Identifying prospective primary school teachers’ ontologically categorized misconceptions on the topic of "force and motion"

Ayşegül  Kınık Topalsan; Hale  BAYRAM

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Ayşegül Kınık Topalsan Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul-TURKEY
Hale BAYRAM Marmara University, Istanbul-TURKEY

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Ontology, force and motion, misconception

Abstract

This research aims to reveal the misconceptions of prospective primary school teachers on the fundamental physics concepts such as force, frictional force, work, conservation of energy, mechanical energy, kinetic energy, potential energy, energy stored in springs on the topic of "Force and Motion" and to assess the misconceptions based on ontological view. In order to reveal the prospective primary school teachers’ misconceptions, a two-tired "Concept Test on the Topic of Force and Motion" has been developed and used which consists of 17 items. The Cronbach's alpha value of the concept test was found to be 0.71. The study group of the research was 35 prospective primary school teachers at a foundation university (30 female and 5 male students) who were sophomore at primary school teacher education program. This research is characterized as a descriptive study. In the study, the misconceptions were assessed according to ontological categories, thus the reasons that lead these misconceptions were revealed based on ontology. Knowing the causes of misconceptions is very important for science education. Misconceptions can only be removed by planning and applying enough teaching methods focusing on causes of students’ misconception. Therefore, identifying students’ misconceptions based on ontological categories are very important because they facilitate revealing the causes of misconceptions. In the research, students’ misconceptions related to the topic of force and motion were identified and discussed according to ontological categories. Analysis of concept test items revealed that the teacher candidates had 301 misconceptions that can be placed to upper categories, and 150 misconceptions that can be placed to the lateral categories and suggestions were provided based on the results of study.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Acar, A. Ö. (2010). The determination of pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding about electromagnetic induction via ontological approach (Unpublished Master’s Dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara, 102-105.

Ayvacı, H. Ş. & Devecioğlu, Y. (2002, September). The impact of the concept map on science success. V. National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, Ankara.

Boz, Y. (2006). Turkish pupils’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 203-213.

Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2012). Scientific research methods (12th Edition 12). Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.

Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. Cognitive models of science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 129-186.

Chi, M. T. H. & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 249-260.

Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D. & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.

Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H. & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.

Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. (pp. 209-234. Washington: American Psychological Association,.

Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.

Chi, Y. (2001). Ontology-based curriculum content sequencing system with semantic rules. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7838–7847.

Chi, M. T. H. & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change (pp. 3-27). Limon, M. & Mason, L. (Eds), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Chi, M. T. H. & Hausmann R. G. M. (2003). Do radical discoveries require ontological shifts? (pp. 430-444). In L.V. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook on Innovation. New York: Elsevier Science.

Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common-sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.

Devecioğlu, Y. & Akdeniz, A. R. (2006). Evaluation of applications for teachers' candidates to acquire material development and application skills. Journal Of National Education, 172, 91- 105.

Duit R. &Treagust D. F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches (pp. 46-49). In B. J. Fraser and H. J. Walberg (Eds.). Improving science education. The National Society for the Study of Education.

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

Gruber, T. R. (1993). Ontolingua: A mechanism to support portable ontologies. Knowledge systems laboratory. Revision (Technical Report KSL). Stanford University, 91-66.

Johnston A.T. & Southerland, S.A. (2000, September). A reconsideration of science misconceptions using ontological categories. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA.Retrieved from: http://physics.weber.edu/johnston/research/ontological_categories_reconsidered.pdf

Karataş, F.Ö., Köse, S. & Costu, B. (2003). Two-tier tests used to determine student misconceptions. Pamukkale University Faculty of Education Journal, 13(1), 54-69.

Kokkotas, P., Vlachos, I. & Koulaidis, V. (1998). Teaching the topic of the particulate nature of matter in prospective teachers’ training courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 291-303.

Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D. & Blakeslee, T. D. (1993).

Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 249-270.

Lee, Y.& Law, N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 111149.

Legendre, M. F. (1997). Task analysis and validation for a qualitative, exploratory curriculum in force and motion. Instructional Science, 25, 255-305.

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

Nakleh, M. B., Samarapungavan, A. & Sağlam, Y., (2005). Middle school students’ beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 581- 612.

Othman, J., Treagust, D. & Chandrasegaron, A. L. (2007). An investigation into the relationship between student’s conceptions of the particulate nature of matter and their understanding of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education,1, 1-20.

Özalp, D. (2008). Determination of misconceptions on the basis of ontology on the particle structure of matter (Unpublished Master Thesis). Marmara University, Istanbul.

Özalp, D. & Kahveci, A. (2011). Development of two-tier diagnostic items based on ontology in the topic of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of National Education, 191, 135–156.

Palmer, D. H. & Flanagan, R. B. (1997). Readiness to change the conception that ‘Motionimplies-force’: A comparison of 12- year-old and 16-year-old students. Science Education, 81(3), 317-31.

Pideci, N. (2002). Misconceptions of students about atom-molecule theories. Development and evaluation of a special teaching method to eliminate misconceptions (Unpublished Master Thesis). Marmara University, Istanbul.

Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H. & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: a commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1-34.

Sera, M.D., Gathje, J. & del Castillo Pintado, J. (1999). Language and ontological knowledge:the contrast between objects and events made by Spanish and English speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 303–326.

Slotta, J. D. & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 261–289.

Smith, K. C., & Nakhleh, M. B. (2011). University students' conceptions of bonding in melting and dissolving phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(4), 398-408.

Soman, S. A. (2000). Ontological categorization in chemistry: A basis for conceptual change in chemistry (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.

Stepans, J. (2003). Targeting students’ science misconceptions. Physical science concepts using the conceptual change model. Tampa, FL: Showboard.

Tezcan, H. & Salmaz, Ç. (2005). Effects of the traditional method and constructivist approach on the understanding of atomic structure and elimination of related misconceptions. Gazi Education Faculty Journal, 25(1), 41-54.

Turgut, Ü., Gürbüz, F., Turgut, G. & Açışlı, S. (2011). Investigation of the misconceptions of force and movement for high school. Trakya Education Faculty Journal, 1(1), 71-85.

Ulu, C. (2011). The impact of research inquiry-based science writing tools on conceptual understanding, scientific process and metacognitive skill (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Marmara University, Istanbul, 100-250.

Yağbasan, R. & Gülçiçek, Ç. (2003). Defining the characteristics of concept misconceptions in science teaching. Pamukkale University Education Faculty Journal, 1(13), 102-119.