THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PREDICT–OBSERVE–EXPLAIN TECHNIQUE IN PROBING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ACID–BASE CHEMISTRY: A CASE FOR THE CONCEPTS OF pH, pOH, AND STRENGTH

Article

ABSTRACT

The present study describes high school students’ conceptions about acids and bases in terms of pH, pOH, microscopic level, strength, and concentration. A total of 27 high school students participated in the study. The data was collected using 3 POE tasks and a semi-structured interview. The data analysis demonstrated that most of the students had poor understanding related to a drawing of weak and strong acids. In addition, the findings revealed that the POE’s were effective in terms of gathering students’ predictions and reasons for the prediction of outcomes in an open-ended format. The POE tasks also revealed that some of the students had misconceptions regarding pH and pOH. The students believed that pH was a measurement of the acidity, while pOH was a measurement of the basicity. The findings obtained have certain implications for the secondary chemistry program.

KEY WORDS

assessment misconceptions pH POE pOH strength 

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 eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M. & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayas, A., Özmen, H. & Çalık, M. (2010). Students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter at secondary and tertiary level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banerjee, A. C. (1995). Teaching chemical equilibrium and thermodynamics in undergraduate general chemistry classes. Journal of Chemical Education, 72, 879–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boz, Y. (2009). Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ alternative conceptions about acids and bases. School Science and Mathematics Journal, 109(4), 212–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Canpolat, N., Pınarbaşı, T., Bayrakçeken, S. & Geban, Ö. (2004). Some common misconceptions in chemistry. Journal of Gazi Faculty of Education, 24(1), 135–146.Google Scholar
  10. Champagne, A. B., Klopher, L. & Anderson, J. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, 464–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cros, D., Maurin, M., Amouroux, R., Chastrette, M., Leber, J. & Fayol, M. (1986). Conceptions of first year university students of the constituents of matter and the notions of acids and bases. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Demircioglu, G., Ayas, A. & Demircioglu, H. (2005). Conceptual change achieved through a new teaching programme on acids and bases. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 6, 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demircioğlu, G., Özmen, H. & Ayas, A. (2001). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının asitler ve bazlarla ilgili yanlış anlamalarının belirlenmesi. Maltepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Yeni Binyılın Başında Türkiye’de Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı. Istanbul: Marmara Eğitim Vakfı Yayınları, pp. 451–457.Google Scholar
  15. Driver, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Curriculum development as research: A constructivist approach to science curriculum development and teaching. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 94–108). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Duit, R., Treagust, D. & Mansfield, H. (1996). Investigating student understanding as a prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 17–31). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ebenezer, J. V. (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students’ conceptions: Animation of the solution process of table salt. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(1), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gamett, P. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students in electrochemistry: Electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1079–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geban, Ö., Ertepınar, H., Topal, T., & Önal, A.M., (1998). Asit–Baz Konusu ve Benzeşme Yöntemi. III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, 23–25 Eylül, Bildiriler Kitabı.s. KTÜ, Trabzon, pp. 176–178.Google Scholar
  20. 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, 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gunstone, R. Champagne, A. Klopfer, L. (1981). Instruction for understanding: A case study. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 27(3), 27–32.Google Scholar
  22. Gussarsky, E. & Gorodetsky, M. (1990). On the concept “chemical equilibrium”: The associative framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kearney, M., 2002. Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict–observe–explain tasks to elicit and promote discussion about students’ physics concepts. Ph.D. dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Australia.Google Scholar
  24. Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict–observe–explain tasks in a social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science Education, 34, 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kearney, M. & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Constructivism as a referent in the design and development of a computer programme which uses interactive digital video to enhance learning in physics. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 64–79.Google Scholar
  26. Kearney, M., Treagust, D., Shelley, Y. & Zadnik, M. (2001). Student and teacher perception of the use of multimedia supported predict–observe–explain task to probe understanding. Research in Science Teaching, 31, 539–615.Google Scholar
  27. Lin, J. W., Chiu, M. H., & Liang, J. C. (2004). Exploring mental models and causes of students’ misconceptions in acids and bases. In Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  28. Monaghan, J. & Celement, J. (1999). Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simulations for understanding relative motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 921–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morgil, İ., Erdem, E. & Yılmaz, A. (2003). Misconceptions in chemistry education. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 25, 246–255.Google Scholar
  30. Nakhleh, M. B. (1994). Students’ models of matter in the context of acid–base chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 495–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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, 34, 1077–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Özmen, H., Ayas, A. & Coştu, B. (2002). Determination of the science student teachers’ understanding level and misunderstandings about the particulate nature of the matter. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 2(2), 507–529.Google Scholar
  33. Pınarbaşı, T. (2007). Turkish undergraduate students’ misconceptions on acids and bases. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(1), 23–34.Google Scholar
  34. Raviola, A. (2001). Assessing students’ conceptual understanding of solubility equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(5), 629–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ross, B. & Munby, H. (1991). Concept mapping and misconceptions: A study of high school students’ understandings of acids and bases. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Russell, D., Lucas, K., & Mcrobbie, C. (1999). Microprocessor based laboratory activities as catalysts for student construction of understanding in physics. In The annual meeting of the Australian Association For Research in Education, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  37. Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B. & McRobbie, C. J. (2003). The role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in kinematics. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B. & McRobbie, C. J. (2004). Role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in thermal physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt, H. D. (1991). A label as a hidden persuader: Chemists neutralization concept. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmidt, H. J. (1995). Applying the concept of conjugation to the Bronsted theory of acid–base reactions by senior high school students from Germany. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 733–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sheppard, K. (1997). A qualitative study of high school students’ pre and post instructional conceptions in acid–base chemistry. Ed. D. thesis, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Sheppard, K. (2006). High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acid–base phenomena. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 7, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, K. J. & Metz, P. A. (1996). Evaluating student understanding of solution chemistry through microscopic representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 233–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Tao, P. K. & Gunstone, R. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  47. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2006). Qualitative research methods in social sciences (6th ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Seçilen Press.Google Scholar
  48. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Zoller, U. (1990). Student’s misunderstanding and misconceptions in college freshman chemistry (general and organic). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1053–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fatih Faculty of EducationKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationBozok UniversityYozgatTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of EducationBilkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations