KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik) / 2013 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4

Turkish high school students’ ideas about invertebrates: General characteristics and classification

Ayhan CİNİCİ
Sayfa
645–661
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Thus the students used analogical approaches based on empirical classi- fication criteria

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Identifying alternative conceptions is a vital part of teaching and learning in science be- cause it provides information about students’ ideas to both themselves and their teachers.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The first aim is to examine high school students’ alternative conceptions about general characteristics and classifica- tion of invertebrates.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Thus the students used analogical approaches based on empirical classi- fication criteria
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Identifying alternative conceptions is a vital part of teaching and learning in science be- cause it provides information about students’ ideas to both themselves and their teachers. In this context, the purpose of the current study is twofold. The first aim is to examine high school students’ alternative conceptions about general characteristics and classifica- tion of invertebrates. The second aim is to elicit high school students’ ability to classify invertebrates. A total of 127 grade 10 and 129 grade 11 students (aged 15-17 years) from four Turkish Anatolian high schools participated in the study. Data were collected using the Animal Classification Test (ACT) and through interviews. A wide range of alterna- tive conceptions emerged and the origin of these alternative conceptions are discussed. Furthermore, the results indicated that although the students could correctly recognize the difference between vertebrates and invertebrates (Phyla), they had failed to recog- nize the corresponding sub-categories (Classes). As a consequence, it was asserted that when the students classified the animals, they took into consideration only the animals’ external views, habitats, nutrition and movement types and similarities in the functions of their organs. Thus the students used analogical approaches based on empirical classi- fication criteria

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

CİNİCİ, A. (2022). Turkish high school students’ ideas about invertebrates: General characteristics and classification. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4, 645–661. https://ajindex.com/articles/540765

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Adeniyi, E.O. (1985). Misconceptions of selected ecological concepts held by Nigerian students. Journal of Biological Education, 19(4), 311–316.
  2. Arnaudin, M.W., & Mintzes, J.J. (1985). Students’ alternative conceptions of the human circulatory system: a cross age study. Science Education, 69(5), 721-733.
  3. Beeth, M.E. (1993). Classroom environment and conceptual change instruction. Retrieved May, 12, 2008 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data /ericdocs2sql/content_storage _01/ 0000019b /80 /16/ 89/3d. Braund, M. (1991). Childrens’ ideas in classifying animals. Journal of Biological Education, 25(2), 103–110.
  4. Braund, M. (1998). Trends in children's concepts of vertebrate and invertebrate. Journal of Biological Education, 32(2), 112-118.
  5. Chen, S-H., & Ku C-H. (1998). Aboriginal children’s alternative conceptions of animals and animal classification. Proc. Natl. Sci. Counc. ROC(D), 8(2), 55–67.
  6. Cinici, A. (2011). Lise öğrencilerinin hayvanlarin siniflandirilmasi ile ilgili alternatif kavramlari: omurgali hayvanlar. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(4), 171-187.
  7. Cinici, A., Sozbilir, M., & Demir, Y. (2011). Effect of cooperative and individual learning activities on students’ understanding of diffusion and osmosis. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 43, 19-36.
  8. Cinici, A. (2013). From caterpillar to butterfly: a window for looking into students’ ideas about life cycle and life forms of insects. Journal of Biological Education, 47(2), 84-95.
  9. Cinici, A., & Demir, Y. (2013). Teaching through cooperative POE tasks: A path to conceptual change. The Clearing House 86, 1–10.
  10. Duit, R. (2004). Bibliography - STCSE: Students' and Teachers' Conceptions and Science Education (Leibniz Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel, Germany, retrieved August, 25, 2005 from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html).
  11. Fisher, K.M. (1985). A misconception in biology: amino acids and translation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(1), 53-62.
  12. Gerdes A. B. M., Uhl, G., and Alpers, G. W. (2009). Spiders are special: fear and disgust evoked by pictures of arthropods. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30 (1), 66-73.
  13. Gilbert, J.K., Osborne, R.J., & Fenshman, P.J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623-633.
  14. Kattmann, U. (2001). Aquatics, flyers, creepers and terrestrials-Students’ conceptions of animal classification. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 141–147.
  15. Keogh, J.S. (1995). The importa