Children Misconception on Nature

ALIPAŞA AYAS, HALUK ÖZMEN and MUAMMER ÇALIK

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

Received: 7 March 2007; Accepted: 26 May 2009

ABSTRACT. The aim of the present study is to elicit students’ understanding of theparticulate nature of matter via a cross-age study ranging from secondary to tertiaryeducational levels. A questionnaire with five-item open-ended questions was administeredto 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 “soundunderstanding” category for each item increased with educational level, except for U1.Also, it can be concluded that students’ specific misconceptions decreased steadily fromSHS1 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

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

When the Russians first sent Sputnik into orbit in 1957, many Westerncountries were surprised, feeling that they were not keeping up withtechnological innovation. This led to a strong movement to improvescience curricula, the first improved feature being a shift from a content-based curriculum to a learner-centered focus. A key idea in manycurriculum reforms has been that there is a crucial relationship betweenscience and technology and that science, in turn, can be enhanced byimproving the quality of science education in schools. The oft-reportedcurricula reforms of the 1960s began in the USA and spread to otherWestern countries like the UK. A key aim of these reforms was to teachscience in a way that all children might become scientifically literate and,at the same time, the interests of those aspiring to become scientists wereserved. The underlying idea about learning in such curricula was to teachthe basic or key concepts of science and get children to learn “how tolearn” because the sheer volume of scientific content is such that it cannever be covered even in the most ambitious of science programs. Thebasic/key concepts of science are then seen as building blocks for furtherlearning. If students develop the basic concepts as early as possible, theymay be more successful in learning advanced science topics. These are

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2010) 8: 165Y184# National Science Council, Taiwan 2009

laudable aims, however, education research over many decades suggeststhat students do not come to the classroom as “blank slates”; rather, theycome to schools with well-established conceptions gained from interac-tion with their environment—physically, socially, and emotionally(Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog 1982). These conceptions may ormay not match scientific conceptions.

STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTICULATE NATURE

OF MATTER

From education research on a variety of science topics, it appears that oneof the most important factors affecting the teaching–learning process isstudents’ pre-existing knowledge which influences how students learnnew scientific knowledge and may support or hinder successfulacquisition of interrelated concepts (BauJaoude, 1991). Students’ ideasabout science concepts that are different from the scientifically acceptedones are labeled: misconceptions, preconceptions, naïve conceptions,children’s science, alternative conceptions, alternative frameworks,conceptual frameworks, common sense understanding, and so on(Hewson & Hewson, 1984; Zoller, 1990; Nakhleh, 1992; Gabel &Bunce, 1994; Schmidt, 1997; Taber, 1998; Palmer, 1999; Özmen & Ayas,2003). Much research has been conducted on students’ understanding ofbasic chemistry concepts, for example, elements, compounds, andmixtures (Ayas & Demirbas, 1997; Papageorgiou & Sakka, 2000),chemical reactions (Ben-Zvi, Eylon & Silberstein, 1987; Hesse &Anderson, 1992; Boo & Watson, 2001; Özmen & Ayas, 2003), chemicalequilibrium (Bergquist & Heikkinen, 1990; Huddle & Pillay, 1996;Voska & Heikkinen, 1996), chemical bonding (Coll & Treagust, 2002a;2002b; 2003; Peterson & Treagust, 1989; Taber, 1994; Taber & Coll,2002; Boo, 1998; Tan & Treagust, 1999), acids and bases (Nakhleh &Krajcik, 1994; Bradley & Mosimege, 1998; Sisovic & Bojovic, 2000),atoms and molecules (Ben-Zvi, Eylon & Silberstein, 1986; Griffiths &Preston, 1992; Nakhleh & Samarapungavan, 1999; Harrison & Treagust,2000), and the particulate nature of matter (Gabel, Samuel & Hunn, 1987;Gabel, 1993; de Vos & Verdonk, 1996; Valanides, 2000; Özmen, Ayas &Coştu, 2002; De Jong, Van Driel & Verloop, 2005).

Since the particulate theory is a key central concept in scienceeducation (Snir, Smith & Raz, 2003), it underpins student understandingof many of the above-named concepts. Furthermore, many scienceeducation researchers argue that an appropriate understanding of the

ALIPAŞA AYAS, MUAMMER ÇALIK, AND HALUK ÖZMEN166

particulate nature of matter is essential for the learning of chemistryconcepts (e.g., Novick & Nussbaum, 1978; Anderson, 1986; Hackling &Garnett, 1986; Renström, Andersson & Marton, 1990; Haidar, 1997; Tsai,1999; Ayas, 2001). The particulate nature of matter is associated with thestructure of matter and phase changes (Osborne & Cosgrove, 1983; Bar,1989; Gabel, Samuel & Hunn, 1987; de Vos & Verdonk, 1996). Otherphysical processes for which an understanding of the particulate nature ofmatter is a prerequisite is in the following: diffusion, dissolution process,and solution chemistry (Lee, Eichinger, Anderson, Berkheimer, &Blakeslee 1993; de Vos & Verdonk, 1996), chemical reactions, theeffects of pressure, volume, and temperature on gases (Nakhleh, 1992),heat and heat transfer, and electrical currents (de Vos & Verdonk, 1996).

Although students may have understood the main point of thescientifically accepted theory, that is, that matter which is made ofdiscrete particles within constant motion has empty space between theparticles, research suggests that they find it difficult to apply this theory tonovel situations (Novick & Nussbaum, 1981; Haidar & Abraham, 1991;Tsai, 1999). Studies on the particulate nature of matter have indicated thatstudents differentially internalize scientific theories and concepts. Forexample, Griffiths & Preston’s (1992) study of grade 12 students’understanding of atoms and molecules revealed a remarkable total of 52specific misconceptions. However, one of the most common misconcep-tions was that students regarded matter as continuous and not particulatein nature. Other related research supports the prevalence of the naïvenotion of a continuous-matter view of the physical world, as opposed tothe accepted particulate model (Novick & Nussbaum, 1978, 1981;Nussbaum, 1985). It seems that some misconceptions indicate paralleldevelopment with the historical one of scientific concepts. Stavy (1988),for example, reports that students’ definition of “gas” depends on theirgrade: seventh graders for instance only use a particle model as a definition.

An interesting feature of the literature about the particle theory is thatall the scientifically accepted ideas that make up the theory of theparticulate nature of matter are seldom discussed (de Vos & Verdonk,1996). A review of the literature reports eight ideas that need to beincorporated into a valid description of the particle theory of matter (deVos & Verdonk, 1996; van Driel, 2002):

1. All matter consists of entities called particles. Individual particles aretoo small to be seen. They behave as hard, solid, perfectly elastic(except in chemical reactions) immutable objects. Their absolutedimensions and shape are usually irrelevant.

STUDENTS’ CONCEPTIONS OF THE PARTICULATE NATURE OF MATTER 167

2. Motion is a permanent feature of all particles. Because of the perfectelasticity of particle collisions, there is a direct relation between thetemperature of an amount of matter and the average kinetic energy ofits particles.

3. In a gas, particles are evenly distributed over space, the empty spacebetween the particles is much larger than the space occupied by theparticles themselves.

4. Particles mutually attract each other, but the magnitude of theattraction decreases rapidly with distance.

5. In liquids and solids, the particles are much closer together than thosein gases. Therefore, their mutual attraction is much larger. In solids,the particles are only able to vibrate around a fixed position, whereasin liquids, the particles move from place to place within the fixedvolume occupied by the liquid.

6. Different substances consist of different particles, but all particles ofone substance are mutually identical. A mixture of substances containsparticles of two or more different species.

7. In a chemical reaction, to make a distinction between molecules andatoms is necessary. The chemical reaction is conceived as a rearrange-ment of atoms: the atoms themselves are conserved, whereas moleculesof certain species are transformed into molecules of different species.

8. An atom consists of a nucleus with a positive electrical charge surroundedby a number of negatively charged electrons. Chemical bond formation aswell as electrical current is described in terms of the mobility of electrons.

Longitudinal and cross-age research suggests that, although children’snotions of scientific phenomena change over time, certain misconceptionspersist from preschool to a higher educational level (Westbrook & Marek,1991). Despite the fact that the cross-age research involves differentcohorts of students, it is more applicable than the longitudinal study whentime is limited (Abraham, Williamson & Westbrook, 1994; Çalık, 2005).Also, cross-age studies do provide an opportunity to observe shifts inconcept development as a consequence of students’ maturity, an increasein intellectual development, and further learning (Westbrook & Marek,1991). For example, cross-age studies by Coll & Treagust (2002a; 2002b;2003) reported similar misconceptions for students at a beginning andadvanced schooling level and revealed little uptake of complex models forchemical bonding at advanced levels of study, pointing to a need for teachersto justify the purpose of more complex models to students when teaching.

Although many research studies about students’ understanding of theparticulate nature of matter have been carried out, there are few cross-age


studies from secondary to tertiary level to explore how students link theparticulate nature of matter with evaporation, condensation, effect oftemperature–pressure changes in gases, diffusion, and states of matter.Cross-age studies have been used in several studies of student conceptualunderstanding of such topics. That is, Stavy (1988) reports that, as mightbe expected, students’ understanding of evaporation and condensationchanges with age and educational level. Similarly, Taber and Coll (2002)note that understanding advanced concepts requires an understanding ofkey underpinning concepts.

RESEARCH PURPOSE

From the aforementioned literature, the following knowledge claims emerge:(1) students struggle to understand such scientific models as the particlenature of matter; (2) some underlying concepts such as the particle model formatter are prerequisite to understanding higher level, more complexconcepts; (3) few cross-age or longitudinal studies of students’ understand-ing of the particulate nature of matter, which might provide insights intostudent understanding at various educational levels, have been implemented.

Hence, the aim of the present study is to elicit students’ understanding ofthe particulate nature of matter via a cross-age study ranging from secondaryto tertiary educational levels. Since the study intends to provide a snapshot ofstudent understanding at different educational levels, this will not onlyenable teachers and teacher educators to be aware of potential misconcep-tions, but also to take these into account in planning teaching activities.

EDUCATION CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

In Turkey, the educational context for this study is structured into fourlevels: preschool education (aged 3–6), basic education (primary andmiddle schools, aged 6–14), secondary education (lycees or senior highschools, aged 14–17), and higher education (colleges and universities).Science is a compulsory subject in Turkish schools, and when studentscome to secondary school, chemistry, physics, and biology are compul-sory subjects. Although the age level at which students should beintroduced to the particulate nature of matter is somewhat variable,examination of elementary science textbooks shows that atoms, mole-cules, and the particulate nature of matter are depicted even in the primarygrades. In Turkish science textbooks, the particulate nature of matter


concept is implicitly mentioned at grades 4 and 7 (aged 10). It appearsexplicitly again in grades 6 and 8 (aged 13–15). Hence, for chemistry andphysics lessons at the secondary level, these concepts are referred towithin different units. Moreover, chemistry is a compulsory subject forscience and science-related majors in Turkish universities.

Since the number of students who graduate from secondary schoolsvastly exceeds the current capacity of higher education institutes in thenation, students who wish to progress to a Bachelors Degree have to takepart in a highly competitive central university entrance examination(Ayas, Çepni & Akdeniz, 1993; Çalik & Ayas, 2008).

METHODOLOGY

Students understanding of science concepts can be assessed using avariety of techniques (White & Gunstone, 1992), and for the studyreported in this paper, a questionnaire with five open-ended questions wasused to collect data. Although these data were triangulated with informalinterviews exploring students’ understanding in depth, due to shyness,some Turkish students find it difficult to express themselves. Therefore,the questionnaire was used as the primary data source.

The sample consisting of 166 students, 35 from lycee 1 (aged 14–15;called SHS1), 33 from lycee 2 (aged 15–16; labeled SHS2), 34 from lycee3 (aged 16–17; named SHS3), 32 from undergraduate chemistry-freshmen(aged 17–18; called U1), and 32 from undergraduate chemistry-sophomores (aged 18–19; named U2), were selected from Trabzon inthe East of Turkey. We did not set out to make comparisons with regardsto sex, but the number of male and female students turned out to be muchthe same, and all participants came from similar middle-class socioeco-nomic backgrounds and fairly well-educated families.

The questionnaire with five open-ended questions was constructed bycollecting items used for similar purposes from the national andinternational literature. A group consisting of two professors, one associateprofessor, one assistant professor, and ten graduate students in a universityscience education department, along with four chemistry teachers, wasasked to judge the items for their validity and suitability for the context. Thediscussion about the questions and answers lasted for three 60-min sessions.All group members confirmed that, in terms of the content validity, thequestions used in this study were in harmony with the aim of the study.

The concept-evaluation technique employed by Abraham, Grzybowski,Renner, & Marek (1992) was used to evaluate students’ level of


understanding. In the study of Abraham et al., student responses wereclassified into four different categories: “sound understanding,” “partialunderstanding,” “specific misconception,” and “no understanding.” Thesecategories are now described in detail. Sound understanding (SU):Responses that included all components of the acceptable responses.Partial understanding (PU): Responses that included at least one of thecomponents of an acceptable response. Specific misconception (SM):Responses that included descriptive, incorrect, or illogical informationand no components of the acceptable response. No understanding (NU):Responses in which the participant repeated a part or the entire question,used phrases such as “I don’t understand” and “I don’t know,” orprovided irrelevant or uncodable responses.

In analyzing data, while these categories were used for items 1–4, item5, which requires students to write an explanation about their owndrawings in order to validate students’ drawings, was labeled using threecategories: continuous, particulate, and particulate but incorrect withrespect to the solid, liquid, and gaseous phases of matter. Now, thecategories are outlined as follows: continuous: student drawings that wereclearly not particulate in nature, particulate: student drawings were thesame as, or very similar to, the acceptable particulate model, andparticulate but incorrect: student drawings were particulate in nature,but not consistent with the accepted particulate model.

In the data analysis process, two raters independently categorized theperformances obtained from 166 students. Later, inter-rater consistencywas evaluated by correlating the categories assigned by one judge withthose assigned by another judge. Such an estimation of inter-raterconsistency is used in the literature (Linn & Gronlund, 1995, pp. 90–91). Since two researchers initially categorized the data separately, theynegotiated the consistency of the categorization. There was a highagreement, approximately 90%, in most of the categorization. In cases ofdisagreement, all disagreements were resolved by negotiation.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The results obtained from the questionnaire are presented in Table 1. Theresults are discussed with regard to the particulate nature of matter asindicated below.

Item 1. A glass half filled with water is placed in front of a window.After a few days it is observed that there was no water in the


glass. How do you explain this situation by using the scientificidea that matter is particulate?

Item 1, which is related to the concept of evaporation, measures if thestudents could use the particulate nature of matter to explain this event. Itis expected that the students at different educational levels should notonly use the word “evaporation” or a description illustrating the processof evaporation, but also link it with energy changes and the particulatenature of matter.

As can be seen from Table 1, the percentages of the students’ responsescategorized under the “sound understanding” category are 15%, 27%, 35%,13%, and 47%, respectively, and indicate a steady increase with educationallevel, except for the freshman chemistry student teachers. These studentsexploited scientifically accepted responses such as: “All liquids areparticulate in nature and evaporation occurs in all temperatures,” “Waterparticles move faster with the effect of sunrise and their kinetic energies andalso collisions increase,” and “So, all of the water evaporates over time.”

TABLE 1

Percentages of students' responses at different levels of education to items 1–4

QN Sample SU (%) PU (%) SM (%) NU (%)

Item 1 SHS1 15 66 17 2SHS2 27 53 13 6SHS3 35 47 12 6U1 13 60 20 7U2 47 25 14 14



Item 4 SHS1 9 34 48 9SHS2 12 55 27 6SHS3 21 50 30 –U1 13 50 24 10U2 28 41 25 6


The percentages of the students’ responses labeled under the “partialunderstanding” category are 66%, 53%, 47%, 60%, and 25%, respective-ly, and showed a steady decrease with educational level from SHS1 toU2, apart from U1. In this category, although students identified thephenomenon as evaporation, they typically did not explain how thisoccurred. Typical student responses in this category were as follows:“Water evaporates because evaporation occurs in all temperatures,” “Theamount of water decreases with the effects of sunrise,” and “Watermolecules evaporate with the effect of temperature and wind.”

The ratio of the students’ responses categorized in the “specificmisconceptions” category ranged from 12% to 20%. Whereas U1 studentshad the highest percentage (20%), SHS3 possessed the lowest (12%).Typical students’ responses in this category were: “Sunrise causes agetting rid of the water molecules completely” and “If the water is notmade of the particles, all of the water disappears from sight suddenly.”

The proportion of students’ responses categorized as “no understand-ing” was quite low and increased from SHS1 to U2, respectively.

Item 2. A football is pumped up until it becomes hard on a warm day. Atnight it is left outside and in the early morning while the weatheris cooler it felt softer. How do you explain this situation (thedifference between night and day in the hardness of the ball) byusing the scientific idea that all matter is made of particles?(Assume that the ball does not leak).

Item 2 related to the way the temperature–pressure relationshipmeasures how students could use the particulate model of matter toexplain this relationship. It is expected that the students at different levelsshould relate the effects of temperature–pressure with particles.

As seen from Table 1, the percentages of the students’ responsesclassified as being a “sound understanding” category are between 15%and 57%. While SHS1 students showed the lowest understanding (15%),SHS3 students revealed the highest (57%). A typical response in thesound understanding category was: “Air is made of particles. In thedaytime, collisions and movements increase with the effect of thetemperature. So, the pressure on the inner surface of the football increasesand it becomes hard. As the temperature decreases at night time,collisions, movements, and pressure on the inner surface of footballdecrease, so, it becomes softer”.

As can be seen from Table 1, the percentages of students’ responsescategorized in the “partial understanding” category are 61%, 41%, 33%,


37%, and 23%, respectively, and indicated an increase with educationallevel from SHS1 to U2, except for U1. Although these students stated thatthe expansion of the air was the reason, they could not relate this to theparticulate nature of matter or temperature. Some typical responses were:“As the temperature increases, air in the football presses on the innersurface, this pressure decreases in cold” and “This is because of thetemperature—while the football is hard in hot weather, it is soft in coldweather.”

As seen from Table 1, the percentages of the students’ responsescategorized in the “specific misconception” category ranged from 7% to23%. Apart from SHS3, whose percentage is the lowest (7%), theremainder of the sample had very similar proportions. Some typicalresponses were: “Air pressure is high in hot weather and low in coldweather. Because the outside is cold there is low pressure in the football.So, it is softer than that in the hot weather” and “Particles in the footballexpand with hot weather. So, the football becomes hard. In the coldweather, particles constrict and the football becomes soft.”

The proportion of the students’ responses categorized as being in the“no understanding” category ranged from 2% to 11%. An example of astudent response was: “The hardness in cold weather is different from thatin hot weather. The football changes state with the temperature difference.”

Item 3. A jar is filled with ice cubes; the lid is screwed on tightly. Theoutside of the jar is dried with a towel. After 20 minutes, theoutside of the jar was all wet. How can you explain thissituation? Where did the water come from?

Item 3, which is related to condensation of water vapor in air, measureswhether students could use the particulate nature of matter to explain thisphenomenon. It is expected that the students at different educationallevels would use the idea that “the water particles in the air decelerate ifthe temperature at the surface decreases and then forms water.” As can beseen from Table 1, the percentages of the students’ responses categorizedunder the “sound understanding” category ranged from 13%, which is thelowest for SHS1, to 38%, which is the highest for SHS3. A typicalresponse given by the students for this category was: “The water vaporparticles in the air turn into liquid form when they reach the cold weather.In this situation, the ice is cold and water vapor in the air condenses onthe outside of the jar with the effect of the cold ice cubes.”

As seen from Table 1, the ratio of the students’ responses labeled underthe “partial understanding” category is between 24% and 36%. A typical


student response here was: “ice cubes in the jar cool the air outside, andair condenses.” The proportion of the students’ responses classified under“specific misconception” ranged from 25%, which is the lowest forSHS3, to 53%, which is the highest for SHS1. These students used suchstatements as: “Ice cubes in the jar melt and pass among the glassparticles and condense the outer surface of the jar” or “Air condensationoccurred.” Furthermore, the number of the students’ responses categorizedunder “no understanding” increased with educational level, except for U2,and their percentages were 10%, 6%, 8%, 16%, and 13%, respectively.

Item 4. A glass is filled with water and a few droplets of blue ink aredropped into it. After a while the color of water turns into blue.How can you explain this situation by using the idea that allmatter is particulate?

Item 4, associated with the diffusion of ink particles throughout water,measures if the students could use the particulate nature of matter toexplain the diffusion. It is expected that the students at different levelswould use the idea: “The ink particles diffuse and spread through waterparticles, thus, all the particles are a mixed phase.” As seen from Table 1,the percentages of the students’ responses categorized under the “soundunderstanding” category ranged from 9% to 28%. A typical studentresponse was: “Ink and water consist of particles. When ink is droppedinto the water, ink particles get into motion in all direction randomly andthe color of the water becomes blue in time. This movement of particles iscalled diffusion.”

The proportion of the student responses labeled under the “partialunderstanding” category was between 34% and 55% (see Table 1).Although many students noted that this event depicted diffusion, they didnot offer a proper explanation or defend their responses. A typical studentresponse was: “This is diffusion: particles moves everywhere withdiffusion.” The proportion of students’ responses categorized under the“specific misconception” category ranged from 24%, which is the lowestfor U1, to 48%, which is the highest for SHS1. Such students providedincorrect explanations for the phenomenon such as: “Ink particles affectthe water particles and turn their color blue,” “When the ink particlestouch the water particles, they turn into their color blue by giving theirown colors to them,” and “H+ and OH− ions of water collapse the inkparticles and chemical bonds are formed. So, ink particles dispersehomogenously.” Also, the ratio of the students’ responses classified under“no understanding” was 9% for SHS1, 6% for SHS2, 10% for U1, and


6% for U2. A sample student response was: “Ink particles have a constantshape, but water particles do not have, so the shape of ink particles affectswater particles.”

Item 5. Draw pictures to represent each phase of matter (solid, liquid andgas). In your drawings use the idea that all matter is particulateand write an explanation about why you drew such a figure at thebottom of each figure.

Item 5 measures how students visualize particles in solids, liquids andgases. Also, it requires students to defend their drawings to validate theirarticulation. In this question, students are expected to exploit theparticulate nature of matter in drawing the solid, liquid, and gaseousphases of matter. As seen from Table 2, although the students wereintroduced to the idea of particulate in nature, the percentages ofstudents’ drawings labeled under the “continuous” category ranged from7% to 26% for solid, from 6% to 24% for liquid, and from 6% to 21% forgas. Moreover, while the proportion of students’ drawings classifiedunder the “particulate” category ranged from 38% to 76% for solid, from44% to 82% for liquid, and from 50% to 85% for gas, the ratio of those underthe “particulate but incorrect” category was between 12% and 36% forsolid, between 9% and 23% for liquid, and between 5% and 30% for gas.

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

FOR TEACHING

As seen in the data, it can be deduced that the number of students’responses categorized under the “sound understanding” category for eachitem increased with educational level, except for U1. An increase instudents’ conceptual understanding with their grades is, of course, anexpected result (e.g., Çalık, 2005). Moreover, as seen in Figure 1,students’ specific misconceptions decreased steadily from SHS1 to SHS3,except for item 4, but there is surprisingly a clear increase at U1. Thismay result from the fact that student’s motivation may have decreasedtowards thinking about chemistry after a highly competitive exam.Furthermore, there is no clear trend for U2 students. That is, thepercentages of the U2 students’ responses categorized under the “specificmisconception” category are explicitly lower than those for SHS1 andSHS2 in items 3 and 4, while their ratio is higher than those for SHS1,SHS2, and SHS3 for item 2. Why the SHS3 students have generally


TABLE2

Percentages

ofstud

ents'd

rawings

atdifferentlevelsof

educationto

item

5

Item

5Con

tinuo

us(%

)Particulate(%

)Particulatebu

tincorrect(%

)

Level

SHS1

SHS2

SHS3

U1

U2

SHS1

SHS2

SHS3

U1

U2

SHS1

SHS2

SHS3

U1

U2

Solid

79

2623

1369

7638

5375

2415

3624

12Liquid

158

2420

675

8244

5772

109

2223

22Gas

159

2120

680

8550

5081

56

2930

11


lower specific misconceptions can be explained by the UniversityEntrance Exam (ÖSS). That is, to make progress in their schoolingcareer, they would have been intensively preparing for this exam. Sincesome exam questions already include these concepts, they may haverecalled the scientific knowledge precisely

As seen from Figure 2, producing continuous drawings is highest forSHS3 students for all three states of matter and lowest for U2 students forliquids and gases. It can be concluded that there is an inverse U-shaped(concave) developmental curve from SHS2 to U2. Also, a similar apt foreach phase is available in the “continuous” category, apart from SHS1 forthe solid phase. An important result is that both SHS3 and U1 studentshave difficulty in visualizing the particulate nature of matter. This maystem from student’s motivation. That is, since U1 is used to a newlearning environment, the performance of the U1 students generallydecreases after high school, especially after SHS3. On the other hand,since students are enrolled at universities after a highly competitive exam,they may have felt that they have already accomplished their aims. Thisprobably causes students to forget some of their knowledge on the topicand, thus, U1 students may not have performed with a betterunderstanding in comparison to the other grades under investigation. Asa matter of fact, a significant proportion of U2 students had a betterconceptual understanding than that of U1 students. This means that most

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

SHS 1 SHS 2 SHS 3 U 1 U 2

Sample

Per

cen

tag

e

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Item 4

Figure 1. Percentages of the students’ responses categorized under the “specificmisconception” category with regard to their grade for items 1–4


of the students become more interested in lessons again at the U2 level. Interms of particulate drawings, SHS2 students provided better drawingsthan the others. The proportion of particulate but incorrect drawings washighest at the SHS3 level (see Table 2).

The particulate nature of matter is a key basic concept taught at theearly stages of schooling. Although other conceptions also are important,the literature suggests that chemistry students often have difficultieslearning if they do not understand the scientific model for the particulatenature of matter. The understanding of the students in the present workwas mixed, at all educational levels. The relatively weak understanding ofthe model after so many years of schooling suggests that school scienceteachers, in particular, may need to place more emphasis on suchconcepts. The research findings also suggest that most of the students,including those at the university level, had misconceptions and had troublemaking sense of knowledge and linking their theoretical knowledge todaily phenomena. This may indicate that these students are rote learnersrather than conceptual learners. It also could be that the teachers in theseTurkish schools did not link scientific learning to everyday life.

Since there were about 30 students at each educational level, a note ofcaution is necessary that this analysis is indicative only. Students atdifferent levels had a somewhat similar understanding of the particulate

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

SHS 1 SHS 2 SHS 3 U 1 U 2

Sample

Per

cen

tag

e

Solid

Liquid

Gas

Figure 2. Percentages of the students’ drawings categorized under the “continuous”category with regard to their grade for item 5


nature of matter. This is rather surprising, since we would expect thatstudents understanding would increase with educational level. One reasonfor this may be that inadequate or superficial coverage of the topicsoccurs in the early stages of schooling. Therefore, as students maydevelop a very simple understanding of the particulate nature-basedmeaning, they cannot then go on and use their model in new situations.

Since teaching in Turkey, as reported elsewhere (Çalik & Ayas, 2008),is very teacher-dominated and heavily dependent on textbooks during thelessons, it serves to encourage rote learning rather than conceptuallearning. Thus, students are compelled to memorize the topics andregurgitate answers when asked questions in exams. Therefore, studentsare probably unable to develop a scientific understanding of key concepts,i.e., particulate nature of matter, or to represent their understanding whenrequired in daily life or in scientific situations.

Despite the fact that the central university entrance examinationsconcentrate on factual recall, rather than conceptual understanding (Çalik& Ayas, 2008), it is not the only factor inhibiting understanding of theconcepts studied here. Of course, such other factors as the teaching–learningprocess, students’ pre-existing knowledge, teachers, and science curriculainfluence their understanding. Teachers in Turkey emphasize contentcoverage and teach easy approaches or tricks for solving problems for theexams, as reported from other contexts (Tobin & Garnett, 1988; Tobin &Gallagher, 1987). Although newly structured science curricula, which arebased on constructivism and student-centered manner, have been releasedby the National Ministry of Education, it will take time to change theexisting situation and to convince the teachers of their effectiveness. Inconclusion, we would hope that the new attempt will be successful in time.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank Associate Professor Richard K. Coll from theUniversity of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand for his kind help inpreparing this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Abraham, M. R., Grzybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W., & Marek, E. A. (1992).Understandings and misunderstandings of eight graders of five chemistry conceptsfound in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105–120.


Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of theunderstanding five concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147–165.

Anderson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. ScienceEducation, 70(5), 549–563.

Ayas, A. (2001). Students’ level of understanding of five basic chemistry concepts.Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 18, 19–32.

Ayas, A., Çepni, S., & Akdeniz, A. R. (1993). Development of the Turkish secondaryscience curriculum. Science Education, 77(4), 433–440.

Ayas, A., & Demirbas, A. (1997). Turkish secondary students’ conceptions ofintroductory chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(5), 518–521.

Bar, V. (1989). Children’s views about the water cycle. Science Education, 73, 481–500.BauJaoude, S. B. (1991). A study of the nature of students’ understanding about theconcept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 689–704.

Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journalof Chemical Education, 63(1), 64–66.

Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualization of a chemicalreaction. Education in Chemistry, 24(1), 64–66.

Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium.Journal of Chemical Education, 67(12), 1000–1003.

Boo, H. K. (1998). Students’ understandings of chemical bonds and the energetic ofchemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 569–581.

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.

Bradley, J. D., & Mosimege, M. D. (1998). Misconceptions in acids and bases: Acomparative study of student teachers with different chemistry backgrounds. SouthAfrican Journal of Chemistry, 51, 137–147.

Çalık, M. (2005). A cross-age study of different perspectives in solution chemistry fromjunior to senior high school. International Journal of Science and MathematicsEducation, 3, 671–696.

Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2008). A critical review of the development of the Turkish sciencecurriculum. In R. K. Coll & N. Taylor (Eds.), Education in context: An internationalexamination of the influence of context on science curricular development andimplementation. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2002a). Learners’ use of analogy and alternative conceptions forchemical bonding: A cross-age study. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(1), 24–35.

Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2002b). Learners’ mental models of covalent bonding.Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 241–268.

Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduateand graduate learners’ mental models of ionic bonding. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 40(5), 464–886.

De Jong, O., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogicalcontent knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 42(8), 946–964.

De Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in scienceeducation and in science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 33(6), 657–664.

Gabel, D. L. (1993). Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptualunderstanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 193–194.


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.

Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature ofmatter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695–697.

Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating tofundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 29(6), 611–628.

Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. (1986). Chemical equilibrium: Learning difficulties andteaching strategies. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 31(4), 8–13.

Haidar, A. H. (1997). Prospective chemistry teachers’ conceptions of the conservation ofmatter and related concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 181–197.

Haidar, A. H., & Abraham, M. R. (1991). A comparison of applied and theoreticalknowledge of concepts based on the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 28, 919–938.

Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemicalbonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education,84, 352–381.

Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students’ conceptions of chemical change.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 277–299.

Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of the conceptual conflict inconceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1–13.

Huddle, P. A., & Pillay, A. E. (1996). An in-depth study of misconceptions instoichiometry and chemical equilibrium at a South African University. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 33(1), 65–77.

Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D.(1993). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 249–270.

Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and assessment in teaching (7thed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconcep-tions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.

Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented bydifferent technologies on students’ understanding of acid, base and pH concepts.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1077–1096.

Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children’s beliefsabout matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 777–805.

Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school students’ understanding ofparticulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science Education, 62(3), 273–281.

Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils’ understanding of particulate nature of matter:A cross-age study. Science Education, 65(2), 187–196.

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). MiltonKeynes, UK: Open University Press.

Osborne, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the changes of thestate of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 825–838.


Özmen, H., & Ayas, A. (2003). Students’ difficulties in understanding of the conservationof matter in open and closed-system chemical reactions. Chemistry Education:Research and Practice, 4(3), 279–290.

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.

Palmer, D. H. (1999). Exploring the link between students’ scientific and nonscientificconceptions. Science Education, 83, 639–653.

Papageorgiou, G., & Sakka, D. (2000). Primary school teachers’ views of fundamentalchemical concepts. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(2), 237–247.

Peterson, R., & Treagust, D. (1989). Development of application of a diagnosticinstrument to evaluate grade-11 and 12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding andstructure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 26(4), 301–314.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation ofa scientific conception: Towards a theory f conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–217.

Renström, L., Andersson, B., & Marton, F. (1990). Students’ conceptions of matter.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 555–569.

Schmidt, H. J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions: Looking for a pattern. ScienceEducation, 81, 123–135.

Sisovic, D., & Bojovic, S. (2000). Approaching the concepts of acids and bases bycooperative learning. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(2),263–275.

Snir, J., Smith, C. L., & Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlyingmodels: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter.Science Education, 87, 794–830.

Stavy, R. (1988). Children’s conception of gas. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 10(5), 553–560.

Taber, K. S. (1994). Misunderstanding the ionic bond. Education in Chemistry, 31(4),100–103.

Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education.International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 597–608.

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-basedpractice (pp. 213–234). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Tan, K. C. D., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Evaluating students’ understanding of chemicalbonding. School Science Review, 81(294), 75–84.

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.

Tobin, K., & Garnett, P. (1988). Exemplary practice in science classrooms. ScienceEducation, 72(2), 197–208.

Tsai, C.-C. (1999). Overcoming junior high school students’ misconceptions aboutmicroscopic views of phase change: A study of an analogy activity. Journal of ScienceEducation and Technology, 8(1), 83–91.


Valanides, N. (2000). Primary student teachers’ understanding of the particulate nature ofmatter and its transformations during dissolving. Chemistry Education: Research andPractice, 1(2), 249–262.

van Driel, J. H. (2002). Students’ corpuscular conceptions in the context of chemicalequilibrium and chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice inEurope, 3(2), 201–213.

Voska, K. W., & Heikkinen, H. W. (1996). Identification and analysis of studentconceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 37(2), 160–176.

Westbrook, S. L., & Marek, E. A. (1991). A cross-age study of student understanding ofthe concept of diffusion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 649–660.

White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer.Zoller, U. (1990). Students’ misunderstandings and misconceptions in college freshmanchemistry (general and organic). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10),1053–1065.

Alipaşa Ayas

Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education,Fatih Faculty of EducationKaradeniz Technical University61335, Trabzon, TurkeyE-mail: [email protected]

Haluk Özmen

Department of Science Education,Fatih Faculty of EducationKaradeniz Technical University61335, Trabzon, TurkeyE-mail: [email protected]

Muammer Çalik

Department of Primary Teacher Education,Fatih Faculty of EducationKaradeniz Technical University61335, Trabzon, TurkeyE-mail: [email protected]


Children Misconception on Nature

Documents

Transcript of Children Misconception on Nature