Exploring the pre-service basic science teachers’ misconceptions using the six-tier diagnostic test

International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)
Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2023, pp. 1626~1636
ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v12i3.24603  1626
Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com
Exploring the pre-service basic science teachers’ misconceptions
using the six-tier diagnostic test
Muhamad Imaduddin1
, Muhammad Mujahidus Shofa1
, Muhammad Fatkhur Riza1
,
Achmad Ali Fikri2
1
Study Program of Natural Science Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kudus, Kudus, Indonesia
2
Study Program of Biology Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kudus, Kudus, Indonesia
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received Jun 5, 2022
Revised Jun 7, 2023
Accepted Jul 3, 2023
This study explored the pre-service basic science teachers’ misconceptions
using a six-tier diagnostic (STD) test. This study used a cross-sectional
survey research model with respondents, namely pre-service basic science
teachers (PBSTs) who are first-year students. The six-tier diagnostic test
consisted of three questions about change in matter (CIM), classification of
matter (COM), and separation of mixtures (SOM). Each test package
consists of six questions ranging from questions at the macroscopic level,
microscopic communication, level of confidence, symbolic visualization to
represent microscopic conditions, and self-confidence in representing
concepts. The combination of answers and decisions in six-tier diagnostic
includes scientific conception (SC), almost scientific conception (ASC), lack
of confidence (LC), lack of knowledge (LK), misconception (MSC), have no
conception (HNC). The study showed that the conceptual mastery condition
is dominated by the misconceptions (MSC) category. The condition for pre-
service basic science teachers’ mastery concepts having the most scientific
conception category is related to changes in matter (CIM), while the
condition that shows the least scientific conception category is related to
material classification (COM). The results can map the conditions of
mastery of the pre-service basic science teachers’ concept so that strategies
can be designed to correct the emerging misconceptions.
Keywords:
Misconceptions
Pre-service basic science
teachers
Six-tier diagnostic test
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.
Corresponding Author:
Muhamad Imaduddin
Study Program of Natural Science Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kudus
Jl. Conge Ngembalrejo PO BOX 51, Bae, Kudus, Central Java 59322, Indonesia
Email: imad@iainkudus.ac.id
1. INTRODUCTION
The existence of misconceptions is still a problem that is often found in the field of science
education. The term misconception leads to differences in thinking between the concepts that learners have
and the concepts established by experts [1]. Constructivists agree that knowledge cannot simply be
transferred from educators to learners. Learners must actively construct their knowledge from new
information and experiences and the new knowledge they get. Learners use their knowledge as a basis for
evaluating new information. If new information is consistent with existing knowledge, this new information
will be assimilated, but if it is completely different (contradictory), knowledge accommodation will be made
to suit the new information. Constructivists also pay attention to the context of the knowledge that is formed
[2]. In the process of conveying new information into cognitive structures, learners often experience
difficulties, even failures. This then becomes the emergence of a cognitive misconception of learners.

Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822 
Exploring the pre-service basic science teachers’ misconceptions using the six-tier … (Muhamad Imaduddin)
1627
Various literature examines the possibility of what happens in the mastery of scientific concepts.
Difficulties can occur so that students do not fully master the concept [3]. One of the important reasons for
the difficulty of students in understanding science is closely related to the multiple-level representations used
in describing and explaining scientific phenomena that they encounter in everyday life [4], [5]. Students’
mastery of scientific concepts should be demonstrated by the ability to transfer and connect between the three
levels of representation consisting of macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels [6], [7].
Macroscopic representations illustrate the essential nature of real and visible phenomena through
everyday experiences. An example for learners is when observing changes in the properties of matter such as
changes in color, foam, and gas formation and precipitation in chemical reactions. The submicroscopic (or
molecular) representation explains the particulate level. This level is real and consists of particulate levels
which are used to describe the movements of electrons, molecules, particles, and atoms. Matter is described
as an arrangement of atoms, molecules, or ions.
Symbolic (or iconic) representation involves the use of chemical symbols, formulas, and equations,
molecular structural drawings, diagrams, pictorial representations (pictures), algebra, as well as
computational forms of submicroscopic representations [4], [8]–[10]. Representation is an important tool for
building and communicating knowledge. The ability to solve problems in science as one of the higher-order
thinking skills uses multiple representational abilities. Submicroscopic representation is a key factor in this
ability. The inability to represent submicroscopic aspects can hinder the ability to solve problems related to
macroscopic phenomena and symbolic representations [4], [11].
Various research findings have expressed difficulties with concepts related to the concept of
solution [4], [12]–[16]. The concept of this solution is a part of the process of understanding the concept of
material form, its classification, change, and separation. These concepts are very closely related to everyday
life and are studied formally in school from the elementary level. Several previous studies have shown
students' misconceptions on the subject of material classification including misconceptions about mixtures
and compounds [17], water molecules contain constituent components other than hydrogen and oxygen [7],
misconceptions about solids, liquids, and gas [18], students misunderstand the concept of homogeneous
mixtures and heterogeneous mixtures [19], students’ misunderstandings in distinguishing elements,
compounds, mixtures and distinguishing material properties [20].
Many conceptions and misconceptions are formed when learners interact with nature. This is
supported by constructivism theory where knowledge is constructed or constructed by the learners
themselves from their interactions with objects, events, and the environment. When learners interact with
their learning environment, it means that learners construct knowledge based on their experiences. When the
knowledge construction process occurs in learners, errors will likely occur in the construction process
because naturally, learners may not be accustomed to constructing their own knowledge appropriately,
especially if they are not accompanied by clear and accurate sources of information [21]. To determine the
level of mastery of students’ concepts and representations, teachers can use diagnostic tests, one of the tests
is the multi-tier test [22]–[25].
The multi-tier test was first developed from the conventional multiple-choice test model, with
choices predetermined by the question maker. Further development is carried out in the form of adding
answer choices that can be filled in by the test takers themselves to accommodate if there is disagreement
between the test taker's answers with the existing choices. Multi-tier tests are excellent for diagnosing
students' conceptions of the concepts they are learning [22], [23]. This type of test not only asks for the
conception but also the reasons for the answer so that educators and researchers can find out the level of
confidence of the learners [26]. Several research studies have done a combination of a multiple-choice test
and multi-tier test with two, three, four, and five levels to get the best test to find out students’
misconceptions [1], [23], [24], [27], [28].
In Indonesia, the use of misconception identification tests has been familiar in research relating to
prospective teachers, teachers, and students at the elementary and secondary levels. The form of the test used
also varies with the level of confidence in the answers. The scientific concepts identified are also varied, such
as those related to Newton’s laws, spring oscillations, heat, and propagation, as well as changes of states [25],
[29]–[31]. The problem of misconceptions needs to be studied further to break the chain of errors in terms of
transferring knowledge of science concepts, especially at the elementary school level.
This research is a modification of the type of multi-tier test questions. This study uses a six-tier
diagnostic which is a development and modification of the previous five-tier diagnostics [28]. This
development is added to the sixth level, namely the confidence from the fifth level which shows the level of
confidence of the respondent in the symbolic depiction given of microscopic phenomena. This research
instrument is called a six-tier diagnostic (STD) test because it uses the multiple-tier choice (five-tier) and
adds one more tier in the form of confidence in representing images. This instrument can diagnose the
learner's conception in more detail and can also be used by educators to diagnose formative and summative
assessments.

 ISSN: 2252-8822
Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2023: 1626-1636
1628
This research becomes the starting point for developing appropriate science concept learning by
emphasizing the relationship between the three aspects of science representation. This research is interesting
because the investigation aims to describe the condition of pre-service basic science teachers (PBSTs), where
the future of young learners (elementary school students) is determined by how the current mastery of the
PBSTs’ concept. PBSTs have a variety of educational backgrounds, not only science, but may come from
major social, religious, vocational, and others. The description of the misconceptions that occurred can be
used to determine the appropriate learning strategy for PBSTs so that the misconceptions can be corrected
and not carried out by PBSTs when they become teachers in the future. Thus, this condition seeks to be the
starting point for efforts to break the chain of misconceptions in the future.
2. RESEARCH METHOD
This study used a cross-sectional survey research model with respondents, namely pre-service basic
science teachers (PBSTs) who are first-year students. The cross-sectional survey collects data from a sample
of the target population at a specific point in time and provides reflective feedback for various variables at a
specific time [32]. The sampling used was purposive sampling with survey criteria, namely the similarity of
groups in the major and the same level, the elementary school teacher candidate program [32]. The number
of participants who participated in this study was 155 PBSTs, consisting of 17 males and 138 females
(science major=63; non-science major=92). Participants are student volunteers who are willing to fill out
forms and take diagnostic tests. The survey was carried out with an ethical review by the research and
community service center, as well as the Tarbiyah Faculty, Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Kudus,
Indonesia. The distribution of the characteristics of PBSTs by educational background is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of PSBTs’ educational background
No Educational background Major Total
1 Vocational school Social science 9
2 Vocational school Natural science 8
3 Islamic high school Religious science 10
4 Islamic high school Linguistics 3
5 Islamic high school Social science 57
6 Islamic high school Natural science 39
7 High school Linguistics 1
8 High school Social science 10
9 High school Natural science 18
Data collection for PBSTs misconceptions used a STD test. The STD pattern is the development and
modification of the five-tier diagnostic concept previously worked on [28]. This development is added by
adding a sixth level, namely the confidence of the image or the fifth tier. The test instruments in this study
consisted of three questions about change in matter (CIM), classification of matter (COM), and separation of
mixtures (SOM). CIM identifies how the mastery of the concept of particles occurs in the phenomenon of
changing the state of matter, namely the freezing process. COM identifies the mastery of concepts related to
elements, compounds, and mixtures. SOM covers how PBSTs understand the particulate concept that occurs
in the filtration process. Each test package consists of six questions ranging from questions at the
macroscopic level, microscopic communication, level of confidence, symbolic visualization to represent
microscopic conditions, and self-confidence in representing concepts.
The PBSTs’ responses were analyzed step by step at each level. The first level (1st tier) is the main
question. The respondent's answer was corrected for whether it was true or not. At the second level (2nd tier),
the response given makes corrections to the respondent’s answer whether the respondent is sure or not with
the answer. At the third level (3rd tier) make corrections to the respondent’s answer whether it is correct or
wrong in the microscopic concept. This tier is a question about the sub-micro phenomenon which leads to the
reasoning of the answers in tier 1. The 4th tier contains confirmation of confidence in whether PBSTs believe
or not in the answer regarding the reasons given. The 5th tier contains questions about symbolic
representations with images that are still related to the 1st and 3rd tier. At the 6th tier, there is a re-
confirmation of self-confidence about the image. An example of a package of questions on the STD test is
shown in Table 2.

1629
Table 2. An example of a question pack in a six-tier diagnostic test (change in matter)
Tier Representation Test
1st tier Understanding
macroscopic
phenomena
What form changes occur in the water?
a. Freezing
b. Condensation
c. Sublimation
d. (If you have your own answers, please write them down) …
2nd tier Self-confidence
in
understanding
Are you sure of your answer?
a. Sure
b. Not sure
3rd tier Communicating
understanding
macroscopically
Why did this change happen?
a. Because temperatures are below the freezing point of substance, the particle
arrangement is tight and has small bonds of attraction between molecules
b. Because temperature is above the freezing point of substance, it makes the particle
arrangement very tight and has large bonds of attraction between molecules
c. Because temperatures are below the freezing point of substance, the particle
arrangement is tight and has large bonds of attraction between molecules
d. (If you have your own answers, please write them down) …
4th tier Self-confidence
in
understanding
a. Sure
b. Not sure
5th tier Communicating
microscopic
conditions by
depicting
symbols
6th tier Self-confidence
in
understanding
a. Sure
b. Not sure
The validation of the STD test instrument includes face validity which refers to the appearance of
the instrument. Besides, content validity was carried out through focus group discussions (FGD) between
researchers and experts in the field of evaluation using rubrics and grids containing STD test indicators. The
reliability results show that the tests are sufficiently arranged to be implemented with Cronbach’s alpha of
0.412 (N=50). Because in the instrument there is a drawing test with six categories. The categories were
adapted from Dikmenli’s and Kose’s ideas [22], [33]. The categories are described in Table 3.
Table 3. The drawing category
Category Explanation
Scientific drawing (SD) Respondents provide a comprehensive picture following scientific concepts.
partial drawing (PD) Respondents provided visuals that were close to scientific conceptions with minor deficiencies in
visualization.
Misconception drawing (MD) Respondents provide visualizations that are less precise or different from scientific conceptions but
they draw visualizations at the sub-microscopic level.
Undefine drawing (UD) The respondent provided a visualization that could not be understood even though the visualization
provided was at the sub-microscopic level.
Non-microscopic drawing Respondents provide visualization but not at the sub-microscopic level.
No drawing (ND) Respondents did not describe at all or only wrote down their answers.
Like the STD test, it also has a formula for making decisions between the accuracy of the answers
and the level of confidence in providing answers. The main combination of answers and self-confidence in
the STD was developed from five-tier diagnostic research [28] which was used to make decisions on the
conditions of concept mastery. This STD test provides the results of decisions on the variety of answers given

 ISSN: 2252-8822
1630
by students. There are two possibilities for converting a verbal explanation into a symbolic image: If the
explanation matches the picture, it is called “connected” and if the explanation does not match the picture it
is called “disconnected”. The main decisions regarding the description of PBSTs answers are presented in
Table 4.
Table 4. The decision based on description of PBSTs’ answers
Decision Explanation
Scientific conception (SC) Respondents provide correct answers at the macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels and believe in
their answers and the images following scientific conceptions.
Almost scientific
conception (ASC)
Respondents provide correct answers at macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels, trusting in their
answers. The picture does not fully conform to scientific conceptions or is unrelated to expectations.
Lack of confidence (LC) Respondents provide correct answers at the macroscopic to sub-microscopic level and the images
were following scientific conceptions, but they were not sure about the answers given.
Lack of knowledge (LK) Respondents provide answers that are partially correct at the macroscopic or sub-microscopic level
they may or may not convince of the answer. Some of the pictures conform to scientific conceptions.
Misconception (MSC) Respondents provide right or wrong answers at the macroscopic level and the sub-microscopic level,
they are confident in their answers. Their picture does not fit scientific conceptions.
Have no conception
(HNC)
Respondents provide wrong answers at every level. Not having self-confidence with picture answers
does not fulfill scientific conceptions.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The test results indicate the condition of the conceptual mastery of pre-service basic science teachers
diagnosed by six-tier diagnostic. The first and third-tier show how PBSTs communicate an understanding of
the macroscopic and microscopic components, while the fifth tier reveals how PBSTs communicate their
microscopic understanding through symbols represented by their depiction. PBSTs show confidence in each
answer by answering the second, fourth, and sixth questions. The results of the mastery of representation are
shown in Table 5.
Table 5. PBSTs’ representation mastery in the six-tier diagnostic test
Topics Tier
Correct answer Wrong answer
Science major Non-science major Science major Non-science major
N (63) (%) N (92) (%) N (63) (%) N (92) (%)
CIM 1st tier 62 98.4% 90 97.8% 1 1.6% 2 2.2%
3rd tier 30 47.6% 36 39.1% 33 52.4% 56 60.9%
COM 1st tier 45 71.4% 61 66.3% 18 28.6% 31 33.7%
3rd tier 23 36.5% 42 45.7% 40 63.5% 50 54.3%
SOM 1st tier 61 96.8% 89 96.7% 2 3.2% 3 3.3%
3rd tier 37 58.7% 71 77.2% 26 41.3% 21 22.8%
Average 68.3% 70.5% 31.7% 29.5%
Table 5 describes the conditions for right and wrong answers based on the educational background
group of pre-service basic science teachers. The PBSTs group, both the science majors and the non-science
majors, did not show consistency in the percentage of correct answers. The major science background group
did not always get higher scores and vice versa. PBSTs with major science backgrounds did not always
answer correctly and master science concepts. In each of the topics of CIM, COM, and SOM, the third-tier
condition showed that the percentage of correct answers was always lower than the first tier. The first-tier
condition shows the condition of understanding microscopic phenomena, the third tier shows how PBSTs
communicate their microscopic understanding of macroscopic phenomena. Furthermore, the mastery of
concepts is shown by how PBSTs communicate their macroscopic and microscopic understanding using the
symbol. This condition is revealed from the PBSTs answer in 5th tier. Some examples of depiction provided
by PBSTs are shown in Figure 1.
Pre-service basic science teachers (111) showed the image condition in the SD category because it
has shown how water molecule modeling is commonly used scientifically. In contrast to PBST (63), which
only showed how different modeling is on molecules consisting of hydrogen and oxygen elements, but still
does not show any bonds that occur to form water compounds (H2O). PBST (83) showed a misconception
condition because the concept shown in the image is different from the scientific concept even though the
image attempts to show particulate conditions as well. PBST (80) showed incomprehensible visualization
even though experimental particle modeling was demonstrated. Another thing is also shown by PBST (43)
which described the condition of the image at the macro level.

1631
Figure 1. Some examples of PBSTs’ drawing categories based on mastery of the concept
Based on the recapitulation of images obtained in the fifth tier, it can be seen the condition of
PBSTs’ understanding in representing microscopic-symbolic conditions as shown in Table 6. PBSTs are not
used to using modeling abilities. This modeling ability is related to the representation of the macroscopic and
submicroscopic levels of a substance [10].
Table 6 shows that the scientific drawing mastery in the CIM test package is very high. Continued
the image answers for COM and SOM test packages, many of the PBSTs’ drawings are included in the
misconception drawing and undefined drawing categories. This happens because PBSTs are possible to use
their analogy at the macroscopic level in answering questions about phenomena or images at the microscopic
level. Meanwhile, to understand the chemical structure of water (COM), PBSTs must first understand the
concept of compounds. In the concept of mixture separation (SOM), PBSTs also have difficulties in the
arrangement of particles in a mixture. There can be an orderly arrangement of particle images in the filtrate,
even though the conditions of the particles should be evenly distributed without high regularity when
compared to the symbolic particles in solids. The details of PBSTs’ condition when viewed from their
educational background also do not show any differences in trends as presented in Figure 2.
In CIM, the PBSTs showed almost the same pattern, whereas, in COM, the MD pattern was more
dominant in PBSTs with major non-science educational backgrounds. Whereas in SOM, both tend to have
the same pattern. This is because the fifth tier used in COM requires PBSTs to represent the symbolic
compound. PBSTs with a science major background are becoming more familiar than PBSTs with a non-
science major. PBSTs have shown a pattern of drawing in the SD category, while the condition of
misconceptions occurs in PBSTs, especially those with non-science educational backgrounds. The
educational background of PBSTs affects how the condition of the microscopic-symbolic depiction visually
of the macroscopic phenomena.
Table 6. PBSTs’ microscopic-symbolic representation through drawing categories (5th tier)
No Category
Science topics
CIM COM SOM
1 Scientific drawing (SD) 136 11 38
2 Partial drawing (PD) 4 16 19
3 Misconception drawing (MD) 9 53 66
4 Undefined drawing (UD) 2 73 15
5 Non-microscopic drawing (NMD) 4 2 17
6 No drawing (ND) 0 0 0
Change in Matter (CIM); Classification of Matter (COM); Separation of Mixtures (SOM)

 ISSN: 2252-8822
1632
Figure 2. The trend of drawing categories based on major education background
Through drawing, learners begin to move to higher-order thinking while working at a conceptual
level. In this way, the images provided can assess conceptual knowledge of science, observation skills, and
reasoning abilities [34]. Learners demonstrate their ideas, as well as their level of understanding through the
drawing process. Not only at the student level, the condition of the depiction that is not following scientific
concepts also occurs at the teacher level [30]. This research shows evidence of the importance of focusing on
the need for PBSTs to optimize visual understanding and communicate microscopic-symbolic phenomena
through images. The transfer of knowledge to prospective students in the future does not get problems that
lead to the re-emergence of misconceptions. In each tier (1st, 3rd, and 5th), PBSTs are asked to confirm their
answer through the 2nd, 4th, and 6th tiers. This level of confidence indicates whether the PBSTs answer is
included in the category of misconceptions. The misconceptions that occur show how the PBSTs really
believe the responses given to the questions on the STD test, both true and false. Misconceptions are shown
through the belief of the respondents in the answers given even though they are wrong and do not show
scientific principles [1], [21], [28]. The confidence level conditions of PBSTs are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. PBSTs’ self-confidence in the six-tier diagnostic test
Topics Tier
Confidence Unconfidence
Science major Non-science major Science major Non-science major
N (63) (%) N (92) (%) N (63) (%) N (92) (%)
CIM 2nd tier 63 100.0% 92 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
4th tier 59 93.7% 87 94.6% 4 6.3% 5 5.4%
6th tier 60 95.2% 90 97.8% 3 4.8% 2 2.2%
COM 2nd tier 58 92.1% 90 97.8% 5 7.9% 2 2.2%
4th tier 56 88.9% 82 89.1% 7 11.1% 10 10.9%
6th tier 56 88.9% 82 89.1% 7 11.1% 10 10.9%
SOM 2nd tier 62 98.4% 92 100.0% 1 1.6% 0 0.0%
4th tier 59 93.7% 89 96.7% 4 6.3% 3 3.3%
6th tier 61 96.8% 91 98.9% 2 3.2% 1 1.1%
Average 94.2% 96.0% 5.8% 4.0%
Table 7 shows that both science and non-science majors of PBSTs have high confidence in each
answer. At CIM, COM, and SOM, the most confidence is in first-tier answers. This shows that PBSTs have
high confidence in understanding macroscopic representations, while at the microscopic and symbolic level,
they still have uncertainty in representing. Other research also showing pre-service teachers’ difficulties in
representing the microscopic and symbolic levels of the concepts of solution [4], phase change, and

1633
dissolution [20]. Skills in representing the symbolic level are closely related to representation and
communication skills [35]. Based on the pattern of answers at each tier, the misconception profiles of PBSTs
are categorized as presented in Table 8.
Table 8 shows that both the PBSTs science group and the non-science major, of them, had high
misconceptions. Most misconceptions are in the COM topic related to the use of elements and compounds
and the representations in microscopic-symbolic terms. The trend conditions are shown in Figure 3.
Table 8. PBSTs’ misconception categories of the concepts based on their major educational background
The pattern of
PBSTs’ answers
Science major (N=63) Non-science major (N=92)
CIM COM SOM CIM COM SOM
SC 26 4 11 28 3 17
ASC 1 9 24 6 22 50
LC 2 0 0 0 0 2
LK 4 7 1 11 10 3
MSC 30 43 27 47 57 20
HNC 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 3. Trends in PBSTs’ misconception category on each concept
In both CIM and COM, the category shows a predominant tendency in the misconception profile
(MSC); however, on the CIM topic, the condition of the SC shows a better condition. Meanwhile, in SOM,
the category pattern leads to ASC. In the SOM, it is related to understanding the microscopic conditions of
the arrangement of particles in the mixture and their changes when the conditions are separated. Many of the
known understandings found in CIM influence how PBSTs are interpreted on the SOM topic. The
relationship between this topic and the misconceptions is also shown in previous research [36] that explored
the misconceptions about the concepts of physical and chemical change, as well as homogeneous and
heterogeneous mixtures. The condition of misconceptions at the symbolic level in CIM also shows a
connection to the SOM topic [37]. The profile of PBSTs based on educational background also shows a
predominant pattern of MSC as displayed in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Misconception profiles of PBSTs on the topic of material concepts and their changes

 ISSN: 2252-8822
1634
Figure 4 shows that the condition of the misconception of PBSTs still dominates both those who
have educational backgrounds in science and non-science majors. The PBSTs’ understanding and self-
confidence are incompatible with scientific truth. The distribution of the answers (N=3x155) shows the
conditions of SC (19.1%; N=89), ASC (24.1%; N=112), LC (0.9%; N=4), LK (7.7%; N=36), MSC (48.2%;
N=224), and HCN (0%; N=0). PBSTs need to be trained in re-representing the same concept through various
forms, which include descriptive (verbal, graphic, table), experimental, mathematical, figurative (pictorial,
analogy, and metaphorical), and/or optional-operational mode representation [38].
This study is still limited to exploration in the PBSTs group without further data mining through
focus group discussions. Further exploration through personal or group interviews can be investigated so that
solutions to overcome misconceptions can be formulated. It is necessary to make improvements in the
learning process and teach the concept of matter and its changes to PBSTs so that there are no further
misconceptions in PBSTs’ prospective students in understanding this concept in the future.
4. CONCLUSION
The profile of pre-service basic science teachers’ misconceptions shows the conceptual mastery
condition dominated by the MSC category (misconceptions). Through the six-tier diagnostic tests that have
been carried out, it is known how PBSTs understand the phenomena that occur macroscopically, trace the
microscopic conditions that occur in the phenomenon, and symbolically describe the conditions that occur at
the microscopic level. The condition for understanding PBSTs that most have the scientific conception
category is related to changes in substance form (CIM), while those that show the least scientific conception
category are related to material classification (COM). The results can map the conditions of mastery of the
PBSTs’ concept so that strategies can be designed to correct the emerging misconceptions. Thus, teaching
strategies, as well as media development to overcome misconceptions in the PBSTs training program are
needed by emphasizing the topic of change in the matter (CIM).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researchers would like to thank the Center for Research and Community Service, Institut
Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Kudus which has facilitated this research, as well as student groups of the Tadris
IPA and PGMI, Faculty of Tarbiyah, IAIN Kudus.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Busyairi and M. Zuhdi, “Misconceptions Profiles of Prospective Physics Teacher Students Viewed from Various
Representations on the Material of Straight and Parabolic Motion,” (in Indonesian), Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Dan Teknologi,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 90–98, 2020, doi: 10.29303/jpft.v6i1.1683.
[2] M. J. Sanger and T. J. Greenbowe, “Common student misconception in electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic, and
concentration cells,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 4, no. 34, pp. 377–398, 1997, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2736(199704)34:4<377::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-O.
[3] G. Sirhan, “Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview,” Journal Turkish Science Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–20, 2007,
[Online]. Available: https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/664/569
[4] M. Imaduddin, “Analysis of submicroscopic misconceptions about the concept of solutions in chemistry teacher candidates,” (in
Indonesian), Edu Sains Jurnal Pendidikan Sains dan Matematika, vol. 6, no. 2, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.23971/eds.v6i2.983.
[5] I. Eilks, J. Moellering, and N. Valanides, “Seventh-grade students’ understanding of chemical reactions: Reflections from an
action research interview study,” Eurasia Journal Mathematics Science and Technology Education, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 271–286,
2007, doi: 10.12973/ejmste/75408.
[6] K. S. Taber, “Learning at the symbolic level,” in Multiple Representation in Chemical Education: Models & Modelling in Science
Education, Dordrecht: Springer, 2009, pp. 75–105, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_5.
[7] V. Talanquer, “Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry ‘triplet,’” International Journal of Science
Education, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 179–195, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1080/09500690903386435.
[8] I. Devetak, J. Vogrinc, and S. A. Glažar, “Assessing 16-year-old students’ understanding of aqueous solution at submicroscopic
level,” Research in Science Education, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 157–179, Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9077-2.
[9] R. Tasker and R. Dalton, “Researc into practice: Visualisation of the molecular world using animations,” Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 141–159, 2006, doi: 10.1039/B5RP90020D.
[10] G. Chittleborough and D. F. Treagust, “The modelling ability of non-major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-
microscopic level,” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 274–292, 2007, doi: 10.1039/B6RP90035F.
[11] D. A. Rowe, “Research and practice,” Teaching Exceptional Children, vol. 52, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.1177/0040059919862173.
[12] P. I. Çetingül and O. Geban, “Understanding of acid-base concept by using conceptual change approach,” Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Journal Education, vol. 29, pp. 69–74, 2005, [Online]. Available:
http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/766-published.pdf.
[13] P. Chaiyapha, K. Chayajarus, and S. Chairam, “Investigation of high school students’ understanding of acid-base chemistry based
on jigsaw method,” in Pure and Applied Chemistry International Conference, 2011, pp. 139–142.
[14] M. Metin, “Effects of teaching material based on 5E model removed Pre-service teachers’ misconceptions about acids-bases,”
Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy (BJSEP), vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 274–302, 2011, [Online]. Available:

1635
https://journaldatabase.info/articles/effects_teaching_material_based_5e_model.html
[15] Z. Muchtar and H. Harizal, “Analyzing of students’ misconceptions on acid-base chemistry at senior high schools in Medan,”
Journal of Education and Practice, vol. 3, no. 15, pp. 65–74, 2012.
[16] K. Sheppard, “High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acid-base phenomena,” Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 32–45, 2006, doi: 10.1039/B5RP90014J.
[17] B. Costu, S. Ünal, and A. Ayas, “A hands-on activity to promote conceptual change about mixtures and chemical compounds,”
Journal of Baltic Science Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 35–46, 2007, [Online]. Available:
http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/files/pdf/vol6/35-46.Costu_JBSE_Vol.6_No.1.pdf
[18] E. Tatar, “Prospective primary school teachers’ misconceptions about states of matter,” Educational Research and Reviews,
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 197–200, 2011.
[19] M. Sheehan, P. E. Childs, and S. Hayes, “Pre-service Irish science teachers’ misconceptions of chemistry,” ESERA 2011
Conference: Science learning and Citizenship, 2011, pp. 179–185.
[20] M. Tuysuz, B. Ekiz, E. Uzuntiryaki, A. Tarkin, and E. S. Kutucu, “Pre-Service chemistry teachers’ understanding of phase
changes and dissolution at macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 15,
pp. 452–455, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.120.
[21] H. S. Budhi, “An experience-based learning model to minimize students’ misconceptions about light material,” (in Indonesian),
Thabiea: Journal of Natural Science Teaching, vol. 01, no. 02, pp. 125–129, 2018, doi: 10.21043/thabiea.v1i2.4110.
[22] S. Köse, “Diagnosing student misconceptions: Using drawings as a research method,” World Applied Sciences Journal, vol. 3,
no. 2, pp. 283–293, 2008.
[23] N. W. N. Sari and S. Sunyono, “Development of the three tier diagnostic test based ‘higher order thinking skills’ instrument,”
Dinamika Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dasar, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 86, 2019, doi: 10.30595/dinamika.v11i2.5053.
[24] A. Mutlu and B. A. Sesen, “Development of a two-tier diagnostic test to assess undergraduates’ understanding of some chemistry
concepts,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 174, pp. 629–635, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.593.
[25] T. C. Bayuni, W. Sopandi, and A. Sujana, “Identification misconception of primary school teacher education students in changes
of matters using a five-tier diagnostic test,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1013, no. 1, 2018, doi: 10.1088/1742-
6596/1013/1/012086.
[26] I. S. Caleon and R. Subramaniam, “Do students know what they know and what they don’t know? Using a four-tier diagnostic
test to assess the nature of students’ alternative conceptions,” Research in Science Education, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 313–337, 2010,
doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9122-4.
[27] P. Pujayanto et al., “Developing four tier misconception diagnostic test about kinematics,” Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan,
vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 237–249, 2018, doi: 10.21831/cp.v37i2.16491.
[28] R. S. Anam, A. Widodo, W. Sopandi, and H.-K. Wu, “Developing a five-tier diagnostic test to identify students’ misconceptions
in science: an example of the heat transfer concepts,” İlköğretim Online, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1014–1029, 2019, doi:
10.17051/ilkonline.2019.609690.
[29] M. Taufiq, N. Hindarto, and Khumaedi, “Student’s science misconceptions concerning the state changes of water and their
remediation using three different learning models in elementary school,” Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, vol. 7, no. 2,
pp. 74–79, 2012, doi: 10.15294/jpfi.v7i2.1075.
[30] R. S. Anam, A. Widodo, and W. Sopandi, “Representation of elementary school teachers on concept of heat transfer,” Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, vol. 895, 2017, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012159.
[31] I. A. Muna, “Identification of PGMI students’ misconceptions about Newton’s law concepts using the certainty of response index
(CRI),” (in Indonesian), Cendekia: Jurnal Kependidikan dan Kemasyarakatan, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 310–322, 2015.
[32] L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison, Research methods in education, 6th Ed. New York: Routledge, 2007.
[33] M. Dikmenli, “Misconceptions of cell division held by student teachers in biology: A drawing analysis,” Scientific Research and
Essay, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 235–247, 2010, doi: 10.5897/SRE.9000654.
[34] J. L. Anderson, J. P. Ellis, and A. M. Jones, “Understanding early elementary children’s conceptual knowledge of plant structure
and function through drawings,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 13, pp. 375–386, 2014, doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-12-0230.
[35] K. S. Taber, “Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to
inform chemistry education,” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 156–168, 2013, doi:
10.1039/c3rp00012e.
[36] M. A. S. Cahyanto, A. Ashadi, and S. Saputro, “Profile of students’ prevalent misconception on classification of materials and its
properties,” in 6th ICRIEMS Proceedings, 2019, pp. 7–12.
[37] M. A. S. Cahyanto, Ashadi, and S. Saputro, “Analysis of students’ misconception based on the use of learning objectives in
classification of materials and their properties,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1397, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.1088/1742-
6596/1397/1/012019.
[38] B. Waldrip, V. Prain, and J. Carolan, “Learning junior secondary science through multi-modal representation,” Electronic
Journal of Science Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 87–107, 2006.
BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS
Muhamad Imaduddin is an educator in the teacher preparation program at the
study program of Natural Science Education (Tadris IPA), State Islamic Institute of Kudus
(IAIN Kudus), Indonesia. He has a master’s background in science education and environmental
science studies. He is active in research studies and community service activities in the field of
science education. His research interests include studies of STEM education, project-based
learning, science process skills, and optimization of local potential in hands-on activities. He can
be contacted at email: imad@iainkudus.ac.id.

 ISSN: 2252-8822
1636
Muhammad Mujahidus Shofa is a research assistant at the STEM Education
Laboratory at the study program of Natural Science Education (Tadris IPA), IAIN Kudus,
Indonesia. Recent research that has been carried out: Development of digital worksheets
containing multiple representations to foster scientific literacy for SMP/MTs students. He can be
contacted at email: mujahidusshofa99@gmail.com.
Muhammad Fatkhur Riza is a research assistant at the STEM Education
Laboratory at the study program of Natural Science Education (Tadris IPA), IAIN Kudus,
Indonesia. Recent research that has been done: Analysis of students’ understanding on the topic
of classification and changing state of matter using a six-tier diagnostic test containing multiple-
level representations. He can be contacted at email: rizaf258@gmail.com.
Achmad Ali Fikri is an educator in the teacher preparation program at the study
program of Biology Education (Tadris Biologi), State Islamic Institute of Kudus (IAIN Kudus),
Indonesia. He has a master’s background in science education. He is active in research studies
and community service activities in the field of science education. He can be contacted at email:
fikri@iainkudus.ac.id.

Exploring the pre-service basic science teachers’ misconceptions using the six-tier diagnostic test

More Related Content

Similar to Exploring the pre-service basic science teachers’ misconceptions using the six-tier diagnostic test (20)

More from International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Exploring the pre-service basic science teachers’ misconceptions using the six-tier diagnostic test