Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 186–203 | Cite as

Effects of Jigsaw Cooperative Learning and Animation Techniques on Students’ Understanding of Chemical Bonding and Their Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter

  • Ataman KaracopEmail author
  • Kemal Doymus
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of jigsaw cooperative learning and computer animation techniques on academic achievements of first year university students attending classes in which the unit of chemical bonding is taught within the general chemistry course and these students’ learning of the particulate nature of matter of this unit. The sample of this study consisted of 115 first-year science education students who attended the classes in which the unit of chemical bonding was taught in a university faculty of education during the 2009–2010 academic year. The data collection instruments used were the Test of Scientific Reasoning, the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Rotations, the Chemical Bonding Academic Achievement Test, and the Particulate Nature of Matter Test in Chemical Bonding (CbPNMT). The study was carried out in three different groups. One of the groups was randomly assigned to the jigsaw group, the second was assigned to the animation group (AG), and the third was assigned to the control group, in which the traditional teaching method was applied. The data obtained with the instruments were evaluated using descriptive statistics, one–way ANOVA, and MANCOVA. The results indicate that the teaching of chemical bonding via the animation and jigsaw techniques was more effective than the traditional teaching method in increasing academic achievement. In addition, according to findings from the CbPNMT, the students from the AG were more successful in terms of correct understanding of the particulate nature of matter.

Keywords

Animation technique Jigsaw technique Chemical bonding Spatial visualization 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is part of doctoral dissertation submitted to the Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Primary Education, Atatürk University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, July 2010.

References

  1. Abdullah S, Shariff A (2008) The effects of inquiry-based computer simulation with cooperative learning on scientific thinking and conceptual understanding of gas laws. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 4(4):387–398Google Scholar
  2. Acar B, Tarhan L (2008) Effects of cooperative learning on students’ understanding of metallic bonding. Res Sci Educ 38(4):401–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adadan E, Irving KE, Trundle KC (2009) Impacts of multi-representational instruction on high school students’ conceptual understandings of the particulate nature of matter. Int J Sci Educ 31(13):1743–1775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Ahmadi F (2008) The development of scientific thinking with senior school physics students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Ahmadi F, Oraif F (2009) Working memory capacity, confidence and scientific thinking. Res Sci Technol Educ 27(2):225–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Appling JR, Peake LC (2004) Instructional technology and molecular visualization. J Sci Educ Technol 13(3):361–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ardac D, Akaygun S (2004) Effectiveness of multimedia based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. J Res Sci Teach 41(4):317–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aronson E, Stephen C, Sikes J, Blaney N, Snapp M (1978) The jigsaw classroom. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnea N, Dori YJ (2000) Computerized molecular modeling: the new technology for enhance model perception among chemistry educators and learners. Chem Educ Res Pract Eur 1:109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bektasli B (2006) The relationships between spatial ability, logical thinking, mathematics performance and kinematics graph interpretation skills of 12th grade physics students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Black AA (2005) Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. J Geosci Educ 53(4):402–414Google Scholar
  12. Bodner GM, Guay RB (1997) The Purdue visualization of rotations test. Chem Educ 2(4):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bratt C (2008) The jigsaw classroom under test: no effect on intergroup relations evident. J Comm Appl Soc Psychol 18:403–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bunce DM, Gabel D (2002) Differential effects on the achievement of males and females of teaching the particulate nature of chemistry. J Res Sci Teach 39(10):911–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burke KA, Greenbowe TJ, Windschitl MA (1998) Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. J Chem Educ 75(12):1658–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chang CY, Tsai CC (2005) The interplay between different forms of CAI and students’ preferences of learning environment in the secondary science class. Sci Educ 89(5):707–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chang H, Quintana C, Krajcik JS (2010) The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Sci Educ 94:73–94Google Scholar
  18. Chittleborough G, Treagust DF (2007) The modelling ability of non-major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level. Chem Educ Res Pract 8:274–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  20. Coll RK, Treagust DF (2003) Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate learners’ mental models of ionic bonding. J Res Sci Teach 40(5):464–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Colosi JC, Zales CR (1998) Jigsaw cooperative learning improves biology lab course. Bioscience 48(2):118–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Creswell JW (2003) Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  23. Doymus K (2008) Teaching chemical bonding through jigsaw cooperative learning. Res Sci Technol Educ 26(1):47–57Google Scholar
  24. Doymus K, Simsek U, Karacop A (2009) The effects of computer animations and cooperative learning methods in micro, macro and symbolic level learning of states of matter. Eurasian J Educ Res 36:109–128Google Scholar
  25. Doymus K, Karacop A, Simsek U (2010) Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on students’ understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry. Educ Technol Res Develop 58(6), 671–691Google Scholar
  26. Ferguson CW (2008) A comparison of instructional methods for improving the spatial-visualization ability of freshman technology seminar students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Western Carolina UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. Frailich M, Kesner M, Hofstein A (2009) Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. J Res Sci Teach 46(3):289–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilbert JK (2005) Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. In: Gilbert JK (ed) Visualization in science education. Springer, Netherlands, pp 9–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Green SB, Salkind NJ (2005) Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: analyzing and understanding data, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanze M, Berger R (2007) Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: an experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learn Instr 17:29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harrison AG, Treagust DF (2000) Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: a case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Sci Educ 84:352–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hart WJ (2003) Effect of computer animation instruction on spatial visualization performance. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, North Carolina State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  33. Hedeen T (2003) The reverse jigsaw: a process of cooperative learning and discussion. Teach Sociol 31(3):325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hennessy D, Evans R (2006) Small-group learning in the community college classroom. Commun Coll Enterp 12(1):93–109Google Scholar
  35. Hines CD (2008) An investigation of teacher use of cooperative learning with low achieving African American students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Hubscher-Younger T, Narayanan NH (2003) Dancing hamsters and marble statues: characterizing student visualizations of algorithms. In: Paper presented at the 2003 ACM symposium on software visualization, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith K (2007) The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educ Psychol Rev 19(1):15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnstone AH (1991) Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Instr 7(1):75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keehner M, Hegarty M, Cohen C, Khooshabeh P, Montello DR (2008) Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: what matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cogn Sci 32:1099–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kelly RM, Jones LL (2007) Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’ explanations. J Sci Educ Technol 16:413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim S, Yoon M, Whang S-M, Tversky B, Morrison JB (2007) The effect of animation on comprehension and interest. J Comput Assist Learn 23:260–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lafont L, Proeres M, Vallet C (2007) Cooperative group learning in a team game: role of verbal exchanges among peers. Soc Psychol Educ 10:93–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Larsson EK (2009) Simulation training of boat handling: contributions of problem solving style, spatial ability, and visualization. Unpublished Doctoral Disertation, Fordham University, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. Leech NL, Barrett KC, Morgan GA (2005) SPSS for ıntermediate statistics: use and ınterpretation, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  45. Lloyd B, Howe N (2003) Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking skills in preschool children. Early Child Res Q 18:22–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McMillan JH, Schumacher S (2006) Research in education: evidence-based ınquiry, 6th edn. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  47. Merritt J, Shwartz Y, Krajcik J (2007) Middle school students’ development of the particle model of matter. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  48. Moreno R, Valdez F (2005) Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: the role of student interactivity and feedback. Educ Technol Res Dev 53(3):35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Leary N, Griggs G (2010) Researching the pieces of a puzzle: the use of a jigsaw learning approach in the delivery of undergraduate gymnastics. J Furth High Educ 34(1):73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Othman J, Treagust DF, Chandrasegaran AL (2008) An investigation into the relationship between students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter and their understanding of chemical bonding. Int J Sci Educ 30(11/3):1531–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Özmen H (2008) The influence of computer-assisted instruction on students’ conceptual understanding of chemical bonding and attitude toward chemistry: a case for Turkey. Comput Educ 51:423–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Özmen H, Demircioğlu H, Demircioğlu G (2009) The effects of conceptual change texts accompanied with animations on overcoming 11th grade students’ alternative conceptions of chemical bonding. Comput Educ 52:681–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ploetzner R, Lippitsch S, Galmbacher M, Heuer D, Scherrer S (2009) Students’ difficulties in learning from dynamic visualisations and how they may be overcome. Comput Hum Behav 25:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reid N, Serumola L (2007) Scientific enquiry: the nature and place of experimentation: some recent evidence. J Sci Educ 7(2):88–94Google Scholar
  55. Rotbain Y, Marbach-Ad G, Stavy R (2008) Using a computer animation to teach high school molecular biology. J Sci Educ Technol 17:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Russell J, Kozma RB (2005) Assessing learning from the use of multimedia chemical visualization software. In: Gilbert JK (ed) Visualization in science education. Springer, Netherlands, pp 299–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sanger MJ, Greenbowe TJ (2000) Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies. Int J Sci Educ 22(5):521–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schank P, Kozma R (2002) Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based knowledge building environment. J Comput Math Sci Teach 21(3):253–279Google Scholar
  59. Souvignier E, Kronenberger J (2007) Cooperative learning in third graders’ Jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. Br J Educ Psychol 77:755–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stockdale SL, Williams RL (2004) Cooperative learning groups at the college level: differential effects on high, average, and low exam performers. J Behav Educ 13(1):37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Su K-D (2008) The effects of a chemistry course with integrated information communication technologies on university students’ learning and attitudes. Int J Sci Math Educ 6:225–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2006) Using multivariate statistics, 5th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Inc., Needham HeightsGoogle Scholar
  63. Tasker R, Dalton R (2006) Research into practice: visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chem Educ Res Pract 7(2):141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thurston A, Topping KJ, Tolmie A, Christie D, Karagiannidou E, Murray P (2010) Cooperative learning in science: follow-up from primary to high school. Int J Sci Educ 32(4):501–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tsitsipis G, Stamovlasis D, Papageorgiou G (2010) The effect of three cognitive variables on students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its changes of state. Int J Sci Educ 32(8):987–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tversky B, Morrison JB, Betrancourt M (2002) Animations: can it facilitate? Int J Hum Comput Stud 57:247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Unutkan Ö (2006) A Study of pre-school children’s school readiness related to scientific thinking skills. Turk Online J Distance Educ 7(4):78–84Google Scholar
  68. Venkataraman B (2009) Visualization and interactivity in the teaching of chemistry to science and non-science students. Chem Educ Res Pract 10:62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vermaat H, Kramers-Pals H, Schank P (2003) The use of animations in chemical education. In: Proceedings of the international convention of the association for educational communications and technology. Anaheim, CA, pp 430–441Google Scholar
  70. Williamson VM, Abraham MR (1995) The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. J Res Sci Teach 32(5):521–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Williamson VM, Jose TJ (2008) The effects of a two-year molecular visualization experience on teachers’ attitudes, content knowledge, and spatial ability. J Chem Educ 85(5):718–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wu H-K, Shah P (2004) Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Sci Educ 88:465–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yang E, Andre T, Greenbowe TJ (2003) Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry. Int J Sci Educ 25(3):329–349Google Scholar
  74. Yezierski EJ (2003) The particulate of matter and conceptual change a cross-age study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  75. Yezierski EJ, Birk JP (2006) Misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter using animations to close the gender gap. J Chem Educ 83(6):954–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yip DY (2001) Promoting the development of a conceptual change model of science instruction in prospective secondary biology teachers. Int J Sci Educ 23:755–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zakaria E, Iksan Z (2007) Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics education: a Malaysian perspective. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 3(1):35–39Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Elementary Science Education, Education FacultyKafkas UniversityKarsTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Elementary Science Education, Kazim Karabekir Education FacultyAtaturk UniversityErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options