Dissertation Jensen

MIAMI UNIVERSITY
The Graduate School
Certificate for Approving the Dissertation
We hereby approve the Dissertation
of
Jana D. Jensen
Candidate for the Degree:
Doctor of Philosophy
_____________________________________________________________
Director
Dr. Stacey Lowery Bretz
_____________________________________________________________
Committee Chair
Dr. Ellen J. Yezierski
____________________________________________________________
Reader
Dr. C. Scott Hartley
____________________________________________________________
Reader
Dr. Richard T. Taylor
____________________________________________________________
Graduate School Representative
Dr. Jennifer M. Blue

ABSTRACT
STUDENTS UNDERSTANDINGS OF ACID-BASE REACTIONS

INVESTIGATED THROUGH THEIR CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES
AND THE ACID-BASE REACTIONS CONCEPT INVENTORY
by Jana Jensen
Acid base reactions are an important part of the curriculum in many chemistry courses.
Students knowledge about acid-base reactions is dependent on their ability to transfer
knowledge from multiple topics such as solutions, reaction chemistry, and structure/property
relationships, making it a ripe area for research. Student misconceptions about acid-base
reactions were studied using a four-phase semi-structured interview protocol. Students in high
school, general chemistry 1 & 2, organic chemistry 1 & 2 and a graduate level organic chemistry
seminar were asked to identify acid-base reactions from a collection of reactions and to explain
what takes place in each reaction. Students were also asked to predict the reactants of three acid-
base reactions and to explain how acid-base reactions differ from other reaction mechanisms.
The goal in developing the interview guide was to gain a deeper understanding of key features
that students attend to in symbolic representations of reactions. As students discussed the critical
attributes they used to classify reactions, several misconceptions about acid-base surfaced.
Using qualitative data from student interviews, the Acid-Base Reactions Concept
Inventory was developed using a bottom-up approach. The Acid-Base Reactions Concept
Inventory is novel in that topics covered by the inventory and the distracters for each item came
directly from student interviews. While some of the misconceptions that were seen in interviews
concur with the literature, many of the distracters that were discovered during student interviews
as well as the focus of the inventory added to the gaps in previous literature on student ideas
about reactions. Students from high school, Advanced Placement high school chemistry, general
chemistry 1, general chemistry 2, and organic chemistry 1 completed the Acid-Base Reactions
Concept Inventory. The prevalence of misconceptions that were discovered during qualitative
interview was shown through a full study that included high school, advanced placement high
school, and general chemistry I students from institutions across the United States.

Analysis of reliability and validity led to the conclusion that the Acid-Base Reactions
Concept Inventory is an efficient way to assess student ideas about the particulate nature of
reactions. Results of the study as well as implications for instructors are reported throughout the
study.
In addition to this study, additional work was done to develop a liquid crystal lab to
provide organic chemistry students an opportunity to learn about materials research. The lab
experiment is presented in Appendix A. Students in this lab synthesized a series of p-
alkoxybenzoic acids through nucleophilic substitution. Most liquid crystal phases (mesophases)
are due to covalent bonds, however the mesophases form because of intermolecular hydrogen
bonding. Students were able to view the clearing points with a standard melting point apparatus.
They also used polarizing microscopy and differential scanning calorimetry to characterize the
mesophases.

STUDENTS UNDERSTANDINGS OF ACID-BASE REACTIONS
INVESTIGATED THROUGH THEIR CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES
AND THE ACID-BASE REACTIONS CONCEPT INVENTORY
A Dissertation
Submitted to the
Faculty of Miami University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Jana Jensen
Miami University
Oxford, OH
2013
Dissertation Director: Stacey Lowery Bretz

Jana Jensen
2013
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ xi
Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................................. 2
Boundary Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2: Review of Relevant Literature ...................................................................................... 3
Constructivism ................................................................................................................................ 3
Meaningful Learning ...................................................................................................................... 3
Representations in Chemistry ......................................................................................................... 4
Models............................................................................................................................................. 6
Misconceptions ............................................................................................................................... 7
Concept Inventories ........................................................................................................................ 9
Synopsis ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 12
Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 12
Research Strategy: Mixed Methods .............................................................................................. 12
Qualitative Methodology .............................................................................................................. 13
Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 14
Qualitative Sample ........................................................................................................................ 17
Qualitative Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 19
Quantitative Methodology ............................................................................................................ 21
Development of the Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory ..................................................... 21
Quantitative Sample ...................................................................................................................... 22
Quantitative Analysis .................................................................................................................... 26
Synopsis ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Chapter 4: Students classification schemes for acid-base reactions. ........................................... 27
iii

Qualitative Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 27

Students Classification Schemes for Each Reaction ................................................................... 27
Analysis of Patterns in Data .......................................................................................................... 40
Classification Schemes ................................................................................................................. 42
Classification Scheme 1: Reactants .............................................................................................. 43
Presence of Acid and Base ............................................................................................................ 43
Classification of Acids and Bases ................................................................................................. 44
Acid or Base Present ..................................................................................................................... 50
Water as Reactant ......................................................................................................................... 50
Classification Scheme 2: Products ................................................................................................ 51
Water is a Product in Acid-Base Reactions .................................................................................. 51
Neutral Products............................................................................................................................ 53
Number of products ...................................................................................................................... 54
Conjugate Acid and Conjugate Base ............................................................................................ 55
Classification Scheme 3: Reactants and Products ........................................................................ 55
Representation of neutralization ................................................................................................... 55
Phases ............................................................................................................................................ 56
Aqueous solutions ......................................................................................................................... 56
Reaction arrows ............................................................................................................................ 57
Proton Transfer ............................................................................................................................. 58
Only a Proton Transfers in Acid-Base Reactions ......................................................................... 59
Electron Transfer .......................................................................................................................... 59
Synopsis ........................................................................................................................................ 60
Chapter 5: Quantitative Research ................................................................................................. 61
Validity ......................................................................................................................................... 61
Expert Validation Survey .............................................................................................................. 61
Pilot Study ..................................................................................................................................... 63
Course Differences........................................................................................................................ 70
Factor Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 85
Cluster Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 85
Cluster Analysis Results ............................................................................................................... 96
iv

Synopsis ........................................................................................................................................ 96
Chapter 6: Conclusion & Implications ......................................................................................... 98
Students Misconceptions in Acid-Base Reactions ........................................................................ 98
Students Classifications of Acid-Base Reactions ........................................................................ 99
Scheme 1: Reactants ..................................................................................................................... 99
Scheme 2: Products ..................................................................................................................... 100
Scheme 3: Reactants and Products ............................................................................................. 101
Synopsis ...................................................................................................................................... 102
Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory .................................................................................... 102
Validity ....................................................................................................................................... 102
Sample......................................................................................................................................... 103
Reliability .................................................................................................................................... 103
Prevalent Misconceptions about Acid-Base Reactions............................................................... 103
Data Reduction Techniques ........................................................................................................ 104
Two-Step Cluster Analysis Results ............................................................................................ 104
Implications for Teachers ........................................................................................................... 106
Implications for Chemical Education Research .......................................................................... 108
References ................................................................................................................................... 109
Appendix A- Cognate Project: Development of an Organic Chemistry Laboratory .................. 119
Appendix B- Interview Guide ..................................................................................................... 143
Appendix C- Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research Approval ................... 149
Appendix D- Instructor Information and Consent Forms ........................................................... 153
Appendix E- Student Demographic Survey ................................................................................ 158
Appendix F- Student Information and Consent Forms ............................................................... 159
Appendix G- Information and Consent Forms for Parents of High School Students ................. 161
Appendix H- Informed Assent Script for Student Participants .................................................. 163
Appendix I- Participant Descriptions.......................................................................................... 164
Appendix J- Transcript of Student Interview.............................................................................. 166
Appendix K- Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory .............................................................. 179
Appendix L- ABCI Item Distributions ....................................................................................... 187
Appendix M- ABCI Item Response Curves ............................................................................... 201
v

List of Tables
Table 1. Students were asked to classify each of the reactions as acid-base and to explain what
takes place in the reactions. Phase 3 was separated into set 1, set 2, and set 3. ................. 15
Table 2. Interview participants by course..................................................................................... 18
Table 3. ABCI participants by course ........................................................................................... 24
Table 4. ABCI participants by course ........................................................................................... 25
Table 5. Key features used and number of students who correctly classified reactions 1, 3, ...... 28
Table 6. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 2 as an acid-base reaction. Three
students who were unsure if the reaction was acid-base are marked by asterisks. .............. 29
Table 7. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 2 as a non acid-base reaction. Three
students who were unsure are marked by asterisks. ............................................................. 30
Table 8. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 4 as a non acid-base reaction. Seven
Table 9. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 4 as an acid-base reaction. Seven
Table 10. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 5 and reaction 12 as an acid-base
reaction. Six students who were unsure are marked by asterisks. ........................................ 33
Table 11. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 5 and reaction 12 as a non acid-base
reaction. Six students who were unsure are marked by asterisks. ........................................ 33
Table 12. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 6 as a non acid-base reaction. Five
Table 13. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 6 as an acid-base reaction. Five
students were unsure are marked by asterisks. ..................................................................... 34
Table 14. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 7 as a non acid-base reaction. .......... 35
Table 15. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 8 as an acid-base reaction. Seven
Table 16. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 8 as a non acid-base reaction. Seven
Table 17. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 9 as an acid-base reaction. ............... 38
Table 18. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 10 as an acid-base reaction. Seventeen
vi

Table 19. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 10 as a non acid-base reaction.
Seventeen students who were unsure are marked by asterisks. ............................................ 40
Table 20. Students classification schemes for reaction 13. ......................................................... 40
Table 21. Students who correctly classified acid-base reactions due to the presence of an acid
and base. The total numbers of students interviewed in each course are shown. ................ 43
Table 22. Students who correctly classified non acid-base reactions due to the absence of an acid
and base. ............................................................................................................................... 44
Table 23. Students who correctly classified acid-base reactions due to the production of water.52
Table 24. Students who incorrectly classified acid-base reactions due to the absence of water. 53
Table 25. Students who classified reactions based on the presence of solids and gases. ............ 56
Table 26. Students who classified reactions as acid-base because a proton transferred............. 58
Table 27. Students who classified reactions as non acid-base because a proton did not transfer.
............................................................................................................................................... 58
Table 28. Students who correctly classified acid-base reactions using the Lewis model............. 59
Table 29. ABCI participants by course ......................................................................................... 63
Table 30. Test of Normality for ABCI Distributions for one-tier analysis ................................... 66
Table 31. Descriptive statistics for two-tier analysis of ABCI scores by course. ......................... 66
Table 32. Test of Normality for the ABCI Distribution for one-tier analysis ............................... 67
Table 33. Internal consistency coefficients and coefficients of test discrimination for one-tier
analysis. ................................................................................................................................ 68
Table 34. Values for calculating internal consistency coefficients for one-tier ABCI analysis. .. 69
Table 35. Values for calculating internal consistency coefficients for two-tier ABCI analysis. .. 69
Table 36. Statistical analysis of differences between courses one-tier analysis........................... 71
Table 37. Statistical analysis of differences between courses. ..................................................... 72
Table 38. ABCI Item Difficulty for One-Tier and Two-Tier Analysis........................................... 73
Table 39. ABCI Item Discrimination for One-Tier and Two-Tier Analysis ................................. 73
Table 40. ABCI distracters according to misconceptions about surface features, properties, and
processes. .............................................................................................................................. 75
Table 41. Correspondence between interview protocol reactions and ABCI items. .................... 76
Table 42. Cluster analysis for ABCI participants by course ........................................................ 86
vii

Table 43. An example of binary data for two-tier items. The correct option is marked by an
asterisk. ................................................................................................................................. 86
Table 44. An example of binary data for single-tier items. The correct option is marked by an
asterisk. ................................................................................................................................. 86
Table 45. Two-tier ABCI descriptive statistics for hierarchical cluster analysis by cluster. ....... 88
Table 46. Scores for a two-tier item using multi-categorical data. .............................................. 91
Table 47. Two-tier ABCI descriptive statistics for two-step cluster analysis by cluster .............. 91
viii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Requirements for meaningful learning. Adapted from Novaks theory of education:
Human Constructivism and meaningful learning, by S.L. Bretz, 2001, Journal of Chemical
Education, 78, 1107. ............................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Johnstones triangle. ........................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3: Students may believe there is one correct answer if they think of science from a
dualism perspective. Students who are at a more advanced level of development understand
that there are multiple models each of which have disadvantages, but are useful for specific
cases. ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Demographics: Student reported majors. ...................................................................... 18
Figure 5: Constant comparison method: comparing patterns within one interview, comparing
patterns between multiple interviews, comparing patterns with previous literature, and
comparing patterns with themes that were developing. ........................................................ 20
Figure 6: The first tier of each of the 11 two-tier questions asks students if a reaction is an acid-
base reaction. In the second tier, students select a reason that they chose their answer.
Student quotes that led to distracters are shown in the second column. ............................... 23
Figure 7: Each of the 6 one-tier questions asks students to explain how they classify acids and
bases. Student quotes that led to distracters for a one-tier question are shown. ................... 24
Figure 8: High Schools that completed the ABCI. ...................................................................... 25
Figure 9: Word Cloud of words used by students in qualitative interviews. ................................ 62
Figure 10: The frequency of specific terms Arrhenius, Brnsted-Lowry, and Lewis with common
words used by students in interviews.................................................................................... 62
Figure 11: ABCI items 7 & 8. ....................................................................................................... 64
Figure 12: Distribution of students ABCI scores in one-tier analysis according to course. The
highest score possible in one-tier analysis is 28. .................................................................. 66
Figure 13: Distribution of students ABCI scores in two-tier analysis according to course. The
highest score possible in two-tier analysis is 17. .................................................................. 67
Figure 14: Formula for KR-20. ..................................................................................................... 69
Figure 15. Box plots of ABCI scores according to course (one-tier analysis). ............................ 70
Figure 16. Box plots of ABCI total scores according to course (two-tier analysis). .................... 71
Figure 17. Discrimination according to difficulty for one-tier analysis. ...................................... 73
ix

Figure 18. Discrimination according to difficulty for two-tier analysis. ...................................... 74

Figure 19: Dendogram for Hierarchical Cluster Analysis of ABCI Responses. .......................... 89
Figure 20: Distribution of two-tier ABCI scores according to cluster. Clusters are arranged in
order of increasing mean score. ............................................................................................ 90
Figure 21. Course according to cluster. Clusters are arranged in order of increasing mean score.
............................................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 22. Distribution of two-tier ABCI scores according to two-step cluster analysis. Clusters
are arranged in order of increasing mean score. ................................................................... 92
Figure 23. Course according to two-tier item, two-step cluster analysis. Clusters are arranged in
order of increasing mean score. ............................................................................................ 92
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Stacey Lowery Bretz for all the hard work she has put in to the
Fellows program. She made it possible before we even arrived by securing funding in a tough
economy. Miami University also believed in her goals to improve assessment, so much so that
they matched the funding she received. It is unique to find such a large cohort, but Stacey did
not back down from the challenge. She nurtured and taught each of us individually. We have
each benefitted from having such a diverse group of scholars. One of my favorite things that
Stacey told me is that if she wants you to know something, shell tell you. Her honesty is one of
the most misunderstood qualities. When she gives a compliment, it really means something. I
have so much confidence in her because I know that she wants what is best for us. She has gone
above and beyond the role of an advisor, understanding me in ways that no one else before or
after could. I am so lucky that I came to Miami University. I am positive that there is no other
program that could help me become more prepared for each step of my career. She has used her
resources wisely so that she can continue to offer this holistic training for students from other
universities. The National Science Foundation has continued to support her efforts so that she
can provide graduate student conferences. The way that she balances the many facets of life,
including work, family, and friends is inspiring in a way that words cannot convey. She is a hot
commodity at conferences not only because of her work, but because she has true life-long
friends from all over the world. She has held me to a high standard because she saw potential in
me. She has honed my skills as iron sharpens iron. I will always be grateful for the time Ive
spent here and all of the investment that she has placed in me.
I would also like to thank Ellen Yezierski. Though she has only been here for three of
the five years, it feels like so much longer. To think that she has done so much and had such a
large impact in those short years is truly amazing. She started by developing relationships with
neighboring high schools. With her enthusiasm and determination, those relationships spread
like wildfire. Many people have asked me how Miami University has developed these
relationships, and I am positive it is largely due to her belief in bridging the gaps between
research and practice. Her strengths have a wide range. She is an important person on
committees at the National and University level and is highly sought after for leadership roles.
xi

She always has good insight into how to make something better, even when I feel baffled. She
also has a lets get started attitude that is infectious. Her knowledge from middle school and
high school education all the way to statistics and qualitative research make her an amazing fit
for Miami University.
Scott Hartley is one of the best chemistry teachers I have had. Another student who had
already finished his class once mentioned to me they wish they could take it again because they
enjoyed it so much. His devotion to the laboratory sets an example for his group. His
unrelenting work ethic is shown through his sacrifice. With everything he will do, I believe he
will find success because he is unsatisfied with anything less. His knowledge is vast and yet he
is able to meet students where they are. I enjoyed working in the laboratory with him. His work
is absolutely fascinating. My only regret is not being able to work with him longer.
I would like to thank Rich Taylor. He is one of the smartest people I have ever met. He
appreciates people for all the work they do and treats each person as a unique individual. In this
way he encourages everyone to accomplish every task with hard work and a good attitude.
Though he has achieved more than most people, he is interested to talk with anyone. It does not
matter if he were talking to a Nobel Prize Laureate or a stranger at a gas station; he treats
everyone he meets with respect. His honesty and kindness is well known by everyone in the
department. While he has had success in industry, the truly amazing thing is how much he has
worked to improve education for students. He has helped in outreaches and adapted to meet the
needs of his students. He has also been on the cutting edge of technology to meet the growing
needs of a global economy. He offers podcasts for his students, innovative Prezi presentations,
and a twitter account for Miami Chemistry department to help with job announcements. I will
always remember fondly my interactions with Rich.
I am inspired by the work done in the physics department by Jennifer Blue. Her
suggestions have always been spot on for improving science education. I am always encouraged
after speaking with her. She believes in every student and never thinks of the time she spends
helping others as a sacrifice. Her creativity is apparent in each of her projects. I think of her as a
role model and will always try to emulate the enjoyable atmosphere she brings to making science
exciting for students.
I would also like to thank Jim Hershberger. He is missed by everyone who ever had the
gift of meeting him. Jim was one of most giving people, giving freely of his time, money, and
xii

energy. He was determined to help everyone learn chemistry. He made me feel like a colleague
instead of a graduate student. He valued my input and never felt the need to impart his
knowledge as if it were the only thing that mattered. Although he was one of the most successful
people I know, I never found this out from him. He believed in my work and encouraged me to
make it better than I thought it could be. His sense of humor brightened every room he entered.
He affected students outside of the chemistry department with his work to encourage students to
volunteer to make the world a better place. His legacy will outlive him in the chemistry
department, his church, and through his two successful and loving daughters. I would also like to
thank Susan Hershberger for all the time she has spent discussing organic chemistry students
with me. She is one of my favorite people to be around.
I would like to thank a handful of other chemistry teachers I have had. Vicente Talanquer
always reminds me why I fell in love with chemistry education research and his teaching
techniques are what first inspired me to become a chemistry major. John Pollard has such an
excitement for chemistry, it is impossible to be in his class and not be stoked on every single
topic. Lisa Dollinger and Dominic McGrath are both exactly what I want to be one day. As
organic chemistry professors they gave knowledge and also explained why it was so important.
Their belief in my work meant everything to me, especially in such large classrooms. This
confidence and belief in the importance of the work has been the one thing that has kept me
going when things were toughest. Richard Zerger and Dwight Krehbiel taught me more than
science. They also pushed me to a commitment in relativism. I will always depend on them for
their expertise. Other teachers I would like to thank are Mr. Ponte, Mr. Robertson, and Mrs.
Metz at Bradshaw Mountain High School as well as my psychology and statistics professors.
I would also like to thank the past and current members of the Bretz research group and
Yezierski groups and all student participants.
xiii

Dedication
This dissertation and all other achievements including skateboarding are dedicated with
love to all my friends and family without which I could have never done any of this: Matt
Olwine, Mom, Dad, Jacob, Naomi, Michael, Rikkie, Ethan, Jamie, Van, Evan, Malachi,
Grandma, Grandpa, Grandpa Jack, Granny, Bud, Janet, David, Tracy, Brandon, Deven, Kayla,
Tonio, Seth, Raymond, Chan, Sharon, Jason, Stephanie, Jenny, Kenny, Chris, Gail, Stephanie
Frantz, Felicia, Lindsay, Ashley, Hunter, Darrin, Sheri, Autumn, Blake, Buddy, Chance, Debbie,
Bill, Chuck, Penny, Brittenee, Kevin, Amanda, Charlie, Suzanne, Madison, Marissa, Sabrina,
Shelby, Jeff, Lori, Marshal, Anna, and all the kidos, Uncle Pete, Uncle Dave, Jessica, Ryan,
Deven J., Chelsea, and Irene, Reyna, Rachel, Amanda Fritz, Jason Crase, Jason Wilson, Joe
Pea, Kate, Zowoi, Reynal, Ali, Jenn, Katie, Melanie, Ron, Carol, Ash, Jake, Mandy, Robb,
Abigail, Stan-O, Alex and Kay-Baby. Each a blessing worth more than anything else.
xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction
Acid-base reactions are central to multiple courses throughout the chemistry curriculum.
In grades 5-8, the macroscopic features of chemical reactions are studied. One goal of the high
school chemistry curriculum is for students to begin to make connections between macroscopic
properties and microscopic structures in chemical reactions (National Research Council, 1996).
The Advanced Placement Chemistry Course Description (2012) includes acid-base reactions,
specifically, Arrhenius, Brnsted-Lowry, and Lewis acid-base models. These three models are
tested on the Advanced Placement exam and are also taught in general chemistry courses, with
an emphasis on the Brnsted-Lowry theory (Taft, 1997). In organic chemistry, Brnsted-Lowry
reactions continue to be a part of the curriculum as many reactions in organic chemistry courses
include proton transfer, and Lewis acid-base reactions are covered more thoroughly than in
general chemistry courses (Cartrette & Mayo, 2011).
The National Research Council (2012) indicates that students often have difficulty
comprehending small-scale concepts, such as particles. Students also struggle to interpret
chemical formulas and connect them to the particles they represent (National Research Council,
1996). The ways that students interpret symbolic representations of acid-base reactions can either
help or hinder their understanding of the abstract nature of chemical reactions. Therefore, an
investigation of how students understand and interpret reaction equations is necessary.
Acid-base reactions are a rich topic in which to explore student understanding about the
processes that occur in reactions. For a complete understanding of chemical reactions, students
must be able to connect and integrate their knowledge about solutions, reaction chemistry, and
structure/property relationships. While acid-base reactions play a central role in many chemistry
courses, little attention has been given to exploring the strategies used by chemistry students to
classify the substances, processes, or interactions that occur in acid-base reactions. This study
addresses this gap in the literature.
Instruments are necessary to measure students understandings and ultimately the ways
their ideas change when new instructional techniques are evaluated. Concept inventories (CIs),
have been designed to investigate students misunderstandings equilibrium (Voska & Heikkinen,
2000), acids and bases (Cetin-Dindar & Geban, 2011) and acid strength (McClary & Bretz,
2012). However, there are no CIs designed to elicit student misconceptions about acid-base
reactions. The development of the Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory (ABCI) described
herein is novel in that students are asked to classify reactions based on their knowledge of what
takes place in reactions. The Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory was developed to assess
students understandings of what occurs in acid-base reactions.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate students ideas about acid-base reactions.
The research questions for this study include:
(1) How do students identify acid-base reactions?

(2) What features stand out to students as essential in acid-base reactions?
(3) What prevalent misconceptions exist about acid-base reactions?
To answer these questions, a sequential mixed-method design was incorporated (Towns, 2008).
Students from Advanced Placement high school chemistry, general chemistry 1, general
chemistry 2, organic chemistry 1, organic chemistry 2, and a graduate level organic chemistry
seminar were interviewed to investigate the key features they use to classify acid-base reactions.
They were asked to complete classification tasks incorporating both acid-base reactions and non
acid-base reactions. Students ideas from the interviews were used as distractors to develop the
Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory. The misconceptions about acid-base reactions that were
elicited during interviews were used to develop the Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory to
examine the prevalence of incorrect ideas in different courses, including Advanced Placement,
general chemistry 1, general chemistry 2, and organic chemistry 1.
Boundary Conditions
The focus of the study was on students understandings of the essential characteristics of
acid-base reactions. Students were prompted to discuss their understandings of acid-based
chemistry using symbolic balanced equations. They were not prompted with either particulate
images or macroscopic images of reactions. Other topics related to acid-base reactions such as
hard and soft acids, macroscopic properties (indicators, titrations, and pH) and equilibrium
constants were also outside the focus of this study.
2

Chapter 2: Review of Relevant Literature

Chemistry education research should be grounded in theories about how learning occurs
(Abraham, 2008). The theoretical frameworks that guided this study were constructivism and
meaningful learning. These frameworks were used to guide the collection and analysis of data.
Both constructivism and meaningful learning assert that learning is dependent upon prior
knowledge.
Constructivism
One of the first scientists to study how people acquire knowledge was the Swiss
psychologist Jean Piaget, who began his work as a biologist. He studied children as they learned
about the world, which led to the development of several ideas about how learning occurs. His
model of psychological equilibration suggests that learners construct their own knowledge
(Lawson, 1994; Bunce, 2001). According to the constructivist point of view, the learners ability
to construct knowledge is dependent upon what they know (von Glaserfeld, 1990). Learners
construct new knowledge using prior experiences and relevant knowledge (Bodner, 1986 &
2001).
Meaningful Learning
Novaks theory of human constructivism, (Novak, 1998; Bretz, 2001) identifies three
components that are necessary for meaningful learning to occur: (1) relevant prior knowledge
must be elicited in order for integration to occur, (2) the new information must be meaningful in-
and-of-itself to students, and (3) the learner must choose to incorporate the new material in a
meaningful way (Figure 1). Ausubels theory of education (1968) acknowledged that meaningful
learning depends on the assimilation of new ideas into relevant existing knowledge. Rote
memorization and meaningful learning compete and prior knowledge must be analyzed to avoid
the acquisition of fragmented pieces of knowledge. Ausubel states the most important single
factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him
accordingly (p. iv). Students misconceptions in science have the potential to interfere with new
learning. Gauging what students know is a powerful way to enable the connection of new
information to what they know and to discover incorrect ideas before they compound. Effective
instruction relies not only on chemistry knowledge, but also on an extensive understanding of
student thinking. Ausubel et al (1978) encouraged the instructors to organize information
through the use of an advance organizer. This is done by providing students with information
about future material and making explicit the relationships of previous material.

Figure 1: Requirements for meaningful learning. Adapted from Novaks theory of education:
Human Constructivism and meaningful learning, by S.L. Bretz, 2001, Journal of Chemical
Education, 78(8), p. 1110.
Representations in Chemistry
Johnstones Triangle (Figure 2) portrays the three domains that are central to chemistry
knowledge: symbolic, macroscopic, and particulate (Johnstone, 1993). We are concerned with
the relationships between each of the domains (sides of the triangle), symbolic-microscopic,
symbolic-particulate, and particulate-macroscopic. To prevent cognitive overload, our
investigation focused on students ideas about the symbolic-particulate relationships in acid-base
reactions. While the symbolic-particulate relationships are not independent of the symbolic-
macroscopic and particulate-macroscopic relationships, the purpose of this study is to thoroughly
investigate the key features that students use in symbolic representations of acid-base reactions.
HNO3 (aq) + KOH(aq)

KNO3 (aq) + H 2O(l)
Symbolic

Macroscopic Particulate

Figure 2: Johnstones triangle.
According to The Information Processing Theory, the constant input of information from
our senses is filtered, and significant ideas are prioritized. The information deemed important
travels into a limited space, the working memory. Using retrieval, pertinent ideas from long-term
memory are also brought into the working memory as it processes and stores new ideas
(Johnstone, 1991). Long-term storage is filed according to similarities, while successful retrieval
is achieved by identifying the differences between concepts and ideas (Sousa, 2006).
Since uniqueness is used to recall information, identifying critical attributes is a powerful
tool in learning. Classification tasks have been used to identify the features that students use to
understand chemical substances, processes, and interactions (Stains & Talanquer, 2007; Stains &
Talanquer, 2008; Domin et al., 2008). According to work by Stains and Talanquer (2008), novice
students used a large number of surface features for sense-making and to complete classification
tasks. These surface features include particle charge, states of matter, and the presence of
specific substances. In another study on students classification schemes, organic chemistry
students rarely categorized organic compounds according to critical attributes that are most
useful (Domin et al., 2008).
Chemical structures often have no functional meaning to students (Anderson & Bodner,
2008). Shane and Bodner (2006) reported that students in a general chemistry course for science
and engineering majors tended to focus on static interpretations of chemical reactions. Nakhleh
(1994) found that secondary students did not relate formulas to the correct structural
characteristics of acids and bases. These students confused the symbolic level of chemical
formulas and the microscopic nature of matter and struggled to make distinctions between atom,
ions, and molecules.
Models
Modeling is a powerful tool to understand phenomenon due to their predictive and
interpretative power (Bodner, Gardner, & Briggs, 2005). More than one model is necessary to
describe concepts because of the idealized description. External conceptual models, agreed upon
by experts, must be adapted and adopted by students in order to create robust internal mental
models. Internal models are constantly changing as new information is introduced (Rapp, 2005).
Based on Perrys Model of Intellectual Development (Figure 3), students who experience
the same instruction may leave with different interpretations due to their different stages of
intellectual development (Finster, 1989; Finster, 1991). The information that students believe is
important in a course depends not only upon their prior knowledge, but also upon what they
believe it is possible to know. For example, when instructors introduced multiple acid-base
models in one research study, some students wanted to know which of them the true model is,
or why they have to learn several models instead of concentrating on the best one (Drechsler &
Van Driel, 2009). The students also used hybrid acid-base models by combining parts of multiple
acid-base models. The problems that students face with understanding the role and value of
having multiple models continues into organic chemistry, e.g., multiple synthetic pathways
(Grove & Bretz, 2010).

Figure 3: Students may believe there is one correct answer if they think of science from a
dualism perspective. Students who are at a more advanced level of development understand that
there are multiple models each of which have disadvantages, but are useful for specific cases.
Figure from Developmental Instruction: Part 1. Perrys Model of Intellectual Development, by
D.C. Finster, 1989, Journal of Chemical Education, 66(8), p. 659.
Misconceptions
Student misconceptions or alternative conceptions about chemistry concepts are reported
throughout the literature (Nakhleh, 1992; Schmidt, 1997; Talanquer, 2006). Student
understanding of acid-base reactions is affected by misconceptions regarding other chemistry
concepts such as the particulate nature of matter, solutions, and chemical reactions. Gabel &
Samuel (1987) measured prospective elementary teachers understanding of the particulate nature
of matter of elements, compounds, mixtures, substances, solutions, homogeneous matter,
heterogeneous matter, solids, liquids, gases, and chemical and physical changes. Participants in
the study showed misconceptions about the dissociation of ions and showed particles as intact
groups. Smith and Metz (1996) evaluated faculty, undergraduate, and graduate students ideas
about solutions using microscopic representations. They found that students either ignored or did
not understand the (aq) symbol and that some students did not depict the dissociation of ionic
compounds. Boo and Watson found (2001) found that high school students did not understand
that the products of reactions no longer show the same properties of the reactants. They also had
difficulties identifying the correctly the bonds that were broken and formed in reactions.
Students have also demonstrated a wide variety of misconceptions about acids, bases
(Ross & Munby, 1991; endur et al., 2011; Pinarbasi, 2007; Cros & Maurin, 1986; Botton, 1995;
Vidyapati & Seetharamappa, 1995); conjugation (Schmidt, 1995), titrations (Sheppard, 2006);
neutralization (Schmidt, 1991), pH (Watters & Watters, 2006); Equilibrium (Saglam, 2009;
Saglam et al., 2011; Demerouti, et al., 2004 a& 2004b;); strength (Jasien, 2005 & 2011; McClary
& Talanquer, 2011). Nakhleh (1994) found that students had difficulty thinking about acid-base
chemistry in terms of the molecular nature of matter. None of the students in the study were able
to form an appropriate understanding of ions in aqueous solutions. Bhattacharyya (2006)
investigated graduate students ideas about acids and bases. He found that most of the
participants' explanation of acids and bases held no predictive power. They recognized
substances that exhibited inductive effects and resonance effects, but could not articulate the two
electronic properties. Prior research has shown incorrect classification of acids and bases due to a
miscomprehension of H+ and OH- (Cokelez, 2010; Garnett et al., 1995; Furi-Ms et al., 2007).
Students also had misconceptions about acid-base equilibria and buffer solutions (Demerouti et
al., 2004a & 2004b; Saglam, 2009; Saglam et al. 2011). Common acid-base misconceptions
were discovered in multiple studies including: (1) water is not an acid or base (Drechsler &
Schmidt, 2005; Schmidt & Volke, 2003); (2) all acid-base reactions between strong acid and
strong base result in a neutral solution (Drechsler & Schmidt, 2005; Bradley & Mosimege, 1998;
Schmidt, 1997; Demirciolu et al., 2005; Sesen & Tarhan, 2011).
Other studies have focused on teachers and textbooks presentation of acid-base
reactions (Drechsler & Van Driel, 2008; Drechsler & Van Driel, 2009; Furi-Ms, 2007; Bradley
and Mosimege, 1998). In a study on Swedish secondary school teachers perceptions of acids
and bases, the teachers fell into one of three categories (Drechsler & Van Driel, 2009). The first
group of teachers relied heavily on the Brnsted-Lowry model and did not know how it differed
from other models. The second group had a good knowledge of how the Arrhenius, Brnsted-
Lowry, and Lewis models differ, but still emphasized the Brnsted-Lowry model to simplify
acid-base concepts for students. The third group of teachers understood the different models of
acids and bases and used Brnsted-Lowry, Arrhenius, and Lewis acid-base models. Textbook
reviews have shown that acid-base reaction models other than the Brnsted-Lowry model were
rarely introduced (Drechsler and Schmidt, 2005; Furi-Ms et al., 2005). In some cases, there
was confusion between the Arrhenius and the Brnsted-Lowry model (Carr, 1984).
8

Concept Inventories
Constructivist learning is promoted through assessments designed to probe students
understanding of underlying concepts instead of their ability to memorize isolated facts. Concept
inventories with test items that reflect misconceptions enable instructors to identify gaps in
students mental models. Concept inventories are not designed to be placement tests; instead they
are intended to inform instruction. Incorrect answers on these inventories can be used to
diagnose misunderstandings and drive lesson plans. These instruments can also be used to
compare treatment and control groups in educational research.
Many decisions have to be made to create a well-designed concept inventory in order to
identify misconceptions. Choosing the focus, length, depth, sample, and format are all part of the
design process. The assessment of deep understanding, by nature, should be focused on a small
set of ideas as opposed to shallow measurement of many topics. When testing too many
concepts, it becomes increasingly difficult to make claims about students mental models.
Rather than the usual top-down type of question design where teachers make educated
guesses about students most likely errors, a bottom-up design uses student interviews to
uncover misconceptions. Conceptual open-ended questions require students to craft and explain
their own thinking as opposed to typical algorithmic questions where students can default to just
guessing from pre-crafted responses. However, assessment using conceptual open-ended
questions can be problematic for instructors who want a quick way to assess student ideas
because of the time it takes to analyze students answers. There are many different approaches to
designing concept inventories, many of which start with literature searches to identify
misconceptions. Content lists, propositional knowledge statements, concept maps, and
specification grids have been formed by examining textbooks, journal articles, American
Chemical Society exams, class worksheets, tests, and observations of lessons (Treagust, 1988;
Voska & Heikkinen, 2000). There are also studies that have used open-ended questions to create
concept inventories; however, this approach is often done with a small number of structured
questions. Interviews allow students answers to guide the focus of concept inventories due to
the freedom to move throughout a large number of questions.
Multiple-choice questions lend themselves well to the design of concept inventories
because they are not time consuming to grade and they produce objective scores. However, there
9

are downsides to multiple choice questions, such as error due to student guessing, difficulty in
developing questions to assess higher cognitive skills. They also do not require students to
formulate answers and do not typically differentiate between correct answers based on correct
reasoning and incorrect reasoning. Multiple-choice questions can be set up to address some of
these drawbacks. Other inventories test reasoning through the use of two-tiered questions
(Peterson, Treagust, & Garnett, 1988; Othman et al., 2008), which are used to assess for content
knowledge in the first tier and reasons in the second tier.
Choices in sampling strategies have significant affects on the data. Some concept
inventories can be used in multiple courses. Pilot studies should be designed to examine the
validity and reliability of the data. Before the full study, inventories should be modified to clarify
or remove difficult and/or misread questions, shortened for time, and efficient elimination of
repetitive questions based upon correlation coefficients. Content validity is often done through
feedback from experts on the inventory items.
Concept inventories have been developed that measure multiple chemistry concepts
within one inventory (Mulford & Robinson, 2002; Krause et al., 2004; Treagust, 1988). Concept
inventories about a single concept have also been developed on the particulate nature of matter
(Yezierski & Birk, 2006), ionization energies (Tan et al., 2005), and enzyme-substrate
interactions (Bretz & Linenberger, 2012). Concept inventories have also been designed for acid-
base equilibrium (Voska & Heikkinen, 2000) acids & bases (Cetin-Dindar & Geban, 2011) and
acid strength (McClary & Bretz, 2012). Other studies have developed questionnaires about acid-
base topics to test remedial curriculum (Sesen & Tarhan, 2011; Tarhan & Sesen, 2012;; Rahayu,
et al., 2011; Demirciolu, et al., 2005; Lin & Chiu, 2010).
We chose to create a concept inventory about acid-base reactions because of the
importance of the topic throughout the curriculum. A complete understanding about acid-base
reactions depends upon students ability to make use of their knowledge about several topics
such as solutions, chemical bonding, chemical equilibrium, and structure/property relationships,
as well as their knowledge of multiple acid-base models. The goal of this study was to design an
instrument that would generate reliable and valid data so that it might ultimately be used one day
to inform teaching to directly address students misconceptions about acid-base reactions.
10

Synopsis
Learners construction of knowledge is dependent upon their prior knowledge.
Constructivist learning can be promoted through qualitative methodologies that investigate
misconceptions. Concept inventories designed to probe students understanding of underlying
concepts are useful for measuring the prevalence of misconceptions. Students often
misunderstand the symbols used to represent chemical reactions. Students have shown
misunderstandings about aqueous solutions. They do not understand that the properties of
products are different from those of reactants in chemical reactions. Students also classify acids
and bases using surface features and hold the misconception that acid-base reactions produce
neutral products. The methodologies that were used to investigate students classification
schemes and misconceptions of acid-base reactions are described in chapter 3.
11

Chapter 3: Methodology
We were not interested in students ability to recognize acid-base reactions or memorize
the names of reactions as rote memorization; rather, our goal was to investigate their ideas about
chemical processes that occur during reactions. The focus of this research was to explore the
critical attributes that students attend to in symbolic reactions. This led to an investigation of the
key features that students use to classify acids and bases. We used a sequential mixed-methods
approach by first investigating student misconceptions about acid-base reactions through
qualitative interviews and then used students quotes as distracters in developing a concept
inventory.
Research Questions
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to investigate how students from multiple
chemistry courses think about acid-base reactions. Our research questions include (1) How do
students identify acid-base reactions? (2) What features stand out to students as essential in acid-
base reactions? (3) What prevalent misconceptions exist about acid-base reactions? A qualitative
approach was necessary to gain a thorough understanding of students ideas about what takes
place in reactions. In the quantitative portion of our study, quotes from student interviews were
used to develop a concept inventory to give insight into students mental models of acid-base
reactions.
Research Strategy: Mixed Methods

As with research from any field, selecting a research strategy for collecting data,
choosing a sample, and analyzing results was dependent upon the goal of the study: to
investigate students ideas about chemical reactions. According to the authors of Nuts and Bolts
of Chemical Education Research, many chemical education studies do not yield convincing
results because the research methods were not designed to answer a studys research questions
(Bunce & Cole, 2008, p. 3). Studies that follow the format of pre-test/post-test to measure
student gains often do not provide an explanation of how the surveys were designed. A question
posed by Ian Dey (1993) reveals why using a test score to measure what students understand is
12

not sensitive enough: In reducing educational achievement to a quantitative measure, do we

neglect or overlook altogether what is important about educationits quality (p. 14)?
Qualitative methodologies, including interviews with students, allow an investigation of
students in-depth ideas. We use qualitative research to explore ideas, variables, or problems that
cannot be measured with a one-size-fits-all survey approach. We are able to compile detailed
compilations of the problem as well as provide a mode of communication for students (Creswell,
2007). According to Patton (1980), qualitative research is able to do what quantitative is not by
allowing the research to be defined according to the way students ideas guide the interview
instead of being structured ahead of time by the researcher. The strength of qualitative data is the
richness of the data, which results from conceptualizing the data in a critical and a rigorous
fashion. Quantitative methodologies such as tests and surveys with one correct answer are
popular research tools because the data can be quantified. The data can be quantified and
statistical analysis lends to the conclusions that can be made about students scores.
Using both qualitative and quantitative designs can diminish the weaknesses of each
method individually (Bretz, 2007). Collaboration between the two through the development of a
survey using students quotes from qualitative interviews gives meaning to scores on quantitative
surveys. We chose to develop a multiple choice quantitative inventory that was informed by
qualitative interviews to make a useful and concise concept inventory that gets at students
conceptual understanding of acid-base reactions.
Qualitative Methodology
There are over forty types of qualitative research (Tesch, 1990) and choosing the best
methodology is dependent upon the perspectives and purposes of the researcher. According to
Morse, each qualitative strategy offers a particular and unique perspective that illuminates
certain aspects of reality more easily than others and produces a type of results more suited for
some applications than others (Morse, 1994, p. 223). We have chosen to shape our data
collection and analysis using grounded theory. The intent of grounded theory is to develop a
theory about actions, interactions, or processes that may explain the subject of study and provide
grounds for further research (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, 1998). Grounded theory was developed
in sociology in 1967 by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss to provide a methodology that ensure
that theories were developed using analysis techniques that were grounded in the participants
13

ideas (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The researcher largely affects the data so we have used ample
quotes to establish objectivity (Golden-Biddle & Locke, 1997). We have given thick descriptions
about the context of our data as well as the procedures of analysis to provide information about
the transferability of our conclusions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Data Collection
Using semi-structured interviews, we attempted to gain a deep understanding of students
ideas about acid-base reactions. Students were interviewed using a four-phase semi-structured
approach (Linenberger & Bretz, 2012) about acid-base reactions. The interview guide (Appendix
B) was designed by defining content that is necessary for understanding acid-base reactions, as
well as a search of acid-base misconceptions already reported in the literature. Participants were
asked to classify a collection of ten reactions; the collection included non acid-base reactions, as
well as reactions that could be classified using one or more of the following models: Arrhenius,
Brnsted-Lowry, and Lewis. Students were also asked to explain their ideas about acids and
bases and to describe what takes place in each reaction. Interviews lasted approximately an hour
and were audio recorded. Students were given a pen and paper with the questions and
encouraged to draw anything they thought would help them explain their answers. Extensive
notes were taken during interviews and interviews were taped and transcribed. Since the purpose
of the study was to investigate student knowledge, we did not correct students incorrect
answers.
The interview guide (Appendix B) consisted of four phases. Phase 1 included open-ended
questions about acid-base reactions. Phase 2 questions were about the prototypical strong acid-
strong base reaction between hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide (Reaction 1 in Table 1). In
Phase 3, students were asked to classify nine reactions, including acid-base reactions and non
acid-base reactions, such as precipitation, oxidation-reduction, and combustion. To reduce
demand on students working memory, the reactions were divided into three sets of three
reactions each (reactions 2-10 in Table 1). In Phase 4, participants were asked to predict the
reactants of three acid-base reactions when given only the products of the reactions (reactions
11-13 in Table 1).
14

Table 1. Students were asked to classify each of the reactions as acid-base and to explain what
takes place in the reactions. Phase 3 was separated into set 1, set 2, and set 3.
Phase 2
1. HCl(aq) + NaOH(aq) ! ! NaCl(aq) + H 2O(l)
Phase 3
Set 1 2. MgCO (s) + 2HCl(aq) ! !
MgCl 2 (aq) + H 2O(l) + CO 2 (g)
3
3. 2NaOH(aq) + H 2SO 4 (aq) ! !

Na 2SO 4 (aq) + 2H 2O(l)
4. Zn(s) + 2HCl(aq) ! !
ZnCl 2 (aq) + H 2 (g)
Set 2 5. HNO (aq) + NH (aq) ! !

NH 4 NO3 (aq)
3 3
6. CH 4 (g) + 2O 2 (g) ! !
CO 2 (g) + 2H 2O(g)
7. CoCl 2 (aq) + Na 2CO3 (aq) ! !

2NaCl(aq) + CoCO3 (s)
Set 3
H
H N H H N H
C C C C
8. H Br (g) + (aq) Br (s)
C C C C
H C H H C H
H H
O O
9. CH3 C (aq) + NaOH (aq) CH3 C (l)
OH ONa
OH H OH
10. HO B (aq) + O (l) HO B OH (aq) + H (l)
OH H OH
Phase 4
11. __________+ __________ ! !

KNO3 (aq) + H 2O(l)
12. __________+ __________ ! !

NH 4Cl(aq)
F H
13. __________+ __________ ! !
F Al N H (aq)
F H
15

The collection of reactions for interviews was chosen to identify the key features that
students attend to in acid-base reactions. We wanted to know how students described the
processes that occur as reactants change into products. We were interested in their ideas on how
reactions differ including neutralization, oxidation-reduction, precipitation, and proton transfer
reactions. Our questions were designed to elucidate whether or not students distinguished among
Lewis, Arrhenius, and Brnsted-Lowry models, and if so, which models they invoked to classify
and describe reactions. We were also interested in the critical attributes that they employed to
classify and describe reactions. Functional groups or structures were varied to compare their
ideas on similar reactions. In developing the interview guide, we chose to include reactions that
had various states of matter (gas, solid, liquid). Some substances were also in the aqueous phase.
We used forward arrows as well as equilibrium arrows to show some reactions as reversible
processes. Three reactions were represented using Lewis structures. These variations were
unexpectedly incorporated into students classification schemes.
A pilot study was used to check for construct validity of the questions covered in the
interview guide. The pilot study led to the rewording of questions that used terms like all or
none when describing reactions and the addition of questions such as Do acid-base reactions
produce water? and If water is produced in a reaction, is it an acid-base reaction? We also
changed the format of Phase 4. For the first three pilot interviews, students were asked to
provide an acid and a base that led to the products provided in each question. For the other
interviews students were instead asked to provide reactants that led to the products provided in
each question and if the reactions were acid-base reactions. One of the strengths of this data
collection method was the ability to use follow-up questions when students answers were
unclear. We found that there were certain words that students hid behind such as dissolved and
neutral. They were often able to give simple definitions for such terms, but usually were not
able to explain these ideas when describing reactions. We asked students to give examples to
understand how students were using these terms. We mirrored the words that they use when
asking follow-up questions, to force them to be specific. A student in organic chemistry 1
described ammonia as a non-acid because nitrogen is happy so to mirror his words we asked
him what it meant for nitrogen to be happy. Some students did not use the term proton and
referred to hydrogen ions as hydrogen throughout interviews. We also used the term hydrogen in
16

these cases so that students felt comfortable talking as plainly as possible about chemical
reactions.
Initial plans of interview analysis and inventory development were to delve into students
ideas about ideas specific to three distinct acid-base models, namely Arrhenius, Brnsted-Lowry,
and Lewis. Many students were able to name multiple models or at least knew that multiple
models exist. However, remarkably few students were able to define the models that they use to
classify acid-base reactions. Even fewer students actually used the definitions they initially
provided in answering broad questions about acid-base reactions. Most commonly, students used
a hybrid model, taking pieces from various models as reported previously (Drechsler & Van
Driel, 2009).
Qualitative Sample
The study took place at a midsized Midwestern University. After Institutional Review
Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB) approval (Appendix C), a pilot study took place with
volunteers recruited from a range of chemistry courses. After instructors granted approval
(Appendix D), students were recruited to volunteer during one of the lectures using demographic
surveys (Appendix E). Interviewees gave informed consent and were also given the option to
stop participation at any time during or after the interview (Appendix F). There were also
notified of the confidentiality of the study; to respect their privacy only the two principal
investigators were allowed access to their records. We obtained approval letters from the
principals of the high schools that participated in the study. High school students who were
minors had parental consent (Appendix G) and assented to participate (Appendix H). All
participants were given pseudonyms to protect their identities.
A common question is how many participants are necessary for a qualitative study? The
goal of choosing a sample size is to reach saturation of ideas so that no novel ideas are found in
new interviews. According to Creswell (2007), twenty to thirty interviews are roughly enough to
reach saturation. Students self-reported previous chemistry courses, grades, gender, ethnicity,
and year in school (Appendix I). Purposeful sampling was done to assure the population was
diversified based on the number of students who volunteered to cover the breadth of
understanding.
17

A pilot study took place in the fall of 2009 and spring of 2010, using semi-structured
interviews with students from Advanced Placement high school chemistry (AP), general
chemistry 1 (GC1), general chemistry 2 (GC2), organic chemistry 1 (OC1), organic chemistry 2
(OC2) and an organic chemistry graduate student seminar (Grad) (Table 2). Following IRB
continuing approval, full study interviews were conducted from fall 2010 through spring 2011 to
increase the sample size for saturation of ideas. The analysis of both the pilot and full study
interviews were done together because students classification schemes were similar in both
studies. In total, there were thirty-four student interviews (Table 2). Interviews took place with a
total of seventeen females and seventeen males. Participants in all courses self-reported a wide
range of grades of mostly As, Bs, with a few Cs. Students in GC1, GC2, OC1, and OC2 also
reported their intended majors (Figure 4).
Table 2. Interview participants by course

Course Pilot Study Full Study Total
AP 1 6 7
GC1 1 4 5
GC2 2 4 6
OC1 2 3 5
OC2 2 2 4
Grad 2 5 7
Total 10 24 34
Chemical Physics
Engineering 5%
10%
Geology Zoology
5% 25%
Health &
International
Studies
10%
Exercise
Chemistry Science
5% 5%
Creative Bioengineering
Writing 5%
5% Chemistry Microbiology
Education
10%
15%
Figure 4: Demographics: Student reported majors.

18

Qualitative Analysis
Analysis started as soon as the data collection began and modified subsequent interviews.
Induction-based analysis was dependent upon a conversation between ideas and data; we cannot
analyse the data without ideas, but our ideas must be shaped and tested by the data we are
analyzing (Dey, 1993 p. 7). The first step in our analysis was the summary of each interview.
Multiple readings of each interview led to an investigation of the central characteristics of each
student. Our goal was not only to interpret the data, but also to make explicit student ideas and
patterns in the data.
In order to reveal the characteristics of the data, analysis depended on the rigorous
dissection of data. When similar ideas were found in multiple students interviews, the pieces
that were relevant were placed into the same category. This method, known as coding, was done
using a constant comparison of each interview with all other interview transcripts (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). An iterative, nonlinear process was used by comparing the themes that emerged
within individual interviews, between interviews, of interviews with previous literature, and of
interviews with emerging themes (Figure 5). The role of coding was to analyze the plethora of
ways that student think about acid-base reactions and to link the ideas in order to find the
structures and patterns as well as interesting outliers. These pieces of interviews were placed into
categories using the computer software NVivo 8 (QSR International Pty. Ltd., 2007), which was
used to manage the data by recording where the text was taken from. Inter-rater reliability was
done on several transcripts and coding schemes were discussed until both principal investigators
agreed upon the classification schemes that were used by students.
First open coding was done to facilitate the exploratory nature of analysis as a bottom-
up process (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The key feature in this type of analysis was to ensure that
no ideas were left behind in first iterations. Since the coding categories were not structured
beforehand, they were dependent upon how the data was interpreted. In situ coding which uses
the participant quotes to define codes was done. Our initial process of choosing codes (categories
based on the data) was very specific and divisions were made between the data based on slight
differences in students ideas about acid-base reactions. This approach was helpful to get a sense
of the wide range of key features that students used to classify reactions.
19

Comparison within Comparison between

individual interviews interviews
Comparison of interviews Comparison of interviews

with previous literature with emerging themes
Figure 5: Constant comparison method: comparing patterns within one interview, comparing
patterns between multiple interviews, comparing patterns with previous literature, and comparing
patterns with themes that were developing.
Open coding led to multiple codes that differed only slightly, and patterns in the data
were not apparent until we formed a hierarchical coding scheme by placing similar codes
together. In hierarchical coding, the codes were placed together within major ideas or parent
codes. The parent codes were made to condense the data into analyzable chunks, in this way,
the data are reduced to their bare bones, stripped down to a simple general form (Coffey &
Atkinson, 1996). We combined similar ideas, defined how ideas differed, and analyzed
relationships between students misconceptions.
In all cases our goal was to create exclusive and exhaustive codes so that each idea
from students fits somewhere, specifically in one location (Dey, 1993). One of the most difficult
things about the qualitative analysis was creating exclusive codes for student ideas about
chemistry. Many ideas are based on partially correct ideas that are either missing pieces or have
incorrect portions. Creating exclusive codes means not only understanding the differences
between ideas, but also on which points they are similar. Making decisions about the codes
depends on understanding patterns of ideas. Classifying data means making connections and
gathering similar ideas, but the difficulty in our research was in creating boundaries between the
categories. For many cases, distinctions between categories were not rigid due to the nature of
how each similar idea shifted slightly for each student. As scientists, we often envision the
20

results in the format of exact numbers of instances; however, in qualitative research it may be
impossible and uninformative to count data (Dey, 1993). This was especially true for students
who had many conflicting ideas throughout a single interview.
Using our interpretation of student ideas, we developed descriptions of students
classification schemes in acid-base reactions. We have reported the key features that they used to
classify reactions as acid-base and non acid-base. The misconceptions they have about what
occurs in acid-base reactions were also described in our analysis.
Quantitative Methodology
The results from the student interviews were used in the development of a concept
inventory to measure student conceptual understanding about acid-base reactions. Qualitative
approaches are well suited for assessing the validity of standardized measures (Luborsky &
Rubinstein, 1995). Using student quotes in concept inventories shows the prevalence of student
ideas from interviews. The goal of the present study was to design a reliable and valid instrument
that could be used to inform teaching about acid-base reactions. The Acid-Base Concept
Inventory (ABCI) was designed to measure student conceptual understanding about what takes
place in acid-base reactions. The questions as well as distracters were developed using a bottom-
up approach.
Development of the Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory

The development of the Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory (ABCI) was completed
in several steps. Using the emergent themes from analysis of interview data, a focus for
questions was chosen. Several designs for questions were formulated to accomplish the goal of
encompassing the ideas that were expressed in interviews. The incorrect multiple-choice
answers, also known as distracters, were drafted using students incorrect ideas from interviews.
Distracters were taken directly from student quotes for two reasons. First, student quotes
were used so that the questions were worded in student language. Using the words they use to
describe concepts is helpful to ensure that students are able to understand the meaning of
distracters. Secondly, many of the misconceptions that were discovered during the interviews
were novel, in that neither the literature nor the interviewer was able to predict the students
incorrect ideas (Jensen & Bretz, manuscript in preparation). An initial plan of interview analysis
21

was to delve into students ideas about ideas specific to three distinct acid-base models, namely
Arrhenius, Brnsted-Lowry, and Lewis. Some students were able to name multiple models or
knew that multiple models exist. However, as will be discussed in Chapter 4, remarkably few
students were consistent with the models that they used to classify acid-base reactions. This led
to the development of an inventory that explores student ideas about Arrhenius, Brnsted-Lowry,
and Lewis acid-base reactions without using those terms.
The ABCI consisted of 28 questions: 11 two-tier items and 6 single-tier items. Multiple-
choice questions were useful for a quick and easy assessment of student misconceptions, but one
criticism has been the difficulty of developing questions that assess conceptual knowledge
instead of rote memorization. Two-tier multiple-choice questions had the ability to differentiate
between correct answers based on correct and incorrect reasoning. The first tier in each of the
two-tier items was about content knowledge and the second tier was about students reasoning
for choosing their answer. The first tier in each of the ABCI items asked students whether or not
a specific reaction was an acid-base reaction. Since we were not interested in students ability to
classify reactions based on memorization or familiarity as much as their ability to explain what
takes place in acid-base reactions, the second tier is used to explore the reasons students chose
their answers. We chose the two-tier format for these questions because some students in
interviews used the very same reason to classify reactions as acid-base that other students used to
classify reactions as non acid-base. While some of the reactions in the inventory are similar, the
majority of the distracters differ slightly to encompass the many ideas that came out of
interviews. The six single-tier questions are about acid and base behavior in general. An example
of a two-tier and one-tier question as well as exemplary student quotes for each distracter are
shown in Figures 6 and 7. The ABCI is presented in its entirety in Appendix K.
Quantitative Sample
Four experienced chemists who have taught either general or organic chemistry validated
the content of a preliminary version of the ABCI for clarity, accuracy, difficulty, and relevance.
They determined that there was once one acceptable correct choice for each item. To check for
validity and reliability, the ABCI was piloted with students from general chemistry I, and organic
chemistry I. The number of students who completed the ABCI in the pilot study from each
course is shown in Table 3. The ABCI required approximately 15 minutes to complete.
22

7) Is this an acid-base reaction?

HNO3 (aq) + NH 3 (aq) ! !
NH 4 NO3 (aq)
A) Yes
B) No
8) I chose my answer to question 7 because_______________________.
Multiple Choice Answers Student Interview Data

A) HNO3 bonds to NH3 to A) Jamie (GC1): Theyre both, they all dissociate and
form one product they just mix together, I mean I guess they
dissociate, I dont really know, its just, like they all
kind of like combine to another thing.
B) there is only one product. B) Tracy (GC2): Theres definitely an acid, a base [in
There is no conjugate acid this reaction] and I dont know what that molecule
or conjugate base [produced] is, I mean it could be. Since theres only
one product, there wouldnt be a conjugate acid
and a conjugate base so I guess that I would say
that it wasnt an acid-base reaction.
C) a proton is donated and C) Correct Answer

accepted
D) the product will dissociate D) Kayla (OC1): HNO3 is an acid and NH3 is a base,
into spectator ions but then they create one aqueous compound and
that um, if you were to pull out spectator
compounds Id say that its not really a reaction,
they just happen to associate maybe, Im not sure.
NO3 and NH4, yeah I dont even know if thats
actually a reaction because they stay aqueous, so
its more just like maybe the ions became
associated with each other, but they didnt really
like create a new compound I dont think.
Figure 6: The first tier of each of the 11 two-tier questions asks students if a reaction is an acid-
base reaction. In the second tier, students select a reason that they chose their answer. Student
quotes that led to distracters are shown in the second column.
23

24) HCl is a strong acid and CH4 is not. What explains this difference?
Multiple Choice Answers Student Interview Data

A) H is written first in HCl. A) Ashley (GC1): Um typically I think of, for acids, I
dont know if Im right, but the H is in the front
and also I just dont remember it being an acid from
the list that we memorized.
B) HCl has just one H while B) Jon (GC2): Im kind of guessing but, H4 in there
CH4 has four. thats different than the, acids probably have
like one, two hydrogens.
C) H is positive in HCl C) Jenny (GC1): Um the Hs in CH4 are negatively

because Cl is negative. H charged so they arent acidic.
is negative in CH4 because
C is positive. I: How can you tell if the hydrogen is acting with a
positive charge?
Jenny: Um because the things that its bonded with

are negatively charged.
D) The bond between H and D) Correct Answer

Cl in HCl is ionic, while
the bond between H and C
in CH4 is covalent.
Figure 7: Each of the 6 one-tier questions asks students to explain how they classify acids and
bases. Student quotes that led to distracters for a one-tier question are shown.
Table 3. ABCI participants by course

Course GC1 OC1 Total
n 207 77 284
Interviews were done with four students in general chemistry 1 and three students in
organic chemistry 1 who had taken the ABCI to assess students interpretations of the items.
Interviews were analyzed for possible modifications that would clarify questions. In the
interviews, students interpretations of each item and distracter aligned with the ideas we meant
to measure. Their explanations for choosing incorrect distracters were based on the
misconceptions that we attempted to elicit through the ABCI. The inventory was again piloted
with general chemistry 2 students in Spring 2012 (Table 3). It was determined that the items
24

were functioning well and adjustments were not necessary. A full study took place from the
Spring of 2012 through the Fall of 2012. Since changes were not made to the ABCI, the data
from the pilot study and full study participants were combined for analysis. The full study
included students from high school (HS), Advanced Placement high school (AP), general
chemistry 1 (GC1), general chemistry 2 (GC2) and organic chemistry 1 (OC1) chemistry
courses.
A total of 1,887 students completed the ABCI. The number of participants from each
course is shown in Table 4. Fifteen high schools from Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey,
Wisconsin, Kentucky, New York, and Indiana participated in the study. There were a total of
four AP courses and fourteen HS courses that completed the ABCI in the Spring of 2012. The
types of schools are shown in Figure 8. The GC1 students who completed the ABCI in the fall of
2013 were from five colleges in Illinois, California, Ohio, and Georgia. The colleges included a
private comprehensive, a public community college, a public comprehensive, a public liberal
arts, and a private R1 university.

Course HS AP GC1 GC2 OC1 Total
n 509 166 895 240 77 1,887
Privan Urban
13%
Public Suburban
33%
Private
Suburban
27%
Public Rural
27%
Figure 8: High Schools that completed the ABCI.
25

Quantitative Analysis
The ABCI data was analyzed using classical measurement theory to understand
distributions and total scores. Reliability coefficients were calculated to measure students
overall consistency on the ABCI. We also checked for differences on the total score of the
courses. Item analysis was done to see how individual items were functioning. To investigate the
prevalent misconceptions that existed about acid-base reactions, each item was analyzed. The
items were analyzed individually in a one-tier analysis. A two-tier analysis was also done by
combining two-tier items. In this analysis, the two-tier questions were only considered correct if
both questions were answered correctly. A list of prevalent misconceptions held by students was
made. Data reduction techniques were used to analyze patterns in the data. Cluster analysis was
used to group students according to similarities in their answers.
Synopsis
A sequential mixed-methods study was done to investigate students ideas about acid-
base reactions. We used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, to minimize the
inherent weaknesses of each. AP, GC1, GC2, OC1, OC2, and Grad students were interviewed to
explore the key features they used to classify acid-base reactions. Student quotes were used as
distractors in the Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory (ABCI) to measure the prevalence of
misconceptions found in interviews. Chapter 4 shows the classification schemes that student
used in qualitative interviews. Chapter 5 shows the results of the ABCI analysis.
26

Chapter 4: Students classification schemes for acid-base

reactions.
The purpose of this research was to investigate how students in Advanced Placement
high school (AP), general chemistry 1 & 2 (GC1 &GC2), organic chemistry 1 & 2 (OC1 & OC2)
and a graduate organic seminar course (Grad) classified acid-base reactions. The study was
guided by the research questions:
(1) How do students identify acid-base reactions?
(2) What features stand out to students as essential in acid-base reactions?
(3) What prevalent misconceptions exist about acid-base reactions?
The reactions that were used in interviews will be referred to according to their reaction number
as listed in Table 1.
Qualitative Analysis
After transcribing the interview data, we began our analysis by summarizing each
students ideas. In order to understand characteristics and prevalence of students classification
schemes, we coded the transcripts using the computer software NVivo 8 (QSR International Pty.
Ltd., 2007). The data for each reaction were analyzed to investigate the key features that students
focused on in each reaction.
Students Classification Schemes for Each Reaction

In three reactions (1, 3, and 11), a strong acid reacted with a strong base(Figure 9):
HCl(aq) + NaOH(aq) ! !
NaCl(aq) + H 2O(l) (1)
Na 2SO 4 (aq) + 2H 2O(l) (3)

2NaOH(aq) + H 2SO 4 (aq) ! !
KNO3 (aq) + H 2O(l) (11)

__________+ __________ ! !
27

The key features that were used by students (n=30) to classify reaction 1, 3, and 11 as acid-base
are shown in Table 5. Even though students correctly classified the reaction as acid-base their
reasoning for the classification was not always correct. For example, two students classified the
reaction as an acid-base reaction because they thought the products were neutral. Each student
was consistent in classifying all three reactions, although there were four students who
incorrectly classified all three reactions as non acid-base reactions. Two of these students (AP=1,
OC2=1) believed that only hydrogen transfers in acid-base reactions and classified the reactions
as non acid-base reactions because sodium moved in addition to the hydrogen transfer. They
classified these reactions as non acid-base because they saw them as double displacement
reactions. They believed for an acid-base reaction to occur, the products would have to be either
Cl- and NaOH2+ or H2Cl+ and NaO-. One student (GC2) classified the reaction as non acid-base
because water was not a reactant and because there was not an equilibrium arrow. The fourth
student classified the neutralization reactions as non acid-base because she believed the products
were neutral. She has two erroneous ideas here -- first that the products are neutral in
neutralization reactions and that acid-base reactions cannot produce neutral solutions.
Table 5. Key features used and number of students who correctly classified reactions 1, 3,
and 11 as acid-base reactions.
AP GC1 GC2 OC1 OC2 Grad Total
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Acid-Base Reaction 6 5 5 5 2 7 30
Acid & base were reactants 6 5 3 4 1 4 23
H+ & OH- combined 2 3 3 5 2 3 18
Salt & water were products 0 2 3 3 1 2 11
Water was a product 4 2 2 2 1 0 11
States of matter 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
Neutral products 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Conjugate acid & base 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
Hydrogen was not neutral 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Ten students correctly classified reaction 2 as acid-base (Table 6):
MgCl 2 (aq) + H 2O(l) + CO 2 (g) (2)

MgCO3 (s) + 2HCl(aq) ! !
28

Twenty-one students incorrectly classified the reaction as a non acid-base reaction. The reasons
are described in Table 7. The remaining three students (AP=1, GC2=1, Grad=1) were unsure if
the reaction was acid-base or not. These students described key features that made them think the
reaction was acid-base and key features that made them think the reaction was not an acid-base
reaction. The three students who were unsure if the reaction was acid-base are referred to in both
Table 6 and Table 7 because their ideas were the same as the twenty-one students who classified
reaction 2 as a non acid-base reaction and the ten students who classified it as an acid-base
reaction. For example, one AP student was unsure about reaction 2 and described the reaction as
non acid-base because of the states of matter of reactants and products. He also said the reaction
could be an acid-base reaction because hydrogen was donated. Since eleven other students
classified the reaction as a non acid-base reaction because of the states of matter in the reaction,
we combined the noncommittal AP student with these students in Table 7 resulting in a total of
12 students who used this key feature. Eight students classified the reaction as acid-base because
hydrogen was donated and so we combined the noncommittal AP student with these students in
Table 6 as well, resulting in a total of 9 students who used this as a key feature. Since the same
students who were unsure are represented in both Table 6 and Table 7 the combined number of
students reported in both tables does exceed the total number of students.
Table 6. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 2 as an acid-base reaction. Three
students who were unsure if the reaction was acid-base are marked by asterisks.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Acid-Base Reaction 1(1*) 1 2(1*) 2 0 4(1*) 10(3*)
Hydrogen was donated 1 0 2 2 0 4 9
Acid present, but base was not 2 1 0 0 0 0 3
An electron pair was donated 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Strong acid made the other
0 0 1 1 0 0 2
reactant a base
In the reverse direction only 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Produced carbonic acid 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
+
H ions produced 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
The acid was a reactant (HCl) &
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
the base was a product (MgCl2)
29

Table 7. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 2 as a non acid-base reaction. Three
students who were unsure are marked by asterisks.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Non Acid-Base Reaction 5(1*) 4 3(1*) 3 4 2(1*) 21(3*)
No Base 0 3 2 3 1 1 10
No OH 0 1 2 2 0 2 7
Number of products 0 1 1 1 1 1 5
Double displacement reaction 4 0 0 0 1 0 5
Nothing accepted H 4 0 0 0 0 0 3
Combustion reaction 0 1 0 1 1 0 3
Oxidation-Reduction Reaction 1 1 0 0 0 1 3
If H2O was produced, OH must be
0 2 0 0 0 0 2
in the base
Hydrogen was not the only
1 0 0 0 1 0 2
substance that transferred
A lone pair of electrons was not
2 0 0 0 0 0 2
donated
There were exceptions to bases
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
with OH, but MgCO3 was not one.
Products were not neutral 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Metals not acids or bases 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Products were neutral 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
No conjugate acid or base 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Water was not a reactant 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Base did not increase in charge
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
from the addition of H+
For the twenty-four students who correctly classified Reaction 4 as a non acid-base
reaction, there were many reasons for their classification (Table 8):
ZnCl 2 (aq) + H 2 (g) (4)

Zn(s) + 2HCl(aq) ! !
This reaction was incorrectly classified as an acid-base reaction by three students (AP=1,
GC1=1, Grad=1) as shown in Table 9. Seven students (AP=1, GC2=1, OC1=2, OC2=1, Grad=2).
said they were not sure if it was acid-base or not. These students reasons are shown both in
Table 8 and Table 9.
30

Table 8. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 4 as a non acid-base reaction. Seven
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Non Acid-Base Reaction 5(1*) 4 5(1*) 3(2*) 3(1*) 4(2*) 24(3*)
Activity series/Single replacement 4 3 2 2 0 0 11
No base 2 3 1 3 1 1 11
Water was not a product 0 2 4 1 0 0 7
Oxidation-Reduction Reaction 0 0 0 0 2 3 5
Did not produce salt and water 1 0 2 2 0 0 5
Element alone not acid or base 0 1 1 1 0 0 3
Electrons transferred instead of an
0 0 0 0 1 2 3
electron pair donation to form a bond
No OH 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
H did not retain positive charge 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
A loan pair of electrons was not
1 0 0 0 0 1 2
donated
Only H transfers in acid-base
1 0 0 0 1 0 2
reactions
No equilibrium arrow 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
There were exceptions to bases with
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
OH, but Zn was not one
OH was not transferred 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Not double displacement reaction 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Table 9. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 4 as an acid-base reaction. Seven
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Acid-Base Reaction 1(1*) 1 0(1*) 0(2*) 0(1*) 1(2*) 3(7*)
Acid was present, but base was not 2 1 0 0 0 0 3
Change in oxidation number 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
The acid was a reactant (HCl) &
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
the base was a product (ZnCl2)
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
reactant a base.
Donation of hydrogen 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
31

Twenty-one students correctly classified Reaction 5 as an acid-base reaction, although

their reasons were not always correct for the classification (Table 10):
NH 4 NO3 (aq) (5)

HNO3 (aq) + NH 3 (aq) ! !
This reaction was classified incorrectly as a non acid-base reaction by seven students (AP=1,
GC1=1, GC2=2, OC1=1, OC2=2) in Table 11. Six students (AP=2, GC2=1, OC1=1, OC2=2),
said they were not sure if the reaction was an acid-base reaction or not and the key features they
used to classify reactions are in Table 10 and Table 11. Although reaction 12 is very similar to
reaction 5, four students who did not classify reaction 5 as an acid-base reaction classified
reaction 12 as an acid-base reaction when they were asked to draw the reactants for which they
were provided the products:
NH 4Cl(aq) (12)
__________+ __________ ! !
Two students (GC2=1, OC2=1) who were unsure if reaction 5 was an acid-base reaction decided
that reaction 12 was an acid-base reaction. Two other students (GC2=1, AP=1) who classified
reaction 5 as a non acid-base reaction also classified reaction 12 as an acid-base reaction. For
example, Davids explanations for classifying reaction 5 as a non acid-base reaction and for
classifying reaction 12 as an acid-base reaction were:
David (AP): [In reaction 5] theres two reactants and theres only one product, so that
tends to make me think its a synthesis reaction. Um, so like the hydrogen ions arent
leaving the reactant and being accepted by another one.
David: I would say number 12 would be [an acid-base reaction].

Interviewer: How did you pick HCl and NH3 as reactants for number 12?
David: I knew that chloride ions wouldnt be a reactant by themselves cause its net
ionic, so I knew that ammonia was stable by itself cause it didnt have a charge so I took
one of the Hs from the ammonium.
32

Table 10. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 5 and reaction 12 as an acid-base
reaction. Six students who were unsure are marked by asterisks.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Acid-Base Reaction 4(2*) 4 3(1*) 3(1*) 0(2*) 7 21(6*)
Donation of hydrogen 3 1 2 3 0 4 13
Acid and base were reactants 2 1 3 3 0 2 11
Synthesis/combination reaction 4 2 1 2 2 0 11
Ammonia was an exception to
0 2 0 0 0 0 2
the OH rule for bases
N3-, H3+, NO3-, H+ ions combined 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
2 0 0 0 0 0 2
reactant a base
Unsure of what was acid and
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
what was base
Not sure where the bond was
formed in the combination 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
reaction
Table 11. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 5 and reaction 12 as a non acid-base
reaction. Six students who were unsure are marked by asterisks.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Non Acid-Base Reaction 1(2*) 1 2(1*) 1(1*) 2(2*) 0 7(6*)
Synthesis/Combination reaction 2 1 0 0 1 0 4
Hydrogen was not donated 1 0 0 1 1 0 3
No base 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Aqueous product dissociated, no
0 0 0 1 0 0 1
reaction occurred
No OH 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
No Equilibrium arrow 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Reaction 6 is a combustion reaction that takes place through a radical mechanism. It

could have also been correctly classified as an oxidation-reduction reaction:
CO 2 (g) + 2H 2O(g) (6)

CH 4 (g) + 2O 2 (g) ! !
33

Twenty-eight students classified the reaction correctly as a non acid-base reaction (Table 12),
and just one student (OC1) incorrectly classified this reaction as an acid-base reaction (Table
13). Five students (AP=2, GC2=2, OC1=1) were not sure if it was an acid-base reaction or not;
the key features they attended to are recorded in Table 12 and Table 13.
Table 12. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 6 as a non acid-base reaction. Five
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Non Acid-Base Reaction 5(2*) 5 4(2*) 3(1*) 4 7 28(5*)
No acid or base 1 2 1 1 2 2 9
Combustion reaction 3 0 0 1 0 3 7
Oxidation-Reduction reaction 0 0 0 0 2 2 4
The reactants broke apart and
0 0 0 0 0 2 2
formed new things
If H2O was produced, OH must
1 0 0 0 0 1 2
be in the base
No OH 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Element alone not an acid or base 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Reactants did not differ in pH 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Oxygen and methane are in the
0 0 0 1 0 0 1
atmosphere not acids or bases
Water was not a reactant 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Table 13. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 6 as an acid-base reaction. Five
students were unsure are marked by asterisks.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Acid-Base Reaction 0(2*) 0 0(2*) 1(1*) 0 0 1(5*)
34

The classification schemes for the thirty students who correctly classified reaction 7 as a
non acid-base reaction are shown in Table 14:
2NaCl(aq) + CoCO3 (s) (7)

CoCl 2 (aq) + Na 2CO3 (aq) ! !
Four students (Grad=4) incorrectly classified the reaction as a Lewis acid-base reaction. For
example, Kit classified the precipitation reaction as an acid-base reaction without realizing the
ions retain their electrons and their identity in the solid product. When he was asked how he
knew reaction 7 was an acid-base reaction his reasoning was:
Kit (Grad): Just based on the definition of Lewis acid-base, the fact that you form
solid, um the cobalts more attracted, the cobalts a better Lewis acid, because its
more attracted to the carbonate, so the carbonate and Lewis acid form a very strong
bond, which is an electron donation and acceptance type deal.
Table 14. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 7 as a non acid-base reaction.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Non Acid-Base Reaction 7 5 6 5 4 3 30
No H 3 3 3 2 2 0 13
Precipitation 1 2 2 1 0 0 6
No OH 2 2 0 0 1 0 5
A loan pair of electrons was not
1 0 0 0 0 2 3
donated
Oxidation number did not change 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Seventeen students correctly classified reaction 8 as an acid-base reaction (Table 15):

H
H N H H N H
C C C C
H Br (g) + (aq) Br (s) (8)
C C C C
H C H H C H
H H
35

The reaction was classified incorrectly as a non acid-base reaction by 10 students (AP=2,
GC1=4, GC2=3, OC1=1) in Table 16. Even though pyridine behaves similarly to ammonia in
reaction 5, four students (GC1=3, GC2=1) who classified ammonia as a base in 5 as an acid-base
reaction did not classify reaction 8 as an acid-base reaction because they thought there was no
base in the reaction (Table 17). Seven (AP=1, GC1=1, GC2=1, OC1=1, OC2=3) students said
they were not sure if the reaction was an acid-base reaction or not (Table 15 and Table 16).
Table 15. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 8 as an acid-base reaction. Seven
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Acid-Base Reaction 4(1*) 0(1*) 2(1*) 3(1*) 1(3*) 7 17(7*)
0 0 1 1 1 0 3
Lewis structure indicated Lewis
1 0 1 0 0 0 2
acid-base reaction
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
reactant a base
Acid was present, but base was not 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Not sure where the bond was
formed in the combination 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
reaction.
Thirty students correctly classified reaction 9 as an acid-base reaction (Table 17):
O O
CH3 C (aq) + NaOH (aq) CH3 C (l) (9)
OH ONa
Two students (AP=1, GC2=1) incorrectly classified reaction 9 as a non acid-base reaction. Only
one of these students classified it as a non acid-base reaction because acetic acid contains OH
(GC2). The other student classified it as a non acid-base reaction because more than hydrogen
transferred (AP) even though she classified the reactants as acid and base. Two students (GC2=1,
36

OC2=1) were unsure whether it was an acid-base reaction or not. The general chemistry 2
student classified the reaction as a non acid-base reaction in the forward direction because water
was not a reactant, but thought it might be an acid-base reaction in the reverse direction because
water would be a reactant. The OC2 student was not sure if it was an acid-base reaction because
she could not decide if the products were neutral. If the products were neutral she said the
reaction would not be an acid-base reaction.
Table 16. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 8 as a non acid-base reaction. Seven
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Non Acid-Base Reaction 2(1*) 4(1*) 3(1*) 1(1*) 0(3*) 0 10(7*)
No base 0 4 2 0 0 0 6
No OH 1 2 1 0 0 0 4
No Equilibrium arrow 0 0 1 0 1 0 2
Nitrogen donated a loan electron
0 1 1 0 0 0 2
pair
No ammonia 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Reaction 10 was correctly classified as an acid-base reaction by twenty-one students

(Table 18).
OH H OH
HO B (aq) + O (l) HO B OH (aq) + H (l) (10)
OH H OH
Seven of these students said the reaction was an acid-base reaction in the reverse direction, but
not in the forward direction. The reaction was incorrectly classified as a non acid-base reaction
by three students (GC1=2, GC2=1). Table 19 shows the reasons the students classified the
37

reaction as a non acid-base reaction. Ten students were not sure if it was an acid-base reaction or
not. The key features used by these students are shown in Table 18 and 19.
Table 17. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 9 as an acid-base reaction.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
H+ & OH- combined 3 2 1 2 3 2 13
Strong base made the other
2 2 2 1 0 0 7
reactant an acid
Acid & base were reactants 1 0 2 3 0 1 7
Salt & water were products 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
Base was present, but acid was not 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
acid-base reaction
Hydrogen was the only substance
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
that transferred
Equilibrium arrow 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
For reaction 13, only the products were given to students. They were asked to give the
reactants for the reaction as part of phase 4 of the interview:
F H
__________+ __________ ! !
F Al N H (aq) (13)
F H
There were only thirty-two students who completed Phase 4 because two AP students ran
out of time due to scheduling constraints at their school. Twenty-nine students gave the correct
reactants for the reaction. Eight of these students (AP=2, Grad=6) correctly classified the
reaction as a Lewis acid-base reaction. One of the AP students described the reaction as Lewis
because the product was able to break apart into two halves. Sixteen students described the
reaction as a non acid-base reaction because hydrogen was not donated. One of these students
38

(OC2) said he had never heard of an acid-base reaction that was a coupling reaction. Four
students did not provide the correct reactants, including one student (GC1) who said that she
recognized HF as a possible reactant, but no base. Five students were unsure if the reaction was
an acid-base reaction. One of these students (Grad) said she was not sure if AlF3 was acidic.
Student classification schemes for reaction 13 are shown in Table 20.
Table 18. Key features used to correctly classify reaction 10 as an acid-base reaction. Seventeen
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Acid-Base Reaction 3(4*) 2(1*) 4(1*) 5 2(2*) 5(*2) 21(10*)
Hydroxide was donated 4 0 2 2 1 1 10
Strong base made the other
3 1 4 0 0 0 8
reactant an acid
In reverse direction only 1 1 0 4 1 0 7
+ -
In the reverse direction H & OH
2 0 0 3 2 0 7
combined
In reverse and forward direction 2 0 0 1 2 0 5
In the reverse direction water was
1 1 0 1 1 0 4
produced
1 0 1 0 0 0 2
acid-base reaction
In the reverse direction, hydrogen
0 0 0 0 2 0 2
was donated
Equilibrium arrow was present 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
pH changed 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
The acid was a reactant (B(OH)3)
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
& the base was a product (B(OH)4)
39

Table 19. Key features used to incorrectly classify reaction 10 as a non acid-base reaction.
Seventeen students who were unsure are marked by asterisks.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Non Acid-Base Reaction 0(4*) 2(1*) 1(1*) 0 0(2*) 0(*2) 3(10*)
Hydroxide transferred instead of
1 2 0 0 1 0 4
hydrogen
B(OH)3 was not a familiar acid 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
B(OH)3 had multiple OH groups 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Water was not an acid or base 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Table 20. Students classification schemes for reaction 13.

(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
Non Acid-Base Reaction 3 3 4 2 3 0 15
Unsure 0 0 1 3 0 1 5
Incorrect Reactants 0 2 1 0 1 0 4
Did not complete Phase 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Analysis of Patterns in Data

We started our analysis using open coding to create exhaustive codes. The difficulty in
creating exclusive codes was that each student differed slightly in their understanding of acid-
base reactions. For this reason it was not always appropriate to count students when reporting
their classification schemes. Consider students from organic chemistry 1 (OC1) who said that
proton and hydrogen were interchangeable, but differed in their reasoning:
Ray (OC1): I think of hydrogen and protons pretty much as interchangeable, because
a proton is a positive charge and a hydrogen is a very small molecule with a positive
charge.
Kayla (OC1): Hydrogen on itself, sometimes you just like use it interchangeably and
saying its a proton, so when you add hydrogen to something, youre kind of adding
40

the positive charge.
Evan (OC1): Theyre generally interchangeable. Which has always bothered me that
people, they do that cause its like what, no, it ah, cause, cause they, cause hydrogen, it
has an electron generally, so itsbut they just use it interchangeably, I guess just
because they, theres a sense that just, like the electrons just kind of flow wherever
they want, and theres no real, just if you have some lying around that they just throw
them in there for fun almost.
Students classification schemes were inconsistent throughout interviews. For example,

thirteen students classified reaction 6 as a non acid-base reaction due to states of matter of
reactants and products, but only six of these students classified reaction 4 as non acid-base
reaction because of the states of matter. Some students also changed their answers during
interviews. One such student classified reaction 1 as an acid-base reaction, but later changed her
mind and classified it as a non acid-base reaction. While we recorded the original reasons she
used to classify it as acid-base reaction, in cases like these, we categorized students answers
according to what they thought took place in reactions, as well as which features they believed
were important to classify reactions as acid-base reactions. The reasons some students classified
reactions as acid-base were the very same reasons used by other students to classify reactions as
non acid-base.
Students from different courses had similar ideas about the reactions. Many students used
a hybrid model to classify acid-base reactions, and combined various aspects from two or more
of the acid-base models. Due to the prevalent use of hybrid models, there was not a clear
relationship between the course and the acid-base model used. The hybrid models showed
students lack of understanding in acid-base reactions. They often did not notice when they were
inconsistent and incorporated new information into their hybrid models describing them as
exceptions. Chans classification scheme initially was that all acid-base reactions form
water becausebases are defined by the presence of OH. Later he expanded his
classification scheme and included ammonia as a base, but he did not know why:
41

Chan (GC1): This one [is] a base because for some reason, part of me is saying that
ammonia is an exception almost. Its a certain kind of base that a lot of other bases
and I think its a strong base (sic). Weak bases are the ones with OH presence, so maybe
acid-base-reactions [are] weak bases or whatever type of base has an OH in it. This net
ionic equationbut then this is almost like the exception to the rule. Its the base that
kind of, its a base, but it doesnt follow that identification as everything else [Ive
said].
We made a list of key features that students used to classify reactions in order to
understand their classification schemes. Many key features were used by multiple students, while
others were unique to a single student. Students often used several key features to classify each
reaction. As one example, in reaction 1, Jenny (GC1) classified the reaction as acid-base based
on four key features that she thought were present in acid-base reactions. She believed that (1)
the reactants were acid and base, (2) water was produced, (3) the products were neutral, and (4)
hydrogen was not neutral.
Classification Schemes
Our goal was to explore how students ideas about the symbolic representations of
reactions related to what takes place in reactions. We were not interested in whether students
were able to memorize the names of categories of reactions. We developed descriptions of both
the classification schemes that students used and the acid-base reaction misconceptions they
held. As we analyzed the data, three schemes emerged that students use to classify reactions:
1. Students look for the presence of specific substances as reactants.

a. Acid and base
b. Acid or base
c. Water as a reactant
2. Students look for the presence of specific substances as products.

a. Water as a product
b. Neutral products
42

c. The number of products

d. Conjugate acid and conjugate base
3. Students look for the presence of specific symbolic features.

a. Representation of neutralization
b. Phases
c. Reaction arrows
We looked at reactions both individually and as a collective whole to see which

classification schemes were common to multiple reactions. There were also students who had a
deeper understanding of the interactions that took place in reaction, including proton transfers
and the donation of electron lone pairs. These classification schemes that were used by students
to describe acid-base reactions are presented below, along with their ideas about acids, bases,
and non acid-base reactions.
Classification Scheme 1: Reactants

Presence of Acid and Base
The presence of an acid and base as reactants was a common reason that students
classified a reaction as acid-base (Table 21). They also classified reactions as non acid-base
reactions due to the lack of an acid and base (Table 22). One student classified reaction 10 as a
non acid-base reaction, since she incorrectly believed that neither B(OH)3 nor H2O can behave as
an acid or as a base. Another student misclassified reaction 6 as an acid-base reaction because he
thought CH4 was an acid and O2 was a base.
Table 21. Students who correctly classified acid-base reactions due to the presence of an acid
and base. The total numbers of students interviewed in each course are shown.
Reaction AP GC1 GC2 OC1 OC2 Grad Total
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
1 6 5 3 4 1 4 23
3 6 5 3 4 1 4 23
5 2 1 2 3 0 2 10
8 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
9 1 0 2 3 0 1 7
43

Table 22. Students who correctly classified non acid-base reactions due to the absence of an
acid and base.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
6 1 2 1 1 2 2 9
7 1 1 1 3 0 1 7
When students were asked how they knew whether a substance was either an acid or a
base, some students answered that they had memorized a list of strong acids and bases. Even
though many students included correct ideas, such as classification of acids due to a transfer of
protons and electron donation, some had incorrect ideas about acids and bases. For example
students used charges incorrectly to classify acids and bases. This led to an investigation into the
how students classify acids and bases.
Classification of Acids and Bases

Sixteen students (AP=1, GC1=5, GC2=5, OC1=2, OC2=2, Grad=1) focused on the
placement of elements in the periodic table to classify acids and bases. Some of these students
did not understand how periodic trends related to the properties of atoms. One student used the
presence of a metal to determine if a substance was an acid or base (GC2):
Jon (GC2): Um, maybe if theres a metal it cant be an acid or a base.
Another student (OC2) classified MgCO3 in reaction 2 as a non-base because he believed it was a
salt. Three students (GC1=1, GC2=1, OC2=1) classified reaction 4 as non acid-base because Zn
was not with another element. Other students tried to use their knowledge about bonding to
explain their classifications. Five students (AP=1, GC1=3, GC2=1) said all acids and bases must
be ionic. Students who are familiar with neutralization reactions have seen strong acids and bases
that follow this narrow definition of acid and base:
Chan (GC1): Yes, [all acids and bases are ionic] because theyre rooted out of both the
hydroxide ion and the hydrogen and oxygen ions, so
Interviewer: How can you tell if something that has hydrogen is an acid or not?
44

Jamie (GC1): Whether its ionic...I guess like if its polar or not, because if its polar it
wouldnt be one cause then its not ionic.
Charges. Some students used charges to classify acids and bases. Students associated a
positive charge with an acid and a negative charge with base in the products of reaction 10:
Tracy (OC2): [Reaction 10] doesnt look like an [an acid-base reaction] because it
adds an OH group instead of a protonbut maybe because theres one molecule with a
negative charge and one with a positive charge, which means H+ is obviously acidic.
Other students were confused about the term neutral. The term neutral is similar to words such
as heat and strength that have various definitions depending on the context and students do
not always differentiate between the meanings (Jasien, 2011; Nakhleh, 1992). Instead of using
the term neutral in reference to hydrogen ion concentration, they used charges to determine if
something is neutral:
Reyna (OC1): Neutral means that like um it doesnt have any like a charge that
makes it like acidic or basic or anything like that. Like these hydrogens [from NH4Cl
in reaction 11] are going to give or going to be cancelled out by this nitrogen chloride,
so theyre not going to hold a charge to make it, its not going to effect the pH of it
or anything.
Three students (AP=1, GC2=1, OC2=1) defined bases as substances that increased in charge
from negative to neutral, or neutral to positive, if a proton is added:
Ethan (OC2): [In an acid-base reactions] theres a negatively charged acceptor of the
hydrogen that will become neutral upon the addition of the hydrogen.
Hydrogen. As reported in prior literature, students often classified acids because of the
presence of hydrogen (Furi-Ms, 2007). In our study, the ways that hydrogen was used to
classify acids were surprisingly broad. Students were asked how they determined whether a
45

substance that contains hydrogen behaves as either an acid or a base. Nine students (AP=1,
GC1=4, GC2=2, OC1=2) made decisions about classifying a substance using the idea that
hydrogen is written first in acids:
Janet (GC2): When I look for an acid-base reaction, I look for a molecule that begins
with a hydrogen, because thats usually how I spot an acid.
Six students (GC1=2, GC2=2, OC1=2) based their classification on the number of
hydrogen atoms present:
Jamie (GC1): I guess how many Hs it has is a rule too, cause usually acids either
have just like one or two.
Four students (GC1=1, GC2=2, OC1=1) had misconceptions about the proton donated by
acetic acid in reaction 9. They reasoned that CH3COOH donates hydrogen from carbon instead
of oxygen:
Reyna (OC1): Okay and then [in reaction 9, CH3COOH is] your acid because it has
these Hs right here.
Chan (GC1): Theres a hydrogen out front, Im going to guess that its an acid, like
theres the H, the OH present, but I still think its an acid versus a base [CH3COOH in
reaction 9].
Students who struggle to keep track of how a reactant changes as it becomes a new product
misunderstand the very basics of what occurs in a reaction. Bhattacharyya & Bodner (2005) have
also found that the meanings that symbols are intended to represent are not always clear to
students.
Both Reyna and Chan thought that the less acidic hydrogen atoms were transferred in
reaction 9. This led to the analysis of students ideas about acidic protons. When they were asked
what the term proton means in acid-base reactions, some students did not recognize that
46

proton is used to represent H+. Some students believe the term is used because hydrogen is first
in the periodic table and has one proton:
Pete (HS): Because its the only element thats just uh one proton, its the first
element in the periodic table so its just one.
These students do not notice that hydrogen loses an electron.
Evan (OC1): [The terms proton and hydrogen are] generally interchangeable,
which has always bothered me that people, they do that, cause its like what no, it um
cause, cause they, cause hydrogen, it has an electron.
Some students believe the name proton means that hydrogen causes something to gain a positive
charge when added to another substance:
Kayla (OC1): Well hydrogen on itself, sometimes you just like use it interchangeably
and saying its a proton. So when you add hydrogen to something youre kind of
adding the positive charge cause it really only carries one electron with it. So um like
when you take hydrogen away something usually gets a negative charge and when
you add a hydrogen something usually gains a positive charge.
Another idea that was expressed was the confusion of formal charge with oxidation state.
These students believe that hydrogen has a positive charge in acids and a negative charge
otherwise. Some students also classified bases because hydrogen is negatively charged when
bonded to nitrogen:
Jenny (GC1): Um, the Hs in CH4 [in reaction 6] are negatively charged so they arent
acidic.
Hydroxyl Groups. To classify bases, students often looked for the presence of OH,
similar to findings described previously by Furi-Ms (2007). These students did not understand
47

the difference between hydroxide ions and a hydroxyl functional group. However, only one
student believed that acetic acid could not behave as an acid due to the presence of OH:
Jon (GC2): But if I was to guess if [CH3COOH in reaction 9] was a base or not, I
would say that it is. It might be a base.
Other students classified substances with hydroxyl groups as acids. Some students misclassified
substances as bases due to the presence of OH. In reaction 10, six students (AP=2, GC1=1,
GC2=3) classified B(OH)3 as a base due to the presence of OH:
Jacob (GC2): Well I wouldnt really say [B(OH)3 in reaction 10 is an] acid, just
because theres only hydroxide ions, it wouldnt make sense to me for that to be an
acid.
Three students classified both B(OH)3 and B(OH)4- as bases in reaction 10 (GC2=2, OC2=1):
Elena (OC2): [B(OH)4- in reaction 10] has um the OH group so I would say its the
base and then [H+] would be the acid and [H2O is] the acid and [B(OH)3] gains an OH
group, so it would be a base.
Eleven students (AP=5, GC2=2, OC1=2, OC2=1, Grad=1) classified reaction 10 as an

acid-base reaction according to the Arrhenius model. They explained that either H+ or OH- must
be transferred in an acid-base reaction, but it does not always have to be both. These students
described the reaction as OH breaking off of water, leaving hydrogen behind:
Emily (Grad): [Reaction 10] is not transferring a proton, but the hydroxide is being
transferred, which is kind of weird, but theres no rule to say a proton has to be
transferred, so I think this one is acid-base.
Students described water as either acid or base in this reaction for the same reason: some
students said H2O is a base because it donated OH while others said water is an acid because it
48

became H+ after donating OH. Students described the covalent bond between hydrogen and
oxygen in H2O as breaking apart. Some students said similar things about OH leaving B(OH)4:
Evan (OC1): The OH [is] breaking off and bonding with a hydrogen [from B(OH)4 in
reaction 10].
As reported previously, students who look only at products and do not think about the likelihood
of each step in their proposed mechanism have difficulty in organic chemistry courses (Rushton
et al., 2008).
Some students had difficulty with bases that did not contain OH. While many students in
this study recognized ammonia as a base, many of them did not understand how it behaves as a
base:
Jenny (GC1): I dont think [nitrogen] acts as a base; I think the hydrogen is what
makes [NH3] basic.
Seven students (AP=1, GC1=4, GC2=1, OC1=1) who classified ammonia in reaction 5 as a base
did not classify pyridine in reaction 8 as a base. Although ammonia and pyridine behave
similarly in the respective reactions by donating a lone electron pair to a proton, these students
did not classify reaction 8 as an acid-base reaction. One GC1 student classified it as a non acid-
base reaction because there was no ammonia or OH present in the reaction:
Chan (GC1): [In Reaction 8], theres no OH, theres Im not seeing any ammonia or
whatever the other weak base was or the strong base was, um this one is just a matter
of nitrogen wanting something to share its electrons with basically.
Although students commonly classified acids and bases correctly, their classifications
sometimes lacked a meaningful understanding of the implicit nature of how acids and bases
behave in reactions. Students acknowledged that substances which contained a hydroxyl
functional group, such as carboxylic acids, can behave as acids. They usually did not classify
CH4 or NH3 as an acid even though they contain hydrogen. However, they classified acids based
49

on the position and number of hydrogen atoms. They also classified substances with OH as base
without making a distinction between hydroxide and hydroxyl groups.
Acid or Base Present

Two students (AP=1, GC1=1) believed an acid-base reaction need only include an acid or
a base, but does not require both. They did not understand the relationship between an acid and a
base in a reaction; their classification relied only on the presence of one or the other. One of
these students (AP) classified reaction 2 an acid-base reaction; but when asked if there were any
acids or bases present, he said HCl was the acid and MgCl2 was the base. In cases where an acid
reacted with an unfamiliar reactant, some students described the substance as base because it was
with an acid, correctly classifying bases due to the presence of an acid in reaction 2 (GC2=1,
OC1-1), reaction 5, (AP=2) and reaction 8 (GC2=1). However in reaction 4, one AP student
believed that Zn might behave as a base because of the presence of HCl. Students were more
likely to use this classification scheme when they recognized a base. For example, seven students
(AP=2, GC1=2, GC2=2, OC1=1) correctly classified reaction 9 as acid-base because NaOH is a
base.
Interviewer: How did you know reaction 9 was an acid-base reaction?

Chan (GC1): I went out on a limb, um I just identified this as a base [NaOH] and
normally I dont know, so like Ive seen acids by themselves, but I dont know how
often bases are by themselves so.
In reaction 10, three students (AP=2, GC2=1) incorrectly classified water as an acid because they
believed B(OH)3 was a base.
Water as Reactant
As one student from GC2 tried to relate back to her experience in the lab, she
remembered using water during an experiment that involved acid-base reactions. While she
correctly defined aqueous solutions as dissolved in water, she assumed that water must be
written as a reactant if she had used it in the laboratory. She did not connect that the aqueous
symbol accounted for the presence of water. She was unable to identify an acid-base reaction,
50

even when she recognized an acid and a base in the reactants. She first classified reaction 1 as an
acid-base reaction:
Amanda (GC2): [Reaction 1 is an acid-base reaction] its [NaOH] a strong base.

The first one [HCl] is a strong acid.
However, she later decided that reactions are only acid-base reactions if H2O is a reactant, so she
subsequently changed her classification for reaction 1 from acid-base to non acid-base:
Amanda (GC2): I guess [reaction 1] really looks like an acid-base, but I didnt think
of the equilibrium and water.
Another student from GC2 discussed the role that water plays in acid-base reactions:
Jon (GC2): In [Reaction 10] theres water, so I said earlier I dont think thats an
acid or a base and theres only one other [reactant] and they cant be both an acid and a
base.
He used the macroscopic nature of water as being safe to drink to define it as neutral. Therefore,
he classified reactions with water in the reactants as non acid-base reactions.
Classification Scheme 2: Products

Water is a Product in Acid-Base Reactions
It was common for students to look for water as a product in reactions when trying to
classify them. Many students used their knowledge about net ionic reactions to explain that water
is often a product in acid-base reactions:
Interviewer: And then if water is formed in a reaction, is that an acid-base reaction, if

water is a product?
Kayla (OC1): Maybe, well yeah usually I would say it is because if youre forming
water, that means you have to add a hydrogen to like a hydroxide group to do it, I
51

cant think of any other way to do it.
This might be due to the memorization of the representation of neutralization or that students
think that water can only be formed from H+ and OH- ions. Furthermore, students also classified
reactions that produce water but do not have hydroxide as non acid-base. They believe an acid-
base reaction that produces water must be formed using hydroxide.
In reactions 1, 2 and 9, students classified the reactions as acid-base because water was
formed (Table 23). In reaction 10, four students (AP=1, GC1=1, OC1=1, OC2=1) noticed that
the products would form water if the reaction were reversed. Six students (GC1=2, GC2=3, and
OC2=1) correctly classified reaction 4 as a non acid-base reaction and noted that the reaction did
not produce water. However, two OC2 students said that water being produced in combustion,
reaction 6, might mean that an acid-base reaction occurred:
Evan (OC1): [CH4 and O2 in reaction 6] arent really considered like strong acids or
strong bases either way, but its still exchanging a hydrogen to make water uh vapor,
water vapor, um and then forming two gases, so like, the methyl group is acting as a,
an acid, but its not generally considered an acid. Its a weak acid, I guess you could
say.
Some students had a very narrow idea of acid-base reactions. They had difficulty classifying
reactions 5 and 8 (Table 24):
Interviewer: And then what makes you feel like [reaction 8 is] not an acid-base
reaction?
Kayla (OC1): Um, you dont really, like you dont, I dont know, I always look to make
that water, you dont make the water.
Table 23. Students who correctly classified acid-base reactions due to the production of water.
52


(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
1 6 4 5 5 2 2 24
2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
9 4 3 3 3 2 1 16
Table 24. Students who incorrectly classified acid-base reactions due to the absence of water.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
5 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
8 1 1 1 1 0 0 4
Neutral Products
Acid-Base Reactions Produce Neutral Products. Students classified reactions by
defining the products in several reactions as neutral. As reported previously, they do not
understand the term neutralization and believe that substances that are produced in acid-base
reactions have a neutral pH (Drechsler & Schmidt, 2005; Bradley & Mosimege, 1998; Schmidt,
1997; Demirciolu et al., 2005). Students correctly classified reaction 1 (GC1=1, Grad=1) and
reaction 5 (GC1=1, GC2=1) with the incorrect idea that the products in these reactions were
neutral:
I: How did you know [reaction 1] is an acid-base reaction?

Jenny (GC1): Hmm because the products are neutral, theres not like an acid or a
base.
A few students classified the reaction 4, (GC1=1) reaction 6 (GC1=1, GC2=1), and reaction 7
(GC2=1) as non acid-base reactions because they thought the products were not neutral:
Jenny (GC1): An acid-base reaction has to become neutral and in a combustion

reaction [reaction 6] youre kind of, yeah its not neutral. Um you have water and
CO2.
53

Reaction 2 (GC1=1), reaction 5 (GC2=1), and reaction 10 (GC1=1) were also classified
incorrectly as non acid-base reactions because they did not form neutral products. Students who
used this reasoning do not understand the term neutralization.
Acid-Base Reactions Produce Non Neutral Products. One OC2 student said the
opposite about neutral products in classifying reactions:
Tracy (OC2): I wouldnt say any of these [reactions 2, 3, and 4] are [acid-base
reactions], is that right? Cause everything on the right side seems to be neutral.
She classified all reactions, except for reaction 10, as non acid-base because she believed that
they had neutral products. This idea may be influenced by Brnsted-Lowry acid-base reactions
which produce a conjugate acid and a conjugate base. Students with this misconception believe
that conjugate acids and bases cannot have a neutral pH.
Number of products
Another idea that students used to classify reactions was the number of products in the
reaction. Five students (GC1=1, GC2=1, OC1=1, OC2=1, Grad=1) said reactions that had more
than two products were not acid-base reactions. Some students had similar ideas about reactions
5 (AP=1, GC1=1, OC1=1, OC2=2) and reaction 8 (AP=1, OC2=1), which each had one product.
Some students who said they knew that an acid and a base were reacting, classified these
reactions as non acid-base reactions. One student believed that no reaction would occur between
an acid and base because she believed the aqueous product would completely dissociate.
Although she understood that aqueous solutions are made up of dissociated ions, she did not
know which substances dissociated in solution:
Kayla (OC1): [In reaction 5], HNO3 is an acid and NH3 is a base, but then they
create one aqueous compound, and that um if you were to pull out spectator
compounds, Id say that its not really a reaction, they just happen to associate maybe.
Im not sure, NO3 and NH4, yeah I dont even know if thats actually a reaction
54

because they stay aqueous, so its more just like maybe the ions became associated
with each other, but they didnt really like create a new compound I dont think.
Conjugate Acid and Conjugate Base

Some students who classified reactions with one product as non acid-base reactions
reasoned that there was no conjugate acid and conjugate base.
Tracy (OC2): Theres definitely an acid, a base in [Reaction 5], and I dont know what
that molecule is [product], I mean it could be [an acid-base reaction]. Since theres only
one product, there wouldnt be a conjugate acid and a conjugate base, so I guess
that I would say that it wasnt an acid-base reaction.
Other students (AP=1, Grad=1) classified the products of reactions between strong acids and
strong bases such as reaction 1 and reaction 3 as acid-base reactions. One student who said that
reaction 4 might be a Lewis acid-base reaction described the products as a conjugate acid and
conjugate base. In reaction 10, several students (AP=2, GC2=1, OC1=3, OC2=2, Grad=1) said
they might classify the reaction as acid-base due to the classification of conjugate acids and
bases. One student who was asked how she knew NH3 was said she had seen NH4+, its conjugate
acid. However, she did not understand the relationship between a base and its conjugate acid:
Jenny (GC1): Um Im not sure, I know [NH3] has a conjugate which is like NH4 and
one of those is an acid and one of them is a base, but Im just hoping Im right.
Another AP student described the products as conjugate acids and bases due to the difference of
a transfer of OH instead of a proton.
Classification Scheme 3: Reactants and Products

Representation of neutralization
It is encouraging that some students looked at both the reactants and products to
understand the reactions. However, some of these students still relied upon explicit features
instead of the implicit nature of the reactions. For example, one of the most common ways that
55

students identified acid-base reactions was according to the memorization of the representation
of neutralization, as shown in prior literature (Furi-Ms, 2007). Some students correctly
classified reaction 1 and reaction 9 as acid-base due to the presence of H+ and OH-, which
combined to produce water. Seven students classified reaction 10 as acid-base because of the
products H+ and B(OH)4-, leading to H2O in the reactants.
Phases
One student classified reaction 1 as acid-base because two aqueous reactants produced an
aqueous product and liquid water. Based on the representation of neutralization, students were
most familiar with aqueous acid-base reactions. When students classified non acid-base
reactions, such as precipitation, combustion, or oxidation-reduction reactions, they relied on
phases to explain their classification (Table 25):
Jamie: [In reaction 6], there are just two gases mixing together, usually acid-base
reactions, um at least one of them is in aqueous solution.
Six students (AP=1, GC1=3, GC2=1, OC21=1) described reaction 8 as non acid-base due to
phases. They believed that nothing in the gas phase can be an acid:
Jenny (GC1): [Reaction 8 is not an acid-base reaction] because I didnt recognize

[C5H5N] and because HBr was a gas.
Table 25. Students who classified reactions based on the presence of solids and gases.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
2 1 3 1 3 3 1 12
4 0 2 3 1 0 0 6
6 1 3 2 0 1 1 8
7 0 0 1 1 1 0 3
Aqueous solutions
Students were also confused about how aqueous solutions behave. Two GC1 students
described reaction 5 as the dissociation of both NH3 and HNO3:
56

Chan (GC1): What ends up happening [in reaction 5] is, you have H+ plus NO3- plus
N3+ plus H3-, H3, 3H yeah lets go with that one, goes over to N3+ plus H- plus NO3-, so
its just like all the ions, these break off into their ionic compounds and then cluster
together which come over here.
Other students did not know that aqueous substances such as strong acids and strong bases
dissociate, and described a strong acid and strong base interacting similarly to bimolecular
nucleophilic substitution reactions (SN2), where a nucleophile attacks an atom, expelling a
leaving group. These students thought that Na would be expelled by the attachment of hydrogen
to OH- instead of thinking about OH- as the nucleophile in the reaction.
Reaction arrows
We purposefully chose to use both single, forward arrows and equilibrium arrows in
reactions, but we did not expect students to make classification based upon reaction arrows.
Nonetheless, one GC2 student classified all of the reactions, except for 9 and 10, as non acid-
base due the absence of an equilibrium arrow:
Amanda (GC2): If they didnt have H2O in the reactants and an equilibrium arrow it
wouldnt be an acid-base reaction.
Another student mentioned this reason when classifying reaction 8 (OC2=1). One OC1 student
who classified reaction 4 as a non acid-base reaction thought that the reverse reaction might be
an acid-base reaction if an equilibrium arrow were present:
Evan (OC1): [Reaction 4] I suppose you could look at as this hydrogen [H2], oh but the
reaction isnt running that way, so I guess you cant, but if, if the reaction was
running the other way, then you could see it as this hydrogen [H2] being accepted by
the chlorine [ZnCl2].
57

A GC2 student said that the reverse of reaction 6 might be an acid-base reaction if an equilibrium
arrow were present. For reaction 10, five students (AP=1, GC1=1, OC2=2, Grad=1) said the
reaction could be classified as acid-base because of the equilibrium arrow. They believed an
acid-base reaction occurred only in the reverse direction, though.
Proton Transfer
Many students used correct ideas, such as the classification of acid-base reactions due to
the transfer of a proton (Table 26). They also classified reactions as non acid-base reaction when
a proton was not donated (Table 27). In reaction 6, five students (AP=2, GC2=1, OC1=2) said
they were not sure if a proton transferred, but believed it was possible. Four of these five
students were not sure if the reaction was an acid-base reaction, and one of them (OC1 )
classified it as an acid-base reaction.
Table 26. Students who classified reactions as acid-base because a proton transferred.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
1 2 3 3 5 2 5 20
2 0 0 2 2 0 4 8
3 2 3 3 5 2 5 20
5 2 1 2 3 0 4 12
8 4 0 2 2 1 4 13
9 4 2 2 4 3 4 19
Table 27. Students who classified reactions as non acid-base because a proton did not transfer.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
6 1 0 0 0 1 2 4
7 3 3 3 1 1 0 11
Nine students (GC1=2, GC2=2, OC1=1, OC2=3, AP=1) did not notice that reaction 5
contained a proton transfer:
Jamie (GC1): [In reaction 5], they all dissociate and they just mix together, I mean I
guess they dissociate, I dont really know, its just like they all kind of like combine to
another thing.
58

Students described this reaction using the terms combination reaction and synthesis reaction.
Four (AP=1, GC1=1, OC1=1, OC2=1) of these students incorrectly classified the reaction as non
acid-base. Seven students also missed the proton transfer in reaction 8. Three of these students
(GC1=2, AP=1) classified the reaction as non acid-base.
Only a Proton Transfers in Acid-Base Reactions

Two students (AP=1, OC2=1) believed that only hydrogen is donated in acid-base
reactions. They classified reactions 1, 2, 3, 6, and 10 as non acid-base reactions because
something moved in addition to hydrogen, when they expected nothing else to do so:
Tracy (OC2): [Reaction 1 is] more like substituting than accepting and donating.it
looks like the, the atoms are like swapping with each other.
When asked what would make this reaction an acid-base reaction, the AP student said the
products would either be NaOH2 and Cl- or NaO- and H2Cl. It is encouraging that students are
thinking on a particulate level about what occurs in acid-base reactions. The stability of the
products was not taken into consideration.
Electron Transfer
Students also used electron transfer to classify reactions as acid-base. The students who
correctly classified reactions using the Lewis acid-base model are shown in Table 28.
Table 28. Students who correctly classified acid-base reactions using the Lewis model.
(n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=5) (n=4) (n=7) (n=34)
1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
5 4 0 0 0 0 4 8
8 4 0 0 0 0 4 8
9 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
10 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
59

Graduate students had difficulty understanding the difference between Lewis acid-base
reactions and non acid-base reactions. Three graduate students classified reaction 4, an
oxidation-reduction reaction, as a Lewis acid-base reaction. In reaction 7 (a precipitation
reaction), four graduate students classified the reaction as a Lewis acid-base reaction:
Rachael (GS): [Reaction 7] really is a good example for Lewis acid-base reaction.
Emily (GS): Ill say [Reaction 7] is an acid-base except it deals with the electrons
transferring type versus protons.
Synopsis
Interviews were done to investigate how AP, GC1, GC2, OC1, OC2, and Grad students
classify reactions as acid-base. Students from the different courses used similar key features to
classify the reactions. They classified some reactions correctly using proton transfer and the
combination of OH- and H+ to produce water where it was appropriate. Graduate and AP
students also used the Lewis acid-base model to classify reactions. Students from all courses
used hybrid models to classify the reactions. They also lacked explanations for the differences
between non acid-base reactions and acid-base reactions even though they were able to correctly
classify non acid-base reactions. Students looked for the presence of specific substances in the
reactants or products of the reactions. They also rely on surface features such as the type of
reaction arrow, phases and the number of products to classify reactions. The misconceptions
found in interviews were used to develop a concept inventory. Chapter 5 shows the results of the
investigation of prevalent misconceptions about acid-base reactions.
60

Chapter 5: Quantitative Research

This chapter specifically addresses our third research question: what prevalent
misconceptions exist about acid-base reactions? The Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory
(ABCI) was developed using the misconceptions found from analysis of the interview data and
administered to students across the United States. Each item will be discussed according to the
misconceptions that were revealed.
Validity
Expert Validation Survey
On the pilot version of the ABCI, there were 28 items: 11 two-tier questions and 6 single-
tier questions. The inventory was designed to measure students understanding of what takes
place in acid-base reactions. The distracters were taken directly from student interviews. Four
expert chemists who have taught courses such as general and organic chemistry were asked to
provide feedback on the 28 questions to check for clarity, accuracy, difficulty, and relevance.
They determined that there was one acceptable correct choice for each item. One of the expert
responses expressed concern that the inventory did not specify particular types of acid-base
reactions: you dont specifically state whether you are referring to Brnsted-Lowry acid-base
reactions or whether Lewis acid-base reactions are also considered. Although we initially
intended to determine the model(s) that students use to classify reactions, we found that they
rarely used the terms Arrhenius, Brnsted-Lowry, or Lewis. As discussed in chapter four, they
often used pieces from multiple models. Since they did not use these specific terms to describe
reactions, we did not include them in the inventory.
We examined the specific words that students used in the interviews by representing the
most frequently used words used in a word cloud (McNaught & Lam, 2010), shown in Figure 9
(Feinberg, 2009). For the 34 interviews that took place in the qualitative study, all text that was
not spoken by students was deleted from transcripts and entered into a wordle analysis.
Uninformative words such as the, like, um, etc. were omitted from the word cloud. Words that
were used more frequently appear in larger text. The frequencies of words used by students are
also shown in Figure 10 to directly compare their frequency of use to the words Arrhenius,
Brnsted-Lowry, and Lewis.
61

Figure 9: Word Cloud of words used by students in qualitative interviews.
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
Frequency of Word
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Word used by Students in Interviews
Figure 10: The frequency of specific terms Arrhenius, Brnsted-Lowry, and Lewis with
common words used by students in interviews.
62

Pilot Study
The pilot version of the ABCI was administered to general chemistry 1 (GC1) and
organic chemistry 1 (OC1) students in the Fall of 2011 at a midsized public university in the
mid-west (Table 3). Students required approximately 15 minutes to complete the ABCI. To
establish the construct validity of the ABCI, interviews were conducted with students in each
course who had taken the ABCI. A total of seven students (GC1=4 and OC1=3) who had taken
the ABCI agreed to a follow-up interview to investigate students interpretations of the items.
Student feedback about the ABCI was analyzed for possible modifications that might add clarity
to the inventory questions.

Course GC1 OC1 Total
n 207 77 284
The interviews demonstrated that students explanations for why they chose incorrect
distracters aligned with the misconceptions that were found in the qualitative study. For
questions 7 and 8 (Figure 11), three students (GC1=2, OC1=1) incorrectly classified the
Brnsted-Lowry acid-base reaction as a non acid-base reaction, with the distractor (B) there is
only one product. There is no conjugate acid or conjugate base. These students answers
included the explanation that a proton was not donated and the reactants bonded to form one
product. Two other GC1 students who were interviewed also incorrectly classified the reaction as
a non acid-base reaction with the distractor (A) HNO3 bonds to NH3 to form one product. One of
these students chose their answer because no salt was formed. Her answer was based on the
Arrhenius neutralization reactions, while the students who chose (B) used the Brnsted-Lowry
model that acid-base reactions produce a conjugate acid and conjugate base.
Other distracters that students chose were similarly based on the incorrect answers that
the items were intended to represent. From these validations interviews with students who had
taken the inventory, it was determined that the items were indeed measuring the misconceptions
that were found in qualitative interviews. This led to the decision that the items were functioning
well and no adjustments to the ABCI were necessary. Therefore, the full study version of the
63

ABCI was identical to the pilot study version ABCI. For this reason, the pilot study and full
study data have been combined to interpret the results.
Sample
The full study took place from Spring 2012 to Fall 2013. The ABCI was administered to
students in high school chemistry (HS), Advanced Placement high school chemistry (AP),
general chemistry 1 (GC1), and general chemistry 2 (GC2) chemistry courses. Fifteen high
schools from Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Kentucky, New York, and
Indiana participated in the study. There were a total of 4 AP courses and 14 HS courses that
completed the ABCI in Spring 2012 as shown in Figure 11. The GC1 courses were taught at five
colleges in Illinois, California, Ohio, and Georgia and completed the ABCI in Fall 2013. The
colleges included a private comprehensive, a public community college, a public comprehensive,
a public liberal arts, and a private R1 university. The GC2 students who participated were from
the college where the pilot study was done and took the survey in the Spring 2012.

HNO3 (aq) + NH 3 (aq) ! !
NH 4 NO3 (aq)
A) Yes
B) No
8) I chose my answer to question 7 because _________________.
A) HNO3 bonds to NH3 to form one product

B) there is only one product. There is no conjugate acid or conjugate base
C) a proton is donated and accepted
D) the product will dissociate into spectator ions
Figure 11: ABCI items 7 & 8.
64

A total of 1,887 students completed the ABCI. The number of participants from each
course is shown in Table 3. Analysis of the ABCI was done in two ways: one-tier analysis and
two-tier analysis. One-tier analysis was done by considering each item individually, while two-
tier analysis was done by combining two-tier questions. In two-tier analysis, items were only
considered correct if answers to both tiers were correct. One-tier analysis gave insight to which
reactions were commonly thought of acid-base and students ideas about what took place in each
reaction. Two-tier analysis showed that the same reasons used to classify reactions as acid-base
were used to classify the same reactions as non acid-base.

Course HS AP GC1 GC2 OC1 Total
n 509 166 895 240 77 1,887
Classical Measurement Results
Because there are 28 items on the ABCI, the highest possible score for one-tier analysis
was 28. The highest score possible for two-tier analysis was 17. Descriptive statistics for students
in each course can be found in Table 29 (one-tier analysis) and Table 31 (two-tier analysis).
Individual scores ranged from 3 to 28 in one-tier analysis (Figure 12) and 0 to 17 in two-tier
analysis (Figure 13). No courses distribution was normally distributed (Kolmorgorov-Smirnov
statistic, p<0.05) as shown in Table 30 and Table 32. The mean value was lowest for HS students
and highest for AP students. The data is reported from lowest to highest scores, which in general
follows the order of the courses from high school through college, with the exception of AP
students who had the highest mean score on the inventory.
Table 29. Descriptive statistics for one-tier analysis of ABCI scores by course.
Course Mean Std. Minimum Maximum
Deviation
HS (n=509) 11.5 3.2 3 24
GC1(n=895) 14.2 4.8 3 28
GC2 (n=240) 13.4 3.7 6 27
OC1 (n=77) 15.7 4.0 9 27
AP (n=166) 16.8 4.8 7 28
65

100
90
80
Number of Students
70
60 HS
50 GC1
40 GC2
30 OC1
20
AP
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Total Score
Figure 12: Distribution of students ABCI scores in one-tier analysis according to course. The
highest score possible in one-tier analysis is 28.
Table 30. Test of Normality for ABCI Distributions for one-tier analysis
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Course Statistic df Significance
HS 0.096 509 0.000
GC1 0.139 895 0.000
GC2 0.090 240 0.001
OC1 0.132 77 0.007
AP 0.094 166 0.003
Table 31. Descriptive statistics for two-tier analysis of ABCI scores by course.
Course Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
HS (n=509) 4.6 2.4 0 14
GC1 (n=895) 6.4 3.5 0 17
GC2 (n=240) 6.3 2.7 0 16
OC1 (n=77) 8.1 2.9 3 16
AP (n=166) 8.5 3.5 1 17
66

150
140
130
120
110
Number of Students
100
90 HS
80 GC1
70
60 GC2
50
40 OC1
30
AP
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
Figure 13: Distribution of students ABCI scores in two-tier analysis according to course. The
highest score possible in two-tier analysis is 17.
Table 32. Test of Normality for the ABCI Distribution for one-tier analysis
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Course Statistic df Significance
HS 0.141 509 0.000
GC1 0.155 895 0.000
GC2 0.125 240 0.000
OC1 0.140 77 0.001
AP 0.109 166 0.000
Reliability
When designing an assessment tool such as a survey or test, the total score is assumed to
include measurement error (Lord & Novick, 1968). In attempt to measure error, the degree of
stability in a test-retest format have been used by calculating the correlation between the test and
retest scores. However, participants may not be available for second tests. Another inherent
difficulty of the test-retest format is known as the practice effect in which participants may be
familiar with the items and answer based on their memory (Costa & McCrae, 1982). Rather than
test participants a second time, internal consistency reliability is done through only one
administration of the test. Split-half approaches calculate the correlation between two halves of
one test. The difficulty with this procedure is the multiple coefficients that result when varying
67

how the questions are split into two. To address this issue, Kuder & Richardson derived the KR-
20 coefficient that simultaneously takes into account all possible ways of splitting the test (Kuder
& Richardson, 1937). It is the average of all possible split-half coefficients for a test. Kuder-
Richardson reliability coefficients (KR-20) were calculated for both one-tier and two-tier
analyses for each course (Table 33). KR-20 reliability coefficients (Cronbachs alpha for
dichotomous items were calculated for both one-tier and two-tier analysis (Table 34) for each
course (Cronbach, 1951). GC1 and AP courses have acceptable values (KR-20 .7). We have
also provided Fergusons delta values, the coefficient of test discrimination (Ferguson, 1949).
This value is the ratio between the number of discriminations made by the test and the maximum
number of discriminations possible based on the size of the sample and the number of items. The
ABCI is considered to be a test with high discriminatory power ( .9) for all courses (Table
33).
Table 33. Internal consistency coefficients and coefficients of test discrimination for one-tier
analysis.
One-tier analysis Two-tier analysis
Course KR-20 KR-20
HS 0.434 0.939 0.465 0.925
GC1 0.775 0.967 0.756 0.961
GC2 0.603 0.953 0.577 0.941
OC1 0.677 0.951 0.623 0.947
OC2 0.784 0.970 0.746 0.964
The term internal consistency of reliability has been misinterpreted previously as a

value that measures whether all questions test one concept. However, the coefficients KR-20 and
Cronbachs alpha are not designed to measure whether a test has one unique construct. While
previous studies have relied on the idea that high inter-item correlations suggest that the items
are all measuring the same thing (unidimensional scale), Sijtsma has shown that alpha is not a
measure of internal consistency (2009). There are several other weaknesses of these coefficients.
They are a lower-bound estimate and there is no way to know how close the estimate is. The
formula for KR-20 is provided in Figure 14. According to Sijtsma (2009), this coefficient shows
that, all other things kept equal, its value depends only on the sum of inter-item covariances.
Thus all that alpha can reveal about the interrelatedness of items is their AVERAGE degree of
68

interrelatedness provide there are no negative covariances. This means that KR-20 values
may be low if the variance is low. Variance is an average of the difference between test scores
and the mean; it is a measure of how spread out test scores are for each course. Table 34 shows
the values that are taken into consideration when calculating KR-20 values for one-tier analysis.
The difference in variance for test scores is the only variable that is largely different for each
course. The further the spread from the mean for a course, the larger the KR-20 value. Table 35
shows similar results for two-tier analysis and also shows how KR-20 values decrease as the
number of items decrease. Adams & Wieman (2011) also warn against placing too much value
on consistency coefficients in formative assessment.
! ! !
20 = 1
1 !!

=number of items on a test
=represents an item
! =proportion receiving a score of 1 on the item
! =proportion receiving a score of 0 on the item
!! =variance of test scores
Figure 14: Formula for KR-20.
Table 34. Values for calculating internal consistency coefficients for one-tier ABCI analysis.
Course !! KR-20
! !
!
HS (n=509) 28 6.01 10.33 0.434
GC1 (n=895) 28 5.86 23.14 0.775
GC2 (n=240) 28 5.84 13.95 0.603
OC1 (n=77) 28 5.65 16.29 0.677
AP (n=166) 28 5.71 23.39 0.784
Table 35. Values for calculating internal consistency coefficients for two-tier ABCI analysis.
Course !! KR-20
! !
!
HS (n=509) 17 3.14 5.58 0.465
GC1 (n=895) 17 3.59 12.44 0.756
GC2 (n=240) 17 3.30 7.21 0.577
OC1 (n=77) 17 3.50 8.48 0.623
AP (n=166) 17 3.71 12.47 0.746
69

Course Differences
Given that students from multiple courses took the ABCI, we wanted to know if students
in different courses differed in their total scores (Figure 15 and Figure 16). The non-parametric
Kruskal-Wallis test showed there was a significant difference among course performances on the
ABCI (Table 36 and Table 37). Ten pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U
tests with the conservative Bonferroni correction of 0.005 (Table 36 and Table 37). HS and GC2
courses were significantly different from all other courses. GC1 and GC2 courses were not
significantly different from one another, but were significantly different from all other courses.
OC1 and AP courses were not significantly different from one another, but were significantly
different from all other courses. The effect sizes are shown in Table 36 and Table 37.
Figure 15. Box plots of ABCI scores according to course (one-tier analysis).
70

Table 36. Statistical analysis of differences between courses one-tier analysis.

Kruskal-Wallis
Df N ! p-Value
4 1,887 212.363 0.000
Pairwise Mann- Effect size
comparisons N Whitney U Z Statistic p-value (r)
HS-GC1 1,404 154,740 10.034 0.000 0.268
HS-GC2 749 43,337 6.448 0.000 0.236
HS-OC1 586 8,060 8.369 0.000 0.346
HS-AP 675 15,596 12.259 0.000 0.472
GC1-GC2 1,135 101,418 1.330 0.183 -
GC1-OC1 972 26,250 3.481 0.000 0.112
GC1-AP 1,061 50,408 6.601 0.000 0.203
GC2-OC1 317 6,299 4.218 0.000 0.237
GC2-AP 406 11,765 7.034 0.000 0.349
OC1-AP 243 5,547 1.661 0.097 -
Figure 16. Box plots of ABCI total scores according to course (two-tier analysis).
71

Table 37. Statistical analysis of differences between courses.

Kruskal-Wallis
Df N ! p-Value
4 1,887 234.684 0.000
Pairwise Mann- Effect size
comparisons N Whitney U Z Statistic p-value (r)
HS-GC1 1,404 159,022 9.474 0.000 0.253
HS-GC2 749 37,958 8.430 0.009 0.308
HS-OC1 586 6,692 9.392 0.000 0.388
HS-AP 675 14,819 12.649 0.000 0.487
GC1-GC2 1,135 102,724 1.043 0.297 -
GC1-OC1 972 22,931 4.901 0.000 0.157
GC1-AP 1,061 47,723 7.359 0.000 0.226
GC2-OC1 317 6,084 4.540 0.000 0.255
GC2-AP 406 12,526 6.397 0.000 0.317
OC1-AP 243 5,934 0.901 0.368 -
Item Response Theory

Item response theory was done to understand how each item was functioning (Ding &
Beichner, 2009). The distributions for each item are provided in Appendix L. The difficulty
index is the proportion of students who answer each question correctly. In one-tier analysis, there
were three difficult items and one easy item (Table 38). The discrimination index for each item
compares students who scored highest on the ABCI (top 27%) to the students who had the lowest
total score (lowest 27%). It is used to determine if an item differentiates between students who
perform well on the ABCI and students who had lower total scores. Of the 28 items in one-tier
analysis, 61% of items had an acceptable value (> 0.30) shown in Table 39. Nine of the items
provided very good discrimination (> 0.40). Eleven items fell below the acceptable value (<
0.30). Combining difficulty and discrimination is necessary to better understand each item. For
example, a low discrimination score may be the result of the majority of students answering the
question correctly. For example, Item 1 had poor discrimination and a very high difficulty
(Figure 17). When the two-tiered questions were combined in the two-tier analysis, there was an
increase in the number of difficult questions (Table 38). In two-tier analysis, only four items
were below the acceptable value of discrimination (Table 39), two of which had a high difficulty
level (Item 5&6 and Item 25 in Figure 18). The point-biserial correlation is the correlation
72

between students score on an item and their total score on the inventory. Each item functioned
in the acceptable range item reliability (rpbi>0.20) for at least one of the five courses (Ding &
Beichner, 2009). Item Response Curves (IRCs) were created for each item to show the
discrimination of each item in relationship to students total score and are presented in Appendix
M (Morris et al., 2006).
Table 38. ABCI Item Difficulty for One-Tier and Two-Tier Analysis
Number of Items (%)
Difficulty () One-Tier Two-Tier
Difficult Items (< 0.25) 3 (11) 5 (29)
Marginal Items (0.25-0.80) 24 (86) 12 (71)
Easy Items (> 0.80) 1 (3) 0 (0)
Table 39. ABCI Item Discrimination for One-Tier and Two-Tier Analysis
Number of Items (%)
Discrimination (D) One-Tier Two-Tier
Very Good (< 0.40) 9 (32) 11 (64)
Reasonably Good (.30-.39) 8 (29) 2 (12)
Marginal (0.20-.029) 9 (32) 3 (18)
Poor (< 0.19) 2 (7) 1 (6)
0.9
0.8
0.7
Discrimination
0.6 18
26
0.5 8 12 7
23
22 3 4
0.4 21
28 2
20 27 15 17
0.3 10
16 14 24 11
6
0.2 13
25 5 19 1
9
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Difficulty
Figure 17. Discrimination according to difficulty for one-tier analysis.

73

0.9
0.8
0.7
17&18 26
Discrimination
0.6
23
28 11&12
0.5
21&22 13&14
0.4 7&8 3&4 19&20 27
9&10 1&2
0.3
25 15&16 24
0.2
5&6
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Difficulty
Figure 18. Discrimination according to difficulty for two-tier analysis.
Misconceptions by Item
Although data about total test scores is informative, the insights that we gain from student
means on concept inventories is limited given that we are interested in better understanding the
specific misconceptions that students hold instead of just a total score. A summary of the
misconceptions that are measured the inventory are presented in Table 40. The prevalent
misconceptions are grouped according to surface features, properties, and processes. These
distractors are reported because two-tier analysis showed at least one or more of the courses (HS,
GC1, GC2, OC1, AP) chose the incorrect answer at a rate of guessing or higher (12.5% for two-
tier questions and 25% for single-tier questions). The majority of reactions in the ABCI were part
of the qualitative interview protocol. The reactions from the interview protocol that correspond
to items in the ABCI are shown in Table 41.
74

Table 40. ABCI distracters according to misconceptions about surface features, properties, and
processes.
ABCI HS GC1 GC2 OC1 AP
Surface Features Distracter (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1. Lone pair on nitrogen is not able to
behave as base. 3B4C 21.2 34.3 15.8 - 31.9
2. H is positive in acids and negative in 24C - - - - 29.5
bases. 27A - - 26.3 - -
3. A proton does not have to be H in
acid-base reactions. 25C 41.3 42.5 40.8 42.9 39.2
4. Acid-base reactions happen if and 9B10C 31.2 37.2 38.3 45.5 42.7
only if they take place in aqueous
solutions. 11B12A 21.2 27.5 31.3 18.2 21.7
5. Substances that contain 'H' always
behave as acid. 23A 30.3 23.7 - - -
6. Substances that contain 'OH' always 13B14C 14.7 12.6 - - 16.3
behave as base, including carboxylic
acids. 26A 30.3 40.6 - - -
7. All reactions that produce water are
acid-base reactions. 9A10D 20.4 15.9 - - -
8. An acid and base react to form two 3B4A 30.5 30.4 40.0 41.6 24.7
products. 7B8B 41.5 26.6 47.7 59.7 27.7
Properties
1. Water does not react as an acid or base 28D 25.1 27.5 - - -
because it is neutral.
15B16B 14.1 25.1 12.5 - 16.9
17B18A - 15.5 - - -
Processes
1. Acid accepts protons to become a 28A 37.5 37.2 44.2 50.7 38.6
conjugate acid. Base donates a proton to
become a conjugate base. 17A18C 27.7 18.4 20.0 22.1 16.3
2. Students are confused when there are
multiple hydrogen atoms in a substance. 13A14D 17.7 19.3 21.3 18.2 19.9
3. A proton is the only atom that
transfers in acid-base reactions. 1B2A 18.7 - 32.1 16.9 -
4. Proton transfer is misclassified as 7B8A 16.3 14.0 15.0 - -
combination. 21B22D 41.8 33.3 45.0 45.5 27.1
75

Table 41. Correspondence between interview protocol reactions and ABCI items.
ABCI Reaction in Qualitative Interview Protocol
Items
1&2 3. 2NaOH(aq) + H 2SO 4 (aq) ! !
Na 2SO 4 (aq) + 2H 2O(l)
3&4 H
H N H H N H
C C C C
8. H Br (g) + (aq) Br (s)
C C C C
H C H H C H
H H
5&6 4. Zn(s) + 2HCl(aq) ! !
ZnCl 2 (aq) + H 2 (g)
7&8 5. HNO3 (aq) + NH 3 (aq) ! !

NH 4 NO3 (aq)
9 & 10 6. CH 4 (g) + 2O 2 (g) ! !

CO 2 (g) + 2H 2O(g)
11 & 12 7. CoCl 2 (aq) + Na 2CO3 (aq) ! !

13 & 14 O O
OH ONa
15 & 16
OH H OH
OH H OH
17 & 18 14. HCN(aq) + H 2O(l) H 3O+ (aq) + CN (aq)

19 & 20 11. KOH aq + HNO! aq KNO! aq + H! O(l)

21 & 22 12. HCl aq + NH! aq NH! Cl aq
Analysis of each Item

Item data is reported based on the courses whose students chose a distracter at a rate of
guessing or higher (50% for classifying reactions, 25% for reasons and single-tier questions in
one-tier analysis; 12.5% for two-tier analysis).
Item 1: No prevalent misconceptions were found by this item because at least 50% of every
course correctly classified reaction 3 as an acid-base reaction. The highest percentage in any
course to incorrectly classify the reaction as non acid-base was GC2 (41%). The lowest
percentage in any course to incorrectly classify the reaction as non acid-base was AP (8%).
76

Item 2: The reason that students chose their answer to Item 1 was assessed in Item 2. The correct
answer B) H+ and OH- combined was the most common answer for all courses (HS=45%,
GC1=63%, GC2=44%, OC1=43%, AP=77%). One incorrect answer was chosen by at least 25%
of students in three courses. HS, GC2, and OC1 students incorrectly chose A) NaOH did not
become NaO- or NaOH2+. It changed into Na2SO4 (HS=33%, GC2=42%, OC1=43%). This
misconception was developed from interview participants who classified reaction 3 as a non
acid-base reaction because they believed only hydrogen transfers in acid-base reactions.
Item 1&2: In two-tier analysis, the misconception that only hydrogen is transferred in acid-base
reactions was prevalent for HS, GC2, and OC1 students who classified reaction 3 as a non acid-
base reaction because A) NaOH did not become NaO- or NaOH2+. It changed into Na2SO4
(HS=14%, GC2=32%, OC1=17%). Three courses also classified reaction 3 as an acid-base
reaction for the same reason (HS=14%, GC1=16%, OC1=16%). Three courses classified
reaction 3 as an acid-base reaction for the incorrect reason C) Na2SO4 is a base and H2O is an
acid (HS=14%, GC1=14%, OC1=21%). This misconception came from students in interviews
who believed all acid-base reactions produce conjugate acids and bases.
Item 3: More than 50% of each course incorrectly classified reaction 8 as a non acid-base
reaction (HS=64%, GC1=69%, GC2=66%, OC1=56%, AP=64%). The highest percentage in any
course to classify the reaction incorrectly classify the reaction as non-base was GC1 (61%) who
incorrectly classified reaction 8. The lowest percentage in any course to incorrectly classify the
reaction as non acid-base was OC1 (56%)
H N H
C C
Item 4: The correct answer, D) C C donates an electron pair to H+ was the most
H C H
H
common answer for HS, OC1, and AP students (HS=35%, OC1=48%, AP=39%). The incorrect
H N H
C C
answer C) H
C
C
C
H
is not a base was the most common answer for GC1 students (32%).
H
AP students also chose this incorrect answer (32%). This misconception came from students who
classified NH3 as a base because they had seen it before, but did not know how it reacted as a
77

base and classified the similar base as a non base. The most common answer for GC2 students
was the incorrect answer A) there is only one product. There is no conjugate acid or conjugate
base (42%). This misconception was held by students in the other courses (HS=33%, GC1=30%,
OC1=42%, AP=25%). It was developed from students who did not notice the proton transfer, but
thought a combination reaction occurred. They thought that all acid-base reaction produce a
conjugate acid and conjugate base.
Item 3&4: The correct classification and reasoning for reaction 8 was the most common answer
for AP and OC1 students (OC1=44%, AP=35%). The incorrect answer, reaction 8 is not an acid-
base reaction because pyridine is not a base, was the most common answer for GC1 students
(31%). This misconception was also held by AP, GC2, and HS students (HS=21%, GC2=16%,
AP=32%). The most common answer for GC2 and HS students was reaction 8 is not an acid-
base reaction because there was not conjugate acid or conjugate base (HS=30%, GC2=40%).
Students from GC1 and OC1 also held this misconception (GC1=27%, OC1=42%).
Item 5: The majority of students in HS, GC1, GC2, and AP correctly classified reaction 4 as a
non acid-base reaction (HS=51%, GC1=65%, GC2=60%, AP=63%). Fifty-two percent of OC1
students incorrectly classified reaction 4 as an acid-base reacton.
Item 6: The correct reason, C) one electron is transferred to H+ was chosen by HS, GC1, and AP
students (HS=28%, GC1=31%, AP=31%). The most common answer for HS, GC1, GC2, and
AP students was D) Cl- donates an electron pair to Zn (HS=30%, GC1=32%, GC2=37%,
AP=36%). Twenty-nine percent of OC1 students also held this misconception. The most
common answer for OC1 students was A) a proton is donated and accepted (36%). Twenty-eight
percent of GC2 students also chose this distracter.
Item 5&6: Reaction 4 was classified as a non acid-base reaction for the correct reason by all
courses (HS=14, GC1=22%, GC2=15%, OC1=17%, AP=23%). The most common choice for
HS, GC2, and AP students was reaction 4 is not at an acid-base reaction because an electron pair
is donated (HS=18%, GC2=32%, AP=26%). Twenty-two percent of GC1 and 18% of OC1
students also chose this distracter. Reaction 4 was classified as an acid-base reaction because a
78

proton was donated by students in AP, GC1, GC2, and HS students (HS=15%, GC1=15%,
GC2=22%, AP=16%). Thirteen percent of HS students incorrectly classified reaction 4 as an
acid-base reaction but chose the correct answer for Item 6, one electron is transferred.
Item 7: At least 50% of students from GC1 and AP correctly classified reaction 5 as an acid-base
reaction. (GC1=57%, AP=61%). Sixty-five percent of HS, 70% of GC2, and 70% OC1 students
classified the reaction as a non acid-base reaction.
Item 8: The correct answer C) a proton is donated and accepted, was the most common answer
for AP students (45%). This answer was also chosen by 28% of GC1 students. The most
common answer for HS, GC2, and OC1 students was B) there is only one product. There is no
conjugate acid or conjugate base (HS=47%, GC2=50%, OC1=62%). Thirty percent of GC1
students and 28% percent of AP students also chose this distracter. The most common answer for
GC1 was A) HNO3 bonds to NH3 to form one product (33%). Twenty-eight percent of HS
students also believed a combination reaction occurred and did not notice a proton transferred.
Item 7&8: The correct answer, reaction 5 is an acid-base reaction because C) a proton is donated
and accepted was the most common answer for AP students (44%) and GC1 students (26%). At
least 12.5% of all other courses also chose the correct answer (HS=14%, GC2=17%, OC1=22%).
The most common answer for HS, GC2, and OC1 students was reaction 5 is not an acid-base
reaction because there is no conjugate acid or conjugate base (HS=41%, GC2=47%, OC1=60%).
This distracter was also chosen by 25% of GC1 students and 28% of AP students. Three courses
incorrectly classified reaction 5 as a non acid-base reaction because A) HNO3 bonds to NH3 to
form one product (HS=16%, GC1=13%, GC2=15%). Nineteen percent of students classified
reaction 5 as an acid-base reaction for the same reason.
Item 9: The majority of all courses correctly classified Reaction 6 as a non acid-base reaction
(HS=59%, GC1=77%, GC2=63%, OC1=83%, AP=83%). The highest percentage of HS students
incorrectly classified the reaction as an acid-base reaction.
Item 10: The correct answer B) CH4 is oxidized was chosen by 32% of OC1 students and 30% of AP
79

students. The most common answer for all courses was the distracter C) the reactants are gases
(HS=36%, GC1=49%, GC2=42%, OC1=45%, AP=42%). Thirty-five percent of HS students
chose the distracter D) water is produced.
Item 9&10: Reaction 5 was classified correctly as a non acid-base reaction because B) CH4 is
oxidized by GC1, GC2, OC1, and AP students (GC1=17%, GC2=17%, OC1=27%, AP=28%)l
The most common answer for all courses was reaction 5 is not an acid-base reaction because the
reactants are gases (HS=31%, GC1=47%, GC2=38%, OC1=45%, AP=42%). Sixteen percent of
GC2 students incorrectly classified reaction 5 as an acid-base reaction because A) CH4 donates a
proton to O2. Twenty percent of HS students incorrectly classified reaction 5 as an acid-base
reaction because water is produced while 15% of HS students classified reaction 5 as a non acid-
base reaction for the same reason.
Item 11: At least 50 % of all courses correctly classified reaction 7 as an acid-base reaction.
Item12: The correct answer, D) an electron pair is not donated, was chosen more often than
other answers by HS, GC2, OC1, and AP students (AP=45%, OC1=48%, GC1=33%, HS=34%).
The distracter, A) a solid is formed, was chosen by 27% of HS, 31% of GC1, and 34% of GC2
students.
Item 11&12: Reaction 7 was correctly classified as a non acid-base reaction because an electron
pair is not donated was the most common answer for all courses (HS=30%, GC1=32%,
GC2=33%, OC1=45%, AP=45%). All courses chose the incorrect answer, reaction 7 is not an
acid-base reaction because a solid is formed (HS=21%, GC1=27%, GC2=31%, OC1=18%,
AP=22%). Thirteen percent of AP students and 17% of OC1 students incorrectly classified
reaction 7 as an acid-base reaction because B) CO32- donates an electron pair to Co2+. This
distracter came from graduate students in interviews who classified reaction 7 as a Lewis acid-
base reaction. Fourteen percent of HS students incorrectly classified reaction 7 as an acid-base
reaction because C) NaCl is produced.
Item 13: The most common answer by all courses was the correct classification of reaction 9 as
80

an acid-base reaction (HS=66%, GC1=80%, GC2=72%, OC1=81%, AP=78%).
Item 14: The correct answer, B) a proton and hydroxide combine to produce water was chosen
by the majority of students in all courses (HS=39%, GC1=50%, GC2=45%, OC1=53%,
AP=54%). Twenty-eight percent of HS chose the distracter C) both reactants have hydroxide
present. This distracter came from students who were unable to differentiate between hydroxide
ions and OH as a functional group during interviews. Twenty-six percent of GC2 students chose
O
distracter D) Hydrogen from CH3 in CH3 C is transferred to NaOH. This misconception
OH
came from students who did not know which hydrogen atom transferred.
Item 13&14: The most common answer for all courses was the correct answer, reaction 9 is an
acid-base reaction because a proton and hydroxide combine (AP=53%, OC1=49%, GC2=39%,
GC1=46%, HS=31%). Reaction 9 was classified as an acid base reaction for the incorrect reason,
hydrogen from CH3 in acetic acid is transferred to NaOH, by all courses (HS=18%, GC1=18%,
GC2=21%, OC1=18%, AP=20%). Sixteen percent of AP students and 15% of HS students
incorrectly classified the reaction as an acid-base reaction because both reactants have hydroxide
present. Thirteen percent of OC1 students classified reaction 9 as an acid-base reaction because
A) the cations and anions switch places.
Item 15: At least 50% of students from each course correctly classified reaction 10 as an acid-
base reaction (HS=59%, GC1=52%, GC2=68%, OC1=71%, AP=69%).
Item 16: The most common answer for OC1, AP, HS, and GC1 students was the correct answer
C) an electron pair is donated (HS=37%, GC1=35%, OC1=67%, AP=43%). Thirty-six percent
of GC2 students also chose the correct answer. The distracter D) in the reverse direction, a
proton is donated was chosen by 38% of GC2 students and 30% of AP students. This distracter
came from students who classified the reaction as an acid-base reaction only in the reverse
direction during interviews. Thirty-two percent of GC1 students chose the incorrect reasoning, B)
water is neutral.
81

Item 15&16: Reaction 10 was correctly classified as an acid-base reaction because an electron
pair is donated by the majority of students in HS, GC1, OC1, and AP. (HS=28%, GC1=29%,
OC1=53%, AP=37%). Thirty percent of GC2 student also classified reaction 10 as an acid-base
reaction for the correct reason. All courses classified reaction 10 as an acid-base reaction because
a proton is donated in the reverse direction (HS=14%, GC1=13%, GC2=34%, OC1=18%,
AP=27%). Twenty-eight percent of GC1 and 17% of AP students incorrectly classified the
reaction as a non acid-base reaction because water is neutral.
Item 17: Reaction 14 was correctly classified as an acid-base reaction by at least 50% of all
courses (HS=68%, GC1=56%, GC2=85%, OC1=92%, AP=80%).
Item 18: The most common answer for all courses was the correct answer D) H2O is a base
because it accepts a proton to become H3O+, and HCN is an acid because it donates a proton to
become CN- (HS=38%, GC1=45%, GC2=65%, OC1=73%, AP=66%). Thirty-two percent of HS
students chose distracter C) H2O is an acid because it accepts a proton to become H3O+, and
HCN is a base because it donates a proton to become CN-. This distracter came from students
who believed the conjugate acid was produced by an acid and the conjugate base was produced
by a base. These students were confused about what behaves as an acid and base.
Item 17&18: The correct answer, reaction 14 is an acid-base reaction because HCN donates a
proton to H2O. It was the most common answer for students in each course (HS=33%,
GC1=40%, GC2=62%, OC1=70%, AP=63%). Twenty-eight percent of HS students classified
reaction 14 as an acid-base reaction because of the incorrect reason H2O is an acid because it
becomes H3O+ and HCN is a base because it becomes CN-.
Item 19: Reaction 11 was correctly classified as an acid-base reaction by the majority of students
from all courses (HS=68%, GC1=88%, GC2=58%, OC1=73%, AP=89%).
Item 20: The correct answer was C) HNO3 and KOH dissociate, H+ and OH- combine to form
water, and K+ and NO3- remain in solution as ions. This answer was chosen by the majority of
82

students in GC1, GC2, OC1, and AP (GC1=47%, GC2=43%, OC1=52%, AP=69%). The most
common answer for HS students was A) HNO3 and KOH dissociate, H+ and OH- combine to
form water, and K+ and NO3- combine to form bonds (41%).
Item 19&20: The majority of GC1, GC2, OC1, and AP students correctly classified reaction 11
as an acid-base reaction with the understanding that K+ and NO3- remain in solution as ions
(GC1=42%, GC2=30%, OC1=42%, AP=65%). Twenty-three percent of HS students also
understand the dissociation of ions in aqueous solutions. Students from all courses correctly
classified reaction 11, but thought that K+ and NO3- combine to form bonds (HS=32%,
GC1=39%, GC2=21%, OC1=29%, AP=19%).
Item 21: Reaction 12 was correctly classified as an acid-base reaction by the majority of students
in GC1 and AP (GC1=61%, AP=65%). Sixty percent of HS, 65% of GC2, and 57% of OC1
students incorrectly classified the reaction as a non acid-base reaction.
Item 22: The most common answer for all courses except AP was the incorrect idea, D) HCl and
NH3 do not dissociate. They combine to form a new compound (HS=48% HS, GC1=37%,
GC2=49%, OC1=48%, AP=36%). The most common answer for AP students was the correct
answer A) HCl dissociates and a proton transfers (44%).
Item 21&22: The correct classification for reaction 11 was chosen with the correct reasoning, a
proton transfers was chosen by AP students more than other answers (43%). GC1, GC2, and
OC1 students also chose the correct answer (GC1=24%, GC2=13.3%, OC1=29%). The most
common answer for HS, GC1, GC2, and OC2 students was the incorrect classification of
reaction 11 as a non acid-base reaction because the reactants combine to form a new compound.
Twenty-seven percent of AP students also chose this answer. Seventeen percent of GC1 students
and 13% of HS students classified reaction 11 as an acid-base reaction because B) HCl and NH3
dissociate and H+, Cl-, N3+, and 3H- recombine to neutralize charge. This misconception came
from students who thought NH3 dissociates into N3+, and 3H-.
Item 23: The majority of students from each course correctly classified an acid as a substance
83

that donates a proto (HS=38%, GC1=61%, GC2=79%, OC1=75%, AP=69%). Thirty percent of
HS students believe a substance always behaves as an acid when it A) contains hydrogen.
Item 24: Students in all courses explained the difference between strong acid HCl and CH4 as D)
The bond between H and Cl in HCl is ionic, while the bond between H and C in CH4 is covalent
(HS=46%, GC1=64%, GC2=685, OC1=78%, AP=63%). Thirty percent of HS students chose the
incorrect distracter C) H is positive in HCl because Cl is negative. H is negative in CH4 because
C is positive.
Item 25: Students were asked about the relationship between hydrogen atoms and protons in
acid-base reactions. The majority of students in each course did not understand that a proton in
acid-base reactions has one less electron than a hydrogen atom. There were no courses that chose
the correct at a rate higher than guessing. The most common distracter for all courses was
(HS=41%, GC1=46%, GC2=41%, OC1=43%, AP=39%). Thirty-three percent of GC2 students
and 25% of AP students chose the distracter A) A hydrogen atom has one proton, so it is called a
proton.
Item 26: The most common answer for students from all courses was the correct classification of
a base as a substance that accepts an H+ ion more often than the incorrect answers (HS=37%,
GC1=48%, GC2=64%, OC1=74%, AP=72%). Thirty percent of HS and thirty percent of GC1
students had the misconception a substance always behaves as a base when it A) contains OH.
Item 27: The most common answer for students from all courses was the correct answer: PH3
behaves as a base because C) P has a loan pair of electrons to donate (HS=36%, GC1=57%,
GC2=45%, OC1=83%, AP=76%). Twenty-six percent of GC2 students thought PH3 behaved as
a base because A) H is negative and P is positive. Thirty-one percent of HS students said it was
because B) PH3 contains more than one hydrogen atom.
Item 28: Students were asked what determines whether H2O behaves as an acid or base. The
correct answer, B) H2O is an acid when it reacts with a base. H2O is a base when it reacts with
an acid, was chosen by 25% of GC1, 35% of GC2, 34% of OC1, and 44% of AP students. There
84

were students in all courses who chose A) H2O is an acid if it accepts a proton to become H3O+.
H2O is a base if it donates a proton to become OH- (HS=38%, GC1=31%, GC2=44%,
OC1=51%, AP=39%). Twenty-five percent of HS and 33% of GC1 students had the
misconception D) H2O is neither an acid nor a base because it is neutral.
Data Reduction Techniques

Factor Analysis
Factor analysis a data reduction technique to determine whether a small set of
components or factors can explain the variation of items. Items that measure the same concept
should be a part of the same factor. However, exploratory factor analysis of our data (both one-
tier and two-tier analysis) showed only one distinct factor was apparent for all courses that had
acceptable Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin values.
Cluster Analysis
Cluster analysis is another useful data reduction technique to reveal structures and
associations in the data. Cluster analysis differs from factor analysis in that it uses patterns in the
data to group similar individuals instead of items on the ABCI (Everitt, et al., 2011). In our
analysis, clustering participants according to the patterns in their answers gave useful
information about students ideas about acid-base reactions as they progress through the
chemistry curriculum.
Only two-tier analysis was used in cluster analysis so that students were grouped based
upon the similarities in both the way they classify reactions and their reasons for classifying
reactions. While a one-tier analysis would group all students who classified reactions similarly, it
would not necessarily ensure a commonality with regard to why they chose their classification.
Two-tier analysis leads to a total of 17 items: 11 two-tier items and 6 single-tier items. The first
question in each two-tier item asked students if a reaction is an acid-base reaction (possible
answers are Yes or No). The second question asked students why they classified the reaction as
acid-base or non acid-base (four possible multiple choice answers). The 6 single-tier items asked
students about acids and bases in general (four possible multiple choice answers).
85

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. The first cluster analysis took place before all the data in
the full study from the GC1 courses was collected. This cluster analysis examined 1,655 students
(Table 42) who had completed the ABCI.
Table 42. Cluster analysis for ABCI participants by course

Course n
HS 509
AP 166
GC1 663
GC2 240
OC1 77
Total 1,655
The cluster analysis used binary data. Items were given a score of one if students chose
the correct answer and a score of zero if the incorrect answer was chosen. In two-tier analysis of
the ABCI, an answer counts as correct only if the to answer to both questions, otherwise the
answer is considered incorrect. For example, there are eight possible combinations for each two-
tier item: 1)Yes, A; 2)Yes, B; 3)Yes, C; 4)Yes, D; 5) No, A; 6) No, B; 7) No, C; or 8) No, D.
Only one combination is correct for each two tier item. This correct answer is given a score of
one and the other seven answers are given a score of zero because they are incorrect (Table 43).
For example, the correct answer to Question 1 is Yes and the correct answer to Question 2 is B.
For the six single tier items, there were four choices possible: 1) A; 2) B; 3) C; 4) D. Only one
option was correct (scored as one) and the other three options were incorrect (scored as zeros) as
shown in Table 44.
Table 43. An example of binary data for two-tier items. The correct option is marked by an
asterisk.
Question 1 & 2 A B C D
Yes 0 1* 0 0
No 0 0 0 0
Table 44. An example of binary data for single-tier items. The correct option is marked by an
asterisk.
Question 23 A B C D
0 0 1* 0
86

An agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis was done on binary data. This type of
analysis starts with each student as a separate cluster. The two most similar cases are combined
until there is only one cluster left (Everitt et al., 2011). Since there were 1,655 students, we
started with 1,655 clusters. The first step combined two students that were most similar based on
their answers for the items, meaning there were now 1,654 clusters: 1 made of two students and
1,653 clusters that each contained one individual student. This process continued with each step
being another combination until there was only one cluster and all 1,655 students were in it.
To determine the similarity between students, we chose from among many measures to
calculate the proximity of students answers on the ABCI. Categorical variables are most
commonly measured according to similarity instead of distance, which is common to
continuous data (Everitt et al., 2011). Incorrect answers for students can also be weighted in
various ways for binary data, depending on the symmetry of the data. The data are symmetrical if
zero-zero matches are considered equivalent to one-one matches. An example of this is by using
zero for females and one for males. In this case, a zero-zero match is as meaningful as a one-one
match. However, our data was asymmetrical because zeros (incorrect answers) have less
significance in analysis than ones (correct answers). This is because a one-to-one match in our
data means that students chose the same correct choice, a zero-to-zero match does not mean they
chose the same distracter (Table 46 & Table 47). This led to the use of asymmetrical Sokal &
Sneath 1 measure in our analysis (Everitt et al., 2011).
Clustering algorithms govern which points are used to measure distances in order to
determine cluster membership within clusters and between clusters (Everitt et al., 2011).
Because our data set was so large, many of the clustering algorithms tended to cluster
participants linked by a small number of individuals in between groups. This problem, known as
chaining (Everitt et al., 2011), may fail to produce distinct clusters. The clustering algorithm
furthest neighbor is the only algorithm that did not have the problem of chaining because it
measures the difference between clusters using the two points that are furthest from each other
(Everitt et al., 2011)
Deciding upon the number of clusters present is not always straightforward. Bittmann &
Gelbard (2007) recommend using multiple methods, coefficients, and algorithms and then
87

compiling the results. Of the cluster techniques they recommend, many of the algorithms do not
work for data sets as large as ours due to chaining. Hierarchical cluster analysis provides a
dendogram which shows which students are combined (Figure 19). Fusion values or linkage
distances in the dendogram show which steps the students were combined in. An agglomeration
schedule that corresponds to the dendogram can be used to interpret how many clusters are
present in the data. Our analysis suggested a split of seven clusters.
Cluster analysis does not, however, provide an interpretation of the characteristics that
define the clusters. Therefore, an interpretive analysis of the several clusters was done to try to
understand what types of students were in each cluster. The sample sizes for each cluster ranged
from 99 to 443, and the average scores ranged from 3.88 to 11 (Table 45). The distribution of
scores by cluster are shown in Figure 20. Given that the cluster analysis was based upon binary
data (correct versus incorrect data), it is not surprising that the clusters are different based upon
total score on the ABCI.
Table 45. Two-tier ABCI descriptive statistics for hierarchical cluster analysis by cluster.
Cluster n Mean (out of 17) Standard Deviation Range
1 443 5.65 5.65 1-12
2 391 3.88 3.88 0-11
3 237 6.70 6.70 2-13
4 270 4.94 4.94 1-13
5 99 8.21 8.21 2-14
6 116 4.49 4.49 1-11
7 99 11.0 11.0 6-17
We also examined the courses according to cluster (Figure 21). Because there are so
many more GC1 and HS students than AP, OC1, and GC2 students, this table shows the
percentage of each course by cluster. HS had the largest percentage of students in Cluster 2
(which had the lowest mean). Approximately 50% of GC1 students were in either Cluster 2,
Cluster 6, or Cluster 4 -- the three clusters with the lowest means. GC2 were most commonly
found in Cluster 1. Forty percent of OC1 students and more than 50% of AP students were in
either Cluster 7, Cluster 5, or Cluster 3 -- the clusters with the three highest means.
88

Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 4
Cluster 5
Cluster 6
Cluster 7
Figure 19: Dendogram for Hierarchical Cluster Analysis of ABCI Responses.

89

300
250
Cluster 7
Number of Students
200 Cluster 5
150 Cluster 3
Cluster 1
100
Cluster 4
50 Cluster 6
Cluster 2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
Figure 20: Distribution of two-tier ABCI scores according to cluster. Clusters are arranged in
order of increasing mean score.
We also examined the courses according to cluster (Figure 21). Because there are so
many more GC1 and HS students than AP, OC1, and GC2 students, this table shows the
percentage of each course by cluster. HS had the largest percentage of students in Cluster 2
(which had the lowest mean). Approximately 50% of GC1 students were in either Cluster 2,
Cluster 6, or Cluster 4 -- the three clusters with the lowest means. GC2 were most commonly
found in Cluster 1. Forty percent of OC1 students and more than 50% of AP students were in
either Cluster 7, Cluster 5, or Cluster 3 -- the clusters with the three highest means.
100%
90%
80% Cluster 7
Percent of Students
70% Cluster 5
60%
Cluster 3
50%
40% Cluster 1
30% Cluster 4
20% Cluster 6
10%
Cluster 2
0%
HS GC1 GC2 OC1 AP
Course
Figure 21. Course according to cluster. Clusters are arranged in order of increasing mean score.
90

Two-Step Analysis. There were several limitations to this hierarchical cluster analysis.
First, it is most commonly used for small data sets (<100) and our data set is very large (Everitt
et al., 2011). During the agglomeration, each step cannot be undone. We were unable to suggest
a meaningful interpretation of the seven clusters due to the large number of clusters, the
heterogeneous sizes of groups, and the nature of the binary data. Because a students score of 0
on a variable could represent one of seven different responses (Table 43 and Table 44), the
similarities were only meaningful when the items were answered correctly. This led to the
decision to transform the data into a multi-categorical format (Table 46). We assigned a score of
either 0 or 1 for each option of the two-tier multiple-choice questions.
Table 46. Scores for a two-tier item using multi-categorical data.

Question 1 & 2 A B C D
Yes 5 6* 7 8
No 9 10 11 12
Two-Step Analysis, a specialized method for addressing large data sets was used for
analysis of the multi-categorical data (ezankov, 2009). This technique combines hierarchical
analysis with a pre-clustering phase that checks the data for dense populations so that clusters are
not based on outliers (Chiu, 2001). The log-likelihood measure of similarity was used because
the data were categorical and not continuous. Three clusters were discovered using this analysis.
Cluster 1 students had the highest mean and were the only students who had scores in the
range of 12-17 (Table 47). The mean scores of Cluster 2 and Cluster 3 differed by approximately
one point. The distribution of scores according to cluster is shown in Figure 22. Since multi-
categorical data does not differentiate students based on correct answers distinction, the
differences in the distributions show that the scores are differentiated according to cluster.
Table 47. Two-tier ABCI descriptive statistics for two-step cluster analysis by cluster
Cluster n Mean (out of 17) Standard Deviation Range
1 531 8.42 2.56 3-17
2 619 3.91 1.85 0-10
3 506 4.90 1.94 0-11
91

Figure 23 shows the courses according to the two-step cluster analysis. For example,
approximately 75% of OC1 students are in Cluster 1. We did not analyze each cluster according
to the actual number of students in each course due to the the large difference in the number of
students in each course. The majority of GC2 (60%), OC1 (75%), and AP (64%) students were
in Cluster 1, which had the highest mean score. GC1 students were in Cluster 3 (52%) more
often than Cluster 2 or Cluster 1. HS students had a higher percentage of students in Cluster 2
(61%) than Cluster 1 or Cluster 3.
300
250
Number of Students
200
150 Cluster 3
100 Cluster 2
50 Cluster 1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
Figure 22. Distribution of two-tier ABCI scores according to two-step cluster analysis. Clusters
are arranged in order of increasing mean score.
100%
90%
80%
Percent of Students
70%
60%
50% Cluster 3
40% Cluster 2
30%
20% Cluster 1
10%
0%
HS GC1 GC2 OC1 AP
Courses
Figure 23. Course according to two-tier item, two-step cluster analysis. Clusters are arranged in
order of increasing mean score.
92

To determine which questions were helpful in distinguishing among these three clusters,
questions that everyone did similarly on were removed from further analysis of the clustering
results. The correct answer was chosen most often by all three clusters for item 1&2, and item
13&14. The majority of students from all clusters correctly knew that the difference between
HCl and CH4 is the bond between H and Cl in HCl is ionic, while the bond between H and C in
CH4 is covalent. The majority of students from all clusters also correctly explains PH3 behaves as
a base because P has a loan pair of electrons to donate.
Other questions did not distinguish among these three clusters because students from all
clusters predominately chose the same incorrect answer. The majority of students in all clusters
correctly classified reaction 6 as a non acid-base reaction, but they used the incorrect reasoning
to classify the reaction: because the reactants are gases. Students from all clusters incorrectly
classified reaction 12 as a non acid-base reaction because HCl and NH3 do not dissociate. They
combine to form a new compound. Students from all clusters did not recognize proton transfer;
instead, they thought a combination reaction occurred. Students from all clusters also struggled
with why H+ ions are called protons. They thought a hydrogen atom can behave as a proton, but
a proton does not have to be a hydrogen atom, instead of the correct answer: a proton has one
less electron than a hydrogen atom.
Students in Cluster 1 had the highest mean score of all clusters with an average score of
8.43 out of 17. There were 531 students in this cluster. Students in this cluster predominately
chose the correct answer for questions that involved processes, including electron pair transfer to
form covalent bonds and questions that involved proton transfer.
Students in cluster 1 correctly classified reaction 4 for the incorrect reason, Cl- donates
an electron pair to Zn in reaction 4. This incorrect reasoning is not consistent with their correct
classification of reaction 7 as a non acid-base reaction because an electron pair is not
transferred. While they understand the Lewis concept better than students in the other clusters,
they do not understand the difference between oxidation-reduction and Lewis acid-base
reactions. The majority of students chose the correct classification of reaction 8. Thirty-seven
percent of students correctly classified reaction 8 as an acid-base reaction because pyridine
donates an electron pair to H+. The next most common choice was chosen by 35% of Cluster 1
students, reaction 8 is a non acid-base because there is only one product. There is no conjugate
acid or base. For reaction 10, 40% of students correctly classified this as an acid-base reaction
93

because an electron pair is donated, while 33% of student chose the incorrect answer, in the
reverse direction, a proton is donated.
Students in Cluster 1 did best on questions that depended on knowledge of the Brnsted-
Lowry model. For reaction 14, only students in Cluster 1 correctly classified the reaction as an
acid-base reaction, H2O is a base because it accepts a proton to become H3O+, and HCN is an
acid because it donates a proton to become CN-. Cluster 1 students also classified acids and
bases according to the Brnsted-Lowry acids and bases. They correctly classified acids as
substances that donate a proton (94%) and bases as substances that accept H+ ions (90%).
Students in cluster 1 sometimes had misconceptions based on their reliance on the
Brnsted-Lowry model. While students from all cluster correctly classified reaction 3 as an acid-
base because H+ and OH- combined, Cluster 1 students chose the correct answer less often than
the other clusters. Nineteen percent of Cluster 1 students incorrectly classified this reaction as a
non acid-base because NaOH did not become NaO- or NaOH2+. It changed to Na2SO4. This
incorrect idea is based off the Brnsted-Lowry concept that a proton is donated in acid-base
reactions, however, students who chose this answer incorrectly thought that H+ was the only
atom that moved in acid-base reactions.
Cluster 1 was the only group that had at least 12.5% of students choose the following
distracters: reaction 6 was an acid-base reaction because CH4 donates a proton to O2 and
reaction 10 was an acid-base reaction because in the reverse direction, a proton is donated. They
also incorrectly classified reaction 4 as acid-base because a proton is donated and accepted more
commonly than the other clusters. In reaction 9, students in Cluster 1 had a higher percentage of
students who chose the incorrect reason, hydrogen from CH3 in acetic acid is transferred to
NaOH than the other clusters.
Cluster 1 students did not understand the relationship between H+ ions and how the term
proton is used in acid-base reactions. They were the only cluster who had at least 12.5% of
students choose the incorrect answer, a hydrogen atom has one proton, so it is called a proton.
The majority of Cluster 1 correctly explained that H2O is an acid when it reacts with a base. H2O
is a base when it reacts with an acid. The majority of Cluster 1 students understood solutions;
45% of students said that K+ and NO !
! remain in solution as ions in reaction 11.
Cluster 3 students had the second highest mean at 4.90 out of 17. Cluster 3 students
classified reactions using the Arrhenius model. They incorrectly classified bases as substances
94

that contain OH (46%). This was more common for Cluster 3 students than the other groups.
They were consistent with this misconception when classifying the reaction 8. They incorrectly
classified reaction 8 as a non acid-base reaction, choosing the incorrect distracter, pyridine
is not a base. They incorrectly classified reaction 9 as a non acid-base reaction because both
reactants have hydroxide present more commonly than students in Clusters 1 and 2. They
correctly classified acids correctly as substances that donate a proton (51%).
Students in Cluster 3 had incorrect ideas about water. Students in Cluster 3 predominately
chose the incorrect answer H2O is neither an acid or a base because it is neutral when asked
what determines whether H2O is an acid or base (54%). They were consistent with this
misconception when classifying reactions. For reaction 10 (51%) and reaction 14 (36%), students
in Cluster 3 classified them as non acid-base reactions because water is neutral. Twenty-four
percent of students in Cluster 3 also chose the distracter there are no acids or bases in the
reactants and products for reaction 14.
Cluster 2 had the lowest mean of 3.91 out of 17. Students in Cluster 2 held the common
misconception that a substance always behaves as an acid when it contains hydrogen (30%).
Eighteen percent of Cluster 2 students classified reaction 9 as an acid-base reaction because
hydrogen from CH3 in acetic acid is transferred to NaOH. They also incorrectly answered the
question that a substance always behaves as a base when it contains OH (32%). They were the
only cluster to choose the incorrect answer, A substance always behaves as a base when
itaccepts OH- (30%). Both of these distracters were chosen more commonly than the correct
answer, A substance always behaves as a basewhen it accepts an H+ ion (21%). This incorrect
idea that a base can be classified based on the presence of the functional group OH was
consistent with their misconception that reaction 9 is not an acid-base reaction because both
reactants have hydroxide present (14%).
Cluster 2 also confused acidic and basic behavior when classifying reactions. They
correctly classified reaction 14 as an acid-base reaction, but chose the reason, H2O is an acid
because it accepts a proton to become H3O+, and HCN is a base because it donates a proton to
become CN- (23%). They had a similar response for the question when determining when water
behaves as an acid or base. The majority of Cluster 2 students chose the distracter, H2O is an
acid if it accepts a proton to become H3O+. H2O is a base if it donates a proton to become OH-
(44%).
95

Students in Cluster 2 often chose classified reactions based on the products. They had the
misconception that the reaction 10 (31%) and reaction 5 (34%) were not acid-base reactions
because there is only one product. There is not conjugate acid or conjugate base. For reaction 6,
eighteen percent of Cluster 2 incorrectly classified the reaction as an acid-base reaction because
water is produced.
Cluster Analysis Results

Students in Cluster 1 had the highest mean and were able to explain the processes that
take place in acid-base reactions more often than students in Cluster 2 or Cluster 3. Cluster 1 had
the majority of AP, OC1, and GC2 students. Students in Cluster 1 often relied on the Brnsted-
Lowry model. Students in Cluster 3 had the second highest mean and the majority of GC1
students were in this cluster. They relied on the Arrhenius model. Students in Cluster 3 struggled
in classifying weak bases. They also believed that water does not react as an acid or base because
it is neutral. The majority of HS students were in Cluster 2 which had the lowest mean, however
they were not very much lower than Cluster 3 students. They struggled to define acids and bases,
which led to difficulties on the majority of the inventory. They often confused acids and bases
and incorrectly classified conjugate acids and bases as non-neutral species.
Synopsis
The prevalent misconceptions about acid-base reactions held by students in AP, HS,
GC1, GC2, and OC1 were investigated through the implementation of the Acid-Base Reactions
Concept Inventory (ABCI). 1,887 students from eleven states completed the ABCI. Construct
and content validity was assessed using expert validation and follow-up interviews with seven
students who had completed the ABCI. The reliability coefficients of the ABCI were acceptable
(> 0.70) for GC1 and AP students. Students in HS chemistry had a low KR-20 value (.465).
Although there were 509 students, they all performed similarly low on the ABCI (=4.572.37
out of 17). Adams and Wiemen (2010) have warned against placing too much value on reliability
coefficients for formative assessment. Item analysis showed that students held misconceptions
using surface features including charges, phases, the number of products and the presence of
specific substances. A non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test showed there were differences
between the courses total score on the ABCI. The patterns in students; answers were investigated
96

using cluster analysis. A two-step cluster analysis on multi-categorical data resulted in three
clusters of students. Analyses of these clusters showed that the majority of HS students did not
understand what constitutes acids and bases. GC1 students relied predominantly on the
Arrhenius acid-base model. The majority of students in GC2, OC1, and AP relied on the
Brnsted-Lowry model. The results of the study are discussed along with suggestions for
chemical education research and implications for teaching acid-base reactions.
97

Chapter 6: Conclusion & Implications

The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to investigate students ideas about acid-
base reactions. Our research questions included (1) How do students identify acid-base
reactions? (2) What features stand out to students as essential in acid-base reactions? And (3)
What prevalent misconceptions exist about acid-base reactions?
Students Misconceptions in Acid-Base Reactions

Constructivism and meaningful learning are useful constructs to understand how students
learn. Misconceptions research provides insight into students prior knowledge. For students to
understand chemistry they have to have to be able to make connections between the symbolic,
particulate, and macroscopic levels. The goal of this study was to investigate students ideas
about what takes place in acid-base reactions. While chemists understand reactions to represent
substances, interactions, and processes, these symbols lack the same meaning for students
(Anderson & Bodner, 2008; Shane and Bodner, 2006; Nakhleh, 1994). Students did not
understand the representations of acid-base reactions and instead relied on surface features to
classify reactions. They lacked a deeper understanding of the processes that take place in the
reactions. For example, some one prevalent misconception was acid-base reactions happened if
and only if they took place in aqueous solutions. Some students did not notice the proton transfer
in Brnsted-Lowry reactions that formed one product. Many students were unsure how to
classify the reactions. They explained reasons that a reaction might have been an acid-base
reaction, but also used surface features such as a lack of water as a product to explain their
confusion. Students also classified non acid-base reactions as acid-base because they produced
water. Some students who recognized an acid and base in the reactants still classified the
reactions as non acid-base reactions. Two such students classified the majority of the acid-base
reactions as non acid-base because they thought a proton is the only atom that transfers in acid-
base reactions.
Students also had difficulty understanding how substances behave as acids and bases.
Students did not understand how molecules that contain nitrogen have the ability to behave as
bases. They thought that H is positive in acids and negative in bases. Students did not understand
why the term proton is used to describe hydrogen ions in acid-base reactions. Students thought
98

that substances that contain H always behave as acid. Some students were confused about which
proton is transferred when there were multiple hydrogen atoms in a substance. Students also
thought that substances that contain OH always behave as base, including carboxylic acids.
Students also thought that acids accepted protons to become a conjugate acid or bases donated a
proton to become a conjugate base. There were also students who thought that water did not
react as an acid or base because it was neutral.
Students Classifications of Acid-Base Reactions

A qualitative study was done using semi-structured interviews to gain a deeper
understanding of how students think about acid-base reactions. Students in Advanced Placement
high school chemistry (AP), general chemistry 1 & 2 (GC1 & GC2), organic chemistry 1 & 2
(OC1 & OC2), and Ph.D. candidates in an organic chemistry seminar (Grad) were asked to
classify reactions as either acid-base or non acid-base. We were not interested in students
abilities to memorize names of reactions. Instead, our focus was the exploration of students
ideas about the representations of reactions and how they related to processes that occur in
reactions.
Students rarely used the terminology Brnsted-Lowry, Lewis, or Arrhenius and often
used hybrid theories or incomplete models. They did not understand why different theories exist
or when each model was useful. Their classification schemes were reported using the key
features they attended to in classifying acid-base reactions. Analysis of interviews revealed three
schemes students used to classify reactions: (1) Students looked for the presence of specific
substances in the reactants of reactions, (2) Students looked at the identity and number of
products in reactions, and (3) Students looked at the reactants and products for the changes that
occur as the reaction proceeds. In all three classification schemes, students relied upon explicit
surface features to make sense of reactions.
Scheme 1: Reactants
Students who looked only at reactants classified reactions as acid-base or non acid-base
on the basis of the presence of acids and bases. Some classifications lacked meaningful
understanding of the implicit nature of how acids and bases behave in reactions. Surface features
were used to explain which substances were acids and bases. Charges and placement of elements
99

in the periodic table were used as critical attributes without an understanding of the relationships
between structures and properties that enable substances to behave as acids and bases. Some
students classified substances as non acid and non base because an element was by itself or a
metal was present.
Classification of Acids. There was misunderstanding about why the term proton is used
in acid-base reactions. A few students were confused about the difference between the proton
particle and hydrogen ions in acid-base reactions. Other students knew that hydrogen was the
only substance with one proton, but they did not know a proton leaves behind an electron when it
transfers. There was also confusion about which hydrogen atom is transferred in reaction 9.
Students used hydrogen to classify acids. Some students thought that hydrogen is written first in
acids. They also used the number of hydrogen atoms in a substance to explain their classification
as acid or non acid. There were also students who reasoned that hydrogen is positively charged
in acids and negatively charged in bases.
Classification of Bases. The way that students think about bases has been largely missed
in prior literature. Interviews showed that students often looked for the presence of OH to
classify bases as found previously by Furi-Ms (2007). However, only one student classified
acetic acid as base due to the presence of OH. There were six students who classified B(OH)3 as
a base in reaction 10 due to the presence of OH. Three of these students also classified B(OH)4 as
a base in the products of the reaction. These students did not understand the difference between
hydroxide ions and a hydroxyl functional group. Many students noted there were exceptions to
the presence of OH in bases. While most students classified ammonia as a base, seven of these
students did not classify substances that behaved similar to ammonia as bases.
Scheme 2: Products
Students who classified reactions based on the products of reactions looked for the
presence of water as a product. There were students who believed that all reactions that produce
water are acid-base reactions. These students classified non acid-base reactions that produce
water incorrectly. They also incorrectly classified acid-base reactions that did not produce water
as non acid-base reactions. Students used the same ideas to classify reactions as acid-base and
100

non acid-base. While there were students who expected to see water as a product in acid-base
reactions, other students classified reactions that produced water as non acid-base reactions.
These students thought that acid-base reactions produced products that had a non-neutral pH. For
some of these students, this idea came from their knowledge about Brnsted-Lowry acid-base
reactions, which produce conjugate acids and conjugate bases. Other students had the
misconception that all acid-base reactions form products that have a neutral pH due to the
Arrhenius representation of neutralization. This idea has been seen in previous studies (Drechsler
& Schmidt, 2005; Bradley & Mosimege, 1998; Schmidt, 1997; Demirciolu et al., 2005; Sesen
& Tarhan, 2011).
The students who were intent on the presence of conjugate acids and conjugate bases in
acid-base reactions classified reactions based on the number of products. These students
classified reactions that had one product as non acid-base reaction. Other students classified
reactions with one product as combination reactions. They did not notice the proton transfer that
occurred. One student thought that no reaction occurred because the ions dissociate. Students
also classified reactions that had three products as non acid-base reactions because they were
most familiar with acid-base reactions that have the same number of reactants and products.
Scheme 3: Reactants and Products

There were students who used both reactants and products to classify reactions, but did
not have a clear understanding of the processes that occurred as reactants changed to products.
These students relied on surface features of symbolic reactions as critical attributes to classify
reactions. These key features included the type of reaction arrow and the phases of reactions.
There were students who questioned if an acid-base reaction was possible if a reaction was
written without an equilibrium arrow. Students who were familiar with Arrhenius acid-base
reactions, which have two aqueous reactants that produce an aqueous and liquid product,
classified reactions with substances in the gas or solid phase as non acid-base reactions.
There were students who had a deeper understanding of the particulate nature of matter.
These students were able to explain their classifications based on proton transfer. Some students
also explained that bases are able to donate loan electron pairs to protons. Only a few students
tried to use the Lewis model to classify reactions. The majority of students who did so correctly
were graduate students and AP students. Graduate students struggled to differentiate between
101

Lewis acid acid-base reactions and precipitation reactions. There were AP students who thought
that Lewis reactions always form one product. Two of these students missed the proton transfer
that occurred in reaction 5 and 8 and did not know where the bond formed in the reaction. Some
students were able to explain the processes that occurred in reactions, but had confusion about
acid-base models. Two of these students thought that only hydrogen is allowed to transfer in
acid-base reactions, which led them to misclassify acid-base reactions between strong acids and
strong bases.
Synopsis
Students explanations were often at the symbolic level. Their success rate at classifying
reactions was higher than their ability to correctly explain their reasoning behind classifications.
Evidence of students lack of deeper understanding of the implicit nature of the particulate level
of reactions was shown throughout interviews. Qualitative interviews showed a reinforcement of
the misconceptions that have been found previously as well as novel student misconceptions.
Almost all students explanations lacked particulate ideas about the differences between non
acid-base and acid-base reactions.
Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory

Constructivist learning is promoted through concept inventories designed to probe
students understanding of underlying concepts. A concept-inventory was designed using
misconceptions from student interviews to measure the prevalence of incorrect ideas. The Acid-
Base Reactions Concept Inventory (ABCI) had 11 two-tier items and 6 single-tier items. The
two-tier items asked students to classify reactions and choose their reasoning from four multiple-
choice answers. The single-tier items were about acid and base behavior.
Validity
The bottom-up approach used to develop the inventory incorporated student quotes for
distractors. This method of designing concept inventories uses student language to increase the
likelihood that incorrect answers are due to incorrect reasoning instead of misunderstanding
definitions. It also facilitates the validity of the content of the concepts that were tested. Four
experts who had taught courses including general chemistry and organic chemistry also checked
102

the ABCI for content validity. They provided feedback about the focus and relevance of the
inventory and determined that there was one correct answer for each item. Seven students who
completed the inventory were interviewed to their interpretations of each question and distractor.
Interviews showed that students were choosing incorrect distracters using the misconceptions
that we hoped to measure.
Sample
Students from high school (HS) chemistry, Advanced Placement high school
chemistry(AP), general chemistry 1 & 2 (GC1 & GC2), and organic chemistry I (OC1) courses
completed the inventory. Fifteen high schools from Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey,
Wisconsin, Kentucky, New York, and Indiana participated in the study. General chemistry 1
students from five colleges in Illinois, California, Ohio, and Georgia also completed the
inventory. Our total sample size was 1,887 students.
Reliability
Reliability coefficients were calculated for the ABCI. GC1 and AP data had acceptable
KR-20 values (> 0.70). Adams and Wieman (2011) warns against placing too much value on
consistency coefficients based upon the nature of assessments that are designed to elicit
conceptual understanding and misconceptions. KR-20 calculations have also been criticized by
Sijtsmol (2009) as lower-bound estimates without information about how much lower these
values are in comparison to accurate calculations of error. Fergusons showed that the
inventory had high discriminatory power. Item-response theories guided one-tier and two-tier
analyses of each item to analyze prevalent misconceptions. Item-response curves, point-biserial
indeces, and discrimination values showed that most items were answered correctly more often
by students who scored higher on the inventory. The difficulty indices added insight into the
items that had below acceptable discrimination indices. When two-tier questions were combined,
only item 24 had a discrimination index below 0.30 ( = 0.26).
Prevalent Misconceptions about Acid-Base Reactions

Students prevalent misconceptions about acid-base reactions were based on surface
features, properties, and processes. They had eight misconceptions about surface features: (1)
103

The lone pair on nitrogen is not able to behave as base; (2) H is positive in acids and negative in
bases; (3) A proton does not have to be H in acid base reactions; (4) Acid-base reactions happen
if and only if they take place in aqueous solutions; (5) Substances that contain H always behave
as acid; (6) Substances that contain OH always behave as base including carboxylic acids; (7)
All reactions that produce water are acid-base reactions; (8) An acid and base react to form two
products. There was one misconception about process that was measured in three items (28,
15&16, and 17&18): Water does not react as an acid or base because it is neutral. Four prevalent
misconceptions about processes were discovered: (1) Acid accepts protons to become a
conjugate acid. Base donates a proton to become a conjugate base; (2) Students are confused
when there are multiple hydrogen atoms in a substance; (3) A proton is the only atom that
transfers in acid-base reactions; (4) Proton transfer is misclassified as combination.
Data Reduction Techniques

Due to the large sample size and multiple courses that completed the ABCI we wanted to
look at patterns in student responses. Factor analyses showed that questions did not load onto
multiple factors. This may be due to the features that are shared by the acid-base reaction
models. Since the inventory is designed to be short, repetitive questions are avoided. Distracters
that were similar were used for reactions that differed. Items about similar reactions focused on
different misconceptions to cover the breadth of findings that resulted from interviews. Cluster
analysis was done to check for groups of students that were similar. Hierarchical cluster analysis
on correct versus incorrect answers led to seven clusters. However, important data about which
incorrect distracter students chose was left out. Multi-categorical analyses was done so that
students similarities were based on the multiple-choice answers they chose for each item. The
data set was too large for hierarchical analyses. Two-step cluster analyses incorporate a pre-
clustering step before students are combined into groups so that clusters are not based on
outliers.
Two-Step Cluster Analysis Results

Two-step cluster analyses revealed three clusters that each had a similar sample size. The
characteristics of the students in each cluster were analyzed. There were certain items in the
inventory that were helpful in distinguishing the clusters. Other items did not discriminate
104

between the clusters because they were either answered correctly or the same incorrect distracter
was chosen by the majority of students in each of the three clusters. The majority of students
from each cluster understood the difference between HCl and CH4 was the type of bond present.
They also correctly classified a strong acid-base reaction as the combination of H+ and OH-.
Students from all clusters held the misconception that acid-base reactions happen if and only if
they take place in aqueous solutions
Cluster 1. The mean score for Cluster 1 students was higher than the mean for Cluster 2
and Cluster 3 students (8.43 out of 17). The majority of GC2, OC1, and AP students were in
Cluster 1. Students in Cluster 1 used the Lewis acid-base model more than students in the other
clusters. However, they were confused about the difference between oxidation-reduction
reactions and Lewis acid-base reactions. They relied on the Brnsted-Lowry model to answer
most questions. They did well on questions about proton transfer and classified acids and bases
according to the Brnsted-Lowry model. Their reliance on the Brnsted-Lowry model led to
confusion on several questions. Students from Cluster 1 held the following misconceptions: A
proton is the only atom that transfers in acid-base reactions, CH4 donates a proton to O2 in a
combustion reaction.
Cluster 3. Students in Cluster 3 had the second highest mean (4.90 out of 17). The
majority of GC1 students were in Cluster 3. Only 3% of OC1 students and 9% of GC2 students
were in Cluster 3. Cluster 3 students predominately classified reactions using the Arrhenius
model. They performed well on reactions where H+ and OH- combined to form water. Their
reliance on the Arrhenius model led to complications in classifying bases. While they were able
to correctly classify acids, they incorrectly classified bases as substances that contain OH. This
was more common for Cluster 3 students than the other groups. They were consistent with this
misconception and classified reactions that did not have a strong base as non acid-base reactions.
They also classified a reaction with acetic acid and sodium hydroxide as a non acid-base reaction
because they thought both reactants have hydroxide present. Cluster 3 students also held the
misconception that water is neither an acid nor a base because it is neutral.
Cluster 2. The students in Cluster 2 had the lowest mean (3.91 out of 17). The majority
of HS students were in Cluster 2. Only 13% of AP students were in Cluster 2. Students in Cluster
2 did not understand what constitutes an acid and a base. They held the misconceptions based on
surface features including substances that contain H always behave as acid and substances that
105

contain OH always behave as base. Students in Cluster 2 also confused acidic and basic
behavior when classifying reactions. They held the misconception that acid accepts protons to
become a conjugate acid and base donates a proton to become a conjugate base. Since they
struggled to classify acids and bases, they had a difficult time with most questions on the
inventory. For each item, there were a large variety of popular answers.
Implications for Teachers

Students do not understand the relationship between the symbolic reactions and the
processes that occur in reactions. As reported previously, the symbols used to convey chemical
concepts do not have the same meaning for students as they have for chemists (Stains &
Talanquer, 2007; Stains & Talanquer, 2008; Domin et al., 2008; Anderson & Bodner, 2008;
Shane and Bodner, 2006; Nakhleh, 1994). The misconceptions that were revealed in the study
show evidence that students rely on surface features as critical attributes without a deeper
understanding of what occurs in acid-base reactions. The relationship between structure and
properties of substances are missing in students mental models. They did not understand the
properties of substances that enable acidic and basic interactions or how these substances differ
from non acids and non bases. The results of this study show that it is not enough to give
students symbolic reactions alone and expect them to have a deeper conceptual understanding of
the dynamic substances and processes that occur in reactions.
Previous research has shown that the teachers in their study preferred the Brnsted-
Lowry model and thought that students did not have difficulties with the model (Drechsler et al.,
2009). We recommend the development of students modeling skills by introducing multiple
models (Boo & Watson, 2001). This requires providing them with the appropriate context,
differences, and limitations of models. Students need to understand why multiple models exist
(Briscoe, 1940; Shaffer, 2006; Drechsler, 2005). To facilitate their understanding of the nature of
science, students should be introduced to the history of the acid-base models (Briscoe, 1940).
Confusion of terms such as neutral, strong, and proton have resulted from different
meanings in everyday and scientific contexts. Cokelez & Aytekin (2010) suggest avoiding the
term neutralization to keep students from assuming that acid-base reactions produce neutral
solutions. Other misconceptions may be avoided if the presence of water is emphasized in
aqueous solutions. Briscoe (1940) suggested that properties and behaviors should be taught
106

before introducing the theories to avoid students predisposition to memorize the rules without a
deeper understanding of what takes place in reactions.
Acid-base reactions are a dense topic that requires students to incorporate an
understanding of the particulate level of reactions including solutions, atomic structures, and
properties. Students reliance on surface features was often related to their inability to integrate
their prior knowledge about the periodic table trends, solubility, and interactions. Special
attention must be paid to the inter-linking and application of previously acquired knowledge.
This can be done according to Ausubels theory of advanced organizers to help students connect
new knowledge to existing relevant frameworks (1978). The ABCI can be used to elicit students
prior knowledge about acid-base reactions. The short length of the inventory allows the
investigation of students misconceptions to guide remedial exercises.
Demirciolu, Ayas, and Demirciolu (2005) have designed teaching materials that target
student misconceptions about the properties of acids and bases that used the conceptual change
strategy to induce cognitive dissonance. Classroom discussions have also been suggested as a
means to make students aware of incorrect ideas about acid-base reactions (Cokelez, 2010).
Garnett, Garnett, and Hackling (1995) proposed the use of audiovisual technologies to represent
the abstract particulate nature of chemical reactions. However, instructors must be careful to
ensure that the incorrect ideas are not perpetuated by the material. Yezierski and Birk (2006)
have shown the benefits of using computer animations to show the particulate nature of matter.
Active learning including experimental activities, brainstorming, video presentations,
demonstractions, computer animations, and cooperative guided inquiry instruction have led to
improvement in students understanding about acid-base concepts (Bilgin, 2009; Sisovic et al.,
2000; Sesan et al., 2011). Online, problem-based learning activities have also been designed and
have shown to decrease students misconceptions about acid-base reactions (Bayrak et al., 2011).
Sisovic et al., (2000) suggested moving lab work to the beginning of new units to help students
make connections between the symbolic representations and the properties of acids and bases.
For students to understand how the macroscopic level that they experience in lab relates to the
symbolic and particulate levels, special attention must be paid to students ability to make correct
conclusions from the results they get in their lab work.
107

Implications for Chemical Education Research

Stains & Talanquer (2008) have shown that many novice students had a fixed
interpretation of certain representational features in common reactions. When they were given
pictures of the particulate nature of the same reactions, the participants analyzed the chemical
processes more carefully. We recommend research be done on particulate representations of
reactions. An investigation of students ideas about the macroscopic level of acid-base reactions
would also help to understand the nature of students misconceptions about aqueous solutions
and waters inability to behave as an acid or base. It would be interesting to investigate students
ideas about Lewis acid-base reactions since they rarely discussed the model. Future research will
be done using the ABCI to investigate students understanding of acid-base reactions after
animations that show the particulate nature of acid-base reactions are developed.
108

References
Abraham, M. (2008). Qualitative Research Designs in Chemistry Education Research. In D.M.

Bunce & R.S. Cole (Eds.), Nuts and Bolts of Chemical Education Research, ACS
Symposium Series 976, (pp. 41-53). Washington, DC: The American Chemical Society.
Adams, W.K.; Wieman, C.E. (2010). Development and Validation of Instruments to Measure
Learning of Expert-Like Thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33 (9),
1289-1312.
Advanced Placement Chemistry Course Description (2012). The College Board.
http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/courses/teachers_corner/2119.html
Anderson, T.L.; Bodner, G.M. (2008). What can we do about Parker? A case study of a good
student who didnt get organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,
9(2), 93-101.
Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational pyschology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Ausubel, D.P, (1978); Novak, J.D.; Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive
view. (2nd ed.). New York: Werbel & Peck.
Bayrak, Bayrak, B., & Bayram, H. (2011). Effects of problem-based learning in a web
environment on conceptual understanding: The subject of acids and bases. International
Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3, 831-848.
Bilgin, I. (2009). The effects of guided inquiry instruction incorporating a cooperative learning
approach on university students achievement of acids and bases concepts and attitude
toward guided inquiry instruction. Scientific Research and Essay, 4, 1038-1046.
Bittmann, R.M.; Gelbard, R.M. (2007). Decision-making method using a visual approach for
cluster analysis problems; Indicative classification algorithms and grouping scope. Expert
Systems with Applications, 24, 171-187.
Bodner, G.M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education,
63(10), 873-878.
Bodner, G.M.; Gardner, D.E.; Briggs, M.W. (2005). Models and Modeling. In N.J. Pienta, M.M.
Cooper, & T.J. Greenbowe (Eds), Chemists Guide to Effective Teaching (pp. 67-76).
109

Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Bodner, G.M.; Klobuchar, M; Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. The
Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107.
Boo, H.K.; Watson, J. (2001). Progression in high school students (Aged 16-18)
conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85(5), 568-
585.
Botton, C. (1995) Collaborative concept mapping and formative assessment key stage 3:
understandings of acids and bases. School Science Review, 77, 124-130.
Bhattacharyya, G. (2006). Practitioner development in organic chemistry: How graduate students
conceptualize organic acids. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 240-247.
Bhattacharyya, G.; Bodner, G. (2005).It gets me to the product: How students propose organic
mechanisms. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(9), 1402-1407.
Bradley, J.D.; Mosimege, M. D. (1998). Misconceptions in acids and bases: a comparative study
of student teachers with different chemistry backgrounds. The South African Journal of
Chemistry, 51(3), 137-145.
Bretz, S.L. (2001). Novaks theory of education: Human constructivism and meaningful
learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107.
Bretz, S.L. (2008). Qualitative research designs in chemistry education research. In D.M. Bunce
& R.S. Cole (Eds.), Nuts and Bolts of Chemical Education Research; ACS Symposium
Series 976, (pp. 79-99). Washington, DC: The American Chemical Society.
Bretz, S.L.; Linenberger, K.J. (2012). Development of the Enzyme-Substrate Interactions
Concept Inventory. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(4), 229-233.
Briscoe, H. T. (1940). Teaching the new concepts of acids and bases in general chemistry.
Journal of Chemical Education, 17, 128-130.
Bunce, D.M. (2001). Does Piaget still have anything to say to chemists? Journal of Chemical
Education, 78(8), 1107.
Bunce, D.M.; Cole, R.S. (2008). Nuts and bolts of chemical education research. ACS
Symposium Series 976. Washington, DC: The American Chemical Society.
Carr, M. (1984). Model confusion in chemistry. Research in Science Education, 14, 97-103.
Cartrette, D.P.; Mayo, P.M. (2011). Students understanding of acids/bases in organic chemistry
contexts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12, 29-39.
110

Cetin-Dindar, A.; Geban, O. (2011). Development of a three-tier test to assess high school
students understanding of acids and bases. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15,
600-604.
Coffey, A.; Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research
strategies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cokelez, A. (2010). A comparative study of French and Turkish students ideas on acid-base
reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 102-106.
Costa, P.T.; McCrae, R.R. (1982). An approach to the attribution of age, period, and cohort
effects. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 238-250.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of the Tests, Psychometrika,
16, 197-334.
Cros, D.; Maurin, M. (1986) Conceptions of first-year university students of the constituents of
matter and the notions of acids and bases. European Journal of Science Education, 3,
305-313.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Drechsler, M.; Van Driel, J. (2009). Teachers perceptions of the teaching of acids and bases in
Swedish Upper Secondary Schools. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 86-
96.
Demerouti, M.; Kousathana, M.; Tsaparlis, G. (2004a). Acid-base equilbria, part 1. Upper
secondary students misconceptions and difficulties. Chemical Educator, 9, 122-131.
Demerouti, M.; Kousathana, M.; Tsaparlis, G. (2004b). Acid-Base equilibria, part II. Effect of
developmental level and disembedding ability on students conceptual understanding and
problem-solving ability. Chemical Educator, 9, 132-137.
Demirciolu, G.; Ayas, A.; Demirciolu, H. (2005). Conceptual change achieved through a new
teaching program on acids and bases. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6 (1),
36-51.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis. New York: Routledge.
Ding, L.; Beichner, R. (2009). Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice question.
Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5, 1-17.
111

Domin, D.S.; Al-Masum, M., Mensah, J. (2008). Students categorizations of organic

compounds. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 114-121.
Drechsler, M.; Schmidt, H.J. (2005). Textbooks and teachers understanding of acid-base
models used in chemistry teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(1),
19-35.
Drechsler, M.; van Driel, J.H. (2009). Teachers perceptions of the teaching of acids and bases in
Swedish Upper Secondary Schools. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 86-
96.
Everitt, B.S.; Landau, S.; Leese, M.; Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster Analysis (2nd ed.) West Sussex,
United Kingdom: Wiley.
Feinber, J. (2009). Retrieved February 23, 2013, from http://www.wordle.net/
Ferguson, G.A. (1949). On the theory of test discrimination, Psychometrika 14, 61-68.
Feuer, M.J.; Towne, L.; Shavelson, R.J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research.
Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.
Finster, D. (1989). Part I. Perrys model of intellectual development. Journal of Chemical
Education, 66(8), 659-661.
Finster, D. (1991). Part II. Application of the Perry model to general chemistry. Journal of
Chemical Education, 68(9), 752-756.
Furi-Ms, C.; Calatayud, M.L.; Guisasola, J.; Furi-Gmez, C. (2005). How are the concepts
and theories of acid-base reactions presented? Chemistry in textbooks and as presented
by teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1337-1358.
Furi-Ms, C.; Calatayud, M.L.; Barcenas, S. (2007). Surveying students conceptual and
procedural knowledge of acid-base behavior of substances. Journal of Chemical
Education., 84, 1717-1724.
Gabel, D.; Samuel, K. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of
Chemical Education, 64(8), 695-697.
Garnett P.J.; Garnett P.J.; Hackling, M.W. (1995). Students alternative conceptions in
chemistry: a review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in
Science Education, 25, 69-96.
Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
112

Golden-Biddle, K.; Locke, K.D. (1997). Composing qualitative research (1st ed.). Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Grove, N.; Bretz, S.L. (2010) Perrys scheme of intellectual and epistemological development as
a framework for describing student difficulties in learning organic chemistry. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 11, 207-211.
Jaisen, P.G. (2005). Numerical and pictorial understanding of acid among science students.
Chemical Educator, 10, 400-405.
Jaisen, P.G. (2011) What do you mean that strong doesnt mean powerful? Journal of
Chemical Education, 88 (9), 1247-1249.
Johnstone, A.H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to
changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-705.
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.
Kelly, R.M; Barrera, J.H.; Mohamed, S.C. (2010). Students misconceptions of the
submicroscopic level of precipitation reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1),
113-118.
Krause, S.; Birk, J; Bauer, R.; Jenkins, B.; Pavelich, M. (2004). Development, testing, and
application of a chemistry concept inventory. 34th American Society of Engineering
Education (ASEE)/Institutie of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Frontiers in
Education Conference. Savanah, Georgia.
Kuder, G.F.; Richardson, M.W (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability.
Psychometrika, 2, 151-160.
Lawson, A.E. (1994). Research on the acquisition of science knowledge: Epistemological
foundations of cognition. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science
Teaching and Learning; A project of the National Science Teachers Association, (pp.
131). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Lin, J.W.; Chiu, M.H. (2010). The mismatch between students mental models of acids/bases and
their teachers anticipations thereof. International Journal of Science Education, 32(12),
1617-1646.
Linenberger, K.J.; Bretz, S.L. (2012). Generating cognitive dissonance in student interviews
through multiple representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3),
113

172-178.
Lincoln, Y.S; Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Lord, F.M.; Novick, M.R. (1968). The axioms and principal results of classical test theory.
Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 3(1), 1-18.
Luborsky, M.R.; Rubinstein, R.L. (1995). Sampling in qualitative research. Research on Aging,
17(1), 89-113.
McNaught, C.; Lam, P. (2010). Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool. The Qualitative
Report, 15(3), 640-643.
McClary, L.M.; Bretz, S.L. (2012). Development and assessment of a diagnostic tool to identify
organic chemistry students alternative conceptions related to acid strength. International
Journal of Science Education., 34(15), 2317-2341.
McClary, L.M.; Talanquer, V. (2011). College chemistry students mental models of acids and
acid strength. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 396-413.
Morris, G.A.; Branum-Martin, L; Harshman, N.; Baker, S.D.; Mazur, E.; Dutta, S.; Mzoughi, T.;
McCauley, V. (2006). Testing the test: Item response curves and test quality, American
Journal of Physics, 73(5), 449-453.
Morse, J.M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research in Handbook of Qualitative Research
(pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mulford, D.R.; Robinson, W.R. (2002). An inventory for alternative conceptions among first-
year general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education 79(6), 739-744.
Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why Some Students Dont Learn Chemistry. Journal of Chemical
Education, 69(3), 191-196.
Nakhleh, M.B.; Krajcik, J.S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different
technologies on students understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1077-1096.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards: Observe, Interact,
Change, Learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Committee on Scientific
Principles for Education Research, R.J. Shavelson and L. Towne, Eds. Committee on
Scientific Principles for Education Research, Center for Education. Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
114

Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: understanding and
improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Committee on the Status
Contributions and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, S.R.
Singer, N.R. Nielsen, and H.A. Schweingruber, Eds. Committee on the Status,
Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research. Board on
Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Othman, J.; Treagust, D.F.; Chandrasegaran, A.L. (2008). An investigation into the relationship
between students conceptions of the particulate nature of matter and their understanding
of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 1531-1550.
Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Peterson, R.F.; Treagust, D.F.; Garnett, P.J.; (1989). Development and application of a
diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade 11 & 12 students concepts of covalent bonding
and structure after a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26,
301-314.
Pinarbai, T. (2007). Turkish undergraduate students misconceptions on acids and bases.
Journal of Baltic Science Education. 6(1), 23-24.
QSR International Pty. Ltd., (2007), QSR NVivo.
Rahayu, S.; Chandrasegaran, A.L.; Treagust, D.F.; Kita, M.; Ibnu, S. (2011) Understanding acid-
base concepts: evaluating the efficacy of a senior high school student-centred
instructional program in Indonesia. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 9(6), 1439-1458.
Rapp, D.N. (2005) Mental models: Theoretical issues for visualizations in science education. In
J.K. Gilbert (Ed), Visualization in Science Education (pp. 43-60). Netherlands: Springer.
Ross, B.; Munby, H. (1991). Concept mapping and misconceptions: A study of high school
students understandings of acids and bases. International Journal of Science Education,
13, 11-23.
ezankov, H. (2009) Cluster analysis and categorical data. Statistika, 216-232.
115

Rushton, G.; Hardy, R.; Gwaltney, K.; Lewis, S. (2008). Alternative conceptions of organic
chemistry topics among fourth year chemistry students. Chemistry Education Research
and Practice. 9, 122-130.
Saglam, Y. (2009). Students operations of evoked concept images in an acid-base equilibrium
system. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 21(4), 3041-3056.
Saglam, Y.; Karaaslan, E.H.; Ayas, A. (2011). The impact of contextual factors on the use of
students conceptions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9,
1391-1413.
Schmidt, H.J. (1991). A label as a hidden persuader: chemists neutralization concept.
International Journal of Science Education. 13, 459-471.
Schmidt, H.J. (1995). Applying the concept of conjugation to the Brnsted theory of acid-base
reactions by senior high-school students from Germany. International Journal of Science
Education, 17(6), 733-741.
Schmidt, H.J. (1997). Students misconceptions- looking for a pattern. Science Education, 81(2),
123-135.
Schmidt, H.J.; Volke D. (2003). Shift of meaning and students alternative concepts.
International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1409-1424.
endur, G.; zbayark, O.; Uyulgan, M.A. (2011). A study of determination of pre-service
chemistry teachers understanding about acids and bases. Procedia Computer Science, 3,
52-56.
Sesen, B.A.; Tarhan, L. (2011). Active-learning versus teacher-centered instruction for learning
acids and bases. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29(2), 205-226.
Shaffer, A. A. (2006). Let us give Lewis acid-base theory the priority it deserves. Journal of
Chemical Education, 83, 1746-1749.
Shane, J.W.; Bodner, G.M. (2006). General chemistry students understanding of structure-
function relationships. Chemical Educator, 11, 1-8.
Sheppard, K. (2006). High school students understanding of titration and related acid-base
phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 32-45.
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbachs Alpha.
Psychometrika, 74(1), 107-120.
116

Sisovic, D., & Bojovic, S. (2000). Approaching the concepts of acids and bases by cooperative
learning. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1, 263 275.
Smith, K.J.; Metz, P.A. (1996). Evaluating student understanding of solution chemistry through
microscopic representations. J. Chem. Educ, 73(3), 233-235.
Sousa, D.A. (2006). How the Brain Learns. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Stains, M.; Talanquer, V. (2007). Classification of chemical substances using particulate
representations of matter: An analysis of student thinking. International Journal of
Science Education, 29(5), 643-661.
Stains, M.; Talanquer, V. (2008). Classification of chemical reactions: Stages of expertise. J.
Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 771-793.
Strauss, A.L.; Corbin, J.M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A.L.; Corbin, J.M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Taber In Towards a Better Utilization of Diagrams in Research into the Use of Representative
Levels in Chemical Education; Gilbert, J., Treagust, D., Eds.; Multiple Representations in
Chemical Education; Springer Science+Business Media: 2009; Vol. 4, pp 75.
Taft, H.L. (1997). National curriculum survey of college general chemistry (1993). Journal of
Chemical Education, 74, 595-599.
Talanquer, V. (2006). Commonsense chemistry: A model for understanding students alternative
conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 811-816.
Tan, K.C.D; Taber, K.S.; Goh, N.K.; Chia, L.S. (2005). The ionisation energy diagnostic
instrument: a two-tier multiple-multiple choice instrument to determine high school
students understanding of ionisation energy. Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, 6(4), 180-197.
Tarhan, L.; Sesen, B.A. (2012). Jigsaw cooperative learning: Acid-base theories. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 307-313.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Bristol, PA: Falmer
Press.
117

Towns, M. (2008). Mixed methods designs in chemical education research. In D.M. Bunce &
R.S. Cole (Eds.), Nuts and Bolts of Chemical Education Research; ACS Symposium
Series 976, (pp. 135-148). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Treagust, D. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students
misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(), 159-169.
Vidyapati, T.J.; Seetharamappa, J. (1995). Higher secondary school students concepts of acids
and bases. School Science Reviews, 77(278), 82-84.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R.B.
Davis, C.A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and
learning for mathematics; Monographs of the Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 4, (pp. 19-29). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Voska, K.W.; Heikkinen, H.W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to
solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2),
160-176.
Watters, D.J.; Watters, J.J. (2006). Student understanding of pH: I dont know what the log
actually is, I only know where the button is on my calculator. Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Education, 34, 278-284.
Yezierski, E.J.; Birk, J.P. (2006). Misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter: Using
animations to close the gender gap, Journal of Chemical Education, 83(6), 954-960.
118

Appendix A- Cognate Project: Development of an Organic

Chemistry Laboratory
(Reproduced with permission from Journal of Chemical Education 2011, 88, 1133-1136.
Copyright 2011 American Chemical Society).
This lab is designed to generate interest in materials research. Students synthesize a series of p-
alkoxybenzoic acids through nucleophile substitution. These molecules have liquid crystal
phases (mesophases), showing characteristics of both solid and liquid. Most liquid crystal
mesophases are due to covalent bonds. However, the liquid crystals in this project form
mesophases because of intermolecular hydrogen bonding. Students also characterize the liquid
crystals using polarizing microscopy and differential scanning calorimetry.
119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

Appendix B- Interview Guide
Phase 1
Take your time and start thinking about acid-base reactions. What do you think of when you hear
acid-base reactions? When you feel like telling me something, go ahead.
1. How can you identify an acid-base reaction?

2. What substances have to be present for an acid-base reaction to occur?
3. Are there reactions that are not acid-base reactions?
4. Are there substances that are not basic or acidic? Examples?
5. Can you have an acid or base and not have an acid-base reaction? Examples?
6. Can something be both, a base or an acid? Examples? When is it an acid and when is
it a base?
Phase 2
Okay, heres a reaction (Reaction 1).
1. HCl(aq) + NaOH(aq) ! !
NaCl(aq) + H 2O(l)
1. Will you explain what the symbols on the left of the arrow represent?
2. Will you explain what the symbols on the right of the arrow represent?
3. What does the arrow represent?
4. What do the letters in parentheses mean?
5. Will you explain what happens to reactants as they change to the products?
6. Is this an acid-base reaction?
7. What makes this an acid-base reaction?
a. What is the acid?
b. How do you know its an acid?
c. Will you explain how it behaves like an acid as the reactants change to
products?
i. What is a proton? What is H? Are these interchangeable? What is the
difference between a proton and H?
d. What is the base?
e. How do you know its a base?
f. How does it behave like a base as the reactants change to products?
i. Can you have a base that does not have OH?
ii. Can OH be present and not act as a base?
iii. How does Nitrogen act as a base?
iv. If Nitrogen is present is it a base?
8. Would you describe the substances to the right of the arrow as either an acid or a
base?
143

a. Could the products make an acid-base reaction too?

9. Do other acid-base reactions have these features you have identified? H+, OH-
10. Do acid-base reactions form water?
11. Are reactions that form water acid-base reactions?
12. What does neutral or pH=7 mean?
13. What does dissociation mean?
Phase 3
Here are there more reactions (Set 1). Tell me which reactions are acid/base reactions. You can
compare the reactions to each other or talk about each one separately.
Set 1
2. MgCO3 (s) + 2HCl(aq) ! !
MgCl 2 (aq) + H 2O(l) + CO 2 (g)
3. 2NaOH(aq) + H 2SO 4 (aq) ! !

Na 2SO 4 (aq) + 2H 2O(l)
4. Zn(s) + 2HCl(aq) ! !
ZnCl 2 (aq) + H 2 (g)
If student classifies a reaction as an acid-base reaction:
1. How did you know the reaction was an acid/base reaction?

2. What makes it an acid-base reaction?
c. Will you explain how it behaves like an acid as the reactants change to
products?
If student classifies a reaction as a non acid-base reaction:
1. What feature in this reaction makes it clear that the reaction isnt an acid/base
reaction?
2. Is there another type of reaction that this reaction can be classified as?
3. How is this reaction different from an acid-base reaction?
4. Would you classify either of the reactants as an acid or a base?
For all reactions:
1. Explain what happens to the reactants as they change to the products.

144

2. Would you describe any of the products as either an acid or a base? Could the
products make an acid/base reaction too?
3. How did you chose which was the conjugate base and which was the conjugate acid?
4. What is the difference between the reactions that are acid-base reactions and the
reactions that are not?
5. Are there any similarities between the acid-base reactions?
6. Are there any differences between the acid-base reactions?
7. Are there any similarities between the non acid-base reactions?
Here are there more reactions (Set 2). Tell me which reactions are acid/base reactions. You can
compare the reactions to each other or talk about each one separately.
Set 2
5. HNO3 (aq) + NH 3 (aq) ! !
NH 4 NO3 (aq)
6. CH 4 (g) + 2O 2 (g) ! !
CO 2 (g) + 2H 2O(g)
7. CoCl 2 (aq) + Na 2CO3 (aq) ! !


c. Will you explain how it behaves like an acid as the reactants change to products?
reaction?
145

For all reactions:

Here are there more reactions (Set 3). Tell me which reactions are acid/base
reactions. You can compare the reactions to each other or talk about each one
separately.
Set 3
H
H N H H N H
C C C C
8. H Br (g) + (aq) Br (s)
C C C C
H C H H C H
H H
O O
OH ONa
OH H OH
OH H OH

c. Will you explain how it behaves like an acid as the reactants change to products?
146

reaction?
For all reactions:

Comparison Questions
1. Looking over all the reactions, are there any other comparisons you want to make
about these acid/base reactions?
2. Are there any other comparisons you want to make about the reactions that are not
acid/base reactions?
3. Are there any similarities between the acid-base reactions and non acid-base
reactions?
4. Are there any differences between the acid-base reactions and the non acid-base
reactions?
Phase 4
I am going to give you the products for three more reactions. Will you give me a reaction that
would give these products? You can start with any of the three reactions. When you feel like
telling me something about the reactions go ahead.
11. __________+ __________ ! !

KNO3 (aq) + H 2O(l)
12. __________+ __________ ! !

NH 4Cl(aq)
F H
13. __________+ __________ ! !

F Al N H (aq)
F H
147

1. Whats happening as the reactants change to the products?

2. Are these acid-base reactions?
3. What are the acids? What are the bases?
4. What made you choose these reactants?
5. Are there any other substances that would give that product?
6. How did you know there was no acid or base that gave the product?
7. Would you classify either of the reactants as an acid or base?
8. Have you ever heard of Lewis acids or bases?
148

Appendix C- Institutional Review Board for Human

Subjects Research Approval
149

150

151

152

Appendix D- Instructor Information and Consent Forms
Instructor Information Form
My name is Jana Jensen and I am in the chemical education graduate program at Miami
University. I am interested in researching what students understand about acid-base reactions.
I will interview students in a semi-structured format with four phases. The first phase will
be an open-ended question asking students to relate what they know about acid-base reactions. In
the second phase students will be asked to talk about a common acid-base reaction that will be
provided. The third phase will three sets of three reactions in which students will be asked to
classify which reactions are acid-base reactions and why. In the final phase students will be
given the products of an acid-base reaction and asked which acid and base will cause the
reaction.
All research participation will be voluntary. Students will not be compensated in any
form of grade or points for the research. This research will first be approved by the Miami
University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Thank you for your time. Feel free to contact me or
my advisor. If you have any further questions about the research, you may also contact the
Miami University Office for the Advancement of Research and Scholarship (OARS).
Sincerely,
Jana Jensen Stacey Lowery Bretz OARS

Graduate Student Professor of Chemistry Miami University
Miami University Miami University 102 Roudebush Hall
Dept. of Chem. And Biochem. Dept. of Chem. And Biochem. Oxford, OH 45056
701 East High Street 701 East High Street (513) 529-3734
Oxford, OH 45056 Oxford, OH 45056
jensenjd@muohio.edu bretzsl@muohio.edu
(513) 529-5721 (513) 529-3731
153

154

155

156

157

Appendix E- Student Demographic Survey
We are conducting a research project that we hope will allow us to improve on

difficulties that students face when learning about organic chemistry. You will be asked to take
part in an interview on acids and bases that will last approximately 60 minutes. The interview
will take place at a mutually convenient time during this semester. During the interview, your
responses will be audio recorded. Your participation in this research is strictly voluntary and will
not affect your grade in CHM 141/142/241/242/720 in any way. Depending on the number of
volunteers for these studies, it may not be possible to interview all volunteers, in which case a
sample will be chosen.
If you do not wish to participate in a research project, please leave this form blank.
If you are willing to participate in a research project, please complete the information
below.
1. Name: ___________________________ E-mail address: __________________________
2. I would best describe myself as (check only one):

____ Freshman ____Sophomore ____ Junior ____ Senior ____Graduate Student
3. What is your gender?

____ Male ____ Female
4. What is your race/ethnicity?
____ African American/ Black
____ American Indian/ Alaska Native
____ Asian/ Pacific Islander
____ Hispanic
____ Caucasian/ White
____ Other (please specify):
_______________________________________________________
5. What is your major? ____________________________
6. What previous chemistry classes have you taken in college or high school and what grade did
you earn in each?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE PLACE THIS FORM IN THE DESIGNATED ENVELOPE
158

Appendix F- Student Information and Consent Forms
Student Information Form
Dear Student,
My name is Jana Jensen and I am a graduate student at Miami University. My research is

in chemistry education and I am interested in learning more about how students understand acid-
base reactions.
I am looking for students to participate in an interview. The interview will last about sixty
minutes and we will discuss acid-base reactions.
You may choose not to answer any question I ask. Also, you can stop participation in the
research at any time.
I will use audio and videotape to collect data in the interviews. All data will be kept
confidential through fake names. Only my research advisor and I will have access to your
identity in the study. Your professor will not know if you participate or do not participate.
Your instructor and the Miami University Institutional Review Board (IRB) have
approved my research. Thank you for your time; feel free to contact me at jensenjd@muohio.edu
or room 348 of the Hughes Building. If you have any questions during the research you may
contact the Advancement of Research and Scholarship at (513) 529-3734.
Sincerely,
Jana Jensen Stacey Lowery Bretz OARS

Graduate Student Professor of Chemistry Miami University
Miami University Miami University 102 Roudebush Hall
Dept. of Chem. And Biochem. Dept. of Chem. And Biochem. Oxford, OH 45056
701 East High Street 701 East High Street (513) 529-3734
Oxford, OH 45056 Oxford, OH 45056
jensenjd@muohio.edu bretzsl@muohio.edu
(513) 529-5721 (513) 529-3731
159

Student Consent Form
I understand that I am participating in an interview about acid-base reactions. I

understand that the interview will take approximately 60 minutes. I understand that the
researcher is interested in what I think about acid-base reactions and will not correct me if
something I say is incorrect. I also understand that head nodding and silence does not mean that
the researcher is agreeing or disagreeing with what I say.
I understand that a pseudonym will be used instead of my real name in all reports from
the interviews. I understand that I am a volunteer and that I can choose to discontinue my
participation in the research project at any time. I also understand that I can choose to not
understand a question if I do not want to. My withdrawal from this project would not affect my
grade. My professor will not know if I participate in this research project or not.
I understand that I may be asked to review the findings from the interview. I give my
permission to be audio and video recorded. I understand that this will aid the researcher in
accurately reviewing my interview. It is okay with me that the recordings will be kept until 2020
in which they will be destroyed. I understand that the research may be presented in articles and
conferences.
I have had the opportunity to ask for clarification and that all questions have been
answered to my satisfaction. By signing below I agree to participate in the research and that I am
at least 18 years old.
If I have any questions I can contact Jana Jensen in room 348 of Hughes Laboratories or
through email at jensenjd@muohio.edu. If I have any questions about my rights as a human
subject, I can contact the Office for Advancement of Research and Scholarship at (513) 529-
3731 or humansubjects@muohio.edu.
Research Participant Date
Researcher Date
160

Appendix G- Information and Consent Forms for Parents of

High School Students
Dear Parent/Guardian,
My name is Stacey Lowery Bretz and I am a Professor of Chemistry at Miami

University. Several of my graduate students are pursuing a Ph.D. degree in Chemistry
Education. In order to complete the degree, they are conducting research regarding how
students think about chemistry concepts that are part of their curriculum at Talawanda.
Your son/daughters teacher has agreed to allow my graduate students to interview student
volunteers from her classroom. I would like your permission for your child to be
interviewed.
I would like to individually interview your child during the end of the 2009-2010
school year, for about 30 50 minutes. Your childs participation is completely voluntary.
Your childs grades will neither be positively or negatively influenced for either
participating or not participating in this research. Interviews will be scheduled during the
school day such that your child will not miss any instructional time. The interviews will be
both audio and video recorded. Video clips of your child may be used in presentations of
this research; however, no additional identifying information will be linked to the video
clips. Your child and your childs school will be referred to solely by pseudonyms. You
may review a copy of the interview questions upon request. This research been approved
by the Miami University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Ms. Vicki Brunn, Principal
of Talawanda High School. All data collected will be kept confidential and stored in a
locked filing cabinet in my offices at Miami University (Hughes Hall, Rooms 348, 363, &
369 Hughes). Pseudonyms will be used to protect the identity of your child in any
discussion or presentation regarding my research. Only my graduate students and I will be
able to connect the identity of your child with the pseudonym.
I would appreciate you taking the time to discuss this letter with your son/daughter and
complete the Consent Form if your son/daughter is willing to participate in this research.
Attached are two copies of the Consent Form (one for you to return to your childs teacher
and one for you to keep). Please return the Consent Form by Monday, May 10, 2010.
Thank you for your time and your support of my research. Please feel free to contact me if
you have any questions regarding this research or the Miami University Office for the
Advancement of Research and Scholarship (OARS) if you have any questions regarding
this research.
Sincerely,
Dr. Stacey Lowery Bretz OARS

Professor of Chemistry Miami University
Miami University 102 Roudebush Hall
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Oxford, OH 45056
701 East High Street, Oxford, Ohio 45056 513-529-3600
bretzsl@muohio.edu
(513) 529-3731
161

Parent Consent Form
There are two copies of the Consent Form (one for you to return to your childs teacher and one for
you to keep). Please return the bottom of this Consent Form by Monday, May 10, 2010.
I understand the research study described by Dr. Bretz and have been given a copy of the description of
this research. I understand that my son/daughter will be asked to provide verbal assent to participate in
this research and may discontinue the research at any time without consequence. I am aware that the
interviews will be video and audio taped and that my child will not be identified in any recordings used in
presentations and discussions of this research. I agree to allow my son/daughter to volunteer to participate
in this research.
_____________________________________
Name of Student (please print)
_____________________________________
Name of Parent/Guardian (please print)
Relationship to student (circle one)

Mother / Father / Guardian / Other (please specify below)
_____________________________________
Signature of Parent/Guardian Date
KEEP THE TOP HALF OF THIS FOR YOUR REFERENCE

______________________________________________________________________________
RETURN THE BOTTOM HALF OF THIS TO YOUR CHILDS TEACHER BY MAY 10, 2010
I understand the research study described by Dr. Stacey Lowery Bretz and have been given a copy of
the description of this research. I understand that my son/daughter will be asked to provide verbal assent
to participate in this research and may discontinue the research at any time without consequence. I am
aware that the interviews will be video and audio taped and that my child will not be identified in any
recordings used in presentations and discussions of this research. I agree to allow my son/daughter to
volunteer to participate in this research.
_____________________________________
Name of Student (please print)
_____________________________________
Name of Parent/Guardian (please print)
Relationship to student (circle one)

Mother / Father / Guardian / Other (please specify below)
_____________________________________
Signature of Parent/Guardian Date
162

Appendix H- Informed Assent Script for Student

Participants
Hi [Students Name],
Thank you for volunteering to participate in my research. My name is Jana, and I go to

school at Miami University. I am interested in high school students ideas about chemistry and
that is why I want to talk with you. Your [mom/dad/guardian] has given you permission to talk to
me. I am going to ask you some questions before we begin to make sure you understand what
you are agreeing to and to make sure you understand the interview process.
To start, I have brought with me this tape recorder and this video camera to record our
interview. If it is ok with you, Id like to turn them on and place them over here on the table.
[Indicate a spot out of the way, but still close enough to catch the conversation.] Can I turn on
the recorders? [If yes, turn on the recorder.] Do you agree to allow me to record our discussions?
Do you understand that you may ask me to turn off the recorder at any time and that I will turn it
off without asking any questions?
[If assent is not given and the student wishes to stop the interview:] Thats ok. We can
stop the interview here. I am glad I got to meet you and I thank you for showing interest in my
research. Lets go back to class.
[If assent is given:] Ok, good. Next I want to tell you that I am interested in YOUR ideas.
The questions I have are meant to start a discussion between us so that I can learn about your
ideas. If you do not understand a question, you should tell me and ask me to ask the question in
another way. Also, if you do not want to answer a question, you can tell me and I will move on
to the next question. Do you understand that you can ask me any questions at any time and that
you do not have to answer any question that you do not want to answer?
[If assent is not given and the student wishes to stop the interview:] Thats ok. We can
stop here. I am glad I got to meet you and I thank you for showing interest in my research. Lets
go back to class.
[If assent is given:] Ok, good. Lastly, I will not use your name when I discuss my
research. Do you understand that no one will be able to know what YOU specifically told me?
Even your teacher wont know, so he/she cant hurt or improve your grade. Do you agree to
continue to participate in this research?
[If assent is not given:] Thats ok. It was nice meeting you and I thank you for showing
interest in my research. Lets go back to class.
[If assent is given:] Ok, great. Now lets get started.
163

Appendix I- Participant Descriptions
Student Course Ethnicity Gender Major Year in Previous

Pseudonym School Chemistry
Course
Grades
Amanda GC2 African F Health & Freshman A/C
International
Studies
Ashley GC1 Caucasian/ F Zoology Freshman -
White
Blake AP - M - - -
Chan GC1 Caucasian/ M Physics Sophomore A
White
Chelsea Grad Asian/Pacific F - - -
Islander
Connor Grad Asian/Pacific M - - -
Islander
David AP - M - - -
Elena OC2 Caucasian/ F Chemical Sophomore A/B
White Engineering
Emily Grad African F - - -
American/
Black
Ethan OC2 Caucasian/ M Chemical Sophomore A/B
White Engineering
Evan OC1 Caucasian/ M Creative Sophomore B
White Writing
Philosophy
George Grad Asian/Pacific M - - -
Islander
Jack GC2 Caucasian/ M Geology Senior A
White Latin
Jacob GC2 Caucasian/ M Chemistry Freshman A/B/D
White Education
Jamie GC1 Caucasian/ F Zoology Freshman A
White
Janet GC2 Caucasian/ F Exercise Sophomore A/B/C
White Science
Jenny GC1 African F Chemistry Freshman B
American/
Black
Jon GC2 Caucasian/ M Bioengineering Freshman A
White
164

Kate GC1 Caucasian/ F Biochemistry Freshman B

White
Kayla OC1 Caucasian/ F Zoology Sophomore A/B
White
Kit Grad Caucasian/ M - - -
White
Michael OC1 Caucasian/ M Earth Science Junior A
White & Chemistry
Education
Naomi OC2 Caucasian/ F Microbiology Sophomore A/B
White
Paul Grad Asian/Pacific M - - -
Islander
Pete AP - M - - -
Rachel Grad Asian/Pacific F - - -
Islander
Ray OC1 Caucasian/ M Zoology Junior A/B
White
Reyna OC1 Caucasian/ F Earth Science Sophomore A/B/C
White & Chemistry
Education
Ryan AP - M - - -
Rikkie AP - F - - -
Terra GC2 Caucasian/ F Microbiology/ Sophomore A/B
White Clinical Lab
Science
Tracy OC2 Caucasian/ F Zoology Junior B
White
Van AP - M - - -
Viola AP - F - - -
165

Appendix J- Transcript of Student Interview
Pseudonym for interviewee: Ashley

Course: General Chemistry 1
Name of interviewer: Jana
Date of interview: 12/2/10
Setting: Transcription room Hughes 363
Interviewer Today I would like to talk about acid-base reactions, take your
time and start thinking about these reactions, and what do you
think of when you hear the words acid-base reactions, when
you feel like telling me something you can.
Interviewer Today I would like to talk about acid-base reactions, take your time
and start thinking about these reactions, and what do you think of
when you hear the words acid-base reactions, when you feel like
telling me something you can.
Ashley Oh gosh, um like just anything in general that I think of? Well um I
think of um HCl because we worked with that a lot, and um in my
high school, during my A.P. chem. class and so I think of that. I
dont know why, we do a lot of reactions with that.
Interviewer Do you mean in lab you did a lot reactions or just in class?
Ashley It was, um our class was both like, it was like we did both in one
day. And um and so we talked about it a lot and we worked with it
in lab a lot.
Interviewer And how can you identify if something is an acid-base reaction?
Ashley Um if it has the acid and base reacting, if its um the acid typically
has um an H in it and the base typically has an OH in it.
Interviewer Okay and then um so what has to be present for an acid-base to
occur? Or what substances have to be present.
Ashley The acid, the base and hmmI dont know I feel like when its
yielding something or something involved with that, but I cant
exactly remember.
Interviewer Okay so um just talking about acids, what is an acid? Or how do
you know if something is an acid?
Ashley Um it has a pH lower than 7, yeah and um it typically has hydrogen
in it and its typically, well theres weak and theres strong acids
uh, hmmtypically I think of it, first off like you think of being
really corrosive and yeah dangerous.
Interviewer And whats a base?
Ashley Um it has hydroxide in it and theres also strong and weak with
those and I typically think of those as the more, like not as
corrosive as the acid ones and then um it has a pH higher than 7.
Interviewer Okay and you mentioned hydroxide, can you tell me a little bit
more about what you mean by that?
Ashley Um its oxygen and hydrogen and um it has a negative charge,
166

negative one charge and yeah thats all I can think of.
Interviewer And then you talked a little bit about acids and bases and whether
or not theyre strong or weak and whats the difference between the
two?
Ashley Umstrong onesI feel like theres something about how if
theyre in a reaction, the strong ones, like even if you have a strong
base and like a weak acid its going to be a more basic product or
something, its like depends on like what the products are going to
be or something like that I cant remember.
Interviewer Okay um and then can you give me like examples of like strong
acids or weak acids or strong bases?
Ashley HCl is a strong acid um I fell like H2SO4 is a weak acid, NaOH
was a base, I would say probably weak, I dont really know I cant
remember.
Interviewer And how did you determine from the ones that its a strong and
weak?
Ashley I just memorized well I hope if I got it right.
Interviewer Are there reactions that are not acid-base reactions?
Ashley Yeah cause you have like metal and um yeah I dont remember the
exact names, I know these like, you have water displacement and
all those different types like that.
Interviewer And are there substances that arent basic or acidic, like you
mentioned HO and acid?
Ashley Um we have these, we have like metal um yeah you just have like
metals and uh metalloids and um yeah.
Interviewer Okay and then so I have one reaction. You can look at it and then
can you explain what the symbols on the left of the arrow
represent?
Ashley On the left um like, all of it, um those are the um reactants and
theres an acid and a base.
Interviewer And whats the acid and whats the base?
Ashley HCls the acid and NaOH is the base.
Interviewer And then can you explain what the symbols on the right are?
Ashley Uh these are the products, and I think its uh, they yield water
andoh my gosh its on the tip of my tongue, what is that name?
Interviewer What does the arrow represent?
Ashley It yields, the reactants yield the products.
Interviewer And the letters in parentheses?
Ashley Um there a state, like if its a liquid or if its aqueous, or if its a
gas.
Interviewer Okay and whats the difference between aqueous or like liquid or
gas?
Ashley Um aqueous, like if you do net ionic reactions, they can typically
be broken up, like you can, yeah I dont know how to explain it,
like you can break them up into their different ions.
167

Interviewer And so what is a net ionic reaction?

Ashley Its when you, you can take the compound and you can split it up
into its different elements, and um they each have a charge and then
the ones that are split up, sometimes you can um cancel them out,
like if the product has like Cl-, or yeah Cl and the others, the
reactants also has a Cl, you can cancel those and then get the actual
reaction.
Interviewer And in terms of gas and liquid and aqueous and the net ionic
equation, can you do that with all of them?
Ashley No I dont think you can do it with liquids or um gases. I dont
think you can do it with gases either, typically you can do it with
aqueous, just because of the solubility rules.
Interviewer And what do you mean by solubility rules?
Ashley Um if the, certain like elements when put together they cannot be
split up to make the net ionic equation, um they have to stay
together cause theyre not soluble. Im not sure, something like
that.
Interviewer So kind of like some things can be split up and some things cant?
Ashley Yeah
Interviewer And what determines if it can be split up?
Ashley Um if its soluble.
Interviewer Um what does soluble mean?
Ashley Um if it can um if it, I dont remember the exact word, um maybe
theyll fully react in the reaction.
Interviewer Okay and then can you explain what happens to the reactants as
they yield the products?
Ashley They um, theyre broken up and changed into, well not changed but
yeah into the products and um sometimes theres like a residue of
the reactants if some of them are not reacted. And um the one that
fully reacts will be gone, but the one that doesnt, theres going to
be some evidence of it left.
Interviewer And why do they break up or change into the products?
Ashley Um hmm well uh, when theyre put together, they have a, like
thats how they act together, thats how they react and um it just
chemically changes them, yeah.
Interviewer Okay is this an acid-base reaction?
Ashley Yes it is.
Interviewer And what makes it an acid-base reaction?
Ashley Because it has HCl which is an acid and NaOH which is um a base
and then it yields water and something else. Something about solute
I dont remember what it was called but,
Interviewer And so do acid-base reactions form water?
Ashley Um typically they, they typically yield water and then theres
something, theres another thing they yield so yeah.
Interviewer Okay, so kind of like its not going to be water only as a product?
168

Ashley No, theres going to be another compound.

Interviewer And then are all reactions that form water acid-base reactions?
Ashley No
Interviewer Can you give me any examples of one?
Ashley Umwell water displacement ones, Im pretty sure they do, and I
dont know I cant really think of any other, theres tons but I just
cant think of any examples off the top of my head right now.
Interviewer Okay, how did you know HCl was an acid?
Ashley Um because my AP chem. class, we just, I dont know, I just
memorized it.
Interviewer And then what is hydrogen in HCl?
Ashley Theyre elements.
Interviewer And how did you know that NaOH was the base?
Ashley Because I knew that OH, or like a compound with OH are typically
bases and I memorized it basically.
Interviewer And then when HCl and NaOH react together, what is it about HCl
that acts like an acid and what is it about NaOH that makes it act
like a base?
Ashley Um.maybethats a good questions, maybe its because um the,
the work up is strong, cause ones a strong acid ones a weak base,
but that doesnt pertain to anything because it can be weak acids
and strong bases, I dont know.
Interviewer And would you describe in anything in the product as either an acid
or a base?
Ashley No
Interviewer So do all acid-base reactions have these things that youve
identified, like we said OH, and um maybe H?
Ashley Yeah, theres still exceptions if I remember right.
Interviewer And then also water as a product?
Ashley Um water and then the other compound. I cant remember what its
called though.
Interviewer And so what does breaking apart mean?
Ashley Um the in this one, the Cl will react with the Na and they just kind
of, their different elements can swap with each other and just react
with each other and um yeah they separate into their different ions.
Interviewer So do all acid-base reactions have ions?
Ashley Um if they can, if they can separate, like if they are aqueous then
theyre soluble, I dont know of any off the top of my head that
cant.
Interviewer But these ones have ions?
Ashley Yeah these ones do.
Interviewer Okay and can something be both a base or an acid?
Ashley UmIm not sure, probably not, no.
Interviewer And then I have three more reactions, so tell me which reactions
are acid-base reactions, take as much time as you want and then
169

youre welcome to compare them or talk about each separately.

Ashley Um in the middle one, NaOH and H2SO4 is an acid-base reaction
and I dont think the first one, the MgCO or the HCl, I dont think
that is, or in the zinc with the HCl is not an acid-base reaction.
Interviewer Okay and how did you know that the second one is an acid-base
reaction?
Ashley Because it has a base and an acid.
Interviewer Okay, and so what would be the base and what would be the acid?
Ashley The base is NaOH and the acid is the H2SO4.
Interviewer And how did you know NaOH was a base or H2SO4 was an acid?
Ashley Um I just have them memorized for, we had to know them for um
one of our previous tests this year.
Interviewer And then it also has water as a product and something else and so
are there any other things that make it clear that this is an acid-base
reaction?
Ashley Umit I mean the reactants are aqueous and then the products are
the same as the last reaction, or the water is um liquid and then the
other compound is aqueous.
Interviewer Okay, so if they were like gases or solids, would it still be an acid-
base reaction?
Ashley UmI cant think of any that were, like I dont know if I had too
much practice with these, but I dont know too many that were.
Interviewer And can you explain whats going on as the reactants yield the
products, whats taking place?
Ashley Umum like can you repeat the questions?
Interviewer Um can you explain whats happening to the reactants as they
change to the products?
Ashley Okay they separate into their ions and then they react with the
opposite compounds ions, like the OH reacts with the H to make
H2O and um, and the Na reacts with the SO4 to make Na2SO4.
Interviewer Okay and then what is it about NaOH as its changing that makes it
a base?
Ashley UmI dont, hmmas theyre changing um maybethats a good
one, umcause it has the OH which always creates the water, and
theres something about the Na2SO4, like that product in all
reactions, it always takes the, um the Na will take like the first part
of the first compound or the base compound, it will take the first
part of it and it will take the second part of the acid, so its always
the bases first.
Interviewer Okay and same thing for the acid, as its changing, what makes it
act like an acid?
Ashley Um because the Na2SO4, like it takes the SO4 and typically its the
um that compound, to make that it takes um, Im going around in
circles, um it takes the second part of the acid and the H is given to
the H2O and acids have Hs typically.
170

Interviewer And would you describe either of the products as acids or bases?
Ashley No
Interviewer Can you have a base that doesnt have OH?
Ashley Um, I think it was an exception, Im pretty sure there was, I just
cant remember what it was.
Interviewer And can OH be present and not act as a base?
Ashley Yes, I know that, I cant think of any examples, but yeah.
Interviewer And then the same thing with the first and the third reaction, how
did you know that they werent acid-base reactions?
Ashley Um they both have HCl, which is an acid, but the other reactant
isnt a base and um I know that like with the first one, MgCO3, it
cant be base, Im pretty sure theres exceptions to the whole like if
it has an OH thing, but like this one definitely, I know its not a
base, and then with the third one um Zn, its not even, its not even
a compound so it cant be an acid-base reaction.
Interviewer Okay and then you said MgCO3 is for sure not a base and so how
did you know that?
Ashley Um because of not having an OH and also like I dont remember it
from the exceptions or anything.
Interviewer And then same thing with Zn, its not a compound, so would
something have to be a compound to be a base?
Ashley Yes
Interviewer And what do you mean by a compound?
Ashley Two elements together.
Interviewer And it has to be a compound because?
Ashley In order to make it a base, like a base has to have two elements in
it. Well more than two since it has OH, yeah anyway um yeah so it
has to have at least like OH and then something else, or if its an
exception then no OH, but yeah.
Interviewer Okay and whats happening in the first reaction as the reactants
change to the products?
Ashley Um, the, it reacts a little differently, the O from the, or one of the
Os from the MgCO3 is um reacted with the H in the HCl to make
H2O, and then the Mg is um reacting with Cl to make MgCl2 and
then theres still an extra CO2 left over.
Interviewer So in this one H2O is produced and you kind of mentioned O from
MgCO3 and Hs from HCl create that and so how is that different
from the second reaction?
Ashley Um there are three products instead of two and um they both like
react, like on the second one the um two compounds react with
each other and they make two products with this one, like theres
some left over from one of the reactants, which is a CO2.
Interviewer And um so then can an acid-base reaction have more than two
products?
Ashley Not that I know of, maybe theres an exception, I dont really know
171

of any.
Interviewer And then in the third reaction as those are yielding the products,
whats going on?
Ashley Its a single replacement reaction, where it basically just switches
with the, well in this case the H, so it will become ZnCl instead of
HCl and then theres the left over of the H since that was replaced.
Interviewer And can you mention again how you knew these are not acid-base
reactions?
Ashley Um with the first one, it doesnt have a base and um it also is a
solid, the MgCO3s a solid and so it wouldnt be able to react fully,
and um then with the third one um the Zn is just an element and not
a compound so it doesnt make it a base.
Interviewer And are there any important similarities or differences between the
three reactions? Or the reaction that is one?
Ashley Well the first and the third one both contain HCl, and the first and
second one both yield H2O, but as for like all three of them, theres
not one I can think of or that I can see, but two of them will have
similarities.
Interviewer And then heres pretty much the same thing. So would you say that
any of these are acid-base reactions?
Ashley Um I think the first one is. I dont know Im still ify about it, but I
think I remember the NH3 being a base and like the HNO3 being
an acid, which is kind of um opposite, like one of the exceptions
because the base doesnt have an OH in it and the acid has a O and
an H, but theyre not like, theyre not together soit doesnt yield
water, thats another thing Im ify about, I always thought they did,
but maybe Im wrong.
Interviewer Okay and so with HNO3, you said its probably an acid, and then
you also mentioned it has O and it has H in it, and so how did you
know it wasnt a base?
Ashley Because typically the OH is together and also um the O in this case
is part of NO3 and so this makes um I think its like nitrous acid or
something like that, nitrous and nitric.
Interviewer And then NH3 you said might be a base and how did you know that
was a base?
Ashley It was one of the exceptions I remember I think. And its ammonia,
and cause its yeah, I think its an exception to the rule.
Interviewer And then since NH3, same thing with the HNO3 having O and H,
with NH3 how did you know even though it has hydrogens its not
an acid?
Ashley Um cause I memorized I think, I dont know.
Interviewer And then what happens as the reactants change to the products?
Ashley It just combines together, it doesnt form water also, thats why Im
still ify about that, I dont know.
Interviewer And with the HNO3 what makes it act like an acid as its changing?
172

Ashley Um because its being added to um the NH3, I dont know um, I
dont know, Im not sure.
Interviewer And what about NH3 as a base, since its combining, what about it
makes it act like a base?
Ashley Um because its like in the compound, like the reactant or the
product its like, you know it takes the, it takes the cation of the
element, thats the word I was looking for earlier.
Interviewer Okay what do you mean by the cation?
Ashley Um because there, in a compound theres an anion and a cation and
the cation is a positive charge and the anion is a negative charge
and they have to, unless theres an extra charge given to it, like a
negative after it or something, um they have to balance each other
out in order to be able to exist together.
Interviewer Okay and so you were saying that NH3 was the cation?
Ashley Yeah for this, the product yeah.
Interviewer And how did you know it was the cation?
Ashley Because the NO3 takes the anion position in this, in the reactant
and it also has a negative charge, I cant remember negative one
charge or something.
Interviewer And so do bases always make the cation, like NH3 in this one?
Ashley Um typically if I remember correctly, it typically makes the cation.
Interviewer And so would you say that NH3 as an acid is making an anion or?
Ashley It like takes the, like once it goes through the reaction, it the
product is um, the part it takes in the compound is the anion.
Interviewer And then I noticed NO3 and NO3 are present right here and right
here, and then NH3 is here and that H is also here, so with the
cation and anion, what is forming it that way? I was just curious
whats going on in the reaction
Ashley Umhm umI think the, I dont know, Im totally stumped.
Interviewer And then in the second reaction, is that an acid-base reaction?
Ashley No
Interviewer And what feature in this reaction makes it clear that the reaction
isnt an acid-base reaction?
Ashley I dont think CH4 is an acid or base, at least I dont remember it
being acid or base and then O2 um is just an element, its not, I
mean theres two of it so I guess it makes a compound I guess, but
its by itself, it doesnt have another element with it.
Interviewer And CH4 has hydrogens and so how did you know it wasnt an
acid?
Ashley Um typically I think of, for acids, I dont know if Im right, but the
H is in the front and also I just dont remember it being an acid
from the list that we memorized.
Interviewer Okay and then would you say the third reaction is an acid-base
reaction?
Ashley No
173

Interviewer Howd you know, or what makes this not an acid-base reaction?
Ashley Um because it doesnt have a base, theres no base, but like one of
the compounds would have to have like OH or H and if that was the
case, then theyd still have to, I dont know I just dont remember
them being in like the exceptions or anything.
Interviewer Okay, and then in the second reaction, waters formed and we kind
of talked about water doesnt have to be, if it is formed its not
necessarily an acid-base reaction?
Ashley Yeah it could be like in this case single replacement and um I think
so.
Interviewer And can you talk a little bit more about whats going on in the
reaction as they change.
Ashley Well um one of the Os goes, I dont know if its a single
replacement, but anyways um one of the Os goes and reacts with
the C and the other O reacts with the H to form H2O and CO2 and
um theres just a split between the two of the CH4.
Interviewer And then the same thing with the third reaction, whats going on in
that reaction?
Ashley This is um, yeah its a double replacement reaction, and so the Co
and the CO3 um all of the different compounds will react together,
and the Na from the NaCO3 and the Cl will react together to make
NaCl.
Interviewer And are there any of the products that are acids or bases?
Ashley I dont think so.
Interviewer And so in the first one, how does, is it nitrogen that acts as a base or
just kind of ammonia as a whole?
Ashley I think its ammonia as a whole.
Interviewer Are there other things that have nitrogen that act as base?
Ashley UmI think so. I cant think of anything right now, but Im sure
there are.
Interviewer Is everything that has nitrogen act like a base?
Ashley No because there are acids that have N in them.
Interviewer And are there any similarities between the reactions that you said
are acid-base reactions, like this one and I think you said this one?
Ashley Um theyre kind of different, but the HNO3 one does not yield
H2O um, but the other compound like thats formed kind of react
the same in a way, but not completely.
Interviewer And are there any important similarities?
Ashley Umimportant similarities, just how the products are formed and
that like the acid and base like react together to make the other
compound thats not an acid or a base.
Interviewer Okay and then with the acid-base reactions, are there any
similarities between those with the non acid-base reactions?
Ashley Umwell the HNO3 and the NH3, its kind of different from all of
them, and then the NaOH and the H2SO4 it kind of, it kind of acts
174

like the CoCl2 and the Na2CO3 except for that it doesnt yield like
the CoCl2 doesnt yield water and uh yeah if the O2 was a, or the
CH4 was an acid and the O2 was a compound or something, it kind
of reacts the same way with yielding the H2O and then yeah the,
different elements reacting together to make the other compound.
Interviewer And so in the ones that produce H2O, what are the differences
between the acid-base reactions and the non acid-base reactions?
Ashley Um okay...okay what was the difference between, what did you say
again?
Interviewer All the reactions that make water, this one, this one, this one and
this one, all that have water as a product, whats the difference
between the reactions that are acid-base reactions and the ones that
are not.
Ashley Umthe only one thats really kind of different I think is that um
the CH4 and the 2O2, its, the O2 is um not like, it doesnt have
two different elements in it like the other ones do. And then the
MgCO3 has three products and like these are similar though, so the
acid-base ones are kind of sticking to the same formula I guess,
but the other ones arent, they have some differences.
Interviewer Kind of as they change theyre not staying together as much?
Ashley Yeah, like the CO2 is the extra of this, of the MgCO3 reaction, um
which like, normally if that happens with, I dont know if it
happens with acid-base reactions.
Interviewer So with acid-base reactions, kind of like everything kind of reacts
together, but then in other ones its kind of like somethings left
over and then.
Ashley Yeah, or like theres different rules to them, I cant remember.
Interviewer Then theres this one and you can just do the same thing. Are any
of these acid-base reactions?
Ashley UmI think maybe this one would be another oneIm just not
sure about this being an acidyeah.
Interviewer So in the first reaction can you describe whats taking place?
Ashley Um well the H on the HBr is um, it like goes where the loan pair on
the N is, and um then the Br is just left over from that. Yeah.
Interviewer And so are there any acids or bases in this reaction?
Ashley I dont think so. HBr, HBrs an acid. I dont think the other ones a
base.
Interviewer So would you say this is an acid-base reaction?
Ashley No probably not.
Interviewer And what features in this reaction made it clear that it wasnt an
acid-base reaction?
Ashley Um because I know the ones an acid, but I dont think youd have a
base.
Interviewer Okay and so HBr is an acid and then NCH is not a base, and can
you describe the product and how it forms? Or if its an acid or
175

base or anything.
Ashley Um I dont know exactly like if its an acid or base that it forms,
Im not really sure, but um it actually combines both of the
compounds together, and they balance each other out cause they
have the different charges, and there the same change so this is like
one element, well not element, but like this the kind of ion itd
make so it counts as one instead of like all those different ones, its
considered just the one and um for that to happen the H had to take
the place above the N.
Interviewer Okay and then with ammonia, we said that was an exception, but in
this one it has nitrogen, but maybe its just really one of the
exceptions?
Ashley Yeah, I just dont remember it being an exception.
Interviewer And then in the second one can you describe whats taking place in
the reaction as the reactants yield the products?
Ashley Um the, uh this one might be one too, did I say, yeah I said this one
was, sorry I forgot. Well the H in the first compound, it reacts with
the OH of the NaOH to make H2O and um the Na of the NaOH
reacts with the H3C2O2 or something to make the other product.
Interviewer Okay and so are there any acids or bases in this reaction?
Ashley Um NaOH is a base and then its not really positive, but I think that
the H3C2O2 thingamajigar is um an acid.
Interviewer Okay and how did you decide that maybe it was an acid?
Ashley Um because Im not really positive but it kind of seems like its um
reacting to make together to make an acid-base because it forms the
H2O and the other compound and like the cation of the one will
match with the anion of the other and like it just all seem to
Interviewer And so which hydrogen in this reacts with the NaOH?
Ashley The one with the O right here.
Interviewer And how did you decide that this wasnt a base since it has OH?
Ashley UmI dont know, I just kind of just thought it was, wasnt the
base.
Interviewer Okay and one of the things is that is has water, and thats kind of
how we knew maybe it could be an acid-base reaction?
Ashley Yeah
Interviewer And in the third one, whats going on?
Ashley Um theOH of the H2O um its added to the first compound and
then theres an H left over after that.
Interviewer And are there any acids or bases in this reaction?
Ashley I dont think so, Im not really, I dont think so.
Interviewer So would you say this is an acid-base reaction?
Ashley Um no
Interviewer And can any of the products in these of them act like acid-base
reactions like if we went the other way?
Ashley Um probably not since the H is by itself on the third one and um
176

but it does yield H2O, but the rest of it doesnt add up, and then this
one wouldnt go, like wouldnt be an acid-base going the other way
because it has H2O and then it forms the other thing, typically it
forms the H2O and then the top one um it would be the acid-base
going the other way, well this one doesnt have another, never
mind.
Interviewer Okay, so kind of some of the things that weve come across is that
H would be present for an acid and OH would be present for a base,
unless theres like an exception, which we noticed ammonia was,
and then water would be a product, did we decide if all acid-base
reactions have water as a product along with something else?
Ashley Mostly, like most the time I think, but exceptions, most them Ive
seen.
Interviewer And would this kind of be an exception?
Ashley I think so.
Interviewer NH4NO3 being formed, but not really water?
Ashley Yeah
Interviewer Okay and then so are there any other similarities, so we said this
one is not, and this one is not, but this one is an acid-base reaction?
Are there any similarities between that one and the other acid-base
reactions?
Ashley Um it yields water and the other product is a combination of the um
cation from the base and the anion from the acid and the reactants
are aqueous and then the products, well the water is liquid and the
other ones aqueous, its the same throughout them all, except for
the exception one cause of the water.
Interviewer And then are there any differences?
Ashley Um the arrow in this one is going both ways, and then um
Interviewer And then I have one more paper, will you tell me reactions that
give these products?
Ashley Um I guess that would be KOH and HNO3. Yeah.
Interviewer And is this an acid-base reaction.
Ashley I think so, if I remember correctly I think KOH is a base.
Interviewer And what made you choose those reactants?
Ashley Um because I just took the cation in the KNO3 with the anion of
um H2O which is OH and then I did the same thing vice versa with
HNO3.
Interviewer And then can you do the second one?
Ashley Um maybe HCl and NH3.
Interviewer And would you say this is an acid-base reaction?
Ashley It looks very similar to this so Id say it is. And then this one is
difficult. Um, this one might be the NH3, and I guess this would
have to be AlF3.
Interviewer And would you say this is an acid-base reaction?
Ashley Um no.
177

Interviewer Are there any acids or bases in the reaction?

Ashley NH3 is a base.
Interviewer And have you ever heard of Lewis acids and bases?
Ashley Sounds familiar but I dont remember what it is.
Interviewer Okay and do you have any questions for me?
Ashley No I dont think so.
178

Appendix K- Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory
Name (please print) _______________________________________________________

Major___________________________________________________________________
ACID-BASE REACTIONS CONCEPT INVENTORY

Directions: Choose one BEST answer for each question.
Your teacher will receive a summary of how all the students in your class answer these
questions. Your individual responses will remain anonymous. Your teacher will not know how
you answered each question, nor how many questions you answered correctly.
We would like to use your answers as part of a research project here at Miami University. Again,
all your answers will remain anonymous. If you are willing to give us permission to use your
answers as part of our research, please fill in FORM 1 in the lower right hand corner of the scan-
tron form. If you do not want us to use your answers as part of our research, please fill in FORM
2 in the lower right hand corner of the scantron. Thank you very much.

H 2SO 4 (aq) + 2NaOH(aq) ! !
Na 2SO 4 (aq) + 2H 2O(l)
A) Yes
B) No
A) NaOH did not become NaO- or NaOH2+. It changed into Na2SO4

B) H+ and OH- combined
C) Na2SO4 is a base and H2O is an acid
D) there is not an equilibrium arrow
179


H
H N H H N H
C C C C
H Br (g) + (aq) Br (s)
C C C C
H C H H C H
H H
A) Yes
B) No
A) there is only one product. There is no conjugate acid or conjugate base

B) HBr is a gas
H N H
C C
C) H
C
C
C
H
is not a base
H
H N H
C C
D) H
C
C
C
H
donates an electron pair to H+
H

ZnCl 2 (aq) + H 2 (g)
A) Yes
B) No
A) a proton is donated and accepted

B) in the reverse direction, H2 can donate a proton to ZnCl2
C) one electron is transferred to H+
D) Cl- donates an electron pair to Zn
180


HNO3 (aq) + NH 3 (aq) ! !
NH 4 NO3 (aq)
A) Yes
B) No
A) HNO3 bonds to NH3 to form one product

B) there is only one product. There is no conjugate acid or conjugate base
C) a proton is donated and accepted
D) the product will dissociate into spectator ions

CH 4 (g) + 2O 2 (g) ! !
CO 2 (g) + 2H 2O(g)
A) Yes
B) No
A) CH4 donates a proton to O2

B) CH4 is oxidized
C) the reactants are gases
D) water is produced
181


A) Yes
B) No
A) a solid is formed
B) CO32- donates an electron pair to Co2+
C) NaCl is produced
D) an electron pair is not donated
O O
CH3 C (aq) + NaOH (aq) CH3 C (l)
OH ONa
A) Yes
B) No
A) the cations and anions switch places

B) a proton and hydroxide combine to produce water
C) both reactants have hydroxide present
O
D) Hydrogen from CH3 in CH3 C is transferred to NaOH
OH
182

OH H OH
HO B (aq) + O (l) HO B OH (aq) + H (l)
OH H OH
A) Yes
B) No
OH
A) HO B has three OH groups
OH
B) water is neutral
C) an electron pair is donated
D) in the reverse direction, a proton is donated

HCN(aq) + H 2O(l) H 3O+ (aq) + CN (aq)
A) Yes
B) No
A) water is neutral
B) there are no acids or bases in the reactants and products
C) H2O is an acid because it accepts a proton to become H3O+, and
HCN is a base because it donates a proton to become CN-
D) H2O is a base because it accepts a proton to become H3O+, and
HCN is an acid because it donates a proton to become CN-
183


KOH(aq) + HNO3 (aq) ! !
KNO3 (aq) + H 2O(l)
A) Yes
B) No
20) I chose my answer to question 19 because HNO3 and KOH _________________, and
H+ and OH- _________________, and K+ and NO 3 _________________.
A) . dissociate .combine to form water .combine to form bonds

B) . dissociate .remain in solution as ions .remain in solution as ions
C) . dissociate .combine to form water .remain in solution as ions
D) HNO3 and KOH do not dissociate. They switch cations.

HCl(aq) + NH 3 (aq) ! !
NH 4Cl(aq)
A) Yes
B) No
A) HCl dissociates and a proton transfers

B) HCl and NH3 dissociate and H+, Cl-, N3+, and 3H- recombine to neutralize charge
C) HCl and NH3 dissociate and H+, Cl-, N3+, and 3H- stay in solution as spectator ions
D) HCl and NH3 do not dissociate. They combine to form a new compound
184

23) A substance always behaves as an acid when it
A) contains hydrogen.
B) creates a conjugate acid.
C) donates a proton.
D) accepts a proton.
A) H is written first in HCl.

B) HCl has just one H while CH4 has four.
C) H is positive in HCl because Cl is negative. H is negative in CH4 because C is positive.
D) The bond between H and Cl in HCl is ionic, while the bond between H and C in CH4 is
covalent.
25) What is the relationship between hydrogen atoms and protons in acid-base reactions?
A) A hydrogen atom has one proton, so it is called a proton.

B) A proton has one less electron than a hydrogen atom.
C) A hydrogen atom can behave as a proton, but a proton does not have to be a hydrogen
atom.
D) A hydrogen atom is positive when it bonds with something negative, so it is called a
proton.
185

26) A substance always behaves as a base when it
A) contains OH.
B) becomes a conjugate base.
C) accepts OH-.
D) when it accepts an H+ ion.
27) PH3 behaves as a base because
A) H is negative and P is positive.

B) it contains more than one hydrogen atom.
C) P has a lone pair of electrons to donate.
D) Hydrogen is present.
28) What determines whether H2O is an acid or base?
A) H2O is an acid if it accepts a proton to become H3O+. H2O is a base if it donates a proton
to become OH-.
B) H2O is an acid when it reacts with a base. H2O is a base when it reacts with an acid.
C) H2O is both an acid and base simultaneously. It is an average of H+ and OH-.
D) H2O is neither an acid nor a base because it is neutral.
186

Appendix L- ABCI Item Distributions

H 2SO 4 (aq) + 2NaOH(aq) ! !
Na 2SO 4 (aq) + 2H 2O(l)
100
80 HS
A) Yes* 60 GC1
40 GC2
B) No
OC1
20
AP
0
Yes No
A) NaOH did not become NaO- or 100

+
NaOH2 . It changed into Na2SO4 80 HS
+ -
B) H and OH combined* 60 GC1
C) Na2SO4 is a base and H2O is an acid 40 GC2
D) there is not an equilibrium arrow 20 OC1
0 AP
A B C D
Question 1 & 2
80
70
60 HS
50 GC1
40
GC2
30
OC1
20
10 AP
0
Yes, A Yes, B Yes, C Yes, D No, A No, B No, C No, D
187


H
H N H H N H
C C C C
H Br (g) + (aq) Br (s)
C C C C
H C H H C H
H H
80
HS
60
GC1
A) Yes* 40
GC2
B) No 20 OC1
0 AP
Yes No
A) there is only one product. There is no 60

50 HS
conjugate acid or conjugate base
40 GC1
B) HBr is a gas
30
GC2
H N H 20
C C
C C
OC1
C) H C H is not a base 10
H AP
0
A B C D
H N H
C C +
D) C C donates an electron pair to H *
H C H
H
Question 3 & 4
50
40 HS
30 GC1
20 GC2
10 OC1
0 AP

188


ZnCl 2 (aq) + H 2 (g)
80
HS
60
GC1
A) Yes 40
GC2
B) No*
20 OC1
0 AP
Yes No
A) a proton is donated and accepted 40
B) in the reverse direction, H2 can donate a HS

30
proton to ZnCl2 GC1
20
GC2
C) one electron is transferred to H+ *
10 OC1
D) Cl- donates an electron pair to Zn
AP
0
A B C D
Question 5 & 6
35
30
25 HS
20 GC1
15 GC2
10 OC1
5 AP
0
189


HNO3 (aq) + NH 3 (aq) ! !
NH 4 NO3 (aq)
80
HS
60
GC1
A) Yes* 40
GC2
B) No
20 OC1
0 AP
Yes No
A) HNO3 bonds to NH3 to form one product 70

60 HS
B) there is only one product. There is no 50
GC1
conjugate acid or conjugate base 40
30 GC2
C) a proton is donated and accepted*
20 OC1
D) the product will dissociate into spectator 10
AP
0
ions
A B C D
Question 7 & 8
70
Percentage of Students
60
50 HS
40
GC1
30
20 GC2
10 OC1
0 AP
Answer Chosen
190


CH 4 (g) + 2O 2 (g) ! !
CO 2 (g) + 2H 2O(g)
100
HS
80
A) Yes GC1
60
B) No* 40 GC2
20 OC1
0 AP
Yes No
A) CH4 donates a proton to O2 60

B) CH4 is oxidized* 50 HS
C) the reactants are gases 40 GC1
30
D) water is produced GC2
20
OC1
10
AP
0
A B C D
Question 9 & 10
50
40
HS
30
GC1
20
GC2
10 OC1
0 AP
Answer Chosen
191


100
HS
80
A) Yes GC1
60
B) No* 40 GC2
20 OC1
0 AP
Yes No
60
A) a solid is formed
50 HS
B) CO32- donates an electron pair to Co2+
40 GC1
C) NaCl is produced 30
GC2
D) an electron pair is not donated* 20
OC1
10
AP
0
A B C D
Question 11 & 12
50
40
HS
30
GC1
20
GC2
10 OC1
0 AP
Answer Chosen
192

O O
CH3 C (aq) + NaOH (aq) CH3 C (l)
OH ONa
100
HS
80
GC1
A) Yes* 60
GC2
B) No 40
OC1
20
0 AP
Yes No
A) the cations and anions switch places 60

50 HS
B) a proton and hydroxide combine to
40 GC1
produce water*
30
GC2
C) both reactants have hydroxide present 20
OC1
O 10
D) Hydrogen from CH3 in CH3 C AP
0
OH A B C D
is transferred to NaOH
Question 13 & 14
60
50
40 HS
30 GC1
20 GC2
10 OC1
0
AP
Answer Chosen
193

OH H OH
HO B (aq) + O (l) HO B OH (aq) + H (l)
OH H OH

80
HS
60
A) Yes* GC1
40
B) No GC2
20 OC1
0 AP
Yes No

OH
HO B 70
A) OH has three OH groups 60 HS
50
B) water is neutral GC1
40
C) an electron pair is donated* 30 GC2
20 OC1
D) in the reverse direction, a proton is 10
AP
donated 0
A B C D
Question 15 & 16
60
50
40 HS
30 GC1
20 GC2
10 OC1
0
Yes, A Yes, B Yes, C Yes, D No, A No, B No, C No, D AP
Answer Chosen
194


HCN(aq) + H 2O(l) H 3O+ (aq) + CN (aq)
100
HS
80
60 GC1
A) Yes*
40 GC2
B) No
20 OC1
0 AP
Yes No
A) water is neutral 80
B) there are no acids or bases in the HS

60
reactants and products GC1
40
GC2
C) H2O is an acid because it accepts a
20 OC1
proton to become H3O+, and HCN is a
AP
base because it donates a proton to 0
A B C D
become CN-
D) H2O is a base because it accepts a proton to become H3O+, and HCN is an acid because it
donates a proton to become CN- *
Question 17 & 18
80
70
60
HS
50
40 GC1
30 GC2
20
10 OC1
0 AP
Answer Chosen
195


KOH(aq) + HNO3 (aq) ! !
KNO3 (aq) + H 2O(l)
100
HS
80
A) Yes* GC1
60
B) No 40 GC2
20 OC1
0 AP
Yes No
20) I chose my answer to question 19 because HNO3 and KOH _________________, and
H+ and OH- _________________, and K+ and NO 3 _________________.
A) . dissociate .combine to form

80
water .combine to form bonds
HS
60
B) . dissociate .remain in solution as GC1
ions .remain in solution as ions 40
GC2
C) . dissociate .combine to form 20 OC1
water .remain in solution as ions* 0
AP
D) HNO3 and KOH do not dissociate. They A B C D
switch cations.
Question 19 & 20
70
60
50 HS
40
GC1
30
20 GC2
10 OC1
0
Yes, A Yes, B Yes, C Yes, D No, A No, B No, C No, D AP
Answer Chosen
196


HCl(aq) + NH 3 (aq) ! !
NH 4Cl(aq)
80
HS
60
GC1
A) Yes* 40
GC2
B) No
20 OC1
0 AP
Yes No
A) HCl dissociates and a proton transfers* 60

50 HS
B) HCl and NH3 dissociate and H+, Cl-, N3+,
40 GC1
and 3H- recombine to neutralize charge
30
GC2
C) HCl and NH3 dissociate and H+, Cl-, N3+, 20
OC1
and 3H- stay in solution as spectator ions 10
AP
0
D) HCl and NH3 do not dissociate. They
A B C D
combine to form a new compound
Question 21 & 22
50
40
HS
30
GC1
20
GC2
10 OC1
0 AP
Answer Chosen
197

23) A substance always behaves as an acid when it
A) contains hydrogen.
B) creates a conjugate acid.
C) donates a proton.*
D) accepts a proton.
90
80
70
HS
60
GC1
50
40 GC2
30 OC1
20
AP
10
0
A B C D
A) H is written first in HCl.

B) HCl has just one H while CH4 has four.
C) H is positive in HCl because Cl is negative. H is negative in CH4 because C is positive.
D) The bond between H and Cl in HCl is ionic, while the bond between H and C in CH4 is
covalent.*
90
80
70
HS
60
GC1
50
40 GC2
30 OC1
20
AP
10
0
A B C D
198

25) What is the relationship between hydrogen atoms and protons in acid-base reactions?
A) A hydrogen atom has one proton, so it is called a proton.

B) A proton has one less electron than a hydrogen atom.*
C) A hydrogen atom can behave as a proton, but a proton does not have to be a hydrogen
atom.
D) A hydrogen atom is positive when it bonds with something negative, so it is called a
proton.
50
40 HS
GC1
30
GC2
20
OC1
10 AP
0
A B C D
26) A substance always behaves as a base when it
A) contains OH.
B) becomes a conjugate base.
C) accepts OH-.
D) when it accepts an H+ ion.*
80
70
60 HS
50 GC1
40 GC2
30 OC1
20
AP
10
0
A B C D
199

27) PH3 behaves as a base because
A) H is negative and P is positive.

B) it contains more than one hydrogen atom.
C) P has a lone pair of electrons to donate.*
D) Hydrogen is present.
90
80
70 HS
60
GC1
50
40 GC2
30 OC1
20 AP
10
0
A B C D
28) What determines whether H2O is an acid or base?
A) H2O is an acid if it accepts a proton to become H3O+. H2O is a base if it donates a proton
to become OH-.
B) H2O is an acid when it reacts with a base. H2O is a base when it reacts with an acid.*
C) H2O is both an acid and base simultaneously. It is an average of H+ and OH-.
D) H2O is neither an acid nor a base because it is neutral.
60
50
HS
40
GC1
30 GC2
20 OC1
10 AP
0
A B C D
200

Appendix M- ABCI Item Response Curves
Question 1 & 2
100%
90%
80% Yes, A
70% Yes, B*
60%
Yes, C
50%
Yes, D
40%
30% No, A
20% No, B
10% No, C
0% No, D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
Question 3 & 4
100%
90%
80% Yes, A
70% Yes, B
60%
Yes, C
50%
Yes, D*
40%
30% No, A
20% No, B
10% No, C
0% No, D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
201

Question 5 & 6
100%
90%
80% Yes, A
70% Yes, B
60%
Yes, C
50%
Yes, D
40%
30% No, A
20% No, B
10% No, C*
0% No, D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
Question 7 & 8
100%
90%
80% Yes, A
70% Yes, B
60%
Yes, C*
50%
Yes, D
40%
30% No, A
20% No, B
10% No, C
0% No, D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
202

Question 9 & 10
100%
90%
80% Yes, A
70% Yes, B
60%
Yes, C
50%
Yes, D
40%
30% No, A
20% No, B*
10% No, C
0% No, D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
Question 11 & 12
100%
90%
80% Yes, A
70% Yes, B
60%
Yes, C
50%
Yes, D
40%
30% No, A
20% No, B
10% No, C
0% No, D*
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
203

Question 13 & 14
100%
90%
80% Yes, A
70% Yes, B*
60%
Yes, C
50%
Yes, D
40%
30% No, A
20% No, B
10% No, C
0% No, D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
Question 15 & 16
100%
90%
80% Yes, A
70% Yes, B
60%
Yes, C*
50%
Yes, D
40%
30% No, A
20% No, B
10% No, C
0% No, D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
204

Question 17 & 18
100%
90%
80% Yes, A
70% Yes, B
60%
Yes, C
50%
Yes, D*
40%
30% No, A
20% No, B
10% No, C
0% No, D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
Question 19 & 20
100.00%
90.00%
80.00% Yes, A
70.00% Yes, B
60.00%
Yes, C*
50.00%
Yes, D
40.00%
30.00% No, A
20.00% No, B
10.00% No, C
0.00% No, D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
205

Question 21 & 22
100%
90%
80% Yes, A*
70% Yes, B
60%
Yes, C
50%
Yes, D
40%
30% No, A
20% No, B
10% No, C
0% No, D
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score

Question 23
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
A
50%
B
40%
30% C*
20% D
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
206

Question 24
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
A
50%
B
40%
30% C
20% D*
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
Question 25
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
A
50%
B*
40%
30% C
20% D
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
207

Question 26
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
A
50%
B
40%
30% C
20% D*
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
Question 27
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
A
50%
B
40%
30% C*
20% D
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
208

Question 28
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
A
50%
B*
40%
30% C
20% D
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Total Score
209

Dissertation Jensen

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dissertation Jensen

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

MIAMI UNIVERSITY

The Graduate School

Certificate for Approving the Dissertation

We hereby approve the Dissertation

Candidate for the Degree:

STUDENTS UNDERSTANDINGS OF ACID-BASE REACTIONS

Dissertation Director: Stacey Lowery Bretz

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii

Qualitative Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 18. Discrimination according to difficulty for two-tier analysis. ...................................... 74

(1) How do students identify acid-base reactions?

Chapter 2: Review of Relevant Literature

HNO3 (aq) + KOH(aq)

Research Strategy: Mixed Methods

not sensitive enough: In reducing educational achievement to a quantitative measure, do we

3. 2NaOH(aq) + H 2SO 4 (aq) ! !

Set 2 5. HNO (aq) + NH (aq) ! !

7. CoCl 2 (aq) + Na 2CO3 (aq) ! !

11. __________+ __________ ! !

12. __________+ __________ ! !

Table 2. Interview participants by course

Figure 4: Demographics: Student reported majors.

Comparison within Comparison between

Comparison of interviews Comparison of interviews

Development of the Acid-Base Reactions Concept Inventory

7) Is this an acid-base reaction?

Multiple Choice Answers Student Interview Data

C) a proton is donated and C) Correct Answer

Multiple Choice Answers Student Interview Data

C) H is positive in HCl C) Jenny (GC1): Um the Hs in CH4 are negatively

Jenny: Um because the things that its bonded with

D) The bond between H and D) Correct Answer

Table 3. ABCI participants by course

Table 4. ABCI participants by course

Figure 8: High Schools that completed the ABCI.

Chapter 4: Students classification schemes for acid-base

Students Classification Schemes for Each Reaction

Na 2SO 4 (aq) + 2H 2O(l) (3)

KNO3 (aq) + H 2O(l) (11)

Ten students correctly classified reaction 2 as acid-base (Table 6):

MgCl 2 (aq) + H 2O(l) + CO 2 (g) (2)

ZnCl 2 (aq) + H 2 (g) (4)

Twenty-one students correctly classified Reaction 5 as an acid-base reaction, although

NH 4 NO3 (aq) (5)

David: I would say number 12 would be [an acid-base reaction].

Reaction 6 is a combustion reaction that takes place through a radical mechanism. It

CO 2 (g) + 2H 2O(g) (6)

2NaCl(aq) + CoCO3 (s) (7)

Seventeen students correctly classified reaction 8 as an acid-base reaction (Table 15):

Thirty students correctly classified reaction 9 as an acid-base reaction (Table 17):

Reaction 10 was correctly classified as an acid-base reaction by twenty-one students

Table 20. Students classification schemes for reaction 13.

Analysis of Patterns in Data

the positive charge.

Students classification schemes were inconsistent throughout interviews. For example,

1. Students look for the presence of specific substances as reactants.

2. Students look for the presence of specific substances as products.

c. The number of products

3. Students look for the presence of specific symbolic features.

We looked at reactions both individually and as a collective whole to see which

Classification Scheme 1: Reactants

Classification of Acids and Bases

Jon (GC2): Um, maybe if theres a metal it cant be an acid or a base.

These students do not notice that hydrogen loses an electron.

11. + ! !

12. + ! !