BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

KİMYA ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ATOMLA İLGİLİ BAZI KAVRAMLARI ANLAMA DERECELERİNİN BELİRLENMESİ

Yıl 2009, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 49 - 67, 01.03.2009

Öz

Bu çalışmada kimya öğretmen adaylarının, Atomla İlgili Bazı Kavramlara ilişkin kavrama ve bilgilerinin kalıcı olma
dereceleri araştırılmıştır. Araştırma, 2004-2005 öğretim yılı güz döneminde G. Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Kimya
Öğretmenliği Ana Bilim Dalı, birinci, ikinci ve beşinci sınıfta öğrenim gören toplam 97 öğrenci üzerinde
gerçekleştirilmiştir. Verilerin toplanması, araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan, atomla ilgili, beş bölümde toplanan, 10
adet “açık uçlu” ve 12 adet “doğru- yanlış” olmak üzere toplam 22 soruluk test ile gerçekleştirilmiş; test sonuçlarını
değerlendirmede; “Tam anlama”, “Kısmi anlama”, “Belirli yanlış kavramalarla birlikte kısmi anlama”, “Belirli yanlış
kavramlara sahip olma” ve “Hiç anlamama” olmak üzere toplam 5 kategoriden oluşan korelasyon tablosu
oluşturulmuş; SPSS programı kullanılarak, ANOVA ve t- testi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçta, öğrencilerin bir kısmının
konuyu iyi kavramasına karşılık bazılarının bilgileri anlamlı bir şekilde öğrenemedikleri, zihinlerinde
ilişkilendiremedikleri saptanmıştır. Bunların nedenlerini araştırmak amacıyla, testten düşük puan alan beş son sınıf
öğrencisiyle mülakat yapılmıştır. Sınıf başarıların karşılaştırılması sonucunda son sınıf öğrencilerinin daha başarılı
olduğu saptanmıştır. Ayrıca alt problem olarak, öğrenci başarısına “cinsiyetin”, “ailelerin kültür seviyelerinin” ve
“gelir durumlarının” etkisi araştırılmış ve cinsiyetin etkili olmasına karşın, ailelerin kültür seviyeleri ve gelir
durumlarının etkili olmadığı saptanmıştır.

Kaynakça

  • Abraham, M., Grybowski, E., Marek, A. (1992). Understandings and misunderstandings of eight graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 105 -120.
  • Anderson, R., Mitchner, C. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research On Science Teaching And Learning . New York: Macmillian.
  • Barba, R., Rubba, P. (1992). A comparison of preservice and in-service earth and space teachers’ general mental abilities, content knowledge and problem solving skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1021 -1035.
  • BauJaoude, S. (1991). A study of the nature of students’ understandings about the concept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 689 -704.
  • Bendall, S., Galili, I. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ prior knowledge about light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1169 -1187.
  • Campbell, E. (2000). Do chemistry students understand chemistry? NEACT Journal, 19(1), 16-20.
  • Copeland, R. (1984). How children learn mathematics: teaching ımplications of piaget’s research. (4th Ed.).New York: Macmillan.
  • Earlier, Renner, J. , Brumby, M., Shephered, D. (1981). Why are there no dinosaurs in oklahoma? The Science Teacher, 48, 135 -143.
  • Grubern, H. , Vonéche, J. (Eds.). (1997). The essential piaget. London: Roultledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Haidar, A., Abraham, M. (1991). A comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of concepts based on the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 919-938.
  • Lederman, N., Gess-Newsome, J., Latz, M. (1994). The nature and development of preservice science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129-146.
  • McDiarmind, C., Anderson, R. (1989). Teachers’ perspective: developing and ımplementing an sts curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 351-369.
  • Meriç, G. (2001). İlköğretim fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mol kavramı konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının tespiti ve konunun öğretimine ilişkin öneriler. Yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Mortimer, C. E. (1999). Modern üniversite kimyası (Cilt -1). İstanbul: Çağlayan Kitabevi.
  • Nakleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3). 191 -196.
  • Novick, S., Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: a cross-age study. Science Education, 65(2). 187 -196.
  • Piaget, J., Inhelder, B. (1974). The child’s construction of quantities. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.
  • Sewell, A. (2002). Cells and atoms—are they related? Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(2). 26-30.
  • Simpson, W. (1986). Understandings and misunderstandings of biological concepts of students attending large high schools and students attending small high schools. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universty of Oklahoma, Norman.
  • Sutan, A., McHugh, A. (1994). Atoms family. Science Scope, 18(2). 22 -26.
  • Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals and related concepts: conceptual difficulties among chemistry students. Research in Science Education, 27(2). 271-287.
  • Tunalı, N. K., Özkar, S. (1997). Anorganik kimya (3. Baskı). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.

DETERMINATION OF THE LEVELS OF PERCEPTION OF SOME OF THE CONCEPTS RELATED ATOM BY THE PRE SERVICE CHEMISTRY TEACHERS

Yıl 2009, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 49 - 67, 01.03.2009

Öz

The level of perception of the pre service chemistry teaching students about “Some of the Concepts of Atom” was
investigated in this study. There were 97 first, second and fifth year students from Department of Teaching Chemistry of
Gazi Faculty of Education in Gazi University in the first semester of 2004-2005 academic year. The data were collected
using a conceptual test related with atom consisting of five subjects including 22 questions with 10 “open ended” and 12
“yes-no” questions. The test results were evaluated the level of perception in five categories as “Full perception”,
“Partial perception”, “Partial perception with certain misconceptions”, “Persistence of certain misconceptions” and
“No perception” on the correlation table. ANOVA and t-test are used to analyze data by SPPS program. These results
showed that some of the students integrate what they learned about topics. But some students cannot integrate their new
knowledge with what they learned before. To investigate the reason of such misconceptions of the students, the
researchers interviewed five students who took the lowest scores in the test. It is seen that the fifth year prospective
teachers are the most successful students when their academic achievement are compared with other students.
Furthermore, the effects of the gender of the students, the cultural and economical conditions of their families on their
success investigated as a sub problem. It was observed that the income and cultural levels did not have any significant
effect on the scores of the students. However, the gender was found to have a significant effect on their success.

Kaynakça

  • Abraham, M., Grybowski, E., Marek, A. (1992). Understandings and misunderstandings of eight graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 105 -120.
  • Anderson, R., Mitchner, C. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research On Science Teaching And Learning . New York: Macmillian.
  • Barba, R., Rubba, P. (1992). A comparison of preservice and in-service earth and space teachers’ general mental abilities, content knowledge and problem solving skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1021 -1035.
  • BauJaoude, S. (1991). A study of the nature of students’ understandings about the concept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 689 -704.
  • Bendall, S., Galili, I. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ prior knowledge about light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1169 -1187.
  • Campbell, E. (2000). Do chemistry students understand chemistry? NEACT Journal, 19(1), 16-20.
  • Copeland, R. (1984). How children learn mathematics: teaching ımplications of piaget’s research. (4th Ed.).New York: Macmillan.
  • Earlier, Renner, J. , Brumby, M., Shephered, D. (1981). Why are there no dinosaurs in oklahoma? The Science Teacher, 48, 135 -143.
  • Grubern, H. , Vonéche, J. (Eds.). (1997). The essential piaget. London: Roultledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Haidar, A., Abraham, M. (1991). A comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of concepts based on the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 919-938.
  • Lederman, N., Gess-Newsome, J., Latz, M. (1994). The nature and development of preservice science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129-146.
  • McDiarmind, C., Anderson, R. (1989). Teachers’ perspective: developing and ımplementing an sts curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 351-369.
  • Meriç, G. (2001). İlköğretim fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mol kavramı konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının tespiti ve konunun öğretimine ilişkin öneriler. Yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Mortimer, C. E. (1999). Modern üniversite kimyası (Cilt -1). İstanbul: Çağlayan Kitabevi.
  • Nakleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3). 191 -196.
  • Novick, S., Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: a cross-age study. Science Education, 65(2). 187 -196.
  • Piaget, J., Inhelder, B. (1974). The child’s construction of quantities. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.
  • Sewell, A. (2002). Cells and atoms—are they related? Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(2). 26-30.
  • Simpson, W. (1986). Understandings and misunderstandings of biological concepts of students attending large high schools and students attending small high schools. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universty of Oklahoma, Norman.
  • Sutan, A., McHugh, A. (1994). Atoms family. Science Scope, 18(2). 22 -26.
  • Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals and related concepts: conceptual difficulties among chemistry students. Research in Science Education, 27(2). 271-287.
  • Tunalı, N. K., Özkar, S. (1997). Anorganik kimya (3. Baskı). Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
Toplam 22 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Diğer ID JA36KF55FT
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Habibe Tezcan Bu kişi benim

Tuğba Çelik Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Mart 2009
Gönderilme Tarihi 1 Mart 2009
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2009 Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Tezcan, H., & Çelik, T. (2009). KİMYA ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ATOMLA İLGİLİ BAZI KAVRAMLARI ANLAMA DERECELERİNİN BELİRLENMESİ. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 49-67.

                                                                                                    Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi Gazi Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü tarafından yayınlanmaktadır.

                                                                                                                                      Creative Commons Lisansı