Context-based chemistry teaching within the 4Ex2 model: Its ımpacts on metacognition, multiple ıntelligence, and achievement

Canan  Koçak Altundağ

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Canan Koçak Altundağ Hacettepe University, Ankara-TURKEY

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Context-based chemistry teaching, metacognition, multiple intelligence, preservice teachers, 4Ex2 model

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of context-based chemistry education on the metacognition and multiple-intelligences of preservice chemistry teachers, and their achievement in chemistry lessons in the laboratory environment that includes the 4Ex2 model. Within the framework of the general chemistry laboratory lesson, the treatment group was taught with a context-based chemistry teaching method in the chemistry laboratory using the 4Ex2 model, while the traditional methods were applied in the control group’s lessons. It is determined that after the application, abilities to control the metacognitive thoughts of the preservice teachers, who were taught with a context-based chemistry teaching method in the chemistry laboratory within the 4Ex2 model, positively changed compared to those included in the control group. Additionally, the results showed that the preservice teachers in the treatment group, who received context-based chemistry teaching within the 4Ex2 model, were more successful; therefore, this model is an effective teaching method.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akpınar, İ. A., & Özkan, E. (2010, September 23-25). Kimya dersi çözünürlük konusunda 5E modeline uygun etkinlikler geliştirme (Develop appropriate activities to 5 models in chemistry resolution.). Paper presented at IX. National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, Izmir, Turkey.

Al-Balhan, E. M. (2006). Multiple intelligence styles in relation to improved academic performance in Kuwait middle school reading. Digest of Middle East Studies, 15(1), 18-34.

Allal, L., & Ducrey, G.P. (2000). Assessment of-or in-the zone of proximal development. Learning and Instruction, 137-152. Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/ Learninstruction.

Alkan, F. (2016). Experiential learning: its effects on achievement and scientific process skills. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(2), 15-26.

Benjamin, A. S., & Bird, R. D. (2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 126–137.

Bennett, J. (2003). Context-based approaches to the teaching of science. In Teaching and learning science. London, UK: Continuum.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 72–74.

Brown, A.L., J.D. Bransford, Ferrara R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering and understanding in J. H. Flavell and E. M. Markman (eds.), handbook of child psychology, cognitive development. New York: Wiley, pp. 77-166.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher. 18, 32-42.

Babacan, T. (2012). Examining the relationship between classroom teachers metacognitive reading strategies for candidates with multiple intelligence fields. Master Dissertation, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Experimental and quasi experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.

Cartwright-Hatton, S., & Wells, A. (1997). Beliefs about worry and intrusions: The metacognitions questionnaire and its correlates. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11, 279−296.

Çepni, S., Ülger, B. B., Ormancı, Ü. (2017). Pre-service science teachers' views towards the process of associating science concepts with everyday life. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(4), 1-15.

Ekmekcioglu E. (2007). Significant impact on the achievement of learning theory and teaching with concept maps of acid-base chemistry courses at secondary issue. Master Dissertation, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey.

Fensham, P.J. (2009). Real world contexts in pisa science: implications for context-based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884–896.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), the nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.231-236.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Freienberg, J., Kriiger, W., Lange G., & Flint A. (2001). Chemie fürs leben auch schon in der sekundarstufe I - geht das? CHEMKON, 8(2), 67-75.

Gabala, E. M. (1991). Multiple intelligences, private consultant and dale L. Lange: University of Minnesota.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.

Gilbert, J.K. (2006). On the nature of context in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957–976.

Gwilliam P., Wells A., & Cartwright-Hatton S. (2004). Does metacognition or responsibility predict obsessive-compulsive symptoms: a test of the metacognitive model? Clinical Psychology Psychother, 11, 137-144.

Hanten, G., Dennis, M., Zhang, L., Barnes, M., Roberson, G., Archibald, Hartman, H. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Abroad BACEIS for improving thinking, Instructional Science, 7, 401- 425.

Huntemann, H., Honkomp, H., Parchmann I., & Jansen W. (2001). Die wasserstoff/luft-brennstoffzelle mit methanolspaltung zur gewinnung des wasserstoffs - der fahrzeugantrieb der zukunft? CHEMKON, 8(1), 15-21.

Kalayci, S., (2006). SPSS Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (SPSS Applied multivariate statistical techniques). Ankara: Asil Yayıncılık.

Karakelle, S., & Sarac, S. (2010). Top information about a review: Metacognition metacognitive approach work is or is? Turkish Psychological Articles, 13 (2), 45-60.

Keeves, J.P. (1998). Methods and processes in research in science education. In B.J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1127- 1153.

Kerber, R. C., & Akhtar M. J. (1996). Getting real: a general chemistry laboratory program focusing on real world substances. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(11), 1023-1025.

Koçak, C. (2013). The effects of process-based teaching model on student teachers’ logical/intuitive thinking skills and academic performances. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(5), 640-651.

Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178–181.

Lindemann, H., & Brinkmann, U. (1994). Alltagschemie als orientierung zur gestaltung von chemieunterricht. Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht. Chemie, 5(24), 187-191.

Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and centers for contemporary teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Marshall, J.C., Horton, B., & Smart, J. (2008). 4E x 2 instructional model: Uniting three learning constructs to improve praxis in science and mathematics classrooms. Junior Science Teacher Education, 20, 501-516.

McClellan, J. A., & Conti, G. J. (2008). Identifying the multiple intelligences of your students. Journal of Adult Education, 37 (1), 13-32.

Mokhtar, I. A., Majid, S., & Foo, S. (2008). Teaching information literacy through learning styles: The application of Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 40(2), 93-109.

Pfeifer, P. (1995). Ist ein umbruch in sicht? Chemie unterricht an der schwelle zum jahr 2000. Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht. Chemie, 6 (43), 4-8.

Pilot, A., & Bulte, A.M.W. (2006). The use of contexts as a challenge for the chemistry curriculum: Its successes and the need for further development and understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1087–1112.

Premack, D.G., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526.

Schmidt, S. Freienberg., J., & Flint A. (2002). Backpulver und das prinzip von le chatelier. CHEMKON, 9(3), 142-143.

Schmidt, S. Parchmann., I., & Rebentisch, D. (2003). Chemie im kontext für die sekundarstufe I: Cola und ketchup im anfangsunterricht. CHEMKON, 10(1), 6-16.

Schneider, W., & Lockl, K. (2002). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents. Perfect, T. J., & Schwartz, B. L. (Ed.), applied metacognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 224-257.

Shearer, B. (2004). Multiple intelligences theory after 20 years. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 2-16.

Stains, M., & Talanquer V. (2007). Classification of chemical substances using particulate representations of matter: an analysis of student thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (5), 643–661.

Mather, A., & Cartwright-Hatton, S. (2004). Cognitive predictors of obsessive compulsive symptoms in adolescence: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 743–749.

Osborne, M., & Freyberg, P., (1985). Learning in science: Implications of children's knowledge. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.

Tahriri, A., & Divsar, H. (2011). EFL learners’ self-perceived strategy use across various intelligence types: A case study. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 15(1), 115-138.

Toroslu, S. Ç., & Günes, B. (2010, September 23-25). Investigation of the effect of common misconceptions of the effectiveness of life-based learning approach and performance testing. Paper presented at IX. National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, Izmir, Turkey.

Tosun, A., & Irak, M. (2008). Metacognition-30 Turkish version of the scale, the validity, reliability, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive symptoms relationship. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 19(1), 67-80.

Uhlir, P. (2003). Improving student academic reading achievement through the use of multiple intelligence teaching strategies. An action research project. Chicago: Saint Xavier.

Ulusoy, F. M. & Önen, A. S. (2014). A Research on the Generative Learning Model Supported by Context-Based Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(6), 537-546.

Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.

Victor, A. M. (2004). The effects of metacognitive instruction on the planning and academic achievement of first and second grade children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, II Graduate College of the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.

Wells, A, & Papageorgiou, C. (1998). Relationships between worry, obsessive–compulsive symptoms and meta-cognitive beliefs. Behavior Research, 36, 899–913.

Wilson, N. (2011). The heart of comprehension instruction: Metacognition. The Califonia Reader, 44 (3), 32-37.

Wilson, N.S., & Bai, H. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacognition Learning, 5, 269–288.

Wu, H. (2003). Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences: intertextuality in a high-school science classroom. Science Education, 87,6,868–891.

Yıldırım, N., Nas Er S., Şenel T., & Ayas A. (2007). Developing a sample implementation and evaluation activities designed to address the misconceptions students. EDU, 7, 2(2).

Zucht, U., Rossow, M., Lange G., & Flint A. (2004). Chemie fürs leben sauerstoff aus oxi-reinigern. CHEMKON, 11(3), 131-136.