Ten Perspectives To Shape Chemistry Education

Öz

The chemistry knowledge that we expect our students to learn and develop is not only quite rich in content, but also quite complex and multifaceted. In addition, some teachers and instructors at both secondary and university levels exhibit a rather rigid and uniform attitude in the process of conveying chemistry content. Research conducted in the field of chemistry education over the last few decades has shown that many students who complete basic chemistry courses at secondary and university levels are inadequate in developing the desired meaningful learning. The purpose of this article is to present a condensed version of the study titled “Chemistry Education: Ten Facets To Shape Us” by Talanquer (2013) while remaining faithful to its content, and thus to identify and discuss 10 different complementary perspectives or viewpoints that are thought to enable the analysis of basic chemistry course content within the scope of introductory chemistry. It is thought that this multidimensional perspective can help chemistry educators, especially those who are new to the profession, to enrich their understanding of chemistry as a teaching subject and pave the way for the reconceptualization of various aspects of the chemistry curriculum.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Chemistry Education
• Curriculum
• Teacher
• Student

Kimya Eğitimini Şekillendirecek On Bakış Açısı

Öz

Öğrencilerimizden öğrenmelerini ve geliştirmelerini beklediğimiz kimya bilgisi, oldukça zengin bir içeriğe sahip olmasının yanında, bir o kadar da karmaşık ve çok yönlüdür. Bunun yanında hem orta öğretim hem de üniversite düzeyindeki bazı öğretmenler ve öğretim görevlileri, kimya içeriğinin sunulması sürecinde oldukça katı ve tekdüze bir tutum sergilemektedirler. Son birkaç on yıldır kimya eğitimi alanında gerçekleştirilen araştırmalar, orta öğretim ve üniversite düzeyinde temel kimya derslerini tamamlayan öğrencilerden birçoğunun, arzu edilen anlamlı öğrenmeleri geliştirme konusunda yetersiz kaldıklarını göstermektedir. Bu makalenin amacı da Talanquer (2013) tarafından kaleme alınan “Chemistry Education: Ten Facets To Shape Us (Kimya Eğitimi: Bizi Şekillendirecek On Bakış Açısı)” başlıklı çalışmasının, içeriğine sadık kalınarak, özetlenmiş bir versiyonunu okuyucuya ulaştırmak ve böylece kimyaya giriş kapsamında yer alan temel kimya dersi içeriklerinin analiz edilebilmesine olanak sağlayabileceği düşünülen 10 farklı birbirini tamamlayıcı perspektifi veya bakış açısını tanımlamak ve tartışmaktır. Bu çok boyutlu bakış açısının, özellikle mesleğe yeni başlayan kimya eğitimcilerinin, kimyayı bir öğretim konusu olarak anlamalarını zenginleştirmelerine ve kimya programının çeşitli yönleriyle yeniden kavramsallaştırılmasına giden yolu açmalarına yardımcı olabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kimya Eğitimi
• Müfredat
• Öğretmen
• Öğrenci

Kaynakça

1. Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions. Sense Publishers.
2. Atkins, P. (1999). Chemistry: The Great Ideas. Pure Applied Chemistry, 71, 927−929. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac-con-12-11-17
3. Bennett, J., & Holman, J. (2002). Context-based Approaches to the Teaching of Chemistry: What are they and What are their Effects? J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, J. H. vanDriel (Eds), Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice (165-184), Kluwer.
4. Bensaude-Vincent, B., & Simon, J. (2008). Chemistry: The Impure Science. Imperial College Press.
5. Bhushan, N., & Rosenfeld, S. (2000). Of Minds and Molecules. Oxford University Press.
6. Canpolat N., & Pınarbaşı T. (2012). Le Chatelier prensibi ve kavramsal öğrenme. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 024,99-114.
7. Claesgens, J., Scalise, K., Wilson, M., & Stacy, A. (2009). Mapping Student Understanding in Chemistry: The Perspectives of Chemists. Science Education, 93, 56−85. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20292
8. Cooper, M. M. (2010). The Case for Reform of the Undergraduate General Chemistry Curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 87, 231−232.

9. Cooper, M. M., Underwood, S., Hilley, C. Z., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2012). Development and Assessment of a Molecular Structure and Properties Learning Progression. Journal ofChemical Education, 89, 1351−1357. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300083a
10. Erduran, S. (2013). Philosophy, Chemistry and Education: An Introduction. Science & Education, 22, 1559–1562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9526-9.
11. Erduran, S., & Mugaloglu, E.Z. (2013). Philosophy of Chemistry in Chemical Education: Recent Trends and Future Directions. M. Matthews (Ed), International Handbook of Research in History and Philosophy for Science and Mathematics Education (287-315), Springer.
12. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust D.F. (2009). Eds. Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Springer.
13. Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept Development and Transfer in Context-Based Science Education. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 817−837. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.493185
14. Gillespie, R. J. (1997). The Great Ideas of Chemistry. Journalof Chemical. Education.,74, 862−864. https://doi.org/10.1021
15. Han, J., & Roth, W.M. (2006). Chemical inscriptions in Korean textbooks: Semiotics of macro and micro-world, Science Education, 90, 173–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20091
16. Hawkes, S. J. (2005). Introductory Chemistry Needs a Revolution. Journal Of Chemical Education, 82, 1615−1616. https://doi.org/10.1021
17. Holme, T., & Murphy, K. (2012). The ACS Exams Institute Undergraduate Chemistry Anchoring Concepts Content Map I: General Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(6), 721−723. https://doi.org/10.1021
18. Jensen, W. B. (1998a). Logic, History, and the Chemistry Textbook: I. Does Chemistry Have a Logical Structure? Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 679−687. https://doi.org/10.1021
19. Jensen, W. B. (1998b). Logic, History, and the Chemistry Text-book: III. One Chemical Revolution or Three? Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 961−969. https://doi.org/10.1021
20. Johnstone, A. H. (2010). You Can't Get There from Here 1. Journal of Chemical Education, 87, 22−29. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed800026d
21. Kind, V. (2004). Beyond Appearances: Students’ Misconceptions about Basic Chemical Ideas. Royal Society of Chemistry..
22. King, D. (2012). New perspectives on context-based chemistry education: using a dialectical sociocultural approach to view teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 48(1), 51−87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2012.655037
23. Knight, D. (1992). Ideas in Chemistry. Rutgers University Press.
24. Kocagül Sağlam, M., & Ünal Çoban, G. (2020). Öğrencilerde Bilimsel Akıl Yürütme Becerilerini Geliştirme Konusunda Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin İhtiyaçlarının Belirlenmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 50, 399-425. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.595490
25. Kraft, A., Strickland, A. M., & Bhattacharyya, G. (2010). Reasonable reasoning: multi-variate problem-solving in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 281−292.
26. Meijer, M. R., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2009). Structure–Property Relations Between Macro and Micro Representations: Relevant Meso-levels in Authentic Tasks. J. K. Gilbert, D. Treagust (Eds), Multiple Representations in Chemical Education (195-213), Springer: Dordrecht..
27. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press.
28. National Research Council. (2003). Beyond the Molecular Frontier: Challenges for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10633..
29. Niaz, M. (2008). Teaching General Chemistry: A History and Philosophy of Science Approach. Nova Science Publishers.
30. Scerri, E. (2000). Philosophy of Chemistry—A New Interdisciplinary Field? Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 522−525. https://doi.org/10.1021 Science: College Board Standards for College Success; The College Board. https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/apc/cbscs-science-standards-2009.pdf
31. Stacy, A. M. (2010). Living by Chemistry. Key Curriculum Press.
32. Stieff, M. (2005). Connected Chemistry—A Novel Modeling Environmentfor the Chemistry Classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(3), 489−493. https://doi.org/10.1021
33. Talanquer, V. (2010). Exploring Dominant Types of Explanations Built by General Chemistry Students. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2393−2412. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903369662
34. Talanquer, V. & Pollard, J. (2010). Let’s teach how we think instead of what we know. Chemistry Education Reserach and Practice, 11, 74−83. https://doi.org/10.1039/C005349J
35. Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 179−195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435
36. Talanquer, V. (2013). Chemistry Education: Ten Facets To Shape Us. Journal of Chemical. Education, 90, 832−838. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300881v
37. Wandersee, J. H. (1986). Can The History of Science Help Science Educators Anticipate Students Misconceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,23, 581−597. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230703
38. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Merrill/Prentice Hall.
39. Xie, Q., & Tinker, R. (2006). Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Chemical Reactionsfor Use in Education. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(1), 77−83. https://doi.org/10.1021
40. Yaru Y., Liang X., Yanan Y., Chenyang H., & Yingying G. (2020). Chemistry History Education Infiltrating Cultivation of Scientific Literacy. Frontiers in Educational Research, 3(12), https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2020.031201.