Investigation of Students' Scientific Reasoning for Determining the Head of an Unusual Reaction

Öz

Students' evaluation of unexpected findings that do not match hypotheses based on their current understanding has an important role in their conceptual changes in inquiry activities. One of the issues that may encounter unexpected findings is the issue of chemical energy. Most students believe that spontaneous reactions will be exothermic, and that endothermic reactions can occur by external heating. In this study, the scientific reasoning of the students who participated in an inquiry based experiment about deciding the heat of a spontaneous endothermic reaction as a rare phenomenon in daily life was examined. The study was conducted with 58 students in the first year of a faculty of education. The data were collected from students' experiment sheets and interviews with them. When the hypotheses established by the participants and their decisions about the heat of the reaction were examined, it was observed that some of them exhibited consistent scientific reasoning, while many showed confirmation bias; while some of them changed their alternative understanding, most of them did not.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• chemical energy,scientific reasoning,unexpected finding,inquiry

Öğrencilerin Sıra Dışı Bir Tepkimenin Isısını Belirlemeyle İlgili Bilimsel Muhakemelerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Öğrencilerin mevcut anlayışlarına dayalı olarak kurdukları hipotezlerle uyuşmayan beklenmedik bulguları değerlendirmelerinin, onların sorgulayıcı araştırma etkinliklerindeki kavramsal değişimlerinde önemli yeri vardır. Beklenmedik bulgularla karşılaşılabilecek konulardan biri kimyasal enerji konusudur. Öğrencilerin çoğu, istemli tepkimelerin ekzotermik olacağına, endotermik tepkimelerin ise dışarıdan ısıtmayla gerçekleşebileceğine inanır. Bu çalışmada günlük hayatta sık karşılaşılmayan bir olgu olarak istemli endotermik bir tepkimenin ısısına karar vermeyle ilgili bir sorgulayıcı araştırma deneyine katılan öğrencilerin bilimsel muhakemeleri incelendi. Çalışma bir eğitim fakültesinin birinci sınıfındaki 58 öğrenciyle gerçekleştirildi. Veri toplamada öğrencilerin deney föylerinden ve onlarla gerçekleştirilen görüşmelerden faydalanıldı. Katılımcıların kurdukları hipotezler ve tepkimenin ısısıyla ilgili kararları incelendiğinde, bazılarının tutarlı bilimsel muhakemeler sergilerken, birçoğunun doğrulama yanlılığı gösterdiği; yine bir kısmının alternatif anlayışlarını değiştirirken, çoğunun değiştirmediği belirlendi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• kimyasal enerji,bilimsel muhakeme,beklenmedik bulgular,sorgulayıcı araştırma

Kaynakça

1. Abowitz, D.A. & Knox, D. (2003). Life goals among Greek college students. College Student Journal, 37, 96-100.
2. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in education eight edition. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
3. Boo, H. K. (1998). Students' understandings of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 569-581.
4. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1992a). Psychological responses to anomalous data. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 165-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
5. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654.
6. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 327.
7. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.). The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Dunbar, K. (2001). What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings, 115-140.

9. Goedhart, M. J., & Kaper, W. (2002). From chemical energetics to chemical thermodynamics. In Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 339-362). Springer, Dordrecht.
10. Kesidou, S., & Duit, R. (1993). Students' conceptions of the second law of thermodynamics—an interpretive study. Journal of research in science teaching, 30(1), 85-106.
11. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
12. Klahr, D. (2005). A framework for cognitive studies and technology. In M. Gorman, R. D. Tweney, D. C. Gooding, & A. P. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 81– 95). Mawah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1-48.
14. Koslowski, B. (2012). Scientific reasoning: Explanation, confirmation bias, and scientific practice. Handbook of the psychology of science, 151-192.
15. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition. University of Chicago press.
16. Johnstone, A. H., MacDonald, J. J., & Webb, G. (1977). Misconceptions in school thermodynamics. Physics Education, 12(4), 248.
17. Limón, M., & Carretero, M. (1997). Conceptual change and anomalous data: A case study in the domain of natural sciences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(2), 213.
18. Mason, L. (2000). Role of anomalous data and epistemological beliefs in middle school students’ theory change about two controversial topics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(3), 329-346.
19. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
20. Nilsson, T., & Niedderer, H. (2014). Undergraduate students' conceptions of enthalpy, enthalpy change and related concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(3), 336-353.
21. Park, J. (2001). Analysis of students' processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1219-1236.
22. Sozbilir, M., & Bennett, J. M. (2006). Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ misunderstandings of enthalpy and spontaneity. Chemical Educator, 11(5), 355-363.
23. Thomas, P. L., & Schwenz, R. W. (1998). College physical chemistry students' conceptions of equilibrium and fundamental thermodynamics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1151-1160.
24. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students' understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368.
25. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.