Using concept maps as an alternative evaluation tool for students' conceptions of electric current

Egitim Arastirmalari - Eurasian Journal of Educational Research

Volumn , Issue 31, 2008, Pages 75-92

  Şen, Ahmet Ilhan ^a   Aykutlu, Işil ^a  

^a HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Alternative conception; Concept maps; Electric current; Secondary school students

Indexed keywords

EID: 47049085063     PISSN: 1302597X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Asami, N., King, J., & Monk, M. (2000). Tuition and memory: Mental models and cognitive processing in Japanese children's work on DC electrical circuits. Research in Science and Technological Education, 18 (2), 141-155.
2. Ault C. R. (1985). Concept mapping as a study strategy in earth science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 15(1), 3844.
3. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology, a cognitive view. New York, Holt, Knehart, Winston.
4. Bahar, M. (2001). Biyoloji eǧitiminde kavram haritalarinin kullanimi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eǧitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 25-40.
5. Cohen, R. Eylon, B., & Ganiel, U. (1983). Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A Study of students' concepts. American Journal of Physics, 51 (5), 407-412.
6. Çepni, S., & Keleş, E. (2006). Turkish students' conceptions about the simple electric circuits. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 269-291.
7. Çildir, I., & Şen, A. I. (2006a). Identification of high school students' misconception about electric current by concept maps. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eǧitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 92-101.
8. Çildir, I. & Şen, A. I. (2006b). Kavram haritalarinin fizik dersine uygulanabilirliǧi ile ilgili öǧretmen görüşleri. 7. Ulusal Fen ve Matematik Eǧitimi Kongresi, 423, 7-9 Eylül, Ankara.
9. Duit, R. & Rhöneck, C. (1998). Learning and understanding key concepts of electricity. Retrieved March, 15, 2004, from http//www.physics.ohio-state.edu/jossem/ICPE/C2MC.htlm
10. Edwards, J., & Fraser, K. (1983). Concept maps as reflectors conceptual understanding. Research in Science Education, 13(1), 19-26.
11. Elhelou, M-W. A. (1997). The use of concept mapping in learning science subjects by Arab students. Educational Research, 39(3), 311-317.
12. Fry, J. A., & Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74(6), 461-472.
13. Heller, P. M., & Finley, F. N. (1992). Variable uses of alternative conceptions: A case study in current electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 259-275.
14. Karaarslan, I., Altunbaş, A., Zengin, F., & Tütüncü, A. (1999). Fizik lise 2. Eskişehir: M.E.B. Devlet Kitaplari.
15. Kilic, G. B. (2003). Concept maps and language: A Turkish experience. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1299-1311.
16. Kinchin, I. M., &: Hay, D. B. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development Educational Research, 42(1), 43-57.
17. Lee, Y., & Law, N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal Science Education, 23(2), 111-149.
18. Licht, P. (1991). Teaching electrical energy, voltage and current: An alternative approach. Physics Education, 26, 272-277.
19. Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 91-101.
20. McQure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(14), 475-492.
21. M.E.B. (2005). OECD PISA - 2003 araştirmasinin Türkiye ile ilgili sonuçlari, Ulusal Nihai Rapor. Retrieved March, 10, 2007, from http://earged.meb.gov.tr.
22. M.E.B. (2003). TIMSS 1999, Üçüncü uluslar arasi matematik ve fen bilisi çdişmasi, Ulusal Rapor. Retrieved March, 10, 2007, from http://earged.meb.gov.tr.
23. Novak, J.D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548-571.
24. Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625-645.
25. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Novak, J. D. & Musondo, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Education Research Journal, 28, 117-153.
27. Örgtin, E., (2002). Use öǧrencilerinin elektrik akimi konusundaki kavram yanügiannda yapia öǧretim yaklaşimtnin etkisi. Unpublished master's dissertation, Marmara Üniversitesi Eǧitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul
28. Pardhan, H., & Bano, Y. (2001). Science teachers' alternate conceptions about direct-currents. International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 301-318.
29. Psillos, D., Koumaras, P. & Tiberghien, A. (1988). Voltage presented as a primary concept in an introductory teaching sequence on DC circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 10(1), 29-43.
30. PEA (2003). First results from PISA 2003: Executive summary. Retrieved June, 10, 2007, from http://www.oecd.Org/dataoecd/l/63/34002454.pdf.
31. Ruiz-Primo, M. A. Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260-278.
32. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569-600.
33. Sen, A. I. (2002). Concept maps as a research and evaluation tool to asses conceptual change in quantum physics. Science Education International, 13(4), 14-24.
34. Sencar, S., & Eryilmaz, A. (2004). Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade turkish students' misconceptions concerning electric circuits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 603-616.
35. Shipstone, D. M., Rhöneck, C. V., Jung, W., Karrqvist, C. Dupin, J., Joshua, S., et al. (1988). A study of secondary students' understanding of electricity in five european countries. International Journal of Science Education, 10(3), 303-316.
36. Shymansky, J.A., Yore, L.D., Treagust, D.F., Thiele, R. B., Harrison, A., Waldrip, B.G., et al. (1997), Examining the construction process: a study of changes in level 10 students' understanding of classical mechanics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 571-593.
37. Stuart, H. A. (1985). Should concept maps be scored numerically? European Journal of Science Education, 7(1), 73-81.
38. Şen, A. İ, & Koca, S. A. O. (2003). Kavram haritalarinin analizinde niceliksel ve niteliksel metodlarin kullanimi ve karş ilaştirilmasi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eǧitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2, 1-9.
39. Tezbasaran, A. (2001). Designing teaching and learning based on concept mapping. Cognitive Technologies in Education (issue No. 9) [Newsletter].
40. TIMSS (2000). Student background with mathematics achievement: Main survey: Third international mathematics and science study repeat. Chestnut Hill, MA: Author. Retrieved June, 10, 2007, from
41. White, R. T. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: Falmer Press.
42. Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C.C., & ShaYelson, R.J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 166-184.