Analysis of Misconceptions on the Factors that Affect the Reaction Rate


This study aimed to analyze the misconceptions in the chemical concept of the factors that affect reaction rates through a qualitative descriptive method. The misconceptions experienced by students were examined through analyzing journals, books, and field experiences. Furthermore, research was carried out to obtain misconceptions that were often experienced by students and the sources of those misconceptions. There were 30 misconceptions about the factors that affect the reaction rate based on the literature. Based on the results of the study, there were three misconceptions experienced by 20 students from the total number of 21 students. The misconception that most students experienced was that when the concentration of reactants increases, a reaction will take longer because there will be much more particles to collide. In addition, the rate of the same reactions was compared at different temperatures, and then the reaction with the highest temperature was defined as the rate of reaction. The next misconception was that the temperature increase in an exothermic reaction can increase the forward rate and decrease the reverse rate because the equilibrium shifts to the right. Misconceptions were caused by information from the internet, teachers teaching in schools, textbooks used by students and the everyday life experiences of students.

Keywords: misconception, chemical concept, literature

[1] Harahap IP, Novita D. Identify misconception on reaction rate concept using Four-Tier Multiple Choice (4TMC) diagnostic test instrument. Journal of Chemistry Education Research. 2021;5(1):6.

[2] Gurel DK, Erylimaz A, Mcdermott LC. A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students ’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2015;11(5):989–1008.

[3] Üce M, Ceyhan I. Misconception in chemistry education and practices to eliminate them: literature analysis. J Educ Train Stud. 2019;7(3):202.

[4] Kesidou S, Duit R. Students’ conceptions of the second law of thermodynamics—an interpretive study. J Res Sci Teach. 1993;30(1):85–106.

[5] Wang CY. The role of mental-modeling ability, content knowledge, and mental models in general chemistry students’ understanding about molecular polarity. Disertasi. 2007;70 no. 3-A:835.

[6] Tasker R, Dalton R. Research into practice : visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2006;7(2):141–59.

[7] Johnstone AH. Why is science difficult to learn? things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Learn. 1991;7(2):75–83.

[8] Chandrasegaran DF, Mocerino M. The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students ’ ability to .... Chem Educ Res Pract. 2007;8(3):293–307.

[9] Handayanti Y, Setiabudi A. Analisis profil model mental siswa SMA. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA. 2015;1(1):107–122.

[10] Ferreira JE, Lawrie GA. Profiling the combinations of multiple representations used in large-class teaching: pathways to inclusive practices. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2019;20(4):902–23.

[11] Kurt S, Ayas A. Improving students’ understanding and explaining real life problems on concepts of reaction rate by using a four step constructivist approach. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B Soc Educ Stud. 2012;4(2):979–92.

[12] Çam A, Topçu MS, Sülün Y. Preservice science teachers’ attitudes towards chemistry and misconceptions about chemical kinetics. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching. 2015;16(2):12–4.

[13] Siswaningsih W, Anisa N, Komalasari NE, Indah R. Pengembangan tes diagnostik two tier untuk mengidentifikasi miskonsepsi pada materi kimia siswa SMA. Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA. 2014;19(1):117–27.

[14] Yalç??nkaya E, Tastan-K??r??k Ö, Boz Y, Y??ld??ran D. Research in science & technological education Is case-based learning an effective teaching strategy to challenge students ’ alternative conceptions regarding chemical kinetics. Res Sci Technol Educ. 2012;30(2):151–72.

[15] Turányi T, Tóth Z. Hungarian university students’ misunderstandings in thermodynamics and chemical kinetics. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2013;14(1):105–16.

[16] Femintasari V, Effendy E, Munzil M. The effectiveness of two-tier multiple choice test and multiple choice test followed with interview in identifying misconception of students with different scientific reasoning skills in reaction rate. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Negeri Malang. 2015;21(2):192–7.

[17] Balci Ceyda. Conceptual change text oriented instruction to facilitate conceptual change in rate of reaction concepts. 2006.

[18] Sulastri M. S.Winarni.R.F. et al. Nazar. Identifikasi miskonsepsi siswa sma pada konsep faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi laju reaksi. Jurnal Biologi Edukasi. 2010;2(3):49–53.

[19] Fahmi F, Irhasyuarna Y. Misconceptions of reaction rates on high school level in Banjarmasin [IOSRJRME]. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education. 2017;07(01):54–61.

[20] Lestari LA. Identifikasi miskonsepsi siswa pada materi laju reaksi dan perbaikannya menggunakan model pembelajaran learning cycle 5E dengan strategi konflik kognitif. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan. 2021;6(6):888– 894.

[21] Wijayadi AW. Menggali pemahaman awal mahasiswa tingkat I pada materi laju reaksi menggunakan instrumen two tier. 2017;5(2):172–180.

[22] Jusniar J, Effendy E, Budiasih E, Sutrisno S. Misconceptions in rate of reaction and their impact on misconceptions in chemical equilibrium. European Journal of Educational Research. 2020;9(4):1405–23.

[23] Cakmakci G. Secondary school and undergraduate students’ alternative conceptions of chemical. Journal of chemical education. 2010.

[24] Tastan Kirik Ö, Boz Y. Cooperative learning instruction for conceptual change in the concepts of chemical kinetics. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2012;13(3):221–36.

[25] Kolomuç A, Çal??k M. A Comparison of chemistry teachers ’ and grade 11 students ’ alternative conceptions of ‘ rate of reaction. ’. J Balt Sci Educ. 2012;11(4):333–46.

[26] Yan YK, Subramaniam R. Using a multi-tier diagnostic test to explore the nature of students’ alternative conceptions on reaction kinetics. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2018;19(1):213–26.

[27] Titari I, Nasrudin H. Keterlaksanaan strategi konflik kognitif untuk mereduksi miskonsepsi siswa kelas XI SMA negeri 1 Kertosono pada materi laju reaksi. UNESA Journal of Chemical Education. 2017;6(2):144–9.

[28] Ahiakwo MJ, Isiguzo CQ, Harcourt P. Students’ conceptions and misconceptions in chemical kinetics in Port Harcourt Metropolis of Nigeria. African Journal of Chemical Education. 2015;5(2):112-130.

[29] Sözbilir M, Pinarbasi T, Canpolat N. Prospective chemistry teachers’ conceptions of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2010;6(2):111–21.

[30] Kelly RM, Akaygun S. “Insights into how students learn the difference between a weak acid and a strong acid from cartoon tutorials employing visualizations.,” p. 2016.

[31] Yan R. Y. K., & Subramaniam, “chemistry education research and practice, 17 (4), 1114-1126.,”. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2016;17:1114–26.

[32] Ling TW. Overcoming students’ misconceptions in science. Fostering understanding and reducing misconceptions about image formation by a plane mirror using constructivist-based hands-on activities. 2017.

[33] Lin J, Chiu MH, Liang JC. Exploring mental models and causes of students’ misconceptions in acids and bases. Project Report In National Science Council; 2004. pp. 1–12.

[34] Widiyatmoko A, Shimizu K. Literature review of factors contributing to students’ misconceptions in light and optical instruments. Int J Environ Sci Educ. 2018;13(10):853– 63.

[35] Barke HD, Hazari A, Yitbarek S. Misconceptions in chemistry: addressing perceptions in chemical education. Misconceptions in Chemistry: Addressing Perceptions in Chemical Education. 2009. pp. 1–294.

[36] Wallace R, Kupperman J. On-line search in the science classroom: Benefits and possibilities. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; 1997; Chicago, IL.