines the response given to question 49 on the test
instrument.
Concept being tested The Mole and concentration of Solutions
Question Number =49** Control Group Experimental ---------------
(n=57) Group (n=93)
% of correct responses 19.3% 32.3% ----------------
% and type of most popular 10.5% selected 10.8% selected ----------------
incorrect answer response C response B
% of missing responses 59.6% 46.0% ----------------
Table 7.26: Summary of responses to question 49 by the control and experimental groups
involved in phase three of this investigation (** this question is new to this post-test)

Overall 32.3% of pupils in the experimental group answered question 49 correctly.

This compares with 19.3% of pupils from the control group. Response B was the most
popular incorrect response given by both the control and experimental group for
question 49.

332
7.4.2: Summary of the effect of participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme
In section 7.2, it was observed that pupils in the control group for this phase of the
investigation were significantly stronger at Science than pupils in the experimental group,
based on their Junior Certificate Science grades. Therefore, it would be expected that pupils
in the control group should perform better in the Chemical misconceptions tests than those
in the experimental group. It would also be expected that a higher percentage of correct
responses would be recorded by the Leaving Certificate cohort assessed in phase two of
this investigation, as pupils in this cohort had over 54 weeks more Chemistry experience
than those in the control and experimental group, having completed the full course. As the
control and experimental groups are more selective than the Junior Certificate cohort
assessed in phase two of this investigation and also have additional Chemistry experience,
we would expect that the percentage of correct answers given by the control and
experimental group would be higher in comparison to the Junior Certificate cohort. The
actual trends in responses to the questions in the Chemical misconceptions post-test will be
discussed now.

Figure 7.8 outlines the percentage of correct answers for the control and experimental
groups, assessed in phase three of this investigation, versus the question number.

Figure 7.8: Graph of percentage of correct answers given by the control and experimental
groups versus question number

333
As can be seen from Figure 7.8, for the majority of questions on the post-test instrument
the experimental group got a higher percentage of correct answers when compared with the
responses given by the control group. Pupils in the experimental group outperformed pupils
in the control group in the Chemical misconceptions post-test. Out of a total of 55
questions, only 8 questions saw pupils in the control group out-perform pupils in the
experimental group. These eight questions related to the Particulate Nature of Matter. In 47
questions the experimental group recorded a higher percentage of correct answers when
compared with the responses of the control group. It was predicted that pupils in the control
group would perform better in the Chemical misconceptions test than pupils in the
experimental group, as they were proven initially to be significantly stronger in Science
than pupils in the experimental group. Prior knowledge would have played a role in pupils’
responses to questions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter. As a result it is
unsurprising to find the control group outperforming pupils in the experimental group in 8
questions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter, as they were proven to be stronger at
Science. A positive trend is the fact that the experimental pupils are now matching and in
most cases outperforming pupils in the control group in this area. In all questions relevant
to the Mole Concept, pupils in the experimental group recorded a higher percentage of
correct responses. This again is unsurprising as it is a new topic to all. These findings are a
positive indication of the effect of participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme on reducing and altering Chemical misconceptions held by Chemistry pupils.
General trends observed from the responses of the different cohorts to the different
questions on the chemical misconceptions test show that for the majority of questions:
- The control group answered more questions in the post-test correctly than pupils in the
Junior Certificate cohort assessed as part of phase two of this investigation. This fits
with predicted trends, as pupils in the control group are more selective than those in the
Junior Certificate group and also have 12 weeks more Chemistry experience than the
Junior Certificate pupils.
- Pupils in the Leaving Certificate cohort performed better than pupils in the control
group in the Chemical misconceptions post-test. This fits with predicted trends, as
pupils in the Leaving Certificate cohort have much more Chemistry experience than
pupils in the control group.
- Pupils in the experimental group recorded a higher percentage of correct answers to
questions on the post-test than pupils in the Junior and Leaving Certificate cohorts. Out
of the 55 questions included in the post-test, only 9 questions were better answered by

334
 the Junior and Leaving Certificate pupils. Out of these 9 questions, four of them were
questions relating to the Mole Concept. It is unsurprising that Leaving Certificate pupils
would perform better in these questions as they have had much more experience and
practice with this topic compared with pupils in the experimental group. Pupils in the
experimental group recorded a higher percentage of correct responses in 46 questions.
The experimental group would be expected to out-perform the Junior Certificate cohort
as they are more selective and also have more Chemistry experience that these pupils.
However, they would not be expected to out perform pupils in the Leaving Certificate
cohort, as these pupils have over 54 weeks more Chemistry experience than them,
having completed the Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus. This trend is an
indication that participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme has had
positive effects on the number of Chemical misconceptions held by a pupil.

Figure 7.9 looks at the percentage of missing responses, versus question numbers for both
the control and experimental group. An analysis of the questions in which there was a
higher percentage of missing responses indicates a lack of confidence in the pupil with the
concept being asked in that particular question.

Figure 7.9: Graph of percentage of missing responses for the control and experimental
groups versus question number

335
Surprisingly, from Figure 7.9, it can be seen that even though the experimental group out-
performed the control group in the majority of questions asked in the post-test, the
experimental group also recorded the higher percentage of missing responses for the
majority of questions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter. Prior knowledge and
strength in the subject would have possibly given the control group more confidence to
answer questions relating to the Particulate Nature of Matter and hence might explain why
the majority of those in the control group made a greater effort to answer these questions.
The opposite is noticed for questions relating to the Mole Concept. Here the experimental
group recorded less missing responses than those in the control group. This indicates that
pupils in the experimental group are more confident at answering questions related to this
topic. It must also be noted that pupils in the experimental group also recorded a higher
percentage of correct answers for a number of questions relating to the Mole Concept than
those in the Leaving Certificate cohort who have much more exposure to this topic. The
fact that less pupils in the control group answered questions relating to the Mole Concept in
comparison to the experimental group, and also that the experimental group were almost
able to match the percentage of correct responses to these questions with the Leaving
Certificate cohort indicates the merits of participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme for developing the Mole Concept, even after only a few weeks exposure.

Overall trends indicate that the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme has been
successful in dealing with a certain amount of Chemical misconceptions. However a large
percentage of pupils still possess Chemical misconceptions that may be affecting their
performance in, and understanding of, certain Chemistry topics. Certain topics developed
in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme were not as successful as others at dealing
with Chemical misconceptions. Pupils that participated in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme were not as successful at understanding questions relating to:
- Elements, mixtures and compounds. This can be seen by responses to questions 25
where pupils in the control group recorded a higher percentage of correct responses.
- Chemical reactions. This can be seen in the responses given to questions 22, 23 and 24,
where pupils in the Leaving Certificate cohort recorded a higher percentage of correct
responses.
- Chemical and Physical change. This can be seen in the responses given to questions 37
a and b, where pupils in the control group recorded a higher percentage of correct
responses.

336
A large number of misconceptions still exist around the Mole Concept, chemical reactions
and what happens a water molecule during phase change. As mentioned in section 2.3.4,
misconceptions are resilient in nature and difficult to alter or change. Successful changes in
number of Chemical misconceptions held by pupils were noted after this 12 week
intervention programme. However, it is recommended that a longer programme and
constant reference to and awareness of these misconceptions should occur during all
teaching in Chemistry. Gender, mathematical level and science level were not linked
significantly with any gains in cognitive level or with a pupil’s performance in the
Chemical misconceptions test for this phase of the investigation.

7.4.3: Factors that may have enhanced scores achieve by the experimental group:
It is possible that the presentation of questions in the post-test instrument may have
favoured pupils who participated in the intervention programme for a number of reasons:
1. Questions included in the post-test instrument represented concepts being tested in
pictorial form. As visualisation tools and modelling formed the basis of the
intervention, pupils in the experimental group would have been more comfortable in
dealing with this form of questioning. As a result this would have positively enhanced
their scores in the chemical misconceptions test in comparison to those in the control
group.
2. A number of questions that appeared in the post-test instrument were included in the
actual intervention programme. Pupils in the experimental group who gave the correct
answer to these questions may only have being doing so as a result of recall.

It is therefore important to consider the impact of these factors if we are to say with
confidence that participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ programme successfully reduced the
chemical misconceptions pupils possess about the Particulate Nature of Matter and the
Mole concept. The test-instrument was designed to assess a particular aspect of a topic in a
number of ways. Concepts were tested using visualisation questions but also word
questions. Table 7.27 illustrates the different question-types that were used to assess similar
concepts in the test instrument. It also compares the percentage of correct responses given
by the control and experimental groups to these questions.

337
 Topic being tested: What occurs
when water is boiled?

Control Experimental
Group (n=57) group (n=93)

% of 31.6% 48.4% (Response

correct (Response E) E)
responses
% of 24.6% selected 18.4% selected
incorrect response D response D
responses
% of 7.0% 18.3%
missing
responses

Control Experimental
Group (n=57) group (n=93)

% of 7.0% 23.7%
correct (Response E) (Response E)
responses
% of 43.9% selected 33.3% selected
incorrect response D response B
responses
% of 5.3% 16.1%
missing
responses

Table 7.27: A comparison of the percentage of correct responses given by the control and
experimental groups for questions 17 and 19 of the test instrument

The concept being tested by questions 17 and 19 is what happens to a molecule of water
when water is being boiled. Question 17 represents a visualisation question, where as
question 19 is a word response question. For both questions a higher percentage of pupils
in the experimental group selected the correct response. On analysis of the responses to
question 17, it can be seen that the same distracter was the most popular incorrect answer
given by both groups. It would have been expected that a higher percentage of pupils in the
experimental group would have got the correct answer to question 17 due to the visual
nature of the content in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme. The fact that pupils in

338
the experimental group also achieved a greater percentage of correct answers to question 19
indicates a reduction in misconceptions relating to this topic for pupils in the experimental
group. It shows that question type does not favour pupils in the experimental group and
strengthens findings that show a reduction in chemical misconceptions for those who took
part in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme. Table 7.28 and 7.29 give further
examples of how the same topic was assessed using different question types. As can be
seen for both types of questions (pictorial and word) the experimental group records the
higher percentage of correct responses.

Topic being tested: Conservation of

Matter

Control Experimental
Group (n=57) group (n=93)

% of 12.3% 15.1%
correct
responses
% of 31.6% selected 26.9% selected
incorrect response D response D
responses
% of 14.0% 19.4%
missing
responses

Control Experimental
Group (n=57) group (n=93)

% of 38.6% 55.9%
correct
responses
% of 31.6% selected 9.7% selected
incorrect response A response A
responses
% of 8.8% 21.5%
missing
responses

Table 7.28: A comparison of the percentage of correct responses given by the control and
experimental groups for questions 23 and 36 of the test instrument

339
 Topic being tested: Elements,
Compounds and Molecules

% of correct % of correct
responses by responses by the
the Control Experimental
Group (n=57) group (n=93)
27a 21.1% 25.8%

27b 29.8% 60.2%

27c 35.1% 60.2%

% of correct % of correct
responses by responses by the
the Control Experimental
Group (n=57) group (n=93)
39a 57.9% 60.2%

39b 63.2% 66.7%

39c 42.1% 58.1%

39d 40.4% 55.9%

39e 52.6% 58.1%

Table 7.29: A comparison of the percentage of correct responses given by the control and
experimental groups for questions 27 and 39 of the test instrument

Table 7.29 illustrates once more how question type was not biased to favour those who had
participated in the intervention programme. Question 39 was a visual question and both the
control and experimental group performed well in this question. Response the question 27,
which was a word question relating to the same topic, show that the experimental group
have a much better understanding of elements, compounds and molecules than the control
group. Therefore it can be concluded that the visual nature of the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme did not affect pupils performance in the chemical misconceptions

340
test and findings that show a reduction in chemical misconceptions as a result of
participation in the intervention programme are as a result strengthened.

It is also important to determine how much of the success of pupils in the experimental
group in the chemical misconceptions test can be attributed to recall of the correct
answer. A number of questions that appeared in the post-test instrument also appeared
in the intervention programme itself, therefore pupils could have merely just recalled
the correct answers from the classroom experience without fully understanding the
concept correctly. As before a number of questions tested the same concept and Tables
7.30 and 7.31 compare the responses of pupils in the experimental group to questions
that appeared in both the test instrument and the intervention programme, to questions
that test the same topic but which only appeared in the test instrument.

341
 Topic being tested: The particulate
nature of matter

Control Experimental
Group (n=57) group (n=93)

% of 47.4% 73.1%
correct
responses
% of 36.8% 11.8%
incorrect
responses
% of 15.8% 15.1%
missing
responses

Control Experimental
Group (n=57) group (n=93)

% of 42.1% 60.2%
correct
responses
% of 31.6% 12.9%
incorrect
responses
% of 26.3% 24.7%
missing
responses

Table 7.30: A comparison of the percentage of correct responses given by the control and
experimental groups for questions 27 and 39 of the test instrument

As can be seen from the results in Table 7.30, the experimental group recorded the
highest percentage of correct answers for these two questions. Question 12 appeared
as part of an activity in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ programme, question 16 only appeared in
the test instrument. While the percentage of correct answers, given by the
experimental group, for both questions has decreased from question 12 to question 16,
this decrease is minimal and would indicate that pupils understand this concept and
have not merely recalled the correct answer to the question. Table 7.31 illustrates the
responses the questions 32 and 38 on the test instrument.

342
Topic being tested: Concentration of
solutions

Control Experimental
Group group (n=93)
(n=57)

% of all 14.0% 28.0%

correct
responses
% of 19.3% 23.7%
missing
responses

Control Experimental
Group group (n=93)
(n=57)

% of 47.5% 52.7%
correct
responses
% of 17.5% 7.5%
incorrect
responses
% of 8.8% 20.4%
missing
responses

Table 7.31: A comparison of the percentage of correct responses given by the control and
experimental groups for questions 32 and 38 of the test instrument

343
Questions 38 appeared as an example in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme.
As can be seen from Table 7.31, only 28.0% of the experimental group got all aspects
of this question correct. Had pupils being working from recall, it would be expected
that this value would have been higher. In both questions the experimental group
recorded the highest percentage of correct answer. Responses the questions 32, the
question which was new to the post-test instrument, over 50% of the pupils in the
experimental group recorded the correct answer to this question. An analysis Tables
7.30 and 7.31, indicate that success in the chemical misconceptions test for pupils in
the experimental group can not be merely attributed to recall of the correct answers.

344
Section 7.5: Teachers’ attitudes towards the ITS Chemistry programme
Teachers’ opinions of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme were assessed using a
teacher questionnaire and a teacher diary (See Appendix D). In total 5 schools (6 different
class groups) trialled the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme. One of the researchers
(MS) was involved in the implementing of the programme in one school. Of the remaining
4 teachers, three completed the teacher diary and questionnaire. Their views and responses
to the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme are outlined in Table 7.32. The views of the
researcher (MS) are not included in these responses in order to avoid any possible bias.

Opinion/View of the participating teacher (n=3)

Was the content of the intervention Two of the teachers involved felt that the content was not
programme too basic for Leaving too basic for Leaving Certificate pupils; one disagreed
Certificate pupils? with this and felt that it was too basic for inclusion.
Was the content of the intervention Two teachers felt that the content was pitched at the
programme pitched at the correct level correct level.
for Leaving Certificate pupils?
Was the content of the intervention All teachers agreed that the content was not too difficult
programme too difficult for Leaving for the pupils.
Certificate pupils?
Did pupils find the content of this All teachers felt that pupils found the programme
programme interesting? interesting.
Did pupils find the content of this Two teachers felt that the content of the programme was
programme challenging? not challenging for the pupils; one teacher felt that it was.
Did this programme introduce All teachers felt the programme introduced materials in
materials in an effective manner? an effective manner.
Would you repeat this programme next All teachers stated that they would repeat this programme
year with your Chemistry class? with next years’ Chemistry class
Was the training provided before Two out of the three teachers felt that training provided
implementation adequate? was adequate. One felt that it was inadequate.

Were any aspects of this programme Two out of the three teachers felt that the introduction
too easy? topics on elements/compounds and mixtures were too
basic. However, one did state that these topics were
essential.
Were any aspects of this programme There were no topics that teachers felt were too difficult
too difficult? in the programme.
What aspects of this programme did All three teachers cited that the practical aspect of the
pupils enjoy? programme was found enjoyable by their pupils. They
felt that many activities were very hands on and this was
good in getting pupils interested.

What aspects of this programme did One teacher felt that her pupils found activities on
pupils find interesting? balancing equations and the isotopes experiment
interesting. Another felt that the activities explaining the
structure of the Atom were interesting.

345
 Opinion/View of the participating teacher (n=3)
What were the strengths of this All teachers felt that the concrete examples and the
programme? different models used to explain different concepts were
the main strengths of this programme. They felt that these
activities simplified a lot of difficult topics.
What were the weaknesses of this Two of the three teachers felt that there was a huge
programme? amount of preparatory work involved in the
implementation of this programme. Two of the three also
felt that a number of chapters could be shortened.
How was this programme successful? The practical and hands on nature of the programme was
cited by all three teachers as being a successful aspect of
the programme. Assessment activities were cited by two
of the three teachers as being vey useful.
How was this programme All three teachers felt that some chapters in the
unsuccessful? programme were too long. One teacher felt that pupils of
higher ability were ‘bored’ at times during the
programme.
Any suggestions for improvements in One teacher felt it would have been useful to see
the training aspect for this someone teaching one of the lessons to a group of pupils
intervention? during the training phase.
Any other comments? Teachers suggested that some chapters be shortened
(mainly the introductory ones) and that some activities be
omitted in order to speed up the implementation of the
programme.
Table 7.32: Opinions and views of implementing teachers on the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme (n=3)

The main themes that emerged from the analysis of the teachers evaluation of the ‘ITS
Chemistry’ intervention programme are as follows:
- Teachers were mainly positive about this programme and were impressed by its
practical, hands-on nature. They also felt that activities included made more
difficult topics easier for pupils to understand and visualise.
- Teachers felt that introductory topics (i.e. one that appear on the Junior Certificate
Science syllabus) should be omitted in order to cover content more quickly. They
do recognise the importance of these topics for understanding in Chemistry.
However, they feel that these should be covered at Junior Certificate level. This
may indicate the need for the development of a new programme, for pupils at
Junior Certificate level, which explores difficult, abstract topics in the same
manner. In fact, these topics were only included in the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme as pupils at Junior Certificate level for phase two of this
investigation answered questions relating to these topics so poorly. These basic
topics could be omitted from this programme, if they were covered in a similar
manner at Junior Certificate level.

346
- Teachers felt that this programme could be improved by including some more
activities for higher ability pupils, who may lose interest as the pace of the
programme was too slow.
- With regards to the training of teachers, a useful suggestion of showing how a
number of these lessons might be taught may help in the implementation of the
‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme.

Overall the positive responses of teachers indicate the success of the infusion of
different teaching methodologies into the Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus. The
fact the no teacher complained about this intervention programme interfering with
their delivery of the Chemistry syllabus, indicates that teachers are comfortable with
implementing this programme with Chemistry classes. They are not worried about the
effect it will have on the completion of the syllabus and their pupils’ overall
Chemistry grade for the Leaving Certificate examination. It would be interesting to
see how pupils in the experimental group, after completing the intervention
programme, will perform in the Leaving Certificate examination at the end of the
course in comparison to the control group.

7.5.1: Personal reflections on the implementation of the ‘ITS Chemistry’

intervention programme
One of the researchers (MS) also implemented this programme with her Chemistry
class for the 12 weeks between September 2009 and December 2010. Overall there
were 17 pupils in this class. A number of tests were carried out to determine if having
the author of the programme implementing it had any significant gains for those
pupils. Table 7.33 shows the results of these significance tests.

As can be seen from Table 7.33, there was no significance of having the author as the
implementer of the programme and its implementation by other teachers. This may
indicate that teacher training was adequate and that the lay-out of materials and
instructions given were easy to follow and carry out.

347
 p-value
Cognitive level (pre-test) versus author’s own pupils and the other 0.036
pupils in the experimental group
Cognitive level (post-test) versus author’s own pupils and the 0.015
other pupils in the experimental group
Cognitive change versus author’s own pupils and the other pupils 0.027
in the experimental group
Performance in questions relating to the Particulate Nature of 0.142
Matter versus author’s own pupils and the other pupils in the
experimental group
Performance in questions relating to the Mole concept versus 0.024
author’s own pupils and the other pupils in the experimental group
Overall performance in chemical misconceptions test versus 0.142
author’s own pupils and the other pupils in the experimental group
Table 7.33: An analysis of the effect of having the author implement the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme versus the implementation by other teachers for phase three of this
investigation (p value < 0.05 = significant)

It is interesting to note however that the author’s own pupils were at a higher level of
cognitive development prior to the implantation of the programme. This was also true
at the end of the programme. Pupils in the author’s own class also performed
significantly better in questions relating to the Mole Concept, which further highlights
a link that exists between cognitive development and ability to understand abstract
concepts such as the Mole.

The author’s own personal experience at implementing the programme compares with
those recorded by the other teachers. The author feels that:
- The hands-on practical activities, used to introduce and to help with understanding
of topics that are difficult for pupils to visualise, significantly improved pupils
grasp of these topics.
- The number and types of questions in the workbooks allowed pupils to master topics
further. These problems got pupils approaching problems from different angles.
- The group discussion element of the programme played a very important role in
dealing with and addressing a large number of chemical misconceptions.
- The introductory units could indeed be taught at Junior Certificate level and were
at times too basic for stronger pupils.
- Some revision of the programme is needed to alter and correct certain activities,
which on implementation were not as feasible as first thought.

348
Section 7.6: Summary of findings of phase three of the investigation
A summary of the main findings of this phase of the investigation are as follows:
- Findings from phase three of this investigation support and reaffirm findings from
phase two of this study. On analysis of pupils’ performance in the post-test, results of
correlation tests indicate that higher level Mathematics pupils are more likely to
operate at the formal operational stage of cognitive development. Correlation tests
also indicate and reiterate links found in phase two between the pupils’ performance
in the chemical misconceptions test and the level of Mathematics they took for the
Junior Certificate examination and their cognitive development.
- Participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme was shown to have a
positive effect on the cognitive development of the pupil. Unfortunately as the control
group did not complete pre-test questionnaires the size of this cognitive effect cannot
be measured.
- Participation in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme was shown to have a
positive effect on pupils performance in the chemical misconceptions test. Pupils who
had taken part in the programme did significantly better in the chemical
misconceptions test in comparison to those in the control group.
- Pupils who participated in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme have a better
understanding the Particulate Nature of Matter and the Mole concept than the control
group and in most cases than the Leaving Certificate Chemistry group cohort
examined in phase two of this investigation.

349
Section 7.7: Limitations to phase three of the investigation
Overall the results obtained give an indication of the effect of the ITS Chemistry
programme in developing thinking skills in a Chemistry classroom and dealing with
misconceptions. However, there were a number of limitations to this study. These are
as follows:
- An increased number of schools and pupils participating in both the control and
experimental group would have increased the accuracy of the findings in phase
three of this investigation.
- The use of the modified Science Reasoning Task IV ~ Equilibrium in the Balance
may have slightly affected pupils’ cognitive scores in the post-test.
- The cognitive level of pupils in the control group should also have been
determined in a pre-test in order to compare gains in cognitive level more
accurately.
- Pupils’ gains in mathematical ability as a results of participation in the ITS
Chemistry programme could also have been ascertained if a number of appropriate
test questions were included in the pre-and post test questionnaires.
- Assessment of pupils’ ability at Science and Mathematics is not as accurate as
desired. Pupils’ ability was assessed base on the examinations level (Higher or
Ordinary) they took for their Junior Certificate examination. More detailed
assessment of their Mathematical and Science ability would be needed to
strengthen results.
- There may have been an effect relating to how individual teachers implementing
the programme covered the programme. One teacher failed to turn up for training
and again this may have caused an effect on the results. A second training day, in
the middle of the programme, might have been useful to address any queries or
problems teachers were experiencing.
- Pupils in the control and experimental groups should ideally be followed
throughout the Leaving Certificate course and grades in their Leaving Certificate
examinations should be assessed.

Chapter eight will link the findings of the different phases of this investigation
together. It will summarise the main findings and outline the implication of these
findings for the teaching and learning of Chemistry in the Irish school system.

350
Chapter Eight:
Conclusion

351
 Chapter Eight ~ Conclusion

As mentioned in Section 1.5 of this document, the different phases of this investigation
and the results of the separate phases are very much linked and dependent on each other.
The results of one phase affected the direction and content of the phases that followed.

Section 8.1: How the findings of phase one influenced the direction of phases two
and three of this investigation
The aim of phase one of this investigation was to determine the main areas of difficulty
experienced by Irish Chemistry pupils and students and to determine any significant
factors that may affect the pupils’/students’ perception of whether a Chemistry topic was
easy or difficult. From phase one of this investigation it was concluded that the
pupils/students in this study have difficulty with the majority of Chemistry topics on the
school/university curriculum. Phase one also showed that these difficulties were
persistent throughout the education system and students at third level were still finding
the same Chemistry topics difficult as pupils in second level. In particular pupils/students
have difficulty with Chemistry topics that:
- Are abstract in nature and require formal operational thought in order to be understood,
- Have a high Mathematical content and require the pupil/student to carry out
mathematical calculations, and
- Require a firm understanding of the Particulate Nature of Matter in order to be fully
understood.
The results of phase one of this investigation were used to shape and influence phase two in
the following manner. As the topics that were identified as being difficult were topics that
were abstract and mathematical in nature, an investigation into the cognitive ability of the
pupil needed to be carried out. If the results of phase two indicated that the majority of
pupils were operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development and not at
a formal operational level, this would give one contributing factor to explaining why
certain Chemistry topics were found difficult by the Irish pupils/students. As phase one
highlighted difficulties in topics that require a good understanding of the Particulate Nature
of Matter and the Mole Concept and topics that require pupils to operate at the macro, sub-
micro and symbolic levels it was suggested that misconceptions pupils possess about
certain basic Chemistry topics, such as the atom and phase change, may be affecting the
development of understanding in more complicated Chemistry topics. As a result phase two

352
 also set out to determine if the pupils in this study possessed chemical misconceptions
similar to those found in other studies. At Junior Certificate level pupils’ misconceptions in
the area of the Particulate Nature of Matter were assessed. At Leaving Certificate level
pupils’ misconceptions in the area of the Particulate Nature of Matter, the Mole and
Chemical Equilibrium were assessed. The Mole and Chemical Equilibrium were selected
as topics for this test as they emerged as being difficult for the majority of pupils/students
in phase one of this investigation. If it was determined that the pupils held a substantial
number of chemical misconceptions, these misconceptions would have to be addressed in
phase three of this investigation. Phase one thus influenced phase three of this investigation
as it identified the main difficult Chemistry topics that could be used to develop teaching
strategies around, in order to alleviate the difficulties pupils were having with these topics.
Figure 8.1 illustrates the relationship between phase one and phases two and three of this
investigation.

Phase One ~ Identification of Difficult Chemistry Topics

This phase of the investigation will determine the Chemistry topics that the
majority of Irish Chemistry pupils/students have difficult with.

1 Topics identified in phase were abstract in

1 nature and were high in mathematical
content. They also needed a firm
understanding of the Particulate Nature of
Topics Matter in order to be understood.
identified will
form the basis of
the intervention Phase Two ~ Determination of the reasons why pupils find the
programme for Chemistry topics identified in phase one of this investigation
phase three difficult

This phase of the investigation will analyse the effect of cognitive

development and the existence of Chemistry misconceptions on pupils
understanding of topics identified in phase one and their perceived
difficulty of these topics

Phase Three ~ The development, implementation and evaluation of an intervention programme

aimed at alleviating difficulties pupils have with topics that were identified as being difficult in
phase one

This phase of the investigation will take into account findings from both phase one and two. Topics
identified as being difficult will be developed with teaching strategies aimed at increasing the pupils
thinking skills and altering misconceptions they posses about these topics.

Figure 8.1: Illustration of how phase 1 of this investigation effected the direction and structure
of phases 2 and 3

353
Section 8.2: How the findings of phase two influenced the direction of phase
three of this investigation
Phase two of this investigation focused on determining:
- The cognitive development of pupils/students and how gender, mathematical
ability, Science/Chemistry ability, age, etc are possibly linked with the cognitive
development of the pupil/student, and

- The chemical misconceptions pupils possess about the Particulate Nature of

Matter, The Mole Concept and Chemical Equilibrium and how these
misconceptions may be influenced by gender, mathematical ability,
Science/Chemistry ability, age and cognitive development.

Results of cognitive tests carried out on 2nd and 3rd level pupils/students showed that
the majority of pupils/students were operating at the concrete operational stage of
cognitive development at each level. There was an increase in the percentage
operating at the formal operational level with educational level and age. This means
that while pupils are comfortable with studying concrete, tangible topics on the
Chemistry syllabus (of which there are very few), they have difficulty with
understanding more abstract topics or topics that require them to move between the
macro, sub-micro or symbolic levels, or that include Mathematics. It is important to
note however, the modification of the Science Reasoning Task (SRT) used to assess
pupils cognitive ability may have had an effect on the accuracy of figures obtained
from the tests.

Correlation tests reveal a link between cognitive development and mathematical

ability. Higher level Mathematics pupils were more likely to operate at the formal
operational stage of cognitive development. As most of our pupils/students operate at
the concrete stage of cognitive development, it is unsurprising to see from phase one
that topics which prove difficult for pupils/students are topics that have a high
mathematical content. Links were also identified between Science/Chemistry ability
and cognitive development. Ordinary level Science/Chemistry are more likely to be
operating at the concrete operational stage of cognitive development.

354
Results from phase one of this investigation showed a link between Science/Chemistry
ability and Mathematical ability. This link was also found in the analysis of results from
phase three. Therefore it can be concluded that pupils who have difficulty with Chemistry
do so, at least in part, as a result of their level of cognitive development, which in turn
affects their Mathematical ability and Science/Chemistry ability.

Age and gender were shown to have a less significant effect on cognitive
development in comparison to Mathematical and Science/Chemistry ability. The
older the pupil/student is, the more likely they are to be operating at the formal
operational stage of cognitive development. At Junior Certificate level, there are
fewer male pupils operating at the formal operational stage of cognitive development.
This has evened out by Leaving Certificate level, where there is no significant
relationship between gender and cognitive development. This could be explained by
the different physical and mental development of males and females, which has
evened out by age 17/18 years.

Results of the misconceptions test in phase two indicate that a majority of Junior and
Leaving Certificate pupils hold chemical misconceptions about the Particulate Nature
of matter, the Mole and Chemical Equilibrium. These misconceptions held by a pupil
decrease as they move from Junior Certificate level to Leaving Certificate level,
however, this however is only a slight decrease. Cognitive level and Mathematical
ability again emerged as significant factors on the number of chemical
misconceptions a pupil possesses. Pupils functioning at the formal operational stage
of cognitive development and who took higher level Mathematics were shown to
possess fewer chemical misconceptions than pupils at the concrete operational stage
of cognitive development and who took ordinary level Mathematics. At Junior
Certificate level female pupils possess fewer misconceptions than male pupils but this
trend reverses at Leaving Certificate level.

Figure 8.2 outlines how the results and findings of phase two shaped the direction of
phase three of this investigation. In summary, the results of phase two indicate that
pupils are struggling to understand many Chemistry topics, firstly, because they do
not have the cognitive ability to comprehend them and, secondly, because the

355
chemical misconceptions they possess about basic concepts are negatively affecting
the pupils’ understanding of new topics.

Phase Two ~ Determination of the reasons why pupils find the

Chemistry topics identified in phase one of this investigation difficult

This phase of the investigation will analyse the effect of cognitive

development and the existence of Chemistry misconceptions on pupils
understanding of topics identified in phase one and their perceived
difficulty of these topics

Cognitive Development and the possession of a large number of

2 Chemical misconceptions seem to be affecting pupils’
performance in Leaving Certificate Chemistry. As these aspects
are causing difficulty for pupils’ strategies to address these areas
will be developed during phase three of this investigation

Phase Three ~ The development, implementation and evaluation of an intervention

programme aimed at alleviating difficulties pupils have with topics that were identified as
being difficult in phase one

This phase of the investigation will take into account findings from both phase one and two.
Topics identified as being difficult will be developed with teaching strategies aimed at
increasing the pupils thinking skills and altering misconceptions they posses about these topics.

Figure 8.2: Illustration of how phase 2 of this investigation effected the direction and structure
of phase 3

In order to alleviate difficulties pupils are having with certain Chemistry topics, it is
imperative that the misconceptions pupils possess about these topics are addressed and
altered in an effective manner. Misconceptions are developed as a result of the prior
experiences of the pupils, the manner in which they have been taught, the language used
or misused in the classroom, the approach taken in the pupils’ textbooks and the style of
teaching. This phase of the investigation shows that the fundamental ideas underpinning
chemical understanding are not being taught effectively in the schools involved in this
study. The basic misunderstandings persist from Junior Certificate to Leaving certificate
level and almost certainly into 3rd level. The third phase of this investigation aimed to
develop teaching approaches and resources to address these problems from junior cycle
upwards, and evaluate whether these strategies are effective in improving pupils’
understanding of Chemistry by removing misconceptions. Phase three of this
investigation involved developing teaching strategies and testing that will encourage the

356
development of the cognitive ability of the Chemistry pupil. The topics around which
these teaching methodologies and strategies were developed were the Particulate Nature
of Matter and The Mole Concept. These topics were chosen for a number of reasons:

- The Particulate Nature of Matter has been chosen as a result of the findings of
phase one and two of this investigation. A majority of the topics that were
identified as being difficult in phase one of this investigation needed a firm
understanding of the Particulate Nature of Matter in order to be understood. It also
emerged in phase two of this investigation that a large number of Chemical
misconceptions exist in relation to this topic in the minds of Junior and Leaving
Certificate pupils. These misconceptions need to be addressed if pupils are to be
successful in Chemistry.

- The Mole Concept was chosen as a topic for phase three, as it emerged as one of
the topics that the majority of Leaving Certificate pupils and 3rd level students
have difficulty with. It was also the section of the misconceptions test that was
answered most poorly by Leaving Certificate pupils.

- Both topics were selected because they can be described as ‘threshold concepts’.
‘A threshold concept opens up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking
about something. It represents a transformed way of understanding, or
interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress’.
(Meyer and Land, 2003). It is important that pupils master these concepts as
‘many students are not constructing appropriate understandings of fundamental
chemical concepts from the very beginning of their studies. Therefore, they cannot
fully understand the more advanced concepts that build upon the fundamentals’
(Nakhleh, 1992).

- Both topics are taught at the beginning of the Chemistry course at Leaving
Certificate level and this is an obvious place to begin an intervention programme.

357
Section 8.3: How the findings of phase three can influence the teaching and
learning of Chemistry in the Irish school system
The initial results of phase three indicate that it is indeed possible to improve the
thinking skills of pupils, through an infusion of different teaching methodologies into
the Irish Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus. While a deeper evaluation of the
‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme is necessary, there is no doubt that it is
successful to some extent in addressing chemical misconceptions possessed by pupils,
that prevent true understanding of a variety of different Chemistry topics. It also has
an effect on the cognitive ability of the pupil, but this needs further investigation. A
short intervention increased the percentage of pupils operating at the formal level of
cognitive development above that of the sample in phase two that had completed the
Leaving Certificate course. However, results of phase three have again reiterated the
connection between mathematical ability, the chemical misconceptions held by a
pupil and their cognitive development.

The ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention programme saw the infusion of successful Cognitive
Acceleration (CA) intervention strategies into the Leaving Certificate Chemistry
syllabus. Phase three of this investigation has proven that it is possible to develop
lessons to include these methodologies without interfering with the delivery of the
prescribed syllabus. In order to alleviate problems Irish pupils have with the study of
Chemistry it is important to address a number of areas, bearing in mind a number of
these areas are connected with each other. These include:
- Developing pupils’ mathematical skills and understanding;
- Developing the cognitive level of the pupil in order to be able to understand and
cope with the abstract aspects of Chemistry (of which there are many); and
- Addressing and acknowledging the chemical misconceptions that pupils may
possess and offering a forum for discussion and debate among peers that will alter
and eliminate these misconceptions which negatively effect progression and
understanding in Chemistry.

The approach taken in this intervention programme can and should be applied to all
topics in the Leaving Certificate Chemistry syllabus. Prolonged exposure to these
techniques will undoubtedly go a long way to alleviating difficulties pupils have with
the majority of topics on the Chemistry syllabus. The effects shown on both the

358
cognitive ability and reduction of chemical misconceptions in this short intervention
project suggest that using this approach for the whole course would have very
significant effects. It should produce pupils who are much better prepared to study
Chemistry and related subjects at third level.

Section 8.4: Recommendations arising from this study

The following are the recommendations arising from this study. It is recommended that:
- A similar approach to the one taken in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme be taken with abstract topics such as phase change, the atom,
elements, mixtures and bonding (i.e. the Particulate Nature of Matter) where they
first occur in the Junior Certificate syllabus in order to prevent the development of
chemical misconceptions at this level and to improve understanding of these core
topics in Chemistry. Many aspects of the first four units of the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme could be used with Junior Certificate Science pupils, thus
providing a good foundation for further studies.

- The cognitive ability of pupils at all levels in the Irish education system needs to
be taken into account. It should not be assumed. Results from this investigation
indicate that the cognitive ability of the pupils/students is central to their
performance in Chemistry and also Mathematics, both in second level and at third
level. Teaching strategies need to take account of the actual cognitive abilities of
pupils/students and seek to develop advanced thinking skills.

- The chemical misconceptions associated with different topics, should also be

noted and addressed openly in class in order to alter and deal with ideas that may
be preventing true understanding of many Chemistry topics.

- Students in third level are not properly equipped for further study of Chemistry.
Tutorials should be made available at the start of their studies to ensure pupils are
entering third level education with a proper grasp of the basic topics in Chemistry.
If necessary these should also address key chemical misconceptions.

359
- The ‘ITS Chemistry’ materials that have been developed for this project also need
to be edited and altered according to recommendations made by participating
teachers and made available for teachers to use.

- Teachers need to be made aware of the Science education research that is on-
going in Ireland, and that the results, findings and materials of this investigation
made available to them so as to assist with their continuous professional
development. The findings also need to be incorporated with Irish Chemistry
textbooks so that there is a coherent research-based approach to teaching and
learning.

Section 8.5: Suggestions for further work

A number of findings that emerged during the course of this investigation were not
investigated and as a result there are a number of suggestions for further study. These are
as follows:
- A larger scale investigation of the effects of the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme needs to be carried out in order to strengthen results that indicate it has a
positive effect on the cognitive development of pupils and also in reducing the
number of chemical misconceptions pupils hold.

- An assessment of the performance of pupils, who took part in the ‘ITS Chemistry’
intervention programme and the control group, in their Leaving Certificate
examinations should also be carried out in order to determine if the intervention has
had any effect on grade level in Chemistry, or whether like the CASE project has had
any transfer effect on the grades of other subjects.

- Other topics that emerged in phase one of this investigation as being difficult by the
Chemistry pupils/students e.g. Organic Chemistry and Chemical Equilibrium, should
also be addressed in a similar manner to those in the ‘ITS Chemistry’ intervention
programme. It is suggested that a similar approach may also be used to alleviate
difficulties pupils are having with these topics.

- The chemical misconceptions possessed by student teachers of Science and

Chemistry should also be assessed and addressed. If teachers possess chemical

360
 misconceptions, these in turn will be passed on to their pupils. It is also important that
these future teachers are aware of the different chemical misconceptions that exist and
how to deal with them.

- Continuous professional development should be provided for teachers to make them

aware of these areas of difficulty. Training on how to use the teaching methodologies
developed in this project to alleviate these difficulties should also be provided.

- The findings of this work would also need to be incorporated into Irish Chemistry
textbooks and into the modes of assessment, in order to provide a coherent and
consistent learning framework for the teaching of Chemistry.

361
References

362
 References
Adey, P. and Shayer, M. (1993) ‘An exploration of long-term far-transfer effects
following an extended intervention programme in high school science curriculum’
Cognition and Instruction, 11, 1-29.

Adey, P. and Shayer, M. (1994) Really Raising Standards - Cognitive Intervention and
Academic Achievement, 1st Edition, UK: Routledge.

Adey, P. (1996) ‘Does motivation style explain the CASE differences? A reply to Leo
and Galloway’ International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 51-53

Adey, P. (1999) ‘The Science of Thinking, and Science for Thinking: A Description of
Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) Innodata Monographs 2’.
International Bureau of Education, Switzerland.

Adey, P., Shayer, M. and Yates, C. (2001) Thinking Science ~ the materials of the CASE
project, 3rd edition, Great Britain: Ashford Color press.

Adey, P., Robertson A. and Venville G (2002) ‘Effects of a cognitive acceleration

programme on Year 1 pupils’ British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(1), 1-25.

Adey, P. (2004) The Professional Development of Teachers: Practise and Theory,

The Netherlands, Kluwer: Academic Publishers.

Ausubel D., Novak J. and Hanesian H. (1978) Educational Psychology, A Cognitive

View, Holt, London: Rinehart and Winston.

Barker, V. (2000) ‘Beyond Appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic

chemical ideas’ A report prepared for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Institute of
Education, London.

Bearison, D.J. (1975) ‘Induced versus Spontaneous Attainment of Concrete

Operations and their Relationship to School Achievement’, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 67, 576-580.

363
 References (contd.)

Blagg, N. R., Lewis, R. E. and Ballinger, M. P. (1993) Thinking and Learning at

Work: A report on the development and evaluation of the thinking skills at work
modules. Sheffield: Department of Employment.

Bodner, G. (1986) ‘Constructivism: A Theory of Knowledge’, Journal of Chemical

Education, 63(10), 873-878.

Bojezuk, M. (1982) ‘Topic Difficulties in O and A Level Chemistry’, School Science

Review, 63(224), 545-551.

Boli, J., Allen, M. and Payne, A. (1985) ‘High-Ability Women and Men in
Undergraduate Mathematics and Chemistry Courses’ American Educational Research
Journal, 22(4), 605-626.

Boujaoude, S., Salloum, S. and Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004) ‘Relationships between

selective cognitive variables and students ability to solve chemislty problems’
International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 63-84.

Breuer, S. (2002) ‘Does Chemistry have a Future?’, University Chemistry Education,

6, 13 –16.

Briggs, H. and Holding, B. (1986) Aspects of Secondary Students’ understanding of

elementary ideas in chemistry: Full Report Children’s Learning in Science Project
Leeds: University of Leeds.

Brousseau, N. (2005) ‘High-school students’ problems learning the concept of mole:

2005 A study to eventually get it right?’, paper presented at the 18th biennial ChemEd
Conference, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
July 31-Aug 4 2005.

Brunning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., and Ronning, R. R. (1995) Cognitive Psychology and
Instruction, 2nd ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

364
 References (contd.)

Bucat, B., 2004, ‘Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a way forward: applied research
in Chemistry education’ Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 215-228

Bunce, D. (2005) ‘Solving Word Problems in Chemistry: Why do some Students have
Difficulties and what can be done to Help?’ in Pienta, N., Cooper, M. and Greenbowe,
T. eds., Chemists Guide to Effective Teaching, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 106-116.

Cardellini, L. (2006) ‘Fostering Creative Problem Solving in Chemistry through

Group Work’, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 131-140.

Cepni, S., Ozsevgec, T. and Cerrah, L. (2003) Turkish Middle School Students'
Cognitive Development Levels in Science Online Submission, Asia-Pacific Forum on
Science Learning and Teaching, available at:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?
_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED497339&ERICExtSearch_Searc
hType_0=no&accno=ED497339 [accessed 12 Dec 2009].

Cheung, D. and Bucat, R. (2002) ‘How can we construct good multiple-choice items’
Paper presented at the science and technology education conference Hong Kong June
20-21, 2002.

Chiappetta, E. (1976) ‘A review of Piagetian Studies Relevant to Science Instruction

at the Secondary and College Level’, Science Education, 60(2), 253-261.

Chief Examiners Report in Chemistry (2002), available at: http://www.examinations.ie

[accessed 4 Aug 2007].

Chief Examiners Report in Chemistry (2005), available at: http://www.examinations.ie

[accessed 4 Aug 2007].

Chief Examiners Report in Science (2006), available at: http://www.examinations.ie

[accessed 4 Aug 2007].

365
 References (contd.)

Chief Examiners Report in Chemistry (2008), available at: http://www.examinations.ie

[accessed 4 Oct 2009].

Chiu, M. (2005) ‘A National Survey of Students’ Conceptions in Chemistry in

Taiwan’, Chemical Education International, 6(1), 1-8.

Claesgens, J. and Stacy, A. (2003). ‘What are students initial ideas about ‘amount of
substance? Is there a specific weight for a mole?’ Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educations Research Association, Chicago,IL, April 2003.

Coakes, S.J, and Steed, L.G. ((2001) ‘SPSS analysis without Anguish’ Brisbane, John
Wiley and Sons Australia LTD.

Coll, K., Ali, S. and Bonato J. (2006) ‘Investigating First Year Chemistry Learning
Difficulties in the South Pacific: A Case Study from Fiji’ International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 365-390.

Cotton, S. (2000) The Secondary/tertiary Interface in Chemistry; a teacher’s

perspective [online], available at:
http://www.chemsoc.org/pdf/LearnNet/rsc/cotton.pdf [accessed 10 April 2007].

Cracolice, M. (2005) ‘How Students learn: Knowledge Construction in College

Chemistry Courses’ in Pienta, N., Cooper, M. and Greenbowe, T. eds., Chemists
Guide to Effective Teaching, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,12 –27.

Crawford, K. (1996) Vygotskian approaches to human development in the information

era. Educational Studies in Mathematics, (31) 43-62.

De Bono, E. (1976) Teaching Thinking. London: Temple Smith.

De Bono, E. (1991) Teaching Thinking. London: Penguin Books.

366
 References (contd.)

Danili, W. and Reid, N. (2006) ‘Cognitive Factors That Can Potentially Affect Pupil’s
Test Performance’, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 64-83.

Dickson, T. (2004) ‘Thinking Science’

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/education/projects/nessc/tutor_pack_5/day_6/6.3%20Presentat
ion.ppt (accessed 20th December 2008).

Donaldson, M. (1978), Children’s minds, Surrey: Biddles Ltd.

Edwards, J. (1991) ‘The direct teaching of thinking skills. In Learning and Teaching
Cognitive Skills’ Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
.
Eilks, I., Moellering, J. and Valanides, N. (2007) ‘Seventh-grade Students'
understanding of Chemical Reactions: Reflections from an Action Research Interview
Study’ Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 271-
286.

Elwood, J. and Carlisle, K. (2001), Gender and Achievement in the Junior and
Leaving Certificate Examinations 2000/2001, Research conducted on behalf of the
NCCA, Queens University, Belfast.

Endler, L. and Bond, T. (2001) ‘Cognitive development in a secondary science

setting’ Research in Science Education, 30(4), 403-416.

Endler, L. and Bond, T. (2007) ‘Changing Science Outcomes: Cognitive Acceleration

in a US Setting’ Research in Science Education, 38(2):149-166.

ESRI (2007) ‘Research into the experiences of students in the third year of Junior
Cycle and in transition to Senior Cycle Summary and Commentary’ available at:
http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/publications/ESRI_3rdYr.pdf [accessed 4 Oct
2009].

367
 References (contd.)

Eivers, E., Shiel, G. and Cunningham, R. (2006) Ready for Tomorrow’s World ~ The
Competencies of Irelands 15-year-olds in PISA 2006, Educational Research Centre,
Dublin.

Fensham, P. and Kass, H. (1988) ‘Inconsistent or discrepant events in science

instruction’ Studies in Science Education, 15, 1-16.

Feuerstein, R, Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental
Enrichment: An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore, MD:
University Park Press.

Fisher, R. (1998), Teaching Thinking: Philosiphical enquiry in the classroom,

London: Cassell.

Flynn, S. (2009) ‘CAO points for science courses rise’ available at:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0817/breaking27.html [accessed 4
Oct 2009].

Gabel, D. (1999) ‘Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry Education

Research: A look to the Future’, Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548-554.

Gabel, D. (2005) ‘Enhancing Students Conceptual Understanding of Chemistry

through Integrating the Macroscopic, Particle and Symbolic Representations of
Matter’, in Pienta, N., Cooper, M. and Greenbowe, T. eds., Chemists Guide to
Effective Teaching, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 77-89.

Garnett, P. and Garnett, P. (1990) ‘Implications of Research on Student’s Understanding

of Electrochemistry for Improving Science Curricula and Classroom Practice’,
International Journal of Science Education, 12(2) 147-156.

Garnett, P., Garnett, P. and Hackling, M. (1995) ‘Students’ Alternative Conceptions

in Chemistry: A Review of Research and Implications for Teaching’, Studies in
Science Education, 25, 69-95.

368
 References (contd.)

Georgiadou, A. and Tsaparlis, G. (2000) ‘Chemistry Teaching in Lower Secondary

School with Methods Based on: A) Psychological Theories and B) The Macro,
Representational, and the Submicro Levels of Chemistry’, Chemistry Education
Research and Practice in Europe, 1(2), 217-226.

Goodstein, M. and Howe, A. (1978) ‘The Use of Concrete Methods in Secondary

Chemistry Instruction’ Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(5), 361-66.

Goodstein, M. (1983) ‘Reflections Upon Mathematics in the Introductory Chemistry

Course’, Journal of Chemical Education, 60(8), 665-667.

Gower, D., Daniels, D. and Lloyd, M (1977) ‘Hierarchies among concepts which
underlie the mole’ School Science Review, 59, 285-299.

Griffiths, A. and Kirk R. (1992) ‘Grade-12 Students' Misconceptions Relating to

Fundamental Characteristics of Atoms and Molecules’ Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29 (6), 611 – 628.

Haidar A. H. and Abraham M. R. (1991). ‘A comparison of applied and theoretical

knowledge of concepts based on the particulate nature of matter’, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 28(10), 919–938.

Herron, J. (1978) ‘Piaget in the Classroom’ Journal of Chemical Education, 55(3),

165-170.

Higgins, Y. (2009) ‘ISTA Questionnaire on Junior Certificate Science’ Science,

November 2009, 17 -19.

Holbrook, J. (2005) ‘Making Chemistry Teaching Relevant’, Chemical Education

International, 6(1), 1-11.

369
 References (contd.)

Huddle, P. and Pillay, A. (1996) ‘An in-depth study of misconceptions in

stoichiometry and chemical equilibrium at a South African university’ Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 65-77.

Hunter-Grundin, E. (1985) ‘Teaching Thinking: An evaluation of Edward de Bono's

Classroom Materials’. London: The Schools Council.

IBEC (2000) Educating a Skilled Workforce available at:

http://www.ibec.ie/ibec/press/presspublicationsdoclib3.nsf/wvPCDCCC/F04F2D83F
CF011BB80256A0B003180AA?OpenDocument [accessed 31 Oct 2006].

IBEC (2009 a) ‘Pharmachem sector remains strong’ available at:

http://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Press/PressPublicationsdoclib3.nsf/vPages/Newsroom~phar
machem-sector-remains-strong-22-05-2009?OpenDocument [accessed 4 Oct 2009].

IBEC (2009 b) ‘Reaction to Leaving Certificate results 2009’, available at:

http://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Press/PressPublicationsDocLib3.nsf/vPages/05B0C6FA7E5
FB52D8025761000338D82?OpenDocument [accessed 4 Oct 2009].

ICT (2009) ‘Reaction to Leaving Certificate results 2009’available at:

http://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Press/PressPublicationsdoclib3.nsf/vPages/Newsroom~ict-
ireland-reaction-to-leaving-certificate-results-2009-12-08-2009?OpenDocument
[accessed 4 Oct 2009].

Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to
Adolescence. New York: Basic Books.

International Review Panel (2009) ‘An Evaluation of Discover Science and

Engineering’ available at:
http://www.forfas.ie/publication/search.jsp?ft=/publications/2009/Title,4061,en.php
[accessed 4 Oct 2009].

370
 References (contd.)

IPCMF (2003) ‘Improved science results welcomed by industry’, available at:

http://www.pharmachemicalireland.ie/ibec/press/presspublicationsdoclib3.nsf/wvIPC
MFNews/B3DEBF6B4C06D5EE80256D82004EBC51?OpenDocument [accessed 31
Oct 2006].

Irish Independent (2001) ‘Industry facing a science crisis, says IBEC’, Irish
Independent, 12 Nov 2001.

Jimoh A. T., (2005), Perception of difficult topics in chemistry curriculum by students

in Nigeria secondary schools’, Ilorin Journal of Education, 24, 71-78.

Johnstone, A. (1984) ‘New Stars For The Teacher To Steer By?’, Journal of Chemical
Education, 61(10), 847-849.

Johnstone, A. (1991) ‘Why is Science Difficult to learn? Things Are Seldom What
they Seem’, Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 7, 75.

Johnstone, A. Watt, A. Zaman, T.U. (1998) ‘The Students’ Attitude and Cognition
Change to a Physics Laboratory’, Physics Education, 33(10), 22-29.

Johnstone, A. (2000 a) ‘Chemical Education research: Where from here?’, University

Chemistry Education, 4(10), 34-38.

Johnstone, A. (2000 b) ‘Teaching of Chemistry – Logical or Psychological?’,

Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 9-15.

Johnstone, A. (2006) ‘Chemical Education Research in Glasgow in Perspective’

Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 49-63.

371
 References (contd.)

Jonathan, E., Wu, H. and Tal, R. (2003) Students' understanding of the particulate
nature of matter’ School Science and Mathematics, available at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3667/is_200301/ai_n9220178 [accessed 29th
Nov 2008].

Junior Certificate Chemistry Syllabus (2003), [online] available:

http://www.juniorscience.ie/jsss/Files/syllabus%20doccument.pdf [accessed 15 Aug
2009].

Karplus, R. (1977) ‘Science Teaching and the Development of Reasoning’, Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 14(2), 169-175.

Kikas, E. and Hillar, S. (2003) ‘Difficulties in Acquiring Theoretical Concepts: A

Case of High School Chemistry’ TRAMES, 2, 99 – 119.

Lawson, A., and Renner, J. (1975) ‘Relationships of Science Subject Matter and
Developmental Levels of Learners’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(4),
347-358.

Leaving Certificate Chemistry Syllabus (2002), available at:

http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/lc_chemistry_sy.pdf [accessed 15 Aug
2009].

Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S., Kim, J., Kwon, H. and Park, H. (2003) ‘Development of
an Instrument for Measuring Cognitive Conflict in Secondary-Level Science Classes’
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 585-603.

Leo, E., Galloway, D. (1995) ‘Conceptual links between Cognitive Acceleration

through Science Education and motivational style: A critique of Shayer and Adey’
International Journal of Science Education, 18(1):35- 49.

372
 References (contd.)
Lewis, S and Lewis, E. (2007) ‘Predicting at-risk students in general chemistry: comparing
formal thought to a general achievement measure’ Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, 8(1), 32-51.

Lippincott, W. T. (1978) ‘Piaget: How best to use his findings?’ Journal of Chemical
Education, 55(3), 139.

Lyons, H. (1995) ‘The New Chemistry Syllabus – An Overview’ Chemistry in Action, 46,
21-24.

MacDonald, J. (1984) ‘The mole: how should it be taught?’ School Science Review, 65
(232), 486-497.

Mancy, R. and Reid, N. (2004) ‘Aspects of Cognitive Style and Programming’, paper
presented at the 16th workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Carlow,
Ireland, April 2004, available at: http://www.ppig.org/papers/16th-mancy.pdf [accessed 7th
Dec 2009].

Mathews, P. (2007), ‘The Relevance of Science Education in Ireland (ROSE Project)’ The
Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.

Mathabatha, S (2005) ‘The effect of laboratory based teaching and traditional based
teaching on students conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium’ ~ dissertation from
University of Pretoria.

Maume, K, and Mathews, P. (2000) ‘A study of Cognitive accelerated learning in Science’

Irish Educational Studies, 19, 95 – 106.

McLellan, R. (2006) ‘The Impact of Motivational \World-view" on Engagement in a

Cognitive Acceleration Programme’ International Journal of Science Education, 28(7),
781- 819.

373
 References (contd.)
Mbajiorgu, N. and Reid, N. (2006) Factors Influencing Curriculum Development in
Chemistry. A Physical Science Practice Guide, Edinburgh: Published by the Higher
Education Academy Physical Science Centre.

McCormack, L. (2009) ‘Cognitive Acceleration across the primary-second level

transition’ unpublished thesis (PhD), Dublin City University.

McGinnity, J. (2007) ‘Whats up? Whats down?’, The Irish Times, 20 August, 2007.

McGuinness, C. (1999) ‘From Thinking Skills to Thinking Classrooms’ ISBN, available

at: http://www.sustainablethinkingclassrooms.qub.ac.uk/DFEE_Brief_115.pdf [accessed
15 Aug 2009].

McGuinness, C. (2000) ‘ACTS: A methodology for enhancing thinking

skills across-the-curriculum’ Teaching Thinking, available at:
http://www.sustainablethinkingclassrooms.qub.ac.uk/ACTS_for_Teach_Think.pdf
[accessed 15 Aug 2009].

McGuinness, C. (2005) ‘Teaching thinking: Theory and practice’ BJEP Monograph

Series II, Number 3 - Pedagogy - Teaching for Learning, 1(1), 107-126.

McLaughlin, S. (2003) Effect of modelling instruction on the development of

proportional reasoning II: [online], available at:
http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling/McLaughlinS_PropReas-II_03.pdf [accessed 23 July
2007].

Merritt, J., Shwartz, Y. and Krajcik, J. (2007) ‘Middle school student’s development of
the particle model of matter’ A paper presented at the annual meeting of the national
association of research in science teaching, , New Orleans, LA April 2007.

Meyer, J. and Land, R, (2003) Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge –

Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practicing’ in Improving Student Learning – Ten
Years On, C. Rust (Ed), OCSLD, Oxford.

374
 References (contd.)

Millar, D. and Kellaghan, T. (2003) Grading in the Leaving Certificate Examination:

A Discussion Paper, Education Research Centre: Dublin.

Millar, R., Acton, D., Fullerton, A. and Maltby, J. (2002) SPSS for Social Scientists.
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hamshire, Palgrave MacMillan.

Mulford, D. and Robinson, W. (2002) ‘An Inventory for Alternate Conceptions

Among First Semester General Chemistry Students’ Journal of Chemical Education,
79(6), 739-744.

National Research Council (1997) ‘Misconceptions as Barriers to Understanding

Science’ (Chapter 4 from, Science Teaching Reconsidered) Center for Science
Mathematics and Engineering Education, Washington, D.C: The National Academies
Press.

Nakhleh, M. (1992) ‘Why Some Students don’t Learn Chemistry’.Journal of

Chemical Education, 69 (3), 191.

NFER (1979) ‘Science Reasoning Tasks’, National Foundation for Educational

Research Publishing, Windsor.

Novick, S., Nussbaum, J. (1981) ‘Pupils’ Understanding of the Particulate Nature of

Matter: A Cross-Age Study’ Science Education, 65 (2), 187-196.

Ó Dálaigh, C. (2001) Supporting Education in the Physical Science, The Irish

Scientist Yearbook [online], available at:
http://www.irishscientist.ie/2001/contents.asp?contentxml=01p18.xml&contentxsl=IS
01pages.xsl [accessed 17 Oct 2006].

Osborne, R. and Cosgrove, M. (1983) ‘Children’s conceptions of the changes of state

of water’ Journal of research in Science Teaching, 20 (9), 825-838.

375
 References (contd.)

Osborne, J. (2003) ‘Attitudes Towards Science: A Review of the Literature and Its
Implications’ International Journal of Science Education, 25 (9), 1049-1079.

Özmen, H. (2004) ‘Some Student Misconceptions in Chemistry: A Literature Review

of Chemical Bonding’ Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13 (2), 147-
159.

Piaget, J. (1973), Piaget in the Classroom, New York: Basic Books.

Pinarbasi, T. and Canpolat, N. (2003) ‘Students’ Understanding of Solution

Chemistry Concepts’, Journal of Chemical Education, 80(11), 1328-1332.

Prophet, R. B. and Vlaardingerbroek, B. (2003) ‘The Relevance of Secondary School

Chemistry Education in Botswana: A Cognitive Development Status Perspective’
International Journal of Educational Development, 23(3), 275-289.

Ratcliffe, M. (2002) ‘What’s Difficult about A-Level Chemistry’ Education in

Chemistry, 39(3), 76-80.

Renner, J. (1976) ‘Significant Physics Content and Intellectual Development’,

Americal Journal of Physics, 44, 218-222.

Report on the Task force on the Physical Science (2002), available at:
http://www.skillsireland.ie/press/relatedreports/pdf/taskforce_on_physicalsciences_re
port_2002.pdf [accessed 1 Aug 2007].

RIA (2005) ‘Can Ireland Deliver? [Press Release], 18 July, available at:
http://www.ria.ie/committees/pdfs/physcialsciences/science_report.pdf [accessed 17
July 2007].

Robinson, W. (2003) ‘Chemistry Problem Solving: Symbol, Macro, Micro and

Process Aspects’, Journal of Chemical Education, 80(9), 978 – 982.

376
 References (contd.)

Rowell, J. A and Dawson, C. J. (1980) ‘Mountain or Mole Hill: Can Cognitive

Psychology Reduce the Dimensions of Conceptual Problems in Classroom Practice?’
Science Education, 64 (5), 693-708.

Shayer, M. (1970) ‘How to Assess Science Courses’, Education in Chemistry, 7, 182-

186.

Shayer, M., Kuchemann, D. and Wylam, H. (1976) ‘The distribution of Piagetian

stages of thinking in British middle and secondary school children’ British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 46, 164-173.

Shayer M. and Adey P., (1981), ‘Towards a science of science teaching’, London:
Heinemann.

Shayer, M. (2000) ‘GCSE 1999: Added-value from schools adopting the CASE
Intervention’. Centre for the Advancement of Thinking. King’s College, London.

Shayer, M., Ginsburg D. and Coe R., (2007) ‘Thirty years on - a large anti-Flynn
effect? The Piagetian test Volume and Heaviness norms 1975-2003’, British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 77, 25-41.

Shayer, M. and Adhami, M. (2007) ‘The impact of a thinking skills approach

(CAME) on students' mathematical ability’ Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64,
265-291.

Smith, L. (1986) ‘Common – Core Curriculum – A Piagetian Conceptualisation’,

British Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 55-71.

Smyth, E. and Hannan, C. (2006) ‘School Effects and Subject Choice: The Uptake of
Scientific Subjects in Ireland’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(3),
303-327.

377
 References (contd.)

Santrock, J. (2008) A Topical Approach to Life-Span Development, New York: The

McGraw-Hill Companies.

Taber, K. (2000) ‘Chemistry Lessons for Universities?: A Review of Constructivist

Ideas’, University Chemistry Education, 4(2), 63-72.

Taber, K. (2001) ‘Building the Structural Concepts of Chemistry: Some

Considerations for Educational Research’, Chemistry Education Research and
Practice in Europe, 2(2), 123-158.

Tsaparlis, G. (1997) ‘Atomic and Molecular Structure in Chemical Education’,

Journal of Chemical Education, 74(8), 922-924.

Valanides, N. (2000), ‘Primary Student Teachers’ Understanding of the Particulate

Nature of Matter and its transformations during Dissolving’, Chemistry Education:
Research and Practice in Europe, 1(2), 249-262.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind and society: The development of higher mental
processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walsh, E. and Edwards, R. (2009) ‘Buns, scissors and strawberry laces – a model of
science education?’ Education in Science, 235, 12 – 13.

Wankat, P. and Oreovicz, F. (1993). Models of cognitive development: Piaget and

Perry. Teaching Engineering, Chapter 14, available at:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ChE/AboutUs/Publications/TeachingEng/chapter14.pdf
[accessed 7th Dec 2009].

Yezdan B. (2006) ‘Turkish Pupils’ Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter’

Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15 (2), 203-213.

378
 References (contd.)

Yezierski, E. and Birk, J. (2006) ‘Misconceptions about the Particulate Nature of

Matter’ Journal of Chemical Education, 83 (6), 954-960.

Zoller, U. (1993) ‘Are Lecture and Learning Compatible?’, Journal of Chemical

Education, 70, 195-197.

379
 Appendix A ~
Questionnaires used in phase
one of this investigation
 Junior Certificate Chemistry Questionnaire

Listed here are the different topics in the Chemistry section of your Junior Certificate
Chemistry Course. 1= Very easy and 5= Very Difficult. 3= means that you found the topic
neither easy nor difficult. 6= means that you have never studied or been taught this topic

Male/Female: ______________________ Age: __________________

Subject Level (Higher or Ordinary)

Science
Maths

(Put a cross through the number, 1-6, that you have chosen for the topics listed)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Topic Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very Never
easy nor Difficult studied it
difficult

Acid rain 1 2 3 4 5 6
Acids and Bases 1 2 3 4 5 6
Air 1 2 3 4 5 6
Atomic number 1 2 3 4 5 6
Atoms 1 2 3 4 5 6
Carbon dioxide 1 2 3 4 5 6
Changes of State 1 2 3 4 5 6
Chemical Changes 1 2 3 4 5 6
Chemical Equations 1 2 3 4 5 6
Compounds 1 2 3 4 5 6
Covalent bonding 1 2 3 4 5 6
Covalent compounds 1 2 3 4 5 6
Crystallisation 1 2 3 4 5 6
Electronic configuration 1 2 3 4 5 6
Elements 1 2 3 4 5 6
Groups of elements 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ionic bonding 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ionic compounds 1 2 3 4 5 6
Isotopes 1 2 3 4 5 6
Matter 1 2 3 4 5 6
Metals 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mixtures 1 2 3 4 5 6
Neutralisation reactions 1 2 3 4 5 6
Oxygen 1 2 3 4 5 6
Periodic table 1 2 3 4 5 6
pH 1 2 3 4 5 6
Physical Changes 1 2 3 4 5 6
Plastics 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reactions of elements 1 2 3 4 5 6
Separating mixtures 1 2 3 4 5 6
Solutions 1 2 3 4 5 6
States of matter 1 2 3 4 5 6
Water 1 2 3 4 5 6
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry Questionnaire
Below are the different topics covered in the Leaving Certificate Chemistry Course. 1= Very Easy and 5= Very
difficult. 3= means that you found the topic neither easy nor difficult. 6=Indicates a topic you have never been
taught or studied
Male/Female: _____________________ Age: ______________________

Subject Level (higher/ordinary level)

Maths
Chemistry

(Put a cross through the number, 1-6, that you have chosen for the topics listed)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Topic Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very Never
easy nor Difficult studied
difficult it

Acid/Base equilbria 1 2 3 4 5 6
Acids and Bases (Arrhenius, Bronsted- 1 2 3 4 5 6
Lowry)
Activation energy 1 2 3 4 5 6
Alkanes and alkenes 1 2 3 4 5 6
Analysing results of experiments 1 2 3 4 5 6
Atomic structure 1 2 3 4 5 6
Balancing equations 1 2 3 4 5 6
Carbonyl groups 1 2 3 4 5 6
Carboxylic acids 1 2 3 4 5 6
Carrying out experiments 1 2 3 4 5 6
Catalysis 1 2 3 4 5 6
Chemical equilibria: calculations 1 2 3 4 5 6
Chemical equilibria: effects of temp 1 2 3 4 5 6
etc
Chromatography: HPLC, GC 1 2 3 4 5 6
Concentration of solutions, %w/w, 1 2 3 4 5 6
%w/v, %v/v and ppm
Covalent Bonding 1 2 3 4 5 6
Electronegativity, trends across and 1 2 3 4 5 6
down periodic table, using it to
determine bond type
Electronic structure of atoms, energy 1 2 3 4 5 6
levels etc
Endothermic and Exothermic reactions 1 2 3 4 5 6
Equilibrium 1 2 3 4 5 6
Equilibrium Constant Kc 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gas Laws 1 2 3 4 5 6
Halogen chemistry 1 2 3 4 5 6
Halogenalkanes 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hess’s Law 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic and aromatic 1 2 3 4 5 6
Infra red spectroscopy 1 2 3 4 5 6
 1 2 3 4 5 6
Topic Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very Never
easy nor Difficult studied it
difficult

Intermolecular forces 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ionic Bonding 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ionisation energy 1 2 3 4 5 6
Isomerism 1 2 3 4 5 6
Le Chatelier’s principle 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mass spectrometry 1 2 3 4 5 6
Naming organic compounds and 1 2 3 4 5 6
structure
Oil refining and fuels 1 2 3 4 5 6
Organic reaction mechanisms e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6
addition
Organic synthesis 1 2 3 4 5 6
Oxidation Number 1 2 3 4 5 6
Patterns and trends of the periodic 1 2 3 4 5 6
table
Percentage yield 1 2 3 4 5 6
pH scale 1 2 3 4 5 6
Planning experiments 1 2 3 4 5 6
Polymers 1 2 3 4 5 6
Radioactivity 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reaction rates: effect of 1 2 3 4 5 6
temperature, particle size etc.
Reaction rates: order of reaction 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reactions of Alcohols 1 2 3 4 5 6
Redox reactions 1 2 3 4 5 6
(oxidation/reduction reactions)
Shapes of molecules 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stoichiometry 1 2 3 4 5 6
The Mole 1 2 3 4 5 6
Transition elements 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volumetric calculations 1 2 3 4 5 6
Water analysis, hardness etc 1 2 3 4 5 6
Water treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6
Writing Chemical Formula 1 2 3 4 5 6
(empirical and molecular formulas)
Options
Atmospheric Chemistry 1 2 3 4 5 6
Electrochemistry and extraction of 1 2 3 4 5 6
metals
Industrial Chemistry 1 2 3 4 5 6
Materials 1 2 3 4 5 6

To summarise the above answers, identify the 5 topics that you find the most difficult in order 1
to 5 ~ 1 being most difficult topic, 2 being the second most difficult topic, 3 being the third most
difficult etc.
1
2
3
4
5
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry Questionnaire ~ Teacher
Below are the different topics covered in the Leaving Certificate Chemistry Course.
Please complete the questionnaire identifying how easy or difficult you feel your
pupils grasp the topics listed.
1= Pupils find it very easy to grasp. 5= Pupils find it very difficult to grasp.
3= means that your pupils find that topic neither easy nor difficult. 6=Indicates a topic
you have never taught to your students

(Put a cross through the number, 1-6, that you have chosen for the topics listed)

1 2 3 4 5 6
Topic Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very Never teach it
easy nor Difficult
difficult

Acid/Base equilbria 1 2 3 4 5 6
Acids and Bases (Arrhenius, Bronsted- 1 2 3 4 5 6
Lowry)
Activation energy 1 2 3 4 5 6
Alkanes and alkenes 1 2 3 4 5 6
Analysing results of experiments 1 2 3 4 5 6
Atomic structure 1 2 3 4 5 6
Balancing equations 1 2 3 4 5 6
Carbonyl groups 1 2 3 4 5 6
Carboxylic acids 1 2 3 4 5 6
Carrying out experiments 1 2 3 4 5 6
Catalysis 1 2 3 4 5 6
Chemical equilibria: calculations 1 2 3 4 5 6
Chemical equilibria: effects of temp 1 2 3 4 5 6
etc
Chromatography: HPLC, GC 1 2 3 4 5 6
Concentration of solutions, %w/w, 1 2 3 4 5 6
%w/v, %v/v and ppm
Covalent Bonding 1 2 3 4 5 6
Electronegativity, trends across and 1 2 3 4 5 6
down periodic table, using it to
determine bond type
Electronic structure of atoms, energy 1 2 3 4 5 6
levels etc
Endothermic and Exothermic reactions 1 2 3 4 5 6
Equilibrium 1 2 3 4 5 6
Equilibrium Constant Kc 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gas Laws 1 2 3 4 5 6
Halogen chemistry 1 2 3 4 5 6
 1 2 3 4 5 6
Topic Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very Never teach it
easy nor Difficult
difficult

Halogenalkanes 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hess’s Law 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic and aromatic 1 2 3 4 5 6
Infra red spectroscopy 1 2 3 4 5 6
Intermolecular forces 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ionic Bonding 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ionisation energy 1 2 3 4 5 6
Isomerism 1 2 3 4 5 6
Le Chatelier’s principle 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mass spectrometry 1 2 3 4 5 6
Naming organic compounds and 1 2 3 4 5 6
structure
Oil refining and fuels 1 2 3 4 5 6
Organic reaction mechanisms e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6
addition
Organic synthesis 1 2 3 4 5 6
Oxidation Number 1 2 3 4 5 6
Patterns and trends of the periodic 1 2 3 4 5 6
table
Percentage yield 1 2 3 4 5 6
pH scale 1 2 3 4 5 6
Planning experiments 1 2 3 4 5 6
Polymers 1 2 3 4 5 6
Radioactivity 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reaction rates: effect of temperature, 1 2 3 4 5 6
particle size etc.
Reaction rates: order of reaction 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reactions of Alcohols 1 2 3 4 5 6
Redox reactions (oxidation/reduction 1 2 3 4 5 6
reactions)
Shapes of molecules 1 2 3 4 5 6
The Mole 1 2 3 4 5 6
Transition elements 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volumetric calculations 1 2 3 4 5 6
Water analysis, hardness etc 1 2 3 4 5 6
Water treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6
Writing Chemical Formula (empirical 1 2 3 4 5 6
and molecular formulas)
Options
Atmospheric Chemistry 1 2 3 4 5 6
Electrochemistry and extraction of 1 2 3 4 5 6
metals
Industrial Chemistry 1 2 3 4 5 6
Materials 1 2 3 4 5 6
 College Chemistry Questionnaire
Below are the different topics covered in the Leaving Certificate and General Chemistry
Course. 1= Very Easy and 5= Very difficult. 3= Means you found the topic neither easy nor
difficult. 6=Indicates a topic you have never been taught or studied.

Male/Female: __________________ Name of Course in College: ___________________

Did you study Chemistry for your Leaving Certificate? Yes No

Subject Grade (A1, B1 etc.) Level (higher/ordinary level)

Maths
Chemistry

(Put a cross through the number, 1-6, that you have chosen for the topics listed)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Topic Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very Never
easy nor Difficult studied it
difficult

Acid/Base equilbria 1 2 3 4 5 6
Acids and Bases, (Arrhenius, 1 2 3 4 5 6
Bronsted-Lowry)
Activation energy 1 2 3 4 5 6
Alkanes and alkenes 1 2 3 4 5 6
Analysing results of 1 2 3 4 5 6
experiments
Atomic structure 1 2 3 4 5 6
Balancing equations 1 2 3 4 5 6
Carbonyl groups 1 2 3 4 5 6
Carboxylic acids 1 2 3 4 5 6
Carrying out experiments 1 2 3 4 5 6
Catalysis 1 2 3 4 5 6
Chemical equilibria: effects 1 2 3 4 5 6
of temp etc
Chemical equilibria: 1 2 3 4 5 6
calculations
Chromatography: HPLC, GC 1 2 3 4 5 6
Concentration of solution, 1 2 3 4 5 6
%w/w, %w/v, %v/v and ppm
Covalent Bonding 1 2 3 4 5 6
Electrochemical Cell 1 2 3 4 5 6
Electrolysis 1 2 3 4 5 6
Electronic structure of atoms, 1 2 3 4 5 6
energy levels etc
Equilibrium 1 2 3 4 5 6
Equilibrium constants 1 2 3 4 5 6
Faradays Law 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gas Laws 1 2 3 4 5 6
Halogen chemistry 1 2 3 4 5 6
 1 2 3 4 5 6
Topic Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very Never
easy nor Difficult studied it
difficult

Halogenalkanes 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hess’s Law 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hydrocarbons, aliphatic and 1 2 3 4 5 6
aromatic
Infra red spectroscopy 1 2 3 4 5 6
Intermolecular forces 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ionic Bonding 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ionisation energy 1 2 3 4 5 6
Isomerism 1 2 3 4 5 6
Le Chatelier’s principle 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mass spectrometry 1 2 3 4 5 6
Naming organic compounds 1 2 3 4 5 6
and structure
Oil refining and flues 1 2 3 4 5 6
Organic reaction mechanisms 1 2 3 4 5 6
e.g. addition
Organic synthesis 1 2 3 4 5 6
Oxidation numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6
Patterns and trends in the 1 2 3 4 5 6
periodic table
Percentage yields 1 2 3 4 5 6
pH scale 1 2 3 4 5 6
Planning experiments 1 2 3 4 5 6
Polymers 1 2 3 4 5 6
Radioactivity 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reaction rates: effect of 1 2 3 4 5 6
temperature, particle size etc.
Reaction rates: order of 1 2 3 4 5 6
reaction
Reactions of Alcohols 1 2 3 4 5 6
Redox reactions, 1 2 3 4 5 6
oxidation/reduction reactions
Shapes of molecules 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stoichiometry 1 2 3 4 5 6
The Mole 1 2 3 4 5 6
Transition elements 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volumetric calculations 1 2 3 4 5 6
Water analysis, hardness etc 1 2 3 4 5 6
Water treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6
Writing Chemical Formula 1 2 3 4 5 6

To summarise the above answers, identify the 5 topics that you find the most difficult in order 1
to 5 ~ 1 being most difficult topic, 2 being the second most difficult topic, 3 being the third most
difficult etc.
1
2
3
4
5
 Appendix B ~
Original Science Reasoning
Task 4 ~ ‘Equilibrium in the
Balance’ NFER, (1976)
pp1
 Appendix C ~
Questionnaires used in phase two of
this investigation
 This booklet will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Please answer all
questions. If you are not sure of the answer, tick the answer, which you feel, is the
correct answer.

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this booklet

Section A ~ Personal Information

Gender: Male Female

Age: ______________________________

Can you fill in the following information relating to your Junior Certificate?

Subject Level to be taken for Junior Certificate Examinations

(Ordinary or Higher Level)
Maths
Science
 Junior Certificate Science

a) Two men (shown in the diagram) are about to b) Where would the weights have to be
placed in order to balance the meter stick
sit on the seesaw. Where will the men (the
shown in this diagram?
heavy one and the light one) have to sit in
order to gat the seesaw to balance? Mark X
(for the light man) and Y (for the heavy man)
on the diagram below.

X Y

Answer:
Draw your answer to this question in the
following diagram: (NB: Do not forget to
put the numbers beside the weights).
Read the following:
In the classroom, if you took a meter stick and
placed weights on it at different distances you
could also get the meter stick to balance like the
seesaw above. For example:
c) In this diagram there is a 200g weight on the left
hand side of the meter stick and a 400 g weight
on the right hand side of the meter stick. Where
would the 200g weight have to be hung in order
to get the meter stick to balance?

What the diagram means:

= Meter Stick onto

which weights can be
Answer:
hung
Draw your answer to this question in the
following diagram: (NB: Do not forget to
put the numbers beside the weights).
= A 100g weight

= A 300g weight
The answers to Questions B and C are on
the next page ~ Check to see if you got
(The number in brackets beside the weight
them right
represents that number multiplied by 100g)

4
 Junior Certificate Science

Answers: Section B ~ Read and answer the

following question
b) In order to get this meter stick to balance
in question B you would need to do the 1.
following:

Look at the diagram above. If I added 100g to

the 400g, how much must I add to the 200g to
keep the meter stick balanced?

Answer: __________________
c) In order to get the meter stick to balance
in question C you would need to place
the 200g weight on the 2nd hole on the 2.
left hand side of the meter stick. This is
illustrated in the diagram below.

If I moved the 400g to position 2, to which

hole must I move the 200g?

Answer: ___________________
Now answer the questions to section B,
which are based on the above ideas.
3. What weight must I hang here to
make this balance?

Answer: __________________

5
 Junior Certificate Science

4. 6. Without changing the position of the

hangers that attach the weights onto the
meter stick, rearrange the weights to make
this balance: (remember to put the number
beside the weights)
Make this balance by moving the
weights

What position would I need to move these

weights to in order to make the meter stick
balance? Draw your answer in the diagram
below (make sure you write in the number
beside the weights as shown in the diagram
above):

Answer:
Answer:

5. In this diagram, the meter stick is clamped.

Draw a diagram of how the meter stick would 4.
look if the clamp was released and the meter
stick was let hang freely in the box provided:

7. These are in balance. If I move the

(3) out one space, how many
spaces must I move the (2) to keep
Clam
the balance?
p

Answer: (NB ~ Do not forget to put the

number beside the weights)

Answer: ___________ Spaces

6
 Junior Certificate Science

8. These objects A and B are in balance.

Similarly in this diagram one weight rises 13

A B
i) Which object is heavier? cm while the other falls 13cm.
_________________
ii) How much heavier is it?
_________________

9. Can you give a general rule, which connects

weights and distances and whether the system Also, in this diagram the 300g weight is raised
balances?
6 cm by the 100 g weight falling 18 cm.
_____________________
_____________________ Question: How far must the 400g weight fall
_____________________ in order to lift the 100g weight 20 cm?
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________ Answer: ______cm
__________________________________
__________________________________

10. Another way of looking at this idea of balance

is how are the rises and falls of the weights
related. 11. What explanation might you give to a friend
who wanted to understand WHY it is that a
LIGHT weight can lift a HEAVY weight
and come to balance? Look at WEIGHTS
(W1 and W2) and HEIGHTS (H1 and H2).
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
In this diagram, the 400 g weight on hole two ____________________________________
drops 10 cm, which raises the 200 g weight on ____________________________________
hole four 20cm. ____________________________________
___________________________________

7
 Junior Certificate Science

Section C ~ Read and answer the following

questions
14. In the diagram, which substances are
elements and which are compounds?
12. A diagram representing water molecules in Substance Diagram of Is this
the solid phase (ice) is shown below. Substance substance a
Compound
or Element?
Oxygen

Circle which of these diagrams best shows Water

what water would look like after it melts
(changes to a liquid)?

A B C D E Carbon
Dioxide

Methane

13. The circle on the left shows a magnified

view of a very small portion of liquid water 15. How many atoms does one particle of
in a closed container. water contain?

16. Answer true or false to the following

statements:

True or
Circle which diagram you feel represents the False
magnified view show after the water An element always consists of just
evaporates. atoms
A B C D E Elements and compounds can both
be made up of molecules
Molecules must consist of atoms of
more than one element

Number of atoms: ______________

8
 Junior Certificate Science

17. Is there a difference, in terms of particles, 20. Which of the following processes will
between water at 10ºC and 90ºC? (Circle the make water molecules larger? (Circle
correct answer): the correct answer):

Yes No
A. Freezing
Please explain your answer: _____________ B. Melting
____________________________________ C. Evaporation
____________________________________ D. Condensation
____________________________________ E. None of the above

21. When water molecules in the gas

18. Consider three samples of water in three
phase are heated, the molecules
phases.
themselves. (Circle the correct
answer):
The first is solid water (ice) at 0°C, the
second is liquid water at 24°C, and the third A. Expand
is gaseous water at 100°C.
B. Move faster
The water molecules in the liquid phase C. Become lighter
__________ the water molecules in the
gaseous phase. (Circle the correct answer): D. Change to a liquid
E. Release air
A. Move faster than
B. Move slower than
22. A pot of water is placed on a hot cooker.
C. Move at the same speed as After a short time small bubbles begin to
D. Move more randomly than appear at the bottom of the pot. The bubbles
rise to the surface of the water and seem to
E. Travel in the same direction as pop or disappear. What are the bubbles
made of? (Circle the correct answer):
19. In a pure sample of oxygen gas, what exists A. Heat
between the oxygen molecules? (Circle the
correct answer): B. Oxygen
C. Air
A. Matter
D. Oxygen gas and Hydrogen gas
B. Air
E. Steam
C. Water vapor
D. Nothing
E. Atmosphere

9
 Junior Certificate Science

23. A water molecule in the gas phase is 25. A glass of cold milk sometimes forms
_______ a water molecule in the solid a coat of liquid on the outside of the
phase. (Circle the correct answer): glass (Often referred to as 'sweat').
How does most of the water get there?
A. Smaller than (Circle the correct answer):
B. Lighter than
C. Heavier than
D. Larger than
E. The same mass as

24. If a wet saucer is left on the bench after it

has been washed, then after a while it is A. Water evaporates from the milk and
dry.
condenses on the outside of the glass
B. The glass acts like a semi-permeable
What happens to the water that does not
drip onto the bench? membrane and allows the water to
(Circle the correct answer):
pass, but not the milk.
A. It goes into the saucer C. Water vapour condenses from the air
B. It stays on the surface of the saucer as D. The coldness causes oxygen and
dry water hydrogen from the air combine on
C. It just dries up and no longer exists as the glass forming water.
anything E. The sweat is a mixture of milk and
D. It changes into oxygen and hydrogen water that has passed out through the
in the air glass
E. It goes into the air as very small bits of
water

10
 Junior Certificate Science

26. The diagram below represents a 1.0 L 29. Two ice cubes are floating in water. After
solution of sugar dissolved in water. the ice melts, will the water level be: (Circle
The dots in the magnification circle the correct answer):
represent the sugar molecules..
A. Higher
B. Lower
C. The Same

30. What is the reason for your answer

to question 29? Circle the correct
Circle the diagram a, b, c, d. or e, answer:
which you feel best, represents the
view after 1.0 L of water was added to A. Water is more dense in its solid form
the beaker
(ice).
A B C D E B. Water molecules displace more
volume than ice molecules
C. The weight of water displaced is
equal to the weight of the ice
27. Which of the following represents D. The water from the ice melting
melting: (Circle the correct answer):
changes the water level.
A. A few grains of salt in water E. When ice melts, its molecules
seemingly disappear expand.
B. Chocolate placed in the sun
C. Sugar placed on your tongue 31. Answer true or false to the following
statements:
produces a sweet taste
D. Two of the above Statement True or
False?
E. None of the above
Copper atoms have the same
physical properties as a bar of
copper
28. When water is vaporised (turned into a
gas), it changes to: (Circle the correct Gold atoms are gold in colour
answer): Atoms can be seen under a light
microscope
A. Hydrogen and Oxygen Atoms contain protons, neutrons
and electrons
B. Hydrogen only Atoms are mostly made up of
C. Gaseous water empty space
The space between protons,
D. Air, Hydrogen and Oxygen neutrons and electrons in an atom
E. Oxygen only are filled with air.

11
 Junior Certificate Science

32. A 1 g sample of solid iodine is placed in a 34. Why do shiny copper water pipes turn
tube and the tube is sealed after all of the dull and tarnish? (Circle the correct
air is removed. The tube and the solid answer):
iodine together weigh 27g
A. The copper atoms go from a shiny
colour to a duller colour
B. Oxygen reacts with copper to form
copper oxide
The tube is then heated until all of the
iodine evaporates and the tube is filled C. A coating from the air covers the
with iodine gas. The weight after heating
pipes
be ________? (Circle the correct
answer): D. Copper pipes turn dark due to heat
E. Copper atoms change into a new
A. Less than 26 g kind of atom.
B. 26 g
C. 27 g 35. Sodium and Chlorine react to form an
D. 28 g ionic compound Sodium Chloride.
E. More than 28 g
6 Sodium 6 Chlorine

?
Atoms Atoms
33. Identify each of the following as either a +
chemical or physical change:
Physical or
Chemical
Change
Water changing to ice Circle the diagram that best represents the product
Cutting wood formed when Sodium and Chlorine react:
A candle burning
Diluting a fruit juice A B C
An ice cube melting

How do you know when a chemical change has

occurred? ________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________ D E

________________________________________
________________________________________

12
 This booklet will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Please answer all
questions. If you are not sure of the answer, tick the answer, which you feel, is the
correct answer.

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this booklet

Section A ~ Personal Information

Gender: Male Female

Age: ______________________________

Can you fill in the following information relating to your Leaving Certificate?
Subject Level to be taken for Leaving Certificate Examinations
(Ordinary or Higher Level)
Maths
Chemistry

In the table below, list the top five difficult topics in Chemistry in your opinion. List
the most difficult topic as number one, the second most difficult topic as number two
and so on.

Position Chemistry Topic

1st most difficult topic

2nd most difficult topic
3rd most difficult topic
4th most difficult topic
5th most difficult topic
a) Two men (shown in the diagram) are about to b) Where would the weights have to be
placed in order to balance the meter stick
sit on the seesaw. Where will the men (the
shown in this diagram?
heavy one and the light one) have to sit in
order to gat the seesaw to balance? Mark X
(for the light man) and Y (for the heavy man)
on the diagram below.
X Y

Answer:
Draw your answer to this question in the
Read the following: following diagram: (NB: Do not forget to
put the numbers beside the weights).
In the classroom, if you took a meter stick and
placed weights on it at different distances you
could also get the meter stick to balance like the
seesaw above. For example:

c) In this diagram there is a 200g weight on the left

hand side of the meter stick and a 400 g weight
on the right hand side of the meter stick. Where
would the 200g weight have to be hung in order
to get the meter stick to balance?
What the diagram means:

= Meter Stick onto

which weights can be
hung

Answer:
= A 100g weight
Draw your answer to this question in the
following diagram: (NB: Do not forget to
put the numbers beside the weights).

= A 300g weight

(The number in brackets beside the weight The answers to Questions B and C are on
represents that number multiplied by 100g) the next page ~ Check to see if you got
them right
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry

Answers: Section B ~ Read and answer the

following question
b) In order to get this meter stick to balance
in question B you would need to do the 1.
following:

Look at the diagram above. If I added 100g to

the 400g, how much must I add to the 200g to
keep the meter stick balanced?

Answer: __________________
c) In order to get the meter stick to balance
in question C you would need to place
the 200g weight on the 2nd hole on the 2.
left hand side of the meter stick. This is
illustrated in the diagram below.

If I moved the 400g to position 2, to which

hole must I move the 200g?

Answer: ___________________
Now answer the questions to section B,
which are based on the above ideas.
3. What weight must I hang here to
make this balance?

Answer: __________________

4
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry

4. 6. Without changing the position of the

hangers that attach the weights onto the
meter stick, rearrange the weights to make
this balance: (remember to put the number
beside the weights)
Make this balance by moving the
weights

What position would I need to move these

weights to in order to make the meter stick
balance? Draw your answer in the diagram
below (make sure you write in the number
beside the weights as shown in the diagram
above):

Answer:
Answer:

5. In this diagram, the meter stick is clamped.

Draw a diagram of how the meter stick would 4.
look if the clamp was released and the meter
stick was let hang freely in the box provided:

7. These are in balance. If I move the

(3) out one space, how many
spaces must I move the (2) to keep
Clam
the balance?
p

Answer: (NB ~ Do not forget to put the

number beside the weights)

Answer: ___________ Spaces

5
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry

8. These objects A and B are in balance.

Similarly in this diagram one weight rises 13

A B
i) Which object is heavier? cm while the other falls 13cm.
_________________
ii) How much heavier is it?
_________________

9. Can you give a general rule, which connects

weights and distances and whether the system Also, in this diagram the 300g weight is raised
balances?
6 cm by the 100 g weight falling 18 cm.
_____________________
_____________________ Question: How far must the 400g weight fall
_____________________ in order to lift the 100g weight 20 cm?
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________ Answer: ______cm
__________________________________
__________________________________

10. Another way of looking at this idea of balance

is how are the rises and falls of the weights
related. 11. What explanation might you give to a friend
who wanted to understand WHY it is that a
LIGHT weight can lift a HEAVY weight
and come to balance? Look at WEIGHTS
(W1 and W2) and HEIGHTS (H1 and H2).
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
In this diagram, the 400 g weight on hole two ____________________________________
drops 10 cm, which raises the 200 g weight on ____________________________________
hole four 20cm. ____________________________________
____________________________________

6
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry

Section C ~ Read and answer the

following questions:
12. You have just sprayed some perfume in 14. A diagram representing water
the classroom. In the circle below draw molecules in the solid phase (ice) is
what you think the smell of the perfume shown.
would look like if you had a very
powerful microscope that would allow
you to see smell up really, really close.

Circle which of the following diagrams

best shows what water would look like
after it melts (changes to a liquid)?

A B C D E

13. A sample of liquid ammonia (NH3) is

completely evaporated (changed to a
gas) in a closed container as shown: 15. Circle which of the following processes
will make a water molecule larger?
Circle which of the following diagrams
a, b, c, d, or e best represents what you A. Freezing
would ‘see’ in the same area of the B. Melting
magnified view of the vapour?
C. Evaporation
(Liquid) (Gas) D. Condensation
E. None of the above
?
16. In a pure sample of oxygen gas, circle
what exists between the oxygen
molecules? (Circle the correct answer):
A B C D E
A. Matter
B. Air
C. Water vapor
D. Nothing
E. Atmosphere

7
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry

17. Bill and Shauna noticed that Bill’s room 19. A football is pumped up hard during the
was a lot colder than Shauna’s room. They day when it is warm. In the evening
wondered if you could smell an air when the temperature falls, the football
freshener faster in a cold room or a warm does not feel so hard. How do you
room. explain this event by using the idea of
the particulate nature of matter?
They decided to do an experiment ~ ________________________________
Bill plugged a lemon air freshener into the
________________________________
wall in the cold room. At the same time,
Shauna plugged a strawberry air freshener ________________________________
into the wall in the warm room. (The air
________________________________
fresheners were the same distance away
from the bedroom doors.) Bill sat by his ________________________________
door and Shauna sat by her door. Which
________________________________
one smelled the air fresheners first?
________________________________
Circle which room Bill and Shauna would
smell the odor from first. 20. A pot of water is placed on a hot cooker.
After a short time small bubbles begin to
A. Cold Room appear at the bottom of the pot. The bubbles
rise to the surface of the water and seem to
B. Warm Room pop or disappear. What are the bubbles made
C. Both at the same time of? (Circle the correct answer):
D. Neither of the rooms A. Heat
Explain your answer: _______________ B. Oxygen
___________________________________ C. Air
___________________________________ D. Oxygen gas and Hydrogen gas
___________________________________ E. Steam
___________________________________
______________________________ 21. When water changes from a liquid to a gas
through evaporation or vaporization, energy
is required to: (Circle the correct answer):
18.
A. Break the bonds between the hydrogen
atoms.
B. Form new bonds between the atoms.
C. Break the bonds between the oxygen and
hydrogen atoms in the molecules.
Circle the diagram which best shows the
magnified view of water after it has been D. Break the bonds between water molecules
evaporated away from other water molecules.
A B C D E E. Form new bonds between the molecules.

8
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry

22. Which of the following represents 24.

melting: (Circle the correct answer):

A. A few grains of salt in water

seemingly disappear
B. Chocolate placed in the sun
C. Sugar placed on your tongue Circle which of the following diagrams
shows the results after the mixture shown
produces a sweet taste
above reacts as completely as possible
D. Two of the above according to the equation:
E. None of the above
2S + 3O2 2SO3

23. The drawings below represent beakers of A B C D E

aqueous solutions.

25. Which of the following must be the

same before and after a chemical
reaction? (Circle the correct answer):
Answer the following questions.
A. The sum of the masses of all substances
Put A, B, C, D, E or F in the spaces provided: involved
B. The number of molecules of all substances
A. Which solution is most concentrated? involved
Solution ____ C. The number of atoms of each type involved
B. Which solution is least concentrated? D. Both A and C must be the same
Solution ____ E. Each of the answers A, B and C must be
C. Which two solutions have the same the same
concentration? Solution ____ and _____
D. When Solutions E and F are combined, the
resulting solution has the same concentration
as Solution _____.
E. If you evaporate off half of the water in
Solution B, the resulting solution has the
same concentration as Solution _____.

9
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry

26. Iron combines with oxygen and water 28. The following is a list of the properties
from the air to form rust. If an iron nail
of a sample of Sulphur.
were allowed to rust completely, one
should find that the rust weighs (Circle i) Brittle, crystalline solid
the correct answer):
ii) Melting point = 113 °C

A. Less than the nail it came from iii) Density of 2.1g/ml

B. The same as the nail that it came iv) Combines with oxygen to form

from sulphur dioxide

C. More than the nail it came from

D. The mass of the rust depends on the Which is any of these properties would
be the same for one single atom of
amount of water and oxygen present sulphur obtained from the sample
E. It is impossible to predict (Circle the correct answer):

A. i and ii only
27. What is the reason for you answer in B. iii and iv only
question 26? (Circle the correct answer):
C. iv only
A. Rusting makes the nail lighter D. All of the properties would be the
B. Rust contains iron and oxygen same
C. The nail flakes away E. None of these properties would be
D. The iron from the nail is destroyed the same
E. The flakey rust weighs less than
iron.

10
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry

The following questions are based on 30. When 1 mole of water is placed in a
Chemical Equilibrium : 50.0L container and heated to 1700K the
Kc value is 1.35 x 10-11 mol/L
29. Answer true or false to the following
The equations for the reaction is:
statements and explain your answer
2H2O(g) 2H2 (g) + O2 (g)
(circle either true or false beside each
statement): Write out the formula for the Kc value of
this reaction.
a. In a system at equilibrium there are two
separate reactions ~ True or False
Kc =
Explanation: ____________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
31. The Kc value for the reaction in question
b. Equilibrium reactions go to completion ~
30 is 1.35 x 10-11 mol/L. What does the Kc
True or False
value for the reaction in question 30 tell
you about the position of equilibrium
Explanation: ____________________________
(Circle the correct answer):
_______________________________________
_______________________________________ A. There is more product than reactant
_______________________________________ present
c. The forward reaction goes to completion B. There is more reactant than product
before the reverse reaction begins and then present
equilibrium is reached ~ True or False C. There are equal amounts of product and
reactant as the system is at equilibrium
Explanation: ____________________________ D. More information is needed to compare
_______________________________________ the amount of products and reactants
_______________________________________ E. The Kc relates to how quick the reaction is
_______________________________________ taking place and not the concentrations of
the reactants and products

11
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry

32. Le Chatelier's principle states that: 33. Answer true or false to the following
statements on equilibrium:
If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences
a change in concentration, temperature, True or False
volume, or total pressure, then the equilibrium At equilibrium the rate of the

shifts to partially counteract the imposed forward and backward reactions

change. are equal

At equilibrium both the forward

Using the above definition, state what changes and backward reactions stop

occur to the position of equilibrium in the A catalyst, which speeds up a

following system if: reaction, will effect the position of

equilibrium

A (g) + 2B (s) C (g) + D (g) (∆H = -250kJ/mol) At equilibrium both the forward
and backward reactions are still
taking place
i) The concentration of substance A was
increased. The position of equilibrium will
(Circle the correct answer):

A. Shift to the right The following questions are based on The

Mole:
B. Shift to the left
C. Stay the same
The following information will be required to
answer some of the following questions.
ii) The Temperature was increased by 10ºC.
The position of equilibrium will (Circle the Element Atomic Mass
correct answer): Hydrogen (H) 1g
Carbon (C) 12g
A. Shift to the right Sulphur (S) 32g
B. Shift to the left Oxygen (O) 16g
Iron (Fe) 56g
C. Stay the same Copper (Cu) 63.5g

iii) The pressure was increased by 1 atm. The 34. Which weights more, one mole of Fe or
position of equilibrium will (Circle the
correct answer): one mole of water? ___________________
Explain: ___________________________
A. Shift to the right
___________________________________
B. Shift to the left
___________________________________
C. Stay the same

12
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry

35. Which of the following affects the number 38. In an experiment it was found that 32g of
of particles in a mole of the substance? Sulphur combine with 32 g of Oxygen to
(Circle the correct answer): give an oxide of Sulphur. This contains
(Circle the correct answer):
A. The type of particles (atoms,
molecules, electrons etc.) A. 1/3 Sulphur and 2/3 Oxygen by mass
B. The mass of the particle B. 2/3 Sulphur and 1/3 Oxygen by mass
C. How closely the particles can be C. 1/2 Sulphur and 1/2 Oxygen by mass
packed together D. Twice the amount of Sulphur as
D. The size of the particles Oxygen
E. None of the above E. To say what happens you need the
chemical equation
36. Carbon atoms each contain 6 electrons.
What mass of Carbon contains a mole of
39. 2g of a compound contains 1 g of Copper,
electrons? (Circle the correct answer):
the rest is Sulphur. Which one of the
following formulae correctly represents
A. 12g
this compound? (Circle the correct
B. 6g answer):
C. 2g
A. CuS
D. 1g
B. CuS2
E. None of the above
C. Cu2S
D. Cu2S3
37. A mole of a substance consists of N
particles of the substance (N = 6x1023 E. Cu2S2
and is called Avogadro’s Number).
Ordinary oxygen consists of O2
molecules. How many oxygen atoms, 40. The molar mass of a Carbon-containing
then, are there in 3 moles of ordinary compound is 16g/mol. Which of the
oxygen. (Circle the correct answer): following could be the molecular
formulae of this compound? (Circle the
A. N correct answer):
B. 2 x N
A. CO
C. 3 x N
B. C2H2
D. 4 x N
C. CO2
E. 6 x N
D. CH4
E. C2H4

13
 Leaving Certificate Chemistry

41. 0.5 L of a 2M solution is mixed with 0.5 L 44. A mole of water (liquid) occupies about
of a 1M solution of the same substance. 200 ml and a mole of alcohol (liquid)
What is the molarity of the solution occupies 60 ml. On this evidence which of
obtained? (Circle the correct answer): the following statements is correct? (Circle
the correct answer):
A. 3 M
A. 60 ml of alcohol contain about three
B. 2.5 M
times as many molecules as 200 ml of
C. 2.0 M
water
D. 1.5 M
B. A water molecule is roughly 3 times
E. 1.0 M
bigger than an alcohol molecule
C. Alcohol molecules are roughly 3 times
42. The following balanced chemical equation
is for the burning of propane gas in heavier that water molecules
oxygen. How many moles of carbon
D. An alcohol molecule is roughly 3 times
dioxide (CO2) are formed when one mole
of propane is burned? (Circle the correct bigger than a water molecule
answer):
E. None of the above
C3H8 (g) + 5O2(g) 3CO2(g) + 4H2O(g)
A. 1 mol
B. 2 mol 45. 56g of Fe react with 32g of S to give 88g of
C. 3 mol FeS.112g of Fe react with 80g of S to give
D. 4 mol how many grams of FeS?
E. 5 mol
Calculation:
43. The molecular formula of vinegar is
C2H4O2 and the molecular formula of sugar is
C6H12O6.

If you had exactly 1.0g of vinegar and

1.0g of sugar, would you have the same
number of atoms in each sample? (Circle
the correct answer):

Answer: ____________________
Yes No
Explain your answer:
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________

14
 Appendix D ~
Questionnaires used in phase three
of this investigation
 Chemistry Questionnaire 1

This booklet will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Please answer all
questions. If you are not sure of the answer, give the answer, which you feel, is the
correct answer.

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this booklet

Section A ~ Personal Information

School: _________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________

Gender: Male Female

Date of Birth: ______________________________

Can you fill in the following information relating to your Junior Certificate?

Subject Level (Higher/Ordinary) Grade

Maths

Science

CODE: _________________(Office Use Only)

 Chemistry Questionnaire 1

Today we are going to look at a series of In this test the phrase ‘how fast does the
experiments involving a pendulum. We are pendulum swing’ refers to the number of
going to make a pendulum using a long and swings that occur in a given time.
short string, a light and heavy weight and we
will exert a gentle and hard push. Question One:

The following is a guide to the different First Test = Short string, Heavy weight, Gentle
types of pendulums that will be set up. push

Length of String: Length Weight Push

Place the first combination of variables into

the table above and guess the number of
swings that will happen in 30 seconds.

Your guess = ___________________

Your teacher will now perform the

experiment. Count the number of swings (start
at zero). Record the actual number of swings:
Mass of Weight:
Actual swings = ___________________

Question Two:

Second Test = Long string, Light weight, Gentle

push

Length Weight Push

Place the second combination of variables into

the table above and guess the number of
Exertion of Push: swings that will happen in 30 seconds.

Your guess = ___________________

Your teacher will now perform the

experiment. Count the number of swings (start
at zero). Record the actual number of swings:

Actual swings = ___________________

 Chemistry Questionnaire 1

Question Three: Question Five:

What effect do you think length, Weight, Write down one more experiment that
and Push have on the number of swings in you think would be worth trying next.
30 seconds?
Length Weight Push
Length: ___________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________ Explain why you chose this combination

Weight: ___________________________ _____________________________________

__________________________________ _____________________________________

__________________________________ _____________________________________

__________________________________ _____________________________________

Push: _____________________________ _____________________________________

__________________________________ How does this experiment tie in with

experiments one and two?
__________________________________ _____________________________________
__________________________________ _____________________________________
_____________________________________
Question Four: _____________________________________
From the experiments carried out in
questions one and two only, what can we Question Six:
tell, if anything about the effect of length,
weight and push on the number of swings. Imagine that we start again with experiment 1.
Which other arrangements would you use to
Length: ___________________________ test the effect that Length has on the number
__________________________________ of swings?

__________________________________ Length Weight Push

__________________________________ Short Heavy Gentle
Weight: ___________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
Push: _____________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________ (Please use as few arrangements as
possible, put a star (*) beside any
__________________________________ arrangement that you don’t really need)
 Chemistry Questionnaire 1

Question Seven: • If there are any other arrangements that

you think you would really need to be sure
Again starting with experiment 1. Which of the effect of the push, write them down
other arrangements would you use to test in the results box for question eight. (cross
the effect that Weight has on the number out any of the original arrangements that
of swings? you don’t need)

Length Weight Push Question Nine:

Short Heavy Gentle
* As part of question one and two in this
questionnaire you have already carried out
experiment 1 and 2 in the table below. Return to
the results of these experiments and write them
in the table below for experiment 1 and 2

Length Weight Push Number

of
swings
in 30
(But, again, use as few arrangements as seconds
possible, put a star (*) beside any
*Exp 1 Short Heavy Gentle _____
arrangement that you don’t really need)

Question Eight: *Exp 2 Long Light Gentle _____

Imagine someone tried these two
arrangements with another pendulum. Exp 3 Long Heavy Hard _____
Length Weight Push Number
of swings Exp 4 Short Light Gentle _____
in 30
seconds
Long Heavy Hard 15
Guess the number of swings that will occur for
experiments 3 and 4.
Short Heavy Gentle 20
Experiment 3 ~ My Guess = _______________

Experiment 4 ~ My Guess = _______________

Your teacher will carry out this experiment. Fill

in the actual number of swings in the table
above.

• What do they tell us about the effect of

Push
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
 Chemistry Questionnaire 1

Question Ten:

Now write down what these four experiments alone tell us about the effect of Length, Weight and
Push on the number of swings. (For each factor, note down only those experiments that you need to
use to make this deduction)

Length: _________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Experiments:
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Weight: _________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________ Experiments:
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Push: ___________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Experiments:
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Question Eleven:
Is the evidence for deciding about one of the factors weaker than it is for the others? ____________
If so, say which factor: _____________________________________________________________
Finally explain why the evidence is still sufficient OR explain why it is insufficient
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

This booklet will take approximately 40 minutes to complete. Please answer all
questions. If you are not sure of the answer, tick the answer, which you feel, is the
correct answer.

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this booklet

Section A ~ Personal Information

School: _________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________

Gender: Male Female

Date of Birth: ______________________________

Can you fill in the following information relating to your Junior Certificate?
Subject Level (Higher/Ordinary) Grade

Maths

Science

CODE = ___________ (Office Use Only)

 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

a) Two men (shown in the diagram) are about to b) Where would the weights have to be
placed in order to balance the meter stick
sit on the seesaw. Where will the men (the
shown in this diagram?
heavy one and the light one) have to sit in
order to gat the seesaw to balance? Mark X
(for the light man) and Y (for the heavy man)
on the diagram below.

X Y

Answer:
Draw your answer to this question in the
following diagram: (NB: Do not forget to
put the numbers beside the weights).
Read the following:
In the classroom, if you took a meter stick and
placed weights on it at different distances you
could also get the meter stick to balance like the
seesaw above. For example:

c) In this diagram there is a 200g weight on the left

hand side of the meter stick and a 400 g weight
on the right hand side of the meter stick. Where
would the 200g weight have to be hung in order
to get the meter stick to balance?

What the diagram means:

= Meter Stick onto

which weights can be
hung
Answer:
Draw your answer to this question in the
= A 100g weight following diagram: (NB: Do not forget to
put the numbers beside the weights).

= A 300g weight
The answers to Questions B and C are on
the next page ~ Check to see if you got
(The number in brackets beside the weight
them right
represents that number multiplied by 100g)
 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

Answers: Section B ~ Read and answer the

following question
b) In order to get this meter stick to balance
in question B you would need to do the 1.
following:

Look at the diagram above. If I added 100g to

the 400g, how much must I add to the 200g to
keep the meter stick balanced?

Answer: __________________
c) In order to get the meter stick to balance
in question C you would need to place
the 200g weight on the 2nd hole on the 2.
left hand side of the meter stick. This is
illustrated in the diagram below.

If I moved the 400g to position 2, to which

hole must I move the 200g?

Answer: ___________________
Now answer the questions to section B,
which are based on the above ideas.
3. What weight must I hang here to
make this balance?

Answer: __________________
 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

4. 6. Without changing the position of the

hangers that attach the weights onto the
meter stick, rearrange the weights to make
this balance: (remember to put the number
beside the weights)
Make this balance by moving the
weights

What position would I need to move these

weights to in order to make the meter stick
balance? Draw your answer in the diagram
below (make sure you write in the number
beside the weights as shown in the diagram
above):

Answer:
Answer:

5. In this diagram, the meter stick is clamped.

Draw a diagram of how the meter stick would 4.
look if the clamp was released and the meter
stick was let hang freely in the box provided:

7. These are in balance. If I move the

(3) out one space, how many
Clamp
spaces must I move the (2) to keep
the balance?

Answer: (NB ~ Do not forget to put the

number beside the weights)

Answer: ___________ Spaces

 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

8. These objects A and B are in balance.

Similarly in this diagram one weight rises 13

A B
i) Which object is heavier? cm while the other falls 13cm.
_________________
ii) How much heavier is it?
_________________

9. Can you give a general rule, which connects

weights and distances and whether the system Also, in this diagram the 300g weight is raised
balances?
6 cm by the 100 g weight falling 18 cm.
_____________________
_____________________ Question: How far must the 400g weight fall
_____________________ in order to lift the 100g weight 20 cm?
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________ Answer: ______cm
__________________________________
__________________________________

10. Another way of looking at this idea of balance

is how are the rises and falls of the weights
related. 11. What explanation might you give to a friend
who wanted to understand WHY it is that a
LIGHT weight can lift a HEAVY weight
and come to balance? Look at WEIGHTS
(W1 and W2) and HEIGHTS (H1 and H2).
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
In this diagram, the 400 g weight on hole two ____________________________________
drops 10 cm, which raises the 200 g weight on ____________________________________
hole four 20cm. ____________________________________
____________________________________
 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

Read and answer the following questions: 14. Circle which of the following processes
will make a water molecule larger?
12. You have just sprayed some perfume in A. Freezing
the classroom. In the circle below draw
B. Melting
what you think the smell of the perfume
would look like if you had a very C. Evaporation
powerful microscope that would allow
D. Condensation
you to see smell up really, really close.
E. None of the above

15. In a pure sample of oxygen gas, circle

what exists between the oxygen
molecules? (Circle the correct answer):
A. Matter
B. Air
C. Water vapour
D. Nothing
E. Atmosphere

16. Bill and Shauna noticed that Bill’s room

13. A sample of liquid ammonia (NH3) is
was a lot colder than Shauna’s room. They
completely evaporated (changed to a
wondered if you could smell an air
gas) in a closed container as shown:
freshener faster in a cold room or a warm
Circle which of the following diagrams
room. They decided to do an experiment ~
a, b, c, d, or e best represents what you
Bill plugged a lemon air freshener into the
would ‘see’ in the same area of the
wall in the cold room. At the same time,
magnified view of the vapour?
Shauna plugged a strawberry air freshener
into the wall in the warm room. (The air
(Liquid) (Gas)
fresheners were the same distance away
from the bedroom doors.) Bill sat by his
door and Shauna sat by her door. Which
? one smelled the air fresheners first? Circle
which room Bill and Shauna would smell
the odor from first.
A B C D E A. Cold Room
B. Warm Room
C. Both at the same time
D. Neither of the rooms
Explain your answer:
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

17. Circle the diagram which best shows the 19. A pot of water is placed on a hot cooker.
magnified view of water after it has After a short time small bubbles begin to
been evaporated appear at the bottom of the pot. The
bubbles rise to the surface of the water and
seem to pop or disappear. What are the
bubbles made of? (Circle the correct
answer):
A. Heat
B. Oxygen
C. Air
D. Oxygen gas and Hydrogen gas
E. Steam

A B C D E
20. When water changes from a liquid to a gas
through evaporation or vaporization,
energy is required to: (Circle the correct
answer):
A. Break the bonds between the hydrogen
atoms.
B. Form new bonds between the atoms.
18. A football is pumped up hard during the
C. Break the bonds between the oxygen
day when it is warm. In the evening
when the temperature falls, the football and hydrogen atoms in the molecules.
does not feel so hard. How do you
D. Break the bonds between water
explain this event by using the idea of
the particulate nature of matter? molecules away from other water
molecules.
E. Form new bonds between the
molecules.

__________________________________
21. Which of the following represents melting:
__________________________________ (Circle the correct answer):
A. A few grains of salt in water seemingly
__________________________________
disappear
__________________________________
B. Chocolate placed in the sun
__________________________________
C. Sugar placed on your tongue produces
__________________________________
a sweet taste
__________________________________
D. Two of the above
__________________________________
E. None of the above
__________________________________
 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

22. Which of the following must be the same 25. In the diagram, which substances are
before and after a chemical reaction? elements and which are compounds?
(Circle the correct answer):
Substance Diagram of Is this
A. The sum of the masses of all Substance substance a
Compound
substances involved or Element?
B. The number of molecules of all Oxygen

substances involved
C. The number of atoms of each type
Water
involved
D. Both A and C must be the same
E. Each of the answers A, B and C must Carbon
Dioxide
be the same

Methane
23. Iron combines with oxygen and water
from the air to form rust. If an iron nail
were allowed to rust completely, one
should find that the rust weighs (Circle the
correct answer):
26. How many atoms does one particle of
A. Less than the nail it came from water contain?

B. The same as the nail that it came from

C. More than the nail it came from
D. The mass of the rust depends on the Number of atoms: ____________
amount of water and oxygen present
E. It is impossible to predict 27. Answer true or false to the following
statements:

24. What is the reason for you answer in True or

question 23? (Circle the correct answer): False
An element always consists of just
A. Rusting makes the nail lighter
atoms
B. Rust contains iron and oxygen
Elements and compounds can both
C. The nail flakes away
be made up of molecules
D. The iron from the nail is destroyed
Molecules must consist of atoms of
E. The flakey rust weighs less than iron.
more than one element
 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

28. Is there a difference, in terms of particles, 31. A glass of cold milk sometimes forms a
between water at 10ºC and 90ºC? (Circle coat of liquid on the outside of the glass
the correct answer): (Often referred to as 'sweat'). How does
most of the water get there? (Circle the
Yes No correct answer):

Please explain your answer:

__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
A. Water evaporates from the milk and
__________________________________
condenses on the outside of the glass
B. The glass acts like a semi-permeable
29. Consider three samples of water in three
membrane and allows the water to
phases.
The first is solid water (ice) at 0°C, the pass, but not the milk.
second is liquid water at 24°C, and the C. Water vapour condenses from the air
third is gaseous water at 100°C.
The water molecules in the liquid phase D. The coldness causes oxygen and
__________ the water molecules in the hydrogen from the air combine on
gaseous phase. (Circle the correct answer):
the glass forming water.
A. Move faster than E. The sweat is a mixture of milk and
B. Move slower than water that has passed out through the
C. Move at the same speed as glass
D. Move more randomly than
E. Travel in the same direction as 32. The diagram below represents a 1.0 L
solution of sugar dissolved in water. The
dots in the magnification circle represent
30. When water molecules in the gas phase are the sugar molecules..
heated, the molecules themselves. (Circle
the correct answer):

A. Expand
B. Move faster
C. Become lighter
D. Change to a liquid Circle the diagram a, b, c, d. or e, which
you feel best, represents the view after 1.0
E. Release air L of water was added to the beaker
A B C D E
 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

33. When water is vaporised (turned into a 36. A 1 g sample of solid iodine is placed in
gas), it changes to: (Circle the correct a tube and the tube is sealed after all of
answer): the air is removed. The tube and the
solid iodine together weigh 27g
A. Hydrogen and Oxygen
B. Hydrogen only
C. Gaseous water
D. Air, Hydrogen and Oxygen
The tube is then heated until all of the
E. Oxygen only iodine evaporates and the tube is filled
with iodine gas. The weight after heating
be ________? (Circle the correct answer):
34. Two ice cubes are floating in water.
After the ice melts, will the water level
be: (Circle the correct answer): A. Less than 26 g
B. 26 g
A. Higher
C. 27 g
B. Lower
D. 28 g
C. The Same
E. More than 28 g

37. Identify each of the following as either a

35. What is the reason for your answer to chemical or physical change:
question 34? Circle the correct answer: Physical or
Chemical
A. Water is denser in its solid form (ice). Change
Water changing to ice
B. Water molecules displace more
Cutting wood
volume than ice molecules A candle burning
C. The weight of water displaced is equal Diluting a fruit juice
An ice cube melting
to the weight of the ice
D. The water from the ice melting How do you know when a chemical change
changes the water level. has occurred?
E. When ice melts, its molecules expand. _____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

38. The drawings below represent beakers of 39. In the boxes below different atoms are
aqueous solutions. represented by and

Answer the following questions. Put A, B, C, D,

E or F in the spaces provided: Match the letter of the box to the
following descriptions:
A. Which solution is most concentrated?
- A mixture of gases =
Solution ____ - A solid =
- A gaseous compound =
- Oxygen gas =
B. Which solution is least concentrated? - A pure gas made up of single atoms =
Solution ____
40. Circle the answer which represents the
arrangement of electrons in an atoms of a
C. Which two solutions have the same halogen:

concentration? Solution ____ and _____ A. 2, 8, 1

B. 2, 8, 2
C. 2, 8, 4
D. When Solutions E and F are combined, the D. 2, 8, 7
resulting solution has the same concentration as E. 2, 8, 8

Solution _____. 41. An element, Y, forms a chloride, YCl3.

Which one of the following is the formula of
the oxide of Y?
E. If you evaporate off half of the water in
Solution B, the resulting solution has the same A. Y3O2
B. Y2O3
concentration as Solution _____. C. YO2
D. YO
E. Y2O
 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

The following questions are based on The Mole: 45. The following balanced chemical equation
is for the burning of propane gas in
The following information will be required to oxygen. How many moles of carbon
answer some of the following questions. dioxide (CO2) are formed when one mole
Element Atomic Mass of propane is burned? (Circle the correct
Hydrogen (H) 1g answer):
Carbon (C) 12g
Oxygen (O) 16g C3H8 (g) + 5O2(g) 3CO2(g) + 4H2O(g)
Iron (Fe) 56g
Sodium (Na) 23 g A. 1 mol
Sulphur (S) 32 g B. 2 mol
C. 3 mol
42. Which weights more, one mole of Fe or one
D. 4 mol
mole of water? _________________
E. 5 mol
Explain: ____________________________
____________________________________
46. The molecular formula of vinegar is
____________________________________ C2H4O2 and the molecular formula of
sugar is C6H12O6.
If you had exactly 1 mole of vinegar
43. A mole of a substance consists of N particles and 1 mole of sugar, would you have
of the substance (N = 6x1023 and is called the same number of atoms in each
Avogadro’s Number). Ordinary oxygen sample? (Circle the correct answer):
consists of O2 molecules. How many oxygen
atoms, then, are there in 3 moles of ordinary
oxygen. (Circle the correct answer): Yes No
A. N
B. 2xN Explain your answer:
C. 3xN _________________________________
D. 4xN _________________________________
E. 6xN _________________________________
_________________________________
44. The molar mass of a Carbon-containing _________________________________
compound is 16g/mol. Which of the
following could be the molecular formulae
of this compound? (Circle the correct 47. Circle which of the following
answer): contains the largest number of atoms:
A. CO A. 2 grams of H2

B. C2H2 B. 12 grams of C
C. CO2
C. 32 Grams of O2
D. CH4
E. C2H4 D. 32 grams of S

E. 44 grams of CO2
 Chemistry Questionnaire 2

48. Circle which one of the following is the Calculation Space for questionnaire:
percentage by mass of hydrogen in
methane, CH4

A. 25

B. 30

C. 33.3

D. 50

E. 60

49. Circle which one of the following is the

concentration, in grams/l, of NaOH in a
solution labelled 0.2M NaOH.
A. 0.4

B. 4.0

C. 8.0

D. 20

E. 80

50. 56g of Fe react with 32g of S to give 88g

of FeS.112g of Fe react with 80g of S to
give how many grams of FeS?
Equations for reaction:

Calculation:

Answer: ____________________
 ITS Chemistry ~ Teacher Questionnaire

Personal Details:
Name: _____________________
School: _________________________________________________________
How many years have you been teaching Leaving Certificate Chemistry? __________

Opinion of ITS Chemistry intervention programme:

Please answer Yes or No to the following questions:

Yes/No
Was the content of the intervention programme too basic for Leaving Certificate
pupils?
Was the content of the intervention programme pitched at the correct level for
Leaving Certificate pupils?
Was the content of the intervention programme too difficult for Leaving
Certificate pupils?
Did pupils find the content of this programme interesting?
Did pupils find the content of this programme challenging?
Did this programme introduce materials in an effective manner?
Would you repeat this programme next year with your Chemistry class?
Was the training provided before implementation adequate?

If there were aspects of this programme that were too easy please comment on them here:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
If there were aspects of this programme that were too difficult please comment on them here:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
What aspects of this programme did pupils enjoy?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
What aspects of this programme did pupils find interesting?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
What were the strengths of this programme?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
What were the weaknesses of this programme?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
How was this programme successful?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
How was this programme unsuccessful?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Do you have any suggestions for improvements in the training aspect for this intervention?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Any other comments:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Name = _________________________

School = _________________________

Address = ________________________

________________________

________________________

Email = ______________________________

Contact number = _______________________

(Many thanks for taking the time to implement this module

and for filling in this advice form. Please return after
completion of module with pupils’ post tests).
 Unit One = The Particulate Nature of Matter

Lesson Comment
Lesson 1~ Looking At what
Matters!

Lesson 2~ The Different

States of Matter

Lesson 3~ Change of State

Lesson 4~ Thinking about

Solids, Liquids and Gases 1

Lesson 5~ Thinking about

Solids, Liquids and Gases 2
 Unit Two = Elements, Compounds and Mixtures

Lesson Comment
Lesson 1~ Elements versus
Compounds

Lesson 2~ Pure
Substances versus
Mixtures

Lesson 3~ Solutions ~
special types of mixtures

Lesson 4~ Lesson Four:

The Atom

Lesson 5~ Atoms,
Elements, Compounds and
Mixtures
 Unit Three = The Periodic Table of the Elements

Lesson Comment
Lesson 1~ Elements in
everyday life

Lesson 2~ Symbols and

Properties

Lesson 3~ History of the

Periodic Table

Lesson 4~ Testing
Different Elements
 Unit Four = The Atom

Lesson Comment
Lesson 1~ Sub-atomic
Particles

Lesson 2~ A closer look at

Isotopes

Lesson 3~ The Mass

Spectrometer

Lesson 4~ Testing for

Different Ions 1

Lesson 5~ Testing for

Different Ions 2
 Unit Four = The Atom

Lesson Comment
Lesson 6 and 7~ History
of the Atom

Lesson 8~ The Unstable

Nucleus!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lesson 9~ Radioactivity

Lessons 10~ Where

exactly are the electrons?
It’s all a little cloudy!1

Lessons 11~ Where

exactly are the electrons?
It’s all a little cloudy! 2

Lesson 12~ Important

parts of this chapter
 Unit Five = Reactions in Chemistry

Lesson Comment
Lesson 1~ Different types
of Reactions

Lesson 2~ Reactions in a
Petri dish

Lesson 3~ Mass and

Chemical Reactions

Lesson 4~ Chemical
Equations
 Unit Six = Bonding

Lesson Comment
Lesson 1~ Balancing
Chemical Equations

Lesson 2~ Ionic Bonding

Lesson 3~ Bond with a

Classmate!

Lesson 4~ Looking at Ionic

and Covalent Compounds

Lesson 5~ Covalent
Bonding

Lesson 6 ~ Revising
bonding
 Unit Seven = The Mole

Lesson Comment
Lesson 1~ A closer look at
Chemical Equations

Lesson 2~ Comparing
masses of different
substances

Lesson 3~ More about the

Mole

Lesson 4~ Counting
Particles

Lesson 5~ Counting Chalk

Particles

Lesson 6~ Percentage
Composition
 Unit Seven = The Mole

Lesson Comment
Lesson 7~ Mole Relays

Lesson 8~ Solutions

Lesson 9~ Concentration
of Solutions

Lesson 10~ A Standard

Solution!

There may have been a number of misconceptions among your pupils that

were not addressed in this module. Please use one of the following forms to

describe the problem. If you feel you have a suitable strategy to deal with

these learning impediments, feel free to use the space provided to describe

the approach you took.

Learning impediment record sheet

Topic:

Description of shortcoming:

Nature of learning impediment:

Action to be taken with student/group:

Points for future planning:

Outcome:
 Appendix E ~
An Example of an ‘ITS
Chemistry’ lesson
 Lesson Two: The Different States of Matter (Pupil)

Preparing the Brain

There are three states of matter: _____________, _______________ and ______________.

Matter is made up of small particles. Evidence that matter is made up of small particles
can be seen by:
____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Matter can be changed from one state to another. Fill in the names of each change below.

Solid
Temperature Temperature
increases decreases
_______________ _______________

Liquid

_______________ _______________

Gas

How big is a particle?

After the presentation by your teacher discuss the following statements with your partner.
State whether each statement is true or false and explain your answer.

The class will then discuss all explanations. You might want to change your answers after
the class discussion, if you do, use the change of mind box provided.
 Statement True or False Explanation Change of mind

The particles that make

up solids, liquids and
gases are invisible.

The particles that make

up solids, liquids and
gases can be seen using
a microscope in the
school laboratory

The particles in solids, liquids and gases:

Take a minute to sketch what you think the particles in a solid, liquid and gas would look
like if you used a very powerful microscope. Such a microscope is available that can see
these particles – it is called a scanning tunnelling microscope.

Discuss your sketch with your partner, do you agree? In a few minutes, you will discuss
your ideas with the rest of the class. If you change your ideas during the discussion, you
may use the boxes below to illustrate your new ideas.
 Practical Activity
It is possible to change state from a solid to a
liquid, a liquid to a gas and also to reverse these
changes.

If you were given the following substances how

would you convert them from their solid state to
a liquid state?

• Butter
• Chocolate
_______________________________________
(The thermometer should be clamped in the
_______________________________________ solid, but just above the bottom of the dish)
_______________________________________
How did you ensure that this is a fair
Activity 1: test?
In this activity you will determine and then
compare the temperature at which different
solids change state to a liquid and a gas.

Equipment needed:
• A variety of different substances
• Evaporating dish
• Tripod and gauze
• Tongs
• Bunsen burner or hot plate
• Thermometer
• Goggles
• Gloves
Results:
Method: Substance Temperature at which it
1. Collect a sample of the substance and changes state from a solid to
place it in the evaporating dish. a liquid
2. Place the dish on the tripod and gauze
and heat using the Bunsen burner or hot
plate.
3. Record the temperature at which the
substance goes from a solid to a liquid.
4. Plot this information on a bar graph.
Place the name of the substance on the
x-axis and the temperature on the y axis.

Please be careful with

hot substances
Activity 2: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
Equipment needed:
• Beaker _____________________________________
• Tripod and gauze _____________________________________
• Bunsen burner or hot plate
• Thermometer With your partner discuss what is happening
• Ice to the particles of the butter or the chocolate or
• Graduated cylinder the margarine as the substance changes state
from a liquid to a gas.
Method:
1. Place some ice in a beaker and place on _____________________________________
to of the tripod and gauze. _____________________________________
2. Heat the ice using the Bunsen burner
3. Record any observations in the space _____________________________________
provided. Why do different substances change from a
solid to a liquid, or a liquid to a gas at
Observations: different temperature (see graph).
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Discuss these answers with the rest of your
class mates.

After the discussion you may feel you need to

revise the answers that you gave to the above
questions. Revise these answers in the space
provided below:

Question One:
What happens to the particles of the butter or
the chocolate or the margarine as the
substance changes state from a solid to a
Explanation Time liquid?
_____________________________________
Do you think butter, chocolate etc are made
up of particles? Why? _____________________________________
____________________________________
_____________________________________
____________________________________
Question Two:
____________________________________
What happens to the particles of the butter or
____________________________________ the chocolate or the margarine as the
substance changes state from a liquid to a gas?
With your partner discuss what is happening
_____________________________________
to the particles of the butter or the chocolate
or the margarine as the substance changes _____________________________________
state from a solid to a liquid.
_____________________________________
Why do different substances change from a solid to a liquid, or a liquid to a gas at different
temperature (see graph).
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Place the names of each of the changes of state occurring in the above diagram over each of
the different arrows.

Homework:
Mary and Tom set out to make chocolate rice krispie buns for Paul’s birthday party. There
is a lot of Chemistry involved in making these treats. This is the recipe that they followed:

Ingredients and Recipe

Equipment
• Rice Krispie cereal 1. Melt the chocolate carefully: place the cooking chocolate
• Cooking Chocolate in the bowl and place the bowl in a sink of boiling water.
• Large bowl 2. Add the Rice Krispie cereal: be careful not to add too
• Spatula much, make sure allow the rice krispies are covered in
• Bun casings chocolate.
3. Place mix in the bun casings.
4. Place in the refrigerator and cool until cold.
5. Enjoy.

Explain what happens to the particles of the cooking chocolate in the making of the rice
krispie buns.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
How many changes of state are occurring in this diagram? __________

The diagram below shows a girl blowing up a balloon. Using your knowledge of the
particles in gases explain how a balloon inflates.

__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Lesson Two: The Different States of Matter Activity 1:
(Teacher) • A variety of different substances e.g.
butter, lard, cooking chocolate, iodine,
Learning Outcomes: candle wax and naphthalene (moth
In this lesson pupils will: balls)
• Develop an appreciation for the actual size • Evaporating dish
of the particles that make up matter. • Tripod and gauze
• Develop their macroscopic and • Tongs
microscopic understanding of solids, • Bunsen Burner
liquids and gases. • Thermometer
• Develop an understanding of phase • Goggles
change. • Gloves
• Use the particulate model to explain
simple occurrences in everyday life. Activity 2:
• Beaker
• Tripod and gauze
Misconceptions to look out for: • Bunsen Burner
• Pupils are not aware of how small an • Thermometer
atomic and molecular particle is. They feel
• Ice
a light microscope can be used to see
• Graduated cylinder
particles. Pupils need to be made aware of
this and that only really powerful
(Note: quantities listed for activities 1 and 2
(scanning tunnelling microscopes) can be
are for individual groups)
used to see particles.
• Pupils feel that when a substance is heated
Additional Equipment for class
the individual particles in that substance
demonstrations
actually expand in size.
• Beaker
• Some pupils also attribute macroscopic
• Models of water molecules
properties (e.g. melting/dissolving) to
microscopic particles. When a substance
melts, they feel that the particles that make
The Lesson:
up these substances also melt etc.
• Pupils feel that when water is heated and
Introduction (8 minutes): Correct
changes from a liquid to a gas, the water
homework from previous lesson. Pupils
molecule splits into separate Hydrogen
should have made the connection between
and Oxygen atoms. These then recombine
the effect of increasing temperature and the
to form a water molecule when water
energy particles have to move about and
changes state from a gas to a liquid.
diffuse. The food colouring placed in the
• Some pupils feel that water that has hottest cup will diffuse quicker. This is
condensed on the outside of glass because the water particles have more
containers comes through the glass. energy and will collide more often off the
food colouring particles and as a result the
food colouring particles will move about the
Equipment and Chemicals needed: solution quicker. If you wanted you could
do a demonstration with food colouring and
Introduction: water samples at different temperatures to
• Computer and data projector revise this concept.
• PowerPoint presentation (section 1, lesson
2 on CD).
• Marbles and plastic bottle
Once homework has been corrected and any
alternative conceptions discussed and
altered, pupils should then complete the
‘preparing the brain’ exercise. This will
ensure pupils will understand terms when
they meet them again in the lesson.

Development 1(15minutes):
In this section of the class the teacher will
show the PowerPoint associated with this Complete the discussion by allowing them
lesson. The PowerPoint is designed to to complete the second set of boxes
encourage pupils to challenge pre-existing provided. At this point in the lesson pupils
ideas about the size of particles. should understand that the particles in a
Once the PowerPoint is complete, pupils will solid are tightly packed with very little
then discuss the statements in their own work movement, that the particles in a liquid are
books. not as tightly packed and as a results can
move past each other and that the particles
Statement One = The particles that make up in a gas have a great deal of energy, are
solids, liquids and gases are invisible. Here spread far apart and move a lot as a result.
pupils should realise that they are not invisible A correct set of diagrams are available in the
but just very, very small, too small to be seen PowerPoint presentation.
with the naked eye. Invisibility suggests that
they do not exist, but at this point the leaner is Development 2 (15 minutes):
aware that matter is made up of particles. This activity is included to allow pupils the
experience of different substance melting and
Statement Two = The particles that make up evaporating.
solids, liquids and gases can be seen using a Many pupils only ever experience the phase
microscope in the school laboratory. The change that occurs in water. In this investigation
answer to this is false, as the microscope in pupils are required to determine and then
the school laboratory is not powerful enough compare the temperature which different solids
to see theses small particles. change state from a solid to a liquid and then to
a gas. In this investigation pupils need to realise
After this discussion pupils should then start the following in order for the test to be fair:
to think about the arrangement of particles in a • The same quantity of substance should be
solid, liquid and a gas. Allow them to express heated
their own ideas in the first set of boxes • The Bunsen burner flame needs to be the
provided, and discuss these with their partner. same distance from the evaporating dish
Next discuss these ideas as a class. Challenge each time or the hotplate left at the same
any incorrect ideas (for example watch out for setting.
pupils who draw the particles of a liquid at the • The point at which they take the temperature
bottom of the box with space between them needs to be constant each time (for example
etc). do they record the temperature when the
Use models of marble in a plastic bottle to very first signs of the change from a solid to
show the arrangement of particles in liquids a liquid occurs, or do they take the
and gas. Gently move the bottle to illustrate a temperature when all of the solid has
liquid, and shake the bottle (add energy) to changed state to a liquid?)
show the arrangement of particles in a gas. • The thermometer needs to be in the same
There are PowerPoint slides available to position for each test.
illustrate this also.
Suggested substances: (you may choose as This means each group will only be
many of these substances as you like. Try handling one substance and the class can
and included the different types of phase work together to collect the information.
change) There is a results table provided in the
PowerPoint attached to this lesson to allow
Substance Advantage of that substance the class collect information as a group.
(phase change
demonstrated) Development 3 (15 minutes)
Cooking Pupils can relate phase change In this activity pupils will be exposed to
Chocolate to everyday life experiences the macroscopic and microscopic view of
(solid to
the phase changes that occur in water.
liquid)
Each group of pupils will take some ice in
Butter Pupils can relate phase change
(solid to to everyday life experiences a beaker and heat it using at Bunsen
liquid) burner. In their observations pupils should
Lard Pupils can relate phase change note the temperature at which ice turns to
(solid to to everyday life experiences water and water turns to steam.
liquid)
Candle Wax Pupils can relate phase change At some point in the phase change from a
(solid to liquid to everyday life experiences. It liquid to a gas, pupils should note bubbles
to gas) also demonstrates all three appearing in the water. Challenge pupils
phase changes in one activity on what these bubbles are made of. Watch
(i.e. the solid candle wax, the out for responses that include hydrogen or
liquid under the flame and the oxygen, as this indicates that pupils
gas which is the fuel being
believe in this phase change that the water
burned)
Iodine* There is an obvious colour
particle splits into separate atoms or
(liquid to gas) change from the liquid to the molecules of hydrogen and oxygen, a very
gas phase (brownish to purple) common misconception. The bubbles are
Naphthalene There is a distinctive smell bubbles of steam (water molecules in the
*(moth balls) when this substance changes gaseous form). Ask pupils what is happing
from a solid to a gas. The fact to the water particles as it is being heated.
(solid to gas) that one can smell it, tells us Watch out for responses that include that
there is a gaseous phase. This the water particles are expanding in size
makes phase change more etc.
tangible for the pupil.
* These samples need to be heated in the As pupils carry out the very concrete
cupboard tangible activity of changing the state of
water from a solid, to a liquid to a gas, the
Once pupils have collected their data, they teacher should also be using the models of
are required to plot this information on the the water particles to explain what is
graph paper provided. Pupils can plot a bar happening.
graph. Place the name of the substance on
the x-axis and the temperature at which it Place the water particles in a beaker. (See
melts on the y-axis. This graph will help diagram below of water particles).
them realise that the phase change occurs at
different temperatures for different NB: Explain the model to the class. Point out
substances. If you feel that this activity may that the water particle is made up of two atoms
take too much time, or may be messy in the of hydrogen (white) and one atom of oxygen
classroom, you can assign a different (red). Also discuss how there is an attraction
substance to each group and collect results between one water particle and another. Use
on the board or on the PowerPoint. the term intermolecular force, a weak type of
bonding.
Place a number of these particles in a beaker A useful model to help explain phase change
and discuss what is occurring is the model of the football stadium. The
microscopically in the experiment that the crowd sitting in the stand are similar to the
pupils are doing parallel to this. Show the particles in a solid, the crowd standing in the
particles tightly packed in the solid (ice) terraces is similar to the particles in a liquid
phase, show them being able to flow past and the football players are similar to the
each other in the liquid (water) phase and particles in a gas. The football can be used
show the complete separation in the gaseous to explain the effect of the movement of gas
(steam) phase. particles on other objects. (~ Brownian
motion).
Point out that the separation of the
Hydrogen and oxygen atoms does not occur
at all. Also explain that the particles do not
expand in size, they just spread further away
from each other.

There are illustrations available in the

PowerPoint on the CD for this lesson that
look at what occurs at a particulate level
during phase change.

Also introduce the terms melting point,

boiling point etc. into this explanation
Or
Pupils should realise that the temperatures at
which different substances change state are
as a result of the different strength of
Conclusion: (15 minutes): Get pupils to plot intermolecular forces between the particles
the temperature at which ice changes to of that substance.
water on the graph from activity one. This
will add to the data they have already End the class by filling in the change of state
collected and will reaffirm that there are diagram. The diagram is particularly useful
stronger forces of attraction between as it contains both macroscopic and
particles in some substance compared to the microscopic images of what occurs during
others. each phase change.

Get them to use the melting points to

determine which substance has the strongest
intermolecular forces. (The one with the
highest melting temperature).

Help pupils understand the phase change at

a microscopic level during the explanation
time of the class.