The effects of common knowledge construction model sequence of lessons on science achievement and relational conceptual change

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 25-46

  Ebenezer, Jazlin ^a   Chacko, Sheela ^b   Kaya, Osman Nafiz ^c   Koya, Satya Kiran ^a   Ebenezer, Devairakkam Luke ^d  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Spicer Memorial College   (India)

^c FIRAT UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^d Northern Caribbean University   (Jamaica)

Author keywords

Conceptions; Excretion; Phenomenography; Relational conceptual change; Science achievement

Indexed keywords

COMMON KNOWLEDGE; CONCEPTUAL CHANGE; CONTROL GROUPS; EVERYDAY LANGUAGE; EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS; MIXED APPROACH; PHENOMENOGRAPHY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; TEACHING METHODS;

QUALITY CONTROL; TEACHING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 73949092814     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20295     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Barton, J., & Collins, A. (1993). Portfolios in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 200-210.
2. Biernacka, B. (2006). Developing scientific literacy of grade five students: A teacher-researcher collaborative effort. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manitoba.
3. Brown, B.A.,& Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: A "content first" approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 529-553.
4. Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
5. Chang, C.Y.,&Mao, S.L. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students' outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 340-346.
6. Chi, M.T.H.,&Roscoe, R.D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In: M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3-27) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7. Clary, R.M., & Wandersee, J.H. (2007). A mixed methods analysis of the effects of an integrative geobiological study of petrified wood in introductory college geology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1011-1035.
8. Clément, P. (2003). Situated conceptions and obstacles: The example of digestion and excretion. In: D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, E. Hatzikraniotis, G. Fasspooupoulos, & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in a knowledge-based society (pp. 89-98). The Netherlands, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
9. Collins, A. (1992). Portfolios for science education: Issues in purpose, structure, and authenticity. Science Education, 76, 451-463.
10. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Cresswell, J., Clark, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In: A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
12. Cuthbert, A.J. (2000). Do children have a holistic view of their internal body maps? School Science Review, 82, 25-32.
13. Din-Yan, Y. (1998). Alternative conceptions on excretion and implications for teaching. Chinese University Education Journal, 26, 101-116.
14. Duit, R., & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671-688.
15. Duschl, R. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In: J.M. Atkin & J.E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41-59). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association Press.
16. Duschl, R.A., & Gitomer, D.H. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 839-858.
17. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
18. Ebenezer, J.V., & Connor, S. (1998). Learning to teach science: A model for the 21 century. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Simon and Schuster/A. Viacom Company.
19. Ebenezer, J.V., & Erickson, G. (1996). Chemistry students' conceptions of solubility. Science Education, 80, 181-201.
20. Ebenezer, J.V., & Fraser, D. (2001). First year chemical engineering students' conceptions of energy in solution process: Phenomenographic categories for common knowledge construction. Science Education, 85, 509-535.
21. Ebenezer, J.V., & Gaskell, P.J. (1995). Relational conceptual change in solution chemistry. Science Education, 79, 1-17.
22. Ebenezer, J.V., & Haggerty, S. (1999). Becoming secondary school science teachers: Preservice teachers as researchers. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Simon and Schuster/A. Viacom Company.
23. Ebenezer, J.V., & Puvirajah, A. (2005). WebCT dialogues on particle theory of matter: Presumptive reasoning schemes. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 11, 561-589. Special Issue: The Role of Research in Using Technology to Enhance Learning in Science.
24. Education in India. 2008. Retrieved May 30, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education-in-India.
25. Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 1001-1015.
26. Fellows, N.J. (1994). Awindow into thinking: Using student science writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 985-1001.
27. Ivarsson, J., Schoultz, J., & Säljö, R. (2002). Map reading versus mind reading: Revisiting children's understanding of the shape of the earth. In: M. Limon&L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 77-99). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28. Linder, C.J. (1993). A challenge to conceptual change. Science Education, 77, 293-300.
29. Linder, C., & Marshall, D. (2003). Reflection and Phenomenography: Towards theoretical and educational development possibilities. Learning and Instruction, 13, 271-284.
30. Liu, X. (2004). Using concept mapping for assessing and promoting relational conceptual change. Science Education, 88, 373-396.
31. Lybeck, L., Marton, F., Stromdahl, H., & Tullberg, A. (1988). The Phenomenography of the 'mole concept' in chemistry. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 81-108). London: Kogan Page.
32. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography-describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.
33. Marton, F. (1984). Toward a psychology beyond the individual. In: K. Lagerspetz & P. Niemi (Eds.), Psychology in the 1990's. (pp. 45-72). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
34. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
35. Marton F.,&Tsui A. (Eds.). (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R.T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1063-1080.
37. Means, M.L.,&Voss, J.F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-178.
38. Micari, M., Light, G., Calkins, S., & Streitwieser, B. (2007). Assessment beyond performance: Phenomenography in educational evaluation. [Electronic version]. American Journal of Evaluation, 28, 458-476.
39. NCERT, 2000. National Curriculum Framework for School Education (2000). http://www.ncert.nic.in/sites/organisation/organisation.aspx.
40. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. Novak, J.D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86, 548-571.
42. Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11, 183-200.
43. Palincsar, A.S., Anderson, C.A.,&David,Y.M. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. Elementary School Journal, 93, 643-658.
44. Piaget, J. (1973). The child's conception of the world. St. Albans, England: Paladin.
45. Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
46. Prasad, A. (2005). A text book of biology - Standard Vll. Mumbai: General Publishers.
47. Rao, V.K. (2003). Science education. New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation.
48. Reiss, M.J., & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2001). Students' understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research in Science Education, 31, 383-399.
49. Reiss, M.J., Tunnicliffe, S.D., Andersen, A.M., Bartoszeck, A., Carvalho, G.S., Chen, S.Y., Jarmann, R., Jonsson, S., Manokore, V., Marchenkog, N., Mulemwa, J., Novikova, T., Otuka, J., Teppa, S., & Rooy,W.V. (2002). An international study of young people's drawings of what is inside themselves. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 58-64.
50. Renström, L. (1988). Conceptions of matter: A phenomenographic approach. Goteberg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgenesis.
51. Ruiz-Primo, M., & Furtak, E. (2007). Exploring teachers' informal formative assessment practices and students understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 57-84.
52. Säljö, R. (1988). Learning in educational settings: Methods of inquiry. In: P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives. London: Kogan Page.
53. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472.
54. Schauble, L., Leinhardt, G., & Martin, L. (1997). A framework for organizing a cumulative research agenda in informal learning contexts. Journal of Museum Education, 2, 3-8.
55. Smith, E.L., Blakeslee, T.D.,&Anderson, C.W. (2006). Teaching strategies associated with conceptual change learning in Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 111-126.
56. Soyibo, K. (1995). A review of some sources of students' misconceptions in biology. Singapore Journal of Education, 15, 1-11.
57. Solomon J. & Aikenhead G. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
58. Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C.,&Geban, O. (2001). The contribution of conceptual change texts accompanied by concept mapping to students' understanding of the human circulatory system. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 91-116.
59. Teixeira, F.M. (2000). Children's conceptions of the structure and function of the digestive system. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 507-520.
60. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
61. Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2004). Where does the drink go? Primary Science Review, 85, 8-10.
62. Vogt, W.P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences. London:Sage.
63. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. White, R.T., & Gunstone, R.F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
65. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.