How Does Argumentation-based Instruction Affect Pre-service Science Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding of Organic Chemistry? The Case of Aromatic Compounds

Year 2020, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 32 - 51, 30.06.2020

Gülten Şendur Ezgi Kurt Büşra Hekimoğlu

Abstract

Aromatic compounds is one of the fundamental topics in Organic Chemistry. For this reason, creating learning environments that will contribute to pre-service teachers’ meaningful understanding of aromatic compounds is of importance. The purpose of this study was to explore whether argumentation-based instruction has an effect on the conceptual understanding of pre-service science teachers in the topic of aromatic compounds. In pursuit of this aim, the study was conducted in quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test and control group design during the 2016-2017 academic year at the Science Education Division of a university in Turkey. Two classes were randomly selected as an experimental (N=30) and a control group (N=35). The data collection instruments used in the study were pre- and post-tests, consisting of 10 open-ended questions. Following the application of the pre-test, the topic of aromatic compounds was taught in the control group with the basis of the traditional teaching method; the experimental group was taught using argumentation-based instruction. The instruction in the experimental group was carried out with 6 argumentation activities under the headings of “conditions of aromaticity,” “properties of aromatic hydrocarbons,” and “naming aromatic compounds.” The independent samples t-test showed that the pre-test scores of the experimental and control groups had no significant difference between them, but that the experimental group presented a difference as opposed to the other group in the post-test. All of these findings showed that the pre-service science teachers receiving argumentation-based instruction were much more successful in their conceptual understanding of the topic of aromatic compounds.

Keywords

Argumentation, Aromatic Compounds, Pre-service Science Teachers, Organic chemistry

References

• Abraham, M. R., Grzybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W. & Marek, E. A. (1992). Understandings and misunderstandings of eight grades of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105–120. Anderson, T. L. & Bodner, G. M. (2008). What can we do about Parker? A case study of a good student who didn’t ‘‘get’’ organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 9(2), 93–101. Anzovino, M. E. & Bretz, S. L. (2015). Organic chemistry students' ideas about nucleophiles and electrophiles: the role of charges and mechanisms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 797–810. Aydeniz, M. & Doğan, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 111-119. Balaban, A. T., Oniciu, D. C. & Katritzky, A. R. (2004). Aromaticity as a cornerstone of heterocyclic chemistry. Chemical Reviews, 104(5), 2777-2812. Bodner, G. (1991). I have found you an argument: the conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(5), 385–388. Caspari, I., Weinrich, M. L., Sevian, H. & Graulich, N.(2018). This mechanistic step is “productive”: organic chemistry students' backward-oriented reasoning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 42-59. Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S. & Hickey, D.T. (2008). Argumentation: a strategy for ımproving achievement and revealing scientific ıdentities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861 Çalık, M.(2005). A cross-age study of different perspectives in solution chemistry from junior to senior high school. International Journal of Science and Mathematic Education, 3, 671–696. de Arellano D. C.-R. & Towns M. (2014). Students understanding of alkyl halide reactions in undergraduate organic chemistry, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 501–515. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific ıssues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133-148. Domin, D. S., Al-Masum, M., & Mensah, J. (2008). Students’ categorizations of organic compounds. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 114-121. Duffy, A. M. (2006). Students’ ways of understanding aromaticity and electrophilic aromatic substitution reactions, Doctoral dissertation, Mathematics and Science Education, University of California, San Diego. Ealy, J. & Hermanson, J.(2006). Molecular images in organic chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1). 59–68. Ealy, J. (2018). Analysis of students’ missed organic chemistry quiz questions that stress the importance of prior general chemistry Knowledge. Education Sciences, 8(42), 42, doi:10.3390/educsci8020042 Eastwood, M. L. (2013). Fastest fingers: a molecule-building game for teaching organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(8), 1038–1041. Ellis J. W., (1994), How are we going to teach organic if the task force has its way? Some observations of an organic professor, Journal of Chemical Education, 71(5), 399. Erduran, S. (2019). Argumentation in chemistry education: an overview. In S. Erduran (Ed.), Argumentation in Chemistry Education: Research, Policy and Practice (pp. 1–10). London: Royal Society of Chemistry. Flynn, A. B. (2015). Structure and evaluation of flipped chemistry courses: organic & spectroscopy, large and small, first to third year, English and French, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 198-211. Galloway, K.R., Stoyanovich C. & Flynn, A. B. (2017). Students’ interpretations of mechanistic language in organic chemistry before learning reactions, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 353—374., Graulich, N. (2015). The tip of the iceberg in organic chemistry classes: how do students deal with the invisible? Chemistry Education Research and Practice,16(1), 9–21. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2002). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. (4th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Grove N. P., Hershberger J. W. & Bretz S. L., (2008), Impact of a spiral organic curriculum on student attrition and learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(2), 157–162. Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40, 29-44. Hesse, J. & Anderson, C. (1992). Students' conception of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 277–99. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma ,W. & Jurs, S. G.(1998). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemical education research in Glasgow in perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 49–63. Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139–1158 Krygowski, T. M. & Cyranski, M. K. (2001). Structural aspects of aromaticity. Chemical Reviews 101: 1385-1419 Msimanga, A. & Mudadigwa, B. (2019). Supporting argumentation in chemistry education in low-income contexts. In S. Erduran (Ed.), Argumentation in Chemistry Education: Research, Policy and Practice (pp. 275–292). London: Royal Society of Chemistry. O'Dwyer, A. & Childs, P. E. (2017). Who says organic chemistry is difficult? Exploring perspectives and perceptions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematic Science, Technology and Education, 13, 3599–3620. Omwirhiren, E. M. & Ubanwa, A. U. (2016). An analysıs of mısconceptıons ın organıc chemıstry among selected senıor secondary school students ın zarıa local government area of kaduna state, nıgerıa. International Journal of Education and Research, 4 (7), 247-266. Özkan, G. & Selçuk-Sezgin, G. (2012). How effectıve ıs “conceptual change approach” ın teachıng physıcs? Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(2), 182-190. Pabuçcu, A. & Erduran, S.(2017). Beyond rote learning in organic chemistry: the infusion and impact of argumentation in tertiary education. International Journal of Science Education, 39, 1154-1172. Ratcliffe ,M. (2002., What's difficult about A-level chemistry. Education in Chemistry, 39(3), 76–80. Rushton G., Hardy R. C., Gwaltney K. & Lewis S., (2008), Alternative conceptions of organic chemistry topics among fourth year chemistry students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(2), 122–130. Sekerci, A. R., & Canpolat, N. (2014). Impact of argumentation in the chemistry laboratory on conceptual comprehension of turkish students. Educational Process: International Journal, 3 (1-2), 19-34. Topal, G., Oral, B. & Özden, M. (2007). University and secondary school students misconceptions about the concept of “aromaticity” in organic chemistry. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2(4), 135 –143 Treagust, D.F. & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: a discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 297–328 Ünal, S., Coştu, B. & Ayas, A. (2010). Secondary school students' misconceptions of covalent bonding. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(2), 3–29. Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J. & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In: Gabel DL (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan, New York, pp 177–210 Westbrook, S. L. & Marek, E. A. (1991). A cross-age of student understanding of the concept of diffusion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 649–660. Yazar (2013) Yazar, (2020)