Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Denge Konusundaki Zihinsel Modelleri ve Bilgiyi Transfer Edebilme Düzeylerinin Araştırılması

Year 2018, Volume: 38 Issue: 1, 1 - 33, 24.04.2018

Evrim Ural Nilgün Seçken

https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.321803

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, kimya öğretmen adaylarının
kimyasal denge konusundaki bilgilerini, saf suyun otoprotoliz dengesi ile
ilişkilendirip ilişkilendiremediklerini ya da suyun otoprotoliz dengesinde
kullanıp kullanamadıklarını belirlemektir. Çalışmanın örneklemini, 14 kimya
öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak 14 adet yarı
yapılandırılmış görüşme sorusu kullanılmıştır. Mülakatlar sonucunda,
katılımcıların denge konusu ile ilişkili kavramları kısmen bildikleri ancak
bunları yorumlamada, gerçek bir uygulamaya transfer etmede ciddi sıkıntı
yaşadıkları görülmüştür. Katılımcıların konu ile ilgili kavramların
anlamlarını, bu kavramların birbirleri ile olan ilişkilerini bilmedikleri,
kavramlar arasındaki ilişkilerden yola çıkarak çeşitli olguları
açıklayamadıkları görülmüştür. Sonuçlar,
denge konusunda öğrencilerin kavramlar arasında bir ilişki kuramadıklarını,
yorum yapamadıklarını net bir şekilde göstermektedir.

Keywords

Kimyasal denge anlamlı öğrenme bilginin transferi

References

  • Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on Science Teacher Knowledge. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Akkus¸ H., Kadayifci, H., Atasoy, B., & Geban, Ö. (2003). Effectiveness of Instruction Based on the Constructivist Approach on Understanding Chemical Equilibrium Concepts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2), 209-227.
  • Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of Students and Teachers in Chemical Equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 487–494. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B. & Silberstein, J. (1987) Students' Visualisation of a Chemical Reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117-120.
  • Bergquist, W. & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student Ideas Regarding Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 1000–1003.
  • Bilgin, İ. & Geban, Ö. (2006). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Approach Based on Conceptual Change Condition on Students’ Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium Concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1),31-46.
  • Bretz, S. L. (2001). Novak's Theory of Education: Human Constructivism and Meaningful Learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1107-1117.
  • Cheung, D. (2009). Using Think-aloud protocols to Investigate Secondary School Chemistry Teachers’ Misconceptions About Chemical Equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 97-108.
  • Cheung, D., Ma, H.J., & Yang, J. (2009). Teachers’ Misconceptions about the Effects of Addition of more Reactants or Products on Chemical Equilibrium. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1111-1133.
  • Chiu,M., Chou, C., & Liu, C. (2002). Dynamic Processes of Conceptual Change: Analysis of Constructing Mental Models of Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 688-712.
  • Efendioğlu, A. & Yanpar Yelken, T. (2010). Programmed Instruction versus Meaningful Learning Theory in Teaching Basic Structured Query Language (SQL) in Computer Lesson. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1287-1299.
  • Erdemir, A. Ö., Geban, Ö., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2000). Freshman Students’ Misconceptions in Chemical Equilibrium. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,18, 79 – 84.
  • Fyrenius, A., Bergdahl, B., & Silén, C. (2005). Lectures in Problem Based Learning—Why, When and How? An Example of Interactive Lecturing that Stimulates Meaningful Learning. Medical Teacher, 27(1), 61-65.
  • Ganaras, K., Dumon, A., & Larcher, C. (2008). Conceptual Integration of Chemical Equilibrium by Prospective Physical Sciences Teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 240–249.
  • Garnett P. J., Garnett P. J. & 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.
  • Gonzalez, H. L., Palencia, A. P., Umana, L. A., Galindo, L., & Villafrade, L. A. (2008). Mediated Learning Experience and Concept Maps: A Pedagogical Tool for Achieving Meaningful Learning in Medical Physiology Students. Adv Physiol Educ, 32, 312–316.
  • Gorodetsky, M., and Gussarsky, E. (1986). Misconceptions of The Chemical Equilibrium Concept as Revealed by Different Evaluation Methods. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 427–441.
  • Gussarksy, E.,& Gorodetsky, M. (1990). On The Concept ‘Chemical Equilibrium’: The Associative Framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 197–204.
  • Gülpinar, M. A. & Yeğen, B. Ç. (2005) Interactive Lecturing for Meaningful Learning in Large Groups. Medical Teacher, 27(7), 590-594.
  • Hackling, W. M., & Garnett, J. P. (1985). Misconception of Chemical Equilibrium. European Journal of Science Education 7: 205–214.
  • Hameed, H., Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1993). Facilitating Conceptual Change in Chemical Equilibrium Using A CAI Strategy. International Journal of Science Education 15: 221–230.
  • Huang, Y. M., Chiu, P. S., Liu, T. C., & Chen, T. S. (2011). The Design and Implementation of A Meaningful Learning-based Evaluation Method for Ubiquitous Learning. Computers & Education, 57, 2291–2302.
  • Kaya, E. (2013) Argumentation Practices in Classroom: Pre-service Teachers' Conceptual Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7). 1139-1158.
  • Kousathana M. &Tsaparlis G., (2002), Students’ Errors in Solving Numerical Chemical-Equilibrium Problems. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,3, 5-17.
  • Lingwood, M. H. (1993). Directed Line Segments, Reaction Rates and Chemical Equilibrium. Spectrum, 31(2), 9–11.
  • Louise Tyson, L. & Treagust, D. F. (1999). The Complexity of Teaching and Learning Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 554-558. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote Versus Meaningful Learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226-232.
  • Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage Publications Ltd. London: United Kingdom.
  • Nakhleh M. B., (1992). Why Some Students Don’t Learn Chemistry? Chemical Misconceptions. Journal of Chemistry Education, 69, 191-196.
  • Niaz, M. (1995) Relationship Between student Performance on Conceptual and Computational Problems of Chemical Equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 343-355.
  • Niaz, M. (1998). A Lakatosian Conceptual Change Teaching Strategy Based on Students Ability to Build Models with Varying Degrees of Conceptual Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium. Science and Education, 7, 107–127.
  • Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful Learning: The Essential Factor for Conceptual Change in Limited or Inappropriate Propositional Hierarchies Leading to Empowerment of Learners. Science education, 86(4), 548-571.
  • Özmen, H. (2008). Determination of Students’ Alternative Conceptions About Chemical Equilibrium: A Review of Research and The Case of Turkey. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 225-233.
  • Özmen, H. (2007). The Effectiveness of Conceptual Change Texts in Remediating High School Students’ Alternative Conceptions Concerning Chemical Equilibrium. Asia Pasific Education Review, 8(3), 413-425.
  • Piquette, J. S.,& Heikkinen, H. W. (2005). Strategies Reported Used by Instructors to Address Student Alternate Conceptions in Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1112–1134.
  • Quílez, J. (2004). Changes in Concentration and in Partial Pressure in Chemical Equilibria: Students’ and Teachers’ Misunderstandings. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 281–300.
  • Quílez-Pardo, J.,& Solaz-Portolés, J. J. (1995). Students’ and Teachers’ Misapplication of Le Châtelier’s Principle: Implications for The Teaching of Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(9), 939–957.
  • Raviolo, A. & Garritz, A. (2008). Analogies in The Teaching of Chemical Equilibrium: A Synthesis/analysis of The Literature. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 5-13.
  • Sawrey, B. A. (1990). Concept Learning Versus Problem Solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 253-334.
  • Solomonidou, C. & Stavridou, H. (2001). Design and Development of a Computer Learning Environment on the Basis of Students' Initial Conceptions and Learning Difficulties About Chemical Equilibrium. Education and Information Technologies, 6(1), 5-27.
  • Van Driel, J. H. (2002). Students’ Corpuscular Conceptions in The Context of Chemical Equilibrium and Chemical Kinetics. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 201–213.
  • Voska, K. W. & Heikkinen, H. W. (2000). Identification and Analysis of Student Conceptions Used to Solve Chemical Equilibrium Problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 160–176.
  • Wheeler, A. E., & Kass, H. (1978). Student Misconception in Chemical Equilibrium. Science Education, 62, 223–232.
  • Yin, R. (1994). Case Study research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Year 2018, Volume: 38 Issue: 1, 1 - 33, 24.04.2018

Evrim Ural Nilgün Seçken

https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.321803

Abstract

References

  • Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on Science Teacher Knowledge. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Akkus¸ H., Kadayifci, H., Atasoy, B., & Geban, Ö. (2003). Effectiveness of Instruction Based on the Constructivist Approach on Understanding Chemical Equilibrium Concepts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2), 209-227.
  • Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of Students and Teachers in Chemical Equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 487–494. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B. & Silberstein, J. (1987) Students' Visualisation of a Chemical Reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117-120.
  • Bergquist, W. & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student Ideas Regarding Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 1000–1003.
  • Bilgin, İ. & Geban, Ö. (2006). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Approach Based on Conceptual Change Condition on Students’ Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium Concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1),31-46.
  • Bretz, S. L. (2001). Novak's Theory of Education: Human Constructivism and Meaningful Learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1107-1117.
  • Cheung, D. (2009). Using Think-aloud protocols to Investigate Secondary School Chemistry Teachers’ Misconceptions About Chemical Equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 97-108.
  • Cheung, D., Ma, H.J., & Yang, J. (2009). Teachers’ Misconceptions about the Effects of Addition of more Reactants or Products on Chemical Equilibrium. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1111-1133.
  • Chiu,M., Chou, C., & Liu, C. (2002). Dynamic Processes of Conceptual Change: Analysis of Constructing Mental Models of Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 688-712.
  • Efendioğlu, A. & Yanpar Yelken, T. (2010). Programmed Instruction versus Meaningful Learning Theory in Teaching Basic Structured Query Language (SQL) in Computer Lesson. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1287-1299.
  • Erdemir, A. Ö., Geban, Ö., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2000). Freshman Students’ Misconceptions in Chemical Equilibrium. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,18, 79 – 84.
  • Fyrenius, A., Bergdahl, B., & Silén, C. (2005). Lectures in Problem Based Learning—Why, When and How? An Example of Interactive Lecturing that Stimulates Meaningful Learning. Medical Teacher, 27(1), 61-65.
  • Ganaras, K., Dumon, A., & Larcher, C. (2008). Conceptual Integration of Chemical Equilibrium by Prospective Physical Sciences Teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 240–249.
  • Garnett P. J., Garnett P. J. & 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.
  • Gonzalez, H. L., Palencia, A. P., Umana, L. A., Galindo, L., & Villafrade, L. A. (2008). Mediated Learning Experience and Concept Maps: A Pedagogical Tool for Achieving Meaningful Learning in Medical Physiology Students. Adv Physiol Educ, 32, 312–316.
  • Gorodetsky, M., and Gussarsky, E. (1986). Misconceptions of The Chemical Equilibrium Concept as Revealed by Different Evaluation Methods. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 427–441.
  • Gussarksy, E.,& Gorodetsky, M. (1990). On The Concept ‘Chemical Equilibrium’: The Associative Framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 197–204.
  • Gülpinar, M. A. & Yeğen, B. Ç. (2005) Interactive Lecturing for Meaningful Learning in Large Groups. Medical Teacher, 27(7), 590-594.
  • Hackling, W. M., & Garnett, J. P. (1985). Misconception of Chemical Equilibrium. European Journal of Science Education 7: 205–214.
  • Hameed, H., Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1993). Facilitating Conceptual Change in Chemical Equilibrium Using A CAI Strategy. International Journal of Science Education 15: 221–230.
  • Huang, Y. M., Chiu, P. S., Liu, T. C., & Chen, T. S. (2011). The Design and Implementation of A Meaningful Learning-based Evaluation Method for Ubiquitous Learning. Computers & Education, 57, 2291–2302.
  • Kaya, E. (2013) Argumentation Practices in Classroom: Pre-service Teachers' Conceptual Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7). 1139-1158.
  • Kousathana M. &Tsaparlis G., (2002), Students’ Errors in Solving Numerical Chemical-Equilibrium Problems. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,3, 5-17.
  • Lingwood, M. H. (1993). Directed Line Segments, Reaction Rates and Chemical Equilibrium. Spectrum, 31(2), 9–11.
  • Louise Tyson, L. & Treagust, D. F. (1999). The Complexity of Teaching and Learning Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 554-558. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote Versus Meaningful Learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226-232.
  • Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage Publications Ltd. London: United Kingdom.
  • Nakhleh M. B., (1992). Why Some Students Don’t Learn Chemistry? Chemical Misconceptions. Journal of Chemistry Education, 69, 191-196.
  • Niaz, M. (1995) Relationship Between student Performance on Conceptual and Computational Problems of Chemical Equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 343-355.
  • Niaz, M. (1998). A Lakatosian Conceptual Change Teaching Strategy Based on Students Ability to Build Models with Varying Degrees of Conceptual Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium. Science and Education, 7, 107–127.
  • Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful Learning: The Essential Factor for Conceptual Change in Limited or Inappropriate Propositional Hierarchies Leading to Empowerment of Learners. Science education, 86(4), 548-571.
  • Özmen, H. (2008). Determination of Students’ Alternative Conceptions About Chemical Equilibrium: A Review of Research and The Case of Turkey. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 225-233.
  • Özmen, H. (2007). The Effectiveness of Conceptual Change Texts in Remediating High School Students’ Alternative Conceptions Concerning Chemical Equilibrium. Asia Pasific Education Review, 8(3), 413-425.
  • Piquette, J. S.,& Heikkinen, H. W. (2005). Strategies Reported Used by Instructors to Address Student Alternate Conceptions in Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1112–1134.
  • Quílez, J. (2004). Changes in Concentration and in Partial Pressure in Chemical Equilibria: Students’ and Teachers’ Misunderstandings. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(3), 281–300.
  • Quílez-Pardo, J.,& Solaz-Portolés, J. J. (1995). Students’ and Teachers’ Misapplication of Le Châtelier’s Principle: Implications for The Teaching of Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(9), 939–957.
  • Raviolo, A. & Garritz, A. (2008). Analogies in The Teaching of Chemical Equilibrium: A Synthesis/analysis of The Literature. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 5-13.
  • Sawrey, B. A. (1990). Concept Learning Versus Problem Solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 253-334.
  • Solomonidou, C. & Stavridou, H. (2001). Design and Development of a Computer Learning Environment on the Basis of Students' Initial Conceptions and Learning Difficulties About Chemical Equilibrium. Education and Information Technologies, 6(1), 5-27.
  • Van Driel, J. H. (2002). Students’ Corpuscular Conceptions in The Context of Chemical Equilibrium and Chemical Kinetics. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 201–213.
  • Voska, K. W. & Heikkinen, H. W. (2000). Identification and Analysis of Student Conceptions Used to Solve Chemical Equilibrium Problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 160–176.
  • Wheeler, A. E., & Kass, H. (1978). Student Misconception in Chemical Equilibrium. Science Education, 62, 223–232.
  • Yin, R. (1994). Case Study research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
There are 42 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Evrim Ural

Nilgün Seçken

Publication Date April 24, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 38 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Ural, E., & Seçken, N. (2018). Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Denge Konusundaki Zihinsel Modelleri ve Bilgiyi Transfer Edebilme Düzeylerinin Araştırılması. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.321803
AMA Ural E, Seçken N. Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Denge Konusundaki Zihinsel Modelleri ve Bilgiyi Transfer Edebilme Düzeylerinin Araştırılması. GEFAD. April 2018;38(1):1-33. doi:10.17152/gefad.321803
Chicago Ural, Evrim, and Nilgün Seçken. “Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Denge Konusundaki Zihinsel Modelleri Ve Bilgiyi Transfer Edebilme Düzeylerinin Araştırılması”. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 38, no. 1 (April 2018): 1-33. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.321803.
EndNote Ural E, Seçken N (April 1, 2018) Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Denge Konusundaki Zihinsel Modelleri ve Bilgiyi Transfer Edebilme Düzeylerinin Araştırılması. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 38 1 1–33.
IEEE E. Ural and N. Seçken, “Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Denge Konusundaki Zihinsel Modelleri ve Bilgiyi Transfer Edebilme Düzeylerinin Araştırılması”, GEFAD, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–33, 2018, doi: 10.17152/gefad.321803.
ISNAD Ural, Evrim - Seçken, Nilgün. “Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Denge Konusundaki Zihinsel Modelleri Ve Bilgiyi Transfer Edebilme Düzeylerinin Araştırılması”. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 38/1 (April 2018), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.321803.
JAMA Ural E, Seçken N. Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Denge Konusundaki Zihinsel Modelleri ve Bilgiyi Transfer Edebilme Düzeylerinin Araştırılması. GEFAD. 2018;38:1–33.
MLA Ural, Evrim and Nilgün Seçken. “Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Denge Konusundaki Zihinsel Modelleri Ve Bilgiyi Transfer Edebilme Düzeylerinin Araştırılması”. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 38, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-33, doi:10.17152/gefad.321803.
Vancouver Ural E, Seçken N. Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Denge Konusundaki Zihinsel Modelleri ve Bilgiyi Transfer Edebilme Düzeylerinin Araştırılması. GEFAD. 2018;38(1):1-33.
 Download Cover Image