CJR STBM

RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
Tugas Mata Kuliah : STBM
Dosen Pengampu
: Dra. Gulmah Sugiharti M.Pd
CRITICAL JURNAL REVIEW
Problem-based learning in teaching chemistry: enthalpy changes in systems
DI SUSUN OLEH:
Nama : FIRDA NUR HIDAYAH
NIM
: 4191131005
KELAS:KIMIA DIK A 19
FAKULTAS MATEMATIKA DAN ILMU PENGETAHUANALAM
UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MEDAN
2020
2
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
3
IDENTITAS JURNAL
Judul Jurnal
changes In
: Problem-based learning in teaching chemistry: enthalpy
systems
Nama Pengarang
: Yildizay Ayyildiz & Leman Tarhan
Tahun Terbit
: 2017
Edisi
: Volume 20, nomor 3
Nama Jurnal
: Research in Science & Technological Education
ISSN
: 0263-5143
DOI
: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1366898
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
4
TERJEMAHAN ABSTRAK DAN KESIMPULAN
ABSTRAK
Latar Belakang: Pembelajaran berbasis masalah (PBL) sebagai salah satu
strategi pembelajaran yang akhir-akhir ini menjadi sangat luas digunakan
terutama di kelas kimia. Penelitian telah menemukan bahwa siswa, dari sekolah
dasar hingga perguruan tinggi, memiliki banyak konsepsi alternatif mengenai
perubahan entalpi dalam sistem. Meskipun ada beberapa studi yang difokuskan
untuk mengidentifikasi konsepsi alternatif siswa dan kesalahpahaman tentang
mata pelajaran ini, studi tentang pencegahan pembentukan konsepsi alternatif
ini masih terbatas.
Tujuan: Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk meningkatkan prestasi belajar
siswa dan untuk menyelidiki pengaruh PBL dan dengan demikian mencegah
pembentukan konsepsi alternatif sehubungan dengan pengajaran pelajaran
kimia, perubahan entalpi dalam sistem.
Sampel: Objek penelitian terdiri dari 41 siswa dari 2 kelas SMA dari kelas 11
di Izmir, Turki.
Desain dan metode: Karena desain eksperimen semu sebelum dan sesudah tes
digunakan untuk penelitian ini, salah satu dari dua kelas secara acak ditetapkan
sebagai kelompok eksperimen, dan yang lainnya digunakan sebagai kelompok
kontrol. Dalam pembelajaran, materi yang dikembangkan dan ajar oleh guru
yang menerapkan PBL pada kelompok eksperimen dan metode pembelajaran
tradisional pada kelompok kontrol. Di akhir unit pengajaran, dilakukan post-test
untuk mengetahui tingkat pembelajaran dan prestasi siswa.
Hasil: Disimpulkan dari hasil yang diperoleh bahwa rata-rata keberhasilan
kelompok eksperimen secara signifikan lebih tinggi daripada kelompok kontrol
dan bahwa kelompok eksperimen memiliki konsepsi alternatif, kesulitan
konseptual, dan pengetahuan alternatif yang secara signifikan lebih sedikit
daripada kelompok kontrol.
Kesimpulan: PBL adalah pendekatan pembelajaran aktif yang efektif yang
meningkatkan prestasi dan mencegah pembentukan konsepsi alternatif,
kesulitan konseptual dan kurangnya pengetahuan di antara siswa kelas 11
sehubungan dengan perubahan entalpi dalam sistem. Hasil penelitian
menunjukkan bahwa jika PBL diterapkan lebih luas di kelas, siswa akan
memperoleh keterampilan yang diperlukan untuk sukses dalam hidup.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
5
HASIL ANALISIS JURNAL
Kelebihan jurnal ini ialah di dalam jurnal telah dijelaskan secara rinci
bagaimana proses pengajaran materi kimia dengan PBL, tetapi kurang
dijelaskan pengajaran tradisional seperti apa dan bagaimana komentar siswa
mengenai pembelajaran tradisional dalam proses pembelajaran kelas kontrol.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
6
LAMPIRAN JURNAL
Problem-based learning in teaching chemistry: enthalpy changes in
systems
Yildizay Ayyildiza and Leman Tarhanb
aTorbalı Vocational school of higher education, dokuz eylul university, izmir,
Turkey; bFaculty of science, department of chemistry, dokuz eylul university,
izmir, Turkey
ABSTRACT
Background: Problem-based learning (PBL) as a teaching strategy has recently
become quite widespread in especially chemistry classes. Research has found
that students, from elementary through college, have many alternative
conceptions regarding enthalpy changes in systems. Although there are several
studies focused on identifying student alternative conceptions and
misunderstandings of this subject, studies on preventing the formation of these
alternative conceptions are limited.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to improve the learning achievements of
students and to investigate the effects of PBL and thereby prevent the formation
of alternative conceptions with respect to the teaching of the chemistry lesson,
enthalpy changes in systems. Sample: The population of the study consisted of
41 students from 2 11th-grade high school classes in Izmir, Turkey.
Design and methods: As a pre- and post-test quasi-experimental design was
used for the study, one of the two classes was randomly assigned as the
experimental group, and the other was used as the control group. In teaching the
subject, the developed material was taught by the same teacher who applied
PBL in the experimental group and traditional teaching methods in the control
group. At the end of the teaching units, a post-test was administered to
determine the level of student learning and achievement.
Results: It was concluded from the obtained results that the average success of
the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group
and that the experimental group had significantly fewer alternative conceptions,
conceptual difficulties, and lack of knowledge than did the control group.
Conclusions: PBL is an effective active learning approach that enhances
achievement and prevents the formation of alternative conceptions, conceptual
difficulties and lack of knowledge among 11th-grade students with respect to
enthalpy changes in systems. The results suggest that if PBL were more widely
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
7
applied in classes, students would acquire the skills necessary to be successful
in life.
Introduction
In recent years, many educators have concurred that the goal of education is to
develop good decision-makers, creative and self-reliant problem-solvers and
meaningful learners and thinkers who are able to adapt well in the twenty-first
century (Chan et al. 2001; Mannıon 2003; Prince 2004; Kirschner and van
Merriënboer 2013). The results of these studies indicate that students
experience greater academic success when they actively research, discuss and
comment on the subject compared to when they are engaged in a passive
learning experi- ence that requires them only to listen to the teacher (Lonning
1993; Webb, Troper, and Fall 1995; Lohman and Finkelstein 2000; White
2001; Acar and Tarhan 2007). Within the prob- lem-based learning (PBL)
context, active learning methods and techniques seems to be more effective in
that they promote the acquisition of cognitive and social skills.
PBL is an active learning approach wherein a problem serves as the driving
force for learning. In PBL, learning is organized around problems. However, as
the students are not provided with all of the information necessary to develop a
solution, uncertainty arises regarding the correct path to resolve the problem
and the goals that are to be achieved (Barrows and Tamblyn 1980; Woods
1985; Qin, Johnson, and Johnson 1995; Savery and Duffy 1995; Greeno,
Collins, and Resnick 1996). During the PBL process, students define and
analyse the problem, identify and search for necessary information, share the
results of their inves- tigations and work together to formulate and evaluate
possible solutions as they actively engage in learning (Barrows and Tamblyn
1980; Woods 1985; Savery and Duffy 1995; Greeno, Collins, and Resnick
1996). Participating in PBL provides opportunities for students to:
•
Enhance their skills to acquire new knowledge and key concepts required
to solve problems and allow them to apply information learned in similar
situations;
•
Improve their communications skills;
•
Develop skills related to reasoning, critical thinking, analysis, problemsolving and decision-making;
•
Pursue lifelong learning as a self-directed learner (Barrows and Tamblyn
1980; Savery and Duffy 1995; Greeno, Collins, and Resnick 1996; Azer
2003; Acar and Tarhan 2007; Ayyildiz and Tarhan 2015).
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
8
During the PBL process, the instructor serves as a facilitator or a guide rather
than as the source for solutions (Woods 1985). As described by Barrows
(1992), the instructor helps students develop their thinking and reasoning skills
– problem-solving, metacognition, crit- ical thinking – as they become
independent, self-directed learners. Throughout PBL sessions, the instructor
asks probing questions that require students to think deeply and apply previous knowledge but does not express opinions or give students the
answers/solutions to the problem.
Although PBL offers many advantages, its application has met with some
difficulties. For instance, PBL places greater responsibility and accountability
on the instructor, the students and the university or learning institution. As
previous studies have found, PBL is more time-in- tensive (Albanese and
Mitchell 1993; Vernon and Blake 1993), and schools lack the extrinsic rewards
for undertaking the additional challenge of implementing PBL (Bridges 1992).
An even greater deterrent for adopting PBL is that teachers and students are
unfamiliar with the concept and the process of PBL (Bernstein et al. 1995)
compared to the traditional teach- er-centred approach. However, the twentyfirst-century workplace requires professionals
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
9
who not only have an extensive store of knowledge, but who also know how to
add to that knowledge and apply it to solve problems, while functioning as a
part of a team (Evensen and Hmelo-Silver 2000). These current workplace
requirements can be acquired through active learning approaches such as PBL,
a strategy that focuses on both the cognitive and the social development of the
learner.
PBL as a teaching strategy has recently become quite widespread in science
courses, especially chemistry classes (Dods 1996; Ram 1999; Donham,
Schmieg, and Allen 2001; Williams 2001; Belt et al. 2002; Mackenzie,
Johnstone, and Brown 2003; Yuzhi 2003; Senocak, Taskesenligil, and Sozbilir
2007; Tarhan and Ayyildiz 2015). That said, however, research on chemistry
education has found that students, from elementary through college, have many
alternative conceptions regarding the relationship between chemical reactions
and energy (Wang, Wang, and Wei 2014). Among the areas where alternative
conceptions seem most prevalent is that of enthalpy and bond energy,
frequently known as enthalpy changes in systems, a topic that falls under the
broader subject of chemical reactions and energy (Carson and Watson 1999;
Sozbilir 2001; Ayyildiz 2012).
Enthalpy is the first concept about which students were found to have
alternative con- ceptions. Carson and Watson (1999) studied the understanding
that first year chemistry undergraduates had regarding enthalpy change and
found that students viewed enthalpy as a form of energy. In addition, none of
their sample was able to associate work with chem- ical reactions, and none of
them understood the concept of pV work. Moreover, 9 out of 16 students were
unable to give a precise definition of enthalpy change. Rather, their definitions
were restricted to a specific type of reactions, such as neutralization. In the
same study, students were asked about common thermodynamic mathematical
expressions, but many of the students could do no more than recognize the
names of the symbols. In another study, Sozbilir (2001) studied 91 Turkish
chemistry undergraduates from two universities to assess their understanding of
enthalpy using a diagnostic questionnaire and interviews to probe students’
knowledge. That study revealed that several of the misunderstandings,
including some of those previously identified, originated from a lack of
understanding with respect to constant pressure and constant volume cases in
chemical reactions and from difficulties differentiating heat, temperature and
energy transfers involved in chemical reactions.
Bond energy, which is the energy that is released when bonds form and energy
is required to break the bonds, is another concept about which students were
found to have alternative conceptions. Studies have found, however, that
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
1
0
student understanding of bond energy is often the opposite of this (Boo 1998;
Barker and Millar 2000; Cooper and Klymkowsky 2013). In terms of overall
energy change, Boo (1998) found that 12th-grade students considered bond
breaking as an energy release process and thought that energy is required for
bond making. Similarly, the notion that both processes of bond breaking and
bond making require the input of energy was also common among 12th-grade
students. Barker and Millar (2000) further confirmed students’ alternative
conceptions about bond energy, found that half of the students considered bond
making to be endothermic even after science instruction. Consistent with
Barker and Millar (2000), Ross (1993) noted that many students believed
energy was released when chemical bonds were broken.
It has also been determined that there are many misunderstandings about the
underlying concepts of enthalpy changes in systems, including those related to
energy, temperature, heat and chemical reactions. Brook and Driver (1984)
found that students believed energy is used up or lost, a conclusion that.
Finegold and Trumper (1989) also drew, claiming that
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
1
1
it was quite common for students to believe that energy is simply ‘used up’.
Several studies have also revealed some common alternative conceptions held
by students about heat and temperature. For example, many students were
unable to distinguish between heat and temperature (Erickson 1979, 1980;
Kesidou and Duit 1993; Harrison, Grayson, and Treagust 1999; Niaz 2000,
2006; Yeo and Zadnik 2001; Paik, Cho, and Go 2007; Celik 2016). Other
studies have illustrated that students had difficulty identifying chemical
reactions as endo- thermic or exothermic (De Vos and Verdonk 1986; Boo
1998). Studies conducted by Thomas and Schwenz (1998) and Johnstone,
MacDonald, and Webb (1977) have indicated that stu- dents had an alternative
conception about endothermic reactions, believing that such reac- tions could
not be spontaneous. Moreover, students also commonly thought that all
reactions occurring naturally without the application of heat were exothermic
(Johnstone, MacDonald, and Webb 1977). In studies by Cohen and Ben-Zvi
(1982) and Greenbowe and Meltzer (2003), which investigated student
conceptions about energy in chemical reactions in the context of a calorimeter,
many students could not identify the system or the surrounding context, and
similarly, they did not understand the relationship between heat flow, specific
heat and temperature change. Gabel, Samuel, and Hunn (1987) posited that the
alternative concep- tions and lack of understanding on the part of chemistry
students with respect to the par- ticulate nature of matter may be related to their
lack of formal operational development or to their poor visualization ability.
They also attributed student misunderstandings to an inability to identify
concepts such as solids, liquids, gases, elements, compounds, substances,
mixtures and solutions and to a lack of instruction that would specifically
explain the rela- tionship between these terms and the particulate nature of
matter.
Because these alternative conceptions interfere with students’ subsequent
learning, new learning materials that prevent the formation of alternative
conceptions and that allow for the active engagement of students in the learning
process should be developed (Hand and Treagust 1991; Sisovic and Bojovic
2000; Acar and Tarhan 2007, 2008; Doymus 2008). Although there are several
studies focused on identifying student alternative conceptions and
misunderstandings of enthalpy changes in systems (Ben-Zvi, Eylon, and
Silberstein 1982, 1987; De Vos and Verdonk 1986; Brook and Driver 1984;
Finegold and Trumper 1989; Ross 1993; Barker 1995; Golestaneh 1998; Boo
and Watson 2001; Bain et al. 2014; Nilsson and Niedderer 2014), studies on
preventing the formation of these alternative conceptions are limited.
Accordingly, this study aims to examine the effects of PBL applications on high
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
1
2
school students’ understanding of enthalpy changes in systems and their
opinions about PBL as an instructional strategy.
Purpose of the research
The purpose of this research is to examine the effectiveness of PBL, as opposed
to the tra- ditional lecture approach, in enhancing 11th-grade student
achievement and in preventing the formation of alternative conceptions during
the teaching of a chemistry unit on enthalpy changes in systems. The unit is one
of the topics that falls under the broader subject of chem- ical reactions and
energy. Additionally, the study aims to gather student opinions about PBL as an
instructional strategy. In the context of this study, the following research
questions are addressed:
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
1
3
•
With respect to 11th-grade student learning, does a problem-based
learning instruc- tional technique contribute to a better conceptual
understanding of enthalpy changes in systems compared to the traditional
lecture technique?
•
What opinions do eleventh grade students have regarding problem-based
learning as an instructional technique?
Method
Participants
Participants in the study included 41 11th-grade students (average age 17 years)
from two different classes in a high school located in Izmir, western Turkey.
Students were stratified randomly into the experimental group (N = 21) and the
control group (N = 20). The students in the experimental group were instructed
via PBL, while those in the control group were taught using the traditional
chemistry curriculum and traditional teaching strategies. All students in both
groups were similar in socio-economic status – the majority were from middleclass families.
Instrument
Pre-test
The subject enthalpy changes in systems is related to many other chemistry
concepts such as heat, temperature, absolute temperature, energy, chemical
bonding, repulsion and attrac- tion forces, physical changes, chemical changes,
states of matter, atoms, elements, com- pounds, moles, molecules, octetdoublet, double-triple bond, the standard conditions, lattice structures, stability,
pressure, volume and work. Because of the many relationships, a pre-test
consisting of 30 multiple-choice items was developed to identify student
proficiency with respect to requisite knowledge necessary for learning and
understanding the concept of enthalpy changes in systems. The content of the
test was validated by three lecturers in chem- istry departments in universities
and five high school chemistry teachers. To verify reliability of the test, it was
piloted with a sample of 170 10th-grade students. Based on an item analysis,
five items were eliminated, and the reliability coefficient (KR-20) of the pre-
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
1
4
test, consisting of 25 items, was 0.86. An analysis of the test awarded correct
student responses 4 points, incorrect responses 0 points, and a no response 0
points. Thus, the maximum score a student could achieve was 100.
Post-test
A post-test composed of 30 multiple-choice items, each with an open-ended
part requiring the students to justify their answers, was developed to measure
student level of understand- ing of enthalpy changes in systems. Prior to the
development of the tests items, the content boundaries were defined and the
instructional objectives were identified. The test items were constructed giving
consideration to students’ learning difficulties and alternative con- ceptions as
determined in the literature and as related to the content and concepts, such as
chemical reactions (Ben-Zvi, Eylon, and Silberstein 1982, 1987; Hesse and
Anderson 1992; Barker 1995, 2000; Boo and Watson 2001), heat and
temperature (Erickson 1979; Yeo and Zadnik 2001), energy (Brook and Driver
1984; De Vos and Verdonk 1986; Finegold and
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
1
5
Trumper 1989; Ross 1993), chemical bonding (Barker 1995, 2000; Boo 1998),
exothermic and endothermic changes (Golestaneh 1998; Doğan et al. 2007),
internal energy and enthalpy (Johnstone, MacDonald, and Webb 1977). The
content of the test was validated by four lecturers in chemistry departments in
universities and five high school chemistry teachers to ensure the
appropriateness of the items to the instructional objectives. The test was piloted
for reliability by a sample of 165 11th-grade students. After item analysis, five
items were eliminated and the reliability coefficient (KR-20) of the final
version of the test was 0.89. For the statistical analysis of the test, multiplechoice items received 2 points for a correct response and 0 points for an
incorrect response or no response. The open-ended responses were awarded 2
points if correct, 1 point if partially correct and 0 points if incorrect or left
blank. Correct answers for open-ended responses required an accurate and
complete expla- nation that clearly reflected the students’ understanding and
knowledge of the objective. Incorrect answers included alternative conceptions,
conceptual difficulties and lack of knowl- edge on the related topics. Partially
correct responses, on the other hand, consisted of correct answers with
inadequate explanations. Because each correct multiple-choice item and openended item received up to two points and two points, respectively, the
maximum score possible on the test was 100.
Semi-structured interviews
To better elucidate student understanding of enthalpy changes in systems and to
clarify stu- dents’ unclear or ambiguous responses on the post-test, semistructured, 10-min individual interviews were conducted with all students who
gave incorrect, partially correct and no answers to items on the test. They were
seven students from the experimental group and ten students from the control
group. During the interviews, the researcher asked students to explain the
reasons for their answers to specific items on the test. Semi-structured, 10-min
individual interviews were also conducted with all students in the experimental
group to determine their opinions about PBL as an instructional strategy.
During the interviews, stu- dents were asked the following questions:
•
Which characteristics should the PBL problem reflect?
•
When comparing PBL to the traditional approach, how did your
responsibilities, your tutor’s role and the learning process differ while
learning in a group?
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
1
6
During each semi-structured interview, the student–interviewer conversations
were recorded on audiocassettes and later transcribed by the researchers.
Procedure
Enthalpy changes in systems is a unit within the broader context of chemical
reactions and energy, a core topic covered in high school chemistry courses that
are typically taught in the 11th-grade of high school. The quasi-experimental
design chosen for the study was the pre- and post-test control group design. A
teacher experienced in active learning strategies was trained the implementation
of problem-based learning instruction. The teacher and researchers discussed
the instructional plans before implementing the activities. Before implementing
PBL strategies in the classroom, all students and their families were informed
about the aims of the study and the right to privacy regarding personal
information.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
1
7
Permission was then obtained from all families granting permission for their
child’s partici- pation in this study.
To assess students’ prerequisite knowledge and their level of proficiency with
respect to their learning and understanding the concept of enthalpy changes in
systems, all students in both groups took the pre-test. The Mann–Whitney Utest result revealed that there was no significant difference in the mean scores
between the two groups. A two-h preparatory lesson was conducted for both
groups to remediate students and address their lack of req- uisite knowledge and
their alternative conceptions. The experimental group received instruc- tion via
problem-based learning activities developed by the researchers, and the control
group was taught using traditional chemistry curriculum as well as traditional
teaching methodologies. The treatments, provided by the same teacher, were
continued up to a maximum of seven class hours. Students’ understanding of
enthalpy changes in systems was assessed based on the post-test and the
individual interviews after the treatment. To obtain information about students’
opinions regarding PBL instruction, semi-structured interviews were conducted.
Instruction in the experimental group
Twenty-one students in the experimental group were randomly assigned to one
of seven groups. Each group was composed of three students based on their
scores on the pre-test, their chemistry scores during the previous year and their
social abilities as determined by their teachers. Each group included one high,
one intermediate and one low achieving student. In addition, the four of seven
groups consisted of two each girls and one each male, the others consisted of
two each boys and one each girl.
In the first PBL meeting, students were given a short orientation regarding the
PBL process that included student and tutor roles, group rules and evaluation
strategies.
The tutor gave the groups a worksheet in the first session of the PBL
orientation. The students discussed the problem on the worksheet, activating
their prior knowledge about the subject. The tutor visited each group and
provided direction by using guide questions and encouraging student
collaboration. Students then constructed their study plan, and outside of the
class, accessed applicable resources from the internet and the library. They also
received assistance from the tutor during the scientific advisory lessons (Tarhan
et al. 2008).
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
1
8
During the following session, students, under the direction of their group leader,
shared their knowledge acquired from various resources, while the tutor asked
critical probing questions that the students then discussed and evaluated. Once
the tutor was certain that the students understood the PBL process, laboratory
activities and subject-related presenta- tions were conducted. As an introduction
to the new subject, the tutor distributed another worksheet to the students, gave
a brief explanation about the subject, and introduced the problem to be
resolved. All groups engaged in discussion regarding the problem and constructed their study plans under the guidance of the tutor. The process continued
as in the PBL training.
Problem-based learning activity – 1
The purpose of the activity. To explain the transfer of heat in events that
occurred at constant pressure and volume.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
Learning outcomes
1
9
•
Students examine changes in the kinetic and potential energies of
molecules within heat transferred systems that are under constant pressure
and volume in the context of the system and its environment.
•
Students reproduce equations for heat energy given to the system under
constant pressure and volume and examine the direction in which heat is
transferred and work is conducted.
•
Students explain the relationship between enthalpy change (ΔH) and heat
of reaction (Qp).
Problem-based learning activity – 2
The purpose of the activity. To explain enthalpy change and calorimeter
containers based on the solutions to current problems.
Learning outcomes
•
Students explain combustion at the molecular level.
•
Students associate oxygen with combustion and explain what type of
reaction can occur.
•
Students determine whether combustion is endothermic or exothermic.
•
Students explain relationship between enthalpy change (ΔH) and heat of
reaction (Qp).
•
Students explain combustion at the molecular level.
•
Students explain the purposes of the calorimeter container and define its
working principle.
•
Students determine whether a chemical reaction is endothermic or
exothermic based on the quantity of energy released or absorbed as heat.
Problem-based learning activity – 3
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
2
0
The purpose of the activity. To deduce that if a chemical equation can be
written as the sum of several other chemical equations, the enthalpy change of
the first chemical equation equals the sum of the enthalpy changes of the other
chemical equations and to examine the change of enthalpy of formation based
on the material properties.
Learning outcomes
•
Students calculate enthalpy change of a reaction according to standard
enthalpy of formation.
•
Students correlate the enthalpy change of a reaction with the enthalpy
changes that occur in intermediate steps.
•
Students deduce Hess’s Law.
•
Students realize that standard enthalpies of formation change depending
on the char- acteristics of the substance.
•
Students interpret standard enthalpies of formation change depending on
substance characteristics.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
Problem-based learning activity – 4
2
1
The purpose of the activity. To examine the factors affecting the heat of the
reaction.
Learning outcomes
•
Students order the factors affecting the heat of the reaction.
•
Students associate reaction enthalpy changes with standard enthalpies of
formation.
•
Students associate the enthalpy change of a reaction with the enthalpy
changes that occur during intermediate steps.
Problem-based learning activity – 5
The purpose of the activity. To state the relationship between the stabilities of
the compounds and their bond energies.
Learning outcomes
•
Students calculate the bond energies between the atoms constituting the
compound whose average bond energies between its elements are known.
•
Students explain the differences in the bond energies of given compounds
by taking into account the structural formula.
•
Students state the relationship between the bond energies of the given
compounds and their stabilities.
•
Students order the compounds whose bond energies are known according
to their stabilities.
•
Students establish a relationship between enthalpy change in a chemical
reaction and bond energies.
Instruction in the control group
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
2
2
The instruction in the control group was conducted following the traditional
teacher-centred didactic lecture format. Throughout the lessons, the same
chemistry teacher presented the same content to both the control group and
experimental group and the same learning objectives detailed and guided
instruction for both groups.
The instruction in the control group included lectures, discussions and problemsolving activities. During this process, the teacher used the blackboard and
asked questions related to the subject. The teaching was supplemented by the
students’ regular textbook, and lab- oratory experiments. There is no difference
in the way laboratory experiments were per- formed in the experimental and the
control group. While the instructor presented and explained the topic, students
listened and took notes. The instructional time of 7 class hours for the control
group was equal to that of the experimental group. The extra time spent for
PBL in the experimental group has been used for solving more relevant
problems and ques- tions in the control group.
Results
In this study, the Mann–Whitney U-test which is one of the nonparametric
methods was used to compare the pre- and post-tests scores, since the sample
sizes in the groups are
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
Table 1. The Mann–Whitney u-test results of the pre-test.
Group
N
Mean
SD
SE
U
p
experimental 21
60.76
20.14
4.40
195.50
0.704
control
59.00
18.93
4.23
20
2
3
Table 2. The Mann–Whitney u-test results of the post-test.
Group
N
Mean
SD
SE
U
p
experimental 21
87.23
12.75
2.44
82.00
0.001
control
72.14
9.35
2.11
20
small. When the sample sizes are small such as in this study, nonparametric
methods are most appropriate (Siegel and Castellan 1988). As evidenced from
Table 1, the pre-test mean scores for the control and experimental groups were
59.00 and 60.76, respectively, and the Mann–Whitney U results indicate that
there was no statistically significant difference between the control and
experimental groups (U = 195.50, p > 0.05).
Following instruction, the post-test was administered to all students from both
groups to assess student understanding of enthalpy changes in systems. The
Mann–Whitney U-test showed that the students who were instructed via the
problem-based learning strategy had significantly higher mean scores than
those taught via the traditional approach (Table 2; U = 82.00, p < .05).
The results of the post-test and the individual interviews indicate that students
in the experimental group had a significantly lower proportion of alternative
conceptions, con- ceptual difficulties, and lack of knowledge than did students
in the control group, as evi- denced in Table 3.
To identify student opinions about problem-based learning as an instructional
technique, 10-min, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with
all students in the exper- imental group. During the interviews, students were
asked some questions related to PBL activity, role of tutor and working in a
group.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
2
4
About the characteristic of the problem, some students stated that while they
were work- ing in their groups, they used their prior knowledge to solve the
problem. Therefore, they thought that the problem should be related to their
existing knowledge, and there should be leading questions in the worksheet to
understand and solve the problem.
Students answered the question about PBL process and compared their and the
tutor’s role in PBL with the traditional class. Some students commented that
they thought that since they were responsible their own learning, they achieved
the objectives of the lesson. It was also found that during the PBL activities,
feeling a sense of accomplishment increased their self-confidence. In addition,
most of the students thought that working in a cooperative group improved their
relationships with their friends. Students also found that the tutor’s role in PBL
was completely different from in the traditional class. They especially
emphasized that the tutor encouraged them to participate solving the problem,
and the tutor was more interested with them.
Although most of them had positive opinions about PBL after the instruction,
there were still some students who did not want to be taught via this type of
instruction. The negative responses of these students especially focused on
believing that PBL activities would not contribute their success in
examinations, and that this type of instruction was a waste of
Table 3. alternative conceptions, conceptual difficulties and lack of knowledge percentages related to enthalpy changes in systems
and the concepts that form the basis of this subject.
Exp.
Alternative conceptionsa, conceptual difficultiesb and lack of knowledgec regarding
enthalpy changes in systems and the concepts that form the basis of this subject
group
(N
=
21)
Co
nt. group (N = 20)
alternative conceptions, conceptual difficulties and lack of knowledge related to
enthalpy changes in systems
The concept of enthalpy
%
%
1b
enthalpy change, ΔH, is the sum of
enthalpies of reactants entering a physical or chemical reaction and products forming
as a result of the reaction
2b
energy change of a reaction is equal to the
difference between the sum of bond energies of products and reactants
0
20
.0
9.5
55
.0
3a
enthalpy change at constant volume is the transfer of energy
0
25.0
4b
The enthalpy increases when heat energy is given up to the system with constant volume*
9.5 35.0
5c
The enthalpy of the reaction is not related to pressure and temperature* 0
6b
if heat is released during a chemical change,
The sum of
bond energy
in athose
molecule
to the enthalpy of formation of the molecule*
7a sum of enthalpies of products
the
isthegreater
than
ofis equal
reactants
8c
9b
10c
enthalpy of formation is always exothermic
The concept of bond energy
When a bond is cleaved, the energy of the bond is released*
Triple bond energy is three times higher than the energy of the single bond*
20.0
4.8
0
0
35.0
35.0
0
14.3
20.0
45.0
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
alternative conceptions, conceptual difficulties and lack of knowledge regarding the basic concepts of enthalpy and bond energy
within the scope of chemical reactions and the energy unit
Chemical reactions
11b
energy is consumed in chemical reactions 0
12c
chemical reactions cannot occur without a physical effect, such as external heating
30.0
13c
in a chemical reaction, the physical states of the
reactants and products do not affect the amount of energy released
14c
The amount of the reactants does not affect the
The
concept
of
temperature
amount
of composed heat at the end of the reaction*
b
15
16b
17c
b
if a gas expands, a strong increase in the ambient temperature occurs*
The concept of heat
if heat is released to the environment during a chemical change, the system stores heat
dissolution is always endothermic
20.0
9.5
0
14.3
45.0
4.8
0
30.0
25.0
0
Table 3. (Continued).
12
Exp.
group
(N
=
nt. group (N = 20)
%
22b
in exothermic reactions, the sum of product energies is greater than that of reactants
35.0
21)
Co
Y.AYYILDIZ AND L. TARHAN
Alternative conceptionsa, conceptual difficultiesb and lack of knowledgec regarding
enthalpy changes in systems and the concepts that form the basis of this subject
%
4.8
The concept of internal energy
23c
When a matter is added to an open system, internal energy of the system does not change*
0 25.0
24b
if the work is conducted in a closed system, the internal energy of the system decreases*
0 35.0
25b
in the exothermic reaction of Mg(s) + cl2(g)
→ Mgcl2(s), which occurs in a closed system, internal energy of the system
increases*
9.5
aalternative conception (misconception): it implies a student has done something wrong when in reality they don’t have enough
experience in the new area to make much sense of what is correct or incorrect.
bconceptual difficulty: not able to identify, compare, and interpret of concepts; generate examples; integrate related concepts and
principles.
clack of knowledge: To have some deficiencies in the knowledge sequence which systematically constructs a subject.
*First determined alternative conceptions in this study.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
13
time. Furthermore, these students stated that since working in a group was very
difficult, they did not want to study in a group.
Overall, the students felt that problem-based learning instruction increased their
moti- vation to learn, enhanced their learning, improved their self-confidence,
enhanced their desire and willingness to study chemistry and improved their
relationships with their friends. Moreover, they stated that they would like PBL to
be incorporated in other courses.
The results suggest that students who received instruction via PBL were more
successful, better motivated, more self-confident, more willing to solve problems
and share knowledge, more active in cooperative groups, more responsible for
their own learning and exhibited more positive attitudes towards chemistry.
However, while most of the students in the PBL course had positive opinions
about PBL as an instructional technique, there were some students who did not
want to be taught via this type of instruction. The reason most often cited for this
negative attitude towards PBL was related to the degree of comfort they had
developed towards the traditional teacher-centred approach and their lack of
experience with PBL. Thus, they preferred teacher-led instruction, and they
perceived PBL as a waste of time. They also argued that PBL is not aligned with
university entrance exams, and they felt that PBL places responsibility for
learning on the student, something they did not favour.
Discussion and conclusion
Research on chemistry education indicates that the traditional teaching and
learning approaches that have been used for many years in many countries
throughout the world, do not contribute to the necessary deeper learning of
chemistry concepts and do not con- tribute to the development of personal skills.
In the current century, educated individuals are required to be creative critical
thinkers, problem-solvers and self-directed learners who can successfully engage
in group collaboration and who possess effective communication and leadership
skills. Therefore, there is a need to develop new instructional methods and
techniques that provide students the opportunities to enhance those
characteristics. According to recent studies, problem-based learning has received
considerable attention as a new instructional approach that promotes the
characteristics necessary for successful learning (Savery and Duffy 1995; Greeno,
Collins, and Resnick 1996; Azer 2003; Tarhan and Acar 2007).
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
14
This study aimed to investigate the effects of PBL as applied to the teaching of a
chemistry unit, enthalpy changes in systems, on student achievement and the
development of social skills. The results indicate that students in the experimental
group – those exposed to PBL
– demonstrated
significantly higher mean scores compared to students in the
control group (Table 2). This finding supports the premise that PBL is an
effective learning approach with respect to student achievement, thus
confirming the findings of other studies on PBL as an instructional approach
(Schmidt and Moust 2000; Yuzhi 2003; Tarhan and Acar 2007; Gürses et al.
2007).
The results indicated that there were 25 alternative conceptions, conceptual
difficulties and lack of knowledge related to enthalpy, bond energy, chemical
reactions, temperature, heat and internal energy. Of the 25 identified alternative
conceptions, conceptual difficulties, and lack of knowledge, 13 have some
similarities to those in the extant literature, while 12 of them were first identified
in the context of this study. This study adds new alternative
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
15
conceptionsa, conceptual difficultiesb and lack of knowledgec to the literature
related to enthalpy and bond energy. Some of them are as follows:
•
The sum of the bond energy in a molecule is equal to the enthalpy of
formation of the molecule.a
•
The enthalpy increases when heat energy is given up to the system with
constant volume.b
•
If a substance passes from a solid to a gas phase, energy spreads to the
environment.b
•
Heat is released to the environment as a result of the exothermic reaction
because of the formation of the compounds with high energy.b
•
In the exothermic reaction of Mg(s) + Cl2(g) → MgCl2(s), which occurs
in a closed system, internal energy of the system increases.b
•
Triple bond energy is three times higher than the energy of the single
bond.c
•
The enthalpy of the reaction is not related to pressure and temperature.c
When all new alternative conceptions, conceptual difficulties and lack of
knowledge are analysed and discussed with three experts, it is thought to be
resulting from the students’ insufficient levels of readiness, and the lack of
knowledge about some basic concepts such as enthalpy, bond energy,
temperature, heat, internal energy. Thus, it has been concluded that it will be
difficult to learn a new subject before alternative conceptions, conceptual
difficulties and lack of knowledge is deal with.
Students thought that enthalpy change or ΔH is the sum of the enthalpies of
products and reactants in a physical or chemical reaction (Johnstone, MacDonald,
and Webb 1977; Boo and Watson 2001). Thus, students often concluded that
enthalpy of formation and ΔH are always the same thing. Additionally, some
students had difficulty understanding that enthalpy of a reaction depends on the
phases of the reactants and products, and some believed that if ΔH is positive (+),
the number of products is greater than that of reactants. Such a conclusion
indicates that they did not understand the concept of ΔH, as they con- sidered ΔH
to be the change in the number of products and reactants rather than energy
change. The obtained results indicate that the majority of the students commonly
perceived that‘bond breaking releases energy, and conversely, bond making
requires energy’ and that the ‘breaking of bonds is an exothermic reaction, while
the formation of bonds is endother- mic’. These alternative conceptions,
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
16
conceptual difficulties and lack of knowledge are similar to those reported in the
literature (Ross 1993; Boo 1998; Boo and Watson 2001). Consistent with the
studies of Boo (1998) and Barker and Millar (2000), this study also found that
stu- dents generally considered bond formation to be endothermic and bond
breaking to be exothermic based on their belief that some amount of energy must
be used up to form something and stored energy in bonds is released during the
bond breaking process. Such conclusions by the students indicate that they did
not clearly understand the concept of bond energy. Students’ answers revealed
that they could not accurately interpret the internal energy changes based on the
impacts on a system. As mentioned by Gussarsky and Gorodetsky (1990) and
Hameed, Hackling, and Garnett (1993), students were unable to accurately
interpret the changes in a reaction based on any impact on a system. The findings
that student responses reflected their difficulty in understanding the basic changes
in energy and reactions are consistent with the findings of Johnstone, MacDonald,
and Webb (1977), Clough and Driver (1985), Solomon (1985), Kruger (1990),
Ribeiro (1992), De Vos, Van Berkel, and Verdonk (1994), and Sözbilir and
Bennett (2007).
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
17
The interviews conducted with seven students from the experimental group and
ten students from the control group following the post-test provided detailed
information about the reasons for the alternative conceptions, conceptual
difficulties and lack of knowledge. The causes of the problems about enthalpy,
bond energy, chemical reactions and internal energy were generally related to
students’ failure to use and integrate their prior knowledge about the particulate
nature of matter, atoms, elements, compounds, molecules, physical and chemical
changes and chemical bonds. Based on the interviews, student alternative
conceptions, conceptual difficulties and lack of knowledge were the cause for the
students’ lack of prior knowledge about the particulate nature of matter. As the
particulate nature of matter is one of the most fundamental principles of
chemistry, it is critical that students understand this concept before attempting to
grasp related concepts (Johnstone, MacDonald, and Webb 1977; Gabel, Samuel,
and Hunn 1987; Andersson 1990; Garnett, Garnett, and Hackling 1995; Selepe
and Bradley 1997). Students’ responses reflected that alternative con- ceptions,
conceptual difficulties and lack of knowledge related to heat and temperature
were often related to problems they had differentiating between heat and
temperature and the use of these concepts, as indicated in previous studies by
Erickson (1979, 1980), Kesidou and Duit (1993), Harrison, Grayson, and
Treagust (1999), Niaz (2000, 2006), Yeo and Zadnik (2001), and Paik, Cho, and
Go (2007).
Although the students of both the control and the experimental group had similar
back- grounds, the students in the experimental group exhibited significantly
higher achievement on the post-test. This result reflects the impact of problembased learning on student under- standing. During the PBL activities, students in
the experimental group were required to discuss the events using examples from
daily life and correlating them with their knowledge of chemistry. Such a practice
suggests that if students are engaged in their learning by investigating, inquiring,
questioning and teaching, their learning will be deeper and more meaningful.
Thus, it is concluded that student-centred instruction such as PBL is more effective than traditional instruction.
The responses to the post-test and interviews indicate that students in the
experimental group generally exhibited improvement in their decision-making
skills during the PBL pro- cess in comparison to the control group. Most of the
studies related to PBL report that students express more positive thoughts about
PBL environments than they do about lec- ture-centred traditional learning
environments (Rideout et al. 2002; Miller 2003; Soderberg and Price 2003; Yuzhi
2003; Tarhan and Acar 2007). Student responses during interviews suggest that
they participated in discussions, asked and answered peer and instructor ques-
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
18
tions, made decisions and explained phenomenon without fear while working
together in the PBL environment. Students also stated that they enjoyed the PBL
process and that work- ing in a group gave them a better understanding of the
subject matter, a finding that is consistent with other studies (Albanese and
Mitchell 1993; Vernon and Blake 1993; McParland, Noble, and Livingston 2004;
Tarhan and Acar 2007). The results of the interviews indicate that students listen
their peers, assume responsibility for tasks and are aware of the impor- tance of
social behaviour during PBL exercises. Accordingly, it is concluded that PBL
con- tributes to the social development of students as well as to their academic
success.
It is acknowledged that there have been some difficulties implementing PBL in
the class- room as it is a new instructional approach. In fact, some researchers
have reported that implementing PBL, in some cases, has met with resistance
from educators. Albanese and Mitchell (1993), Delafuente et al. (1994) indicate
that developing the curriculum and course
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
19
materials when using PBL as the teaching strategy requires more time.
Furthermore, more time must be allowed for students to complete projects and for
teachers to assess student learning. There are also disadvantage with PBL in that
students are not always knowledgeable of the PBL process. That is, most students
do not understand their role or their and instructor’s role in the PBL process
(Bernstein et al. 1995). Therefore, as it is important that students first receive
instruction about the PBL process, in this study, students were oriented to the
PBL process wherein they were instructed about the rules of working in a group
and were informed about the objectives, the roles and the assessment strategies
associated with PBL. In the light of the results, it is clear that PBL is an effective
active learning approach that enhances achievement and prevents the formation of
alternative conceptions, conceptual difficulties and lack of knowledge among
11th-grade students with respect to the topic, enthalpy changes in systems. The
results suggest that if PBL, as a teaching strategy, were more widely applied in
chemistry classes, students would acquire the skills necessary to be suc- cessful in
life. Accordingly, though there may be some problems associated with the implementation of PBL, the advantages of the strategy do contribute to student success.
It is recommended that further studies be conducted and that PBL activities be
developed and
validated for implementation in science classes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This study was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council
of Turkey [project number TUBITAK-109K574].
References
Acar, B., and L. Tarhan. 2007. “Effect of Cooperative Learning Strategies on
Students’ Understanding of Concepts in Electrochemistry.” International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education 5 (2): 349–373.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
20
Acar, B., and L. Tarhan. 2008. “Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students’
Understanding of Metallic Bonding.” Research in Science Education 38 (4): 401–
420.
Albanese, M. A., and S. Mitchell. 1993. “Problem-Based Learning: A Review of
Literature on Its Outcomes and Implementation Issues.” Academic Medicine 68
(1): 52–81.
Andersson, B. 1990. “Pupils’ Conceptions of Matter and Its Transformations
(Age 12–16).” Studies in Science Education 18: 53–85.
Ayyildiz, Y. 2012. “Kimya Dersi Kimyasal Reaksiyonlar ve Enerji Ünitesiyle
İlgili Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşıma Dayalı Bir Aktif Öğrenme Materyalinin
Geliştirilmesi, Uygulanması ve Değerlendirilmesi [Development, Application and
Evaluation of an Active Learning Material Based on Constructivist Approach in
the Subject of Chemical Reactions and Energy in the High School Chemistry].”
PhD diss., University of Dokuz Eylul, Izmir, Turkey.
Ayyildiz, Y., and L. Tarhan. 2015. “Development of the Self-Directed Learning
Skills Scale.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 34 (6): 663–679.
Azer, S. A. 2003. “Assessment in a Problem-Based Learning Course: Twelve
Tips for Constructing Multiple Choice Questions That Test Students’ Cognitive
Skills.” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 31 (6): 428–434.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
21
Bain, K., A. Moon, M. R. Mack, and M. H. Towns. 2014. “A Review of Research
on the Teaching and Learning of Thermodynamics at the University Level.”
Chemistry Education Research and Practice 15 (3): 320–335.
Barker, V. 1995. “A Longitudinal Study of 16–18 Year Old Students’
Understanding of Basic Chemical Ideas.” PhD diss., University of York, York,
UK.
Barker, Vanessa. 2000. “Beyond Appearances: Students’ Misconceptions about
Basic Chemical Ideas.”
A Report Prepared for the Royal Society of Chemistry 2: 9–75.
Barker, V., and R. Millar. 2000. “Students’ Reasoning about Basic Chemical
Thermodynamics and Chemical Bonding: What Changes Occur during a ContextBased Post-16 Chemistry Course?” International Journal of Science Education
22 (11): 1171–1200.
Barrows, H. S. 1992. The Tutorial Process. Springfield: Southern Illinois
University School of Medicine. Barrows, H. S., and R. M. Tamblyn. 1980.
Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education.
New York: Springer.
Belt, S. T., E. H. Evans, T. McCreedy, T. L. Overton, and S. Summerfield. 2002.
“A Problem Based Learning Approach to Analytical and Applied Chemistry.”
University Chemistry Education 6 (2): 65–72.
Ben-Zvi, Ruth, Bat-Sheva Eylon, and Judith Silberstein. 1982. “Students Vs.
Chemistry: A Study of Student Conceptions of Structure and Process.” Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Fontana, WI.
Ben-Zvi, R., B. Eylon, and J. Silberstein. 1987.“Students’Visualization of a
Chemical Reaction.” Education in Chemistry 24 (4): 117–120.
Bernstein, P., J. Tipping, K. Bercovitz, and H. A. Skinner. 1995. “Shifting
Students and Faculty to a PBL Curriculum: Attitudes Changed and Lessons
Learned.” Academic Medicine 70 (3): 245–247.
Boo, H. K. 1998. “Students’ Understanding of Chemical Bonds and the Energetic
of Chemical Reactions.”
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35: 569–581.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
22
Boo, H. K., and J. R. Watson. 2001. “Progression in High School Students’
(Aged 16–18) Conceptualizations about Chemical Reactions in Solution.”
Science Education 85 (5): 568–585.
Bridges, E. M. 1992. Problem Based Learning for Administrators. Eugene, OR:
ERIC Clearinghouse. Brook, A., and R. Driver 1984. Aspects of Secondary
Students’ Understanding of Energy. Leeds: Centre for
Studies in Science and Mathematics Education The University of Leeds.
Carson, E. M., and J. R. Watson. 1999. “Undergraduate Students’ Understanding
of Enthalpy Change.”
University Chemistry Education 3 (2): 46–51.
Celik, H. 2016. “An Examination of Cross Sectional Change in Student’s
Metaphorical Perceptions towards Heat, Temperature and Energy Concepts.”
International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology 4
(3): 229–245.
Chan, T. W., C.-W. Hue, C.-Y. Chou, and O. J. L. Tzeng. 2001. “Four Spaces of
Network Learning Models.”
Computers & Education 37 (2): 141–161.
Clough, E. E., and R. Driver. 1985.“Secondary Students' Conceptions of the
Conduction of Heat: Bringing Together Scientific and Personal Views.” Physics
Education 20 (4): 176–182.
Cohen, I., and R. Ben-Zvi. 1982. “Chemical Energy: A Learning Package.”
Journal of Chemical Education
59 (8): 655–658.
Cooper, M. M., and M. W. Klymkowsky. 2013. “The Trouble with Chemical
Energy: Why Understanding Bond Energies Requires an Interdisciplinary
Systems Approach.” CBE-Life Sciences Education 12 (2): 306–312.
Delafuente, J. C., T. O. Munyer, D. M. Angaran, and P. L. Doering. 1994. “A
Problem Solving Active-Learning Course in Pharmacotherapy.” The American
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 58: 61–63.
De Vos, W., B. Van Berkel, and A. H. Verdonk. 1994. “A Coherent Conceptual
Structure of the Chemistry Curriculum.” Journal of Chemical Education 71 (9):
743–746.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
23
De Vos, W., and A. H. Verdonk. 1986. “A New Road to Reactions, Part 3:
Teaching the Heat Effects of Reactions.” Journal of Chemical Education 63 (11):
972–974.
Dods, R. F. 1996. “A Problem-Based Learning Design for Teaching
Biochemistry.” Journal of Chemical Education 73 (3): 225.
Doğan, D., N. Aydoğan, Ö. Işıkgil, and B. Demirci. 2007. “Kimya öğretmen
adayları ve lise öğrencilerinin Le-chatelier prensibini kavramsal sorularla anlama
düzeyleri ve yanılgılarının araştırılması [Chemistry Prospective Teachers’ and
High School Students’ Levels of Understanding Le Chatelier’s Principle
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
24
with Conceptual Questions and İnvestigation of their Misconceptions].” İnönü
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 7 (13): 17–32.
Donham, R. S., F. I. Schmieg, and D. E. Allen. 2001. “The Large and the Small
of It: A Case Study of Introductory Biology Courses.” In The Power of ProblemBased Learning: A Practical How To’ for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in
Any Discipline, edited by B. J. Duch, S. E. Groh, and D. E. Allen, 179–192.
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publications.
Doymus, K. 2008. “Teaching Chemical Equilibrium with the Jigsaw Technique.”
Research in Science Education 38 (2): 249–260.
Erickson, G. L. 1979. “Children’s Conceptions of Heat and Temperature.”
Science Education 63 (2): 221–230. Erickson, G. L. 1980. “Children’s
Viewpoints of Heat: A Second Look.” Science Education 64 (3): 323–336.
Evensen, D. H., and C. E. Hmelo-Silver. 2000. Problem-Based Learning: A
Research Perspective on Learning
Interactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Finegold, M., and R. Trumper. 1989. “Categorizing Pupils’ Explanatory
Frameworks in Energy as a Means to the Development of a Teaching Approach.”
Research in Science Education 19 (1): 97–110.
Gabel, D. L., K. V. Samuel, and D. Hunn. 1987. “Understanding the Particulate
Nature of Matter.” Journal of Chemical Education 64 (8): 695–697.
Garnett, P. J., P. J. Garnett, and M. W. Hackling. 1995. “Students’ Alternative
Conceptions in Chemistry: A Review of Research and Implications for Teaching
and Learning.” Studies in Science Education 25: 69–95.
Golestaneh, K. 1998.“Teaching Chemistry through Observation–The Exploding
Can Demonstration: A Dramatic Demonstration of an Exothermic Reaction.”
Journal of College Science Teaching 27 (5): 356. Greenbowe, T., and D. Meltzer.
2003.“Student Learning of Thermochemical Concepts in the Context of
Solution Calorimetry.” International Journal of Science Education 25 (7): 779–
800.
Greeno, J. G., A. M. Collins, and L. B. Resnick. 1996. “Cognition and Learning.”
In Handbook of Educational Psychology, edited by D. C. Berliner and R. C.
Calfee, 15–46. New York: MacMillan.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
25
Gürses, A., M. Açıkyıldız, Ç. Doğar, and M. Sözbilir. 2007. “An Investigation
into the Effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning in a Physical Chemistry
Laboratory Course.” Research in Science & Technological Education 25 (1): 99–
113.
Gussarsky, E., and M. Gorodetsky. 1990. “On the Concept ‘Chemical
Equilibrium’: The Associative Framework.” Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 27 (3): 197–204.
Hameed, H., M. W. Hackling, and P. J. Garnett. 1993. “Facilitating Conceptual
Change in Chemical Equilibrium Using a CAI Strategy.” International Journal of
Science Education 15 (2): 221–230.
Hand, B., and D. F. Treagust. 1991. “Student Achievement and Science
Curriculum Development Using a Constructive Framework.” School Science and
Mathematics 91 (4): 172–176.
Harrison, A. G., D. J. Grayson, and D. F. Treagust. 1999. “Investigating a Grade
11 Student’s Evolving Conceptions of Heat and Temperature.” Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 36 (1): 55–87.
Hesse, J. J., and C. W. Anderson. 1992.“Students’ Conceptions of Chemical
Change.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29 (3): 277–299.
Johnstone, A. H., J. J. MacDonald, and G. Webb. 1977. “Misconceptions in
School Thermodynamics.”
Physics Education 12 (4): 248.
Kesidou, S., and R. Duit. 1993. “Students’ Conceptions of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics – An Interpretive Study.” Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 30 (1): 85–106.
Kirschner, P. A., and J. J. van Merriënboer. 2013. “Do Learners Really Know
Best? Urban Legends in Education.” Educational Psychologist 48 (3): 169–183.
Kruger, C. 1990. “Some Primary Teachers’ İdeas about Energy.” Physics
Education 25: 86–91.
Lohman, M. C., and M. Finkelstein. 2000. “Designing Groups in Problem-Based
Learning to Promote Problem-Solving Skill and Self-Directedness.” Instructional
Science 28 (4): 291–307.
Lonning, R. A. 1993. “Effect of Cooperative Learning Strategies on Student
Verbal Interactions and Achievement during Conceptual Change Instruction in
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
26
10th Grade General Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30 (9):
1087–1101.
Mackenzie, A. M., A. H. Johnstone, and R. I. F. Brown. 2003. “Learning from
Problem Based Learning.”
University Chemistry Education 7: 13–26.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
27
Mannıon, G. 2003. “Children’s Participation in School Grounds Developments:
Creating a Place for Education That Promotes Children's Social Inclusion.”
International Journal of Inclusive Education 7 (2): 175–192.
McParland, M., L. M. Noble, and G. Livingston. 2004. “The Effectiveness of
Problem-Based Learning Compared to Traditional Teaching in Undergraduate
Psychiatry.” Medical Education 38 (8): 859–867. Miller, S. K. 2003. “A
Comparison of Student Outcomes following Problem-Based Learning Instruction
versus Traditional Lecture Learning in a Graduate Pharmacology Course.”
Journal of the American
Academy of Nurse Practitioners 15 (12): 550–556.
Niaz, M. 2000. “A Framework to Understand Students’ Differentiation between
Heat Energy and Temperature and İts Educational Implications.” Interchange 31
(1): 1–20.
Niaz, M. 2006. “Can the Study of Thermochemistry Facilitate Students’
Differentiation between Heat Energy and Temperature?” Journal of Science
Education and Technology 15 (3–4): 269–276.
Nilsson, T., and H. Niedderer. 2014. “Undergraduate Students’ Conceptions of
Enthalpy, Enthalpy Change and Related Concepts.” Chemistry Education
Research and Practice 15 (3): 336–353.
Paik, S. H., B. K. Cho, and Y. M. Go. 2007. “Korean 4-to 11-Year-Old Student
Conceptions of Heat and Temperature.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching
44 (2): 284–302.
Prince, M. 2004. “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research.”
Journal of Engineering Education- Washington- 93: 223–232.
Qin, Z., D. W. Johnson, and R. T. Johnson. 1995. “Cooperative versus
Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving.” Review of Educational Research 65
(2): 129–143.
Ram, P. 1999. “Problem-Based Learning in Undergraduate Education: A
Sophomore Chemistry Laboratory.” Journal of Chemical Education 76 (8):
1122–1126.
Ribeiro, G. T. C. 1992.“Entropy and the Second Principle of ThermodynamicsFourth Year Undergraduates’ Ideas.” Research in Assessment 9: 23–36.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
28
Rideout, E., V. England-Oxford, B. Brown, F. Fothergill-Bourbonnais, C.
Ingram, G. Benson, M. Ross, and
A. Coates. 2002. “A Comparison of Problem-Based and Conventional Curricula
in Nursing Education.”
Advances in Health Sciences Education 7 (1): 3–17.
Ross, K. A. 1993. “There is No Energy in Food and Fuels, but They Do Have
Fuel Value.” School Science Review 75 (271): 39–47.
Savery, J. R., and T. M. Duffy. 1995. “Problem Based Learning: An İnstructional
Model and İts Constructivist Framework.” Educational Technology 35 (5): 31–
38.
Schmidt, H. G., and J. Moust. 2000.“Towards a Taxonomy of Problems Used in
Problem-Based Learning Curricula.” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching
11 (2/3): 57–72.
Selepe, C., and J. Bradley. 1997. “Student-Teacher’s Conceptual Difficulties in
Chemical Thermodynamics.” In SAARMSE Fifth Annual Meeting, edited M.
Sanders, 316–321. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
Senocak, E., Y. Taskesenligil, and M. Sozbilir. 2007. “A Study on Teaching
Gases to Prospective Primary Science Teachers through Problem-Based
Learning.” Research in Science Education 37 (3): 279–290. Siegel, S., and N. J.
Castellan. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New
York:
McGraw-HiU Book Company.
Sisovic, D., and S. Bojovic. 2000. “Approaching the Concepts of Acids and
Bases by Cooperative Learning.”
Chemistry Education Research and Practice 1 (2): 263–275.
Soderberg, P., and F. Price. 2003. “An Examination of Problem-Based Teaching
and Learning in Population Genetics and Evolution Using EVOLVE, a Computer
Simulation.” International Journal of Science Education 25 (1): 35–55.
Solomon, J. 1985. “Teaching the Conservation of Energy.” Physics Education 20
(4): 165–170.
Sozbilir, Mustafa. 2001. “A Study on Undergraduates’ Understandings of Key
Chemical Ideas in Thermodynamics.” PhD diss., University of York, York, UK.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
29
Sözbilir, M., and J. M. Bennett. 2007. “A Study of Turkish Chemistry
Undergraduates’ Understanding of Entropy.” Journal of Chemical Education 84
(7): 1204–1208.
Tarhan, L., and B. Acar. 2007. “Problem-Based Learning in an Eleventh Grade
Chemistry Class: ‘Factors Affecting Cell Potential’.” Research in Science and
Technological Education 25 (3): 351–369.
Tarhan, L., H. Ayar-Kayali, R. Ozturk-Urek, and B. Acar. 2008. “Problem-Based
Learning in 9th Grade Chemistry Class: ‘Intermolecular Forces’.” Research in
Science Education 38 (3): 285–300.
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
30
Tarhan, L., and Y. Ayyildiz. 2015. “The Views of Undergraduates about Problem-Based Learning
Applications in a Biochemistry Course.” Journal of Biological Education 49 (2): 116–126.
Thomas, P. L., and R. W. Schwenz. 1998. “College Physical Chemistry Students’ Conceptions of Equilibrium
and Fundamental Thermodynamics.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35 (10): 1151–1160. Vernon,
D. T., and R. L. Blake. 1993.“Does Problem-Based Learning Work? A Meta-Analysis of Evaluative
Research.” Academic Medicine 68 (7): 550–563.
Wang, L., W. Wang, and R. Wei. 2014. “What Knowledge and Ability Should High School Students Have for
Understanding Energy in Chemical Reactions? An Analysis of Chemistry Curriculum Standards in Seven
Countries and Regions.” In Teaching and Learning of Energy in K – 12 Education, 87–102. London: Springer
International Publishing.
Webb, N. M., J. D. Troper, and R. Fall. 1995. “Constructive Activity and Learning in Collaborative Small
Groups.” Journal of Educational Psychology 87 (3): 406.
White, T. 2001. Investing in People: Higher Education in Ireland from 1960 to 2000. Dublin: Institute of
Public Administration.
Williams, B. A. 2001.“Introductory Physics: A Problem-Based Model.” In A Practical “How to” for Teaching
Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline: The Power of Problem-Based Learning, edited by B. J. Duch,
S. E. Groh, and D. E. Allen, 251–271. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Woods, D. 1985. “Problem-Based Learning and Problem-Solving.” In Problem-Based Learning in Education
for the Professions, edited by D. Boud, 19–42. Sydney: HERDSA.
Yeo, S., and M. Zadnik. 2001. “Introductory Thermal Concept Evaluation: Assessing Students’
Understanding.” The Physics Teacher 39 (8): 496–504.
Yuzhi, W. 2003. “Using Problem Based Learning in Teaching Analytical Chemistry.” The China Papers 2:
28–33.