Journals / Eğitim ve Bilim / 2012 / Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 164

Fotosentez ve solunum süreçleri: öğretmen adaylarının anlama düzeyleri

Photosynthesis and respiration processes: prospective teachers’ conception levels

Pages
81–93
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Results show that the scientifically acceptable definitions of photosynthesis and respiration are forty-two and twenty-nine percent for prospective elementary science teachers, and five and two percent for prospective classroom teachers, respectively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to determine and compare prospective teachers’ conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration processes that are important subjects in a science and technology course.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A questionnaire with two open-ended questions was administered to 90 senior students from the Elementary Science Department and 62 sophomore students from the Primary Education Department, in the Faculty of Education, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results show that the scientifically acceptable definitions of photosynthesis and respiration are forty-two and twenty-nine percent for prospective elementary science teachers, and five and two percent for prospective classroom teachers, respectively.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine and compare prospective teachers’ conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration processes that are important subjects in a science and technology course. A questionnaire with two open-ended questions was administered to 90 senior students from the Elementary Science Department and 62 sophomore students from the Primary Education Department, in the Faculty of Education, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey. A survey method was carried out in this study. The data were of qualitative nature and were analyzed by using the technique of content analysis to reveal the emerging themes. Prospective teachers’ conceptions were categorized at three levels, namely, correct, partially correct, and incorrect. Results show that the scientifically acceptable definitions of photosynthesis and respiration are forty-two and twenty-nine percent for prospective elementary science teachers, and five and two percent for prospective classroom teachers, respectively. Participants held four misconceptions related to photosynthesis and two misconceptions related to respiration. The sources of prospective teachers’ misconceptions about photosynthesis and respiration processes were discussed based on the science education literature. Their surface understanding of chemical reactions may be at the root of these misconceptions.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmen adaylarının fen ve teknoloji dersinin iki önemli konusu olan fotosentez ve solunum süreçlerini kavramalarını belirlemek ve karşılaştırmaktır. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi’ne kayıtlı, fen bilgisi öğretmenliğinden 90 dördüncü sınıf öğrencisi ve sınıf öğretmenliğinden 62 ikinci sınıf öğrencisine iki açık-uçlu soru içeren anket uygulanmıştır. Bu çalışmada tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Nitel yolla toplanan veriler, içerik analizi tekniği ile çözümlenerek temalar elde edilmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının fotosentez ve solunum süreçlerini kavramaları; doğru, kısmen doğru ve yanlış olmak üzere üç seviyede kategorize edilmiştir. Bulgular, fen bilgisi öğretmeni adaylarının %42’sinin fotosentezi ve %29’unun solunumu; sınıf öğretmen adaylarının ise %5’inin fotosentezi ve %2’sinin solunumu bilimsel anlamda tanımladığını gösterir. Katılımcılar fotosentezle ilgili dört ve solunumla ilgili iki kavram yanılgısına sahiptirler. Öğretmeni adaylarının fotosentez ve solunumla ilgili kavram yanılgılarının kaynakları alanyazına dayanılarak tartışıldı. Onların kimyasal denklemler hakkındaki yüzeysel anlayışları, kavram yanılgılarının bir kaynağı olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇOKADAR, H. (2022). Fotosentez ve solunum süreçleri: öğretmen adaylarının anlama düzeyleri. Eğitim ve Bilim, Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 164, 81–93. https://ajindex.com/articles/497607

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Anderson, C. W., Sheldon, T. S. & Dubay, J. (1990). The effects of instruction on college nonmajors’ conceptions of respiration and photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 761-776.
  2. Barker, M. & Carr, M. (1989). Teaching and learning about photosynthesis. Part 1: An assessment in terms of students’ prior knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(1), 49- 56. Barrass, R. (1984). Some misconceptions and misunderstandings perpetuated by teachers and text-books of biology. Journal of Biological Education, 18, 201-206.
  3. Best, J. W. & Kahn, J. V. (2006). Research in education. (Tenth Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Brown, M. H. & Schwartz, R. S. (2009). Connecting photosynthesis and cellular respiration: Preservice teachers’ conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, DOI: 10.1002/ tea.20287. Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to learning in science and their implications for science pedagogy: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(4), 193-206.
  4. Cakiroglu, J. & Boone, W. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their conceptions of photosynthesis and inheritance. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14(1), 1-14. Cañal, P. (1999). Photosynthesis and “inverse respiration” in plants: an inevitable misconception? International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 363-371.
  5. Ceylan, E. & Geban, Ö. (2010). Promoting conceptual change in chemical reactions and energy concepts through the conceptual change oriented instruction. Education and Science, 35(159), 46-54.
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, v8(n1). Retrieved on 28-June-2009 at URL: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/.
  7. Eisen, Y. & Stavy, R. (1988). Students’ understanding of photosynthesis. The American Biology Teacher, 50, 208-212.
  8. Fulp, S. L. (2002). The status of elementary school science teaching. Retrieved on 28-June-2009 at URL: http://www.horizon-research.com/reports/2002/2000survey/elem_sci.php.
  9. Haslam, F. & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students’ misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plant using a two-tier multiple-choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21(3), 203-211.
  10. Hershey, D. R. (2004). Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants. Retrieved on 28-June- 2009 at URL: www. actionbioscience.org/education/hershey.html. Hesse, J., & Ander