406
Problem Solving Ability: Symbolic Level Analysis in Chemistry Education Students on the Topic of Chemical
Equilibrium
Aceng Haetami
1, Elsya Febiana Fahira
2, La Rudi
3, Benjamin Laurentino Vaz
41,2,3Department of Chemistry Education-Universitas Halu Oleo
4Department of Chemistry-Faculty of EducationInstituto Superior Cristal (ISC) Dili Timor Leste
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Article History:
Accepted: 05-09-2022 Approved: 17-10-2022
Abstract: This study aimed to determine the ability to solve chemical problems at the symbolic level of chemistry education students and to determine student responses to the Three Tier test question model. The method used descriptive. The sample this study were chemistry education students at Halu Oleo University with totalling 73 students.
Data collection in this study was carried out using research instruments in the form of Three Tier Test questions and student response questionnaires to the question model.
The analysis results show that 16.3% of students understand the concept, 60.3% have misconceptions, and 23.4% do not understand the concept.
Keywords:
problem-solving;
symbolic level;
chemical analysis Corresponding Author:
Aceng Haetami
Department of Chemistry Education Universitas Halu Oleo
E-mail: [email protected]
Chemistry studies the structure, properties, changes in matter, and the energy that accompanies it (Hanson et al., 2016; Sappaile, 2019). Chemistry is a branch of natural science that studies the properties of matter, the structure of matter, changes in matter, and the energy that accompanies chemical reactions (Artini & Wijaya, 2020; Sujana et al., 2014). One of the school courses only taught at the high school level is studied more deeply in higher education in chemistry (Faika & Side, 2011).
Learning chemistry begins at the macroscopic level, moves on to the microscopic level for scientific explanation, and then moves on to the symbolic level (Jaber & BouJaoude, 2012; Margel et al., 2008). In chemistry, many calculation problems require mathematical ability (Srougi, M. C., & Miller, 2018). So symbolic understanding is necessary for chemistry learning (Dori & Hameiri, 2003; Schwedler & Kaldewey, 2020). The symbolic level is important for students because it can simplify complex chemical concepts (Sujak & Daniel, 2018; Yousif, 2019). Most pupils used various sources to explain chemical ideas in symbolic form. For students to fully understand chemical principles, it is hoped that they would be able to understand from multiple perspectives based on the symbolic aspects they already comprehend (Sukmawati, 2019).
It is well known that people have trouble learning chemistry because they lack basic learning skills, a foundation in mathematics, and problem-solving abilities (Firdaus et al., 2020b; Muderawan et al., 2019). Because many calculation issues in chemistry call for mathematical proficiency, symbolic knowledge is crucial to learning (Sukmawati, 2019). Understanding the symbolic level of students can be seen in the ability of students to solve symbolic level questions (Aulia & Hanum, 2017).
Additionally, it was explained that the symbolic level explains natural phenomena expressed in images. In contrast, the submicroscopic level explains the reality of everyday life from a microscopic perspective. The macroscopic level is an aspect that explains something that happens in everyday life (Sukmawati, 2019). According to Zahro & Ismono (2021), chemistry is a more challenging subject to grasp (Zahro & Ismono, 2021) (Zahro’ & Ismono, 2021)(Zahro’ & Ismono, 2021)(Zahro’ &
Ismono, 2021). Based on pre-research surveys, 77 percent of 30 students agreed with this statement. The nature of the investigation is described, explained, and predictions are made using various models in chemical processes.
The essential skills that students should have by the end of the first semester may undoubtedly be used as capital to support the accomplishment of learning objectives about learning achievement. Based on the facts, it was discovered that there is still a huge gap between reality and expectations. Many first-year students who enroll in basic chemistry classes continue to struggle and receive grades below the minimum requirements (Faika & Side, 2011). The symbolic level is an aspect of chemistry in the form of symbols or writings, both qualitatively and quantitatively, such as the chemical formula of a compound, symbols, diagrams, pictures, reaction equations, and calculations (Chittleborough & Treagust, 2007; Sukmawati, 2019). Many students still find it challenging to learn introductory chemistry because the chemistry material is filled with formulas and symbols (Asbupel et al., 2021; Sirhan, 2007). According to preliminary findings from handing out questionnaire forms to incoming students, 68.3 percent of pupils reported difficulty learning chemistry concepts connected to chemical symbols and
DOAJ-SHERPA/RoMEO-Google Scholar-IPI Halaman: 406—414
formulas. If you are studying chemistry teaching, you need to learn this because failing to do so will make it more complicated for pupils to comprehend chemistry in the upcoming semester.
Chemical equilibrium is the subject of the study since it is seen to be a challenging concept for pupils to grasp.
Chemical equilibrium is the most challenging area of study in chemistry since most of its concepts—such as the ideas of equilibrium and equilibrium shift—are abstract (Lukum et al., 2016). The average final exam scores for the chemical equilibrium material during the past three years, from 2018, 2019, and 2020, with average scores of 53.95, 41.96 consecutivel y, and 78.62 consecutively. The typical score in 2020 was KKM (Minimum Completeness Criteria). However, because the transmission of Covid-19 is an emergency this year, the learning process is done online.
The ability to solve symbolic-based chemistry problems is lower than the macroscopic ability, with 50.0% and 62.5%
(Ahmar et al., 2020; Aulia & Hanum, 2017). Based research by Firdaus et al. (2020); Gayon (2007) show that the inability of pupils to comprehend arithmetic problems that use symbols and formulas and give symbols for the values contained in the questions is shown by their inability to solve symbolic level chemistry problems systematically. From research results by Zahro
& Ismono (2021), Rakhmawan et al. (2019) showed that the ability of symbolic representation on chemical equilibrium material has an average percentage of 50.71 percent, which is included in the good category. Students who do not comprehend symbolic understanding will not be able to solve symbolic level chemistry problems on chemical equilibrium material due to the number of calculation questions and chemical symbols (Dula, 2018; Mayeem et al., 2018). Based on the description provided, it is vital to ascertain students' aptitude for solving chemistry issues and to assess the degree to which chemical problem-solving skills at the symbolic level of chemical equilibrium material are required.
METHODS
This study was carried out in January and February 2022, the second half of the academic year 2021–2022, at the Department of Chemistry, FKIP Universitas Halu Oleo Kendari. A total of 73 students from batch 2021 of Halu Oleo University Kendari who had registered for the Basic Chemistry I course made up the population of this study. In the study, the entire population was sampled. This approach of study is descriptive. Data were directly transferred to the sample during this study (tests and questionnaires). Based on the pattern of replies, understanding levels of students' skills to answer symbolic level chemistry questions are divided into three categories: concepts understood, concepts misunderstood, and concepts not understood.
The three steps of this research's execution were preparation, implementation, and conclusion. The creation of research instruments, such as student response questionnaires and three-tiered multiple choice questions with 20 items, is done during the planning stage. Additionally, test instruments and questionnaires must be tested to establish their validity and reliability, as well as their ability to differentiate among test takers and the degree of difficulty of the test questions. The implementation stage entails providing a questionnaire and ups to 11 valid questions in the form of three-tier multiple choices. Following the study of the responses to the student test results as well as an analysis of the information gleaned from the distribution of the distributed questionnaires was done the last stage of summarizing the research findings and creating a research report. Finding the percentage and kind of student misconceptions and the quality of student knowledge are the first steps in the data analysis stage of the test results. The percentage and category of score interpretation were then calculated using a Likert scale to examine the survey data. Based on table 1, the category for categorizing student misconceptions is carried out. The category of students' level of misconception on chemical equilibrium material concepts can be determined according to table 2. The questionnaire data analysis in this study used a Likert scale, as shown in table 3. The interpretation of the numerical scores into a category can be seen in table 4.
Table 1. Understanding Level Analysis (Gurel et al., 2015) First level Second level Third level Category
Right Right Certain Understand the concept Right Right Not sure Do not Understand the concept Right Wrong Certain Positive Flashes (misconceptions) Right Wrong Not sure Do not understand the concept Wrong Right Certain Negative flashes (misconceptions) Wrong Right Not sure Do not understand the concept
Wrong Wrong Certain Misconception
Wrong Wrong Not sure Do not Understand the concept
Table 2. Misconception Criteria (Suwarna, 2014) No Criteria Percentage
1 High 61—100%
2 Medium 31— 60%
3 Low 0—30%
Table 3. Assessment Score Guidelines (Sugiyono, 2014) Assessment Information Score
SS Strongly agree 5
S Agree 4
KS Disagree 3
TS Disagree 2
STS Strongly Disagree 1
Table 4. Score interpretation criteria (Kartini & Putra, 2020) No Score interval (%) Category
1 81—100 Very good
2 61—80 Well
3 41—60 Enough
4 21—40 Not enough
5 0—20 Very less
.
FINDINGS
Analysis of Symbolic Level Chemistry Problem Solving Ability
The analysis results of the ability to solve chemical problems at the symbolic level consist of five data indicators, as shown in table 5.
Table 5. Data on the Percentage of Student Answer Results
Indicator Questions
Understand Category Understand
Concept Misconception Not Understand Concept Determine the composition of a substance in a state of
equilibrium 1 18 (24,7 %) 41 (56,2 %) 14 (19,2 %)
Determine the value of the equilibrium constant
2 27 (36,9 %) 32 (43,8 %) 14 (19,2 %)
3 23 (31,5 %) 34 (46,6 %) 16 (21,9 %)
4 8 (10,9 %) 48 (65,8 %) 17 (23,3 %)
5 7 (9,6 %) 44 (60,3 %) 22 (30,1 %)
6 6 (8,2 %) 46 (63 %) 21 (28,8 %)
Determine the value of the degree of dissociation 7 26 (35,6 %) 33 (45,2 %) 14 (19,2 %)
8 2 (2,7 %) 53 (72,6 %) 18 (24,7 %)
9 5 (6,8 %) 50 (68,5 %) 18 (24,7 %)
10 6 (8,2 %) 54 (73,9 %) 13 (17,8 %)
Determine the relationship between Kc and Kp 11 3 (4,1 %) 49 (67,1 %) 21 (28,8 %)
Average 16,3 % 60,3 % 23,4 %
Based on these findings, it can be shown that there are more misconceptions than correct responses given by students who comprehend the topic and those who do not—table 5's information.
Understand Concept
Each indication evaluated has a different proportion of understanding concepts in the indicator. The indicator for calculating the price of the equilibrium constant, with a percentage of 36.9 percent, has the most significant proportion of concept knowledge categories. Problem 2, which asks you to determine Kc using the concentration of each compound in an equilibrium state, serves as an example of this indicator. At the same time, the indication of calculating the cost of the degree of dissociation with the lowest percentage in the category of idea understanding is 2.7 percent. Problem number 8, which asks you
to compute the degree of dissociation using a known reactant molecule's initial and equilibrium concentrations, serves as an example of this indicator. According to the questionnaire's statement, pupils who fit the bill for comprehending the subject enjoy reading about chemical equilibrium and do not have any trouble doing the same.
Figure. 1. Question Number 8
Misconception
The misconceptions that occur in students are divided into three categories refer to research by Gurel et al. (2015). This classification is based on student responses that highlight misconceptions in three situations, including pure misconceptions, misconceptions (false negative), and misconceptions (false positive). Table 6 analyzes the percentage of students' misconceptions from the three categories of answers.
Table 6. Percentage of Student's Misconception Answer Category
Indicator Questions
Student Answer Category Misconception
(False Positif)
Misconception (False Negatif)
Misconception
Determine the composition of a substance in a state of equilibrium 1 15 (20,5%) 14 (19,2%) 12 (16,4%) Determine the value of the equilibrium constant
2 10 (13,7%) 16 (21,9%) 6 (8,2%)
3 5 (6,8%) 12 (16,4%) 17 (23,3%)
4 10 (13,7%) 2 (2,7%) 36 (49,3%)
5 4 (5,5%) 11 (15,1%) 29 (39,7%)
6 8 (10,9%) 10 (13,7%) 28 (38,4%)
Determine the value of the degree of dissociation
7 3 (4,1%) 8 (10,9%) 22 (30,1%)
8 6 (8,2%) 8 (10,9%) 39 (53,4%)
9 5 (6,8%) 24 (32,9%) 21 (28,8%)
10 5 (6,8%) 27 (36,9%) 22 (30,1%)
Determine the relationship between Kc and Kp 11 12 (16,4%) 7 (9,6%) 30 (41,1%)
Average 10,3% 17,3% 32,6%
The indication defining the relationship between Kc and Kp in question 10 has the highest rate of misconceptions, with 54 students falling into this category and 73.9 percent (Table 5). After analysis, students with significant misconceptions provided three groups of answers for question number 10. The first group of students entered under the false positive condition of misconception, the second group under the false negative condition of misconception, and the third group under the condition of pure misconception. As many as 27 pupils are still irresponsible while responding to questions, with misunderstandings (false negative) having the most significant percentage of student responses at 36.9% (Table 6). With the value of Kc previously known in the problem, question number 10 asks what the pressure equilibrium constant (Kp) is worth. On average, students provide answers to determine the price of Kp using the formula Kp=Kc/(RT)∆n. Students make this mistake because they are careless when selecting the formula that will be applied to the problem. This is consistent with the findings of the investigation
by Akbar et al. (2019); Khairunnisa & Prodjosantoso (2020) that misconceptions often occur in students in calculating the value of Kp if it is known Kc is Kp=Kc/(RT)∆n even though the formula that is under expert opinion is to use the formula Kp=Kc(RT)∆n.
The indication calculating the price of the equilibrium constant contained in question 2 has the lowest percentage of misconceptions, with 32 students falling into that category and 43.8 percent (Table 5). Misconceptions (false negative) comprised 21.9 percent of student responses and had the most significant percentage (Table 6). When it is known what each compound's equilibrium concentration is, question number two asks what the value of Kc. The typical student correctly chooses the reason where a substance whose phase is gas and aqueous or a solution is used to calculate the value of the equilibrium concentration constant (Kc) and where the concentration of solids and pure liquids is not taken into account in the calculation of the equilibrium concentration constant (Kc).
However, students still experience many errors when doing mathematical calculations, so an error occurs in choosing the answer in the first tier. This is consistent with the findings of the study by Aulia (2017); Stojanovska et al. (2017) said that Symbolic level comprehension is more advantageous when combined with mathematical rigor. Rengganis (2010); Moyo(2018) explain that Most chemistry students struggle with the mathematics component. Chemistry knowledge and mathematics skills are interdependent, precisely the capacity to count. Bella et al. (2013) said that Calculation abilities are constantly necessary for every aspect of chemistry, including pH, concentration, and mole calculations. However, many students still experience problems in the mathematical aspect.
Not Understand Concept
Do not comprehend the idea in the high category, particularly the indicator determining the cost of the equilibrium constant in question number 5. Students who fall into this category include up to 22 individuals with a percentage of 30.1 percent who do not comprehend the idea (Table 5). What is the value of the gas equilibrium constant (Kp) in a reaction given the number of moles of the starting reactants, one number of particles of the final material in equilibrium, and the overall pressure; Is the question posed in problem number 5.
Figure 2. Question Number 5
The student's error lies in using the formula used by students, not under expert opinion. It is because the actual concept in determining the Kp formula is the comparison of the product of the partial pressures of the reaction gases divided by the product of the partial pressures of the reacting gases, where each partial pressure gas raised to the power of its coefficient (Raymond, 2006). If pupils can envision something abstract, they may have the capacity to understand chemical principles well if it is realized that understanding chemistry from the submicroscopic perspective is essential. The submicroscopic level is, in fact, still poorly understood by pupils because, while teaching, only the macroscopic and symbolic levels are covered; in some instances, they are not even touched.
Many students still answer the question that to calculate Kp in an equilibrium reaction, a substance with a gas phase and an aqueous phase is used (problem number 5). It is by the research conducted R Laliyo et al. (2016); Garcia et al. (2014);
Kousathana & Tsaparlis (2002) obtained that Students' answers to the question about the gas equilibrium constant (Kp) differ because they do not realize that the data used to calculate the gas equilibrium constant (Kp) is gas pressure data, not gas concentration data. Students should first compute the partial pressure of each gaseous substance and then, using the data provided, determine the concentration of a chemical in equilibrium. The expression for the partial pressure of each gas is related to the number of moles of gas. The expression for the partial pressure of a gas is P_gas= (number of moles of gas)/(total number of moles of gas)×P_total.
Do not comprehend the idea of low, specifically the indicator indicating the relationship between Kc and Kp seen in question number 10, where 13 students with a percentage of 17.8 percent fell into the area of misconceptions (Table 5).
Considering that the value of Kc is known in the problem, question number 10 asks what the value of Kp. The mistake made by the student is in using a formula that, in the expert's view, is not appropriate. Instead, the student should have used the formula Kp = Kc (RT)∆n to determine the link between Kc and Kp if they knew the value of Kc. Contrary to professional opinion, some students still use a formula to solve issue number 10. It occurs because students only recall the Kc and Kp relationship formulae;
as a result, if students forget the formulas they have memorized, they will utilize the formula by supposing instead of believing in the third layer.
This is to the research conducted by Akbar et al. (2019). The results obtained are that the misconceptions that occur in students when determining the relationship between Kc and Kp are (a) How to calculate the value of Kp if it is known that Kc is Kp = Kc/(RT)Δn, (b) How to calculate the value of Kp if it is known that Kc is Kp = KcRT, (c) How to calculate the value of Kp if it is known that Kc is Kp = Kc/RT.
Student Responses To Symbolic Level Chemistry Problems In The Form Of Three Tier Multiple Choice
Table 7 displays the findings of the questionnaire analysis of student responses to three-tier multiple-choice questions on symbolic level chemistry that were divided into three parts and had 14 statement items.
Table 7. Student Questionnaire Results
Aspect Questions Response Trend Average Percentage (%) Criteria
Concept
1 3-5 4 78,36 Good
2 2-5 3 58,36 Enough
3 2-5 3 63,56 Good
4 3-5 4 85,48 Very Good
Average the concept aspect 71,44 Good
Language 5 3-5 4 79,73 Good
6 2-5 4 74,79 Good
Average the language aspect 77,26 Baik
Respond student
7 2-5 4 71,23 Good
8 2-5 4 78,63 Good
9 2-5 4 83,84 Very good
11 2-5 3 63,01 Good
12 3-5 4 85,48 Very good
13 3-5 4 82,74 Very good
14 3-5 4 84,38 Very good
15 2-5 4 73,97 Good
Average the responding student 77,91 Good
Students' answers to symbolic level chemistry problems presented as Three Tier Multiple Choice were based on idea aspects (71.44%), language aspects (77.26%), and student response factors (77.11%). Students enjoy chemical equilibrium material from a conceptual standpoint, but understanding the concept alone is adequate. It is demonstrated by the significant number of students who have misconceptions regarding the concepts of chemical equilibrium. Based on their responses to the questionnaire's open-ended questions, students generally stated that the content on chemical equilibrium is challenging, calls for solid numerical abilities, and necessitates knowledge of earlier topics like stoichiometry and reaction equations. When it comes to the language used in the questions, the terminology is appropriate, making the questions simple to comprehend and less likely to lead to confusion when students attempt to answer them.
The criteria are reasonable in terms of student answers. It demonstrates that practicing the Three Tier Multiple Choice questions can help students better understand the idea being taught, which is chemical equilibrium. Students concur that working on multiple-choice questions can give a general idea of how much they comprehend the topic related to chemical
equilibrium, with a proportion of 83.84 percent. Knowing the learning objectives might help students become more motivated to learn since they can assess their level of understanding of the chemical material that has been taught. The decision of how to depict chemistry at the macroscopic, microscopic, and symbol levels is made more accessible by the macrostructure of the teacher's teaching for each main macro and is taken from the introductory text. Daily experiences and social interactions that occur when teaching is learned from transcriptions of teaching and learning recordings and observations made during teaching and learning activities.
DISCUSSION
Chemical equilibrium is a state in which both reactants and products are present in concentrations with no further tendency to change over time. Chemical equilibrium involves several processes, including macroscopic aspects. Macroscopic representation is a type of representation that relates to intangible phenomena or is acquired through real-world experience. In this study, visible representation refers to a process whereby the senses observe genuine expertise. It can also take the form of commonplace experiences, like color changes during chemical reactions. The macroscopic level is intellectually acceptable and appropriate regardless of background (Demirdöğen, 2017). Another type of visible representation explains how solid salts dissolve in water (Treagust et al., 2003). Another example of a macroscopic capacity goes beyond the melting of ice cream and the rusting of iron. Chemical equilibrium occurs when both reactants and products are present in stable concentrations throughout time. Macroscopic elements are just one of the mechanisms involved in chemical equilibrium.
One of the elements that influence students' ability to solve chemistry-related problems is the relevance of the problems. Students are less exposed to word problems, as evidenced by their scores on the problem familiarity test. This suggests that the Department of Education's Basic Education Curriculum for Chemistry allots insufficient time for the portion on problem-solving that covers concepts like stoichiometry and mole concepts, gas laws, and solution concentrations. The problem's context also contributes to how well-known it is. Students will find more meaning in word problems with more context and experiences that represent actual problem scenarios. This study refers to the capacity to comprehend the problem through deciphering and interpreting the meaning of a phrase or message. Given that English is the language of instruction in chemistry and that English is the language of most chemistry textbooks, it is necessary to improve English competence among professors and students. Understanding the problem also entails converting chemical names into symbols, determining the variables required to solve it, and considering the constraints. Therefore, it seems that the six elements that contribute to chemistry problem-solving abilities are interrelated, and the implications of one aspect of chemistry education impact the consequences of the other, as shown by earlier discussions of different components. As a result, every factor must be trained as an exceptional talent to improve students' ability to solve chemistry-related problems.
Researchers have uncovered some myths about chemical equilibrium. For instance, Pedrosa & Dias (2000) cited 33 incorrect words or phrases in Portuguese chemistry textbooks, and Bilgin et al. (2003) cited ten errors in chemical equilibrium.
Other misunderstandings relate to the approach to chemical equilibrium, its characteristics, understanding of the conditions of change in chemical stability, the function of a catalyst (Bilgin et al., 2003), the idea that the reaction can only go backward if the forward reaction is stopped and predicting the equilibrium conditions (Banerjee, 1991). They also include the distinction between the characteristics of complete and reversible reactions; the influence of variables on the value of the equilibrium constant; and the notion that the concentrations of reactants and products in a state of chemical equilibrium have a straightforward arithmetic/linear relationship (Hackling & Garnett, 1985). According to Bilgin et al. (2003), the subject of chemical equilibrium is distinctive because, while teaching, misunderstandings may arise due to the phenomenon's closeness to real-world situations and its abstract nature.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis of students' performance on the Three Tier Multiple Choice test, it is possible to draw the following conclusions about their aptitude for solving symbolic level chemistry problems: The students' aptitude for solving symbolic level chemistry problems on chemical equilibrium material is based on the category of understanding, with each percentage understanding the concept being 16.3 percent, misconceptions being 60.3 percent, and 23.4 percent not understanding the concept. Students' answers to symbolic level chemistry problems presented as Three Tier Multiple Choice were based on idea aspects (71.44%), language aspects (77.26%), and student response factors (77.11%). The following suggestions can be made: (a) More research is required to determine additional strategies that can be used to reduce students' misconceptions. (b) Further research is needed to determine the most effective test questions to analyze the ability to solve chemistry problems at the symbolic level.
REFERENCES
Ahmar, D. S., Azzajjad, M. F., & Syahrir, M. (2020). Students’ representation ability in chemistry. Journal of Applied Science, Engineering, Technology, and Education, 2(2), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.35877/454ri.asci22124
Akbar, Z. D., Herdini, H., & Abdullah, A. (2019). Identifikasi miskonsepsi materi kesetimbangan kimia menggunakan tes diagnostik pilihan ganda tiga tingkat (three-tier multiple choice) pada peserta didik kelas XI MIA SMA Negeri 2 Pekanbaru. Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia Universitas Riau, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.33578/jpk-unri.v4i1.7082 Alkadrie, S. B. T., & Sahputra, R. (2013). Analisis pemahaman konseptual dan algoritmik materi kelarutan dan hasil kali
kelarutan SMAN 4 Pontianak. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran, 2(9), 1–14.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/jppk.v2i9.3311
Artini, N. P. J., & Wijaya, I. K. W. B. (2020). Strategi pengembangan literasi kimia bagi siswa SMP. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Citra Bakti, 7(2), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.38048/jipcb.v7i2.97
Asbupel, F., Retnawati, H., Yovita, S., & Munadi, S. (2021). Analysis of students’ difficulties in answering questions on the chemistry national standardized school exam in Kupang. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Research, Implementation, and Education of Mathematics and Sciences (ICRIEMS 2020), 528(Icriems 2020), 209–217.
https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210305.032
Aulia, N., & Hanum, L. (2017). Analisis Kemampuan Penyelesaian Soal Kimia Berbasis Makroskopik dan Simbolik pada Materi Hukum Dasar dan Perhitungan Kimia di Kelas X SMA Negeri 1 Indrapuri. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Pendidikan Kimia (JIMPK), 2(4), 237–244.
Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International journal of science education, 13(4), 487-494.
Bilgin, İ., Uzuntiryaki, E., & Geban, Ö. (2003). Student's misconceptions on the concept of chemical equilibrium. Eğitim ve Bilim, 28(127), 10-17.
Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). The modelling ability of non-major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 274–292.
https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90035F
Demirdöğen, B. (2017). Examination of chemical representations in Turkish high school chemistry textbooks. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 472-499.
Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10077
Dula, D. (2018). Improving the problems of writing chemical symbols, formulae and chemical equations an action research.
Annals of Reviews & Research, 4(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.19080/arr.2018.04.555636
Faika, S., & Side, S. (2011). Analisis kesulitan mahasiswa dalam perkuliahan dan praktikum kimia dasar di jurusan kimia FMIPA Universitas Negeri Makassar. Chemica: Jurnal Ilmiah Kimia Dan Pendidikan Kimia, 12(2), 18–26.
https://doi.org/10.35580/chemica.v12i2.497
Firdaus, M., Rohiat, S., & Amir, H. (2020a). Analisis kemampuan penyelesaian soal kimia level simbolik secara sistematis pada materi kelarutan dan hasil kali kelarutan. Alotrop, 4(2), 148–155.
Firdaus, M., Rohiat, S., & Amir, H. (2020b). Analisis kemampuan penyelesaian soal Kimia level simbolik secara sistematis pada materi kelarutan dan hasil kali kelarutan. Alotrop: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Ilmu Kimia, 4(2), 148–155.
https://doi.org/10.33369/atp.v4i2.16697
Garcia-Lopera, R. M., & Calatayud, M. L. (2014). A brief review on the contributions to the knowledge of the difficulties and misconceptions in understanding the chemical equilibrium. Asian Journal of Education and E-Learning, 26(6), 448–463.
Gayon, E. E. P. (2007). The problem-solving ability of high school chemistry students and its implications in redefining chemistry education. International Conference on Science and Mathematics Education, Penang, Malaysia, 1(1), 1–6.
Gurel, D. K., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’
misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 989–1008.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1985). Misconceptions of chemical equilibrium. The European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 205-214
Hanson, R., Twumasi, A. K., Aryeetey, C., Sam, A., & Adukpo, G. (2016). Secondary school students’ conceptual understanding of physical and chemical changes. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2(2), 44–52.
https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.522/2016.2.2/522.2.44.52
Jaber, L. Z., & BouJaoude, S. (2012). A macro–micro–symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 973–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.569959
Kartini, K. S., & Putra, I. N. T. A. (2020). Respon siswa terhadap pengembangan media pembelajaran interaktif berbasis android. Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia Indonesia, 4(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpk.v4i1.24981
Khairunnisa, K., & Prodjosantoso, A. K. (2020). Analysis of student’s misconception in chemical equilibrium material using three tier tests. JTK (Jurnal Tadris Kimiya), 5(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.15575/jtk.v5i1.7661
Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2002). Students ‘errors in solving numerical chemical-equilibrium problems. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 3(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1039/b0rp90030c
Lukum, A., Laliyo, L. A., & Sukamto, K. (2016). Metakognisi mahasiswa dalam pembelajaran kesetimbangan Kimia. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Negeri Malang, 2(1), 112534.
Margel, H., Eylon, B. S., & Scherz, Z. (2008). A longitudinal study of junior high school students’ conceptions of the structure of materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20214
Mayeem, B. P., Naa, A. M., & Augustine, A. (2018). Enhancing senior high school students understanding of chemical formulae and nomenclature of inorganic compounds using improvised conceptual models. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(26), 22–45.
Moyo, C. (2018). Investigating the areas of student difficulty in chemistry curriculum: A case study in Qatar. Texila International Journal of Academic Research, 5(2), 1–8.
Muderawan, I. W., Wiratma, I. G. L., & Nabila, M. Z. (2019). Analisis faktor-faktor penyebab kesulitan belajar siswa pada pelajaran Kimia. Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia IndonesiaJurnal Pendidikan Kimia Indonesia, 3(1), 17–23.
https://doi.org/10.36088/manazhim.v1i1.138
Pedrosa, M. A., & Dias, M. H. (2000). Chemistry textbook approaches to chemical equilibrium and student alternative conceptions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(2), 227-236.
Rakhmawan, A., Firman, H., Redjeki, S., & Mulyani, S. (2019). Achievement profile of high school students on chemical dynamics material at three levels of representation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(4), 042027.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042027 Raymond, C. (2006). Kimia dasar edisi ketiga jilid 1. Erlangga.
Sappaile, N. (2019). Hubungan pemahaman konsep perbandingan dengan hasil belajar Kimia materi stoikiometri. JIP STKIP Kusuma Negara Jakarta, 10(2), 58–71.
Schwedler, S., & Kaldewey, M. (2020). Linking the submicroscopic and symbolic level in physical chemistry: How voluntary simulation-based learning activities foster first-year university students’ conceptual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(4), 1132–1147. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00211a
Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(2), 2–20.
Srougi, M. C., & Miller, H. B. (2018). Peer learning as a tool to strengthen math skills in introductory chemistry laboratories.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7rp00152e
Stojanovska, M., Petruševski, V. M., & Šoptrajanov, B. (2017). Study of the use of the three levels of thinking and representation. Contributions, Section of Natural, Mathematical and Biotechnical Sciences, 35(1), 37–46.
https://doi.org/10.20903/csnmbs.masa.2014.35.1.52
Sugiyono, M. (2014). Educational research methods quantitative, qualitative approach and R&D (First Edi). Alfabeta.
Sujak, K. B., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2018). Understanding of macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic representations among form four students in solving stoichiometric problems. MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(3), 83–
96.
Sujana, A., Permanasari, A., Sopandi, W., & Mudzakir, A. (2014). Literasi Kimia Mahasiswa PGSD dan Guru IPA Sekolah Dasar. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 3(1), 5–11.
Sukmawati, W. (2019). Analisis level makroskopis, mikroskopis dan simbolik mahasiswa dalam memahami elektrokimia.
Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA, 5(2), 195–204.
Suwarna, I. P. (2014). Analisis miskonsepsi siswa SMA kelas X pada mata pelajaran fisika melalui cri (certainty of response index) termodifikasi. In Jurnal Lemlit (Vol. 1, Issue 1).
Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. 2003. The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1368.
Yousif, J. F. (2019). The effectiveness of employing the molecular representation strategy in the development of information generation skills in the chemistry of second grade students in intermediate school. Opcion, 35(89), 2899–2921.
Zahro, S. F., & Ismono, I. (2021). Analisis Kemampuan Multirepresentasi Siswa pada Materi Kesetimbangan Kimia di Masa Pandemi Covid-19. Chemistry Education Practice, 4(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.29303/cep.v4i1.2338
