Determination of Preservice Chemistry Teachers’ Cognitive Structures via Flow Map Method and Their Knowledge Level on "Greenhouse Gases and Their Effects" Topic
 
More details
Hide details
1
Faculty of Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Senar Temel   

Faculty of Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Publish date: 2017-10-11
 
International Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education 2012;4(1):30–45
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the current study was three-fold. The first purpose was to examine preservice chemistry teachers’ cognitive structures in order to define their conceptual understanding and misconceptions of “greenhouse gases and their effects.” The second purpose was to determine their knowledge level regarding this topic by means of different kinds of concept tests. The third purpose was to analyze the correlation between the preservice chemistry teachers’ success on the tests and their conceptual understanding. Thirty preservice chemistry teachers from Hacettepe University participated in the study. To define their cognitive structures relevant to the topic, the flow map method was used. Correct Concept Test, Incorrect Concept Test and Multiple Choice Concept Test were used to determine their knowledge level of “greenhouse gases and their effects”. The analysis on the flow maps showed that they do not have enriched cognitive structures and lack knowledge. Also we observed that they have some misconceptions. It was determined that there is a significant, positive correlation between their success on the Correct Concept Test scores. However, their scores on the Incorrect Concept Test and Multiple Choice Concept Test were insignificant when assessed in relation to conceptual understandings.
 
REFERENCES (34)
1.
Anderson, O.R. & Demetrius, O.J. (1993). A flow-map method of representing cognitive structure based on respondents’ narrative using science content. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 953–969.
 
2.
Anderson, O.R. (2009). The role of knowledge network structures in learning scientific habits of mind: Higher order thinking and inquiry skills, Fostering Scientific Habits of Mind: Knowledge Network. Rotterdam in Netherlands. Chapter 4, 59-82.
 
3.
Arsal, Z. (2010). The greenhouse effect misconceptions of the elementary school teacher candidates. İlköğretin Online, 9(1), 229-240.
 
4.
Bahar, M. & Aydın, F. (2002) Sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin sera gazları ve global ısınma ile ilgili anlama düzeyleri ve hatalı kavramları. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Ankara. (in Turkish)
 
5.
Bal, Ş. (2004). Determination of pre-service science teachers' misconceptions concerning greenhouse effect. Eurasian Journal of Education Research, 17, 102–111.
 
6.
Baranzini, A., Chesney, M. & Morisset, J. (2003). The impact of possible climate catastrophes on global warming policy. Energy Policy, 31(8), 691–701.
 
7.
Boyes, E., Chamber, W. & Stanisstreet, M. (1995) Trainee primary teachers’ ideas about the ozone layer. Environmental Education Research, 1(2), 133-145.
 
8.
Boyes, E. & Stanisstreet, M. (1998). High school students’ perceptions of how major global environmental effects might cause skin cancer. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(2), 31-36.
 
9.
Boyes, E., Stanisstreet, M. & Papantoniou, V.S. (1999). The ideas of Greek high school students about the ozone layer. Science Education, 83(6), 724-737.
 
10.
Chang, C., Yeh, T. & Barufaldi, J. (2010). The positive and negative effects of science concept tests on student conceptual understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 265-282.
 
11.
Cordero, E. (2001). Misconceptions in Australian students’ understanding of ozone depletion. Melbourne Studies in Education, 41(2), 85-97.
 
12.
Cranney, J., Ahn, M., McKinnon, R., Morris, S. & Watts, K. (2009). The testing effect, collaborative learning, and retrieval-induced facilitation in a classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 919–940.
 
13.
Daniel, B., Stanisstreet, M. & Boyes, E. (2004). How can we best reduce global warming? School students’ ideas and misconceptions. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 61(2), 211-222.
 
14.
Dhindsa, H.S. & Anderson, O.R. (2004). Using a conceptual change approach to help preservice science teachers reorganize their knowledge structures for constructivist teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), 63-85.
 
15.
Groves, F.H. & Pugh, A.F. (1999). Elementary pre-service teacher perceptions of the greenhouse effect. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 75-81.
 
16.
Gündüz, T. (2008) Çevre Kimyası. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi. (in Turkish).
 
17.
Kahraman, S., Yalçın, M., Özkan, E. & Aggul, F. (2008) Primary teacher training students’ levels of awareness and knowledge about global warming. Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 28(3), 249-263.
 
18.
Kalıpçı, E., Yener,Y. & Özkadif, S. (2009). The opinions of teacher candidates about global warming, greenhouse effect and ozone layer. World Applied Sciences Journal, 7(1), 67-75.
 
19.
Kang, S.H.K., McDermott, K.B. & Roediger, H.L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4/5), 528–558.
 
20.
Khalid, T. (2001). Pre-service teachers’ misconceptions regarding three environmental issues. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 6(1), 102-120.
 
21.
Khalid, T. (2003). Pre-service high school teachers’ perceptions of three environmental phenomena. Environmental Education Research, 9(1), 35-50.
 
22.
McDaniel, M., Anderson, J., Derbish, M. & Morisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4/5), 494-513.
 
23.
Oluk, E.A. & Oluk, S. (2007). Analysis of under graduated students’ perceptions concerning greenhouse effect, global warming and climate change. Dokuz Eylül University Journal of Buca Faculty of Education, 22, 45-53.
 
24.
Pekel, F.O. & Özay, E. (2005). Turkish high school students’ perceptions of ozone layer depletion. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 4(2), 115-123.
 
25.
Roediger, H.L. & Marsh, E.J. (2005). The positive and negative consequences of multiplechoice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 31(5), 1115-1159.
 
26.
Roediger, H.L. & Karpicke, J.D. (2006). Test enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
 
27.
Sanger, M.J. & Greenbowe, T.J. (2000). Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in electrolyte solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 521-537.
 
28.
Selvi, M. & Yakışan, M. (2005). Exploring students' cognitive structures through flow maps: Ecological cycles, Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2(1), 46-55.
 
29.
Summeers, M., Kruger, C. and Childs, A. (2001). Understanding the science of environmental issues: development of a subject knowledge guide for primary teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 33-53.
 
30.
Tsai, C.C. (2001). Probing students’ cognitive structures in science: the use of a flow map method coupled with a meta- listening technique. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(3), 257-268.
 
31.
Tsai, C.C. & Huang, C.M. (2002). Exploring students’ cognitive structures in learning science: A review of relevant methods. Journal of Biological Education, 36(4), 163-169.
 
32.
Tulving, E. (1967). Effects of presentation and recall of material in free-recall learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(2), 175-184.
 
33.
Yang, F.Y. (2004). Exploring high school students' use of theory and evidence in an everyday context: the role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision making. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1345-1364.
 
34.
Yıldız, K., Sipahioğlu, Ş. & Yılmaz, M. (2000). Çevre Bilimi. Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık. (in Turkish)
 
eISSN:1306-3049