Advertisement

STUDENTS’ CONCEPTIONS OF THE PARTICULATE NATURE OF MATTER AT SECONDARY AND TERTIARY LEVEL

  • Alipaşa Ayas
  • Haluk Özmen
  • Muammer ÇalikEmail author
Article

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to elicit students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter via a cross-age study ranging from secondary to tertiary educational levels. A questionnaire with five-item open-ended questions was administered to 166 students from the secondary to tertiary levels of education. In light of the findings, it can be deduced that the number of students’ responses categorized under the “sound understanding” category for each item increased with educational level, except for U1. Also, it can be concluded that students’ specific misconceptions decreased steadily from SHS1 to SHS3, except for item 4, but there is surprisingly a clear increase at U1.

Key words

concept understanding misconception particulate nature of matter science education secondary–tertiary level 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abraham, M. R., Grzybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W., & Marek, E. A. (1992). Understandings and misunderstandings of eight graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding five concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70(5), 549–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayas, A. (2001). Students’ level of understanding of five basic chemistry concepts. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 18, 19–32.Google Scholar
  5. Ayas, A., Çepni, S., & Akdeniz, A. R. (1993). Development of the Turkish secondary science curriculum. Science Education, 77(4), 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ayas, A., & Demirbas, A. (1997). Turkish secondary students’ conceptions of introductory chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(5), 518–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bar, V. (1989). Children’s views about the water cycle. Science Education, 73, 481–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. BauJaoude, S. B. (1991). A study of the nature of students’ understanding about the concept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 689–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24(1), 64–66.Google Scholar
  11. Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(12), 1000–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boo, H. K. (1998). Students’ understandings of chemical bonds and the energetic of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 569–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boo, H. K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students’ (aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85, 568–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bradley, J. D., & Mosimege, M. D. (1998). Misconceptions in acids and bases: A comparative study of student teachers with different chemistry backgrounds. South African Journal of Chemistry, 51, 137–147.Google Scholar
  15. Çalık, 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, 671–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2008). A critical review of the development of the Turkish science curriculum. In R. K. Coll & N. Taylor (Eds.), Education in context: An international examination of the influence of context on science curricular development and implementation. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  17. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2002a). Learners’ use of analogy and alternative conceptions for chemical bonding: A cross-age study. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(1), 24–35.Google Scholar
  18. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2002b). Learners’ mental models of covalent bonding. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 241–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate and graduate learners’ mental models of ionic bonding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 464–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Jong, O., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 946–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in science education and in science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 33(6), 657–664.Google Scholar
  22. Gabel, D. L. (1993). Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 193–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gabel, D. L., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 301–326). New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  24. Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1986). Chemical equilibrium: Learning difficulties and teaching strategies. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 31(4), 8–13.Google Scholar
  27. Haidar, A. H. (1997). Prospective chemistry teachers’ conceptions of the conservation of matter and related concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haidar, A. H., & Abraham, M. R. (1991). A comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of concepts based on the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 919–938.Google Scholar
  29. 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, 352–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students’ conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of the conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huddle, P. A., & Pillay, A. E. (1996). An in-depth study of misconceptions in stoichiometry and chemical equilibrium at a South African University. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D. (1993). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and assessment in teaching (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  35. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students’ understanding of acid, base and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1077–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children’s beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 777–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school students’ understanding of particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science Education, 62(3), 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils’ understanding of particulate nature of matter: A cross-age study. Science Education, 65(2), 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nussbaum, J. (1985). The particulate nature of matter in the gaseous phase. In R. Driver, E. Guesne & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 124–144). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Osborne, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the changes of the state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 825–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Özmen, H., & Ayas, A. (2003). Students’ difficulties in understanding of the conservation of matter in open and closed-system chemical reactions. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(3), 279–290.Google Scholar
  43. Özmen, H., Ayas, A., & Coştu, B. (2002). Determination of the science student teachers’ understanding level and misunderstandings about the particulate nature of matter. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 2(2), 507–529.Google Scholar
  44. Palmer, D. H. (1999). Exploring the link between students’ scientific and nonscientific conceptions. Science Education, 83, 639–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Papageorgiou, G., & Sakka, D. (2000). Primary school teachers’ views of fundamental chemical concepts. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(2), 237–247.Google Scholar
  46. Peterson, R., & Treagust, D. (1989). Development of application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and 12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 26(4), 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory f conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Renström, L., Andersson, B., & Marton, F. (1990). Students’ conceptions of matter. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmidt, H. J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions: Looking for a pattern. Science Education, 81, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sisovic, D., & Bojovic, S. (2000). Approaching the concepts of acids and bases by cooperative learning. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(2), 263–275.Google Scholar
  51. Snir, J., Smith, C. L., & Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter. Science Education, 87, 794–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stavy, R. (1988). Children’s conception of gas. International Journal of Science Education, 10(5), 553–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taber, K. S. (1994). Misunderstanding the ionic bond. Education in Chemistry, 31(4), 100–103.Google Scholar
  54. Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 597–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taber, K. S., & Coll, R. K. (2002). Bonding. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 213–234). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  56. Tan, K. C. D., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Evaluating students’ understanding of chemical bonding. School Science Review, 81(294), 75–84.Google Scholar
  57. Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). The role of target students in the science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(1), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tobin, K., & Garnett, P. (1988). Exemplary practice in science classrooms. Science Education, 72(2), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tsai, C.-C. (1999). Overcoming junior high school students’ misconceptions about microscopic views of phase change: A study of an analogy activity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Valanides, N. (2000). Primary student teachers’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its transformations during dissolving. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 1(2), 249–262.Google Scholar
  61. van Driel, J. H. (2002). Students’ corpuscular conceptions in the context of chemical equilibrium and chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 201–213.Google Scholar
  62. Voska, K. W., & Heikkinen, H. W. (1996). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 160–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Westbrook, S. L., & Marek, E. A. (1991). A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of diffusion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 649–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  65. Zoller, U. (1990). Students’ misunderstandings and misconceptions in college freshman chemistry (general and organic). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1053–1065.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Fatih Faculty of EducationKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Science Education, Fatih Faculty of EducationKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Primary Teacher Education, Fatih Faculty of EducationKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations