Common misconceptions in nuclear chemistry unit - Science Direct

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 1432–1436

WCES-2010

Common misconceptions in nuclear chemistry unit Necla Dönmez Ustaa *, Alipaúa Ayasa a

Fatih Faculty of Education, KTU, Trabzon, 61335, Turkey

Received October 13, 2009; revised December 22, 2009; accepted January 7, 2010

Abstract Students have some misunderstandings in their minds as a result of their experiences acquired before they come to the learning media and during learning process. Such misunderstandings in students’ minds obstruct performance of an effective concept teaching. Teachers, who are aware of such misunderstandings in students’ minds, can plan teaching by considering such misunderstandings and can design activities to help their students to construct these concepts in their mind scientifically. The present study is a literature review intended for determining common misunderstandings in nuclear chemistry unit. Misunderstandings in nuclear chemistry unit shall be displayed as a whole at the end of the study. Also, both of program developers and teachers, who guide students for ensuring their conceptual learning, shall be assisted in planning teaching/learning media. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Keywords: Nuclear chemistry; radioactivity; radiation; misunderstandings; misconceptions.

1. Introduction The relation between matter and atom resembles the relation between knowledge and concept. Concepts in people’s mind and relations between them build a knowledge network or a knowledge construction (Doymuú et al., 1998). Such concepts, which are building structures of knowledge, are abstract thinking units. It is known that students have troubles in understanding certain concepts and have concepts contradicting the concepts accepted by scientific societies. The emerging concepts in students as different from those accepted by scientific societies have been mentioned in the literature by various researchers in various expressions such as “misconceptions” (Nakhleh & Krajcik, 1994), “alternative conceptions” (Gonzalez, 1997; Ayas & Coútu, 2001), “naive conceptions” (Fensham, 1988) and “spontaneous knowledge” (Treagust, 1988; EryÕlmaz & TatlÕ, 1998). Although such conceptions have not been accepted by scientific societies, they have settled in students’ minds and they generally resist changing. Therefore, misconceptions affect students’ next learning negatively (Anderson, 1986; Canpolat et all., 2004). In this context, first of all, knowledge acquired by students previously should be discovered to teach them concepts effectively. The theory of “constructivism” explains why students generate different concepts from those accepted by scientific societies in their minds and this is an approach, which has been highly adopted by educators in recent

* Necla Dönmez Usta E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.214

Necla Dönmez Usta and Alipas¸a Ayasa / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 1432–1436

1433

years. The constructivist approach is described as that the individual combines any knowledge acquired by him by interacting with events and objects surrounding him/her with his existing knowledge acquired before to construct new information. This is substantially based on Piaget’s mental psychology, Ausebell’s meaningful learning theory, Bruner’s research theory, Posner et al’s conceptual change and Johnson & Johnson’s social interaction theory (Köseo÷lu & Kavak, 2001). It may be said that this theory is based on pragmatism and existentialism from the point of view of philosophy and progressivism and re-constructivism from the point of view of educational philosophies and a certain synthesis has occurred from both of the point of views (philosophic and educational). According to Bordner (1986), who is one of the most important advocates of this view, there is a little chance for transferring the knowledge from the teacher’s mind to the student’s mind without any change. In other words, knowledge acquired by a student at school depends on pre-knowledge acquired by him/her before he/she comes to school and those provided for him/her by the school. Therefore, students’ pre-knowledge and misconceptions should be discovered. Students should construct currently learnt knowledge on their pre-knowledge acquired by them previously. If their pre-knowledge is false, then currently learnt knowledge shall be false. Constructivist researchers claim that classroom teachers should discover their students views acquired by them previously, in other words, their preknowledge and then, start to teach a new subject (Taber, 1995). If teachers consider their students’ pre-knowledge, students shall be willing to combine their pre-knowledge with the new knowledge acquired by them. Therefore, preknowledge of students relating to the subject to be taught should be surfaced before planning educational activities and events. Teachers, who are aware of such misunderstandings, which may exist in their students’ minds, can plan teaching by considering such misunderstandings. Thus, studies displaying most frequently seen misconceptions in groups for each subject may help teachers in planning their teaching. Furthermore, making inventory of relevant studies conducted on a certain area within various intervals is useful to present all relevant studies collectively and to point out resource addresses. Therefore, a literature review has an important role in chemistry teaching just like in all areas. In the present study intended for this purpose, a literature review was conducted for discovering students’ common misconceptions in Nuclear Chemistry unit. 2. Method In this study, a literature review was conducted. First, the relevant studies conducted until today were searched by using key words like “nuclear chemistry”, radioactivity”, “radiation”, misconceptions teaching /learning etc. The selected studies were analyzed by using content analysis. Content analysis was conducted according to sample/study group, data collection tools and the misconceptions found at the end of the research. As a result of content analysis, which sample/study group and data collection tools were more employed and which misconceptions were seen more frequently were determined. 3. Findings Table 1 shows sample/study groups and data collection tools of some studies, which were included in this literature review, and the misconceptions found in them. Table 1: Content analyses of some studies conducted on Nuclear Chemistry unit Name of the study

Sample

Reading about Chernobyl: The Public Understanding of Radiation and Radioactivity (Eiskelhof, & Millar, 1988)

Mass communication tools like television and magazines Students at the age of 16

School Students’ Understanding of Processes Involving Radioactive Substances and Ionising Radiation (Millar & Gill, 1996)

Data collection tools Document analyz

Diagnostic questions

Misconceptions There is a radioactive leakage, wind carried radiation to Scandinavia. Radioactivity clouds, nuclear cloud, atom cloud, reactor releases radioactivity into air. Radiation and radioactivity concepts were not understood thoroughly and one was used instead of the other.

1434


Misconceptions in Radioactivity Subject (BaúlantÕ, 1999)

30 Students

Interview

Students Understanding of Ionising Radiation and Radioactivity (Prather ve Harrington, 2001). Determining and eliminating misconceptions of students studying at high school 2nd Grade in nuclear reactions and

277 Students

Interview and success test

180 students studying at high school 2nd Grade

Interview test

Effect of constructivist approach on successes and conceptual perceptions of students studying at high school 2nd Grade in nuclear reactions and radioactivity subject and determining misconceptions of students in this matter (YalçÕn,2003).

61 students studying at high school 2nd Grade

Pre-knowledge test, Rational thinking ability test, cognitive process skill test, concept test, success test and interview.

Misconceptions were determined about atom model, radioactivity, radioactive element, radioactive matter, radioactive features, radiation, nuclear reactions, natural and artificial radioactivity, exposure to radiation and pollution and half-life concepts.

Determining understanding level of teacher candidates in Radiation subject (Ceng et al., 2007)

Teacher candidates in different subjects (physics, chemistry, biology, science and social information)

Interview, and drawing

Determining understanding levels of science teacher candidates in some concepts in nuclear chemistry (radioactivity) (Dönmez Usta et al., 2009).

10 science teacher candidates from 4th Grade

Interview, drawing

Definitions of radiation and the relevant concepts, features of radioactive matters making them distinguish from other matters and causing their radiation, natural and artificial radiation resources, radioactive matters’ half-life- effect times, relation between half life-danger degree, relation between radioactive matter and frequency and the relation between their harmful effects on environment, methods for generating nuclear energy and their advantages and disadvantages, methods in protection against nuclear wastes and where radioactive matters are used. Half life, radiation, radioactivity, radioactive beam and types of nuclear reactions

radioactivity subject (Erçoklu, 2001).

and

test

Considering Periodic Table, there is no radioactive element among the elements. Radioactive matters poison people. In case of collision with the element of uranium, it cracks. Radioactive elements are stored in nuclear power plants The concepts of radioactive matter, radioactive resource and radioactivity were misused. One was used instead of the other When a radioactive element builds up a compound, it loses its radioactivity feature.. Radioactive halflife depends on physical states of matters.Any change does not occur in radioactive matters before their half-lives expire.

3.1. Sample/Study group As seen in Table 1, study groups of most of the studies consist of students. These studies included students studying at high school at the age of 14-18. Two of the studies were conducted on teacher candidates. In these studies, samples consist of teacher candidates studying different subjects (physics, chemistry, biology, science and social information). Furthermore, one of the studies intended to determine the relevant misconceptions in mass communication tools and mass communication tools like TV, magazines etc were studied. 3.2. Data collection tools As seen in Table 1, most of the studies employed interview method. In addition, concept, achievement and knowledge tests were also used. In one of the studies, pre-knowledge test, rational thinking test, cognitive process skill test, concept test, achievement test and interview were used altogether. In the studies using teacher candidates as sample, drawing technique was also used unlike the other studies. In this context, the studies using only interviews and the studies using interview along with tests take place under the scope of the present study.


1435

3.3. Misconceptions As seen in Table 1, misconceptions found in the studies using mass communication tools as sample are the expressions like “There is a radioactive leakage, wind carried radiation to Scandinavia. Radioactivity clouds, nuclear cloud, atom cloud, reactor releases radioactivity into air (Eiskelhof & Millar, 1988)”. The studies (Eijkelhof & Millar, 1988; Millar & Gill, 1996; BaúlantÕ, 1999; Prather & Harrington, 2001; YalçÕn & KÕlÕç, 2005; Ceng et al., 2007; Dönmez Usta et al., 2009) stated that radioactivity and radiation concepts were misused and one was used instead of the other and moreover, students and teacher candidates did not know these concepts thoroughly. In the literature, it was said that, students and teacher candidates could not see the difference between natural and artificial radiation resources thoroughly and mixed them with each other in their minds (BaúlantÕ, 1999; Aubrecht et al., 2000; YalçÕn, 2003; Ceng et al., 2007; Dönmez Usta et al., 2009). Radioactivity or radiation concept reminds painful results of Chernobyl Nuclear Accident and the atomic bombs thrown on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on organisms and brings negative views along with these concepts. Also, radiation phobia is felt in students (Max, 1993; Cohen, 1998). Misconceptions exist in students’ minds about exposure to radiation and pollution (Kaczmarek et al., 1987; Millar & Gill, 1994; Prather & Harrington, 2001). 4. Conclusion and Commendations Considering these studies incleded in this review according to their samples or study groups, it was determined that they were mostly conducted on students. This evidences the need for studies to be conducted on teacher candidates or teachers. Also, the studies in this paper focused on discovering misconceptions; however, there is no study intended for eliminating misconceptions. Thus, studies intended for eliminating misconceptions are required to be conducted. Considering these studies according to their data collection tools, it was determined that they mostly used interviews for data collection. There are studies employing tests in addition to interviews as well. However, studies in which different measurement and evaluation techniques are used in combination should be conducted. Considering these studies according to the found misconceptions, it was determined that in general, radioactivity, radiation, radioactive resource, radioactive feature etc concepts were not known well and they were misused. Thus, chemical teachers should consider that, such misconceptions may exist in their students also and plan their teaching by taking them into account. References Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’Explanations of Some Aspects of Chemical Reactions, Science Education, 70, 5, 549-563. Aubrect, G.J., Tomrick, D. A. ve Mc Ennis, B. (2000). Student Ideas About Radiation and Radioactivity. AAPT Meeting, Orlando. Ayas, A. ve Coútu, B. (2001). Lise-1 Ö÷rencilerinin Buharlaúma, Yo÷unlaúma ve Kaynama KavramlarÕnÕ Anlama Seviyeleri. Yeni Bin YÕlÕn BaúÕnda Fen Bilgisi E÷itimi Sempozyumu, Maltepe Üniversitesi, østanbul. Bodner, G.M. (1986). Constructivism: A Theory of Knowledege, Journal of Chemical Education., 63(10), 873-878. Canpolat, N., PÕnarbaúÕ, T., Bayrakçeken, S., Geban, Ö., 2004. Kimyadaki BazÕ YaygÕn YanlÕú Kavramalar , G.Ü. Gazi E÷itim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 24, SayÕ 1, 135–146. Ceng, Z., Dönmez, N., KarslÕ, F. ve Ayas, A. (2007). “Ö÷retmen AdaylarÕnÕn Radyasyon HakkÕndaki Anlama Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesi”, 1. Ulusal Kimya E÷itimi Kongresine sunulmuú bildiri. Cohen, L.B. (1998). Çok Geç Olmadan- Before It’s Too Late, TÜBøTAK Popüler Bilim KitaplarÕ, Nural MatbaacÕlÕk, Ankara. Dönmez Usta, N., KarslÕ, F., Ceng, Z. ve Ayas, A. (2009). “Çekirdek Kimyasi (Radyoaktivite) Ünitesindeki Bazi Kavramlara Yönelik Fen Bilgisi Ö÷retmen Adaylarinin Anlama Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesi”,Fen , Sosyal ve Çevre E÷itiminde Son Geliúmeler Kongresine sunulmuú bildiri. Doymuú, K., Canpolat, N., PÕnarbaúÕ, T., Bayrakçeken, S. ve Gürses, A., 1998. Üniversite Kimya Bölümü Ö÷rencilerinin BazÕ Kimya KavramlarÕnÕ Anlama Düzeyleri, Fen Bilimleri E÷itimi Sempozyumu, K.T.Ü., Trabzon. Eijkelhof, H. ve Robin, M. (1988). Reading about Chernobyl: The Public Understanding of Radiation and Radioactivity. Scholl Science Review, 70(251), p35-41. Erçoklu, H.F (2001). “Lise 2. SÕnÕf Ö÷rencilerinde Çekirdek Tepkimeleri ve Radyoaktiflik Konusunda YanlÕú KavramalarÕn Tespiti ve Giderilmesi”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi,G.Ü., Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, , Ankara. Erçoklu, H.F., 2001. “Lise 2. SÕnÕf Ö÷rencilerinde Çekirdek Tepkimeleri ve Radyoaktiflik Konusunda YanlÕú KavramalarÕn Tespiti ve Giderilmesi”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi,G.Ü., Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, , Ankara.

1436


EryÕlmaz, A. ve TatlÕ, A. (1998). ODTÜ Ö÷rencilerinin Mekanik Konusundaki Kavram YanÕlgÕlarÕ, Bildiri, III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri E÷itimi Sempozyumu 23-25 Eylül, Trabzon. Fensham, P.J. (1988). Approaches to the teaching of STS in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 346-356 Gonzalez, F. M. (1997). Diagnosis of Spanish Primary School Students’ Common Alternative Science Concepts. School Science and Mathematics. 97(2): 68-74. Kaczmarek, R., Bednarek, D.& Wong, R. (1987).Misconceptions of medical students about radiological physics. Health Physics, 52 (1), 106-108. Köseo÷lu, F. & Kavak, N. (2001). Fen Ö÷retiminde YapÕlandÕrÕcÕ YaklaúÕm, G.Ü., Gazi E÷itim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, 1, 139-148. Max, G. (1993). Everyday Risk .Physics Education 28, 22-25 Millar, R. ve Gill, J.S. (1996). School Students’ Understanding of Processes Involving Radioactive Substances and Ionising Radiation. Physics Education, 31, 27-33. Morgil, ø., YÕlmaz, A. & Uluda÷, N. (2004). Lise 2 Kimya Ders KitabÕnda Yer Alan Radyoaktivite Konusunun øncelenmesi, Ö÷rencilerin Bu Konudaki Bilgilerinin AraútÕrÕlmasÕ ve Öneriler, Hacettepe Üniversitesi E÷itim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27,206-215. Nakhleh, M. B. ve Krajcik, J. S. (1994). “Influence of Levels of Information as Presented by Different Technologies on Students’ Understanding of Acid, Base, and pH Concepts”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 10 1077-1096. Prather, E.E. & Harrington R.R. (2001). Students Understanding of Ionising Radiation and Radioactivity. Journal of College Science Teaching , 31(2), s.89-93. Taber, K.S. (1995). Development of Student Understanding: A Case Study of Stabilúty and Liability in Cognitive Structure, Research in Science and Tecnological Education, 13(1),87-97. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. Journal of Biological Education, 10(2), 159-169. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. Journal of Biological Education, 10(2), 159-169. YalçÕn, A. & KÕlÕç, Z. (2005). “Ö÷rencilerin YanlÕú KavramalarÕ ve Ders KitaplarÕnÕn YanlÕú Kavramalara Etkisi Örnek Konu: Radyoaktivite”, G.Ü., Gazi E÷itim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 3, 125-141. YalçÕn, A., 2003. “ Lise 2 SÕnÕf Ö÷rencilerin Radyoaktivite ve Çekirdek Tepkimeleri Konusundaki BaúarÕlarÕna ve Kavramsal AlgÕlamalarÕna YapÕlandÕrmacÕ YaklaúÕmÕn Etkisi ve Ö÷rencilerin Bu Konu HakkÕndaki YanlÕú KavramlarÕnÕn Tespiti” , Yüksek Lisans Tezi, G.Ü., Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. Yurdakul, B., 2007. “YapÕlandÕrmacÕ ögrenme yaklasÕmÕnÕn ögrenenlerin problem çözme becerilerine, biliúötesi farkÕndalÕk ve derse yönelik tutum düzeylerine etkisi ile ögrenme sürecine katkÕlarÕ” , Hacettepe Üniversitesi., Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Doktora tezi, Ankara.