<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hakki Kadayifci</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BARRIERS TO STUDENTS’ CREATIVE EVALUATION OF UNEXPECTED EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">creativity barriers</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">laboratory work</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">students’ explanations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">unexpected findings</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">June/2017</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2017/987-1497964307.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">E-ISSN 2538-7138</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Science lecturers usually do not pay special attention to giving students the chance to evaluate persistent unexpected experimental findings that they cannot explain with their existing theories, propose alternative hypotheses and develop new theories in inquiry tasks at schools, despite the importance of these processes in scientific discoveries. Students’ reactions to this type of findings have been a subject for conceptual change studies that new theories were presented to explain the findings. This research, in contrast, examined students’ ways of interpreting their unexpected experimental findings about the molar mass of the sulfur element while hiding a new theory, and their barriers to discovering the scientific explanation of these findings, which is new to them, in the framework of the creativity paradigm. The research was conducted with 155 first-year undergraduate students who were enrolled in a chemistry laboratory course. A majority of the participants said that the unexpected findings might have resulted from experimental errors or methodical problems. Few students stated that these findings might be valid and have a new explanation. The barriers to students' discovery of new scientific explanation for findings were classified as: lack of pre-knowledge, obstacles of existing structures, failure of creative cognitive processes and social-personal blocks.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">414-428</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Huseyin Akkus</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hakki Kadayifci</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Basri Atasoy</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF A TWO-TIER DIAGNOSTIC TEST TO ASSESS SECONDARY STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF CHEMICAL EQUILIBRIUM CONCEPTS</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alternative Conception</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chemical equilibrium</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">high school</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">two-tier multiple choice test</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">September/2011</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1410547169.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The purpose of this study is to develop a two-tier multiple choice test to detect tenth grade high school students’ conceptual understanding related to chemical equilibrium. In the development of the test the steps described by Treagust (1988) were used. The test was prepared for the purpose of detecting students’ conceptual understanding in topics like approach to equilibrium, equilibrium state, changes in the equilibrium conditions, addition of inert gas and catalyst. The test was administered to 102 tenth grade students. The internal validity coefficient of Cronbach alpha was 0.903. Difficulty indices ranged from 0.20 to 0.93, and discrimination indices ranged from 0.19 to 0.89. Each item was analyzed to determine student understanding and identify alternative conceptions about, chemical equilibrium concept. Results of the test suggested students did not acquire a satisfactory understanding of chemical equilibrium concepts and 25 common students’ alternative conceptions were identified through analysis of test items.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">146-155 </style></section></record></records></xml>