|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 6, Issue 1, Article 3 (June, 2005) Suat ÜNAL & Bayram COŞTU Problematic issue for students: Does it sink or float?
|
|
|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 6, Issue 1, Article 3 (June, 2005) Suat ÜNAL & Bayram COŞTU Problematic issue for students: Does it sink or float?
|
Introduction
Much research has indicated that students enter their classrooms with ideas about science that have been influenced by their prior experiences, textbooks, teachers’ explanations, or everyday language (Osborne, 1982; Nakleh, 1992; Fleer, 1999; Palmer, 2001; Coştu & Ayas, 2005; Çalık & Ayas, 2005). According to the constructivist view, students often construct their own knowledge and theories about how the natural world works. Therefore, their construction of knowledge or theories may sometimes be contrary to those of scientists (Osborne and Wittrock, 1983; Bodner, 1986; Geelan, 1995). Such views or conceptions have been called misconceptions, preconceptions, alternative frameworks, naïve conceptions or common sense conceptions (Driver & Erickson, 1983; Treagust, 1988; Nakleh, 1992).
Over the last two decades, educators have shown great interest in identifying students’ misconceptions about various science phenomena, either prior to or following an instruction. One of the areas that science education and cognitive development research have studied is floatation. Students’ views on floatation were first reported by Inhelder and Piaget (1958). They revealed that because the formulation of floatation rules requires advanced reasoning skills, it may not be understood by students and it is possible for students to have misunderstandings. Rowell and Dawson (1977a, 1977b, 1981) carried out studies related to the results of Piaget’s work to elicit students’ understanding and help them improve their understanding of the phenomenon of floatation. In addition, there are numerous studies reporting students’ misconceptions and investigating the effectiveness of alternative teaching models for floatation and related concepts (Simington, 1983; Biddulph and Osborne, 1984; Smith, Carey, & Wiser, 1985; Halford, Brown, & Thompson, 1986; Smith, Snir & Grosslight, 1992; Hewson & Hewson, 1993; Kariotogloy, Koumaras, & Psillos, 1993).
Although there have been many studies on students’ conceptions of sinking and floating in the international science literature, few studies are available in Turkey. Gürdal and Macaroğlu (1997) investigated fifth grade students’ conceptions of sinking, floating and the Archimedes principle. They also discussed how to teach these phenomena by taking into account primary school students’ cognitive skills. Their study revealed that as students did not give correct response to any test item, they couldn't construct scientific understanding about these concepts. Macaroğlu and Şentürk (2001) also carried out a study to elicit fourth grade students’ understanding of the floatation. They found that students could not identify whether a material sank or floated, because of their non-scientific rules for sinking and floating.
Although there are some studies investigating primary school students’ conceptions of sinking and floating, similar studies on grade-eight students’ conceptions have not been studied so far in Turkey. As the Archimedes principle and other related concepts are first introduced to students at the seventh grade, one important question should be asked whether students still hold their earlier misconceptions or alternative ideas even after formal instruction in class. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate Turkish grade-eight students’ conceptions, understandings and misunderstandings of sinking and floating concepts.
Copyright (C) 2005 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 6, Issue 1, Article 3 (June, 2005). All Rights Reserved.
