Advertisement

Structuring Cooperative Learning for Motivation and Conceptual Change in the Concepts of Mixtures

  • Hatice Belge Can
  • Yezdan Boz
Article

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of structuring cooperative learning based on conceptual change approach on grade 9 students’ understanding the concepts of mixtures and their motivation, compared with traditional instruction. Among six classes of a high school, two of them were randomly assigned to cooperative learning group where students were instructed by Cooperative Learning based on Conceptual Change (CLCC), the other two classes were randomly assigned to traditional learning group where students were instructed by Cooperative Learning based on Conceptual Change without well-structuring the basics of cooperative learning (CLCC(−)), and the remaining two classes were randomly assigned to control group where students were instructed by Traditional Instruction (TI). Mixtures Concept Test (MCT), motivation section of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) except goal orientation sub-scales, and Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ) were assigned to the sampled students before treatments are commenced as pretests and after treatments are completed as post-tests. According to post-test scores, there were statistically significant mean differences among the groups exposed to variations of cooperative learning based on conceptual change and traditional instruction with respect to students’ understanding the concepts of mixtures and their motivation. Results drawn upon this study revealed specifically that students exposed to CLCC had better understanding and lower alternative conceptions about the concepts of mixtures, perceived contents related to chemistry more valuable, felt greater control over their own learning, dealt better with sense of worry and emotionality during tests, adapted performance avoidance goals less, and mastery approach goals more than students instructed by CLCC(−) and TI.

Keywords

Alternative conceptions Conceptual change approach Cooperative learning Mixtures Motivation 

Supplementary material

10763_2014_9602_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
ESM Appendix 1 (DOCX 20 kb)
10763_2014_9602_MOESM2_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM Appendix 2 (DOCX 17 kb)
10763_2014_9602_MOESM3_ESM.docx (48 kb)
ESM Appendix 3 (DOCX 47 kb)
10763_2014_9602_MOESM4_ESM.docx (20 kb)
ESM Appendix 4 (DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. Abraham, M. R., Grzybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W. & Marek, E. A. (1992). Understandings and misunderstandings of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M. & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmad, Z. & Mahmood, N. (2010). Effects of cooperative learning vs. traditional instruction on prospective teachers’ learning experience and achievement. Ankara University Journal of Educational Sciences, 43(1), 151–164.Google Scholar
  4. Ashman, A. F. & Gillies, R. M. (1997). Children’s cooperative behavior and interactions in trained and untrained work groups in regular classrooms. Journal of School Psychology, 35(3), 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S. & Trochim, W. M. (2010). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42(2), 127–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertucci, A., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Conte, S. (2011). The effects of task and resource interdependence on achievement and social support: An exploratory study of Italian children. The Journal of Psychology, 145(4), 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertucci, A., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Conte, S. (2012). Influence of group processing on achievement and perception of social and academic support in elementary inexperienced cooperative learning groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(5), 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchs, C., Gilles, I., Dutrévis, M. & Butera, F. (2011). Pressure to cooperate: Is positive reward interdependence really needed in cooperative learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 135–146.Google Scholar
  10. Çalık, M. (2006). Bütünleştirici öğrenme kuramına göre lise 1 çözeltiler konusunda materyal geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter-Cohn, K. (1993). Can a photograph have a misconception? In J. Novak (Ed.), In The Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group dynamics and motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C. F. & Monarch, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76(6), 615–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebenezer, J. V. & Erickson, G. L. (1996). Chemistry students’ conceptions of solubility: A phenomenography. Science Education, 80(2), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ebenezer, J. V. & Gaskell, P. J. (1995). Relational conceptual change in solution chemistry. Science Education, 79(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elliot, A. J. & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Gay, L. R. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. George, D. & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 10.0 update. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  20. Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviors during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gillies, R. M. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students’ behaviors, discourse and learning during a science-based learning activity. School Psychology International, 29, 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gillies, R. M. & Ashman, A. F. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in classroom-based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hewson, M. G. & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning: The teacher’s role. In R. M. Gillies, A. Ashman & J. Terwel (Eds.), The teachers’ role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 9–36). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Stanne, M. & Garibaldi, A. (1990). The impact of leader and member group processing on achievement in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jolliffe, W. (2007). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Putting it into practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Ministry of National Education (2004). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programı [Instructional program of elementary scince and technology lesson] Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  31. Ministry of National Education (2007). Ortaöğretim 9. sınıf kimya dersi öğretim programı [Instructional program of secondary 9th grade chemistry lesson] Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  32. Nam, C. W. & Zellner, R. D. (2011). The relative effects of positive interdependence and group processing on student achievement and attitude in online cooperative learning. Computers and Education, 56, 680–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osborne, R. J. & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(9), 825–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pajares, F. & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Papageorgiou, G. (2002). Helping students distinguish between mixtures and chemical compounds. Science Activities, 39(2), 19–22.Google Scholar
  37. Piaget, J. (1950). Psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  38. Pınarbaşı, T. & Canpolat, N. (2003). Students’ understanding of solution chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(11), 1328–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W. & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pintrich, P. R. & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  42. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcίa, T. & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  43. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sanger, M. J. (2000). Using particulate drawings to determine and improve students’ conceptions of pure substances and mixtures. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(6), 762–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  46. Şenler, B. & Sungur, S. (2007). Parental influences on students’ self-concept, task value beliefs, and achievement in science. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 106–117.Google Scholar
  47. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Slavin, R. E. (2009). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  49. Stevens, J. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Sungur, S. (2004). An implementation of problem based learning in high school biology courses. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  51. Taber, K. S. (2001). Constructing chemical concepts in the classroom?: Using research to inform practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2(1), 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taştan, Ö. (2009). Effect of cooperative learning based on conceptual change conditions on motivation and understanding of reaction rate. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  53. Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22(3), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tüysüz, C. (2009). Development of two-tier diagnostic instrument and assess students’ understanding in chemistry. Scientific Research and Essay, 4(6), 626–631.Google Scholar
  55. Usher, E. L. & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Valanides, N. (2000a). Primary student teachers’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its transformations during dissolving. Research and Practice in Europe, 1(2), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Valanides, N. (2000b). Primary student teachers’ understanding of the process and effects of distillation. Research and Practice in Europe, 1(3), 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Webb, N. M. (1997). Assessing students in small collaborative groups. Theory Into Practice, 36(4), 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mehmet Akif Ersoy UniversityBurdurTurkey
  2. 2.Middle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations