İLKÖĞRETİM İKİNCİ KADEME ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN TANECİK KAVRAMI HAKKINDAKİ GÖRÜŞLERİ: BİLGİ DÖNÜŞÜMÜ

References (72)

1. Adbo, K. ve Taber, K. S. (2008). Learners’ mental models of the particulate nature of matter: A study of 16-year-old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science Education, 1-30 (i-fıı'st article). DOI: 10.1080/09500690701799383.
2. Albanese, A. ve Vicentini, M. (1997). Why do we believe that an atom is colourless ? Reşections about the teaching of the particle model. Science & Education, 6, 251-261.
3. Atasoy, B. (2004). Temel kimya kavramlan, (2.Bask1). Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
4. Ayas, A. (2002) Students’ level of understanding of five basic chemistry concepts. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 18, 19-32.
5. Ayas, A. ve Özmen, H. (2002). Lise kimya öğrencilerinin maddenin tanecikli yapısı kavrarmnı anlama seviyelerine ilişkin bir çalışma, Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 19(2), 45-60.
6. Baki, A. (1999). Cebirle İlgili İşlem Yanılgılarının Değerlendirilmesi. HI. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu. M.E.B. ÖYGM.
7. Barlet, R. ve Plouin, D. (1994). La dualite’ microscopique-macroscopique un obstacle sous-jacent aux difŞcultés en chimie dans l’enseignement universitaire. Aster, 25, 142-173.
8. Bissuel, G. (2001). Et si la physique e’tait symbolique ?, Paris: PUFC,
9. Brook, A., Briggs, H. & Driver, R. (1984). Aspects of secondary students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter. Children’s learning in science project, Centre for studies in science and mathematics education, University of Leeds, Leeds.
10. Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M. ve Green, B. (1980). “Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naive beliefs about the motion of objects”. Science, 210, 1139-1141.
11. Cokelez, A. ve Dumon, A. (2005). Atom and molecule: upper secondary school French students’ representations in long-term memory. Cemistry Educaiton: Research and Practice in Europe, 6(3), 119-135.
12. Cokelez, A. Dumon, A. & Taber, KS. (2008). Uper secondary French students, the chemical transformation and the models register. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 807-836.
13. Creswell, J. V. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Çakır, S. Ö. ve Yürük, N. (1999). Oksijenli ve oksijensiz solunum konusunda kavram yanılgıları teşhis testinin geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması. III. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu. 23-25 Eylül 1998. Karadeniz Teknik Universitesi. Trabzon. M.E.B. ÖYGM. 193-198
15. Davis,, N. T., McCarty, B. J., Shaw, K.L. & Tabba, A. S. (1993). Transitions from objectivism to constructivism in science education. International Journal of Science Education, I5(6), 627-636.
16. De Vos W. ve Verdonk, A. H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in science education in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(6), 657-664.
17. Develay, M. (1992) De l’apprentissage a l’enseignement, pour une e’piste’mologie scolaire. Collection Pedagogies. E.S.F. éditeurs, Paris
18. Drouin, A. -M. (1988). Le modele en questions. Aster, 7, 1-20.
19. Drouin, A. -M. ve Astolfi, J.-P. (1992). La modélisation a l’école e’le’mentaire, in. Enseignement et apprentissage de la mode'lisation en science. Paris: ]NRP,
20. Fisher, K. ve Lipson, J. (1986) “Twenty questions about student errors”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 783-803.
21. Genzling, J. -C. ve Pierrard, M. -A. (1994). La modelisation, la description, la conceptualisation, l’explication et la prediction, in Nouveau regards sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de la mode'lisation en sciences, Paris: INRP.
22. Gilbert, J. K. (1997). Exploring models and modeling in science and technology education (Reading: New Bulmershe Papers).
23. Gilbert, J. ve Swift, D. (1985) “Towards a Lakatosian analysis of the Piagetian and alternative conceptions research programs”. Science Education, 69, 681-696.
24. Griffiths, K. A. ve Preston, R. K. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611-628.
25. Grosslight, K., Unger, C., Jay, E. & Smith, C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conception of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 799-822.
26. Harrison, A. G. ve Treagust,D. F. (2002). The particulate nature of matter: Challenges in understanding the submicroscopic world. In J. K. Gilbert, 0. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemistry education: Towardds a research-based preactice (pp. 189-212). The Metherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
27. Host, V. (1989). Systeme et modeles: quelques reperes bibliographiques, Aster, 8, 187-209.
28. Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in children’s understanding of a ‘basic’ particle theory: a longitudinal study, International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 393-412.
29. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). The presentation of chemistry — logical or physchological ? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1, 9-15.
30. Justi, S. R. ve Gilbert, K. J. (2002). “Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers.” International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387.
31. Kokkotas, P., Vlachos, I. & Koulaidis, V. (1998). Teaching the topic of the particulate nature of matter in prospective teachers’ training courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 291-303.
32. Laugier, A. ve Dumon, A. (2000). Practical works and representation of chemical reaction in the macroscopic and microscopic level. Chemistry Education.' Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 61-75.
33. Liu, X. ve Lesniak, K. M. (2004). Students’ progression of understanding the matter concept from elementary to high school. Science Educaiton, 89, 433-450.
34. Martinand, J. -L. (1990). In J. Colomb et J.-L. Martinand: Enseignement et apprentissage de la mode’lisation, Rapport RCP INRP-LIREST. (p.116) Document multigraphié, Lirest. Paris, Université Paris 7.
35. MEB. (2006). 6. sınıf fen ve teknoloji progranu. Ankara: MEB. Yayınları.
36. McKloskey, M. (1983). “Naive theories of motion”. In D. Genmer & A Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Nakhleh, M. B. ve Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children’s belief about matter. Journal of Research in Science Education, 36(7), 777-805.
38. Novick, S. ve Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science Education, 63, 273-281.
39. Osborne, R. J., Bell, B. F. ve Gilbert, J. K. (1986) “Science teaching and children’s views of the world”. In J. Brown, A. Cooper, F. Toates, and D. Zeldin, (Eds.), Exploring the curriculum; Science in Schools (pp. 317-332). Milton Keynes & Philadelphia: Open Unv. Press
40. Özbek, N. K. (2007). İlköğretim 5 fen ve teknoloji ders kitabı. Ankara: Ada Yayıncılık.
41. Özmen, H., Ayas, A. & Coştu, B. (2002). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarımn maddenin tanecikli yapısı hakkındaki anlama seviyelerinin ve yanılgılarının belirlenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 2(2), 507-529.
42. Paton, R. C. (1996). On a apparently simple modeling problem in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 55—64.
43. Sökmen, H. T., Ekmekçi, M. & Güler, 0. F. (2007). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji 4. sınıf ders kitabı. Ankara: Gün Yayınları.
44. Stains, M. ve Talanquer, V. (2007). ClassiŞcation of chemical substances using particulate representations of matter: An analysis of student thinking. International Journal of Science Education. 29(5), 643-665.
45. Stephens, S. -A., McRobbie, C. & Lucas, K. B. (1999). Model-based reasoning in a year 10 classroom. Research in Science Education, 29, 189-208.
46. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. & Mamila, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education,24(4), 357-368.
47. Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Molecules and atoms at the centre stage. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(2), 57-65.
48. Tunç, T., Agalday, M., Akçam, H. K., Altunoğlu, Ü. Ç., Bağcı, N., Bakar, E., ve diğer. (2007). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji 6. sınıf ders kitabı. Ankara: MEB. Yayınları.
49. White, R. ve Gustone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
50. Yıldınm A. ve Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yaymcılık.
51. Yılmaz, A. ve Alp, E. (2006). Students’ understanding of matter: the effect of reasoning ability and grade level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(l), 22-31.
52. EK—l: Anket soruları
53. Maddenin tanecikli yapısını düşünerek bir buz küresi, bir bardak su ve bir çaydanhğın ağzından
54. çıkan buharı aşağıdaki şekillerin içirıi doldurarak gösterirsiniz?
55. Buz parçası su su buharı
56. Aşağıdaki sorularda, katı sıvı ve gaz taneciklerinin özelliklerini düşünerek katı, sıvı ve gazla ilgili
57. kıyaslamaları yaparak sebebini açıklayımz.
58. Taneciklerin şekilleri nasıldır?
59. Katılarda... Sıvılarda:... Gazlarda:... Sebebini açıklayınız.
60. Taneciklerin büyüklükleri nasıldır?
61. Taneciklerin aralarındaki mesafeler ne kadardır?
62. Taneciklerin aralarında ne vardır?
63. Taneciklerin hızları nasıldır?
64. Taneciklerin enerjileri nasıldır?
65. Tanecikleri birlikte tutan kuvvet nedir?
66. Tanecikler birbirleriyle temas ederler nıi?
67. Bissuel, G. (2001). Et si la physique e’tait symbolique ?, Paris: PUFC,
68. Davis,, N. T., McCarty, B. J., Shaw, K.L. & Tabba, A. S. (1993). Transitions from objectivism to constructivism in science education. International Journal of Science Education, I5(6), 627-636.
69. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). The presentation of chemistry — logical or physchological ? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1, 9-15.
70. Laugier, A. ve Dumon, A. (2000). Practical works and representation of chemical reaction in the macroscopic and microscopic level. Chemistry Education.' Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 61-75.
71. Martinand, J. -L. (1990). In J. Colomb et J.-L. Martinand: Enseignement et apprentissage de la mode’lisation, Rapport RCP INRP-LIREST. (p.116) Document multigraphié, Lirest. Paris, Université Paris 7.
72. Katılarda.. Sıvılarda:.. Gazlarda:.. Sebebini açıklayınız.