Exploration of procedural knowledge of bilingual students in chemical equilibrium problem solving

Benny Yodi Sawuwu

Abstract

This research was conducted to explore how procedural knowledge of bilingual students in chemical equilibrium problem-solving skills. This research was a descriptive study of 31 bilingual private high school students. Chemical equilibrium problem solving skills were collected by three problems, while the procedural knowledge was collected by analysis of student answers, self-assessment metacognition questionnaire, and the interview with students and their chemistry teacher. Data collected was analyzed by a phenomenological reduction method. The results of students’ procedural knowledge were categorized into assumption determination (54,84%), strategy development (22,58%), chemical equation (41,94%), factors affecting the equation (61,29%), using the other knowledge (29,03%), quantitative analysis (38,71%), and alternative strategy (25,81%). According to the operator in each framework answer, the result of students’ answers of chemical equilibrium problem-solving skills was classified into phenomenological and formalism answers. In phenomenological answers, students began their framework from the chemical equation to factors affecting the equilibrium shift. In the formalism answer, the students began their framework from the information given in the problems and related it to the stoichiometry and alternative ways to find the final states (goals). In this study was also found some students’ errors in chemical language and chemical equilibrium conceptions.

References

1. Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemistry Education Research and Practice,7(2), 49-63. 2. Ghirardi, M., Marchetti, F., Pettinari, C., Regis, A., & Roletto, E. (2015). Journal of Chemical Education, 92, 1008-1015. 3. Pedrosa, M. A., & Dias, M. H. (2000).Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe, , 1, 227-236. 4. Raviolo, A., & Garritz, A. (2009). Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 5-13. 5. Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2002). Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe, 3, 5-17. 6. Ganaras, K., Dumon, A., & Larcher, C. (2008). Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 240-249. 7. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition, Sage. 8. Eldar, O., Eylon, B., & Ronen, M. (2012). A metacognitive teaching strategy for preservice teachers: Collaborative diagnosis of conceptual understanding in science, in: A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori, Metacognitive in Science Education: Trends in Current Research, Springer, 225-250. 9. Favieri, A. G. (2013). Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11, 831-850. 10. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475. 11. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., & Staley, R. (2004). Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 117-139. 12. Schraw, G., Olafson, L., Weibel, M., & Sewing, D. (2012). Metacognitive knowledge and field-based science learning in an outdoor environmental education program, in: A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori, Metacognitive in Science Education: Trends in Current Research, Springer, 57-77. 13. Cheung, D. (2009). Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 97-108. 14. St. Clair-Thompson, H., Overton, T., & Bugler, M. (2012). Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 484-489. 15. Abir, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2013). Educacion Quimica, 24, 37-43. 16. Pettito, L., & Dunbar, K. N. (2009). Mind Brain Education, 3(4), 185-197. 17. Cosgrove, K. P., Mazure, C. M., & Staley, J. K. (2007). Biology Psychiatry, 62(8), 847-855. 18. Zhu, Z. (2007). International Educational Journal, 8(2), 187-203. 19. Mourtos, N. J., Okamoto, N. D., & Rhee, J. (2004). Defining, Teaching, and Assessing Problem Solving Skills, in: Proceeding on 7th UICEE Annual Conference on Engineering Education Mumbai, India. 20. Yodi, B., Hairida, & Lestari, I. (2015). Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 4, 5. 21. Favieri, A. G. (2013). Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(3), 831-850. 22. Snyder, L. S., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 1(2), 90-99. 23. Sadowski, C., & McIntosh, J. E. (2015). Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 46, 69-104. 24. Johansson & Stenberg. (2002). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 369-383. 25. Reodiger, H. L. III., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803-814. 26. Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 1063-1087. 27. Seth, Aliah & Marlina. (2007). Laporan Teknikal Vot 75161 Fakulti Pendidikan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. 28. Chamberlain, L. B. (2009). Child Law Practice, 28(2), 17-24. 29. Eriba, J. O., & Ande, S. (2006). Educational Research and Reviews, 1(6), 170-173.