The Effect of Logical Thinking Skills and Attitude Toward Chemstry on Elementary Teachers's Performance on Conceptual and Algorithmic Problems in Chemistry

Öz

The opening speed of this scanned document may vary depending on your connection speed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

The Effect of Logical Thinking Skills and Attitude Toward Chemstry on Elementary Teachers's Performance on Conceptual and Algorithmic Problems in Chemistry

Öz

Makale basılı kopyadan tarandığı için açılması bağlantı hızınıza göre farklılık gösterebilir. Makaleyi bilgisayarınıza indirmeniz tavsiye edilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kavramsal ve algoritmik problem., Bilimsel düşünme yeteneği, Kimya dersine karşı tutum

Kaynakça

1. Ausubel, DP. (l968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Blake, A. J. & Norland, F. H. (l978). Science instruction and cognitive growth in college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, l5(5), l 3 » 419. Boulaoude, S. B. & Giuliano, F. i . (1994). Relationship between achievement and selective variables in a chemistry course for nonrnajors. School
2. Science cmd Mathematics, 94(6) 296-302. Chandran, S, Treagust, D. & Tobin, K. (l985). The role of cognitive factors in Chemistry achievement. (Report). Perth, Australia; Western Australian institute of Technology. (ED: 27350l)
3. Chiu, MH. (2001). Algorithmic Problem Solving and Conceptual
4. Eylül University, lzmir, Turkey. Haider, A & Abraham, MR. {l99l}. A comparison of appiied and theeretical knowledge of concepts based err the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (10), gig—938. Harty, H., Beall, D. & Scharmanrr, L. (1985). Relationship between elementary school students" science achievement and their attitudes toward science, interest in science, reactive curiosity and scholastic aptitude.
5. Schcai Science and Mathematics, 85(6), 472479.
6. Hill, G. B. & Atwater, M. M. (1995). Attitudes toward science of urban seventh grade life science students over time, and the relationship to future plans, family, teacher, curriculum, and school. Urban Education, 30(1), 7lu94. lîngle, R., B. & Shayer, M. (1971). Conceptual demands in nuffieid—O level chemistry. Ediicarien in Chemistry, 8, 182-183.
7. Koballa, Jr. '1'. R., Crawley, F. E. & Shrigley, R. L. (1990). A. summary of research in science education—1988. Science Edi/zemine, 74(3), 369—
8. Lawson, A.B. (1985). A review of research on formal reasoning and science teaching. Journal of Research iii Science Teaching, 22, 569—617.

9. Lee, V. E. & Berkem, D. 1 . (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: Subject domain, ability and course emphasis. Science Education, 80, 613—650.
10. Lewicki, D (1993). inquiry and concept formation in the general chemistry laboratory: The effects of a constructivist method of instruction on college.(D0cr0mi dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, 1993),
11. Mason, D. S., Shell, D. F & Crawley, F. E. (1997). Differences in problem solving by nonscience majors in introductory chemistry on paired algeritlrmic—conceptual problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 905—923.
12. ~34: Alum ‘ İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Biiiiıiler Enstitüsü Dergisi 205554 (lt))
13. Nakhleli, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal o) I
14. Chemical Education, 69, 191—196. Naldileh, M. B & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving: There is a difference. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), —192.
15. Niaz, M. (1995). Progressive Transitions from Algorithmic to Conceptual
16. Understanding in Student Ability to Solve Chemistry Problems: A Lakatosian interpretation. Science Education, 79(3), 19—36. Niaz, M & Robinson, WR. (1992). From “algoritlirnic model to ‘conceptual gestalt’ in understanding the behavior of gases: an epistemological perspective. Research in Science and Technological Education, 10, —64.
17. Niaz, M & Robinson, WR. (1993). Ting algorithmic problem solving or conceptual understanding: role of development level, mental capacity and cognitive style. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, —416.
18. Nurrenljern, S. & Pickering, M. l. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: 1s there a difference. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, —510.
19. Pickering, M. l. (1999). Further studies on concept learning versus problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 254—255.
20. Sanchez, K & Betkouski, M. (1986). A study of factors (şeeting student performance in community college general chemistry courses. ERIC clearinghouse for science, mathematics and environmental education,
21. Columbus, OH, ERIC Document Reproduction Service Noz275549.
22. Sawrey, B. (1990). Concept learning vs. problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 253%54.
23. Schibeci, R & Riley, 1. (1986). Influence of students’ background and perceptions on science attitudes and achievements. Journal of
24. Research in Science Teaching, 23, 177—187. ScrinivaSan, G. (1993). Some Factors Affecting Performance in General
25. Chemistry. M.Sc. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic institute and State University, Virginia. Shayer, M. & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a Science of Teaching. London; Heinneman.
26. Simpson, R. D. & Oliver, l. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students.
27. Science Education, 74, L18. 35 ?. Bilgin -E. Uzmn‘iryaki The new Qf'iogzcal Thinking Skills and Altitude Tau/art; Soyibo, K & Huclson, A. (2000). Effects of computer-assisted instruction
28. (CAI) on E. 1th graders’ attitudes to biology and CA} and understanding of reproduction in plants and animals, Research in Science & Technological Education. 18, l89-197. Swift, J. N., Gooding, C. T. & Swift, P. R. (1989). Using research to improve the quality of classroom discussions. NARST Research Matters,
29. Occasional Publications to the Science Teacher, No. 20. Thompson, .l & Soyibo, K. ( 2002). Effects of lecture, teacher demonstrations, discussion and practital work. on ret“ gradersa attitudes to chemistry and understanding of electrolysis. Research in Science &
30. Technological Education, 20, 25—37. Tobin, K & Capie, W. ( 1981). The development and validation of a pencil and paper test of logical thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 4-1 (2), 4‘13—424.
31. Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model: Towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, September, 53-57.
32. ’Zoller, U. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS:
33. Unlikely for HOGS. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), l95—l97. Zoller, U., Lubezky, A.., Nakhleh, M. B., Tessier, B. & Dori, Y. J. 0995). Success on algorithmic and LOCS vs. conceptual chemistry exam questions.
34. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(l l), 987—989. Zeller. U. (l999). Scaling—up of higher order cognitive skills-oriented college chemistry teaching: An action-oriented research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5), 583—596. Zoller, U, Dori, Y. l. & Lubezky, A. (2002). Algorithmic, LOCS and HOCS
35. (chemistry) exam questions: performance and attitudes of college students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 185—203. Abm-it İzzeıf Haymi Üniversitesi Sosyo? Bilimler Erisâitiisii Dergisi 265852] (10)