Published Jun 30, 2023

Oya Aglarci Ozdemir  


The aim of this study is to determine Turkish pre-service science teachers’ levels of chemical explanations of various daily life phenomena and to investigate whether these examples are in accordance with the high school chemistry curriculum in Turkey. This study was carried out with descriptive research methods. The participants are 71 freshmen pre-service science teachers in a state university in Turkey. The data of the study were collected with the “Chemical Explanations of Daily Phenomena” Questionnaire previously developed in the literature. The phenomena in the questionnaire were related to chemistry concepts such as diffusion, temperature, combustion reactions and the law of conservation of mass, isotopes, reaction rate, redox reactions, and mixtures and solutions. The answers were analyzed in three categories: correct, wrong, and can’t determine and the frequencies and percentages of the categories were determined. Also, the learning outcomes in the latest version of the Turkish high school chemistry curriculum were examined in order to determine whether they were related to the chemistry concepts in the questionnaire. Document analysis was utilized to analyze the learning outcomes in the chemistry curriculum. The findings of the study revealed that most of the pre-service teachers answered correctly the questions that are compatible with the chemistry curriculum. Their misconceptions were mostly related to heat transfer and specific heat capacity, the law of conservation of mass, and heavy water and isotopes. The findings indicated that future curriculum changes should integrate some important chemistry concepts closely related to everyday life, such as radioactivity and heat transfer.


Download data is not yet available.



Chemical Literacy, Misconceptions in Chemistry, Pre-Service Teachers, Chemistry Curriculum

Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2013). Challenges in the transition to large-scale reform in chemical education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10:189-207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.008

Bond, D. (1989). In pursuit of chemical literacy: A place for chemical reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(2):157. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed066p157

BouJaoude, S. B. (1991). A study of the nature of students’ understandings about the concept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8):689-704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280806

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopedia (2022). Heavy Water. Encyclopedia Britannica, December 23, 2022. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/heavy-water

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practices. Heinemann. ISBN: ISBN-0-435-07134-3

Bybee, R. W. (2012). Scientific literacy in environmental and health education. In A. Zeyer, & R. Kyburz-Graber (Eds.), Science|Environment|Health (pp. 49-67). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3949-1_4

Cakmakci, G., Donnelly, J., & Leach, J. (2005). A Cross-sectional study of the understanding of the relationships between concentration and reaction rate among Turkish secondary and undergraduate students. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 483–497). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3673-6_38

Celik, S. (2014). Chemical literacy levels of science and mathematics teacher candidates. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1):1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n1.5

Chu, H. E., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. (2012). Evaluation of students’ understanding of thermal concepts in everyday contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10):1509-1534. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.657714

Cigdemoglu, C., & Geban, O. (2015). Improving students’ chemical literacy levels on thermochemical and thermodynamics concepts through a context-based approach. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2):302-317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00007F

Cooper, M. M., & Stowe, R. L. (2018). Chemistry education research-From personal empiricism to evidence, theory, and informed practice. Chemical Reviews, 118(12):6053-6087. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00020

Dori, Y. J., Avargil, S., Kohen, Z., & Saar, L. (2018). Context-based learning and metacognitive prompts for enhancing scientific text comprehension. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10):1198-1220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470351

Elmas, R., Rusek, M., Lindell, A., Nieminen, P., Kasapoğlu, K., & Bílek, M. (2020). The intellectual demands of the intended chemistry curriculum in Czechia, Finland, and Turkey: a comparative analysis based on the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(3):839-851. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00058B

Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (2009). Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In E. Gilbert, J. K. Gilbert, & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1-8). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_1

Haidar, A. H. (1997). Prospective chemistry teachers’ conceptions of the conservation of matter and related concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2):181-197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199702)34:2<181::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-P

Harrison, A.G., Grayson, D.J., & Treagust, D.F. (1999). Investigating a grade 11 student’s evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1):55–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1<55::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-P

Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., Saar, L., & Dori, Y.J. (2012). The relationship between metacognition and the ability to pose questions in chemical education. In A. Zohar, & Y. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education. Contemporary trends and issues in science education vol 40. (pp.165-195). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_8

Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education-a pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in Israel, Germany, and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6):1459-1483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9273-9

Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3):275-288. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej884397

Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2):75-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x

Karsli, F., & Ayas, A. (2014). Developing a laboratory activity by using 5E learning model on student learning of factors affecting the reaction rate and improving scientific process skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143:663-668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.460

Kohen, Z., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2020). How to promote chemical literacy? On-line question posing and communicating with scientists. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1):250-266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00134D

Kolomuç, A., & Tekin, S. (2011). Chemistry teachers’ misconceptions concerning concept of chemical reaction rate. International Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 3(2):84-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v3i2.194

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Jossey-Bass Publishers. ISBN: 9780787910099.

Meşin, M. Z., Koçak, N., Koçak, A., & Şahin, M. (2019). 2007-2017 yılları arasında Türkiye’de gazlar konusunda kavram yanılgıları ile ilgili yapılan çalışmalar: Bir içerik analizi [Studies on misconceptions about gases conducted in Turkey between 2007-2017: A content analysis]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 13(2):620-650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.512765

Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MNE) (2013). Chemistry Education Curriculum for Secondary Grades (9, 10, 11, and 12th Grades), Ministry of National Education, Board of Education.

Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MNE) (2018). Chemistry Education Curriculum for Secondary Grades (9, 10, 11, and 12th Grades), Ministry of National Education, Board of Education.

Molu, Z. , Kahyaoğlu, H., & Köksal, E. A. (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının radyoaktiflikle ilgili bilgi düzeyleri [Knowledge levels of pre-service science teachers on radioactivity]. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society Section C: Chemical Education, 1(1):165-190. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jotcsc/issue/30533/330317

Mozeika, D., & Bilbokaite, R. (2010). Teaching and learning method for enhancing 15-16 years old students’ knowledge as one of scientific literacy aspect in chemistry: Results based on research and approbation. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 1(3):1-16. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijers/issue/8489/105626

Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3):191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p191

National Research Council [NRC] (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press. ISBN: 978-0-309-05326-6.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2):224-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066

Özden, M. (2007). Problems with science and technology education in Turkey. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(2):157-161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75391

Pabuçcu, A. (2016). Öğretmen adaylarının asit yağmurlarıyla ilgili bilgilerinin kimya okur-yazarlığı açısından incelenmesi [Investigating pre-service science teachers’ knowledge of acid rain in terms of chemical literacy]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(3):961-976. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/aibuefd/issue/24917/263023

Papageorgiou, G., Markos, A., & Zarkadis, N. (2016). Understanding the Atom and Relevant Misconceptions: Students’ Profiles in Relation to Three Cognitive Variables. Science Education International, 27(4):464-488. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1131138

Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). Sage Publishing. ISBN: 9781412972123.

Petrucci, R. H., Herring, F. G., Bissonnette, C., & Madura, J. D. (2010). General Chemistry: Principles and Modern Applications. Pearson Canada. ISBN: 9780136121497

Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S.K. Abell, & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sadhu, S., & Laksono, E. W. (2018). Development and validation of an integrated assessment for measuring critical thinking and chemical literacy in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3):557-572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11338a

Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006). The use of scientific literacy taxonomy for assessing the development of chemical literacy among high-school students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(4):203-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90011A

Shwartz Y., Dori Y. J., & Treagust D., (2013), How to justify formal chemistry education, to outline its objectives and to assess them. In I. Eilks, & A. Hofstein, (Eds.), Teaching chemistry-a studybook: A practical guide and textbook for student teachers, teacher trainees and teacher (pp. 37–66.) Sense Publishers.

Suwono, H., Pratiwi, H. E., Susanto, H., & Susilo, H. (2017). Enhancement of students’ biological literacy and critical thinking of biology through socio-biological case-based learning. Journal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6(2):213-220. Available at: https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/jpii/article/view/9622

Thummathong, R., & Thathong, K. (2016). Construction of a chemical literacy test for engineering students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(3):185-198. Available at: https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/649

Treagust, D.F., Mthembu, Z., & Chandrasegaran, A.L. (2014). Evaluation of the predict-observe-explain instructional strategy to enhance students’ understanding of redox reactions. In I. Devetak, & S. Glažar (Eds.), Learning with understanding in the chemistry classroom (pp. 265-286). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4366-3_14

Tsaparlis, G. (2000). The states-of-matter approach (SOMA) to introductory chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1):161-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/A9RP90017A

Tsaparlis, G., Hartzavalos, S., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2013). Students’ knowledge of nuclear science and its connection with civic scientific literacy in two European contexts: The case of newspaper articles. Science & Education, 22:1963-1991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9578-5

Witte, D., & Beers, K. (2003). Testing of chemical literacy (Chemistry in context in the Dutch national examinations). Chemical Education International, 4(1):1-3. Available at: https://publications.iupac.org/cei/vol4/0401x0an3.pdf

Yadigaroglu, M., Agyan, Z., & Demircioglu, G. (2021). High school students’ levels of relating the chemistry knowledge to daily life: Acid-base example. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(3):512-524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.87

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences]. (9. Ed.). Seçkin. ISBN: 9789750239991.
How to Cite
Aglarci Ozdemir, O. (2023). Turkish Pre-service Teachers’ Understanding of Daily Life Phenomena Related to Chemistry and Compatibility with the Current Chemistry Curriculum. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 16(2), 2477–2503. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.23.or311
Original Article