A comparative study of the effects of a concept mapping enhanced laboratory experience on Turkish high school students’ understanding of acid-base chemistry

  • Haluk Özmen
  • GÖkhan DemİrcİoĞlu
  • Richard K. Coll


The research reported here consists of the introduction of an intervention based on a series of laboratory activities combined with concept mapping. The purpose of this intervention was to enhance student understanding of acid-base chemistry for tenth grade students’ from two classes in a Turkish high school. An additional aim was to enhance student attitude toward chemistry. In the research design, two cohorts of students were compared; those from the intervention group (N = 31) and a second group (N = 28) who were taught in a more traditional manner. Student understanding of acid-base chemistry was evaluated with a pretest/posttest research design using a purpose-designed instrument, the Concept Achievement Test (CAT) consisting of 25 items, 15 multiple choice and ten multiple choice with explanation. Alternative conceptions identified in the pretest were incorporated into the intervention, which thereby sought to move students toward views more in accord with scientific views for the concepts. Statistical tests indicate the instrument is reliable (with an alpha reliability of 0.81) and the analysis of the findings revealed statistically significant differences between the intervention and traditional groups with respect to conceptual understanding. Examination of student explanations and analyses of semi-structured interviews conducted with selected students suggest that the main influence was the laboratory activities. Analysis of the findings in the context of relevant literature that concept mapping in conjunction with laboratory activities is more enjoyable, helps student link concepts, and reduces their alternative conceptions.

Key words

acids and bases chemistry teaching concept maps laboratory activities 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adamczyk P., Willison M, Williams D. (1994) Concept mapping: a multi-level and multi-purpose tool. School Science Review, 76(275):116–124.Google Scholar
  2. Ayas A., Demircioğlu G. (2002) Student teachers’ understanding and alternative conceptions of acids, bases and salts in chemistry. Paper presented at the First International Education Conference, Changing Times and Changing Needs. Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, North Cyprus, May.Google Scholar
  3. Botton C. (1995) Collaborative concept mapping and formative assessment key stage 3: understanding of acids and bases. School Science Review, 77:124–130.Google Scholar
  4. Bradley J.D., Mosimege MD (1998) Alternative conceptions in acids and bases: a comparative study of student teachers with different chemistry backgrounds. S Afr J Chem, 51:137–147.Google Scholar
  5. Buntting C., Coll R.K., Campbell A. (2006) Student views of concept mapping use in introductory tertiary biology classes. Int J Sci Math Educ, 4(4):641–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang Shu-Nu, Chiu Mei-Hung (2005) The development of authentic assessments to investigate ninth graders’ scientific literacy: in the case of scientific cognition concerning the concepts of chemistry and physics. Int J Sci Math Educ 3(1):117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coll R.K., Ali S., Bonato J., Rohindra D. (2006) Investigating first-year chemistry learning difficulties in the South Pacific: a case study from Fiji. Int J Sci Math Educ, 4(3):365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dahsah C., Coll R.K. (2007) Thai grade 10 and 11 students’ conceptual understanding and ability to solve stoichiometric problems. Res Sci Technol Educ (in press).Google Scholar
  9. Demircioğlu G. (2003) Preparation and implementation of guide materials concerning the unit ‘Acids and Bases’ at Lycee II level. PhD Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.Google Scholar
  10. Demircioğlu G., Özmen H., Ayas A. (2001) Determination of the misconceptions of chemistry student teachers related to the concepts of acids and bases. Paper presented at the Science Education Symposium at the Beginning of New Era in Turkey (in Turkish). Maltepe University, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 521–527.Google Scholar
  11. Demircioğlu G., Özmen H., Ayas A. (2004) Some concept alternative conceptions encountered in chemistry: A research on acid and base. Educ Sci: Theory Prac, 4:73–80.Google Scholar
  12. Demircioğlu G., Ayas A., Demircioğlu H. (2005) Conceptual change achieved through a new teaching program on acids and bases. Chem Educ Res Prac, 6:36–51.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher K.M., Wandersee J.H., Moody D.E. (2000) Mapping biology knowledge. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  14. Freedman M.P. (1997) Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. J Res Sci Teach, 34:343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabel D. (1998) The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In: Fraser B.J., Tobin K.G. (Eds) International handbook of science education (pp 233–248). Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  16. Gouveia V., Valadares J. (2004) Concept maps and the didactic role of assessment. Concept maps: theory, methodology, technology. In: Canas A.J., Novak J.D., Gonzalez F.M. (eds) Proc First Int Conf on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain/September 14–17, 2004
  17. Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S. (1989) Fourth generation evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research (pp 105–117). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Hart C., Mulhall P., Berry A., Loughran J., Gunstone R. (2000) What is this purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? J Res Sci Teach, 37:655–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hewson P.W., Hewson M.G. (1984) The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instruct Sci, 13:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horton P.B., McConney A.A., Gallo M., Woods A.L., Senn G.J., Hamelin D. (1993) An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Sci Educ, 77:95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnstone A.H., Wham A.J.B. (1982) The demands of practical work. Educ Chem, 19(3):71–73.Google Scholar
  23. Johnstone A.H., Selepeng D. (2001) A language problem revisited. Chem Educ: Res Prac Eur, 2(1):19–29.Google Scholar
  24. Khalili F. (2001) Chemistry laboratory innovations using universal lab interface (ULI). Paper presented at the 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Reno, NV, October.Google Scholar
  25. Lazarowitz R., Tamir P. (1994) Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In: Gabel D. (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp 94–128). MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Lorenzo M. (2005) The development, implementation and evaluation of a problem solving heuristic. Int J Sci Math Educ, 3(1):33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markow P.G., Lonning R.A. (1998) Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: students’ perceptions and effects on achievement. J Res Sci Teach, 35:1015–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muir-Hertzig R.G. (2004) Technology and its impact in the classroom. Compute Educ, 42:111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. J Res Sci Teach, 34:1077–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nakhleh M.B., Polles J., Malina E. (2002) Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. In: Gilbert J.K., De Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D.F., Van Driel J.H. (eds) Chemical education: towards research-based practice (pp 69–94). Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  31. Novak J.D., Gowin D.B. (1984) Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Okebukola P.A. (1992) Can good concept mappers be good problem solvers in science? Educ Psychol, 12(2):113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Özmen H. (2004) Some student alternative conceptions in chemistry: a literature review of chemical bonding. J Sci Educ Tech, 13:147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pakua S., Treagust D.F., Waldrip B. (2005) Village elders’ and secondary school students’ explanations of natural phenomena in Papua New Guinea. Int J Sci Math Educ, 3(2):213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palmer D. (1999) Exploring the link between students’ scientific and nonscientific conceptions. Sci Educ, 83:639–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rennie L.J. (1998) Improving the interpretation and reporting of quantitative research. J Res Sci Teach, 35(3):237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schmidt H.J. (1991) A label as a hidden persuader: chemists’ neutralization concept. Int J Sci Educ, 13:459–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sisovic D., Bojovic S. (2000) Approaching the concepts of acids and bases by cooperative learning. Chem Educ: Res Prac Eur, 1:263–275.Google Scholar
  39. Sizmur S., Osbourne J. (1997) Learning processes and collaborative concept mapping. Int J Sci Educ, 19(10):1117–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stensvold M., Wilson J.T. (1992) Using concept maps as a tool to apply chemistry concepts to laboratory activities. J Chem Educ, 69(3) 230–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sutherland D., Dennick R. (2002) Exploring culture, language and the perception of the nature of science. Int J Sci Educ, 24(l):l–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taber K.S., Coll R.K. (2002) Bonding. In: Gilbert J.K., De Jong O., Justi R., Treagust D.F., Van Driel J.H. (eds) Chemical education: towards research-based practice (pp 213–234). Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haluk Özmen
    • 1
  • GÖkhan DemİrcİoĞlu
    • 2
  • Richard K. Coll
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Science EducationKaradeniz Technical University Fatih Faculty of EducationTrabzonTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics EducationKaradeniz Technical University Fatih Faculty of EducationTrabzonTurkey
  3. 3.Centre for Science and Technology Education ResearchUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations