Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
ISSN (Print): 1949-4270 - ISSN (Online): 1949-4289

Research article    |    Open Access
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2019, Vol. 14(3) 154-177

Determining the effect of cooperative learning and models on the conceptual understanding of the chemical reactions

Seda Okumuş, Yasemin Koç & Kemal Doymuş

pp. 154 - 177   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2019.208.8

Publish Date: September 29, 2019  |   Single/Total View: 291/941   |   Single/Total Download: 392/1.621

PDF Download

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of cooperative learning and models on the conceptual understanding of the chemical reactions. The sample of study was comprised of 71 preservice science teachers from the first grade of science teacher education program. Quasi- experimental method with pre-and post-test of quantitative research was used. This study was carried out at General Chemistry Laboratory I course and was applied to two experimental and one control group. At the first experimental group (CMG, n=25), cooperative learning and models were implemented together, and cooperative learning was implemented on the second group (COG, n=23). On the other hand, there was no intervention on the control group (CG, n=23), in which traditional laboratory model was used. To collect data, Chemical Reactions Concept Test (CRCT) was utilized. It was found that cooperative learning with models increased the conceptual understanding about chemical reactions in this study.

Keywords: Cooperative learning; model; chemical reactions; particulate nature of matter.

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Okumus, S., Koc, Y., & Doymus, K. (2019). Determining the effect of cooperative learning and models on the conceptual understanding of the chemical reactions. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(3), 154-177. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2019.208.8

Harvard
Okumus, S., Koc, Y. and Doymus, K. (2019). Determining the effect of cooperative learning and models on the conceptual understanding of the chemical reactions. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(3), pp. 154-177.

Chicago 16th edition
Okumus, Seda, Yasemin Koc and Kemal Doymus (2019). "Determining the effect of cooperative learning and models on the conceptual understanding of the chemical reactions". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 14 (3):154-177. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2019.208.8

References
  1. Adadan, E. (2013). Using multiple representations to promote grade 11 students’ scientific understanding of the particle theory of matter. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1079-1105. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adadan, E. (2014). Investigating the influence of pre-service chemistry teachers’ understanding of the particle nature of matter on their conceptual understanding of solution chemistry. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 15, 219- 238. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahtee, M., & Varjola, I. (1998). Students‟ understanding of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 305-316. [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils‟ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70(5), 549-563. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aydeniz, M., & Kotowski, E.L. (2012). What do middle and high school students know about the particulate nature of matter after instruction? Implications for practice. School Science and Mathematics, 112(2), 59-65. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1999). Students' reasoning about chemical reactions: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 645-665. [Google Scholar]
  7. Belge Can, H., & Boz, Y. (2016). Structuring cooperative learning for motivation and conceptual change in the concepts of mixtures. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 635-657. [Google Scholar]
  8. Boo, H.K. (1998). Students’ understanding of chemical bonds and the energetic of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 569–581. [Google Scholar]
  9. Buyukozturk, Ş., Kılıc Cakmak, E., Akgun, Ö. E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel arastirma yontemleri. (Gelistirilmis 13. baski). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayincilik. [Google Scholar]
  10. Çavdar, O., & Doymuş, K. (2016). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin iyi bir eğitim ortamı için yedi ilke ve modellerle kullanılması [The using of cooperative learning method with seven principles for good practice and models in science course] Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 12(3), 741-768. [Google Scholar]
  11. Çavdar, O., & Doymuş, K. (2018). Karışımlar konusunun öğretilmesinde işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin iyi bir eğitim ortamı için yedi ilke ve modellerle kullanılması [The using of cooperative learning method with seven principles for good practice and models in teaching of the subject of mixtures] Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 14(3), 325-346. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cavdar, O., Okumus, S. Alyar, M., & Doymus, K. (2017). Asitler ve bazlar konusunun anlasilmasına farkli yontemlerin etkisi [The effect of different teaching methods on understanding of acids and bases]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakultesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Egitimi Dergisi, 11(2), 383-408. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cepni, S. (2009). Araştirma ve proje calismalarina giris (Gelistirilmiş dorduncu baski). Trabzon. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chandrasegaran, A.L., Treagust, D.F., & Mocerino, M. (2009). Emphasizing multiple levels of representation to enhance students’ understandings of the changes occurring during chemical reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 86 (12), 1433-1436. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chang, H.Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J.S. (2014). Using drawing technology to assess students’ visualizations of chemical reaction processes. Journal of Science Education Technology 23, 355–369. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cheng, M.M.W., & Gilbert, J.K. (2017). Modelling students’ visualisation of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1173-1193. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chiu, J.L., & Linn, M.C. (2014). Supporting knowledge integration in chemistry with a visualization-enhanced inquiry unit. Journal of Science Education Technology, 23, 37–58. [Google Scholar]
  18. Develaki, M. (2017). Using computer simulations for promoting model-based reasoning. Epistemological and educational dimensions. Science & Education, 26, 1001–1027. [Google Scholar]
  19. Doymus, K. (2007). Effects of a cooperative learning strategy on teaching and learning phases of matter and one-component phase diagrams. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(11), 1857-1860. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ercan, O., Ural, E., & Ozates, D. (2015). The effect of web assisted teaching on students’ achievement in the subject of mixtures and attitudes towards chemistry. Hacettepe University Journal of Education 31(1), 163-179. [Google Scholar]
  21. Evagorou, M., Erduran, S., & Mäntylä, T. (2015). The role of visual representations in scientific practices: From conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to “seeing” how science works. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1-13. [Google Scholar]
  22. Eymur, G., & Geban, O. (2017). The collaboration of cooperative learning and conceptual change: Enhancing the students’ understanding of chemical bonding concept. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 853–871. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gobert, J.D., & Buckley, B.C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894. [Google Scholar]
  24. Griffiths, A., & Preston, K. (1992). Grade-12 students‟ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611-628. [Google Scholar]
  25. Harrison, G.A. (2001.) How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students. Research in Science Education, 31, 401-435. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ingham, A.M., & Gilbert, J.K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. The Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 193-202. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jaber, L.Z., & Boujaoude, S. (2012). A macro–micro–symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 973–998. [Google Scholar]
  28. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge University Press, USA. [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnstone, A.H. (1982). Macro- and microchemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379. [Google Scholar]
  30. Karacop, A., & Doymus, K. (2013). Effects of jigsaw cooperative learning and animation techniques on students‟ understanding of chemical bonding and their conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(2), 186-203. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kingir, S., & Geban, O. (2014). 10. Sinif ogrencilerinin kimyasal degisim konusundaki kavramlari [10th grade students’ conceptions about chemical change]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(1), 43-62. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kimberlin, S., & Yezierski, E. (2016). Effectiveness of inquiry-based lessons using particulate level models to develop high school students’ understanding of conceptual stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(6), 1002-1009. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mumba, F., Chabalengula, V.M., & Banda A. (2014). Comparing male and female pre-service teachers„ understanding of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), 821-827. [Google Scholar]
  34. Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science Education, 62(3), 273-281. [Google Scholar]
  35. Okumus, S. (2017). The effect of ımplementing “the seven principles for good practice” using with cooperative learning and models on understanding of science (Doctoral dissertation), Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  36. Okumus, S., Cavdar, O., Alyar, M., & Doymus, K. (2017a). İşbirlikli öğrenme ve modellerin kimyasal reaksiyonlar konusunun anlaşılmasına etkisi [the effect of cooperative learning and models on understanding of chemical reactions]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, 358-381. [Google Scholar]
  37. Okumus, S., Cavdar, O., Alyar, M., & Doymus, K. (2017b). Kimyasal denge konusunun mikro boyutta anlaşılmasına farklı öğretim yöntemlerinin etkisi [the effect of different teaching methods to understanding of chemical equilibrium at micro level]. Elementary Education Online, 16(2), 727-745. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ozmen, H. (2011). Effect of animation enhanced conceptual change texts on 6th grade students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and transformation during phase changes. Computers & Education, 57, 1114–1126. [Google Scholar]
  39. Philipp, S.B., Johnson, D.K., & Yezierski, E.J. (2014). Development of a protocol to evaluate the use of representations in secondary chemistry instruction. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 15, 777-786. [Google Scholar]
  40. Prins, G.T., Bulte, A.M.W., & Pilot, A. (2016). An activity-based instructional framework for transforming authentic modeling practices into meaningful contexts for learning in science education. Science Education, 100, 1092–1123. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ryoo, K., Bedell, K., & Swearingen, A. (2018). Promoting linguistically diverse students’ short-term and long-term understanding of chemical phenomena using visualizations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-15. [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith, K.C., & Villarreal, S. (2015). Using animations in identifying general chemistry students‟ misconceptions and evaluating their knowledge transfer relating to particle position in physical changes. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 16, 273-282. [Google Scholar]
  43. Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ultay, N., Durukan, U.G., & Ultay, E. (2015). Evaluation of the effectiveness of conceptual change texts in the REACT strategy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 22-38. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang, Z., Chi, S., Hu, K., & Chen, W. (2014). Chemistry teachers’ knowledge and application of models. Journal of Science Education Technology, 23, 211–226. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang, M., Cheng, B., Chen, J., Mercer, N., & Kirschner, P. A. (2017). The use of web-based collaborative concept mapping to support group learning and interaction in an online environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 28-40. [Google Scholar]
  47. Warfa, A.R.M. (2016). Using cooperative learning to teach chemistry: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Chemical Education, 93, 248−255. [Google Scholar]
  48. Warfa, A.M., Roehring, G.H., Schneider, J.L., & Nyacwaya, J. (2014). Collaborative discourse and the modeling of solution chemistry with magnetic 3D physical models – impact and characterization. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 15, 835- 848. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yan, F., & Talanquer, V. (2015). Students’ ideas about how and why chemical reactions happen: mapping the conceptual landscape. International Journal of Science Education, 37(18), 3066-3092. [Google Scholar]
Meta
Vol. 14 (3)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 14 Issue 3

September 2019

All Manuscript

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research

Copyright © 2025 Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.