12. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Bazı Temalardaki Kimya Kavram Yanılgılarının Belirlenmesi ve Bu Bulguların Etkili Kullanımına Dair Öneriler

Öz

Bir araştırma projesinin ilk adımında yapılanları ele alan bu makalenin en önemli amacı öğretmen yetiştiren programlara veriye-dayalı bulguların entegre edilmesinin önemini vurgulamaktır. Bu projenin ilk adımında literatürden yola çıkılarak araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen “Kimya Kavram Testi” ne 465 tane 12. sınıf öğrencisinin verdiği cevaplar analiz edilmiş ve böylece “maddenin tanecikli yapısı”, “kimyasal dengenin doğası” ve “asit kuvveti” temalarıyla ilgili öğrencilerin zihinlerinde var olan kavram yanılgıları tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Testte her tema ile ilgili ikişer soru olup (toplamda 6 soru), öğrencilerin kavramlar üzerine düşünmeleri, cevaplarını bazen yazı bazen de çizimlerle açıklamaları istenmektedir. Bulgular bu çalışmanın örnekleminde yer alan birçok öğrencide bu temalarda, önceden başka araştırmacılarca da saptanmış kavram yanılgılarının benzerlerine rastlandığını göstermiştir. Bu sonuç, kavram yanılgılarının bağlamlara ve kültürlere göre fazlaca değişiklik göstermediğini, ayrıca yaştan bağımsız ve evrensel olduğunu destekler niteliktedir. Makalenin devamında, elde edilen bu sonuçların bahsedilen araştırma projesinin sonraki adımlarında nasıl kullanıldığı açıklanmış ve veriye dayalı bu ve benzeri sonuçların öğretmen eğitiminde kullanımına dair önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kavram yanılgısı,lise öğrencileri,kimya,kimya kavram yanılgıları

Kaynakça

1. Abraham, M. R., Grzybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W., & Marek, E. A. (1992). Understandings and misunderstandings of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105-120.
2. Adadan, E., Irving, K. E., & Trundle, K. C. (2009). Impacts of multi-representational instruction on high school students’ conceptual understandings of the particulate nature of matter, International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1743-1775.
3. Albanese, A. & Vicentini, M. (1997) Why do we believe that an atom is colourless? Reflections about the teaching of the particle model, Science and Education, 6(3), 251–261.
4. Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
5. Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 487-494.
6. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B. & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an Atom of Copper Malleable?, Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64-66.
7. Bergquist, W. and Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium: What written test answers do not reveal, Journal of Chemical Education, 67(12), 1000-1003.
8. Bradley, J. D. & Mosimege, M. D. (1998). Misconceptions in acids and bases: A comparative study of student teachers with different chemistry backgrounds, South African Journal of Chemistry, 51(3), 137-145.

9. Bilgin, I. (2006). Promoting prospective elementary students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium through discussions in small groups, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(3), 467-484.
10. Bilgin, I. & Geban, O. (2006). The effect of cooperative learning approach based on conceptual change condition on students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium concepts, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 31-46.
11. Boz, Y. (2009). Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ alternative conceptions about acids and bases, School Science and Mathematics Journal, 109(4), 212-222.
12. Calik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005). A comparison of level of understanding of eigth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638-667.
13. Canpolat, N., Pinarbasi, T. & Sozbilir, M. (2006). Prospective teachers’ misconceptions of vaporization and vapor pressure, Journal of Chemical Education, 83(8), 1237-1242.
14. Cetin, P. S., Kaya, E. & Geban, O. (2009). Facilitating conceptual change in gases concepts, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2), 130-137.
15. Cheung, D. (2009). The adverse effects of Le Châtelier’s Principle on teacher understanding of chemical equilibrium, Journal of Chemical Education, 86(4), 514-518.
16. Coll, R. K. & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners’ mental models of ionic bonding, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 40(5), 464-486.
17. Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd edt.). Thousands Oaks: CA, Sage Publications
18. Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. 20 Şubat, 2014’te indirilmiş, http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html.
19. Halakova, Z. & Proksa, M. (2007). Two kinds of conceptual problems in chemistry teaching, Journal of Chemical Education, 84 (1), 172-175.
20. Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. J. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 695-697.
21. Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69-95.
22. Gilbert, J. K. and Swift, D. J. (1985). Towards a Lakatosian analysis of the Piagetian and alternative conceptions research programs, Science Education, 69 (5), 681- 696.
23. Griffiths, A. K. (1994). A critical analysis and synthesis of research on students’ chemistry misconceptions, H-J. Schmidt tarafından yayına hazırlanan, Problem Solving and Misconceptions in Chemistry and Physics: Proceedings of the 1994 International Seminar (ss. 70-99). University of Dortmund: Germany.
24. Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611-628.
25. Hackling, W. M. & Garnett, J. P. (1985). Misconceptions of chemical equilibrium, European Journal of Science Education, 7, 205-214.
26. Haidar, A. H. (1997). Prospective chemistry teachers’ conceptions of the conservation of matter and related concepts, Journal of Reseacrh in Scince Teaching, 34 (2), 181-197.
27. Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas (2nd Edition). 1 Mart, 2012’de indirilmiş, http://www.rsc.org/images/Misconceptions _update_ tcm18-188603.pdf.
28. Kokkotas, P., Vlachos, I., & Koulaidis, V. (1998). Teaching the topic of the particulate nature of matter in prospective teachers’ training courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 291-303.
29. Kruse, R. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2005). A comparison study: Assessing teachers’ conceptions with the chemistry concepts inventory, Journal of Chemical Education, 82(8), 1246-1251.
30. Lee, K-W. L. (1999). A comparison of university lecturers’ and prospective teachers’ understanding of a chemical reaction at the particulate level, Journal of Chemical Education, 76(7), 1008-1012.
31. Lin, H., Cheng, H., & Lawrenz, F. (2000). The assessment of students and teachers’ understanding of gas laws. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 235-238.
32. Novick, S. & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study, Science Education, 62(3), 273-281.
33. Ogude, A. N. and Bradley, J. D. (1994). Ionic conduction and electrical neutrality in operating electrochemical cells: Pre-college and college student interpretations, Journal of Chemical Education, 71(1), 29-34.
34. Osborne, R. and Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science, Heinemann: Auckland.
35. Ozden, M. (2009), Prospective science teachers’ conceptions of the solution chemistry, Journal of Baltic Science Education, 8(2), 69-78.
36. Nurrenbern, S. C., Pickering, M. J. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference, Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-510.
37. Sanger, M. J. (2000). Using particulate drawings to determine and improve students’ conceptions of pure substances and mixtures. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(6), 762-766.
38. Sheppard, K. (2006). High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acidbase phenomena, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(1), 32-45.
39. Stains, M., & Talanquer, V. (2007). Classification schemes used by chemistry students to identify chemical substances. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 643-661.
40. Tan, K. C., Taber, K. S., Goh, N. K. & Chia, L. S. (2005). The ionisation energy diagnostic instrument: A two-tier multiple-choice instrument to determine high school students’ understanding of ionisation energy, Chemical Education Research and Practice, 6(4), 180-197.
41. Valanides, N. (2000). Primary student teachers’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its transformations during dissolving. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1, 249-262.
42. Taber, K. (2002). Chemical misconceptions: Prevention, diagnosis and Cure, Vol: 1. Theoretical background. Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK.
43. Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: The case of structure of matter, International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123– 2136.
44. Wheeler, A. E. & Kass, H. (1978). Students’ misconceptions in chemical equilibrium, Science Education, 62(2), 223-232.