Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 729–742 | Cite as

A Comparison of Different Conceptual Change Pedagogies Employed Within the Topic of “Sound Propagation”



The purpose of this study was to compare different conceptual change methods within a topic on ‘sound propagation’. The study was conducted with 80 grade 5 students (aged 11–12 year old) drawn from four cohort classes in an elementary school on the north coast of Black Sea Region in Turkey. While one class was assigned as a control group, the others formed experimental groups (one with a conceptual change text, one with analogies presented as computer animations and one with a combination of conceptual change text, analogies and computer animations). A questionnaire with 10 two-tier questions was administered as a pretest a week before the teaching intervention, and the same test was re-administered immediately after the intervention as a post-test. The questionnaire was also employed as a delayed post-test 3 weeks after the teaching intervention. The experimental groups performed significantly better in the post-test that the control group (p < 0.05). Within the experimental groups, the group exposed to a combination of the conceptual change text, analogies and computer animations performed best on the post-test and the delayed post-test (p < 0.05). Overall the study indicated that the intervention that employed the entire suite of conceptual change pedagogies produced the best learning outcomes.


Science education Conceptual change Alternative conception Sound propagation 


  1. Ametller J, Pinto R (2002) Students’ reading of innovative images of energy at secondary school level. Int J Sci Educ 24(3):285–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubusson P, Watson K, Brown G (1998) Enhancing lower secondary science. University Western Sydney, Penrith, NSWGoogle Scholar
  3. Barman CR, Barman NS, Miller JA (1996) Two teaching methods and students’ understanding of sound. School Sci Math 96(2):63–67Google Scholar
  4. Baviskar SN, Hartle RT, Whitney T (2009) Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles. Int J Sci Educ 31(4):541–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaty WJ (2001). Children’s misconceptions about science. Retrieved 13 May 2008 from
  6. Brinda T (2004) Integration of new exercise classes into the informatics education in the field of object-oriented modelling. Educ Info Technol 9(2):117–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown DE (1993) Refocusing core intuitions: a concretizing role for analogy in conceptual change. J Res Sci Teach 30:1273–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown DE, Clement J (1989) Overcoming misconceptions by analogical reasoning: abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instr Sci 18:237–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke KA, Greenbowe TJ, Windschitl MA (1998) Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. J Chem Educ 75(12):1658–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Çalık M (2011) How did creating a constructivist learning environment influence my graduate students’ views? Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B Soc Educ Stud 3(1):1–13Google Scholar
  11. Çalık M, Ayas A (2005) A comparison of level of understanding of grade 8 students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. J Res Sci Teach 42(6):638–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Çalık M, Ayas A, Coll RK (2007) Enhancing pre-service primary teachers’ conceptual understanding of solution chemistry with conceptual change text. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Çalık M, Ayas A, Ebenezer JV (2009) Analogical reasoning for understanding solution rates: students’ conceptual change and chemical explanations. Res Sci Technol Educ 27(3):283–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Çalık M, Ayas A, Coll RK (2010a) Investigating the effectiveness of usage of different methods embedded with four-step constructivist teaching strategy. J Sci Educ Technol 19(1):32–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Çalık M, Kolomuç A, Karagölge Z (2010b) The effect of conceptual change pedagogy on students’ conceptions of rate of reaction. J Sci Educ Technol 19:422–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Çepni S (2009) Effects of computer supported instructional material (CSIM) in removing students misconceptions about concepts: “Light, light source and seeing”. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B Soc Educ Stud 1:51–83Google Scholar
  17. Chambers SK, Andre T (1997) Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. J Res Sci Teach 34(2):107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chambliss MJ (2001) Analyzing science textbook materials to determine how “persuasive” they are. Theory Prac 40(4):255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chiu MH, Lin JW (2002) Using multiple analogies for investigating fourth graders’ conceptual change in electricity. Chin J Res Sci Educ 10:109–134Google Scholar
  20. Choi K, Chang H (2004) The effects of using the electric circuit model in science education to facilitate learning electricity-related concepts. Journal of the Korean Physical Society 44(6):1341–1348Google Scholar
  21. Clement J (1983) A conceptual model discussed by Galileo and used intuitively by physics students. In: Gentner D, Stevens AL (eds) Mental models. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 325–340Google Scholar
  22. Clement J (1987) The use of analogies and anchoring intuitions to remediate misconceptions in mechanics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Coll RK, France B, Taylor I (2005) The role of models/and analogies in science education: implications from research. Int J Sci Educ 27(2):183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coombs EC (2007). Investigating student understanding of sound as a longitudinal wave. Unpublished Master Thesis, The University of Maine, Orono, MEGoogle Scholar
  25. Dagher ZR (1995) Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. J Res Sci Teach 32(3):259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Demirci N, Çirkinoğlu A (2004) Determining students’ preconceptions/misconceptions in electricity and magnetism concepts. J Turkish Sci Educ 1(2):116–138Google Scholar
  27. Demircioğlu H, Demircioğlu G, Çalık M (2009) Investigating effectiveness of the storylines embedded within context based learning: a case for the periodic table. Chem Educ Res Prac 10:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dole JA (2000) Readers, texts and conceptual change learning. Read Writ Q 16:99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duit R (1991) On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Sci Educ 75(6):649–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Duit R (1994) Research on students’ conceptions-developments and trends. In: Pfundt H, Duit R (eds) Bibliography: students’ alternative frameworks and science education, 3rd edn. University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany, pp xxii–xliiGoogle Scholar
  31. Eshach H, Schwartz JL (2006) Sound stuff? Naive materialism in middle-school students’conceptions of sound. Int J Sci Educ 28:733–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fensham PJ (1992) Science and technology. In: Jackson PW (ed) Handbook of research on curriculum. Macmillan, New York, pp 789–829Google Scholar
  33. Fensham PJ, Gunstone RF, White RT (1994) The content of science: a constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. Falmer Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Frederik I, Van Der Valk T, Leite L, Thorén I (1999) Pre-service physics teachers and conceptual difficulties on temperature and heat. Eur J Teach Educ 22(1):61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Glynn SM (1989) The teaching with analogies model: explaining concepts in expository texts. In: Muth KD (ed) Children’s comprehension of narrative and expository text: research into practice. International Reading Association, Newark, DE, pp 185–204Google Scholar
  36. Gökdere M, Çalık M (2010) A cross-age study of Turkish students’ mental models: an “Atom” concept. Didactica Slovenica-Pedagoska Obzorja 25(2):185–199Google Scholar
  37. Guzzetti BJ, Williams WO, Skeels SA, Wu SM (1997) Influence of text structure on learning counterintuitive physics concepts. J Res Sci Teach 34(7):701–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hapkiewicz A (1992) Finding a list of science misconceptions. MSTA Newslett 38:11–14Google Scholar
  39. Harrison AG, Coll RK (2007) Analogies for science teachers. Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  40. Harvey LC, Hodges LC (1999) The role of multiple teaching strategies in promoting active learning in organic chemistry. Chem Educ 4(3):89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Havu-Nuutinen S (2007) Young children’s conceptions of temperature and thermometer. Int J Learn 14(9):93–101Google Scholar
  42. Hırça N, Çalık M, Akdeniz F (2008) Investigating grade 8 students’ conceptions of ‘energy’ and related concepts. J Turkish Sci Educ 5(1):76–89Google Scholar
  43. Hrepic Z (1998) Students’ conceptions in understanding of sound. Unpublished Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Split, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  44. Hrepic Z (2002) Identifying students’ mental models of sound propagation. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Kansas State University, ManhattanGoogle Scholar
  45. Hrepic Z (2004) Development of a real-time assessment of students’ mental models of sound propagation. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, ManhattanGoogle Scholar
  46. Hrepic Z, Zollman D, Rebello S (2002) Identifying students models of sound propagation. In: Franklin S, Marx J, Cummings K (eds) Proceedings of 2002 physics education research conference. PERC Publishing, Boise, IdahoGoogle Scholar
  47. Huddle PA, White MW, Rogers F (2000) Simulations for teaching chemical equilibrium. J Chem Educ 77(7):920–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hynd C (2001) Persuasion and its role in meeting educational goals. Theory Prac 40(4):270–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jones MG, Rua MJ, Carter G (1998) Science teachers’ conceptual growth within vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. J Res Sci Teach 35(9):967–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kaya ON (2008) A student-centered approach: assessing the changes in prospective science teachers conceptual understanding by concept mapping in a general chemistry laboratory. Res Sci Educ 38:91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lautrey J, Mazens K (2004) Is children’s naive knowledge consistent? A comparison of the concepts of sound and heat. Learn Instr 14(4):399–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mazens K, Lautrey J (2003) Conceptual change in physics: children’s naive representations of sound. Cogn Dev 18(2):159–176Google Scholar
  53. McColl P (2003) A curriculum design framework for science education based on the history of science. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  54. Menchen KVP, Thompson JR (2004) Students understanding of sound propagation: research and curriculum development. In: Marx J, Heron P, Franklin S (eds) Physics education research conference proceedings. American Institute of Physics, New York, pp 81–84Google Scholar
  55. Merino MJ (1998) Some difficulties in teaching the properties of sounds. Phys Educ 33(2):101–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moore T, Harrison A (2004) Floating and sinking: everyday science in middle school. Retrieved 20 Jan 2008 from
  57. Mueller A, Le Clair M, Kechaidis M, Swain W, Macdonald J (2004) Playing with pitch: exploring and investigating the science of sound. Sci Act 40(4):11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Murphy PK (2001) What makes a text persuasive? Comparing students’ and experts’ conceptions of persuasiveness. Int J Educ Res 35(7–8):675–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Niaz M (2008) Whither constructivism?—A chemistry teachers’ perspective. Teach Teach Educ 24(2):400–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Oliva MJ (2003) The structural coherence of students’ conceptions in mechanics and conceptual change. Int J Sci Educ 25(5):539–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Özsevgeç T (2006) Determining effectiveness of student guiding material based on the 5E model in “force and motion” unit. J Turkish Sci Educ 3:121–134Google Scholar
  62. Özsevgeç T (2010) Computer literacy of Turkish preservice teachers in different teacher training programs. Asia-Pacific Education Review. Published Online First at
  63. Palmer DH (2003) Investigating the relationship between refutational text and conceptual change. Sci Educ 87:663–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Periago C, Pejuan A, Jaén X, Bohigas X (2009) Misconceptions about the propagation of sound waves. Paper presented at European association for education in electrical and information engineering annual conference, Universitat Politècnica de València, ValènciaGoogle Scholar
  65. Robson C (1998) Real word research. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  66. Rowlands S, Graham T, Berry J, McWilliams P (2007) Conceptual change through the lens of Newtonian mechanics. Sci Educ 16:21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Russell JW, Kozma RB, Jones T, Wykoff J, Marx N, Davis J (1997) Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. J Chem Educ 74:330–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sağlam M (2006) An investigation of guide material development and its affectiveness according to 5E model for the sound and light unit. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University, TrabzonGoogle Scholar
  69. Şahin Ç, Çalık M, Çepni S (2009) Using different conceptual change methods embedded within 5E model: a sample teaching of liquid pressure. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B Soc Educ Stud 1(3):115–125Google Scholar
  70. Salgut B (2007) The effects of computer assisted instruction along with internet for 5th grade primary school students acquisition in science and tecnology lessons light and voice unit. Unpublished Master Thesis, Çukurova University, AdanaGoogle Scholar
  71. Sanger MJ, Greenbowe TJ (1997) Student misconceptions in electrochemistry: current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge. J Chem Educ 74(7):819–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Scott PH, Asoko HM, Driver RH (1992) Teaching for conceptual change: a review of strategies. In: Duit R, Goldberg F, Niedderer H (eds) Research in physics learning: theoretical issues and empirical studies. Proceedings of an International Workshop. IPN, Kiel, Germany, pp 310–329Google Scholar
  73. Taber KS (2001) The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learner’s conceptions: a typology of learning impediments. Educ Stud 27(2):159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tasker R, Dalton R (2006) Research into practice: visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chem Educ Res Prac 7(2):141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Taylor N, Coll R (1997) The use of analogy in the teaching of solubility to pre-service primary teachers. Aust Sci Teach J 43(4):58–64Google Scholar
  76. Teichert MA, Stacy AM (2002) Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. J Res Sci Teach 39(6):464–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Treagust DF, Harrison AG, Venville GJ (1998) Teaching science effectively with analogies: an approach for pre-service and in-service teacher education. J Sci Teacher Educ 9(2):85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tsai CC (1999) Overcoming junior high school students’ misconceptions about microscopic views of phase change: a study of an analogy activity. J Sci Educ Technol 8:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Widodo A, Duit R, Müller C (2002) Constructivist views of teaching and learning in practice: teachers’ views and classroom behaviour. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  80. Wittmann MC, Steinberg RN, Redish EF (2003) Understanding and addressing student reasoning about sound. Int J Sci Educ 25(8):991–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yurd M, Olgun ÖS (2008) Effect of problem based learning and know-want-learn strategy to remove misconceptions. Hacettepe Univ J Educ 35:386–396Google Scholar
  82. Zeitoun HH (1984) Teaching scientific analogies: a proposed model. Res Sci Technol Educ 2(2):107–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Primary Teacher Education, Fatih Faculty of EducationKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Science Education, Fatih Faculty of EducationKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  3. 3.School of EducationUniversity of New EnglandArimidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations