Chimica nella Scuola

Convegno 2025 della Divisione Didattica

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2026): Chimica nella Scuola n. 2 2026

Interventi didattici volti a superare le concezioni alternative in chimica: una revisione sistematica della letteratura

  • Giulia Grotto
  • Marco Neviani
  • Sergio Zappoli
Submitted
16 June 2026
Published
16 June 2026

Abstract

Alternative conceptions are widespread, resistant to change, and hinder effective learning. The objective of this research project is to analyze, through a systematic review of the literature, the characteristics, theoretical framework, and effectiveness of instructional interventions aimed at overcoming alternative conceptions in chemistry among secondary school and university students. In November 2024, a systematic review was conducted across 24 databases on the ProQuest portal. The search returned a total of 1,618 articles, which were assessed to determine their compliance with the eligibility criteria. A total of 84 intervention studies were included in the systematic review. The analyzed studies are diverse in terms of duration, included populations, covered topics, theoretical backgrounds, teaching methodologies, and assessment methods. All the interventions demonstrated that the use of an active teaching methodology is more effective than traditional lectures in promoting conceptual change. The adoption of active teaching methods can enhance the learning of chemistry. Future studies could investigate which type of active learning is most effective for specific topics or student groups.

References

  1. 1] P. Potvin, G. Malenfant-Robichaud, C. Cormier, S. Masson, Coexistence of misconceptions and scientific conceptions in chemistry professors: a mental chronometry and fMRI study, Front. Educ., 2020, vol. 5 (https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.542458).
  2. [2] M. R. Matthews, Thomas Kuhn and science education, Sci. Educ., 2022, Dec. 13, 1-70 (10.1007/s11191-022-00408-1).
  3. [3] M. M. Cooper, R. L. Stowe, Chemistry education research - From personal empiricism to evidence, theory, and informed practice, Chem. Rev., 2018, 118(12), 6053-6087 (10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00020).
  4. [4] H.-J. Schmidt, Students’ misconceptions? Looking for a pattern, Sci. Educ., 1997, 81(2), 123-135 (10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2%3C123::AID-SCE1%3E3.0.CO;2-H).
  5. [5] B.-S. Eylon, M. C. Linn, Learning and instruction: an examination of four research perspectives in science education, Rev. Educ. Res., 1988, 58(3), 251-301 (10.3102/00346543058003251).
  6. [6] H.-D. Barke, A. Hazari, S. Yitbarek, Misconceptions in Chemistry, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2009 (10.1007/978-3-540-70989-3).
  7. [7] B. C. Mondal, A. Chakraborty, Misconceptions in Chemistry, LAMBERT Academic Publishing, London, 2013.
  8. [8] S. Sunyono, L. Tania, A. Saputra, A. Saputra, A learning exercise using simple and real-time visualization tool to counter misconceptions about orbitals and quantum numbers, J. Balt. Sci. Educ., 2016, 15(4), 452-463 (https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/16.15.452).
  9. [9] M. T. H. Chi, J. D. Slotta, N. De Leeuw, From things to processes: a theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts, Learn. Instr., 1994, vol. 4(1), 27-43 (doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90017-5).
  10. [10] Y. Boz, Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ alternative conceptions about acids and bases, Sch. Sci. Math., 2009, 109(4), 212-222 (doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb18259.x).
  11. [11] M. I. Stojanovska, B. T. Soptrajanov, V. M. Petrusevski, Addressing misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter among secondary-school and high-school students in the Republic of Macedonia, Creat. Educ., 2012, 3(5), 619-631 (doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.35091).
  12. [12] R. Karplus, Chemical phenomena in elementary school science, J. Chem. Educ., 1996, 43(5), 267 (doi: 10.1021/ed043p267).
  13. [13] K. S. Taber, Building the structural concepts of chemistry: some considerations from educational research, Chem. Educ. Res. Pr., 2001, 2(2), 123-158 (doi: 10.1039/B1RP90014E).
  14. [14] A. H. Johnstone, Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem, J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 1991, 7(2), 75-83 (doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x).
  15. [15] W. B. Jensen, Logic, history, and the chemistry textbook I. Does chemistry have a logical structure?, J. Chem. Educ., 1998, 75(6), 679.
  16. [16] M. Çalýk, A. Ayas, J. V. Ebenezer, A review of solution chemistry studies: insights into students’ conceptions, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 2005, 14(1), 29-50 (doi: 10.1007/s10956-005-2732-3).
  17. [17] A. L. Chandrasegaran, D. F. Treagust, M. Mocerino, An evaluation of a teaching intervention to promote students’ ability to use multiple levels of representation when describing and explaining chemical reactions, Res. Sci. Educ., 2008, 38(2), 237-248 (doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9046-9).
  18. [18] D. F. Treagust, A. L. Chandrasegaran, J. Crowley, B. H. W. Yung, I. P.-A. Cheong, J. Othman, Evaluating students’ understanding of kinetic particle theory concepts relating to the states of matter, changes of state and diffusion: a cross-national study, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 2010, 8(1), 141-164 (doi: 10.1007/s10763-009-9166-y).
  19. [19] R. Ben-Zvi, B.-S. Eylon, J. Silberstein, Is an atom of copper malleable?, J. Chem. Educ., 1986, 63(1), 64 (doi: 10.1021/ed063p64).
  20. [20] A. H. Johnstone, Chemistry teaching - Science or alchemy? 1996 Brasted lecture, J. Chem. Educ., 1997, 74(3), 262 (doi: 10.1021/ed074p262).
  21. [21] J. D. Novak, Application of advances in learning theory and philosophy of science to the improvement of chemistry teaching, J. Chem. Educ., 1984, 61(7), 607 (doi: 10.1021/ed061p607).
  22. [22] G. J. Posner, K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, W. A. Gertzog, Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change, Sci. Educ., 1982, 66(2), 211-227 (doi: 10.1002/sce.3730660207).
  23. [23] A. A. diSessa, Knowledge in pieces, in Constructivism in the computer age (Eds., G. Forman, P. B. Pufall), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 1988, pp. 49-70.
  24. [24] E. F. Mortimer, Conceptual change or conceptual profile change?, Sci. Educ., 1995, 4(3), 267-285 (doi: 10.1007/BF00486624).
  25. [25] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in society: development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, 1978 (doi: 10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4).
  26. [26] M. Sozbilir, Turkish chemistry undergraduate students’ misunderstandings of Gibbs free energy, U. Chem. Ed., 2002, 6, 73-82.
  27. [27] A. R. Suparman, E. Rohaeti, S. Wening, Student misconception in chemistry: a systematic literature review, Pegem J. Educ. Instr., 2024, 14(2), 238-252 (doi: 10.47750/pegegog.14.02.28).
  28. [28] M. Stojanovska, V. Petrusevski, H.-G. Köller, S. Karlsen, Students’ alternative conceptions and ways to overcome them, in A guidebook of good practice for the pre-service training of chemistry teachers, Faculty of Chemistry, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, 2015, pp. 177-202.
  29. [29] A. E. J. Bowen, R. A. Ferreira, A. Tolmie, M. S. C. Thomas, G. Borst, J. Van Herwegen, International perspectives on gaps and solutions for integrating research evidence into classroom practices, NPJ Sci. Learn., 2025, 10, 79 (doi: 10.1038/s41539-025-00370-x).
  30. [30] T. W. Teo, M. T. Goh, L. W. Yeo, Chemistry education research trends: 2004-2013, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2014, 15(4), 470-487 (doi: 10.1039/C4RP00104D).
  31. [31] M. H. Towns, A. Kraft, Review and synthesis of research in chemical education from 2000-2010, in Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, Washington, October, 2011.
  32. [32] M. J. Page et al., The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ, 2021, 372, n71 (doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71).
  33. [33] C. Stern, Z. Jordan, A. McArthur, Developing the review question and inclusion criteria, AJN, Am. J. Nurs., 2014, 114(4), 53-56 (doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000445689.67800.86).
  34. [34] R. Vladusic, R. B. Bucat, M. Ozic, Understanding covalent bonding – a scan across the Croatian education system, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2023, 24(1), 108-131 (doi: 10.1039/D2RP00039C).
  35. [35] S. Magnusson, J. Krajcik, Borko, Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching, in Examining pedagogical content knowledge (Eds., J. Gess-Newsome, N. G. Lederman) Science & Technology Education Library, Springer, Dordrecht, 1999, vol. 6, pp. 95-132 (doi: 10.1007/0-306-47217-1_4).
  36. [36] G. Benvenuto, Stili e metodi della ricerca educativa, Collana Studi Superiori, Carocci Editore. Roma, 2015.
  37. [37] L. Mason, Psicologia dell’apprendimento e dell’istruzione, terza edizione, Collana Manuali, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2019.
  38. [38] American Educational Research Association, Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications, Educational researcher, 2006, 35(6), 33-40.
  39. [39] E. Taş, S. Gülen, Z. Öner, C. Özyürek, The effects of classic and web-designed conceptual change texts on the subject of water chemistry, International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2015, 7(2), 263-280.
  40. [40] H. G. Seyhan, G. E. Türk, The effect of argumentation-supported problem-based learning method in teaching chemical equilibrium and Le-Chatelier’s principle, Mimbar Sekolah Dasar, 2022, 9(3), 413-430 (doi: 10.53400/mimbar-sd.v9i3.45585).
  41. [41] G. M. Bodner, I have found you an argument: the conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students, J. Chem. Educ., 1991, 68(5), 385 (doi: 10.1021/ed068p385).
  42. [42] S. L. Westbrook, E. A. Marek, A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of diffusion, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 1991, 28(8), 649-660 (doi: 10.1002/tea.3660280803).
  43. [43] J. J. Hesse, C. W. Anderson, Students’ conceptions of chemical change, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 1992, 29(3), 277-299.
  44. [44] J. A. C. Sterne et al., RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, BMJ, 2019, 366, l4898 (doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898).
  45. [45] J. A. Sterne et al., ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions, BMJ, 2016, 355, i4919 (doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919).
  46. [46] H.-J. Seo, S. Y. Kim, Y. J. Lee, J.-E. Park, RoBANS 2: a revised risk of bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions, Korean J. Fam. Med., 2023, 44(5), 249-260 (doi: 10.4082/kjfm.23.0034).
  47. [47] A. Stang, Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses, Eur. J. Epidemiol., 2010, 25(9), 603-605 (doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z).
  48. [48] D. Gough, J. Thomas, S. Oliver, Clarifying differences between review designs and methods, Syst. Rev., 2012, 1(1), 28 (doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28).

Most read articles by the same author(s)