PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2020, Vol. 16(4) 135-157

An Investigation of the Effect of Students’ Academic Achievement and Science Process Skills Application Together With Cooperative Learning Model and the Modeling Based Teaching Method in Teaching Science Courses

Yusuf Zorlu & Fatih Sezek

pp. 135 - 157   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.9   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1911-20-0006.R1

Published online: August 13, 2020  |   Number of Views: 10  |  Number of Download: 47


Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the applying the cooperative learning model and the modeling based teaching method together in teaching the subjects “Matter and Heat” and “The Particle Structure and Properties of Matter” on students’ academic achievement and science process skills. A quasi-experimental design with a pretest-posttest comparative group was used. In the sixth grade, the learning together (LT) method was applied with control group, the learning together and modeling-based teaching methods (LT-MBT) together was applied with the study group. In the seventh grade, the group investigation (GI) method was applied with the control group, and group investigation and modeling based teaching methods (GI-MBT) together was applied with study group. 72 sixth-grade students and 64 seventh-grade students of a public secondary school took part in the research. Data was collected for prior knowledge tests, module tests, academic achievement tests, science process skills, the cooperative learning view scale, and the method views form. According to the results obtained, students applying the GI-MBT method in seventh grade learned better and showed greater improvement in their science process skills than students in other group. Students applying LT-MBT methods in sixth grade were better than students applying the LT method in the module tests. According to the results obtained, it can be said that the modeling based teaching method made positive contributions to the cooperative learning model. It should be applied together with MBT with different methods of cooperative learning model in science education.

Keywords: Cooperative Learning Model, Group Investigation Method, Modeling Based Teaching Method, Learning Together Method, Science Education


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Zorlu, Y. & Sezek, F. (2020). An Investigation of the Effect of Students’ Academic Achievement and Science Process Skills Application Together With Cooperative Learning Model and the Modeling Based Teaching Method in Teaching Science Courses . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4), 135-157. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.9

Harvard
Zorlu, Y. and Sezek, F. (2020). An Investigation of the Effect of Students’ Academic Achievement and Science Process Skills Application Together With Cooperative Learning Model and the Modeling Based Teaching Method in Teaching Science Courses . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4), pp. 135-157.

Chicago 16th edition
Zorlu, Yusuf and Fatih Sezek (2020). "An Investigation of the Effect of Students’ Academic Achievement and Science Process Skills Application Together With Cooperative Learning Model and the Modeling Based Teaching Method in Teaching Science Courses ". International Journal of Progressive Education 16 (4):135-157. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.9.

References
  1. Aksoy, G. & Doymuş, K. (2011). Effects of cooperative learning on the teaching of laboratory experiments in science and technology course. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 13(1), 107- 122.  [Google Scholar]
  2. Aragón, M. D. M., Oliva, J. M., & Navarrete, A. (2014). Contributions of learning through analogies to the construction of secondary education pupils’ verbal discourse about chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 1960-1984. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.887237 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Atasoy, B. (2004). Fen öğrenimi ve öğretimi. Ankara: Asil. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ayas, A., & Özmen, H. (2002). A study of students' level of understanding of the particulate nature of matter at secondary school level. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 19(2), 45-60. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ayvacı, H. S., & Devecioglu, Y. (2002). Kavram haritasinin fen bilgisi basarısina etkisi [The Impact of the concept map on scientific success]. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Egitimi Kongresi, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  6. Başdağ, G. (2006). 2000 yılı fen bilgisi dersi ve 2004 yılı fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programlarının bilimsel süreç becerileri yönünden karşılaştırılması [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bayrakçeken, S., Doymuş, K., & Doğan, A. (2013). İşbirlikli öğrenme modeli uygulaması. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bischoff, P. J. (2006). The role of knowledge structures in the ability of preservice elementary teachers to diagnose a child's understanding of molecular kinetics. Science Education, 90(5), 936-951. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20155 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Bozkurt, O., Orhan, A. T., Keskin, A., & Mazi, A. (2008). The effect of cooperative learning method to the academic achievement in science and technology lesson. The Journal of Turkish Social Research, 2, 63-78.  [Google Scholar]
  10. Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2014). Bilişsel psikoloji ve öğretim. (Ersözlü, Z. N., & Ülker, R.,  Trans. Eds.), Ankara: Nobel.  [Google Scholar]
  11. Campbell, B., & Lubben, F. (2000). Learning science through contexts: helping pupils make sense of everyday situations. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 239-252. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chiappetta, E., & Koballa, T. (2002). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools.  (5. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  13. Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Learners' mental models of metallic bonding: A cross‐age study. Science Education, 87(5), 685-707. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Coştu, B., Ünal, S., & Ayas, A. (2007). The use of daily-life events in science teaching. Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 8(1), 197-207. [Google Scholar]
  15. Çepni, S., Aydın, A., & Ayvacı, H. Ş. (2000). Dört ve beşinci sınıflarda fen bilgisi programındaki fizik kavramlarının öğrenciler tarafından anlaşılma düzeyleri, H.Ü. Eğitim Bilimleri Sempozyumu, Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi. [Google Scholar]
  16. Çilenti, K. (1985). Fen eğitimi teknolojisi. Ankara: Kadıoğlu. [Google Scholar]
  17. Çiltaş, A. (2011). The effect of the mathematical modeling method in teaching the sequences and series on the learning and modeling skills of prospective elementary mathematics teachers [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Atatürk University, Erzurum. [Google Scholar]
  18. Damini, M. (2014). How the group investigation model and the six-mirror model changed teachers' roles and teachers' and students' attitudes towards diversity. Intercultural Education, 25(3), 197-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2014.917794 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Demir, A. (2017). The effect of modeling activities on the development of fifth grade students' informal reasoning and arguments about landslide subject [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize. [Google Scholar]
  20. Demirçalı, S. (2016). The effects of model based science education on students' academic achevement, scientific process skills and mental model devolopment: the sample of 7th grade unit of 'The Solar System and Beyond: The Puzzle of Space' [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University, Ankara.  [Google Scholar]
  21. Doğan, S., Sezek, F., Yalçın, M., Kıvrak, E., Yıldız, U., & Ataman, A. Y. (2003). Attitudes towards laboratory activities in the atatürk university biology students. Journal of Education Faculty, 5(2), 33-58. [Google Scholar]
  22. Doymuş, K. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin işbirlikli öğrenme yöntemi hakkında bilgilendirilmesi, bu yöntemi sınıfta uygulamaları ve elde edilen sonuçların değerlendirilmesi (110K252). TÜBİTAK Projesi. [Google Scholar]
  23. Doymuş, K. & Koç, Y. (2012). Application in the classroom of cooperative learning model of science and technology teachers. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 19, 174-183. [Google Scholar]
  24. Doymuş, K., Karaçöp, A., & Şimşek, U. (2010). Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on students’ understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 671-691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9157-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Ekinci, N. (2015). İşbirliğine dayalı öğrenme. Ö. Demirel (Edit.) In Eğitimde Yeni Yönelimler (pp. 93-109). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Er-Nas, S. (2013). Evaluating effectiveness of the guide material about transferring concepts to daily life in elaborate stage in matter and heat unit [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Karadeniz Teknik University, Trabzon. [Google Scholar]
  27. Erbaş, S., Şimşek, N., & Çınar, Y. (2005). Fen bilgisi laboratuvarı ve uygulamaları. Ankara: Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  28. Eryaman, M. Y. (2007). From reflective practice to practical wisdom: Toward a post-foundational teacher education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 3(1), 87-107. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. (1993). Models and modelling in science education. Hatfield, UK: The Association for Science Education. [Google Scholar]
  30. Güldal, C. G. (2018). The effect of model based science teaching to secondary school students science anxiety and associate concept of science to daily life [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Akdeniz University, Antalya. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gürbüz, N., Şimşek, U., & Berber, K. (2015). Effect of cooperative learning model on the academic success of students at 6th grade social studies lesson. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 2(1),19-27. [Google Scholar]
  32. Halloun, I. (2003). Evaluating science and technology learning materials: The case of the modeling curriculum. UNESCO Regional Workshop on the Evaluation of MST Curricula. Beirut: UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  33. Halloun, I. (2004). Modeling theory for paradigmatic evolution. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Cape Town: SAARMSTE. [Google Scholar]
  34. Halloun, I. (2006). Modeling theory in science education. Netherlands: Springer.  [Google Scholar]
  35. Halloun, I. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16(7), 653–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9004-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American journal of physics, 53(11), 1056-1065. [Google Scholar]
  37. Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1987). Modeling instruction in mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 455–462. [Google Scholar]
  38. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Hestenes, D. (2010). Modeling theory for math and science education. Modeling students' mathematical modeling competencies. Boston: Springer US. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1980). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Research implications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, April 11-13, Boston. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students' ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry‐type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791-806. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20072 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Jacobi, A., Martin, J., Mitchell, J., & Newell, T. (2004). Work on progress: A concept ınventory for heat transfer. Asee/Ieee Frontiers in Education Conference. [Google Scholar]
  43. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2013). The impact of cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning environments on achievement. E. Hattie (Ed.), In International guide to student achievement (pp. 372-374). New York: Routledge.  [Google Scholar]
  44. Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D. W., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). New circles of learning: cooperation in the classroom and school. Alexandra, VA, USA: Association for Supervision & Curriclum Development (ASCD). [Google Scholar]
  45. Justi, S. R., & Gilbert, K. J. (2002). Modelling teachers’ views on the nature of modelling and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110142 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Kanlı, U., & Yağbasan, R. (2005). Laboratuar çalışmalarının öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerinin geliştirmesindeki yeterliliğinin tespiti üzerine bir araştırma. XIV. Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, 28-30. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kaptan, F., & Korkmaz, H. (1999). İlköğretimde etkili öğretme ve öğrenme öğretmen el kitabı modül 7. Ankara: MEB. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kapuscinski, B. (1981). The purpose of laboratory instruction in high school chemistry: A historical overview. Journal of Chemical Education, 58(2), 194-197. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kaya, N. (2009). Eduational achievement and attitude related impacts of biotechnology education on co-ed groups through practical testings and educational material designs [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Muğla Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Muğla. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kösterelioğlu, İ. (2014). Affects generated during the teaching and learning process of cooperative learning method. International Journal of Human Sciences, 11(1), 256-278. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kurtuluş, N., & Yiğit, N. (2010, September). Bilimsel Süreç Becerilerini Belirlemeye Yönelik Test Geliştirme Çalışması, IX. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi (IX. UFBMEK), Dokuz Eylül University, 23–25 September, İzmir. [Google Scholar]
  52. Laal, M., Laal, M., & Kermanshahi, Z. K. (2012). 21st century learning; learning in collaboration. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1696-1701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.885 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Lara, S., & Reparaz, C. (2009). Effectiveness of cooperative learning: WebQuest as a tool to produce scientific videos. Internetional Conference on Multimedia and ICT in Education. 22-24 Nisan, Lizborn, Portugal. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Wadsworth publishing company. [Google Scholar]
  55. Looi, C. K., Hung, D., Bopry, J., & Koh, T. S. (2004). Singapore’s learning sciences lab: Seeking transformations in ICT-enabled pedagogy. Educational Technology Research & Devolopment, 52(4), 91-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504722 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Lubben F., Netshisaulu T., & Campbell B. (1999). Culture and comparative studies students' use of cultural metaphors and their scientific understandings related to heating. Science Education, 83(6), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199911)83:6<761::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-O [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. Macpherson, A. (2015). Cooperative learning group activities for college courses. Surrey, BC Canada: Kwantlen Polytechnic University. [Google Scholar]
  58. MEB (Ministry of National Education) (2013). Ortaokul Fen Bilimleri Dersi (5., 6., 7. ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  59. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education. Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mitchell, M. G., Montgomery, H., Holder, M., & Stuart, D. (2008). Group investigation as a cooperative learning strategy: An integrated analysis of the literature. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(4), 388-395. [Google Scholar]
  61. Morgil, İ., Seyhan, H. G., & Seçken, N. (2009). Investigating the effects of project-oriented chemistry experiments on some affective and cognitive field components. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(1), 89-107. [Google Scholar]
  62. Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2004). Teacher-Student Co-Construction Process in Biology: Strategies for Developing Mental Models in Large Group Discussions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Graduat School of Universtiy of Masachusetts Amherst. [Google Scholar]
  63. Panichas, M. A. (2006). Formative evaluation of traditional instruction and cooperative inquiry projects in undergraduate chemistry laboratory courses [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Boston College, United States ~ Massachusetts. [Google Scholar]
  64. Pekmez, E. S., Johnson, P., & Gott, R. (2005). Teacher’s understanding of the nature and purposes of practical work. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500068401 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  65. Pınarbaşı, T., Doymuş, K., Canpolat, N., & Bayrakçeken, S. (1999). Üniversite Kimya Bölümü Öğrencilerinin Bilgilerini Günlük Hayatla ilişkilendirebilme Düzeyleri. III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Fatih Eğitim Fakültesi, Trabzon.  [Google Scholar]
  66. Satchwell, R. E. (1996). Using functional flow diagrams to enhance technical systems understanding. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(2), 50-81. [Google Scholar]
  67. Schunk, D. H. (2011). Öğrenme teorileri, eğitimsel bir bakışla (2rd ed.) (M. Sahin, Trans. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  68. Seel, N. M. (2001). Epistemology, situated cognition and mental models: Like a bridge over troubled water. Instructional Science, 29, 403-427. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011952010705 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  69. Senemoğlu, N. (2012). Gelişim, öğrenme ve öğretim (21th ed.). Ankara: Pegem. [Google Scholar]
  70. Sezek, F., Zorlu, Y., & Zorlu, F. (2015a). Examination of the factors influencing the scientific process skills of the students in the elementary education department. Journal of Education Faculty, 17(1), 197-217. https://doi.org/10.17556/jef.38139 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  71. Sezek, F., Zorlu, Y., & Zorlu, F. (2015b). Determination of elementary school department students’ interest and examination of the factors that affect them. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 13-24. [Google Scholar]
  72. Shen, J., & Confrey, J. (2007). From conceptual change to transformative modeling: A case study of an elementary teacher in learning astronomy. Science Education, 91(6), 948. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20224 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  73. Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 339-349. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.6.339-349 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  74. Smith, K. A., & Welliver, P. W. (1990). The development of a science process assessment for fourth‐grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 727-738. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270803 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  75. Stephan, J. (1994). Targeting students science misconceptions: physical science activities using the conceptual change model. Riverview, Florida: The Idea Factory. [Google Scholar]
  76. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42(4), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.10.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  77. Swaray, R. (2012). An evaluation of a group project designed to reduce free-riding and promote active learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(3), 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.531246 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  78. Switzer, P. V., & Shriner, W. M. (2000). Mimicking the scientific process in the upper-division laboratory. Bioscience, 50(2), 157-162. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0157:mtspit]2.3.co;2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  79. Şimşek, Ü. (2005).  İşbirlikli Öğrenme Yönteminin Fen Bilgisi Dersinin Akademik Başarı ve Tutumuna Etkisi [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Atatürk University, Erzurum. [Google Scholar]
  80. Şimşek, Ü., Doymuş, K., Doğan, A., & Karaçöp, A. (2009). Effects of two different cooperative learning technique on students’ academic achievement of chemical equilibrium topics. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 29(3), 763-791. [Google Scholar]
  81. Şimşekli, Y., & Çalış, S. (2008). The Effect of science laboratory lesson upon the improvement of science process skils of elementary education students. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 21(1), 183-192. [Google Scholar]
  82. Tan, I. G. C., Sharan, S., & Lee, C. K. E. (2007). Group investigation effects on achievement, motivation, and perceptions of students in Singapore. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(3), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.3.142-154 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  83. Tarciso Borges, A., & Gilbert, J. K. (1999). Mental models of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 95-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290859 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  84. Taşdemir, A. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning methods on learning the subjects of solutions in chemistry laboratory lessons in science teaching departments [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  85. Taşkın, Ö. (2008). Fen ve Teknoloji öğretiminde yeni yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  86. Topsakal, S. (2006). Fen ve teknoloji öğretimi (İlköğretim 6-8). Ankara: Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  87. Ünal-Çoban, G. (2009). The effects of model based science education on students? conceptual understanding, science process skills, understanding of scientific knowledge and its domain of existence: The sample of 7th grade unit of light [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir. [Google Scholar]
  88. Ünal-Çoban, G., & Ergin, Ö. (2011).  View of the scientific knowledge’s existence domain through model based instruction.  The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 9(2), 211-254. [Google Scholar]
  89. Ünal-Çoban, G., & Ergin, Ö. (2013). Examining the effects of model based science education regarding the scientific knowledge. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(2), 505-520. [Google Scholar]
  90. Wells, M., Hestenes, D., & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 63(7), 606-619. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17849 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  91. Zorlu, F. & Sezek, F. (2019). Students' opinions about the effect of the application of learning together and group investigation methods at different intervals on the features of cooperative learning model. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 10-24. [Google Scholar]
  92. Zorlu, F., & Sezek, F. (2020). The Investigation of the effectiveness of applying group investigation method at different intervals in teaching science courses. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 13(2), 397-423. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.623066 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  93. Zorlu, F., Zorlu, Y., Sezek, F., & Akkuş, H. (2014). Secondary eighth graders’ the scores of scientific process skills and their relationship with the scores of theirs placement test results, Ekev Akademi Dergisi, 18(59), 519-532. [Google Scholar]