Article Sidebar

Submitted
July 10, 2019
Accepted
August 6, 2019
Published
August 19, 2018
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 344 Download : 613

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research aims to investigate the concept understanding of first year students of study program chemistry education, faculty of mathematics and natural sciences, Universitas Islam Indonesia Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The sample used in this study was 49 students. Data collection instruments used are multiple choice questions.  The results of the study show that there are still many students who have difficulty in determining the example of the force between molecules that occurs in several molecules. Students also have difficulty in determining the molecuar forces between molecules from the example case given. The level of student understanding in the material concept of moleculecular forces is classified intermediate.

Article Details

License

Author retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the simultaneously licenced under A Creative Commons Attribution (CC-By-SA) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the worsk's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

How to Cite
Musawwa, M. M., Wulan Febriana, B., & Normalia Arlianty, W. (2018). Analysis of Understanding of First-Year Chemistry Education Students on Molecular Forces Topic. IJCER (International Journal of Chemistry Education Research), 2(2), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.20885/ijcer.vol2.iss2.art3
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. A. H, Johnstone, Chem. Educ, 61 (10), 847 – 849, (1984).
  2. L. Cardellini, Educacion Quimica, 23 (2), 305 – 310, (2012)
  3. M. Muchson, Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Malang, 1 (1), 14 – 25, (2013)
  4. D. F. Treagust, G. Chittleborough, T. Mamiala, Int. J. Sci. Educ, 25 (11), 1353 – 1368, (2003)
  5. A. H. Johnstone, J. Chem. Educ, 70, 701 – 704, (1993)
  6. P. J. Garnett, and D. F. Treagust, JRST, 29 (2), 121 – 142, (1992)
  7. M. J. Sanger and T. J. Greenbowe, JRST, 34 (4), 377 – 398, (1997)
  8. H. Ozmen and A. Ayas, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract, 4, 279 – 290, (2003)
  9. S. Unal, M. Calik, A. Ayas, and R. K. Coll, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ, 24 (2), 141 – 172, (2006).
  10. G. Nicoll, Int. J. Sci. Educ, 23 (7), 707 – 730, (2001)
  11. R. K. Coll and D. F. Treagust, JRST, 40 (5), 464 – 486, (2003)
  12. D. F. Treagust, Int. J. Sci. Educ, 10 (2), 159 – 169, (1988)
  13. R. F. Peterson and D. F, Treagust, J. Chem. Educ, 66 (6), 459 – 460
  14. R. F. Peterson and D. F, Treagust, P. Garnett, JRST, 26 (4), 301 – 314, (1989)
  15. K. S. Taber, Sch. Sci. Rev, 78 (285), 85 – 95, (1997)
  16. H. K. Boo, JRST, 35 (5), 569 – 581, (1998)
  17. K. C. D. Tan and D. F. Treagust, 81 (294), 75 – 84, (1999)
  18. V. Barker and R. Millar, Int. J. Sci. Educ, 22 (11), 1171 - 1200
  19. N. Becker, K. Noyes, and M. Cooper, J. Chem. Educ, 93, 1713 – 1714, (2016)
  20. R. S. DeFever, H. Bruce, G. Bhattacharyya, J. Chem. Educ. 92, 415 – 426 (2015)