Geometrik Optikte Muhtemel Kavram Yanılgılarının Kaynağı Olarak Fizik Ders Kitaplarının İçerik Analizi

Geometrik optikte öğrencilerin kavrama ve muhakemelerini konu alan çalışmalar, öğrencilerin temel geometrik optik olaylarda bilimsel olarak yanlış bilgilere ya da eksik anlamalara sahip olduklarını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu nedenle, tüm bu kavrama ve muhakemelerin yanı sıra bu yanlış ya da eksik anlama ve muhakemelere sebep olan faktörlerin de tespit edilmesi büyük önem taşımaktadır. Alan yazınında ders kitapları öğrencilerin bu yanlış kavrama ve muhakemelerine neden olan temel sebeplerden biri olarak görülmektedir. Optiğe giriş derslerinde öğrenciler gözlemcinin gözünün görüntü oluşumu ve gözlenmesindeki öneminin yeterince farkına varamamaktadırlar. Bu çalışmada dünya genelinde yaygın olarak kullanılan dokuz fizik ders kitabı ile Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı tarafından Türkiye'deki liselerde okutulmak üzere tavsiye edilen fizik ders kitabı gözlemcinin gözünün bu kitaplarda kullanımı ve optikte öğrencilerin hatalı ya da eksik kavramlarının muhtemel nedeni olma açısından irdelenmiştir. Toplam on ders kitabının analizinde doküman analizi metodu kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda incelenen ders kitaplarında görüntü oluşumu ve gözlenmesinde gözlemcinin gözünün rolünün göz ardı edildiği ya da özellikle öneminin vurgulanmasında eksiklik olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ders kitaplarının uzmanlar tarafından tekrar gözden geçirilip daha iyi öğrenmenin gerçekleşebilmesi için özellikle optiğe giriş konularında gözlemcinin gözünün rolü ve öneminden bahsedilmesi tavsiye edilmiştir

A Content Analysis of Physics Textbooks as a Probable Source of Misconceptions in Geometric Optics

Studies on students’ conceptions and reasoning in geometric optics have revealed that students have scientifically incorrect knowledge or lack of understanding in basic optical phenomena. For this reason, as well as the identification of these conceptions or reasoning, the factors or sources that may cause the construction of them should be determined. In the literature, textbooks are considered as one of the main sources of students’ unscientific or lacking conceptions. In introductory optics, students may not recognize the role of the observer’s eye in the formation and the observation of an image. In this study, nine commonly used physics textbooks around the world and the physics textbook advised by Ministry of National Education in Turkey analyzed in terms of the use of observer’s eye and critiqued as a potential source of students’ unscientific or lack of conception in optics. Document analysis method is used in order to analyze the ten textbooks. It is found that the role of the observer’s eye is ignored or not specifically emphasized in the image formation or observation process in the textbooks. It is suggested that textbooks should be reviewed by experts and the role of observers’ eye should be considered especially at the introductory optics for students’ better understanding of the optical phenomena

PDF

___

Beaty, W. J. (1987). The origin of misconceptions in optics. American Journal of Physics, 55 (10), 872-873.
Campanario, J. M. (2006). Using textbook errors to teach physics: examples of specific activities. European Journal of Physics, 27, 975-981.
Conery, C. (1983). The reality of a real image. The Physics Teacher, 21 (9), 589.
Cummings, K. (2004). Understanding physics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Galili, I., Goldberg, F. & Bendall, S. (1991). Some reflections on plane mirrors and images. The Physics Teacher, 29(7), 471-477.
Galili, I. (1996). Students’ conceptual change in geometrical optics. International Journal of Science Education, 18 (7), 847-868.
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). Learner’s knowledge in optics: interpretation, structure and analysis. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 22(1), 57-88.
Good, R. (1993). Science textbook analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 619.
Goldberg, F. M. & McDermott, L. C. (1986). Student difficulties in understanding image formation by a plane mirror. The Physics Teacher, 24(8), 472-480.
Goldberg, F. M. & McDermott, L. C. (1987). An investigation of student understanding of the real image formed by a converging lens or concave mirror. American Journal of Physics, 55 (2), 108-119.
Goldberg, F., Bendall, S. & Galili, I. (1991). Lenses, pinholes, screens, and the eye. The Physics Teacher, 29(4), 221- 224.
Giambattista, A., Richardson, B. M. & Richardson, R. C. (2007). College physics vol 2, (2nd ed.). N. Y.: McGrawHill.
Girffith, W. T. (2004). The physics of everyday phenomena: A conceptual introduction to physics (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Helm (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students. Physics Education, 15, 92-105.
Hewitt, P. G. (2002). Conceptual physics (9th ed.). San Francisco: Addison Wesley.Iona, M. (1987). “Why Johnny can’t learn physics from textbooks I have known,” Mario Iona’s acceptance speech for the 1986 Millikan Lecture Award presented by the American Association of Physics Teachers, Columbus,Ohio, 26 June 1986. American Journal of Physics, 55(4), 299-307.
Ivowi, U. M. (1984). Misconceptions in physics amongst Nigerian secondary school students. Physics Education, 19, 279-285.
Komisyon (2012). Ortaogretim fizik 12 ders kitabı (2nd ed.). Ankara: M.E.B. Devlet Kitapları.
Kaltakci, D., & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Sources of optics misconceptions. In G. Çakmakçı & M. F. Taşar (Eds.), Contemporary Science Education Research: Learning and Assessment (pp.13-16). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.
Kikas, E. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions and misconceptions concerning three natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 432-448.
King, C. J. H. (2010). An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: earth science in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (5), 565-601.
Langley, D., Ronen, M., & Eylon, B. S. (1997). Light propagation and visual patterns: preinstruction learners’ conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 399-424.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Martindale, D. G., Heath, R. W., Konrad, W. W., Macnaughton, R. R. & Carle, M. A. (1992). Heath physics.Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company.
Physical Science Study Committee (1981). Physics / PSSC (5th ed.). Lexington, Mass: Heath.
Ronen, M. & Eylon, B. (1993). To see or not to see: the eye in geometrical optics-when and how? Physics Education, 28, 52-59.
Serway , R. A., & Faughn, J. S. (1999). College physics (5th ed.). Fort Worth: Saunders College Pub.
Serway, R. A., & Faughn, J. S. (2002). Holt physics. Austin: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J.J. & Novak J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan.
Zitzewitz, P. W. (2002). Glencoe physics: Principles and problems N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.