An Investigation into the Use of the Concept Attainment Model in Teaching the “Periodic Table” at ‘O’-Level Through an Action Research

Chapter

Abstract

The present study was based on the use of the concept attainment model (CAM) in the teaching of the topic “Periodic Table” at the ‘O’-level, in an attempt to investigate its impact on students’ understanding and on students’ motivation and interest during the lessons. The research was carried out in a girls’ State Secondary School in a village located in the northern region of Mauritius. The sample consisted of 44 girls of age 14–15 years, who were preparing to sit for the ‘O’-level Cambridge International Examinations in November 2009. The study was carried out through an action research involving three cycles. Data were collected through observation checklists, achievement tests, students’ questionnaire and a group interview. Results from the study have revealed that use of CAM has motivated the students, and increased their level of participation during the lessons. Our findings have also shown that use of the model has enhanced conceptual understanding and helped to improve students’ performance in the topic “Periodic Table”. Most interestingly, we have also found that students were better able to identify the attributes of the concepts when varied resources and strategies were used to present the exemplars and non exemplars. Thus we would recommend that for successful implementation of the CAM in classroom teaching, educators should continuously vary the ways of presenting the exemplars and non-exemplars.

References

  1. 1.
    Gallagher RM, Ingram P (2001) Chemistry for higher tier, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Presscott C (1992) Comprehensive chemistry for O level. Federal Publications, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouma J (1989) An application oriented periodic table of the elements. J Chem Educ 66:741–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sevcik RS, McGinty RL, Alexander SV, Schultz LD (2008) Periodic table target: a game that introduces the biological significance of chemical element periodicity. J Chem Educ 85:516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chuckowree V (2005) The use of pedagogical aids in the teaching of periodic table at form five level, an action research. PGCE dissertation, Mauritius Institute of Education, Réduit, MauritiusGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sobron S (2008) Use of games in the learning of periodic table at form four level, an action research. BEd dissertation, University of Mauritius and Mauritius Institute of Education, Réduit, MauritiusGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mendeleev D (1860) The periodic law of the chemical elements. J Chem Soc 55:634–56 (1889), http://web.lemoye.edu/~giunta/MENDEL.HTML. Accessed 23 June 2008Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barry K, King L (2000) Beginning teaching and beyond, 3rd edn. Social Science Press, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fowler G (1990) Decision making in British education. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kolb D (1976) Multimedia and concept attainment. http://www.tcet.unt.edu/pubs/mul/mul04.pdf. Accessed 28 Sept 2008
  11. 11.
    Bruner J (1966) Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruner J, Goodnow JJ, Austin GA (1967) A study of thinking. Science Edns, New York. http://www.instructionalintelligence.ca/downloads/Montgomery%202005_Reflections%20on%20Concept%20Attainment.pdf. Accessed 16 June 2008
  13. 13.
    Schunk D (2000) Concept attainment model. http://smtltd.wetpaint.com/page/08+Concept+Attainment+Model. Accessed 16 Sept 2008
  14. 14.
    Klausmeir H (2000) Concept attainment model. In: Joyce B, Weil M, Calholin E (eds) Models of teaching, 6th edn. A Pearson Education Company, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Driscoll MP (2005) Psychology of learning for instruction, 3rd edn. Pearson Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tennyson RD, Cocchiarella MJ (1986) Concept attainment model. In: Joyce B, Weil M, Calholin E (2000) Models of teaching, 6th edn. A Pearson Education Company, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taba H (1967) Teachers’ handbook for elementary social studies. Addison-Wesley, Don MillGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Piaget J (1929) The child’s conception of the world. In: Harcourt B (1952) The origins of intelligence in children. Cook M, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joyce B, Weil M, Calholin E (2000) Models of teaching, 6th edn. A Pearson Education Company, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith B, Ragan T (1999) Advantages of concept attainment model. In: Amirault RJ (2003) A study examining the effectiveness of two instructional treatments on student achievement, motivation, and cognitive reasoning processes in a complex concept domain. Dissertation, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, The Florida State University. http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-08312003-190047/unrestricted/Amirault_Dissertation_2003_submitted.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2008
  21. 21.
    Bruner J (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baveja S, Sriwongjanya M (1985) Classification of plants. In: Joyce B, Weil M, Calholin E (2000) Models of teaching, 6th edn. A Pearson Education Company, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gagné R (1992) Gagne’s theory of instruction. In: Amirault RJ (2003) A study examining the effectiveness of two instructional treatments on student achievement, motivation, and cognitive reasoning processes in a complex concept domain. Dissertation, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems. The Florida State University. http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-08312003-190047/unrestricted/Amirault_Dissertation_2003_submitted.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2008
  24. 24.
    Martindale T (1999) Alternate teaching models for non-classroom-based instruction. http://teachable.org/papers/1999_EdMedia_teachingmodels.htm. Accessed 6 Sept 2010
  25. 25.
    Tilstone C (1998) Observing teaching and learning. Principles and Practice, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murphy JJ (1988) Contingency contracting in schools: a review. Educ Treat Child 11:257–269Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meyers C, Jones TB (1993) Promoting active learning. Strategies for the college classroom. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/options/ActiveLearning_en.htm. Accessed 10 July 2008
  28. 28.
    Fisher R (1995) Teaching children to learn. Stanley Thornes Publisher Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bloom R (1974) Taxonomy of educational objectives. McKay, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petty A (1998) Visual aids. http://www.Britishcouncil.Britishcouncilorg/unit7.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2008
  31. 31.
    Hong J, Puck J (1992) Long term memory. In: Amirault RJ (2003) A study examining the effectiveness of two instructional treatments on student achievement, motivation, and cognitive reasoning processes in a complex concept domain. Dissertation, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, The Florida State University. http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-08312003-190047/unrestricted/Amirault_Dissertation_2003_submitted.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2008
  32. 32.
    Tessmer JJ, Meijer A (1990) Concept attainment model. http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/construct.html. Accessed 15 June 2008
  33. 33.
    Amirault RJ (2003) A study examining the effectiveness of two instructional treatments on student achievement, motivation, and cognitive reasoning processes in a complex concept domain. Dissertation, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, The Florida State University. http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-08312003-190047/unrestricted/Amirault_Dissertation_2003_submitted.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2008
  34. 34.
    Kleinman EB, Dwyer FM (1999) Analysis of computerized visual skills: relationships to intellectual skills and achievement. Int J Instr Media 26:53–69Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baker JD, Beisel RW (2001) An experiment in three approaches to teaching average to elementary school children. Sch Sci Math 101:23–31. http://gse.gmu.edu/cscvm/abs_doc/. Accessed 26 June 2008Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Trowbridge LW, Bybee RW, Powell JC (2000) Teaching secondary school science: strategies for developing scientific literacy. Merrill and imprint of Prentice Hall. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ausubel D (1960) Use of organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. J Educ Psychol 51:267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rodgers EM (2004) Interactions that scaffold reading performance. J Lit Res 36:501–532. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_scaffolding. Accessed 15 Aug 2008Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Blank W, Harwell S (1997) Increasing Student Motivation. In: Amirault RJ (2003) A study examining the effectiveness of two instructional treatments on student achievement, motivation, and cognitive reasoning processes in a complex concept domain. Dissertation, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems. http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-08312003-190047/unrestricted/Amirault_Dissertation_2003_submitted.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2008
  40. 40.
    Vygotsky LS (2000) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, London/CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simadree Virahsawmy State Secondary SchoolRivière du RempartMauritius
  2. 2.Department of Science EducationMauritius Institute of EducationRéduitMauritius

Personalised recommendations