Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Understanding of Metallic Bonding

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study focused on investigating the effectiveness of instruction via newly developed teaching materials based on cooperative learning when compared to a traditional approach, on ninth grade students’ understanding of metallic bonding. Fifty-seven ninth grade science students from two science classes in the same high school participated in this study. The same teacher taught metallic bonding with cooperative learning to an experimental group (N = 28) and with a traditional teacher centred approach to a control group (N = 29). Students’ conceptual understanding of metallic bonding was measured using the Metallic Bonding Concept Test. The results from the Student’s t test indicated that the mean score of the students in the experimental group was significantly higher in the experimental group (78.60, SD = 8.62), than in the control group (54.33, SD = 9.11) after treatment. In the light of the results from the concept test and individual interviews, the misconceptions related to metallic bonding were found less in the experimental group than traditional. Five of these misconceptions were firstly identified in this study. The individual interviews which were done with students from experimental group immediately after the instruction showed that students had positive perceptions about their cooperative work experiences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2007). Effect of cooperative learning strategies on students’ understanding of concepts in electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 349–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspect of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70, 549–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basili, P. A., & Sanford, J. P. (1991). Conceptual change strategies and cooperative group work in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 293–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualization of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24, 117–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 1000–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birk, J. P., & Kurtz, M. J. (1999). Effect of experience on retention and elimination of misconceptions about molecular structure and bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 124–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodner, G. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873–878.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodner, G. M. (1991). I have found you an argument. Journal of Chemical Education, 68, 385–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boo, H. K. (1998). Students’ understanding of chemical bonds and the energetic of chemical reactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 569–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boo, H. K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students’ (aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85, 568–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, J. D., & Mosimege, M. D. (1998). Misconceptions in acids and bases: A comparative study of student teachers with different chemistry backgrounds. South African Journal of Chemistry, 51, 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Eds.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–272). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., & Taylor, N. (2001). Alternative conceptions of chemical bonding held by upper secondary and tertiary students. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19, 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., & Taylor, N. (2002). Mental models in chemistry: Senior chemistry students’ mental models of chemical bonding. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3, 175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31, 357–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cros, D., Amouroux, R., Chastrette, M., Fayol, M., Leber, J., & Maurin, M. (1986). Conceptions of 1st year university students of the constitution of matter and the notions of acids and bases. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 305–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Posada, J. M. (1997). Conceptions of high school students concerning the internal structure of metals and their electric conduction: Structure and evolution. Science Education, 81, 445–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Posada, J. M. (1999). The presentation of metallic bonding in high school science textbooks during three decades: Science educational reforms and substantive changes of tendencies. Science Education, 83, 423–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. (1981). Pupils’ alternative frameworks in science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 105–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, P. J., Garnet P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1990). Common misconceptions in electrochemistry: Can we improve students’ understanding of this topic? Chemeda: Australian Journal of Chemical Education, 27, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1079–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade 12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackling, M. W., & Garnett,P. J. (1985). Misconceptions of chemical equilibrium. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 205–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., & Treagust, D. (1991). Student achievement and science curriculum development using a constructivist framework. School Science and Mathematics, 91, 172–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiplemodel use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students’ conceptions of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 277–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewson, G. M., & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 731–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1987). How can we put cooperative learning into practice? The Science Teacher, 54, 46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Social skills for successful group work. Educational Leadership, 47, 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Eds.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 173–202). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom (4th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H., & Kellett, N. C. (1980). Learning difficulties in school science toward a working hypothesis. International Journal of Science Education, 2, 171–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Education Technology Research and Development, 39, 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. M., & Steinbrink, J. E. (1989). Using cooperative groups in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 89, 541–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, D., & Le Metaias, J. (1997). Social skilling through cooperative learning. Educational Research, 39, 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., & Berkheimer, G. D. (1993). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students’ understanding of acids, base and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1077–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children’s beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 777–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicoll, G. (2001). A report of undergraduates’ bonding misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 707–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nusbaum, J. (1981). Towards the diagnosis by science teachers of pupils misconceptions: An exercise with student teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 3, 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (eds.) (1985). Learning in Science: The implications of ‘Children’s science’. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedrosa, M. A., & Dias, M. H. (2000). Chemistry textbook approaches to chemical equilibrium and student alternative conceptions. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1, 227–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R., Treagust, D. F., & Garnett, P. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and -12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 301–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220, 477–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of community of learners. Mind, Culture and Activity, 1, 209–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B., & Munby, H. (1991). Concept mapping and misconceptions: A study of high-school students’ understandings of acids and bases. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997). Common student misconceptions in electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic, and concentration cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 377–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sisovic, D., & Bojovic, S. (2000). Approaching the concepts of acids and bases by cooperative learning. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1, 263–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skamp, K. (1999). Are atoms and molecules too difficult for primary children? School Science Review, 81, 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd edn.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research for the future: Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (1995). An analogy for discussing progression in learning chemistry. School Science Review, 76, 91–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 597–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2001). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 123–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2003). Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the learner’s prior learning. Science Education, 87, 732–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarhan, L., & Acar, B. (2007). Using problem-based learning in an 11th grade chemistry class: “Factors Affecting Cell Potential.” Research in Science and Technological Education, in press.

  • Tarhan, L., Ayar Kayali, H., Ozturk Urek, R., Acar, B. (2007). “Problem-based learning in 9th grade chemistry class: “Intermolecular forces” Research in Science Education. DOI 10.1007/s11165-007-9050-0.

  • Towns, M. H., & Grant, E. R. (1997). “I believe i will go out of this class actually knowing something”: Cooperative learning activities in physical chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 819–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H. (2002). Students’ corpuscular conceptions the context of chemical equilibrium and chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3, 201–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voska, K. W., & Heikkinen, H. W. (2000). Identification and analysis of students’ conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 160–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, U. (1990). Students’ misunderstandings and misconceptions in college freshman chemistry (general and inorganic). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1053–1065.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chemistry Education, Faculty of Education, University of Dokuz Eylul, Izmir, 35150, Turkey

    Burcin Acar & Leman Tarhan

Authors
  1. Burcin Acar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leman Tarhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leman Tarhan.

Appendix

Appendix

Some example items from the metallic bonding concept test

  1. 1.

    Which one of the following is a not property of any metal?

    1. (A)

      They are electrical conductors

    2. (B)

      They can form mixture

    3. (C)

      They can be beaten out and reshaped

    4. (D)

      They have high melting point

    5. (E)

      They held together by electron transfer

      Explain your answer

  2. 2.

    Metals are good conductors of electricity because they:

    1. (A)

      form crystal lattices.

    2. (B)

      contain positive ions.

    3. (C)

      contain mobile valence electrons.

    4. (D)

      form ionic bonds.

    5. (E)

      form covalent bonds.

      Explain your answer

  3. 3.

    In which of the system above, the light glow?

    (A) Only I (B) Only III (C) I and II (D) I and III (E) I, II and III

    Explain your answer

  4. 4.

    Which one of the following is true of metallic bonding?

    1. (A)

      Electrons are free to move throughout the structure

    2. (B)

      There is no bonding in metals

    3. (C)

      It is a type of ionic bonding

    4. (D)

      The strength of metallic bonds decreases down a group

    5. (E)

      The strength of metallic bonding does not affect the boiling point of metals

      Explain your answer

  5. 5.

    Sodium is a highly malleable, whereas sodium chloride is not. Therefore,

    1. I.

      Sodium atoms held together with metallic bonding.

    2. II.

      Bonds between sodium atoms are weaker.

    3. III.

      Sodium chloride has ionic nature.

      Which of the statements above true?

      (A) Only I (B) Only II (C) Only III (D) I and III (E) I, II and III

      Explain your answer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Acar, B., Tarhan, L. Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Understanding of Metallic Bonding. Res Sci Educ 38, 401–420 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9054-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9054-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation