-

Öz

Grounded in the constructivist view of knowledge, the present study aimed to find out whether Turkish students have a good grasp of properties of chemical bonds after receiving the conventional teaching. A questionnaire consisted of open ended questions was used as an assessment tool. It was distributed to 11th grade chemistry students (n= 404). Questions presented mass and energy properties in relation to chemical bonding and asked students to explain what they think and why they think in that way. A small group of students were also interviewed in relation to their written responses for further probing. Findings indicated that students possess alternative ideas. Despite the conventional instruction students believe that chemical bonds have mass and volume by giving the impression that they assign the concept to the matter category. A similar ontological mismatch was also detected regarding the energy concept. Findings also showed that matter-like feature of energy conception is common among Turkish students. This misconception played an important role in the context of chemical bonding as students depend upon this faulty idea in deciding mass change during bond formation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Misconceptions, Constructivism, Chemical Bonding, Matter, Energy, Ontology

Secondary Students' Reference to Properties of Matter to Chemical Bonds: Is the Onus on the Ontological Mismatch Only?

Öz

Yorumlamacı paradigma temelinde tasarlanan bu araştırma müfredatın öngördüğü öğretim sonrasında Türk öğrencilerinin kimyasal bağa ilişkin kavramalarını incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Açık uçlu kavramsal sorulardan oluşan anket araştırmanın veri toplama aracı olarak işlev görmüştür. Anket 404 onbirinci sınıf öğrencisine uygulanmıştır. Ankette yer alan sorular ile öğrencilerin kimyasal bağın özellikleri konusundaki düşünce biçimleri ve nedenlerinin saptanması hedeflenmiştir. Öğrencilerin kimyasal bağın özellikleri konusundaki yanılgılarının altında yatan nedenleri açığa çıkarabilmek üzere, bazı öğrencilerle görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular, konu ile ilgili öğretimi almış olmalarına rağmen araştırmaya katılan öğrencilerin kimyasal bağ kavramına ilişkin yanılgıları olduğunu göstermektedir. Bulgular, kimyasal bağın kütlesi ve hacmi olduğunu düşünen öğrencilerin varlığını ortaya koyarken, ontolojik açıdan süreç kategorisinde yer alması gereken kimyasal bağ kavramını madde kategorisine yerleştirdiklerini işaret etmektedir. Ontolojik açıdan benzer yanlış eşleme enerji kavramına ilişkin de yapılmıştır. Bulgular ayrıca, öğrenciler arasında enerjinin bir madde olduğu ve kütlesinin bulunduğu yanılgısının yaygın olduğu ve bu yanılgının kimyasal bağın kütlesinin bulunacağı konusunda öğrencileri yönlendirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kavram yanılgısı, Yapılandırmacılık, Kimyasal bağ, Madde, Enerji, Ontoloji

Kaynakça

1. Barker, V. & Millar, R. (2000). Students’ reasoning about chemical thermodinamics and chemical bonding: what changes occure during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 22 (11), 1171-1200. 1
2. Barker, V. (1995). A longitudinal study of 16-18 year olds’ understanding of basic chemical ideas. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis, Department of Educational Studies, University of York. 2
3. Birk, J.P. & Kurtz, M.J. (1999). Effect of experience on retention and elimination of misconceptions about molecular structure ve bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 124-128. 3
4. Boo, H. K. & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students’ (aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education 85: 568–585. 4
5. Boo, H. K. (1998). Students’ understandings of chemical bonds and the energetic of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3 (5), 569 – 581. 5
6. Butts, B. & Smith, R. (1987). HSC chemistry students’ understanding of the structure and properties of molecular and ionic compounds. Research in Science Education, 17, 192-201. 6
7. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid (Eds.), Conceptual Structures and Processes: Emergence, Discovery and Change (pp. 209-234). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 7
8. Chi, M. T. H., & Hausmann, R. G. M. (2003). Do radical discoveries require ontological shifts? In L. V. Shavinina & R. Sternberg (Eds.), International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 430-444). New York: Elsevier Science. 8

9. Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice (pp. 3-27). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 9
10. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27-43. 10
11. Coll, R.K. & Treagust, D.F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31, 357-38 11
12. Driver, R. & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60. 12
13. Driver, R. (1985). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press. 13
14. Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International. Journal of Science Education (special Issue), 11, 481-490. 14
15. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994) Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. 15
16. Ebenezer, J.V. & Fraser, M.D. (2001). First year chemical engineering students’ conceptions of energy in solution process: Phenomenographic categories for common knowledge construction. Science Education 85: 509–535. 16
17. Gilbert, J.K. & Watts, D.M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education,10, 61-98. 17
18. Goh, N.K., Khoo, L.E. & Chia, L.S. (1993). Some misconceptions in chemistry: A cross-cultural comparison and implications for teaching. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 39, 65-68. 18
19. Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80, 509-534. 19
20. Johnston, A.T., & Southerland, S.A. (2000). A reconsideration of science misconceptions using ontological categories. national association for research in science teaching international conference, New Orleans, LA. 20
21. Kahveci, A., & Özalp, D. (2009). Ontology-informed diagnostic assessment of middle and secondary students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter, Paper presented at the 82 nd NARST annual international conference, Garden Grove, CA. 21
22. Leach, J. & Scott, P. (2003) Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science and Education, 12(1), 91–113. 22
23. Levy Nahum, T., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R. & Bar-Dov, Z. (2004). Can final examinations amplify students’ misconceptions in chemistry?. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 301-325. 23
24. Nakiboğlu, C. & Benlikaya, R. (2001). Orbital kavramı ve modern atom teorisine ilişkin kavram yanılgıları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 9 (1) 165-174. 24
25. Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates bonding misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 707-730. 25
26. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I. & McGillicuddy, K. (1996) Explaining Science in the Classroom (Buckingham: Open University Press). 26
27. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Science Project. London: King's College London. 27
28. Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in Science: The Implications of Children’s Science. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. 28
29. Özalp, D., & Kahveci, A. (2011). Maddenin tanecikli yapisi ile ilgili iki aşamali tanilayici sorularin ontoloji temelinde geliştirilmesi, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 40 (191), 135-155. 29
30. Peterson, R.F. (1993). Tertiary students’ understanding of covalent bonding and structure concepts. Australian Journal of Chemical Education, 11-15. 30
31. Peterson, R.F., Treagust, D.F. & Garnett, P. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and grade-12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 301-314. 31
32. Preira, M.P. & Pestana, M.E.M. (1991). Pupils’ representations of models of water. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 313-319. 32
33. Ross, K. (1993). There is no energy in food and fuels- but they do have fuel value. School Science Review, 75, 39-47. 33 Schmidt, H. (1997). Students' Misconceptions - Looking for a Pattern, Science Education, 81 (2), 123-135. 34
34. Scott, P., Asoko, H. & Driver, R. (1992) Teaching for conceptual change: a review of strategies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg and H. Niedderer (eds.) Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies (Kiel: IPN). 35
35. Taber, K.S. & Watts, M. (1996). The secret life of the chemical bound: students’ antropomorphic and animistic references to bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 557-568. 36
36. Taber, K.S. (1995). Development of student understanding: A case study of stability and lability in cognitive structure. Research in Science and Technological Education, 13, 89-99. 37
37. Taber, K.S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 597-608. 38
38. Taber, K.S. (2001). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 123-158. [http://www.uoi.gr/cerp]. 39
39. Taber, K.S. (September 1993). Stability and liability in student conceptions: some evidence from a case study. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Liverpool, September. 40
40. Thomaz, M., Valente, M.C., Maliquias, I. M. & Aritanes, M. (1995). An attempt to overcome alternative conceptions related to heat and temperature, Physics Education 30 (1),19-36. 41
41. Tsaparlis, G. & Papaphotis, G. (2002). Quantum-chemical concepts: Are they suitable for secondary students? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3, 129-144.