Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of the common knowledge construction model (CKCM)-based instruction on academic achievement and 7th grade students’ views about the nature of science (NOS) presented in electrical energy unit at schools of different socio-economic levels. In accordance with this purpose, three secondary schools at different socio-economic levels (lower, middle and upper) in Kastamonu Province, Turkey, were selected. One experimental group and one control group were randomly selected from schools at each socio-economic level. The teaching interventions in all groups lasted for 6 weeks (24 class-hours). While the lessons of the experimental group were taught with the activities developed in accordance with the CKCM, the lessons of the control group were taught in compliance with the 2013 Science Curriculum. As a result of this study, it was observed that the CKCM-based instruction increased students’ level of academic achievement and ensured the permanence of the knowledge learned. In terms of academic achievement, no significant difference was observed between the schools at the lower and middle socio-economic levels and the schools at middle and upper socio-economic levels. However, a significant difference between the schools at the lower and upper socio-economic levels was observed in favor of the upper socio-economic level school. Moreover, the CKCM-based instruction had a positive effect on the students’ views on the nature of science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abd- El- Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.
Akgün, A., Duruk, Ü., & Gülmez-Güngörmez, H. (2016). Altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin ortak bilgi yapılandırma modeline ilişkin görüşleri [The views of the sixth grade students about the common knowledge construction model]. Amasya University Journal of Education, 5(1), 184–203.
Akkuş, R., Günel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765.
Arnold, M., & Millar, R. (1993). Teaching about electric circuits: A constructivist approach. In R. Levinson (Ed.), Teaching science. London, England: Open University Press.
Ayvacı, H. Ş. (2007). Bilimin doğasının sınıf öğretmeni adaylarına kütle çekim konusu içerisinde farklı yaklaşımlarla öğretilmesine yönelik bir çalışma [A study toward teaching the nature of science based on different approaches for classroom teachers in gravity content] (Doctoral dissertation). Karadeniz Technical University, Institute of Science, Trabzon, Turkey.
Bacanlı, H. (1997). Sosyal ilişkilerde benlik: Kendini ayarlamanın psikolojisi [Self in social relations: Psychology of self-adjustment]. Istanbul, Turkey: National Education Press.
Bakırcı, H., Çalık, M., & Çepni, S. (2017). The effect of the common knowledge construction model-oriented education on sixth grade students’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(1), 43–55.
Bakırcı, H., Çepni, S., & Ayvacı, H. Ş. (2015). Ortak bilgi yapılandırma modeli hakkında fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin görüşleri [Science teachers' opinions about the common knowledge construction model]. Van Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Education, 12(1), 97–125.
Bakırcı, H., & Ensari, Ö. (2018). The effect of common knowledge construction model on academic achievement and conceptual understandings of high school students on heat and temperature. Education and Science, 43(196), 171–188.
Bakırcı, H., & Yıldırım, İ. (2017). Ortak bilgi yapılandırma modelinin sera etkisi konusunda öğrencilerin kavramsal anlamalarına ve bilginin kalıcılığına etkisi [The influence of common knowledge construction model on students’ conceptual understanding and permanence of knowledge in terms of greenhouse effect]. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Journal of Education, 18, 45–63.
Batır, R. (2018). Ortaokul 7. sınıf fen bilimleri dersinin "Elektrik enerjisi" ünitesinin laboratuvar temelli öğretimi ve akademik başarıya etkisi [The laboratorybased teaching of "Electrical energy unit" and its effect on academic achievement in 7th grade science classes] (Doctoral dissertation). Mersin University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Mersin, Turkey.
Bawaneh, A. (2019). The effectiveness of using mind mapping on tenth grade students' immediate achievement and retention of electric energy concepts. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 123–138.
Benli-Özdemir, E. (2014). Fen öğretiminde ortak bilgi yapılandırma modelinin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin bilişsel ve duyuşsal öğrenmeleri üzerine etkilerinin incelenmesi [The study on impact of common knowledge construction model on the cognitive and affective learning of primary education students in science education] (Doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Biernacka, B. (2006). Developing scientific literacy of grade five students: A teacher researcher collaborative effort (Doctoral dissertation). University of Manitoba, Canada.
Boran, G. H. (2014). Argümantasyon temelli fen öğretiminin bilimin doğasına ilişkin görüşler ve epistemolojik inançlar üzerine etkisi [The effect of argumentation-based science teaching on the views and epistemological beliefs about the nature of science] (Doctoral dissertation). Pamukkale University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Denizli, Turkey.
Briscoe, C., & Peters, J. (1997). Teacher collaboration across and within schools: Supporting individual change in elementary science teaching. Science Education, 81, 51–65.
Çavuş, S. (2010). İlköğretim fen bilgisi ve matematik öğretmenliği lisans öğrencilerinin bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerinin geliştirilmesi [Improving science and mathematics pre-service teachers' conseptions of nature of science] (Doctoral dissertation). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Institute of Social Sciences, Bolu, Turkey.
Çavuş-Güngören, S. (2015). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının farklı öğretim yöntemleriyle bilimin doğasının öğrenimi ve öğretimi hakkındaki gelişimleri [Development of pre-service science teachers' learning and teaching of nature of science with different teaching methods] (Doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Chiu, M. H., & Lin, J. W. (2005). Promoting fourth graders' conceptual change of their understanding of electric current via multiple analogies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 429–464.
Çil, E. (2010). Bilimin doğasının kavramsal değişim pedagojisi ve doğrudan yansıtıcı yaklaşım ile öğretilmesi: Işık ünitesi örneği [Teaching of the nature of science in conceptual change pedagogy and explicit reflective approach: A case study for light unit] (Doctoral dissertation). Karadeniz Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Trabzon, Turkey.
Çoban, H. M. (2019). Elektrik enerjisi ünitesinin öğretiminde analoji temelli 5E öğrenme modelinin farklı öğrenme stillerine sahip olan öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına etkisi [The effect of analogy-based 5E learning model on the academic achievements of students that have different learning styles in the teaching of the electricity energy unit] (Doctoral dissertation). Adıyaman University, Institute of Science, Adıyaman, Turkey.
Demircioğlu, H., & Vural, S. (2016). The effect of common knowledge construction model (CKCM) on the 8th grade gifted students’ attitudes toward chemistry lesson. Hasan Ali Yucel Journal of Education, 13(1), 49–60.
Demirtel, Ş. (2010). Bilimin doğası etkinliklerinin ilköğretim sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimin doğası anlayışlarına etkisi [The effect of teachnig the nature of science activities to eight graders' nature of science views] (Doctoral dissertation). Pamukkale University, Institute of Science, Denizli, Turkey.
Ebenezer, J., Chacko, S., & Immanuel, N. (2004). Common knowledge construction model for teaching and learning science: Applications in the Indıan context. Retrieved Jan. 12, 2017 from http://www.hbcse.tifr.res.in/episteme-1/themes/jazlin_Ebenezer_finalpaper.pdf.
Ebenezer, J., Chacko, S., Kaya, O. N., Koya, S. K., & Ebenezer, D. L. (2010). The effects of common knowledge construction model sequence of lessons on science achievement and relational conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 25–46.
Ebenezer, J., & Connor, S. (1998). Learning to teach science: A model for the 21st century. USA: Prentice Hall.
Ebenezer, J., & Fraser, D. M. (2001). First year chemical engineering students’ conceptions of energy in solution processes: Phenomenographic categories for common knowledge construction. Science Education, 85(5), 509–535.
Ebenezer, J., & Puvirajah, A. (2005). WebCT dialogues on particle theory of matter: Presumptive reasoning schemes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(6), 561–589.
Et, S. Z. (2019). Sosyobilimsel meselelerle öğrenme ve argümantasyon temelli bilim öğrenme yaklaşımlarının fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğasını anlamalarına etkisi [The effects of socioscientific issues based learning and science writing heuristic approaches on science pre-service teachers' understanding of the nature of science] (Doctoral dissertation). Fırat University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Elazığ, Turkey.
Farrokhnia, M. R., & Esmailpour, A. (2010). A study on the impact of real, virtual and comprehensive experimenting on students’ conceptual understanding of DC electric circuits and their skills in undergraduate electricity laboratory. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 5474–5482.
Güler, N. (2017). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme [Measurement and evaluation in education]. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Academy.
Gunstone, R., Mulhall, P., & McKittrick, B. (2009). Physics teachers’ perceptions of the difficulty of teaching electricity. Research in Science Education, 39, 515–538.
İpek, H., & Çalık, M. (2008). Combining different conceptual change methods within four-step constructivist teaching model: A sample teaching of series and parallel circuits. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(3), 143–153.
İyibil, Ü. (2011). A new approach for teaching “energy” concept: The common knowledge construction model. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences (WAJES), 1-8.
Karaman, E. (2019). Bilimin doğasına ilişkin unsurların yaşam temelli yaklaşımla öğretilmesi [Teaching the elements of nature of science through context-based approach] (Doctoral dissertation). Balıkesir University, Institute of Science, Balıkesir, Turkey.
Kaya, G. (2011). Fen kavramlarıyla ilişkilendirilmiş doğrudan yansıtıcı yaklaşımın ilköğretim öğrencilerinin bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerine ve akademik başarılarına etkisi. [The influence of an explicit reflective approach on elementary students? Views of nature of science and their academic achievements about the concept of light]. MSc. Dissertation, Hacettepe University Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.
Kıryak, Z., & Çalik, M. (2018). Improving grade 7 students’ conceptual understanding of water pollution via common knowledge construction model. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(6), 1025–1046.
Klufa, J. (2015). Multiple choice question tests–advantages and disadvantages. In P. Dondon at al. (Ed.), 3rd International Conference on Education and Modern Educational Technologies (EMET), pp. 39–42, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Köksal, M. S., & Ertekin, P. (2015). Bilimin doğasının öğretiminde kuramdan uygulamaya yönelik yaklaşımlar [Approaches from theory to practice in teaching the nature of science]. In N. Yenice (Ed.), Bilimin doğası gelişimi ve öğretimi (s. 223-247) [The development and teaching of the nature of science (pp. 223–247)]. Ankara, Turkey: Anı Publishing.
Kut, A., & Salgür, F. (2015). Socio-economic status evaluation in medicine: Are we doing the right thing in medical research? Turkish Journal of Family Practice, 19(1), 4–13.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.
Lee, Y. C. (2008). Exploring the roles and nature of science: A case study of severe acute respiratory syndrome. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 515–541.
McCarthy, J. P., & Anderson, L. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative Higher Education, 24(4), 279–294.
McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 53–70). Dordercht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 389–407.
Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. European journal of science education . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Puplication.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı [Elementary education institutions (primary and secondary schools) science courses (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 grades) curriculum]. Ankara, Turkey.
Mulhall, P., McKittrick, B., & Gunstone, R. (2001). A perspective on the resolution of confusions in the teaching of electricity. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 575–587.
Noddings, N. (2005). What does it mean to educate the whole child? Education Leadership, 63(1), 8–31.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage Publications, Inc..
Şen, N. (2019). 7. sınıf elektrik enerjisi ünitesinde FETEMM yaklaşımına dayalı tasarlanan öğrenme ortamının fen bilimleri eğitimine etkileri [The effects of STEM based learning environment on science learning in 7th grade electrical energy unit] (Doctoral dissertation). Uşak University, Institute of Science, Uşak, Turkey.
Vural, S. (2016). Ortak bilgi yapılandırma modeline uygun geliştirilen öğretim materyalinin üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin asit-baz kavramlarını anlamaları üzerine etkisi [The effect of teaching material based on the common knowledge consruction model on the gifted students' understanding of concepts: "acidbase"] (Doctoral dissertation). Karadeniz Technical University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Trabzon, Turkey.
Wood, L. C. (2012). Conceptual change and science achievement related to a lesson sequence on acids and bases among African American alternative high school students: A teacher’s practical arguments and the voice of the “other” (Doctoral dissertation). Wayne State University. Detroit.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Publishing.
Yücel-Dağ, M. (2015). Kavram karikatürleriyle zenginleştirilmiş etkileşimli kısa tarihsel hikâyelerin bilimin doğası öğretiminde kullanımı üzerine bir öz inceleme [A self-study of the use of interactive historical vignettes enhanced with concept cartoons in teaching of the nature of science] (Doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Yürümezoğlu, K., & Çökelez, A. (2010). Akım geçiren basit bir elektrik devresinde neler olduğu konusunda öğrenci görüşleri [Student views on what is happening in a simple electrical circuit that conducts current]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(3), 147–166.
Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120–132.
Funding
This work was supported by Kastamonu University Coordinatorship of Scienticific Research Projects (BAP) with the project number KUBAP-03/2017-13.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study has been derived from the first author’s doctoral dissertation and a part of the research was presented orally in the Vth International Eurasian Educational Research Congress (EJER-2018), 2–5 May 2018, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Student Status Determination Survey (SSDS).
1. Your father’s education.
() Not a school graduate.
() primary school graduate.
() Secondary/High school graduate.
() High school/University graduate.
() Master’s/PhD.
2. Your mother’s education.
() Not a school graduate.
() Primary school graduate.
() Secondary/High school graduate.
() High school/University graduate.
() Master’s/PhD.
3. Number of people in your family.
() 8-more people.
() 6–7.
() 4–5.
() 3.
4. Whose house do you belong to?
() Rent.
() Ours.
() Lodging.
5. Number of rooms in your home (Kitchen excluded).
() Single room.
() Single room and living room.
() Two rooms and living room.
() Three rooms and living room.
() Four and more rooms and living room.
6. Heating system of the house in which you live.
() Stove.
() Heater.
() Floor heating or air conditioning () Naturel gas.
7. Average monthly income of your family.
() 2000 TL and below.
() 2001–3000 TL.
() 3001–5000 TL.
() 5001–8000 TL.
() 8000 TL and above.
8. Your father’s profession.
() Worker.
() Farmer.
() Officer.
() Shopkeepers/Traders.
() Self-employment (Doctor, Lawyer and such)
9. Your mother’s profession.
() Housewife.
() Farmer.
() Officer.
() Shopkeepers/Traders.
() Self-employment (Doctor, Lawyer and such)
10. Belongings of your family (You can select multiple options).
() Refrigerator.
() Washing machine.
() Dishwasher.
() Mobile phone.
() Laptop/tablet.
() Land.
() Apartment.
() Car.
() Computer.
() Summerhouse.
() TV.
() Air conditioning.
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Course plan for control group
Course name | Science |
Class: | 7 |
Unit name: | Electrical energy |
Subject: | How bulbs are connected, transformation of electrical energy |
Recommended course hours: | 24 h |
Student acquisition/objectives and behaviors | 1. Explains how serial and parallel connection is, draws a circuit diagram consisting of series and parallel connected bulbs. 2. Observes the brightness differences in cases where the bulbs are connected in series and in parallel and interprets the result. 3. Knows that electric energy sources provide electric current to electric circuits and electric current is a kind of energy transfer. 4. Connects the ammeter to the circuit in series and describes the value read as the current intensity and expresses the unit. 5. Measures the voltage (potential difference) between the terminals of the circuit by connecting the voltmeter in parallel to the circuit and expresses the unit. 6. Explores the relationship between the voltage between the ends of a circuit element and the current passing through it. 7. Associates the cause of the difference in brightness in cases where bulbs are connected in series and in parallel with electrical resistance. 8. Makes experiments on the conversion of electrical energy into heat and light energy and observes the result. 9. Gives examples of technological applications based on the conversion of electrical energy to heat and light energy. 10. Comprehends that electrical energy is transformed into motion energy and motion energy is converted into electrical energy. 11. Investigates and presents how electricity is produced in power plants. 12. Discusses the importance of conscious and economical use of electrical energy in terms of family and country economy. |
Methods and techniques to be applied | Lecture, Question-Answer, Role Playing, Group Work, Experiment. |
Activities to be done | -Introduction of ammeter and voltmeter -Ohm’s Law -How to Connect Light Bulbs? -Which Circuit Bulb Gives Light? -Examples of the conversion of electrical energy into many types of energy in daily life. -Test of conversion of part of energy into heat energy due to resistance of current passing wire. -An example of a robot developed as a result of the conversion of electrical energy into motion energy. -Interactive activities on electricity generation from hydroelectric, thermal, wind, geothermal and nuclear power plants -Importance of using conscious and economical electrical energy |
Measurement and assessment | -Fill in the space -Mapping Projects for measurement and evaluation, concept maps, diagnostic branched tree, structured grid, six-hat technique, puzzle, multiple choice, open-ended, true-false, matching, gap filling, two-stage test suitable for the appropriate one of the different questions and techniques places. |
Appendix 7
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Caymaz, B., Aydin, A. The Effect of Common Knowledge Construction Model-Based Instruction on 7th Grade Students’ Academic Achievement and Their Views about the Nature of Science in the Electrical Energy Unit at Schools of Different Socio-economic Levels. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 19, 233–265 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10054-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10054-0