International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)

Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025, pp. 3790~3800

ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v14i5.28126  3790

Diagnosis of ecosystem misconceptions for high school students

in Jakarta

Eka Putri Azrai1, Muhammad Japar2, Robinson Situmorang3

1
Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
2
Department of Pancasila and Civic Education, Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
3
Department of Educational Technology, Faculty of Science Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: Misconception is a condition of different concepts that are owned by
scientific concepts. Misconceptions impact learning processes and outcomes,
Received Jul 23, 2024 so teachers need to make reductions. The first step to reduce misconceptions
Revised Jun 21, 2025 is to find the data on students’ misconceptions. This study aims to diagnose
Accepted Jul 2, 2025 high school students’ misconceptions about ecosystems. The survey method
research used a three-level multiple-choice test to diagnose ecosystem
misconceptions. The research sample were 200 high school students from
Keywords: five high schools in Jakarta, Indonesia. The sample from each school were
40 students. The results showed that students’ understanding of concepts
Biology learning was spread over six levels: understanding concepts, false positive
Ecosystem material misconceptions, false negative misconceptions, misconceptions, guessing or
EMD test understanding concepts but lacking confidence, and not understanding
Learning processes concepts with a misconception percentage of 21.41%. Based on the analysis
Students misconceptions of the ecosystem sub-concept, the highest misconception occurred in the
energy flow sub-concept (25.39%) and the second highest in the
biogeochemical cycle sub-concept (20.41%). Teachers can use the findings
as a basis for designing effective learning to reduce misconceptions so that
optimal learning processes and results can be achieved.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Eka Putri Azrai
Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science
Universitas Negeri Jakarta
Hasyim Asj’arie Building, Rawamangun Muka Street, 13220, Jakarta, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Biology is learning that is rich in concepts. Concepts are implicit and explicit schemes or theories
regarding how knowledge is connected to other pieces of knowledge. Concepts are the basis for thinking in
the form of ideas that can help individuals understand a phenomenon [1]. Concepts are basic elements of
knowledge [2]. Students must properly understand these concepts. Concepts in science learning are abstract
and interconnected [3], so it will not be easy to relate them to the next concept when students do not
understand a concept. Weak mastery of concepts has an impact on student learning outcomes, too.
Students are expected to master the concepts in biology learning. One of the concepts that students
in learning biology must master is the concept of ecosystems. The reality in the field shows that there are
misconceptions about learning biology. Misconception is a condition where students’ conceptions differ from
scientific conceptions [4]. Misconceptions occur when students defend their concepts where these concepts
differ from those of experts.

Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com

Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3791

Misconceptions in biology learning, as revealed by the following research [5]–[7]. Misconceptions

are found in biology concepts, such as the concepts of respiration, photosynthesis, genetics, protein synthesis,
classification of protists, human anatomy, physiology, evolution, and ecosystems [8]–[10]. Research also
revealed that 39.59% of samples had an inaccurate conceptual understanding of ecosystem material [11].
Various factors cause misconceptions that occur in students. Research studies on the factors that
cause misconceptions include Widiyatmoko and Shimizu [12] stating that what contributes to student
misconceptions is the everyday experience, the language used, teachers, and textbooks. Students’ intuitive
reasoning is in many cases also at the core of students’ misconceptions [13]. Factors that cause
misconceptions include the students themselves, learning methods, teaching methods, and context [14]. Other
research reveals misconceptions can be caused by people, culture, family members, mistakes in delivering
the concept by the teacher, books, teaching materials, media, context, as well as learning methods [15].
Scientific misconceptions are often discovered in formal education through interactions between teachers and
students. Educators who teach science concepts with certain strategies without realizing it may strengthen
and spread misconceptions [1].
If the misconceptions in learning continue, it will impact student learning processes and outcomes
[2]. Misconceptions make it difficult for students to understand subsequent concepts [1], and students need to
be aware of their misconceptions. Misconceptions will make learning more difficult [16], so learning
outcomes could be more optimal. Misconceptions create another challenge because they are stable in
individual cognitive structures, recurring, resistant to change, often unconscious, and will continue interfering
with students’ biology concept learning processes [17]. If the misconceptions are not immediately corrected
with the right conception, it can be a bias and a barrier for students in forming advanced scientific concepts
correctly [18], [19]. Misconceptions can be integrated into cognitive structures and will last until the students
grow up and will be more difficult to handle. Several misconceptions are resistant and difficult to change
[20]. Efforts are needed to detect and reduce misconceptions [15].
Misconceptions are sometimes not realized by students and also escape the teacher’s attention,
which the teacher considers not important [21]. The first step to reduce the misconception is to diagnose
students’ misconceptions. Teachers need to diagnose students’ misconceptions. Diagnosing students’
misconceptions is a substantial step toward increasing understanding [22]. Data from this diagnosis is used as
a basis for efforts to reduce misconceptions.
Misconceptions can be diagnosed using instruments, including interviews, open tests, multiple-
choice tests, tiered tests, and sequential tests [15], [23], [24]. In this study, the instrument used is the
ecosystem misconception diagnostic test (EMD test) with the characteristics of a three-tier multiple choice
test presented on the Google Form platform. The choice to use this instrument is based on several reasons: a
three-level multiple-choice instrument can distinguish between those who lack knowledge and those who
have misconceptions. This instrument can easily identify students’ understanding of concepts and only
requires a short time [25]. This instrument can diagnose student understanding through the pattern of
students’ answers. Three-tier multiple choice test can easily identify misconceptions and distinguish them
from those who lack knowledge by using the level of confidence [15], [26], [27].
This misconception diagnostic is intended to understand students’ misconceptions about the ecosystem
concept. This diagnostic is important because misconceptions will have an impact on low learning outcomes.
The learning process will be more difficult for students if students experience misconceptions. Misconceptions
diagnostic results can be used as a basis for teachers in designing learning that can reduce misconceptions, so
that the learning process can take place optimally and optimal learning outcomes can be achieved.

2. METHOD
Diagnosing ecosystem misconceptions was conducted using a survey method on high school
students in Jakarta. The students in the research sample were students in grades X-XII (first to third grade) of
high school who were studying ecosystem biology material, with varying academic abilities. The research
sample was determined using a purposive sampling technique. In qualitative research, sampling is very
appropriate if it is based on the research objectives or problems, using the researchers’ considerations to
obtain the accuracy and adequacy of the information needed according to the objectives or problems being
studied [24]. Samples based on this concept can range from n=1 to n=40 or more [25]. The sample in this
study amounted to 200 students spread across five schools. Apart from diagnosing student misconceptions,
interviews were also conducted with biology teachers at the five schools.
Data was collected using the EMD test instrument in a three-level multiple choice form using the
Google Forms platform. The instrument consists of the first level (one-tier) in the form of ordinary multiple
choice, the second level (two-tier) in the form of reason choices, and the third level (three-tier) in the form of
affirmation questions about the beliefs of the answers that have been chosen at levels one and two [17].
Giving reasons at the second level is important for detecting misconceptions and knowing why students have
Diagnosis of ecosystem misconceptions for high school students in Jakarta (Eka Putri Azrai)
3792  ISSN: 2252-8822

misconceptions [2]. A three-level test can distinguish the lack of knowledge from misconceptions [28]. The
three-level test is considered more accurate in identifying student misconceptions because it can detect
misunderstandings by using the level of confidence in the answers given by students [15]. Instruments were
distributed through biology teachers. Misconceptions are diagnosed based on competencies that students in
ecosystem material must master. The competencies in ecosystem material studied in class X senior high
school written in Permendikbud number 37 of 2018 in basic competencies 3.10 can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Indicators of achievement of ecosystem competency

Indicators of achievement Sub-concept competency
3.10.1. Explaining the definition of ecosystems Ecosystems and ecosystems components
3.10.2. Identifying the components of the ecosystem
3.10.3. Identifying types of interactions between ecosystem components Interactions between ecosystem
components
3.10.4. Explaining the mechanism of energy flow in an ecosystem and related to the Energy flow
balance of the ecosystem
3.10.5. Analyzing the role of various ecosystem components in the biogeochemical cycle Biogeochemical cycle
3.10.6. Analyzing the linkages of various processes that occur in the biogeochemical
cycle with everyday life

The validity of the instrument was analyzed using point biserial correlation analysis. There were 30
instrument items used with an average point biserial correlation coefficient of 0.67. Instrument reliability is
determined using the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula [29]. The reliability coefficient value obtained based on
calculations is 0.79 for level one instruments with high-reliability criteria, 0.84 for level two instruments with
very high criteria, and 0.87 for level three instruments with very high criteria. The results of the student’s
misconception diagnosis are interpreted in six categories of conceptual understanding, as shown in Table 2.
Furthermore, the scores resulting from the misconception diagnosis are grouped into four levels: very high,
high, medium, and low, as shown in Table 3.

Table 2. Interpretation of student concept understanding [28]

Response type
Concept understanding categories
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Correct Correct Sure Understand the concept
Correct Wrong Sure Misconceptions (false positives)
Wrong Correct Sure Misconceptions (false negatives)
Wrong Wrong Sure Misconceptions
Correct Correct Not sure Guess or understand the concept but lack confidence
Correct Wrong Not sure Lack of knowledge
Wrong Correct Not sure Lack of knowledge
Wrong Wrong Not sure Lack of knowledge

Table 3. Criteria for grouping the level of concept understanding [30]

Levels Score intervals
Very low <41.00
Low 41.00–55.99
Medium 56.00–70.99
High 71.00–85.99
Very high 86.00–100.00

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. General description of students’ misconceptions
The EMD test instrument was distributed to high school biology teachers in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Valid data was obtained from 200 students that spread across five schools. Based on the results of the
analysis, it was found that students were spread across six categories of concept understanding. The results of
the analysis is can be seen in Table 4.
The results of the diagnosis of students’ understanding of concepts in ecosystem material showed
that the lowest percentage was that students guessed or understood concepts but lacked confidence, at 4.41%.
Students categorized as understanding concepts occupy the highest percentage of 39.87%, and those who
lack knowledge are 10.25%. Table 4 also shows that students who are categorized as having misconceptions
are 21.41%, 19.20% are categorized as false positive misconceptions, and 5.08% are categorized as false
negative misconceptions.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3790-3800
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3793

Table 4. Distribution of students in each concept understanding category

Concept understanding category Percentage (%)
Understand concept 39.87
Misconceptions (false positives) 19.20
Misconceptions (false negatives) 5.08
Misconceptions 21.41
Guess or understand concepts but lack confidence 4.41
Lack of knowledge 10.25

Based on the results obtained, some students still experience misconceptions about ecosystems.
These results align with previous research on ecosystems [31], [32]. Students are scattered in conditions of
understanding concepts, not knowing concepts, and misconceptions, with the highest percentage being in
misconceptions. This finding shows that 21.41% of students still need help to clear up their misconceptions,
construct, and understand concepts well and correctly. Misconceptions about the concept of ecosystems are
very likely to occur because, in daily life, students can observe various natural phenomena or problems
related to the concept of ecosystems [33]. When interacting with the environment, students can conceptualize
concepts according to their thoughts, and these thoughts may not follow scientific concepts. Students’
misconceptions are built through connections with the surrounding environment [34]. When interacting with
the surrounding environment, implicit reasoning unconsciously influences students’ thinking to interpret
natural phenomena [13].
Using everyday language outside scientific language can lead to misconceptions among students [3].
In addition to language, students get wrong explanations from the surrounding environment, so that students
may misinterpret the true meaning of the concept. This is also reinforced by the condition of the ecosystem
concept that has been studied by students in formal learning at schools, starting from elementary to high school
levels. Observations and experiences gained by students from the surrounding environment and through
formal education allow students to interpret ecosystem concepts independently. Students’ intuitive reasoning
also leads to the development of inaccurate ideas [35]. Interpretation or the results of students’ interpretations
related to these concepts can be contrary to the scientific opinion of experts, thus causing misconceptions. The
learning strategies used by biology teachers are undoubtedly the cause of students’ perceptions about how
difficult biology concepts are, and misconceptions occur, leading to low biology learning achievement [36].
Learning in the current digital era makes it easier for students to connect to various learning
resources. Students will easily get information on learning materials from various sources. However, this
convenience can also lead to misconceptions if students are unprepared or cannot use digital technology. The
use of information technology applications by students who are not ready to obtain teaching materials can
also lead to misconceptions [31]. The causes of misconceptions can be from the students themselves, wrong
initial concepts, student reasoning, wrong cognitive development processes, reference books for learning, and
teachers in conveying material [36], [37]. Wrong initial concepts will color, direct, and sometimes obstruct
students’ understanding of a scientific concept [38].
Misconceptions will encourage further misconceptions [19]. Students who experience
misconceptions cannot accept new knowledge and will experience mistakes repeatedly until they realize that
the concepts they believe are correct are wrong [39]. The role of the teacher is very important to make
students aware of their misconceptions because it makes students aware that their beliefs are wrong and will
encourage them to adopt the point of view of the scientific community [40]. Students who experience
misconceptions must be treated to make them realize their mistakes and construct new scientific concepts.
Cognitive conflict strategies are one of the treatments that teachers can use [37], [41], [42].
The survey results found that 19.20% of students experienced false positive misconceptions. False
positive misconceptions are conditions where students answer questions at the first level correctly but with
the wrong reasons, but students believe the answer. False positive misconceptions describe that students have
the correct understanding of claims, but they cannot explain these claims [43]. Conditions like this could
mean that the students need help understanding the concept, or it can be said that students have the right
answers but have the wrong concepts. Students who were confident with wrong answers are likelier to have
misconceptions regarding consistent and stable cognitive structures [44]. Misconceptions in this situation are
difficult to eliminate because clearing misconceptions is difficult [42]. Meanwhile, false negative
misconceptions are conditions where students answer questions at the first level incorrectly but with the right
reasons, but students believe in these answers. According to Kirbulut and Geban [17], a false negative is the
answer chosen at level one is correct, and the reason chosen at level two is wrong. However, students have
believed the two answers they have chosen. False negative misconceptions illustrate that students do not have
true knowledge claims but can explain these claims. This category is considered negative because it is likely
that the answers given are guessed answers that happen to be correct [43]. This condition can be interpreted
as the student gaining little understanding (less information), or it can be said that the student has the wrong
Diagnosis of ecosystem misconceptions for high school students in Jakarta (Eka Putri Azrai)
3794  ISSN: 2252-8822

answer but has the correct concept. Misconceptions in this situation are not considered problematic because
they are caused by students’ carelessness in choosing answers.
In Table 4, it is also seen that students who have lack of knowledge are 10.25%. Lack of knowledge is
indicated by the EMD test when students provide uncertainty responses at level three. In line with the opinion
[28], lack of knowledge is uncertain regardless of the right or wrong answer at the first or second level. Lack of
knowledge is different from misconceptions [45], but lack of knowledge can result in misconceptions [40]. Lack
of knowledge also has an impact on student learning progress, which does not develop optimally [43].
Based on the diagonal results, 4.41% of students have lack of self-confidence. A lack of confidence
is not being sure whether to answer correctly [42]. Conditions of lack of confidence should not be allowed in
students because lack of confidence is a barrier to learning [46]. Trust plays a role in one’s growth mindset,
where the growth mindset influences one’s success in various fields [47].

3.2. Details of students’ misconceptions of the ecosystem sub-concept

The results of a more in-depth review of student misconceptions about each ecosystem sub-concept
as measured by the EMD test can be seen in Figure 1. Based on the figure, it can be observed that the highest
misconceptions occur in the energy flow sub-concept with the results at 25.39%, followed by biogeochemical
cycle material at 20.41%, ecosystems and ecosystem components at 14.07%, and the lowest is interaction
between ecosystem components with 13.07%. The energy flow sub-concept is the most difficult sub-concept
to understand. The data shows that most students cannot understand decomposers and detritivores and then
associate the two terms. Wrong word associations play a role in constructing cognitive errors in students.
Students will have difficulty receiving new information following the concept [48].

Biogeochemical cycle 20.41%

Energy Flow 25.39%

Sub concept

Interactions Between Ecosystem Components 13.07%

Ecosystems and Ecosystem Components 14.70%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00%

Percentage of misconceptions

Figure 1. Percentage of student misconceptions on the ecosystem sub-concept

Some students have difficulty explaining the energy flow on earth, misperceptions often occur
between food webs and ecological pyramids, and students are less able to understand biogeochemical cycles
that occur because of complicated recycling processes. Abstraction and complexity of concepts can lead to
misinterpretation of concepts [15]. The teacher only uses government books, PowerPoint slides, and
blackboards to explain during class. The teacher admitted that this material was difficult to explain because
the material’s content had to be memorized, and students needed visualization. These results were revealed
based on interviews with high school biology teachers.
The active role of students during the learning process also has an impact on the construction of
concepts. A passive attitude that tends only to receive information causes errors in reasoning and building
understanding. Students must be actively involved in learning and in constructing understanding. The
experience of constructing understanding will lead students through stages of conceptual change and eventually
lead to scientifically accepted conceptions [49]. Active involvement of students in learning can also develop
higher-order thinking skills, including 4C skills (creativity, critical, collaboration, and communication) [50]. An
overview of the conditions of understanding the concepts of high school students in Jakarta based on the six
categories of concept understanding in each of the ecosystem sub-concepts can be seen in Table 5.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3790-3800
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3795

Table 5 shows that students’ mastery of concepts is best in sub-concept 3.10.3 (identifying types of
interaction between ecosystem components). This is because, in this sub-concept, students can take examples
from interactions in their environment and daily life. They often observe this interaction so that the concept
becomes easier to understand. In line with the opinion [8], contextual familiarity will facilitate understanding.
Interaction with the environment can teach students new scientific concepts [24]. Individuals unconsciously
use the use of analogies with more familiar entities to build cognitive bridges to more complex and abstract
concepts [19].

Table 5. Conditions of students’ conceptual understanding of each ecosystem sub-concept

Indicators of competence achievement
Concept understanding category
3.10.1 (%) 3.10.2 (%) 3.10.3 (%) 3.10.4 (%) 3.10.5 (%) 3.10.6 (%)
Understand concept 22.8 27.7 64.4* 42.5 33.2 32.8
Misconceptions (false positives) 54.2* 30.1 7.5 13.2 20.4 26.4
Misconceptions (false negatives) 3.5 18.3* 6.3 4.6 3.0 2.4
Misconceptions 11.6 17.8 13.1 25.4* 23.0 17.8
Guess or understand concepts but lack confidence 0.5 0.5 1.5 4.6 7.2* 7.1
Lack of knowledge 7.6 5.1 7.3 10.0 13.6 14.1*
Note: *the highest percentage for each category

Sub-concepts 3.10.4 and 3.10.5 (sub-concepts of energy flow and biogeochemical cycles) need to
get full attention from teachers because these sub-concepts have the highest percentage of misconceptions
compared to other sub-concepts and students who lack knowledge in these sub-concepts are also higher than
on other sub-concepts. It takes effort from the teacher to overcome misconceptions. Teachers must reflect
critically on their learning [51]. Teachers must care about students’ misconceptions [16], [52] and try to
reduce them. Misconceptions can be overcome with effective instructional interventions designed by teachers
based on identifying misconceptions [2], [53]. Providing direct learning experiences, involving students
actively in the learning process, and selecting appropriate learning situations and assignments can correct
misconceptions [2], [37], [54]. Clarifying students’ misconceptions by the teachers is one effort to reduce
misconceptions. Research by Aptyka et al. [8] found that students who studied without clarifying
misconceptions experienced significantly more misconceptions than those studying with clarifying
misconceptions. Teachers can improve students’ e-readiness skills, metacognitive awareness, and biology
literacy to minimize high school students’ misconceptions about biology [31]. The use of cognitive conflict
strategies will affect students’ conceptual transformation [55] so that misconceptions will be reduced [37].
Another influencing factor of misconceptions is from the students themselves [36], which is the
need for more accuracy in examining the questions so the students will answer correctly. Some students
answered by reasoning about the questions and associating them with concepts, but the reasoning needed to
be corrected. Students’ lack of understanding caused this. The causes of the students themselves can also be
measured from student answers, namely one of the false positive misconceptions in sub-concept 3.10.1 is
54.2%, sub-concept 3.10.4 is 13.2%, and in sub-concept 3.10.5 is 20.4%. Students answer the first level
correctly, then the reasons chosen at the second level are wrong; the third level is sure of these conditions,
which can be interpreted that in these conditions, students do not understand the concept (lack of
understanding). Misconceptions in this situation are very difficult to eliminate because students believe in the
answers given. Students need to realize that they have misconceptions.

3.3. Diagnostic score

Based on the diagnosis results we carried out on 200 high school students, test score data grouped
into very low, low, medium, high, and very high [30]. An overview of the percentage of students based on
the score obtained from the misconception diagnosis can be seen in Figure 2. Based on the figure, it can be
seen that out of the 200 Jakarta high school students who were diagnosed, the highest distribution was in the
medium category. The second highest is in the low category. This picture can provide information that for
ecosystem material, the achievement of conceptual understanding by high school students is not very good.
In other words, ecosystem material is challenging for high school students. Ecosystem material has a
complicated concept [32]. Most of the students are in the medium category, which could also be due to the
complexity of the ecosystem material, the need for systems thinking, and understanding of ecosystems also
heavily depends on students’ initial understanding and conception [56].
Referring to the data in Table 4, there are 10.29% of students who have lack of knowledge, meaning
that 10.29% of students do not have an accurate conceptualization [28]. Teachers need to strive for students
to build correct conceptions because students’ well-developed conceptions in science will lead to students’
development and achievement in science education [24]. An overview of students’ conceptual understanding

Diagnosis of ecosystem misconceptions for high school students in Jakarta (Eka Putri Azrai)
3796  ISSN: 2252-8822

of a material can be feedback for the teacher to determine the level of understanding and misconceptions that
remain after the learning process is complete [37]. In teaching students, the complexity of the material needs
to be considered by the teacher. Teachers need to simplify concepts when they present new ideas to the
students [57].
If it relates to the results of the diagnosis of misconceptions, it turns out that students’
misconceptions align with the acquisition of their learning outcomes. Misconceptions will affect the process
and learning outcomes [16], [58]. Misconceptions contribute to poor academic achievement [59] and cause
low achievement in studying biology [36]. Understanding the concepts and conditions of student
misconceptions are different according to their level of achievement [6]. An overview of the results
distribution of the misconception diagnosis at each score level can be seen in the Figure 3.

3% 14%
21%

28%

36%

Very low Low Medium High Very high

Figure 2. Percentage of students based on misconception diagnosis scores

Very low Low Medium High Very high

Understanding Concept
100.00%
75.00%
Misconceptions (false
Lack of knowledge 50.00% positive)
25.00%
0.00%

Guess or understand
Misconception (false
concepts but lack
negative)
confidence

Misconception

Figure 3. The distribution of students in the six concept understanding categories based on the concept
achievement score

The very high group of students showed the highest average percentage of understanding the
concept at 82%. The highest average percentage of false positive misconceptions was obtained by the low
group at 23.39%. Meanwhile, the very low group obtained the highest average percentages of false negative
misconceptions, misconceptions, and lack of knowledge at 11.90%, 35.83%, and 16.31%. The medium group
obtained the average percentage of guessing or understanding the concept but lacked confidence at 6.29%.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3790-3800
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3797

These results must be a concern for the teacher to teach students according to their conditions,
especially regarding reducing misconceptions. Interventions must be carried out differently according to the
students’ conditions because one effort to overcome misconceptions is through clarifying misconceptions.
Clarifying misconceptions can be effective for students with higher initial knowledge but obstruct students
with lower prior knowledge [8]. Each student requires different treatment to correct his misconceptions [15]
and learning must be understood as an active, individual, situational, social, and cognitive psychological
process [60]. Each student experiences a different level of learning progress, level of understanding, and
construction of knowledge [43].
The teacher’s teaching style is very important to note. Research by Jeno et al. [61] recommends that
teachers adopt a teaching style that supports autonomy, for example, by providing meaningful reasons when
opening lessons so that students feel more competent and independent in their motivation. The teacher must
give an explanation of the learning objectives and the usefulness of learning for students’ lives.
Diagnosing misconceptions is very important for a teacher so the teacher can focus on solving these
misconceptions. Learning planning is adjusted to the results of the class diagnosis, and the same action cannot
be given to all classes. The study results by Wells et al. [62] state that it is important to diagnose the
misconceptions to make them the basis for lesson planning. Adjustment to student conditions is needed to
overcome misconceptions that remain after learning and prioritize resources to overcome these misconceptions.
The results of the diagnosis found in this study can certainly be the basis for teachers to design
effective learning. Effective learning was designed to reduce misconceptions and facilitate the construction of
correct concepts. Misconceptions are considered in instructional design as a mechanism to help identify the
understanding students should develop through learning [53]. Diagnosed misconceptions are used as
educational resources that are useful for involving students in authentic learning experiences, not considered
obstacles that require total replacement [22]. Learning that ignores previous knowledge (including
misconceptions) and does not involve students in the discovery process will potentially increase misconceptions
because, in general, new students have misconceptions obtained from previous education [37]. Before starting
learning, teachers must better understand where their students are (what their initial knowledge is) what
misconceptions they have, and where those misconceptions come from [63]. Differentiated learning used in the
independent curriculum needs to pay attention to various aspects of student characteristics, such as prior
knowledge and types of brain hemisphere preferences, not limited to variations in learning style characteristics.

4. CONCLUSION
The findings in the study showed that high school students in Jakarta are spread across six categories
of conceptual understanding of ecosystem material. The percentage of students who understand the concept
is 39.87%, false positive misconceptions are 19.20%, false negative misconceptions are 5.08%, and
misconceptions are 21.41%. The diagnostic results also found that 4.41% of students took the test by
guessing or understanding concepts but needed more confidence, and 10.25% needed more knowledge or
accurate concepts. The analysis of concept mastery in the ecosystem sub-concept found that the highest
misconception was in the energy flow sub-concept at 25.39%, and the second highest was in the
biogeochemical cycle sub-concept at 20.41%. These two sub-concepts need more attention from the teacher
because, in these two sub-concepts, the percentage of students who lack knowledge is also higher than in the
other sub-concepts. Analysis of the diagnosis score obtained an overview that the high school students in
Jakarta are spread on an average of the medium. Based on these results, it can be interpreted that the
ecosystem material is the material that is not easy for students. These results can be as an information for
students about the condition of understanding their concepts, and for teachers can be used as a basis for
designing effective learning interventions, so that students’ misconceptions can be reduced, correct
understanding of concepts can increase, and the learning process takes place effectively, as well as optimal
learning outcomes in the material ecosystem can be achieved. The diagnosis carried out in this research was
still limited to 200 students, but certainly a survey needs to be carried out with a larger sample size so that the
conclusions are more comprehensive. Further research is also needed for a more in-depth analysis of the
factors that cause misconceptions and efforts that can be made to reduce them.

FUNDING INFORMATION
No funding involved.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS STATEMENT

This journal uses the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to recognize individual author
contributions, reduce authorship disputes, and facilitate collaboration.
Diagnosis of ecosystem misconceptions for high school students in Jakarta (Eka Putri Azrai)
3798  ISSN: 2252-8822

Name of Author C M So Va Fo I R D O E Vi Su P Fu
Eka Putri Azrai ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Muhammad Japar ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Robinson Situmorang ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

C : Conceptualization I : Investigation Vi : Visualization

M : Methodology R : Resources Su : Supervision
So : Software D : Data Curation P : Project administration
Va : Validation O : Writing - Original Draft Fu : Funding acquisition
Fo : Formal analysis E : Writing - Review & Editing

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

No conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [EPA],
upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES
[1] S. Soeharto and B. Csapó, “Evaluating item difficulty patterns for assessing student misconceptions in science across physics,
chemistry, and biology concepts,” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 11, p. e08352, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08352.
[2] G. Liu and N. Fang, “The effects of enhanced hands-on experimentation on correcting student misconceptions about work and
energy in engineering mechanics,” Research in Science and Technological Education, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 462–481, 2023,
doi: 10.1080/02635143.2021.1909555.
[3] M. M. Chrzanowski, W. Grajkowski, S. Żuchowski, K. Spalik, and B. E. Ostrowska, “Vernacular misconceptions in teaching
science–types and causes,” Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 29–54, 2018, doi: 10.12973/tused.10244a.
[4] L. Mason and S. Zaccoletti, “Inhibition and conceptual learning in science: a review of studies,” Educational Psychology Review,
vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 181–212, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10648-020-09529-x.
[5] A. S. Halim, S. A. Finkenstaedt-Quinn, L. J. Olsen, A. R. Gere, and G. V. Shultz, “Identifying and remediating student
misconceptions in introductory biology via writing-to-learn assignments and peer review,” CBE—Life Sciences Education,
vol. 17, no. 2, p. ar28, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-10-0212.
[6] H. K. Kim and H. A. Kim, “Analysis of student responses to constructed response items in the science assessment of educational
achievement in South Korea,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 901–919, 2022,
doi: 10.1007/s10763-021-10198-7.
[7] L. Nenciovici, L. B. Foisy, G. Allaire‐Duquette, P. Potvin, M. Riopel, and S. Masson, “Neural correlates associated with novices
correcting errors in electricity and mechanics,” Mind, Brain, and Education, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 120, 2018, doi: 10.1111/mbe.12183.
[8] H. Aptyka, D. Fiedler, and J. Großschedl, “Effects of situated learning and clarification of misconceptions on contextual
reasoning about natural selection,” Evolution: Education and Outreach, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12052-022-
00163-5.
[9] A. M. A. Casper and M. M. Balgopal, “Conceptual change in natural resource management students’ ecological literacy,”
Environmental Education Research, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1159–1176, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1350830.
[10] T. Demirci and M. Oktay, “The effectiveness of concept teaching using concept maps on academic achievement and elimination
of misconceptions: protein synthesis case,” Science Education International, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 390–399, Dec. 2021,
doi: 10.33828/sei.v32.i4.15.
[11] J.-H. Yeo, H.-H. Yang, and I.-H. Cho, “Using a Three-Tier Multiple-Choice Diagnostic Instrument toward Alternative
Conceptions among Lower-Secondary School Students in Taiwan: Taking Ecosystems Unit as an Example,” Journal of Baltic
Science Education, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 69–83, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.33225/jbse/22.21.69.
[12] A. Widiyatmoko and K. Shimizu, “Factors Contributing to Students’ Misconceptions in Light and Optical Instruments in
Indonesia: A Literature Review,” in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society for Science Education pp. 393–
394, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jssep/42/0/42_393/_article/-char/ja/
[13] N. Lagoudakis, F. Vlachos, V. Christidou, D. Vavougios, and M. Batsila, “The role of hemispheric preference in student
misconceptions in biology,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 739–747, 2023, doi: 10.12973/eu-
jer.12.2.739.
[14] Y. Bustami, A. Gandasari, H. Darmawan, S. Yane, and U. Dewi, “The supports of jirqa learning on biology students’ achievement
in multi-ethnical classroom,” Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 91, 2021, doi: 10.36681/tused.2021.54.
[15] Soeharto, B. Csapó, E. Sarimanah, F. I. Dewi, and T. Sabri, “A review of students’ common misconceptions in science and their
diagnostic assessment tools,” Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 247–266, 2019, doi: 10.15294/jpii.v8i2.18649.
[16] C. Chen, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, D. Sasselov, and C. Fredericks, “The impact of student misconceptions on student persistence
in a mooc,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 879–910, 2020, doi: 10.1002/tea.21616.
[17] Z. D. Kirbulut and O. Geban, “Using three-tier diagnostic test to assess students’ misconceptions of states of matter,” Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 509–521, 2014, doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2014.1128a.
[18] E. Fleuchaus, H. Kloos, A. W. Kiefer, and P. L. Silva, “Complexity in science learning: measuring the underlying dynamics of
persistent mistakes,” Journal of Experimental Education, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 448–469, 2020, doi: 10.1080/00220973.2019.1660603.
[19] A. I. M. López and P. T. Marco, “Misconceptions, knowledge, and attitudes towards the phenomenon of radioactivity,” Science
and Education, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 405–426, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11191-021-00251-w.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3790-3800
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3799

[20] B. C. Madu and E. Orji, “Effects of cognitive conflict instructional strategy on students’ conceptual change in temperature and
heat,” SAGE Open, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1–9, 2015, doi: 10.1177/2158244015594662.
[21] Y. Qian, S. Hambrusch, A. Yadav, S. Gretter, and Y. Li, “Teachers’ perceptions of student misconceptions in introductory
programming,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 364–397, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0735633119845413.
[22] P. A. Archila, S. Restrepo, A. T. de Mejía, and J. Molina, “STEM and non-STEM misconceptions about evolution: findings from
5 years of data,” Science & Education, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1211–1229, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11191-023-00428-5.
[23] G. Resbiantoro, R. Setiani, and Dwikoranto, “A review of misconception in physics: the diagnosis, causes, and remediation,”
Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 403–427, 2022, doi: 10.36681/tused.2022.128.
[24] S. Soeharto and B. Csapó, “Exploring Indonesian student misconceptions in science concepts,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 9, p. e10720,
2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10720.
[25] D. Azis, M. Desfandi, A. W. Abdi, and A. N. Gadeng, “The identification misconception in geography learning during
COVID-19 pandemic using three-tier diagnostic test,” International Journal of Instruction, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 87–100, 2023,
doi: 10.29333/iji.2023.1646a.
[26] V. Setyaningrum and W. Sopandi, “Probing 8th grade students’ conception about heat and temperature using three-tier test: a case
study,” Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 115–125, 2021, doi: 10.15294/jpfi.v17i2.25272.
[27] F. A. Zulfia, H. Susilo, and D. Listyorini, “Virus-bacteria diagnostic test (VBD-test) in identifying biology teacher’s
misconception,” Biosfer, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 144–156, 2019, doi: 10.21009/biosferjpb.v12n2.144-156.
[28] H. O. Arslan, C. Cigdemoglu, and C. Moseley, “A three-tier diagnostic test to assess pre-service teachers’ misconceptions about
global warming, greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 34,
no. 11, pp. 1667–1686, 2012, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.680618.
[29] J. W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 4th ed.
Boston, MA: Pearson, 2015.
[30] Dwiwarna and R. B. Rahadian, “The most considered type of student characteristics by primary school teacher,” International
Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 29–42, 2018, doi: 10.5121/ijite.2018.7303.
[31] J. Jamaluddin, A. W. Jufri, and A. Ramdani, “Effect of e-readiness skills, metacognitive awareness, and biological literacy on the
high school students’ misconceptions,” Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, vol. 12, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.15294/jpii.v12i2.37536.
[32] S. S. Putri and L. Rusyati, “Analyzing the science misconception in mastery concept of ecosystem topic at senior high school,”
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1806, no. 1, p. 012125, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012125.
[33] E. Murdani and S. Sumarli, “Identification of students misconceptions in school and college on kinematics,” in Proceedings of the
Borneo International Conference on Education and Social Sciences-BICESS, 2020, pp. 75–82, doi: 10.5220/0009016800750082.
[34] R. Chavan and V. Khandagale, “Intricacies in identification of biological misconceptions,” Scholarly Research Journal for
Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 9, no. 70, pp. 16810–16811, May 2022, doi: 10.21922/srjis.v9i70.10081.
[35] S. B. Pickett, C. Nielson, H. Marshall, K. D. Tanner, and J. D. Coley, “Effects of Reading Interventions on Student Understanding
of and Misconceptions about Antibiotic Resistance,” Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, vol. 23, no. 1, p. e00220,
Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00220-21.
[36] E. Bizimana, D. Mutangana, and A. Mwesigye, “Effects of concept mapping and cooperative mastery learning strategies on
students’ achievement in photosynthesis and attitudes towards instructional strategies,” International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 107–132, 2022, doi: 10.26803/ijlter.21.2.7.
[37] F. Mufit, Festiyed, A. Fauzan, and Lufri, “The effect of cognitive conflict-based learning (CCBL) model on remediation of
misconceptions,” Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 26–49, 2023, doi: 10.36681/tused.2023.003.
[38] C. Simard, “Microorganism education: misconceptions and obstacles microorganism education: misconceptions and obstacles,”
Journal of Biological Education, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 308–316, 2023, doi: 10.1080/00219266.2021.1909636.
[39] M. Maison, D. A. Kurniawan, and R. S. Widowati, “The quality of four-tier diagnostic test misconception instrument for
parabolic motion,” Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 359–369, 2021, doi: 10.23887/jpp.v54i2.35261.
[40] C. Malaterre, E. J. Javaux, and P. López-García, “Misconceptions in science,” Perspectives on Science, vol. 31, no. 6,
pp. 717–743, 2023, doi: 10.1162/posc_a_00590.
[41] H. Güveli, A. Baki, and E. Güveli, “The impact of the cognitive conflict approach on the elimination of the misconception in
square root numbers,” Education Quarterly Reviews, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 39–52, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.31014/aior.1993.05.04.604.
[42] M. G. Okumuş and E. Güveli, “Elimination of misconceptions about percentages with the cognitive conflict approach,” Journal of
Computer and Education Research, vol. 11, no. 21, pp. 162–192, 2023, doi: 10.18009/jcer.1223434.
[43] L. A. R. Laliyo, S. Hamdi, M. Pikoli, R. Abdullah, and C. Panigoro, “Implementation of four-tier multiple-choice instruments
based on the partial credit model in evaluating students’ learning progress,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 10,
no. 2, pp. 825–840, 2021, doi: 10.12973/EU-JER.10.2.825.
[44] M. M. Hull, A. Jansky, and M. Hopf, “Does confidence in a wrong answer imply a misconception?” Physical Review Physics
Education Research, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 20108, 2022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020108.
[45] N. Ö. Çelikkanlı and H. Ş. Kızılcık, “A review of studies about four-tier diagnostic tests in physics education,” Journal of Turkish
Science Education, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1291–1311, 2022, doi: 10.36681/tused.2022.175.
[46] K. Cuddington et al., “Challenges and opportunities to build quantitative self-confidence in biologists,” BioScience, vol. 73, no. 5,
pp. 364–375, 2023, doi: 10.1093/biosci/biad015.
[47] O. R. Imawan and R. Ismail, “Student’s self-confidence change through the application of the guided discovery learning model,”
in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Current Issues in Education (ICCIE 2021), 2022, pp. 347–351,
doi: 10.2991/assehr.k.220129.063.
[48] E. Ö. Yücel and M. Özkan, “Determination of secondary school students cognitive structure, and misconception in ecological
concepts through word association test,” Educational Research and Reviews, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 660–674, Mar. 2015,
doi: 10.5897/ERR2014.2022.
[49] M. Karpudewan, W. Roth, and K. Chandrakesan, “Remediating misconception on climate change among secondary school
students in Malaysia,” Environmental Education Research, vol. 21, no. 4, 2015, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2014.891004.
[50] F. Buitrago-Flórez, G. Danies, S. Restrepo, and C. Hernández, “Fostering 21st century competences through computational
thinking and active learning: a mixed method study,” International Journal of Instruction, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 737–754, 2021,
doi: 10.29333/iji.2021.14343a.
[51] R. Sheffield, S. Blackley, and P. Moro, “A professional learning model supporting teachers to integrate,” Issues in Educational
Research, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 487–510, 2018.
[52] H. Gal, “When the use of cognitive conflict is ineffective—problematic learning situations in geometry,” Educational Studies in
Mathematics, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 239–256, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10649-019-09904-8.

Diagnosis of ecosystem misconceptions for high school students in Jakarta (Eka Putri Azrai)
3800  ISSN: 2252-8822

[53] L. J. Hinchliffe, A. Rand, and J. Collier, “Predictable information literacy misconceptions of first-year college students,”
Communications in Information Literacy, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 4–18, 2018, doi: 10.15760/comminfolit.2018.12.1.2.
[54] J. Vaníček, V. Dobiáš, and V. Šimandl, “Understanding loops: what are the misconceptions of lower-secondary pupils?”
Informatics in Education, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 525–554, 2023, doi: 10.15388/infedu.2023.20.
[55] C. S. Ugwuanyi, M. J. Ezema, and E. I. Orji, “Evaluating the instructional efficacies of conceptual change models on students’
conceptual change achievement and self-efficacy in particulate nature matter in physics,” SAGE Open, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–29,
2023, doi: 10.1177/21582440231153851.
[56] S. Mambrey, N. Schreiber, and P. Schmiemann, “Young students’ reasoning about ecosystems: the role of systems thinking,
knowledge, conceptions, and representation,” Research in Science Education, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 79–98, 2022,
doi: 10.1007/s11165-020-09917-x.
[57] J. Dauer and J. Dauer, “A framework for understanding the characteristics of complexity in biology,” International Journal of
STEM Education, vol. 3, pp. 1–8, 2016, doi: 10.1186/s40594-016-0047-y.
[58] H. Liaw, Y. R. Yu, C. C. Chou, and M. H. Chiu, “Relationships between facial expressions, prior knowledge, and multiple
representations: a case of conceptual change for kinematics instruction,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 30,
no. 2, pp. 227–238, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10956-020-09863-3.
[59] H. D. Assem, L. Nartey, E. Appiah, and J. K. Aidoo, “A review of students’ academic performance in physics: attitude,
instructional methods, misconceptions and teachers qualification,” European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, vol. 4, no. 1,
pp. 84–92, 2023, doi: 10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.1.551.
[60] C. Gold-veerkamp, “Analysing a systematic literature review combined with an undergraduate survey on misconceptions about
software engineering,” International Journal on Advances in Software, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 45–58, 2021.
[61] L. M. Jeno, J. Nylehn, T. N. Hole, A. Raaheim, G. Velle, and V. Vandvik, “Motivational determinants of students’ academic
functioning: the role of autonomy-support, autonomous motivation, and perceived competence,” Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 194–211, 2023, doi: 10.1080/00313831.2021.1990125.
[62] J. Wells, R. Henderson, J. Stewart, G. Stewart, J. Yang, and A. Traxler, “Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the force
concept inventory with modified module analysis,” Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 020122, 2019,
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020122.
[63] D. G. Ferguson, J. L. Jensen, and C. Smith, “A day in the life of Carlton Smith: the bombardment of evolution misconceptions,”
The American Biology Teacher, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 73–79, 2023, doi: 10.1525/abt.2023.85.2.73.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Eka Putri Azrai is a lecturer and teacher educator of the Biology Education,
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Jakarta. She is also a
doctoral candidate in the Educational Technology Study Program, Postgraduate Program at
the Jakarta State University, Indonesia. Her research focuses in the fields of ecology, biology
education, and educational technology. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Muhammad Japar is a professor and teacher educator at the Pancasila and Civic
Education, Faculty of Social Science Study Program and the Educational Technology Study
Program, Postgraduate Program at the State University of Jakarta, Indonesia. His research
focuses on civic education and instructional technology. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Robinson Situmorang is a professor and teacher educator in the educational

technology study program, Faculty of Science Education and the Educational Technology
Study Program, the Postgraduate Program at the State University of Jakarta, Indonesia. His
research focuses on educational technology. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3790-3800