You are here

Erime ve Çözünmeyle İlgili Kavram Yanılgılarının Ontoloji Temelinde İncelenmesi

Examination of Misconceptions Related to Melting and Dissolving on the Basis of Ontology

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Keywords (Original Language):

Abstract (2. Language): 
Problem Statement: An efficient science education is directly associated with the quality of conceptual teaching which is implemented in science lessons. Conflicts and inconsistencies in students’ learning should be revealed in order for a life-long and meaningful learning of the concepts to take place (Akgün, Gönen, & Yılmaz, 2005). Students may have various misconceptions about a concept; however, the misconceptions of each student may result from different characteristics or erroneous categorization. For this reason, the incorrect ontological categorization from which misconceptions result should be determined. This is because many misconceptions are the result of scientifically incorrect ontological categorization made by students. In the literature, it is stated that students’ misconceptions are associated with their scientific reasoning skills and students with high scientific reasoning skills have fewer misconceptions (Lawson & Thompson, 1988; Lawson & Worsnop, 1992; Oliva, 2003). There are three levels: concrete operational, transitional and formal operational and students will be at different levels. Therefore, when assessing their scientific reasoning levels, students at a formal operational level will be expected to understand the concepts of melting and dissolving better than students at a concrete operational level and to have fewer misconceptionsrelated to this subject. Purpose of the Study: The purpose of the present study is to reveal university students’ misconceptions about the subject of melting and dissolving and to examine these misconceptions on the basis of ontological categories. It also aims to compare students’ misconceptions about the subject of melting and dissolving according to their scientificreasoning levels. Method(s): A total of 25 students from the Faculty of Education, Hacettepe University attending a General Chemistry course in the Biology Education Department participated in the study. Five open-ended questions, prepared according to experts’ opinions, and the Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (CTSR) were used as the data collecting instruments. According to the scores obtained from the CTSR, there were 7 students at a concrete operational level and 9 students at both the transitional and formal operational level. Findings and Discussions: When the students’ responses to the questions were examined, it was determined that they had various misconceptions and the number of certain misconceptions was higher in students at the concrete operational level. On the other hand, when students’ answers to the open-ended questions were examined, it was determined that their misconceptions resulted from ontological categorizations they had made which were ontologically wrong. It was determined that students had misconceptions as a result of a wrong categorization between ontological categories. Conclusions and Recommendations: When the students’ responses to the questions were examined, it was determined that they had various misconceptions and the number of certain misconceptions was higher in students at the concrete operational level. This is because students at the concrete operational level can only understand concrete concepts while students at the formal operational level can understand both concrete and abstract concepts (Lawson & Renner, 1975). For thisreason, students at the concrete operational level have more misconceptions. There is a relationship between students’ misconceptions and their scientific reasoning skills (Lawson & Thompson, 1988; Lawson & Worsnop, 1992; Oliva, 2003). Students with a high scientific reasoning level have fewer misconceptions than students with a low scientificreasoning level. This is also because students with a high scientific reasoning level are more successful during conceptual changes (Lawson & Weser, 1990; Oliva, 2003; Lee & She, 2010; She & Liao, 2010). When students’ answers to the open-ended questions were examined, it was determined that their misconceptions resulted from ontological categorizations they had made which were ontologically wrong. It was determined that students had misconceptions as a result of a wrong categorization that they had made between the microscopic particle, which is a sub category of the substance category, and the macroscopic substance. It was also determined that students misplaced the melting with dissolving category in the event category, which is actually under the process category. Students attributed concrete features to intermolecular bonds and put chemical bonds in the substance category instead of the process category. For thisreason, they categorized the items incorrectly, whichresulted in the misconceptions.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Özet Bu çalışmanın amacı, üniversiteöğrencilerinin erime ve çözünme konusunda sahip oldukları kavram anılgılarını ortayaçıkarmak ve bu kavram yanılgılarını ontolojik kategoriler temelinde incelemektir. Ayrıca ğrencilerin erime ve çözünme konusunda sahip oldukları kavram yanılgıları bilimsel düşünme düzeylerine göre arşılaştırılmak istenmiştir. Çalışmaya Hacettepe ÜniversitesiEğitim Fakültesi BiyolojiEğitimi Anabilim Dalında Temel Kimya dersini alan toplam 25öğrenci katılmıştır. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak, uzman örüşüne başvurularak hazırlanan beş açık uçlu soru ve Bilimsel Düşünme Yetenekleri Testi (BDYT) ullanılmıştır. BDYT’den elde edilen puanlara göre somut operasyon döneminde 7, geçiş ve soyut operasyon öneminde 9’aröğrenci bulunmaktadır.Öğrencilerin verdikleri cevapların analizi sonucuöğrencilerin erime ve özünme konusunda çeşitli kavram yanılgılarına sahip oldukları belirlenmiştir.Öğrencilerin madde kategorisinin lt kategorisi olan mikroskobik tanecik ile makroskobik madde kategorileri arasında yaptıkları yanlış ategorileştirmeler sonucu kavram yanılgılarına sahip oldukları belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca süreç kategorisinin bir alt ategorisinde yer alan olay kategorisindeki erime ve çözünme kategorilerinin deöğrenciler tarafından birbiriyle arıştırıldıı belirlenmiştir.

REFERENCES

References: 

Abraham, M.R., Grzybowski, E.B., Renner, L.W. & Marek, E.A. (1992). Understandings and
misunderstandings of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks.
JournalofResearch in Science Teaching, 29, 105-120.
Akgün, A. & Aydın, M. (2009). Erime ve çözünme konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının ve
bilgi eksikliklerinin giderilmesinde yapılandırmacıöğrenme yaklaşımına dayalı grup
çalışmalarının kullanılması. ElektronikSosyalBilimler Dergisi, 8(27), 190-201.
Akgün, A., Gönen, S. &Yılmaz, A. (2005). Fen bilgisiöğretmen adaylarının karışımların
yapısı ve iletkenliği konusundaki kavram yanılgıları. Hacettepe ÜniversitesiEğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 28,1–8.
Ateş, S. (2002).SınıfÖğretmenliği ve fen bilgisiöğretmenliği 3.sınıföğrencilerinin bilimsel
düşünme yeteneklerinin karşılaştırılması. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve MatematikEğitimi
Kongresi, Ankara: ODTÜEğitim Fakültesi.
Bauner, M. & Schoon, I. (1993). Mapping variety in public understanding of science. Public
Understanding ofScience, 2(2), 141-155.
Blanco, A. & Prieto, T. (1997). Pupils’ views on how stirring and temperature affect the
dissolution of a solid in a liquid: A cross-age study (12 to 18). International Journal of
ScienceEducation, 19(3), 303-315.
Boo, H. & Watson, J.R. (2001). Progression in high school students’ (aged 16-18)
conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85, 568-585.
Bruner, J.S., Goodnow, J.J., & Austin, G.A. (1962). A study of thinking. New York: Science
Editions. İçinden Önder, İ. (2006). The effect of conceptual change approach on
students’understanding of solubility equilibrium concept. Doctorate Thesis, Middle East
Technical University, Ankara.
Chi, M.T.H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: examples
from learning and discovery in science. In R. N. Giere (ed.) Cognitive Models of
Science, Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press.
Şen &Yılmaz
69
Chi, M.T.H. & Roscoe, R.D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change.
Limon, M. & Mason, L. (Eds), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and
practice (s. 3-27). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chi, M.T.H. & Slotta, J.D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics.
Commentary on A. diSessa’s “Toward an epistemology of physics.” Cognition and
Instruction, 10, 249–260.
Chi, M.T.H., Slotta,J.D. & Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to process: A theory of conceptual
change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.
Cohen, S.M. (2009). Aristotle's Metaphysics, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), [Online] Erişim tarihi 19.01.2011,
.
Çalık, M. & Ayas, A. (2005). 7.-10.sınıföğrencilerinin seçilen çözelti kavramlarıyla ilgili
anlamalarının farklı karışımlar üzerinde incelenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi TürkEğitim
Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(3), 329–349.
Çalık, M., Ayas, A. & Ünal, S. (2006). Çözünme kavramıyla ilgiliöğrenci kavramalarının
tespiti: Bir yaşlar arası karşılaştırma çalışması. Gazi Üniversitesi TürkEğitim Bilimleri
Dergisi, 4(3), 309-322.
Demircioğlu, G., Özmen, H. & Demircioğlu, H. (2006).Sınıföğretmeni adaylarının fiziksel
ve kimyasal değişme kavramlarını anlama düzeyleri ve yanılgıları. MilliEğitim Dergisi,
170, 260-273.
Demircioğlu, H., Ayas, A. & Demircioğlu, G. (2002).Sınıföğretmen adaylarının kimya
kavramlarını anlama düzeyleri ve karşılaşılan yanılgılar. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve
MatematikEğitimi KongresiBildiri Özetleri, Ankara: ODTÜEğitim Fakültesi.
Ebenezer, J.V. & Erickson, L.G. (1996). Chemistry students’ conception of solubility: A
phenomenograpy. ScienceEducation, 80(2), 181-201.
Eyidoğan, F., & Güneysu, S. (2002). İlköğretim 8.sınıf fen bilgisi kitaplarındaki kavram
yanılgılarının incelenmesi. V. Fen Bilimleri ve MatematikEğitimi Kongresi, Ankara:
ODTÜ.
Gensler, W. (1970). Physical versus chemical change. Journal of Chemical Education,
47(2), 154-155.
Goodwin, A. (2002). Is salt melting when it dissolves in water? Journal of Chemical
Education, 9(3), 93-96.
Karaer, H. (2007).Sınıföğretmeni adaylarının madde konusundaki bazı kavramların
anlaşılma düzeyleri ile kavram yanılgılarının belirlenmesi ve bazı değişkenler açısından
incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 15(1), 199-210.
Lawson, A.E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal
reasoning. JournalofResearch in Science Teaching, 15, 11–24.
Lawson, A.E. & Renner, J.W. (1975). Relationships of science subject matter and
developmental levels of learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 347–
358.
Lawson, A.E. & Thompson, L. (1988). Formal reasoning ability and misconception
concerning genetics and natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
25(9), 733–746.
Lawson, A.E. & Weser, J. (1990). The rejection of nonscientific beliefs about life: Effects of
instruction and reasoning skills. JournalofResearch in Science Teaching, 27, 589–606.
Lawson, A.E., & Worsnop, W.A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in
special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and
religious commitment. JournalofResearch in Science Teaching, 29(2), 143–166.
Amasya Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 54-72, 2012
70
Lee, C.Q. & She, H.C. (2010). Facilitating students’ conceptual change and scientific
reasoning ınvolving theunit of combustion. Research in Science Education, 40(4), 479–
504.
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.
Malatyalı, E. &Yılmaz, K. (2010). Yapılandırmacıöğrenme sürecinde kavramlar ve önemi:
Kavramların pedagojik açıdan incelenmesi. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi,
3(14), 320–332.
Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry? Journal of Chemical
Education, 69, 191–196.
Oliva, J.M. (2003). The structural coherence of students’ conceptions in mechanics and
conceptual change. International JournalofScienceEducation, 25(5), 539–561.
Özalp, D. (2008). İlköğretim ve ortaöğretimöğrencilerinin maddenin tanecikli yapısı
konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının ontoloji temelinde belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans
Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Özalp, D. & Kahveci, A. (2011). Maddenin tanecikli yapısı ile ilgili ikiaşamalı tanılayıcı
soruların ontoloji temelindegeliştirilmesi. MilliEğitim Dergisi, 191, 135–156.
Özkan Ö., Tekkaya C. & Çakıroğlu J. (2002). Fen Bilgisi AdayÖğretmenlerinin Fen
Kavramlarını Anlama Düzeyleri, FenÖğretimine Yönelik Tutum ve Öz-yeterlik
İnançları. V. UlusalFen Bilimler ve MatematikEğitimi Kongresi, Ankara: ODTÜ.
Prieto, T., Blanco, A. & Rodriguez, A. (1989). The ideas of 11 to 14-year-old students about
thenatureofsolutions. International Journalof ScienceEducation, 11(4), 451-463.
Sanmarti, N., Izquierdo, M. & Watson, J.R. (1995). The substantialisation of properties in
pupils’ thinking and in thehistory ofscience. Scienceand Education, 4, 349-369.
She, H.C. & Liao, Y.W. (2010). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through
adaptive web-based learning. JournalofResearch in Science Teaching, 47(1), 91–119.
Sommers, F. (1963). Types and Ontology. ThePhilosophicalReview, 7(3),327-363.
Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate student’s
misconceptions in science. Journal OfBiologicalEducation, 10(2), 159–169.
Uslu, S. (2010). İlkçağ felsefesi. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi yayını No:1944,1025.
Ünal Çoban, G. & Ergin, Ö. (2010). İlköğretimöğrencilerinin bilimsel bilginin varlık alanına
yönelik görüşlerinibelirlemeölçeği. İlköğretim Online, 9(1), 188–202.
Watson, J. R., Prieto, T., & Dillon, J. S. (1997). Consistency in students’ explanations about
combustion. ScienceEducation, 81, 425-444.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com