An Investigation into the Use of Concept Cartoons in the Teaching of “Metals and the Reactivity Series” at the Secondary Level

  • Hiteyeshi Lallbeeharry
  • Fawzia B. Narod
Conference paper


The present study was designed in an attempt to promote argumentation, and to enhance students’ engagement and understanding during the teaching of “Metals and the Reactivity Series” by making use of concept cartoons. The research was carried out in a Girls’ State Secondary School situated in the North of Mauritius. The sample comprised 35 Form III students (age 13–14 years), who were in the third year of secondary schooling. The study was based on an action research, during which concept cartoons were used in the teaching of “Metals and the Reactivity Series”. Four different data-collection tools were used during the study, namely, observation checklists, students’ achievement tests, students’ questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview. Our findings have revealed that the use of concept cartoons in the teaching of “Metals and the Reactivity Series” has promoted both teacher-student and student-student interactions. Moreover, concept cartoons have proved to be very effective in eliciting students’ interest, and in motivating them to participate during the lessons through discussions and argumentations. Most importantly, our findings have clearly indicated that concept cartoons can serve as stepping stones to improve students’ understanding and performance by helping teachers to identify their problems and misconceptions. It has also been found that concept cartoons depicting different viewpoints, or those including both correct and incorrect statements, have not only helped in engaging learners in argumentation, but have also promoted thinking. The study has also brought to light that it is important for teachers to include a gamut of statements, ranging from simple to more challenging ones, while designing concept cartoons in order to cater for students of different abilities. We also report here that concept cartoons can be used as teaching tools in conjunction with various strategies, like hands-on practical, demonstration, video-viewing and group work.


Conceptual Understanding Classroom Teaching Science Classroom Achievement Test Reactivity Series 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Barnhart CL, Barnhar RK (1992) The World book dictionary, vol 2. World Book, Inc., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Randi J, cited in: Wudka J (1998) From Antiquity to Einstein. Accessed 19 Apr 2012
  3. 3.
    Wudka J (1998) From Antiquity to Einstein. Accessed 19 Apr 2012
  4. 4.
    Rutherford FJ, Ahlgren A (1990) Science for all Americans. Oxford. Cited in: Backer PR (1998) What is the scientific method? Accessed 19 Apr 2012
  5. 5.
    Driver R, Squires A, Rushworth P, Wood-Robinson V (1994) Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas.,_1994. Accessed 19 Apr 2012
  6. 6.
    Wellington JJ, Osborne J (2001) Language and literacy in science education. Open University Press, Buckingham, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    La Velle BL, Erduran S (2007) Argument and developments in the science curriculum. Sch Sci Rev 88:31–40Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newton P, Driver R, Osborne J (1999) The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. Int J Sci Educ 21:553–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erduran S, Jimenez-Aleixandre MP (2008) Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer, Dordrecht. Cited in: Erduran S, Villamanan R (2009) Cool argument: engineering students’ written arguments about thermodynamics in the context of the Peltier effect in refrigeration. Educación Química 20:119–125Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erduran S (2007) Breaking the law: promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about the periodic law. Found Chem 9:247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bybee RW, Powell JC, Trowbridge LW (2008) Teaching secondary school science. Strategies for developing scientific literacy, 9th edn. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gray A (1997) Constructivist teaching and learning; SSTA research centre report #97–07: Accessed 13 Mar 2012
  13. 13.
    General Teaching Council for England (2011) Teaching & Learning Academy. Case study 4: using concept cartoons in science. Accessed 13 Mar 2012
  14. 14.
    Mauritius Research Council (2004) Teaching and learning of science in schools (Republic of Mauritius), vol 1. Recommendations and Action Plan (2004–2006). Republic of MauritiusGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luckpoteea M, Narod F (2012) An investigation into the use of the concept attainment model in teaching the “Periodic Table” at ‘O’-Level through an action research. In: Bhowon MG, Jhaumeer-Laulloo S, Li Kam Wah H, Ramasami P (eds) Chemistry for sustainable development. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, pp 265–300Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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, RéduitGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sobron S (2008) Use of games in the learning of periodic table at form four level, an action research. B.Ed. Dissertation, University of Mauritius and Mauritius Institute of Education, RéduitGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Birisçi S, Metin M (2010) Developing an instructional material using a concept cartoon adapted to the 5E model: a sample of teaching erosion. Asia-Pac Forum Sci Learn Teach 11:1–16Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Driver R, Bell B (1986) Students’ thinking and the learning of science: a constructivist view. Sch Sci Rev 67:443–456Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kabapinar F (2005) Effectiveness of teaching via concept cartoons from the point of view of constructivist approach. Educ Sci Theory Pract 5:135–146Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keogh B, Naylor S (1996) Teaching and learning in science: a new perspective. Paper presented at the BERA Conference, Lancaster. Accessed 13 Jan 2012
  22. 22.
    Naylor S, Keogh B (2012) Concept cartoons: what have we learnt? Paper presented at the Fibonacci Project European Conference, Inquiry-Based science and mathematics education: bridging the gap between education research and practice. Leicester. =CT1060933. Accessed 21 June 2012Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Naylor S, Keogh B (2000) Concept cartoons in science education (The ConCISE Project). Milligate House Publishers, Sandbach, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bogdan R, Biklen SK (1998) Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods, 3rd edn. Pearson, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dabell J (2004) The maths coordinator’s file-using concept cartoons. PFP Publishing. Cited in: Birisçi S, Metin M (2010) Developing an instructional material using a concept cartoon adapted to the 5E model: a sample of teaching erosion. Asia-Pac Forum Sci Learn Teach 11:1–16Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kabapinar F (2009) What makes concept cartoons more effective? Using research to inform practice. Educ Sci 34:104–118Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Allibacus A (2008) Use of concept cartoons as a strategy to teach acids and bases at Form II level. An action research. PGCE Dissertation. Mauritius Institute of Education, RéduitGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keogh B, Naylor S (1999) Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: an evaluation. Int J Sci Educ 21:431–446. Cited in: Kabapinar F (2009) What makes concept cartoons more effective? Using research to inform practice. Education and Science 34:104–118Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sing Teach (2009) Cartoons in the classroom. Sing Teach 18:6–7. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Accessed 1 Aug 2012Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Furrer C, Skinner E (2003) Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. J Educ Psychol 95:148–162. Cited in: Toshalis E, Nakkula MJ (2012) Motivation, engagement, and student voice: the students at the centre series. Jobs for the future. Accessed 22 May 2012Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sugar Industry Labour Welfare FundPort-LouisMauritius
  2. 2.Department of Science EducationMauritius Institute of EducationRéduitMauritius

Personalised recommendations