Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 422–433 | Cite as

The Effect of Conceptual Change Pedagogy on Students’ Conceptions of Rate of Reaction

  • Muammer Çalik
  • Ali Kolomuç
  • Zafer Karagölge
Article

Abstract

This paper reports on an investigation of the effect of conceptual change pedagogy on students’ conceptions of ‘rate of reaction’ concepts. The study used a pre-test/post-test non-equivalent comparison group design approach and the sample consisted of 72 Turkish grade-11 students (aged 16–18 years) selected from two intact classrooms. The ‘Rate of Reaction’ Concept Test comprising 9 lead and 10 sub-questions (total 19 items) was employed. The results suggest that the teaching intervention helped the students to overcome their alternative conceptions and to store their newly structured knowledge in their long-term memories. It is suggested that combining different conceptual change methods such conceptual change text/refutation text, argumentation with the intervention used here may be more effective in reducing student alternative conceptions.

Keywords

Reaction rate Computer animations Student guide sheet Conceptual change 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank to Associate Professor Richard K. Coll from the University of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand and to Assistant Professor Lan Li from Bowling Green State University, USA for their kind help in polishing the paper’s English.

References

  1. Abraham MR, Grzybowski EB, Renner JV, Marek EA (1992) Understanding and misunderstanding of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbook. J Res Sci Teach 29:105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham MR, Williamson VM, Westbrook SL (1994) A cross-age study of the understanding five concepts. J Res Sci Teach 31:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkaya CG (2003) Comparison of teaching the relation rate course using the traditional and the experimental training methods on students success in lycee 2 classes. Unpublished Master Thesis, Marmara University, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  4. Allessi S, Trollip SR (1991) Computer based instruction: methods and development, 2nd ed. edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  5. Ardac D, Akaygun S (2004) Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. J Res Sci Teach 41(4):317–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ayas A, Demirbaş A (1997) Turkish secondary students’ conceptions of introductory chemistry concepts. J Chem Educ 74:518–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balcı C (2006) Conceptual change text oriented instruction to facilitate conceptual change in rate of reaction concepts. Unpublished Master Thesis, Middle East Technical Universitry, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  8. Banerjee AC (1995) Teaching chemical equilibrium and thermodynamics in undergraduate general chemistry classes. J Chem Educ 72(10):879–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bozkoyun Y (2004) Facilitating conceptual change in learning rate of reaction concepts. Unpublished Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke KA, Greenbowe TJ, Windschitl MA (1998) Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. J Chem Educ 75(12):1658–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cakmakci G (2005) A cross-sectional study of the understanding of chemical kinetics among Turkish secondary and undergraduate students. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The University of Leeds, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Cakmakci G, Donnelly J, Leach J (2005) A cross-sectional study of the understanding of the relationships between concentration and reaction rate among Turkish secondary and undergraduate students. In: Boersma K, de Jong O, Eijkelhof H, Goedhart M (eds) Research and the quality of science education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cakmakci G, Leach J, Donnelly J (2006) Students’ ideas about reaction rate and its relationship with concentration or pressure. Int J Sci Educ 28(15):1795–1815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Çalık M, Ayas A (2005) A comparison of level of understanding of grade 8 students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. J Res Sci Teach 42(6):638–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Çalık M, Ayas A, Coll RK (2007) Enhancing pre-service primary teachers’ conceptual understanding of solution chemistry with conceptual change text. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Çalık M, Ünal S, Coştu B, Karataş FÖ (2008) Trends in Turkish science education. Essays in Education, Special Edition, pp 23–45Google Scholar
  17. Çalık M, Ayas A, Ebenezer JV (2009) Analogical reasoning for understanding solution rates: students’ conceptual change and chemical explanations. Res Sci Technol Educ 27(3):283–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Çalık M, Ayas A, Coll RK (2009) Investigating the effectiveness of an analogy activity in improving students’ conceptual change for solution chemistry concepts. Int J Sci Math Educ 7(4):651–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Case MJ, Fraser DM (1999) An investigation into chemical engineering students’ understanding of the mole and the use of concrete activities to promote conceptual change. Int J Sci Educ 21(12):1237–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cokelez A, Dumon A (2005) Atom and molecule: upper secondary school French students’ representations in long-term memory. Chem Educ Res Pract 6:119–135Google Scholar
  21. Coll R, Treagust D (2001) Learners’ use of analogy and alternative conceptions for chemical bonding: a cross-age study. Aust Sci Teach J 48(1):24–32Google Scholar
  22. Coştu B (2006) Determining students’ conceptual change levels: evaporation, condensation and boiling. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Institute of Science, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  23. Coştu B, Ayas A (2005) Evaporation in different liquids: secondary students’ conceptions. Res Sci Technol Educ 23:73–95Google Scholar
  24. Coştu B, Ünal S (2004) The use of worksheets in teaching Le-Chatelier’s principle. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Faculty of Education, 1(1) Retrieved May 13, 2005 from http://efdergi.yyu.edu.tr/makaleler/cilt_I/bayram_suat.doc
  25. Coştu B, Karataş FÖ, Ayas A (2003) Use of worksheets in concept teaching. Pamukkale Univ J Faculty Educ 14(2):33–48Google Scholar
  26. Daşdemir İ, Doymuş K, Şimşek Ü, Karaçöp A (2008) The effects of animation technique on teaching of acids and bases topics. J Turk Sci Educ 5(2):60–69Google Scholar
  27. Driver R (1981) Pupils’ alternative frameworks in science. Eur J Sci Educ 3:93–101Google Scholar
  28. Driver R, Easley J (1978) Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science pre-service teacher trainees. Stud Sci Educ 5:61–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duit R, Treagust DF (1998) Learning in science–from behaviorism towards social constructivism and beyond. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Dulger I (2004) Case study on Turkey rapid coverage for compulsory education program. In: Paper presented at conference on scaling up poverty reduction, Shanghai, China http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTURKEY/Resources/Compulsory_Education.pdf
  31. Ebenezer J (2001) A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students’ conceptions: animation of the solution process of table salt. J Sci Educ Technol 10:73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fensham PJ (1992) Science and technology. In: Jackson PW (ed) Handbook of research on curriculum. Macmillan, New York, pp 789–829Google Scholar
  33. Fortman JJ (1994) Pictorial analogies XIII: kinetics and mechanisms. J Chem Educ 71(10):848–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gabel DL (1992) Modeling with magnets—a unified approach to chemistry problem solving. The Science Teacher, March, 58–63Google Scholar
  35. Garnett PJ, Treagust DF (1992) Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: electric circuits and oxidation–reduction equations. J Res Sci Teach 29(2):121–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Garnett PJ, Garnett PJ, Hackling MW (1995) Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: a review of research and implication for teaching and learning. Stud Sci Educ 25:69–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gilbert JK, Boulter CJ (1991) Developing models in science education. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  38. Griffiths AK (1994) A critical analysis and synthesis of research on students’ chemistry misconceptions. In: Schmidt H-J Proceedings of the 1994 international symposium problem solving and misconceptions in chemistry and physics (pp 70–99), ICASE [The International Council of Associations for Science Education] PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  39. Harrison AG, Treagust DF (1996) Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules; implications for teaching chemistry. Sci Educ 80(5):509–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnstone AH (1991) Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Learn 7:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Judd C, Smith E, Kidder L (1991) Research methods in social relations6, 6th edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  42. Kadayıfçı O (1998) The effect of computer-aided education on chemistry achievement in lycee chemistry instruction. Unpublished Master Thesis, Marmara University, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelly RM, Jones LL (2007) Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’ explanations. J Sci Educ Technol 16:413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelly RM, Phelps AJ, Sanger MJ (2004) The effects of a computer animation on students’ conceptual understanding of a can-crushing demonstration at the macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic levels. Chem Educ 9:184–189Google Scholar
  45. Lakatos I (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 91–196Google Scholar
  46. Nakhleh MB (1992) Why some pre-service teacher trainees don’t learn chemistry. J Chem Educ 69(3):191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nakipoğlu C, Benlikaya R, Kalın Ş (2002) Usage of V-diagrams in eliciting pre-service chemistry teachers’ misunderstanding of ‘chemical kinetic’ (Kimya öğretmen adaylarında Kimyasal Kinetik konusu ile ilgili yanlış kavramaların belirlenmesinde V-diyagramlarının kullanılması). V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, METU. http://www.fedu.metu.edu.tr/ufbmek-5/b_kitabi/PDF/Kimya/Bildiri/t179d.pdf
  48. Niaz M, Aguilera D, Maza A, Liendo G (2002) Arguments, contradictions, resistances and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Sci Educ 86:505–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nicoll G (2001) A report of undergraduates’ bonding misconception. Int J Sci Educ 23:707–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Özmen H, Yıldırım N (2005) The effect of worksheets on student’s success: acids and bases sample. J Turk Sci Educ 2(2):124–143Google Scholar
  51. Özmen H, Demircioğlu H, Demircioğlu G (2009) The effects of conceptual change texts accompanied with animations on overcoming 11th grade students’ alternative conceptions of chemical bonding. Comput Educ 52(3):681–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pfundt H, Duit R (1997) Bibliography: student’s alternative frameworks and science education, 4th edn. University of Kiel, KielGoogle Scholar
  53. Pfundt H, Duit R (2000) Bibliography: student’s alternative frameworks and science education, 5th edn. University of Kiel, KielGoogle Scholar
  54. Pines AL, West LHT (1986) Conceptual understanding and science learning: an interpretation of research within a source of knowledge framework. Sci Educ 70:583–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robson C (1998) Real world research. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  56. Russell JW, Kozma RB, Jones T, Wykoff J, Marx N, Davis J (1997) Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. J Chem Educ 74:330–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sanger MJ, Greenbowe TJ (1997) Student misconceptions in electrochemistry: current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge. J Chem Educ 74(7):819–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sanger MJ, Greenbowe TJ (2000) Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in electrolyte solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change. Int J Sci Educ 22:521–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taber KS (2001) The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learner’s conceptions: a typology of learning impediments. Educ Stud 27(2):159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Talib O, Matthews R, Secombe M (2005) Computer-animated instruction and students’ conceptual change in electrochemistry: preliminary qualitative analysis. Int Educ J 5(5):29–42Google Scholar
  61. Tasker R, Dalton R (2006) Research into practice: Visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chem Educ Res Pract 7(2):141–159Google Scholar
  62. Taştan Ö, Yalçınkaya E, Boz Y (2009) Pre-service chemistry teachers’ ideas about reaction mechanism. J Turk Sci Educ (TUSED) (in press)Google Scholar
  63. Taylor N, Coll R (1997) The use of analogy in the teaching of solubility to preservice primary teachers. Aust Sci Teach J 43(4):58–64Google Scholar
  64. Teichert MA, Stacy AM (2002) Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. J Res Sci Teach 39(6):464–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tezcan H, Yılmaz Ü (2003) The effect of conceptual computer animations and traditional instruction in teaching chemistry on student achievement (Kimya öğretiminde kavramsal bilgisayar animasyonlari ile geleneksel anlatım yöntemin başarıya etkileri). Pamukkale Univ J Faculty Educ 14(2):18–32Google Scholar
  66. Treagust DF, Chittleborough G, Mamiala TL (2003) The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. Int J Sci Educ 25:1353–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tytler R (2002) Teaching for understanding in science: Constructivist/conceptual change teaching approaches. Aust Sci Teach J 48(4):30–35Google Scholar
  68. Ünal S (2007) A new approach on teaching of chemical bonds and intermolecular forces: The effects of CAI and CCT on conceptual change. Unpublished PhD thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  69. Usun S (2006) Applications and problems of computer assisted education in Turkey. Turk Online J Educ Technol (TOJET) 5(4):3–10Google Scholar
  70. Van Driel JH (2002) Students’ corpuscular conceptions in the context of chemical equilibrium and chemical kinetics. Chem Educ Res Pract Eur 3(2):201–213Google Scholar
  71. Velazquez-Marcano A, Williamson VM, Ashkenazi G, Tasker R, Williamson KC (2004) The use of video demonstrations and particulate animations in general chemistry. J Sci Educ Technol 13(3):315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wertsch JV (1991) A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In: Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasly SD (eds) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington, District of Columbia, pp 85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Widodo A, Duit R, Müller C (2002) Constructivist views of teaching and learning in practice: teachers’ views and classroom behavior. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  74. Williamson VM, Abraham MR (1995) The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. J Res Sci Teach 32(5):521–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yalçınalp S, Geban O, Ozkan I (1995) Effectiveness of using computer assisted supplementary instruction for teaching the mole concept. J Res Sci Teach 32:1083–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muammer Çalik
    • 1
  • Ali Kolomuç
    • 2
  • Zafer Karagölge
    • 3
  1. 1.Fatih Faculty of Education, Department of Primary Teacher EducationKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  2. 2.Affan Kitapçıoğlu High SchoolTrabzonTurkey
  3. 3.Kazım Karabekir Faculty of Education, Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics EducationAtatürk UniversityErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations