A SURVEY OF THE CHEMISTRY MISCONCEPTIONS HELD

BY IRISH PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS AND THE

DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES AND MATERIALS TO
PROMOTE UNDERSTANDING
Muireann Sheehan1,2 and Dr. Peter E. Childs1,2
¹ National Centre for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching and Learning,
University of Limerick, Ireland.
² Department of Chemical and Environmental Sciences, University of Limerick, Ireland.

Abstract: The following paper reports on the methodology of a study designed to investigate
the misconceptions and conceptual understanding of pre-service science teachers about basic
chemistry concepts and on an intervention designed to facilitate pre-service science teachers to
address this issue. The reflections of the early career researcher carrying out this study are also
provided in this paper with emphasis on the experience of the ESERA Summer School 2012
and the effect of this experience on the study.
Keywords: Chemistry misconceptions, blended learning, online learning, ESERA Summer
School

OVERVIEW OF STUDY
This is a two-phase mixed methods study. The aim of the first phase is to investigate pre-
service science teachers’ misconceptions about basic and fundamental chemistry concepts and
whether the model of science teacher education (STE), or other variables, has any impact on
understanding of basic chemistry concepts. The aim of the second phase is to address this issue
by developing strategies and materials to target this issue with a group of pre-service science
teachers. A blended learning strategy has been utilised, the goal of which is facilitate pre-
service science teachers (PSSTs) to address their own chemistry understanding by focusing
them on targeting pupil misconceptions. A specific purpose website, www.subatomic.ie, has
been created to facilitate the online component of this blended learning intervention.
PHASE 1: INVESTIGATION MISCONCEPTIONS IN CHEMISTRY
Rationale
Many studies have been carried out on misconceptions in science. Studies carried out include
those on misconceptions about science careers and nature of science in addition to
misconceptions about content knowledge of physics, chemistry and biology (Pfundt & Duit,
2009). According to Pfundt & Duit (2009) the majority of research carried out about content
knowledge is in the area of physics with over 2000 papers published. Biology is the next most
researched area with over 1000 papers published while chemistry is the least researched area of
the three. Studies that have been carried out on misconceptions in chemistry have found that
this issue is prevalent among primary-level (Valanides, 2000), secondary-level (Varelas,
Pappas & Rife, 2006), and, third-level students (Ayas & Demirbas, 1997). There is also
evidence that pre-service science teachers (PSSTs) have inadequate knowledge of chemistry
concepts (Chin, 2005; Erduran, 2003). In order to promote conceptual understanding of
chemistry and reduce the interference of misconceptions, teachers must have the necessary
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to address the misconceptions of their pupils. This PCK
should include knowledge of common pupil misconceptions and appropriate strategies,
explanations and analogies to address them (Shulman, 1986). Furthermore, teachers must have
sound subject matter knowledge (SMK). Their SMK should consist of scientifically acceptable
concepts and misconceptions should not be present (Brickhouse and Bodner, 1992). Therefore,
teacher education (TE), whether initial or continuous, must at minimum ensure that teachers
have a sound understanding of the fundamental concepts, which they will teach, and provide
them with the necessary skills to access and understand the most up-to-date information about
promoting understanding among pupils.
An absence of literature regarding the effect of variability in TE programmes has recently been
noted (Gansle, Noell & Burns, 2012). Kleichmann, Richter, Kunter, Elsner, Besser, Krauss &
Baumert (2013) found that the SMK of pre-service mathematics teachers did not differ
provided they were at the same stage of progress through their TE programme. However, SMK
did improve between the beginning and end of programmes. Studies which compare the
conceptual understanding of PSSTs following different science teacher education (STE)
models do not appear to have been conducted. There are two TE models in place in Ireland:
consecutive and concurrent. The consecutive model involves completing a science degree (3-4
years). Those desiring to become teachers must then apply for a place on a 1 year TE
programme in which they undertake educational and professional studies. The concurrent
model involves a 4-year degree in which PSSTs study their academic discipline, education,
general pedagogy and subject-specific pedagogy. These subjects are studied in parallel
throughout the duration of their 4-year degree course. Those on consecutive programmes of
STE study their science discipline in greater depth compared to those on concurrent
programmes. The candidates that apply for and receive places on either consecutive or
concurrent programmes in Ireland are generally of high quality (Drudy, 2001). There has been
some debate about the advantages of the consecutive or concurrent models (Coolahan, 2001)
and there is a commonly held belief that those on consecutive STE programmes have a better
grounding and deeper understanding in their chosen subject area than those on concurrent
courses, given that they study their academic disciplines in greater depth. The first phase of this
study examined PSSTs’ understanding of selected basic and fundamental concepts using a pen-
and-paper instrument and the effect, if any, of the model of STE on this understanding.
Methods
A pencil-and-paper instrument called the Chemistry Misconceptions Identification Instrument
(CMII) was developed and used in this study as no instrument in the literature could be found
which was appropriate for investigating chemistry misconceptions across a range of
fundamental areas. The conceptual areas to be included in the CMII were selected after the
concepts in the upper second-level chemistry syllabus had been categorised in order of
increasing complexity. The basic conceptual areas selected were particulate nature of matter
(PNM), chemical bonding, and, stoichiometry and the mole. The authors determined that a
sound understanding of these conceptual areas was required to be able to access more complex
concepts, such as electrochemistry, organic chemistry and equilibrium which synthesise and
build upon these basic concepts. A complex concept was also selected for inclusion on the
instrument to investigate whether understanding of basic concepts correlated with sound
understanding of synthesis concepts. Conceptual questions in these four areas were selected
from the literature or developed by the authors. The instrument was piloted with 212 PSSTs.
Hour-long semi-structured interviews were carried out with 7 PSSTs to determine whether the
questions were intelligible and that PSSTs had interpreted the questions as intended. The
instrument was then revised and the final version comprises 20 questions as shown in Table 1.
A number of different styles of questions were used: traditional multiple choice, pictorial and
two-tier multiple choice.
Table 1
Content of the Chemistry Misconceptions Identification Instrument (CMII)
Concept No. of Concept(s) being tested
Area Questions
Particulate Nature of 4 Microscopic nature of atoms, elements, compounds and mixtures.
Matter 1 Conservation of matter.
1 Understanding of phase change.
2 Meaningful conversions from symbolic to microscopic.
Stoichiometry & the 4 The mole as a counting unit, using the mole concept in
Mole Concept stoichiometry and understanding of molar volumes.
Chemical Bonding 5 Process and energetics of bonding, effect of bond type and
structure of ionic compounds.
Equilibrium 3 Dynamic nature of equilibrium and the equilibrium constant.
The questions on the instrument were marked as either correct or incorrect and a score of 0 or 1
given accordingly. Participants could achieve a maximum of 20 marks for the test with 8 for
PNM, 5 for chemical bonding, 4 for stoichiometry and the mole, and, 3 for equilibrium. All
data was parametric with the exception of scores for equilibrium. Therefore, equilibrium was
treated separately by using nonparametric tests during analysis. The scores achieved and the
responses selected for each question were analysed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social
Sciences) predictive analytics software. 95% confidence intervals were considered statistically
significant. Effect sizes are measured using r 2 (or Φ). A value for r2 of 0.01 represents a small
effect size, of 0.09 represents a medium effect size and of 0.25 represents a large effect size
(Field, 2009). A value for Φ of 0.10 represents a small effect size, of 0.30 represents a
medium effect size and of 0.50 represents a large effect size (Field, 2009).
All institutions in Ireland with STE programmes were invited to participate in the study. There
are 7 consecutive programmes and 6 concurrent programmes in Ireland. All 7 consecutive
programmes took part in the study and 4 concurrent programmes took part in the study
(inclusive of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) giving a total of 467 PSSTs: 144
following consecutive and 323 following concurrent models. The researcher visited all
institutions to administer the CMII. The profile of participants may be seen in Table 2.
Table 2
Gender and age profile of the participants differentiated by TE model
Consecutive Programmes Concurrent Programmes Total Cohort
(n = 144) (n = 323) (n = 467)
Number of Participants 144 323 467
Males 31% (44) 28% (91) 29% (135)
Females 69% (99) 72% (232) 71% (331)
Summary of Main Findings
The mean score achieved by the participants in the study was 37.37% (SD=15.04) or 7.47
(SD=2.96) marks out of a possible 20. The misconceptions identified among 15% or more of
PSSTs may be seen in Table 3.There was no statistically significant difference between the
mean score for those following the consecutive (M=7.50%, SD=3.17) or concurrent (M=7.46,
SD=2.87) models of STE, t(465) = 0.141, p >0.05. Of the 467 PSSTs, 49.9% achieved less than
40% in the instrument and a further 13.9% achieved exactly 40%, giving a total of 63.8% of
PSSTs achieving 40% or less, i.e. answering 8 questions or fewer correctly out of 20 questions
in total. The mean scores for each conceptual area of the instrument were also compared for
both groups. Some areas of statistical significance were identified, however, the differences
between the mean scores for the two groups were consistently less than a single question on the
instrument and these differences had small effect sizes. The trend in these differences was also
not consistent, with consecutive PSSTs being marginally better in one conceptual area while
concurrent PSSTs are marginally better in another area. Further analysis involving variables of
age and level of upper second-level study of chemistry reveals that the differences found were
actually due to differences in upper second-level study of chemistry and the length of time
since second level experiences. That STE had no impact on understanding of the chemistry
concepts included in the CMII was further emphasised by the lack of significance associated
with the number of years that PSSTs had studied science and chemistry in their concurrent
courses. This finding was in contrast to Kleichmann, Richter, Kunter, Elsner, Besser, Krauss &
Baumert’s (2013) investigation of change in understanding of mathematical concepts at the
beginning and end of pre-service mathematics teachers study in teacher education programmes.
It is possible that the lack in improvement found among PSSTs is due to the widely
acknowledged fragmented nature of STE courses (Coolahan, 2001). A more detailed report of
these findings may be found elsewhere in the conferences proceedings.
Table 3
Misconceptions identified in 15% or more of PSSTs
Conceptual Misconceptions Identified % PSSTs
Area (n = 467)
Particulate All of the properties of a solid sample of sulphur can be attributed to a 38.5 %
Nature of single atom of sulphur.
Matter Gases have less mass than solids. 19.3 %
Only elements are pure substances, while pure compounds are 72.0 %
homogeneous (49.3 %) or heterogeneous mixtures (22.7 %).
All mixtures are heterogeneous mixtures. 30.2 %
Bonds break and may reform on a phase change from liquid to solid. 20.3 %
Confusing subscripts and coefficients in chemical equations. 46.2 %
Failure to conserve atoms or understand the role of a limiting reagent. 65.7 %
Stoichiometry The number of particles in a mole of a substance depends on the mass of 43.0 %
and the Mole the particle.
Concept 12 g of Carbon contains a mole of electrons. 59.3 %
A 1.0 M solution of ethanol contains 1.0 mL of ethanol per litre of 15.2 %
solution.
A 1.0 M solution of ethanol contains 46 g of ethanol per litre of water. 25.7 %
Chemical An ionic compound is best represented by the Bohr Model showing a 24.8 %
Bonding unit cell.
An ionic compound is best represented by the Bohr Model showing 21.8 %
covalent bonding of sodium and chloride.
The shared electron pair in HF is centrally located as this is a covalent 22.1 %
bond.
Breaking hydrogen-hydrogen bonds releases energy. 20.6 %
Breaking any bond releases energy. 32.1 %
Ionic bonding is always stronger than covalent bonding. 16.3 %
Nitrogen always forms triple bonds and can form up to five bonds with 23.1 %
other atoms.
N2H4 forms a resonance structure. 22.7 %
Equilibrium The concentrations of all species in the reaction mixture are equal at 33.0 %
equilibrium.
At equilibrium the concentration of reactants and products is always 15.0 %
equal.
PHASE 2: BLENDED LEARNING INTERVENTION
Rationale
The results from the first phase of this study indicate that STE has no impact on PSSTs’
understanding of basic chemistry concepts. This may be due to the fragmented nature of
academic, and, educational and professional disciplines in STE programmes. If “by teaching
we learn” then integration of these experiences may improve understanding of basic concepts.
Teacher educators are calling for the length of TE programmes to be extended in order to
provide more time to address the issues relevant to modern teachers. However, this extra time
cannot guarantee an improvement in the situation which the previous results have revealed,
given that those on consecutive courses study far more of their academic discipline than those
on concurrent courses and yet this seems to make no substantial difference. Furthermore, time
on TE courses is needed to address other important issues also. Therefore, this study has taken
a blended learning approach (the combination of online and face-to-face experiences). This
approach can produce more value for the face-to-face time with PSSTs while giving them
access to SMK and PCK which will be relevant for their Teaching Placements.
Bliuc, Goodyear & Ellis (2007) describe blended learning as “learning activities that involve a
systematic combination of co-present (face-to-face) interactions and technologically-mediated
interactions between students, teachers and learning resources”. Blended learning has
previously been used in the research literature to deliver teacher education courses (Khine &
Lourdusamy, 2003; Motteram, 2006), undergraduate modules (Boyle, 2005) and courses for
adult learners (Ausburn, 2004). Blended learning is generally perceived positively by learners
(Khine & Lourdusamy, 2003). It has been shown to promote learner autonomy and active
engagement (Motteram, 2006) and increase pass rates in undergraduate courses (Boyle, 2005).
The underlying hypothesis for this second phase of the study is that by creating a learning
environment in which PSSTs must focus on addressing the misconceptions of their pupils (i.e.
focus on their PCK), the PSSTs will also increase their awareness of and address
misconceptions in their own SMK, provided that they have access to appropriate learning
materials. Blended Learning was deemed an appropriate strategy for testing this hypothesis as
it provides for increased interactions between the participants (pre-service science teachers),
the learning facilitator (the researcher), and appropriate resources (primarily in the form of a
website created specifically for the purpose of this study). Furthermore, the active engagement
of learners with their own learning promoted by blended learned seems ideal for dealing with
the issue of misconceptions, given their persistence unless directly targeted. Finally, the
blended learning approach allows for more contact between the learning facilitator and the
participants than would be permitted by face-to-face interactions alone, without the adverse
effects to the learning environment that might occur if online interactions were solely used.
This would make it appropriate for use by STE programmes, in which time constraints are an
enduring issue.
Methods
Face-to-Face Component
The face-to-face component of this blended learning intervention involves six one-hour tutorial
style sessions with brief exposition by the learning facilitator about the task for the session
followed by the pre-service science teachers working in groups of three or four to complete this
task. During these sessions the pre-service science teachers are encouraged to use their laptops
or mobile phones to seek out information from the internet and specifically from a website built
specifically for this study, (www.subatomic.ie), in order to assist them in completing the task.
During this time, the learning facilitator circulates the groups to join in, ask questions or offer
guidance where necessary. The tasks given to PSSTs involved attempting to design strategies
and materials that could be useful for targeting the misconceptions of their future pupils. The
first of these sessions was an introductory session. The tasks for each of the other sessions are
shown in Table 4.

Table 4
Focus of each of the face-to-face sessions
Task No. of Sessions
Concept Cartoons 1 Session
Diagnostic Questions 1 Session
Cooperative Learning 2 Sessions
Concept Mapping 1 Session

Online Component
The online component involves self-regulated learning using the website www.subatomic.ie
and online communication via a Facebook group. SuBATOMIC (Supporting Better Activities
To Overcome Misconceptions In Chemistry) has been designed to provide PSSTs with
information about the common misconceptions they may encounter among their pupils,
research ideas to address misconceptions presented in a palatable form and research-based
teaching activities and resources. It is also a place to revise their own understanding about basic
chemistry concepts. The PSSTs will go on a Teaching Placement as part of their STE
programme in March 2014 and it is envisioned that they will continue to use this website and to
communicate online during this time. An outline of the timeframe of the study in relation to the
PSSTs’ Teaching Practice in shown in Table 5.

Table 5
Timeframe of each component of the study
Blended Learning Component Duration of Component
Face-to-Face 30th Sept. 2013 – 29th Nov. 2013
Online 30th Sept. 2013 – 25th Apr. 2014
Teaching Placement 3rd March. 2013 – 25th Apr. 2014
Feedback & Review Session End of April 2014

Recruitment of Participants
Participants were recruited during a lecture as part of the PSSTs’ STE programme. PSSTs
studying in this programme specialise in biology and choose either chemistry or physics as a
second specialisation. The researcher does not lecture or teach the PSSTs in any capacity on
their programme and this cannot be considered an influencing factor. 52 PSSTs signed up to
take part in the study. Each of the 52 PSSTs was assigned a number and using a random
number generator to place them in either the blended learning group or the control group. There
were 31 PSSTs in the blended learning group and 21 in the control group. The Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire has been previously validated and its reliability has been
tested (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1999). Participants were asked to complete this
questionnaire at the recruitment stage of the process. There were no statistically significant
differences found between the blended learning and control groups for Intrinsic goal orientation
(t(50)=-0.58, p>0.05), extrinsic goal orientation (t(50)=0.98, p>0.05), control of learning
beliefs (t(50)=0.87, p>0.05), self-efficacy for learning and performance (t(50)=0.62, p>0.05),
rehearsal (t(50)=-0.42, p>0.05), elaboration (t(50)=-0.87, p>0.05), organisation (t(50)=-0.84,
p>0.05), critical thinking (t(50)=1.47, p>0.05), metacognitive self-regulation (t(50)=-0.97,
p>0.05), peer learning (t(50)=-1.20, p>0.05), or, help seeking (t(50)=0.25, p>0.05). The
blended learning and control also did not significant differ in their choice of subject
specialisations or in their previous school study of upper secondary-level chemistry.
Data Collection & Analysis
Both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods are being utilised. During the six
face-to-face sessions, audio-visual footage of two groups has been recorded. Participants also
write biweekly entries into a reflective journal which will be collected and analysed at the end
of the intervention. Participants also communicate their experiences of the face-to-face and
online components on a Facebook group and this communication will continue throughout their
upcoming teaching placement. The CMII will also be administered at the end of the
intervention to both the blended learning and control groups. A summary of the data collection
methods being utilised in their part of the study is summarised in Table 6.

Table 6
Data Collection Methods used in Phase 2 of this Study
Areas Requiring Data Collection
Face-to-Face Sessions
Online Self-Regulated Learning
Quantitative comparison of misconceptions
between blended learning and control groups
Method of Data Collection
Audio-Visual footage of two groups over six
weeks and self-reports in biweekly reflective
journal entries.
Online Facebook communication and biweekly
reflective journal entries.
The Chemistry Misconceptions Identification
Instrument will be administered at the end of the
Intervention period.

REFLECTIONS OF A BUDDING RESEARCHER

I trained to become a science teacher specialising in physics and chemistry on a 4-year
concurrent science teacher education programme in Ireland. I became interested in carrying out
research in the area of misconceptions and conceptual understanding as I realised that I had
many misconceptions in both physics and chemistry despite the fact that I was interested in and
motivated by these subjects. I initially decided to carry out a multiple choice questionnaire on
pre-service science teachers to determine what the baseline situation was in Ireland. I visited
institutions to administer the questionnaire and somewhere along the way I realised that I was
essentially having a negative impact on the affective welfare of pre-service science teachers.
They were embarrassed as they had difficulty answering what should have been basic
questions. In some cases they would try to answer the questionnaire but not hand it up to me at
the end. They had been assured of both anonymity and confidentiality so this was not the
reason for their reluctance to return the instrument to me. However, the questionnaire was
having a negative impact on their self-image. Pre-service science teachers that prided
themselves on their knowledge of chemistry and that had probably achieved A grades
throughout the academic portion of their teaching degree or diploma suddenly found
themselves unable to decide what factors affected the number of particles in a mole of a
substance or to determine the difference between pure substances and homogeneous mixtures.
After this portion of the study had been carried out, I attended the ESERA Summer School in
Bad Honnef. The Summer School involves working groups which discuss and critique each
member’s research study. These working groups are not broken down into the same discipline
or type of research and this is one of the advantages which the Summer School provides. By
hearing about research taking place in other areas, I broadened my mind and began to consider
other pathways. Some researchers favour quantitative and others qualitiative research methods
and the issues relevant to each of these data collections methods are discussed in both formal
and informal settings. At the time I went to the summer school I knew that I wanted to
intervene to address this issue of conceptual understand but not how I wished to intervene. I
had read the literature and seen interventions such as cooperative learning, the use of analogies
and structured demonstrations but I did not feel that such interventions were appropriate for
pre-service science teachers. I knew that above all, I did not wish to stand before pre-service
science teachers as an ‘expert’. I wished to stand with them and for all of us (myself included)
to set about improving our conceptual understanding of chemistry. It is my personal opinion
that as long as there is an ‘expert’ – learner divide, the misconceptions of students can never be
addressed. It is embarrassing to admit that one can’t answer a question about a basic concept.
That embarrassment needs to be normalised before any intervention can be successful.
Otherwise, ideas cannot be brought out into the open. These ideas began to formulate during
the Summer School. Discussing ideas in a relaxed atmosphere with peers that are either also at
a crossroads or have previously been at a crossroads is beneficial in so many ways. The great
advantage of the Summer School is that even experienced researchers do not stand before us in
the intractable position of ‘expert’. Studies are discussed and suggestions may be made but
coaches do not enforce their opinion in any way and are open to the ideas of early career
researchers. The format of the Summer School itself has, in a way, influenced my personal
beliefs about how ideal learning should take place and has provided inspiration for the attitude
which I have taken towards the problem of misconceptions in chemistry: one of a facilitator
and co-learner rather than an expert.
REFERENCES
Ausburn, L. J. (2004), ‘Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online
education environments: An American perspective.’ Educational Media International, 41(4),
327−337.
Ayas, A. & Demirbas, A. (1997) Turkish secondary students’ conceptions of introductory
chemistry concepts, Journal of Chemical Education, 74(5), 518-521.
Bliuc, A.M., Goodyear, P. and Ellis, R.A. (2007) ‘Research focus and methodological choices
in studies into students’ experience of blended learning in higher education’, Internet and
Higher Education, 10, 231-244.
Boyle, T. (2005), ‘A dynamic, systematic method for developing blended learning’, Education,
Communication and Information, 5(3), 221−232.
Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: classroom narratives
of convictions and constraints, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 471-485.
Chin, C. C. (2005). First‐year Pre‐service Teachers in Taiwan—Do they enter the teacher
program with satisfactory scientific literacy and attitudes toward science?. International
Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1549-1570.
Coolahan, J. (2001). Teacher education in Ireland and Western Europe: A comparative
analysis, Irish Educational Studies, 20(1), 335-368.
Drudy, S. (2001). The teaching profession in Ireland: its role and current challenges, Studies:
An Irish Quarterly Review, 90(360), 363-375.
Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography–STCSE. Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions and Science
Education (http://www. ipn. uni-kiel. de/aktuell/stcse/download_stcse. html).
Erduran, S. (2003). Examining the Mismatch between Pupil and Teacher Knowledge in Acid-
Base Chemistry. School science review, 84(308), 81-87.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications.
Gansle, K.A., Noell, G.H. & Burns, J.M. (2012). Do student achievement outcomes differ
across teacher preparation programes? An analysis of teacher education in Louisiana, Journal
of Teacher Education, 63, 304-317.
Johnstone, A. (1993) 'The Development of Chemistry Teaching – A Changing Response to
Changing Demand, Journal of chemical education, 70(9), 701-705.
Khine, M. S., & Lourdusamy, A. (2003) ‘Blended Learning approach in teacher education:
combining face-to-face instruction, multimedia viewing and on-line discussion’, British
Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 671−675.
Kleichmann, T., Richter, D., Kunte, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J.
(2013). Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: the role of
structural differences in teacher education, Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 90-106.
Motteram, G. (2006), ‘Blended education and the transformation of teachers: A long-term case
study in postgraduate UK higher education’, British Journal of Educational Technology,
37(1), 17−30.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry, Journal of Chemical
Education, 69(3), 191-196.
Peterson, R. F., & Treagust, D. F. (1989). Grade-12 students' misconceptions of covalent
bonding and structure, Journal of Chemical Education, 66(6), 459-460.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive
validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and
psychological measurement, 53(3), 801-813.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educational
researcher, 4-14.
Taber, K. S. (2000). Chemistry lessons for universities?: A review of constructivist ideas,
University Chemistry Education, 4(2), 63-72.
Valanides, N. (2000). Primary student teachers’ understanding of the particulate nature of
matter and its transformations during dissolving, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 1(2), 249-262.
Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., & Rife, A. (2006). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept
construction: Urban second graders make sense of evaporation, boiling, and condensation.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 637-666.

This project is part of the PhD research of Muireann Sheehan at the University of Limerick,
supervised by Dr Peter E. Childs, as part of the work of the Chemistry Education Research
Group and the National Centre for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching and
Learning. The project is funded by the Irish Research Council.