SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2

Determining the Concept Definitions, Concept Images and Misconceptions of University Students Related to Acid-Base Concepts: With Comparative Examples of Türkiye and Spain

Asit-Baz Kavramları ile İlgili Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Kavram Önermelerinin, Kavram İmajlarının ve Kavram Yanılgılarının Belirlenmesi: Türkiye ve İspanya Karşılaştırmalı Örnekleri ile

Gülseda Eyceyurt Türk(Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi)0000-0002-4757-3696
Hatice Güngör Seyhan(SIVAS CUMHURIYET UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5116-7845
Pages
98–107
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

According to the results of the research, Turkish students used the Arrhenius definition for defining acid- base; whereas Spanish students preferred the definitions of Bronsted-Lowry and Lewis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this research, it was aimed to determine the definitions of acid-base concept according to which acid-base definition and misconceptions Spanish and Turkish undergraduate students who had taken chemistry course had through their definitions and images.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants of the study were 63 undergraduate students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the research, Turkish students used the Arrhenius definition for defining acid- base; whereas Spanish students preferred the definitions of Bronsted-Lowry and Lewis.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Asit-baz · Türkiye-İspanya · asit-baz imajı

Abstract

In this research, it was aimed to determine the definitions of acid-base concept according to which acid-base definition and misconceptions Spanish and Turkish undergraduate students who had taken chemistry course had through their definitions and images. Case study, one of the qualitative research designs, was used in the research. The participants of the study were 63 undergraduate students. Worksheets were used as data collection tools in the research. Content analysis method was used for the analysis of the data. According to the results of the research, Turkish students used the Arrhenius definition for defining acid- base; whereas Spanish students preferred the definitions of Bronsted-Lowry and Lewis. In addition, in acid-base definitions; 37% of Turkish students and 24% of Spanish students had misconceptions. On the other hand, 46% of the participants could not draw any drawings for the concepts of strong and weak acids. Also, 37% of them made unscientific, that is, incorrect drawings.

Özet

Bu araştırmada, kimya dersini almış, İspanya- Türkiye lisans öğrencilerinin asit- baz kavramı hakkındaki tanımlamalarının hangi asit baz tanımına göre yapıldığı ve sahip oldukları kavram yanılgılarının hem ifadeler hem de imajlar yoluyla belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Katılımcılarının 63 lisans öğrencisi olduğu araştırmada nitel araştırma desenlerinden durum çalışması kullanılmıştır ve çalışma yaprakları veri toplama aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre Türk öğrenciler asit baz tanımını yapmada Arrhenius tanımını kullanırken; İspanyol öğrencileriler ise Bronsted-Lowry ve Lewis tanımlarını tercih etmektedir. Ayrıca asit-baz tanımlarında; Türk öğrencilerin %37’si, İspanyol öğrencilerin ise %24’ü kavram yanılgısına sahiptir. Katılımcıların %46’sı kuvvetli ve zayıf asit kavramlarına yönelik hiçbir çizim yapamamıştır. %37’si ise bilimsel olmayan yani yanlış çizim yapmışlardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Türk, G. E., Seyhan, H. G. (2022). Determining the Concept Definitions, Concept Images and Misconceptions of University Students Related to Acid-Base Concepts: With Comparative Examples of Türkiye and Spain. Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2, 98–107. https://ajindex.com/articles/1621069

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Alvarado, C., Cañada, F., Garritz, A., & Mellado, V. (2015). Canonical pedagogical content knowledge by CoRes for teaching acid–base chemistry at high school. Chemistry Education Research And Practice, 16(3), 603-618.
  2. Atasoy, B. (2004). Fen öğrenimi ve öğretimi. Asil Yayın.
  3. Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130411.
  4. Bilgin, N. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde içerik analizi. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
  5. Blake, A. J., & Nordland, F. H. (1978). Science Instruction and Cognitive Growth in College Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(5), 413-19.
  6. Bradley, J. D. & Mosimege, M. D. (1998). Misconceptions in acids and bases: a comparative study of student teachers with different chemistry backgrounds. South African Journal of Chemistry, 51(3), 137-145.
  7. Canpolat, N., Pınarbaşı, T., Bayrakçeken, S., & Geban, Ö. (2004). Some common misconceptions in chemistry. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 1(24), 135-146.
  8. Cokelez, A. (2010). A Comparative Study of French and Turkish Students' Ideas on Acid− Base Reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 102-106.
  9. Cros, D., Maurin, M., Amouroux, R., Chastrette, M., Leber, J., & Fayol, M. (1986). Conceptions of first-year university students of the constituents of matter and the notions of acids and bases. European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080307.
  10. Çalık, M., Ayas, A., & Ünal, S. (2006). Çözünme kavramıyla ilgili öğrenci kavramalarının tespiti: Bir yaşlar arası karşılaştırma çalışması. Gazi Üniversitesi Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(3), 309-322.
  11. Demerouti M., Kousathana M. &Tsaparlis G., (2004), Acid–base equilibria, part I. upper secondary students'00 misconceptions and difficulties, Chemical Educator, 9, 122–131.
  12. Demirbaş, M., Tanrıverdi, G., Altınışık D. & Şahintürk Y. (2011). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çözeltiler konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının giderilmesin- de kavramsal değişim metinlerinin etkisi. Sakarya Universty Journal of Education, 1, 2, 52-68.
  13. Demircioğlu, G., Ayas, A., & Demircioğlu, H. (2005). Conceptual change achieved through a new teachingprogram on acids and bases. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90003K.
  14. Devetak, I., & Glazar, S.A. (2009). The influence of 16-year-old students' gender, mental abilities, and motivation on their reading and drawing submicrorepresentations achievements. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1561-1593.
  15. Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students’ thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. The School Science Review, 67(240), 443-456.
  16. Ebenezer, J. V. (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students' conceptions: Animation of the solution process of table salt. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(1), 73-92.
  17. Erduran, S., Bravo, A. A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). Developing epistemology empowered teachers: Examining the role of philosophy of chemistry in teacher education. Science & Education, 16(9-10), 975-989.
  18. Erickson, E. (2004). Demystifying data construction and analysis. Anthropology and Education, 35(4), 486-493.
  19. Gabel, D.L. (1993). ChemSource, Vol. 1, pp. 1-28. Washington DC: American Chemical Society.
  20. Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: a review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25(1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269508560050.
  21. Glesne, C. (2012). Nitel araştırmaya giriş. A. Ersoy ve P. Yalçınoğlu (Ed.), Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  22. Harrison, A. G. (1994). Is there a scientific explanation for refraction of light? - A review of textbook analogies. Australian Science Teachers Journals, 40, 30-35.
  23. Hawkes, S. J. (1992). Arrhenius confuses students. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(7), 542.
  24. Hoe, K. Y., & Subramaniam, R. (2016). On the prevalence of alternative conceptions on acid-base chemistry among secondary students: insights from cognitive and confidence measures. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00146C.
  25. Jiménez-Liso, M. R., López-Banet, L., & Dillon, J. (2020). Changing how we teach acid-base chemistry. Science & Education, 29(5), 1291-1315.
  26. McClary, L. M., & Bretz, S. L. (2012). Development and assessment of a diagnostic tool to identify organic chemistry students’ alternative conceptions related to acid strength. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2317–2341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.684433.
  27. MEB (2018) Ortaöğretim Kimya Dersi Öğretim Programı http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/20181210295519019.01.2018%20Kimya%20Dersi%20%C3%96%C4%9Fretim%20Program%C4%B1.pdf
  28. Morgil, İ., Yılmaz, A., Şen, O., & Yavuz, S. (2002, 16-18 Eylül). Öğrencilerin asit-baz konusunda kavram yanılgıları ve farklı madde türlerinin kavram yanılgılarını saptama amacıyla kullanımı. [Sözlü bildiri] V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Ankara.
  29. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191-196.
  30. Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different Technologies on students’ understanding of acid, base, and ph concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1077–1096. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660311004.
  31. Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science Education, 62, 273- 281.
  32. Nyachwaya, J. M. (2016). General chemistry students' conceptual understanding and language fluency: acid–base neutralization and conductometry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 509-522.
  33. Özkan, Ö., Tekkaya, C. & Geban, Ö. (2001, 7-8 Eylül). Ekoloji konularındaki kavram yanılgılarının kavramsal değişim metinleri ile giderilmesi. Yeni Binyılın Basında Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, İstanbul.
  34. Özmen, H. (2005). Kimya öğretiminde yanlış kavramlar: Bir literatür araştırması. Gazi Üniversitesi Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 3, Sayı: 1.
  35. Özmen, H.,DemIrcIoǦlu, G.,&Coll, R. K. (2009).Acomparative study of the effects of a conceptmapping enhanced laboratory experience on Turkish high school students’ understanding of acid-base chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9087-6.
  36. Quílez, J. (2019). A categorisation of the terminological sources of student difficulties when learning chemistry. Studies in Science Education, 00(00), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2019.1694792.
  37. Rayner-Canham, G. (1994). Concepts of Acids and Bases. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4), 246-47.
  38. Scerri, E. R. (2019). Five ideas in chemical education that must die. Foundations of Chemistry, 21(1), 61–69.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-018-09327-y.
  39. Schmidt, H.-J. (1991). A label as a hidden persuader: chemists’ neutralisazion concept. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130409.
  40. Sheppard, K. (2006). High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acid-base phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1039/b5rp90014j.
  41. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. California: Sage Publications.
  42. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies İn Mathematics, 12(2), 151-169.
  43. Tan, K. D., and Treagust, D. F. (1999). Evaluating students’ understanding of chem- ical bonding. School Science Review, 81(294), 75-84.
  44. Tarhan ve Acar Şeşen, 2012 Tarhan, L., & Acar Sesen, B. (2012). Jigsaw cooperative learning: acid-base theories. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp90004a.
  45. Tsai, C. C. (2003). Using a conflict map as an instructional tool to change student alternative conceptions in simple series electric-circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 3, 307–327
  46. Tsai, C.-C., and Chou, C. (2002). Diagnosing students’ alternative conceptions in science through a networked two-tier test system. Journal Of Computer Assist- ed Learning, 18, 157–165.
  47. Yalçın-Çelik, A., Turan-Oluk, N., Üner, S., Ulutaş, B., & Akkuş, H. (2017). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının asitlik kavramı ile ilgili anlamalarının çizimlerle değerlendirilmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 18(özel sayı), 103-124.
  48. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi