Three-tiered Multiple-Choice Assessment Tool in Testing Grade 11 STEM Students’ Comprehensive Knowledge in General Chemistry 1

Mark Vincent Valencia; Maria Eliza Cruz-Ocampo

doi:10.55927/fjst.v5i9.154

Authors

Mark Vincent Valencia Buenavista National High School, Schools Division of Marinduque
Maria Eliza Cruz-Ocampo College of Education, San Beda University, Manila

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55927/fjst.v5i9.154

Keywords:

General Chemistry, Multiple Choice Questions, Science Education, Three-Tiered Multiple-Choice Questions.

Abstract

This study examined the utilization of a three-tiered multiple-choice assessment in measuring the comprehensive knowledge of Grade 11 STEM students in General Chemistry 1, focusing on conceptual comprehension, critical thinking, and quantitative skills. A descriptive research design was employed involving 34 Grade 11 STEM students from Buenavista National High School, selected through total enumeration. A validated 25-item three-tiered multiple-choice test aligned with the General Chemistry 1 curriculum served as the primary assessment instrument. Quantitative data were analyzed using the median to determine students’ levels of comprehensive knowledge, while qualitative data from students’ insights were examined through thematic analysis. Findings revealed that students demonstrated moderate to high levels of comprehensive knowledge across the three domains, reflecting a developing yet consistent understanding of chemistry concepts and their applications. The qualitative findings further showed that students perceived the three-tiered assessment as helpful in encouraging deeper critical thinking, identifying misconceptions, and increasing awareness of their reasoning and confidence in their responses. The study concludes that the three-tiered multiple-choice assessment provides a comprehensive and diagnostic approach to evaluating students’ chemistry knowledge. Its integration into classroom assessment practices may help teachers identify learning gaps, address misconceptions, and promote more meaningful learning in chemistry education

References

Dai, N. V., Trung, V. Q., Tiem, C. V., Hao, K. P., & Anh, D. T. V. (2021). Project-Based Teaching in Organic Chemistry through Blended Learning Model to Develop Self-Study Capacity of High School Students in Vietnam. Education Sciences, 11(7), 346. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070346

de los Santos, O., Hernández-Padilla, E., Vázquez-Alonso, Á., López-Aymes, G., Aguilar-Tamayo, M. F., & Arce, E. (2025). Scientific Thinking Promotes the Development of Critical Thinking in Primary Education. Education Sciences, 15(9), 1174. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091174

Department of Education. (2015). Policy guidelines on classroom assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program (DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015). DepEd Philippines.

George, A., Zowada, C., Eilks, I., & Gulacar, O. (2021). Exploring Chemistry Professors’ Methods of Highlighting the Relevancy of Chemistry: Opportunities, Obstacles, and Suggestions to Improve Students’ Motivation in Science Classrooms. Education Sciences, 11(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010013

Guidang, E. B. (2016). Multiple choice test randomizer of ICT department of Abra State Institute of Science and Technology. JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 23(1).

Gurel, D. K., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2021). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(3), em1940.

Liu, Q., Wald, N., Daskon, C., & Harland, T. (2023). Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) for higher-order cognition: Perspectives of university teachers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61, 802–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2222715

Merone, G. M., Tartaglia, A., Locatelli, M., D’Ovidio, C., Rosato, E., de Grazia, U., Santavenere, F., Rossi, S., & Savini, F. (2020). Analytical Chemistry in the 21st Century: Challenges, Solutions, and Future Perspectives of Complex Matrices Quantitative Analyses in Biological/Clinical Field. Analytica, 1(1), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica1010006

Nandagopal, K., & Zohar, A. (2020). Confidence-based assessment and metacognition in science learning.

Pal, R., & Chattaraj, P. K. (2023). On the Nature of the Partial Covalent Bond between Noble Gas Elements and Noble Metal Atoms. Molecules, 28(7), 3253. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28073253

Peretz, R., Dori, D., & Dori, Y. J. (2023). Investigating Chemistry Teachers’ Assessment Knowledge via a Rubric for Self-Developed Tasks in a Food and Sustainability Context. Education Sciences, 13(3), 308. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030308

Pinto, G., Castro-Acuña, C. M., López-Hernández, I., & Alcázar Montero, V. (2023). Learning Difficulties in the Interpretation of Matter at the Molecular Level by University Students—A Case Study: Dissolution of Oxygen in Water. Education Sciences, 13(8), 781. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080781

Putz, M. V. (2021). Chemical Bonding by the Chemical Orthogonal Space of Reactivity. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(1), 223. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22010223

Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2020). The efficacy of diagnostic assessment tools in identifying students’ misconceptions in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1), 1–10.