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

Research article    |    Open Access
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2020, Vol. 15(3) 394-425

The Effect of Cooperative Learning Methods and Individual Learning Method on Pre-Service Science Teachers' Sub-Micro Level Conceptual Understanding at Equilibrium Chemistry

Seda Okumuş, Zehra Özdilek & Aysel Arslan

pp. 394 - 425   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.270.19

Publish Date: September 24, 2020  |   Single/Total View: 213/711   |   Single/Total Download: 297/1.173

PDF Download

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of cooperative and individual learning methods on the conceptual understanding at sub-micro level of pre-service science teachers (PST) in equilibrium chemistry. The study was conducted on 52 PSTs. A pre-test/posttest non-equivalent quasi-experimental design was used in this study. Data collection instruments used as pre- and posttest as a Module Test (MT) consisted of seven open-ended questions developed by the researchers. Although, participants were identified with a convenience sampling method, each groups were randomly assigned. For this reason, three study groups were selected and each implementation was randomly assigned. Groups was determined as Cooperative Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD, E1) and Reading-Writing-Application (RWA, E2) methods, and Individual Learning (IL, E3) method. The statistical analyses of the quantitative data were performed using Kruskal Wallis test and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. The data gathered with the MT were evaluated using content analysis. According to findings, there was not a significance difference among groups related to conceptual understandings at equilibrium chemistry. However, some misconceptions related to topic were decreased. Consequently, when three learning methods are used that it is more likely to misconceptions of the PSTs will be treated, while at the same time micro level understanding will improve.

Keywords: Cooperative Learning, STAD, RWA, Individual Learning, Equilibrium Chemistry, Conceptual Understanding

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Okumus, S., Ozdilek, Z., & Arslan, A. (2020). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Methods and Individual Learning Method on Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Sub-Micro Level Conceptual Understanding at Equilibrium Chemistry. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(3), 394-425. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.270.19

Harvard
Okumus, S., Ozdilek, Z. and Arslan, A. (2020). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Methods and Individual Learning Method on Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Sub-Micro Level Conceptual Understanding at Equilibrium Chemistry. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(3), pp. 394-425.

Chicago 16th edition
Okumus, Seda, Zehra Ozdilek and Aysel Arslan (2020). "The Effect of Cooperative Learning Methods and Individual Learning Method on Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Sub-Micro Level Conceptual Understanding at Equilibrium Chemistry". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 15 (3):394-425. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.270.19

References
  1. Adesoji, F.A., & Ibraheem, T.L. (2009). Effects of student teams-achievement divisions strategy and mathematics knowlegde on learning outcomes in chemical kinetics. The Journal of International Social Research, 2(6), 15-25. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adesoji, F.A., Omilani, N.A., & Nyinebi, O.M. (2015). The effect of homogenous and heterogeneous gender pair cooperative learning strategies on students’ achievement in chemistry. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 11(3), 1-12. Doi: 10.9734/BJESBS/2015/19537 [Google Scholar]
  3. Atasoy, B., Akkuş, H., & Kadayıfçı, H. (2009). The effect of a conceptual change approach on understanding of students’ chemical equilibrium concepts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(3), 267-282. Doi: 10.1080/02635140903162587 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aydeniz, M., & Doğan, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 111-119. Doi: 10.1039/C5RP00170F [Google Scholar]
  5. Balfakih, N.M.A. (2003). The effectiveness of student team-achievement division (STAD) for teaching high school chemistry in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Science Education, 25(5), 605-624. [Google Scholar]
  6. Banerjee, A.C. (1995), Teaching chemical equilibrium and thermodynamics in undergraduate general chemistry classes, Journal of Chemistry Education, 72, 879–881. [Google Scholar]
  7. Banerjee, A.C., & Power, C.N. (1991). The development of modules for the teaching of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 355-362. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bangert, R.L., Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.L.C. (1983). Individualized systems of instruction in secondary schools. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 143-158. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 1000-1003. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bilgin, İ., & Geban, Ö. (2006). The effect of cooperative learning approach based on conceptual change condition on students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 31-46. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bilgin, İ., Uzuntiryaki, E., & Geban, Ö. (2003). Student’s misconceptions on the concept of chemical equilibrium. Education and Science, 28(127), 10-17. [Google Scholar]
  12. Can, A. (2017). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi (5. baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  13. Carpenter, S., & McMillan, T. (2003). Incorporation of a cooperative learning technique in organic chemistry, Journal of Chemical Education, 80(3), 330-331. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ceylan, N., & Seçken, N. (2019). Computer animations-supported instructional material design based on 5e learning model: a case of “chemical speed and equilibrium” unit. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 39(3), 1181-1202. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chang, C.Y., & Mao, S.L. (1999). The effects on students’ cognitive achievement when using the cooperative learning method in earth science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 99(7), 374-379. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cheung, D., Ma, H.J., & Yang, J. (2009). Teachers’ misconceptions about the effects of addition of more reactants or products on chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1111-1133. [Google Scholar]
  17. Creswell, J.W., Clark, V.P., & Garrett, A.L. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 209-240. [Google Scholar]
  18. Demircioğlu, G., Demircioğlu, H., & Yadigaroğlu, M. (2013). An investigation of chemistry student teachers’ understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(2), 192–199. [Google Scholar]
  19. Doymuş, K. (2008). Teaching chemical equilibrium with the jigsaw technique. Research in Science Education, 38, 249–260. Doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9047-8 [Google Scholar]
  20. Eilks, I., Gulacar, O., & Sandoval, J. (2018). Exploring the mysterious substances, X and Y: challenging students’ thinking on acid–base chemistry and chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(4), 601–604. Doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00404 [Google Scholar]
  21. Erdemir Özdemir. A., Geban, Ö., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2000). Freshman students’ misconceptions in chemical equilibrium. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 18, 79-84. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gürbüz, F., Aksoy, F., & Töman, U. (2013). Effects of reading-writing-application and learning together techniques on 6th grade students’ academic achievements on the subject of “matter and temperature”. Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 3(2), 139-150. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gussarsky, E., & Gorodetsky, M. (1990). On the concept “chemical equilibrium”: The associative framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 197-204. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hackling, W.M., & Garnett, J.P. (1985). Misconception of chemical equilibrium. European Journat of Science Education, 1, 205-214. [Google Scholar]
  25. Herrmann, K.J. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(3), 175-187. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hong, H.Y., Chai, C.S., & Tsai, C.C. (2015). College students constructing collective knowledge of natural science history in a collaborative knowledge building community. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 549-561. Doi: 10.1007/s10956-015-9546-8 [Google Scholar]
  27. Huddle, P.A., & Pillay, A.E. (1996). An in-depth study of misconceptions in stoichiometry and chemical equilibrium at a South African University. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 65-77. [Google Scholar]
  28. Joel, G.E., Kamji, D.T., & Godiya, E.E. (2016). Enhancing pre-degree chemistry students’ conceptual understanding of rates of chemical reactions through cooperative learning strategy. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 5(7), 322-327. [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2014). Cooperative learning in 21st century. Anales De Psicología, 30(3), 841-851. Doi: 10.6018/analesps.30.3.201241 [Google Scholar]
  30. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Scott, L. (1978). The effect of cooperative and individualized instruction on student attitudes and achievement. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 207-216. [Google Scholar]
  31. Karaçöp, A. (2016). Effects of student teams-achievement divisions cooperative learning with models on students’ understanding of electrochemical cells. International Education Studies, 9(11), 104-120. [Google Scholar]
  32. Karpudewan, M., Treagust D.F., Mocerino, M., Won, M., & Chandrasegaran A.L. (2015). Investigating high school students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium concepts. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 10(6), 845-863. Doi: 10.12973/ijese.2015.280a [Google Scholar]
  33. Khan, G.M., & Inamullah, H.M. (2011). Effect of student’s team achievement division (STAD) on academic achievement of students. Asian Social Science, 7(12), 211-2015. Doi:10.5539/ass.v7n12p211 [Google Scholar]
  34. Koretsky, M. D. (2020). An interactive virtual laboratory addressing student difficulty in differentiating between chemical reaction kinetics and equilibrium. Comput Appl Eng Educ., 28, 105–116. Doi: 10.1002/cae.22178 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2002). Students’ errors in solving numerical chemical-equilibrium problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(1), 5-17. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lantajo, J.T. (2017). The use of STAD model in teaching chemistry: its effect to students’ academic performance. CEBU International Conference on Studies in Business, Management, Education and Law (SBMEL-17) Jan. 26-27, 2017, Cebu. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lucanus, C. (2011). A case for de-emphasizing Le Chatelier’s principle in high school chemistry courses. Teaching Science, 57(4), 51-52. [Google Scholar]
  38. Maria, P.F., & Justi, R. (2009). Learning of chemical equilibrium through modelling‐based teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 603-630. Doi:10.1080/09500690802538045 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mensah, A., & Morabe, O.N. (2018) Strategies used by grade 12 physical sciences students in solving chemical equilibrium problems. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(2), 174-185. Doi: 10.1080/18117295.2018.1475908 [Google Scholar]
  40. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. (Second edition). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  41. Molenda, M. (2012). Individualized instruction: A recurrent theme. Tech Trends, 56(6), 12-14. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mutlu, A., & Acar Şeşen, B. (2016). Evaluating of preservice science teachers'understanding of general chemistry concepts by using two tier diagnostic test. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(1), 79-96. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education 69, 191. [Google Scholar]
  44. Niaz, M. (1998). A Lakatosian conceptual change teaching strategy based on students ability to build models with varying degrees of conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Science and Education, 1, 107-127. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nurhayati, D.M., & Hartono (2017). Implementation of cooperative learning model type STAD with RME approach to understanding of mathematical concept student state junior high school in Pekanbaru. AIP Conference Proceedings 1848, 040002, Doi: 10.1063/1.4983940 [Google Scholar]
  46. Okumuş, S., & Doymuş, K. (2018). Modellerin okuma- yazma- uygulama yöntemi ve yedi ilke ile uygulanmasının maddenin tanecikli yapısı ve yoğunluk konularının kavramsal anlaşılmasına etkisi [the effect of using models with seven principles and cooperative learning on students’ conceptual understandings]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3), 1603-1638. [Google Scholar]
  47. Okumuş, S., Çavdar, O., Alyar, M., & Doymuş, K. (2017). 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. Doi: 10.17051/ilkonline.2017.304730 [Google Scholar]
  48. Okur Akçay, N., & Doymuş, K. (2014). The effect of different methods of cooperative learning model on academic achievement in physics. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 11(4), 17-30. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ollino, M., Aldoney, J., Dominguez, A.M., & Merino, C. (2018). A new multimedia application for teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 364-374. Doi: 10.1039/c7rp00113d [Google Scholar]
  50. Özdilek, Z., Okumuş, S., & Doymuş, K. (2018). The effects of model supported cooperative and individual learning methods on prospective science teachers’ understanding of solutions. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(6), 945-959. [Google Scholar]
  51. Özmen, H., & Naseriazar, A. (2018). Effect of simulations enhanced with conceptual change texts on university students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 83(1), 121-137. Doi:10.2298/JSC161222065O [Google Scholar]
  52. Piquette, J.S., & Heikkinen, H.W. (2005). Strategies reported used by instructors to address student alternateconceptions in chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1112–1134. [Google Scholar]
  53. Raviolo, A. (2001). Assessing students’ conceptual understanding of solubility equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(5), 629-631. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sharan, Y. (2015). Meaningful learning in the cooperative classroom. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43(1), 83-94. [Google Scholar]
  55. Şimşek, Ü., Doymuş, K., Doğan, A., & Karaçöp, A. (2009). İşbirlikli öğrenmenin iki farklı tekniğinin öğrencilerin kimyasal denge konusundaki akademik başarılarına etkisi [Effects of two different cooperative learning technique on students’ academic achievement of chemical equilibrium topics]. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(3), 763-791. [Google Scholar]
  56. Slavin, R.E. (1994). Using student team learning (2nd Ed.). Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools. [Google Scholar]
  57. Slavin, R.E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: why does groupwork work? Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 785-791. [Google Scholar]
  58. Slavin, R.E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43(1), 5-14. [Google Scholar]
  59. Slavin, R.E., Leavey, M., & Madden, N.A. (1984). Combining cooperative learning and individualized, instruction: Effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors. Elementary School Journal, 84, 409-422. [Google Scholar]
  60. Tran, V.D. (2014). The effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement and knowledge retention. International Journal of Higher Education 3(2), 131-140. [Google Scholar]
  61. Tran, V.D., Nguyen, T.M.L., Van De, N., Soryaly, C., & Doan, M.N. (2019). Does cooperative learning may enhance the use of students' learning strategies? International Journal of Higher Education, 8(4), 79-88. Doi:10.5430/ijhe.v8n4p79 [Google Scholar]
  62. Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ültay, N., Durukan, Ü.G. & Ültay, E. (2015). Evaluation of the effectiveness of conceptual change texts in the REACT strategy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 22-38. [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Driel, J.H., & Gräber, W. (2002). The teaching and learning of chemical equilibrium. In J.K. Gilbert,. O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. Van Driel (Eds), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp.271- 292). Dordrecht Kluwer. [Google Scholar]
  65. Voska, K.W., & Heikkinen, H.W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 160–176 [Google Scholar]
  66. Wang, K.P. (2012). The impact of nursing students’ chemistry learning performance assessment in Taiwan: competitive versus non-competitive student team achievement division approaches. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(2), 131-149. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wheeldon, R., Atkinson, R., Dawes, A., & Levinson, R. (2012). Do high school chemistry examinations inhibit deeper level understanding of dynamic reversible chemical reactions? Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(2), 107-130. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wheeler, A.E., & Kass, H. (1978). Student misconceptions in chemical equilibrium. Science Education, 62, 223–32. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yeung, H.C.H. (2015). Literature review of the cooperative learning strategy – student team achievement division (STAD). International Journal of Education, 7(1), 29-43. [Google Scholar]
Meta
Vol. 15 (3)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 15 Issue 3

September 2020

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.