MoyoEd Research

Bridging Science, Research, and Classroom Insight

recent posts

about

With a strong interest in educational research, Dr Caleb Moyo is especially interested in science learning environments and ideas, as well as the use of technology in science instruction. He has contributed to the development of contextualised curriculum resources based on research, teacher in-service training in math and science, and research on scientific teaching and learning.
Additionally, he has experience working in a range of educational settings across several countries, including the Global South and the Middle East. His articles have mostly addressed the use of technology in science education.
His current studies centre on the dynamics of science classroom interactions, social media and academic performance, mathematics anxiety in African schools, and misconceptions in the study of chemistry. He has given several presentations at international conferences.
Dr. Caleb Moyo is a renowned educational researcher, specialising in science teaching theories and technology, collaborating on research-informed curriculum resources and teacher training.

Student Misconceptions in A-Level Chemistry: Chemical & Ionic Equilibria (2004–2025)

Dr Caleb Moyo

Introduction

Imagine this scenario: you ask your A-Level chemistry class, “At equilibrium, does everything stop happening?” Half of the students nod with certainty. And yet you then ask them to calculate a (Kc) value and predict shifts via Le Châtelier’s principle, and they rally to the challenge. This discrepancy reveals the crux of the problem; students often accept a static image of equilibrium while executing dynamic calculations.

Why is the topic of chemical and ionic equilibrium conceptually challenging at the A-Level? Because learners must integrate molecular-level dynamics (invisible), symbolic mathematics (equilibrium constants), and macroscopic observations, all while reconciling prior everyday intuitions (for example: “balanced” means “nothing changes”).

The purpose of this post is to synthesise peer-reviewed research from 2004 to 2025 on student misconceptions in chemical and ionic equilibria and then offer practical, research-informed strategies for use by teachers and educational researchers alike.

Defining Key Concepts.

Chemical Equilibrium.

In A-Level chemistry, “chemical equilibrium” refers to a closed system in which the rates of the forward and reverse reactions become equal, thereby producing constant concentrations of reactants and products (but not implying that the reactions stop). For example:

​​At equilibrium:



However, molecular exchange continues. This distinction is often missed by learners (Bickmore 2010).

Ionic Equilibrium.

“Ionic equilibrium” refers to similar ideas applied in solution chemistry: for example, dissociation of weak acids or bases, salt hydrolysis, buffers, and solubility product equilibria (e.g., (Ksp)). Learners must switch between particulate ionic/molecular views, symbolic expressions (e.g., Ka= [H+] [A-] /[HA]), and macroscopic measures (e.g., pH, conductivity).

How Concepts Connect.

  • Le Châtelier’s principle: a heuristic for predicting how a system at equilibrium responds when perturbed (changes in concentration, pressure, and temperature). It is predictive, not mechanistic.
  • Equilibrium constants ((Kc), (Ka), (Kb), (Ksp)): dimensionless (strictly activities), often approximated by concentration ratios in A-Level tasks; they reflect the ratio of rate constants (forward/reverse) and vary with temperature. (See SERC activity)
  • Reaction dynamics: The key is the idea that equilibrium is dynamic and reversible, and not static. Students’ everyday language (“balance,” “equal”) and prior knowledge of irreversible reactions often interfere (constructivist lens).

Review of Research (2004–2025).

Here, we selected empirical and review findings related to students’ misconceptions of equilibrium.

  1. Misunderstanding dynamic vs. static equilibrium: Trainees in Andriani et al. (2021) found that pre-service teachers held the misconception that equilibrium meant ‘no change’ rather than continuous microscopic exchange.
  2. Misapplication of Le Châtelier’s Principle: The SERC resource (Bickmore, 2010) highlights that students often treat the principle as a simple “push-to-the-other‐side shift” rule, ignoring rates or stoichiometry.
  3. Misunderstanding equilibrium constants: Many learners fail to appreciate that (K) depends on temperature and is related to rate constants, not just concentrations. Some persist in thinking of (K) as always changing with the concentration.
  4. Confusion from kinetics → equilibrium conflation: The study by Jusniar et al. (2020) showed that misconceptions in reaction-rate concepts correlate (moderate correlation ~0.39) with misconceptions in equilibrium.
  5. Ionic equilibria, buffers, and solubility issues: Suparman (2024) in a systematic review found that among chemistry topics with the highest misconception load, chemical equilibrium, with its ionic equilibria subset, ranks top.
  6. Digital era tools and evolving curricula: The same review notes that, despite curriculum changes and simulation tools, misconceptions persist, suggesting robust underlying cognitive barriers.

So, What is Trending? We have seen a shift from purely diagnostic studies (the early 2000s) to intervention-based research involving simulations and multiple-representation tasks (2015–2025). However, core misconceptions about dynamic equilibrium, (K)-constancy, and Le Châtelier’s oversimplification remain resistant to change.

Causes of Misconceptions.

Several root causes have emerged from both research and theory.

  • Abstract reasoning demands: Students must juggle three representation levels — macroscopic, sub-microscopic, and symbolic — which increase the cognitive load and encourage reliance on heuristics rather than deep conceptual models. (e.g., Andriani et al., 2021).
  • Prior‐knowledge interference: Many learners enter with the “reaction goes to completion” models or everyday notions of “balance = nothing changes,” which conflicts with scientific views of reversible, dynamic systems. (Constructivist theory)
  • Symbolic manipulation masks conceptual gaps: Learners may plug numbers into equilibrium expressions without grasping what the terms represent (e.g., “Why can’t I push the equilibrium constant by adding reactant?”).
  • Language and representation issues: Terms such as ‘balance,’ ‘constant,’ and ‘shift’ can mislead; textbooks and teachers sometimes simplify or mis-represent to avoid complexity, inadvertently embedding misconceptions. SERC activity clarifies these issues.
  • Insufficient molecular visualisation: Without strong mental particle-level models of forward/reverse processes, students revert to the visible macro-level and assume “nothing happens.”
  • Inadequate assessment design: If tests reward only calculation and not conceptual reasoning, students focus on the procedural and ignore conceptual issues; research suggests that this gap remains. (Suparman, 2024)

In light of conceptual change theory (Posner et al., Taber), mere exposure to correct models is insufficient: students require cognitive conflict, a disruption to existing schemas, intelligibility of the new model, plausibility, and a sense of the model’s fertility (usefulness).

Teaching Strategies to Address Misconceptions

There are five evidence-based practical strategies that can be implemented. Yes, quick clever humour: Think of equilibrium like a never-ending dance party — things are moving even if you cannot see them.

1. Diagnostic two-tier or three -tier questions / concept inventories
Offer questions that ask “What happens?” and “Why?” (e.g., forward/reverse rates and the effect of adding solids). This reveals reasoning, and not just the correct answer. For example, the survey instruments adapted from Bickmore (2010) showed values. Use the data to form small-group intervention tasks.

2. Simulations & multiple representations
Use digital tools (e.g., PhET interactive simulations of reversible reactions) or STELLA models to visualize molecular exchange, rates, and equilibrium constants. Ensure that tasks include drawing/explanation prompts (not just clicking and moving). The SERC model emphasises this.
Tip: After simulation, ask students to sketch particle diagrams, write symbolic expressions, and explain what changes occur when the temperature increases.

3. Analogical reasoning & molecular storytelling
Use focused analogies (e.g., reversible doors, dance-floor influx/outflux, moving escalators), but explicitly map analogy features to chemical features and point out limitations. Avoid misleading analogies. Taber’s guidance on analogies is applied.
Mapping example: “The number of dancers staying constant doesn’t mean no one leaves or arrives — that’s like equilibrium: dynamic, but constant overall.”

4. Representational fluency tasks / drawing exercises
Design tasks that require students to:

  • Draw particle diagrams before and after perturbation
  • Write the corresponding (K) expression
  • Predict macroscopic changes (pH, colour, concentration)
    Research (e.g., Rosida, 2023) has shown that drawing tasks expose deeper misconceptions than multiple-choice tasks alone.

5. Formative micro-experiments with guided inquiry
Conduct short labs (e.g., FeSCN²⁺ equilibrium change by temperature or concentration) where students: predict → observe → explain → re-predict. Pair with peer discussion and short write-up focusing on why the shift occurred. This aligns with conceptual change models.
Use mid-lab classroom response systems (clickers/quizzes) to capture emerging misconceptions.

Digital/classroom tool suggestions

  • PhET’s “Reversible Reaction” interactive
  • STELLA model activities (See Bickmore)
  • Two-tier diagnostic question sets (adapted from Jusniar et al., 2020)
  • Particle-level animations from the Royal Society of Chemistry/American Chemical Society education portals.

Formative assessment should be frequent and low-stakes, allowing the identification of misconceptions early and tailoring follow-up tasks rather than waiting for summative failures.

Implications for Teachers and Researchers

Teachers and curriculum designers.

  • Assessments should move beyond calculation-only tasks to probe the understanding of dynamic equilibrium, (K)-dependence, and Le Châtelier’s limits. The reaction quotient is used for understanding.
  • Professional development should include content pedagogical training on misconceptions (including those that teachers may hold). Research (e.g., Cheung, 2009) indicates that teachers’ own misconceptions hamper instruction.
  • Textbooks and resources ought to emphasise molecular-level reasoning and avoid language that implies “nothing happening” at equilibrium. Teaching must be contextualised, which uses local phenomena in which concepts are embedded.

For researchers:

  • There remains a gap in longitudinal studies measuring whether improved understanding persists beyond immediate interventions, especially in ionic equilibria (buffers and solubility).
  • Digital adaptive tutors and AI-driven diagnostics (e.g., student modelling systems) hold promise, but require robust efficacy trials.
  • Research should explore how mixed-method (qualitative and quantitative) designs can better illuminate the reasons behind persistent misconceptions, as per the systematic review by Suparman (2024).

Conclusion.

Misconceptions in chemical and ionic equilibria are not trivial; they are stubborn, conceptually loaded, and deeply rooted in student cognition, everyday language, and teachers/textbook practice. However, these are not invincible. With diagnostic tools, targeted interventions (simulations, representations, and analogies), formative assessments, and reflective teaching, we can be proactive rather than reactive.

So, here is the call to action: try one diagnostic two-tier question next week in your class, then run a quick simulation and ask students to draw the particle view. Document what they say, adjust your next class accordingly, and share your experiences in your department or through a professional learning network. The research (and students) demand nothing less.

References

Posted in ,

Leave a comment