Understanding about Earth and Space Science Concepts

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2010, 6(2), 85-99The Effects of Hands-on LearningStations on Building AmericanElementary Teachers’Understanding about Earth andSpace Science ConceptsNermin BulunuzUludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa, TURKEYOlga S. JarrettGeorgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USAReceived 24 August 2008; accepted 21 January 2009Research on conceptual change indicates that not only children, but also teachers haveincomplete understanding or misconceptions on science concepts. This mixed methodsstudy was concerned with in-service teachers’ understanding of four earth and spacescience concepts taught in elementary school: reason for seasons, phases of the moon,rock cycle, and earthquakes. The participants were 29 second year graduate students in anUrban Master Program at a southeastern American university. The data sources were: anopen-ended survey given before and after participation in six hands-on learning stationson earth science concepts and teacher reflections in dialogue journals while participating inthe stations. Rubrics were used to score answers to each survey question. Findings indicatethat in-service teachers have low conceptual understanding of the earth and space scienceconcepts taught in elementary school. Secondly, paired samples t-tests results showed thatparticipation in hands-on stations on these science concepts changed teachers’understandings of these topics. Finally, dialogue journals contained useful positivereflections, negative reflections, suggestions, and comments on preference to teach theactivities in the future. This study has implications for teacher preparation programs, staffdevelopment, and conceptual change practices at elementary schools.Keywords: PISA 2003, private education, public education, comparative study, Finland,KoreaINTRODUCTIONMany of the basic concepts about earth and spacescience are introduced in elementary school. However,research shows that preservice (Trumper, 2001;Trundle, Atwood, & Christopher, 2002), as well asCorrespondence to: Nermin Bulunuz, Assistant Professorin Science Education, Uludag Universitesi, EgitimFakultesi, P.O. Box 9, FI-00014,Bursa, TURKIYEE-mail: nermin.bulunuz@gmail.cominservice elementary school teachers (Bulunuz & Jarrett,2008; Kikas, 2004; King, 2000), have manymisconceptions similar to those held by children(Muthukrishna, Carnine, Grossen, & Miller, 1993;Stahly, Krockover, & Shepardson, 1999). Middle andhigh school teachers generally teach specialized content.However, elementary school teachers need to have avery broad range of scientific knowledge and knowledgeof how to teach difficult concepts effectively (Trundle,1999).This research study is concerned with inserviceteacher understanding of four earth and space scienceCopyright © 2010 by EURASIAE-ISSN: 1305-8223

N. Bulunuz & O. S. Jarrett.State of the literatureThe literature on understanding earth and space scienceconcepts suggests the following:• A limited number of studies on each of thefollowing concepts, the reasons for seasons,phases of the moon, rock formation, and causes ofearthquakes, indicate that both preservice andinservice teachers have many misconceptions.• Research on how both children and adultsconstruct conceptual understandings, suggests thatlecture alone is not effective in buildingunderstanding and that hands-on experiences areboth enjoyable and helpful in clarifyingmisconceptions.• Studies on the effects of modeling inquirymethods during teacher preparation helps buildunderstanding of various science concepts.Contribution of this paper to the literatureThis study contributes to the literature by combiningelements studied in previous research, i.e., initialconceptual understanding of inservice teachers onearth and space science concepts and the effect ofhands-on activities in building conceptualunderstanding and participant enjoyment of science.The study found the following:• Inservice teachers had many initial misconceptionssimilar to subjects in previous research.• Hands-on activities had a significant effect onteacher understanding of three of the fourconcepts.• Analysis of dialogue journals indicated thatparticipants generally enjoyed the activities and feltthey were helpful for understanding theseconcepts.concepts that are often taught in elementary school:reason for seasons, phases of the moon, the rock cycle,and earthquakes. In the National Science EducationStandards [NSES] (National Research Council, 1996), theBenchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993), and therecently developed Georgia [U.S.A.] Performance Standards[GPS] (Georgia Department of Education, 2006), theseconcepts are taught at different grade levels in theelementary school curriculum. Table 1 indicates whenthese concepts should be taught according to the NSES,the Benchmarks, and the GPS.A number of studies on the conceptualunderstanding of various earth and space scienceconcepts held by preservice elementary teachers(Atwood & Atwood, 1996; Callison & Wright, 1993;Bayraktar, 2007; Kusnick, 2002; Stofflett, 1993;Trumper, 2001; Trundle et al., 2002) and a more limitednumber of studies with inservice elementary teachers(Kikas, 2004; King, 2000; Parker & Heywood, 1998)suggest that many preservice and inservice teachers donot have enough scientific understanding to teach earthand space science concepts to students. The followingstudies examined preservice or inservice teacherunderstanding of specific concepts.Atwood and Atwood (1996) surveyed andinterviewed preservice elementary teachers on reasonfor seasons and found that the most commonmisconception was the proximity of the earth to the sun(distance theory). According to Atwood and Atwood,the thinking seemed to be that when part of the earth istilted toward the sun, it is closer to the sun and thus getshotter; and when part of earth is tilted away from thesun, it is farther from the sun and thus gets colder.Other listed examples given by the participants wereindicated as “the rotation of the earth on its axis,” “theway the earth positioned on its axis,” and “the partfacing the sun is having summer.” Kikas (2004) found inresearch with inservice teachers that 91% of theelementary and 93% of the science teachers gavescientifically correct answers but that many gave verycomplicated explanations suggesting that they hadmemorized explanations and may not have understoodthem. In addition to distance theory, Parker andHeywood (1998, p. 510) found that inservice teachershad another main alternative conception for the reasonfor seasons, referred to as “wobbly earth.” They definedwobbly earth as “the oscillation of earth’s axis insummer and winter.”In the literature, teachers’ misconceptions on thephases of the moon are very similar to the students’misconceptions. Trundle et al. (2002), focusing on theconceptual understanding held by preservice teachersabout moon phases, reported that teachers hadalternative conceptions such as: the moon phases arecaused by the earth’s shadow on the moon (eclipse) andthe earth’s rotation on its axis (day and night). Callisonand Wright (1993) investigated preservice teachers’Table 1. Recommended Grade Levels for Teaching Four Earth and Space Science Concepts in the U.S.A.Reason for seasons Phases of the moon Rock cycle EarthquakesNational Science Education5-8 K-5 5-8 5-8StandardsBenchmarks for Science5-8 K-5 9 9-12LiteracyGeorgia Performance Standards 4 4 3-5 586 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 85-99

Understanding of Earth and Space Science Conceptsconceptions about earth-sun-moon relationships andreported some of the common misconceptions heldabout what causes the phases of the moon: the earth’sshadow, the clouds, the Earth’s and the moon’s tilt.Parker and Heywood (1998) investigated inserviceteachers’ misconceptions on the moon phases andfound that most teachers thought that the earth’s andother planets’ shadows onto the moon caused the moonphases. In a recent study, Bayraktar (2007) found that46% of preservice teachers had misconceptions onphases of the moon, the most common being thatphases are caused by the earth’s shadow on the moon.Kusnick’s (2002) research with preservice teachers inher geology class noted a number of misconceptionsabout rock formation. Some of the participants’ ideaswere as follows: rounded pebbles or rocks found nearthe rivers must be sedimentary rocks; rocks are formedby sediments sticking together at the bottom of rivers;and sedimentary rocks are formed mainly throughcatastrophic events, such as earthquakes or explosivevolcanic activity. Stofflett (1994) investigated preserviceteachers’ knowledge about rock cycle processes andfound that they understood igneous rocks more easilythan sedimentary rocks.Misconceptions about earthquakes and platetectonics seem to be common, even among the teacherswho teach these topics. In investigating teachers’understandings about plate tectonics and the crosssectionof the Earth, King (2000) found that half of theteachers did not give the correct names to the Earth’ssections or know their composition. He concluded thatteachers would better understand the movement ofearth’s plates if they had scientific understanding aboutthe states of the Earth’s sections.Hands-on Science ActivitiesAccording to the constructivist philosophy of Piagetand Vygotsky, people build conceptual understandingon their experience. Real experiences allow people toconstruct their own understandings in a meaningful way(Piaget, 1968; Vygotsky, 1978). The common point forthese theorists is that learning is an active processrequiring physical and intellectual engagement with thelearning task. Demonstrations and hands-on activitiescreate “external intrusion” (Piaget, 1968, p. 113) intocurrent thinking and stimulate equilibration, leading toconceptual change. According to Piaget’s theory,learning takes place at all ages as people try to“equilibrate” (make sense of) dissonant experiencesthrough the processes of assimilation andaccommodation.Many strategies have been used to improveconceptual understanding, including use of various typesof textbooks, concept maps, computer simulations,conceptual change text, field trips, and inquiry activitiesusing learning cycles. This study explores the impact ofvarious hands-on activities on inservice elementaryteachers’ conceptual understanding about earth andspace science concepts.Research has concluded that students’ alternativeconceptions are not eliminated by traditional methodsinvolving primarily lecture (Marinopoulos & Stavridou,2002; Weaver, 1998), and that hands-on activities are aneffective way for children and adolescents to acquireknowledge (Costa, 2003). According to Cetin (2003),hands-on activities make students more active learnersin science classrooms, especially if they can apply whatthey learn in school to their daily life situations.Research has also shown that students find sciencetopics more interesting when they are relevant to dailylife or experience (Weaver, 1998). According toCrawford (2000), projects involving hands-onexperience enhance opportunities for construction ofknowledge. In a comparison of traditional and inquirybasedcollege earth science classes, McConnell, Steer,and Owens (2003) found collaborative hands-on inquiryactivities to be more effective in clarifying conceptualunderstanding. Also their interviews of the studentsshowed that most of the participants enjoyed theinquiry-based class, preferred the hands-on activities toa traditional lecture class, and would recommend thiscourse to their peers.Some teacher education programs include hands-onactivities, not only to clarify concepts but also to modelhands-on, inquiry methods. The next sectionsummarizes the findings of some of these studies.Research with Preservice and InserviceTeachersResearch focused on preservice teachers (Kelly,2000; Gibson, Bernhard, Kropf, Ramirez, & Van Strat,2001; Ebert & Elliot, 2002; Plourde & Klemm, 2004),and inservice teachers (Gutierrez, Coulter, & Goodwin,2002; King, 2000; Parker & Heywood, 2000)demonstrates the effectiveness of hands-on methods.Kelly (2000) found that participation in hands-onactivities on light and color, followed by development oftheir own learning centers for children, increasedconceptual understanding. In an introductory physicalscience course taught using hands-on activities,cooperative group work, manipulatives, and real lifeapplications, Gibson et al. (2001) analyzed preserviceteachers’ weekly reflective journals and found that thecourse had a positive impact on their scientificunderstandings. Ebert and Elliot (2002) concluded thatrock and mineral identification activities in a laboratorytechniques course for preservice teachers weresuccessful in developing understanding. Plourde andKlemm (2004) found that five learning stations on© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 85-99 87

N. Bulunuz & O. S. Jarrett.sound promoted conceptual understanding as well asengagement among preservice elementary teachers.Parker and Heywood (2000) conducted research oninservice teachers’ concepts about floating and sinkingand found that through hands-on science activitiesteachers engaged successfully with difficult and abstractscientific ideas. They also observed that, if teachers werelearning by doing, they could identify the characteristicsof the learning process itself within specific subjectdomains. King (2000) conducted Earth scienceworkshops to help teachers clarify their misconceptionsand reported great improvements in clarity ofunderstanding after the workshops. Gutierrez et al.,(2002) offered a summer workshop to elementaryschool teachers focusing on earthquakes, volcanoes,floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes and reported that theteachers improved their understanding 31%.The purpose of the present research was to assesswhether or not hands-on centers in a science methodsclass would help change misconceptions and buildaccurate content knowledge about earth and spacescience concepts. For the purposes of consistency andclarity, the teachers in the course will be referred to asstudents in this paper.The following research questions guided the study:1.What initial understandings did the students hold on thefollowing topics: reason for seasons, phases of the moon, rock cycleand earthquakes?2.Did participation in hands-on learning stations on these earthand space science concepts change student understandings of thesetopics? If not, what misconceptions did the students still hold?3.Did student reflections indicate that participation in thelearning stations helped build understanding and desire toimplement these topics in their own classroom? Did they enjoy theactivities?METHODParticipantsThis research was conducted with inserviceelementary school teachers in a science methods course,Fall 2004. The participants were second year graduatestudents in an Urban Masters Program in the EarlyChildhood Education Department at a southeasternAmerican university. The purpose of the urban mastersprogram is to prepare excellent teachers for urban highpoverty schools with marginalized populations. In thefirst year of the program, the participants were interns inschools while taking curriculum, child development, andclassroom management courses. During the secondyear, most were first year teachers, although some of theparticipants came from another urban certificationprogram and were in their second or third year ofteaching. In addition to curriculum courses two nights aweek, each inservice teacher had a university coach whovisited him/her regularly. There were 36 graduatestudents in the class, but only 29 (4 male and 25 female)of them completed both pre and posttests. The ethniccomposition of the class was: 21 European American,13 African American, and 2 Asian.Data Sources and Data CollectionTwo data sources were used in this study: 1) anopen-ended survey about science concepts administeredboth as a pretest and as a posttest and 2) the students’reflections about the hands-on learning stations in theirdialogue journals. A mixed-methods research design wasused with the rubric scores of the answers for the openendedquestions analyzed quantitatively and the themesfrom the students’ reflections analyzed qualitatively. Alldata collection was conducted as a normal part of theclass.Open-ended Survey and its Administration as aPretestThe second author, who was the class instructor, hadpreviously developed the survey “How well do youunderstand science concepts?” for use as a teaching toolin her science methods classes. The survey questionsassess content knowledge about a variety of scienceconcepts. The concepts were selected based on pastexperiences with students, and the survey results wereused to stimulate class discussions of how teachers canprepare themselves to teach these concepts.In order to assess students’ initial understandings,the survey was administered in the first week of thisstudy. The original survey had 19 open-ended items;however, the researchers focused on only four questionsrelated to earth and space science concepts, which wereused as a pre-test in this study. These questions were: 1)why do we have seasons? 2) why do we see the phasesof the moon? 3) explain the rock cycle, and 4) whatcauses earthquakes? The students’ answers to thesequestions provided information about their initialknowledge on these concepts that are currently taught atthe elementary level.Rubric Scoring. The inservice teachers’ answers to theopen-ended questions were scored according to thelevel of understanding for each phenomenon. Theresearchers created scoring rubrics to classify students’responses about these concepts. An answer was codedas 1 if there was no response, an incorrect answer, or aclear misconception, 2 if the answer was partially corrector it had no elaboration, and 3 if the answer wasintegrated with scientific perspective and clearelaboration (See Appendix A for Scoring Manual). Thecorrectness of the answers scored as 3 was validated bycomparisons with textbook explanations and byconsultation with a professional engineer having a88 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 85-99

N. Bulunuz & O. S. Jarrett.Table 3. Comparison of Means, Standard Deviations for Pre and Post Test ScoresPretestPosttestN Mean SD Mean SDReason for seasons 29 1.20 .41 1.58* .56Phases of the moon 29 1.17 .38 1.31 .47Rock cycle 29 1.13 .35 1.82* .53Earthquakes 29 2.03 .32 2.48* .50*p

Understanding of Earth and Space Science ConceptsOn the pretest, there was no answer that showed asound understanding of the rock cycle and was scoredas 3. On the other hand, in the post test, two answerswere scored as 3. They mentioned all three types of rockand indicated that the various types were transformedinto one another through erosion, heat, and/orpressure.The results indicated that pressure, aggregation, andweather conditions are common words repeated in thestudents’ answers about three types of rocks. Theymentioned aggregation (such as crushing andcompacting of smaller pieces) and weather conditions(such as wind, rain, and erosion, etc.) for sedimentaryrocks. Several mentioned pressure but not temperaturein the formation of igneous and metamorphic rocks.Causes of earthquakes. The results of the students’posttest answers indicated that the responses of 14students (almost 50 %) were scored as 3. This is thehighest percentage correct in this study and suggeststhat participation in learning station activities promotedclearer conceptual understanding. Although six studentsmentioned movement of faults in their responses, half ofthe participants understood that there was movement oftectonic plates in different directions under the ground.Three posttest answers were scored as 3. Thefollowing are their answers. “The tectonic plates of theearth shift in various directions causing cracks orrising/falling of the earth.” “The plates shift under theocean land causing parts of the earth to be pushed up &away from each other.” “The earth has faults thatrelease pressure underground - pressure causes move toerupt.” None of the students’ answer was evaluated as 1.Research Question Three: Student JournalReflections about the Learning StationsThe reflections of the students in dialogue journalswere sorted according to types of responses, positivereflections, negative reflections, suggestions about theactivity, and degree of comfort with using theseactivities in their classrooms. Since these students hadtheir own classrooms and teaching experience, theypointed out important criticisms and made suggestionsabout further use of the activities. The frequencies bytype of journal response are summarized in Table 4.Positive reflections. The students expressed positivereflections in their journals about different stations.Ironically, most of these positive reflections were on“phases of the moon.” In spite of the fact that there wasno significant difference between pre and posttestscores of the students for this question, the studentsenjoyed the activity. Thirteen students expressedpositive comments about it. One student’s reflectionabout this activity was, “this center is a great, interactiveway to demonstrate the phases of the moon. Just likethe center about reason for the seasons, it makes theconcept more concrete and allows students to be able tovisualize it easier.”The second favorite station was “rock sorting”.Students thought this activity would be very helpfulespecially for younger children. Some representativepositive statements about this station were: “This is goodway to teach sorting to 1 st graders. So many different ways tosort.” “We looked at the rocks according to color. After the lastcenter, it is interesting to see what each kind of rock looks like.”and ”Rock sorting is fun activity for younger grades. Children loverocks and they could collect some to sort.”Also among positive reflections, some of thestudents found the support of researchers during theactivities to be helpful and mentioned it in theirjournals.Negative reflections. A few students also wrote somenegative reflections in their journals. Specifically, fournegative reflections were noted concerning the crayonrock cycle and spreader. In the crayon rock cyclestation, the students used a hot plate to melt crayonpieces to understand the conversion of one type of rockto another. They did not find this activity safe enoughto use in their classrooms, and they recommended adultsupervision for this station. One student’s response was“crayon rock cycle activity is something I would have toshow the kids rather than have them do it because ofthe hot plate.”Another critique was determined for the center“spreader.” This center was about the spreading ofoceanic crust. One student considered the activity a“large jump for students to grasp, more details andexplanation needed to connect with continentssplitting.” It is clear from his reflection that moredetailed information would be necessary for this activityduring the rotation.Suggestions. Because students had one to three yearsof teaching experience, they had some practicalsuggestions, especially for the stations on reason forseasons and the phases of moon. Some of them hadalready tried some of these activities in their classrooms.For reason for seasons and phases of the moon stations,some teachers suggested that we use peoplemanipulatives instead of Styrofoam balls. The followinganswers have suggestions for the station on reasons forseasons: (a) “we understood the exercise better once weactually recreated the steps with five of us standing in asthe sun and the earth in four different locations aroundthe sun.” and (b)“using people as manipulative makesunderstanding the seasons easier.” A suggestion for thestation on phases of the moon was “Would work betterin a darker room and with light bulbs.”Desire to implement these activities in their classrooms . Thestation the students said they were most likely toimplement in their classrooms was the seasons station.Because the concept of “reasons for seasons” requiresmodeling in three dimensions, this concept is not easy© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 85-99 93

N. Bulunuz & O. S. Jarrett.to teach in elementary science classrooms. However,some students mentioned that they understood theseasons station and intended to use these activities intheir own classrooms.Two examples indicating their willingness to practicethe same stations in their classrooms are (a) “Goodactivity, I will do it with my class. Good visual abouthow the earth’s tilt causes different seasons” and (b)“Fun activity that could easily be used in the classroom.It is a good way to illustrate the seasons for kids.”While students were doing the station activities, theresearchers tried to help clarify how to do the activities.It was understood from their reflections that theseclarifications were considered very helpful, especially forthe stations on seasons and moon phases. One studentsaid: “Our instructor (the second author) came over andused us as models to demonstrate how the seasonschange. She put a person in the middle, sun and fourpeople on the outside tilted forward representing theearth tilted on its axis. Each person rotates counterclockwise representing one of the seasons.” Anotherstudent stated: “It was difficult at first to observe themoon’s phases. After one of instructors (first author)came over, I was able to see the different phases. As themoon rotated around, I saw the crescent moon.”DISCUSSIONAs expected from previous research, findings of thisresearch indicated that inservice teachers, withoutintervention, have limited understanding or incorrectunderstanding about the reason for seasons, phases ofthe moon, rock cycle, and causes of earthquakes. Theseresults are similar to the findings of other research withinservice teachers (Bulunuz & Jarrett, 2008; Kikas, 2004;and Parker & Heywood, 1998). The number ofincomplete or inaccurate initial conceptions suggeststhat science method courses ought to includeclarification of difficult concepts teachers are requiredto teach. If teachers do not understand these conceptsand they are not aware of these misconceptions, theymay simply pass their misconceptions to students, ifthey teach the concept at all.The finding that after doing the station activities thestudents improved in their understanding of three of theconcepts indicates that alternative conceptions aboutearth and space science concepts can be reduced oreven eliminated by appropriate hands-on experiences.This finding is consistent with previous research withelementary school teachers (Parker & Heywood, 2000;Gutierrez et al., 2002).However, the number of continuing misconceptionssuggests that either more time be given to the stationsor that other activities should be used to make theconcepts more clear. The finding that students did notimprove in their understanding of the phases of themoon may be the result of a confusing model. Theresearchers observed that some students who held theStyrofoam ball (the moon) and the walked the moonaround the earth (another student) seemed to beconfused. (See the details about the stations inAppendix B.) Because the lamplight was directional andsmall relative to the person representing earth, it wasdifficult to angle the light so that the “moon” appearedto have phases as seen by the “earth.” Probably, not allthe students in the group noticed how the lighted partof the ball seemed to change shape.The diagram that was chosen from the book andscanned onto the instruction sheet was not clear andcould have been misinterpreted. Diagrams, figures, andthe information in science activity books can createincorrect understandings for students. The authors ofbooks designed for teachers and children must be verycareful in selecting the diagrams and figures intended toclarify various concepts. Sometimes, oversimplificationcan cause misconceptions. The finding that students stillhad major misconceptions on reason for the phases ofthe moon caused the authors to improve theinstructions, replace the model with two new models,and spend more time on clarifying this concept insubsequent research with a different population(Bulunuz & Jarrett, In press). In that study, participantssignificantly increased their understanding of phases ofthe moon.On the other concepts, the results show that eventhough students improved their scores on the posttest,many still had incomplete understandings andmisconceptions. This finding is very similar to findingsof Trundle et al. (2002) and Parker and Heywood(1998). Although science educators try differentconceptual change strategies and techniques formodifying misconceptions, the way these teachers weretaught as children may cause them to memorize sterilescientific facts without making connections. Studieshave shown that misconceptions learned as children aretenacious and resistant to change by conventionalstrategies even after instruction designed to addressthem. More importantly, concepts are interconnectedand depend on each other for their meanings. Replacingalternative conceptions with scientifically accurate onesis a very difficult process. Science educators need to beaware of their students’ incorrect understandings inorder to design experiments, demonstrations, hand-onscience activities and centers to help students constructcorrect scientific understandings.Journal reflections about the learning stationsindicated that some of the stations were clearer thanothers. Some of the students found the activities on thereason for seasons helpful and interesting because theycould visualize these three dimensional phenomenon byusing models. This finding is consistent with theresearch by Gibson et al. (2001) and McConnell et al.94 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 85-99

Understanding of Earth and Space Science Concepts(2003) whose students both enjoyed the inquiry-basedclass and preferred the hands-on activities to atraditional lecture class. The participants in this studysuggested adult supervision for the crayon rock cyclestation because of dangers in using a hot plate, asuggestion with which the researchers concur. Somestudents volunteered that they planned to implementsome of the activities with their classes. In general, theyenjoyed the learning stations and thought the activitiesimproved their understandings.There are several possible reasons for the continuedexistence of incomplete understandings ormisconceptions after the intervention. First, the timespent at each station might not have been long enoughfor participants to internalize these concepts. Althoughgeneral background information about each station wasgiven before they started to do the activities, studentsmight have needed more time to explore the activitiesand try to understand what they observed. Also the totaltime (one class period) might not have been enough tochange initial understandings about space scienceconcepts, such as reason for seasons or the phases ofthe moon. Because these concepts are about threedimensionalevents, changing with time, and difficult toimagine, students might need more detailed informationto change their incorrect understandings. Also, theactivities chosen to clarify each concept might not havebeen the most useful, compared to others that mighthave been more helpful in building understanding.To determine the depth of teacher understanding, anassignment to implement some of these learningstations in their classroom could have been given.Observations or videotaping in their classrooms couldprovide evidence of level of teacher understanding aswell as whether these activities develop conceptualunderstanding in their students. Such an assignment isrecommended for future research.One limitation of this and other studies of earthscience concepts is the use of activities focused onobservation, visualization, and clarification rather thaninquiry. Althogh inquiry was a focus of much of thecourse, these learning stations provided “cookbooklike”instructions designed to guide the participants tothe “correct answer.” The authors believe that suchactivities have a place in the science methods class,especially when many concepts covered in the standardsmust be clarified in a brief period of time. These earthand space science concepts did not lend themselves totrue experimentation. However, such activities shouldbe balanced by other concepts, such as the growth ofplants, the effects of magnetism, and the properties ofair than can be taught through inquiry.This mixed-methods study makes severalcontributions to the research literature on inserviceteachers. First, it provides a window into what inserviceelementary teachers already know about earth and spacescience concepts, adding to the limited number ofstudies on the conceptual understandings of inserviceteachers (Kikas, 2004; King, 2000; Parker & Heywood,1998). Secondly, this research demonstrates theeffectiveness of hands-on learning stations forenhancing inservice teachers’ conceptual understandingsThis study shows that enjoyable hands-on activities in amethods class can be useful in clarifying concepts forteachers while modeling activities teachers can use intheir classrooms to clarify the same concepts withchildren. Such activities could be included in: (a)undergraduate science content classes, (b) initial teachereducation and training courses, and (c) inservice coursesfor elementary school teachers as a way to improve bothcontent knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Thirdly,the teachers’ personal reflections in their dialoguejournals provided information about their ways ofthinking about the hands-on learning stations, especiallytheir level of comfort with teaching these topics andtheir reflections on whether or not they enjoyed theactivities. Such insights are useful for science educatorsdesigning hands-on experiences for students. Theteachers’ common recommendations and constructivesuggestions give researchers ideas for revising andimproving learning stations for future studies.Although there are numerous research studies on thereasons for seasons and phases of the moon, studies focusingon concepts about the rock cycle (Kusnick, 2002;Stofflett, 1994) and causes of earthquakes (King, 2000) arelimited. Researchers generally look at the concepts ofrock classification or rock types instead of conversion ofone rock type to another. The research on earthquakesinvestigates conceptions about the cross-section of theEarth or the Earth’s composition but not the role offriction between plates in causing earthquakes. Theresults of the current study present a new set of ideasand practical suggestions for bringing about conceptualchange.REFERENCESAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science(1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy: Project 2061. NewYork: Oxford University Press.Atwood, R.K., & Atwood, V.A. (1996).Preservice elementaryteachers’ conceptions of the causes of seasons. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 33, 553-563.Bayraktar, Ş. (2007) Pre-service primary teachers’ ideas aboutlunar phases. Downloaded from http://naserv.did.gy.se/ESERA2007/pdf/030/pdfon August 6,2008Bulunuz, N., & Jarrett, O. (2009). Understanding of Earthand Space Science Concepts: Strategies for ConceptBuilding in Elementary Teacher Preparation, SchoolScience and Mathematics, 109(5), 276-286Bulunuz, N., & Jarrett, O. (2008, June). Preservice and InserviceTeachers’ Conceptions on Earth and Space Science Concepts.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 85-99 95

N. Bulunuz & O. S. Jarrett.International Conference on Educational Sciences,Famagusta, North Cyprus.Callison, P.L., & Wright, E.L. (1993, April). The effect ofteaching strategies using models on preserviceelementary teachers’ conceptions about earth-sun-moonrelationships, Paper presented at annual meeting of theNational Association for Research in Science Teaching,Atlanta, Georgia.Cetin, G. (2003). The effect of conceptual change instruction onunderstanding of ecology concepts. Unpublished DoctoralDissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara,Turkey.Costa, M.F. (2003). Hands-on Science. EuropeanCommission under the Socrates Project,Retrieved from,http://www.isoc.siu.no/isocii.nsf/projectlist/110157.Couper, H., & Henbest, N. (1994). How the Universe Works:100 Ways parents and kids can share the secrets of the universe.New York: Reader’s Digest Association, Inc.Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry:New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 37 (9), 916-937.Ebert, J.R., & Elliot, N.A. (2002). Mr. Chalkentalk’scupboard- practical lessons for preservice teachers inrock and mineral identification and the management ofteaching collections. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(2),182-185.Georgia Department of Education. Georgia PerformanceStandards.http://www.georgiastandards.org/Downloaded January 12, 2006.Gibson, H.L., Bernhard, J., Kropf, A., Ramirez, M.A., & VanStrat, G. A. (2001, March). Enhancing the science literacy ofPreservice teachers through the use of reflective journals. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of The NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis:MO.Gutierrez, M., Coulter, B., & Goodwin, D.R. (2002). Naturaldisasters workshop integrating hands-on activities,internet-based data, and GIS. Journal of GeoscienceEducation, 50(4), 437-443.Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science methodcourse: a case for content, pedagogy, and informalscience education. International Journal of Science Education,22(7), 755-777.Kikas, E. (2004). Teachers' conceptions and misconceptionsconcerning three natural phenomena, Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 41(5), 432-448.King, C. (2000). The Earth’s mantle is solid: Teachers’misconceptions about the earth and plate tectonics. TheSchool Science Review, 82, 57-64.Kusnick, J. (2002). Growing pebbles and conceptual prisms:Understanding the source of student misconceptionsabout rock formation, Journal of Geoscience Education, 50 1,31-39.Marinopoulos, D., & Stavridou, H. (2002).The influence of acollaborative learning environment on primary students’conceptions about acid rain. Educational Research, 37(1),18-24.McConnell, D.A., Steer, D.N., & Owens, K.D. (2003).Assessment and active learning strategies forintroductory geology courses. Journal of GeoscienceEducation, 51(2), 205-216.Muthukrishna, N., Carnine, D., Grossen, B., & Miller, S.(1993). Children’s alternative frameworks: Should theybe directly addressed in science instruction? Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 30, 233-248.National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National ScienceEducation Standards. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (1998). The earth and beyond:developing primary teachers’ understanding of basicastronomical events, International Journal of ScienceEducation, 20(5), 503-520.Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationshipsbetween subject knowledge and pedagogic contentknowledge in primary teachers’ learning about forces.International Journal of Science Education, 22 (1), 89-111.Piaget, J. (1968). Six psychological studies. New York: VintageBooks.Plourde, L.A., & Klemm, E.B. (2004). Sounds and sense–abilities: Science for all. College Student Journal, 38(4), 653-660.Rider, S. (2002). Perceptions about moon phases, Science Scope,26 3, 48-51.Schoon, K.J. (1992). Students’ alternative conceptions ofearth and space, Journal of Geological Education, 40, 209-214.Smith, P.S. (1998). Project Earth Science: Astronomy. Arlington,Virginia: National Science Teachers Association.Stahly, L. L., Krockover, G. H., & Shepardson, D. P. (1999).Third grade students' ideas about the lunar phases,Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 2, 59-77.Stofflett, R.T. (1993). Preservice elementary teachers’knowledge of rocks and their formation. Journal ofGeological Education, 41, 226-230.Stofflett, R.T. (1994). Conceptual change in elementary schoolteacher candidate knowledge of rock-cycle processes.Journal of Geological Education, 42, 494-500.Trumper, R. (2001). A cross-college age study of science andnonscience students’ conceptions of basic astronomyconcepts in preservice training for high-school teachers.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 189-195.Trundle, K. C. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers’ conceptualunderstandings of the cause of moon phases, Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, The University of Tennessee.Trundle, K.C., Atwood, R.K., & Christopher, J.E. (2002).Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moonphases before and after instruction. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 39, 633-658.Van Cleave, J. (1991). Earth Science for Every Kid: 101 easyexperiments that really work. New York: John Wiley &sons, Inc.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higherpsychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.Weaver, G.C. (1998). Strategies in K-12 science instruction topromote conceptual change. Science Education, 82, 455-472.Zike, D. (1993). The Earth Science Book: Activities for Kids. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.96 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 85-99

Understanding of Earth and Space Science ConceptsAPPENDICESAPPENDIX ASCORING MANUALRUBRIC AND SAMPLE ANSWERS FOR OPEN-ENDED SURVEY3: Integrated with scientific perspective and clear withelaboration2: Partially correct or has no elaboration1: No response, incorrect answer or clearly evidentmisconception-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 1: Why do we have seasons?RubricScores Why do we have seasons?• If the response includes two or more of the followingideas: the tilt of the earth’s axis, changes in the part of the3earth getting more direct sunlight, and the tilt of the earthas it revolves around the sun.• If the response includes a correct idea withoutelaboration (the amount of the sun’s light concentrated on2 a particular area) or one correct idea, even if combinedwith one that is not clear (because of the tilt and rotationof the earth).• No response or if the response showed a clearmisconception or did not explain the concept, e.g.rotation (revolution) of the earth around the sun, the1earth’s distance from the sun, our position around thesun, vernal equinox, time changing, changes in theatmosphere.Sample answers3:* Because of the tilt of the earth as it revolves around thesun2:* Different parts of the earth have heat & light fordifferent amounts of time.* The earth revolves around the sun in an oval orbit. Theearth’s axis is tilted. Greater distance and tilt* The elliptical path around the sun & the tilt of the earthon its axis effect the changing seasons.* Because of the Earth’s rotation around the sun-it is anellipse; so sometimes it is farther away from the sun. Also,because of tilt of Earth’s axis* The position of the sun is relationship to the earthcauses fluctuations in the number of hours the earth isexposed-affecting temperature and the angle of exposure.1:* So that the environment, plants, animals, wildlife canchange, and go through the cycles & then restart.* The earth tilts up and down, making the sun shinebright and warmer depending on tilt.* Because of the rotation of planets* Rotation of the earth around the sun can causetemperaturechanges.* Because, it is the relation of earth & the sun* The seasons change because we are closer to and fartherfrom it.* The earth moves around the universe and your part ofthe earth is farther from the sun, it is colder …when it iscloser it is warmer.* We have seasons to mark the changes in weather. We gofrom winter to spring to summer to autumn or fall. We havethese 4 seasons for the 4 major changes in the weather.Seasons affect our dress, plants, food, etc.Q 2: Why do we see phases of the moon?RubricScores Question 2 (Phases of the moon) Criteria• Sound understanding (No answer was found in two3 data sets for this category)21• The response includes at least one of the followingideas: the relative position of the sun-earth-moon, thesun’s reflection on the moon, the revolution of the moonaround the earth, the moon reflects the sun’s light.• A response that is clearly wrong, such as “we see thephases of the moon because of the shadow of the earthon the moon, the tilt of the earth, or rotation of theearth.”Sample answers3: No number 3 answer was found in the previous study.Following is what we looked for in a quality answer, a clearunderstanding of the reason for the phases of the moon:* The Moon does not produce its own light, but simplyreflects the light of the Sun. The phases of the moon arecaused because the orbit of the Moon around the Earth willvary the part of the Moon’s reflected light that is visible fromearth. In other words, the angle of the moon and earthrelative to the sun determines the moon phases.2:* Rotation of the earth & moon around the sun & thereflections of them.* Phases of the moon are caused by the sun positionshining on it.* Because of the relative position (alignment) of the sun –moon-earth.* What we see is the sun’s reflection on the moon.1:* Because of the rotations of the earth around the sun* Because of the tilt of the earth* Shadow of the earth* Because the sun cannot reflect light on other sides ofmoon.* The sun is getting in the way.* Shadows of the moon on the earth* We see different amounts of the moon based on theshadow from the sun.* Because of the sun* It depends on where we are in our rotation around thesun how well we see the moon.* The earth moves around the moon thus you seedifferent aspects of the moon.© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 85-99 97

N. Bulunuz & O. S. Jarrett.Q 3: Explain the rock cycleRubricScores321Explain rock cycle• If the response includes all three types of rocks(igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic), theirconversion to each other, or their formations (igneousmeltedrock, sedimentary-layers form, andmetamorphic-heat & pressure).• If the response includes information on just oneor two types of rock formation: the rock cycle isformed from sediments, the rock cycle deals with theheat and years and years of weathering, as the earthages, various layers of rock are formed, probably hasto do with the change from superheated core materialspushed upward to the crust.• If the response gives unrelated information,confusing or incorrect information, or no answer wasgiven. For example: material, pressure, and heat cancause the formation of rock, rocks are made fromminerals, dirt and sand particles binding together tomake one big solid mass, volcanoes produce lavawhich melts into rock.Sample answers3: No number 3 answer was found in the previous study.Following is what we looked for in a quality answer, a clearunderstanding of the cyclical nature of transformations of onerock to another. A drawing such as the diagram below wouldhave yielded a score of 3 although mention of cross linksbetween rock types would have shown more completeunderstanding. For example, igneous rocks can be convertedto metamorphic rocks and metamorphic rocks can beconverted to sedimentary rocks.Igneous rock(Meltedrock)Metamorphicrock(By heat &pressure)Sedimentaryrock(Layers form)2:* Minerals form rocks; rocks are weathered into sand &soil, as soil builds rocks are compressed together to formlarger rocks.* The rock cycle is formed from sediments that receiveheat & pressure & then harden into a rock.* Particles harden create rocks – rocks erode into particles* The rock cycle deals with the heat and years & years(billions) of weathering.* As the earth ages, various layers of rocks are formed.* Probably has to do with the change from superheatedcore materials pushed upward to the crust.1:* Material-Pressure + Heat = Rock* Water erodes the rocks and they are carried to soilwhere phosphorus makes new rocks.* I don’t know besides the fact that rocks are made fromminerals* Dirt or sand particles binding together to make one bigsolid mass.* Volcanoes produce lava, which melt into rock.Q 4: What causes earthquakes?RubricScores What causes earthquakes?• If the response includes combinations of ideas giving3 a clear explanation: shifting of the earth’s crust on thefault line, shift in the tectonic plates creating onreleasing pressure, the plates of the earth colliding andrubbing against each other, shift in the earth’s crust2because of the lava inside the earth surface.• If the response includes a correct term or idea, butlacks full explanation or gives a too narrow example:plate tectonics, shift in convergent plates, big platesshift caused by molten rock moving in the middle ofthe earth, plates shifting due to volcanoes, new landsform.1 • If the response mentions a clearly evidentmisconception, mentions a phrase associated withearthquakes but without explanation (e.g. plates in theocean, friction, the earth moving), or gives no answer.Sample answers3:* Shifting of the earth’s crust on the fault line.* The shifting of the tectonic plates along a fault line.* Shifts in the Earth’s crust because of the lava inside theearth surface.* Shift in the tectonic plates creating on releasing pressure.* The plates of the earth colliding &rubbing against eachother.2:* Tectonic plates (moving of the continents)* Plate tectonics + pressure* Plates shifting due to volcanoes, new lands form.* Heat from the earth moves the plates.* Shift in convergent plates* The earth is made up of big plates & they shift causedby molten rock moving in the middle of the earth.1:* Plates in the ocean* Friction* The earth moving98 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 85-99

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2010, 6(2), 101-110Conceptual Change in Science:A Process of ArgumentationGeorge ZhouUniversity of Windsor, Windsor, CANADAReceived 18 September 2009; accepted 13 March 2010Learning is a process of knowledge construction, individually and socially. It has bothrational and irrational features. From this stance, the paper reviews an earlier model ofconceptual change and its related pedagogical interventions for their inadequate attentionto the irrational and social dimensions of learning. More recent developments inconceptual change pedagogy advocate the incorporation of motivational constructs andsocial-cultural factors, but fail to explicitly address some important issues in scienceeducation. In order to advance the conceptual change theory, the paper proposes anargument approach to teaching for conceptual change. It embraces what past models orapproaches have achieved while simultaneously addressing their shortcomings.Keywords: Argument, Cognitive Conflict, Conceptual Change, Meta-Cognition.INTRODUCTIONStudents come to school classrooms with their ownunderstanding of the world (Driver et al., 1985).Literature has referred to students’ ideas as“preconceptions” (Clement, 1982), “misconceptions”(Helm 1980), “naïve or intuitive ideas” (McCloskey,1983; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985), “alternativeframeworks” (Driver & Erickson, 1983), or “alternativeconceptions” (Gilbert & Watts, 1983). In considerationthat students’ conceptions are formed before receivingformal instruction in class, this paper will use the term“preconception.” A plethora of studies have beenconducted to identify preconceptions in numerousscientific content areas (e.g. Bar et al., 1997; Bishop &Anderson, 1990; Clement, 1982; Erickson, 1979, 1980;McCloskey, 1983; Taber 1998).. A common conclusionmerging out of these studies is that preconceptions areoften at odds with scientific ideas (Driver & Erickson,1983) and continue to persist following traditionalCorrespondence to: George Zhou,Assocaite Professor of Science Education,Faculty of Education, University of Windsor401 Sunset Ave. Windsor, ON, Canada N9B 3P4E -mail: gzhou@uwindsor.cainstruction (Clement, 1982). A restructuring ofpreconceptions is required for learning under thesecircumstances. This restructuring is referred to asconceptual change (Vosniadou, 1999). It carries animplication that students’ less acceptable conceptionsare replaced by more sophisticated scientific conceptsthat are capable of accounting for phenomena wherepreconceptions were unable to do so.In addition to identifying students’ preconceptions,scholars have proposed various models and strategies todescribe or facilitate teaching for conceptual change.These works normally derived from Kuhn’s philosophyof science (Kuhn, 1970) and Piaget’s cognitivedevelopmental theory (Piaget, 1970). The concepts andterminologies Kuhn and Piaget used, including“anomaly,” “revolution,” “cognitive conflict,”“disequillibration,” and “accommodation” frequentlyappears in the relevant literature. The proposed teachingstrategies share a common process that involves firstcreating cognitive conflict before providing a newframework (Hewson & Hewson, 1988). This paper willcritically analyze the conceptual change literature,examine the views of both science educators andeducational psychologists on this topic, and propose anargument model for conceptual change based on ananalysis of the significance of argument in both sciencedevelopment and science education.Copyright © 2010 by EURASIAISSN: 1305-8223

G. ZhouState of the literature There is a plethora of research studies on studentpreconceptions about the natural phenomena. Although there exists an abundance of ways todeal with such difficulties, there is a lack of and aneed for studies dealing with students' progressaccording to the instruction that they are given. The theoretical thinking of conceptual changefocuses on cognitive conflict. However cognitiveconflict is often insufficient to induce change.Contribution of this paper to the literature The paper critically analyzes a “cold” conceptualchange model developed by science educators andthe “warm” models proposed by educationalpsychologies. The paper offers new insights into the role ofargument in science development and scienceeducation. It points out that it is the argument, notthe experiment that drives the discourse ofscience. Experiment is one of the measures thatprovide scientists with insights and justification fortheir arguments. However, the interpretation ofexperimental results can vary between scientists. The paper proposes an authentic way of teachingscience which brings argument into the classroom.This argument approach to teaching science forconceptual change is a general one that isapplicable to a wide range of domains in order toclose the gap between the needs of learners anddesigns of instruction.A “Cold” Model for Conceptual ChangeOne of the earliest conceptual change models camefrom Posner and his colleagues (Posner, et al., 1982). Itsdevelopment was inspired by Kuhn’s (1970) theory ofscientific revolution as Posner et al. stated that “a majorsource of hypotheses concerning this issue [conceptualchange] is the contemporary philosophy of science…”(p. 211). In Kuhn’s picture of scientific progress, somenecessary preconditions can be detected for scientificrevolutions. They include the appearance of anomaliesthat eventually lead to scientists’ dissatisfaction with theold paradigm, the appearance of a new paradigm thatprovides scientists with a choice, and the merits of thenew paradigm such as solving more problems, moreaccurate predictions, closer match with subjectivematter and more compatibility with other specialties.Paralleling these conditions for scientific revolution,Posner et al. (1982) state that there are several cognitiveconditions that must be fulfilled before any conceptualchange can occur. These conditions could be brieflydescribed in terms of students’ dissatisfaction with theold conception and the intelligibility, plausibility, andfruitfulness of the new conception.Posner et al.’s model attracted much attention fromscience educators. Most theoretical analysis and practicalstrategies for conceptual change constructed during the1980s and 1990s were based on or closely related to thismodel (Smith et al., 1993). For example, Nussbaum andNovick (1981) suggested a three step approach: (a)making children’s alternative frameworks explicit tothem, b) inducing dissatisfaction by presenting evidencethat does not fit, (c) presenting the new framework andexplaining how it can account for the anomaly.Champagne et al. (1985) suggested the teacher to givestudents opportunities to become aware of theirpreconceptions by arguing their own interpretations,then present the scientific explanation, and lead the classto compare students’ interpretations with the scientificexplanation. Minstrell (1985) proposed fourinstructional stages: (a) engaging students’preconceptions, (b) using lab activities or otherexperiences that are discrepant with students’preconceptions, (c) encouraging students to resolve thediscrepancies through class discussion, and (d)providing students with opportunities to apply newlyencountered scientific ideas.Empirical studies, which attempt to bridge the gapbetween a personally held concept and the scientificview, however have generally revealed thatpreconceptions are resistant to change. Clement (1982)provided one example of Aristotelian versus Newtonianview of motion. In his study, 88% of pre-universityphysics students thought a coin experienced an upwardforce on the way up after it was thrown up. After theuniversity mechanics course, there were still 75% ofstudents who held this concept, namely “motion impliesforce.” Studies have also documented thatpreconceptions are apparently changed in schoolsettings but may quickly reassert themselves in thebroader context of daily life. Redish and Steinberg(1999) described a case in which a student struggledwith Newton’s 3rd law. The student knew what the lawwas, but she changed her answer numerous timesbetween the physics class model and her common sensefor one particular test question which asked whether atruck or a car exerted a bigger force during a mutualcollision between the two. The common-speechwording of the question brought up her common sense:“Larger objects exert a larger force.” The difficulty thatpractical efforts have encountered in facilitatingconceptual change forces scholars to question theaccountability of Posner et al.’s model. Is theresomething wrong with it?102 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 101-110

Conceptual Change in ScienceLearning and Irrational FactorsPintrich et al. (1993) criticize Posner et al.’s model asa “cold” model because it overlooked the irrationalcharacteristics of learning. This overlooking is clearlyreflected in one statement Posner and his colleaguesmade in their paper: “Our central commitment in thisstudy is that learning is a rational activity” (Posner et al.,1982, p. 212). According to this model, when studentsmeet new experiences in the classroom which do notmatch their existing mental structure, they will feeldissatisfied and be willing to accept new concepts toovercome this conflict. In other words, academicunderstanding is seen as the goal of student learning.However, “the assumption that students approach theirclassroom learning with a rational goal of making senseof the information and coordinating it with their priorconceptions may not be accurate.” (Pintrich et al., 1993,p. 173). Piaget reminded us that affectivity plays anessential role in human beings’ behavior. Affectivity,including interests, feelings, values, goals, and so on,“constitutes the energetics of behavior patterns whosecognitive aspect refers to the structures alone. There isno behavior pattern, however intellectual, which doesnot involve affective patterns as motives.” (Piaget &Inhelder, 1969, p. 158). Affectivity is a doorkeeper. Itcontrols whether or not the mechanism of assimilation,accommodation and equilibration happens duringcertain experiences. In some instructional events,cognitive conflict is clearly there from the perspective ofan instructor, but students may not buy it (Watson &Konicek, 1990). These events will not result in cognitivedevelopment.Students come to class with different goals andmotivations, which can influence their cognitiveengagement in academic task. Wentzel (1991) stated thatstudents may have many social goals in the schoolcontext besides academic understanding such as makingfriends, impressing peers, or pleasing instructors. Thesegoals may push students to passively face the conceptualdiscrepancy by just memorizing the scientific conceptswithout understanding them. If we roughly sortstudents’ learning goals into two groups: masterylearning and performance learning, the normative goaltheory tells us that students with the goal of masterylearning are more engaged in deeper cognitiveprocessing and use more sophisticated cognitivestrategies. Whereas students with performanceorientatedgoals more often use surface processing andhave less cognitive engagement (Ames, 1992; Dweck &Leggett, 1988; Nolen, 1988, 1996; Pintrich & De Groot,1990).Learning Has a Dimension of SocialConstructionPosner et al.’s model also lacks a clear account ofsocialcultural factors for learning. It describes that whenstudents become dissatisfied with their original beliefs,they will try to find an alternative one that is intelligible,plausible, and fruitful. This description focuses onpersonal cognition and implies that all reasoninghappens within an individual’s mind. However, Piagetconsiders social interaction as a requirement for childrento construct social knowledge and as a resource ofoccasions for cognitive disequilibration that leads to thereconstruction of knowledge. In Vygotsky’s account, allhigher mental functions originate from socialrelationships:Every function in the child’s cultural development appearstwice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individuallevel; first, between people (interpsychological), and theninside the child (intrapsychological), This applies equally tovoluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formationof concepts. All the higher functions originate as actualrelations between human individuals (Vygotsky, 1978,p. 57).The awareness of this significance of socialconstruction for learning has spread out to the researchof conceptual change. “Most researchers in this area[conceptual change] now agree that conceptual changeshould not be seen as only an individual, internal,cognitive process, but a social activity that takes place ina complex socialcultural world.” (Vosniadou, 2008, p.xix). In other words, conceptual change learning istherefore both an individual cognitive activity and asocial construction. When Piaget insisted that childrenin-actionindividually invent knowledge, he did notforget the function of social interaction in knowledgeacquisition. Although Vygotsky stated that knowledge isthe internalization of a social/cultural relationship bymind-in-society, he did not mean “transmission.”Internalization is an active process. In the words ofLeont’ev (1981), a student of Vygotsky, “the process ofinternalization is not the transferal of an external activityto a pre-existing, internal plane of consciousness. It isthe process in which this plane is formed.” (p. 57).Some experimental studies support this conclusionabout the individual and social components ofconceptual change learning. In a study designed toinvestigate whether and how collaborative learning atthe computer fosters conceptual changes, Tao andGunstone (1999) found that computer-supportedcollaborative learning provided students withexperiences of co-construction of shared understanding.They also found that when co-construction ofknowledge was accompanied by personal construction,conceptual change became stable over time. When© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 101-110 103

G. Zhoustudents did not personally make sense of the newunderstanding, their change was short lived.“Warm” Models for Conceptual ChangeFollowing Pintrich et al.’s article (1993), a “warmingtrend”, in contrast to the “cold” nature of Posner et al.’smodel, took place in conceptual change research(Sinatra, 2005). With a belief in the importance ofmotivational constructs in learning, Sinatra and Pintrich(2003) propose the term “intentional conceptualchange,” which is defined as “the goal-directed andconscious initiation and regulation of cognitive,metacognitive, and motivational processes to beingabout a change in knowledge” (p.6). They argue thatconceptual change interventions inspired by Posner etal. focused mainly on what teachers can do tomanipulate the context to support learners’ knowledgerestructuring. What is lacking in this model and itsrelated instructional strategies is a description of the roleof students’ intentions in bringing about change. Theycriticize that the conceptual change pedagogy issimplified as a matter of placing students incircumstances that highlight points of conflict. Theyargue that cognitive conflict is often insufficient toinduce change (Dole & Sinatra, 1998).The Cognitive Reconstruction of Knowledge Model(CRKM) by Dole and Sinatra (1998) and Cognitive-Affective Model of Conceptual Change (CAMCC) byGregoire (2003) are two typical examples of “warm”models that incorporate motivational constructs into thecomplexity of conceptual change learning. The CRKMdescribes how learner and message characteristicsinteract, leading to a degree of engagement with the newconcept. The learner characteristics entail existingknowledge and motivational factors. The strength andcoherence of a learner’s existing knowledge and his orher commitment to it influence the likelihood ofconceptual change. Motivational factors refer to alearner’s interest, emotional involvement, self-efficacy,value, need for cognition, as well as the social contextthat supports or undermines his or her motivation.Message characteristics refer to the features of theinstructional content or persuasive discourse designedto promote conceptual change, which can be describedby using adjectives such as comprehensible, coherent,plausible, and rhetorically compelling. It is theinteraction of the existing knowledge, instructionalmessage, and individual motivational factors that createsa space for knowledge reconstruction. The CAMCCshares much similarity with the CRKM, but posits agreater role for affective constructs such as anxiety andfear in conceptual change. Gregoire (2003) claimed thatstress and threat appraisals “happen automaticallybefore characteristics of the message are seriouslyconsidered”. That is, the message characteristics maynever be full processed by a learner if the affectiveappraisals create a strong tendency to dismiss themessage. The CAMCC was proposed to interpretteachers’ resistance to reform-oriented curricula thatconflict with their teaching beliefs. It therefore readsmore suitable for the case of belief change. However,since the conceptual change in science involves selfefficacybeliefs and epistemological beliefs (Andre &Windschitl, 2003), the CAMCC provides insights forinstructional inventions that take affective appraisalsinto account.The CRKM and CAMCC describe a process ofconceptual change that involves cognitive, motivational,and affective constructs, leading to a choice between theexisting knowledge and the instructional message.However they have little description about thepresentation of instructional message. How do learnersbecome aware of the instructional message before theystruggle for a position between the existing knowledgeand the new message? To be told or socially invented orconstructed? To the author of this paper, this is one ofthe most fundamental issues in teaching and learning forconceptual change. Science educators have not yet donea good enough job either in this regard. As reviewed inthe previous session, they pointed out the importance ofthe creation of cognitive conflict and a demonstrationof scientific conceptions’ merits over preconceptions inthe conceptual change pedagogy, but largely ignored theissue of how the scientific notion becomes available tostudents. This rather leaves the readers an impressionthat scientific ideas are told by the teacher to students,which is contradictory to the vast literature on inquirybasedlearning. The rest of this paper will attempt toadvance the study of conceptual change throughexamining the implications of argument for scienceteaching and learning. First, it starts with anexamination of the role of argument in both sciencedevelopment and science education. Next it offers anexplanation of how the argument process canaccommodate what we have so far achieved inconceptual change pedagogy as well as address theshortcomings of both science educators’ andeducational psychologists’ models.Argument in Science Development and ScienceEducationArgument is one primary component of scientists’work. In the discourse of constructing scientificknowledge that is consistent and acceptable to thescientific community, scientists argue with themselvesthrough frequent idea changes. More importantly, theyargue with each other through publication, conferences,and informal occasions in order to build knowledgewith minimum bias. The role argument plays in scienceis even more obvious and important at the time of104 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 101-110

Conceptual Change in Sciencescientific revolutions or paradigm changes. As Kuhn(1993) and Thagard (1992) state, in the history ofscience a new framework takes the place of the previousone through scientific argument. The dialogues betweenthe caloric and kinetic views of heat, the particle andweave views of light, and the debate between Bohr andEinstein on quantum mechanics are typical cases inwhich argument plays a major role.Experiment has been widely viewed as afundamental characteristic of science, particularly withthe success of so-called experiment-based modernscience which began in Galileo’s times. However, if welook at science as a process of argument, experimentbecomes one of the measures that provide scientistswith insights and justification for their arguments. Yet, itis not the only measure as intuition, guessing, andimagination can play important functions in scientists’work. As Posner and his colleges (Posner et al., 1982)observed, “many conceptual changes in science havebeen driven by the scientists’ fundamental assumptionsrather than by the awareness of empirical anoma1ies.”(p. 224).Einstein states that a scientific hypothesis does notcome directly from experiment but it comes out ofimagination and guesses. This statement preciouslydescribes his creative work on relativity. A moreconvincing example for this point is the famous Frank-Hertz experiment in the area of atomic physics. Frankand Hertz started an experimental study on theionization of atoms by electron impact in 1911, whichwon them physics Nobel Prize in 1925. In 1914 whenFrank and Hertz first published their experiment report,they interpreted their typical experimental value of 4.9evas the ionization voltage of mercury atoms. Bohrhowever believed that this value represents theexcitation voltage of an atom from one energy state toanother. In other words, he took this experiment as adirect verification of his hypothesis about the stationarystate of atoms. Bohr published a paper in 1915 tocriticize the interpretation of Frank and Hertz for theirexperiment. In 1916, Frank and Hertz published a paperto announce their rejection of Bohr’s explanation. Notuntil 1919, five years after their first publication andeight years after their first attempt on their experiment,did Frank and Hertz start to accept Bohr’sinterpretation. They won the 1925 physics Nobel Pricebecause their experiment directly verified Bohr’shypothesis, which turned out to be Bohr’s interpretationof their experimental results. Frank mentioned this fiveyear long argument in his Nobel Prize lecture (Frank,1925). The case of Frank and Hertz experiment clearlydemonstrates that it is the argument, not the experimentitself that defines the meaning of experiments in thediscourse of science.Science should be taught in a way that reflectsthe nature of science (American Association for theAdvancement of Science, 1990; National ResearchCouncil, 1996). The central position of argument inscience development has caused science educationscholars to show an interest in the function ofargumentation in the classroom. Based on theirunderstanding of the history and philosophy of science,Driver, Newton and Osborne (2000) considered theimportance of discursive practice to the construction ofscientific knowledge. In addition, Osborne (2001) froma rhetorical perspective provides insights into the aimsand purpose of science teaching and recommends theuse of argument for students’ deeper learning aboutscience. He stated that:A rhetorical characterization of the practice of science itselfshows that argument is a central feature of the practice ofscience and that if developing epistemic goals andunderstandings about science within science education isimportant, the consideration of argument and reasoningshould be a core feature of the practice of science education(p. 271).The central position of argument in sciencedevelopment assures itself a place in classroom practice.However, this group of literature moves onto theinvestigation of the development of students’ skills toconstruct scientific arguments (Osborne, Erduran, &Simon, 2004; Simon, Erduran, & Osborne, 2006), ratherthan considering how argument can be used in theprocess of conceptual change.The use of argument in science education can welladdress the criticisms that Posner et al.’s modelreceived. Effective learning is a self-regulated activityand a process of social construction. Like scientists,students need to expose their ideas to evidence andcommon regulations for judgment and be convincedbefore accepting any new ideas. As the word argumentitself implies, it puts the teacher and students at thesame power level. The aim of this new science teachingapproach is to persuade rather than force students toappreciate scientific views. As the result of argument,students may prefer scientific views over their ownconcepts, or at least become a step closer to scientificviews. In the discourse of argument, students areprovided with opportunities to present and defend theirideas. Whatever ideas they bring up are significant to theclassroom community. This process will make studentsfeel respected and consequently be motivated to getinvolved.Argument is a social process because it involves thedialogues between at least two sides. When argument isimplemented in the classroom, it can happen betweenindividuals or groups depending on the nature oflearning tasks. For the simple topics, the in-classdialogue may work well enough. However, for thosemore complex topics, students can be divided intogroups to build arguments collaboratively, after whichthey can share their ideas and discussions in a class© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 101-110 105

G. Zhouconference. In either case, the teacher is a facilitator aswell as an “arguer” who represents scientific notions.Argument can not only address the importance ofmotivation and collaboration in learning, but can alsoeffectively incorporate metacognition, which is claimedto be important for conceptual change learning bySinatra and Pintrich (2003) and Georghiades (2000).Paris and Winograd (1990) state: “any cognition thatone might have relevant to knowledge and thinkingmight be classified as metacognition” (p. 19). Based on areview of many studies, Paris and Winograd concludethat students can enhance their academic learning andcognitive development “by becoming aware of theirown thinking as they read, write, and solve problems inschool” (p. 15). They also claim that “a teacher canpromote this awareness directly by informing studentsabout effective problem-solving strategies anddiscussing cognitive and motivational characteristics ofthinking” (p. 15). This statement suggests thatmetacognition should be explicitly discussed in theclassroom. Von Wright supports this claim by statingthat “since reflective thinking and metacognitivestrategies do not automatically develop in learners,learning activities need to be structured so that theyteach and support the use of metacognitive skills”(1992, p. 60).Argument is a process that can implement theteaching of metacognition skills and metaknowledge.Toulmin (2003) believes that no argument can befruitful without a given set of conventions or criteriathat are accepted by all arguers. In science, criteriaimplemented by scientists such as logic consistence,testability, predictive power, explanatory coherence, andso on should be explicitly addressed to students. In thediscourse of argument, these common criteria forevaluating hypotheses or knowledge claims are applied,discussed, and reinforced. This kind of meta-knowledgeis valuable for students to initiate, coordinate, andcontrol their processes of learning science andunderstand issues about science. In other words,students with this knowledge are more likely to becomean intentional learner defined as “one who usesknowledge and beliefs to engage in internally initiated,goal-directed action, in the service of knowledge orskills acquisition” (Sinatra & Pintrich, 2003, p. 5).Argument Approach for Conceptual ChangeAn argument deals with disagreements. Students’preconceptions are in most cases different fromscientific notions and there often exist disagreementsamong students as well. These differences provide anNew problemsPresent problem contextElicit preconceptions(student argument)Create cognitive conflict(teacher counterargument)CompareApplyConstruct scientific notions(teacher argument)Defend scientific notion(student counterargument)Evaluation: compare,apply, metaknowledgeFigure 1: The argument approach to teaching science.106 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 101-110

Conceptual Change in Scienceopportunity for arguments to occur in the classroom.An argument is a recursive journey. It takes time forarguers to understand each other’s point andjustification. Arguers explain, testify, defend, andconvince opponents to accept their ideas, while at thesame time, they should remain open minded and try tounderstand the stand of opponents and be always readyto modify and change their own points. Taking thenorm of argument into science teaching for conceptualchange, I propose the following instructional process(Figure 1).Present problem context: An argument starts with aproblem or question (Toulmin, 2003). The formats ofproblem can be diverse. The teacher can ask students tointerpret phenomena or to watch a demonstration withtheir predictions in mind. The choice of thisintroductory activity is very important. For example,when teaching Newton’s 3rd law, we used to start with ademonstration: one bar magnet and one metal bar,sitting respectively on two small wooden pieces floatingon the surface of water, move toward each other. Thescientific conclusion is then inferred from thisdemonstration, followed by an application of the law tonew contexts. This kind of scientific explanationcenteredcurriculum sequence places students in apassive position. In contrast to this way of presentingmaterials, the argument approach starts the instructionfrom where students are. It deliberately chooses anintroductory activity that will make students’preconceptions surface out, for example, a light paperclip jumps onto a bar magnet sitting still on a table.Elicit student ideas: Students are asked to predict theresult of experiments or interpret the phenomena. Forthe example of Newton’s 3rd law, students are asked tothink whether the paper clip exerts any force on themagnet. Students can work individually first, then areencouraged to share their thinking with partners. It isexpected that this discussion can help students clearlyrecognize their predications, interpretations, andjustifications. Through joining in student discussion andlistening to their oral report of group discussion, theteacher gets to know the data and warrants students usefor their arguments. The importance of this step hasbeen documented by science educators (Champagne etal., 1985; Hewson & Hewson, 1988).Create cognitive conflict: After the previous step,students become clear about their own ideas and beginto wonder about the different ideas their classmates mayhave. At this step well designed experiments areperformed and their results are quite often differentfrom students’ predictions. For the example of the 3rdlaw, the abovementioned experiment (a bar magnet anda piece of metal move toward each other on the surfaceof water) can be used at this stage. The existingliterature about conceptual change pedagogy oftensuggests that this is the time for the teacher to air thescientific concept (Champagne, et al., 1985; Nussbaum& Novick, 1981). However, empirical studies havedocumented that students will not easily give up theirarguments. They often think that something is wrongwith the demonstration or experiment rather thanquestioning their own conceptions (Watson & Konicek,1990). If the teacher is anxious to offer studentsscientific concepts for a replacement of students’concepts, he or she will fail to convince them. What theteacher needs to do is to respond to students’skepticism with new learning activities includingexperiments. In the case of interpreting phenomena,students’ interpretations often have inconsistencies.Although their ideas work well for one phenomenon, itmay not work for others. Pointing out theseinconsistencies or limitation is a useful way to helpstudents become dissatisfied with their owninterpretations. Showing students that their ideas lead toobvious wrong deductions or their arguments leads toself-contradictions is a useful strategy to deal withstudents’ unacceptable opinions.Construct scientific notions: In this step, rather thantelling students the scientific conception, as suggestedby the current literature (Champagne et al., 1985;Nussbaum & Novick, 1981), the new model takes intoaccount the recommendations from the plethora ofstudies on inquiry-based learning. Inquiry-basedactivities will be used to lead students to construct orinvent scientific explanations. Quite often, the sameevents used to create cognitive conflicts provide a stageto construct scientific concepts as well. As a result ofthis engaging inquiry process, the new idea is more likelyto be plausible and intelligible to students.Defend the scientific notion: In a democratic classroom,students are likely to challenge scientific notions at thisstage. For the example of the 3rd law, students mayquestion the teacher why they did not see the magnetmoved toward the paper clip if the action and reactiontook place simultaneously. Or similarly, they willwonder why the truck is not damaged but the car iswhen these two vehicles have a head-on collision. Theteacher needs to offer detailed discussion of theseconfusing phenomena and demonstrate how thescientific conception can apply to them. The focus ofthis step is to defend the scientific concept.Evaluation: This step is a further effort to persuadestudents to appreciate the scientific ideas by comparingscientific notions with students’ ideas and applyingscientific notions to new problems where studentpreconceptions do not apply. Clear identification canhelp students to discover where they were wrong and tobetter understand scientific ideas. More applications candemonstrate the validity and fruitfulness of scientificideas. Besides these, an analysis of the differencesbetween personal knowing and scientific knowing mayhelp students with metacognition. Generalizing the© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 101-110 107

G. Zhouscientific method reflected in a special case is alsorecommended at this stage.Different from the current conceptual changepedagogy, the argument approach does not endorse aprocess of letting students choose between good andbad apples. It instead recommends a process that leadsstudents to construct what good apples should be basedon their dissatisfaction with the apple they originally hadand evidence they gain from the inquiry experiences.Students become intentional learners who activelyreconstruct their knowledge in a classroom-based socialcontext, where both the new experiences and theconventions or argument criteria shared by the scientificcommunity matter. The process of conceptual change istherefore an argument process of problem solving, withargument and counter argument taking place at eachstep.As the reader may have realized, in this argumentapproach the teacher does two things: attempts to breakdown students’ less acceptable ideas and establishesscientific notions among students. At first glance, thebreaking down of students’ conceptions appears tohappen in the third step - creates cognitive conflict. Infact, this task continues through the whole process. Wecould not definitely say that one happens ahead of theother, just as breaking down an old theory and buildinga new one often happen concurrently in the history ofscience. The breaking down of preconceptions creates aneed among students to establish new visions. Thevalidity and fruitfulness of new ideas help studentsmove away from their less acceptable ideas. Theargument approach is a dynamic and dialectical processin terms of these two tasks. This dynamic processshould be designed and organized by the teacher at amacro structural level, but be actually driven by theargument discourse between the teacher and students interms of practical details.Evidence from One ProjectFor many years, a group of science educators havebeen using computer applets to address students’preconceptions. One project the author participated inwas called Modular Approach to Physics (MAP). Theevaluation results of this project have been publishedelsewhere (Zhou, Brouwer, Nocente, & Martin, 2005).A summary is included here to provide support for theargument-based conceptual change pedagogy.The MAP project featured a set of applets, each ofwhich was developed as a small teaching and learningpackage to address one specific preconception inphysics using the argument approach. Each appletnormally included an explanation of how the argumentprocess should take place to address the targetedpreconception. Interactive computer simulations weredeveloped to facilitate this argument process. Forexample, to address students’ misunderstanding of theprojectile motion, the following simulation was builtinto one applet. The computer simulates the motion ofa ball that has been shot upwards out of cannon.Students are prompted to draw a free body diagram onthe screen to indicate the force(s) the ball experienceson its way up. Many students will include an upwardforce in their diagrams according to the literature(Clement, 1982). They believe that the initial force thecannon applied on the ball will stay with the ball andkeep it moving upwards. After students input their ideas(drawing a force diagram on the screen using aFigure 2. The darker ball represents theconsequence of student’s predictions and the ghostone represents the reality.computer mouse), the computer will generate a virtualmotion based on these inputs. The virtual process takesplace on the screen alongside the realistic one (Figure 2).This ability for students to visually compare theconsequence of their predictions with the realisticprocess can be helpful in creating cognitive conflict andfacilitating conceptual change. Traditional laboratoryexperiments are unable to give students this ability tosee the results of their predictions as easily because theyoften do not match the reality. The applet allowsstudents individually or in groups to make a number ofdifferent choices, but only the correct choices willduplicate the realistic motion.108 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 101-110

Conceptual Change in ScienceThe project was evaluated through an experimentaldesign. Pre and post conceptual understanding testswere administered to the control and treatment classes.Participating students and teachers were observed andinterviewed to gain in-depth understanding of their useand perspectives of the applets. Test resultsdemonstrated that the treatment classes, which used theapplets, outperformed the control classes. It is evenmore interesting to notice the different results amongthe treatment classes. Some treatment classes weretaught by teachers who received training in using theapplets and as a result closely followed the embeddedargument approach of teaching. These teachers used theapplet in the stage of knowledge construction. Othertreatment classes were taught by teachers who did notreceived training and the applets were often used at thestage of knowledge application to verify what had beenlectured to students. The treatment classes with atrained teacher did much better in the post-tests andreported much more positive experiences andperspectives with the use of applets than thosetreatment classes taught by an untrained teacher. Inother word, we see evidence that the applets themselveshave limitation in helping student change theirpreconceptions, and rather it is the argument-basedpedagogy with technology assistance really matters.Concluding RemarksThis paper starts with a critique of a “cold”conceptual change model that overlooks irrational andsocial dimensions of learning. It then moves to adiscussion about the need of “warm” models, whichincorporate motivational constructs into ourunderstanding of conceptual change as someeducational psychologists suggested. It argues thatargument is a central practice in the development ofscience. Teaching and learning science in a moreauthentic way, which brings argument into theclassroom, has epistemological and pedagogicalsignificance. Epistemologically speaking, the use ofargument helps students to get dissatisfied with theirpreconception and become more open to scientificconcepts. Pedagogically speaking, the use of argumentwill motivate students to become more engaged in thelearning process and provide students withopportunities to learn how to respect and be respectedin a community. Therefore, the argument modelincorporates the contributions of science educators andeducational psychologists to conceptual changepedagogy and has the potential to advance ourunderstanding about this topic.REFERENCESAmetller, J., Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2007). Using perspectiveson subject learning to inform the design of subjectteaching: An example from science education. TheCurriculum Journal, 18(4), 479-492.American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS). (1990). Science for all American. NY: OxfordUniversity Press.Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and studentmotivation. Journal of Education Psychology, 84, 26-271.Andre, T., & Windschitl, M. (2003). Interest, epistemologicalbelief, and intentional conceptual change, In. G. M.Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change(pp. 173–197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Bar, V., Zinn, B., & Rubin, E. (1997). Children’s ideas aboutaction at a distance. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 19(10), 1137-1157.Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Studentconceptions of natural selection and its role inevolution. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 27(5), 415-427.Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985).Effecting changes in cognitive structures among physicsstudents. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitivestructure and conceptual change. Orlando, FL: Aademic.Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductorymechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizingchange in the cognitive construction of knowledge.Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109-128.Driver, R., & Erickson, G. (1983). Theories in action: Sometheoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in ScienceEducation, 10(1), 37-60.Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.) (1985).Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: OpenUniversity Press.Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing thenorms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. ScienceEducation, 84, 287-312.Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitiveapproach to motivation and personality. PsychologicalReview, 95(2), 256-273.Erickson, G. L. (1979). Children’s conceptions of heat andtemperature. Science Education, 63(2), 221-230.Erickson, G. L. (1980). Children’s viewpoints of heat: Asecond look. Science Education, 64(3), 323-336.Frank, J. (1925). Noble Lecture: Transformations of kinetic energyof free electrons into excitation energy of atoms by impacts.Retrieved February 8, 2010 fromhttp://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1925/francklecture.pdfGeorghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning inscience education: Focusing on transfer, durability andmetacognition. Educational Research, 42(2), 119-139.Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts,misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changingperspectives in science education. Studies in ScienceEducation, 10(1), 61-98.Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dualprocessmodel of teachers’ cognition and appraisal© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 101-110 109

G. Zhouprocess during conceptual change. Educational PsychologyReview, 15(2), 147–179.Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst SouthAfrican students. Physics Education, 15, 92-105.Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1988). An appropriateconception of teaching science: A view from studies ofscience learning. Science Education, 72(5), 597-614.Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument. Science Education, 77,319-337.Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago:Chicago University Press.Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity inpsychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activityin soviet psychology (37-71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American,248, 114-122.Minstrell, J. (1985). Teaching for the development of ideas:Focus on moving objects. In C. W. Anderson (Ed.),Observing science classrooms: Perspectives from research andpractice. 1984 yearbook of the Association for the Education ofTeachers in Science. Columbus, OH: Eric Center forScience, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National scienceeducation standards. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.Nolen, S. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivationalorientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction,5, 269-287.Nolen, S. B. (1996). Why study? How reasons for learninginfluence strategy selection. Educational Psychology Review.8(4), 335-355.Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1981). Brainstorming in theclassroom to invent a model: A case study. School ScienceReview, 62(221), 771-778.O’Donnell, A., & Dansereau, D. (1993). Learning fromlectures: Effects of cooperative review. Journal ofExperimental Education, 61(2), 116-125.Osborne, J. (2001). Promoting argument in the scienceclassroom: A rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal ofScience, Mathematics and Technology Education. 1(3), 271-290.Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing thequality of argumentation in school science. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: Theimplications of children’s science. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition canpromote academic learning and instruction. In B. F.Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitiveinstruction (pp. 11-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Now York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (H.Weaver, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and selfregulatedlearning components of classroom academicperformance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). BeyondCold Conceptual Change: The Role of MotivationalBeliefs and Classroom Contextual Factors in theProcess of Conceptual Change. Review of EducationalResearch, 63(2): 167-99.Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A.(1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception:Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education,66(2), 211-227.Redish, E. F. & Steinberg, R. N. (1999). Teaching physics:Figuring out what works. Physics Today, 52, 24-30.Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning toteach argumentation: Research and development in thescience classroom. International Journal of Science Education,28 (2-3), 235-260.Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The ''warming trend'' in conceptualchange research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich.Educational Psychologist. 40(2), 107-115.Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of intentionsin conceptual change learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R.Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 1-18).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumSmith, E. L., Blakeslee, T. D., & Anderson, C. W. (1993).Teaching strategies associated with conceptual changelearning in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,30(2), 111-126.Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual frameworkfrom chemistry education. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 20(5), 597-608.Tao, P-K, & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). Conceptual change inscience through collaborative learning at the computer.International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39-57.Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated Ed.).Cambridge University Press.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higherpsychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.Von Wright, J. (1992). Reflection on reflection. Learning andInstruction, 2, 59-68.Vosniadou, S. (2008). Conceptual change research: Anintroduction. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.) InternationalHandbook of Research on Conceptual Change (pp. xiii-xxvi).Routledge.Vosniadou, S. (1999). Conceptual change research: State ofthe art and future directions. In W. Schnotz, S.Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.). New perspectives onconceptual change (pp. 3-13). New York: Pergamon.Watson, B., & Konicek, R. (1990). Teaching for conceptualchange: Confronting children’s experience. Phi DeltaKappan, 71(9), 680-685.Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social and academic goals at school:motivation and achievement in context. In M. L. Maehr& P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation andachievement (Vol. 7, pp.185-212). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Zhou, G. Brouwer, W., Nocente, N., & Martin, B. (2005).Enhancing conceptual learning through computer-basedapplets: The effctiveness and implications. Journal ofInteractive Learning Research, 16(1), 31-49.110 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 101-110

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2010, 6(2), 111-120Prospective Chemistry Teachers’Conceptions of ChemicalThermodynamics and KineticsMustafa Sözbilir, Tacettin Pınarbaşı and Nurtaç CanpolatAtatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum, TURKEYReceived 10 February 2009; accepted 12 December 2009This study aimed at identifying specifically prospective chemistry teachers’ difficulties indetermining the differences between the concepts of chemical thermodynamics andkinetics. Data were collected from 67 prospective chemistry teachers at Kâzım KarabekirEducation Faculty of Atatürk University in Turkey during 2005-2006 academic year. Datacollection performed through two different instruments. In order to determineprospective teachers’ difficulties in determining the differences between the concepts ofchemical thermodynamics and kinetics, a diagnostic test composed of five open-endedquestions was specifically developed for this study. Thirteen participants (out of 67) werealso interviewed in order to gather more information about the written responses. Theanalysis of results showed six major misconceptions about the difference between theconcepts of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics indicating that the prospectivechemistry teachers attempted to interpret the kinetics of several phenomena by usingthermodynamics data. The findings reported here may contribute to understanding ofundergraduates’ difficulties and can be utilized in research that develops teaching strategiesto overcome such difficulties.Keywords: Chemical kinetics, chemical thermodynamics, prospective chemistry teachers,misconceptions, teacher training.INTRODUCTIONQuantitative studies of chemical reactions tend tofall into one of two groups. There are those relating tothe actual occurrence of the reaction, regardless of howquickly or how slowly it takes place. These may measuresuch quantities as the standard enthalpy change or thestandard Gibbs free energy change of the reaction.These are the subject matter of chemical thermodynamics.The second group of studies relates to the speed withwhich a chemical reaction occurs and, unlike the firstgroup, it uses time as a variable. The subject matter ofCorrespondence to: Mustafa Sözbilir,Assocaite Professor of Chemistry Education,Atatürk Universitesi, Kazım Karabekir EgitimFakultesi, Kimya Eğitimi Ana Bilim DalıTR25240 Erzurum, TURKIYEE -mail: sozbilir@atauni.edu.trthis second group of studies is called chemical kinetics.The inter-relationship of chemical thermodynamics andchemical kinetics is an issue of some interest andcomplexity. However, for chemical reactions that arereadily amendable to kinetic study, the reactant andproduct species are usually all in the same homogeneousphase. Regardless of whether this is the gas phase orsolution, thermodynamics tells us that only a certainextent of reaction would offend the Second Law ofThermodynamics. On the other hand, there are no lawsstipulating how quickly this extent of reaction isapproached. The reaction may well be so slow that thisis unobservable (Logan, 1996).Almost every argument and explanation in chemistryboils down to a consideration of some aspect of energy.Energy determines what molecules may form, whatreactions may occur, how fast they may occur, and alsoin which direction a reaction has tendency to occur.Energy is central to chemistry, yet it is difficult to give asatisfactory account of what energy is (Atkins, 1996).Copyright © 2010 by EURASIAISSN: 1305-8223

M. Sözbilir et.alState of the literature Students’ ideas about thermodynamics conceptssuch as heat, temperature, equilibrium areextensively studied and misconceptions are welldocumented at elementary, secondary and tertiarylevel. Students’ ideas about chemical kinetics are rarelystudied. The studies about chemical kineticsmostly do not go beyond a content analysis of thedomain except few studies focused students’understanding of the concept. Studies on thermodynamics and kinetics are notfocused on relationship and differences betweenthermodynamics and kinetics.Contribution of this paper to the literature This study suggests that undergraduates’ havelearning difficulties in differentiatingthermodynamic data (i.e. solubility, equilibriumconstant, equilibrium, Gibbs free energy, enthalpy)and kinetic data (i.e. dissolution rate, equilibriumconstant, reaction rate). Undergraduates use thermodynamic data toexplain kinetic phenomena or vice versa. Most students have superficial understanding ofthermodynamics and kinetics. Theirunderstandings do not go beyond algorithmicproblem solving. There is a lack of conceptualunderstanding of concepts associated withthermodynamics and kinetics.Thermodynamics is concerned with the study of thetransformation of energy, and in particular thetransformation of energy from heat into work and viceversa. That concern might seem remote from chemistry.Indeed, thermodynamics was developed during thenineteenth century by physicists and engineersinterested in the efficiency of steam engines.Thermodynamics, which is a science of the macroscopicworld, not only deals with the energy output of chemicalreactions but it helps to answer questions that lie right atthe heart of everyday chemistry, such as why reactionsreach equilibrium, what their composition is atequilibrium, and how reactions in electrochemical (andbiological) cells can be used to generate electricity(Atkins, 1996; Warn, 1988). On the other hand,‘chemical kinetics is concerned with the rates ofchemical reactions; how rapidly reactants are consumedand products formed, how the rate responds to changesin the identification of the steps by which the reactiontakes place’ (Atkins, 1996; p.233). Understandingreaction kinetics is important for two aims. The first isthe practical importance of being able to predict howquickly a reaction mixture approaches equilibrium. Thesecond reason lies behind understanding the mechanismof a reaction (Atkins, 1996).Despite the importance of chemical thermodynamicsand kinetics as the foundation of chemistry, moststudents pass introductory courses with severalmisconceptions about these subjects (Banerjee, 1995;Beal, 1994; Cakmakci, Leach, & Donelly, 2006; Carsonand Watson, 1999; Carson and Watson, 2002; Fuchs,1987; Granville, 1985; Johnstone, MacDonald, & Webb,1977; Ochs, 1996; Selepe and Bradley, 1997; Sozbilir,2001; Sozbilir, 2002; Sozbilir, 2003a; Sozbilir & Bennett,2006; Sozbilir & Bennett, 2007; Thomas, 1997). Physicalchemistry courses, where students tackle more advancedideas of thermodynamics and kinetics are perceived bymany students to be one of their most difficult courses(Sozbilir, 2004).Research on learning difficulties associated withthermodynamics from elementary to undergraduatelevel is well documented. These studies havecharacterized student conceptions of heat andtemperature (e.g., Brook, Briggs, Bell, & Driver, 1984;Erickson, 1979; 1980; 1985; Grayson, Harrison, &Treagust, 1995; Harrison, Grayson, & Treagust, 1999;Lewis & Linn, 1994; Linn & Songer, 1991), energy (e.g.,Duit, 1987; Goedhart & Kaper, 2002), phase changes(e.g., Azizoğlu, Alkan, & Geban, 2006; Osborne &Cosgrove, 1983), equilibrium (e.g., Banerjee, 1995;MacDonald, 1990; Thomas, 1997, Van Driel & Gräber,2002), and the second law of thermodynamics (e.g.,Duit & Kesidou, 1988; Kesidou & Duit, 1993). Reviewscovering students’ conceptual difficulties about severalthermodynamic ideas such as heat and temperature(Sozbilir, 2003b), chemical equilibrium (Van Driel &Gräber, 2002), chemical energetics and chemicalthermodynamics (Goedhart & Kaper, 2002) andentropy (Sozbilir, 2003a) suggest that students havesignificant learning difficulties in thermodynamics.However, studies focused on students’ understanding ofchemical kinetics are rare compared to chemicalthermodynamics (Cakmakci, Leach, & Donnelly, 2006;Justi, 2002). Chemical kinetics, one of the mostfundamental concepts in chemistry, is regularly taught inboth school and university courses (Justi, 2002).Nevertheless, chemical kinetics has been regarded asdifficult for students in school (Cachapuz & Maskill,1987; De Vos & Verdonk, 1986; Van Driel, 2002) anduniversity courses (Cakmakci, Leach, & Donnelly, 2006;Lynch, 1997). A comprehensive review of teaching andlearning chemical kinetics (Justi, 2002) suggests researchon chemical kinetics usually does not go beyond acontent analysis of the domain (e.g., Lambert, 1998;Logan, 1984), teachers/lecturers’ personal experience ontheir students’ difficulties (e.g., Copper & Koubek,1999) and that students’ ideas of reaction rates werequoted in the literature in the context of research into112 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 111-120

Conceptions of Chemical Thermodynamics and Kineticsstudents’ views of chemical equilibrium (Quilez & Solaz,1995) and thermodynamics. Justi and Gilbert’s study(1999) is an extension of this field in that theyinvestigated models expressed by Brazilian teachers andstudents in the light of historical consensus models inchemical kinetics. Most recently, Cakmakci, Leach, &Donnelly (2006) determined high school students’ andundergraduates’ ideas related to reaction rate and itsrelationship with concentration or pressure. Theirresults suggested that school students tended to usemacroscopic modelling rather than particulate and/ormathematical modelling; undergraduates were morelikely to make explanation based upon theoreticalmodels. Nevertheless, students at both levels hadconceptual difficulties in making transformation withinand across different theoretical models indicating thatthey were not able to use scientifically acceptableconcepts of reaction rate across context and displayedmisconceptions.Purpose and Research QuestionAlthough several studies cited above investigatedstudents’ understanding/misunderstanding of ideasrelated to chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, nosystematic study focused on identifying students’conceptions of the differences between the concepts ofchemical thermodynamics and chemical kinetics.Thermodynamics concepts such as heat, temperature,equilibrium are widely studied both at elementary andsecondary levels and students’ alternative concepts arewell documented. However, there is a shortage ofresearch to provide guidance on how to improve theteaching of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics atthe tertiary level. The present study may provide someguidance for teachers by identifying prospectivechemistry teachers’ difficulties in determining thedifferences between the chemical thermodynamics andkinetics and providing recommendations on how toaddress these difficulties. Consequently, the researchquestion investigated in this study was: What are Turkish chemistry undergraduates’ misconceptionsin determining the differences between the concepts of chemicalthermodynamics and kinetics?METHODOLOGYSamplingThe present study employed a descriptive approachin order to achieve the aim described above. Data wascollected from sixty-seven prospective chemistryteachers. Thirty-seven of them were enrolled to Masterwithout Thesis Combined with Bachelors Degree and thirty tothe Master without Thesis at Kâzım Karabekir EducationFaculty of Atatürk University in Turkey during 2004-2005 academic year. Participation in the study wasvoluntarily. Atatürk University provides a master’sprogramme without a thesis, similar to Post GraduateCertificate in Education (PGCE) in UK which is oneyear long (two semesters) postgraduate teacher trainingcourses, qualifying chemistry graduates for teaching insecondary schools (students aged 14-17) together withregular chemistry teacher training which is a five yearprogram, entitled “Master without Thesis Combinedwith Bachelors Degree”, qualifying chemistry teachersfor teaching in secondary schools (students aged 14-17).Graduates who have a BSc in chemistry could enrol inthe one and half year (three semesters) master withoutthesis program if they want to be chemistry teachers insecondary schools. On the other hand, the “Masterwithout Thesis combined with Bachelors” degreeaccepts students through a centralized nationwideexamination which is held every year and isadministered by the Student Selection and PlacementCentre (ÖSYM). Candidates gain access to institutionsof higher education based on their composite scoresconsisting of the scores on the selection examination aswell as their high school grade point averages.Data Collection ToolsTwo different instruments were used to collect data.In order to determine prospective teachers’misconceptions in determining the differences betweenthe chemical thermodynamics and kinetics a diagnostictest composed of five open-ended questions wasspecifically developed to test prospective teachers’knowledge of differentiating the concepts of chemicalTable1. Misconceptions identified from assessment of undergraduates’ written responses to diagnostic testUndergraduateNo Undergraduates’ misconceptions as identified by the diagnostic testAdherents (N=67)f(%)1 Dissolving rate of a gas in water decreases with increasing temperature 53(79)2 The larger equilibrium constant, the faster a reaction occurs 35(52)3 The smaller equilibrium constant, the faster a reaction occurs 14(21)4The rate of forward reaction decreases with increasing temperature for an exothermic reaction 38(57)5 The larger negative free energy change a reaction has the faster it occurs 30(45)6 Exothermic reactions occur faster or endothermic reactions occur faster 28(42)© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 111-121 113

M. Sözbilir et.althermodynamics and kinetics (see Appendix 1). Theresearchers’’ previous experiences in teaching helpedthem to identify the undergraduates’ difficulties indifferentiating thermodynamics and kinetics. In order tomaintain the content validity of the test, it was given tofour lecturers who were asked to assess the content,ideas tested and the wording of the questions. Allquestions were piloted with third year undergraduatestaking physical chemistry course. Undergraduates’ viewsabout the content and wording of the questions weretaken immediately after they completed the test andrequired modifications were made prior to theadministration of the test.The test was administered under normal classconditions without previous warning two months priorto students’ graduation. Respondents were given anormal class period of 50 minutes to complete the test.Students were informed that the results of the testwould be used for research purposes and would be keptconfidential.Based on the initial coding of the responses,prevalent misconceptions were identified. Thesemisconceptions articulated how these prospectiveteachers differentiate the concepts of chemicalthermodynamics and kinetics, but did not provide indeptexplanations of their personal views. To addressthis limitation, thirteen prospective teachers wereinterviewed in order to clarify their written responsesand to further probe conceptual understandings of thequestions asked in the test. Interviewees were selectedon the basis of their responses on the written test. If astudent’s written test response demonstrated amisconception without providing an in-depth or clearexplanation of his or her response, we requestedinterviews with them. The interviews lastedapproximately 20–30 minutes. All the interviews wereaudio recorded (with the interviewees’ consent) andthen transcribed for analysis. The interviews did not gointo great detail; instead they were used to elucidate thestudents’ misconceptions based on their writtenresponses.Data AnalysisStudents’ responses to the diagnostic questions wereanalyzed, misconceptions were determined, andpercentages were calculated for the responses.Misconceptions held by over 20% of the subjects arereported here. Interview data were not subjected to arigorous analysis but rather was used to support thediagnostic test results. Because the interviews wereconducted in Turkish, the quotes reported in this paperare translations of the researchers’ questions and thestudents’ responses.RESULTSResults of analysis of all participants’ responses arepresented and discussed together as the study did notaim to determine the differences between the groups.However, distribution of the responses was almosthomogeneous. Table 1 shows the misconceptionsidentified by the written responses to diagnostic test.The results are presented in the order of questions inthe test provided in Appendix 1.The students’ written responses on the first questionshowed that 79% of the prospective chemistry teachersheld the view that the dissolving rate of a gas in waterdecreases with increasing temperature. A further analysisof participants’ responses to the interview questionsindicated that this misconception stems from the idea inwhich the students tried to make a connection betweenthe effect temperature on dissolving rate of a gas and itssolubility. The students holding this idea believed thatthe higher the solubility of a gas, the faster its’ dissolvingrate or the lower the solubility of a gas, the slower itsdissolving rate. To be clearer, they considered that thereis proportionality between solubility and dissolving rateof a gas, as indicated in the written responses givenbelow:“The solubility of gases in water is exothermic. So, whentemperature is increased its solubility decreases, causing adecrease in its dissolving rate”“…with the increasing temperature, the velocity of gasmolecules increases. For this reason its solubility decreases,and its dissolving rate also decreases as depends on solubility”“X (g) X (aq) + heat, according to this, increasingtemperature shifts the equilibrium position to the left. Thismeans a decrease in solubility. Because of this, the dissolvingrate also decrease”As can be seen from the above quotations, theprospective teachers were able to correctly state theeffect of temperature on solubility of a gas in water, butthey failed to explain its effect on dissolving rate of thegas. One possible explanation of this misconceptioncould be that the students regarded enthalpy change as apredictor of the effect of temperature on dissolving rate,as reported in a previous study by Pinarbasi, Canpolat,Bayrakçeken, & Geban (2006) who showed thatstudents considered that dissolving rate is dependent onwhether the solution process is exothermic orendothermic. For example students reasoned that in anexothermic dissolution process, dissolving ratedecreases with increasing temperature or vice versa. Thebelow dialogue is taken from the interviews exemplifiesthis view:114 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 111-120

Conceptions of Chemical Thermodynamics and KineticsR1: …you say that with increasing temperature thedissolution rate decreases, could you give me some more informationwhy?I: Because the dissolution is exothermic... [long silence]R: But the dissolving rate was discussed in classI: Yes, sure. I mean that because it is exothermic if weincrease temperature dissolving rate decreasesR: How have you come to this conclusion? Please, could yoube a bit clearer?I: I know that increasing temperature decreases solubility of agas, so this causes a decrease in dissolving rateR: What could be said about the dissolving rate in the case ofa decrease in temperature?I: Then, as solubility increases, it increasesIn short, the above discussion indicates that thestudents tended to explain the effect of temperature ondissolving rate in terms of the effect of temperature onsolubility.There were two misconceptions identified from theanalysis of prospective chemistry teachers’ responses tothe second question. The first one which was held byalmost half of the prospective teachers (52%) is that fora reversible reaction, the larger the equilibrium constant,the faster it occurs. The second misconception was thereverse of the first one and was held by 21% of thestudents. For a reversible reaction, the smallerequilibrium constant, the faster the reaction occurs. Theresponses relating to this question indicated thatprospective teachers tried to compare the rates of tworeactions with different equilibrium constants, bycomparing the values of equilibrium constants. Therespondents with the first misconception stated that thelarger equilibrium constant a reaction has, the more thereaction proceeds towards products and this means thereaction occurs faster, as can be seen in the excerptstaken from the written responses:“The first one with larger equilibrium constant occurs faster,because compared to the second one, here the products aremore favoured. This means it is faster.”“10-5 > 10-10, the first reaction is faster because the ratioof formation of the product is higher.”The preceding quotations explicitly show thatprospective teachers considered the values ofequilibrium constant as a determining factor inpredicting the rates of the reactions. In fact, theycorrectly interpreted the equilibrium constantqualitatively that if the value of the equilibrium constantis large, the products are favoured at equilibrium.1 R and I stand for the researcher and the intervieweerespectively.However, the problem is that they attempted to useequilibrium constant to predict the rate of reactions.This mistaken interpretation is apparent in interviewquoted below:R: Why do you think that the first reaction is faster?I: Its equilibrium constant is larger.R: What does that mean? Please be clearer.I: If a reaction has a larger equilibrium constant, theproducts are more favoured.R: What about the reaction rate?I: Well, I mean that if the products are more favoured, thereaction takes place faster.In a previous study by Banerjee (1995), whichdiscussed the conceptual difficulties of undergraduatestudents regarding chemical equilibrium andthermodynamics, a similar misconception was reported:“a large value of equilibrium constant implies a very fastreaction”. Canpolat, Pinarbasi, Bayrakçeken, & Geban(2006) and Wheeler & Kass (1978) reported similarresults that students fail to distinguish between the rateof a reaction (kinetics) and the extent of a reaction(equilibrium/thermodynamics).In contrast to the preceding misconception, thesecond misconception identified from the responses tothe second question was that a reaction with lowerequilibrium constant occurs faster. The reasoningbehind this misconception was that if the equilibriumconstant is small, there are fewer products and this takeless time. One of the quotations from the writtenresponses exemplifies this view:“The second reaction has smaller equilibrium constant. Thus,it occurs faster because, less product forms in this reaction.”Again, the respondent correctly interpreted therelationship between the value of equilibrium constantand the amount of product formed. But similar to theexplanations made about the misconception, thestudents mistakenly used equilibrium information tocompare the rates of reactions. The following dialoguetaken from interview demonstrates respondent’sreasoning:I: The second one is faster.R: Why do you think so?I: Its equilibrium constant is smaller than that of the firstone, so the amount of product forming will be fewer.Fewer product means less time.From all the findings revealed by question two, itcould be concluded that the students believed that therewas a direct relationship between equilibrium constantand reaction rate.© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 111-121 115

M. Sözbilir et.alAnalysis of the prospective teachers’ responses tothe third question revealed that 57% of them think thatthe rate of a forward reaction decreases with increasingtemperature for an exothermic reaction. Therespondents indicated that they first determined theshift in equilibrium when temperature is increasedaccording to LeChatelier’s Principle. Of course, asexpected, they reasoned correctly that as temperatureincreases the equilibrium of an exothermic reaction isexpected to shift to the reactant side. In order for theequilibrium to do this, the forward reaction rate(formation rate of SO 3 ) should reduce. The followingwritten responses reflect this view:“The fact that with increasing temperature the equilibriumposition shifts to the left means a decrease in forward reactionrate.”“The equilibrium position shifts to the left and the amount ofSO3 decreases. This indicates that the formation rate of SO3decreases.”In the following the quotation from the interviewsalso reflects the same type of reasoning:…I: There is a decrease in the formation rate of SO3.R: Why do you think so?I: Because, the equilibrium position shifts to the leftR: What do you exactly mean?I: When the equilibrium favours the reactants, the amount ofSO3 decreases. In orderfor SO3 to decrease, its formationrate should decrease.The above findings are in good agreement withthose reported by Banerjee (1991) in which studentsreasoned that when the temperature is increased in anexothermic reaction, the rate of the forward reactiondecreases. Banerjee (1991) suggested that thismisconception largely originates from the wrong oroveruse of the LeChatelier’s Principle to predict rate andextent of a reaction although the LeChatelier’s Principlecould only be used to predict the direction of a reactionshift (direction of net change).Responses to the fourth question revealed themisconception that the larger free energy change areaction has, the faster it occurs. Forty-five percent(45%) of the prospective teachers held thismisconception and believed that an increase in thenegative value of free energy change increases thetendency of reaction to occur [which is correct], which inturn makes the reaction faster [which is incorrect]. Thesame reasoning is evident in the following writtenresponses.“The second one is faster, because its G value is negativelylarger.”“According to their G values, the tendency of the secondreaction to occur is larger, this means it is faster.”“Because more energy is released, the second one is faster.”From the above written responses, it is clear thatmany students believed that there is a direct relationbetween the value of G and the rate of a reaction,which is also indicated in the following excerpt from theinterviews:…I: The second one is faster.R: Why?I: Because its G value is negatively larger, its tendency tooccur is also larger. This makes it faster.Johnstone, MacDonald, & Webb (1977) reportedstudents’ had difficulties similar to already indicated.They stated that there appeared to be a tendency forpupils to relate the magnitude of the free energy changeto the rate of reaction. They reported that 25% of thestudents considered that a large negative free energychange in a reaction would occur rapidly. The authorssuggested that one of possible reason students hold thismisconception that students probably draw an analogyfrom the macro physical world where the further thingsfall, the faster they go, or even the more energyprovided, the higher the velocity.A few students tried to compare the rates of thereactions in terms of the relation between G andequilibrium constant (Kp). This idea can be seen in thefollowing written response:“G = - RT lnKp- 10 = - RT lnKp(1)- 100 = - RT lnKp(2)because Kp(2) > Kp(1), the second reaction is faster”In the light of this reasoning, it is not surprising thatprospective teachers hold the idea that “large values ofequilibrium constant imply a very fast reaction”, asidentified in question two.The responses given to the last question showed that42% of the respondents argued that exothermicreactions occur faster.“The first reaction is an exothermic reaction. There is no needfor energy to this reaction to occur in contrast the secondreaction. The products releases energy and they are more stablebecause they have less energy. Therefore, the first reactionoccurs faster.”As seen from the above quotation, the prospectiveteacher distinguishes two types of reactions: those thatrequire energy –for activation or otherwise- and thosethat do not. Those that require energy are calledendothermic by the student. In this case combustion116 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 111-120

Conceptions of Chemical Thermodynamics and Kineticswould be endothermic, as a burning match is needed tostart it. It is clear here that the student confusesactivation energy and reaction enthalpy and uses theseconcepts interchangeably. In addition, the studentapproaches the question in terms of stability. As energyis given out in exothermic reactions, products are morestable than the reactants. The student may think thatthis energy release may increase the reaction rate andtherefore exothermic reactions would be faster. Thisindicates that prospective teachers confused the rate ofa reaction with the spontaneous occurrence of areaction. The amount of energy required or released canindicate the stability of the reaction as well as being asign of the spontaneous occurrence of a reaction.However it does not provide information how fast itoccurs. The rate of a reaction is the concern of kineticswhile enthalpy change is the subject of thermodynamics.In other words, students confuse thermodynamic dataand kinetics.“An exothermic reaction occurs more easily and faster.Because it is easier to release energy than to get the energy evenif the ambient temperature is the same. Therefore, exothermicreactions occur faster.”It seems from the above quotation that therespondent confused ‘energy’ as used in chemistry with‘energy’ as used in everyday language because the‘energy’ we mention in everyday language is somethingthat always has a cost and an effort is required to get it.In addition, some of the respondents approached theproblem from the point of view that less energy meansmore stability. Since the total energy of the products isless than that of reactants in exothermic reactions, theythought that chemical reactions should occur towards tothe lower energy direction regardless of considering thefactors alter the rate of a reaction. The quotations showthat a significant proportion of the undergraduates arestill unaware of the fact that it is not correct to makeestimation about the kinetics of a chemical reaction byusing thermodynamic quantities. Some of thesemisunderstandings may be due to an inability todifferentiate the kinetic and thermodynamic data. 12%of the responses asserted that endothermic reactionsoccur fast. The responses centred on the idea that therate of exothermic reactions is conversely affected bythe temperature increase but increase of temperaturepositively affects the rate of endothermic reactions.Since the reactions occur at a certain temperature, therequired energy is available for the endothermicreactions, therefore they occur faster. The followingquotations illustrate this.“The colder the ambient temperature the faster the exothermicreactions occur. The hotter the ambient temperature the fasterthe endothermic reactions occur. Since there is a certainambient temperature the endothermic reaction should occurfaster.”The quotation shows that the respondent confusedthe ambient temperature and the optimum temperatureat which a reaction occurs with a maximum yield.However, both the rate and the yield are determined byone temperature: the ambient temperature and thisambient temperature is what the respondent is talkingabout. The respondent seems to confuse reaction rateand yield. For an exothermic reaction the studentexpects the reaction to go faster at lower temperaturewhile in fact the yield is better, not the rate.Conclusions and Implications for TeachingThe findings of this study revealed that theprospective chemistry teachers attempted to interpretthe kinetics of several phenomena by usingthermodynamics data leading students to developmisconceptions. They considered that there is a directrelationship between: solubility and dissolution rate;equilibrium constant and reaction rate; equilibrium and reactionrate, Gibbs free energy and reaction rate, and enthalpy changeand reaction rate.The above conceptions of the prospective teacherssuggest that they did not adequately understand thedifference between kinetics and thermodynamics andconfused these two domains which are, in fact, twototally different aspects of phenomena. Solubility, theequilibrium constant and free energy change are allthermodynamic quantities. Solubility corresponds to themaximum amount of a solute dissolved in asolvent/solution at a given temperature; the equilibriumconstant indicates the extent of a reaction, and Gibbsfree energy gives a direct criterion for the spontaneity ofa reaction. In a broader sense, the study ofthermodynamics is an important subject in chemistrythat should help students to understand energy transfer,the direction in which chemical processes go and whythey happen. However, thermodynamics provides noinformation about the kinetics of a reaction. The rate ofreaction is the subject of kinetics; while above quantitiesare subject of thermodynamics.It is apparent from the interviews that theprospective teachers had difficulty in differentiatingkinetics from thermodynamics, as they attempted to usethermodynamic data to explain the kinetics of areaction. This perhaps may lead future students of thoseprospective teachers holding similar misconceptions.It is difficult to discover the sources of the students’misconceptions. However, it has been suggested thatthe following possibly could negatively influencestudents’ conceptions. Previous research studies (Carson& Watson, 1999; 2002; Sozbilir, 2001; 2002; Sozbilir &Bennett, 2006; 2007) indicated that many studentsshowed a superficial understanding of thermodynamicsand had difficulties with the nature of fundamental© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 111-121 117

M. Sözbilir et.althermodynamic quantities such as internal energy,enthalpy, free energy, equilibrium. The misconceptionsabout these essential concepts of thermodynamics couldplay a key role in causing the students to develop newmisconceptions relating the relationship betweenkinetics and thermodynamics.In addition to this, it is our anecdotal evidence thatmost of the time assigned for teaching thermodynamicsis dedicated to derivation of mathematical equations andteaching of algorithmic problem solving rather than tothe development of conceptual understanding. Thismakes students’ understanding of basic ideas limited,distorted or wrong. Consequently, students in generalretain their everyday conceptions and do not gain faithin the value of learning the meaning of science concepts(Carson & Watson, 1999; 2002).Another possible cause for misconceptions could bethat the students’ understanding of basic scienceconcepts is sometimes overestimated and theirdifficulties in achieving understanding of basic scientificconcepts are underestimated by science lecturers. Iflecturers become aware of the sources of students’misunderstanding and their limited value of study ofscientific concepts, these will make teaching of scienceconcepts much more feasible (Sozbilir, 2004).Lastly, this paper indicates that students hadconceptual difficulties on the nature of chemicalthermodynamics and kinetics. We suggest that theconceptual difficulties diagnosed in this study may bewidespread among undergraduates elsewhere andshould not be treated as specific only to the presentsubjects of the study. We hope that the findingsreported here may contribute to understanding ofundergraduates’ difficulties and can be utilized inresearch that develops teaching strategies to overcomesuch difficulties.AcknowledgementWe would like to thank for the reviewers for theirvaluable suggestions which significantly help to improvethe manuscript.REFERENCESAtkins, P.W. (1996). The elements of physical chemistry (2 nd Ed.).Oxford: Oxford University Press.Azizoğlu, N., Alkan, M. & Geban, Ö. (2006). Undergraduatepre–service teachers’ understandings andmisconceptions of phase equilibrium. Journal of ChemicalEducation, 83(6), 947-953.Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students andteachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal ofScience Education, 13(4), 487–494.Banerjee, A.C. (1995). Teaching chemical equilibrium andthermodynamics in undergraduate general chemistryclasses. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(10), 879-881.Beal, H. (1994). Probing student misconception inthermodynamics with in-class writing. Journal of ChemicalEducation, 71(12), 1056-1057.Brook, A., Briggs, H., Bell, B. & Driver, R. (1984). Aspects ofsecondary students’ understanding of heat: Full report, Children’slearning in science project. Leeds: Centre for Studies inScience and Mathematics Education, University ofLeeds, UK.Cachapuz, A. F. C., & Maskill, R. (1987). Detecting changeswith learning in the organization of knowledge: use ofword association tests to follow the learning of collisiontheory. International Journal of Science Education, 9(4), 491–504.Cakmakci, G., Leach, J. & Donnelly, J. (2006). Students’ ideasabout reaction rate and its relationship withconcentration or pressure. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 28(15), 1795-1815.Canpolat, N., Pinarbasi, T., Bayrakceken, S. & Geban, O.(2006). The conceptual change approach to teachingchemical equilibrium. Research in Science and TechnologicalEducation, 24(2), 217-235.Carson, E.M. & Watson, J.R. (1999). Undergraduate students’understanding of enthalpy change. University ChemistryEducation, 3(2), 46-51.Carson, E.M. & Watson, J.R. (2002). Undergraduate students’understanding of entropy and Gibbs free energy.University Chemistry Education, 6(1), 4-12.Copper, C. L., & Koubek, E. (1999). An experiment todemonstrate how a catalyst affects the rate of a reaction.Journal of Chemical Education, 76(12), 1714–1715.De Vos, W., & Verdonk, A. H. (1986). A new road toreaction: Part 3. Teaching the heat effect of reactions.Journal of Chemical Education, 63(11), 972–974.Duit, R. (1987). Should energy be illustrated as somethingquasi-material?. International Journal of Science Education,9(2), 139-145.Duit, R. and Kesidou, S. (1988). Students’ understanding ofbasic ideas of the second law of thermodynamics.Research in Science Education, 18(1), 186-195.Erickson, G.L. (1979). Children’s conceptions of heat andtemperature. Science Education, 63(2), 221-230.Erickson, G.L. (1980). Children’s viewpoints of heat: asecond look. Science Education, 64(3), 323-336.Erickson, G. (1985). An overview of pupils’ ideas. In R.Driver, E. Guesne, & E.Tiberghien (Eds), Children’s ideasin science (pp.55-66). Milton Keynes: Open UniversityPress.Fuchs, H.U. (1987). Thermodynamics: a “misconceived” theory. InNovak, J.D. (Ed) Proceedings of the SecondInternational Seminar Misconceptions and EducationalStrategies in Science and Mathematics - Volume III(pp.160-167). 26-29 July, Cornell University, Ithaca,NY, USA.Goedhart, M.J. and Kaper, W. (2002). From chemicalenergetics to chemical thermodynamics. In J.K. Gilbert,.O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust, & J.Van Driel(Eds), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice(pp.339-362). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Granville, M.F. (1985). Student misconceptions inthermodynamics. Journal of Chemical Education, 62(10),847-848.118 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 111-120

Conceptions of Chemical Thermodynamics and KineticsGrayson, D.J., Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (1995). Amultidimensional study of changes that occurred duringa short course on heat and temperature. In A.Hendricks (Ed), Proceedings of Southern African Associationfor Research in Mathematics and Science Education 3 rd AnnualMeeting-Vol.1 (pp.273-283). Cape Town, South Africa.Harrison, A.G., Grayson, D.J. & Treagust, D.F. (1999).Investigating a grade 11 student’s evolving conceptionsof heat and temperature. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 36(1), 55-87.Johnstone, A.H., MacDonald, J.J. & Webb, G. (1977).Misconceptions in school thermodynamics. PhysicsEducation, May, 248-251.Justi, R. (2002). The teaching and learning chemical kinetics.In J.K. Gilbert,. O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust, &J.Van Driel (Eds), Chemical education: Towards researchbasedpractice (pp.293-316). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (1999). A cause of a historical scienceteaching: Use of hybrid models. Science Education, 83(2),163–178.Kesidou, S. & Duit, R. (1993). Students’ conceptions of thesecond law of thermodynamics - an interpretive study.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 85-106.Lambert, F.L. (1998). Chemical kinetics: As important as thesecond law of thermodynamics. The Chemical Educator,3(2), 1-6.Lewis, E.L. & Linn, M.C. (1994). Heat, energy andtemperature concepts of adolescents, adults and experts:implications for curricular improvements. JournalResearch in Science Teaching, 31(6), 657-677.Linn, M.C. & Songer, N.B. (1991). Teaching thermodynamicsto middle school students: what are appropriatecognitive demands?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,28(10), 885-918.Logan, S.R. (1984). Introductory reaction kinetics-anunacknowledged difficulty. Education in Chemistry, 21,20–22.Logan, S.R. (1996). Fundamentals of Chemical Kinetics. Longman:Essex.Lynch, M. D. (1997). The effect of cognitive style, method ofinstruction, and visual ability on learning chemical kinetics.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa StateUniversity, USA.MacDonald, J.J. (1990). Equilibrium, free energy, and entropy.Journal of Chemical Education, 67(5), 380-382.Ochs, R.S. (1996). Thermodynamics and spontaneity. Journalof Chemical Education, 73(10), 952-954.Osborne, R. & Cosgrove, M. (1983). Children’s conceptionsof the changes of state of water. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 20, 825-838.Pinarbasi, T., Canpolat, N., Bayrakçeken, S. & Geban, O.(2006). An investigation of effectiveness of conceptualchange text-oriented instruction on studentsunderstanding of solution concepts. Research in ScienceEducation, 36(4), 313-335.Quilez, J., & Solaz, J. J. (1995). Students’ and teachers’misapplication of Le Chatelier’s principle: Implicationsfor the teaching of chemical equilibrium. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 32(9), 939–957.Selepe, C. & Bradley, J. (1997 January). Student-teacher’sconceptual difficulties in chemical thermodynamics. InM. Sander (Ed). Proceedings of Southern African Associationfor Research in Mathematics and Science Education 5 th AnnualMeeting (pp.316-321). University of the Witwatersrand,Johannesburg, South Africa.Sozbilir, M. (2001). A study on undergraduates’ understandings ofkey chemical ideas in thermodynamics, Unpublished DoctoralDissertation, University of York, UK.Sozbilir, M. (2002). Turkish chemistry undergraduatestudents’ misunderstandings of Gibbs free energy.University Chemistry Education, 6(2), 73-83.Sozbilir, M. (2003a). What students’ understand fromentropy?: A review of selected literature. Journal of BalticScience Education, 2(1), 21-27.Sozbilir, M. (2003b) A review of selected literature onstudents’ misconceptions of heat and temperature.Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 20(1), 25-41.Sozbilir, M. (2004). What makes physical chemistry difficult?Perceptions of Turkish chemistry undergraduates andlecturers. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(4), 573-578.Sozbilir, M. & Bennett, J.M. (2006). Turkish prospectivechemistry teachers’ misunderstandings of enthalpy andspontaneity. Chemical Educator, 11(5), 355-363.Sozbilir, M. & Bennett, J.M. (2007). A study of Turkishchemistry undergraduates’ understanding of entropy.Journal of Chemical Education, 84(7), 1204-1208.Thomas, P.L. (1997). Student conceptions of equilibrium andfundamental thermodynamic concepts in college physical chemistry.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University ofNorthern Colorado, USA.Van Driel, J. H. (2002). Students’ corpuscular conceptions inthe context of chemical equilibrium and chemicalkinetics. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice inEurope, 3(2), 201–213.Van Driel, J.H. & Gräber, W. (2002). The teaching andlearning of chemical equilibrium. In J.K. Gilbert,. O. DeJong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust, & J.Van Driel (Eds),Chemical education: Towards research-based practice ( pp.271-292). Dordrecht Kluwer.Warn, J.R.W. (1988). Concise chemical thermodynamics. Cornwall:T.J. Press.Wheeler, A. E. & Kass, H. (1978). Student misconceptions inchemical equilibrium, Science Education, 62(2), 223–232.© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 111-121 119

M. Sözbilir et.alAppendix 1. Diagnostic questions used in the test.1. At constant temperature X gasis in equilibrium with its aqueoussolution as seen in the containershown left. At constant pressure, howthe solubility and dissolving rate of X gasin water would be affected fromtemperature increase?Please explain your answer ascarefully as you can.2. The chemical equations given below represent twohypothetical reactions. The two reactions occur at the sametemperature.Reaction 1 A + B C K 1 = 10 -5Reaction 2 X + Y Z K 2 = 10 -10On the basis of this information, can you compare therate of these two reactions? If so, how would the rate of twohypothetical reactions given above compare?Please explain your answer as carefully as you can.3. SO 2(g) + ½ O 2(g) SO 3 (g) + HeatAccording to the above exothermic reaction, at constantpressure how would the amount and the formation rate ofSO 3 (rate of forward reaction) changes with temperatureincrease?Please explain your answer as carefully as you can.4. The chemical equations given below represent twohypothetical reactions. The two reactions occur at the sametemperature.Reaction 1A + B C + D ΔG 1 = -10 kJ mol -1Reaction 2X + Y Z + W ΔG 2 = -100 kJ mol -1On the basis of this information, can you compare therate of these two reactions? If so, how would the rate of twohypothetical reactions given above compare?Please explain your answer as carefully as you can.5. The chemical equations given below represent twohypothetical reactions. The two reactions occur at the sametemperature.Reaction 1A + B C + D ΔH 1 = - 50 kJ (Exothermic)Reaction 2E + F G + HΔH 2 = 50 kJ (Endothermic)On the basis of this information, can you compare therate of these two reactions? If so, how would the rate of twohypothetical reactions given above compare?Please explain your answer as carefully as you can.120 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 111-120

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2010, 6(2), 121-128Motivation to Learn Science andCognitive StyleAlbert ZeyerUniversity of Zurich, Zurich, SWITZERLANDReceived 24 August 2009; accepted 21 March 2010This article investigates the relation between cognitive style and motivation to learnscience. The concept of cognitive style proposes the interplay of two core psychologicaldimensions, empathizing and systemizing. The cognitive style is defined as the interplaybetween the two abilities. We used the so-called EQ score (empathy quotient) and the SQscore (systemizing quotient) to measure the empathizing and the systemizing dimensionrespectively. The motivation to learn science was measured by the so–called ScienceMotivation Questionnaire (SMQ), which reflects the operationalization of five basicmotivational constructs. We investigated a sample of 44 high school students, 17 to 19year-old, stratified by their sex and by their science/non-science orientation. Our datashowed a highly significant and fairly strong correlation between the motivation to learnscience and the systemizing quotient. However, different from what we expected, wefound no correlation between the motivation to learn science and the empathy quotient.We also found no difference in the motivation to learn science neither for sex nor forscience-orientation. The implications of these findings are discussed, especially in the lightof school science and research of science education.Keywords: Motivation, Cognitive Style, Learning ScienceINTRODUCTIONThe concept of cognitive style was originallyregarded within the field of autism research (Baron-Cohen, 2002). Based on the observation that peoplewith Aspergers syndrome (a highly skilled form ofautism) had high “folk physical” abilities but wereimpaired in their “folk psychological” abilities, Baron-Cohen and colleagues developed a cognition conceptproposing the interplay of two core psychologicaldimensions: empathizing (E) and systemizing (S)(Baron-Cohen, Knickmeyer, & Belmonte, 2005). Thecognitive style is defined as the interplay between thetwo abilities. There exists a score EQ (empathyquotient) and a score SQ (systemizing quotient) tomeasure the empathizing and the systemizing dimensionCorrespondence to: Albert Zeyer, Professor of ScienceEducation,Institute of Upper Secondary and Vocational EducationUniversity of Zurich, Beckenhofstr. 31, CH 8006 ZurichSWITZERLANDE -mail: albert.zeyer@igb.uzh.chCopyright © 2010 by EURASIAE-ISSN: 1305-8223respectively. The braintype B is basically calculated as amathematically normalized difference of EQ and SQ.The whole concept and its measuring procedures will bepresented in detail in the methodological part of thisarticle.Based on this concept, Billington and colleaguesinvestigated students in physical sciences and humanities(Billington, Baron-Cohen, & Wheelwright, 2007). Theyfound that the cognitive style, characterized bysystemizing and empathizing activities respectively, wasmuch better as a predictor for the entry either intophysical sciences or humanities than sex, though sex wasindeed also such a predictor.Billington and colleagues interpreted their findings interms of a causal hierarchy. They proposed that thecognitive style is the basic variable predicting the entryinto physical science or humanities, while sex is onlyinvolved through the statistical relation between sex andcognitive style.As far as we know, these results have not yet beenrecognized in science education research. However, webelieve that they could help to shed a new light on themotivation to learn science, because the choice of thetype of studies can be seen as a raw indicator for

A. ZeyerState of the literature• Cognitive style is a cognition concept thatproposes the interplay of two core psychologicaldimensions which are the two abilities empathizingand systemizing.• Cognitive style is better as a predictor for students'entry either into physical sciences or humanitiesthan sex. It seems to be a basic variable while sexis only involved through the statistical relationbetween sex and cognitive style.• The so-called Science Motivation Questionnaire(SMQ) reflects five basic motivational constructsin a compact scale of 30 questions and it is used tomeasure the motivation to learn science.Contribution of this paper to the literature• This study investigates the relationship betweenthe two instruments that measure cognitive style(EQ and SQ) and the motivation to learn science(SMQ). Thus, cognitive style is compared not onlyto a digital indicator of attitude (entry either intophysical sciences or humanities) but also to acontinuous variable of motivation.• The study reveals an impact systematizing abilityhas on the motivation to learn science, but not sofor the empathizing ability. Previous studies hadnot differentiated between these two aspects.• Results are discussed in light of science educationand the study proposes further research into theissue.motivation. Our hypothesis was that we would find alsoa correlation between motivation to learn science andthe braintype.To measure the motivation to learn science, we usedthe so-called Science Motivation Questionnaire (SMQ),introduced by Glynn and colleagues (2006, 2007), whichreflects five basic motivational constructs in a compactscale of 30 questions. Another advantage of thisquestionnaire is that it does not distinguish betweendifferent science subjects but focuses on a generalmotivation to learn science.Because, as already mentioned, the braintype isessentially the difference between the systemizingquotient SQ and the empathizing quotient EQ, we alsoexpected a positive correlation between the motivationto learn science SMQ and the systemizing quotient SQ,and a negative correlation between the SMQ and theempathy quotient EQ.MotivationTo maintain the comparability of the results of thisstudy with those of Glynn and colleagues (2006), thesame theoretical framework of motivation was used.Thus motivation is defined as “…the internal state thatarouses, directs, and sustains students’ behaviourtowards achieving certain goals.” Furthermore, “instudying the motivation to learn science, researchersattempt to explain why students strive for particulargoals, how intensively they strive, how long they strive,and what feelings and emotions characterize them inthis process.” (p. 1090). Based on research within thesocial-cognitive motivational framework (Bandura,2001), the authors identify five important motivationalconstructs that include intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation, namely goal orientation, self-determination,self-efficacy, and assessment anxiety (Glynn & Koballa,2006). The so–called Science Motivation Questionnaire(SMQ) (see chapter 4) reflects the operationalization ofthese five motivational constructs. It will be described indetail in paragraph 4.2.2.Cognitive styleThe approach of cognitive styles used by Billingtonand colleagues is based on a recent theoretical accountof cognitive style differences of Baron-Cohen et al.(2005). It proposes two core psychological dimensions,or cognitive styles: empathizing (E) and systemizing (S)(Billington et al., 2007).Systemizing is defined as a drive and ability toanalyse the rules underlying a system, in order to predictits behaviour. A system in this context is understood asan object showing a tripartite structure: It can always beanalysed in terms of so-called input – operation –outputpatterns, where inputs are initial states of the system,outputs as subsequent states of the system, andoperations as actions that transform input states intooutput states. Defined in this general way, systems canbe found in many different domains: technical (e.g.machines and tools); natural (e.g. weather system);abstract (e.g. mathematics); social (e.g. political system);spatial (e.g. map reading); and organisable (e.g. ataxonomy). A systemizing view on objects of interest isable to understand these objects in terms of a system,which needs an ability to identify local details and theirinteraction and to abstract from Gestalt perceptionaldistracters, also known as “field independent” cognitivestyle (Witkin, Lewis, Hetzman, Machover, & BretnallMeissner, 1962).Empathizing is defined as a drive to identify anotherperson’s mental states and to respond to these with oneof a range of appropriate emotions. Empathizing hasthus both a cognitive and an affective component(Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004; Davis, 1980). Thecognitive component involves understanding anotherperson’s thoughts and feelings and is also referred to asusing a theory of mind (Wellman, 1990). The affectivecomponent of empathizing involves an emotional122 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 121-128

Motivation and Cognitive Scienceresponse that arises as a result of the comprehension ofanother individuals emotional state (Eisenberg, 2002).Every human being is considered to dispose of bothof these cognitive styles, empathizing and systemizing,but normally on a different level. Some individuals arerather systemisers (S>E) whilst others have a dominantempathizing cognitive style (E>S). Others show abalanced type (E=S) of cognitive styles. The relation ofE and S is called the brain type of the individual. Thewhole concept is called the E-S model.In order to work with the E-S model, two selfreportingquestionnaires (Baron-Cohen, Richler,Bisarya, Gurunathan, & Wheelwright, 2003; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004) have been developed andtested by Baron-Cohen and colleagues (see chapter 4).The two questionnaires exist in different versions, buteach of these calculate a systemizing quotient (SQ) andan empathizing quotient (EQ) providing a measure ofthe individual’s capacity to use the two cognitive styles.The variable representing the brain type is essentiallycalculated as the normalized difference of EQ and SQ.One of the important research results based on thesequestionnaires is that females on average have astronger drive to empathize (E>S), whilst males onaverage have a stronger drive to systemize (Baron-Cohen, 2002). This claim only applies on average; thusthere will always be individuals who are atypical for theirsex. However the E-S theory also argues that,irrespective of their sex, if an individual’s systemizing isat a higher level that their empathizing (S>E), then it isthis profile that leads them into disciplines that requirean analytical style to deal with rule-based phenomena(Billington et al., 2007).It is in this theoretical framework that two recentstudies (Billington et al., 2007; Wheelwright et al., 2006)demonstrated that physical science degree studentsscored significantly lower on the EQ and significantlyhigher on the SQ and suggested, that the academicsubject one ends up studying may be better predicted byone’s cognitive style than by one’s sex.METHODWe investigated a stratified sample of 44 students ofupper secondary level. In our country, students of uppersecondary level cannot yet be classified as science ornon science students. Every student has to take part inall subjects of science and non science disciplines.However these students decide on their so-calledspecializing issues, where they enjoy a higher education,like mathematics and physics, biology and chemistry,languages, or music and arts. In this study we thereforedistinguished only between more science-orientedstudents and non-science-oriented students. We chose22 female and 22 male students. Both of these groupsconsisted of an equal number of science-oriented andnon-science-oriented students. We stratified our sampleinto male and female students because of the knownrelation between sex and braintype. Women tend tohave an empatizing braintype, and men tend to have asystemizing braintype (Baron-Cohen, 2003). Thestratification into science-oriented and non-scienceorientedstudents reflected the results of Billington et al.(2007), that science students statistically had asytemizing braintype, whereas students of thehumanities had an empathizing braintype.Procedures and MeasuresProcedureThe students were visited at their school. They wereinformed about the study and they consented toparticipate. Every student filled in one combinedquestionnaire and received his/her personal results by e-mail if s/he requested it.The QuestionnairePart A, cognitive style. In part A of ourquestionnaire, we used the German version of the SQand the EQ questionnaire by Baron-Cohen (Baron-Cohen, 2004). A pre-test showed that some of thequestions had to be slightly modified to be useable forour students (“car” for example was replaced by“motorbike”). Both the SQ and the EQ questionnaireare 60-item, forced choice format, containing 40cognitive style items and 20 control items. The SQ asksquestions such as “I like music shops because they areclearly organized” and “When I learn a language Ibecome intrigued by grammatical rules”. Similarly, theEQ asks items such as “I am good at predicting whatsomeone will do” to measure cognitive empathy or “Iusually stay emotionally detached while watching a film”to measure the affective component of empathy.On both the EQ and the SQ, participants are askedto respond “definitely agree”, “slightly agree”, “slightlydisagree” or “definitely disagree”, and approximatelyhalf the items are reverse scored to avoid response bias.Scores on both the SQ and the EQ range from 0 to 80.An EQ from 0-32 is considered as low, 33-52 asaverage range (most women score about 47 and mostmen score about 42), 53-63 is above average, 64-80 isvery high.A SQ of 0-19 is considered as low, 20-39 as average(most women score about 24 and most men score about30), 40-50 as above average, 51-80 as very high.A “Brain Quotient” BQ was calculated for eachparticipant following a method reported in Wheelwrightet al. (2006). To this end, EQ and SQ were standardizedto E=(EQ-)/80 and S=(SQ-)/80, where=44.3 and =26.6 are the population means© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 121-128 123

A. ZeyerFigure 1. Relative frequencies of the Systemizing Quotient SQfound in literature (Baron-Cohen et al., 2003;Wheelwright et al., 2006). The division by 80 reflects themaximal score of EQ and SQ respectively. The “BrainQuotient” B then represents a coordinatetransformation of the standardized S and E defined by:B=(S-E)/2 andC=(S+E)/2B essentially calculates the difference between E andS. If it is negative then (E>S), and vice versa.Part B, motivation to learn science. In Part B of thequestionnaire, we asked students to respond to the 30items on the Science Motivation Questionnaire SMQ.Previous findings (Glynn & Koballa, 2006) indicatedthat the SMQ is reliable in terms of its internalconsistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha (.93), andvalid in terms of positive correlations with collegestudents’ science grades, decision to major in science,interest in science careers, and number of sciencecourses taken. The total score on the SMQ serves as acomprehensive measure of the students’ motivation(Glynn, Taasoobshirazi, & Brickman, 2007).15, and 17), relevance of learning science to personalgoals (items 2, 11, 19, 23, and 25), responsibility (selfdetermination) for learning science (items 5, 8, 9, 20,and 26), confidence (self-efficacy) in learning science(items 12, 21, 24, 28, and 29), and anxiety about scienceassessment (items 4, 6, 13, 14, and 18). Typical items forthis questionnaire are “I enjoy learning science” (item 1)or “Earning a good science grade is important to me”(item 7) or “I am confident I will do well on the sciencelabs and projects” (item 21). Students respond to eachof the 30 randomly ordered items on a 5-pointLikerttype scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).The anxiety about science assessment items are reversescored when added to the total, so a higher score on thiscomponent means less anxiety. The SMQ maximumtotal score is 150 and the minimum is 30. A score in therange of 30–59 is relatively low, 60–89 is moderate, 90–119 is high, and 120–150 is very high (Glynn & Koballa,2006).RESULTSThe items were translated into German and alsotested in a pre-test.The SMQ items were developed based on themotivation concepts described earlier in this article. TheSMQ items ask students to report on intrinsicallymotivated science learning (items 1, 16, 22, 27, and 30),extrinsically motivated science learning (items 3, 7, 10,Table 1. Skewness an Kurtosis of SMQ, EQ, and SQNWe computed statistics results by means of theStatistical Program for the Social Sciences, version 15.0(SPSS).Because we translated the questionnaires and(slightly) adapted them to adolescents, the testing of thereliability (internal consistency) of the usedquestionnaires was essential. Cronbach alphacoefficients were α=0.872 for SMQ (30 Items), α=0.897SMQ EQ SQValid 44 44 44Missing 0 0 0Skewness -.162 .084 1.489Std. Error of Skewness .354 .357 .357Kurtosis .237 .134 2.131Std. Error of Kurtosis .695 .702 .702124 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 121-128

Motivation and Cognitive ScienceTable 2. Bivariant Pearson Correlations between SMQ, EQ, and SQSMQ EQ SQSMQ Pearson Correlation 1 -.104 .544(**)Sig. (2-tailed) .501 .000N 44 44 44EQ Pearson Correlation -.104 1 -.249Sig. (2-tailed) .501 .104N 44 44 44SQ Pearson Correlation .544(**) -.249 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .104N44 44 44** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).Table 3. Bivariant Correlations of SMQ, EQ, and SQ (Spearman's rho) CorrelationsSMQ EQ SQSpearman's rho SMQ Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.049 .396(**)Sig. (2-tailed) . .754 .008N 44 44 44EQ Correlation Coefficient -.049 1.000 -.121Sig. (2-tailed) .754 . .433N 44 44 44SQ Correlation Coefficient .396(**) -.121 1.000Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .433 .N 44 44 44** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).Table 4. Correlation between braintype B and EQ controlling for SQ CorrelationsControl Variables SMQ BSQ SMQ Correlation 1.000 -.038Significance (2-tailed) . .808df 0 41B Correlation -.038 1.000Significance (2-tailed) .808 .df 41 0for SQ (40 items), and α=0.911 for EQ (40 items)indicating that 87%, 90%, and 91% respectively of thevariance of the total scores on these questionnairescould be attributed to systematic variance. This meansthat the questionnaires have preserved their highinternal consistency in the new context.DescriptivesWe investigated 44 students. By our stratification, 22were male (50%) and 22 were female (50%). 23 werescience oriented (52.3%) and 21 were non-scienceoriented (47.7%). The mean age was mage= 17.21 years(SD=0.62).On average, our students showed in the SMQ scorea high motivation to learn science (MSMQ=99.84,SD=13.72). The minimum was SMQmin=74, themaximum SMQmax=135 points. The mean EQ of ourstudents is within the population average, but rather low(MEQ=40.31, SD=11.68). The minimum wasEQmin=6, the maximum EQmax=60 points. The meanSQ of our students was also in the population average(MSQ=28.27, SD=12.83). The minimum wasSQmin=14, the maximum SQmax=72 points.The examination of skewness and kurtosis statistics(see Table 1) shows that our data of the SMQ and theEQ met the assumption of univariate normality.The frequency distribution of the SQ is positivelyskewed and leptokurtic. 7% of the students have an SQof more than 50 points, which is classified as very high(Figure 1). These are three students, one female and twomale students, interestingly they all belong to the nonscience-orientedgroup, though they have a high© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 121-128 125

A. Zeyermotivation to learn science between 103 and 135 points.Their mean EQ is low (M=24.67, SD 19.55).The impact of gender and of science-orientationIn our data, no significant impact of sex or scienceorientationon the motivation to learn (SMQ), thesystemizing quotient (SQ), or the empathizing quotient(EQ) can be seen. The same holds, if the analysis isrestricted to the science students.The impact of the braintype, and of SQ and EQThere is a positive Pearson correlation betweenSMQ and the Brain Quotient B (r=.414). Thiscorrelation is highly significant (p

Motivation and Cognitive Science130.00SMQ120.00110.00100.0090.0080.00 20 30 40 50 60 70SQFigure 2 . Scatterplot of SMQ and SQNew, however, is our finding, that while thecorrelation between the SQ and the SMQ is highlysignificant, it is not so for the EQ and the SMQ. Morethan that, while the zero-order correlation between theSMQ and the B is positive and statistically significant,the partial correlation between the two parameters,controlling for the SQ, is negligible and not statisticallysignificant. These results suggest that it is not thebraintype that controls the motivation to learn science,but rather its systemizing dimension SQ, and that thereexists a fairly strong effect of the SQ on the SMQ. Thesecond dimension of the B, the empathizing EQ,however, has only a negligible and not significant impacton the SMQ. Our second hypothesis therefore hasactually not been confirmed by our data. This isremarkable, since a non-systematical cognitive stylecould well have a negative impact on the motivation tolearn science.It seems important to stress that the concept ofcognitive style is basically a biological conceptsummarizing a large body of empirical research findingsnot only in psychology, but also in various bio-medicaldisciplines as neurology, anatomy, and endocrinology(Baron-Cohen et al., 2005). It is therefore not a meretautology, as it might appear at face value, to say that asystemizing braintype predisposes for high motivationto learn science, but a far reaching statement on a stableattribute of personality, including a valid and reliableway to test it.The SMQ score was fairly high. In explorativeresearch we had found similar levels of motivation tolearn science (authors). We had explained this by thefact that these students had been tested in a sciencelearning centre, which could mean that they were verymotivated towards science or else that their scienceteacher was very much engaged in teaching. Howeverour new results are comparable. It might be thatstudents on higher secondary level in our country (socalledGymnasium) generally show an above averagemotivation to learn science.CONCLUSIONSMore research must be done to be able to reliablylink our findings to the situation in the real science classroom. Nevertheless, we would like to conclude thisarticle – with due precautions – by outlining somethoughts that emerge from the study as possibleimplications for school science. Our results seem topoint to two important lines of reasoning.Firstly, as mentioned above, good systemizers have ahigh motivation to learn science. In reference to thedefinition provided by Glynn and colleagues (2006), thisis “the internal state that arouses, directs, and sustains© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 121-128 127

A. Zeyerstudents’ behavior toward achieving certain goals” (p.1090). Good systemizers are not necessarily good at(school) science, but they are more likely to strive for it,which is important for becoming a successful sciencestudent.Secondly, and equally as important, empathizers donot necessarily have a low motivation towards (school)science. Good empathizers tend to be less good atsystemizing, and therefore, on average, they tend tohave a lower motivation to learn science. However,statistically, a very good empathizer can also be a verygood systemizer. In this case, s/he can easily show ahigh motivation to learn science although s/he is astrong empathizer.The challenge for school science seems to be – atleast from this point of view – the students with low SQscores, be they good empathizers or not. It could be aninteresting research question, how these two groupsdiffer, and how they should be approached to improvethe systemizing dimension of their cognitive style, i.e.their drive and ability to analyze the rules underlying asystem, in order to predict its behavior. Our findingssuggest that a success in improving the systemizingdimension of these students’ cognitive style couldspontaneously lead to an improvement in theirmotivation to learn science. Research must show if, andto what degree, the initial level of systemizing can beimproved and how this could be done.Another interesting research project would be tostudy if there is a relation between our findings and theconcept of cultural border crossing, which stems fromAikenhead and colleagues (Aikenhead, 2000). This is acultural concept that perhaps could be contrasted withthe biological concept of cognitive style. At first glance,the “potential scientists” of Aikenhead, the studentswho enter the culture of (school) science withoutproblems, seem to correspond with the highlysystemizing students. Aikenhead estimates thatapproximately 5% of high schools students are potentialscientists, which is comparable to the amount of highlysystemizing students in our sample. It is of interestwhether the categories of cultural border crossing canbe characterized by the EQ and the SQ. It seemsappropriate to use a qualitative research method to findout more about these issues, or else a mixed methodapproach.REFERENCESAikenhead, G. S. (2000). Renegotiating the culture of school science.The contribution of research. In R. Millar & J. Leach & J.Osborne (Eds.), Improving Science Education (pp. 245-264). Philadelphia: Open University Press.Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentiveperspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory ofautism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 248-254.Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: Men, women andthe extreme male brain. London: Penguin.Baron-Cohen, S. (2004). Vom ersten Tag an anders. Das weiblicheund das männliche Gehirn. Düsseldorf / Zürich: Walter.Baron-Cohen, S., Knickmeyer, R., & Belmonte, M. K. (2005).Sex Differences in the Brain: Implications forExplaining Autism. Science 310(819-823).Baron-Cohen, S., Richler, J., Bisarya, D., Gurunathan, N., &Wheelwright, S. (2003). The systemizing quotient: Aninvestigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or highfunctioningautism, and normal sex differencesPhilosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 358(1430), 361-374.Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The EmpathyQuotient: An Investigation of Adults with AspergerSyndrome or High Functioning Autism, and NormalSex Differences. Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders, 34(2), 163-175.Billington, J., Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2007).Cognitive style predicts entry into physical sciences andhumanities: Questionnaire and performance tests ofempathy and systemizing. Learning and IndividualDifferences, 17, 260-268.Britner, S. L. (2008). Motivation in High School ScienceStudents: A Comparison of Gender Differences in Life,Physical, and Earth Science Classes. Journal of Reseachin Science Teaching, 45(8), 955-970.Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach toindividual diferences in empathy. JSAS Catalogue ofSelected Documents in Psychology, 10(4), 85.Eisenberg, N. (2002). Empathy-related emotional responses,altruism, and their socialization. In R. J. Davidson & A.Harrington (Eds.), Visions of Compassion: Westernscientists and Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature(pp. 131-164). London: Oxford University Press.Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. R. (2006). Motivation to learn incollege science. In J. J. Mintzes & W. H. Leonard (Eds.),Handbook of college science teaching (pp. 25-32).Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers AssociationPress.Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007).Nonscience Majors Learning Science: A TheoreticalModel of Motivation. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 44(8), 1088-1107.Wellman, H. (1990). The Child's Theory of Mind. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Wheelwright, S., Baron-Cohen, S., Goldenfeld, N., Delaney,J., Fine, D., Smith, R., Weil, L., & Wakabayashi, A.(2006). Predicting Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ)from the Systemizing Quotient-Revised (SQ-R) andQuotient (EQ). Brain Research, 1079, 47-56.Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hetzman, M., Machover, K., &Bretnall Meissner, P. (1962). Personality through perception:an experimental and clinical study. New York: Harper &Row.128 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 121-128

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2010, 6(2), 129-137An Analysis on Proactive-ReactivePersonality Profiles in Student-teacherRelationship through the MetaphoricalThinking ApproachA.Seda Yücel and Canan KoçakHacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, TURKEYSerpil CulaBaşkent Üniversitesi, Ankara, TURKEYReceived 27 April 2009; accepted 13 November 2009This study analyzed the proactive and reactive personality traits in teachers and students.These traits were interpreted with the help of the ideas and images revealed throughmetaphors. With the help of these metaphors, the certain imaginative categories andstatements of student teachers about the teacher, the student and teacher-studentrelationship were associated with both reactive and proactive personality models. Thesampling of the study involved 330 Biology, Physics and Chemistry track students atHacettepe University, Faculty of Education. As the metaphors of student teachers wereexamined in terms of the teacher-student relationship, “teacher is proactive and student isreactive” was found to be the common dominant view.Keywords: Metaphors, Reactive And Proactive Personality Models, Teacher-StudentRelationshipINTRODUCTIONThe productivity and efficiency of educationalinstitutions in reaching their aims are strongly related tothe performances of teachers and students. With thedevelopments in educational technologies, teaching issubject to a rapid change. Similarly, teacher and studentprofiles attain different functionalities within the visionforeseen by this change. However, the educationalresearchers at universities (Alber & Nelson, 2002;Babkie & Provost, 2004; Hastie, 1992; Mc Bee, 2004;Shamai & Kfir, 2002; Shkeidi, 1998) stated that not onlyteachers remained inadequate in getting informed aboutCorrespondence to: A. Seda Yücel,Associate Professor of Chemistry Education,Department of Chemistry Education,Hacettepe University, Beytepe, Ankara, TurkeyE -mail: aysemseda@gmail.comCopyright © 2010 by EURASIAISSN: 1305-8223the technology and the research on its applications inteaching, but also the results of the studies were notreflected on teaching in classrooms. Moreover,educational researchers at universities tend to accuseteachers of their resistance to change, skeptic attitudesand lack of abilities to make use of the research findings.It is important for the teachers to have visions andtake responsibilities of some missions within this visionregardless from the view supported. In order thesemissions to be reflected on the students, the educationalinstitutions should train teachers with this awareness.These institutions are expected to train student teachersas active planners, appliers and consumers ofeducational research and display a performance thatenables them to develop proactive personalities insteadof the reactive.There are personality profiles and models within thepsychiatric pattern, which are classified according topersonality traits. This personality patterns change fromthe ways of thinking to behavioral codes. The term,

A.S. Yücel, C. Koçak & S.CulaState of the literature• The psychiatric pattern involves personalityprofiles and models classified according topersonality traits. These personality patterns varyfrom ways of thinking to behavioral structures.This study served to reveal the perceptions ofstudent teachers about concepts of student andteacher using metaphors.• This study differs from the similar studies in theliterature with its in-depth analysis on proactiveand reactive personality profiles classifiedaccording to personality traits within thepsychiatric pattern.• The images of teachers and students in studentteachers’ minds were classified according toproactive and reactive personality traits. Theclassification concluded with contradictoryperceptions that did not take place in the literaturebut were present in student teachers’ mindswithout their awareness.Contribution of this paper to the literature• Modern age requires proactive teachers andstudents who focus on their works, act carefullyand consider the consequences of their behaviors.• The proactive teachers and students, who improvecontinuously, need to play active roles in the worldof education. Teachers with proactive personalitytraits play the greatest role in training proactivestudents within the society. Therefore, theproactive and reactive personality traits thatstudents and teachers possess should primarily beexamined.• This is the first study on the analysis of thepersonality traits of students of the future, whocurrently are student teachers. It is thought thatthis study will set a first step to further studies inthe field.reactive personality, is used for personalities that aredirected by external factors. These are personalities thatare prone to panic, fragile and lack the sense of security.They are passive. They get depressed most of the time.They give excessive importance to the opinions ofothers. Their personal limitedness is insignificant. Theyact according to others’ foresights. They experienceblockings and obstacles in social roles. They con nottake risks. They have distant, timid and reservedpersonality grounds. Individuals with this type ofpersonality patterns continuously experience difficultiesand stress in achieving their goals (Şahin, 2006).Proactive is a personality trait that impliesmotivation and action and defines individuals, who actin order to create a change in their environments.Proactive and reactive individuals are common in bothteacher and student populations. Looking at thechanging educational environment of today, it can beseen that teachers should adopt the proactive behaviormodel as mentioned above and pay attention todeveloping the proactive personality in their students(Schwarzer, 1999).Making use of management processes in theclassroom, turning the classroom into a reliableenvironment, creating the sense of responsibility in thestudents would reveal a teacher with proactivepersonality traits and his/her leadership characteristics.In order all these actions to be made, teachers, whoembrace the proactive behavior models should havesuch personal qualifications as tolerance, patience, openmindedness, flexibility, compassionate, understandingand wit as well as professionalism, motivation, genialityand good communication in order to encourage andsupport students towards success (Erden, 1998;Demirel, 1999).A teacher’s having proactive personality traits isimportant but not enough for success. In order theteaching-learning process to be effective there should bean interaction between teachers and students; that is,students should also possess proactive personality traits.This interaction could occur not through control basedon power but through a personality, the possessor ofwhich is accepted as the leader, takes the responsibilityof preparing and organizing environments to facilitatestudents’ learning. The essence of proactive personalitymodel involves such an understanding that takesresponsibilities, organizes and foresees the future.Within the proactive behavior model, the proactivepersonality of a teacher could be described according tothe personal competence level, individualentrepreneurial characteristic, ability to use the controlmechanism, transferring scientific knowledge effectively.Identifying development areas in teaching profession,tackling the difficulties, improving conditions could belisted under the title of teacher behaviors for teachers,who embrace the proactive behavior model (Greenglass,2001).Students, who possess reactive personalities, areguided by external factors. As they have passivepersonality structures, they experience obstacles andblockings in the classroom environment. They haveinsecure attitudes towards taking risks. The behaviors ofthe teachers with proactive behavior models reflect theirown decisions, whereas students with reactive behaviormodels determine their behaviors according to theconditions of their school, classroom and theeducational paradigm of today.Teachers, who possess proactive personalities, areindividuals who have the initiatives of their own lives,whereas teachers with reactive personalities have left the130 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 129-137

The Proactive Teacher-Reactive Student Dilemma in Turkeyinitiative to the educational conditions of the day.Emotions come after the works of teachers withproactive personality traits, however, teachers, whopossess reactive personality traits, place their emotionsin the foreground. Teachers with proactive personalitiesadopt their internal powers to the externalenvironments. Reactive teachers tend to avoid takingresponsibilities and tailor their internal aspectsaccording to the conditions of the externalenvironment. When students and teachers, who possessthe proactive behavior model, encounter a difficulty inthe classroom, they;evaluate the options,select different approaches,control their feelings,make effective presentations,show appropriate reactions; and they tend to take theinitiatives expressing “I choose, I prefer, I will”.When students and teachers with reactive behaviormodels encounter difficulties in the classroom, theyreact with anger, rage, hopelessness, impossibility,anxiety, insecurity and express this with insignificantways such as “I should do that, I cannot do that, If onlyI could do that”.This study analyzed the proactive and reactivepersonality traits in terms of teachers and students.These traits were interpreted with the help of the ideasand images revealed through the metaphors. Metaphor,as a concept, is a powerful mental tool that an individualcould make use of in understanding or explaining ahighly abstract, complex or conceptual phenomenon.According to the lately developed perspective namedas the mental metaphor theory (Lakoff and Johnson,1980), since our conceptual system is quitemetaphorical, then our ways of thinking, phenomena weexperience and anything we do everyday aremetaphorical as well. As the mental metaphor theoryindicates, metaphors shape individuals’ ideas about theworld and reality. So, metaphors enable individuals tocompare the abstract or complex phenomena to themore concrete or experienced ones and develop anunderstanding for unknown phenomena.By providing the establishment of a relationshipbetween two unlike ideas or phenomenon, metaphorsenable the mind to move from an understanding toanother and see a certain phenomenon as another one.If an image in an individual’s mind is worth 1000 words,it is suggested that a metaphor is worth 1000 images. Anordinary picture represents a static image, whereas ametaphor creates a mental frame in order to think abouta phenomenon (Shuell, 1990). Shortly, metaphorsdisplay the power of understanding and explaining theways of thinking in individuals effectively. In otherwords, metaphor is a way of thinking and seeing(Morgan, 1998).Metaphors allow educators to explain things bycomparing two things, emphasizing the similaritiesbetween two things or replacing one thing with another.In order to create a metaphorical relationship, at leastthree basic elements are required (Forceville, 2002).These are; the topic of the metaphor, the resource ofthe metaphor and the properties that could be attributedfrom the resource to the topic of the metaphor.Therefore, the resource of the metaphor serves as afilter within the creation process of the metaphor inunderstanding and explaining the topic of the metaphorform a different perspective (Saban, 2004).Table 1. The metaphorical images created by student teachers for their perceptions of teacher, studentand student-teacher relationshipTeacherStudentProactiveTraitsReactiveTraitsOtherTraits* Soil* Director* Artist* Sea* Light bulb* Beggar* Note* Porter* Juggler* Grasshopper* Parents* Relatives* Book* Scale* Sea* Light* Guide* Cook* Sun* Model* Friend* Family* Carbon* Tree* Rose* Atomic nucleus* Air controller* Blacksmith* Accelerator* Raw material* Dump* A dark room* Photocopier* Play dough* Ant* Child* Electron* Computer* Sapling* Compass* Pier* Gardener* Gas* Dough* Hungry person* Mirror* Sheep* Kid* Flower* Worker* Hard disc* Notebook© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 129-137 131

A.S. Yücel, C. Koçak & S.CulaThe Purpose of the StudyIn this study, it was aimed to reveal the views andimages of student teachers regarding the proactive andreactive behavior model from the teacher-studentperspective through the metaphors.Population and SamplingThe population of the study consisted of studentteachers of science, who would be teaching at secondaryeducation institutions in their future careers. Theuniverse of the study consisted of student teachers ofsecondary level science and the sampling involved 330Biology, Physics and Chemistry Program studentsstudying at Hacettepe University, Faculty of Education,Department of Secondary Math and Science for twoyears. Among the participants, 60.6% were female and39.4% were male student teachers. In terms of studentteachers per track, equal number of students from eachgrade level was included in the study.Table 2. The metaphor statements of student teachers describing proactive and reactive personality traitsfor students and teachersProactive Teacher MetaphorsSun: Teacher should illuminate his/her environment; student should be enlightened just like the world. Thereshould be a new world wherever the sun rises.Artist: (S/he) Paints people. Uses completely free colors. The quality of an artist could be seen from the paintings/he paints or the paints s/he uses.Director: If s/he determines his/her mission well then s/he contributes to his/her students’ getting goodpositions.Soil: The more the soil is rich the more productive the student grows up. Some soil has humus and some has clay.The more the teacher enriches him/herself, the better the student makes use of this enrichment.Sea: (S/he) bears millions of different beauties inside. His/her taking care of or guiding the students is like how thesea hosts thousands of species. (S/he) sets up his/her own balance. Just like the sea holds many ships, a teachercarries the students to further steps.Guide: (S/he) guides with recipes more than teaching the life. What makes the teacher sacred is his/her ability togive directions.Reactive Student MetaphorsRaw material: takes a shape according to how s/he is brought up.Dough: waits for the master hands that will shape him/her. Just like how a cook shapes and adds flavor to doughand it becomes better, students wait for the teachers to shape them. The more beautiful they are kneaded andcooked, the better tastes they spread around.Mirror: A student reflects whatever his/her teacher teaches.Play dough: A student remains the same as the way s/he is shaped. It is in the hands of a teacher, who is the oneplaying with the dough, to shape him/her, make it beautiful in all aspects.Sheep: Student is a sheep. S/he acts in all the scenarios written.Proactive Teacher - Reactive Student MetaphorsBrick-cement: A student remains the same unless someone helps him/her. But s/he can rise like a statue with thehelp of a manager or assistant.Magnet-Iron: No matter how strong the iron is, it cannot avoid its attachment to a magnet.Car-Gas: Cars move with the reactions of drivers. If the driver does not start the engine, the car cannot go. Theywarn when their gas is over but they cannot refill themselves. Just like how it is in teacher-student relationship.A student can not address his/her requirements without the teacher. S/he expects someone to guide her/himfrom outside. When his/her accelerator is pushed, s/he reaches an incredible speed.Thread- Needle: The thread passes through the needle’s hole gently,Many beautiful works are made spontaneously,Sometimes it breaks, the needle or the thread gets broken,The metal of the needle or the ties of the thread you should strengthen;For a beautiful life...132 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 129-137

The Proactive Teacher-Reactive Student Dilemma in TurkeyMETHODIn the study, it was aimed to determine themetaphors considered by student teachers of biology,physics and chemistry for the teacher concept, studentconcept and the student-teacher relationship. With thehelp of these metaphors, the certain imaginativecategories and statements of student teachers about theteacher, the student and teacher-student relationshipwere associated with both reactive and proactivepersonality models.In order to uncover the perceptions of participatingstudent teachers about teacher, student and teacherstudentrelationship concepts, they were handed outpapers with “Teacher is like ……, because…..”,“Student is like……, because…..”, “If the teacher is like……, then the student is like, because…..” written onthem. There were three close-ended questions on thepapers in order to obtain information on their programtypes, genders and grade levels. Student teachers weregiven 40 minutes to develop their own metaphoricalimages. The basic data resource of the study is thepapers involving student teachers’ own intellectualwritings in their own handwriting. In the study, bylooking at whether the student teachers expressed acertain metaphor significantly in their writings, themetaphors created by student teachers from threeprograms were identified. All metaphors identified wereexamined and analyzed according to their similaritieswith and differences from other metaphors. The paperswith weak-structured metaphorical images wereeliminated in order to avoid conflicts or irrelevance.Metaphors were grouped under three basiccategories, which were “Proactive, Reactive and OtherTraits” in order to build metaphorical images that arethought to best represent student and teacherpersonality traits. The metaphor group named as “OtherTraits” was created in order to define other traits thanthose of the proactive and reactive personalities. Bothreactive and proactive behavior models are generallydefined as personality traits with active conducts.Metaphors listed under imaginative categories weretested by expert views for the approval of whether themetaphors they involve represented these categories ornot. This is how the data analysis process and thecomments of the study were validated.Some of the metaphorical images created by studentteachers for their perceptions of teacher, student andstudent-teacher relationship are displayed on Table 1.Apart from these, there are many different traits forboth teacher and students behaviors. They could berevealed and evaluated with certain methods. Table 2displays a part of the intellectual writings where studentteachers described their metaphors in their ownhandwritings.FINDINGSThe study indicated the metaphorical imagesreflecting the ideas and views of student teachers fromthe first and last years of the three programs during 2years considering the gender variable as well. After themetaphors were defined and the 3 categories formed bythese metaphors were created, the number of studentrepresenting each category (f) and its percentage (%)were calculated. The Pearson-chi-square test was appliedin order to test whether these categories changedaccording to students’ program types, genders and gradelevels. The results were analyzed then.Metaphors Representing Personality Traits ForStudent ConceptTable 3 displays the frequencies and percentages ofmetaphors that represent the personality traits of 330student teachers for student concept.The study indicated the metaphorical imagesreflecting the ideas and views of student teachers fromthe first and last years of the three programs during 2years considering the gender variable as well. After themetaphors were defined and the 3 categories formed bythese metaphors were created, the number of studentrepresenting each category (f) and its percentage (%)were calculated. The Pearson-chi-square test was appliedin order to test whether these categories changedaccording to students’ program types, genders and gradelevels. The results were analyzed then.Metaphors Representing Personality Traits forStudent ConceptTable 3 displays the frequencies and percentages ofmetaphors that represent the personality traits of 330student teachers for student concept.According to Table 3, 68.2% of 330 student teachersassociate the student concept with reactive behaviormodel and defines student as passive, whereas, 31.5%created metaphors that depicted the other studentcharacteristics. This does not show that 31.8% of thepopulation has adopted the proactive behavior model.After all, as this evaluation was made over themetaphors that are thought to belong to reactivebehavior model. The other metaphors were evaluatedwithin the “other traits” group. Therefore, 68.2%student teachers’ attributing reactive personality traits tostudent concept does not necessarily mean that theremaining 31.5% attributes student concept to proactivepersonality trait. The same situation applies to the tableson the valuation of metaphors that examine the reactivebehavior model and proactive behavior model. As aresult, the student profile for the student teachers isfound to have mostly the reactive personality traits.© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 129-137 133

A.S. Yücel, C. Koçak & S.CulaMoreover, another important value displayed onTable 3 is that 68.5% of the 200 female student teachersand 67.7% of the 130 male student teachers favoredmetaphors that implied reactive student traits. In otherwords, in terms of the gender variable, student teachers’perceiving student concept as reactive could dominantlybe observed in a high percentage for both male andfemale participants. This could mean that for the mostof both male and female student teachers, studentsadopt the reactive behavior model.The frequencies and percentages of metaphorspresenting the personality traits of participating studentteachers from three program types for the studentconcept are displayed in Table 4.As Table 4 displays, 63.6% of the student teachers ofbiology, 69.4% of the student teachers of chemistry and71.6% of the student teachers of physics usedmetaphors that describe the reactive student traits. Inother words, considering the program type variable,student teachers’ perceiving student concept as reactiveis on the foreground with high percentages for all threeprogram types. Hence, the evaluation made according tothe program types similarly concluded that for most ofthe student teachers studying at biology, physics andchemistry tracks, students are reactive.The frequencies and percentages of metaphorspresenting personality traits of first and final yearstudent teachers’ from three program types for thestudent concept are displayed on Table 5.The data presented in Table 5 reveals that 67.8% ofstudent teachers studying at their first year in all threeprograms and the 68.7% of the student teachers at theirfinal years used metaphors that described reactivestudent characteristics. These results indicate that nomatter if they are first or final year students, majority ofthe student teachers perceived students as passive andadopting reactive behavior model.Table 3. The frequencies and percentages of metaphors that represent the personality traits of studentteachers for student conceptMetaphor GroupFemale Male Totalf % f % f %Reactive 137 68.5 88 67.7 225 68.2Other Traits 63 31.5 42 32.3 105 31.8Table 4. The frequencies and percentages of metaphors presenting student teachers’ perceptions ofpersonality traits for student concept depending on the program typesMetaphor GroupBiology Chemistry Physics Totalf % f % f % f %Reactive 70 63.6 77 69.4 78 71.6 225 68.2Other Traits 35 36.4 34 30.6 31 28.4 105 31.8Table 5. The frequencies and percentages of metaphors presenting personality traits of student teachers’for the student concept depending on the grade levelsMetaphor GroupYear 1 Year 5 Totalf % f % f %Reactive 122 67.8 103 68.7 225 68.2Other traits 58 32.2 47 31.3 105 31.8Table 6. The frequencies and percentages of the metaphors used by student teachers representingpersonality traits for the teacher conceptMetaphor GroupFemale Male Totalf % f % f %Proactive 130 65 79 60.8 209 63.3Other Traits 70 35 51 39.2 121 36.7134 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 129-137

The Proactive Teacher-Reactive Student Dilemma in TurkeyMetaphors Representing Personality Traits forTeacher ConceptThe frequencies and percentages of the metaphorsused by 330 participant student teachers representingpersonality traits for the teacher concept are displayedinTable6.According to Table 6, 63.3% of the student teachersused metaphors that described the proactive teachercharacteristics, whereas the remaining 36.7% usedmetaphors representing other teacher characteristics. Inother words, majority of the student teachers, whoparticipated in the study, perceived the teacher conceptas the person that adopts proactive behavior model.Another point of interest about Table 6 was that65% of 200 female student teachers and 60% of 130male student teachers used metaphors indicatingproactive teacher behaviors. Considering the gendervariable, perception of the teacher concept by studentteachers as having proactive traits was dominantlyobserved for both genders with high percentages. Thisresult indicates that for the majority of the studentteachers both male and female, teacher is a person whoembraces proactive behavior model.The frequencies and percentages of metaphorspresenting the personality traits of participating studentteachers from three program types for the teacherconcept are shown in Table 7.As Table 7 displays, 59.6% of the student teachers ofbiology, 61.8% of the student teachers of chemistry and66% of the student teachers of physics used metaphorsfor the teacher concept describing proactive teachercharacteristics. Looking at the program type variable, itwas observed that the majority of the student teachersevaluated the teacher as being proactive.The frequencies and percentages of metaphorspresenting personality traits of first and final yearstudent teachers’ from three program types for theteacher concept are displayed on Table 8.According to Table 8, the 52.2% of the first yearstudents from all three tracks and 75.3% of the studentsat their final years used metaphors indicating proactiveteacher traits. Moreover, the images that the first andfinal year students created for the personality traitsregarding the teacher concept were significantlydifferent from each other ( Pearson chi-square = 18.629(df = 10); p = 0.000 < 0.05).Metaphors Representing Personality Traits interms of Teacher-Student RelationshipThe frequencies and percentages of the metaphorsused by 330 participating student teachers indicatingpersonality traits in terms of the teacher-studentrelationship are displayed on Table 9.Table 7. The frequencies and percentages of metaphors presenting student teachers’ perceptions ofpersonality traits for teacher concept depending on the program typesMetaphor GroupBiology Chemistry Physics Totalf % f % f % f %Proactive 68 59.6 68 61.8 70 66 206 62.4Other traits 46 40.4 42 38.2 36 34 124 37.6Table 8. The frequencies and percentages of metaphors presenting personality traits of student teachers’for the teacher concept depending on the grade levelsMetaphor GroupYear 1 Year 5 Total pf % f % f %Proactive 96 52.2 110 75.3 206 62.4 0.000Other Traits 88 47.8 36 24.7 124 37.6Table 9. The frequencies and percentages of the metaphors used by student teachers indicatingpersonality traits in terms of the teacher-student relationshipStudentReactiveOther Traitsf % f %Proactive 146 44.2 62 18.8TeacherOther Traits 78 23.6 44 13.3© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 129-137 135

A.S. Yücel, C. Koçak & S.CulaAccording to Table 9, 44.2% of the student teachersused metaphors describing proactive teachercharacteristics to express the teacher image in theirminds, whereas, they preferred to use metaphorsdepicting reactive student characteristics for the conceptof student. In other words, in terms of teacher-studentrelationship, majority of the student teachers evaluatedteachers as being proactive and students as beingreactive.CONCLUSIONIn this study, it was aimed to reveal the views andimages of student teachers related to proactive andreactive behavior models from the teacher-studentperspective through the metaphors. Gillis and Johnson(2002) mentioned that metaphors helped our perceptionof self that we would like to have but we couldn’t have,we have had and avoid to have, and may have. Nomatter if we are aware or not aware and no matter weaccept or do not accept them as mental models,metaphors will continue to be a part of our lives (Saban,Koçbeker and Saban, 2006). We used metaphors in thisstudy as a research tool serving to reveal, understandand explain the perceptions of student teachers aboutstudent teacher personality traits. The data obtainedwere analyzed using both qualitative and quantitativetechniques. The metaphors used by student teachers forstudents were evaluated in terms of the gender variableand no significant difference was found between theevaluations of female and male student teachers.Students were described as reactive by student teachersfrom both gender groups. The perception of student asreactive does not differ according to the program typesof grade levels of the student teachers. In other words,according to the student teachers, a student is a person,who has embraced the reactive personality trait.Looking at the metaphors used by student teachersfor the concept of teacher, it was observed that most ofthe metaphors were related to proactive behavior modeland did not differ according to the gender or programtype variables. However, in terms of the grade levelvariable, a significant difference was observed.Moreover, as the metaphors of student teachers wereexamined in terms of the teacher-student relationship,“teacher is proactive and student is reactive” was foundto be the common dominant view. As a result, studentteachers in their metaphors for teachers, favoredmetaphors that represented proactive personality traits,whereas they used metaphors related to reactivepersonality traits for the students.DISCUSSIONProactive teachers should educate students in such away to possess proactive personality traits. Hence,proactive personality traits are very important in termsof the required individual profile of today. Proactiveindividuals display good performances in not onlyeducational environments but also all types ofenvironments by participating in different activities,carrying out successful changes and going beyondexpectations. They exhibit active behaviors within theirinternal dynamics. However, teachers and students, whoadopt reactive behavior model, are quite common today(Schwarzer, 1999).Proactive individuals are aware that they areresponsible for their own lives as human beings andtheir behaviors are results of not the conditions buttheir own decisions. Considering the contributions ofthe proactive personality to an individual’s life, it issuggested that increasing the number of teachers withproactive personality traits would result in trainingstudents with proactive personality traits. The proactiveteachers and students, who possess the ability to actaccording to the values and principles instead ofemotions, would result in a better future. Proactivestudents and teachers have a strong belief that they areresponsible for their own development processes.Teachers and students with proactive personality traitshave visions. Trying to achieve certain goals makes theirlife meaningful. They believe in the continuousdevelopment and accordingly, they spend great efforts.They have perceived a mission for themselves.Individuals with science-centered proactive perspectivesare believed to bring a new dimension to education andteaching.REFERENCESBabkie, A. M., & Provost, M. C. (2004). Teachers asresearchers. Intervention in School & Clinic, 39(5), 260-268.Ben-Peretz M., Mendelson N., & Kron F.W. (2003). Howteachers in different educational contexts view theirroles. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 277–290.Çınkır, Ş. (2004). Effective teacher-Student relationshipManagement at School. Journal of National Education, 161,74-81.Erdoğdu, Y. (2006). The relationship of creativity withteacher behaviors and academic achievement. ElectronicSocial Sciences Journal, 5, 95-106, Retrieved on December22, 2008 from www.e-sosder.com.Forceville, C (2002). The Identification of target and source inpictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1-14.Gillis, C., & Johnson, C.L. (2002). Metaphor as renewal: reimaginingour Professional selves. English Journal, 91,37–43.Greenglass, E. (2001). Proactive coping, work stress and burnout.Stresa News, 13, (Serial No 2).Hastie, P. A. (1992). Prospects for collaboration betweenteachers and researchers. Clearing House, 65(6), 371-372.Kılıç, A & Kuyumcu, A. (2008). The expectations of studentsat technical education faculty from the future. ElectronicSocial Studies Journal www.esosder.org., 7 047-063.136 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 129-137

The Proactive Teacher-Reactive Student Dilemma in TurkeyLakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by.Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.McBee, M. T. (2004). The classroom as a laboratory: Anexploration of teacher research. Roeper Review, 27(1), 52-58.Morgan, G. (1998). Metaphors in management and OrganizationTheories. (Translated by: G. Bulut). İstanbul: MESSPublications.Saban, A. (2004). Prospective classroom teachers’metaphorical images of selves and comparing them tothose they have of their elementary and cooperatingteachers. International Journal of Educational Development,24, 617-635.Saban, A., Koçbeker, B. N. & Saban, A. (2006). An analysision the perceptions of student teachers for the conceptof teacher using metaphor analysis. Educational Sciences:Theory & Practice, 6(2), 461-522.Saban, A., Koçbeker, B. N. & Saban, A. (2007). Prospectiveteachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning revealedthrough metaphor analysis. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 17, 123-139.Sarı, M. (2006). The researcher teacher: analysis of the viewsof teachers about scientific research. Educationalsciences: Theory & Practice, 6 (3) 847-887.Schwarzer, R. (1999). “Proactive Coping Theory”, PaperPresented At The 20th International Conference OfThe Stress And Anxiety Research Society (STAR),Cracow, Poland.Schwarzer, R. (1999). The Proactive Coping Inventory AMultidimensional Research instrument. 20th InternationalConference of the Stress and Anxiety Research Society,Cracow, Poland, 12-14.Shamai, S., & Kfir, D. (2002). Research activity and researchculture in academic teachers’ colleges in Israel. Teachingin Higher Education, 7(4), 397-410.Shkedi, A. (1998). Teachers’ attitudes toward research: Achallenge for qualitative researchers. International Journalof Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(4), 559-577.Shuell, T. J. (1990). Teaching and learning as problem solving.Theory into Practice, 29(2), 102-108.Skırble, R., & Arditti A. (1999). Microsoft encarta worldenglish dictionary (North American Edition), RetrievedJanuary 17, 2009, from http://dictionary.msn.com/Şahin Güler, R (2006), Analysis on the Relationship betweenthe Proactive Personality Structures and Self-RespectLevels of Individuals, Published Dissertation. SakaryaUniversity, Sakarya, Turkey.Yücel. A.S. & Koçak C. (2008). The mental images ofpreservice teachers related to teacher conceptforming imaginary metaphor groups. Current Trends inChemical Education Curricula Prague 2008.© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 129-137 137

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2010, 6(2), 139-147Is Conceptual Growth anEvolutionary Development of aPrime Structure?A dialectic Davydovian ApproachYilmaz SaglamGaziantep Üniversitesi, Gaziantep, TURKEYReceived 27 April 2009; accepted 25 January 2010The aim of this study was to empirically examine the learning process from dialecticDavydovian perspective and ascertain in what way the students’ conception grows in thisprocess. Two students’ dialogues became the focus of concern. The students at the startreceived a diagnostic test. The aim of the test was to ensure whether the studentspossessed the required knowledge necessary to fulfill the tasks in the protocol, andwhether the intended structure was novel to them. The students then participated in ateaching interview. The results indicated that conceptual growth happened in anevolutionary way. That is, in the course of learning, the student’s prior conception alteredevolutionary from one form to another, but retaining everything positive.Keywords: Abstraction, Conceptual Development, Conceptual ChangeINTRODUCTIONResearch on learning process in science educationhas been mostly affected by the ideas of Jean Piaget(1975). He viewed learning as conceptual change and, tohim, the change occurs when one interacts with one’ssurrounding through two unchanging processes:assimilation and accommodation. These are called byhim self-regulatory actions. To Piaget, one’s selfregulatoryactions lead to construction andreconstruction of more detailed and strengthenedmental structures. To him, one cannot perceive a thinguntil his/her mind has constructed a knowledgestructure that enables its perception. Enthused by thisPiagetian approach, In 1982 Posner, Strike, Hewson,and Gertzog offered a conceptual change model (CCM).According to this model, one’s dissatisfaction withthe existing mental structure initiates a revolutionaryconceptual change process. When one gets dissatisfiedCorrespondence to: Yilmaz Saglam, Assistant Professor ofScience Education, Gaziantep Üniversitesi, EğitimFakültesi, 27310, Gaziantep, TURKIYEE-mail: ysaglam@gantep.edu.trwith the present structure and finds the to-beconstructedstructure (rival or competing structure)more intelligible, plausible and/or fruitful, theaccommodation of the new structure may take place.This model was found effective in teaching scientificconcepts (Baser, 2006). For instance, one might believethat acids are dangerous. The instructor shows thatlemon juice is also acidic, but it is safe to drink (onegetting dissatisfied with one’s own knowledge) andinforms that some sorts of acids could be dangerous,but some could be truly safe (one finding to-beconstructedstructure more intelligible, plausible and/orfruitful). Since 1982, this approach has become theleading framework (Vosniadou & Ioannides, 1998) thatguided research on conceptual change process ofscientific knowledge.This Piagetian approach to the growth of scientificknowledge through accommodation further assumesthat within the conceptual change process, two differentconceptions compete in terms of their intelligibility,plausibility, and/or fruitfulness and, consequently, oneof them may become the winner of the competition. Inthis course, one’s existing conceptual structure isfundamentally reorganized in order to allowunderstanding of the intended knowledge structureCopyright © 2010 by EURASIAISSN: 1305-8223

Y. SaglamState of the literature• Piaget viewed learning as conceptual change and,to him, the change occurs when one interacts withone’s surrounding through two processes:assimilation and accommodation.• The accommodation process is seen as resemblingthe revolutionary development of scientifictheories in the history of science.• Davydov views learning as an evolutionarydevelopment of a prime structure.• According to Hershkowitz, Schwarz, and Dreyfus,in the course of learning one passes through threeepistemic actions: recognizing, building-with, andconstructing.Contribution of this paper to the literature• The paper offers new insights into the nature ofstudents’ conceptual growth.• It provides a novel perspective (RBC model) forthe construction of scientific knowledge.• It further emphasizes the importance ofrecognizing the elements of the activity setting andcontemplating the elements from the point of viewprovided in the construction of scientificknowledge.(Vosniadou, Ioannides, Dimitrakopoulou, &Papademetriou, 2001; Stafylidou & Vosniadou, 2004).Accordingly, the change process is viewed as radical orrevolutionary. Various comparable names have beenattributed to this process. Amongst them areRevolutionary Science (Kuhn, 1996), Hard CoreChanges (Lakatos, 1970), Strong Restructuring (Carey,1985) and Radical Restructuring (Vosniadou, 1994) (seeHarrison & Treagust, 2001 for a review of them). Theseapproaches viewed the accommodation process asresembling the revolutionary development of scientifictheories in the history of science. To them, how theorieswere revised or altered in the past seemed to be quitesimilar to what happens in one’s own mental knowledgestructure. For instance, the shift from the initial notionthat the earth is a flat object with no motion to the ideathat the earth is a sphere object rotating around its axis(Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992), and the shift from theconception of natural numbers to that of the fractions(Stafylidou & Vosniadou, 2004) are seen as radicalconceptual changes.Unlike Piaget, according to Hershkowitz, Schwarz,and Dreyfus (2001), in the course of learning one passesthrough three epistemic actions: recognizing, buildingwith,and constructing, abbreviated as RBC model. Tothis model, in the constructing action, the learner firstrecognizes the elements of the activity setting,contemplates the elements from the point of viewprovided and ultimately cognizes (come to understand)how those elements are meaningfully interrelated. Thisapproach further alleges that conceptual growth is a nota radical reorganization of central conceptions. Rather,it is an evolutionary development of an existingstructure constantly altering from one form to another(Davydov, 1990, pp 253-258), but retaining substantialelements of the former structure (Nussbaum, 1989).This view is elaborated in the following section andused as a theoretical framework for the present paper.THEORETİCAL FRAMEWORKDavydov referred to the learning process orscientific knowledge construction as ‘abstraction’. Tohim, abstraction process starts from an initial unrefinedfirst form and ends up with a developed more complexone. To Hershkowitz et al. (2001), this process occursvia three observable epistemic actions: recognizing,building-with, and constructing. Recognizing is referred tobe identifying a formerly constructed knowledgestructure within a particular problem setting. Buildingwithis associated with an action in which one recognizesan existing knowledge structure within the new problemsetting and builds with it to a solution. This mentalaction could be observed when one solves a problemwithout getting assisted. Finally, constructing is viewed asan action in which one recognizes the elements of aproblem setting, contemplates the elements from thepoint of view provided by a mediator, and finallycognize (come to understand) how these elements thatonce seemed to be unrelated are indeed meaningfullyinterlinked. And ultimately builds with this linkage to asolution. The constructing action hence leads to acreation of cognition, a novel mental structure. Thisnovel structure could be a new method, strategy orconception. By making use of this new structure, onesolves a problem or justifies a solution (see Hershkowitzet al., 2001; Ozmantar, 2005 for a detailed review ofabstraction process).However, the construction of this novel structure isindeed not an emergence of a completely novel idea(not a revolution or radical rearrangement of formerconceptions); rather, it is a development of an existingidea (an evolution or constant progression of an earlierconception). According to, for instance, Davydov(1990):“Within the evolving natural whole, all things areconstantly changing, passing into other things, vanishing.But each thing, according to dialectics, does not merelychange or disappear- it passes into its own other, which,within some broader interaction of things, proceeds as anecessary consequence of the being of the thing that hasvanished, retaining everything positive from it (within thelimits of all nature this is also a universal connection)” (p.253).140 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 139-147

A Dialectic Davydovian ApproachTo Davydov (1990), the constructing action beginswith the recognition of the elements of the activitysetting, which involves both idealized objects of sensoryobservations (pp 246-247) and a prime conception (p.255). Then, it continues with the alteration of the primeconception to a different more complex one. In thiscourse of change, the prime conception constantlydevelops from one form to another, but retainingsubstantial elements of it. The aim of this paper istherefore to examine the learning process from adialectic Davydovian perspective and to ascertain inwhat way the students’ conceptions grow in thisprocess.THE RESEARCH QUESTIONThe following research question became the focus ofconcern:1. Is conceptual growth a constant developmentof a prime conception to a more complex one or aradical rearrangement of former conceptions?DESIGN AND PROCEDURESTask Design and PilotingThis study is part of an ongoing project on theabstraction process of scientific knowledge. In a formerstudy by Saglam (manuscript submitted for publication),the learning process is examined within the RBC model(Hershkowitz et al., 2001). Accordingly, a teachinginterview protocol (see Appendix A) was designed. Theprotocol is specifically designed so as to have thestudents discover that the formation rate of acompound depends on its coefficient in a balancedequation. The results of the former study indicated thatin the abstraction of rate concept, one passed throughthree epistemic actions: recognizing, building-with, andconstructing (RBC). In the present paper, however, thelearner’s conceptual growth will be focus of concern.The protocol consisted of five questions and thequestions asked the students to compute the speed of aracehorse, melting rate of an ice cube, rate of a reactionthat involves a reactant and product, and rate of areaction that consists of multiple reactants and products(Silberberg, 2003, pp 667-671). The questions aimed tohave students be able to compute the consumption rateof melting ice and the formation rate of water, and alsorecognize that melting rate of ice is equal to formationrate of water, the consumption rate of reactants is equalto the formation rate of products, rate has a negativevalue for the reactants and a positive one for theproducts, and finally the consumption or formation rateof a compound depends on its coefficient in a balancedequation.The protocol was piloted three times. This pilotingenabled the researcher to formulate certain revisions inwording, order and difficulty of the questions.Furthermore, in the interviews he was principally toprobe students’ ideas, provide them with adequateresponse time, and ask to clarify and elaborate on theirsolutions. However, when the students get stuck, comeup with inaccurate solutions or could not come to anagreement with their partner, the mediator thenintervened the dialogue by directing and providing foci,rephrasing students’ utterances, making comments ontheir solutions, and, when necessary, providing withdetailed explanations for an appropriate solution.Sample DescriptionFor the present study, the students were selectedpurposefully (Patton, 2002, pp 45-46) on the basis oftwo criteria: (1) whether the students possessprerequisite knowledge necessary for theimplementation of all the questions in the protocol, and(2) whether the target structure is novel to them. In theselection of the students, a diagnostic test wasadministered. The test aimed to identify the studentswho had prerequisite knowledge necessary to execute allthe questions in the protocol. The test consisted also offive questions. The questions asked the students tocompute the speed of a racehorse, identify thecomponents of a chemical formula, balance a chemicalreaction, figure out the concentration of a substance in achemical reaction, and compute the rate of a reactionbetween hydrogen and oxygen gas. The students thatbecame successful on the first four questions and failedon the fifth one were selected for an interview.The data were collected from a total of six students,of whom four students were female and two were male.The students’ ages ranged from 16 to 18 years old. Inorder to monitor students’ learning progress over anextended time period, the students and the researchermet at the school four times within a two week periodand each meeting lasted approximately 30-50 minutes.The data collection therefore lasted around 640 minutes.All interviews were videotaped, and later transcribedand translated from Turkish into English. In translating,special attention was paid to precision of the meaning.The MethodIn the present paper, a case study approach wasutilized (Patton, 2002, pp. 447-457) and the case beingstudied is the abstraction process of rate concept. It isspecifically aimed to gain deep understanding of thenature of conceptual growth in this course. Accordingly,in-depth interviews were conducted with students andthe data was analyzed according to the RBC model. The© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 139-147 141

Y. Saglammodel served as a framework and became reference inthe course of analysis.At the start of the interviews, the students weretrained to think aloud (Ericsson & Simon, 1980; Patton,2002, p. 385). For this purpose, the students were givena simple task (i.e. computing one of the internal anglesof a triangle) and asked to utter vocally their thoughtswhile reflecting upon the task. The students were alsotold that whatever they think was important for us andno thought could be ridicules, meaningless or silly. Inthis way, it is aimed to encourage them to verbalize theiremerging thoughts without restraining.All the interviews were videotaped. During theinterviews, the students were provided with some labequipments such as a balance, ice cubes, and plasticcontainers. In order to see learning process within agroup-interactive context, four students were paired.Each pair was trained to attain a number of skills. Theseinclude being able to work on the problemcooperatively, provide and explain a solution, argue andgenerate comments on the solution, try to persuadetheir partner, and come to an agreement if possible.Then, the students (two pairs and two individuals) wereasked to go through the questions from the beginningand provide a solution. Having provided an acceptablesolution for a problem, the students were then allowedto proceed to the next one. Nevertheless, when thestudents got stuck, came up with inappropriatesolutions, or could not come to an agreement with theirpartner, the mediator interfered in the discussion bydirecting and providing foci, rephrasing students’utterances, making comments on their solutions, andsometimes providing complete and detailedexplanations.RESULTSIn the analysis, the students’ video records and theirwritten works were first transcribed and then translatedinto English. In the transcriptions, the names used arepseudonyms. The students’ utterances were numberedand three dots were used to point at either the studentpaused or spoke inaudibly. The students’ expressionswere next analyzed based on the operational definitionsshown in Table 1. Furthermore, two additionalcolleagues were also asked to code the dataindependently and discrepancies were resolved bydiscussion. Accordingly, the emergent codes wereagreed on by everyone, indicating strong inter-coderreliability (Miles & Huberman, 1994).Hershkowitz et al. (2001) refers to abstraction astheoretical conception in the sense of Davydov. Theyalso refer to it as an activity in the sense of activitytheory, in which a series of epistemic actions(recognizing, building-with, and constructing) areundertaken by an individual or group of people. Context(though possessing no one clear-cut definition in thescience literature) is referred to the factors that framedthe structure and meaning of human action. It involvedone’s conceptions and experiences, socio-cultural toolsor instruments at one’s disposal including both physicaland symbolic means, procedures and social interactions.According to Davydov (1990), abstraction starts outfrom an initial entity and ultimately develops into amore complex structure through a dialectical activity.The initial entity referred to one’s existing knowledgestructure. In the course of abstraction, this structuredeveloped into a more complex one.One pair of the students’ dialogue was selected foranalysis. This particular pair uttered their ideas in detail.This is opportunely allowed the researcher to trace theflow of their ideas. In other dialogues, the students werenot adequately able to elaborate on their ideas and thisyet restricted to monitor them as they work on theproblems. Accordingly, they were excluded from theanalysis. The pair selected worked on the tasks forapproximately 160 minutes, which were spread over atwo week period. The interview was transcribed andlater translated into English. In the subsequentdialogues, the letters F and A stand for the students andTable 1. Operational definitions for epistemic actions and terms adapted from Hershkowitz et al. (2001)1. Recognizing action It refers to an action in which one identifies a formerly constructed knowledge structurewithin a particular problem setting. One recognizes, for instance, Newton’s law ofmotion in a particular problem.2. Building-with action It refers to an action in which one recognizes a formerly constructed knowledge withina new problem setting and makes use of it in order to solve it. For instance, onerecognizes Newton’s law of motion in a particular problem setting and handles theproblem using this notion (a=f/m).3. Constructing action It refers to an action in which one recognizes the elements of the activity setting,contemplates the elements from the point of view provided by the mediator, andultimately cognize (come to understand) how those elements are meaningfullyinterrelated. To illustrate, in a problem setting let presume one is focusing on mass,force and acceleration, thinking over these elements from the perspective of Newton’slaw of motion, and cognizing the important linkage amongst them, (a=f/m).142 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 139-147

the letter R stands for the mediator. The students’utterances are numbered to ease the analysis process.Note that the following data and its analysis were alsoutilized in the former study (Saglam, manuscriptsubmitted for publication). In the previous study, thisanalysis signified the dialectic nature of abstractionprocess. In this paper, however, the nature ofconceptual growth will be the focus of concern.In Phase I, the students computed the speed of aracing horse, designed an experiment in order to findmelting rate of an ice cube, computed the melting rateof ice and formation rate of water. They further foundout that the melting and formation rates possessopposing signs. Then, the students computed the rate ofan A → B type reaction. They figured that theconsumption rate of A is equal to the formation rate ofB, but they had opposing signs. Thereafter, the studentswere asked to compute the rate of a reaction betweenethylene and ozone gas. The dialogue then continued asfollows:Passage I. The students could not recognize tobe-constructedstructure.F345: Reaction rate.A346: (Reading the question) Express the rate ofreaction in terms of the change in concentration of each ofthe reactants and products.A347: (Thinking on the problem)F348: How can it be solved? (laughing)A349: It is a little bit complicated. What is the questionabout?F350: How can we find them separately?A351: (Reading the question) Express the rate ofreaction in terms of the change in concentration of each ofthe reactants and products.F352: Shall we write the concentration of ozoneunderneath it (O3)?A353: How?F354: The concentration of ozone gas.A355: Okay, let’s put it. This is ozone concentration.These are reactants and these are products.F356: Uhu.A357: (Reading the question) Express the rate ofreaction in terms of the change in concentration of each ofthe reactants and products. The problem is asking tocalculate these (C 2H 4O and O 2). I think we could notsolve this problem. How can we find the rate of this(C 2H 4)?F358: I do not know this one (C 2H 4).A359: Shall we put 10 seconds here, I wonder.F360: One oxygen moved from this side to another side. Iwonder, If oxygen is formed, this belongs to this, does notit?A361: I do not know. This is a very hard question.A Dialectic Davydovian ApproachIn this passage, the students were asked to determinethe rate of a reaction between ozone and ethylene gas.However, the students found the problem somewhatcomplicated (F348, A349, F350). The students were notable to recognize to-be-constructed structure within thisnovel problem setting. They could not recognize theinternal connection between relative quantity ofmolecules and their coefficients in a balanced equation.Then, the dialogue continued as follows:Passage II. The student F built with animproper knowledge structure.F362: (Reading the question) Express the rate of reactionin terms of the change in concentration of each of thereactants and products.A363: I wonder whether we could do it in the way as yousaid.F364: Because this is ozone gas.A365: Then, one O, one O (oxygen) is 2.1 times 10 -5molar, is not it?F366: It is likely, but not exactly, not exactly.A367: Then.F368: Because this decreases, one oxygen, one element, isdetached from ozone. Is this possible you think?A369: Uhmm It is possible. Then, if this O (referring toC 2H 4O) is 2.1 times 10 -5 , then this O (referring to O 2), Iwonder, is 1.10 times 10 -5 molar.F370: Since uhmm, this decreases.A371: How much of it decreased? 2.1. Then, out of 3,2,2,1 decreased, did not it?F372: Since this (referring to O 3) decreases, since this(referring to O 2) is detached. It (O 2) becomes 2.1 times10 -5 molar. I think something like this.A373: Is this ozone.F374: This one.A375: is it O 3?F376: Uhu.A377: The concentration of ozone, then, if it is 3.2, if itdecreases to 1.10.F378: It happens this way, I think it should be like that.This (referring to C 2H 4O) becomes 1.1 does not it?Because this one (referring to O 3) is decreasing and that(referring to O 2) is detached.In this passage, the student F recognized and builtwith an inappropriate knowledge structure and hencebrought a mistaken solution for the problem. Sheincorrectly thought that there is a connection betweensubscript of an entity and its relative quantity of itslinked products (F372, F378). She stated, ‘Since this(O 3) decreases, since this (O 2) is removed. It (O 2)becomes 2.1 times 10 -5 molar. I think something likethis’ (F372) and ‘I think it should be like that. This(C 2H 4O) becomes 1.1 does not it? Because this one (O 3)is decreasing and that (O 2) is removed’ (F378). Thesestatements seemed to indicate that she believed that© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 139-147 143

Y. Saglambecause the concentration of ozone gas decreased andoxygen gas was removed from it, the concentration ofoxygen gas formed had to be 2.1 times 10 -5 molar and,because the remaining concentration is 1.1 times 10 -5molar, then the concentration of C 2H 4O had to be 1.1times 10 -5 molar. She seemed to think that as thereaction proceeds, ozone gas split into two parts, onepart of which is removed as oxygen gas and theremaining part is the oxygen atom (which joins in themolecule of C 2H 4O). This finding also points to that sheis not familiar with the linkage amongst the relativequantity of the compounds and their coefficients in abalanced equation. From this point on, the mediatorjoined into the dialogue and provided some assistance.Passage III. The student F’s constructing andbuilding with action.First Part: R474: Let us talk about the reaction equation. Letus read this reaction together. One ethylene molecule reacted withone molecule of ozone. Is that correct?A475: Yes.R476: After that, one molecule of this (referring toC 2H 4O) and one oxygen gas is formed. Is that correct?A477: Yes.F478: Yes.R479: Is there any leftover of this gas (referring to C 2H 4)and this gas (referring to ozone gas)?A480: NoF481: NoR482: Of course, they do not disappear. What happens tothem is that they converted into products. Like when iceconverted into water, was there any ice leftover.F483: NoR484: Then, reactants.A485: Equal to products.R486: Of course, if their concentrations are equal to oneanother, and if one of them is not more than the other.Let’s look at the equation, if we had 10 for each of these(reactants), what would happen?F487: Similarly, there would be 10 of this (referring toC 2H 4O) and another 10 of oxygen.A488: There would be 10 of each and 20 as a total.Second PartF489: We had already checked the reaction equation and itwas balanced.R490: Now, let us look at the amount of ozone consumed.How much of it is consumed?A491: 2.1F492: 2.1 times 10 -5 .R493: molar consumed.F494: Yes.R495: How much of oxygen is formed? What is the amountof oxygen formed?A496: Then, one oxygen 2.1 times 10 -5 , in other words, itdecreased.R497: Let us think this way. If there are 10 of this (referringto C 2H 4) and this (referring to ozone gas), after they react,how many of this (referring to C 2H 4O) and this (referring tooxygen gas) would be formed?F498: Then, oxygen is 2.1 times 10 -5 molar over second.R499: Are you talking about rate or concentration?F500: I mean concentration. That is 2.1 times 10 -5molar.R501: Then, this (1.1 times 10 -5 ) is wrong, is not it?F502: I thought based on your comments.R503: Are you sure with your explanation?F504: I am not exactly sure.In this passage, the mediator provided with a seriesof foci (R474 – R549), which seemed to facilitate thestudents to focus on particular, and previouslyunnoticed elements of the activity setting (Van Oers,2001). In this focusing, the students’ attention weredrawn on such recognizable aspects of the setting as thecoefficients of the compounds, reaction equation,quantity of products and reactants, simultaneousconversion of ice into water, and leftover. In this part,the students were also pointed to how these elementsare interlinked to one another in a meaningful way.They were pointed to how the coefficients in a balancedreaction equation indicate the number of compoundsconsumed or produced (R474-R482). At one point ofthe dialogue (F487), the student F’s utterance, ‘similarly,there would be 10 of this (referring to C 2H 4O) andanother 10 of oxygen’ provides evidence that she hadbeen able to construct the important connectionamongst the coefficients of entities and their relativequantities in a balanced equation.In the second part, the activity turned intorecognizing the novel structure within the new settingand building with it to a solution. In this activity, ratherthan constructing a new more complex structure, thestudent F recognized and built with the novelknowledge structure to a solution. Her solution, ‘Then,oxygen is 2.1 times 10 -5 molar over second (F498)provides evidence that she was able to recognize thenovel knowledge structure within the new problemsetting (F490) and build-with it to a solution. However,this novel knowledge structure seems to be still fragilefor this particular student because when asked whethershe is sure about her solution, she expressed herhesitation in F504. To Monaghan and Ozmantar (2006),this novel structure is still weak and needs to beconsolidated in further activities.DATA ANALYSISAn analysis of the students F’s utterances indicatedthat she initially thought that as ice melting down, itsimultaneously converted into water. She later onbelieved as the reaction proceeds, ozone gas split intotwo parts, one part of which is detached as oxygen gas144 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 139-147

A Dialectic Davydovian Approachand the remaining part is the oxygen atom, which joinsin the molecule of C 2H 4O. This understanding led herto mistakenly conclude that the decrease in theconcentration of ozone gas is equal to the increase inthe concentration of oxygen gas and the remainingconcentration of ozone is equal to the concentration ofC 2H 4O. This notion soon after changed into theconception that as the reaction proceeds, ozone gassimultaneously converted into oxygen gas and themolecule of C 2H 4O. And the remaining is still ozonegas. This novel understanding led to her putting forwardan accurate solution for the question. She ascertainedthat the concentration of ozone gas consumed is equalto the concentration of oxygen gas and of C 2H 4Oformed.In Passage II, the student F seemed to believe that asthe reaction proceeds, ozone gas split into two parts,one part of which is detached as oxygen gas and theremaining part is the oxygen atom, which joins in themolecule of C 2H 4O. This belief however provided herwith an inappropriate point of view and led to herpossessing an improper conception that ozone gas splitinto two parts, one part of which is detached as oxygengas and the remaining part is the oxygen atom. Thisbelief however led her to bring in a mistaken solutionfor the problem. She confidently claimed that theconcentration of oxygen gas formed was 2.1 times 10 -5molar and that of C 2H 4O was 1.1 times 10 -5 molar.In Passage III, the mediator discursively focused thestudents’ attention on some particular elements of theactivity setting. He focused the students’ attention onsuch ‘sensorily perceivable’ elements as the reactionequation, the coefficients of the compounds, thesymbols of C 2H 4 (ethylene gas), O 3 (ozone gas), O 2(oxygen gas), and C 2H 4O, the relative quantity of thecompounds (R474, R476, R479), and also on a ‘sensorilyunperceivable’ element (a prime knowledge structure),simultaneous conversion of ice into water (R482). Withthis assistance, the student F in respond seemed torecognize the elements of the activity setting,contemplate the elements from the point of view (thecoefficient of a compound signifies its relative quantityin a balanced equation) provided, and ultimately cognizehow those elements are meaningfully interlinked. Shecognized there is an important connection between thecoefficient of an entity and its relative quantity in abalanced equation. Her utterance, ‘Similarly, there wouldbe 10 of this (referring to C 2H 4O) and another 10 ofoxygen’ (F487) provide evidence that she was able toestablish the internal connection, a novel structure, thatthe number of reactants consumed is equal to thenumber of products formed.In this constructing activity, the student F’s initialnotion of that as melting down, ice simultaneouslyconverted into water changed to the conception of thatas the reaction proceeds, ozone gas simultaneouslyconverted into oxygen gas and the molecule of C 2H 4O.From a Davydovian perspective, in this change process,her conception altered from one form to another in aconstant flux, but retaining everything positive. Herprime conception (as melting down, ice issimultaneously converted into water) passed into itsown other (ozone gas simultaneously converted intooxygen gas and the molecule of C 2H 4O), but retainingeverything positive (simultaneous conversion intoproducts). Therefore, the idea of ‘simultaneousconversion into products’ were retained in bothconceptions, and the student F’s latter conception isinterrelated to her former one in this way. That is, whatis-retainedcontinued to exist within the subsequentconception and her succeeding conception is related tothe preceding one in this way. Because every conceptionis related to a preceding one through what-is-retained,through a core element, the change process happens inan evolutionary developmental way.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONThe data signified that conceptual growth is anevolutionary constant development rather than arevolutionary drastic change. In Passage II, for instancethe student F seemed to believe (idea 2) that as thereaction proceeds, ozone gas split into two parts, onepart of which is detached as oxygen gas and theremaining part is the oxygen atom (which then joins inthe molecule of C 2H 4O). This belief however providedher with an inappropriate point of view and caused herpossessing an improper conception that ozone gas splitinto two parts, one part of which is detached as oxygengas and the remaining part is the oxygen atom. Whereas,in Passage III her notion changed into the conception(idea 3) that as the reaction proceeds, ozone gassimultaneously converted into oxygen gas and themolecule of C 2H 4O. At this point, an advocate ofconceptual change model would argue rightly that thischange is radical and therefore revolutionary.However, this point is in fact where the advocates ofconceptual change are mistaken. They compare astudent’s initial and after-instruction conceptions on aparticular matter of concern. Nevertheless, thiscomparison is indeed erroneous.When the present data is examined, in theconstructing action the student F focused on theelements of the activity setting and simultaneousconversion of ice into water (idea 1) was one of thoseelements. This idea served as a prime structure for theconstruction of idea 3. Therefore, the idea 1 (as meltingdown, ice is simultaneously converted into water)altered into idea 3 (ozone gas simultaneously convertedinto oxygen gas and the molecule of C 2H 4O), butretaining everything positive (simultaneous conversioninto products). And because what-is-retained© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 139-147 145

Y. Saglam(simultaneous conversion into products) continued toexist within the idea 1 and 3, both ideas are interrelatedto one another in this way. Therefore, the student F’sconception altered from one form to another in anevolutionary way rather than in a revolutionary drasticone. In this course, one’s prime structure passed into itsown other, but retained everything positive. And whatis-retainedcontinued to survive within the subsequentconceptions and every succeeding conception wasrelated to the preceding one in this way. Accordingly, aformer structure is always a prerequisite and has to berecognized first and foremost for the construction of afurther more complex structure.REFERENCESBaser, M. (2006) Fostering Conceptual Change by CognitiveConflict Based Instruction on Students’ Understandingof Heat and Temperature Concepts. Eurasia Journal ofMathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 96-114.Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge,MA: A Bradford Book. The MIT Press.Davydov, V. V. (1990). Soviet studies in mathematicseducation: Vol. 2. Types of generalization in instruction:Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of schoolcurricula (J. Kilpatrick, Ed., & J. Teller, Trans.). Reston,VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.(Original work published 1972)Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: apowerful framework for improving science teaching andlearning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671–688.Duschl, R.A. & Gitomer, D.H. (1991). Epistemologicalperspectives on conceptual change:Implications foreducational practice. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 28: 839–858.Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data.Psychological Review, 87(3), 215-251.Greiffenhagen, C., & Sherman, W. (2008). Kuhn andconceptual change: on the analogy between conceptualchanges in science and children. Science & Education, 17,1-26.Harrison A. G., & Treagust D. F. (2001). Conceptual changeusing multiple interpretive perspectives: two casestudies in secondary school chemistry. InstructionalScience, 29, 45–85.Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001).Abstraction in context: Epistemic actions. Journal forResearch in Mathematics Education, 32, 195-222.Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions, (3rd Ed).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology ofscientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A.Musgrave, eds, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nussbaum, J. (1989). Classroom conceptual change:Philosophical perspectives. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 11, 530–540.Ozmantar, M. F. (2005). An investigation of the formation ofmathematical abstractions through scaffolding. UnpublishedPh.D. thesis, University of Leeds.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Variety in qualitative inquiry: theoreticalorientations. In C. D. Laughton, V. Novak, D. E.Axelsen, K. Journey, & K. Peterson (Eds.), Qualitativeresearch & evaluation methods. Thousands Oaks, London:Sage Publications.Piaget, J. (1975). The development of thought. New York, NY:Viking Press.Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyondcold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefsand classroom contextual factors in the process ofconceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2),167–200.Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA (1982)Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward atheory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2),211–227Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive developmentin social context. New York, NY. Oxford University Press.Saglam, Y. Abstraction and the formation of scientificknowledge (manuscript submitted for publication).Silberberg, M. S. (2003). Chemistry: the molecular nature of matterand change (3 rd Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-HillCompanies.Stafylidou, S. and Vosniadou, S., (2004), The development ofstudents’ understanding of the numerical value offractions, Learning and Instruction, 14, 503-518.Strauss A. and Corbin J., (1998), Basics of qualitative research:techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process ofconceptual change. Learning and Instruction 4, 45–69.Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of theearth: a study of conceptual change in childhood.Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptualchange to science education: a psychological point ofview. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213–1230.Vosniadou , S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., &Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learningenvironments to promote conceptual change in science.Learning & Instruction, 11, 381-419.Vygotsky, L.S.: 1978, Mind in Society, Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA.Wertsch, J.V. (1993). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approachto mediated action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press.Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.146 © 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 139-147

A Dialectic Davydovian ApproachAPPENDIX AInterview ProtocolPhase I:1. If a racehorse were able to run 2 km between 4 th and20 th minutes, what is the average speed of the horse meterper second?2. Now, let us try to find out the melting rate of an icecube. Please discuss and design an experiment in order tofind out the melting rate of an ice cube at human bodytemperature. Note that required materials will be providedto you.3. In the following reaction, molecule A converts intomolecule B. During the first 90 seconds of the reaction, theconcentration of A declines from 1.2 M to 0.75 M.Calculate the rate of reaction in terms of the change inconcentration of A and B separately, and then compare thevalues you have obtained.A BPhase II:4. According to the following equation, ethylene gas reactswith ozone. During the first 10 seconds of the reaction,ozone concentration decreased from 3.2 * 10 -5 M to1.10 *10 -5 M. Express the rate of reaction in terms of thechange in concentration of each of the reactants andproducts and compare the values you have obtained.C 2H 4(g) + O 3(g) C 2H 4O(g) + O 2(g)5. Hydrogen gas reacts with oxygen to form wateraccording to the following equation. Between 5 th and 25 thseconds, the concentration of oxygen decreases from 1.0 Mto 0.8 M. Express the rate of reaction in terms of thechange in concentration of oxygen, hydrogen, and water?2H 2(g) + O 2(g) 2H 2O(g)© 2010 EURASIA, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 6(2), 139-147 147

www.ejmste.comwww.ejmste.comVolume 5, Issue Number 2, May 2010Research ArticlesEffects of Hands-on Learning Stations on Building American Elementary Teachers’ Understanding 85-99about Earthand Space Science ConceptsNermin Bulunuz and Olga S. JarrettConceptual Change in Science: A Processes of Argumentation 101-110George ZhouProspective Chemistry Teachers' Conceptions of Chemical Thermodymanics and Kinetics 111-120Mustafa Sözbilir, Tacettin Pınarbaşı and Nurtaç CanpolatMotivation to Learn Science and Cognitive Style 121-128Albert ZeyerAn Analysis on Proactive-Reactive Personality Profiles in Student-teacher Relationship 129-137through the Metaphorical Thinking Approach of Self-Generated QuestionsAyşe Seda Yücel, Canan Koçak and Serpil CulaIs Conceptual Growth an Evolutionary Development of a Prime Structure? 139-147A dialectic Davydovian ApproachYılmaz SağlamE-ISSN: 1305-8223E-ISSN: 1305-8223