SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2026

Determining Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding of Fundamental Chemistry Concepts

Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Temel Kimya Kavramları İle İlgili Bilgi ve Anlayışlarının Belirlenmesi

Dilara Hasdemir(SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0002-3005-3536
Büşra Buyruk Şekercan(SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0003-6771-8762
Hatice Güngör Seyhan(SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5116-7845
Pages
1–10
Publication Date
2026-04-21
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings revealed that the overall mean score was 9.30 (SD= 2.73) out of a possible 38.5 points, corresponding to approximately 24% of the total score and indicating a low level of conceptual achievement.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The primary goal of contemporary science education is to cultivate individuals capable of critical thinking and scientific reasoning.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were collected from 83 pre-service science teachers enrolled at a public university through the Chemistry Concept Reasoning Test (CCRT).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed that the overall mean score was 9.30 (SD= 2.73) out of a possible 38.5 points, corresponding to approximately 24% of the total score and indicating a low level of conceptual achievement.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:kimya eğitimi. · Fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı · temel kimya kavramları

Abstract

The primary goal of contemporary science education is to cultivate individuals capable of critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Within this framework, conceptual understanding in chemistry extends beyond algorithmic problem solving. It requires the ability to explain, relate, and justify chemical concepts across different contexts. The present study aimed to examine the levels of conceptual understanding of fundamental chemistry concepts among second-, third-, and fourth-year pre-service science teachers and to determine whether these levels differ by grade level. The study was conducted using a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design. Data were collected from 83 pre-service science teachers enrolled at a public university through the Chemistry Concept Reasoning Test (CCRT). Descriptive statistics and non-parametric analyses were employed to analyze the data. The findings revealed that the overall mean score was 9.30 (SD= 2.73) out of a possible 38.5 points, corresponding to approximately 24% of the total score and indicating a low level of conceptual achievement. The Kruskal–Wallis H test showed no statistically significant difference among grade levels (H(2)=2.632, p= .268), and the effect size was negligible (η²ₕ = .008). These results suggest that exposure to chemistry coursework across grade levels does not automatically lead to meaningful improvements in reasoning-based conceptual understanding. The study highlights the need for concept-based, model-oriented instructional and assessment practices in teacher education programs.

Özet

Çağdaş fen eğitiminin temel amacı, eleştirel düşünebilen ve bilimsel akıl yürütme becerilerine sahip bireyler yetiştirmektir. Bu bağlamda kimyada kavramsal anlama, algoritmik problem çözmenin ötesine geçmektedir. Kavramsal anlama; kimyasal kavramların farklı bağlamlarda açıklanabilmesini, ilişkilendirilebilmesini ve gerekçelendirilebilmesini gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışmada, fen bilgisi öğretmenliği lisans programında öğrenim gören ikinci, üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıf öğretmen adaylarının temel kimya kavramlarına ilişkin kavramsal anlayış düzeylerinin incelenmesi ve bu düzeylerin sınıf düzeyine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma nicel, kesitsel tarama deseninde yürütülmüştür. Veriler, bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 83 öğretmen adayından Kimya Kavramları Akıl Yürütme Testi (CCRT) aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistikler ve non-parametrik analizler kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının testten aldıkları ortalama puanın 38.5 üzerinden 9.30 (SS = 2.73) olduğunu ve bu değerin toplam puanın yaklaşık %24’üne karşılık geldiğini göstermiştir. Bu durum, kavramsal başarı düzeyinin düşük olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Kruskal–Wallis H testi sonuçları, sınıf düzeyleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmadığını göstermiştir (H(2)=2.632, p= .268). Etki büyüklüğü değeri ise ihmal edilebilir düzeydedir (η²ₕ = .008). Elde edilen sonuçlar, sınıf düzeyleri boyunca kimya derslerine maruz kalmanın akıl yürütmeye dayalı kavramsal anlayışta kendiliğinden ve anlamlı bir gelişime yol açmadığını göstermektedir. Çalışma, öğretmen yetiştirme programlarında kavram temelli, model odaklı ve akıl yürütmeye dayalı öğretim ve değerlendirme uygulamalarının gerekliliğine dikkat çekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Hasdemir, D., Şekercan, B. B., Seyhan, H. G. (2026). Determining Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding of Fundamental Chemistry Concepts. Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2026, 1–10. https://ajindex.com/articles/1621041

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (50)

  1. Ayas, A., & Özmen, H. (2002). Lise kimya öğrencilerinin maddenin tanecikli yapısı kavramını anlama seviyelerine ilişkin bir çalışma [A study on secondary school students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter]. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 19(2), 45–60.
  2. Andayani, Y., Hadisaputra, S., & Hasnawati, H. (2018). Analysis of the level of conceptual understanding. In The 6th International Conference of the Indonesian Chemical Society, IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series, 1095, 012045. IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1095/1/012045
  3. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: The cognitive domain. David McKay. Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed063p873
  4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
  5. Cardellini, L. (2012). Chemistry: Why the subject is difficult? Educación Química, 23(2), 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(17)30158-1
  6. Cetin-Dindar, A., & Geban, Ö. (2017). Conceptual understanding of acids and bases concepts and motivation to learn chemistry. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1039422
  7. Claesgens, J., Scalise, K., Draney, K., Wilson, M., & Stacy, A. (2002, April). Perspective of a chemist: A framework to promote conceptual understanding of chemistry (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA). University of California, Berkeley, Lawrence Hall of Science. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED481213
  8. Cloonan, C. A., & Hutchinson, J. S. (2011). A chemistry concept reasoning test. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(3), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90025K
  9. Cracolice, M. S., Deming, J. C., & Ehlert, B. (2008). Concept learning versus problem solving: A cognitive difference. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(6), 873–878. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed085p873
  10. Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–481. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058004438
  11. Çalık, M., Ayas, A., & Ünal, S. (2006). Çözünme kavramıyla ilgili öğrenci kavramalarının tespiti: Bir yaşlar arası karşılaştırma çalışması [A cross-age study on students conception of dissolution]. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 4(3), 309–322. https://izlik.org/JA47HC48EE
  12. Çalık, M., Ayas, A., & Coll, R. K. (2007). Enhancing pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptual understanding of solution chemistry with conceptual change text. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9036-5
  13. Danipog, D. L., & Ferido, M. B. (2011). Using art-based chemistry activities to improve students’ conceptual understanding in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(12), 1610–1615. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100009a
  14. Demirbaş, M., Tanrıverdi, G., Altınışık, D., & Şahintürk, Y. (2011). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çözeltiler konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının giderilmesinde kavramsal değişim metinlerinin etkisi [The effect of conceptual change texts on eliminating preservice science teachers’ misconceptions about solutions]. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 1(2), 52–68 https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.96729
  15. Demircioğlu, H., Demircioğlu, G., & Ayas, A. (2006). Hikâyeler ve kimya öğretimi [Storylines and chemistry teaching]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30, 110–119. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/hunefd/article/102371
  16. Dukerich, L. (2015). Applying modeling instruction to high school chemistry to improve students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1315–1319. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500909w
  17. Evans, D. L., Gray, G. L., Krause, S., Martin, J., Midkiff, C., Notaros, B. M., Pavelich, M., Rancour, D., Reed-Rhoads, T., Steif, P., Streveler, R., & Wage, K. (2003). Progress on concept inventory assessment tools. Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, T4G1–T4G8.
  18. Francisco, J. S., Nakhleh, M. B., Nurrenbern, S. C., & Miller, M. L. (2002). Assessing student understanding of general chemistry with concept mapping. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(2), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p248
  19. Freire, M., Talanquer, V., & Amaral, E. (2019). Conceptual profile of chemistry: A framework for enriching thinking and action in chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(5), 674–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1578001
  20. Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias. American Psychologist, 39, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.3.193
  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90003J
  22. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics’ test data. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
  23. Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory: A response to Huffman and Heller. Physics Teacher, 33(8), 502–506. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2344278
  24. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497
  25. Holme, T. A., Luxford, C. J., & Brandriet, A. (2015). Defining conceptual understanding in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1477–1483. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00218
  26. Hopkins, K. D. (1998). Test validity in educational and psychological measurement. Allyn & Bacon.
  27. Hutchinson, J. S. (2000). Teaching introductory chemistry using concept development case studies. University Chemistry Education, 4, 3–8. https://rsc.li/3Chtz6g
  28. Hutchinson, J. S. (2007). Concept development studies in chemistry. Connexions. Rice University, Houston, Texas, http://cnx.org/content/col10264/1.5
  29. Klausmeier, H. J. (1992). Concept learning and concept teaching. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 267-286. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2703_1
  30. Koç, Y. (2014). Fen eğitimi öğrencilerinin gazların dağılımını mikro boyutta anlama düzeyleri [Science education students’ level of understanding of gas distribution at the microscopic level].e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 40–48. https://izlik.org/JA46HH99ZY
  31. Koenig, K., Schen, M., & Bao, L. (2012). Explicitly targeting pre-service teacher scientific reasoning abilities and understanding of nature of science through an introductory science course. Science Educator, 21(2), 1-9. www.static.nsta.org
  32. Kolomuç, A., & Tekin, S. (2011). Chemistry teachers’ misconceptions concerning chemical reaction rate. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 3(2), 84–101. https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v3i2.194
  33. Kunduz, N. (2013). Animasyonlarla öğretimin çöktürme titrimetrisi konusunda akademik başarıya etkisi [The effect of animation-based instruction on academic achievement in the topic of precipitation titrimetry] (Master’s thesis). Hacettepe University.
  34. Lin, Q., Kirsch, P., & Turner, R. (1996). Numeric and conceptual understanding of general chemistry at a minority institution. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(10), 1003–1005. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed073p1003
  35. Lythcott, J. (1990). Problem solving and requisite knowledge of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(3), 248–252. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed067p248
  36. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Prentice Hall.
  37. Memişoğlu, H., & Tarhan, E. (2016). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin kavram öğretimine ilişkin görüşleri [Social studies teachers’ views on concept teaching]. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 5(Special Issue), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.648605
  38. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p191
  39. Nakhleh, M. B., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 190–192. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p190
  40. Nieswandt, M. (2007). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 908–937. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20169
  41. Nurrenbern, S. C., & Robinson, W. R. (1998). Conceptual questions and challenge problems. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(11), 1502–1503. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed075p1502
  42. Ok, M. (2019). Öğrenci ve öğretmen adaylarının sıvılar konusuna ilişkin düşünce biçimlerinin çoklu model kullanımıyla belirlenmesi [Determination of students and prospective teachers' alternative ideas via multiple models] (Master’s thesis). Marmara University.
  43. Reid, N. (2000). The presentation of chemistry: Logically driven or applications-led? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(3), 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1039/B0RP90018D
  44. Rempel, B. P., Dirks, M. B., & McGinitie, E. G. (2021). Two-stage testing reduces student-perceived exam anxiety in introductory chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(8), 2527–2535. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00219
  45. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic instruments. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204
  46. Tüysüz, M., Ekiz, B., Bektaş, O., Uzuntiryaki, E., Tarkin, A., & Kutucu, E. S. (2011). Pre-service chemistry teachers’ understanding of phase changes and dissolution at macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 452–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.120
  47. Wheeldon, R. (2012). Examining pre-service teachers’ use of atomic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9333-0
  48. Wiediger, S. D., & Hutchinson, J. S. (2002). Student self-assessment in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(1), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p120
  49. Yalçın-Çelik, A., Turan-Oluk, N., Üner, S., Ulutaş, B., & Akkuş, H. (2017). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının asitlik kavramı ile ilgili anlamalarının çizimlerle değerlendirilmesi [Evaluating chemistry preservice teachers’ concepts of acidity through drawings]. Kırşehir Ahi Evran University Faculty of Education Journal, 18(1), 103–124. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefad/article/851395
  50. Yıldırım, M. C., & Dönmez, B. (2008). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme yaklaşımı uygulamalarının sınıf yönetimine etkileri üzerine bir çalışma [A study about the effects of constructivist learning approach practices on classroom management]. Elementary Education Online, 7(3), 664–679. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ilkonline/article/10708