Öğretmen Adaylarının Sıra Dışı Bir Tepkimenin Isısını Belirleme Konusunda Sahip Oldukları Bilimsel Muhakemelerinin İncelenmesi

Öğrencilerin mevcut anlayışlarına dayalı olarak kurdukları hipotezlerle uyuşmayan ve aynı zamanda beklemedikleri bulguları değerlendirmelerinin, onların sorgulayıcı araştırma etkinliklerindeki kavramsal değişimlerinde önemli yeri vardır. Beklenmedik bulgularla karşılaşılabilecek konulardan biri kimyasal enerji konusudur. Öğrencilerin çoğu istemli tepkimelerin ekzotermik olacağına, endotermik tepkimelerin ise dışarıdan ısıtmayla gerçekleşebileceğine inanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada günlük hayatta sık karşılaşılmayan bir olgu olarak istemli endotermik bir tepkimenin ısısına karar vermeyle ilgili bir sorgulayıcı araştırma deneyine katılan öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel muhakemeleri incelenmiştir. Çalışma bir eğitim fakültesinin birinci sınıfındaki 58 öğretmen adayı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplamada öğretmen adaylarının deney föylerinden ve onlarla gerçekleştirilen görüşmelerden faydalanılmıştır. Katılımcıların kurdukları hipotezler ve tepkimenin ısısıyla ilgili kararları incelendiğinde, bazılarının tutarlı bilimsel muhakemeler sergilerken birçoğunun doğrulama yanlılığı gösterdiği; yine bir kısmının alternatif anlayışlarını değiştirirken, çoğunun değiştirmediği belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlara dayanarak, öğrencilerin farklı olgular karşısındaki bilimsel muhakemelerinin inceleneceği çalışmaların yapılması önerilebilir.

Investigation of Prospective Teachers’ Scientific Reasoning for Determining the Heat of an Unusual Reaction

Students' evaluation of findings that do not match hypotheses they have established based on theircurrent understanding and at the same time do not expect has an important role in their conceptual changes ininquiry activities. One of the issues that may encounter unexpected findings is the issue of chemical energy. Moststudents believe that spontaneous reactions will be exothermic, and that endothermic reactions can occur byexternal heating. In this study, the scientific reasoning of the prospective teachers who participated in an inquirybased experiment about deciding the heat of a spontaneous endothermic reaction as a rare phenomenon in dailylife was examined. The study was conducted with 58 prospective teachers in the first year of a faculty of education.The data were collected from prospective teachers’ experiment sheets and interviews . When the hypothesesestablished by the participants and their decisions about the heat of the reaction were examined, it was determinedthat some of them exhibited consistent scientific reasoning, while many showed confirmation bias; while some ofthem changed their alternative understanding, most of them did not. Based on these results, it may be suggested toconduct studies examining the scientific reasoning of learners towards different phenomenon.

PDF

___

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in education eight edition. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Boo, H. K. (1998). Students' understandings of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 569-581.
BouJaoude, S. B. (1991). A study of the nature of students' understandings about the concept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 689-704.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1992a). Psychological responses to anomalous data. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 165-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 327.
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.). The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dunbar, K. (2001). What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings, 115-140.
Goedhart, M. J., & Kaper, W. (2002). From chemical energetics to chemical thermodynamics. In Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 339-362). Springer, Dordrecht.
Kadayifci, H. (2017). Barriers to students’ creative evaluation of unexpected experimental findings. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(3), 414-428.
Kadayifci, H. (2018) If a reaction is spontaneous, may it be endothermic? Perceptions and creation of an acceptable mental model. 7th International Conference New Perspectives in Science Education. Florence, Italy
Kesidou, S., & Duit, R. (1993). Students' conceptions of the second law of thermodynamics— an interpretive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 85-106.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Klahr, D. (2005). A framework for cognitive studies and technology. In M. Gorman, R. D. Tweney, D. C. Gooding, & A. P. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 81– 95). Mawah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1-48.
Koslowski, B. (2012). Scientific reasoning: Explanation, confirmation bias, and scientific practice. Handbook of the psychology of science, 151-192.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition. University of Chicago press.
Johnstone, A. H., MacDonald, J. J., & Webb, G. (1977). Misconceptions in school thermodynamics. Physics Education, 12(4), 248.
Limón, M., & Carretero, M. (1997). Conceptual change and anomalous data: A case study in the domain of natural sciences. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(2), 213.
Mason, L. (2000). Role of anomalous data and epistemological beliefs in middle school students’ theory change about two controversial topics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(3), 329-346.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
Nilsson, T., & Niedderer, H. (2014). Undergraduate students' conceptions of enthalpy, enthalpy change and related concepts. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(3), 336-353.
Park, J. (2001). Analysis of students' processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1219-1236.
Sozbilir, M., & Bennett, J. M. (2006). Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ misunderstandings of enthalpy and spontaneity. Chemical Educator, 11(5), 355-363.
Thomas, P. L., & Schwenz, R. W. (1998). College physical chemistry students' conceptions of equilibrium and fundamental thermodynamics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1151-1160.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students' understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368.
VandenBos, G. R. (2015). APA dictionary of psychology (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: APA.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model‐ based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.