You are here

Home » Content

What are the Pre-service Chemistry Teachers’ Explanations on Chemistry Topics?

Journal Name:

  • The International Journal of Research in Teacher Education

Publication Year:

  • 2011

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Many students at all levels have difficulties in understanding chemistry. Students’ constructions of a chemical concept sometimes differ from scientific explanations since they construct their own concepts. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to find out the pre-service chemistry teachers’ explanations regarding chemistry topics which are matter and particles, gases, solutions, vapor pressure and boiling point, chemical equilibrium, acids and bases, and electrochemistry. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were administered to a sample of six participants enrolled in the Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education at a university in Ankara. During the interviews, participants were questioned to determine their conceptual understanding aforementioned chemistry topics. Coding was made and five main (correct explanation, partially correct explanation, incorrect explanation without misconceptions, incorrect explanation with misconceptions, and no answer) categories were formed to analyze the data. Analysis of the transcribed interviews showed that the majority of the participants explained their ideas as incorrect and hold some misconceptions on aforementioned topics. In order to overcome these misconceptions it is crucial to diagnose and alternative views of them should be discussed in the class via implementing different teaching strategies and methods such as conceptual change, argumentation, and problem based learning.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-what-are-pre-service-chemistry-teachers-explanations-chemistry-topics.pdf
  • 3
32
41
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Akkus, H., Kadayıfcı, H., Atasoy, B. & Geban, O. (2003). Effectiveness of instruction based on the
constructivist approach on understanding chemical equilibrium concepts. Research in Science
& Technological Education, 21 (2), 209-227.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehard and
Winston.
Aydemir, N., Bektas, O, Çetin-Dindar, A., Aydın, S., & Boz, Y. (2008). Development of Pre-service
Chemistry Teachers’ Understanding of Particulate Nature of Matter. A paper presented
XIII.IOSTE Symposium, September 21-26, zmir, Türkiye.
Aydin, S., Aydemir, N. Boz, Y., Cetin-Dindar, A., & Bektas, O. (2009). The Contribution of
Constructivist Instruction Accompanied by Concept Mapping in Enhancing Pre-service
Chemistry Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding of Chemistry in the Laboratory Course.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(6), 518-534.
Barke, H.D., Hazari, A., & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Misconceptions in Chemistry- Addressing Perceptions
in Chemical Education. Springer, Berlin.
Bektas, O (2003). The misconceptions of 9th grade students related to the particulate nature of matter,
the reasons behind them, and their elimination. Unpublished Master Thesis. Gazi University,
Ankara.
Bektas, O., Çetin-Dindar, A. & Yalcin-Celik, A, (2009). Exploring conceptual integration in the preservice
chemistry teachers’ thinking. A paper presented European Science Education Research
Association 2009 Conference, August31-September 4, 2009, Istanbul, Turkey.
Canpolat, N., Pinarbasi, T., & Sozbilir, M. (2006). Prospective teachers’ misconceptions of
vaporization and vapor pressure. Journal of Chemical Education, 83 (8), 1237-1242.
Cetin-Dindar, A., Bektas, O, Aydın, S., Aydemir, N. & Boz, Y. (2008). Pre-service Chemistry
Teachers’ Misconceptions on Evaporation, Boiling, and Vapor Pressure. A paper presented
XIII.IOSTE Symposium, September 21-26, zmir, Türkiye.
Costu, B., Ayas, A., & Ünal, S. (2007). Karam Yanılgıları ve Olası Nedenleri: Kaynama Kavramı.
Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi, 15(1), 123-136.
Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K.V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter.
Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695-697.
Gabel, D.L. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to
the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76 (4), 548-554.
Gómez, E.J., Benarroch, A., Marín, N. (2006). Evaluation of the degree of coherence found in
students’ conceptions concerning the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 43 (6), 577-598.
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.
What are the Pre-service Chemistry Teachers’ Explanations on Chemistry Topics?
© Educational Research Association, All rights reserved.
39
Haidar, A.H., & Abraham, M.R. (1991). A comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of
concepts based on the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
28(10), 919-938.
Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules:
Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80 (5), 509-534.
Herron, D. (1996). The Chemistry Classroom-Formulas for Successful Teaching. American Chemical
Society. Washington, DC.
Jansoon, N., Coll, R.K., & Somsook, E. (2009). Understanding mental models of dilution in Thai
students. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(2), 147-168.
Mirzaie, R.A., Shahmohammadi, M.,& Kouhi, A. (2010). Study of students’ mental images effect on
learning chemistry. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 2(1), 53-62.
Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical
Education, 69(3), 191-196.
Nakhleh, M.B. & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children’s beliefs about matter.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (7), 777-805.
Novick, S & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupil’s understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A crossage
study. Science Education, 65, 187-196.
Powers, A. (2000). Relationships of students’ conceptual representations and problem solving abilities
in acid base chemistry. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Northern Colorado,
Colorado.
Sanger, M.J. & Greenbowe, T.J. (1999). An Analysis of College Chemistry Textbooks as Sources of
Misconceptions and Errors in Electrochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 853-860.
Schmidt, H-J. (1995) Applying the concept of conjugation to the Bronsted theory of acid-base
reactions by senior high school students from Germany. International Journal of Science
Education, 17, 733 -742.
Schmidt, H. J., Marohn, A., Harrison, A. G. (2007). Factors that prevent learning in electrochemistry.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (2), 258-283.
Taber, K. S. (2003). Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the learner’s
prior learning. Science Education, 87, 732-787.
Taber, K. S. (2008). Exploring conceptual integration in student thinking: Evidence from a case study.
International Journal of Science Education, 30 (14), 1915-1943.
Teichert, M.A., Tien, T.L., Anthony, S., & Rickey, D. (2008). Effect of context on students’ molecular
level ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1095-1114.
Treagust, D.F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T.L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic
representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 1353-
1368.

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