Hacettepe niversitesi Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi (H. U.

Journal of Education) 43: 306-317 [2012]

EFFECT OF CONCEPTUAL CHANGE APPROACH ON STUDENTS
UNDERSTANDING OF REACTION RATE CONCEPTS

Sevgi KINGIR
*
, mer GEBAN
**


ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of conceptual change text oriented
instruction compared to traditional instruction on 10
th
grade students understanding of reaction rate concepts. 45 students
from two classes of the same teacher in a public high school participated in this study. Students in the experimental group
were instructed by conceptual change text oriented instruction while students in the control group were instructed by
traditional instruction. The results indicated that conceptual change text oriented instruction was more effective than
traditional instruction on students understanding of reaction rate concepts. It was also found that some of the misconceptions
were still held by the students in both groups. In the control group, the proportion of these misconceptions was higher than
that of in the experimental group. Moreover, previous learning in chemistry contributed to students understanding of
reaction rate concepts significantly.
Keywords: chemistry education, conceptual change approach, reaction rate

1. INTRODUCTION
Students have some ideas and interpretations related to the subject matter even if prior to the
instruction (Bodner, 1986). Some of these ideas and interpretations are not congruent with the
conceptions accepted by the scientific communities (Driver, Guesne & Tiberghien, 1985). These kinds
of ideas are often referred to as misconceptions (Nakhleh, 1992), or alternative conceptions (Driver &
Easly, 1987). Throughout this study, the term misconception was used to refer to students ideas
apart from scientific conceptions. Students have misconceptions in chemistry as well as in other
domains of science. Students misconceptions and learning difficulties in chemistry constitute a major
problem of concern to science educators. There are some potential sources that may lead to difficulties
in grasping chemistry concepts: a) everyday life (e.g., Boo, 1998), b) instructional methods employed
by the teacher (e.g., Fisher, 1985), c) abstract nature of chemistry (e.g., Garnett, Garnett, & Hackling,
1995), and d) textbooks (e.g., De Posada, 1999). In their review of research on misconceptions in
chemistry, Garnett et al. (1995) revealed that students held misconceptions in various topics, including
particulate nature of matter, chemical bonding, chemical equilibrium, acids and bases, and
electrochemistry.
Reaction rate is one of the most difficult units in the chemistry course in that most phenomena
that are discussed in this unit occur at the microscopic level. Students have a great difficulty in
understanding reaction rate and its measurement, collision theory, activation energy and factors
affecting reaction rate. There are very little empirical studies in the domain of teaching and learning
reaction rate at the high school level (Justi, 2002; Van Driel, 2002), and some of them are not
accessible due to the language (Chuephangam, 2000; Van Driel & De Vos, 1989). Reaction rate
studies were done both at high school level (Cachapuz & Maskill, 1987; Cakmakci, Leach, &
Donnelly, 2005; Van Driel, 2002) and college level (Cakmakci et al., 2005). Justi (2002) reviewed the
studies conducted in reaction rate broadly. Cakmakci et al. (2005) examined students ideas about
reaction rate, and its relationship with concentration and pressure through open-ended questions at
both high school and college levels. They found that students scientific explanations about reaction
rate increased from high school to college. Some misconceptions detected in high school students
were, Pressure does not affect gaseous reaction rates, The concentrations of reactants in a rate
equation have exponents equal to the stoichiometric coefficients of the reactants in the balanced

*
Dr., Seluk niversitesi, sevgikingir@selcuk.edu.tr
**
Prof. Dr., Orta Dou Teknik niversitesi, geban@metu.edu.tr
S. KINGIR- .GEBAN / H. . Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 43 (2012), 306-318
307
equation, and The reaction had the lowest rate at the beginning of the reaction and the highest rate at
the end of the reaction. A key concept in the topic of reaction rate, collision, was investigated by
Cachapuz and Maskill (1987) through word association tests. Students achievement levels (low-
medium-high) were defined based on their previous chemistry achievement scores. A significant
difference was detected between high and low achievers in terms of learning the relationship between
collision, and rate, temperature, concentration and surface area, respectively, in favor of high
achievers. The authors attributed this difference to the abstract nature of the reaction rate concepts. In
addition, Van Driel (2002) investigated students explanations to the experiments with potassium
iodide and potassium peroxodisulphate solutions within a chemistry course involved in a research
program. Most of the students explained the effect of concentration on reaction rate simply by stating
that less particles results in fewer collisions. However, in explaining the effect of temperature on
reaction rate, some students wrongly believed that faster moving particles would not result in reaction
by explaining it in a way that they will bounce back after their collision with each other, or they will
not have enough time to exchange atoms. This misconception most probably occurred due to lack of
conceptions of activation energy, and structure and orientations of particles. Some students confused
the concepts of reaction rate and quantity. These students believed, Increasing the reaction rate by
increasing the temperature or adding a catalyst increases the amount of product (Cakmakci, 2010;
Gorodetsky & Gussarksy, 1986). Moreover, some students confused the concepts of reaction rate and
chemical equilibrium (Cakmakci, 2010; Garnett et al., 1995; Kousathana & Tsaparlis, 2002). For
example, these students thought, An increase in temperature always results in an increase of the
equilibrium constant value (Kousathana & Tsaparlis, 2002), and An increase in temperature
decreases the rate of exothermic reactions (Cakmakci, 2010).
Constructivism has been the most influential learning theory in science education in terms of
helping the individuals to learn science in an effective way (Palmer, 2005). Constructivisms
popularity appears to come from the active construction of the knowledge within the learner
(Rowlands & Carson, 2001). Individuals interpret the external reality based on their beliefs,
experiences and mental structures which makes the reality subjective (Jonassen, 1991). According to
the principles of constructivism stated by Driver and Bell (1986), learning depends on not only the
learning environment but also what the learner already knows, and learning is the continuous and
active process of construction of meaning. The constructed meanings can be accepted, or rejected by
the learner; and some meanings are shared due to common features in the ideas, which children tend to
use. Conceptual change is an approach to the application of constructivist principles to science
instruction (Hewson & Thorley, 1989). Constructivism emphasizes general process of learning, and
conceptual change approach emphasizes the specific conditions which must be fulfilled for the
modification of existing conceptions by new ones (Weaver, 1998). Conceptual change approach
depends on Piagets ideas of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration, which are critical to
cognitive development. If a child uses existing concepts to understand new experiences, assimilation
occurs. When students existing concepts are inadequate to understand new experiences, then
accommodation occurs. Equilibration is a balance between assimilation and accommodation and it
determines how children move from one stage of development into the next (Driscoll, 1994). Based on
Piagets key ideas, Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) proposed a conceptual change model.
This widely accepted model has two major components: the conditions that need to be fulfilled in
order to replace a central concept by another and the persons conceptual ecology in which an
individuals current concepts are nested (Hewson & Thorley, 1989). Posner et al. (1982) focused on
the notion of accommodation and suggested four conditions, which must be met for this type of
change to occur. Firstly, there must be dissatisfaction with currently held conception. If the current
conception of a learner is inadequate to explain new phenomena, dissatisfaction occurs. Presentation
of anomalies can produce dissatisfaction with the existing conceptions. Secondly, the new conception
must be intelligible. Analogies and metaphors are widely used in promoting intelligibility. Thirdly, the
new conception must be plausible. The new conception appears to be adequate to solve the problems
and consistent with other knowledge, past experience, metaphysical and epistemological beliefs.
Finally, the new conception must be fruitful. The new conception should have the potential of solving
further problems. According to Hewson and Thorley (1989), the extent to which a conception is
S. KINGIR- .GEBAN / H. . Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 43 (2012), 306-318
308
intelligible, plausible and fruitful is termed the status of a persons conception. The conceptual change
model is about raising or lowering the status of conceptions. The more conditions are met, the more
status of the conceptions is raised. Intelligibility is the first step of raising status. Without
intelligibility, it is impossible for a conception to have status for a person. If a new concept is
intelligible, and does not contradict with existing concepts, it is also plausible and fruitful to the
learner, and then its status will have risen and can be incorporated with existing concepts.
Changing students misconceptions is a rather difficult task because they are resistant to change
under traditional classroom conditions (Driver & Easly, 1978; Fisher, 1985). Various instructional
methods can be used for the elimination of misconceptions. The best way to handle misconceptions is
to use instructional strategies based on conceptual change approach (Niaz, 2002). The instructional
strategies adapted from the literature are; cooperative learning (e.g., Bilgin & Geban, 2006), analogies
(e.g., Calik, Ayas, & Coll, 2009), refutational texts (e.g., Hynd, McWhorter, Phares, & Suttles, 1994),
conceptual change texts (e.g., Calik, Ayas, & Coll, 2007), combination of conceptual change texts
with analogy (e.g., Baser & Geban, 2007), and combination of conceptual change texts with concept
mapping (e.g., Uzuntiryaki & Geban, 2005). Conceptual Change Text is frequently used in educational
research and has been found successful in the elimination of misconceptions, in different subject
domains, like physics (e.g., Baser & Geban, 2007), chemistry (e.g., Calik et al., 2007), and biology
(e.g., Ozkan, Tekkaya, & Geban, 2004) at various grade levels. In conceptual change texts, firstly,
common misconceptions in a particular subject matter are determined. Next, students misconceptions
are activated by asking them explicitly to predict what would happen about a given situation. In the
following step, the inconsistency between common misconceptions and scientific conception is
demonstrated by presenting evidence in a text in which the wrongness of the misconceptions is
described. Finally, the correct scientific explanation of the given situation is presented, and students
are given the opportunity of using scientific explanations in new situations (Wang &Andre, 1991).
As shown in the above literature, conceptual change text oriented instruction facilitates the
acquisition of various science concepts (e.g., Chambers & Andre, 1997). Understanding of reaction
rate concepts is fundamental in the learning of chemistry. Such understanding is essential to the
learning of other concepts such as chemical equilibrium (Cakmakci et al., 2005). Therefore, the
present study focuses upon high school students understanding of reaction rate concepts and
addresses the following questions:
1. Is there a significant difference between the effects of conceptual change text oriented
instruction and traditionally designed chemistry instruction on tenth

grade students understanding of
reaction rate concepts?
2. Is there a significant contribution of students previous learning on their understanding of
reaction rate concepts?

2. METHOD

2.1. Subjects
45 tenth grade students from two classes of the same teacher in a public high school participated
in this study. Students ages ranged from 16 to 17 years old. Since the classes were formed at the
beginning of the semester by school administration, it was not possible to assign students randomly to
both experimental and control groups. However, the classes were randomly assigned as control and
experimental groups. There were 24 (14 males, 10 females) students in the experimental group and 21
(13 males, 8 females) students in the control group. The students in the experimental group were
taught by conceptual change text oriented instruction while those in the control group were taught by
traditionally designed chemistry instruction.

2.2. Instruments
Chemistry Concept Test (CCT): This instrument was developed by the researchers to understand
whether there was a significant contribution of students previous learning in chemistry to their
understanding of reaction rate concepts. The content of the test included chemical reactions and
S. KINGIR- .GEBAN / H. . Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 43 (2012), 306-318
309
energy. The reason why this chemistry content was selected that chemical reactions and energy is
taught students just before teaching reaction rate and it can be considered as a pre-requisite for
learning reaction rate. Prior to the development of test items, the objectives of chemical reactions and
energy were written. The test consisted of ten multiple choice and two open-ended questions. Each
multiple choice test item has one correct answer and four distracters. The test was examined by an
expert in chemistry education. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the test was computed as 0.75. This
test was given as a pre-test to both groups before the instruction of reaction rate. An example question
in CCT was given in Figure 1.

Which of the following statements about chemical reactions is incorrect?
A) The chemical reactions proceeding with the evolution of heat energy is called exothermic reactions.
B) If the reaction is absorbing heat energy, H >0.
C) Heat energy is absorbed when a chemical bond forms.
D) In endothermic reactions, H
products
> H
reactants.

E) The reactants in a chemical reaction could be in either same or different phases.
Figure 1: An Example Item from CCT

Reaction Rate Concept Test (RRCT): This instrument was developed by the researchers and it
was used to assess students understanding of reaction rate concepts. The content of the test was
determined by examining tenth grade chemistry textbooks, university entrance exams and studies
concerning students misconceptions in reaction rate (Cakmakci et al., 2005; Cakmakci, 2010;
Gorodetsky & Gussarksy, 1986; Van Driel, 2002). The RRCT consisted of 20 multiple-choice
questions. Reason for preferring multiple-choice items is that it is easy and quick to administrate and it
enables the researcher to score objectively. Each test item consisted of five alternatives: one correct
answer and four distracters, which reflected the misconceptions found in the literature (e.g., Cakmakci
et al., 2005). Common misconceptions addressed by the RRCT were shown in Table I.
RRCT was used to identify conceptual difficulties in (a) reaction rate and its measurement, (b)
collision theory, (c) activation energy, (d) factors affecting reaction rate, and (e) reaction mechanism.
This test was examined by an expert in chemistry education to establish content validity and by
chemistry teachers for the appropriateness of the questions to the student level. The Cronbach alpha
reliability of the test was computed as 0.71. This test was given as a post-test to compare the students
understanding of reaction rate concepts in the two groups at the end of the treatment. An example
question in RRCT was given in Figure 2.


Table 1: Common Student Misconceptions Probed by RRCT
1. All chemical reactions are extremely fast.
2. All molecular collisions lead to a chemical reaction.
3. The exponents in the rate laws are the coefficients in the balanced equation for the reaction.
4. Fast step determines the rate in reaction mechanism.
5. The mechanism of a reaction can be deduced from the overall balanced chemical equation.
6. The reaction rate is constant throughout the reaction.
7. Increasing the concentration of reactant always increases reaction rate.
8. To increase the rate of any reaction, you can increase the surface area of the reactants.
9. When catalyst is added to a reaction, only pathway with lower activation energy is available.
10. A catalyst is a species that increase the reaction rate but does not participate in the reaction.
11. Catalyst is needed to initiate reaction.
12. Reaction intermediate is the catalyst in reaction mechanism.
13. A faster reaction rate means that more products are produced.
S. KINGIR- .GEBAN / H. . Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 43 (2012), 306-318
310

Which one of the following statements is correct related to activation energy?
A) It is the highest point in the number of molecules & kinetic energy graph.
B) It does not affect reaction rate.
C) It can be lowered by increasing the temperature.
D) It is not affected by a catalyst.
E) It is the minimum kinetic energy to be overcome by the reactants to become products.
Figure 2: An Example Item from RRCT

Conceptual Change Text: It was designed considering the common misconceptions in reaction
rate written in Table 1. Totally, 16 conceptual change texts were prepared by the researchers in the
light of the information obtained from a literature review considering the objectives stated in national
chemistry curriculum. The conceptual areas covered by the conceptual change texts were; reaction rate
and its measurement, collision theory, activation energy, factors affecting reaction rate, and reaction
mechanism. Four conditions proposed by Posner et al. (1982) were inserted into each conceptual
change text to remediate specified misconceptions. Firstly, the students were asked a question about a
specific situation that they are likely to have misconceptions, and then they were asked to write
explanations for that question into the space provided in the text. By this way, students
misconceptions were activated. Secondly, common student misconceptions with evidence countering
the misconceptions were presented in the text in order to produce dissatisfaction. Thirdly, scientific
explanations, examples, figures, and analogies were included in the texts to promote intelligibility and
plausibility. Lastly, the students were asked questions to apply new conception into different situations
for the promotion of fruitfulness.

2.3. Treatment
This study was conducted in a public high school over a 4-week period in the spring semester of
2008-2009 academic year. Two 10
th
grade classes of a chemistry teacher were participated in this
study. One of the classes was randomly assigned as the experimental group and the other as the control
group. The control group was instructed by using traditional chemistry instruction, while the
experimental group was instructed by using conceptual change text oriented instruction. Both groups
received regular instruction on rate of reaction during the treatment. Before the treatment, the teacher
was informed about misconceptions, conceptual change approach, and using conceptual change texts.
Just before the study begins, the students were given CCT as a pre-test to determine whether there is a
significant contribution of previous learning to the variation in students understanding of reaction rate
concepts. The treatment period started after pre-test was given. During the treatment, instruction in
both groups was observed by one of the authors for the treatment verification. The observations
revealed that the teacher fulfilled all the requirements specified for the treatment in both groups.
In the experimental group, students worked with conceptual change texts through a lecture and
discussion environment created by the teacher. For example, the teacher used the conceptual change
text given in Figure 3 for the instruction of rate determining step in a reaction mechanism.

Question:
The proposed mechanism for the reaction 2NO
(g)
+ 2H
2(g)
N
2(g)
+ 2H
2
O
(g)
is as follows:
2NO + H
2
N
2
+ H
2
O
2
slow
H
2
O
2
+ H
2
2H
2
O fast
1) What is the rate expression for this reaction?
A) Rate = k [NO]
2
[H
2
]
2
B) Rate = k [NO]
2
[H
2
] C) Rate = [H
2
O
2
][H
2
] D) Rate = [N
2
][H
2
O]
2
2) Write your reasons in the empty space provided below.
.
..
.

S. KINGIR- .GEBAN / H. . Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 43 (2012), 306-318
311
Some students think that fast step determines the rate in reaction mechanism, Rate =
[H
2
O
2
][H
2
] and some think that the exponents in the rate laws are the coefficients in the
balanced equation for the reaction, Rate = k [NO]
2
[H
2
]
2
.

These students are wrong. In some
reactions, especially in single step reactions, the coefficients of the reactants in the
balanced chemical equation are identical with the exponents in the rate equation. However,
this is not a general rule. Usually there is no relation between the exponents in the rate law
and the coefficients of the reactants in the balanced chemical equation because some
reactions occur in a number of simple steps. These steps are known as reaction mechanism
and in many reaction mechanisms; one step is significantly slower than the others. Such a
step is called the rate-determining step because an overall reaction can occur only as fast as
its slowest, just as a chain is as strong as its weakest ring. The Figure on the right side
gives an analogy to a reaction mechanism with a slow step followed by a fast step. The two
funnels differ only in the diameters of their stems. Liquid flows through the bottom funnel
just as quickly as it arrives from the top funnel. There is no buildup of liquid in the bottom
funnel. Rate equation is written according to the slowest step and it is not surprising that
the exponents in the rate law are different from the coefficients in the balanced
chemical equation. In some cases, one or more of the reactants may not even appear in the
rate equation.
Figure 3: An Example of Conceptual Change Text

When using the conceptual change text given in Figure 3, the question portion of the text was
distributed students firstly because the text presented after the question includes explanations about the
question. In that question, students were given a reaction mechanism and then asked the rate
expression for that reaction. The aim of asking this question was to activate students misconceptions
about the rate determining step in a reaction mechanism. Each student wrote his/her answers in the
space provided in the text silently. Then, the teacher wrote that question on the board and asked
students to answer what could be the rate expression for that reaction and explain the reason of their
answer. By this way, the teacher attempted to initiate a pre-class discussion among the students.
During the discussion, some students demonstrated misconceptions congruent with the ones specified
in the literature. For example, a student stated, The rate in a reaction mechanism depends on the fast
step and another student stated, The reactants in the balanced equation are written in rate
expression. Although some students correctly thought the rate determining step in a reaction
mechanism as the slowest step, they could not explain it in a scientific way. The teacher facilitated the
discussion by asking questions such as What do you think about this question?, Do you agree with
your friend? The teacher avoided from giving the correct response during the discussion. Upon the
completion of the discussion, the teacher distributed the text in which scientific explanations,
examples and figures related to the question were inserted (see Figure 3). The teacher told students
read the text silently and just after reading the text, the teacher asked if anything they had just read was
surprising. Then the situations and statements included in the text were discussed in the class. There
were student-student and student-teacher interactions during the discussion process. The teacher
emphasized common misconceptions and explained why these misconceptions were incorrect by
presenting scientifically correct explanation of the concepts. Then, the teacher focused on the students
who held misconceptions during the pre-class discussion and tried to understand whether their ideas
changed via the conceptual change text and classroom discussion. Those students stated that they were
satisfied with the explanation and the evidence actually disconfirmed their existing beliefs. Towards
the end of the class hour, the teacher wrote the steps of a reaction mechanism with their corresponding
rates and then asked students the rate determining step. The aim of asking this question was to make
students apply their newly acquired knowledge into different situations. The same procedure in using
the conceptual change text given in Figure 3 for the instruction of rate determining step in a reaction
mechanism was followed in using other conceptual change texts for the instruction of other sub-topics
of reaction rate.
In the control group, teacher-centered instruction was used as traditional instruction. The
teacher used lecture and discussion methods and solved problems to teach reaction rate concepts
without considering students misconceptions. Students were required to read the related topic from
Figure 1
S. KINGIR- .GEBAN / H. . Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 43 (2012), 306-318
312
the textbook used in chemistry course prior to each lesson. The teacher explained each concept and
asked questions to the students to promote discussion. Toward the end of the lesson, the teacher
distributed worksheets that include mathematical and conceptual questions to be answered related to
the topic. By this way, they were expected to reinforce the concepts taught by the teacher. Then,
worksheets were scored and corrected, and students investigated the corrections on their worksheets.
At the end of the treatment, students in both groups were post-tested using the RRCT.

3. RESULTS
Descriptive statistics concerning mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for both of the groups
with respect to Chemistry Concept Test (CCT) and Reaction Rate Concept Test (RRCT) were
presented in Table 2. As shown in the table, prior to the treatment, students in the experimental group
had lower mean scores than those in the control group with respect to CCT. However, after the
treatment, students in the experimental group had higher scores in RRCT than control group students.
Students scores obtained from CCT and those obtained from RRCT were correlated across both
groups and it was found that there was a significant relationship between the CCT scores and RRCT
scores both in the experimental group (r = 0.452, p < 0.05) and control group (r = 0.532, p < 0.05). To
partial out the unwanted effects of pre-test from the post-test, one-way analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) was used in comparing the effectiveness of two different instructional methods on 10
th

grade students understanding of reaction rate concepts. That is, the effect of students previous
learning in chemistry on their understanding of reaction rate was controlled as a covariate.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Data for Control and Experimental Groups
Control Group Experimental Group
n Mean SD n Mean SD
CCT 21 9.14 1.88 24 8.33 2.43
RRCT 21 14.25 2.38 24 15.87 2.44

ANCOVA results indicated that students previous learning made a statistically significant
contribution to the variation in students understanding of reaction rate measured by the post-test, F (1,
45) = 12.64, p < 0.05,
2
= 0.231. In addition, there was a significant mean difference between the
post-test scores of the students who received conceptual change text oriented instruction and those
taught by traditionally designed chemistry instruction, in the favor of experimental group, F (1, 45) =
6.19, p< 0.05,
2
= 0.128.
The distracters of multiple-choice items in the post-test reflected the common misconceptions
observed in the topic of reaction rate. In order to compare the effects of conceptual change text
oriented and traditional instructions on students acquisition of scientific conceptions, the proportion
of students correct responses and misconceptions for the two groups was examined using item
analysis. It was found that almost all of the misconceptions were related to factors affecting reaction
rate. For example, 40% of the misconceptions were related to the effect of temperature on reaction
rate, and 25% of the misconceptions were related to the effect of catalyst on reaction rate. There were
differences in the proportion of correct responses between experimental and control groups on several
items, in favor of the experimental group.
For example, in an item related to reaction mechanism, students were a given the overall
reaction (4HBr + O
2
2H
2
O + 2Br
2
) with five statements and asked to choose the one that is always
correct. For the experimental group, 92% of the students answered this item correctly, as At least one
intermediate is formed in this reaction; but only 70% of the students in control group responded to
this item correctly. Some students in the control (21%) and experimental (5%) groups incorrectly
thought that increasing the concentration of reactants (i.e., O
2
) always increases the rate of reaction.
However, an increase in the concentration of reactants involved in the rate expression increases the
rate of reaction, not an increase in the concentration of reactants in the balanced equation. In addition,
some students in control group (9%) held the misconception, the exponents in the rate laws were the
S. KINGIR- .GEBAN / H. . Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 43 (2012), 306-318
313
coefficients in the balanced equation. In an item about the catalyst, students were given five
statements and choose the one that is always true. All the students in the experimental group
responded this item scientifically as catalyst is not consumed in a reaction. However, the proportion
of students in the control group giving the desired answer was 63%. Some students incorrectly
thought, A catalyst is needed to initiate a reaction (13%) and some thought, A catalyst cannot
decrease reaction rate (25%). However, none of these misconceptions was held by the students in
experimental group because these misconceptions were emphasized in the conceptual change texts. In
another item, students were given a graph related to the kinetic energy distribution of the molecules in
temperatures T
1
, T
2
, and T
3
for a gaseous reaction, and then they were asked to choose the correct
alternative. This question had the lowest correct response rate in both groups. Many students in
experimental (40%) and control (63%) groups incorrectly believed that activation energy changes with
temperature. However, the proportion of students selecting the desired alternative was higher in
experimental group (53%) when compared to control group (31%).

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The main purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of conceptual change text
oriented and traditional instructions on 10
th
grade students understanding of reaction rate concepts. In
this study, pre-test was administered to students in both groups to assess their previous learning.
Previous learning is very important in construction of knowledge, and it affects students further
learning (Chandran, Treagust, & Tobin, 1987; Reynolds & Walberg, 1992). It was found that
students previous learning made a statistically significant contribution to the variation in students
understanding of reaction rate measured by the post-test. The proportion of the variance of students
understanding of reaction rate concepts explained by previous learning was 23%, indicating a medium
effect size (Cohen, 1992).
The students in the experimental group performed better than those in the control group with
respect to understanding of reaction rate concepts. The proportion of the variance of students
understanding of reaction rate concepts explained by the treatment was 13%, indicating a medium
effect size (Cohen, 1992). The difference between classroom activities provided in experimental and
control groups may cause the difference in students understanding of reaction rate concepts in both
groups. Conceptual change text oriented instruction, used in experimental group, explicitly dealt with
students misconceptions while the traditional chemistry instruction, used in control group, did not. In
the experimental group, students were involved in activities in which conceptual change texts were
used. In each of the texts, students misconceptions were activated by giving a situation. By this way,
students were dissatisfied with their existing conceptions. After that, scientific conceptions that are
more plausible and intelligible were explained. The important part of conceptual change text oriented
instruction was the social interaction because the situations and statements in the texts were discussed
through student-student and student-teacher interaction. These discussions helped the students share
their ideas and encouraged involvement of students in the activities. Discussion of the concepts
facilitated students understanding of reaction rate concepts. On the other hand, in the control group,
traditional chemistry instruction was used in teaching reaction rate. The teacher taught the concepts of
reaction rate directly and solved algorithmic problems without considering students misconceptions.
At the end of the class hours, there were discussions between the teacher and students.
The findings obtained from this study are consistent with the findings of other national and
international studies in terms of supporting the idea that a text-based conceptual change approach
leads to greater conceptual understanding (Baser & Geban, 2007; Chambers & Andre, 1997; Hynd et
al., 1994; Ozkan et al., 2004; Wang & Andre, 1991). Some of the misconceptions were still held by
the students even in the experimental group after the treatment. However, the proportion of the
misconceptions held by the students in the control group was higher than that of in the experimental
group. This supports the idea that elimination of students misconceptions is not easy even with the
instruction because they are very resistant to change (Driver & Easly, 1978; Duit, 2007).
The results showed that most of the misconceptions were related to factors affecting rate of
reaction, especially temperature and catalyst. One possible reason of the prevalence of these
S. KINGIR- .GEBAN / H. . Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 43 (2012), 306-318
314
misconceptions among students was that most phenomena related to reaction rate are abstract in nature
(Garnett et al., 1995). Another reason may be the teacher (Fisher, 1985) or textbook (De Posada,
1999). For example, one common misconception prevalent among students was, A catalyst cannot
decrease reaction rate. However, a catalyst is defined as a substance that changes the speed of
reactions. Generally, positive catalysts are known as catalysts, but there are also negative catalysts
known as inhibitors. During the instruction in the control group, the teacher did not emphasize on the
negative catalysts, which may cause the students to have misconceptions. This finding implied that
teachers should be aware of students misconceptions in certain conceptual areas including reaction
rate. The efficacy of conceptual change text oriented instruction on eliminating student misconceptions
was also demonstrated in this study. This finding suggests that teachers may use conceptual change
texts to deal with the specified misconceptions in various chemistry topics because the strategies based
on the conceptual change model enhances students acquisition of scientific conceptions (Niaz, 2002).

REFERENCES
Baser, M., & Geban, O. (2007). Effect of instruction based on conceptual change activities on students' understanding of
static electricity concepts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(2), 243-267.
Bilgin, I., & Geban, O. (2006). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Approach Based on Conceptual Change Condition
on Students Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium Concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
15(1), 31-46.
Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873-878.
Boo, H.K. (1998). Students understandings of chemical bonds and the energetics of chemical reactions. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 569-581.
Cachapuz, A. F. C., & Maskill, R. (1987). Detecting changes with learning in the organization of knowledge: use of
word association tests to follow the learning of collision theory. International Journal of Science Education, 9(4),
491504.
Cakmakci, G., Leach, J., & Donnelly, J. (2005). Students' ideas about reaction rate and its relationship with
concentration or pressure. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1795-1815.
Cakmakci, G. (2010). Identifying alternative conceptions of chemical kinetics among secondary school and
undergraduate students in Turkey. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(4), 449-455.
Calik, M., Ayas, A., & Coll, R. K. (2007). Enhancing pre-service elementary teachers conceptual understanding of
solution chemistry with conceptual change text. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 1-
28.
Calik, M., Ayas, A., & Coll, R. K. (2009). Investigating the effectiveness of an analogy activity in improving students
conceptual change for solution chemistry concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
7(4), 651-676.
Chambers, S.K., & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest and experience in electricity and conceptual
change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 107-
123.
Chandran, S., Treagust, D. F., & Tobin, K. (1987). The role of cognitive factors in chemistry achievement. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 24(2), 145-160.
Chuephangam, M. (2000). Analysis of misconception in chemistry of Mathayom Suksa 5 students. Retrieved October 19,
2009, from http://www.grad.cmu.ac.th/abstract/2000/edu/abstract/edu11001.html
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
De Posada, J. M. (1999). The presentation of metallic bonding in high school science textbooks during three decades:
science educational reforms and substantive changes of tendencies. Science Education, 83, 423-447.
Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students thinking and the learning of science: a constructivist view. School Science
Review, 67(240), 443-456.
Driver, R., & Easly, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent
science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Childrens ideas in science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Duit, R. (2007). Science education research internationally: conceptions, research methods, domains of research.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 3-15.
Fisher, K. M. (1985). A misconception in biology: amino acids and translation. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 22(1), 53-62.
S. KINGIR- .GEBAN / H. . Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 43 (2012), 306-318
315
Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of
research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 6996.
Gorodetsky, M., & Gussarsky, E. (1986). Misconceptions of the chemical equilibrium concept as revealed by different
evaluation methods. European Journal of Science Education, 8(4), 427-441.
Hewson, P. W., & Thorley, N. R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change. International Journal of Science
Education, 11(5), 541-553.
Hynd, C. R., McWhorter, J. Y., Phares, V. L., & Suttles, C. V. (1994). The role of instructional variables in conceptual
change in high school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 933-946.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a philosophical paradigm? Educational
Technology Research and Development, 39, 5-14.
Justi, R. (2002). Teaching and learning chemical kinetics. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. Treagust, & J. H. Van
Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 293315). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2002). Students errors in solving numerical chemical-equilibrium problems.
Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(1), 5-17.
Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students dont learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191-196.
Niaz, M. (2002). Facilitating conceptual change in students understanding of electrochemistry. International Journal of
Science Education, 24(4), 425-439.
Ozkan, O., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, O. (2004). Facilitating conceptual change in students understanding of ecological
concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 95-105.
Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. International Journal of Science Education,
27(15), 18531881.
Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward
a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
Reynolds, A. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1992). A structural model of science achievement and attitude: An extension to high
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 371-382.
Rowlands, S., & Carson, R. (2001). Contradictions in the constructivist discourse. Philosophy of Mathematics Education
Journal (P. Ernest, Ed), 14. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from
http://www.people.ex.ac.uk/PErnest/pome14/rowlands.pdf
Uzuntiryaki E., & Geban,. (2005). Effect of conceptual change approach accompanied with concept mapping on
understanding of solution concepts. Instructional Science, 33, 311-339.
Van Driel, J. H. (2002). Students corpuscular conceptions in the context of chemical equilibrium and chemical kinetics.
Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 201213.
Van Driel, J. H., & De Vos, W. (1989). Sneller, harder, vaker. Over het onderwerp reactiesnelheid in 4-HAVO/VWO.
NVON-Maandblad, 14, 291295.
Wang, T., & Andre, T. (1991). Conceptual change text versus traditional text and application questions versus no
questions in learning about electricity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 103-116.
Weaver, G. C. (1998). Strategies in K-12 science instruction to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 82(4),
455-472.