Kimyasal Gösterimlerin Genel Kimya Ders Kitaplarinda Kullanımı

Çalışmanın amacı üniversitelerin fen bilgisi eğitimi anabilim dalında okutulan Genel Kimya ders kitaplarında elektrokimya ünitesindeki kimyasal gösterimleri çeşitli özellikler açısından incelemektir. Bu amaçla 17 Genel Kimya ders kitabı içerik analizine tabii tutulmuştur. İçerik analizi sürecinde alan yazında var olan bir liste kullanılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda elektrokimya ünitelerinde en az 2, en çok 52 ve toplam 289 gösterim olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Kitap başına düşen ortalama gösterim sayısı 17’dir (287/17). Sayfa başına düşen ortalama gösterim sayısı (gösterim sayısı/sayfa sayısı) 0,11 ila 1,22 arasında değişmektedir. Gösterimlerin büyük bir çoğunluğu konu anlatımı, az bir kısmı ise ölçme-değerlendirme bölümünde yer almaktadır. Gösterimler en çok hibrit ve çoklu, en az makroskopik ve karma türündedir. Gösterimlerin yarısından fazlasının betimsel özellikleri açıktır. Gösterimlerin çoğunluğunun metin ile ilişkili-bağlantılı ve başlıklarının uygun olduğu görülmüştür. Çoklu gösterimlerin büyük bir kısmında bağlantılar yeterli iken, en çok makroskopik ve sembolik gösterimlerin bir arada bulunduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Use of Chemical Represenatations In General Chemistry Textbooks

The purpose of this study was to analyze characteristics of chemical representations inelectrochemistry unit in General Chemistry textbooks. Content analysis of 17 General Chemistry textbooks wasconducted using an existing rubric, which includes criteria for analysis of representations in textbooks, wasutilized. Results indicated that total number of representations was 289 and average number of representations ina page ranged between 0,11 and 1,22. Most of the representations were used during teaching of the topic (in text)while number of representations used in assessment part was less. With regard to type, hybrid and multiplerepresentations were utilized most, and macroscopic and mixed representations were the least frequentrepresentations. More than half of the representations had explicit surface features and were completely relatedand linked to the text. Most of the representations’ captions were appropriate. Majority of multiplerepresentations had sufficient links between their subordinates.

PDF

___

Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning withmultiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
Al-Balushi, S. M., & Al-Harthy, I. S. (2015). Students’ mind wandering in macroscopic and submicroscopic textua narrations and its relationship with their reading comprehension. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 680-688.
Butts, B., & Smith, R. (1987). HSC chemistry students' understanding of the structure and properties of molecular and ionic compounds. Research in Science Education, 17(1), 192-201.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5-26.
Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. (2008). Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires transforming from one level of representation to another. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 463-482.
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091.
Cohen L., Manion L. & Morrison K. (2000). Research methods in education, 5th ed., London: Routledge Falmer.
Cook M. P., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge onviewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92(5), 848-867.
Corradi, D., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2012). Understanding and enhancing the use of multiple external representations in chemistry education, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 780–795.
Davidowitz, B., & Chittleborough, G. (2009). Linking the macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels: Diagrams. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Models and modelling in science education: Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 169-191). Springer Netherlands.
Davila, K., & Talanquer, V. (2010). Classifying end-of-chapter questions and problems for selected general chemistry textbooks used in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 97-101.
De Jong, O. & Treagust, D. (2002) The teaching and learning of electrochemistry. In J. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. Treagust& J. van Driel (Eds.). Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 317-337), Springer, Dordrecht.
Demirdöğen, B. (2017). Examination of chemical representations in Turkish high school chemistry textbooks. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 472-299.
Fraenkel J. R., & Wallen N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th Ed.), Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548-554.
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2009). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Models and modelling in science education: Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1–8). The Netherlands: Springer.
Gillette, G., & Sanger, M. J. (2014). Analysing the distribution of questions in the gas law chapters of secondary and introductory college chemistry textbooks from the United States. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 787-799.
Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2011). Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 5-14.
Han, J., & Roth, W. (2006). Chemical inscriptions in Korean textbooks: Semiotics of macro and micro world. Science Education, 90(2), 173-201.
Harrison, A. G. (2001). How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Research in science education, 31(3), 401-435.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-705.
Johnstone, A. H. (2000a). Chemical education research: Where from Here? University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 34-38.
Johnstone, A. H. (2000b). Teaching of chemistry-logical or psychological? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 9-15.
Johnstone, A. H. (2007). Science education: We know the answers, let’s look at the problems. Paper presented at 5th Greek Conference on Science Education and New Technologies in Education, Adres http://kodipheet.chem.uoi.gr/fifth_conf/pdf_synedriou/teyxos_A/1_kentrikes_omilies/1 _KO-4-Johnstone.pdf (04.07.2019).
Kapıcı, H. Ö., & Savaşcı-Açıkalın, F. (2015). Examination of visuals about the particulate nature of matter in Turkish middle school science textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 518-536.
Karslı, F. & Çalık, M. (2012). Can freshman science student teachers’ alternative conceptions of ‘electrochemical cells’ be fully diminished? Asian Journal of Chemistry, 23(12), 485- 491.
Kelly, R. M., Akaygun, S., Hansen, S. J., & Villalta-Cerdas, A. (2017). The effect that comparing molecular animations of varying accuracy has on students’ submicroscopic explanations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 582-600.
Khine, M. S. (2013). Analysis of science textbooks for instructional effectiveness. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks (pp. 303-310). Netherlands: Springer.
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(9), 949-968.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In John K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121-145). Netherlands: Springer.
Kumi, B. C., Olimpo, J. T., Bartlett, F. and Dixon, B. L. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of organic chemistry textbooks in promoting representational fluency and understanding of 2D–3D diagrammatic relationships. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 177-187.
Lee, Y. H. (2012). A review of elementary science textbook analysis research conducted over the past three decades in the United States and analysis of the nature of science in the introductory chapter of us elementary science textbooks. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(3), 398-412.
Nyachwaya, J. M., & Gillaspie, M. (2016). Features of representations in general chemistry textbooks: a peek through the lens of the cognitive load theory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 58-71.
Nyachwaya, J. M., & Wood, N. B. (2014). Evaluation of chemical representations in physical chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 720-728.
Ogude, A. N., & Bradley, J. D. (1994). Ionic Conduction and Electrical Neutrality in Operating Electrochemical Cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(1), 29-34.
Osman, K., & Lee, T. T. (2014). Impact of interactive multımedia module with pedagogical agents on students’understanding and motivation in the learning of electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 395-421.
Özkaya, A. R. (2002). Conceptual difficulties experienced by prospective teachers in electrochemistry: Half-cell potential, cell potential, and chemical and electrochemical equilibrium in Galvanic cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 735-738.
Pozzer, L. L., & Roth, W. M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089- 1114.
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(6), 853-860.
Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2000). Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 521-537.
Shehab, S. S., & BouJaoude, S. (2016). Analysis of the chemical representations in secondary Lebanese chemistry textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 797-816.
Springer, M. T. (2014). Improving students’ understanding of molecular structure through broad-based use of computer models in the undergraduate organic chemistry lecture. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1162-1168.
Stylianidou, F. (2002). Analysis of science textbook pictures about energy and pupils’ readings of them. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 257-283.
Supasorn, S. (2015). Grade 12 students' conceptual understanding and mental models of galvanic cells before and after learning by using small-scale experiments in conjunction with a model kit. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 393-407.
Taber K. S. (2009). Learning at the symbolic level. In J. K Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Models and modelling in science education: Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 75–109). Netherlands: Springer.
Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156-168.
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179-195.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1368.
Upahi, J. E., & Ramnarain, U. (2019). Representations of chemical phenomena in secondary school chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 146-159.
Woodward A., (1993). Learning from textbooks, theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wu H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465-492.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.