8. Sınıf Öğrencilerin Element, Bileşik, Karışım Kavramlarını Anlama Düzeyleri ve Kavram Yanılgılarının İncelenmesi

Year 2017, Volume: 25 Issue: 2, 611 - 626, 15.03.2017

Aytül Gökulu

Abstract

Çalışmada Çanakkale’de bir ortaokulda okuyan sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin “element- bileşik-karışım” kavramlarını anlamlı öğrenme düzeyleri ile bilimsel işlem becerileri, TEOG puanları ve 8. Sınıf yılsonu başarı puanları arasındaki ilişki araştırılmıştır. Veriler, Element- Bileşik-Karışım Kavram Testi, Bilimsel İşlem Beceri Testi kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler SPSS 20 Paket programı kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Yapılan analiz sonucunda, öğrencilerin element-bileşik-karışım kavramlarını anlamlı öğrenme düzeyleri ile bilimsel işlem becerileri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Bunun yanı sıra, öğrencilerin bilimsel işlem becerileri ile 8. Sınıf yılsonu başarı puanları ve TEOG puanları arasında da anlamlı bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmada, öğrencilerin ilgili kavramları tam anlama düzeylerinin %51.6- 6.4 arasında değişirken, kavram yanılgılarının ise %41.7-5.0 arasında değiştiği belirlenmiştir. Öğrencilerin homojen-heterojen karışım ve iyonik yapılı bileşik kavramları ile ilgili kavram yanılgılarının fazla, anlama düzeylerinin ise düşük olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Ayrıca, öğrencilerin verilen görsel modeller ile ilgili kavramları doğru eşleştirme oranının, bu kavramları doğru açıklama oranından daha fazla olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Element, bileşik, karışım, kavram yanılgıları, bilimsel işlem beceri düzeyi

Investigating Eight Grade Students’ Understanding Level and Misconceptions on the Concept of Element, Compound, Mixture Investigating Eight Grade Students’ Understanding Level and Misconceptions on the Concept of Element, Compound, Mixture

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the meaningful learning level and the level of misconceptions of the eight-grade students’ on the subject of “element-compound-mixture”. Also it was investigated the relationship among these variables students’ science process skills levels, achievement scores from eight grade secondary education and scores on the TEOG Examination. Data was obtained by using Element-Compound-Mixture Concept Test and Science Process Skill Test. The result of the study showed that there was a significant relationship between the students’ level of meaningful learning of the related concepts and science process skills. Also, it was found that there were significant relationships between students’ science process skills levels and achievement scores from eight-grade secondary education; science process skills levels and scores on the TEOG Examination. It was found that students’ meaningful learning levels of the related concepts were % 51.6-6.4, and their misconceptions were % 41.7-5.0 Consequently, it was determined that students’ misconceptions on the concept of homogen-heterogen mixtures and ionic compounds are more and the understanding level of these concepts is less than the concepts of element and molecular compounds. On the other hand it was found that students’ true matching rate of the visual models and concepts is higher than explaining these conceptions.

Keywords

Element, compound, mixture, misconceptions, science process skills

References

• Ayas, A.,& Demirbas, A. (1997). Turkish secondary students’ conceptions of introductory chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(5), 518–521.
• Awan, A. S., Khan, T. M., Mohsin, M. N., & Doger, A. H. (2011). Students' misconceptions in learning basic concept'composition of matter'in chemistry.International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 1(4).
• Balım, A.G. ve Ormancı, Ü. (2012). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin “maddenin tanecikli yapısı” ünitesine yönelikanlama düzeylerinin çizim yoluyla belirlenmesi ve farklı değişkenlere göre analizi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 1, (4), 255-265.
• Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C., & Baur, M. E. (1993). Students‟ preconceptions of the nature of gases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(6), 587-597
• Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., Silberstain, J. (1988). Theories Principles and Laws. Education in Chemistry. 25, 89-92.
• Briggs, H., and Holding, B. (1986). Aspects of Secondary Students’ Understanding of Ele-mentary Ideas in Chemistry: Full Report. Children’s learning in science project. Leeds: University of Leeds.
• Coştu, B., Ünal, S., &Ayas, A. (2007). A hands-on activitiy to promote conceptual change about mixture and chemical compounds. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6 (1), 35-46.
• Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education.
• Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children's science and its consequen-ces for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623-633.
• Kaptan, F. (1999). Fen bilgisi öğretimi. Milli Eğitim Basımevi, İstanbul.
• Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Edu-cation, 43(4), 1645-1663.
• Köse, S. (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: using drawings as a research met-hod. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3(2), 283-293.
• Papageorgiou, G. (2002). Helping students distinguish between mixtures and chemical com-pounds. Science Activities. 39 (2), 19-22.
• Papageorgiou, G., and Sakka, D. (2000). Primary school teachers’ views on fundamental chemical concepts. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe. 1(2), 237-247
• Karaer, H. (2007). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının madde konusundaki bazı kavramların anlaşılma düzeyleri ile kavram yanılgılarının belirlenmesi ve bazı değişkenler açısından incelenme-si. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 15(1), 199-210.
• Laverty, D.T., and McGarvey, J.E.B. (1991). A Constructivist approach to learning. Education in Chemistry, 28(4), 99-102.
• Myers, B. E., Washburn, S. G. ve Dyer, J. E. (2004). Assessing agriculture teachers’ capacity for teaching science integrated process skills, Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 54(1), 74-85.
• Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Edu-cation, 69(3), 191-196.
• Novick, S. & Nussbaum, J. (1982). Pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross age study. Science Education, 65, 187-196.
• Palmer, D. (2001). Students’ alternative conceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about gravity. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 691-706.
• Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A. and Hewson, P.W. (1982). Accomodation of a scientific conception: Toward of conceptual change. Science Education. 66(2), 211-227.
• Sanger, M.J. (2000). Using particulate drawings to determine and improve students’ concepti-ons of pure substances and mixtures. Journal of Chemical Education. 77(6), 762-766.
• Schmidt, H.J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions-looking for a pattern. Science Education. 81(2), 123-135.
• Schoon, J.K. and Bone, J. W. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82(5), 553-568.
• Stains, M and Talanquer, V. (2007a). Classification of chemical substances using particulate representations of matter: An Analysis of Student Thinking. International Journal of Sci-ence Education . 29(5), 643–661
• Stains, M., and Talanquer, V. (2007b). A2: Element or Compound? Journal of Chemical Education (inpress).
• Taber, K. S. (2000). Chemistry Lessons for Universities?: A review of constructivist ideas. University Chemistry Education. 4 (2) 63-7.