Macro and Micro Knowledge Levels for Chemistry Teaching In Terms Of Reductionism

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 2, 165 - 192, 01.06.2013

Davut Sarıtaş , Yüksel Tufan

Öz

Reductionism as one of the major question of debate of chemistry philosophy can be considered by means of chemistry teaching. It can be explicitly seen that types of reductions discussed in philosophy literature are contrary to chemistry nature and characteristics of chemical knowledge. These have a close relationship with macro and micro levels of understanding which is problematic for chemistry education. Thus, it is defended in reductionism that theoretical information for micro oriented chemistry used to define macro level can be reduced to physics. For that reason it is necessary to establish relationship of micro-macro for chemistry teaching under the framework of basic acquisitions of education and to consider reductions in order to allow teaching of these levels as conforming to nature of chemistry. In this point, it is possible to make some fixations directed to problems those possibly originate from reduction and to present some recommendations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Reductionism, Chemistry teaching, Natur of chemical knowledge, Macro and micro knowledge levels

İndirgemecilik Açısından Kimya Öğretiminde Makro ve Mikro Bilgi Seviyeleri

Öz

Kimya felsefesinin önemli bir tartışma konusu olan indirgemecilik kimya eğitimi açısından ele alınabilir. Felsefi alan yazında tartışılan indirgeme türlerinin kimyanın doğası ve kimyasal bilginin niteliğine uygun olmadığı görülmektedir. Bunların kimya eğitiminde sorunlu olan makro ve mikro anlama seviyeleri ile yakın ilişkisi vardır. Nitekim indirgemecilikte makro seviyeyi açıklamada kullanılan mikroya yönelik kimyanın kuramsal bilgilerinin fiziğe indirgenebileceğini savunulmaktadır. Bu nedenle eğitimin temel kazanımları çerçevesinde kimya öğretiminde mikro-makro ilişkisinin sağlıklı kurulması ve bu seviyelerin kimyanın doğasına uygun bir şekilde öğretilmesinde indirgemelerin göz önünde tutulması gerekebilir. Bu noktada indirgemelerden kaynaklanması olası olan sorunlara yönelik belirlemelerde bulunmak ve bazı öneriler sunmak mümkündür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İndirgemecilik, Kimya öğretimi, Kimyasal bilginin doğası, Makro ve mikro bilgi seviyeleri

Kaynakça

• Bayrakçeken, S., Canpolat N. ve Çelik, S. (2011,Temmuz). Kimyanın doğası ve öğretimi. 2. Ulusal Kimya Eğitimi Kongresi‟nde sunulmuş bildiri, A.Ü, Erzurum.
• Born, M., and Oppenheimer, R. (1927). Zur Quantentheorie der Molekeln. Annalen der Physik, 20(389), 457-484. Article first published online: 14 mar 2006.
• Cevizci, A. (2011). Felsefe sözlüğü. İstanbul: Say Yayınları.
• Chalmers, D. J. (2002). Strong and Weak Emergence. Republished in P. Clayton and P. Davies (Eds.), (2006) The re-emergence of emergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Corning, P. A. (2002). The re-emergence of "emergence": a venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity, 7(6), 18-30.
• Craver, C. F. (2001). Structures of scientific theories. In P.K. Machamer and M. Silberstein (Eds.), Blackwell guide to the philosophy of science (pp. 55-79). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Erduran, S. (2005b). Applying the philosophical concept of reduction to the chemistry of water: implications for chemical education. Science & Education, 14(2),161–171.
• Erduran S., & Duschl, R. (2004). Interdisciplinary characterizations of models and the nature of chemical knowledge in the classroom. Studies in Science Education, 40(1), 105–138.
• Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about the periodic law. Foundations of Chemistry, 9(3), 247-263.
• Erduran, S. (2000). Emergence and application of philosophy of chemistry in chemical education. School Science Review, 81, 85-87.
• Erduran, S., Aduriz A. B. and Naaman, R. M. (2007). Developing epistemologically empowered teachers: examining the role of philosophy of chemistry in teacher education. Science & Education, 18(9-10), 975-989.
• Erduran, S. (2005a, July). Beyond philosophical confusion: establishing the role of philosophy of chemistry in chemical education research. Paper presented at the International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference, Leeds, UK.
• Gilbert, J. (1998). Explaining with models. In M.Ratcliffe (Ed.), ASE guide to secondary science education. Stanley Thornes, London
• Gilbert, J. K. and Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: key models in chemical education. In Gilbert, J.K. and Treagust, D.F (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education, models and modeling in science education (pp.1-8). Springer.
• Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a Construct: History and Issues. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 1(1): 49–72.
• Harrison, A. G. and Treagust, D.F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: a case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352–381.
• Hendry R. F. (1998). Models and approximations in quantum chemistry. In N. Shanks (Ed.) Idealization in contemporary physics: poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities (63) (pp.123-42). Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
• Hendry, R. F. (2010). Chemistry: emergence vs. reduction. In C.and G. Macdonald (Eds.) Emergence in mind (pp.205–221). New York: Oxford University Press. Hendry, R. F. (2011). The metaphysics of chemistry. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Hendry, R. F. (2006). Is there downward causation in chemistry. In D. Baird, E.Scerri, and L.Mclntyre (Eds.), Philosophy of chemistry (pp. 173–189).Dordrecht: Springer.
• Hendry, R. F. (2012). Reduction, emergence and physicalism. In D. M. Gabbay, P. Thagard and John Woods. (Gen.Eds.), R, F. Hendry, P.Needham and A.I. Woody (Vol.Eds.). Handbook of the philosophy of science, philosophy of chemistry (V.6) (pp.367-386). Amsterdam: North Holland- Elsevier.
• Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: a changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 701–705.
• Lecourt, D. (2006). Bilim felsefesi. (Çev.I. Ergüden). Ankara: Dost Kitabevi. (Eserin orjinali 2001‟de yayımlandı).
• Lutz, S. (2009, October). Carnap’s unchanging correspondence rules. Paper presented at the Second SIFA Graduate Conference, Bologna (Italy).
• Mattingly, J. (2005). The structure of scientific theory change: models versus privileged formulations. Philosophy of Science, 72(2), 365–389.
• Miessler, L.G. and Tarr, D.A. (2010). Inorganik Chemistry (4th ed.), New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Moulines, C.U. (2010). The nature and structure of scientific theories. Paper presented at Seminar für Philosophie, Logik und Wissenschaftstheorie, University of Munich.