The impact of co-design-based formative assessment practices on preservice science teachers’ understanding of chemical concepts in a general chemistry laboratory course

Abstract

Recently, scholars have suggested a co-design collaboration with instructors and students to effectively implement formative assessment (FA) practices because it ensures a high-quality design that considers users’ needs, values, and goals in a specific learning context. This study examines the effect of co-designed FA practices, in which preservice science teachers (PSTs) are co-designers of FA practices, on promoting their conceptual understanding of chemistry topics in a first-year undergraduate chemistry laboratory course. Sixteen randomly selected PSTs participated in the study for two consecutive semesters. At the end of the first semester, a co-design of the FA practices was developed collaboratively with the PSTs upon the approach of conjecture mapping. Then, the second semester was devoted to examining the impact of the co-design-based FA environment on overcoming the PSTs’ alternative conceptions regarding selected four chemistry laboratory topics: thermochemistry, chemical kinetics, chemical equilibrium, acids and bases. This study employed a conversion mixed research design. To evaluate the co-design-based FA practices, PSTs’ alternative conceptions were identified through pre- and post-laboratory concept maps. The results obtained from both qualitative and quantitative data analyses showed that implementing the co-designed FA practices had a significant impact on overcoming most of the alternative conceptions held by the PSTs in all topics of laboratory investigations. This study strongly implies the inclusion of undergraduate students as active co-participants of the iterative reasoning process of the FA design to promote their understanding of chemical concepts in laboratory courses.

---

Introduction

The laboratory plays a crucial role in the chemistry curriculum at institutions worldwide because chemistry is an experimental field (Abraham et al., 1997; Seery et al., 2017; Pullen et al., 2018). The undergraduate laboratory serves several functions, including developing practical skills and a better understanding of chemical concepts (Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004). However, research has demonstrated that simply carrying out laboratory experiments is insufficient for students to develop a deep conceptual grasp of chemistry (Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004; Katchevich et al., 2013). The primary barrier to the usefulness of the chemistry laboratory for enhancing students’ learning and performance is the type of laboratory instruction and assessment practices that they experience (Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004; Katchevich et al., 2013).

Chemistry laboratory courses are often divided into subject units or modules (Hunter et al., 2003; Siweya and Letsoalo, 2014), and confirmatory laboratory instruction, which consists of students following directions using a laboratory manual to arrive at a predetermined outcome, is the most common type in use for the university-level chemistry laboratories (Abraham et al., 1997; Hunter et al., 2003; Pullen et al., 2018). Assessment practices in chemistry laboratories usually proceed through a set of conventional tools such as laboratory reports and quizzes or exams, which over-relies on quantitative summative assessments (Abraham et al., 1997; Pullen et al., 2018). Specifically, there is a big concern that current summative assessments in chemistry laboratories often encourage students to focus only on getting a good grade, placing a much lower priority on fostering student learning and performance (DeKorver and Towns, 2015). Most chemistry educators (e.g., Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004; Katchevich et al., 2013) believe that in this type of laboratory learning setting, “a laboratory” often refers to manipulating equipment rather than ideas and reasoning for many students.

To encourage students to deeply manipulate ideas in a chemistry laboratory, students need to know “where they are going”, “where they are right now”, and “how to get there” through formative assessment (FA) practices that are rarely used in laboratory settings (Katchevich et al., 2013; Seery et al., 2017). FA is a system of effective tools and processes designed to identify, address, and respond to students' needs for improved learning through modified teaching (e.g., Black and Wiliam, 2004, 2009; Bennett, 2011; Furtak and Heredia, 2014). During the last two decades, scholars have designed and examined various forms of contemporary assessments. These assessments have included FA strategies in chemistry laboratories such as detailed rubrics for both general and experiment-specific purposes (Pullen, 2016), tools for self- and peer-assessment (Wenzel, 2007), concept map (CM) (Markow and Lonning, 1998; Ghani et al., 2017), video responses (Erdmann and March, 2014), a peer-observation protocol underpinned by exemplar videos (Seery et al., 2017), learner-centered assessment, named creative exercises (Ye et al., 2020), self-assessment with video playback (Lau, 2020), a self-demonstration video with a set of given instructions, named the ‘digital badge’ approach (Hensiek et al., 2016), rubric-based scoring and providing students with feedback comments (Zemel et al., 2021), and a competency-based assessment model (Pullen et al., 2018).

These researcher-designed assessment practices had benefits and outcomes; however, researchers also discussed the problems and issues raised from the experience of the FA practices in the chemistry laboratory (Hunter et al., 2003; Hartmeyer et al., 2016; Zemel et al., 2021). For example, Zemel et al. (2021) examined 13 preservice teachers’ practices of the FA when they assessed students’ laboratory reports using two components of assessment – rubric-based scoring and providing feedback comments to students in the chemistry laboratory. They found that rubric dimensions perceived as more open to debate and interpretation, such as analyzing evidence and formulating conclusions, were challenging to score. Explicit instruction resulted in different lines of thought, leading to higher variance in scores. Similarly, the results of Ye et al.'s (2020) study showed that students view creative exercises as an assessment technique, while concept maps (CMs) serve as a learning tool. They concluded that CMs are ideal for formative assessment, while creative exercises are suitable for summative assessment for college chemistry teaching. In this respect, Huynh and Yang (2024) have recently argued that CMs are more commonly used as a teaching tool rather than an effective means of assessment in chemistry education. Previous studies examining the benefits of implementing CMs in college chemistry classrooms and laboratories have yet to show consistent outcomes (Huynh and Yang, 2024). While some studies have indicated that using CMs in the teaching of chemistry leads to a significant improvement in student understanding (Aguiar and Correia, 2016; Martínez et al., 2013; Turan-Oluk and Ekmekci, 2018), other studies have found no significant difference when concept mapping was compared with traditional teaching in general chemistry classrooms (Talbert et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2020) and laboratories (Markow and Lonning, 1998). In a recent literature review, Hartmeyer et al. (2018) have also pointed out that studies of CMs as an assessment practice differed greatly in terms of five key FA strategies, described by Black and Wiliam (2009). For example, none of the studies used CMs as a strategy for sharing learning objectives and success criteria with students. Additionally, there was insufficient reporting on the pros and cons of various response modes and formats of CMs on student learning. Finally, only a few studies reviewed employed peer assessment to lessen teacher workload, rather than providing students with the opportunity to be instructional resources and take ownership of their learning (Hartmeyer et al., 2018).

The findings of FA studies, regardless of the intent and design, are mixed, depending on numerous contextual factors that are unknown at the beginning when designing for learning in the chemistry laboratory as a complex learning setting. In this regard, design-based research (DBR) has been strongly advocated as a useful approach for responding to emergent characteristics of learning environments (Design-based Research Collective, 2003; Barab and Squire, 2004; Collins et al., 2004). Recently, scholars have also recognized the value of co-design-based research, in which researchers and teachers, teacher candidates, or students collaborate in an iterative design process and the enactment of a highly messy set of practices in complex learning environments, such as the development and implementation of FA practices for the chemistry laboratory instruction (Heredia et al., 2016; Matuk et al., 2016). Having users contribute their perspectives and experiences in iterative cycles of use, reflection, adaptation, and eventual creation of the design ensures that it meets the users’ needs and goals in their learning settings, making it more relevant and usable. This increases the likelihood of sustained use of the design (Barab and Luehmann, 2003; Bennett, 2011). In the current study, as active co-participants, preservice science teachers (PSTs) added insights into the iterative reasoning process of the co-design-based FA practices during the first semester of the laboratory course. The co-design-based FA practices were developed, considering the five key FA strategies as the design principles described by Black and Wiliam (2009) in the first-year undergraduate chemistry laboratory course. Then, the second semester was devoted to examining the influence of the co-design-based FA environment on overcoming the PSTs’ alternative conceptions of the chemistry laboratory topics selected for the current study.

Background and theoretical framework

FA in chemistry education

Most assessment at the undergraduate level of chemistry education takes place after the instruction. Students are typically evaluated on their chemistry laboratory work through written reports or exams after their laboratory investigations have been completed (Ghani et al., 2017; Seery et al., 2017). The results of these summative assessments are called “loading up” feedback, indicating that the feedback is saved and given to students after the instruction (Hendry, 2013). This loading-up feedback typically includes corrective information for students to reinforce expectations and highlight and correct student errors (Hendry, 2013; Seery et al., 2017). The problem with this type of feedback is that it loses its relevance to students because the task or activity has already been completed, and there is no way for students to demonstrate that they have used the feedback to do the task or activity better (Seery et al., 2017). Many scholars have an agreement that the assessment should serve a formative purpose to improve the students’ learning and performance instead of summarizing how much learning has occurred at the end of the chemistry teaching (e.g., Furtak and Heredia, 2014; Hartmeyer et al., 2016; Hunter et al., 2003; Kaya and Kaya, 2023; Seery et al., 2017; Zemel et al., 2021).

Although there are various definitions of the FA and its practices, overlapping features are evident. For example, many scholars agree that FA is the process that teachers and students are involved to elicit and respond to students’ ideas and reasoning that are rooted in disciplinary activities/tools and goals to improve their understanding and skills, not simply measure what they learned or not (Black and Wiliam, 2009; Furtak and Heredia, 2014). Black and Wiliam (2009, p. 9) described the FA as follows: “Practice in a classroom is formative to the extent that evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers, learners, or their peers, to make decisions about the next step in instruction …” The Assessment Reform Group in the UK (2002, pp. 1–2) also defined the FA as “the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there.” Furthermore, Black and Wiliam (2009, p. 8) conceptualized the FA based on the following five key strategies:

(1) clarifying and sharing learning intentions and criteria for success,

(2) engineering effective classroom discussions and other learning tasks that elicit evidence of student understanding,

(3) providing feedback that moves learners forward,

(4) activating students as instructional resources for one another and

(5) activating students as the owners of their own learning.

For the current study, we have adopted the definition and five key strategies of Black and Wiliam (2009) on the FA. As shown in the CM in Fig. 1, the five key strategies of FA highlight the crucial role played by students, their peers, and the instructor in creating a learning community that shares responsibility for student learning rather than placing all the duty and responsibility on the instructor. The five key FA strategies as the theoretical underpinning of this study indicate that much of the FA is realized through student–student and teacher–student interactions. Scholars also claim that the FA, including related tools and processes, is more closely related to the socio-constructivist theory of learning (e.g., Torrance and Pryor, 1998; Pryor and Crossouard, 2008). In fact, from the socio-constructivist theory of learning, FA is defined as “a discursive social practice, involving dialectical, sometimes conflictual processes” (Pryor and Crossouard, 2008, p. 1). It involves not only the sharing of assessment criteria but also the negotiation of these criteria between students and the instructor. Further, it includes embracing the multi-voiced discourse among students and between teacher and students based on the multi-feedback obtained from self, peers, and instructor assessments (Black and Wiliam, 1998). Accordingly, both teachers and students should take on new roles and identities in the learning process in which the FA would make an explicit aim of raising both teachers’ and students’ awareness that different types of interaction or discourse result in different types of learning (e.g., memorizing, reasoning, creating) (Pryor and Crossouard, 2008). Although the definitions and key strategies of the FA (see Fig. 1) are clear and understandable, research indicates that effectively applying these FA strategies in the classroom and laboratory can be a challenge for many chemistry teachers (Hartmeyer et al., 2016; Zemel et al., 2021).

Fig. 1 A CM of the five key FA strategies, described by Black and Wiliam (2009).

Implementing FA practices in chemistry learning environments

Implementing FA practices is not always a simple task, particularly in the chemistry laboratory. This learning environment presents its own set of challenges, including limited equipment and chemicals, students' lack of experience in handling scientific equipment, and health and safety concerns. As a result, meaningful learning outcomes for students may not always be achieved (Hunter et al., 2003; Zemel et al., 2021). For a chemistry laboratory setting, there are many critical components or issues for the effective enactment of the FA when students plan, conduct, and interpret their laboratory investigations such as what assessment tools are used, who participates in the assessment, when and how the assessment should be implemented, how multi-feedback are collected and interpreted, and how the discourse is carried out to improve student learning and performance. Coffey et al. (2011) argued that research on the FA has focused more on teachers' use of broadly applicable assessment techniques than on how students think about science. They also noted that many FA studies have tended to view science content as vocabulary or information while neglecting to look at students' science conceptions and the structure of the field of science. Bennett (2011) argued that the interaction of general procedures and approaches with in-depth cognitive domain strategies is necessary for the most successful implementation of the FA. Such disciplinary or cognitive domain strategies involve the formative use of metacognitive tools such as CMs and Vee diagrams in chemistry laboratories (Hartmeyer et al., 2018; Novak and Gowin, 1984).

Students may actively engage in the assessment process as self- and peer-assessors using their CMs and Vee diagrams, and all feedback from self, peers, and instructor can be used to enhance student learning by engaging them in discursive practices (Black and Wiliam, 2009). In this regard, Huynh and Yang (2024) noted that studies exploring concept mapping in higher education chemistry courses have been scarce over the past 25 years, and the reported impacts on learning outcomes have been inconsistent (e.g., Aguiar and Correia, 2016; Markow and Lonning, 1998; Talbert et al., 2020; Turan-Oluk and Ekmekci, 2018; Ye et al., 2020). Huynh and Yang (2024) investigated the effects of fill-in-the-nodes concept mapping tasks on students with low prior knowledge in a general chemistry course. After receiving CM training and attending lectures on chemistry topics, students were assigned exercises consisting of CMs with missing nodes, while control groups completed textbook exercises. Results from Huynh and Yang's (2024) study suggested that the treatment group outperformed the control group, but only among students with low pretest scores. In the chemistry education literature, including Huynh and Yang's (2024) study, we have not found any studies, using the concept mapping approach based on the FA strategies. In a recent literature review, Hartmeyer et al. (2018) found that studies of CMs as an FA practice in science classrooms and laboratories varied significantly, particularly in terms of the five key FA strategies described by Black and Wiliam (2009). Hartmeyer et al. (2018) also reported challenges in using CMs as an FA tool in science teaching. These challenges include increased teacher workload and time-consuming procedures for scoring the CMs. However, CMs are effective in eliciting students' conceptual understanding of science and promoting student ownership of their learning. They posited that CMs, which represent students’ thinking processes, need to be logistically integrated into science instruction by considering the five key strategies of FA. Hartmeyer et al. (2018) have also proposed that there is a need to conduct empirical studies to construct the knowledge and recommendations regarding how to use metacognitive tools such as CM and Vee diagram as the basis of the FA practices in science instruction, considering the five key FA strategies.

Scholars (e.g., Furtak et al., 2008; Furtak and Heredia, 2014) argue that careful consideration of design and practical issues is necessary to implement high-quality FA practices in science learning environments, and these issues have not been thoroughly addressed in the literature. Recently, there has been a recommendation for a participatory approach in the design and implementation of FA practices. This approach entails close collaboration with teachers during the design phase. By adopting the co-design approach, design decisions are influenced by users' values and needs, resulting in higher-quality designs that can be sustainably utilized (Heredia et al., 2016). Furtak and her colleagues have found that there are variations in how teachers utilize FA practices in both science classrooms and laboratories. One potential way to improve the effectiveness of these practices in promoting student learning is to involve teachers and teacher candidates in the co-design of the FA practices.

Co-Design-based research and approach of conjecture mapping

Involving users as co-designers in the design process is suggested to ensure accuracy and alignment of the design with user needs and goals since it can yield higher-quality designs that ultimately lead to better outcomes (Heredia et al., 2016; Juuti et al., 2021; Matuk et al., 2016). Co-design shares assumptions and philosophies with various other design methodologies (Penuel et al., 2007). For example, it aligns with participatory design by involving users throughout the whole process, from beginning to end (Muller et al., 1993), and a value-sensitive design approach that accounts for users' needs and values (Friedman, 1996). Furthermore, co-design is in line with the tradition of educational design research and shares the same assumptions as researchers who conduct design-based research on educational innovations to enhance teaching and learning processes (Barab and Luehmann, 2003; Design-Based Research Collective, 2003).

Our approach to co-designing is rooted in Dewey's (1916) concept of “shared activity”, in which multiple participants collaborate to achieve a common goal, sharing ideas, interests, and emotions. In this study, our collaboration with PSTs shared a common goal of achieving a better understanding of chemical concepts through implementing FA-embedded laboratory investigations in a chemistry laboratory setting. Within the context of co-designing, shared activities refer to collaborative efforts among all members of the co-design team to jointly develop, implement, and assess instructional innovations, culminating in the production of new insights into science teaching and learning (Lavonen et al., 2006). In the current study, the co-design activities entailed iterative reasoning that involved designing, implementing, reflecting, analyzing, revising, and ultimately creating FA practices in the chemistry laboratory. Teacher or teacher candidates should be regarded as partners rather than simply adopters of innovations or passive participants in co-design activities (Loukomies et al., 2018). In this context, the PSTs actively contributed to these co-design activities, thus enhancing knowledge and experience from their involvement and their own learning responsibility in the chemistry laboratory.

Despite the various benefits of co-design practices, there are several documented challenges to facilitating co-design. For example, although co-design philosophy requires the acknowledgment and appreciation of user ideas, such ideas are often implicit, inarticulate, or inconsistent, as well as can be confusing or contradictory. In addition, users may hold distinct perspectives from researchers on supporting learning and performance, necessitating design compromises or reconciliations (Penuel et al., 2007). Accordingly, there is a need to use approaches or techniques that help the co-design team not only to clarify all the ideas and experiences generated throughout the design process but also to systematically test and revise design decisions to achieve the desired outcomes in a specific learning environment. Scholars (e.g., Loukomies et al. 2018) argued that a supportive and constructive environment is crucial for the co-design process. Such an environment fosters trust and psychological safety among team members, allowing for the generation of new ideas, effective feedback, and open discussion of concerns. To this end, we used conjecture mapping, developed by Sandoval (2014) as an approach for thinking critically and reflectively about design elements. It was used to enable all co-design team members, particularly PSTs, to focus on their own and others' thinking when making, discussing, revising, and testing co-design decisions using relevant theoretical work and empirical evidence as design principles for the FA-embedded laboratory practices.

In a conjecture map that comprises six primary elements and their relationships, designing learning environments starts with a high-level conjecture on how to best support the intended learning in a particular setting (Sandoval, 2014). As shown in Fig. 2, in a map, conjectures are expressed through the embodiment of tools and materials, task structures, participant structures, and discursive practices.

Fig. 2 A generic conjecture map for educational design research (adapted from Sandoval, 2014).

These four embodied components create specific observable interactions and participant artifacts as mediating processes that produce intended outcomes. There are two types of conjectures in a conjecture map: design conjectures and theoretical conjectures. Design conjectures involve how embodied elements of the design produce mediating processes. Theoretical conjectures involve ideas about how these mediating processes produce intended outcomes. In the current study, conjecture mapping has provided a methodological framework for the co-design team to distinguish and test their design and theoretical conjectures that describe the relationships among design elements. During the co-design process, the team, including PSTs, could test their conjectures by documenting and evaluating the interactions and artifacts as evidence of the mediating processes that arose from the embodied design elements. We demonstrate how the co-design process, in which the PSTs actively participated, was accomplished based on the conjecture mapping approach in the subsection of the context of the study.

The rationale of this study

Previous studies have often investigated the impact of structured FA practices or tasks designed and provided by researchers on students’ learning and performance and revealed that many teachers and students struggle to successfully engage in FA practices in chemistry learning settings (Hartmeyer et al., 2016; Hunter et al., 2003; Zemel et al., 2021). Recently, scholars have strongly suggested a co-design collaboration with instructors and students to effectively implement FA practices (Heredia et al., 2016; Matuk et al., 2016). We have not encountered any study using co-design-based research for developing and examining FA practices in chemistry education. Our study was grounded in the belief that chemistry teacher educators should offer teacher candidates the chance to participate actively in the co-design process while creating and implementing the courses they enroll in. In the present study, the PSTs and researchers collaborated to enhance and assess the most appropriate form of FA practices, utilizing pertinent theoretical frameworks (Black and Wiliam, 1998, 2009). Conjecture mapping, an educational design research (EDR) approach introduced by Sandoval (2014), guided the development of co-designed FA practices.

The aim and the research questions

We investigated the effect of the co-design-based FA practices on overcoming the PSTs’ alternative conceptions regarding four chemistry laboratory topics selected for this study. The chemistry topics of the laboratory investigations were thermochemistry, chemical kinetics, chemical equilibrium, acids and bases. The term “alternative conception” is used to refer to the PSTs’ ideas that are not in agreement with accepted scientific ideas. The following research questions formed the basis of this study:

Research Question 1. How do the PSTs’ alternative conceptions of the chemistry laboratory topics change from the beginning to the end of the co-designed FA-embedded laboratory investigations?

Research Question 2. Do the co-design-based FA practices significantly overcome the PSTs’ alternative conceptions in the chemistry topics of the laboratory investigations?

Method

Research design

This study employs a conversion mixed research design that involves mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches through transforming one type of data (qualitative or quantitative) to other for analyzing the data both qualitatively and quantitatively (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). In this design, data (e.g., qualitative) are obtained and analyzed using one approach, then converted and analyzed using the other way (e.g., quantitative). To answer the first research question, the study qualitatively explores and assesses changes in the PSTs’ alternative conceptions of the chemistry laboratory topics to see any relational conceptual changes. To answer the second research question, the PSTs’ alternative conceptions are converted into scores to quantitatively examine the impact of co-designed FA practices on overcoming the PSTs’ alternative conceptions involving the chemistry laboratory topics. IRB guidelines for educational research projects were followed, and management approval was obtained for the study.

Participants

Sixteen PSTs (10 females and 6 males, ages 18 to 20) participated in the study. Randomly selected participants were PSTs in the freshman cohort, taught by the first author. All of them are first-year pre-service middle school science teachers at the College of Education at a University in Turkiye. The middle school science teacher education is a four-year undergraduate program, corresponding to 240 European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) credits. PSTs take a total of 61 courses during the consecutive eight semesters, and of these 30 courses (e.g., general chemistry, general chemistry laboratory, analytic chemistry, organic chemistry, genetics, optics, modern physics, and environmental science) are content-based.

Research procedure

The FA practices were co-designed in the current study using conjecture mapping. This approach makes explicit the relationships in a design to help a design team focus on the key challenges to be overcome and ask the critical questions to get specific about how a particular design should work better in a specific context (i.e., chemistry laboratory) (Sandoval, 2014). As a first step, a co-design team was formed, consisting of two researchers (including the instructor), 16 PSTs, and two graduate research assistants who served as facilitators for the laboratory investigations.

The general chemistry laboratory course for the PSTs spanned 15 weeks in each of the two semesters with weekly meetings for a 3-hour laboratory session. The PSTs worked in small groups of four to conduct laboratory investigations using co-design-based FA practices. The co-design team met for approximately 40 minutes at the end of each laboratory session. As co-participants, the PSTs contributed insights to all iterative stages of the development of design-based FA practices through the approach of conjecture mapping. The instructor led the PSTs in design meetings to recognize and concentrate on areas of agreement and disagreement in each iteration through the conjecture map in the laboratory. The iterative cycles of reflection, adaptation, use, and eventual creation, as described by Bennett (2011), produced a revised conjecture map that features a more robust design to enhance PSTs' comprehension of chemistry subjects in their laboratory investigations concluding the first semester.

Data collection and analysis

For the evaluation of the co-design-based FA practices, PSTs’ alternative conceptions were identified via their pre- and post-laboratory CMs for each laboratory investigation by one of the researchers, who is the first author of this article. If a proposition on the CMs was found to be incorrect, it was identified as an alternative conception. At the beginning of each laboratory session, the researcher identified alternative conceptions of each PST through his or her pre-laboratory (pre-lab) CM before the pre-lab small group discussion in the laboratory. For example, dashed lines in PST1's pre-lab CM in Fig. 4 (see Appendix 1) show identified alternative conceptions about chemical equilibrium such as “An increase in the temperature in exothermic reactions decreases the forward reaction rate” and “K is not affected by temperature changes”. Similarly, the post-laboratory (post-lab) CM of each PST was evaluated in terms of alternative conceptions regarding the chemistry topics at the end of each laboratory session. One external expert individually analyzed pre- and post-lab CMs of each PST to determine his or her alternative conceptions after receiving copies of each PST's pre- and post-lab CMs at the end of every laboratory investigation. Agreement between the expert and the researcher was 85% for the pre-lab CMs and 82% for the post-lab CMs. In instances where discrepancies occurred between the evaluations of the researcher and the expert, they discussed the relevant CMs to resolve the discrepancy. The frequency distribution comparing the numbers of pre- and post-alternative conceptions of the PSTs for all four laboratory investigations and the relevant interpretations answered Research Question 1.

For each alternative conception in the PSTs’ pre and post-lab CMs, they received a score of “1” if the CM displayed the alternative conception or a score of “0” if the CM did not. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to evaluate the impact of the co-design-based FA practices on the PSTs’ alternative conceptions to answer Research Question 2. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was chosen since assumptions of parametric tests were not met because of the small sample size. To control for the possible inflated Type I error rates because of multiple tests, the p-value was adjusted to 0.0125 using Bonferroni's correction (0.05 divided by the number of tests (n = 4) used in this study). The effect size values were calculated using the (r) = z/√N formula (Pallant, 2007). N as the total number of observations is 32 since each of the 16 PST constructed two CMs: a pre- and a post-lab CM for the each of four chemistry topics.

Context of the study

During the first few weeks of the chemistry laboratory course, we taught the PSTs to create CMs and Vee diagrams through laboratory experiments. Additionally, we clarified the research objectives and engaged the PSTs in the development of a chemistry laboratory setting that incorporates FA. During the first design meeting, the PSTs shared their previous experiences with summative assessments in the classroom and laboratory. They also discussed the efficacy of using CMs and Vee diagrams in facilitating learning during laboratory investigations. The PSTs also defined the main purpose of assessment as improving science learning, emphasizing the diverse meanings of the FA. At the next meeting, the PSTs summarized FA characteristics and compared them to Black and William's five key strategies. The team agreed to use conjecture mapping for the co-design process and created a conjecture map that illustrates how integrating FA in laboratory investigations enhances the comprehension of chemistry concepts. The initial conjecture mapping was based on the high-level conjecture: FA-embedded laboratory investigations can promote a better understanding of chemical concepts (see Fig. 3). The co-design team developed the initial conjecture map by analyzing the problem, the PSTs' reflections on their previous assessment experiences, and research findings, considering the five key FA strategies as design principles.

Fig. 3 The last version of the conjecture map of the FA design for the PSTs’ chemistry laboratory investigations (Kaya and Kaya, 2024).

Tools and materials in the initial conjecture map were metacognitive tools-CMs and Vee diagrams and laboratory equipment containing chemicals. The tasks and participant structures entailed creating and assessing CMs and Vee diagrams, along with conducting collaborative laboratory experiments. Discursive practices, involving small group discussions, were the final design feature included. Mediating processes of the initial conjecture map, resulting from the embodiments of the design, included formative feedback exchanges between the instructor and PSTs and among PSTs and evidence-based reasoning to enhance conceptual understanding. Many PSTs initially had difficulty comprehending how different embodied elements interact to form mediating processes and distinguish between task and participant structures in the conjecture map. They acknowledged the necessity to modify task and participant structures to facilitate dialectical discourses in the laboratory.

During the following design meetings, the co-design team also made decisions on assessment-related issues, including how to construct CMs and Vee diagrams. They agreed to create pre- and post-lab CMs individually but Vee diagrams collaboratively for their laboratory investigations. All members of the co-design team agreed that the most reasonable response mode and format for constructing CMs in the general chemistry laboratory setting is to use their own conceptual knowledge with paper and pencil. Most design team members suggested component strategy and content quality for assessing CMs and Vee diagrams as more appropriate strategies for ensuring discursive practices quality. The co-design team mostly focused on constructing and managing discursive practices based on task and participant structures in the design meetings during the first semester. As a result, they decided on three parts of dialectical discourse: pre-lab, in-lab, and post-lab discourse (see Fig. 3). The pre-lab small group discourse (2nd FA strategy in Fig. 1) involved self, peer, and instructor assessments of the PSTs' pre-lab CMs, eliciting their prior understanding and comparing differences in their understandings (3rd, 4th and 5th FA strategies in Fig. 1). This process created learning intentions and success criteria for laboratory investigations for each small group of the PSTs (1st FA strategy in Fig. 1). The design team found that conducting a pre-lab whole-class discourse was beneficial for teams to review and modify research questions, formulate hypotheses, prepare variables, and ultimately determine the design and procedures of the laboratory investigation. For laboratory investigations, each team could place their varied learning objectives or goals in the center of their Vee, and list events or objects observed to respond to their focus or research questions (1st FA strategy in Fig. 1). The pre-lab FA practices during the planning stage resulted in “building and sustaining team cohesion”, which became a driving force for teams to work together towards their common goal. This iteration of the EDR led to the addition of “building and sustaining team cohesion” as a new mediating process in the conjecture map (Fig. 3). It should be noted that the term “pre-lab” refers to the period before the PSTs begin their experimental work in the laboratory and should not be confused with the one or two days before the laboratory session.

The co-design team also examined timing and approaches for constructing the Vee diagram. Once the PSTs collaboratively completed their Vee, self-, peer-, and instructor assessments of their Vee were completed (4th and 5th FA strategies in Fig. 1). Then, the in-laboratory small group discourse (2nd FA strategy in Fig. 1) was conducted to discuss the findings of their investigations through multi-feedback obtained from their Vee (3rd FA strategy in Fig. 1). The in-laboratory small group dialectical discourse focused on identifying success and improvement areas based on the PSTs’ Vee (1st FA strategy in Fig. 1), fostering independent learners through effective feedback exchanges among self, peer, and instructor in a way that interweaves the five key FA strategies. This also reinforced the development of a learning community among the PSTs.

For the final stage of the FA practices, the PSTs individually prepared and assessed their post-lab CMs (4th and 5th FA strategies in Fig. 1). A post-lab small group discourse (2nd FA strategy in Fig. 1) was then conducted for each laboratory investigation, using self, peer, and instructor feedback on their CMs (3rd FA strategy in Fig. 1). This enabled the PSTs to track changes in their understanding from alternative to scientific conceptions and determine the subject of their subsequent laboratory investigation (1st FA strategy in Fig. 1). It is important to note that “post-lab” refers to the time in the laboratory after the PSTs complete their experimental work and processes, not one or two days after the laboratory session. The co-design team also examined the role of qualitative versus quantitative assessments of CMs and Vee diagrams in ensuring the quality of pre-, in-, and post-lab discourses. The PSTs experienced that qualitative feedback plays a more critical role, especially in laboratory discourses that are based on competing ideas about chemistry topics and not on numerical scores. Accordingly, the co-design team agreed on qualitative assessment and extended the criterion of adequacy of proposition for qualitatively assessing CMs in four sub-criteria: valid, significant, unclear, and incorrect propositions. The PSTs suggested using a symbol system to establish a shared meaning of feedback obtained from self, peer, and instructor assessments on their CMs. The symbols of √,!,?, and X were used for valid, significant, unclear, and incorrect propositions, respectively. This allowed PSTs and instructors to effectively carry out dialectical discourses based on the formative feedback from assessing CMs, using time efficiently.

The latest iteration of the conjecture map for the FA practices is presented in Fig. 3. This process described elsewhere (Kaya and Kaya, 2024) took a semester to advance the co-design-based FA practices. Half of the second semester of the laboratory course was devoted to intensely practicing the co-design-based FA environment in the laboratory. For the current study, the remaining weeks of the laboratory course were used to evaluate the impact of the co-designed FA-embedded laboratory environment on the PSTs’ understanding of the four chemical topics. We further illustrate how a small group of the PSTs implemented the co-designed FA practices in the laboratory investigation of chemical equilibrium in Appendix 1.

Results

Research Question 1. How do the PSTs’ alternative conceptions of the chemistry laboratory topics change from the beginning to the end of the co-designed FA-embedded laboratory investigations?

In this study, forty-one alternative conceptions that the PSTs held in all chemistry laboratory topics were identified. In terms of the qualitative changes, Tables 1–4 represent the number and percentage of the PSTs having alternative conceptions from the beginning to the end of the co-design-based FA practices in the four laboratory investigations, respectively.

Table 1 Number and percentage of the PSTs who held ACs from before to after the FA-embedded laboratory investigation of thermochemistry

Alternative conceptions	Pre-laboratory		Post-laboratory
	N	%	N	%
1. Heat and temperature are the same things.	2	13	0	0
2. Heat of reaction arises through heat flow from one reactant to another.	7	44	2	13
3. Bond-breaking is an exothermic process.	7	44	1	6
4. Bond-making is an endothermic process.	8	50	2	13
5. All processes related to the phenomenon of dissolving are exothermic.	6	38	2	13
6. The enthalpy is dependent on the pathway or the number of steps between reactants and products.	4	25	2	13

---

Table 2 Number and percentage of the PSTs who held ACs from before to after the FA-embedded laboratory investigation of chemical kinetics

Alternative conceptions	Pre-laboratory		Post-laboratory
	N	%	N	%
1. Increasing the temperature in an exothermic reaction decreases the reaction rate.	8	50	1	6
2. Exothermic reactions do not take place faster at a higher temperature.	8	50	2	13
3. Reaction rate cannot be affected by the nature of reactants.	5	31	1	6
4. All reactions increase at the same rate as the temperature increases.	5	31	1	6
5. All collisions result in the formation of new molecules.	5	31	1	6
6. There is no change in the initial reaction rate from the beginning to the end of the reaction.	6	38	2	13
7. Endothermic reactions occur faster than exothermic reactions.	5	31	1	6
8. Reactant molecules may collide less in the reactions of high activation energy.	5	31	0	0
9. Catalysts do not react with any of the reactants.	5	31	1	6
10. A catalyst increases the reaction rate by initiating the reaction.	5	31	2	12
11. A catalyst increases the yield of products.	1	6	1	6

---

Table 3 Number and percentage of the PSTs who held ACs from before to after the FA-embedded laboratory investigation of chemical equilibrium

Alternative conceptions	Pre-laboratory		Post-laboratory
	N	%	N	%
1. Chemical equilibrium is not a dynamic process.	8	50	1	6
2. An increase in the reactant concentrations decreases the rate of the reverse reaction.	7	44	1	6
3. An increase in the temperature in exothermic reactions decreases the rate of the forward reaction.	9	56	2	13
4. When the position of equilibrium is disturbed, the reaction rate of the favored side will increase, but the reaction rate of the opposing side will initially stop and accelerate with time.	5	31	2	13
5. When equilibrium is re-established after an increase of the reactant or product concentrations, the rates of the forward and reverse reactions are equal to those at the initial equilibrium.	5	31	2	13
6. There is a simple arithmetic relationship between the concentrations of reactants and products at equilibrium.	6	38	1	6
7. The equilibrium constant (K) is affected by changes in the concentration of reactants or products.	4	25	1	6
8. K is independent of temperature.	5	31	2	13
9. A catalyst increases the rate of forward reaction but does not increase the rate of the reverse reaction.	5	31	1	6
10. Using an appropriate catalyst will convert a reversible reaction to an irreversible reaction.	3	19	0	0
11. Rapid reactions cannot be reversible and reversible reactions must be very slow.	5	31	1	6

---

Table 4 Number and percentage of the PSTs who held ACs from before to after the FA-embedded laboratory investigation of acids and bases

Alternative conceptions	Pre-laboratory		Post-laboratory
	N	%	N	%
1. Chemical substances having formulas with hydrogen are acids and those having formulas with hydroxyl are bases.	5	31	1	6
2. A strong acid contains more hydrogen atoms than a weak acid.	3	19	1	6
3. Strength and concentration mean the same thing for acids or bases.	6	38	1	6
4. pH indicates the strength of an acid.	5	31	1	6
5. Bases are not as harmful as acids.	5	31	1	6
6. Acids and bases have their own special color.	3	19	0	0
7. Water is the only neutral substance.	4	25	1	6
8. All acids are strong to burn and melt everything.	2	13	0	0
9. In all neutralization reactions, acid and base completely consume each other.	5	31	1	6
10. Equal amounts of acids and bases are neutralized.	6	38	1	6
11. At the end of all neutralization reactions, there are neither H^+ nor OH^− ions in the resulting solutions.	5	31	2	13
12. All salts, which are formed by a neutralization reaction between acids and bases, are neutral.	4	25	1	6
13. The color change associated with an acid–base indicator such as phenolphthalein is a physical change.	4	25	1	6

---

Table 1 summarizes the PSTs’ alternative conceptions in their first laboratory investigation, thermochemistry. Before the co-designed FA practices, we found that about 13% of the PSTs were not able to distinguish between temperature and heat (Alternative Conception (AC)-1), and 44% of the PSTs were confused about how the heat rises during the reaction period (AC-2). 44% and 50% of the PSTs held alternative conceptions (ACs) 3 and 4, respectively. These alternative conceptions were about the relationship between energy and bond-making and breaking processes during chemical reactions. AC-5 indicated an example of the PSTs (38%) over-generalizing about the energy and phenomena of dissolving, and a quarter of the PSTs had an alternative conception connected with the concept of enthalpy (AC-6). After the PSTs implemented the co-designed FA practices in the laboratory, we found that two PSTs had ACs-2, 4, 5, and 6, and only 1 PST still had AC-3, and, while there was no one having the AC “heat and temperature are the same thing.”

Table 2 represents the ACs that the PSTs held in their second laboratory investigation, chemical kinetics. Before the co-designed FA practices, half of the PSTs thought that increasing the temperature is not an advantage for especially exothermic reactions in ACs-1 and 2. Thirty-one percentage of the PSTs held that the nature of the reactant does not have any effect on the reaction rate (AC-3), and all reactions increase at the same rate as the temperature increases (AC-4). 31% and 38% of the PSTs also lacked the understanding that many collisions may not result in the formation of new molecules (AC-5), and the initial reaction rate decreases from the beginning to the end of the reaction (AC-6), respectively. Thirty-one percentage of the PSTs considered that endothermic reactions occur faster than exothermic reactions (AC-7), and reactant molecules may collide less in the reactions of high activation energy (AC-8). ACs-9, 10, and 11 indicate that some PSTs had an inappropriate understanding of how catalysts increase the reaction rate. Thirty-one percentage of the PSTs believed that the catalysts do not react with any of the reactants and a catalyst increases the reaction rate by initiating the reaction. There was only one PST who held the AC of a catalyst increases the yield of products. After the co-design-based FA practices, a few PSTs held these ACs given in Table 2. For example, there was only one PST who held ACs-1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11, and two PSTs had ACs-2, 6, and 10. There was no one in AC-8.

Table 3 illustrates the change in the number and percentage of the PSTs who held ACs in their third laboratory investigation, chemical equilibrium. Before the co-design-based FA practices in the laboratory, half of the PSTs believed that chemical equilibrium is not a dynamic process (AC-1), and several PSTs used an analogy that compared it to children on a seesaw at the balance point to show their conception of the nature of chemical equilibrium. The following four ACs are about the PSTs’ inappropriate applications of Le Chatelier's Principle, when considering the effect of changes in concentrations and temperature on equilibrium systems and when predicting the effects on the rates of the forward and reverse reactions. For example, 44% and 56% of the PSTs thought that increasing the reactant concentrations decreases the rate of reverse reaction (AC-2), and an increase in the temperature in exothermic reactions decreases the rate of forward reaction (AC-3), respectively. ACs-4 and 5 showed that 31% of the PSTs had a naive idea about the rates of forward and reverse reactions when the position of equilibrium is disturbed, and equilibrium is re-established. Thirty-eight percentage of the PSTs thought that chemical equilibrium is a simple arithmetical relationship existing between the concentrations of reactants and products (AC-6).

The next two ACs of the PSTs were related to the equilibrium constant. A quarter of the PSTs had an idea that K is affected by changes in the concentration of reactants or products based on a mathematical equation (AC-7), and 30% of the PSTs considered K independent of temperature (AC-8). The following two alternative conceptions about using a catalyst in a reaction at an equilibrium position indicated that 31% of the PSTs thought using a catalyst does not increase the rate of the reverse reaction while increasing the rate of the forward reaction (AC-9), and 19% of the PSTs considered that using an appropriate catalyst will convert a reversible reaction to an irreversible reaction (AC-10). The last AC was related to the speed of reactions and chemical equilibrium. Thirty-one percentage of the PSTs thought that rapid reactions cannot be reversible reactions or reversible reactions must be very slow (AC-11). After the co-designed FA practices in the laboratory, most PSTs could overcome their ACs involving the topic of chemical equilibrium. For example, there was only one PST in ACs-1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 11, and two PSTs in ACs-3, 4, 5, and 8, while there was nobody in AC-10.

Table 4 represents the change in the number and percentage of the PSTs who held ACs in their last laboratory investigation, acids and bases. Before the co-design-based FA practices, the first two ACs showed that 31% of the PSTs described acids and bases in terms of having formulas with hydrogen and hydroxyl (AC-1), and 19% of the PSTs conceptualized the strength of an acid concerning having more hydrogen atoms (AC-2). Also, 38% of the PSTs were confused about the strength and concentration of acids and bases (AC-3). It was found that 31% of the PSTs considered that pH indicates the strength of an acid (AC-4) and thought that bases are not harmful compared to acids (AC-5). AC-6 indicated that 19% of the PSTs thought that the color of solutions will change based on the value of pH. AC-7 showed that 25% of the PSTs interpreted water as the only neutral substance and 13% of the PSTs thought that all acids are strong enough to burn and melt everything (AC-8). The next three ACs in Table 4 are related to PSTs’ naive conceptions of neutralization reactions. Thirty-one percentage of the PSTs had an idea that acid and base consume each other completely in all neutralization reactions (AC-9). 38% of the PSTs thought that equal amounts of acids and bases are neutralized (AC-10), and 31% of the PSTs considered that there are neither H⁺ nor OH⁻ ions in the resulting solutions at the end of all neutralization reactions (AC-11). AC-12 is about salts. A quarter of the PSTs believed that all salts are neutral. The last AC revealed that 25% of the PSTs lacked the conceptual understanding that the color change associated with an acid–base indicator is a chemical phenomenon. After the co-design-based FA practices, very few PSTs held these ACs as shown in Table 4. For example, there was only one PST in ACs-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13, and two PSTs in AC-11. There was no one in ACs-6 and 8.

Research Question 2. Do the co-design-based FA practices significantly overcome the PSTs’ alternative conceptions involving the chemistry topics of the laboratory investigations?

Table 5 shows all results of the statistical analyses on the total scores of the PSTs’ ACs from the beginning to the end of the co-design-based FA practices in each laboratory investigation. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test results showed that there was a statistically significant decrease (p < 0.001) in the PSTs’ ACs for each laboratory investigation. The median values of the pre-ACs were 2 for the laboratory investigation of thermochemistry and 4 for the remaining laboratory investigations, whereas these values decreased to 1 in the post-ACs for all laboratory investigations.

Table 5 Results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests on the total scores of the PSTs’ ACs from before to after the FA-embedded laboratory investigations, including descriptive statistics

Laboratory investigation	N	Pre-laboratory	Post-laboratory	Mean difference	z	p
		Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
(−) indicates the decrease in the PSTs’ ACs.
(1) Thermochemistry	16	2.13 (0.88)	0.56 (0.51)	−1.57 (−74%)	−3308	0.001
(2) Chemical kinetics	16	3.63 (0.50)	0.81 (0.75)	−2.82 (−78%)	−3573	0.000
(3) Chemical equilibrium	16	3.88 (0.62)	0.87 (0.62)	−3.01 (−78%)	−3579	0.000
(4) Acids and bases	16	3.56 (0.73)	0.75 (0.68)	−2.81 (−79%)	−3575	0.000

---

The effect size values, calculated using the (r) = Z/√N formula, were found to be r = 0.59–0.63 for all tests, indicating a large effect size according to Cohen's (1988) rules of thumb criteria. In Table 5, it is also clear that the proportion of decrease in the PSTs’ ACs compared to pre-lab values (74–79%) was congruent with each other for all laboratory investigations.

Discussion and implications

Overcoming ACs identified in the selected chemistry topics

We sought the influence of implementing the co-designed FA practices on promoting the PSTs’ conceptual understanding of the selected chemistry topics in a first-year undergraduate chemistry laboratory course. As shown in Tables 1–4, we found that most of the ACs held by the PSTs in all topics of laboratory investigations were noticeably reduced when the co-designed FA was put into practice. Table 5 also provided additional significant quantitative support for the qualitative findings. The Content Map of General Chemistry Anchoring Concepts from the ACS Exams Institute (Holme et al., 2015) demonstrates how understanding these selected topics is a critical aspect of the chemistry curriculum. However, research on students’ learning difficulties associated with chemistry topics showed that many ACs found in the current study persist among undergraduates for thermochemistry (e.g., Abell and Bretz, 2018; Boo, 1998), chemical kinetics (Çakmakci, 2010; Justi, 2002; Sozbilir, 2001; Sozbilir and Bennett, 2006), chemical equilibrium (Quilez and Solaz, 1995; Van Driel et al., 1998; Van Driel and Gräber, 2002), and acids and bases (McClary and Bretz, 2012; Sağlam et al., 2011).

Previous studies have shown that students often hold ACs about chemical bonds and the energy required to form and break these bonds (e.g., Abell and Bretz, 2018; Boo, 1998). For example, very few students could identify exothermic reactions provided to them, and many students struggled to explain how the total energy of the reactions changed due to their ACs about chemical bonds (Boo, 1998). Abell and Bretz (2018) also found that a few students could explain bond formation as exothermic and bond breaking as endothermic. Most students thought that bond breaking was first endothermic and then exothermic, and that it could either be an endothermic or exothermic process depending on the chemicals involved (Abell and Bretz, 2018). Researchers also explored that despite being taught that bond-breaking is an endothermic process and bond-making is an exothermic process, many students believed it was the other way around (Cooper and Klymkowsky, 2013; Minshall and Yezierski, 2021). In the current study, very few PSTs (N = 0–2) held their initial ACs regarding the thermochemistry after engaging in the FA practices in the laboratory; however, certain ACs such as bond-making is an endothermic process were more resistant to change than other ACs such as heat and temperature are the same things. In a recent study of Minshall and Yezierski (2021), a learning cycle activity with guiding questions using animations, models, simulations, or a data set was implemented in a first-year general chemistry course, focusing on energy changes during bond breaking and bond formation. Their findings showed that half of the students still believed that bond-breaking was an exothermic process despite working with the PhET simulation indicating otherwise. After analyzing student answers, the activity was re-designed to enhance scaffolding and concept development, resulting in 82% of students distinguishing between exothermic and endothermic processes. The significant result of Minshall and Yezierski's (2021) re-designed activity, which aims to formatively engage with students' reasoning regarding energy changes during bond formation and breakage, aligns with the findings of this study since the PSTs' ACs concerning the thermochemistry decreased by 74% in comparison to their pre-lab values as a result of the use of co-designed FA practices, consisting of pre-, in and post-lab hands- and minds-on activities in the general chemistry laboratory.

Research on students' learning difficulties related to chemical kinetics has revealed that many undergraduates hold alternative conceptions (Çakmakci, 2010; Justi, 2002; Sozbilir, 2001; Sozbilir and Bennett, 2006) that align with those identified in the current study. Students have difficulties in using theoretical models and related fundamental ideas such as the collision theory while explaining the effects of changes in concentration and temperature, as well as using the catalyst, on reaction rates and how the rate of a reaction changes as the reaction progresses (Çakmakci and Aydogdu, 2011; Marzabal et al., 2018). In the literature, the ACs of chemical kinetics, which are common among undergraduates, are: endothermic reactions happen faster than exothermic reactions or vice versa, increasing the initial temperature does not affect the rate of exothermic reactions, activation energy as the (total) amount of energy released in a reaction is the kinetic energy of the reactant molecules, a catalyst does not affect or change the mechanism of a reaction, and a catalyst increases product yield (Çakmakci, 2010; Sozbilir 2001; Van Driel and Gräber, 2002). The review study of Bain and Towns (2016) revealed that researchers have conducted experimental studies on the effectiveness of various instructional approaches and materials such as conceptual change and constructivist approaches, including CMs, conceptual change text, videos/animations, hands-on activities, small and large group discussions, 5E inquiry and analogy instruction and evidence-informed instruction, on student learning of chemical kinetics. For example, from a similar perspective to FA, but not completely, the results of Çakmakci and Aydogdu (2011) study on evidence-informed instruction, which included clarifying the structure of the science subject, students' conceptions, and connecting research findings to develop the instruction, are compatible with the results of this study. Çakmakci and Aydogdu (2011) concluded that evidence-informed instruction significantly improved first-year university students' understanding of chemical kinetics concepts since the structured activities provided students with opportunities to explore, be aware, consolidate, and reflect on their ideas, fostering active and self-reflective learning. In a recent study, Marzabal et al. (2018) also suggested modeling-based teaching for chemical kinetics, focusing on socio-constructivist learning. This instructional approach promotes enduring students’ ACs of chemical kinetics and encourages collaboration among students, teachers, and resources while students express, evaluate, review, and apply their ideas and those of their peers that arise from the interaction through laboratory experiments. Results of all the above studies met with success in improving student understanding of kinetics, although ACs were still identified, showing chemical kinetics is a challenging subject for many undergraduate students after the interventions (e.g., Yalçınkaya et al., 2012). Aligned with this, our findings indicated that the ACs about chemical kinetics held by PSTs decreased by 78% compared to their pre-lab values. We observed that one or two PSTs still retained their prior ACs of chemical kinetics despite the implementation of FA practices in the chemistry laboratory. This shows that specific ACs are resistant to change in the area of chemical kinetics.

In chemistry education, numerous researchers (e.g., Garnett et al., 1995; Huddle and Pillay, 1996; Quilez and Solaz, 1995; Van Driel and Gräber, 2002) focused on eliciting students’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium and found that chemical equilibrium is one of the most challenging topics for students to understand in chemistry because of its abstract nature, textbook representations and teaching methods (Maia and Justi, 2009). For example, in general chemistry courses, chemical reactions are typically depicted as proceeding to completion in a single direction. However, achieving chemical equilibrium requires the consideration of three fundamental concepts, as outlined by Van Driel et al. (1998): incomplete reaction, reversibility, and dynamics. These three concepts pose significant challenges for students when they learn chemical equilibrium. In the beginning, students often hold a misleading view that all reactions occur in one direction and that the reaction ceases to proceed when one of the reactants is fully utilized. This view engenders several cognitive conflicts, which can result in many alternative conceptions. The common AC of chemical equilibrium among first-year chemistry students could be summarized as follows: the rate of the forward reaction is not equal to that of the reverse reaction in an equilibrium system, altering the temperature will not affect the equilibrium regardless of whether the reaction is endothermic or exothermic, the concentrations of reactants and products are equal at equilibrium, and the concentrations of both reactants and products increase when a catalyst is added to an equilibrium system (Demircioglu et al., 2013). Many students also struggle to comprehend the dynamic nature of a chemical system in equilibrium. Instead, they tend to view it as a static state with no changes occurring (Thomas and Schwenz, 1998). Moreover, some students conceptualize equilibrium as similar to a pendulum that oscillates back and forth (Van Driel et al., 1998), and may possess a compartmentalized understanding of equilibrium (Cachapuz and Maskill, 1989). Furthermore, students may perceive that mass and concentration are synonymous for substances in equilibrium systems (Quilez and Solaz, 1995). Many of the PSTs’ ACs identified in our study, such as “chemical equilibrium is not a dynamic process” and “an increase in temperature in exothermic reactions decreases the rate of the forward reaction,” are consistent with previously documented students’ learning difficulties in the literature. Scholars (e.g., Aydeniz and Doğan, 2016; Kaya 2013; Maia and Justi, 2009) employed a range of conceptual change and constructivist approaches, including model-based instruction, analogies, group discussions, and journal writing to remedy college students’ ACs regarding chemical equilibrium. Despite successfully addressing some ACs through these methods, the results of these studies demonstrated that some students still held ACs even post-interventions. For example, Kaya (2013) and Aydeniz and Doğan (2016) investigated the influence of argumentation on PSTs' understanding of chemical equilibrium. Their findings revealed that the experimental group exhibited significantly better performance on the chemical equilibrium concept tests than the control group, highlighting some conceptual gaps based on the maximum score achievable for the post-tests. We found that PSTs' ACs regarding chemical equilibrium decreased by 78% in comparison to their pre-lab values. Our findings also suggest that despite implementing the FA practices in the chemistry laboratory, one or two PSTs continue to hold onto their prior ACs of chemical equilibrium. Certain ACs regarding chemical equilibrium persist and exhibit resistance to change. Examples include the following ideas: there is a simple arithmetic relationship between the concentrations of reactants and products at equilibrium, and K is independent of temperature.

Many studies have also focused on identifying and overcoming student learning difficulties with concepts in acid–base chemistry. Students frequently struggle with distinguishing between the various theories of acid–base chemistry, specifically Brønsted–Lowry and Lewis acid–base chemistry. Additionally, they encounter difficulty when attempting to apply these definitions accurately in unfamiliar circumstances (McClary and Talanquer, 2011; Schmidt-McCormack et al., 2019). Students’ ACs could stem from the preconceived ideas of acids and bases that they have prior to formally learning about them in a chemistry class. For instance, students may have prior knowledge that bases are commonly found in household cleaners (Schmidt-McCormack et al., 2019). Furthermore, Information regarding acid–base chemistry is frequently presented in textbooks and/or traditional teaching of chemistry in a manner that compels students to rote memorization rather than fostering a sound conceptual understanding (Drechsler and Schmidt, 2005; Stoyanovich et al., 2014). As a result, students can recognize the occurrence of an acid–base reaction but struggle to articulate the underlying explanations and mechanisms (Cooper et al., 2016). Common ACs that students hold in the concepts of acids and bases are: all acids are corrosive substances that can damage materials or cause burns, the acidity of acid increases as the number of hydrogen atoms in its formula increases, bases are harmless, the acid and base react completely with each other in a neutralization reaction, there are no H⁺ or OH⁻ ions left in the resulting solution after the neutralization reaction is complete, and all salts are neutral (Demircioğlu et al., 2005; Sağlam et al., 2011). Instructional treatments have been suggested to deal with students’ difficulties with understanding acid–base concepts. Yaman and Ayas (2015) explored that the use of computer-assisted activities, which prompted students to evaluate acid–base reactions using a predict-observe-explain approach, enhanced students' acid–base explanations on a concept inventory after the treatment. McClary and Talanquer (2011) suggested that assignments centered around acid–base chemistry could enhance students' understanding of this topic. Cooper et al. (2016) also posited that the nature of the task can impact students' ability to accurately explain acid–base chemistry, and they recommended that constructing explanations could aid in developing a more comprehensive understanding of acid–base concepts. In a recent study from a parallel perspective with the FA, Schmidt-McCormack et al. (2019) investigated the impact of the writing-to-learn strategy, which involves three phases in which college students create a preliminary draft in response to a writing prompt, participate in peer feedback, and then revise their drafts based on the input received before submitting a final version. This process applies sociocultural theory to writing, which indicates that students' understanding of concepts can be enriched by interacting with their peers' work and receiving feedback from them on their own writing. The results indicated that students in the treatment group demonstrated a greater improvement in their conceptual understanding and confidence, in comparison to those in the control group. In this respect, our research revealed a 79% decrease in PSTs' ACs regarding acid–base chemistry compared to their pre-lab values. Our results suggest that even though FA practices were implemented in the chemistry lab, one or two PSTs persisted in their prior ACs of acids and bases. Particular ACs, such as the conception that there are neither H⁺ nor OH⁻ ions in the resulting solutions at the end of all neutralization reactions, persist in the area of acid–base chemistry and demonstrate resistance to change compared to other alternative conceptions, such as the view of all acids are strong enough to burn and melt everything.

Overall, the results indicate that most PSTs demonstrated a better understanding of the chemistry laboratory topics. However, one or two PSTs still held onto their previous ACs in the chemistry topics even after implementing the FA practices in the laboratory. It is also important to note that some of the identified ACs in this study have not been previously documented or have only been reported to a limited extent in the literature. These ACs include: “Exothermic reactions do not take place faster at a higher temperature.”, “All reactions increase at the same rate as the temperature increases.”, “Using an appropriate catalyst will convert a reversible reaction to an irreversible reaction.”, “Rapid reactions cannot be reversible and reversible reactions must be very slow.”, and “The color change associated with an acid–base indicator such as phenolphthalein is a physical change.” We noticed specific ACs are more resistant to change in the selected laboratory topics. To overcome the persistent ACs, the PSTs must think in sub-microscopic and symbolic levels instead of focusing on the macroscopic level where chemical phenomena are experienced and described through sensory perception like a color change in a solution and sound or odor of gas from the reaction tube. The sub-microscopic world where phenomena are explained depends on how particles of matter (atoms, molecules, and ions) move and are arranged (e.g., acid dissociation or collisions of reactant molecules in a reaction of acids with metals), using symbolic representations such as symbols, formulas, equations, structures, and diagrams (e.g., the mathematical expression of K) to represent and communicate concepts and ideas about chemical phenomena. Most scholars also reported that numerous students struggle with understanding, imagining, and creating representations that are sub-micro or symbolic in nature. This is mainly because such representations are intangible and theoretical, while students rely heavily on sensory information or previous knowledge (Garnett et al., 1995; Gilbert and Treagust, 2009).

Addressing the mediating processes during the co-designed FA practices

In this study, the improved conceptual understanding of the PSTs, even for some persistently held ACs among a few candidates (N = 1–2), on challenging topics in the chemistry laboratory, can be attributed to the mediating processes resulting from the embodied components of the co-designed FA practices: (1) formative feedback exchanges between the PSTs and the instructor and among the PSTs, (2) evidence-based reasoning, and (3) building and sustaining team cohesion (see Fig. 3).

During the initial FA practices based on self, peer, and instructor assessments of the PSTs' pre-lab CMs, each PST's prior understanding was evoked, as well as the PSTs could compare inter and intra-variations in their understandings and those of their peers in the chemistry topics of their laboratory investigations. During pre-lab discussions, each team of PSTs can create their own learning intentions and success criteria for their laboratory investigation based on formative feedback exchanges. This differentiation of learning goals allows for a more personalized approach to the learning process (see Appendix 1). The initial FA practices in the current study have distinct features that interweave the five key strategies of the FA in comparison to pre-lab activities in many university chemistry laboratories. The pre-lab activities often prepare students for experimental work or theoretical knowledge through pre-lab lectures, quizzes, simulations, and videos (Agustian and Seery, 2017). The initial or pre-lab FA practices in the current study did not introduce chemical concepts, laboratory techniques, and processes to lead the PSTs to perform routine experimental work in the laboratory. Another approach as a pre-lab activity in the university chemistry laboratory is to facilitate discussion in advance of the laboratory session. The use of pre-lab discussion has been reported for Hess's Law experiments, resulting in a better understanding of core concepts (Davidowitz et al., 2003). A similar study by Johnstone et al. (1994) found that students who completed pre-lab planning before entering an inorganic chemistry laboratory helped students understand the laboratory activities and better prepared them for post-lab analysis. These studies highlight the importance of pre-lab preparation in enhancing students' understanding and performance in the chemistry laboratory. However, the initial discourses in the FA design are quite different in goal, function, and method from the pre-lab discussions that students in large general chemistry classes were often divided into groups of about 10–12, which met 30–45 minutes one or two days in advance of the laboratory session (Domin, 2007). Agustian and Seery (2017) conducted a literature review of 60 reports and research articles on pre-lab activities in higher education chemistry. The review indicated that pre-lab activities should be integrated into the overall laboratory experience because students may not engage with pre-lab activities if they do not consider them useful. Additionally, students will require some type of external encouragement or motivation to complete the laboratory work. They also argued that supporting materials not embedded in the learning process may not be accessed by students who need them most until they face difficulty in the chemistry laboratory. Similar findings have been found related to preparation for lecture work (Seery, 2015). In this regard, the findings of this study strongly imply the need for meaningful integration of pre-lab activities into the overall laboratory experience through the initial FA practices before students begin their experimental work in the laboratory. Thus, researchers can investigate how the initial stage of co-designed FA practices based on various tools for self- and peer-assessment processes that students are active co-designers should be developed and enacted as a framework to support learning and performance in the chemistry laboratory.

The ongoing stage of the co-designed FA practices took place simultaneously with the PSTs’ experimental work in the laboratory. The PSTs demonstrated cohesive teamwork in the laboratory context, following their plans in their Vee diagrams and responding to unexpected events in the laboratory. Evidence-based reasoning, particularly prominent in this stage of the FA practices in the laboratory, was considered a mediating process in the conjecture map of the co-designed FA since Vee diagramming led the PSTs to think about both the theoretical and practical aspects of their chemistry laboratory investigations. As a team, the PSTs could attentively consider their peers' ideas and evaluate each other's arguments during in-lab small group discussions while reviewing the success criteria they collaboratively developed at the start of each laboratory session by integrating multi-feedback obtained from their Vee diagrams. Research indicates that science teacher candidates struggle with both content and process levels of evidence-based reasoning (Stark et al., 2009). They often use scientific theories and models superficially and fail to collect enough data to make knowledge claims for answering their research questions in their laboratory investigations (Sampson and Blanchard, 2012; Stark et al., 2009). The difficulties in evidence-based reasoning revealed in previous research highlight the urgent need for support to help undergraduate students, including pre-service teachers, develop both the content and process levels of evidence-based reasoning (Csanadi et al., 2021). Thus, it is suggested that the future development and evaluation of the FA designs for the chemistry laboratory environments should focus more on how to improve the undergraduates’ evidence-based reasoning as an intended outcome.

In the final stage of the co-designed FA practices (see Fig. 3), the PSTs were able to trace the path of their conceptual change from alternative to scientific conceptions and identify what the next laboratory investigation should focus on during post-lab small group discussions. During the post-lab FA practices, the PSTs acted as autonomous learners, fostering feedback exchanges between self, peers, and the instructor, and furthering a sense of learning community for the next laboratory investigations (see Appendix 1). All design team members had a consensus that the FA practices resulted in “building and sustaining team cohesion” as a driving force for a team working closely together to achieve a team goal. The PSTs’ active engagement in the FA practices supported team cohesion which is the degree to which members feel bonded with each other and are dedicated to other team members and the team's goal (Zaccaroa et al., 2001). Team members' commitment to the team's mission as task cohesion (Castaño et al., 2013) and developing and sustaining social cohesion in the team, such as friendships, emotional support, and acceptance among team members that develop into mutual appreciation, are significant factors that improve team performance (Beal et al., 2003). We observed that more cohesive teams with greater satisfaction and commitment perform better than less cohesive teams in the FA-embedded laboratory context.

Previous research has shown that laboratory courses frequently require students to work in small groups to complete assignments. However, ensuring each student's active engagement and equal participation of all group members in the laboratory can be challenging due to the large amount of group observations required (Erdmann and March, 2014). The most technically proficient and knowledgeable student in the group is often responsible for collecting and interpreting most of the data in the laboratory. Student-created videos have been successfully integrated into the general chemistry laboratory curriculum as an alternative assessment to address this problem (Erdmann and March, 2014). The use of video laboratory reports may be a worthwhile addition to large enrolment laboratory courses, considering the time and effort required for many group observations. However, instructors can observe the student-created video assessment after students complete their laboratory investigations and provide “loading up” or “delayed” feedback at the end of a cycle of learning to all students (Jones et al., 2012), not consistent with the five key FA strategies.

In this study, we found that the co-designed FA practices intrinsically motivated the PSTs as learning resources for one another and owners of their learning and reinforced the development of a sense of learning community among the PSTs in the chemistry laboratory. The FA-embedded laboratory practices have established a supportive environment that aids in satisfying the PSTs’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Cornelius-White, 2007; Lewis et al., 2009). These needs serve as central factors in stimulating intrinsic motivation (Cornelius-White, 2007; Lewis et al., 2009), which is derived directly from action rather than being dependent on rewards or punishments. The FA-embedded laboratory context improved the level of autonomy among the PSTs, as opposed to being controlled. The FA strategies for enhancing PSTs’ autonomy included offering choice and providing meaningful rationales for their laboratory investigations, minimizing extrinsic pressures and control, encouraging problem-solving in the PSTs’ own ways instead of insisting on a single or instructor-led method, and acknowledging their perspectives and feelings during laboratory investigations (Deci and Ryan, 1994; Niemiec and Ryan, 2009). We found that PSTs feel competent when they are able to meet the challenges of their chemistry laboratory investigations since the FA practices ensured that the laboratory activities align with their levels of knowledge and skill, enabling them to both provide and receive effective feedback. Additionally, completing the laboratory task yielded a finished product that they can use or display (CMs and Vee diagrams) (Niemiec and Ryan, 2009). Relatedness, referring to the desire to feel connected and accepted by others, is comprised of two dimensions: teacher–student interactions and student–student interactions (Deci and Ryan, 2002). By fostering an atmosphere in which the instructor and PSTs genuinely like, trust, respect, and value each other, FA practices enhanced feelings of relatedness while supporting autonomy. However, in chemistry laboratories, traditional strategies of summative assessment, including testing, a focus on grades, rewards, and punishments, controlling language, and strict regulation, may lead to a significant loss of motivation and a decline in high-quality achievement, including conceptual learning, for most students (Deci and Ryan, 2002). In this regard, our findings have implications for the design and implementation of chemistry laboratory courses in terms of an intrinsically motivational environment through the co-designed FA practices, rather than extrinsically motivating students through external factors such as getting a good grade or receiving an external reward. Future research could focus on developing and implementing co-designed FA practices to prepare students for the affective aspects of laboratory work.

Conclusions

Previous research has often showed that students' views of laboratory work differ from faculty goals, highlighting a mismatch between faculty and student desires (DeKorver and Towns, 2015; Galloway and Bretz, 2016). For example, some students have an “escapist mindset” doing the laboratory work as quickly as possible without much thought, while others view laboratory work as a means to earn good grades rather than for learning and skill development (DeKorver and Towns, 2015; Galloway and Bretz, 2016). These are significant challenges that need to be addressed to optimize the usefulness of laboratory courses by refocusing on how undergraduate students, including teacher candidates, are actively engaged in the assessment process with the formative purposes to enhance their learning and performance in the chemistry laboratory (Lau, 2020).

Examining new pedagogical strategies or conditions that enable learning about FA is crucial for designing and delivering successful teacher training programs. The existing studies on the PSTs’ implementation of FA practices have relied on the tools and processes of FA that researchers designed and prepared for the teacher candidates in methods and practicum courses (Abell et al., 2002). Few studies specifically examined the curricular and pedagogical strategies that support the teacher candidates’ changing conceptions and implementation of the FA. There is some literature on pedagogical approaches to assessment education (Ediger, 2002; Shepard et al., 2005), but much of it lacks empirical support and instead discusses the pedagogy of science teacher education in more general terms (e.g., Grossman, 2005). The pedagogy should allow PSTs to engage with the complexity of the FA, rather than simply presenting teacher candidates with a “how to” for the FA in content-based assessment courses. The PSTs' insights and contributions through conjecture mapping played a unique role in noticing and responding to emerging aspects of the FA-embedded laboratory learning environment during the iterative reasoning process. The co-design process enabled the PSTs to develop a sense of responsibility and ownership over the FA practices for their chemistry laboratory investigations since they played an active co-creative role. As a result, we believe there is an ongoing need to demonstrate approaches to engage PSTs in deep learning and practice regarding the evolving complexities of the FA concerning science teaching and learning. Thus, it is suggested that the future development of FA designs for complex learning environments such as outdoor or online chemistry learning settings should involve PSTs as active co-participants in the design process. In addition, instead of examining how PSTs participate in assessment activities prepared by researchers during the practicum courses, the emphasis could be on FA practices that pre-service teachers, teacher educators, and mentor teachers iteratively develop, revise, and test in schools using co-design-based research with the conjecture mapping approach.

In conclusion, the results obtained from the current study provide some initial learning insights into the use of a participatory approach that involves the instructor and students in the design process of the FA practices, as it ensures that design decisions take into account the values and needs of users, leading to the sustainable use of higher quality designs. Although students usually underestimate their own level of involvement and responsibility in the learning and assessment processes in the chemistry laboratory, a co-design process would enable them to be instructional resources for each other and the owners of their own learning in the laboratory.

Limitations of the study

First, this study was carried out with a small sample size without a control group. Future research should focus on the true experimental design with a large enough sample size. We also experienced that co-designing high-quality FA practices in the chemistry laboratory as a complex learning environment can be time and effort-consuming. However, the advantages of this laboratory-based learning setting are greater than those of the frequently employed confirmatory laboratory instruction and summative assessments. The study is a preliminary exploration of its potential to enhance undergraduate students’ learning in the chemistry laboratory.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Appendix

Appendix 1. Implementation of a small group of PSTs of the co-designed FA practices in the laboratory investigation of chemical equilibrium

At the beginning of the laboratory class, PSTs-Group3 obtained and reviewed all feedback (self, peers, and instructor feedback) on their pre-lab CMs. Then, the PSTs-Group3 initiated a pre-lab small-group discourse as the first stage of dialectical discourses in the co-designed FA practices. In the pre-lab small group discourse, the instructor asked the PSTs to share their views of the nature of chemical equilibrium and the dynamic movement between the two sides of a reaction. PST4 argued that a chemical equilibrium does not look like a seesaw, but PST1 emphasized the meaning of the word “equilibrium” as balance and agreed with the seesaw analogy in PST2's pre-lab CM. PST1 confirmed that there was a concept of a balance point in her CM (see Fig. 4), similar to the seesaw in PST2's CM. PST3 questioned both PST1's and PST2s’ views of “balance point” and “a seesaw at the balance point”, arguing that an equilibrium with equal rates of forward and backward reactions cannot be presented with a balance point or the seesaw phenomenon. PST2's seesaw analogy was based on another relationship in his pre-lab CM, where the forward reaction would first stop for a short time, then its rate would accelerate or increase. PST3 argued that the two parts of the equilibrium, forward and backward reactions, should not be considered separate phenomena but as completely dependent on each other instantaneously. PST1 summarized the thoughts of PST4 and PST3 on the dynamic nature of equilibrium, with some doubt.

Fig. 4 PST1's pre-lab CM for the laboratory investigation of chemical equilibrium.

In the pre-lab small group discourse, the instructor also questioned the concept of chemical equilibrium in terms of rapid and slow reactions. PST1 agreed with PST2's view that chemical equilibrium cannot be possible for very fast reactions, and PST2 explained his idea using the reaction of Mg_(s) + 2HCl_(aq) ⇒ MgCl_2(aq) + H_2(g). Then the dialogue revolves around using a catalyst, used in their previous experiments, and the impact of temperature on chemical equilibrium in the pre-lab CMs of the PSTs-Group3, guided by the instructor. PST4 and PST3 claimed that the catalyst affects the reaction in both directions in terms of equilibrium and that the equilibrium is attained more quickly, but the equilibrium composition remains unchanged. PST4 also explained the effect of temperature on equilibrium using Le Chatelier's principle, while PST1 struggled with the phrase “heat, neither reactants nor products.” PST3 provided an immediate answer, stating that heat can be considered as a reactant for an endothermic reaction and as a product for an exothermic reaction. As a response to PST3, PST1 disclosed that her CM included that increasing the temperature in exothermic reactions decreases the rate of the forward reaction.

The PSTs-Group3 engaged in pre-lab small-group discourse as a part of the pre-lab FA practices, sometimes negotiating solutions to their issues through compromise. However, they may not reach a conclusion on their discussion topics. To address this, PSTs conducted pre-lab whole-class discourse with peers from other small groups in the laboratory. The most heated debate concerned the influence of changes in concentration and temperature on equilibrium and the effect of temperature on the equilibrium constant. The PSTs from other groups followed PST3's summary of their small group discourse and provided explanations based on Le Chatelier's principle. The pre-lab discourse of the PSTs-Group3 focused on alternative or partial understandings of PST2 and PST1, which were inconsistent with scientifically acceptable ideas. Both PST1 and PST2 defended their ideas openly and courageously, asking questions and making counterarguments based on self, peer, and instructor feedback on their pre-lab CMs.

During the pre-lab whole-class discourse, PSTs-Group3 could revise research questions, make testable hypotheses, identify variables, and make final decisions on laboratory investigations of chemical equilibrium. They could place their differentiated learning intentions as the first strategy of the FA, focusing on their research question(s). This planning phase helped build and sustain team cohesion, enabling them to work closely together to achieve a team goal.

During the in-laboratory FA design practices, each small team of the PSTs focused on posing specific research questions based on their difficulties and needs in the laboratory topics. They were expected to make final decisions regarding the design and procedures of their laboratory investigations, including testable hypotheses and variables of their experiments. The PSTs-Group3 faced difficulties with the dynamic nature of chemical equilibrium, the removal of the reactant or product to disturb the equilibrium, and the changes in rates of forward and reverse reactions during the restoration of chemical equilibrium. Thus, they chose to investigate the following focus or research question: How do changes in reactant or product concentration and temperature affect a reaction at equilibrium?

Before each laboratory session, the necessary chemicals and equipment were supplied to the PSTs. For example, the six different equilibrium systems, namely cobalt, ammonium, iron thiocyanate, chromate, nitrogen dioxide, and copper sulfate systems, were available, along with many solutions like KCl, AgNO₃, NaOH, NH₄Cl, HCl, KSCN, Fe(NO₃)₃, Na₂HPO₄, and NH₃. To address the impact of altering temperature and reactant/product concentrations on chemical equilibrium, PSTs-Group3 conducted an experiment on the cobalt complex equilibrium [Co(H₂O)₆]²⁺ + 4Cl¹⁻ ⇌ ([CoCl₄]²⁻ + 6H₂O). For each laboratory session, a collaborative Vee diagram (see Fig. 5) is constructed by each team of PSTs as a part of the task and participant structures in the FA design. They collected records during their investigations, transformed these data into graphs, tables, and figures, interpret their records and transformations, and constructed knowledge claims. An in-laboratory dialectical discourse was carried out with each team of the PSTs based on feedback from all team members and the instructor on their Vee.

Fig. 5 The PSTs-Group3's Vee diagram for the laboratory investigation of chemical equilibrium.

The PSTs-Group3' Vee showed that their focus questions are clearly identified, and their procedures, including materials and equipment, are consistent with their focus questions. The instructor initiated the in-laboratory dialectical discourse for the PSTs-Group3 based on the question, “Can you interpret your findings in terms of your research questions?” The dialogue process indicated how the PSTs-Group3's conceptual change continues to occur involving the chemical equilibrium. For example, PST4 and PST1 stated that all reactions they have carried out in the laboratory are reversible and not slow and that whether the reaction is slow or fast has nothing to do with the chemical equilibrium. They also presented the data they obtained from their laboratory investigations and how they interpreted the data in their Vee diagram. The instructor continued the conversation, guiding the PSTs-Group3 in their interpretation of the results of their experiments. They evaluated the results of the cobalt complex system as an endothermic reaction based on Le Chatelier's principle, as PST1 stated that the purple solution tube turns blue when heated in hot water. The instructor's question “What do you think about the changes in the rates of forward and reverse reactions during the restoration of the chemical equilibrium?” creates a new topic for discussion among the PSTs-Group3. PST2 agreed with PST1 and defended the view that a new equilibrium would emerge when the equilibrium was restored. PST4 believed that the new equilibrium would be different from the original equilibrium, and PST3 joined the discussion, stating that the new equilibrium would be different from the old one. PSTs-Group3 frequently used mathematical ratios to explain old and new equilibrium positions in this part of the discourse.

As the post-lab FA practices, the PSTs-Group3 also prepared and assessed their post-lab CMs for the laboratory investigation of the chemical equilibrium. They spent reviewing all feedback on their post-lab CMs before carrying out the post-lab small group discourse as the last FA activity in the laboratory. Then, the instructor asked the group to engage in a post-lab small-group discourse. The post-lab small group discourse for the PSTs-Group3 began with the instructor asking about the changes in their understanding of chemical equilibrium after their laboratory investigations. They emphasized the dynamic nature of chemical equilibrium through new analogies, such as a child and an escalator moving at the same speed in opposite directions (see Fig. 6). They also discussed the impact of adding or removing chemicals to disturb the equilibrium based on Le Chatelier's principle. PST1 insisted on using mathematical equations to explain his idea, but PST4 claims that K is concentration independent, as both processes interconvert at the same rate due to the dynamic nature of the equilibrium. The final questions from the instructor were about the relationship between temperature and K in an equilibrium system. PST3 agreed with PST4, but PST2 and PST1 (see Fig. 6) admitted that they still had trouble understanding the relationship between temperature and K (see PST1's post-lab CM in Fig. 6). As a result of the post-lab small group discourse, the PSTs-Group3 decided to investigate the relationship between temperature and the equilibrium constant in their next laboratory investigation.

Fig. 6 PST1's post-lab CM for the laboratory investigation of chemical equilibrium.

References

1. Abell T. N. and Bretz S. L., (2018), Dissolving salts in water: students’ particulate explanations of temperature changes, J. Chem. Educ., 95, 504–511.
2. Abell S., George M. and Martin M., (2002), The moon investigation: instructional strategies for elementary science methods, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 13, 85–100.
3. Abraham M. R., Cracolice M. S., Graves A. P., Aladamash A. H., Kihega J. G., Palma Gil J. G. and Varghese V., (1997), The nature and state of general chemistry laboratory courses offered by colleges and universities in the United States, J. Chem. Educ., 74, 591–594.
4. Aguiar J. G. and Correia P. R. M., (2016), Using concept maps as instructional materials to foster the understanding of the atomic model and matter–energy interaction, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17, 756–765.
5. Agustian H. Y. and Seery M. K., (2017), Reasserting the role of pre-laboratory activities in chemistry education: a proposed framework for their design, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18, 518–532.
6. Assessment Reform Group, (2002), Assessment for learning: 10 principles, Available on the Assessment Reform Group, London, United Kingdom.
7. Aydeniz M. and Doğan A., (2016), Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17, 111–119.
8. Bain K. and Towns M. H., (2016), A review of research on the teaching and learning of chemical kinetics, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17, 246–262.
9. Barab S. A. and Luehmann A. L., (2003), Building sustainable science curriculum: acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation, Sci. Educ., 87, 454–467.
10. Barab S. and Squire K., (2004), Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground, J. Learn. Sci., 13, 1–14.
11. Beal D. J., Cohen R. R., Burke M. J. and McLendon C. L., (2003), Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations, J. App. Psych., 88, 989–1004.
12. Bennett R. E., (2011), Formative assessment: a critical review, Assess. Educ.: Prin. Pol. Pract., 18, 5–25.
13. Black P. and Wiliam D., (1998), Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment, Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–148.
14. Black P. and Wiliam D., (2004), The Formative purpose: assessment must first promote learning, Teach. Coll. Rec., 106, 20–50.
15. Black P. and Wiliam D., (2009), Developing the theory of formative assessment, Educ. Assess. Eval. Acc., 21, 5–31.
16. Boo H. K., (1998), Students’ understandings of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 35, 569–581.
17. Cachapuz A. F. C. and Maskill R., (1989), Using word association in formative classroom test: following the learning of Le Chatelier's principle, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 21, 235–246.
18. Çakmakci G., (2010), Identifying alternative conceptions of chemical kinetics among secondary school and undergraduate students in Turkey, J. Chem. Educ., 87, 449–455.
19. Çakmakci G. and Aydogdu C., (2011), Designing and evaluating an evidence-informed instruction in chemical kinetics, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12, 15–28.
20. Castaño N., Watts T. and Tekleab A. G., (2013), A reexamination of the cohesion–performance relationship meta-analyses: a comprehensive approach, Group Dynamics: Theo. Res., Prac., 17, 207–231.
21. Coffey J., Hammer D., Levin D. and Grant T., (2011), The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 48, 1109–1136.
22. Cohen J., (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Collins, A., Joseph, D. and Bielaczyc, K., (2004), Design research: theoretical and methodological issues, J. Learn. Sci., 13, 15–42.
24. Cooper M. M. and Klymkowsky M. W., (2013) Chemistry, life, the universe and everything: a new approach to general chemistry, and a model for curriculum reform, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 1116–1122.
25. Cooper M. M., Kouyoumdjian H. and Underwood S. M., (2016), Investigating students’ reasoning about acid–base reactions, J. Chem. Educ., 93, 1703–1712.
26. Cornelius-White J., (2007), Learner-centred teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res., 77, 113–143.
27. Csanadi A., Kollar I. and Fischer F., (2021), Pre-service teachers’ evidence-based reasoning during pedagogical problem-solving: better together? Eur. J. Psychol. Educ., 36, 147–168.
28. Davidowitz B., Rollnick M. and Fakudze C., (2003), Increasing the signal to noise ratio in a chemistry laboratory-improving a practical for academic development students, S. Afr. J. Chem., 56, 47–53.
29. Deci E. L. and Ryan R. M., (1994), Promoting self-determined education, Scand. J. Educ. Res., 38, 3–14.
30. Deci E. L. and Ryan R. M., (2002), The paradox of achievement: the harder you push, the worse it gets, in J. Aronson (ed.), Improving Academic Achievement: Impact of Psychological Factors on Education, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 62–90.
31. DeKorver B. K. and Towns M. H., (2015), General chemistry students’ goals for chemistry laboratory coursework, J. Chem. Educ., 92, 2031–2037.
32. Demircioğlu G., Ayas A. and Demircioğlu H., (2005), Conceptual change achieved through a new teaching program on acids and bases, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 6, 36–51.
33. Demircioglu G., Demircioglu H. and Yadigaroglu M., (2013), An investigation of chemistry student teachers’ understanding of chemical equilibrium, Int. J. New Trends Educ. Their Implic., 4, 192–199.
34. Design-Based Research (DBR) Collective, (2003), Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry, Educ. Res., 32, 5–8.
35. Dewey J., (1916), Democracy and education, Macmillian.
36. Domin D. S., (2007), Students' perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during laboratory instruction, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8, 140–152.
37. Drechsler M. and Schmidt H. J., (2005), Textbooks’ and teachers’ understanding of acid-base models use in chemistry teaching, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 6, 19–35.
38. Ediger M., (2002), Measurement/evaluation courses in teacher education, Education, 121, 169–177.
39. Erdmann M. A. and March J. L., (2014), Video reports as a novel alternative assessment in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 650–657.
40. Friedman B., (1996), Human values and the design of computer technology, New York: Cambridge University Press.
41. Furtak E. M. and Heredia S. C., (2014), Exploring the influence of learning progressions in two teacher communities, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 51, 982–1020.
42. Furtak E. M., Ruiz-Primo M. A., Shemwell J. T., Ayala C. C., Brandon P., Shavelson R. J. and Yin Y., (2008), On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning, Appl. Measu. Educ., 21, 360–389.
43. Galloway K. R. and Bretz S. L., (2016), Video episodes and action cameras in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory: eliciting student perceptions of meaningful learning, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17, 139–155.
44. Garnett P. J., Garnett P. J. and Hackling M. W., (1995), Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: a review of research and implications for teaching and learning, Stud. Sci. Educ., 25, 69–95.
45. Ghani I. B. A., Ibrahim N. H., Yahaya N. A. and Surif J., (2017), Enhancing students’ HOTS in laboratory educational activity by using concept map as an alternative assessment tool, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18, 849–874.
46. Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D., (2009), Introduction: macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: key models in chemical education, in Gilbert J. K. and Treagust D. (ed.) Multiple representations in chemical education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–8.
47. Grossman P. L., (2005), Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education, in Cochran-Smith M. and Zeichner K. M. (ed.) Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association and Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 425–476.
48. Hartmeyer R., Stevenson M. P., and Bentsen P., (2016), Evaluating design-based formative assessment practices in outdoor science teaching, Educ. Res., 58, 420–441.
49. Hartmeyer R., Stevenson M. P., and Bentsen P., (2018), A systematic review of concept mapping-based formative assessment processes in primary and secondary science education, Assess. Educ.: Prin., Pol. Pract., 25, 598–619.
50. Hendry G., (2013), Integrating feedback with classroom teaching, in Merry S., Price M., Carless D. and Taras M. (ed.) Reconceptualising Feedback in Higher Education: Developing Dialogue with Students, Routledge, pp. 133–134.
51. Hensiek S., DeKorver B. K., Harwood C. J., Fish J., O’Shea K. and Towns M., (2016), Improving and assessing student hands-on laboratory skills through digital badging, J. Chem. Educ., 93, 1847–1854.
52. Heredia S. C., Furtak E. M., Morrison D., and Renga I. P., (2016), Science teachers’ representations of classroom practice in the process of formative assessment design, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 27, 697–716.
53. Hofstein A. and Lunetta V. N., (2004), The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century, Sci. Educ., 88, 28–54.
54. Holme T., Luxford C. and Murphy K., (2015), Updating the general chemistry anchoring concepts content map, J. Chem. Educ., 92, 1115–1116.
55. Huddle P. A. and Pillay A. E. (1996), An in-depth study of misconceptions in stoichiometry and chemical equilibrium at South African university, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 33, 65–77.
56. Hunter C. L., Mccosh R. and Wilkins H., (2003), Integrating learning and assessment in laboratory work. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 4, 67–75.
57. Huynh Q.-T. and Yang Y.-C., (2024), Impact of fill-in-the-nodes concept maps on low prior-knowledge students learning chemistry: a study on the learning achievements and attitude toward concept maps, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 25, 360–374.
58. Johnstone A. H., Sleet R. J. and Vianna J. F., (1994), An information processing model of learning: its application to an undergraduate laboratory course in chemistry, Stu. High. Educ., 19, 77–87.
59. Jones N., Georghiades P. and Gunson J., (2012), Student feedback via screen capture digital video: stimulating students’ modified action, High. Educ., 64, 593–607.
60. Justi R., (2002), Teaching and learning chemical kinetics, in Gilbert J. K., De Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D. and Van Driel J. H. (ed.) Chemical education: towards research-based practice, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 293–315.
61. Juuti K., Lavonen J., Salonen V., Salmela-Aro K., Schneider B. and and Krajcik J., (2021), A Teacher–researcher partnership for professional learning: co-designing project-based learning units to increase student engagement in science classes, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 32, 625–641.
62. Katchevich D., Hofstein A., and Mamlok-Naaman R., (2013), Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: inquiry and confirmatory experiments, Res. Sci. Educ., 43, 317–345.
63. Kaya E., (2013), Argumentation practices in classroom: pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 35, 1139–1158.
64. Kaya Z. and Kaya O. N., (2023), Gathering rich data on preservice science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through their lesson plans, J. Teach. Educ., 74, 10–22.
65. Kaya O. N. and Kaya Z., (2024), A Co-design based research study: Developing formative assessment practices with preservice science teachers in a chemistry laboratory setting, Res. Sci. Educ. DOI:10.1007/s11165-024-10162-9.
66. Lau P. N., (2020), Enhancing formative and self-assessment with video playback to improve critique skills in a titration laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21, 178–188.
67. Lavonen J., Juuti K., Aksela M. and Meisalo, V. (2006), A professional development project for improving the use of information and communication technologies in science teaching, Technol., Pedagogy Educ., 15, 159–174.
68. Lewis S. E., Shaw J. L., Heitz J. O. and Webster G. H., (2009), Attitude counts: self-concept and success in general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 86, 744–749.
69. Loukomies A., Juuti K. and Lavonen J., (2018), Teachers as educational innovators in inquiry-based science teaching and learning, in Tsivitanidou O. E., Gray P., Rybska E., Louca L. and Constantinou C. P. (ed.) Professional development for inquiry-based science teaching and learning, Springer, pp. 185–201.
70. Maia P. F. and Justi R., (2009), Learning of chemical equilibrium through modeling-based teaching, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 31, 603–630.
71. Markow P. G. and Lonning R. A., (1998), Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: students’ perceptions and effects on achievement, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 35, 1015–1029.
72. Martínez G., Perez A. L., Suero M. I. and Pardo P. J., (2013), The effectiveness of concept maps in teaching physics concepts applied to engineering education: experimental comparison of the amount of learning achieved with and without concept maps, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 22, 204–214.
73. Marzabal A., Delgado V., Moreira P., Barrientos L., and Moreno J., (2018), Pedagogical content knowledge of chemical kinetics: experiment selection criteria to address students’ intuitive conceptions, J. Chem. Educ., 95, 1245–1249.
74. Matuk C., Gerard L., Lim-Breitbart J. and Linn M., (2016), Gathering requirements for teacher tools: strategies for empowering teachers through co-design, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 27, 79–110.
75. McClary L. M. and Bretz S. L., (2012), Development and assessment of a diagnostic tool to identify organic chemistry students’ alternative conceptions related to acid strength, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 34, 2317–2341.
76. McClary L. and Talanquer V., (2011), College chemistry students’ mental models of acids and acid strength, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 48, 396–413.
77. Minshall B. L. and Yezierski E. J., (2021), Data-driven activity reform: employing design research to improve scaffolding and concept development, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22, 136–145.
78. Muller M. J., Wildman D. M. and White E., (1993), Taxonomy of participatory design practices: a brief practitioner's guide. Com. ACM, 36, 26–28.
79. Niemiec C. and Ryan R. M., (2009), Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: applying self-determination theory to educational practice, Theo. Res. Educ., 7, 133–144.
80. Novak J. D. and Gowin D. B., (1984), Learning how to learn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
81. softwarePallant J., (2007), SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS version 15, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
82. Penuel W. R., Roschelle J. and Shechtman N., (2007), Designing formative assessment software with teachers: an analysis of the co-design process. Res. Pract. Techn. Enh. Learn., 2, 51–74.
83. Pryor J. and Crossouard B., (2008), A socio-cultural theorisation of formative assessment, Oxf. Rev. Educ., 34, 1–20.
84. Pullen R., (2016), An evaluation and redevelopment of current laboratory practices: an in-depth study into the differences between learning and teaching styles, PhD thesis, Retrieved from UTAS Open Repository athttps://eprints.utas.edu.au/23475/.
85. Pullen R., Thickett S. C. and Bissember A. C., (2018), Investigating the viability of a competency-based, qualitative laboratory assessment model in first-year undergraduate chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19, 629–637.
86. Quilez J. and Solaz J. J., (1995), Students’ and teachers’ misapplication of Le Châtelier's principle: implications for the teaching of chemical equilibrium, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 32, 939–957.
87. Sağlam Y., Karaaslan E. H. and Ayas A., (2011), The Impact of contextual factors on the use of students’ conceptions, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 9, 1391–1413.
88. Sampson V. and Blanchard M. R., (2012), Science teachers and scientific argumentation: trends in views and practice, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 49, 1122–1148.
89. Sandoval W., (2014), Conjecture mapping: an approach to systematic educational design research, J. Learn. Sci., 23, 18–36.
90. Schmidt-McCormack J. A., Judge J. A., Spahr K., Yang E., Pugh R. and Karlin A. et al., (2019), Analysis of the role of a writing-to-learn assignment in student understanding of organic acid-base concepts, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 20, 383–398.
91. Seery M. K., (2015), Flipped learning in higher education chemistry: emerging trends and potential directions, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16, 758–768.
92. Seery M. K., Agustian H. Y., Doidge E. D., Kucharski M. M., O’Connor H. M. and Price A., (2017), Developing laboratory skills by incorporating peer-review and digital badges, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18, 403–419.
93. Shepard L. A., Hammerness K., Darling-Hammond L., Rust F., Snowden J. B. and Gordon E. et al., (2005), Assessment, in Darling-Hammond L. and Bransford J. (ed.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 275–326.
94. Siweya H. J. and Letsoalo P., (2014), Formative assessment by first-year chemistry students as predictor of success in summative assessment at a South African University, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 541–549.
95. Sozbilir M., (2001), A study of undergraduates’ understandings of key chemical ideas in thermodynamics, Unpublished PhD thesis, UK: The University of York.
96. Sozbilir M. and Bennett J., (2006), Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ misunderstandings of enthalpy and spontaneity, Chem. Educ., 11, 355–363.
97. Stark R., Puhl T., and Krause U.-M., (2009), Improving scientific argumentation skills by a problem-based learning environment: effects of an elaboration tool and relevance of student characteristics, Eval. Res. Educ., 22, 51–68.
98. Stoyanovich C., Gandhi A. and Flynn A. B., (2014), Acid–base learning outcomes for students in an introductory organic chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ., 92, 220–229.
99. Talbert L. E., Bonner J., Mortezaei K., Guregyan C., Henbest G. and Eichler J. F., (2020), Revisiting the use of concept maps in a large enrollment general chemistry course: implementation and assessment, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21, 37–50.
100. Tashakkori A. and Teddlie C., (2003), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
101. Thomas P. L. and Schwenz R. W., (1998), College physical chemistry students’ conceptions of equilibrium and fundamental thermodynamics. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 35, 1151–1160.
102. Torrance H. and Pryor J., (1998), Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
103. Turan-Oluk N. and Ekmekci G., (2018), The effect of concept maps, as an individual learning tool, on the success of learning the concepts related to gravimetric analysis, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19, 819–833.
104. Van Driel J. H., De Vos W., Verloop N. and Dekkers H., (1998), Developing secondary students’ conceptions of chemical reactions: the introduction of chemical equilibrium, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 20, 379–392.
105. Van Driel, J. H., Gräber W., (2002), The Teaching and Learning of Chemical Equilibrium, in Gilbert J. K., De Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D. F. and Van Driel J. H. (ed.) Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice. Science and Technology Education Library, Dordrecht: Springer, vol. 17, pp. 271–292.
106. Wenzel T. J., (2007), Evaluation tools to guide students’ peer-assessment and self-assessment in group activities for the lab and classroom, J. Chem. Educ., 84, 182–186.
107. Yalçınkaya E., Tastan-Kırık O., Boz Y. and Yıldıran D., (2012), Is case-based learning an effective teaching strategy to challenge students’ alternative conceptions regarding chemical kinetics? Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 30, 151–172.
108. Yaman F. and Ayas A., (2015), Assessing changes in high school students’ conceptual understanding through concept maps before and after the computer-based predict—observe-ex-plain (CB-POE) tasks on acid–base chemistry at the secondary level, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16, 843–855.
109. Ye L. R., Eichler J. F., Gilewski A., Talbert L. E., Mallory E., Litvak M., M. Rigsby E., Henbest G., Mortezaei K. and Guregyan C., (2020), The impact of coupling assessments on conceptual understanding and connection-making in chemical equilibrium and acid–base chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21, 1000–1012.
110. Zaccaroa S. J., Rittmana A. L. and Mark, M. A., (2001), Team leadership, The Leader. Quart., 12, 451–483.
111. Zemel Y., Shwartz, G. and Avargil S., (2021), Preservice teachers’ enactment of formative assessment using rubrics in the inquiry-based chemistry laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22, 1074–1092.

---