Authors : Nzala Sikawala; Kabunga Nachiyunde; Daka Harrison

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 9 - September

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4sv4296p

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26sep679

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Chemical formulae and equations constitute the foundational symbolic language of chemistry, yet learners persistently demonstrate significant difficulties in their comprehension and application. This conceptual bottleneck has farreaching implications for subsequent achievement in chemistry and related STEM disciplines. This study sought to empirically establish the extent, severity, and systemic nature of learners' challenges in comprehending and assimilating the basic concepts of chemical formulae and chemical equations in general chemistry. Situated within the pragmatic paradigm and operationalized through an embedded mixed methods design, the study employed a diagnostic assessment administered to fifty systematically selected Grade 11 learners.

Keywords : Diagnostic Assessment, Conceptual Assimilation, Chemical Formulae, Chemical Equations, Representational Competence, Chemistry Education.

References :

1. Cooper, M. M., & Stieff, M. (2021). Representational competence in chemistry: A research-informed framework for instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(12), 3725–3734.
2. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
3. Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbolic, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 278–302.
4. Gierl, M. J., & Bulut, O. (2022). Diagnostic classification models in educational assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 41(2), 3–15.
5. Gulacar, O., Bowman, C. R., & Feakes, D. A. (2015). Investigating the effect of student-generated multiple-choice questions on student performance in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1322–1326.
6. Hamerská, M., et al. (2024). Procedural versus conceptual understanding in balancing chemical equations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25(1), 55–70.
7. Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro- and micro-chemistry. School Science Review, 64(227), 377–379.
8. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry: Logical or psychological? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 9–15.
9. Knaus, K. J., Murphy, K. L., & Holme, T. A. (2022). Exploring student difficulties with balancing chemical equations through representational analysis. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(7), 2704–2713.
10. Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
11. Leighton, J. P. (2021). Using cognitive diagnostic assessment to inform instruction. Applied Measurement in Education, 34(4), 243–258.
12. Mumba, F., & Chirwa, S. (2022). Challenges in Zambian secondary school chemistry education: A case study of selected schools. Zambia Journal of Education, 5(2), 45–67.
13. Ogunniyi, M. B. (2007). Teachers' stances and practical arguments regarding a science–indigenous knowledge curriculum: Part 1. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 963–986.
14. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
15. Seery, M. K. (2015). Diagnostic assessment in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 354–371.
16. Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2022). Rethinking chemistry education research on conceptual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23(1), 1–9.
17. Stieff, M., Ryu, M., Dixon, B., & Hegarty, M. (2021). The role of spatial reasoning in chemistry problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(4), 470–498.
18. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
19. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138.
20. Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156–168.
21. Talanquer, V. (2014). Chemistry education: Ten heuristics to tame. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(9), 1381–1388.
22. Talanquer, V. (2023). Conceptual integration and symbolic reasoning in chemistry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(5), 1023–1042.
23. Villafañe, S. M., & Lewis, J. E. (2022). Development and validation of a diagnostic instrument for chemical equation reasoning. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(3), 1121–1132.
24. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper and Row.
25. Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 449–459.