THE EFFECT OF MODEL BASED LEARNING ON THE ACADEMIC SUCCESS AND CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF MIDDLE-SCHOOL STUDENTS ON THE PARTICULATE NATURE OF MATTER

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to determine the effect of learning based on models on the academic success and conceptual understanding of middle-school students on the particulate nature of matter. In the research, the single group pretest-posttest semi experimental design which is one of the quantitative research methods was used. The sample of the research consists of a total of 134 students 34 of whom are 5th grade, 32 are 6th grade, 33 are 7th grade and 35 are 8th grade students from state middle-schools in a city in the Aegean Region of Turkey receiving education in the 2009-2010 academic year, who were selected with the simple random sampling method. The data of the research were collected through the ‘Evaluation Test for the Particulate Nature of Matter’ (ETPNM) and ‘Conceptual Test for the Particulate Nature of Matter’ (CTPNM). In the analysis of data, the t test was used for the related samples. As a result of the research, it was determined that model based learning has a positive effect on the academic success and conceptual understanding of middle-school students on the subject of particulate nature of matter. In addition, it was determined that the effect of model based learning on conceptual understanding is more positive compared to its effect on academic success. In the light of the research findings, the importance of model based learning in the teaching of abstract concepts was underlined and suggestions were made to the researchers and science teachers.  

Keywords

• Model based learning,particulate nature of matter,academic success

MODELE DAYALI ÖĞRENMENİN ORTAOKUL ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN MADDENİN PARÇACIKLI YAPISI KONUSUNDAKİ AKADEMİK BAŞARILARINA VE KAVRAMSAL ANLAMALARINA ETKİSİ

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı modele dayalı öğrenmenin, ortaokul öğrencilerinin maddenin parçacıklı yapısı konusundaki akademik başarıları ve kavramsal anlamaları üzerindeki etkisinin belirlenmesidir. Araştırmada nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden tek gruplu ön test-son test yarı deneysel desen kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemi 2009-2010 öğretim yılında Türkiye’nin Ege Bölgesindeki bir ildeki devlet ortaokullarından basit tesadüfi örnekleme yöntemi ile belirlenen 34 beşinci sınıf, 32 altıncı sınıf, 33 yedinci sınıf ve 35 sekizinci sınıf olmak üzere toplam 134 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri “Maddenin Parçacıklı Yapısı Değerlendirme Testi (MPYDT)” ve “Maddenin Parçacıklı Yapısı Kavram Testi (MPYKT)” ile elde edilmiştir. Veri analizinde ilişkili örneklemler için t testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda modele dayalı öğrenmenin, ortaokul öğrencilerinin maddenin parçacıklı yapısı konusundaki akademik başarılarını ve kavramsal anlamalarını tüm sınıf düzeylerinde olumlu olarak etkilediği belirlenmiştir. Araştırma bulgularının ışığında soyut kavramların öğretiminde modele dayalı öğrenmenin önemi vurgulanarak araştırmacılara ve fen eğitimcilerine önerilerde bulunulmuştur. 

Keywords

• Modele dayalı öğrenme,maddenin parçacıklı yapısı,akademik başarı

References

1. Adadan, E. (2006). Promoting high school students’ conceptual understandings of the particulate nature of matter through multiple representations. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, United States of America.
2. Adadan, E., Irving, K.E. & Trundle, K.C. (2010). Impacts of multi- representational instruction on high school students’ conceptual understandings of the particulate nature of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1743-1775.
3. Akgün, A. (2009). The relation between science student teachers' misconceptions about solution, dissolution, diffusion and their attitudes toward science with their achievement. Education and Science, 34(154), 26-36.
4. Ardaç, D., & Akaygün, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317-337.
5. Arslan, A. & Doğru, M. (2014). The effects of modelling based science and technology teaching on understanding, memorization, creativity and the mental models of primary school students. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 4(2), 1-17.
6. Ayas, A., & Demirbas, A. (1997). Turkish secondary students' conceptions of the introductory concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(5), 518-521.
7. Ayas, A., Özmen, H., & Çalik, M. (2010). Students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter at secondary and tertiary level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 165-184.
8. Balushi, S. (2013). The effect of different textual narrations on students’ explanations at the submicroscopic level in chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(1), 3-10.

9. Banerjee, A. C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 487-494.
10. Barnea, N., & Dori Y.J. (2000). Computerized molecular modeling the new technology for enhancing model perception among chemistry educators and learners. Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 109-120.
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
12. Canpolat, N., Pınarbaşı, T., Bayrakçeken S. & Geban, Ö. (2004). Some common misconceptions in chemistry. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 1(24), 135-146.
13. Ceyhun, I., & Karagolge, Z. (2005). Chemistry students’ misconceptions in electrochemistry. Australian Journal of Education in Chemistry, 65, 24-28.
14. Costu, B., Ünal, S., & Ayas, A. (2007). A hands-on activity to promote conceptual change about mixtures and chemical compounds. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(1), 35-46.
15. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
16. Çavdar, O., Okumuş, S., Alyar, M. & Doymuş, K. (2016). Effecting of using different methods and models on understanding the particulate nature of matter. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 18(1), 555-592.
17. Çavdar, O., & Doymuş, K. (2018). The using of cooperative learning method with seven principles for good practice and models in teaching of the subject of mixtures. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 14(3), 325-344. doi:10.17244/eku.328018
18. Ebenezer, J. V. (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students’ conceptions: Animation of the solution process of table salt. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(1), 73-92.
19. 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.
20. Gobert, J. D., & Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering students' epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 7-22.
21. Güneş, M. H. & Çelikler, D. (2010). The investigation of effects of modelling and computer assisted instruction on academic achievement. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 1(1), 20-27.
22. Harman, G. (2016). Mental models of middle school students on solar and moon eclipse. Uşak University Journal of Social Sciences, 9(27). 176-192.
23. Harrison, A. G. (2001.) How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 401-435.
24. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models?. School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 420-429.
25. Herga, N. R., Glazar, S. A., & Dinevski, D. (2015). Dynamic visualization in the virtual laboratory enhances the fundamental understanding of chemical concepts. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(3), 351-365.
26. İnal, Z. & Aydın, A. (2015). The effect of using models on academic achievement and continuance of knowledge in teaching of the matter and heat unit. Ahi Evran University Journal of Education Faculty, 16(3), 19-37.
27. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-705.
28. Karaçöp, A. & Doymuş, 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.
29. Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi (31. Baskı), Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
30. Kim, G. (2008). Increasing concept learning in high school students: Does the creation and use of manipulatives depicting the particulate nature of matter increase concept Learning?. The Teaching and Learning of Chemistry, 536, 1-12.
31. Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2002). Students’ errors in solving numerical chemical-equilibrium problems. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 3(1), 5-17.
32. Krnel, D. (2013). Teaching concrete or formal concepts at an early age. http://rukautestu.vin.bg.ac.rs/handson3/contributions/2_B5_Dusan%20Krnel.pdf adresinden 05.03.2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
33. Kunduz, N., & Seçken, N. (2013). Development and application of 7E learning model based computer-assisted teaching materials on precipitation titrations. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(6), 784-792.
34. Liu, X. (2006). Effects of combined hands-on laboratory and computer modeling on student learning of gas laws: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 89-100.
35. Mayer, K. (2010). Addressing students’ misconceptions about gases, mass, and composition. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(1), 111-115.
36. Merritt, J. D., Krajcik, J., & Shwartz, Y. (2008, June). Development of a learning progression for the particle model of matter. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences-Volume 2 (pp. 75-81). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
37. Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (third edition). United States: Pyrczak Publishing.
38. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191-196.
39. Novick, S. & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils‘ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross age study. Science Education, 65(2), 187-196.
40. Okumuş, S., Öztürk, B., Doymuş, K. & Alyar, M. (2014). Aiding comprehension of the particulate of matter at the micro and macro levels. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 4(1), 349-368.
41. Okumuş, S., & Doymuş, K. (2018). The effect of using models with seven principles and cooperative learning on students’ conceptual understandings. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 18(3), 1603-1638.
42. Sarıkaya, M. (1996). Maddenin Parçacıklı Yapısı Kavram Testi. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi.
43. Sarıkaya, M. (2007). Kolay sağlanabilir malzemelerle molekül model yapımı. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(3), 513-537.
44. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (Complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611.
45. Özmen, H. (2004). Some student misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 147-159.
46. Özmen, 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(1), 1114–1126.
47. Özmen, H. & Ayas, A. (2003). Students’ difficulties in understanding of the conservation of the matter in open and closed-system chemical reactions. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(3), 279–290.
48. Özmen, H., & Kenan O. (2007). Determination of the Turkish primary students’ views about the particulate nature of matter. Asia-Pasific forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 1-15.
49. Öztürk, B. (2017). Maddenin tanecikli yapısının öğretiminde iyi bir eğitim ortamı için yedi ilke ve modellerle desteklenen işbirlikli öğrenme yöntemlerinin uygulanması. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Ataturk University, Institute of Educational Science, Erzurum, Turkey.
50. Paliç Şadoğlu, G. & Sağlam Arslan, A. (2018). Cross grade analysis of prospective science teachers’ perceptions related to the concept of atom. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 18(3), 1678-1701.
51. Pathare, S. R., & Pradhan, H. C. (2010). Students’ misconceptions about heat transfer mechanisms and elementary kinetic theory. Physics Education, 45(6), 629-634.
52. Pekdağ, B. (2010). Kimya öğreniminde alternatif yollar: animasyon, simülasyon, video ve multimedya ile öğrenme. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(2), 79-110.
53. Pinarbasi, T., & Canpolat, N. (2003). Students' understanding of solution chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(11), 1328-1332.
54. Schwarz C. V. & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165-205.
55. Singer, J. & Wu, H. (2003). Students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter. School Science and Mathematics, 103(1), 28-38.
56. Smith, K. C., & Nakhleh, M. B. (2011). University students' conceptions of bonding in melting and dissolving phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(4), 398-408.
57. 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(2), 273-282.
58. Sözbilir, M. (2003). A review of selected literature on students’ misconceptions of heat and temperature. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 20(1), 25-41.
59. Şendur, G. (2012). Prospective science teachers’ misconceptions in organic chemistry: The case of alkenes. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(3), 186-190.
60. Tanahoung, C., Chitaree R. & Soankwan, C. (2010). Probing thai freshmen science students’ conceptions of heat and temperature using open-ended questions: A case study. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 2(2), 82-94.
61. Ural, A & Kılıç, İ., (2006). Bilimsel Araştırma Süreci ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi (3. Baskı), Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara.
62. Wang, Z., Chi, S., Hu, K. & Chen, W. (2014). Chemistry teachers’ knowledge and application of models. Journal of Science Education Technology, 23(2), 211–226.
63. Wu, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
64. Yakmacı Güzel, B. (2013). Identification of 12th grade students’ misconceptions in some chemistry topics and suggestions regarding effective usage of these findings. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education Faculty, 30(2), 5-26.
65. Yezierski, E. J., & Birk, J. P. (2006). Misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter. Using animations to close the gender gap. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(6), 954-960.