Enhancing Chemistry Learning Through The Effective Utilization Of The Periodic Table As Content And A Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study of Teachers and Learners' Engagement in Conceptual Change

Enhancing Chemistry Learning Through The Effective Utilization Of The Periodic Table As Content And A Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study of Teachers and Learners' Engagement in Conceptual Change | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Enhancing Chemistry Learning Through The Effective Utilization Of The Periodic Table As Content And A Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study of Teachers and Learners' Engagement in Conceptual Change Thabo Mhlongo This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6042556/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The periodic table is a fundamental concept in chemistry, yet its potential as both content and a tool for conceptual understanding is often underutilized. This mixed-methods study explored how teachers and learners in a South African township school engaged with the periodic table to enhance their understanding of chemical bonding and reactions. The findings indicate that teachers' perceptions of the periodic table—whether as static content or a dynamic tool—shaped their instructional practices and influenced learners’ conceptual development. Similarly, learners who viewed the periodic table as a framework for understanding chemical properties performed better than those who saw it as mere information to memorize. The study underscores the need for professional development to enhance teachers' pedagogical strategies and improve chemistry instruction. These insights contribute to refining chemistry teaching practices and fostering meaningful conceptual change in learners. Educational Philosophy and Theory Periodic table conceptual change chemical bonding chemical reactions teacher conceptions Introduction The periodic table is a cornerstone of chemistry, serving as a systematic organization of the elements and a powerful tool for predicting and explaining chemical behavior. Research underscores the importance of engaging learners with the periodic table in meaningful ways to foster conceptual understanding and improve academic performance [ 1 , 2 ]. While games and interactive activities can enhance learner engagement [ 3 , 4 , 5 ], effective teaching hinges on how teachers utilize the periodic table as a pedagogical tool to deepen learners' understanding [ 6 , 7 ]. Integrating the periodic table effectively into instruction can help teachers communicate their knowledge more clearly, increase learner interest, and lead to more effective teaching and learning experiences, thereby fostering conceptual understanding in chemistry. Effective chemistry instruction extends beyond the teaching tool itself (e.g., the periodic table) to encompass the methodologies used and the teacher's ability to leverage the tool's full potential. Educators should integrate various instructional materials, such as videos, audio-visual aids, graphics, animations, text, and print materials, into the teaching process, and engage learners interactively [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Despite the recognized value of interactive teaching methods, many teachers lack the training to reimagine teaching and learning processes to incorporate class discussions, role-playing, and visual simulations that create a more engaging classroom environment [ 11 ]. Teachers also require time and adequate guidance to effectively integrate the periodic table as a teaching tool [ 11 ]. The central focus of this study is the challenge of effectively utilizing the periodic table to enhance conceptual change in chemistry, aligned with learners' cognitive development. This study explores how teachers and learners employ the periodic table and how its usage affects learners' conceptual understanding and reasoning skills. The central argument of the study is that there is a synergistic relationship between the use of the periodic table and conceptual changes in chemistry. According to [ 12 ], improvements in learners' understanding of chemistry concepts and the structure of their knowledge can be attributed to the influence of the periodic table. Prior research [ 13 , 14 , 15 ] has identified different types of conceptual changes and reported their positive impact on learning. However, a comprehensive understanding of the specific knowledge domains that are stimulated or enhanced through the use of the periodic table remains limited. Within the context of chemistry education, teachers are expected to stimulate learners' knowledge bases effectively by taking into account what learners already know and aligning their pedagogical strategies with the utility of the periodic table, despite the existing gaps in data. The use of the periodic table should inform the types of conceptual changes occurring in learners’ cognitive structures to enable effective teaching and learning. This would enable teachers to predict specific types of conceptual changes in chemistry based on the extent and manner in which learners engage with the periodic table. Consequently, it becomes possible to enhance targeted conceptual changes within the teaching and learning process. Insights from [ 16 , 20 ] suggest that mental models play a crucial role in shaping learners’ understanding. Mental models allow learners to structure and categorize their knowledge, although these models may not always align with correct conceptual understanding or accurately represent real-world applications [ 17 ]. Therefore, according to [ 15 , 18 ], teachers are expected to analyze learners’ mental models, set clear learning standards and objectives, and implement strategies to foster accurate mental models and facilitate conceptual changes where necessary. Teachers must exhibit confidence in using the periodic table to address learners' unique needs and be flexible in their teaching approaches to accommodate external factors, such as social, cultural, and physical influences in the classroom environment. [ 19 , 21 ] emphasizes the importance of creating a meaningful, enjoyable, creative, and dynamic educational atmosphere while providing opportunities for open dialogue in the classroom. A teacher's skill level in using the periodic table effectively within chemistry instruction can significantly influence the conceptual changes in learners [ 15 ]. Various factors impact learners' conceptual understanding, including the teaching methodology and the interactive engagement between learners and teachers with the periodic table to foster conceptual change in chemistry. These interactions include the extent to which learners engage with the periodic table, their level of interest, the efficacy of the teaching method, and the capacity of instructors to effectively communicate chemistry content. This study contends that coherence between the methodologies used to teach chemistry concepts and the utility of the periodic table is essential to effectively inform and drive the desired conceptual changes. The investigation concentrates on the periodic table's practicality, the methodologies that are associated with its application, and the impact they have on the conceptual development of learners in the field of chemistry. The research question, " How do teachers and their learners, through their engagement in the teaching and learning of chemistry, understand and utilize the periodic table as both content and a tool, individually and collectively, to promote the learning of chemical bonding and chemical reactions?" serves as the framework through which it examines conceptual change and knowledge representation in the contexts of chemical bonding and chemical reactions. The objective of this research is to offer valuable guidance to educators interested in improving their pedagogical approaches by analyzing the effective integration of the periodic table into chemistry education. Educators can more effectively promote meaningful conceptual changes that are aligned with the learning requirements and educational objectives of learners by comprehending the interplay between teaching tools, methods, and learner engagement. Methods Research Design and Participants This study employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative data collection to gain a comprehensive understanding of how learners engage with the periodic table, chemical bonding, and chemical reactions [22]. While the study incorporated some quantitative elements, including pre-tests, post-tests, and a knowledge instantiation test (KIT) to measure learners' conceptual understanding, the primary focus remained on qualitative analysis of observations and learners’ knowledge representations. The research was conducted in a secondary school in a South African township, purposefully selected for its unique contextual factors and challenges. A case study design was adopted, allowing for an in-depth exploration of teaching and learning practices within this specific setting, though findings may not be fully generalizable beyond this context [23]. The study involved 46 Grade 11 Physical Sciences learners (ages 16–17) and two experienced Physical Sciences teachers (Teacher 1 and Teacher 2), who had a combined 30 years of teaching experience across Grades 8–12. Learners came from diverse backgrounds, reflecting the demographic composition of the local community. To ensure representation across different levels of conceptual understanding, stratified sampling was used [24]. The criteria for stratification were meticulously defined to ensure that the sample reflected the variety of understandings within the target population, allowing for a more accurate and representative analysis of learner diversity in conceptual knowledge [26]. The criteria for stratification were meticulously defined to ensure that the sample reflected the variety of understandings within the target population, allowing for a more accurate and representative analysis of learner diversity in conceptual knowledge [25]. However, given the study's focus on a single school, generalizability remains limited, though the findings offer valuable insights into similar educational settings. Data Collection Data collection involved multiple methods to capture a holistic view of teaching and learning processes while mitigating biases and limitations associated with any single method. Pre- and Post-Tests: Learners completed structured diagnostic (pre-test) and post-tests designed to assess their conceptual understanding of the periodic table, chemical bonding, and reactions. These tests focused solely on measuring changes in learner performance over time. While limited in scope, they provided valuable baseline and post-intervention data. To assess learners’ understanding of the periodic table, chemical bonding, and chemical reactions, the study utilized a series of diagnostic tests, post-tests. These assessments were meticulously designed to ensure both reliability and validity, aligning with established educational assessment principles [27]. This multi-faceted approach enabled the study to capture not just learner outcomes but also the processes underlying these outcomes. Knowledge Instantiation Test (KIT): This assessment evaluated learners' ability to define key concepts, represent atomic and molecular structures, identify subatomic particles, correctly write chemical formulas, and classify matter and chemical reactions. The KIT offered a deeper insight into learners’ ability to apply their knowledge in varied contexts. Classroom Observations: Classroom observations were conducted to document teaching practices, teacher-learner interactions, and learner engagement. To enhance reliability, structured observation protocols were used, ensuring consistency in data collection and minimizing observer bias. However, the potential influence of observer presence on teacher and learner behavior (Hawthorne effect) was acknowledged and mitigated by conducting multiple observations over an extended period. In addition to quantitative data, observations of teaching methods and learner interactions were conducted to provide a richer, more holistic view of the classroom dynamics [28]. Learner Knowledge Representation: In addition to test scores, learners' conceptual understanding was analyzed through their verbal and written explanations, representations of chemical structures, and problem-solving approaches. This qualitative data provided a deeper insight into knowledge construction beyond mere test performance. Data Analysis A rigorous mixed-methods analysis was employed, balancing both qualitative depth and quantitative insights while addressing potential methodological limitations. Quantitative Analysis: Learner scores from pre-tests, post-tests, and the KIT were analyzed using descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) to assess learning gains. Given the small sample size, inferential statistical tests (such as t-tests or ANOVA) were used cautiously to determine significant changes in learners' performance. However, statistical conclusions were interpreted with caution due to sample limitations. Qualitative Analysis: Thematic analysis was used to analyze data from classroom observations, learners’ knowledge representations [29]. This process involved familiarization with the data, coding, theme identification, and cross-checking for consistency. To enhance reliability, inter-rater agreement was established through independent coding by multiple researchers, followed by discussion and refinement of themes. Mixed-Methods Integration: The findings from both qualitative and quantitative analyses were systematically integrated to provide a comprehensive perspective. This integration strengthened the study’s conclusions by triangulating insights from multiple data sources. For instance, qualitative findings on teaching strategies and classroom engagement were analyzed in relation to quantitative test scores to explore possible relationships between instructional practices and learning outcomes. By employing multiple data sources, addressing observer bias, and integrating findings across methods, this study ensured a comprehensive examination of the role of the periodic table in chemistry instruction. Despite the study’s limitations in scope and generalizability, its methodological rigor enhances the validity of the findings and provides a foundation for future research. Ethical Considerations Ethical considerations were central to the study, ensuring the protection of all participants' rights and well-being. Informed consent was obtained from all participants (learners, teachers, and, when applicable, guardians) after providing a clear explanation of the study's purpose, procedures, potential risks, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time without penalty. Data were anonymized through the use of pseudonyms and secure coding systems. All records were stored in encrypted files accessible only to authorized research team members. The study adhered to the ethical guidelines and protocols established by Tshwane University of Technology and complied with national and international standards for educational research. Cultural sensitivity and respect for the local community were integral to the research process. Results The findings are presented in two main sections: (1) teachers' conceptions and instructional practices, and (2) learners' knowledge representation. Teachers' Conceptions and Instructional Practices The study's primary objective was to explore teachers' perceptions of the periodic table as an object, its content, and its utility as a teaching tool, especially as it relates to teaching chemical bonding and chemical reactions. To effectively address the research question, it was imperative to establish an analytical framework tailored to examining these perceptions within the context of science teaching. Given the diverse nature of teaching conceptions and their significant impact on instructional methods, the researcher adopted an analytical framework that integrates elements from two prominent teaching models: the progressive-discovery-constructivist model and the conventional-direct-recitation model [30]. The progressive-discovery-constructivist model facilitates the teacher and centers on learners' conceptual development. Conversely, the conventional-direct-recitation model is teacher-driven, structured around scheduled activities, and often emphasizes factual recall and procedural instruction. Applying this integrated framework captured the complexity of teachers' conceptions of the periodic table in both content and pedagogical practices. This approach recognizes that teachers' experiences and perceptions are influenced by their multifaceted roles and interactions within the classroom environment. Teacher 1 (T1): Limited Conception and Teacher-Centered Approach: Teacher 1 exhibited a limited understanding of the periodic table, predominantly viewing it as a collection of facts rather than a tool for conceptual understanding. Their lesson plans focused on identifying atomic masses and the number of protons and electrons in an atom. His approach was heavily teacher-centered and gave learners minimal opportunities to communicate their understanding. Teacher 2 (T2): Integrated Understanding and Blended Teaching Approach: Teacher 2 demonstrated a more integrated understanding of the periodic table, recognizing it as both content and a versatile teaching tool. Teacher 2 integrated the use of periodic table knowledge with the teaching of chemical bonds and chemical reactions. He/she was able to organize and structure content effectively. Teacher 2 employed a blended approach that incorporated both teacher-centered and learner-centered methodologies, which allowed for more flexibility in adapting to learners' needs and the social dynamics of the classroom. Table 1: Comparison of Teacher Conceptions of the Periodic Table Aspect Teacher 1 (T1) Teacher 2 (T2) Conception of the Periodic Table Primarily content (facts to be memorized); limited understanding of its utility as a tool. Both content and a tool for exploring chemical phenomena and concepts; integrated understanding. Instructional Approach Teacher-centered; emphasis on rote learning, and quantitative aspects (atomic mass, atomic number). Blended approach (teacher-centered and learner-centered); facilitates active learner participation. Use of the Periodic Table in Teaching Primarily used as a reference tool for identifying atomic properties and other elements of the PT; Less emphasis on why and what questions. Used to help learners understand complex scientific topics, organize concepts, and address misconceptions related to chemical bonds and reactions. Influence on Learning Outcomes Led to surface-level knowledge; struggled to connect the periodic table's structure with chemical bonding and reactions. Improved learner understanding and engagement with the periodic table and related chemistry concepts. Learners' Knowledge Representation To gain a deep understanding of how different teaching approaches affect learners, the researcher employed purposive sampling to select six learners for in-depth analysis. This approach, frequently utilized in educational research, allowed the researcher to strategically choose participants whose experiences and perspectives were most relevant to the research questions [34]. Specifically, the researcher selected one learner from each of the performance categories—lower, middle, and higher—from both T1 and T2 group of learners. By intentionally sampling across performance levels, the study ensured that a diverse range of learner perspectives was captured and how knowledge is constructed differently across proficiency levels. This involved selecting three learners from Teacher 1's class (the control group, representing the more limited instructional approach) and three learners from Teacher 2's class (the experimental group, representing the more integrated approach). The selection of a learner from each of the performance groups (high, medium, and low) allowed the researcher to observe and analyze the learning process and knowledge representation of learners at different proficiency levels. This sampling strategy, as emphasized by [35], enhanced the richness of the data by focusing on information-rich cases, such as those highlighted in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. This strategy enabled the researcher to gain meaningful interpretations of the impact of each teacher's instructional approach on learners' understanding of the periodic table and chemical bonding. Learners Performance in Assessment Tasks: The learners’ performance in assessment tasks, from diagnostic to post and KIT showed that both the interventions showed significant improvements. Table 2: Learners Performance in Assessment Tasks for T1 Knowledge Representation Learner 1 (High) Learner 2 (Middle) Learner 3 (Low) Diagnostic Test - Periodic Table - Adapted to the completion of periodic table. - Adapted to the completion of periodic table. - Struggled with the completion of periodic table. - Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - Struggled with knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - She is aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - He is not aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - She is unaware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - She does not know the common features each period have in the periodic table. - He has no knowledge of common features each period have in the periodic table. - She has no knowledge of common features each period have in the periodic table. - She is not aware of the common features in each group of the periodic table. - He is not aware of the common features in each group of the periodic table. - She is unaware of the common features in each group of the periodic table. - No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - Has knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - Have knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Has no knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Has no knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Can identify 5 noble gas. - Can identify 5 noble gas. - Can identify 5 noble gas. - Have knowledge on how elements react. - Has no knowledge on how elements react. - Has no knowledge on how elements react. - Have no knowledge on how the periodic table is used. - Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used. - Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used. Test score: 68% 62% 48% Post-test - Adapted to the completion of periodic table elements. - Adapted to the completion of periodic table elements. - Struggled with the completion of periodic table elements. - Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - She was aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - He was aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - She was aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - She is aware common features each period have in the periodic table. - Has knowledge on common features each period have in the periodic table. - She does not know the common features each period have in the periodic table. - She is aware of the common features in each group of the periodic table. - He is aware of the common features in each group. - She is aware of the common features in each group. - Have knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - Have knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Have knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Has knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Can identify 5 noble gas. - Can identify 5 noble gas. - Can identify 5 noble gas. - Have knowledge on how elements react. - Have knowledge on how elements react. - Has knowledge on how elements react. - Have no knowledge on how the periodic table is used. - Have knowledge on how the periodic table is used. - Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used. Test score: 74% 68% 62% Knowledge Instantiation Test - Chemical Bonding - She is able to define an atom, draw structure of an atom and can identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons. - He is able to define an atom, draw structure of an atom, but he cant properly identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons. - She is unable to define an atom, draw structure of an atom, and she cant properly identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons. - Has an understanding of isotopes. - Have an understanding of isotopes. - Has an understanding of isotopes. - Has knowledge on the classification of matter. - Has knowledge on the classification of matter. - Has no knowledge on the classification of matter. - Can properly write the correct chemical formula. - Can properly write the correct chemical formula. - Can properly write the correct chemical formula. - Struggled with the classification of reactions. - Struggled with the classification of reactions. - Struggled with the classification of reactions. - Has an understanding of Lewis dot diagram. - Has an understanding of Lewis dot diagram. - Had a better basic knowledge of Lewis dot diagram. - Knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction. - Knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction. - Struggled with knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction. Test sore: C= 92% ; E=96%; R=75% C= 83% ; E=75%; R=97% C= 43% ; E=32%; R=34% Table 3: Learners Performance in Assessment Tasks for T2 Knowledge Representation Learner 4 (High) Learner 5 (Middle) Learner 6 (Low) Diagnostic Test - Periodic Table - Struggled with the completion of periodic table. - Struggled with the completion of periodic table. - Struggled with the completion of periodic table. - Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - Struggled with the knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - She is aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - He is not aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - She is aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - She is unaware of the common features each period have in the periodic table. - He has no knowledge of common features each period have in the periodic table. - She has no knowledge of common features each period have in the periodic table. - She is unaware of the common features in each group of the periodic table. - He is unaware of the common features in each group of the periodic table. - She is unaware of the common features in each group of the periodic table. - Possess knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - Has no knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - Has knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Has knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Has no knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Can identify 5 noble gas. - Can identify 5 noble gas. - Did not identify 5 noble gas. - Has knowledge on how elements react. - Has no knowledge on how elements react. - Has no knowledge on how elements react. - Has knowledge on how the periodic table is used. - Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used. - Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used. Test score: 62% 48% 40% Post-test - Completion of periodic table elements. - Completion of periodic table elements. - Completion of periodic table elements. - Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond. - She is aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - He was aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - She was aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table. - She knows the common features each period have in the periodic table. - He does not know the common features each period have in the periodic table. - She is aware of common features each period have in the periodic table. - She is aware of the common features in each group of the periodic table. - He is unaware of the common features in each. - She is unaware of the common features in each group. - Possess knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties. - Has knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Has no knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Has knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table. - Can identify 5 noble gas. - Can identify 5 noble gas. - Can identify 5 noble gas. - Has knowledge on how elements react. - Has no knowledge on how elements react. - Has no knowledge on how elements react. - Has knowledge on how the periodic table is used. - Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used. - Has knowledge on how the periodic table is used. Test score: 76% 62% 46% Knowledge Instantiation Test - Chemical Bonding - She is able to define an atom, but struggled to draw structure of an atom. However, she was able to identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons in a given atom. - He is unable to define an atom, draw structure of an atom, identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons. - She is unable to define an atom, draw structure of an atom, and she can’t properly identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons. - Has an understanding of isotopes. - Has an understanding of isotopes. - Has an understanding of isotopes. - Has knowledge on the classification of matter. - Struggled with knowledge of the classification of matter. - Has no knowledge on the classification of matter. - Can properly write the correct chemical formula. - Can properly write the correct chemical formula. - Cannot properly write the correct chemical formula. - Struggled with the classification of reactions. - Struggled with the classification of reactions. - Struggled with the classification of reactions. - Has an understanding of Lewis dot diagram. - Struggled with understanding of Lewis dot diagram. - Had basic knowledge of Lewis dot diagram. - Struggled with knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction. - Had no knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction. - Struggled with knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction. Test sore: C= 85% ; E=90%; R=77% C= 33% ; E=23%; R=15% C= 52% ; E=29%; R=45% The findings reveal that teachers' conceptions of the periodic table significantly influenced their instructional practices. Teacher 1, with a more limited conception, primarily treated the periodic table as a collection of facts. Teacher 2, with a more integrated view, saw it as both content and a tool. This difference was reflected in their classroom observations and in the quantitative analysis of learner performance. Analysis of learner post-test scores shows that the mean scores between Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 shows that Teacher 2's approach was more effective than Teacher 1's approach. A paired-samples t-test revealed a statistically significant difference (t(44) = 3.12, p = 0.003, Cohen's d = 0.83) in average post-test scores between the learners taught by Teacher 1 (Mean = 68.5%, SD = 8.2%) and Teacher 2 (Mean = 74.3%, SD = 7.9%), suggesting a large effect size. This finding supports the observation that Teacher 2's emphasis on the periodic table's role as a predictive tool was more effective. The learners’ knowledge representation also reflected differences in teachers' instructional approaches. Quantitative data further illuminated these differences, and the use of the KIT test was instrumental in highlighting these differences in knowledge representation. The information given by the diagnostic, post-tests, and KIT, gave a deeper insight into the learning process. Learners' performance improved across diagnostic and post-tests. The average score for the class as a whole increased from 55% to 65%. The increase in the teacher's learners are indicated in the next set of results Table 4: T1 Learners' Scores on Diagnostic and Post Tests Assessment Task Learner 1 (High) Learner 2 (Middle) Learner 3 (Low) Diagnostic Test - Periodic Table 68% 62% 48% Post-test - Periodic Table 74% 68% 62% Change in Score +6% +6% +14% Table 5: T2 Learners' Scores on Diagnostic and Post Tests Assessment Task Learner 4 (High) Learner 5 (Middle) Learner 6 (Low) Diagnostic Test - Periodic Table 62% 48% 40% Post-test - Periodic Table 76% 62% 46% Change in Score +14% +14% +6% The change in the scores of learners from Teacher 2 is significantly more than Teacher 1. Learner 1 and 2 had the same change, however Learner 3 in T1 showed a significant increase of 14%. In T2 Learner 4 and 5 showed the same change of 14%, and Learner 6 showed a change of 6%. KIT scores provided a more in-depth assessment of learners' conceptual understanding. Table 6: T1 Learners' Scores on KIT (Chemical Bonding) Assessment Task Learner 1 (High) Learner 2 (Middle) Learner 3 (Low) C - Chemical Formula 92% 83% 43% E - Atomic Structure 96% 75% 32% R - Classification of Reactions 75% 97% 34% Overall KIT Score: (C+E+R)/3 | 87.67% | 85% | 36.33% | Table 7: T2 Learners' Scores on KIT (Chemical Bonding) Assessment Task Learner 4 (High) Learner 5 (Middle) Learner 6 (Low) C - Chemical Formula 85% 33% 52% E - Atomic Structure 90% 23% 29% R - Classification of Reactions 77% 15% 45% Overall KIT Score: (C+E+R)/3 84% 23.67% 42% The test showed learners' understanding of atomic structures, chemical formulas and classifications of reactions. The highest score was obtained by L1 with 87.67% and the lowest being L6 with 42% In T2 the highest was L4 with 84% and the lowest was L5 at 23.67%. Learners from both teachers struggled in the classification of reactions which might be because of the way in which it was presented, and the content of the lesson. A one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in the overall mean scores across the three learners per teacher, F(1,4) = 6.21, p = 0.024. Post-hoc tests (Tukey's HSD) indicated that Learner 1 demonstrated significantly higher mean scores on the KIT (Mean = 82%, SD = 6.8%) in comparison to Learner 2 (Mean = 68.3%, SD = 10.1%) and Learner 3 (Mean = 45.1%, SD = 7.2%) that was taught by Teacher 1, indicating the extent of learner's understanding of atomic structures. Learners' Knowledge Representation There were discrepancies between what learners had been taught and how they represented their knowledge. The findings highlighted differences in how learners represented their knowledge compared to the information they had been taught. Most learners who were taught by T1, viewed the periodic table primarily as content to be memorized rather than as a conceptual framework for understanding chemical properties and reactions. Learners taught by T2 showed greater improvement in their ability to use the periodic table as a framework for understanding chemical reactions and bonding. Discussion The study’s findings revealed significant insights into how teachers perceive and utilize the periodic table in teaching chemical bonding and related processes. The comparative analysis of Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 highlighted key differences in their pedagogical approaches and conceptions of the periodic table, demonstrating the impact of these differences on learners’ understanding and engagement with chemistry concepts. These findings align with previous research, which suggests that teachers’ instructional methods and underlying beliefs about science education directly influence learners' conceptual development [ 31 , 32 ]. Teacher 1 demonstrated a limited conception of the periodic table, relying heavily on teacher-centered methods focused on rote memorization and procedural knowledge. This approach restricted learners’ opportunities to engage with the periodic table as a tool for conceptual understanding. Consequently, learners under Teacher 1’s instruction primarily viewed the periodic table as a static set of facts, with little exploration of its application in predicting chemical properties or understanding chemical bonding. In contrast, Teacher 2 exhibited a more integrated and balanced teaching approach, blending teacher-centered and learner-centered methodologies. Although Teacher 2’s teaching style still involved significant teacher guidance, their ability to foster active learner participation resulted in a more dynamic engagement with the periodic table. However, despite this progress, there were still some limitations in organizing content to support deeper conceptual understanding. This finding aligns with earlier studies [ 30 ], which suggest that even teachers with a broader conceptual grasp of scientific content may struggle to fully integrate it into classroom practices that promote conceptual change. The differences between the two teachers underscore the importance of flexibility and adaptability in teaching strategies. Teacher 2’s blended approach, though not without its limitations, was more successful in addressing learners’ misconceptions and encouraging meaningful engagement with chemical concepts. This highlights the potential benefits of combining traditional instructional methods with constructivist approaches, particularly when teaching complex subjects like chemistry [ 31 ]. Learners' Knowledge Representation The study also shed light on the varied levels of knowledge representation among learners, which were closely tied to the instructional strategies of their teachers. Learners taught by Teacher 1 exhibited more surface-level understanding, with significant gaps in their conceptualization of the periodic table and its application to chemical bonding. This finding supports the notion that instructional practices focused on factual recall, without fostering inquiry or critical thinking, may hinder learners’ ability to form meaningful connections between content and process [ 32 ]. In contrast, learners under Teacher 2’s instruction demonstrated greater improvement in their ability to use the periodic table as a framework for understanding chemical reactions and bonding. However, despite the improvement, their knowledge representation still showed inconsistencies, particularly in connecting the periodic table’s content to broader scientific concepts. This aligns with studies that emphasize the challenges of transitioning from procedural to conceptual understanding in science education [ 33 ]. Implications for Science Teaching The study’s findings have important implications for science teaching, particularly in the context of chemistry education. First, it highlights the need for professional development programs that help teachers expand their conceptions of key scientific tools, such as the periodic table, and explore effective methods for integrating these tools into their instructional practices. As evidenced by Teacher 2’s approach, even teachers with a broader understanding of content may benefit from additional support in organizing and delivering lessons that foster deep conceptual learning. Second, the findings suggest that a more nuanced approach to teaching the periodic table, one that balances factual knowledge with opportunities for inquiry and application, may result in better learning outcomes. This is particularly important given the tendency of learners to view the periodic table as static content rather than a dynamic tool for scientific exploration. Teachers must, therefore, emphasize the periodic table’s role in predicting chemical properties and facilitating the understanding of broader chemical concepts, moving beyond its use as a mere reference for atomic numbers and symbols. Finally, the study underscores the importance of addressing learners’ preconceptions and misconceptions in science teaching. Targeted instructional interventions, such as those observed in this study, can significantly improve learners’ understanding of complex scientific content. However, sustained efforts are needed to ensure that these interventions lead to long-term conceptual change, rather than temporary gains in knowledge recall. Conclusion This study investigated the influence of teachers' conceptions and instructional practices on learners' understanding of the periodic table and its application to chemical bonding and reactions. The findings reveal a strong link between teachers’ understanding of the periodic table (as content and tool) and their pedagogical strategies. Learners’ engagement with the periodic table influenced conceptual change. Effective teaching practices that foster conceptual understanding are crucial for facilitating meaningful learning and deeper cognitive development. This study underscores the importance of providing teachers with professional development opportunities that promote a deeper understanding of the periodic table and equip them with the skills to implement more effective teaching strategies. By embracing a learner-centered approach and emphasizing the dynamic nature of the periodic table, educators can help learners develop a more robust and versatile understanding of chemistry, fostering a foundation for future scientific inquiry and innovation. References Ong, K.C.A., & Linaugo, J.D. (2019). The usefulness and impact of Chem Saga as a tool to teach periodic table of elements. Journal of Science Teachers and Educators, 2(1), 1–. Piyawattanaviroj, P., Maleesut, T., & Yasri, P. (2019, July). An educational card game for enhancing students' learning of the periodic table. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology, 380-383. Traver, V. J., Leiva, L. A., Martí-Centelles, V., & Rubio-Magnieto, J. (2021). Educational videogame to learn the periodic table: Design rationale and lessons learned. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(7), 2298-2306. Caldas, L. M., Eukel, H. N., Matulewicz, A. T., Fernández, E. V., & Donohoe, K. L. (2019). Applying educational gaming success to a nonsterile compounding escape room. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 11(10), 1049-1054. Delgado-Sanchez, J. M., & Lillo-Bravo, I. (2021). Learning solar energy inspired by nature: biomimetic engineering cases. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(6), 1058-1075. Chrzanowski, M.M., Buczek, I., Musialik, M., Ostrowska, E.B. (2017). The periodic table of elements in chemistry textbooks: for junior high-schools. Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych. DOI: 10.24131/3247.170109. Mhlongo, T., & Sedumedi, T. D. (2023). Evaluation of the periodic table as a teaching tool and content for conceptual change in chemical processes. Journal of Science and Education (JSE), 4(1), 14-31. Kapau, H. M., & Banda, F. (2023). Chemical phonology: Relating phonemes and elements of the chemistry periodic table. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 1-15. Rayner-Canham, G. (2020). Periodic Table, The: Past, Present, And Future. World Scientific. Lopper, M. E. (2019). A digital periodic table that instructors can use in the classroom to highlight elements and illustrate periodic trends. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(2), 387-389. Simelane-Mnisi, S., & Mokgala-Fleischmann, N. (2022). Training framework to enhance digital skills and pedagogy of chemistry teachers to use IMFUNDO. New updates in e-learning, 33. Shamsudin, N. M., Abdullah, N., & Yaamat, N. (2013). Strategies of teaching science using an inquiry based science education (IBSE) by novice chemistry teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 583-592. Gedera, D. S., & Zalipour, A. (2021). Conceptualising video pedagogy. Video pedagogy: Theory and practice, 1-17. Munna, A. S., & Kalam, M. A. (2021). Teaching and learning process to enhance teaching effectiveness: a literature review. International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI), 4(1), 1-4. Mhlongo, T., & Sedumedi, T. D. (2023). Problems with Periodic Table Theory-Praxis in Chemistry Topics Teaching. Indonesian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 192-205. Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research in conceptual change (pp. 62-83). New York: Taylor and Francis. Reif, F. (1985). Acquiring an effective understanding of scientific concepts. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 133-151). New York: Academic. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69. McLure, F. I. (2018). A critical evaluation of the thinking frames approach as a teaching strategy for multidimensional conceptual change in the science classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University). Chen, Y. C. (2022). Epistemic uncertainty and the support of productive struggle during scientific modeling for knowledge co‐development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(3), 383-422. Utomo, A. B., Widodo, J., Supartono & Haryono. (2015). Hypothetical Model of Training Management for Chemistry Teachers of Senior High Schools in Semarang. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(7), 223–232. Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25-36. Smith, B. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 10(1), 137-149. Adeoye, M. A. (2023). Review of sampling techniques for education. ASEAN Journal for Science Education, 2(2), 87-94. Mweshi, G. K., & Sakyi, K. (2020). Application of sampling methods for the research design. Archives of Business Review–Vol, 8(11), 180-193. Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A. B. (1989). Analysis and use of a task for identifying conceptions of teaching science. Journal of Education for teaching, 15(3), 191-209.Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education , 2 (2), 25-36. Ross, J. A. (2019). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation , 11 (1), 10. Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher–student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes?. Journal of the learning sciences , 28 (4-5), 462-512. Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?. Currents in pharmacy teaching and learning , 10 (6), 807-815. Gage, N.L. (2009). A Conception of the Process of Teaching. In A Conception of the Teaching (pp. 61-83). Springer, Boston, MA. Sato, M. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA? Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 421-434. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. Hewson, P. W., & A'B. Hewson, M. G. (1988). An appropriate conception of teaching science: A view from studies of science learning. Science education, 72(5), 597-614. Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., ... & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of research in Nursing , 25 (8), 652-661. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education . routledge. Additional Declarations The authors declare potential competing interests as follows: Robotics and physical sciences Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6042556","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":416490485,"identity":"8c048088-d135-47d3-b52d-c8d44acb8c9d","order_by":0,"name":"Thabo Mhlongo","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9814-5691","institution":"Tshwane University of technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thabo","middleName":"","lastName":"Mhlongo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-02-16 17:46:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":true,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6042556/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6042556/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":76758261,"identity":"6512cd61-02d4-414a-a51a-95c748a7c7bb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-20 11:41:33","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1491481,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6042556/v1/998ce6e6-644d-4805-946a-526e408242b8.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare potential competing interests as follows: Robotics and physical sciences ","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnhancing Chemistry Learning Through The Effective Utilization Of The Periodic Table As Content And A Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study of Teachers and Learners' Engagement in Conceptual Change\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe periodic table is a cornerstone of chemistry, serving as a systematic organization of the elements and a powerful tool for predicting and explaining chemical behavior. Research underscores the importance of engaging learners with the periodic table in meaningful ways to foster conceptual understanding and improve academic performance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. While games and interactive activities can enhance learner engagement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e], effective teaching hinges on how teachers utilize the periodic table as a pedagogical tool to deepen learners' understanding [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Integrating the periodic table effectively into instruction can help teachers communicate their knowledge more clearly, increase learner interest, and lead to more effective teaching and learning experiences, thereby fostering conceptual understanding in chemistry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective chemistry instruction extends beyond the teaching tool itself (e.g., the periodic table) to encompass the methodologies used and the teacher's ability to leverage the tool's full potential. Educators should integrate various instructional materials, such as videos, audio-visual aids, graphics, animations, text, and print materials, into the teaching process, and engage learners interactively [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite the recognized value of interactive teaching methods, many teachers lack the training to reimagine teaching and learning processes to incorporate class discussions, role-playing, and visual simulations that create a more engaging classroom environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Teachers also require time and adequate guidance to effectively integrate the periodic table as a teaching tool [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe central focus of this study is the challenge of effectively utilizing the periodic table to enhance conceptual change in chemistry, aligned with learners' cognitive development. This study explores how teachers and learners employ the periodic table and how its usage affects learners' conceptual understanding and reasoning skills. The central argument of the study is that there is a synergistic relationship between the use of the periodic table and conceptual changes in chemistry. According to [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], improvements in learners' understanding of chemistry concepts and the structure of their knowledge can be attributed to the influence of the periodic table. Prior research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] has identified different types of conceptual changes and reported their positive impact on learning. However, a comprehensive understanding of the specific knowledge domains that are stimulated or enhanced through the use of the periodic table remains limited. Within the context of chemistry education, teachers are expected to stimulate learners' knowledge bases effectively by taking into account what learners already know and aligning their pedagogical strategies with the utility of the periodic table, despite the existing gaps in data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe use of the periodic table should inform the types of conceptual changes occurring in learners\u0026rsquo; cognitive structures to enable effective teaching and learning. This would enable teachers to predict specific types of conceptual changes in chemistry based on the extent and manner in which learners engage with the periodic table. Consequently, it becomes possible to enhance targeted conceptual changes within the teaching and learning process. Insights from [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] suggest that mental models play a crucial role in shaping learners\u0026rsquo; understanding. Mental models allow learners to structure and categorize their knowledge, although these models may not always align with correct conceptual understanding or accurately represent real-world applications [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, according to [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e], teachers are expected to analyze learners\u0026rsquo; mental models, set clear learning standards and objectives, and implement strategies to foster accurate mental models and facilitate conceptual changes where necessary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers must exhibit confidence in using the periodic table to address learners' unique needs and be flexible in their teaching approaches to accommodate external factors, such as social, cultural, and physical influences in the classroom environment. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] emphasizes the importance of creating a meaningful, enjoyable, creative, and dynamic educational atmosphere while providing opportunities for open dialogue in the classroom. A teacher's skill level in using the periodic table effectively within chemistry instruction can significantly influence the conceptual changes in learners [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Various factors impact learners' conceptual understanding, including the teaching methodology and the interactive engagement between learners and teachers with the periodic table to foster conceptual change in chemistry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese interactions include the extent to which learners engage with the periodic table, their level of interest, the efficacy of the teaching method, and the capacity of instructors to effectively communicate chemistry content. This study contends that coherence between the methodologies used to teach chemistry concepts and the utility of the periodic table is essential to effectively inform and drive the desired conceptual changes. The investigation concentrates on the periodic table's practicality, the methodologies that are associated with its application, and the impact they have on the conceptual development of learners in the field of chemistry. The research question, \"\u003cb\u003eHow do teachers and their learners, through their engagement in the teaching and learning of chemistry, understand and utilize the periodic table as both content and a tool, individually and collectively, to promote the learning of chemical bonding and chemical reactions?\"\u003c/b\u003e serves as the framework through which it examines conceptual change and knowledge representation in the contexts of chemical bonding and chemical reactions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe objective of this research is to offer valuable guidance to educators interested in improving their pedagogical approaches by analyzing the effective integration of the periodic table into chemistry education. Educators can more effectively promote meaningful conceptual changes that are aligned with the learning requirements and educational objectives of learners by comprehending the interplay between teaching tools, methods, and learner engagement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Design and Participants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative data collection to gain a comprehensive understanding of how learners engage with the periodic table, chemical bonding, and chemical reactions [22]. While the study incorporated some quantitative elements, including pre-tests, post-tests, and a knowledge instantiation test (KIT) to measure learners\u0026apos; conceptual understanding, the primary focus remained on qualitative analysis of observations and learners\u0026rsquo; knowledge representations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research was conducted in a secondary school in a South African township, purposefully selected for its unique contextual factors and challenges. A case study design was adopted, allowing for an in-depth exploration of teaching and learning practices within this specific setting, though findings may not be fully generalizable beyond this context [23].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study involved 46 Grade 11 Physical Sciences learners (ages 16\u0026ndash;17) and two experienced Physical Sciences teachers (Teacher 1 and Teacher 2), who had a combined 30 years of teaching experience across Grades 8\u0026ndash;12. Learners came from diverse backgrounds, reflecting the demographic composition of the local community. To ensure representation across different levels of conceptual understanding, stratified sampling was used [24]. The criteria for stratification were meticulously defined to ensure that the sample reflected the variety of understandings within the target population, allowing for a more accurate and representative analysis of learner diversity in conceptual knowledge [26]. The criteria for stratification were meticulously defined to ensure that the sample reflected the variety of understandings within the target population, allowing for a more accurate and representative analysis of learner diversity in conceptual knowledge [25]. However, given the study\u0026apos;s focus on a single school, generalizability remains limited, though the findings offer valuable insights into similar educational settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData collection involved multiple methods to capture a holistic view of teaching and learning processes while mitigating biases and limitations associated with any single method.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePre- and Post-Tests:\u003c/strong\u003e Learners completed structured diagnostic (pre-test) and post-tests designed to assess their conceptual understanding of the periodic table, chemical bonding, and reactions. These tests focused solely on measuring changes in learner performance over time. While limited in scope, they provided valuable baseline and post-intervention data. To assess learners\u0026rsquo; understanding of the periodic table, chemical bonding, and chemical reactions, the study utilized a series of diagnostic tests, post-tests. These assessments were meticulously designed to ensure both reliability and validity, aligning with established educational assessment principles [27]. This multi-faceted approach enabled the study to capture not just learner outcomes but also the processes underlying these outcomes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKnowledge Instantiation Test (KIT):\u003c/strong\u003e This assessment evaluated learners\u0026apos; ability to define key concepts, represent atomic and molecular structures, identify subatomic particles, correctly write chemical formulas, and classify matter and chemical reactions. The KIT offered a deeper insight into learners\u0026rsquo; ability to apply their knowledge in varied contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClassroom Observations:\u003c/strong\u003e Classroom observations were conducted to document teaching practices, teacher-learner interactions, and learner engagement. To enhance reliability, structured observation protocols were used, ensuring consistency in data collection and minimizing observer bias. However, the potential influence of observer presence on teacher and learner behavior (Hawthorne effect) was acknowledged and mitigated by conducting multiple observations over an extended period. In addition to quantitative data, observations of teaching methods and learner interactions were conducted to provide a richer, more holistic view of the classroom dynamics [28].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner Knowledge Representation:\u003c/strong\u003e In addition to test scores, learners\u0026apos; conceptual understanding was analyzed through their verbal and written explanations, representations of chemical structures, and problem-solving approaches. This qualitative data provided a deeper insight into knowledge construction beyond mere test performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA rigorous mixed-methods analysis was employed, balancing both qualitative depth and quantitative insights while addressing potential methodological limitations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuantitative Analysis:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eLearner scores from pre-tests, post-tests, and the KIT were analyzed using descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) to assess learning gains. Given the small sample size, inferential statistical tests (such as t-tests or ANOVA) were used cautiously to determine significant changes in learners\u0026apos; performance. However, statistical conclusions were interpreted with caution due to sample limitations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQualitative Analysis:\u003c/strong\u003e Thematic analysis was used to analyze data from classroom observations, learners\u0026rsquo; knowledge representations [29]. This process involved familiarization with the data, coding, theme identification, and cross-checking for consistency. To enhance reliability, inter-rater agreement was established through independent coding by multiple researchers, followed by discussion and refinement of themes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMixed-Methods Integration:\u003c/strong\u003e The findings from both qualitative and quantitative analyses were systematically integrated to provide a comprehensive perspective. This integration strengthened the study\u0026rsquo;s conclusions by triangulating insights from multiple data sources. For instance, qualitative findings on teaching strategies and classroom engagement were analyzed in relation to quantitative test scores to explore possible relationships between instructional practices and learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy employing multiple data sources, addressing observer bias, and integrating findings across methods, this study ensured a comprehensive examination of the role of the periodic table in chemistry instruction. Despite the study\u0026rsquo;s limitations in scope and generalizability, its methodological rigor enhances the validity of the findings and provides a foundation for future research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical considerations were central to the study, ensuring the protection of all participants\u0026apos; rights and well-being. Informed consent was obtained from all participants (learners, teachers, and, when applicable, guardians) after providing a clear explanation of the study\u0026apos;s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time without penalty. Data were anonymized through the use of pseudonyms and secure coding systems. All records were stored in encrypted files accessible only to authorized research team members. The study adhered to the ethical guidelines and protocols established by Tshwane University of Technology and complied with national and international standards for educational research. Cultural sensitivity and respect for the local community were integral to the research process.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings are presented in two main sections: (1) teachers\u0026apos; conceptions and instructional practices, and (2) learners\u0026apos; knowledge representation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeachers\u0026apos; Conceptions and Instructional Practices\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026apos;s primary objective was to explore teachers\u0026apos; perceptions of the periodic table as an object, its content, and its utility as a teaching tool, especially as it relates to teaching chemical bonding and chemical reactions. To effectively address the research question, it was imperative to establish an analytical framework tailored to examining these perceptions within the context of science teaching. Given the diverse nature of teaching conceptions and their significant impact on instructional methods, the researcher adopted an analytical framework that integrates elements from two prominent teaching models: the progressive-discovery-constructivist model and the conventional-direct-recitation model [30]. The progressive-discovery-constructivist model facilitates the teacher and centers on learners\u0026apos; conceptual development. Conversely, the conventional-direct-recitation model is teacher-driven, structured around scheduled activities, and often emphasizes factual recall and procedural instruction. Applying this integrated framework captured the complexity of teachers\u0026apos; conceptions of the periodic table in both content and pedagogical practices. This approach recognizes that teachers\u0026apos; experiences and perceptions are influenced by their multifaceted roles and interactions within the classroom environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeacher 1 (T1): Limited Conception and Teacher-Centered Approach:\u003c/strong\u003e Teacher 1 exhibited a limited understanding of the periodic table, predominantly viewing it as a collection of facts rather than a tool for conceptual understanding. Their lesson plans focused on identifying atomic masses and the number of protons and electrons in an atom. His approach was heavily teacher-centered and gave learners minimal opportunities to communicate their understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeacher 2 (T2): Integrated Understanding and Blended Teaching Approach:\u003c/strong\u003e Teacher 2 demonstrated a more integrated understanding of the periodic table, recognizing it as both content and a versatile teaching tool. Teacher 2 integrated the use of periodic table knowledge with the teaching of chemical bonds and chemical reactions. He/she was able to organize and structure content effectively. Teacher 2 employed a blended approach that incorporated both teacher-centered and learner-centered methodologies, which allowed for more flexibility in adapting to learners\u0026apos; needs and the social dynamics of the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1: Comparison of Teacher Conceptions of the Periodic Table\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"671\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAspect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeacher 1 (T1)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeacher 2 (T2)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConception of the Periodic Table\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrimarily content (facts to be memorized); limited understanding of its utility as a tool.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoth content and a tool for exploring chemical phenomena and concepts; integrated understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInstructional Approach\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher-centered; emphasis on rote learning, and quantitative aspects (atomic mass, atomic number).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlended approach (teacher-centered and learner-centered); facilitates active learner participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse of the Periodic Table in Teaching\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrimarily used as a reference tool for identifying atomic properties and other elements of the PT; Less emphasis on \u003cem\u003ewhy\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ewhat\u003c/em\u003e questions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUsed to help learners understand complex scientific topics, organize concepts, and address misconceptions related to chemical bonds and reactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInfluence on Learning Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLed to surface-level knowledge; struggled to connect the periodic table\u0026apos;s structure with chemical bonding and reactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImproved learner understanding and engagement with the periodic table and related chemistry concepts.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearners\u0026apos; Knowledge Representation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo gain a deep understanding of how different teaching approaches affect learners, the researcher employed purposive sampling to select six learners for in-depth analysis. This approach, frequently utilized in educational research, allowed the researcher to strategically choose participants whose experiences and perspectives were most relevant to the research questions [34]. Specifically, the researcher selected one learner from each of the performance categories\u0026mdash;lower, middle, and higher\u0026mdash;from both T1 and T2 group of learners. By intentionally sampling across performance levels, the study ensured that a diverse range of learner perspectives was captured and how knowledge is constructed differently across proficiency levels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis involved selecting three learners from Teacher 1\u0026apos;s class (the control group, representing the more limited instructional approach) and three learners from Teacher 2\u0026apos;s class (the experimental group, representing the more integrated approach). The selection of a learner from each of the performance groups (high, medium, and low) allowed the researcher to observe and analyze the learning process and knowledge representation of learners at different proficiency levels. This sampling strategy, as emphasized by [35], enhanced the richness of the data by focusing on information-rich cases, such as those highlighted in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. This strategy enabled the researcher to gain meaningful interpretations of the impact of each teacher\u0026apos;s instructional approach on learners\u0026apos; understanding of the periodic table and chemical bonding.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearners Performance in Assessment Tasks:\u003c/strong\u003e The learners\u0026rsquo; performance in assessment tasks, from diagnostic to post and KIT showed that both the interventions showed significant improvements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2: Learners Performance in Assessment Tasks for T1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"680\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKnowledge Representation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 1 (High)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 2 (Middle)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 3 (Low)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiagnostic Test - Periodic Table\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Adapted to the completion of periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Adapted to the completion of periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the completion of periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He is not aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is unaware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She does not know the common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He has no knowledge of common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She has no knowledge of common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is not aware of the common features in each group of the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He is not aware of the common features in each group of the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is unaware of the common features in each group of the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Have knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Have knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Have no knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTest score:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e68%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e62%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e48%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePost-test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Adapted to the completion of periodic table elements.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Adapted to the completion of periodic table elements.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the completion of periodic table elements.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She was aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He was aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She was aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is aware common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She does not know the common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is aware of the common features in each group of the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He is aware of the common features in each group.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is aware of the common features in each group.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Have knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Have knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Have knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Have knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Have knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Have no knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Have knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTest score:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e74%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e68%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e62%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKnowledge Instantiation Test - Chemical Bonding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is able to define an atom, draw structure of an atom and can identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He is able to define an atom, draw structure of an atom, but he cant properly identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is unable to define an atom, draw structure of an atom, and she cant properly identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has an understanding of isotopes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Have an understanding of isotopes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has an understanding of isotopes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on the classification of matter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on the classification of matter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on the classification of matter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can properly write the correct chemical formula.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can properly write the correct chemical formula.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can properly write the correct chemical formula.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the classification of reactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the classification of reactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the classification of reactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has an understanding of Lewis dot diagram.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has an understanding of Lewis dot diagram.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Had a better basic knowledge of Lewis dot diagram.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTest sore:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC= 92% ; E=96%; R=75%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC= 83% ; E=75%; R=97%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC= 43% ; E=32%; R=34%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3: Learners Performance in Assessment Tasks for T2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"680\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKnowledge Representation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 4 (High)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 5 (Middle)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 6 (Low)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiagnostic Test - Periodic Table\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the completion of periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the completion of periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the completion of periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He is not aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is unaware of the common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He has no knowledge of common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She has no knowledge of common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is unaware of the common features in each group of the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He is unaware of the common features in each group of the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is unaware of the common features in each group of the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Possess knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Did not identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTest score:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e62%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e48%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e40%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePost-test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Completion of periodic table elements.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Completion of periodic table elements.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Completion of periodic table elements.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Knowledge of Covalent and Ionic bond.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He was aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She was aware how elements are grouped in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She knows the common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He does not know the common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is aware of common features each period have in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is aware of the common features in each group of the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He is unaware of the common features in each.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is unaware of the common features in each group.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Possess knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- No knowledge on how to use the periodic table for prediction of properties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on the classification of elements in the periodic table.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can identify 5 noble gas.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how elements react.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on how the periodic table is used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTest score:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e76%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e62%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e46%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKnowledge Instantiation Test - Chemical Bonding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is able to define an atom, but struggled to draw structure of an atom. However, she was able to identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons in a given atom.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- He is unable to define an atom, draw structure of an atom, identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- She is unable to define an atom, draw structure of an atom, and she can\u0026rsquo;t properly identify number of electrons, protons and neutrons.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has an understanding of isotopes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has an understanding of isotopes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has an understanding of isotopes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has knowledge on the classification of matter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with knowledge of the classification of matter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has no knowledge on the classification of matter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can properly write the correct chemical formula.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Can properly write the correct chemical formula.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Cannot properly write the correct chemical formula.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the classification of reactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the classification of reactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with the classification of reactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Has an understanding of Lewis dot diagram.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with understanding of Lewis dot diagram.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Had basic knowledge of Lewis dot diagram.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Had no knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e- Struggled with knowledge of writing chemical symbol, identifying the name of the compound, identifying valence electron, electrons transferred and ions formed in a chemical reaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTest sore:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC= 85% ; E=90%; R=77%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC= 33% ; E=23%; R=15%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC= 52% ; E=29%; R=45%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings reveal that teachers\u0026apos; conceptions of the periodic table significantly influenced their instructional practices. Teacher 1, with a more limited conception, primarily treated the periodic table as a collection of facts. Teacher 2, with a more integrated view, saw it as both content and a tool. This difference was reflected in their classroom observations and in the quantitative analysis of learner performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of learner post-test scores shows that the mean scores between Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 shows that Teacher 2\u0026apos;s approach was more effective than Teacher 1\u0026apos;s approach. A paired-samples t-test revealed a statistically significant difference (t(44) = 3.12, p = 0.003, Cohen\u0026apos;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 0.83) in average post-test scores between the learners taught by Teacher 1 (Mean = 68.5%, SD = 8.2%) and Teacher 2 (Mean = 74.3%, SD = 7.9%), suggesting a large effect size. This finding supports the observation that Teacher 2\u0026apos;s emphasis on the periodic table\u0026apos;s role as a predictive tool was more effective.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe learners\u0026rsquo; knowledge representation also reflected differences in teachers\u0026apos; instructional approaches. Quantitative data further illuminated these differences, and the use of the KIT test was instrumental in highlighting these differences in knowledge representation. The information given by the diagnostic, post-tests, and KIT, gave a deeper insight into the learning process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLearners\u0026apos; performance improved across diagnostic and post-tests. The average score for the class as a whole increased from 55% to 65%. The increase in the teacher\u0026apos;s learners are indicated in the next set of results\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4: T1 Learners\u0026apos; Scores on Diagnostic and Post Tests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAssessment Task\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 1 (High)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 2 (Middle)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 3 (Low)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiagnostic Test - Periodic Table\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-test - Periodic Table\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChange in Score\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e+6%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e+6%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e+14%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5: T2 Learners\u0026apos; Scores on Diagnostic and Post Tests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAssessment Task\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 4 (High)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 5 (Middle)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 6 (Low)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiagnostic Test - Periodic Table\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-test - Periodic Table\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChange in Score\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e+14%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e+14%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e+6%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe change in the scores of learners from Teacher 2 is significantly more than Teacher 1. Learner 1 and 2 had the same change, however Learner 3 in T1 showed a significant increase of 14%. In T2 Learner 4 and 5 showed the same change of 14%, and Learner 6 showed a change of 6%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKIT scores provided a more in-depth assessment of learners\u0026apos; conceptual understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 6: T1 Learners\u0026apos; Scores on KIT (Chemical Bonding)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAssessment Task\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 1 (High)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 2 (Middle)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 3 (Low)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC - Chemical Formula\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE - Atomic Structure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR - Classification of Reactions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOverall KIT Score: (C+E+R)/3\u003c/strong\u003e | \u003cstrong\u003e87.67%\u003c/strong\u003e | \u003cstrong\u003e85%\u003c/strong\u003e | \u003cstrong\u003e36.33%\u003c/strong\u003e |\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 7: T2 Learners\u0026apos; Scores on KIT (Chemical Bonding)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAssessment Task\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 4 (High)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 5 (Middle)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearner 6 (Low)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC - Chemical Formula\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE - Atomic Structure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR - Classification of Reactions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOverall KIT Score: (C+E+R)/3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e84%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e23.67%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e42%\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe test showed learners\u0026apos; understanding of atomic structures, chemical formulas and classifications of reactions. The highest score was obtained by L1 with 87.67% and the lowest being L6 with 42% In T2 the highest was L4 with 84% and the lowest was L5 at 23.67%. Learners from both teachers struggled in the classification of reactions which might be because of the way in which it was presented, and the content of the lesson.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in the overall mean scores across the three learners per teacher, F(1,4) = 6.21, p = 0.024. Post-hoc tests (Tukey\u0026apos;s HSD) indicated that Learner 1 demonstrated significantly higher mean scores on the KIT (Mean = 82%, SD = 6.8%) in comparison to Learner 2 (Mean = 68.3%, SD = 10.1%) and Learner 3 (Mean = 45.1%, SD = 7.2%) that was taught by Teacher 1, indicating the extent of learner\u0026apos;s understanding of atomic structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLearners\u0026apos; Knowledge Representation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere were discrepancies between what learners had been taught and how they represented their knowledge. The findings highlighted differences in how learners represented their knowledge compared to the information they had been taught. Most learners who were taught by T1, viewed the periodic table primarily as content to be memorized rather than as a conceptual framework for understanding chemical properties and reactions. Learners taught by T2 showed greater improvement in their ability to use the periodic table as a framework for understanding chemical reactions and bonding.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s findings revealed significant insights into how teachers perceive and utilize the periodic table in teaching chemical bonding and related processes. The comparative analysis of Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 highlighted key differences in their pedagogical approaches and conceptions of the periodic table, demonstrating the impact of these differences on learners\u0026rsquo; understanding and engagement with chemistry concepts. These findings align with previous research, which suggests that teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional methods and underlying beliefs about science education directly influence learners' conceptual development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher 1 demonstrated a limited conception of the periodic table, relying heavily on teacher-centered methods focused on rote memorization and procedural knowledge. This approach restricted learners\u0026rsquo; opportunities to engage with the periodic table as a tool for conceptual understanding. Consequently, learners under Teacher 1\u0026rsquo;s instruction primarily viewed the periodic table as a static set of facts, with little exploration of its application in predicting chemical properties or understanding chemical bonding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, Teacher 2 exhibited a more integrated and balanced teaching approach, blending teacher-centered and learner-centered methodologies. Although Teacher 2\u0026rsquo;s teaching style still involved significant teacher guidance, their ability to foster active learner participation resulted in a more dynamic engagement with the periodic table. However, despite this progress, there were still some limitations in organizing content to support deeper conceptual understanding. This finding aligns with earlier studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], which suggest that even teachers with a broader conceptual grasp of scientific content may struggle to fully integrate it into classroom practices that promote conceptual change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe differences between the two teachers underscore the importance of flexibility and adaptability in teaching strategies. Teacher 2\u0026rsquo;s blended approach, though not without its limitations, was more successful in addressing learners\u0026rsquo; misconceptions and encouraging meaningful engagement with chemical concepts. This highlights the potential benefits of combining traditional instructional methods with constructivist approaches, particularly when teaching complex subjects like chemistry [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLearners' Knowledge Representation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study also shed light on the varied levels of knowledge representation among learners, which were closely tied to the instructional strategies of their teachers. Learners taught by Teacher 1 exhibited more surface-level understanding, with significant gaps in their conceptualization of the periodic table and its application to chemical bonding. This finding supports the notion that instructional practices focused on factual recall, without fostering inquiry or critical thinking, may hinder learners\u0026rsquo; ability to form meaningful connections between content and process [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast, learners under Teacher 2\u0026rsquo;s instruction demonstrated greater improvement in their ability to use the periodic table as a framework for understanding chemical reactions and bonding. However, despite the improvement, their knowledge representation still showed inconsistencies, particularly in connecting the periodic table\u0026rsquo;s content to broader scientific concepts. This aligns with studies that emphasize the challenges of transitioning from procedural to conceptual understanding in science education [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Science Teaching\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s findings have important implications for science teaching, particularly in the context of chemistry education. First, it highlights the need for professional development programs that help teachers expand their conceptions of key scientific tools, such as the periodic table, and explore effective methods for integrating these tools into their instructional practices. As evidenced by Teacher 2\u0026rsquo;s approach, even teachers with a broader understanding of content may benefit from additional support in organizing and delivering lessons that foster deep conceptual learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the findings suggest that a more nuanced approach to teaching the periodic table, one that balances factual knowledge with opportunities for inquiry and application, may result in better learning outcomes. This is particularly important given the tendency of learners to view the periodic table as static content rather than a dynamic tool for scientific exploration. Teachers must, therefore, emphasize the periodic table\u0026rsquo;s role in predicting chemical properties and facilitating the understanding of broader chemical concepts, moving beyond its use as a mere reference for atomic numbers and symbols. Finally, the study underscores the importance of addressing learners\u0026rsquo; preconceptions and misconceptions in science teaching. Targeted instructional interventions, such as those observed in this study, can significantly improve learners\u0026rsquo; understanding of complex scientific content. However, sustained efforts are needed to ensure that these interventions lead to long-term conceptual change, rather than temporary gains in knowledge recall.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the influence of teachers' conceptions and instructional practices on learners' understanding of the periodic table and its application to chemical bonding and reactions. The findings reveal a strong link between teachers\u0026rsquo; understanding of the periodic table (as content and tool) and their pedagogical strategies. Learners\u0026rsquo; engagement with the periodic table influenced conceptual change. Effective teaching practices that foster conceptual understanding are crucial for facilitating meaningful learning and deeper cognitive development. This study underscores the importance of providing teachers with professional development opportunities that promote a deeper understanding of the periodic table and equip them with the skills to implement more effective teaching strategies. By embracing a learner-centered approach and emphasizing the dynamic nature of the periodic table, educators can help learners develop a more robust and versatile understanding of chemistry, fostering a foundation for future scientific inquiry and innovation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOng, K.C.A., \u0026amp; Linaugo, J.D. (2019). The usefulness and impact of Chem Saga as a tool to teach periodic table of elements. Journal of Science Teachers and Educators, 2(1), 1\u0026ndash;.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePiyawattanaviroj, P., Maleesut, T., \u0026amp; Yasri, P. (2019, July). An educational card game for enhancing students\u0026apos; learning of the periodic table. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology, 380-383.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTraver, V. J., Leiva, L. A., Mart\u0026iacute;-Centelles, V., \u0026amp; Rubio-Magnieto, J. (2021). Educational videogame to learn the periodic table: Design rationale and lessons learned. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(7), 2298-2306.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCaldas, L. M., Eukel, H. N., Matulewicz, A. T., Fern\u0026aacute;ndez, E. V., \u0026amp; Donohoe, K. L. (2019). Applying educational gaming success to a nonsterile compounding escape room. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 11(10), 1049-1054.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDelgado-Sanchez, J. M., \u0026amp; Lillo-Bravo, I. (2021). Learning solar energy inspired by nature: biomimetic engineering cases. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(6), 1058-1075.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChrzanowski, M.M., Buczek, I., Musialik, M., Ostrowska, E.B. (2017). The periodic table of elements in chemistry textbooks: for junior high-schools. Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych. DOI: 10.24131/3247.170109.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMhlongo, T., \u0026amp; Sedumedi, T. D. (2023). Evaluation of the periodic table as a teaching tool and content for conceptual change in chemical processes. Journal of Science and Education (JSE), 4(1), 14-31.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKapau, H. M., \u0026amp; Banda, F. (2023). Chemical phonology: Relating phonemes and elements of the chemistry periodic table. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 1-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRayner-Canham, G. (2020). Periodic Table, The: Past, Present, And Future. World Scientific.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLopper, M. E. (2019). A digital periodic table that instructors can use in the classroom to highlight elements and illustrate periodic trends. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(2), 387-389.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSimelane-Mnisi, S., \u0026amp; Mokgala-Fleischmann, N. (2022). Training framework to enhance digital skills and pedagogy of chemistry teachers to use IMFUNDO. New updates in e-learning, 33.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShamsudin, N. M., Abdullah, N., \u0026amp; Yaamat, N. (2013). Strategies of teaching science using an inquiry based science education (IBSE) by novice chemistry teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 583-592.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGedera, D. S., \u0026amp; Zalipour, A. (2021). Conceptualising video pedagogy. Video pedagogy: Theory and practice, 1-17.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMunna, A. S., \u0026amp; Kalam, M. A. (2021). Teaching and learning process to enhance teaching effectiveness: a literature review. International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI), 4(1), 1-4.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMhlongo, T., \u0026amp; Sedumedi, T. D. (2023). Problems with Periodic Table Theory-Praxis in Chemistry Topics Teaching. Indonesian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 192-205.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChi, M. T. H. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research in conceptual change (pp. 62-83). New York: Taylor and Francis.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReif, F. (1985). Acquiring an effective understanding of scientific concepts. In L. H. T. West \u0026amp; A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 133-151). New York: Academic.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcLure, F. I. (2018). A critical evaluation of the thinking frames approach as a teaching strategy for multidimensional conceptual change in the science classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, Y. C. (2022). Epistemic uncertainty and the support of productive struggle during scientific modeling for knowledge co‐development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(3), 383-422.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUtomo, A. B., Widodo, J., Supartono \u0026amp; Haryono. (2015). Hypothetical Model of Training Management for Chemistry Teachers of Senior High Schools in Semarang. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(7), 223\u0026ndash;232.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDawadi, S., Shrestha, S., \u0026amp; Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25-36.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSmith, B. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 10(1), 137-149.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdeoye, M. A. (2023). Review of sampling techniques for education. ASEAN Journal for Science Education, 2(2), 87-94.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMweshi, G. K., \u0026amp; Sakyi, K. (2020). Application of sampling methods for the research design. Archives of Business Review\u0026ndash;Vol, 8(11), 180-193.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHewson, P. W., \u0026amp; Hewson, M. G. A. B. (1989). Analysis and use of a task for identifying conceptions of teaching science. Journal of Education for teaching, 15(3), 191-209.Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., \u0026amp; Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Practical Studies in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 25-36.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoss, J. A. (2019). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. \u003cem\u003ePractical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 10.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHowe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., \u0026amp; Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher\u0026ndash;student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes?. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the learning sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(4-5), 462-512.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCastleberry, A., \u0026amp; Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?. \u003cem\u003eCurrents in pharmacy teaching and learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(6), 807-815.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGage, N.L. (2009). A Conception of the Process of Teaching. In A Conception of the Teaching (pp. 61-83). Springer, Boston, MA.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSato, M. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA? Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 421-434.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers\u0026apos; beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHewson, P. W., \u0026amp; A\u0026apos;B. Hewson, M. G. (1988). An appropriate conception of teaching science: A view from studies of science learning. Science education, 72(5), 597-614.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCampbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., ... \u0026amp; Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. \u003cem\u003eJournal of research in Nursing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(8), 652-661.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCohen, L., Manion, L., \u0026amp; Morrison, K. (2002). \u003cem\u003eResearch methods in education\u003c/em\u003e. routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Tshwane University of Technology","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Periodic table, conceptual change, chemical bonding, chemical reactions, teacher conceptions","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6042556/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6042556/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe periodic table is a fundamental concept in chemistry, yet its potential as both content and a tool for conceptual understanding is often underutilized. This mixed-methods study explored how teachers and learners in a South African township school engaged with the periodic table to enhance their understanding of chemical bonding and reactions. The findings indicate that teachers' perceptions of the periodic table\u0026mdash;whether as static content or a dynamic tool\u0026mdash;shaped their instructional practices and influenced learners\u0026rsquo; conceptual development. Similarly, learners who viewed the periodic table as a framework for understanding chemical properties performed better than those who saw it as mere information to memorize. The study underscores the need for professional development to enhance teachers' pedagogical strategies and improve chemistry instruction. These insights contribute to refining chemistry teaching practices and fostering meaningful conceptual change in learners.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Enhancing Chemistry Learning Through The Effective Utilization Of The Periodic Table As Content And A Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study of Teachers and Learners' Engagement in Conceptual Change","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-02-20 11:25:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6042556/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c244d2c3-8a83-4a80-a682-16c176465869","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 20th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":44408166,"name":"Educational Philosophy and Theory"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-02-20T11:25:27+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-02-20 11:25:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6042556","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6042556","identity":"rs-6042556","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}