Foundational Chemistry Learning Gaps in Atomic Structure and the Periodic Table: Development and Application of a Diagnostic Mastery Assessment

This study aimed to develop a valid and reliable assessment instrument and to determine the mastery levels of Grade 11 learners in Atomic Structure and the Periodic Table of Elements, which are foundational domains in senior high school chemistry. Utilizing a descriptive research design, the study involved 120 Grade 11 students from Betinan National High School as the primary respondents, while 150 senior high school students from Fatima National High School participated in the pilot testing of the researcher-developed instrument. The finalized 35-item multiple-choice mastery test underwent rigorous expert validation, item analysis, and reliability testing, yielding a high internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach’s α = 0.829). Learners’ performance data were analyzed using descriptive statistical techniques, including frequency counts and percentage distributions, and mastery levels were classified as Not Mastered, Least Mastered, Nearly Mastered, or Mastered. The results revealed that learners demonstrated an overall Least Mastered level of understanding, with a mean mastery score of 47%. Both Atomic Structure (49%) and the Periodic Table of Elements (45%) were classified within the same mastery category, with the majority of assessment items exhibiting high error rates. These findings indicate persistent conceptual difficulties in key areas such as subatomic particles, atomic number and mass number, electron configuration, and periodic trends. Collectively, the results highlight substantial gaps in learners’ conceptual understanding and underscore the necessity for instructional strategies that emphasize diagnostic assessment, multiple representations, and conceptually driven instruction to address misconceptions and strengthen foundational chemistry knowledge.

Atomic Structure, Chemistry Education, Conceptual Understanding

1. Adadan, E., Irving, K. E., & Trundle, K. C. (2021). Impacts of multi-representational instruction on students’ understanding of atomic structure and the periodic table. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00321F [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baigan, A., Nabua, E. B., Alcopra, A., Fernandez, M. J., & Salic-Hairulla, M. (2025). Development of balancing equation learning packet: A strategic intervention material for Grade 10 learners. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(1), 102–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Chang, J. S., & Park, J. Y. (2023). Students’ conceptual understanding of atomic structure and its relationship to representational competence. International Journal of Science Education, 45(5), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2172419 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chowdhury, M. A. (2022). Students’ conceptual understanding of periodic trends: Linking atomic structure to periodicity. International Journal of Science Education, 44(6), 915–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2031457 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chowdhury, P. (2022). Learners’ misconceptions in periodic table: An analysis of cognitive skills development. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 10(4), 243–252. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cooper, M. M., Underwood, S. M., & Hilley, C. Z. (2021). Development and validation of the atomic–molecular structure concepts inventory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00277A [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Damayanti, Y. D., & Wulanningtyas, M. E. (2025). Analysis of the level of understanding of class X students’ concepts on the periodic table of elements material assisted by the three-tier multiple-choice test instrument. International Journal of Active Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Febriyani, R., Erlina, & Mayasari, E. (2025). Students’ learning engagement in the topic of atomic concepts and the periodic table. Hydrogen: Jurnal Kependidikan Kimia, 13(4), 894–904. https://doi.org/10.33394/hjkk.v13i4.16944 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Girón-Gambero, M., & Franco-Mariscal, R. (2023). Learning atomic structure through an educational game: Effects on secondary students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(4), 1432–1440. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00614 [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(2), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.69606/jcse.v1i02.129 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Jensen, J. L., Holme, T. A., & Rickard, L. H. (2022). Investigating student reasoning about periodic trends using conceptually focused assessment items. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(7), 2574–2582. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c01184 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemical education research in Glasgow in perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1039/B5RP90021B [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Moneteringtyas, P. C., Sari, I. M. K., Pangestika, I., Rohmah, D. N., & Masriah, I. (2025). Reevaluation of misconceptions regarding atomic structure and subatomic particles and their implications for scientific understanding: A literature review. Journal of Chemistry Sciences and Education, 2(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.69606/jcse.v2i01.229 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Sayre, J., Nabua, E. B., Salic-Hairulla, M., Alcopra, A., & Fernandez, M. J. (2025). Assessing general chemistry learning gaps: A needs assessment of competency mastery among Grade 11 learners. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Scerri, E. R. (2020). The periodic table: Its development and pedagogical challenges. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2692–2699. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00710 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Taber, K. S. (2021). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(2), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00278J [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Taber, K. S. (2022). Conceptual confusion in chemistry education: Addressing alternative conceptions through assessment and instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(2), 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00891 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., & Nieswandt, M. (2022). Sources of students’ difficulties in learning chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 44(9), 1363–1382. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2053934 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Tsaparlis, G., & Sevian, H. (2022). Representational competence in chemistry education: Learning across macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00219A [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2021). Supporting students’ learning of complex chemistry concepts through interactive visualizations. Computers & Education, 172, Article 104267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104267 [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