PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING AND USAGE OF SCIENTIFIC AND DAILY LIFE LANGUAGE

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate how pre-service teachers understand six selected dual meaning words (freezing, combustion, bond, organic, salt and stable) before and after traditional chemistry instruction. A qualitative study approach was used to answer the research questions. The study was carried out in a university on the north coast of Black Sea Region in Turkey. Participants were 29 freshmen pre-service teachers between 18-21 ages. As data collection tool, a questionnaire consisting 42 questions for 6 dual meaning words was prepared and administered as pre- and posttests. In data analysis, after reduction, similar answers were classified and code lists were created. Then, themes were formed according to the codes. After data analysis, it was found that pre-service teachers mostly constructed the meanings of dual meaning words in their daily lives. After learning the scientific meanings of the words, they continued to use both scientific and daily life meanings together. This may be associated with their inability to contextualize and a lack of conceptual understanding, or some combination of two.

Key words: scientific language, daily life language, learning chemistry, dual meaning words, chemistry education research

REFERENCES

Brown, B. A. & Spang, E. (2008). Double talk: Synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom. Science Education, 92, 708 – 732.

Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 291-299.

Çalık, M. (2005). A cross-age study of different perspectives in solution chemistry from junior to senior high school. International Journal of Science and Mathematical Education, 3, 671–696.

Domin, D.S. (1999). A content analysis of general chemistry laboratory manuals for evidence of higher-order cognitive tasks. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 109-111.

Fang, Z. (2004). Scientific literacy: A systematic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89, 335-347.

Guzzetti, B. J., Williams, W. O., Skeels, S. A. & Wu, S. M. (1997). Influence of text structure on learning counterintuitive physics concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 701–719.

Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Conceptual change using multiple interpretive perspectives: Two case studies in secondary school chemistry. Instructional Science, 29, 45–85.

Hewson, M. G. & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 86-98.

Hofstein, A., (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: Thirty years of experience with developments, implementation, and research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice 5(3), 247-264.

Holbrook, J. & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.

Itza-Ortiz, S. F., Rebello, N. S., Zollman, D. A. & Rodriguez-Achach, M. (2003). The vocabulary of introductory physics and its implications for learning physics. Physics Teaching, 41(6), 330–336.

Jasien, P. G. (2010). You said ‘‘neutral’’, but what do you mean? Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 33–34.

Jasien, P. G. (2011). What do you mean that “strong” doesn’t mean “powerful”? Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 1247-1249.

Jasien, P. G. (2013). Roles of terminology, experience, and energy concepts in student conceptions of freezing and boiling. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(12), 1609-1615.

Johnson, B. R. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(3), 282-292.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606. Retrieved [20.12.2016], from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf

Haider, A. H. & Abraham, M. R. (1991). A comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of concepts based on particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 919-938.

Kızılcık, H. Ş. (2013). The relationship between preferences among some synonym physics terms and conceptual perceiving of pre-service teachers. H. U. Journal of Education, 28(3), 266-278.

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Taken from: Lakatos, I. ve Musgrave, A. (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McDermott, L., Rosenquist, M. & van Zee, E. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503-513.

Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W. & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Miller, J. S. (2005). The language of science is in daily conversation. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 42(2), 3-4.

Palmer, D. H. (2003). Investigating the relationship between refutational text and conceptual change. Science Education, 87(5), 663 – 684.

Petrucci, R. H., Harwood, W. S. & Herring, F. G. (2008). Genel Kimya İlkeler ve Modern Uygulamalar 1, 8.baskıdan çeviri, Palme Yayıncılık, Ankara.

Pyburn, D. T., Pazicni, S., Benassi, V. A. & Tappin, E. E. (2013). Assessing the relation between language comprehension and performance in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 524-541.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.

Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450-452.

Song, Y. & Carheden, S. (2014). Dual meaning vocabulary (DMV) words in learning chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 128-141.

Tekbıyık, A. (2010). Development of course materials integrating context based approach into 5E model in terms of energy unit for 9th grade secondary students. Unpublished PhD thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.

Ünsal, Y. (2010). Differences arising from language in perceiving some terms in physics education. H. U. Journal of Education, 39, 348-358.

Ültay, E. (2012). Implementing REACT strategy in a context-based physics class: Impulse and momentum example. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 4(1), 233-240.

Ültay, E. (2017). Examination of context-based problem-solving abilities of pre-service physics teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(1), 113-122.

Ültay, E. & Ültay, N. (2014). Context-based physics studies: A thematic review of the literature. H. U. Journal of Education, 29(3), 197-219.

Ültay, N. (2015). The effect of concept cartoons embedded within context-based chemistry: Chemical bonding. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(1), 96-108.

Ültay, N. & Çalık, M. (2016). A comparison of different instructional designs of ‘acids and bases’ subject. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(1), 57-86.

Ültay, N., Durukan, Ü. G. & Ültay, E. (2015). Evaluation of the effectiveness of conceptual change texts in the REACT strategy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 22-38.

Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), The international handbook of conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 11–30). New York: Routledge.

Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S. & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.

Yam, H. (2005). What is contextual learning and teaching in physics? Retrieved 07.05.2016, from http://www.phy.cuhk.edu.hk/contextual/approach/tem/brief_e.html.

Young, E. (2005). The language of science, the language of students: Bridging the gap with engaged learning vocabulary strategies. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 42(2), 12-17.