Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Volume 39 | Issue 1 Article 1

2014

Chemical Literacy Levels of Science and

Mathematics Teacher Candidates
Suat Celik
Ataturk University, Kazım Karabekir Education Faculty, Department of Secondary Science and Mathmatics Education,
[email protected]

Recommended Citation
Celik, S. (2014). Chemical Literacy Levels of Science and Mathematics Teacher Candidates. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
39(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n1.5

This Journal Article is posted at Research Online.

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol39/iss1/1
Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Chemical Literacy Levels of Science and Mathematics Teacher Candidates

Suat Celik
Ataturk University

Abstract: The goal of this study was to investigate Turkish science and
mathematics teacher candidates’ levels of attainment in chemical
literacy. These candidates had all studied the new Turkish chemistry
curriculum in high school. The sample of the study consisted of 112
students, who were first-year students in the Department of Secondary
Science and Mathematics Education. The participants’ levels of
nominal, functional, conceptual, and multi-dimensional literacy were
tested. The data were collected by a questionnaire previously
developed and used in the literature. The participants’ levels of
nominal and conceptual chemical literacy were found to be
satisfactory in terms of the expectations for the new curriculum, but
their levels of functional and multi-dimensional were insufficient.
These results are discussed in relation to the literature on the new
Turkish chemistry curriculum and on chemical literacy more
generally.

Introduction

Rapidly changing scientific and technological products continually emerge to

influence modern society. Thus, understanding scientific facts and the inter-relationships
between science, technology, and society is extremely useful. The possession of such
knowledge and the ability to apply it to real world problems is called scientific literacy (Bond,
1989).
DeBoer (2000) said that educating people to be scientifically literate is one of the
main goals in the reforms of science education. He also noted that although everyone agrees
on this goal, there is no current consensus on the meaning of the term scientific literacy.
According to DeBoer, without a clear definition, science education reforms will not produce
this desired outcome.
Bybee (1997) proposed a broad framework to define and identify degrees of scientific
literacy. According to this framework, an individual can possess several levels of scientific
literacy at once, which are based on contexts and subjects. Nominal, functional, conceptual,
and multi-dimensional scientific literacy are components of this framework.
Recognizing words and issues related science but can’t explain them meaningfully is
nominal literacy. At this level, students can only memorize the name of concepts and terms
but can’t define them meaningfully. They have misconceptions about them (Uno & Bybee,
1994). Functional literacy is the capacity to use scientific concepts to read and write about
science and technology, but there are misconceptions existed into these concepts. They can
define the concepts, which they memorize, but they haven’t enough understanding to define
them with their own words about. This is similar to the “knowledge” level of Bloom
Taxonomy of learning objectives (Koballa, Kemp, & Evans, 1997). Conceptual literacy
highlights conceptual understandings about scientific concepts and their relation with other
concepts. This level requires a scientific habit of mind as well as. According to Shwartz, Dori,

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 1

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

and Treagust (2013) conceptual literacy requires integrating and organizing information
instead of just memorizing inert knowledge. The highest level of literacy, which is multi-
dimensional literacy, requires understanding science and technology concepts from a
philosophic and historical perspective, and relating that understanding to society and daily
life. Koballa et al. (1997), called this level “true” scientific literacy based on the model of
(Shamos, 1995).
Given the multiple aspects of scientific literacy, the definition can be very broad. In
practical usage, when the term is used, its definition often depends on the context and society
in which it is being discussed (Laugksch, 2000). Despite this, there have been many attempts
in science education studies to define scientific literacy.
According to DeBoer (2000), scientific literacy allows the public to live effectively in
a very rapidly changing natural world. Hazen and Trefil (1991) similarly defined scientific
literacy as knowledge that the public needs to understand the scientific content of public
issues. According to Hazen and Trefil, if someone treats news about the ozone layer, genetic
engineering, or chemical waste in the same way as news about sports, business, or
government, it can be inferred that this person is scientifically literate.
As scientific literacy is a broad concept, teaching any special subject in science
education should contribute to the goal of training scientifically literate people. Teaching
chemistry contributes to chemistry literacy in particular, and to scientific literacy in general
(Shwartz et al., 2006b). To achieve the goal of educating chemically literate people,
chemistry curricula have been recently and increasingly changed, in keeping with reforms of
the other science subject curricula in many countries (Herscovitz, Kaberman, Saar, & Dori,
2012). The main goal of the new chemistry curriculum of Turkey is to educate people to be
chemically literate. It is thought that studying the effects of these reforms in chemistry
education on educating people, as chemical literate is very important.
Understanding chemistry is very critical, because our physical environment is heavily
affected by chemistry and filled with chemical products (Gilbert & Treagust, 2009).
Understanding chemical explanations is also very important for most people, because such
explanations have practical applications in daily life. Understanding chemistry helps people
to take part in public debates, and to make sense of their everyday lives and environment.
Understanding chemistry and the ability to apply that understanding to daily life is what is
referred to as chemical literacy (Tsaparlis, 2000).
Most studies on what kinds of knowledge and skills are covered by the term chemical
literacy and on how chemical literacy is taught and measured are very new. To date, studies
about chemical literacy are mostly based on broader studies about general scientific literacy
(Bond, 1989). But Bond (1989) asked many years ago whether this subservient focus would
provide sufficient emphasis to support public interest in atomic theory, the mole concept,
radioactivity, or other fundamental concepts of chemistry.
To form an answer to that question, several attempts have been made to identify
chemical literacy among groups of research subjects. Barnea, Dori, and Hofstein (2010)
framed chemical literacy as including an understanding of the particulate nature of matter,
chemical reactions, laws and theories of chemistry, and common chemistry applications in
daily life. Chemical literacy entails an understanding of the chemical components of any
publicly discussed issue. Possessing an understanding of the concepts of chemistry, in order
to make informed decisions that will affect society, is more important than mastering a body
of chemical knowledge (Harlen, 2001).
There have been numerous attempts to define chemical literacy. To facilitate
curriculum development for science and chemistry education, Shwartz, Ben‐Zvi, and
Hofstein (2005) asked chemistry teachers and scientists to define chemical literacy. A
framework, which included chemical concepts, contexts, learning skills, and applications,

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 2

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

was generated from the result of the study. According to this framework, a chemically literate
person should understand basic scientific concepts, such as that chemistry is a branch of
science and involves theories which help to explain the natural world, and that knowledge
obtained from the study of chemistry can be transferred and applied to other topics in science
and technology. A chemically literate person also should know the basic goals of the field of
chemistry. These include the principles that chemistry teaches us to understand macroscopic
phenomena by means of the microscopic and symbolic level of chemistry, and that chemistry
scholars investigate the dynamics of processes and reactions, and the energy changes in
reactions. A chemical literate person should appreciate and be able to use this knowledge in
his/her daily life. To be chemical literate, a person must possess higher “learning skills,” such
as the ability to generate useful questions and to seek information to answer questions. For
affirmative dimension of chemical literacy people should have a realistic view about
chemistry (Shwartz, Ben-Zvi, & Hofstein, 2006a; Shwartz et al., 2005).
As most studies about identifying chemistry literacy are based on studies concerning
scientific literacy, similarly, attempted scholarly measurements of chemistry literacy have
also been largely based on the same studies about scientific literacy. For example, Shwartz et
al. (2006b) adopted the scientific literacy framework developed by Bybee (1997) to measure
levels of scientific literacy among Israeli high school students who were studying a reformed
chemistry curriculum. Based on scientific literacy frameworks, which existed in the literature,
they developed an assessment tools to measure the Israeli students’ levels of nominal literacy,
functional literacy, conceptual literacy, and multi-dimensional literacy. According to their
framework, the criteria of the nominal, functional, conceptual, and multi-dimensional
categories were to recognize chemical concepts, define key concepts of chemistry, use an
understanding of chemical concepts to explain phenomena, and comprehend any article about
chemistry. Shwartz, et al. (2006b) found that the students’ nominal literacy was adequate, but
only a small percentage of the students in the sample could define any chemical concepts
with what could be called functional literacy, after taking basic chemistry courses. They also
found that advanced chemistry courses had contributed very little to the students’ functional,
conceptual, and multi-dimensional chemistry literacy levels.
Many nations, such as Israel, Australia, and the USA, have tried to reform their
science education programs in the light of recent developments in science education. Since
2004, curricula also have been reformed in Turkey. In 2007, the Turkish Ministry of National
Education (MONE) formed a commission of academics from the fields of Chemistry and
Educational Science, to prepare a new chemistry curriculum (MONE, 2007).
The new curriculum was organized by themes, such as the structure of matter,
interactions among substances, relations between matter and energy, chemical properties and
the structures of materials used in daily life, positive and negative effects of the technological
products of chemistry on the environment and on human life, and the value of a scientific
way of thinking. The curriculum has four main goals, which were grouped under the themes
of chemistry content knowledge; scientific processing skills; chemistry, society, and the
environment; and technology, applications, and communicative skills in science.
There are also two parts of the curriculum. The first part is for all students, regardless
of their selected major. This includes training in more general chemistry concepts and basic
processes of chemistry. The second part is designed to provide more conceptual insights into
the field of chemistry.
The research question of the study is:
What are secondary science and mathematics teacher candidates’ levels of chemical literacy?

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 3

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to measure the chemistry literacy levels of secondary
science and mathematics teacher candidates, who had participated in the high school
chemistry curriculum in Turkey.

The Sample of the Study

The participants consisted of 112 secondary science and mathematics teacher

candidates. The sample was chosen based on the convenient sampling method. Because all of
these students had been taught both parts of the chemistry curriculum, at high school they
were chosen as the sample of the study. The percentile of females and males in the sample
were 64% and 36%, respectively. The distribution of the population according to subject
majors is shown in Table 1.

Subjects Number of Students Percentile

Chemistry 22 20
Biology 43 38
Physics 18 16
Mathematics 29 26
Total 112 100
Table 1: The distribution of the sample

The Data Collection

To collect the data, questionnaires developed by Shwartz et al. (2006b) were used.
These original questionnaires were translated into Turkish for this purpose. The
questionnaires set was administered to each group at different times and each administration
took approximately 80 minutes. The data was collected with three different questionnaires.
The first questionnaire measured levels of the nominal and functional chemical
literacy of the students. This questionnaire consisted of questions, which asked the students to
identify and define a list of chemical concepts, such as temperature, protein, atom, and ozone.
Because this questionnaire just tests students’ acquaintances with words and concepts of
chemistry it doesn’t test students’ conceptual understandings. Teachers usually use this kind
of tools to test students’ chemistry knowledge at high school (Uno & Bybee, 1994). In this
questionnaire, there were Likert-type scale (1-3) questions, which measured the students’
acquaintance with each concept. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient for this part of
the questionnaire was 0.97. There were also open-ended items, which asked students to
define some concepts of chemistry.
The second questionnaire measured the students’ ability to use their understanding of
chemistry to explain daily issues. This ability refers to conceptual chemical literacy. Students
should use their conceptual understandings about concepts and process in chemistry at this
level of literacy (Uno & Bybee, 1994). In this questionnaire, a number of phenomena related
to daily life were presented, with a statement following each example. The students were
asked to classify these statements as correct or incorrect. There were 11 different phenomena,
collected into three groups in the original questionnaire. Only five of these phenomena were
used for the current study. These were related to “diffusion and smelling,” “temperature,”
“limestone reacting with acid,” “reduction-oxidation,” and “water and oil.” Two professors of
chemistry were asked to choose these phenomena, to match the Turkish high school
chemistry curriculum.

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 4

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

The last questionnaire was used to measure the students’ levels of multi-dimensional
literacy. This questionnaire investigated the students’ ability to read and comprehend a
paragraph that included chemical information. There were three similar paragraphs presented
to each group of students in the study of Shwartz et al. (2006b). For the current study, only
one paragraph was used, entitled “green chemistry.” The paragraph was about reducing the
side effects of technology on the natural world through chemistry. Following the paragraph,
there were questions, which measured the students’ reading comprehension, ability to relate
their chemical knowledge to the question, and reasoning.

The Data Analysis

Descriptive data analysis was used in this study. To show the secondary science and
mathematics teacher candidates’ various levels of chemical literacy, percentiles and
frequencies of their responses were calculated. The responses given to the open-ended
questions were organized into three categories: correct, partially correct, and incorrect. For
the reliability analysis of responses to the open ended item, the author reanalyzed 15% of the
data set. Inter rater reliability of the two analyses were calculated as 87%.
If the answer doesn’t contain any misunderstandings labeled as correct, contains some
misunderstandings labeled as partially correct and doesn’t reveal any understanding labeled
as incorrect. Three examples of responses for the each label were presented in the following.
The letter after the excerpt shows first letter of students’ study subjects and the following
number shows their place in the group.
Correct: A molecule is a structure consisted of two different or same types of atom
such as H2, O2 and H2O. (M.31 Student)
Partially Correct: A molecule is formed by different type of atoms such as H2O. (B.54
Student)
Incorrect: Molecule is the basic particle of the elements. (C.3 Student)
For the likert scale items descriptive analysis also was performed. There are 38
concepts in the list to test students’ accountancies based on 1-3 likert scale and 6 concepts to
be defined by students. Concepts included in the list were categorized based on Shwartz et al.
(2006b). Two professors at the chemistry education department also asked check the validity
of the categorization.

The Results

In this section, descriptive results of students’ responses are presented, to display their
varying levels of chemistry literacy.

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 5

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

The Students’ Levels of Nominal Literacy

Category Concepts Mean

Conservation law, temperature, electrical
Scientific inquiry conductivity, microwave, model, conclusion, 2.16
fact, scientific theory, scientific hypothesis.
Atom, isotope, electron, ion, molecule,
Structure: sub-micro concepts 2.36
chemical bond.
Materials: general types of Acid, base, protein, element, mineral, metal,
2.36
substances polymers, compound, solution.
Materials: specific substances Ozone, air, crude oil, carbon, steel. 2.09
Chemical reaction, reaction rate, electrolysis,
Chemical reactions combustion, activation energy, catalyzer, 2.28
distillation, oxidation, radioactivity
Table 2: The mean scores of each category, showing the students’ acquaintance with chemical concepts
based on a scale (1-3)

As indicated in Table 2, the students displayed a fairly high acquaintance with many
chemical concepts. The means of all the categories were higher than the median of the likert
scale. But the students were least familiar with “specific substances,” such as petroleum,
ozone, and steel. Another category with which the students were least familiar is “scientific
inquiry.” This category includes concepts such as hypotheses, facts, and scientific theory.
Although there is an emphasis on the nature of science in the new chemistry curriculum, the
students indicated that they were not sufficiently acquainted with concepts about the nature of
science. According to the students’ choices, the most familiar and unfamiliar concepts are
presented in Table 1. Based on the students’ choices, the concepts were ranked. Top familiar
and unfamiliar concepts were obtained from this ranking.

Concepts % Concepts %
Atom 73 Polymer 40
Element 73 Scientific Theory 39
Isotope 71 Chemical connection 37
Compound 68 Radioactivity 35
Base 67 Ozone 35
Acid 67 Electric conductivity 32
Electron 63 Steel 28
Solution 63 Oil/petroleum 26
Combustion reaction 63 Model 24
Catalyst 60 Micro Wave 23
Fact 20
Table 3: Distribution of the most familiar and unfamiliar concepts, according to the students’ choices

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 6

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

The Students’ Levels of Functional Literacy

The students’ functional literacy levels were determined via their explanations of
selected chemical concepts. The students’ explanations were classified as correct, partially
correct, or incorrect.

Percentages

Concept Type of Explanation Correct Partially Correct Incorrect

Molecular 11 24 11
Molecule Macroscopic 6 30 18
Total 17 54 29
Molecular 19 13 2
Chemical Reaction Macroscopic 25 33 8
Total 44 46 10
Molecular - 10 -
Acid Macroscopic 1 64 23
Total 3 74 23
Molecular - 3 -
Ozone Macroscopic 4 75 18
Total 4 78 18
Molecular 1 5 1
Chemical Connection Macroscopic 19 46 28
Total 20 51 29
Molecular - - -
Temperature Macroscopic 12 22 66
Total 12 22 66
Table 4. Results of the students’ explanations of chemical concepts

Results in Table 4 show that most of the students possessed very limited knowledge
about the concepts. Most of their explanations were partially correct and demonstrated a
macroscopic point-of-view. Except for explanations about chemical reactions, the
percentages of correct explanations were less than both those of the partially correct and the
incorrect ones. It also appeared that 66% of the students’ explanations about temperature
were incorrect. For example, one of the students explained: “Molecule is the case of more
than one element gathering with chemical connections. Some elements and all compounds
are composed of molecules in nature. For example N2, H2O, and H2SO4.” This explanation is
categorized as partially correct, because it doesn’t refer to ionic compounds, which are not
composed of molecules. Because the response included chemical symbols, it was classified
as a molecular explanation. Another student incorrectly thought: “Temperature is the thermal
energy that any substance gets or gives from its surroundings.” Here, there is a
misunderstanding between temperature and heat. The highest percentages of correct
explanations were for chemical reactions. One of the example explanations was: “Chemical
reaction is the interaction of more than one substance. New substances are produced, and the
chemical structure of the interacting substances is changed after the interaction.”
In order to examine the levels of the students’ functional literacy, they were also
asked to choose and explain two concepts, which were the most familiar to them from the
concept list. They mostly chose concepts such as isotope, atom, law of material preservation,
and acid. Even though they thought they were familiar with these concepts, only 56% of their
explanations were correct.

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 7

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

The Students’ Levels of Conceptual Literacy

When a bottle of perfume is left open in a room, after several minutes the perfume can be smelled
throughout the room. Below are several statements pertaining to this phenomenon.
Percentage of
I can't
Correct Incorrect
determine
Some of the perfume passes from a fluid aggregate
a. 96 3 2
state to a gaseous aggregate state.
Transition to the aggregate state will take place only
b. if the boiling point of the perfume is lower than the 28 46 26
temperature of the room.
The perfume molecules spread throughout the room
c. 90 3 7
by clashing with other molecules in the air.
The higher the temperature in the room becomes, the
d. 81 4 15
faster will be the evaporation.
A weak chemical bond/connection forms between
e. the perfume molecules and special 36 29 35
receptors/sensors found in our noses.
The connection between the perfume molecules and
f. the smell sensors in the nose is not a chemical 45 19 36
connection but rather a biological connection.
Average 63 17 20
Table 5: The students’ understanding of diffusion

To test the students’ levels of conceptual literacy, they were asked to relate their
understanding of chemistry to daily life phenomena. There were five phenomena in the
questionnaire. The students were asked to label statements following each phenomenon as
correct or incorrect. If they thought that they did not have enough information about the
statement, they could also indicate that they cannot determine. The results of the students’
responses are outlined in Tables 5 - 9. Scientifically correct statements are written with
normal font, and the incorrect ones are written with italic font in the tables.
The students mostly possessed a correct understanding of diffusion. The percentages
of correct responses ranged from 36 to 96. Incorrect responses were only about boiling. They
incorrectly thought that the changing state of the substance could only take place if the
boiling point of the substance is lower than the temperature of the environment. This result
indicates that the students thought that evaporation only occurs after boiling. Fortunately, the
percentage of students who chose that this statement is correct was not very high.

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 8

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

A wooden chair and a metal chair are found in the same room for an extended period. After this
time, the temperatures of both chairs are measured. Below are different statements pertaining to the
temperature of the metal chair and the wooden chair?
Percentage of
I can't
Correct Incorrect
determine
Transfer of energy will take place between the
particles/molecules of each chair and the
a. molecules in the air in the room, to the point of 69 12 18
equilibrium of energy between the air in the
room and the chairs.
Transfer of energy will take place between the
particles/molecules of each chair and the
b. molecules in the air in the room, to the point of 62 13 25
equilibrium of temperatures between the room
and the chairs.
When equilibrium in temperature between the
two chairs in the room is reached, the particles
c. 21 44 35
composing the two chairs will have the same
kinetic energy as the molecules in the air.
There will be a difference in temperatures of the
two chairs. The metal one will heat up more if the
d. 87 7 6
room is hot and will cool off more if the room is
cold.
The proof that the temperature of the two chairs
e. is different is our feeling/how we feel when we sit 56 28 16
on them.
The final temperature of each chair depends on
f. the melting point/temperature of the material 38 19 43
from which it is composed.
Average 56 21 24
Table 6: The students’ understanding of temperature

The lowest percentages of correct understanding related to temperature. As indicated

in Table 5, 87% of the students incorrectly thought that the metal chair would more heat up
than the wooden chair in a hot environment, or cool off more in a cold environment. The
percentages of incorrect responses ranged from 38 to 87, while the percentages of correct
responses ranged from 21 to 69.
Regarding conceptual literacy, it was found that the students’ could relate their
understanding of chemical reactions to daily life phenomena. As indicated in Table 7, the
percentages of their correct responses were between 65 and 83. The highest percentage of
their incorrect responses was on the aggregation state of limestone. They incorrectly thought
that during the reaction of limestone with acid, firstly the limestone turned into liquid, and
then to a gas state.

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 9

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

To examine the effect of acid rain on buildings and sculptures built of limestone, the following
experiments were conducted:
In the first experiment, a small block of limestone rock, whose mass was 1 g., was put into an acid
solution. The block reacted (to the point of its complete disappearance) and gas was discharged.
This was collected, and its amount was measured precisely.
In the second experiment, 1 g. of limestone dust was put into an identical amount and identical
concentration of acid. Both experiments were carried out at exactly the same temperature.
Below are various statements pertaining to the two experiments:
Percentage of
I can't
Correct Incorrect
determine
The solid limestone changed the aggregation state; in
a. the course of the reaction it turned into liquid/fluid 67 18 15
and after to gas.
Only the temperature has an effect/influences the
b. 12 85 4
rate of reaction.
Since an identical temperature was maintained in
c. both the experiments, the reaction occurred at exactly 10 79 11
the same rate.
Exactly the same volume of gas was obtained in the
d. 66 16 18
two experiments.
e. The gas discharged in the reaction is carbon dioxide. 65 4 31
The reaction occurred/was faster in the second
f. experiment because of a larger interface between the 83 6 11
acid and the limestone.
A change in the acid concentration could also change
g. 68 10 23
the reaction rate.
Average 53 31 16
Table 7: The students’ understanding of chemical reactions

A nail made of iron rusted after being in an environment in which it was exposed both to air and to
moisture. The nail looked as if the iron was "eaten" and disappeared, but when weighing the iron
and the rust that formed on it, it became clear that the mass was greater/higher than the original mass
of the nail, before it rusted. Below are statements relating to this phenomenon:
Percentages of
I can't
Correct Incorrect
determine
a. The nail's mass increased only because the water
molecules that were absorbed on the surface of the
metal and molecules of the material are different 24 55 21
than the air that was absorbed on the surface of the
metal.
b. The mass of the nail increased because the iron
92 3 5
reacts with the oxygen.
c. During a reaction between a metal and oxygen,
there is a transferral of electrons from the metal to 59 13 28
the oxygen.
d. During a reaction between a metal and oxygen, a
covalent bond forms between the metal atoms and 35 30 35
the oxygen atoms.
e. Various metals differ from each other in their
58 6 36
tendency to be oxidized.
f. Iron is a metal that has the highest tendency to be
73 3 23
oxidized.
Average 57 18 25
Table 8: The students’ understanding of oxidation

As indicated in Table 8, the students’ understanding of oxidation was mostly correct.

While the percentages of incorrect responses ranged between 24 and 35, the percentages of

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 10

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

correct responses ranged between 58 and 92. The students who possessed an incorrect
understanding thought that the nail’s mass increased only because of the water absorbed on
the surface of it, and that a covalent bond forms between the metal and oxygen. This
demonstrates that the students possessed only a partially correct understanding of chemical
connections.
Most of the students possessed an adequate understanding to correctly assess about
why oil and water don’t mix. Except for the choices in the d response in Table 8, the
percentages of correct responses were more than fifty percent. Forty-nine percent of the
students indicated that they did not have enough information about the polarization of
hydrophobic molecules.

If we put water and oil in a test tube, we will discern that they don't mix with each other. Below are
various statements that relate to this phenomenon.
Percentages of
I can't
Correct Incorrect
determine
a. Water and oil are a mixture. 65 35 1
b. Water and oil do not mix because the two
29 63 8
materials each have a different specific gravity.
c. The term hydrophobic relates to a material whose
70 3 28
molecules do not bond with water molecules.
d. Molecules of hydrophobic material are non-
42 10 49
polarized molecules.
e. There are molecules that are capable of bonding
with both water molecules and molecules of oily 56 10 35
materials.
f. Most creams for cosmetic use are a uniform
mixture of a watery solution and some kind of oily 65 3 32
material.
Average 55 21 26
Table 9: The students’ understanding of mixtures

The Students’ Levels of Multi-Dimensional Chemical Literacy

Multi-dimensional chemical literacy entails that students must appreciate the value of
science and technology and be able to relate knowledge of these areas to their daily lives
(Shwartz et al., 2006b). To test the students’ multi-dimensional chemical literacy, a reading
text about green chemistry was presented to them. The students were required to read this and
to comprehend the text. The text also featured open-ended questions about green chemistry.
According to the results, only 38% of the students could correctly identify the main
idea of the text. When the students were asked to identify key words, most of them (87%)
could identify at least one or more keywords. The highest percentage of them (30%)
identified three key words. The students indicated that the most unknown term to them was
propylene-oxide. Only 23% of the students attempted to explain the oxidation of
hydrocarbons, and only 34% of these explanations were correct. The students were asked to
explain why hydrocarbons only react with oxygen under high temperatures but do not react at
room temperature. Although most of them replied to this question, only 26% of their
responses were correct. In another question, the students were asked to explain the term
catalyst and its’ role in the given text. The highest percentage (65%) of correct explanations
regarding functional literacy corresponded to this question. It was also found that the students
did not know why substances

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 11

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

like NaC1, which is table salt and contains Chlorine, constitutes an environmental
hazard.

Conclusion

In this study, the students’ levels of chemical literacy were investigated. Because one
of the main goals of the new curriculum is to train chemically literate people, it is expected
that students will become familiar with the basic concepts of chemistry, and will be able to
define these concepts, relate them to daily life, appreciate the value of chemical knowledge
and applications, and be aware of the effects of chemistry on society. The results of this study
show that the students’ levels of nominal and conceptual chemical literacy were satisfactory,
but their levels of functional and multi-dimensional chemical literacy were insufficient.
Regarding nominal literacy, the students declared that they were familiar with many
concepts of chemistry, such as the atom, elements, isotopes, acids, and bases. However, many
students also declared that they did not know much about concepts related to the nature of
science, such as scientific inquiry and scientific theories. This result shows that the nature of
science, which is one of the core dimensions of scientific literacy—as was noted by Laugksch
(2000), is neglected in the curriculum. The results of the current study regarding nominal
chemical literacy are in accord with the results of Shwartz et al. (2006b).
Another dimension of chemical literacy, with which the students were adequately
acquainted, was conceptual chemical literacy. It was found that most of the students could
relate their understanding of diffusion, chemical reactions, oxidation, and mixtures to daily
life. The average percentages of correct explanations for each phenomenon ranged between
51 and 76. But, in accord with the results for functional chemical literacy, the students had
the weakest understanding of temperature and its relations to real life.
But the results for the functional levels of chemical literacy were less satisfactory.
Most of the students could not define the chemistry concepts that were allegedly familiar to
them. Their definitions of concepts were mostly incorrect and at a macroscopic level. The
highest percentages of incorrect definitions concerned temperature. Because this level of
chemical literacy simply requires memorization rather than understanding, it is expected that
high school science training should result in a functional level of literacy (Shwartz et al.,
2006b). The majority of students did attempt to define the concepts. Most of them chose the
concept of an isotope as the most familiar concept to define. They probably thought that only
reciting any concept means knowing that concept. One example of the definitions offered for
isotope was that an “isotope is forms of an element which has the same number of protons
but different numbers of neutrons.” But none of the students offered an example to expand
their definition.
The multi-dimensional chemical literacy levels of the students were the last to be
tested in this study. It was found that the students’ levels of multi-dimensional chemical
literacy were not very high, compared to the results for functional chemical literacy. Only
38% of the students could identify the main idea of the text, and most of them could not
explain why some materials, such as NaC1, are hazardous to the environment. They also
could not explain the mechanism of the oxidation of hydrocarbons. These results show that
the students’ levels of reading comprehension, their utilization of former chemical knowledge,
and their reasoning were not sufficient. One of the reasons for these results might be related
to the students’ reading and studying habits. Özden (2007) found that 88% of teachers in that
study indicated that students study chemistry only to score high enough on the national
exams, rather than to obtain a deeper understanding of chemistry. In another study, it was

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 12

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

found that chemistry teachers do not use chemistry textbooks. They mostly use test books to
prepare students for national exams (Nakipoglu, 2009).
Because students have become accustomed to a passive learning environment from
their previous education, the goals of the new curriculum have only been partially achieved.
In a passive learning environment, making students read and search for knowledge is not
emphasized as much as the simple transmission of knowledge to students. Students’
knowledge is mostly measured by multiple-choice tests in this sort of passive environment.
Simply asking chemistry content knowledge with single assessment tool isn’t enough to help
students to improve their chemistry learning (Gilbert, 2005; Shwartz et al., 2013). It has also
noted that the mismatch between this assessment approach and the new curriculum
requirements hinders achievement of the goals of the curriculum (Yaşar & Sözbilir, 2012).
One of the main reasons for the students’ higher general level of conceptual chemical literacy
in this study might be related to the multiple choice questions that they were asked to answer
in that part of their assessment. Because the students were accustomed to multiple-choice
questions, they could more easily determine which choice is correct or incorrect about the
phenomena.
Another reason for the inadequate levels of functional and multi-dimensional
chemical literacy might be related to the delayed application of the new chemistry curriculum
in schools. The goals of the new curriculum obviously could not be met if the curriculum was
not implemented properly. Other studies have indicated that teachers’ lack of preparation to
teach the new curriculum was one the biggest obstacles to implementing it in the high schools
(Kurt & Yıldırım, 2010; Yaşar & Sözbilir, 2012).
As it can be inferred from the results, students have higher achievement on the
assessment type they are more accustomed. To serve the goal of educating chemical literate
people, assessment approaches should be revised as well as the content of the curriculum. As
stated by Shwartz et al. (2013) chemistry teachers and educators should corporate formative
assessment tools, such as paragraph analysis, portfolios, and diagnostic test, in their
assessment approaches.
It is also recommended that chemistry teachers consider all students, who might chose
chemistry as professional career or not, when they prepare outcomes for the chemistry
curriculum. To live in a world full of chemistry process and products, every one needs to be
chemical literate (Gilbert, 2005).
The main limitation of this study is about its’ sample. If the sample could have been
chosen randomly, results might have been more generalizable. For large sample there is need
for new data collection tools that can be answered in a shorter time than the tools used in this
study.

References

Barnea, N., Dori, Y. J., & Hofstein, A. (2010). Development and implementation of inquiry-
based and computerized-based laboratories: reforming high school chemistry in Israel.
Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11(3), 218-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c005471m
Bond, D. (1989). In pursuit of chemical literacy: A place for chemical reactions. Journal of
Chemical Education, 66(2), 157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed066p157
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices: ERIC.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary
meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-
2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 13

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Chemical Literacy: An Approach Through Models and Modelling.

Ljubljana, Slovenia, 15.
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic
representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education
Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1-8): Springer Netherlands.
Harlen, W. (2001). The assessment of scientific literacy in the OECD/PISA project.
Hazen, R. M., & Trefil, J. S. (1991). Achieving chemical literacy. Journal of Chemical
Education, 68(5), 392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed068p392
Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., Saar, L., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). The Relationship Between
Metacognition and the Ability to Pose Questions in Chemical Education.
Metacognition in Science Education, 165-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-
2132-6_8
Koballa, T., Kemp, A., & Evans, R. (1997). The Spectrum of Scientific Literacy. Science
Teacher, 64(7), 27-31.
Kurt, S., & Yildirim, N. (2010). Teachers’ suggestions and views on applying 9th grade
secondary school chemistry curriculum. On Dokuz Mayis Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi
Dergisi, 29(1), 91-104.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1),
71-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<71::AID-
SCE6>3.0.CO;2-C
MONE. (2007). Turkish Ministry of Education: High School Chemistry Curriculum, from
http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretim-programlari/icerik/72
Nakipoglu, C. (2009). Examination on expert chemistry teachers’ secondary school chemistry
textbook usage Ahi Evran Universitesi Kirsehir Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 10(1), 91-101.
Ozden, M. (2007). Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of chemistry teachers' problems
encountered during chemistry teaching: Samples of Adiyaman and Malatya. Pamukkale
Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, (22), 40-54.
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy: Rutgers University Press.
Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006a). Chemical literacy: What does this mean to
scientists and school teachers? Journal of Chemical Education, 83(10), 1557.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1557
Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006b). 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b6rp90011a
Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2005). The importance of involving high school
chemistry teachers in the process of defining the operational meaning of 'chemical
literacy'. International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 323-344.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000266191
Shwartz, Y., Dori, Y. J., & Treagust, D. F. (2013). How to Outline Objectives for Chemistry
Education and how to Assess Them Teaching Chemistry–A Studybook (pp. 37-65):
Springer. PMid:23032358
Tsaparlis, G. (2000). The states-of-matter approach (SOMA) to introductory chemistry.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 161-168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/a9rp90017a
Uno, G. E., & Bybee, R. W. (1994). Understanding the dimensions of biological literacy.
Bioscience, 44(8), 553-557. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1312283

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 14

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Yasar, M. D., & Sozbilir, M. (2012). Teachers’ views about 2007 chemistry curriculum and
problems encountering during the implementation: The case of Erzurum. Erzincan
Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 14(2), 359-392.

Vol 39, 1, January 2014 15