Secondary Students’ Understanding of Position and Movement of Electrons on Covalent Bonding

Öz

Students need to understand the position and movement of electrons in the outer shell
so as to be able to conceptualize the formation of chemical bonding. This study designed in
the line of constructivist view of knowledge and aimed to find out the ways in which Turkish
students think about the position and movement of electrons in the formation of covalent
bonding after receiving the conventional teaching. Four open-ended probes were designed and
these formed the questionnaire that acts as the assessment tool of the study. The questionnaire
was distributed to 11th grade science students (n= 293). They completed the questionnaire
right after their conventional teaching on chemical bonding. Probes asked for explanations
about the motion and position of electrons in covalent bonding. Findings indicated that most
of the students could not indicate the position of electrons in the covalent bonding in the
correct way and have mental models regarding the motion of shared electrons that are not in
accordance with the scientific ones. Findings also showed that only the half of the students
provided scientific explanations in defining the concepts of polar covalent bonding and
electron-pair.
Key words: Science education, electron, chemical bonding, covalent bonding,
misconception

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerinin Kovalent Bağda Elektronların Konum ve Hareketlerini Anlama Biçimleri

Öz

Kimyasal bağların oluşum sürecini anlayabilmesi için, öğrencilerin atomun son yörünge elektronlarının konum ve hareketlerini kavraması gerekmektedir. Nitekim, kimyasal bağın oluşup oluşmayacağının ve hangi tür bağın oluşacağının belirleyicisi son yörünge elektronlarıdır. Oluşturmacı (constructivist) öğrenme anlayışının yön verdiği bu araştırmada, müfredatın öngördüğü kimyasal bağlarla ilgili öğretimi almış öğrencilerin kimyasal bağın oluşumu sırasında elektronların konum ve hareketini hakkındaki düşüncelerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada tarama modeli kullanılmış, veri toplama aracı olarak ise açık uçlu sorulardan oluşan bir anket tasarlanmıştır. Anket ortaöğretim 11. sınıf sayısal bölümü öğrencilerine (n= 293) uygulanmıştır. Sorularda öğrencilerden kovalent bağın oluşumu sırasında elektronların pozisyon ve hareketlerini açıklamaları istenmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular, öğrencilerin büyük bölümünün kovalent bağı oluşturan elektronları doğru konumlandıramadıkları ve hareketine ilişkin bilimsel modeller ile uyumlu olmayan zihinsel modellere sahip olduklarını ortaya koymuştur. Araştırma bulgularından çıkan diğer bir sonuç ise, öğrencilerin yarıya yakın bir bölümünün polar kovalent bağ ve elektron çifti kavramlarını açıklarken elektronların konum ve hareketlerini doğru kullanamadıklarıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen eğitimi, elektron, kimyasal bağ, kovalent bağ, kavram yanılgısı

Kaynakça

1. Adik, B. (2003). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin kimyasal bağ konusuna ilișkin yanılgıları ve bu yanılgıları besleyen düșünce biçimleri, Basılmamıș Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
2. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B. ve Silberstein, J. (1986). “Is an atom of copper malleable?” Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64-66.
3. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B. ve Silberstein, J. (1988). “Theories, principles and laws”. Education in Chemistry, May, 89-92.
4. Birk, J.P. ve 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.
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.
6. Butts, B. ve Smith, R. (1987). “HSC chemistry students’ understanding of the structure and properties of molecular and ionic compounds”. Research in Science Education, 17, 192-201.
7. Can, Ș. ve Harmandar, M. (2004). “Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği ve sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin kimyasal bağlar konusundaki kavramsal yanılgıları”. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5 (8). http://web.inonu.edu.tr/~efdergi/Can_Harmandar.htm
8. Coll, R.K. ve Taylor, N. (2001). “Alternative conceptions of chemical bonding held by upper secondary and tertiary students”. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19, 171-191.

9. Coll, R.K. ve Taylor, N. (2002). “Mental models in chemistry: senior chemistry students’ mental models of Chemical bonding”. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3 (2), 175-184.
10. Coll, R.K. ve Treagust, D.F. (2001). “Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners’ mental models of ıonic bonding”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (5), 464-486.
11. Cros, D., Chastrette, M. ve Fayol, M. (1988). “Conceptions of second year university students of some fundamental notions in chemistry”. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 331-336.
12. Driver, R. ve 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.
13. Driver, R. (1989). “Students’ conceptions and the learning of Science”. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481-490.
14. Fruio, C. ve Calatayud L.(1996). “Difficulties with the Geometry and Polarity of Molecules”. Journal of Chemical Education, 72 (1), 36-41.
15. Gable, D. ve Bunce, D. (1994). “Research on problem solving: Chemistry”. In D. Gable (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (301-326). New York: MacMillian.
16. Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V. ve Hunn, D. (1987). “Understanding the particulate nature of matter”. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 695-697.
17. Glesne, C. ve Peskin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. NY: Longman.
18. Harrison, A. G. ve Treagust, D. F. (1996). “Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry”. Science Education, 80, 509-534.
19. Harrison, A. G. ve Treagust, D. F. (2000). “Learning about atom, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry”. Science Education, 84, 352-381.
20. Johnstone, A.H. (1991). “Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem”. Journal of Computer assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
21. Kabapınar, F. (2003). “Kavram yanılgılarının ölçülmesinde kullanılabilecek bir ölçeğin bilgikavrama düzeyini ölçmeyi amaçlayan ölçekten farklılıkları”. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 35, 398-417.
22. Kabapınar, F. (2004). “Secondary science students’ misconceptions concerning chemical bonding”. 6th National Congress of Science and Mathematics Education Kongresinde sunulan bildiri, İstanbul.
23. LeCompte, M.D. ve Goetz, J.P. (1982). “Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research”. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31-60.
24. Levy Nahum, T., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R. ve Bar-Dov, Z. (2004). “Can final examinations amplify students’ misconceptions in chemistry?”. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 301-325.
25. Loman, N.L. ve Mayer, R.E. (1983). “Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 402-412.
26. Mayer, R.E. (1989). “Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 240-247.
27. Mayer, R.E., Dyck, J. ve Cook, L.K. (1984). “Techniques that help readers build mental models from science text: Definitions training and signalling”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1089-1105.
28. Miles, M.B. ve Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
29. Nicoll, G. (2001). “A report of undergraduates’ bonding misconceptions”. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 707-730.
30. Novick, S. ve Nussbaum, J. (1978). “Junior high school pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study”. Science Education, 62 (3), 273-81.
31. Özmen, H., Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S. ve Ayas, A. (2002). “Kimya öğretmen adaylarının temel kimya kavramlarını anlama seviyelerinin belirlenmesi”. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresinde sunulan bildiri, Ankara.
32. Patton, Q.M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd Ed.). London: Sage Publications.
33. Peterson, R. ve Treagust, D. (1989). “Grade – 12 students’ misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure”. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(6), 459-460.
34. Peterson, R.F. (1993). “Tertiary students’ understanding of covalent bonding and structure concepts”. Australian Journal of Chemical Education, Julay, 11-15.
35. Peterson, R.F., Treagust, D.F. ve 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.
36. Raymond F., R.F. Peterson and D.F. Treagust (1989). “Grade -12 Students’ Misconception of Covalent Bonding and Structure” Journal of Chemical Education. 6 (66), 459-460.
37. Szlicheinski, K.P. (1979). “Diagrams and illustrations as aids to problem solving”. Instructional Sciences, 8, 253-274.
38. Taber, K.S. (1993). “Stability and lability in student conceptions: some evidence from a case study”. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Liverpool.
39. Taber, K.S. (1994). “Misunderstanding the ionic bond”. Education in Chemistry, 31 (4) 100- 103.
40. Taber, K. S. (1997). “Students’ understanding of ionic bonding: Molecular versus electrostatic framework”. School Science Review, 78, 85-95.
41. Taber, K.S. (1998). “An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education”. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 597-608.
42. Taber, K.S. (2000). “Multiple frameworks? Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure”. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 399-417.
43. 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]
44. Tan, K. C. D. ve Treagust, D. F. (1999). “Evaluating students. understanding of chemical bonding”. School Science Review, 81(294), 75 – 84.
45. Türnüklü, A. (2001). “Eğitimbilim alanında aynı araștırma sorusunu yanıtlamak için farklı araștırma tekniklerinin birlikte kullanılması”. Eğitim ve Bilim, 26 (120), 8-13.
46. Ünal, S., Özmen, H. ve Demircioğlu, G. (2001). “Lise öğrencilerinin kimyasal bağlarla ilgili anlama düzeylerinin ve yanılgılarının belirlenmesine yönelik bir çalıșma”. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Sempozyumunda sunulan bildiri, Ankara.
47. White, R.T. ve Gunstone, R.F. (1992). Probing Understanding. London: Falmer Press.
48. Willows, D.M. ve Houghton, H.A. (1987). The Psychology of Illustration, Vol: 1, Basic research. Berlin: Springer-Verlog.
49. Winn, W. (1991). “Learning from maps and diagrams”. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211-247.
50. Wood-Robinson, C., Lewis, J., Driver, R. ve Leach, J. (1996). Young people’s understanding of and attitudes to, ‘the new genetics’, working paper 1, Leeds: Üniversitry of Leeds.
51. Yıldırım, A. ve Șimșek, H. (2000). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araștırma yöntemleri (2. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık
52. Yılmaz A. ve Morgil, İ. (2001). “Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Kimyasal Bağlar Konusundaki Kavram Yanılgılarının Belirlenmesi”. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 172-178.