Evaluation of eleventh grade Turkish pupils’ comprehension of general chemistry concepts

How do students construct knowledge in their mind, in other words, how can learning be accomplished? Questions related to knowledge construction have been discussed deeply that results in accumulation of information related to constructivism, the dominant learning approach in recent decades. Actually, constructivism is a comprehensive approach that roots nature of knowledge (Driscoll, 2005) whereas this paper handles exclusively student learning perspectives of constructivism.

Conceptual learning comes into prominence especially after 1980s and takes place in constructivist learning content. According to conceptual learning, learning is a dynamic process that requires connection of new knowledge with the existing one (Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982). If new knowledge is constructed without reference to base knowledge, meaningful learning is not possible, and this situation generally results in rote learning. Ausubel (1968) stated that “the most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows” (p. iv). However, existing ideas may be scientifically incorrect or partially correct in some cases. The concepts which are not consistent with science communities’ points of view are mentioned with diverse terms like misconceptions, preconceptions, alternative frameworks, children’s science, and so on (Helm, 1980; Nakhleh, 1992; Novak, 1977; Driver, 1981; Gilbert, Osborne & Fensham, 1982). Although these terms have similar meanings in nature, their area of usage changes according to researchers’ approach to education such as alternative conception reflects an internalization of constructivist point of view (Taber, 2000).

As scientifically accepted concepts, alternative conceptions are also parts of cognitive resources and they interact continuously with each other. Since learners construct knowledge in terms of their own understanding, concepts- whether non-scientific- are plausible for them which results in settling down (Gilbert et al., 1982) and resistance to change (Driver & Easley, 1978). Construction of non-scientific conceptions on each other causes accumulation of non-scientific frameworks which affects comprehension of forthcoming concepts negatively (Jones & Beeth, 1995). Moreover, in that condition (accumulation of non-scientific concepts), the new knowledge may be “ignored, rejected, disbelieved, deemed irrelevant to the current issue, held for consideration at a later time, reinterpreted in light of the students’ current theories, or accepted with only minor changes in the students’ concepts” (Mulford & Robinson, 2002, p. 739). Because of reputed prohibitive properties, taking alternative conceptions into consideration in learning contexts should be the first step for meaningful concept learning.

As De Jong and Taber (2007) state, chemistry is a discipline that deals profoundly with the inner structure of matter, sub-microscopic level, that covers the particles (atoms, molecules, electrons, and etc.) and interactions among them. Besides sub-microscopic level, symbolic and macroscopic representations are also used to explain chemical phenomena. The symbolic domain includes chemical equations, formulas, and signs. The macroscopic domain is related with the substances and their properties that may be experienced in daily life. All of the representations of chemical concepts- especially, sub-microscopic and symbolic- requires higher level thinking abilities due to abstract nature of the chemistry discipline. As a result, learners may have alternative conceptions on various general chemistry concepts (Tan & Treagust, 1999) whereof main reason is lack of meaningful connections among representations of chemical concepts (Ayas & Demirbas, 1997).

Research studies in science education literature that have focused on alternative conceptions of students at almost all grade levels on various general chemistry concepts like: “the particulate nature of matter” (Ayas et al., 2010; Boz, 2006; Yilmaz & Alp, 2006; Stains & Talanquer, 2007), “chemical bonding” (Coll & Treagust, 2001 a, b; Taber, 1997 a; Tan & Treagust, 1999; Ünal et al., 2010), “dissolution” (Çalik, 2005; Çalik & Ayas, 2005; Çalik et al., 2005; Çalik et al., 2007, 2009; Ebenezer & Erickson, 1996; Valanides, 2000 a, b; Abraham et al., 1994; Prieto et al., 1989), and “gases” (Novick & Nussbaum, 1981; Stavy, 1988) showed that students of all grade levels had difficulties in understanding chemistry concepts.

In addition to the studies that are concerned with alternative conceptions, there are several studies conducted to investigate the effect of various variables such as, gender, grade level, reasoning abilities, and etc. on students’ understanding of science concepts (Abraham et al., 1994; Çalik, 2005; Robinson & Niaz, 1991; Sungur & Tekkaya, 2003; Valanides, 1997; Demircioglu & Norman, 1999; Sarier, 2010). Actually, there are inconsistent results in the literature related to the effect of gender on students’ science achievement. Sarier (2010), for instance, stated that Turkish girls are more successful than boys (students at the age of 15) in the context of science education according to the results of PISA carried out in 2003 and 2006. Some other studies reported, on the other hand, males are superior than females in terms of science achievement during the middle school years (Simpson & Oliver, 1990; Campbell, Voekl & Donohue, 1998). Furthermore, Demircioglu & Norman (1999) declared that there is no significant effect of gender on Turkish high school students’ chemistry achievement. Similar to Demircioglu & Norman (1999), Shaw & Doan (1990) reported no significant effect of gender on science achievement scores of elementary students who were at different grades that varied from grade 2 to 5.

Besides aforementioned concerns, there is one more point to discuss which is that researchers generally prefer dealing with one of the general chemistry concepts in their studies that results in understanding the situation in terms of that concept, exclusively. But, what about the whole picture, that is, to what extent do students comprehend general chemistry concepts? Combining results for various general chemistry concepts may be a way of deducing the whole picture whereas studies include different controlling variables and evaluating on these studies may not reflect the real situation. Instead of the way described, conducting a study that evaluates the extent of Turkish pupils’ comprehension of various general chemistry concepts- the whole picture- leads to more reliable results.

In this way, the main purpose of this study is to evaluate the extent of comprehension of eleventh grade Turkish pupils on various general chemistry concepts as well as to investigate chemistry concepts that are easier and harder for students to comprehend. Additionally, to examine the effect of gender and last semester chemistry course grades on pupils’ comprehension of general chemistry concepts is another aim of this study. Based on stated purposes, the following research questions were examined:

What is the extent of eleventh grade Turkish students’ comprehension of general chemistry concepts?

What are the chemistry concepts that are easier and harder for students to comprehend?

What is the effect of gender and previous semester chemistry course grades on eleventh grade Turkish students’ comprehension of general chemistry concepts?