The Misconception of Stoichiometry and Its Impact On The Chemical Equilibrium
The Misconception of Stoichiometry and Its Impact On The Chemical Equilibrium
The Misconception of Stoichiometry and Its Impact On The Chemical Equilibrium
Abstract—Misconception about stoichiometry and its representation, namely macroscopic, submicroscopic and
impact on the chemical equilibrium concept were studied on symbolic [2], [3].
245 second-grade students at SMA Negeri 2 Gowa, South
Sulawesi, Indonesia. Research instruments were Stoichiometry According to Nakhleh [4] in order to obtain a complete
misconception test (SMT) and chemical equilibrium understanding of chemical concepts required integration of
misconception three tier tests (CEMTT). Semi structured conceptual and algorithmic understanding. Example simple
interview was conducted after the administration of the test for equation for reaction nitrogen gases (N2) with hydrogen
fifteen students. SMT consisted of ten items with high validity gases (H2) to ammonia gases. More students successfully
of 90.70% and reliability coefficient, calculated using balanced the equations. However, few of them could not
Cronbach’s alpha, of 0.73 (high). CEMTT consisted of explain the equation in the microscopic system. This makes
thirdteen items with very high validity of 96.70% and the subject matter for the Stoichiometry, and Chemical
reliability coefficient, calculated using Cronbach’s alpha, of Equilibrium becomes difficulty understood by students.
0.95 (very high). The effect of stoichiometry misconceptions on These difficulties can lead to misconceptions if it happens
chemical equilibrium was sufficient with limited predictions (r continuously [5], [6]. Misconceptions are also called as
= 0.36). We identified three misconceptions stoichiometry that alternative concepts [7] or Spontaneous Knowledge [8].
had impact on the misconceptions of chemical equilibrium
concept namely: 1) The number of moles of substances that Misconception on stoichiometry course has been studied
react is proportional to the number of atoms, relates to the extensively. Huddle & Pillay [9] reported that the limiting
increasing pressure will shift the equilibrium of the gas toward reagent is the least number of moles. Garnet et al. [10]
a substance that has more number of atoms; 2) The increasing reported that the subscripts in formulae are numbers used in
of concentration will greather surface area, so as to giving rises balancing equations and do not represent atomic groupings;
to a greather number of effective collisions. This is related to equation coefficients are numbers used to mechanically
the misconception that changes in the amount of solid phase balance equations and do not represent the relative numbers
at heterogeneous equilibrium which would shift the of species reacting or being produced in chemical reactions.
equilibrium system; 3) In exothermic reaction there is an Nakhleh [4] findings students misrepresentation of the
increase in reaction enthalpy, relates to the misconception that
chemical reaction equation due to lack of understanding of
the increase of temperature in exothermic gas equilibrium will
the difference between the reaction coefficients and
shift towards the product. It was proven that there was a
misconception relationship between the stoichiometry and subscripts of an element. Fang [11] reported two critical
chemical equilibrium, so it is recommended to implement a components for a conceptual understanding of the mole
learning strategy that can prevent students’ misconceptions on emerged: (1) the number aspect of the mole needs to be
the concept of chemical equilibrium by eliminating students' justified by its mass aspect, and (2) the connection between
misconceptions on the stoichiometry in chemistry learning. molar mass and relative atomic/molecular mass.
Some misconceptions on chemical equilibrium concept
Keywords—stoichiometry, chemical equilibrium,
misconception
had been reported: misconceptions on the Le-Chatelir
principle about changes in gas volume, concentration, and
temperature [1], [10], [12]–[14]. Heikkinen [15] reported
I. INTRODUCTION that equilibrium conditions occur when both sides are equal
Stoichiometry and chemical equilibrium are chemistry and static. Misconceptions about dynamic equilibrium
topics studied by high school science students. These topics reported by [5], [16], [17]. The misconception about adding
consist of abstract concepts that important to study other solids to a gas equilibrium system which would change the
chemistry topics such as acid-base equilibrium, solubility, price of K and shift the equilibrium position reported by [5],
and redox [1]. Abstract concepts can only be visualized at [13] and [18]. Misconception that catalyst addition can
the atomic level, then to understand the chemical increase product concentration reported by [10], [19], [20].
phenomenon requires the integration of three levels of As well as misconceptions about the addition of inert gases,
and determination of substance concentration in equilibrium
conditions had been reported by [12], [14], [16], [19], [21], pattern of answers and reasons, then tabulated the number of
[22]. misconceptions and percentage — analyzing students’
misconceptions on reaction rates and chemical equilibrium
Misconceptions can come from the teacher and the concept in accordance with the categories of [26], the
students’ prior conception [16], textbooks [23], and percentage of misconceptions greater than 20.0%.
preliminary knowledge or prerequisites [22]. [13] reported
Describing the misconceptions of reaction rates potentially
that the misunderstanding of the Le-Chatelir principle about
impact to misconceptions on chemical equilibrium. This
changes in gas volume is caused by a lack of understanding result is supported by a semi-structured interview from 15
of the concentration concept, difficulty interpreting
students who consistently experience misconceptions at
mathematical language in stoichiometry reactions.
reaction rate and chemical equilibrium [1]. The interview
According to [6] misunderstanding of the concept of recordings were transcribed and validated its conformity by
equilibrium can be caused by incomplete explanations and
two chemistry teachers at SMA Negeri 2 Gowa.
misinterpretation of language. [10] reported that students'
misconceptions on chemical concepts including chemical The effect of reaction rate misconception to chemical
equilibrium were caused by inappropriate language use in equilibrium misconception is determined by correlation
everyday language in a scientific context. Experts suspect analysis between the number of student misconceptions on
that the occurrence of misconceptions in chemical reaction rate with the number of student misconception on
equilibrium is partly due to misconceptions in stoichiometry chemical equilibrium.The analysis used Spearman's rho
concept as a precondition concept. So far, there has never correlation with SPSS program because data of the number
been a study linking the misconception of stoichiometry of students misconceptions on stoichiometry and chemical
with chemical equilibrium. equilibrium are not normally distributed.
The aims of the study were (1) to find out the impact of
misconceptions on stoichiometry to misconceptions on III. FINDINGS
chemical equilibrium 2) to find out misconceptions on The student misconceptions on stoichiometry can be
stoichiometry which is related to the misconceptions of seen in Table 1 and misconceptions on chemical equilibrium
Chemical Equilibrium. in Table 2.
139
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 227
significant relationship with a correlation coefficient (r = between the reaction coefficients and subscripts of an
0.36). The relationship category of the two variables is element.
sufficient with limited predictions [27]. The misconception "the increasing of concentration
of solution will increase the surface area of the
Based on the misconceptions that had been described in
reactants" associated with the misconception on "the
Table 1 and Table 2, there are some misconceptions on the
change in the number of solid phase substances in
stoichiometry related to the misconception of Chemical
heterogeneous equilibrium will shift the equilibrium
Equilibrium can be seen in Table 3.
system."
Students' misconceptions that the increase concentration
TABLE III. MISCONCEPTION ON THE STOICHIOMETRY RELATED TO of solution will increase the surface area of substances
THE MISCONCEPTION OF CHEMICAL EQUILIBRIUM (N = 245) revealed at SMT point 6, this misconception was
Misconception of Stoichiometry – Related to (%) experienced by 22% of students. This misconception was
Misconception of Chemical Equilibrium related to the misconception that the changes in the number
The number of moles of substances that react is of solid phase substances in heterogeneous equilibrium will
proportional to the number of index an element - 22.9 shift the equilibrium system. This misconception was
related to
revealed in CEMTT item 20 and was experienced by 22.9%
The increasing volume of gas equilibrium system will
32.2 of students. The interview footage with Researcher (R) with
shift the equilibrium to a larger number of atoms
The increasing of concentration will greater surface students (S2) who supported this misconception was as
area, so as to give rises a greater number of effective 22.0 follows.
collisions. R : Please, take a look at the data in item 6.
related to According to your opinion, what is the most
The changes in the number of solid phase substances appropriate answer?
in heterogeneous equilibrium will shift the 22.9
equilibrium system.
S2: The rate of the reaction is affected by the
surface area of the reactant.
In exothermic reaction, there is an increase in reaction
enthalpy. 24.9 R : What is your reason?
related to S2 : The increasing of reactant concentration will
The increasing temperature in exothermic gas facilitate collisions among molecules that affect
27.3
equilibrium will shift towards the product. the surface area of the reactants,
R : Why do you answer the rate of reaction
IV. DISCUSSION influenced by the area surface? Meanwhile,
The misconception on "The number of moles of your reason was the increasing concentration?
substances that react is proportional to the number of S2 : Like this. Concentration is related to surface
atoms" was related to the misconception on "the area, the higher the concentration, the
increasing volume of gas equilibrium system will shift greater the surface area.
the equilibrium to the larger number of atoms." R : Do you think the surface area applies to the
Students' misconceptions that the number of moles of solution?
substances that react is proportional to the number of atoms S4 : Yes ...
revealed at SMT points 1 and 7. This misconception was The misconception about the changing of the amount of
experienced by 22.9% of students and was related to the solid phase substances on gas equilibrium will shift the
misconception on the increasing volume of gas equilibrium equilibrium system that had been reported by [5] the first-
system that will shift the equilibrium to a large number of year student of science education study program in Turkey,
atoms. This misconception was revealed in CEMTT items [18] at Izmir Turkey Middle School; [17] for high school
20 and 21 experienced by 32.2% of students. The interview students in Malaysia.
footage between Researcher (R) with students (S1) that
The misconception of “In exothermic reaction, there
supported this misconception was:
is an increase in reaction enthalpy, associated with
R : What is your answer to item 1 SMT?
increasing temperature in exothermic gas equilibrium
S1 : My answer is D-2. The amount of mol oxygen to
will shift towards the product.”
combustion of propane is 5 moles.
R : What is your reason? Misconceptions about characteristic exothermic reaction
S1 : The number of moles is proportional to the revealed at SMT points 9 and 10. This misconception was
coefficient and a number of atomic substances. experienced by 24.9% of students. This was related to the
R : What is your answer to item 25 CEMTT? misconception of equilibrium that the increasing
S1 : My answer that will shift to the right side. temperature in exothermic gas equilibrium will shift towards
R : Why? the product. This misconception was revealed by CEMTT
S1 : Because the increasing pressure of the items 21 and 22 as many as 27.3% of students experienced
equilibrium system will shift to a large number of this misconception. This finding was similar to that reported
molecules of gas. by [28] in high school and first-level students in Turkey.
The misconception that the number of moles of a The interview footage between Researcher (R) and students
substance is proportional to the number of atoms of a (S3) supports the misconception.
substance is due to students' lack of understanding of the
difference between the reaction coefficients and the R : what is the characteristic of the exothermic
subscripts of an element. This had also been reported by [4] reaction?
that students misinterpretation of the chemical reaction S3 : enthalpy of product reaction higher than reactan.
equation due to lack of understanding of the difference R : why?
S3 : because ΔH > 0.
140
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 227
R : What is your answer to item 21 CEMTTT? Stoichiometry and Chemical Equilibrium at a South African
S3 : the increasing temperature, equilibrium shift to University,” J. Res. Sci. Teaching1, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 65–77, 996.
the right. [10] M. W. Garnet, P.J, Garnet, P.J & Hackling, “Student Alternative
Conception in Chemistry: A review of Research and Implications for
R : Why? Teaching and Learning,” Stud. Sains Educ., vol. 25, pp. 69–95, 1995.
S3 : because the concentration of product will [11] D. Fang, S.C. Hart, C, Clarke, “Identifying the Critical Components
increase with increasing temperature. for a Conceptual Understanding of the Mole in Secondary Science
Classrooms,” J. Res. Sci. Teaching2, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 181–214,
2016.
V. CONCLUSIONS
[12] A. C. Banerjee, “Misconceptions of Students and Teachers in
The effect of stoichiometry to chemical equilibrium Chemical Equilibrium,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 487–494,
misconception using Spearman's rho correlation found a 1991.
significant relationship with a correlation coefficient (r = [13] J. J. Quilez, J; Solaz, “Students’ and Teachers’ Misapplication of Le
0.36). The relationship category of variables is sufficient Chatelier’s Principle: Implication for the Teaching of Chemical
Equilibrium,” J. Resarch Sci. Teach., vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 939–957,
with limited predictions The misconceptions of the 1995.
stoichiometry that was directly related to the misconception
[14] B. Akkus, H; Kadayifci, H; Atasoy, “Development and Applications
of chemical equilibrium were as follows: 1) The number of off two tier Diagnostik test to Asses Secondary Students’
moles of reactant and product is proportional to the number Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium,” J. Balt. Sci. Educ., vol. 10,
of index an element in substances, related with the no. 3, pp. 146–155, 2011.
increasing volume of gas equilibrium system will shift the [15] H. Bergquist, W.C. & Heikkinen, “Student ideas regarding chemical
equilibrium to a larger number of index atoms , 2) The equilibrium: What written test answers do not reveal,” J. Chem.
increasing of concentration will greater surface area, so as to Educ., vol. 67, pp. 1000–1003, 1990.
giving rises a greater number of subscript of element, 2) [16] D. Barke, H.D; Hasari, A; Yitbarek, Misconceptions in Chemistry.
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2009.
effective collisions, related to the changes in the number of
[17] A. L. Karpudewan, M; Treagust, D.F; Mocerino, M; Won, M;
solid phase substances in heterogeneous equilibrium will Chandrasegaran, “Ivestigating High School Students’ Understanding
shift the equilibrium system, 3) In exothermic reaction there of Chemical Equilibrium Concepts,” Int. J. Enviromental &Science
is an increase in reaction enthalpy related to The increasing Educ., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 845–863, 2015.
temperature in exothermic gas equilibrium will shift towards [18] E. S. Sendur, G; Toprak, M; Pekmez, “How Can Secondary School
the product. The implication in chemistry learning is Perceive Chemical Equilibrium,” New World Sci. Acad., vol. 6, no. 2,
important to implement a learning strategy that can prevent pp. 1512–1531, 2011.
students 'misconceptions on chemical equilibrium concept by [19] M. Gussrasky, E & Gorodetsky, “On the Conceept ‘Chemical
eliminating students' misconceptions on the stoichiometry. Equilibrium’ The Associative Framework,” J. Res. Sci. Teaching1,
vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 197–204, 1990.
[20] O. Bilgin, I, Uzunttiryaki, E & Geban, “Students’ Misconception on
REFERENCES the Concept of Chemical Equilibrium,” J. Educ. Sci., vol. 28, no. 127,
pp. 10–17, 2003.
[1] H. W. Voska, K.W. & Heikkinen, “Identification and analysis of
student conceptionsused to solve chemical equilibrium problems,” J. [21] F. Jordaan, “Disturbing Le-Chatelir Principle,” J. Chem. Educ., pp.
Res. Sci. Teaching2, vol. 37, pp. 160–176, 2000. 167–191, 1993.
[2] A. H. Johnstone, “Why is Science Difficult to Learn. Things are [22] G. Kousathana, M & Tsaparlis, “Students’ Errors in Solving
Seldom What They Seem,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 7, pp. 75– Numerical-Equlibrium Problems,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. Eur., vol.
83, 1991. 3, no. 1, pp. 5–17, 2002.
[3] S. A. Devetak, I., Vogrinc, J., & Glazar, “States of Matter [23] M. H. Pedrosa, M.A & Dias, “Chemistry Textbook Approaches to
Explanations in Slovenian Textbooks for Students Aged 6 to 14,” Int. Chemical Equilibrium and Students Alternative Conceptions,” Chem.
J. Enviroment Sci. Educ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 217–235, 2010. Educ. Res. Pract. Eur., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 227–236, 2000.
[4] M. . Nakhleh, “Why Some Student Don’t Learn Chemistry (Chemical [24] S. L. Abraham, M.R; Wiliiamson, V.M & Westbrook, “A Cross-Age
Misconception),” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 191–194, 1992. Study of the Understanding of Five Chemistry Concepts,” J. Res. Sci.
Teaching1, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 147–165, 1994.
[5] Ozmen H, “Determination of Students’ Alternative Conceptions about
Chemical equilibrium: a Review of research and the Case of Turkey,” [25] E. L. Hasan, S;, Bagayoko, D & Kelley, “Misconception and the
J. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 9, pp. 225–233, 2008. Certainty of Respons Indeks,” J. Phys. Educ., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 294–
299, 1999.
[6] R. B. Tyson, L; Treagust, D.F; Bucat, “The complexity and Leaching
and Learning Chemical Equilibrium,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 79, no. 4, [26] N. Al-Balushi, S.M., Ambusaidi, A.K., Alshuaili, A.K., & Tailor,
pp. 554–558, 1999. “Omani Twelfth Grade Students most common misconception,” J.
Educ. Int., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 221–240, 2012.
[7] K. Taber, “Constructing Chemical Concept in the Classroom? Using
Research to Inform Practice,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. Eur., vol. 2, [27] J. W. Creswell, Educational Research. Planning, Conducting, and
no. 1, pp. 43–51, 2001. Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 4th ed. New York:
Pearson, 2012.
[8] L. H. . Pines, A.L & West, “Conceptual Understanding and Science
Learning: An Interpretation of Research Within a Sources-of [28] G. Cakmacki, “Identifying Alternative Conceptions of Chemical
Knowledge Framework,” Sci. Educ., vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 583–604, Kinetics among Secondary School and Undergraduate Students in
1986. Turkey,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 449–455, 2010.
[9] A. E. Huddle, P.A; Pillay, “An In-Depth Study of Misconception in
141