Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Kimyasal Tepkimeleri Tamamlama ve Kimyasal Tepkimeleri Sınıflandırma Konusundaki Kavramaları

Bu çalışmanın amacı; üniversite öğrencilerinin kimyasal tepkimeleri tamamlama, ürünlerin fiziksel halini yazma ve tepkimeleri sınıflandırma konusundaki kavrayışlarını belirlenmektir. 2009-2010 eğitim-öğretim yılı güz dönemi sonunda yapılan bu çalışmaya Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği birinci sınıf öğrencileri (n=99) katılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak açık uçlu 10 soru içeren bir ölçme aracı kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılardan ilk bölümdeki yazılı kimyasal tepkimeleri sınıflandırmaları istenmiştir. Aynı zamanda ikinci bölümde verilen kimyasal tepkimeleri tamamlamaları, ürünlerin fiziksel hallerini belirtmeleri ve bu tepkimeleri sınıflandırmaları istenmiştir. Verilerin analizinde nitel analiz yöntemi kullanılmış ve çalışmanın bulgularına ait sonuçların dağılımı yüzde olarak sunulmuştur. Ölçme aracının iki bölümündeki tepkimeler öğrenciler tarafından sırasıyla %92 ve %54 oranında doğru olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. İkinci bölümdeki tepkime ürünlerinin formülleri öğrencilerin %56'sı tarafından doğru yazılmıştır. Sonuçlar, öğrencilerin ürünlerin formül ve fiziksel halleri ile ilgili yanlış kavramalara sahip olduklarını göstermiştir.

Undergraduates' Conceptions About Balancing Chemical Equations, and Chemical Reaction Classification

The aim of this study is to examine the undergraduate students' perceptions about completion and classification of chemical reactions. This study has been conducted in a science education department with the participation of first-year students (n=99) in Turkey during 2009-2010 schooling year. Data were collected by an instrument consisting of ten open-ended questions. Participants were asked to classify chemical reactions in the first section. In the second section, they were asked to complete the chemical reactions by means of writing the formulas and the physical states of products. Lastly, they were asked to classify them. Data were analyzed by qualitative methods, and the findings were presented in percentage. The chemical reactions in the first and second sections of instrument were classified by participants in the rates of 92% and 54%, respectively. The formulas of products in the second section of instrument were written by them in the rate of 56%. The results of this study have revealed that participants have misconceptions about formulas and physical states of products.

PDF

___

Abraham, M. R., Gryzybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W., & Marek, A. E (1992). Understanding and misunderstanding of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 105- 120.
Akgün, A. (2009). Kimyasal Denklemler ve Hesaplamalar. (Ed. H. Bağ), Genel kimya 1 (3. baskı) (ss. 41-70). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
Atkins, P. W., & Jones, L. L. (1998). Kimya: moleküller, maddeler ve değişimler (Çeviri Editörleri: E Kılıç, F. Köseoğlu ve H. Yılmaz). Cilt 1, Ankara: Bilim Yayıncılık.
Barker, V., & Millar, R. (2000). Students' reasoning about basic chemical thermodynamics and chemical bonding: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1171-1200.
Başer, M. & Çataloğlu, E. (2005). Kavram değişimi yöntemine dayalı öğretimin öğrencilerin ısı ve sıcaklık konusundaki "yanlış kavramlar"ının giderilmesindeki etkisi. H U Journal of Education, 29, 43-52.
Birk, J. P., & Kurtz, M. J. (1999). Effect of experience on retention and elimination of misconceptions about molecular structure and bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 124-128.
Bodner, G. (1996). The role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. Paper appearing in New Initiatives in Chemical Education, an On-Line Symposium, Retrieved May 25, .2010, from http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/ EdRes/Topic/Chemistry/ChemConference/ChemConf96/Bodner/Paper2.html
BouJaoude, S. B. (1992). The relationship between students' learning strategies and the change in their misunderstandings during a high school chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 687- 699.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2001).
Learners' mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31, 357-382.
Çokadar, H. (2010). First year prospective teachers' perceptions of chemical solution types and solubility. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 22, 137-147.
Day, D. V., & Lord, R. G. (1992). Expertise and problem categorization--the role of expert processing in organizational sense-making. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 35-47.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1-24.
Ekiz, D. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (2. baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 548-554.
Geban, Ö., & Bayır, G. (2000). Effect of conceptual change approach on students' understanding of chemical change and conservation of matter. H U Journal of Education, 19, 79-84.
Gillespie, R. J., Humphreys, D. A., Baird, N. C., & Robinson, E. A. (1986). Chemistry. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc. Glaser, R. (1989). Expertise and learning: How do we think about instructional processes now that we have discovered
knowledge structures? In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 269-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, B. K., Foster, K., & Gadd, N. (2003). Prior knowledge and subtyping effects in children's category learning. Cognition, 88, 171-199.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949-968.
McMurry, J., & Fay, R. C. (2004). Chemistry (4th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall Inc. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Palmeri, T. J., & Blalock, C. (2000). The role of background knowledge in speeded perceptual categorization. Cognition, 77, B45-B57.
Pınarbaşı, T., & Canpolat, N. (2003). Students' understanding of solution chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 1328-1332.
Pozo, R. M. (2001). Prospective teachers' ideas about the relationships between concepts describing the composition of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 353-371.
Sanger, M. J. (2000). Using particulate drawings to determine and improve students' conceptions of pure substances and mixtures. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 762-766.
Stains, M., & Talanquer, V. (2007). Classification of chemical substances using particulate representations of matter: An analysis of student thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 643-661.
Stains, M., & Talanquer, V. (2008). Classification of chemical reactions: Stages of expertise. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 771-793.
Tóth, Z., & Kiss, E. (2006). Using particulate drawings to study 13-17 year olds' understanding of physical and chemical composition of matter as well as the state of matter. Practice and Theory in Systems of Education, 1, 109-125.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1353-1368.
Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Yürük, N. ve Çakır, Ö. S. (2000). Lise öğrencilerinde oksijenli ve oksijensiz solunum konusunda görülen kavram yanılgılarının saptanması. H U Journal of Education, 18, 185-191.