Assessment of Conceptual Understanding of Atomic Structure Coval

Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 5-2011 Assessment of Conceptual Understanding of Atomic Structure, Covalent Bonding, and Bond Energy Alma Gonzales Clemson University, agonzal@clemson.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Part of the Chemistry Commons Recommended Citation Gonzales, Alma, "Assessment of Conceptual Understanding of Atomic Structure, Covalent Bonding, and Bond Energy" (2011) All Theses 1109 https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/1109 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu ASSESSMENT OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF ATOMIC STRUCTURE, COVALENT BONDING AND BOND ENERGY _ A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University _ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Chemistry _ by Alma O Gonzales May 2011 _ Accepted by: Dr Melanie M Cooper, Committee Chair Dr Gautam Bhattacharyya Dr Brian N Dominy Dr Geoffrey Douglas Potvin 111 ABSTRACT This research work relied upon the importance of conceptual understanding to meaningful learning Conceptual understanding is strongly influenced by students‘ prior knowledge (1) Many of these ideas pose strong barriers to deeper understanding and are called misconceptions since they are inconsistent or in conflict with generally accepted scientific facts (2) Thus, it is beneficial for instructors to initially elicit students‘ conceptual understanding in order to properly address student‘s misconceptions during the learning process However, results are very dependent on the instrument used to elicit conceptual understanding (3) The most commonly used tools are summative assessments or achievement tests (4) They are multiple choice questions in which the wrong answers are based on the expert‘s ideas and understanding Thus, in this study, we will develop concept inventories (CI) questions that are multiple-choice questions that will be used to sample the extent of students‘ misconceptions (5) The distracters are based on student‘s misconceptions, rather than instructor‘s ideas about what students not understand That is, the distracters are taken from students‘ actual responses in interviews, and online response to open-ended questions through Ed‘s Tools (6) Ed‘s Tools is a web-based program that allows on-line administration of open-ended question and facilitates fast and efficient collection, and analysis of data This paper describes the process that is being used to develop and validate a concept inventories instrument for basic and fundamental concepts: atomic structure, covalent bonding and bonding energy The overall results from the iterative process of ii the development, administration, re-construction, and re-administration will be presented in this paper Further, this paper constitutes five phases to seek to validate the robustness of the CI questions This is the most critical part in the study since CI questions should be rigorously validated multiple choice instruments that will be used to evaluate the nature and quality of student understandings of key concepts or their conceptual understanding (7) Therefore, this paper will discuss the general results obtained from the five phases of the experiment in order to prove the robustness of the developed CI questions iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge my research advisor, Dr Melanie Cooper, for all the support she gave me throughout my time at Clemson University I would also like to thank my committee members Dr Gautam Bhattacharyya, Dr Brian Dominy, and Dr Geoffrey Potvin for their assistance and guidance during this process, and all members of my research group, the Chemistry Education Group, who gave their valuable feedbacks during the data analysis Finally, I owe a great deal of gratitude to the students who graciously volunteered their time to participate in this research study iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE………………………………………………………………………………….…….……………………………………… i ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….….…… …………………………………………… ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………… ……… ….…… ………………………………… iv LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………….………………………….………………………………………… viii LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………… …… x CHAPTER I OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS… II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE……………………… … … Introduction Development of Concept Inventory 12 Research-Based Utilization of Concept Inventory 16 Conclusion 26 III METHODOLOGY………………………………… ………… ….……32 Phase 1: Eliciting Conceptual Understanding from Different Groups of Chemistry Students Using the Developed CI Questions……………………………… … ……32 Phase 2: Single versus Group Testing of the CI Questions…… …… 35 Phase 3: Pre- and Post Testing of The CI Questions and Correlation Study of Student‘s CI Scores with their Lab Assessments Scores………………………………… … …… 36 Phase 4: Specific versus General Bond Energy Questions…… ……37 v Phase 5: Comparison of CI Results between Two Universities and with the Result from Final Exam as Summative Assessment……………………………… ….… …… 37 IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………… …….… 39 Phase 1a: Eliciting Bonding Energy Misconceptions through Ed‘s Tools‘ Open-Ended Questions………… ….…….39 Phase 1b: Eliciting Atomic Structure and Covalent Bonding Misconceptions through Audio-taped and Videotaped Interviews with Model Making and Ed‘s Tools‘ Open-Ended Questions… … 54 Phase 1c: The Development of CI Bond Energy Questions… … …62 Phase 1d: The Development of Atomic Structure and Covalent Bonding CI Questions…………………….… … 73 Phase 1e: Analysis of Results from Testing of CI Questions to Different Groups of Students………… ….… 78 Phase 2: Analysis and comparison of CI Results between Single-Item and Group-Items Testing…… ….…….….85 Phase 3: Analysis and Comparison of CI Results between Pre- and Post Testing and from Correlation Study of CI Scores with Lab Assessment‘s Scores… … …… 86 Phase 4: Analysis of CI Results between Specific and General Bond Energy Questions…………………… ….………88 Phase 5: Analysis of CI Results between IOWA University and Clemson University, and Final Exam and Post Testing………………………… ……….90 V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION…………….……………………….92 APPENDICES……………………………………………………… ……….……… 96 A: B: C: D: E: F: Open-Ended Questions on Energy……………………………………….97 Set A: First Version of CI Bond Energy Questions………….……… 98 Set B: First Version of CI Bond Energy Questions………….… …… 99 Semi-Structured Interview Protocol: For Eliciting Students‘ Misconceptions on Atomic Structure and Covalent Bonding…… … 100 First Version of CI Atomic Structure and Covalent Bonding Questions…………………………………… ……… 102 IRB Consent Form………………………………………… ……….….104 vi G: H: I: J: K: Modified Version of CI Questions on Atomic Structure, Covalent Bonding and Bonding Energy…………………… ……106 MCAI…………………………………………………… ……………110 Attitude Test……………………………………………………………118 Self-Efficacy or Motivation Test……………………………………….121 TOLT………………………………………………………………… 124 REFERENCES……………………………………………………… …….…………132 vii LIST OF TABLES Tables Page 4.1 Percentage of students with conceptual understanding about bond energy based on the results from the first version of CI questions…………………………… …………………… … …79 4.2 p Values from Z-Test for comparison of two proportions in terms of % students choosing the best answer between groups based on from CI question on specific bond breaking (1st CI version) …… ….………………………………….… 79 4.3 p Values from Z-Test for comparison of two proportions in terms of % students choosing the best answer between groups based on the results from CI question on specific bond forming (1st CI version)………………….… 80 4.4 p Values from Z-Test for comparison of two proportions in terms of % students choosing the best answer between groups based on the results from CI question on general bond breaking and forming (1st CI version)…………… …81 4.5 Percentage of students with conceptual understanding on bonding energy based on the results from the modified version of CI questions………………………………….…… 82 4.6 Percentage of students with conceptual understanding about atomic structure and covalent bonding………… ……82 4.7 p Values from Z-Test for comparing two proportions in terms of % students choosing the best answer between groups based on the results from atomic structure question (1st CI version)…… …….…………………….…… 83 4.8 p Values from Z-Test for comparison of two proportions in terms of % students choosing the best answer between groups based on the results from covalent bonding question (1st CI version)…………… ………….………… 84 viii 4.9 p Values from Z-Test for two proportions for comparison of % students choosing the best answer between groups based on the results from covalent bonding question (1st CI version)………… ……………………… ……… 84 4.10 Percentage of students with conceptual understanding about atomic structure and covalent bonding based on the results from the modified version…….………….………………… 85 4.11 p Values from Z-Test for comparison of two proportions in terms of % students choosing the best answer between single item and all-together items administration of the CI questions……………………………………….86 4.12 p Values from Z-Test for comparison of two proportions in terms of % students choosing the best answer between pre- and post testing of the CI questions………….… …… 87 4.13 Correlation study of the CI scores with lab assessments‘ scores… 88 4.14 Comparison of results between specific and general bonding energy CI questions…………………………………… …….89 4.15 Comparison of results between Ed‘s Tools‘ specific and general open-ended questions about bonding energy……………… …90 4.16 Comparison of CI results between IOWA University and Clemson University………………………………………… … …91 ix A I’m confident I can understand the most complex material presented by the instructor in this course B C Not at all true of me A A A B C A Not at all true of me G Very true of me D E F G Very true of me undecided I expect to well in this class B C D E F G Very true of me undecided I’m certain I can master the skills being taught in this class B C Not at all true of me F I’m confident I can an excellent job on the assignments and tests in this course Not at all true of me E undecided Not at all true of me D D E F G Very true of me undecided Considering the difficulty of this course, the teacher, and my skills, I think I will well in this class B C D undecided 123 E F G Very true of me Appendix K TOLT Department of Chemistry Chemistry Education Research Test of Logical Thinking This survey is part of your lab assignments 124 Orange Juice #1 Four large oranges are squeezed to make six glasses of juice How much juice can be made from six oranges? a) glasses b) glasses c) glasses d) 10 glasses e) other What was the reason for your answer to question 1? a) The number of glasses compared to the number of oranges will always be in the ratio to b) With more oranges, the difference will be less c) The difference in the numbers will always be two d) With four oranges the difference was With six oranges the difference would be two more e) There is no way of predicting Orange Juice #2 How many oranges are needed to make 13 glasses of juice? a) 1/2 oranges b) 2/3 oranges d) 11 oranges e) other c) oranges What was the reason for your answer to question 3? a) The number of oranges compared to the number of glasses will always be in the ratio to b) If there are seven more glasses, then five more oranges are needed c) The difference in the numbers will always be two 125 d) The number of oranges will be half the number of glasses e) There is no way of predicting the number of oranges The Pendulum’s Length Suppose you wanted to an experiment to find out if changing the length of a pendulum changed the amount of time it takes to swing back and forth Which pendulums, in the above figure, would you use for the experiment? a) and b) and c) and d) and e) all What is the reason for your answer to question 5? a) The longest pendulum should be tested against the shortest pendulum b) All pendulums need to be tested against one another c) As the length is increased the number of washers should be decreased d) The pendulums should be the same length but the number of washers should be different e) The pendulums should be different lengths but the number of washers should be the same The Pendulum’s Weight Suppose you wanted to an experiment to find out if changing the weight on the end of the string changed the amount of the time the pendulum takes to swing back and forth Which pendulums, in the above figure, would you use for the experiment? a) and b) and c) and e) all 126 d) and What was the reason for your answer to question 7? a) The heaviest weight should be compared to the lightest weight b) All pendulums need to be tested against one another c) As the number of washers is increased the pendulum should be shortened d) The number of washers should be different but the pendulums should be the same length e) The number of washers should be the same but the pendulums should be different lengths The Vegetable Seeds A gardener bought a package containing squash seeds and bean seeds If just one seed is selected from the package what are the chances that it is a bean seed? a) l out of b) l out of c) l out of d) l out of e) out of 10 What was the reason for your answer to question 9? a) Four selections are needed because the three squash seeds could have been chosen in a row b) There are six seeds from which one bean seed must be chosen c) One bean seed needs to be selected from a total of three d) One half of the seeds are bean seeds e) In addition to a bean seed, three squash seeds could be selected from a total of six 127 The Flower Seeds 11 A gardener bought a package of 21 mixed seeds The package contents listed: short red flowers short yellow flowers short orange flowers tall red flowers tall yellow flowers tall orange flowers If just one seed is planted, what are the chances that the plant that grows will have red flowers? a) l out of b) l out of c) l out of d) l out of 21 e) other 12 What was the reason for your answer to question 11? a) One seed has to be chosen from among those that grow red, yellow or orange flowers b) 1/4 of the short and 4/9 of the talls are red c) It does not matter whether a tall or a short is picked One red seed needs to be picked from a total of seven red seeds d) One red seed must be selected from a total of 21 seeds e) Seven of the twenty-one seeds will produce red flowers 128 The Mice 13 The mice shown represent a sample of mice captured from a part of a field Are fat mice more likely to have black tails and thin mice more likely to have white tails? a) Yes b) No 14 What is the reason for your answer to question 13? a) 8/11 of the fat mice have black tails and 3/4 of the thin mice have white tails b) Some of the fat mice have white tails and some of the thin mice have white tails c) 18 mice out of thirty have black tails and 12 have white tails d) Not all of the fat mice have black tails and not all of the thin mice have white tails e) 6/12 of the white tailed mice are fat 129 The Fish 15 Are fat fish more likely to have broad stripes than thin fish? a) Yes b) No 16 What is the reason for your answer to question 15? a) Some fat fish have broad stripes and some have narrow stripes b) 3/7 of the fat fish have broad stripes c) 12/28 are broad striped and 16/28 are narrow striped d) 3/7 of the fat fish have broad stripes and 9/21 of the thin fish have broad stripes e) Some fish with broad stripes are thin and some are fat 130 The Student Council 17 Three students from grade 10, 11, 12 were elected to the student council A three member committee is to be formed with one person from each grade All possible combinations must be considered before a decision can be made Two possible combinations are Tom, Jerry and Dan (TJD) and Sally, Anne and Martha (SAM) List all other possible combinations in spaces provided on the answer sheet More spaces are provided on the answer sheet than you will need STUDENT COUNCIL Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Tom (T) Jerry (J) Dan (D) Sally (S) Anne (A) Martha (M) Bill (B) Connie (C) Gwen (G) The Shopping Center 18 In a new shopping center, store locations are going to be opened on the ground level A BARBER SHOP (B), a DISCOUNT STORE (D), a GROCERY STORE (G), and a COFFEE SHOP (C) want to move in there Each one of the stores can choose any one of four locations One way that the stores could occupy the four locations is BDGC List all other possible ways that the stores can occupy the locations More spaces are provided on the answer sheet than you will need 131 REFERENCES Osborne, R.J.; Wittrock, M.C Sci Educ 1983, 67(4), 489-508 Bodner, G M J Chem Educ 1986, 63, 873–878 Holme, T.; Bretz, S.L.: Cooper, M.; Lewis, J.; Paek, P.; Pienta, N.; Stacy, A.; Stevens, R.; Towns, M Chem Educ Res Pract 2010, 11, 92–97 (a) Goubeaud, K J Sci Educ Technol 2010, 19, 237–245 (b) Smitha, K.C.; Nakhleh, M.B.; Bretz, S.L Chem Educ Res Pract 2010, 11, 147–153 Klymkowsky, M.W.; Garvin-Doxas, K PLoS Biol 2008, 6(1), 1-7 http://edstools.colorado.edu/ Smith, J.I.; Tanner, K CBE Life Sci Educ 2010, 9(1), 1-5 Tuvi-Arada, I.; Blonderb, R Chemistry Education Research and Practice 2010, 11, 48–58 Hageman, J.H J Chem Educ 2010, 87(3), 291–293 10 Geselbracht, M.J.; Reisner, B.A J Chem Educ 2010, 87(7), 756-757 11 Barneaa, N.; Doria, Y J.; Hofsteind, Chem Educ Res Pract 2010, 11, 218–228 12 Le Marechal, J.F.; El Bilani, R Int J of Thermodynamics 2008, 11 (2), 91-99 13 Tsovaltzi, D.; Rummel, N.; McLaren, B.M.; Pinkwart, N.; Scheuer, O.; Harrer, A.; Braun, I International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 2010, 2(12), 91 – 110 14 (a) El-Farargy, N Chem Educ Res Pract 2010, 11, 98–106 (b) Adadan, E.; Irving, K.E.; Trundle, K.C International Journal of Science Education 2009, 31(13), 1743-1775 15 Sanabria-Ríosa, D.; Bretz, S.L Chem Educ Res Pract 2010, 11, 212–217 16 Davidowitza, B.; Chittleboroughb, G.; Murray, E Chem Educ Res Pract 2010, 11, 154–164 132 17 (a) She, H.; Liao, Y Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2010, 47(1), 91-119 (b) Levy, S.T.; Wilensky, U Journal of Science Education and Technology 2009, 18(3), 243-254 (c) Corrigan, D Chem Educ Res Pract 2009, 10, 121–131 (d) Frailich, M.; Kesner, M.; Hofstein, A Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2009, 46(3), 289–310 (e) Niaz, Science & Education 2009, 18(1), 43-65 (f) Urhahne, D.; Nick, S.; Schanze, S Research in Science Education 2009, 39(4), 495-513 18 Milligan, A.; Wood, B Journal of Curriculum Studies 2010, 42 (4), 487-501 19 Cheung, D.; Ma, H.; Yang, J International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2009, 7(6), 1111-1133 20 Cracolice, M.S.; Deming, J.C.; Ehlert, B J Chem Educ 2008, 85(6), 873 21 Schaal, S.; Bogner, F.X.; Girwidz, R Research in Science Education 2010, 40, (3), 339-352 22 Jonassen, D.H Educational Technology, Research and Development 2006, 54(2), 177-196 23 Bischoff, P.J.; Avery, L.; Golden, C.F.; French, P Journal of Science Teacher Education 2010, 21(4), 411-429 24 Furtak, E.M.; Alonzo, A.C Research in Science Education 2010, 40, (3), 425-449 25 Aldahmash, A.H.; Abraham, M.R J Chem Educ 2009, 86(12), 1442 26 Ebenezer, J.; Chacko, S.; Kaya, O.N.; Koya, S.K.; Ebenezer, D.L Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2010, 47(1), 25-46 27 Singh, C.; Rosengrant, D Am J Phys 2003, 71(6), 607-617 28 (a) Frazer, M.J Chemical Society Reviews 1982, 11, 171-190 (b) Gabel, D J Chem Educ 1989, 66, 727-729 (c) Gabel, D.; Sherwood, R J Res Sci Teach 1983, 20, 163-177 (d) Lythcott, J J Chem Educ 1990, 67, 248-252 29 Aydeniz, M.; Brown, C.L International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 2010, 2(2), 305-326 133 30 (a) American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989) Project 2061: Science for all Americans Washington, DC:AAAS (b) Brown, D.E.; Clement, J Instructional Science 1989, 18, 237-261 (c) Clement, J A conceptual model discussed by Galileo and used intuitively by physics students In D Gentner & A.L Stevvens (Eds.), Mental models (pp 325-340), Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1983 (d) McCloskey, M Naïve theories of motion In D Gentner & A.L Stevvens (Eds.), Mental models (pp 299-323), Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1983 31 Balci, S.; Cakiroglu, J.; Tekkaya, C Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 2006, 34(3), 199-203 32 (a) D'Avanzo, C BioScience 2008, 58, (11), 1079–1085 (b) Klymkowsky, M W.; Garvin-Doxas, K.; Zeilik, M Cell Biol Educ 2003, 2, 155–161 (c) Bowling, B V.; Acra, E E.; Wang, L.; Myers, M F.; Dean, G E.; Markle, G C.; Moskalik, C L.; Huether, C A Genetics 2008, 178, 15–22 33 (a) Hake, R R Am J Phys 1998, 66, 64–74 (b) Smith, M K.; Wood, W B.; Knight, J K CBE Life Sci Educ 2008, 7, 422–430 34 Garvin-Doxas, K.; Klymkowsky, M.; Elrod, S CBE Life Sci Educ 2007, 6, 277– 282 35 Redish, E F J Appl Dev Psychol 2000, 21, 85–96 36 (a) Sarikaya, M International Education Journal 2007, 8(1), 40-63 (b) Nakiboglu, C Chem Educ Res Pract 2008, 9, 309–322 (c) Waner, M.J J Chem Educ 2010, 87(9), pp 924–927 37 (a) Stevens, S.Y.; Delgado, C.; Krajcik, J.S Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2010, 47(6), 687–715 (b) Talanquer, V.; Pollard, J Chem Educ Res Pract 2010, 11, 74–83 (c) Bader, R.F.W J Phys Chem A 2010, 114(28), 7431–7444 (d) Schwarz, W.H.E.; Rich, R.L J Chem Educ 2010, 87(4), 435–443 38 (a) Everest, M.A J Chem Educ 2010, 87(10), 1071–1073 (b) Venkataraman, B Chem Educ Res Pract 2009, 10, 62–69 39 (a) Bindernagel, J.A.; Eilks, I Chem Educ Res Pract 2009, 10, 77–85 (b) Jacobsen, H Chemistry – A European Journal 2010, 16(3), 976–987 (c) Tarhan, L.; Ayar-Kayali, H.; Urek, R.O.; Acar, B Research in Science Education 2008, 38 (3), 285-300 40 Hestenes, D.; Wells, M.; Swackhammer, G Phys Teach 1992, 30, 141–158 134 41 Mulford, D R., and Robinson, W R J Chem Educ 2002, 79, 739–774 42 Garvin-Doxas K, Klymkowsky M, EIrod S Life Science Education 2007, 6, 277282 43 Garvin-Doxas, K., and Klymkowsky, M W CBE Life Sci Educ 2008, 7, 227–233 44 Richardson J 2005 Concept inventories: Tools for uncovering STEM students' misconceptions Pages 19-25 in Invention and Impact: Building Excellence in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education Washington (DG): American Association for the Advancement of Science 45 Halloun, I.; Hake, R.R.; Mosca, E.P.; Hestenes, D 1995 Force Concept Inventory (revised, 1995) On-line (password protected) at http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html 46 Thornton, R K., and Sokoloff, D R Amer J Physics 1998, 66, 338–352 47 Ding, L., Chabay, R., Sherwood, B., and Beichner, R Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 2006, 2, 010105 48 Huffman, D.; Heller, P The Physics Teacher 1995, 33(3), 138-143 49 Henderson, C The Physics Teacher 2002, 40, 542-547 50 Klymkowsky, M W.; Garvin-Doxas, K.; Zeilik, M Cell Biology Education 2003, 2, 155–161 51 Hake, R Am J Phys 1998, 66, 64–74 52 McKeachie,W.J., Pintrich, P., Lin, Y.-G., Smith, D.A.F., and Sharma, R (1990) Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom: A Review of the Research Literature (2nd ed.) National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Learning (NCRIPTAL) Bligh, D.A (2000) What‘s the Use of Lectures? San Francisco: Jossey–Bass 53 D'avanzo, C BioScience 2008, 58(11), 1079 -1085 54 Anderson, D.L.; Fisher, K.M.; Norman, G.J J Res Sci Teach 2002, 39, 952–978 55 Klymkowsky MW, Garvin-Doxas K 2008 Recognizing students' misconceptions through Ed's Tools and the Biology Concept Inventory PloS Biology 6: e3 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060003 135 56 Sadler PM Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1998, 35, 265-296 57 Libarkin JG, Anderson SW 2006 The geoscience concept inventory: Application of Rasch analysis to concept inventory development in higher education Pages 45-73 in Liu X, Boone WJ, eds Applications of Rasch Measurement in Science Education Maple Grove (MN): JAM Press 58 Anderson, D.L.; Fisher, K.M.; Willson, V.L.; Ackerman, C.; Malave, C Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2000, 37(10), 1112-1120 59 Savinainen, A.; Scott, P Physics Education 2002, 37(1), 45–52 60 Savinainen, A.; Scott, P Physics Education 2002, 37(1), 53–58 61 Rebello, N.S.; Zollman, D.A Am J Phys 2004, 72(1), 116-125 62 Coletta, V.P.; Phillips, J.A American Journal of Physics 2005, 73(12), 1172–1182 63 Dancy, M.H.; Beichner, R Phys Rev St Phys Educ Res 2006, 010104 64 Stewart, J.; Griffin, H.; Stewart, G Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research 2007, 3, 010102 65 Savinainen, A.; Viiri, J International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2008, 6(4), 719–740 66 Marbach-Ad, G.; McAdams, K.C.; Benson, S et al CBE—Life Sciences Education 2010, 9, 408–416 67 Martín-Blasa, T.; Seidel, L.; Serrano-Fernández, A European Journal of Engineering Education 2010, 35(6), 597–606 68 Mualem, R.; Eylon, B.S J Res Sci Teach 2010, 47(9), 1094–1115 69 Sahin, M J Sci Educ Technol 2010, 19, 266–275 70 Kruse, R.A.; Roehrig, G.H Journal of Chemical Education 2005, 82(8), 12461250 71 Smith, M K., Wood, W B., and Knight, J K CBE Life Sci Educ 2008, 7, 422– 430 72 Willson, V.L.; Ackerman, C.; Malave, C Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2000, 37 (10), 1112-1120 136 73 Marbach-Ad, G., et al J Microbiol Biol Educ 2009, 10, 43–50 137 .. .ASSESSMENT OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF ATOMIC STRUCTURE, COVALENT BONDING AND BOND ENERGY _ A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University... proximate (closest in time) assessment of conceptual understanding through FCI predicted the later physics achievement Thus, the use of the FCI as a gauge of conceptual understanding and improvement... Percentage of students with conceptual understanding on bonding energy based on the results from the modified version of CI questions………………………………….…… 82 4.6 Percentage of students with conceptual understanding