Research Article

Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons

Volume: 19 Number: 1 April 30, 2018
TR EN

Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons

Abstract

Students come across with the notion of atom almost every year during their education life. Higher conceptual understandings of atomic theories among science teachers is of crucial importance in their understanding of physics and chemistry courses. In this sense, the purpose of the present study is to investigate which of the atomic theories science teachers often confuse and to discuss the possible reasons behind the confusion of one theory with the other. This study used the phenomenology method of qualitative research. Participants of the study were comprised of 55 first and second year university students attending the Department of Science Teaching during the 2015-2016 academic year. In order to discover the most confusing atomic theories and the reasons of this confusion, students were asked to write down the atomic theories that they often confuse with one another and the reasons why they do so. Using content analysis, two independent coders analyzed the collected data. The result of the analyses revealed that students mostly got confused between Bohr’s Atomic Theory and Modern Atomic Theory. It was also found that the underlying reasons of this confusion were that “In both theory, the protons and neutrons are found together at the center of the atom (the nucleus) surrounded by electrons spinning around it” and “students cannot differentiate between the concepts of layer, orbit and shell”, and some recommendations were offered concerning the instruction of these subjects.

Keywords

Atom,Atomic theories,Science education

References

  1. Arık, A. & Polat, R., (2002). Lise Kimya 1 Ders Kitabı. İstanbul: Oran Yayıncılık.
  2. Albenese, A. & Vicentini, M. (1997). Why do we belive that an atom is colourless? Reflections About the Teaching of the Particle Model, Science & Education, 6, 251-261.
  3. Bahar, M., Gündüz, S. ve Doğan, S., (2006). Bilim Tarihine Kısa Bir Bakış (Editör: Mehmet Bahar) Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretimi içinde 1–32, Ankara: PEGEMA Yayıncılık.
  4. Bilir, V., Digilli Baran, A., &. Karaçam, S., (2016). “The science teacher candidates’ images related to atom models”, International Congresses on Education. Sarajevo/Bosnia and Herzegovina (2-4 June).
  5. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (Çev.ed. Bütün, M. ve Demir, S.B.). Ankara:Siyasal Yayıncılık.
  6. Çökelez, A. & Yalçın, S., (2012). İlköğretim 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin atom kavramı ile ilgili zihinsel modellerinin incelenmesi, İlköğretim Online, 11(2), 452-471, 2012.
  7. Demirci, S. & Yılmaz, A ve diğ. (2016). Lise ve üniversite öğrencilerinin atomun yapısı ile ilgili zihinsel modellerine genel bir bakış. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society Chemical Education, Cilt 1, Sayı 1, 2016
  8. Demircioğlu, G. & Diğ., (2012). Kavramsal değişim metninin ve üç boyutlu modelin 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin atomun yapısını anlamalarına etkisi, Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 7, Sayı 2, 2012
  9. Entwistle, N. (1997). Introduction: Phenomenography in higher education. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 16, 127.
  10. Erduran, S. (2014). A holistic approach to the atom in school chemistry. Educació Química EduQ número 19 , p. 39-42
APA
Bilir, V., Digilli Baran, A., & Karaçam, S. (2018). Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 19(1), 212-220. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.331368
AMA
1.Bilir V, Digilli Baran A, Karaçam S. Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons. INUJFE. 2018;19(1):212-220. doi:10.17679/inuefd.331368
Chicago
Bilir, Volkan, Azize Digilli Baran, and Sedat Karaçam. 2018. “Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons”. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education 19 (1): 212-20. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.331368.
EndNote
Bilir V, Digilli Baran A, Karaçam S (April 1, 2018) Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education 19 1 212–220.
IEEE
[1]V. Bilir, A. Digilli Baran, and S. Karaçam, “Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons”, INUJFE, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 212–220, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.17679/inuefd.331368.
ISNAD
Bilir, Volkan - Digilli Baran, Azize - Karaçam, Sedat. “Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons”. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education 19/1 (April 1, 2018): 212-220. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.331368.
JAMA
1.Bilir V, Digilli Baran A, Karaçam S. Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons. INUJFE. 2018;19:212–220.
MLA
Bilir, Volkan, et al. “Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons”. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, vol. 19, no. 1, Apr. 2018, pp. 212-20, doi:10.17679/inuefd.331368.
Vancouver
1.Volkan Bilir, Azize Digilli Baran, Sedat Karaçam. Atomic Theories That Preservice Science Teachers Confuse and Underlying Reasons. INUJFE. 2018 Apr. 1;19(1):212-20. doi:10.17679/inuefd.331368