Building Up Diffusion and Osmosis

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF DIFUSSION AND OSMOSIS:
AN ASSESSMENT OF ALL ASPECTS
ABSTRACT
The concepts of diffusion and osmosis have been identified as very central towards the
understanding of many life processes and are also integrated into other science subjects such as
physics, and chemistry. To assess students’ conceptual understanding and application of
diffusion and osmosis, this study developed and validated a 25- item diagnostic test on diffusion
and osmosis (DTDO), a two-tier test consisting of twelve original items obtained from Diffusion
Osmosis Diagnostic Test (DODT) as well as thirteen newly developed and validated items that
aligned perfectly well with the Senior Secondary School curriculum in Nigeria and also the
university curriculum for Diploma students. The diagnostic instrument was administered to 806
Diploma students (476 biology majors and 330 non- biology majors) who had received one year
instruction in biology, chemistry and physics and had just written both the final year diploma
examinations and the Joint Universities Preliminary Examinations Board (JUPEB) examinations
in a large federal university in Nigeria and were seeking direct entry admission into Nigerian
universities or partnering foreign tertiary universities. The content of DTDO covered all aspects
of diffusion and osmosis in all life processes. The process of development of the items
encompassed content, expert and incremental validity as well as obtaining difficulty and
discriminating indices for the matched pairs of items. Cronbach alpha was used to estimate the
internal consistency of the items in addition to using standard error of measurement for obtaining
bandwidth of scores in a single test administration. The study revealed incremental validity of
DTDO over DODT. Also, lack of conceptual understanding and application was evident in
students’ responses to items in DTDO. The findings …..
Word count: 235

Keywords: Conceptual understanding, Application, Diffusion and Osmosis.
INTRODUCTION
Reforms in mastery learning including Science Technology and Society (STS) initiatives
emphasise the teaching and learning of science in the context of human experiences. However,
only few researchers have evaluated the effectiveness of teaching programmes in the classroom
and the process of arriving at an answer rather than simply requiring students to regurgitate the
“right” answer – whether or not they understand either the answer or its justification. (Lawson,
1988; Glordan, 1996, Gallagher, 2000).
With the constructivism movement in science education, a large body of empirical data have
been provided that shows that students often come to science classes with conceptions
concerning a whole range of scientific domains that do not coincide with accepted scientific
thought (Carmichael et al. 1990; Duschl and Gitomer, 1991; Driver et al. 1994, Dfundt and Duit,
1940, Tekkaya, 2003, Chi, 2005,Tsui and Treagust, 2009).
The four major Worldwide Reforms in Science Education before the turn of the 21st Century
embrace four major goals which are: Science for all will lead to better development (Jenkins,
1997), Teaching for understanding and application of science knowledge and principles will lead
to productive work (Scott, 1998), Inclusion of a broader view of science in the curriculum will
incorporate local practices (Cobem, 1998), Less is better (this will avoid overloading the
curriculum) (Solomon, 1999). These major goals aim at attaining mastery in learning. However,
by the turn of the century, Gallagher (2000) affirmed that only a small percentage of students
who studied science in high school came out with any degree of understanding or “love” of
science. Eyibe (1990), Jegede (1992), Okebukola (1997) and Salau (1995) all asserted that a
large number of students find science learning difficult, boring and not interesting. Hence,
different authors and researchers have investigated the causes for the low learning outcomes.
Evidence from literature indicate that assessment also need to be broadened (Baker & Stites,
1991: Cizek & Rochor, 1994, Ferrara & Mctighe, 1992: Stiggins, 1991a, Busari, 1997; 2001,
Udeani, 2002; Baiyelo, 2000). Gallagher (2000) advocated strongly that there should be a shift
from the old vision about teaching and learning science to the current reform vision in science
teaching. In simple terms, the old vision about teaching and learning has the following
attributes:-
Knowledge is viewed as a commodity that can be transmitted

Teaching is viewed as transmitting information
Learning is viewed as memorization, and
Assessment is viewed as a summative task that distinguished between those who learned
and those who did not.
The 21st century reforms in science teaching have the following characteristics:
Knowledge is not a commodity that can be transmitted but the result of individual,
personal transformation of factual elements and relationships into a coherent form by the
learner. In concise terms, this vision holds that knowledge must be constructed by
individual learners.
Teaching is viewed as guiding the students towards valid construction of knowledge,
recognizing that unguided construction of knowledge frequently does not conform to the
scientific canon.
Learning is a process of making sense of new information and reconciling new and prior
knowledge to create a new level of understanding and application.
Assessment is viewed as formative in guiding both teacher and students toward deeper
understanding of and reasoning about the instructional topic. (Gallagher, 2000)
According to Gallagher (2000), if teachers are to participate in the contemporary reform
in science teaching, it is essential that they adopt this new vision about teaching and
learning and abandon the former one.
More than two decades ago, Odom and Barrow (1995) developed and applied a two-tier
diagnostic test named the diffusion and osmosis diagnostic test (DODT) on college
biology students to assess their understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a course of
instruction. Their results revealed that the performance of the college biology majors was
consistently poor, and scores obtained by college non- biology majors and high school
students were even lower. Twelve years later after the first report, Odom and Barrow
(2007) investigated responses and the level of certainty among 58 high school students
who responded to the DODT after a week of instruction on diffusion and osmosis.
Responses among the subjects were conspicuously similar to those obtained previously.
Furthermore, the confidence level of the subjects was assessed and discovered that the
students displayed high level of confidence on their incorrect responses.
In a more recent research by Fisher, Williams, and Lineback (2011), a two- tier
diagnostic tool containing 18 items on Diffusion and osmosis named Osmosis and
diffusion conceptual assessment(ODCA), some adopted or modified from the previous
work of Odom and Barrow (DODT) was administered among students at a large public
university. Responses from ODCA were remarkably similarly to the responses to DODT
collected from students 15 years earlier.
This paper assesses students’ conceptual understanding and application of diffusion and
osmosis, by using an enhanced 25- item diagnostic test on diffusion and osmosis (DTDO), a two-
tier test consisting of twelve original items obtained from Diffusion Osmosis Diagnostic Test
(DODT) as well as thirteen newly developed and validated items that aligned perfectly well with
the Senior Secondary School curriculum in Nigeria and also the university curriculum for
Diploma students. The diagnostic instrument was administered to 806 Diploma students (476
biology majors and 330 non- biology majors) who had received one year instruction in biology,
chemistry and physics and had just written both the final year diploma examinations and the
Joint Universities Preliminary Examinations Board (JUPEB) examinations in a large federal
university in Nigeria and were seeking direct entry admission into Nigerian universities or
partnering foreign tertiary universities. The content of DTDO covered all aspects of diffusion
and osmosis in all life processes. The process of development of the items encompassed content,
expert and incremental validity as well as well as obtaining difficulty and discriminating indices
for the matched pairs of items.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
There is considerable research evidence in science education in the past decades to support the
notion that students construct their own explanations for scientific phenomena, and these
explanations may be different from accepted scientific explanations. Also, there is a dearth in
conceptual assessment instruments in biology (D’Avanzo, 2008,Chi and Roscoe,2002) hence the
need to develop a 2-tier Diagnostic Test in Diffusion and Osmosis (DTDO) to assess student
conceptual understanding and application of Diffusion and Osmosis.
Similarly, diffusion and osmosis are fundamental concepts which could enhance the
understanding of many important life processes. Diffusion is the primary method of short
distance transport in cells and cellular systems. Similarly, understanding of osmosis concepts is
vital to understanding of water intake by plants, water balance in land and aquatic creatures,
turgor pressure in plants, and transport in living organisms. Also, diffusion and osmosis are
closely related to key concepts in physics and chemistry such as permeability, solutions, and the
particulate nature of matter (Friedler, Amir, & Tamir, 1987).
The choice of course content on Osmosis and Diffusion as topics for this study was informed by
the reports released from WAEC Chief Examiners’ Reports (2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012) on
the poor performance of students in cell and environment/transport in animal and plant aspects of
biology. Similarly, an examination of the science scheme of work of the Diploma programme
showed that the students had concluded topics on diffusion and osmosis and related concepts and
had written their last paper.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This present work hinges on the following theories:
Ausubel’s Theory of Meaningful Learning

This theory believes in the role of prior knowledge in cognitive structure and the effect which
sequential organization of subject matter has on the stability and clarity of anchoring ideas for
subsequent learning. In other words, the incorporation of new concepts and information into an
existing and established cognitive framework is largely influenced by the students’ past
experience and the integrative nature of subject-matter discipline. It was
David Ausubel who first introduced a pre-instructional strategy which he called “Advance
Organizer”. Advance organizer is based on the cognitive view. The cognitive field theorists,
otherwise referred to as the gestaltist, consider mental processes as essential factors in learning.
They stress the importance of the internal operation (O) of the learner, which result in learning as
a necessary means of controlling the stimulus (S) and of determining the Response ®. Some of
the proponents of this theory include Koffika, 1935; Piaget, 1947; Ausubel, 1963; and Brunner,
1983; Okebukola, 1999 and Snead, 2002).
Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s Theories of Cognitive Development

Poet Neah Perry once asked “who knows the thoughts of a child?” More than anyone, the
famous Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (19896-1980) knew. Piaget emphasized that children
learn best when they are active and seek solutions for themselves – rather than blindly imitating
the teacher or doing things by rote. Effective teachers are to design situations that allow students
to learn by doing. This situation according to him will promote students’ thinking and discovery.
According to Piaget, students do not come to class with empty heads. They have many ideas
about the physical and natural world. They have concepts of space, time, quantity and causality.
These ideas differ from the idea of adults. Some of the general principles in Piaget’s theory that
can be applied to teaching are the use of ongoing assessment and the turning of the classroom
into a setting of exploration and discovery. Vygotsky believes that children actively construct
their own knowledge. Vygotsky believes that teaching should begin toward the zone’s upper
limit where the student is able to reach the goal only through close collaboration with the
instructor (student’s zones of proximal development in teaching).
Constructivist Theory of Learning
The constructivist theory of learning assumes that learning is seen as an adaptive process, one in
which learners’ conceptual schemes are progressively reconstructed so that they are in keeping
with a continually wider range of experiences and ideas. It is also seen as an active process of
sense making over which the learner – has some control.
According to Yager (1990), every individual construct and reconstructs knowledge in the process
of assimilating knowledge and relating it to real life. It is favoured for the following:
1. Focusing on epistemological issues in learning and curriculum (Phillip, 1995)

2. Enhancing our knowledge of difficulties in learning science (Osborne, 1998)
3. Fostering the development of innovative methods of science teaching (Osborne, 1996)
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to determine the following:

1. To identify biology and non-biology major diploma students' common misconceptions
about diffusion and osmosis.
2. To determine whether males and females are different in their
understanding of concepts concerning diffusion and osmosis.
3. To determine the specific areas where students show the most misconceptions.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Research questions
1. What is the level of students’ conceptual understanding and application of diffusion and
osmosis?
2. Is there any difference in the conceptual understanding and application of each of diffusion
and osmosis among biology major and non-biology major among diploma students?
3. Are there differences in the level of conceptual understanding and application of diffusion and
osmosis of biology major and non-biology major among diploma students?
4. Does gender have any effect on students’ conceptual understanding and application of
diffusion and osmosis among diploma students?
5. In which specific areas of diffusion and osmosis do biology major and non-biology major
among diploma students show the most misconceptions?
Research hypothesis
1. There is no significant difference in the level of conceptual understanding and application of

diffusion and osmosis of biology major and non-biology major among diploma students?
2. There is no significant difference in the conceptual understanding and application of diffusion

and osmosis of male and female students among diploma students?
3. There is no significance difference in the conceptual understanding and application of each of

diffusion and osmosis of biology major and non-biology major among diploma students?
METHODOLOGY
This study developed and validated a 25- item diagnostic test on diffusion and osmosis (DTDO),
a two-tier test consisting of twelve original items obtained from Diffusion Osmosis Diagnostic
Test (DODT) as earlier developed by Odom and Barrow (1995) well as thirteen newly developed
and validated items that aligned perfectly well with the Senior Secondary School curriculum in
Nigeria and also the university curriculum for Diploma students. The newly developed 13- items
diagnostic test on Diffusion and Osmosis carefully selected from past WAEC questions and
restructured to fit into the 2- tier diagnostic test was administered to 40 participants made up of
SSS students and Biology teachers. The difficult to understand questions were further
restructured as based on teachers and students responses to items and interview. The items
covered the existing content areas of the particulate and random nature of matter, concentration
and tonicity, process of diffusion and process of osmosis originally itemized by Odom and
Barrow. Also, the 25 items were further screened by two senior lecturers in cell biology and
genetics department of a big federal university for suitability of the content and items for
Diploma students. Comments from these experts further helped to validate the instrument. The
25- items diagnostic test was then administered to 20 diploma students. The reliability coefficient
of 0.86 was obtained.
The process of development of the items encompassed content, expert and incremental validity
as well as obtaining difficulty and discriminating indices for the matched pairs of items.
Cronbach alpha was used to estimate the internal consistency of the items in addition to using
standard error of measurement for obtaining bandwidth of scores in a single test administration.
The diagnostic instrument was administered by the researcher and three research assistants to
806 Diploma students (476 biology majors and 330 non- biology majors) who had received one
year instruction in biology, chemistry and physics and had just written both the final year
diploma examinations and the Joint Universities Preliminary Examinations Board (JUPEB)
examinations in a large federal university in Nigeria and were seeking direct entry admission into
Nigerian universities or partnering foreign tertiary universities. These students were ready to
write their last JUPEB practical paper and were all gathered in a big hall waiting for the exam
when the 2- tier diagnostic test was conducted.
The content of DTDO covered all aspects of diffusion and osmosis in all life processes. The
DTDO was SAMPLE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUE
DATA COLLECTION
DATA ANALYSIS
Table 1a. Percentage of Male Biology non-majors selecting correct choice, reason and
combination of choice and reason for the25 items on the Diffusion and Osmosis Test
Male (Total N1=194)
Item Correct Correct Correct

choice reason combination
1 70.10309 64.43299 49.48454
2 45.87629 34.53608 14.94845
3 53.60825 31.4433 23.19588
4 9.278351 38.65979 2.57732
5 22.68041 23.19588 12.8866
6 40.20619 24.74227 16.49485
7 45.87629 61.85567 35.05155
8 34.02062 22.16495 10.30928
9 27.31959 24.2268 10.30928
10 48.96907 32.47423 18.5567
11 19.07216 30.92784 10.30928
12 48.96907 33.50515 17.52577
13 31.4433 40.20619 12.8866
14 44.3299 48.45361 32.47423

15 47.93814 50.51546 34.53608
16 36.08247 32.98969 19.58763
17 47.93814 25.25773 16.49485
18 60.30928 57.21649 44.3299
19 51.54639 55.15464 40.72165
20 57.21649 50.51546 40.72165
21 37.1134 34.02062 16.49485
22 50.51546 49.48454 37.62887
23 25.25773 32.98969 11.85567
24 46.39175 52.57732 40.20619
25 42.26804 48.45361 30.41237
Table 1b. Percentage of Female Biology non-majors selecting correct choice, reason and
Female (N2=136)
1 73.52941 74.26471 61.02941
2 41.91176 27.20588 11.02941
3 55.14706 30.88235 24.26471
4 5.147059 43.38235 2.205882
5 27.20588 36.02941 19.85294
6 37.5 33.08824 21.32353
7 40.44118 58.82353 31.61765
8 33.08824 19.85294 8.823529
9 33.82353 16.91176 9.558824
10 43.38235 30.14706 17.64706
11 17.64706 28.67647 8.823529
12 54.41176 39.70588 21.32353
13 31.61765 35.29412 13.23529
14 46.32353 47.79412 35.29412
15 52.94118 49.26471 36.02941
16 32.35294 36.02941 23.52941
17 49.26471 34.55882 21.32353
18 61.76471 49.26471 43.38235
19 54.41176 56.61765 41.91176
20 49.26471 53.67647 38.97059
21 39.70588 33.82353 19.85294
22 57.35294 47.79412 41.17647
23 29.41176 34.55882 15.44118
24 49.26471 46.32353 38.97059
25 50.73529 50 33.08824
Table 1c. Percentage of Biology non-majors selecting correct choice, reason and
All (male and female N=330 )

1 71.51515 68.48485 54.24242
2 44.24242 31.51515 13.33333
3 54.24242 31.21212 23.63636
4 7.575758 40.60606 2.424242
5 24.54545 28.48485 15.75758
6 39.09091 28.18182 18.48485
7 43.63636 60.60606 33.63636
8 33.63636 21.21212 9.69697
9 30 21.21212 10
10 46.66667 31.51515 18.18182
11 18.48485 30 9.69697
12 51.21212 36.06061 19.09091
13 31.51515 38.18182 13.0303
14 45.15152 48.18182 33.63636
15 50 50 35.15152
16 34.54545 34.24242 21.21212
17 48.48485 29.09091 18.48485
18 60.90909 53.93939 43.93939
19 52.72727 55.75758 41.21212
20 53.93939 51.81818 40
21 38.18182 33.93939 17.87879
22 53.33333 48.78788 39.09091
23 26.9697 33.63636 13.33333
24 47.57576 50 39.69697
25 45.75758 49.09091 31.51515
Table 2a. Percentage of male Biology majors selecting correct choice, reason and
Male (Total N1=196)

1 75 71.42857 58.16327
2 54.59184 31.12245 18.87755
3 56.63265 34.18367 28.57143
4 5.102041 53.06122 1.530612
5 21.42857 25 15.30612
6 42.85714 30.61224 23.46939
7 53.06122 70.91837 42.34694
8 40.81633 28.06122 15.81633
9 33.16327 34.69388 18.36735
10 61.22449 30.10204 23.97959
11 23.46939 37.2449 14.28571
12 70.91837 37.2449 30.10204
13 29.08163 38.26531 15.81633
14 47.95918 56.12245 36.73469
15 53.57143 58.16327 44.38776
16 47.95918 41.32653 34.69388
17 55.10204 34.18367 20.91837
18 70.91837 62.7551 55.61224
19 59.18367 58.67347 45.40816
20 59.69388 59.69388 47.44898
21 40.30612 41.32653 25
22 58.16327 56.12245 43.36735
23 29.08163 36.22449 13.77551
24 52.55102 52.04082 46.93878
25 40.81633 50.5102 31.63265
Table 2b. Percentage of female Biology majors selecting correct choice, reason and
Female (N2=280)

1 66.42857 70.35714 53.92857
2 55 28.57143 15.71429
3 54.28571 27.85714 22.5
4 7.5 47.85714 3.214286
5 25 27.85714 17.5
6 47.85714 35.35714 30.35714
7 52.5 69.28571 46.07143
8 35.35714 26.07143 15
9 27.85714 24.64286 14.28571
10 51.07143 27.5 17.5
11 21.78571 23.57143 8.928571
12 65 35.71429 29.28571
13 27.85714 31.42857 12.5
14 44.28571 47.85714 34.64286
15 54.64286 57.5 42.14286
16 51.78571 45.71429 37.14286
17 53.92857 28.92857 20.71429
18 66.42857 62.14286 52.5
19 58.21429 65.71429 47.85714
20 60.35714 59.28571 46.78571
21 41.42857 36.78571 21.42857
22 56.07143 51.07143 38.92857
23 28.92857 33.57143 13.21429
24 47.85714 50.35714 41.42857
25 42.85714 51.78571 31.42857
Table 2c. Percentage of Biology majors selecting correct choice, reason and combination of
choice and reason for the25 items on the Diffusion and Osmosis Test
All (male and female = 476)

1 69.7479 70.58824 55.46218
2 54.62185 29.62185 17.01681
3 55.04202 30.46218 25
4 6.512605 49.78992 2.521008
5 23.52941 26.68067 16.59664
6 45.79832 33.40336 27.52101
7 52.73109 69.95798 44.53782
8 37.39496 26.68067 15.12605
9 30.04202 28.57143 15.96639
10 55.2521 28.57143 20.16807
11 22.47899 29.20168 11.13445
12 67.22689 36.13445 29.41176
13 28.15126 34.2437 13.86555
14 45.79832 51.2605 35.5042
15 53.9916 57.56303 42.85714
16 50.21008 43.90756 36.13445
17 54.20168 31.09244 20.79832
18 68.06723 62.18487 53.57143
19 58.40336 62.81513 46.84874
20 59.87395 59.2437 46.84874
21 40.96639 38.65546 22.89916
22 56.93277 52.94118 40.7563
23 28.9916 34.45378 13.44538
24 49.57983 50.84034 43.48739
25 41.80672 51.05042 31.30252
Male (Total N1=194)
CONCEPTS ITEMS Content Reason Correct

choice combination
1.The process of diffusion 1, 5, 14, 24, 25 45.16 47.42 33.09
2. The particulate nature and random 2, 3, 6, 16, 18, 47.77 38.40 26.03
motion of matter 22
3. Concentration and tonicity 4, 9,13, 21, 23 26.08 34.02 10.82
4. Kinetic energy of matter 7 45.88 61.86 35.05
5. The process of osmosis 8, 10, 15, 17 44.72 32.60 19.97
6. The influence of life forces on 11, 20 38.14 40.72 25.52

diffusion and osmosis
7. Membrane 12, 19 50.26 44.33 29.12
Female (N2=136)

choice combination
motion of matter 22


7. Membrane 12, 19 54.41 48.16 31.62

choice combination
motion of matter 22
4. Kinetic energy of matter 7, 43.64 60.60 33.64
5. The process of osmosis 8, 10, 15, 17, 44.69 32.95 20.38

7. Membrane 12, 19, 51.97 45.91 30.15

Male (Total N1=196)

choice combination
2. The particulate nature and random 2, 3, 6, 16, 18, 55.19

motion of matter 22

7. Membrane 12, 19, 65.05 47.96 37.76
Female (N2=280)

choice combination
motion of matter 22

7. Membrane 12, 19, 61.60 50.71 38.57

choice combination
motion of matter 22

7. Membrane 12, 19, 62.82 49.48 38.13
RESULTS
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
Male (Total N1=194)

1 70.10309 64.43299 49.48454
2 45.87629 34.53608 14.94845
3 53.60825 31.4433 23.19588
4 9.278351 38.65979 2.57732
5 22.68041 23.19588 12.8866
6 40.20619 24.74227 16.49485
7 45.87629 61.85567 35.05155
8 34.02062 22.16495 10.30928
9 27.31959 24.2268 10.30928
10 48.96907 32.47423 18.5567
11 19.07216 30.92784 10.30928
12 48.96907 33.50515 17.52577
13 31.4433 40.20619 12.8866
14 44.3299 48.45361 32.47423
15 47.93814 50.51546 34.53608
16 36.08247 32.98969 19.58763
17 47.93814 25.25773 16.49485
18 60.30928 57.21649 44.3299
19 51.54639 55.15464 40.72165
20 57.21649 50.51546 40.72165
21 37.1134 34.02062 16.49485
22 50.51546 49.48454 37.62887
23 25.25773 32.98969 11.85567
24 46.39175 52.57732 40.20619
25 42.26804 48.45361 30.41237
Table 1b. Percentage of Female Biology
1 73.52941 74.26471 61.02941
non-majors selecting correct choice, reason
2 41.91176 27.20588 11.02941
and combination of choice and reason for
3 55.14706 30.88235 24.26471
the25 items on the 4 Diffusion and
5.147059 43.38235 2.205882
Osmosis Test 5 27.20588 36.02941 19.85294
Female (N2=136) 6 37.5 33.08824 21.32353
7 40.44118 58.82353 31.61765
8 33.08824 19.85294 8.823529
9 33.82353 16.91176 9.558824
10 43.38235 30.14706 17.64706
11 17.64706 28.67647 8.823529
12 54.41176 39.70588 21.32353
13 31.61765 35.29412 13.23529
14 46.32353 47.79412 35.29412
15 52.94118 49.26471 36.02941
16 32.35294 36.02941 23.52941
17 49.26471 34.55882 21.32353
18 61.76471 49.26471 43.38235
19 54.41176 56.61765 41.91176
20 49.26471 53.67647 38.97059
21 39.70588 33.82353 19.85294
22 57.35294 47.79412 41.17647
23 29.41176 34.55882 15.44118
24 49.26471 46.32353 38.97059
25 50.73529 50 33.08824

1 71.51515 68.48485 54.24242
2 44.24242 31.51515 13.33333
3 54.24242 31.21212 23.63636
4 7.575758 40.60606 2.424242
5 24.54545 28.48485 15.75758
6 39.09091 28.18182 18.48485
7 43.63636 60.60606 33.63636
8 33.63636 21.21212 9.69697
9 30 21.21212 10
10 46.66667 31.51515 18.18182
11 18.48485 30 9.69697
12 51.21212 36.06061 19.09091
13 31.51515 38.18182 13.0303
14 45.15152 48.18182 33.63636
15 50 50 35.15152
16 34.54545 34.24242 21.21212
17 48.48485 29.09091 18.48485
18 60.90909 53.93939 43.93939
19 52.72727 55.75758 41.21212
20 53.93939 51.81818 40
21 38.18182 33.93939 17.87879
22 53.33333 48.78788 39.09091
23 26.9697 33.63636 13.33333
24 47.57576 50 39.69697
25 45.75758 49.09091 31.51515
Male (Total N1=196)

1 75 71.42857 58.16327
2 54.59184 31.12245 18.87755
3 56.63265 34.18367 28.57143
4 5.102041 53.06122 1.530612
5 21.42857 25 15.30612
6 42.85714 30.61224 23.46939
7 53.06122 70.91837 42.34694
8 40.81633 28.06122 15.81633
9 33.16327 34.69388 18.36735
10 61.22449 30.10204 23.97959
11 23.46939 37.2449 14.28571
12 70.91837 37.2449 30.10204
13 29.08163 38.26531 15.81633
14 47.95918 56.12245 36.73469
15 53.57143 58.16327 44.38776
16 47.95918 41.32653 34.69388
17 55.10204 34.18367 20.91837
18 70.91837 62.7551 55.61224
19 59.18367 58.67347 45.40816
20 59.69388 59.69388 47.44898
21 40.30612 41.32653 25
22 58.16327 56.12245 43.36735
23 29.08163 36.22449 13.77551
24 52.55102 52.04082 46.93878
25 40.81633 50.5102 31.63265
Female (N2=280)

1 66.42857 70.35714 53.92857
2 55 28.57143 15.71429
3 54.28571 27.85714 22.5
4 7.5 47.85714 3.214286
5 25 27.85714 17.5
6 47.85714 35.35714 30.35714
7 52.5 69.28571 46.07143
8 35.35714 26.07143 15
9 27.85714 24.64286 14.28571
10 51.07143 27.5 17.5
11 21.78571 23.57143 8.928571
12 65 35.71429 29.28571
13 27.85714 31.42857 12.5
14 44.28571 47.85714 34.64286
15 54.64286 57.5 42.14286
16 51.78571 45.71429 37.14286
17 53.92857 28.92857 20.71429
18 66.42857 62.14286 52.5
19 58.21429 65.71429 47.85714
20 60.35714 59.28571 46.78571
21 41.42857 36.78571 21.42857
22 56.07143 51.07143 38.92857
23 28.92857 33.57143 13.21429
24 47.85714 50.35714 41.42857
25 42.85714 51.78571 31.42857

1 69.7479 70.58824 55.46218
2 54.62185 29.62185 17.01681
3 55.04202 30.46218 25
4 6.512605 49.78992 2.521008
5 23.52941 26.68067 16.59664
6 45.79832 33.40336 27.52101
7 52.73109 69.95798 44.53782
8 37.39496 26.68067 15.12605
9 30.04202 28.57143 15.96639
10 55.2521 28.57143 20.16807
11 22.47899 29.20168 11.13445
12 67.22689 36.13445 29.41176
13 28.15126 34.2437 13.86555
14 45.79832 51.2605 35.5042
15 53.9916 57.56303 42.85714
16 50.21008 43.90756 36.13445
17 54.20168 31.09244 20.79832
18 68.06723 62.18487 53.57143
19 58.40336 62.81513 46.84874
20 59.87395 59.2437 46.84874
21 40.96639 38.65546 22.89916
22 56.93277 52.94118 40.7563
23 28.9916 34.45378 13.44538
24 49.57983 50.84034 43.48739
25 41.80672 51.05042 31.30252
Male (Total N1=194)

choice combination
motion of matter 22

7. Membrane 12, 19 50.26 44.33 29.12
Female (N2=136)

choice combination
motion of matter 22

7. Membrane 12, 19 54.41 48.16 31.62

choice combination
motion of matter 22

7. Membrane 12, 19, 51.97 45.91 30.15
Male (Total N1=196)

choice combination
2. The particulate nature and random 2, 3, 6, 16, 18, 55.19

motion of matter 22

7. Membrane 12, 19, 65.05 47.96 37.76
Female (N2=280)
choice combination
motion of matter 22

7. Membrane 12, 19, 61.60 50.71 38.57

choice combination
motion of matter 22

7. Membrane 12, 19, 62.82 49.48 38.13

Building Up Diffusion and Osmosis

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Building Up Diffusion and Osmosis

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF DIFUSSION AND OSMOSIS:

AN ASSESSMENT OF ALL ASPECTS

Word count: 235

Knowledge is viewed as a commodity that can be transmitted

This present work hinges on the following theories:

Ausubel’s Theory of Meaningful Learning

Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s Theories of Cognitive Development

Constructivist Theory of Learning

1. Focusing on epistemological issues in learning and curriculum (Phillip, 1995)

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to determine the following:

1. There is no significant difference in the level of conceptual understanding and application of

2. There is no significant difference in the conceptual understanding and application of diffusion

3. There is no significance difference in the conceptual understanding and application of each of

Male (Total N1=194)

Item Correct Correct Correct

14 44.3299 48.45361 32.47423

All (male and female N=330 )

Item Correct Correct Correct

Male (Total N1=196)

Item Correct Correct Correct

Item Correct Correct Correct

All (male and female = 476)

Item Correct Correct Correct

Male (Total N1=194)

CONCEPTS ITEMS Content Reason Correct

1.The process of diffusion 1, 5, 14, 24, 25 45.16 47.42 33.09

3. Concentration and tonicity 4, 9,13, 21, 23 26.08 34.02 10.82

4. Kinetic energy of matter 7 45.88 61.86 35.05

5. The process of osmosis 8, 10, 15, 17 44.72 32.60 19.97

6. The influence of life forces on 11, 20 38.14 40.72 25.52

7. Membrane 12, 19 50.26 44.33 29.12

CONCEPTS ITEMS Content Reason Correct

1.The process of diffusion 1, 5, 14, 24, 25 49.41 50.88 37.65

3. Concentration and tonicity 4, 9,13, 21, 23 27.94 32.79 12.06

5. The process of osmosis 8, 10, 15, 17 44.67 33.46 20.96

6. The influence of life forces on 11, 20 33.46 41.18 23.89

7. Membrane 12, 19 54.41 48.16 31.62

All (male and female N=330 )

CONCEPTS ITEMS Content Reason Correct

1.The process of diffusion 1, 5, 14, 24, 25 46.91 48.85 34.97

3. Concentration and tonicity 4, 9,13, 21, 23 26.85 33.52 11.33

4. Kinetic energy of matter 7, 43.64 60.60 33.64

5. The process of osmosis 8, 10, 15, 17, 44.69 32.95 20.38

6. The influence of life forces on 11, 20 36.21 40.90 24.85

7. Membrane 12, 19, 51.97 45.91 30.15

Male (Total N1=196)

CONCEPTS ITEMS Content Reason Correct

1.The process of diffusion 1, 5, 14, 24, 25 47.55 51.02 37.77

2. The particulate nature and random 2, 3, 6, 16, 18, 55.19

3. Concentration and tonicity 4, 9,13, 21, 23 27.35 40.71 14.89

4. Kinetic energy of matter 7, 53.06 70.92 42.35

5. The process of osmosis 8, 10, 15, 17, 52.68 37.63 26.28

6. The influence of life forces on 11, 20 41.58 48.47 30.87

7. Membrane 12, 19, 65.05 47.96 37.76

CONCEPTS ITEMS Content Reason Correct

1.The process of diffusion 1, 5, 14, 24, 25 45.29 49.64 35.79

3. Concentration and tonicity 4, 9,13, 21, 23 26.71 34.86 12.93

4. Kinetic energy of matter 7, 52.5 69.29 46.07

5. The process of osmosis 8, 10, 15, 17, 48.75 35.00 23.84

6. The influence of life forces on 11, 20 41.07 41.43 27.86

7. Membrane 12, 19, 61.60 50.71 38.57

All (male and female = 476)