Elektrolitlarda elektr toki mavzusini o‘qitishda noto‘g‘ri tasavvurlar va ularni bartaraf etish metodikasi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18712009Ключевые слова:
elektrolitlarda elektr toki, elektr o‘tkazuvchanlik, ionlar harakati, elektroliz, elektrod jarayonlari, kontseptual qiyinchiliklar, noto‘g‘ri tasavvurlar, virtual laboratoriya, raqamli simulyatsiya, mikrolaboratoriya, analitik tahlilАннотация
Ushbu maqolada elektrolitlarda elektr toki (elektr o‘tkazuvchanlik, ionlar harakati, elektroliz va elektrod
jarayonlari) mavzusini o‘qitishda yuzaga keladigan asosiy tushunchaviy qiyinchiliklar hamda laboratoriya mashg‘ulotlarida
uchraydigan didaktik va texnik muammolar tahlil qilinadi. 2020–2025-yillarda olib borilgan raqamli simulyatsiya
va laboratoriya tadqiqotlari hamda klassik konseptual ishlarga tayangan holda o‘quvchilarda keng tarqalgan noto‘g‘ri
tasavvurlar – “elektronlar eritma orqali oqadi”, “ionlar faqat elektrod yaqinida harakatlanadi”, “anod va katod tushunchalari
doimiy bo‘ladi” kabi qarashlarning shakllanish sabablari aniqlanadi va ilmiy jihatdan asoslab beriladi
Библиографические ссылки
1. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as
a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
2. Basheer, A., Gulacar, O., & Mansour, N. (2025). Analyzing the impact of simulations on eighth graders’ academic performance,
motivation, and perception of classroom climate in science classrooms. Education Sciences, 15(12), 1629.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121629
3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation
and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
4. Brandriet, A. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2014). Measuring meta-ignorance through the lens of confidence: Examining students’
redox misconceptions about oxidation numbers, charge, and electron transfer. Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, 15(4), 729–746. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00129J
5. Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional
(hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218–237. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003
6. Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry:
Electric circuits and oxidation–reduction equations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(10),
1079–1099. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660291006
7. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century.
Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
8. Keller, C., Durfee, D., McKagan, S. B., & Perkins, K. K. (2021). Supporting inquiry-based learning with PhET simulations:
Design principles and classroom strategies. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(4), 1203–1213. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01028
9. Kolil, V. K., Muthupalani, S., & Achuthan, K. (2020). Virtual experimental platforms in chemistry education: A review.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-
00181-y
10. Moore, E. B., Herzog, T. A., & Perkins, K. K. (2014). Interactive simulations as conceptual models in chemistry instruction.
Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1191–1197. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400887w
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Copyright (c) 2026 MAKTABGACHA VA MAKTAB TA’LIMI JURNALI
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
