Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 257–270 | Cite as

Investigating the Effectiveness of a Constructivist-based Teaching Model on Student Understanding of the Dissolution of Gases in Liquids

  • Muammer Çalık
  • Alipaşa Ayas
  • Richard K. Coll
  • Suat Ünal
  • Bayram Coştu

The research presented in this paper consisted of an investigation of the effectiveness of a four-step constructivist-based teaching activity on student understanding of how pressure and temperature influence the dissolution of a gas in a liquid. Some 44 Grade 9 students (18 boys and 26 girls) selected purposively from two school classes in the city of Trabzon, Turkey participated in the study. Students’ understanding were evaluated from examination of two items from a purpose-designed solution concept test, face-to-face semi-structured interviews and examination of students’ self-assessment exercises. Statistical analysis using two-way ANOVA of student test scores point to statistically-significant differences in test and total scores (p < 0.05) suggesting that the teaching activities employed help students achieve better conceptual understanding. Further, no statistically significant differences were seen between post-test and delayed test scores, suggesting that teaching the activities enable students to retain their new conceptions in their long-term memory. However, in a few instances the activities resulted in the development of new alternative conceptions, suggesting teachers need to be conscious of the positive and negative effects of any teaching intervention.


four-step constructivist teaching activity solution chemistry effects of temperature and pressure to dissolution of gas in a liquid conceptual change 


  1. Bodzin, A., Cates, W. M., and Price, B. (2003). Formative evaluation of the exploring life curriculum: Two-year implementation fidelity findings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. Bodzin, A., Cates, W. M., Price, B., and Pratt, K. (2003). Implementing a web-integrated high school biology Program. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  3. Coştu, B. (2006). Determining students’ conceptual change levels: Evaporation, condensation and boiling. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Institute of Science, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  4. Çalık, M., Ayas, A., and Coll, R. K. (2006a). A constructivist-based model for the teaching of dissolution of gas in a liquid. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching 7(1), Article 4Google Scholar
  5. Çalık, M., Ayas, A., and Coll, R. K. (2006b). Enhancing pre-service primary teachers’ conceptual understanding of solution chemistry with conceptual change text. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Published online 20 December, 2005Google Scholar
  6. Çalık M., Ayas A., Ebenezer J. V. (2005). A review of solution chemistry studies: Insights into students’ conceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1): 29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Çalık, M. (2003). A cross-age study of level of students’ understanding related to concepts in solution chemistry. Unpublished Master Thesis, Institute of Science, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  8. Duit R., Treagust D. F. (1998). Learning in science – from behaviorism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). London: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  9. Ebenezer J. V., Gaskell P. J. (1995). Relational conceptual change in solution chemistry. Science Education, 79(1): 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebenezer J. (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: 73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fensham P. J. (1992). Science and technology. In PW Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum. Macmillan, New York, pp. 789–829Google Scholar
  12. Guba E. G., Lincoln Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison A. G., Treagust D. F. (2001). Conceptual change using multiple interpretive perspectives: Two case studies in secondary school chemistry. Instructional Science, 29: 45–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glynn S. M., Takahashi T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10): 1129–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hynd C., Alvermann D., Qian G. (1997). Preservice elementary school teachers’ conceptual change about projectile motion: Refutation text, demonstration, affective factors, and relevance. Science Education, 81: 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Matthews M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2): 121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Merriam S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  18. Palmer D. H. (2003). Investigating the relationship between refutational text and conceptual change. Science Education, 87: 663–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pilot A., Bulte M. W. (2006). What do you ‘need to know’? Context-based education. International Journal of Science Education 28(9): 953–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pınarbaşı T., Canpolat N. (2003). Students’ understanding of solution chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(11): 1328–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pınarbaşı, T. Canpolat, N., Bayrakçeken, S., and Geban, Ö. (2005). An investigation of effectiveness of conceptual change text-oriented instruction on students’ understanding of solution concepts. Research in Science Education (Published online) 17 March 2006Google Scholar
  22. Prieto T., Blanco A., Rodriguez A. (1989). The ideas of 11 to 14-year-old students about the nature of solutions. International Journal of Science Education, 11(4): 451–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stavy R. (1990). Pupils’ problems in understanding conservation of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 12(5): 501–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taber K. S. (2001). The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learner’s conceptions: A typology of learning impediments. Educational Studies, 27(2): 159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Teichert M. A., Stacy A. M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6): 464–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tobin K. G., Capie W. (1981). The development and validation of a group test of logical thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41: 413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Treagust D. F., Harrison A. G., Venville G. J. (1998). Teaching science effectively with analogies: An approach for preservice and inservice teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education 9(2): 85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tsai C. C. (1999). Overcoming junior high school students’ misconceptions about microscopic views of phase change: A study of an analogy activity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1): 83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tytler R. (2002). Teaching for understanding in science: Constructivist/conceptual change teaching approaches. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(4): 30–35Google Scholar
  30. Yin R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods (2nd ed). Sage, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  31. Widodo, A., Duit, R., and Müller, C. (2002). Constructivist views of teaching and learning in practice: Teachers’ views and classroom behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New OrleansGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muammer Çalık
    • 1
  • Alipaşa Ayas
    • 2
  • Richard K. Coll
    • 3
  • Suat Ünal
    • 2
  • Bayram Coştu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Science EducationGiresun UniversityGiresunTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics EducationKaradeniz Technical UniversitySöğütlü–TrabzonTurkey
  3. 3.Centre for Science & Technology Education ResearchUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations