Summary

Problem Statement: An efficient science education is directly associated with the quality of conceptual teaching which is implemented in science lessons. Conflicts and inconsistencies in students’ learning should be revealed in order for a life-long and meaningful learning of the concepts to take place (Akgün, Gönen, & Yılmaz, 2005). Students may have various misconceptions about a concept; however, the misconceptions of each student may result from different characteristics or erroneous categorization. For this reason, the incorrect ontological categorization from which misconceptions result should be determined. This is because many misconceptions are the result of scientifically incorrect ontological categorization made by students. In the literature, it is stated that students’ misconceptions are associated with their scientific reasoning skills and students with high scientific reasoning skills have fewer misconceptions (Lawson & Thompson, 1988; Lawson & Worsnop, 1992; Oliva, 2003). There are three levels: concrete operational, transitional and formal operational and students will be at different levels. Therefore, when assessing their scientific reasoning levels, students at a formal operational level will be expected to understand the concepts of melting and dissolving better than students at a concrete operational level and to have fewer misconceptions related to this subject.

Purpose of the Study: The purpose of the present study is to reveal university students’ misconceptions about the subject of melting and dissolving and to examine these misconceptions on the basis of ontological categories. It also aims to compare students’ misconceptions about the subject of melting and dissolving according to their scientific reasoning levels.

Method(s): A total of 25 students from the Faculty of Education, Hacettepe University attending a General Chemistry course in the Biology Education Department participated in the study. Five open-ended questions, prepared according to experts’ opinions, and the Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (CTSR) were used as the data collecting instruments. According to the scores obtained from the CTSR, there were 7 students at a concrete operational level and 9 students at both the transitional and formal operational level.

Findings and Discussions: When the students’ responses to the questions were examined, it was determined that they had various misconceptions and the number of certain misconceptions was higher in students at the concrete operational level. On the other hand, when students’ answers to the open-ended questions were examined, it was determined that their misconceptions resulted from ontological categorizations they had made which were ontologically wrong. It was determined that students had misconceptions as a result of a wrong categorization between ontological categories.

Conclusions and Recommendations: When the students’ responses to the questions were examined, it was determined that they had various misconceptions and the number of certain misconceptions was higher in students at the concrete operational level. This is because students at the concrete operational level can only understand concrete concepts while students at the formal operational level can understand both concrete and abstract concepts (Lawson & Renner, 1975). For this reason, students at the concrete operational level have more misconceptions. There is a relationship between students’ misconceptions and their scientific reasoning skills (Lawson & Thompson, 1988; Lawson & Worsnop, 1992; Oliva, 2003). Students with a high scientific reasoning level have fewer misconceptions than students with a low scientific reasoning level. This is also because students with a high scientific reasoning level are more successful during conceptual changes (Lawson & Weser, 1990; Oliva, 2003; Lee & She, 2010; She & Liao, 2010). When students’ answers to the open-ended questions were examined, it was determined that their misconceptions resulted from ontological categorizations they had made which were ontologically wrong. It was determined that students had misconceptions as a result of a wrong categorization that they had made between the microscopic particle, which is a sub category of the substance category, and the macroscopic substance. It was also determined that students misplaced the melting with dissolving category in the event category, which is actually under the process category. Students attributed concrete features to intermolecular bonds and put chemical bonds in the substance category instead of the process category. For this reason, they categorized the items incorrectly, which resulted in the misconceptions.