Students' Alternative Conceptions of Plate Boundaries and Their Conception Revision According to Their Reasoning Patterns

Abstract

This study investigated students' alternative conceptions of plate boundaries and their conception revision according to the pattern of students' reasoning. Participants were twenty-two 10th grade high school students. All participants were asked to draw the three types of plate boundaries and to explain their drawings. Nine students participated in the reasoning activity. To this end, a semi-structured interview was conducted during which key questions were asked for the students to individually answer. The key questions used in the reasoning activity were created, by utilizing questions used in the previous studies. The findings revealed that the alternative conceptions of plate boundaries were classified into three levels based on established criteria. Students who attempted a variety of reasoning strategies such as causal reasoning, using an analogy, abductive reasoning, data reconstruction and concept combination, revised their alternative conception to a scientific conception after the reasoning activity. On the other hand, some students could not revise their alternative conceptions because they only conducted an incomplete reasoning strategy. The study also found that they were unable to use other reasoning strategies, either.

Diagnosis of learning difficulties of plate tectonics concepts among secondary school students using: Focus group, nominal group, and questionnaire

“…According to several research studies in science didactics, students have misconceptions about geological phenomena and encounter difficulties in assimilating and understanding concepts related to plate tectonics [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. These misconceptions impede learning and are fundamental challenges to "constructivist" scientific teaching [25].…”

Általános és középiskolás tanulók földrajz tantárgyhoz köthető tévképzetei

“…Nem el€g azonban a tan•r-tanul… viszonylatban v•ltoz•sokat v€grehajtani. M€lyrehat… €s a megl€vő kutat•si eredm€nyekre t•maszkod…, azokkal ‚sszhangban l€vő v•ltoz•sokra van szˆks€g a tan•rk€pz€sben, az alaptantervek €s a kerettantervek ‚ssze•ll"t•s•ban, ezek k‚vetkezt€ben pedig a tank‚nyv"r•sban is (Choi et al, 2010;Duit, 2007;Duit €s Treagust, 2003;Hewson, 1992;Korom, 1997;McCaffrey, 2014;Park, 2014;Vosniadou et al, 2008;Vosniadou €s Ioannides, 1999).…”