Assessing Conceptual Understanding and Misconceptions of the Periodic Table among Grade 10 Learners: A Diagnostic Approach

This study aimed to investigate the learning gaps and misconceptions of Grade 10 students regarding the Periodic Table of Elements through a systematically developed and validated diagnostic assessment instrument. Employing a descriptive research design, an initial 50-item test was content-validated by three experts and pilottested with 150 students. Item analysis and reliability assessment using Cronbach’s alpha resulted in a finalized 36-item diagnostic tool, which was subsequently administered to 100 Grade 10 students from selected public secondary schools in the hinterland areas of Iligan City. Data were analyzed using mean scores and percentage distributions to identify learning gaps and patterns of incorrect responses. Findings revealed persistent misconceptions in foundational concepts, including atomic structure, differentiation between atomic number and mass number, historical development of the Periodic Table, and periodic trends such as atomic radius, ionization energy, and electronegativity. Many learners demonstrated difficulty explaining these trends in terms of underlying principles, including effective nuclear charge and electron shielding. These results underscore the need for targeted instructional interventions that address misconceptions and foster deeper conceptual understanding of the Periodic Table. The validated diagnostic tool provides a robust foundation for designing remedial strategies and enhancing chemistry instruction at the secondary school level.

Chemistry Education, Diagnostic Assessment

1. Bernardo, A. (2019). Students’ conceptual challenges in junior high school chemistry in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Science Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bierenstiel, M., & Snow, K. (2019). Periodic universe: A teaching model for understanding the periodic table of the elements. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(7), 1367-1376. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00740 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bucat, B., & Mocerino, M. (2009). Learning at the sub-micro level: Structural representations. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Chemical Education (Vol. 4, pp. 11-29). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chowdhury, P. (2022). Learners' misconceptions in periodic table: An analysis of cognitive skills development. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2022.100106 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cooper, M. M., Williams, L. C., & Underwood, S. M. (2013). An investigation of college chemistry students' understanding of structure–property relationships. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 699-721. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21093 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cooper, M. M., Underwood, S. M., & Hilley, C. (2017). Investigating student understanding of periodic trends. Journal of Chemical Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Franco-Mariscal, A. J., Oliva-Martínez, J. M., & Almoraima Gil, M. L. (2015). Students’ perceptions about the use of educational games as a tool for teaching the periodic table of elements at the high school level. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(2), 278-285. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed4003578 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Herdien, R. A. (2024). Identification of misconceptions in 10th grade students on atomic structure material. Journal of Chemistry Sciences and Education, 1(02), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.69606/jcse.v1i02.129 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mokiwa, H. O. (2017). Reflections on teaching periodic table concepts: A case study of selected schools in South Africa. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 1563-1573. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00685a [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Mulford, D. R., & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 739. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p739 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Necor, D. (2018). Exploring students' level of conceptual understanding on periodicity. JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research, 33(1), 136-154. https://doi.org/10.7719/jpair.v33i1.609 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Salame, I. I., Sarowar, S., Begum, S., & Krauss, D. (2011). Students’ alternative conceptions about atomic properties and the periodic table. The Chemistry Educator, 16, 190-194. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2000). Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289769 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012E [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. TIMSS. (2019). TIMSS 2019 international results in science. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Yanti, R., & Yasthophi, A. (2024). The analysis of students misconceptions by using four-tier diagnostic test on periodic table of the elements lesson. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Kimia, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.23960/jppk.v13.i3.32640 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study