A cross-age study of Turkish students' mental models: An atom concept

Didactica Slovenica - Pedagoska Obzorja

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 185-199

  Gökdere, Murat ^a   Çalik, Muammer ^b  

^a AMASYA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Atom; Constituents of "atom"; Cross age; Mental model; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956121427     PISSN: 03531392     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Anderson, B., (1986). Pupils' explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70(5), pp. 549-563.
2. Ayas, A., Özmen, H. & Genç, H. (2001). Chemistry teaching in Turkey. Energy, Education, Science and Technology, 7(2), pp. 59-65.
3. Blanco, R. & Niaz, M. (1998). Baroque tower on a gothic base: A Lakatosian reconstruction of students' and teachers' understanding of structure of the atom. Science and Education, 7(4), pp. 327-360.
4. Bodner, G. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, pp. 873-878.
5. Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10), pp. 1123-1130.
6. Charlet-Brehelin, D. (1998). Contribution à l'enseignement - apprentissage du concept d'atome au collège, Thèse, Université Montpellier II.
7. Cokelez, A. & Dumon, A., (2005). Atom and molecule: Upper secondary school French students' representations in long-term memory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 6, pp. 119-135.
8. Coll, R.K. & Treagust, D.F. (2002). Learners' use of analogy and alternative conceptions for chemical bonding: A cross-age study. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 48, pp. 24-35.
9. Çalik, M., Ayas, A. & Ebenezer, J.V. (2005). A review of solution chemistry studies: Insights into students' conceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), pp. 29-50.
10. Çalik, M. & Ayas, A. (2005a). A comparison of level of understanding of grade 8 students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), pp. 638-667.
11. Çalik, M. & Ayas, A. (2005b). A cross-age study on the understanding of chemical solution and their components. International Education Journal, 6(1), pp. 30-41.
12. Çalik, M. (2005). A cross-age study of different perspectives in solution chemistry from junior to senior high school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, pp. 671-696.
13. Çalik, M. & Ayas, A. (2008). A critical review of the development of the Turkish science curriculum. In R.K. Coll and N. Taylor (Eds.), Science Education in Context: An International Examination of the Influence of Context on Science Curricula Development and Implementation, pp. 161-174, AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers B.V.
14. Çalik, M., Ünal, S., Coştu, B., Dede, N. & Ayas, A. (2009). Investigating effectiveness of analogies embedded within four-step constructivist teaching model: A case for "atom" concept. Journal of Science Education, 10(1), pp. 36-40.
15. Dede, N. (2006). Remediation of grade 7 students' alternative conceptions of "structure of atom" topic. Unpublished Master Thesis, the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.
16. Driver, R., Erickson, G., (1983). Theories in action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students, conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, pp. 37-60.
17. Ebenezer, J.V. & Erickson, G.L. (1996). Chemistry students' conceptions of solubility: A pheno-menography. Science Education, 80, pp. 181-201.
18. Eshach, H. & Garik, P.(2001). Students' conceptions about atoms and atom-bonding. Retrieved 20 December, 2005 from http://www.bu.edu/smec/qsad/ed/ QM-NARST-finalpg.pdf.
19. Griffiths, A.K. & Preston, K.R., (1992). Grade 12 students' misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atom and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29(6), pp. 611-628.
20. Goodwin, A.J. (1995). Understanding secondary school science: A perspective of the.graduate scientists beginning teacher. School Science Review, 76, pp. 100-109.
21. Gonzalez, F.M. (1997). Diagnosis of Spanish primary school students' common alternative science concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 97(2), pp. 68-74.
22. Guzzetti, B.J. (2000). Learning counter intuitive science conception: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Writing Quarterly, 16 (2), pp. 89-96.
23. Gündüz, A. (2001). Concept of atom and molecule on the primary and secondary education students. Unpublished Master Thesis, Gazi University, the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
24. Gülçiçek, C., Baǧi, N. & Moǧol, S. (2003). Students' analysis competencies of the analogy (model) between solar system and structure of atom. The Journal of National Education, 159, pp. 74-84.
25. Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F., (1996). Secondary students' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), pp. 509-534.
26. Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F., (2000). Learning about atoms molecules and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), pp. 352-381.
27. Johnston, K., (1988). Learning and teaching about the particulate theory of matter: A report on a teaching scheme in action. In: Proceeding of a Bi-national UK-Israel seminar: Learning difficulties in chemistry, Jerusalem, pp. 55-79.
28. Justi, R. & Gilbert, J. (2000), History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in the case of the atom. International Journal of Science Education, 22, pp. 993-1009.
29. Kaya, O.N. (2002). The effect of the multiple intelligences theory on grade 7 students' achievement, retention on their knowledge, attitude and perceptions in the topic of atom and atomic structure. Unpublished Master Thesis, Gazi University, the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
30. Küçük, M. & Çepni, S. (2004). Measurement and assessment for science education in the Turkish educational context: Problems and reflections. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 5(3), Article 1. Available from: http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/.
31. Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32. Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), pp. 191-196.
33. Niaz, M. (1998). From cathode rays to alpha particles to quantum of action: A rational reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Science Education, 82, pp. 527-552.
34. Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A. & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, pp. 505-525.
35. Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates' bonding misconception. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), pp. 707-730.
36. Nottis, K.E.K. & McFarland, J. (2001). A comparative analysis of pre-service teacher analogies generated for process and structure concepts. Electronic Journal of Science Education (EJSE), 5(4), Available from: http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/knottisetal.html.
37. Orgill, M. & Bodner, G. (2004). What research tells us about using analogies to teach chemistry. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5, pp. 15-32. Available from: http://www.uoi.gr/cerp.
38. Orgill, M. & Bodner, G. (2006). An analysis of the effectiveness of analogy use in college-level biochemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(10), pp. 1040-1060.
39. Osborne, R. & Cosgrove, M. (1983). Children's conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, pp. 825-838.
40. Osborne, R., & Freyberg P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's science, Auckland:Heineman, In: Griffiths and Preston (1992) p. 612.
41. Ozgttr, S. & Bostan, A. (2007). Atom kavrammin epistemolojik analizi ve Sgrencilerin konu ile ilgili kavram yanilgilannin karsilastinlmasi. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 2(3), pp. 214-231.
42. Pideci, N. (2002). Students' misconceptions on atom and molecule concepts, developing and evaluating a specific teaching intervention to remedy these misconceptions. Unpublished Master Thesis, Marmara University, the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.
43. Rodríguez, M.A. & Niaz, M. (2004). A reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for general physics textbooks: A history and philosophy of science perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), pp. 409-424.
44. Sewell, A. (2002). Cells and atoms - Are they related?. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 48(2), pp. 26-30.
45. Shymansky, J.A. (1992). Using constructivist ideas to teach science teachers about constructivist ideas, or teachers are students too! Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3(2), pp. 53-57.
46. Smith, K.J. & Metz, P. A. (1996). Evaluating student understanding of solution chemistry through microscopic representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(3), pp. 233-235.
47. Taber, K.S. (2000). Chemistry lessons for universities? A review of constructivist ideas. University Chemistry Education, 4(2).
48. Taber, K.S. (2001). When the analogy breaks down: Modeling the atom on the solar system. Physics Education, 36(3), pp. 222-226.
49. Taber, K. (2002), Chemical misconceptions - prevention, diagnosis and cure, Vol.1: Theoretical background, Royal Society of Chemistry, London.
50. Taber, K.S. (2003). The atom in the chemistry curriculum: Fundamental concept, teaching model or epistemological obstacle? Foundations of Chemistry, 5(1), pp. 43-84.
51. Toth, Z. & Ludanyi, L. (2007). Combination of phenomenography with knowledge space theory to study students' thinking patterns in describing an atom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), pp. 327-336.
52. Treagust, D.F., Harrison, A.G. & Venville, G.J. (1998). Teaching science effectively with analogies: An approach for preservice and inservice teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(2), pp. 85-101.
53. Tsai, C.C. (1998). Science learning and constructivism. Curriculum and Teaching, 13, pp. 31-52.
54. Tsaparlis, G. & Papaphotis, G. (2008). High-school students' conceptual difficulties and attempts at conceptual change: The case of basic quantum chemical concepts. International Journal of Science Education, pp. 1-36.
55. Papaphotis G. & Tsaparlis, G. (2008b). Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: The case of basic quantum chemical concepts, Part 2.
56. Students' common errors, misconceptions, and difficulties in understanding Chemistry Education Research and Practice. URL-1 (2007). Available from: http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/modules.php.
57. Unal, R. & Zollman, D. (1999), Students' description of an atom: A phenomenographic analysis. Available from: http://perg.phys.ksu.edu/papers/vqm/ AtomModels.pdf.
58. Ünal, S., Coştu, B. & Ayas, A. (2004). Determining students' understanding of "atom" concept. Paper presented at the eighteenth national chemistry conference, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey.
59. Ünlü, S. (2000). The effects of conceptual change texts in students' achievement of atom, molecule and matter concept. Unpublished Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
60. Valanides, N. (2000). Primary student teachers' understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its transformations during dissolving. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1, pp. 249-262.
61. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research design and methods (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Sage.
62. Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J. & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D.L. Gabel (ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, pp. 177-210, New York: Macmillan.
63. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. Falmer Press, London.
64. Wright, T. (2003). Images of atom. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 49(1), pp. 18-25.