Diagnosing Portuguese Students Misconceptions about the Mineral Concept

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UC]On: 15 April 2015, At: 09:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Diagnosing Portuguese Students'Misconceptions about the MineralConceptAntónio Monteiro a , Clévio Nóbrega b , Isabel Abrantes c & CelesteGomes da Faculty of Science and Technology , University of Coimbra ,Coimbra , Portugalb Center for Neurosciences and Cell Biology , University ofCoimbra , Coimbra , Portugalc CGUC, Department of Life Sciences , University of Coimbra ,Coimbra , Portugald Department of Earth Sciences , University of Coimbra ,Coimbra , PortugalPublished online: 16 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: António Monteiro , Clévio Nóbrega , Isabel Abrantes & Celeste Gomes (2012)Diagnosing Portuguese Students' Misconceptions about the Mineral Concept, International Journal ofScience Education, 34:17, 2705-2726, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.731617

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.731617

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09500693.2012.731617

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.731617

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Diagnosing Portuguese Students’

Misconceptions about the Mineral

Concept

Antonio Monteiroa∗, Clevio Nobregab, Isabel Abrantesc andCeleste Gomesd

aFaculty of Science and Technology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; bCenter

for Neurosciences and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; cCGUC,

Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; dDepartment of

Earth Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Educational researchers and teachers are well aware that misconceptions—erroneous ideas that

differ from the scientifically accepted ones—are very common amongst students. Daily

experiences, creative and perceptive thinking and science textbooks give rise to students’

misconceptions which lead them to draw erroneous conclusions that become strongly attached to

their views and somehow affect subsequent learning. The main scope of this study was

to understand what students consider a mineral to be and why. Therefore, the goals were (1) to

identify eleventh-grade students’ misconceptions about the mineral concept; (2) to understand

which variables (gender, parents’ education level and attitude towards science) influenced

students’ conceptions; and (3) to create teaching tools for the prevention of misconceptions. In

order to achieve these goals, a diagnostic instrument (DI), constituted of a two-tier diagnostic

test and a Science Attitude Questionnaire, was developed to be used with a sample of 89 twelfth-

grade students from five schools located in central Portugal. As far as we know, this is the first DI

developed for the analysis of misconceptions about the mineral concept. Data analysis allows us

to conclude that students had serious difficulties in understanding the mineral concept, having

easily formed misconceptions. The variables gender and parents’ education level influence certain

students’ conceptions. This study provides a valuable basis for reflection on teaching and

learning strategies, especially on this particular theme.

Keywords: Misconceptions; Mineral concept; Secondary school students

International Journal of Science Education

Vol. 34, No. 17, November 2012, pp. 2705–2726

∗Corresponding author: Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra,

Portugal. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/12/172705–22

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.731617

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

1. Introduction

Secondary education students’ misconceptions have been thoroughly explored in

several fields of science. They are known as ‘alternative frameworks’ (Driver &

Easley, 1978), ‘alternative conceptions’ (Hewson & Hewson, 1983), ‘preconceptions’

(Osborn & Freyberg, 1985) or ‘misconceptions’ (Novak, 1988). There is no consen-

sus about the most appropriate definition (Sanders, 1993); however, there is a

tendency for teachers to use the term ‘misconceptions’, while student behaviour

researchers use more neutral terms (Fisher & Lipson, 1986).

In spite of being a form of erroneous understanding, misconceptions are not necess-

arily the result of a lack of reasoning ability (Schoon, 1989). Daily experiences such as

everyday conversation, experience of a modern home and the media, creative and per-

ceptive thinking and science textbooks give rise to students’ misconceptions which

lead them to draw erroneous conclusions (Ault, 1984; King, 2009; Marques &

Thompson, 1997). These can go undetected throughout the learning process and

become strongly attached to students’ views, which cause conflict when faced with

new and correct ideas (Chu, Treagust, & Chandrasegaran, 2009; Duit & Treagust,

1995; Treagust, Duit, & Fraser, 1996). Thus, educational research on the identifi-

cation of students’ misconceptions is necessary and very important. To promote effec-

tive and meaningful learning, we need to identify students’ misconceptions in all

scientific themes and find ways to overcome them (Deshmuk & Deshmuk, 2007).

If teachers are aware of students’ misconceptions, better activities and more accurate

and successful lessons can be expected (Shymansky, Woodworth, Norman, Dukhase,

& Matthews, 1993).

Gathering misconception data from students is not easy (Henriques, 2002), but

there are several methods that can be used to do it: two-tier diagnostic tests

(TTDTs), concept mapping, open-ended tests (OETs), prediction–observation–

explanation, interviews, word association and drawings (Abdullah & Scaife, 1997;

Bahar, Johnstone, & Sutcliffe, 1999; Dove, Everett, & Preece, 1999; Eisen & Stavy,

1988; Haslam & Treagust, 1987; Liew & Treagust, 1995; Maskill & Cachapuz,

1989; Novak & Gowin, 1984; Osborn & Cosgrove, 1983).

TTDTs have been administered by several researchers in a wide range of scientific

topics because of their reliability and efficiency in the evaluation of students’ miscon-

ceptions (Chen & Lin, 2002; Chiu, Chiu, & Ho, 2002; Chu et al., 2009; Haslam &

Treagust, 1987; Lin, 2004; Odum & Barrow, 1995; Peterson & Treagust, 1989;

Treagust & Mann, 2000; Yen, Yao, & Chiu, 2005; Wang, 2003). Each item of the

test has two tiers with multiple-choice options. The first tier corresponds to a

content question about the propositional statements and parts of a concept map

and the second tier to a reasoning question, composed of a set of reasons related to

the first tier, including the scientific answer and possible misconceptions held by stu-

dents (e.g. first tier: How many stars exist in the Solar System? Second tier: A. Only

one, the Sun; B. Thousands of stars; C. One principal star—the Sun—and thousands

more around) (Treagust, 1995). This set of reasons has the advantage of being com-

posed of previously detected students’ misconceptions instead of regular items written

2706 A. Monteiro et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

by professional test writers. Thus, the second tier of the test is represented by more

authentic and effective distractors (Tamir, 1971). This type of instrument provides

a clear idea of the nature of new students’ knowledge and misconceptions about

the topics that are important for the teachers (Treagust, 1985).

The development of a TTDT is based on a procedure described by Treagust (1985)

which includes the following steps: (1) defining the scope of the target conceptions in

terms of propositional statements and concept maps; (2) representing the knowledge

required to understand the scientific concepts; (3) developing an OET to use with

students; (4) analysing the students’ answers to identify the commonly occurring

misconceptions and, eventually, interviewing the students in case further explanation

and clarification are needed; (5) constructing TTDT items based on the most com-

monly identified answers given by students in the OET and follow-up interview.

The revision and consolidation of the test are also crucial for its validation. Further

refinements of the items in the TTDTs are important to ensure their validity for

diagnosing students’ misconceptions about the topic under examination (Treagust,

1986).

Science Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ), an adapted five-point scale Likert-type

questionnaire that analyses the level of contact that students have with science in

their everyday lives and its preference above other subjects, can be helpful in under-

standing which variables influence conceptual understanding, since it is widely

accepted that learners’ motivational and attitudinal states influence their conceptual

development (Chu et al., 2009).

The purpose of this study was to identify students’ misconceptions about the

mineral concept and to understand which variables influenced their conceptions.

The study was conducted in the central region of Portugal, with the participants

being from Coimbra, Santarem and Viseu districts.

1.1 The Research Question

According to the eleventh-grade Portuguese curricula, students (aged 16–17) are

required to understand the definition of mineral, but there is virtually no reference

as to which concept should be taught or which educational directives should be

followed. Textbooks present all the requirements that a substance must meet to be

considered a mineral, but do not explore them consistently. Geology activities for

mineral identification challenge students to identify particular minerals amongst

others, but do not challenge them further by asking them to identify minerals from

a variety of natural and artificial substances. There is a high probability that students

simply memorize which are the school’s mineral samples instead of truly understand-

ing why they are minerals. We did not want to find out if students knew how to identify

a mineral through its properties or if they understood the role of minerals as rock-

building units. We wanted to understand what they considered a mineral to be and

why. What is a mineral for a student? This was our central question, but, of course,

other relevant questions are raised: Are students aware of what a mineral is? What

misconceptions do students have about the concept after having learnt it?

Students’ Misconceptions about the Mineral Concept 2707

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

2. Methodology

This study involved two main tasks: the development of a diagnostic instrument (DI)

and its implementation.

The DI was developed between October 2010 and February 2011, in four essential

steps: (1) definition of the scope, (2) construction of the DI, (3) obtaining a pilot

sample and, finally, (4) revision and consolidation. The implementation of the DI

took place during normal school time (March and April 2011), and the results and

conclusions were organized into four different analysis groups: TTDT, SAQ, variables

affecting students’ conceptions, attitudes towards science and correlations between

the TTDT and the SAQ.

All the data collected during the development and implementation of the DI were

statistically analysed using SPSS Statistics 17.0 software.

2.1 Development of the DI

2.1.1 Definition of the scope. To define what we wanted to research about the

mineral concept, we started by looking at what, when and how students learn

about it. It is first introduced in the second and third cycles of basic education, that

is, fifth to ninth grades, in the subjects of Physics and Chemistry, Natural Sciences

and History and Geography of Portugal. In the eleventh grade of the secondary edu-

cation sciences courses, students learn about it again when the topic sedimentary

rocks is introduced. In relation to the mineral concept, the eleventh-grade curriculum

is very specific about what to teach, but does not give teachers any directives

about how the mineral concept should be taught. Students are required to know/

understand/use the concept of mineral and rock, to know/understand/use the

mineral properties (composition, cleavage, lustre, colour, hardness and density) and

to characterize and identify the most common minerals of rocks. At this point, we

wondered: What is the definition of a mineral used by secondary education geology

teachers? Science textbooks were analysed and we discovered that the mineral

concept is vaguely defined, which means that it may be taught in several different

ways and, in this way, lead to the construction of misconceptions. Thus, we

decided that the best option was to use an updated and widely accepted definition

of mineral: ‘A mineral is a naturally occurring solid with a highly ordered atomic

arrangement and definite (but not necessarily fixed) homogenous chemical compo-

sition. Minerals are usually formed by inorganic processes’ (Klein & Dutrow,

2008). This definition of mineral has evolved from definitions dating back to the

early 1800s (Railsback, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c).

Students’ conceptions about mineral have already been studied by several research-

ers (Dove, 1996; Ford, 2005; Happs, 1982, 1985; Russel, 1993). Considering these

studies, two particular aspects are of importance: (1) certain common terms of stu-

dents’ everyday language are congruent with geological terminology, which confuses

students’ understanding of the scientific definitions; and (2) there is a common stereo-

type, amongst students of all ages, about minerals—colourful, translucent, shiny and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

with geometric forms—and about rocks—rough, dirty and heavy. These conclusions

indicate that misconceptions can be perpetuated throughout the learning process, in

spite of teachers’ advanced geology training. This added significance to our question:

What is, after all, a mineral for a student?

2.1.2 Construction of the DI. In this process, two questionnaires were designed for

the DI, each from a distinct group of questionnaires: (1) a TTDT about the mineral

concept with nine items (Group A) and (2) an SAQ with five items (Group B). At the

end of the DI, a box was included in order to gather personal socio-demographic data.

Group A, which focused on identifying misconceptions, was developed following

Treagust’s four sequential steps (1985): (1) identification of propositional knowledge

and the development of a concept map, (2) development of the OET, (3) implemen-

tation and data analysis of the OETand (4) development of the TTDT. Group B was

an adaptation of an SAQ designed by Chu et al. (2009) and is described in Section

2.1.2.5.

2.1.2.1 Identification of propositional knowledge and the development of a concept

map. According to Klein and Dutrow (2008), students should identify and under-

stand what a mineral is, by checking that it complies with the five requirements set

down by the definition of mineral: (1) being naturally occurring, (2) being solid,

(3) being made up of a crystalline substance, (4) having a specific chemical compo-

sition and (5) generally being inorganic. (1) A mineral is naturally occurring

because it is formed by natural processes. Industrial and research laboratories routi-

nely produce synthetic equivalents of many naturally occurring materials (diamonds,

emeralds and rubies). These types of equivalents are considered synthetic (e.g. syn-

thetic emerald). (2) A mineral is solid because its atoms are in a fixed position.

Materials such as gases and liquids are excluded. Thus, H2O in its liquid form

(water) is not a mineral, but in its solid form (e.g. ice in a glacier), it is a mineral.

In the same way, liquid mercury, found in some mercury deposits, is excluded as a

mineral. (3) As a mineral has an internal structure framework of atoms arranged in

a regular, repeating, geometric pattern, it is a crystalline substance. Solids such as vol-

canic glass and limonite, because of their lack of an ordered atomic arrangement, are

called amorphous. (4) Although a mineral’s specific chemical composition can vary

within defined limits, it can be represented by a specific chemical formula. For

example, quartz (SiO2) contains the chemical elements silicon and oxygen in a

ratio of 1:2, so its formula is definitive and fixed. However, most minerals do not

have such well-defined compositions, and the amount of chemical elements may

vary. For these minerals, the composition is not fixed but can vary between certain

limits. Olivine (Mg,Fe)2SiO4, made up of the chemical elements iron, magnesium

and silicon, always has a fixed ratio. Although the number of iron and magnesium

atoms may vary, the sum of these atoms in relation to the number of silicon atoms

is always a fixed ratio. Dolomite [Ca,Mg(CO3)2] and Plagioclase [(Ca,Na)(Al,Si)O8]

are two other examples of this. (5) Generally, minerals are inorganic. Today, the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

scientific meaning of the word ‘inorganic’ is dictated by chemists, who exclude

compounds with C–H bonds. Decaying vegetation in a swamp, which has been

geologically transformed into coal and oil, is not considered a mineral because it

is formed by carbon, which can be found in all organisms. According to the tra-

ditional definition, minerals are formed by inorganic processes, but it is being

increasingly recognized that minerals may also be produced organically, when

respecting the other requirements. The pearls that may be inside an oyster are com-

posed primarily of aragonite, CaCO3, which is identical to the inorganically formed

mineral aragonite. CaCO3 (calcite, aragonite or vaterite) and monohydrocalcite

(CaCO3∗H2O) are the most common minerals formed by organisms, which are

called biogenic minerals. The concept map was then designed taking into

account the requirements referred to above (Figure 1). After its construction, it

was clear which particular situations should be included in the OET, in order to

analyse students’ mineral conceptions.

2.1.2.2 Elaboration of the OET. The OET was constructed taking into consider-

ation the scientific conceptual structure described in the concept map and the prop-

ositional statements. The purpose of this test was to identify students’

misconceptions, which would be used as distractors in the development of the

TTDT. Thus, the OET provided us with the students’ feedback about their ideas

and reasons for their first-tier choice. In an attempt to cover all the mineral require-

ments, statements were formulated to test students about the mineral concept

(Table 1).

Each of the eight items of the OET had a first tier with a statement followed by the

options ‘True’, ‘False’ and ‘Don’t know’ and a second tier asking for the reason for the

Figure 1. Concept map framework developed for the DI


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

students’ first-tier choice. The OET became final after the second version, having

both versions revised by a secondary school teacher and three university lecturers.

2.1.2.3 Implementation and data analysis of the OET. In order to gather a set of

reasons for each item’s second tier and to discuss the relevance of the DI, the OET

was administered in December 2010 to a class of 24 twelfth-grade students. These

students had different geology teachers in the eleventh grade, which varied our

data’s teaching source. Forty-nine of the reasons on the OET were chosen by the stu-

dents, which correspond to 25.5% of the possible number of reasons (192 reasons).

No item, in the second tier, had less than five reasons or more than eight reasons.

2.1.2.4 Development of the TTDT. The first step in the development of the TTDT

was gathering all of the students’ OETanswers and discussing them. Students’ answers

for each test item were analysed and grouped together based on their similarities in

meaning and the conceptual understanding shown (Guo, 1992). Afterwards, each

item was rewritten in an attempt to include all the students’ reasoning possibilities.

The first tier of the TTDT maintained the statements which had been used in the

OET (except item A5 of the final version of the TTDT, which resulted entirely from

an oral question put to four twelfth-grade students) and, in the second tier, a four-

option multiple-choice question (A, B, C and D) was included. These options were

based on reasons given by the students for the first tier. Since the number of students’

reasons in the OET had been less than expected and to ensure that the students had

an opportunity to present their own reasons, an open-ended option (option D) was

created. Thus, the students could express their own ideas in cases where none of the dis-

tractors corresponded to their understanding. This also minimized the possibility of the

Table 1. Statements about the mineral concept for the OET

A mineral Statements for the OET

. . .is a naturally occurring Subjecting graphite to high pressures leads to the

production of artificial diamonds. These diamonds are

minerals

Naturally formed ice is a mineral

. . .is solid Naturally formed ice is a mineral

Mercury is a mineral

. . .is a crystalline substance All minerals have a crystalline structure

All minerals are crystals

Glass is a mineral

. . .has a specific chemical composition

(can vary within defined limits)

Olivine [(Fe,Mg)2 SiO4] is not considered as a mineral

because it has a chemical composition that varies within

defined limits

. . .is generally inorganic Coal and oil are made by minerals

A pearl is a mineral


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

students just guessing when they did not have any strongly held conceptions about the

item in question (Chen & Lin, 2002).

2.1.2.5 Development of the SAQ. All the items of the SAQ developed by Chu et al.

(2009) are about science in general, except the last one, which highlights physics. For

the present purposes, the original item ‘Of all science subjects, I like physics best’ was

adapted to specify geology instead of physics. Group B and the social demographic

data would be used later when looking at the factors which influence conceptual

understanding.

2.1.3 Implementation of the DI with the pilot sample. The instrument was piloted in

February 2011 with a twelfth-grade class of 25 students, of whom, 13 were females

and 12 males, with ages ranging between 17 and 19. All the students’ parents have

a university education. Group A was analysed, having all the students’ answers classi-

fied as ‘Correct’, ‘Misconception’, ‘Don’t know’, ‘Null’ or ‘Contradiction’. ‘Correct’

answers were those with both tiers right; ‘Misconception’ was used where the students

missed both tiers, only the second tier or, in some specific cases, only when the first

tier was incorrect; ‘Don’t know’ where the students chose the option ‘Don’t know’

in the first tier; ‘Null’ where the students only answered one tier (except if they

chose ‘Don’t know’) and ‘Contradiction’ where the first tier did not logically match

the second tier. The analysis of the consistency and reliability of the SAQ, as required

by any SAQ, was based on Cronbach’s alpha coefficient using SPSS Statistics 17.0.

The nearer Cronbach’s alpha is to 1.0, the greater the internal consistency of the

items in the scale is. Cronbach’s alpha for the five items in Group B was 0.850,

which indicates that the questionnaire was acceptable (George & Mallerey, 2003).

None of the items were modified.

2.1.4 Revision and consolidation. In the TTDT, items identified as ‘Null’ and ‘Con-

tradiction’ were reviewed in order to understand if those results could be related to

any complexity or confusing structure of the particular items. In the item A2, ‘All min-

erals are crystals’, one of the students considered the statement to be true and justified

the choice with the option ‘Crystals have a perfect form limited by plane faces but not

all those minerals have those faces’. This answer cannot be considered because it is a con-

tradictory choice. In spite of the effort to avoid null answers and contradictions, it was not

possible to eliminate them completely. They may have resulted from students’ distrac-

tion, which is difficult to control during the implementation of a questionnaire, though

the students were asked to read all of the items carefully and attentively before answering.

On the other hand, the results may contribute to the reformulation of certain items.

Item A6, ‘A pearl is a mineral’, became a very intriguing question for the analysis of

misconceptions. Of the three textbooks used in Portuguese schools, one states that the

pearl is not a mineral because of its biological origin. In addition, another textbook (an

edition previous to the one currently used) includes, in the classification of minerals,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

substances that are produced by living beings if they are solid, crystalline and inor-

ganic, but does not mention the pearl. There is no consensus amongst teachers

about the pearl being a mineral or not and information can be found on the internet

supporting both sides. Thus, students are exposed to non-consensual information,

which makes understanding the fact that the pearl is not a mineral due to its biological

origin more complex and harder for students. As students are taught that calcite is a

mineral, the pearl was replaced by calcite of oyster shells to test students’ understand-

ing of the origin of minerals.

2.2 Implementation of the DI

The sixth version of DI (Appendix 1), which was reached after several meetings with

specialists to make the questionnaire clearer and simpler, was administered according

to teachers’ availability and a Portuguese version was used. Before the administration,

teachers were made aware of the fact that data could only be considered valid for the

study if the questionnaire was completed individually. All the participants were from

the secondary science course since the mineral concept is taught once, and for a last

time, in the eleventh grade of this particular course. On average, the students com-

pleted the questionnaire in 30 min.

2.2.1 The sample. The DI was administered to 89 twelfth-grade students from five

schools. The sample included students from different schools, but it was not a random

sample, so the conclusions cannot be generalized. Fifty-one students were female and

38 were male with ages ranging between 17 and 19. Thirty-five students had at least

one parent with a university degree, 20 with a high school education, 27 with a basic

education and 7 with a primary education (Table 2).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Analysis of the TTDT

3.1.1 Students’ answers. The analysis of students’ answers (Table 3) to items A3,

A5, A6 and A7 revealed that more than 50.0% answered the second tier incorrectly,

Table 2. DI implementation: socio-demographic characteristics

Variable Number of students %

Gender

Female 51 57.3

Male 38 42.7

Parents’ education level

Basic education 34 38.2

Secondary education 20 22.5

University degree 35 39.3


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

with item A3 having the worst (67.4%), but also the second lowest score when con-

sidering both tiers answered correctly (11.2%). This result indicates that the partici-

pants have misconceptions about the mineral being a crystalline substance since they

answered the first tier correctly, but most of them chose the wrong reason to justify

their choice. The results obtained for it in item A2 support this as this item had the

lowest score for an incorrect second tier, which is 7.9%, when only 6.7% of the

participants got both tiers correct.

Item A1, also intended to identify misconceptions about a mineral being a

crystalline substance, was answered correctly only by a small number of students.

Only 20.2% of the participants answered both tiers correctly and only two (2.3%)

participants answered the first tier correctly, which indicates that only a small

sample of participants assumed that all minerals have a crystalline structure.

In general, the score for correct answers was very low. Items A5, A6 and A9 were the

only items in which both tiers were answered correctly by more than 30 students, with

item A6 being the one with the most correct answers in both tiers. These results show

that the majority of the participants consider a mineral to be a natural solid substance.

The ‘Don’t know’ answers in items A1, A2 and A4 had a score of under 20%, with all

other items achieving a score above it. Item A7 had the highest score (28.0%) and

Item A1 the lowest (10.1%).

The majority of the participants present serious difficulties in understanding what a

mineral is. The worst results were related to considering a mineral as crystalline (A1,

A2 and A3) and natural (A8) substance, with less than 20 participants answering both

tiers correctly.

3.1.2 Students’ misconceptions. Through the analysis of the incorrect answers, it was

possible to identify misconceptions held by 92.1% of the participants. These

Table 3. Classification of student’s answers into ‘Correct’, ‘Incorrect’ and ‘Don’t know’

(% in parentheses)

Item

Number of students ¼ 89

Incorrect

Correct Only second tier Both tiers Don’t know

A1 18 (20.2) 2 (2.3) 60 (67.4) 9 (10.1)

A2 6 (6.7) 7 (7.9) 62 (69.7) 14 (15.7)

A3 10 (11.2) 50 (56.2) 10 (11.2) 19 (21.4)

A4 32 (36.0) 11 (12.4) 33 (37.0) 13 (14.6)

A5 31 (34.9) 26 (29.2) 10 (11.2) 22 (24.7)

A6 48 (53.9) 6 (6.7) 12 (13.5) 23 (25.9)

A7 26 (29.2) 19 (21.4) 19 (21.4) 25 (28.0)

A8 18 (20.2) 5 (5.6) 42 (47.2) 24 (27.0)

A9 30 (33.7) 6 (6.7) 33 (37.1) 20 (22.5)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

Table 4. Misconceptions revealed by the TTDT

Misconception CCa nb (%)

A mineral is crystalline

(A3) Glass is not a mineral because it is an artificial crystal False +B

44 (49.4)

(A1) There are minerals that are not crystals False +C

31 (34.8)

(A2) Crystals have a perfect form delimited by plane faces but not all

minerals show those faces

False +B

30 (33.7)

(A1) A mineral can have an amorphous structure False +A

27 (30.3)

(A2) Not all minerals are crystals because to be a crystal a mineral has to be

shiny and translucent

False +C

21 (23.6)

(A3) Glass is a mineral because it is an artificial crystal True +B

5 (5.6)

(A3) Glass is not a mineral because it is a crystal False +A

4 (4.5)

(A3) Glass is a mineral because it is a crystal True +A

2 (2.2)

A mineral is inorganic

(A4) Coal and oil are composed of minerals because they are formed by

organic matter

True +A

23 (25.8)

(A4) Coal is composed of minerals False +B

7 (7.9)

(A4) Coal and oil are considered rocks and rocks are made from minerals True +C

3 (3.4)

A mineral is solid

(A9) Ice is not a mineral because water is not included in the chemical

composition of a mineral

False +C

26 (29.2)

(A5) Mercury is not a mineral because it is made up of one chemical element False +A

23 (25.8)

(A9) Ice is not a mineral because it is a natural crystalline solid False +A

5 (5.6)

(A5) Mercury is a mineral because it has a crystalline structure True +B

4 (4.5)

(A5) Mercury is a mineral because it is made up of one chemical element True +A

3 (3.4)

(A9) Ice is a mineral because it is shiny and translucent True +B

2 (2.2)

(A5) Mercury is a mineral because it cannot be found naturally in the solid

form

True +C

1 (1.1)

(A5) Mercury is not a mineral because it has a crystalline structure False +B

1 (1.1)

A mineral has a fixed chemical composition or varies within defined limits

(A7) Olivine is not considered as a mineral because chemical composition is

well defined so cannot vary

True +C

3 (3.4)

(A7) Olivine is considered as a mineral because chemical composition can

vary without restrictions

False +A

12 (13.5)

(Continued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

misconceptions were gathered according to the mineral requirement they referred to

and organized from the highest to the lowest number of students who share them

(Table 4). We found misconceptions about all the requirements of the mineral

concept. First, in relation to the requirement ‘A mineral is crystalline’, when the par-

ticipants were asked if glass was a mineral in item A3, 49.4% of them reported that

they think or believe that glass is not a mineral because it is an artificial crystal.

These students rejected the idea of glass being a mineral because of its natural con-

dition and not because of its internal organization. So, what do students consider a

crystal to be? Students’ misconceptions about the concept of crystal were found in

item A2. Several participants (33.7%) believe that for a crystal to be a mineral, it

must have a perfect form delimited by plane faces, when, in fact, this is not true for

all minerals. A total of 23.6% participants think that not all minerals are crystals

because a crystal should be, according to them, shiny and translucent. Based on

these results, it is easy to understand why students believe that glass is a mineral: it

can be shiny, it can be translucent and it also has perfect shapes.

When faced with the question about the internal organization of a mineral, item A1,

34.8% considered that not all minerals were crystals and 30.3% that minerals could

have an amorphous structure. These misconceptions revealed that a considerable

number of participants do not understand how the internal structure of a mineral is

organized and how important a requirement it is for considering a substance a

Table 4. Continued

Misconception CCa nb (%)

A mineral is natural

(A8) Artificial diamonds are minerals because the crystalline structure is the

same in both types of diamonds (synthetic and natural)

True +C

22 (24.7)

(A8) Artificial diamonds are minerals because they are chemically different

from natural diamonds

True +A

10 (11.2)

(A6) Calcite from an oyster’s shell is not a mineral because it is inorganic and

has an internal crystalline structure

False +B

7 (7.9)

(A8) Artificial diamonds are minerals because they are artificially produced True +B

6 (6.7)

(A6) Calcite from an oyster’s shell is not a mineral because living beings do

not produce minerals

False +A

3 (3.4)

(A8) Artificial diamonds are not minerals because the crystalline structure is

the same in both types of diamonds (synthetic and natural)

Q 3 (3.4)

(A6) Calcite from an oyster’s shell is a mineral because it is not natural True +C

2 (2.2)

(A6) Calcite from an oyster’s shell is not a mineral because it is not natural False +C

2 (2.2)

(A8) Artificial diamonds are not minerals because they are chemically

different from natural diamonds

False +A

2 (2.2)

Note: aChoice combination.

bNumber of students.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

mineral. Some participants (34.8%) rejected the idea of a crystalline internal structure,

justifying it with the statement ‘not all minerals are crystals’. This shows a clear conflict

between their own idea of what a crystal is and what they learn in school about it.

In relation to the requirement ‘A mineral is inorganic’, the most common miscon-

ception was the idea of coal and oil being made up of minerals because of their organic

composition—25.8% of the answers given in item A4. Other misconceptions were

also detected: only coal is made up of minerals (7.9%) and rocks are made up of min-

erals; therefore, coal and oil, which are rocks, are made up of minerals as well (3.4%).

We did not find specifically why students accepted coal and oil due to organic compo-

sitions, but perhaps that some students considered them because of the geological

processes involved in their formation.

In what concerns the requirement ‘A mineral is a solid’, item A9 led us to the fol-

lowing misconception, held by 29.2% of the participants: ‘ice is not a mineral because

water is not included in the chemical composition of a mineral’. This statement is very

interesting because it reflects how attached students are to their everyday knowledge.

They rarely consider ice a mineral, while the belief that ice is ‘only water in the solid

state’ is very common. Therefore, they reject the hypothesis of ice having the require-

ments to be a mineral by simply saying that ‘water is not in the chemical composition

of a mineral’. Another interesting misconception, although not entirely associated

with this particular requirement, was found in the context: 25.8% of the participants

did not consider mercury a mineral because of its chemical being made up of only one

element. It is odd that the students chose this because they are supposed to have been

introduced to the chemical classification of Dana and Hurlbut (Klein & Dutrow,

2008), thus knowing about the group of native elements, such as silver and gold.

Only 3.4% accepted mercury as a mineral due to the fact that it is a native element,

which is equally considered a misconception since mercury is liquid in its natural

form and cannot be considered a mineral.

In relation to the requirement ‘A mineral has a fixed chemical composition or varies

within defined limits’, 13.5% of the participants believed that the chemical composition

can vary without restrictions and only 3.4% that the chemical composition must be well

defined. This question was very hard to interpret as the majority of the students who

answered it incorrectly gave contradictory justifications. In other words, the reason

given in the second tier did not logically fit in with that given in the first tier.

Finally, in relation to the requirement ‘A mineral is natural’, items A6 and A8 also

allowed us to detect several misconceptions. The most frequent misconception was

found in item A8—24.7% of the participants said that artificial diamondswere minerals

because the crystalline structure was the same in both types of diamonds (synthetic and

natural). Some participants (11.2%) considered artificial diamonds as minerals,

because the crystalline structure of artificial diamonds is different from that of

natural ones. A few participants, for the same reasons, excluded diamonds from the

mineral group, 3.4% and 2.2%, respectively. At least 6.7% of the participants accepted

artificial diamonds as minerals because they were artificially produced. The relevance

of these answers resides in the fact that 48.2% of the students did not reject artificial


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

diamonds as minerals based not on their artificiality but on other reasons, which means

that a significant number of students do not understand why a mineral is natural.

In item A6, 7.9% of the participants rejected the idea that calcite from an oyster’s

shell is a mineral because it is inorganic and has an internal crystalline structure.

These results show that these students are not aware of what a mineral is. Only

three participants (3.4%) considered that living beings do not produce minerals,

which is a good result, since some textbooks can lead students to believe that minerals

are only produced through geological processes.

3.2 Analysis of the SAQ

The analysis of the positive answers from the SAQ (Table 5) showed that 77.5% of the

students like science itself, 67.4% like science lessons and science experiments in

school and 70.8% like to watch TV programmes about science. Less than 50% of

the students indicated that they like to read articles about science (47.2%) and the

subject geology was only indicated by 25.9% of the students. This last score can be

associated with the fact that the majority of the participants do not have geology

but other subjects, such as Biology, Physics and Chemistry.

Table 5. Number of students’ positive answers in the SAQ (% in parentheses)

Item Number of students ¼ 89

(B1) I like to watch TV programmes about science 63 (70.8)

(B2) I like to read articles about science in newspapers and magazines 42 (47.2)

(B3) I like science lessons and science experiments in school 60 (67.4)

(B4) I like science itself 69 (77.5)

(B5) Of all the science subjects, I like geology best 23 (25.9)

Table 6. Univariate analysis of misconceptions held by students with gender and parents’ education level

(n ¼ 89)

Misconception

Univariate

analysis Misconception

Univariate

analysis

Item Female Male F p-value Basic/high school parents Graduate parents F p-value

A1 36 22 1.538 0.218 35 23 0.007 0.932

A2 35 16 6.583 0.012 29 22 0.168 0.683

A3 32 25 0.086 0.77 29 28 4.414 0.039

A4 18 15 0.158 0.692 25 8 0.263 0.609

A5 15 13 0.538 0.465 19 9 2.499 0.118

A6 8 6 0 0.99 9 5 0.089 0.766

A7 10 6 0.637 0.427 6 10 5.899 0.017

A8 24 16 0.212 0.647 23 17 0.301 0.585

A9 22 11 0.877 0.174 24 9 3.238 0.075


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

Table 7. Univariate analysis of the SAQ with gender and parents’ education level (n ¼ 89)

Positive

answers Univariate analysis Positive answers Univariate analysis

Item Female Male Mean SD F p-value Basic/high school parents Graduate parents Mean SD F p-value

B1 34 29 Fe 3.765 0.992 1.91 0.17 39 24 I 3.852 1.106 0.265 0.608

M 4.079 1.148 II 3.971 1.014

B2 24 18 Fe 3.275 1.150 0.145 0.704 21 21 I 3.130 1.082 3.699 0.058

M 3.368 1.149 II 3.600 1.193

B3 39 21 Fe 3.843 0.880 3.223 0.076 35 25 I 3.574 0.944 1.817 0.181

M 3.474 1.059 II 3.857 1.004

B4 41 28 Fe 4.078 0.744 1.742 0.19 40 29 I 3.852 0.899 3.156 0.079

M 3.842 0.945 II 4.171 0.707

B5 15 8 Fe 2.529 1.405 0.028 0.867 17 6 I 2.833 1.314 6.161 0.015

M 2.579 1.348 II 2.114 1.367

Notes: Fe, female; M, male; I, parents with basic or high school educations; II, graduate parents with a university degree.

Stu

den

ts’M

isconcep

tions

abou

tth

eM

inera

lC

oncep

t2719

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

3.3 Analysis of the Variables Affecting Students’ Conceptions and Attitude towards

Science and Correlations between the TTDT and the SAQ

The variables gender and parents’ education level were considered in an attempt to

investigate the variables that influenced students’ conceptions (Table 6) and attitudes

towards science (Table 7). Female students had slightly more misconceptions than

male students (female: 3.84 + 1.65 and male: 3.26 + 2.02), but in the univariate

analysis, only item A2 was statistically significant in relation to gender. The variable

parents’ education level did not reflect significant differences between students

(basic or high school education: 3.56 + 1.97 and university education: 3.66 +1.60), but the univariate analysis of items A3 and A7 was statistically significant.

However, according to the multivariate analysis, gender and parents’ education

level did not influence students’ conceptions (F: 1.251, p-value: n.s.; F: 1.842,

p-value: n.s., respectively).

The analysis of the same variables in relation to students’ attitudes towards science

showed that there were no significant differences in gender (female: 3.49 + 0.68 and

male: 3.47 + 0.75), but students whose parents have a university degree are slightly

more interested in science than the others (basic or high school education: 3.36 +0.74 and university education: 3.68 + 0.62). The multivariate analysis revealed

that gender does not influence attitude towards science (F: 1.800, n.s.), but that

parents’ education level does (F: 2.510; p-value: 0.036). Looking at the univariate

analysis, it is possible to verify that the preference for geology seems to be related to

parents’ education level.

To understand if students’ conceptions were affected by their attitudes towards

science, we conducted a multivariate analysis, a univariate analysis and a bivariate cor-

relation (Pearson, r ¼ 0.158, n.s.). According to the results, no significant relation

between them was detected.

4. Conclusions

The following conclusions were reached after conducting this study: (1) Students

have serious difficulties with understanding the requirements of a mineral. (2) Stu-

dents, in general, do not have a scientifically accepted view of what a mineral is,

and this is indicated by the fact that the highest score for answering both tiers correctly

was observed only for 48 students, with all other items scores being under 33 correct

answers. (3) Students easily form misconceptions about the concept of mineral. This

is supported by the misconceptions found for every requirement of a mineral, with a

minimum score of 13.5%. (4) Common terms of students’ everyday language and the

stereotype of what a mineral is still persist.

These findings have been detected by other researchers (Dove, 1996; Ford, 2005;

Happs, 1982, 1985; Russel, 1993.) during their investigations. The traditional

concept of crystal as shiny, translucent and with perfect faces continues to be the stu-

dents’ concept of crystal, which justifies its association with minerals. (5) Several stu-

dents do not seem to understand that a mineral has to be natural.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

The used framework is not sufficient to generalize the following conclusions to the

student population, but can be used to infer about the participants of this study. The

univariate analysis showed that (6) the variables gender and parents’ education level

only influenced students’ conceptions in certain items of the TTDT and the multi-

variate analysis revealed that parents’ education level affected students’ attitude

towards science. (7) A relation between misconceptions and attitudes towards

science was not supported by Pearson’s correlation.

The first recommendation to the teachers is to clarify what a definition is. They,

also, have to explain what the definition of mineral is and the significance of each of

the requirements.

This study provides valuable information for pedagogical use. Teachers can now

become more aware of students’ misconceptions about the mineral concept and

they can adjust/design their lessons so as to prevent or avoid them. We suggest

that in their lessons about the mineral concept, teachers include not only a com-

parison between minerals but also a comparison between minerals and other

materials to promote discussion, which will lead to a full understanding of all the

requirements that need to be satisfied for a substance to be considered a mineral

and, also, to the demystification of the misconceptions concerning the concept of

mineral. Another relevant suggestion is that teachers promote the understanding

of the evolution of the mineral concept through time. Definitions naturally

change as a consequence of the growth of scientific knowledge and may, over

time, become inappropriate due to new findings. Science is always changing and

evolving, and students do not just need to be aware of it, but they also need to

develop the ability to question science and understand the change process. Thus,

if there is no possibility for lessons about the evolution of the mineral concept,

we recommend that teachers consider students’ statements of agreement or dis-

agreement with the current definition, in order to make them aware of the fact

that concepts and classifications in science are always changing.

Also, the TTDT can be used as a formative evaluation (Haslam & Treagust, 1987),

as a basis for a discussion about the requirements that need to be met for a substance

to be considered a mineral.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their appreciation to the following people, for their inter-

est in and help with this project: Professor Elsa Gomes (University of Coimbra,

Coimbra), Professor Paula Paiva (Escola Secundaria Jose Falcao, Coimbra), all the

teachers involved in the implementation of the DI and all the participants.

References

Abdullah, A., & Scaife, J. (1997). Using interviews to assess children’s understanding of science

concepts. School Science Review, 78, 79–84.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

Ault, C.R., Jr. (1984). Intelligently wrong: Some comments on children’s misconceptions. Science

and Children, 21, 22–24.

Bahar, M., Johnstone, A.H., & Sutcliffe, R.G. (1999). Investigation of students’ cognitive structure

in elementary genetics through word association tests. Journal of Biological Education, 33,

134–142.

Chen, C.-C., & Lin, M.-L. (2002). Developing a two-tier diagnostic instrument to assess high

school students’ understanding: The formation of image by plane mirror. Proceedings of

National Science Council ROC(D), 12, 106–121.

Chiu, M.-L., Chiu, M.-H., & Ho, C.-Y. (2002). Using cognitive-based dynamic representations to

diagnose students’ conceptions of the characteristics of matter. Proceedings of National Science

Council ROC(D), 12, 91–99.

Chu, H., Treagust, D.F., & Chandrasegaran, A.L. (2009). A stratified study of students’ under-

standing of basic optics concepts in different contexts using two-tier multiple-choice items.

Research in Science & Technological Education, 27, 253–265.

Deshmuk, N., & Deshmuk, V. (2007). A study of students’ misconceptions in Biology at the secondary

school level. Proceedings of the biennial conference series to review research in Science, Tech-

nology and Mathematics Education, Mumbai, India.

Dove, J.E. (1996). Student identification of rock types. Journal of Geoscience Education, 44, 266–269.

Dove, J.E., Everett, L.A., & Preece, P.F.W. (1999). Exploring a hydrological concept through chil-

dren’s drawings. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 485–497.

Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept devel-

opment in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D.F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches.

Chicago, IL: The National Society for the Study of Education.

Eisen, Y., & Stavy, R. (1988). Students’ understanding of photosynthesis. The American Biology

Teacher, 50, 208–212.

Fisher, K.-M., & Lipson, J. (1986). Twenty questions about student errors. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 23, 783–803.

Ford, D.J. (2005). The challenges of observing geologically: Third graders’ descriptions of rock and

mineral properties. Science Education, 89, 276–295.

George, D., & Mallerey, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference.11.0

update. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Guo, C.J. (1992). Junior high school students’ alternative frameworks of heat and temperature.

Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China Part D: Mathematics, Science, and

Technology Education, 2, 57–66.

Happs, J.C. (1982). Rocks and minerals (Science Education Research Unit Working Paper No. 204).

Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.

Happs, J.C. (1985). Regression on learning outcomes: Some examples from the earth sciences.

European Journal of Science Education, 7, 431–443.

Haslam, F., & Treagust, D.F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students’ misconceptions of photosyn-

thesis and respiration in plants using two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological

Education, 21, 203–211.

Henriques, L. (2002). Children’s ideas about weather: A review of the literature. School Science and

Mathematics, 101, 202–215.

Hewson, M.G., & Hewson, P.W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and

conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20,

731–743.

King, C.J.H. (2009). An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: Earth science in England

and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 565–601.

Klein, C., & Dutrow, B. (2008). Manual of mineral science. New York, NY: John Wiley.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

Liew, C.W., & Treagust, D.F. (1995). A predict-observe-explain teaching sequence for learning

about students’ understanding of heat and expansion of liquids. Australian Science Teachers’

Journal, 41, 68–71.

Lin, S.-W. (2004). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test for high school stu-

dents’ understanding of flowering plant growth and development. International Journal of

Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 175–199.

Marques, L., & Thompson, D. (1997). Misconceptions and conceptual changes concerning Con-

tinental Drift and Plate Tectonics among Portuguese students aged 16–17. Research in

Science & Technological Education, 15, 195–222.

Maskill, R., & Cachapuz, A.F.C. (1989). Learning about chemistry topic of equilibrium: The use of

word association tests to detect developing conceptualizations. International Journal of Science

Education, 11, 57–69.

Novak, I.D. (1988). Learning science and the science of learning. Studies in Science Education, 15,

77–101.

Novak, J.D., & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

Odum, A.L., & Barrow, L.H. (1995). Development and application f a two-tier diagnostic test

measuring college biology students’ understanding of diffusion and osmosis after course of

instruction. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 32, 45–61.

Osborn, R.J., & Cosgrove, M.M. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the changes of state of water.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 825–828.

Osborn, R.J., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Auck-

land: Heinemann.

Peterson, R.F., & Treagust, D.F. (1989). Grade-12 students’ alternative conceptions of covalent

bonding and structure. Journal of Chemical Education, 66, 459–460.

Railsback, L.B. (2009a). Basics of mineralogy: The meaning of ‘mineral’ Part I: The 1800s (and

their influence today). U.S.A. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://www.gly.uga.edu/

railsback/ Fundamentals/SFMGMineral Definition09-I.pdf

Railsback, L.B. (2009b). Basics of mineralogy: The meaning of ‘mineral’ Part II: The1900s. U.S.A.

Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/SFMG

MineralDefinition09-II.pdf

Railsback, L.B. (2009c). Basics of mineralogy: The meaning of ‘mineral’ Part III: The 2000s, and a

modern definition. U.S.A. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/

Fundamentals/SFMGMineralDefinition09-III.pdf

Russel, T. (1993). Rocks, soil, and weather. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Sanders, M. (1993). Erroneous ideas about respiration: The teacher factor. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 30, 919–934.

Schoon, K.J. (1989). Misconceptions in the Earth Sciences: A cross-age study. Paper presented at the

62nd annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,

San Francisco, CA.

Shymansky, J.A., Woodworth, G., Norman, O., Dukhase, J., & Matthews, C. (1993). A study of

changes in middle school teachers’ understanding of selected ideas in science as a function

of an in-service program focusing on student preconceptions. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 30, 737–755.

Tamir, P. (1971). An alternative approach to the construction of multiple choice test items. Journal

of Biological Education, 5, 305–307.

Treagust, D.F. (1985). Diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. Proceedings of the

annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Lick

Springs, Indiana.

Treagust, D.F. (1986). Evaluating students’ misconceptions by means of diagnostic multiple choice

items. Research in Science Education, 16, 199–207.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/


http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/SFMGMineralDefinition09-II.pdf

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/SFMGMineralDefinition09-II.pdf


Treagust, D.F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In S.M. Glynn & R.

Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 327–346). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Treagust, D.F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Overview: Research on students’ pre-instructional

conceptions- The driving force of improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics.

In D.F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B.J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning science and math-

ematics (1–16). New York and London: Teacher College Press.

Treagust, D.F., & Mann, M. (2000). An instrument to diagnose students’ conceptions of breathing, gas

exchange and respiration. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the National Association for

Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, L April 28 – May 1, 2000, 18.

Wang, J.-R. (2003). Development of two-tier diagnostic test for investigating students’ understanding of

plant transport and human circulation. Proceedings of the Fourth conference of the European

Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.

Yen, C.-F., Yao, T.-W., & Chiu, Y.-C. (2005). Alternative conceptions in animal classification: A

cross age study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 547–574.

Appendix 1. Final version of the diagnostic instrument (DI).

This is an anonymous questionnaire to educational investigation purpose. Please,

answer individually for data can be valid for this particular investigation.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Group A: Each question it’s constituted by two parts: the first tier consists in an affir-

mation which response could be True, False or Don’t Know; second tier intends to

justify what take you to choose the previous option. In this last one, you can

present another reason by choosing option D (Other:).

Group B: Sign your option to each one of the five affirmations according to a scale of 1

to 5 (the scale key are in the group).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

b-on

: Bib

liote

ca d

o co

nhec

imen

to o

nlin

e U

C]

at 0

9:50

15

Apr

il 20

15

Diagnosing Portuguese Students Misconceptions about the Mineral Concept

Documents

Transcript of Diagnosing Portuguese Students Misconceptions about the Mineral Concept