View Article Online / Journal Homepage / Table of Contents for this issue

Dynamic Article Links

Chemistry Education
Research and Practice
Cite this: Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2012, 13, 221–236

www.rsc.org/cerp PAPER
Cooperative learning instruction for conceptual change in the concepts of
chemical kineticsw
Ozgecan Ta-stan Kırıka and Yezdan Bozb
Received 30th September 2011, Accepted 28th February 2012
DOI: 10.1039/c1rp90072b
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.

Learning is a social event and so the students need learning environments that enable them to
work with their peers so that they can learn through their interactions. This study discusses the
effectiveness of cooperative learning compared to traditional instruction in terms of students’
motivation and understanding of chemical kinetics in a high school chemistry course.
Participants were 110 eleventh grade students from two different schools. The researchers
administered the Reaction Rate Concept Test to measure the students’ understanding of
chemical kinetics, the Science Process Skill Test to decide whether the groups were different in
terms of their science process skills before instruction, and the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire to assess students’ motivation for a chemistry course. Results of the
experiment showed that compared to traditional instruction, cooperative learning enabled
better understanding of the concepts of chemical kinetics and improved students’
motivation to study chemistry for both schools.
(IOSTE) 2010, Bled, Slovenia, June 13–18.
Cooperative learning based on conceptual change to
teach chemical kinetics
How science educators should teach has been the central issue
of many research studies for decades. The major goal of
science teaching is to make students capable of understanding
the nature of the world by enabling them to gain knowledge
(Hodson, 1992). Contemporary educators have to modify
their teaching methods because the ‘‘. . . teaching of higher
level reasoning and critical thinking does not depend on what
is taught, but rather than on how it is taught’’ (Ruggiero, as
cited in Johnson and Johnson, 1994, p. 57). Thus, we ask the
following question as science educators: ‘‘what is the best
teaching method for my students?’’ Cooperative learning,
which is founded on constructivism, is one of the methods
used to foster active student participation during the learning
process. When students work in cooperative groups, they more
frequently use higher levels of reasoning and critical thinking
skills to create new ideas and solutions compared to when they
work in competitive and individualistic situations (Johnson
and Johnson, 1999a).

a
Çukurova Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, I˙lköğretim Bölümü,
Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Anabilim Dalı, Balcalı, Adana/Turkiye.
E-mail: ozge.deniz@gmail.com
b
Middle East Technical University, Orta Doğu Teknik Universitesi,
Eğitim Fakültesi, Orta Öğretim Fen ve Matematik Alanları,
Eğitimi Bölümü, 06531, Ankara/Turkiye
w A part of this study was presented at XIV. Symposium of the
International Organization for Science and Technology Education

This
221 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
221
 Besides the cognitive aspects, the motivational
components of academic performance are also important
to students’ classroom learning (Bryan et al., 2011; Pintrich,
2003). Motivational components involve students’
perceptions of the classroom environment as well as their
own beliefs, such as personal goals, self-efficacy, interests,
and value beliefs. Research studies indicated that positive
motivational beliefs such as perceptions of high self-
efficacy, a focus on the mastery of goals, high value and
interest in the task or content, and low levels of test anxiety
are positively related to higher academic performance and
greater use of cognitive strategies (Bryan et al., 2011;
Pintrich and Schrauben, 1992). In the present study, the
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) method of
cooperative learning was intended to promote conceptual
understanding in chemical kinetics and to improve students’
motivation for a chemistry course in terms of their intrinsic
goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, task value,
the control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy for learning and
performance and test anxiety.

Theoretical
background
Conceptual change and cooperative
learning
Students may have acquired thoughts about some events
or concepts before formal instruction in the classroom (Amir
and Tamir, 1994). Students’ conceptions or ideas that
do not match scientific explanations are called alternative
conceptions (Horton, 2007). Taber (2009) mentioned the
multifaceted property of students’ alternative conceptions
by stating that

This
222 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
222

they may have different alternative conceptions related to the
same concept and may shift between different alternative
conceptions to explain the same context. Different arguments
about the nature of alternative conceptions have been
put forward in the related literature. Alternative conceptions
have been found to be consistent and coherent by some
researchers (e.g. Driver and Easley, 1978; Vosniadou, 1992),
and fragmented, inconsistent and task specific by some other
(e.g. BouJaoude, 1991; Solomon, 1992). In this sense, it is
important to consider the conditions such as nature of the
science topics, ability and the ages of the learners and how the
learners encounter with the topic while interpreting about
the nature of alternative conceptions (Taber, 2009). Once
misinformation is located in a person’s knowledge structure,
new information is often distorted, and this distortion causes
the reinforcing or retaining of the incorrect idea (Vosniadou,
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.
2001). If a scientific concept is not clearly expressed and
explained, students are more likely to hold on to an alternative
conception that makes sense to them. As a result, every new
term or theory will then be incorporated into that flawed
framework. For this reason, science educators must investigate
students’ science related preconceptions.
Researchers have identified numerous alternative conceptions
in chemistry (Barke et al., 2009; Horton, 2007; Kind, 2004).
Chemistry is full of abstract concepts and is difficult to grasp for
students most of the time. Chemical kinetics, which covers the
concepts of the rate of chemical reactions and factors affecting
that rate, is one such topic. Research studies have indicated that
students have many alternative conceptions and face great
difficulties in understanding chemical kinetics (BouJaoude,
1993; Cakmakcı, 2010; Cakmakcı et al., 2006; Garnett, et al.,
1995; Griffiths, 1994; Kousathana and Tsaparlis, 2002). There-
fore, it is necessary to devise proper strategies to overcome
student alternative conceptions. Table 1 shows common alter-
native conceptions of chemical kinetics reported in the literature
and included in the Reaction Rate Concept Test (RRCT) used
in the present study.
Though students’ difficulties are mentioned in the related
literature, number of the research studies suggesting a teaching
strategy to enhance students’ understanding of chemical
kinetics have been very limited (Chairam et al., 2009; Cakmakı
and Aydogdu, 2011). At this point, it is important to work on
an appropriate teaching strategy to motivate students for
meaningful learning and to deal with their alternative concep-
tions. To promote meaningful learning, a conceptual change
approach is an alternative way to address students’ alternative
conceptions (Tsai, 2000; Vosniadou et al., 2001). Conceptual
change is a slow process where a learner actively judges new
information with their existing mental models. Learners form
initial theoretical framework based on their daily life experi-
ences and when they encounter new information, they actively
begin to restructure these initial mental models and they may
form synthetic models which is the synthesis of the scientific
knowledge and their initial model (Vosniadou et al., 2008). We
could say that students may keep holding their existing ideas
while grasping a new idea, which also reveals the multifaceted
nature of students’ conceptions (Taber, 2009). Chi et al. (1994)
also claimed that conceptual change is a gradual process,
where learners continuously make additions and revisions to
This
223 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
View Article Online
their initial mental models. Chi et al. (1994) suggested that
concepts are connected with ontological categories. When a
concept is learned, it is identified into a special category that will
aid the comprehension of its entity and attributes. In further
learning, revision of the learner’s ontological categorization is
necessary. As distinct from the knowledge as theory perspective,
DiSessa (2001) stated that fragmented unstructured pieces of
knowledge called phenomenological primitives are formed in
the mind as a result of the learner’s experiences and conceptual
change is defined as the reorganization of this knowledge into
coherent and stable network.
Thagard (1992) states that conceptual change process can
occur through judging the usefulness of different theories. The
one that has more value to explain the concept, that has
explanatory coherence, should be the one that is preferred
over the others. Therefore, it is important to increase the status
of the scientifically accepted view. Conceptual change model
proposed by Posner et al. (1982) also mentioned that it is
necessary to increase the status of a conception by providing
conceptual change conditions. Firstly, learners should be
dissatisfied with their existing ideas and the new knowledge
presented has to be intelligible, plausible, and fruitful. Vosniadou
et al. (2008) stated that making students aware of the inconsistencies
between their conceptions and the scientifically accepted knowledge
is essential in order to promote conceptual change. In addition to
metaconceptual awareness, theoretical coherence is also needed for
conceptual change (Vosniadou and Ioannides, 1998). For the
theoretical coherence, as mentioned above, the scientific knowledge
should be made more valuable for learners to explain the concept so
that children will prefer to use that scientific knowledge. Similar to
the principle of theoretical coherence, Strike and Posner (1985)
described the conditions necessary to increase the status of the
scientific knowledge as being intelligible, plausible and fruitful.
Besides to cognitive variables, affective variables should also be
considered in conceptual change. (Pintrich et al., 1993; Sinatra and
Mason, 2008). During the learning process, learners should make
an effort and be attentive, and they should be encouraged to be
actively involved in the course of action instead of being passive.
Pintrich et al. (1993) offered four general motivational constructs
including goals, values, self-efficacy and control beliefs influencing
conceptual change. Similarly, Gregoire (2003) developed the
cognitive-affective model of conceptual change in which the
process of conceptual change includes learner’s goals, prior beliefs
and motivational factors.
Learning is a social event, and students should be provided
with learning environments to work with their peers that can
also allow for their individual differences. Miyake (2008)
claimed that sociocultural factors such as collaboration and
discussions were found to influence conceptual change since
discussions may make students aware of the need to change
their conceptions. Vosniadou (2007) also addressed the importance
of creating social environment in class where students have the
chance to exchange their ideas for conceptual change. Among the
conceptual change strategies, cooperative learning was found to be
effective in enhancing students’ understandings (Acar and Tarhan,
2008; Doymus, 2007; Gijlers and de Jong, 2005; Graham, 2005;
Mori, 2002; Slavin, 1987). Cooperative learning requires
students to work together in small groups to support each
others’ learning and understanding and to accomplish shared goals.
This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
223
 View Article Online

Table 1 A list of common alternative conceptions covered by RRCT

Reaction Rate
Students failed to grasp the fact that reaction yield and reaction rate are different concepts that are not directly related to each other
(Kousathana and Tsaparlis, 2002).
The reaction rate is zero at the beginning. Over time, the interaction of molecules increases, and as a result, the reaction rate increases
(Cakmakcı, 2005).
As reactants are used up, the formation of product increases, and accordingly, the reaction rate increases until all reactants are consumed where the
reaction rate is constant (confusion of the reaction rate and the amount of product) (Cakmakcı, 2005).
The rate of the reaction increases at the beginning of the reaction. When reactants are used up, the reaction rate drops and at the end of the
reaction, the rate is zero (Cakmakcı, 2005).
The reaction rate is the time required for reactants to form products (Nakiboglu et al., 2002).
The reaction rate is the amount of substance turning into products per unit time at a constant temperature and concentration
(Nakiboglu et al., 2002).
The forward reaction rate always equals the reverse reaction rate (Garnett et al., 1995).
The students made the general statement that the ‘‘rate of reactions decreases as reactions progress’’. Thus, they tended to make
over-generalizations of principles and ignore some variables (e.g., the order of the reaction) (Cakmakcı, 2005).
The rate equation is written according to the fast step or net reaction equation (Bozkoyun, 2004).
The reaction rate is equal to the product of concentrations of reactants (Nakiboglu et al., 2002).
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.

Reaction rate = DHproducts DHreactants so, if the rate of products is greater than the reactants, the reaction rate (DH) will be DH 4 0. If the rate of
reactants is greater than the products, the reaction rate will be DH o 0 (Cakmakcı, 2005).
Factors Affecting Reaction Rate
Many of the students assumed that as long as certain factors (e.g., temperature, concentration or catalysts) were not altered, the reaction rate
would remain constant or remain the same during a reaction (Cakmakcı, 2005).
When the temperature is increased, the rate of the endothermic reaction increases, but the rate of the exothermic reaction decreases
(Hackling and Garnett, 1985; Nakiboglu et al., 2002; İcik, 2003).
Exothermic reactions occur faster than endothermic reactions (Cakmakcı, 2005).
An increase in temperature (temperature change) does not affect (change) the rate of exothermic reactions. Since exothermic reactions release
energy, they do not need energy to proceed, and a rise in temperature would not affect the reaction rate (Cakmakcı, 2005).
A rise in temperature would not affect the reaction rate because the reaction rate is independent of temperature. The reaction rate only depends
on the rate constant and molarities (Cakmakcı, 2005).
Increasing temperature increases the time necessary for a reaction to occur (Nakiboglu et al., 2002).
Increasing the concentration of reactants always increases the rate of reaction (İcik, 2003; Kıngır and Geban, 2006).
A change in concentration does not affect the reaction rate (I˙cik, 2003).
There is a linear relationship between the concentration of reactants and the reaction rate (students did not anticipate the order of the reaction
or the role of the solid catalyst). They expected a higher rate from increasing concentrations of reactants (Cakmakcı et al., 2006).
The volume of a container does not affect the reaction rate (Cakmakcı, 2005).
When the volume of a container is decreased, the kinetic energy of molecules increases (Cakmakcı, 2005).
A catalyst only speeds up the forward reaction (Voska and Heikkinen, 2000).
A catalyst gives energy to a reaction; therefore, it increases the activation energy of the reaction (Cakmakcı, 2005).
A catalyst is needed to initiate reaction (Kıngır and Geban, 2006).
Most of the students confused reaction intermediate and the catalyst in the reaction mechanism (Bozkoyun, 2004).
The catalyst increases the average speed of the molecules (Kıngır and Geban, 2006)
When a catalyst is used, more substances react (I˙cik, 2003).
A catalyst facilitates the collision of particles by interposing them (İcik, 2003).
A catalyst does not affect/change the mechanisms of the reaction (Cakmakcı, 2005).
A catalyst does not react with any of the reactants or products (İcik, 2003; Cakmakcı, 2005).
Reaction rates are the same whether the reactant is granulated or powdered since the molarities are equal in both cases (Cakmakcı, 2005).
Molecules of granulated MgO(s) are more strongly bonded to each other than those of powdered ones (Cakmakcı, 2005).
The surface area of reactants doesn’t affect reaction rate (I˙cik, 2003).
Activation Energy
Activation energy is the kinetic energy of reactant molecules (Cakmakcı, 2005).
The faster a reaction, the more energy is released (Cakmakcı, 2005).
Temperature affects activation energy (Kıngır and Geban, 2006).
Increasing the temperature increases the activation energy (Kıngır and Geban, 2006; Cakmakcı, 2005).
The bigger the activation energy, the faster a reaction occurs (Cakmakcı, 2005).
Exothermic reactions have lower activation energy (Cakmakcı, 2005).

According to Vygotsky (1981), children learn through their inter-
actions with other people. They internalize skills and knowledge
experienced during these interactions and, ultimately, they use
those internalized skills and knowledge to shape their own
behaviors. Cooperative learning has also been used successfully
as a teaching strategy to help students learn to manage conflict
(Stevahn et al., 1997). Moreover, cooperative learning positively
affects motivation when high-achievers and low-achievers work
together in a small group for group rewards (Gage and Berliner,
1992). Students feel good about making a contribution to the
welfare of others. Furthermore, Johnson and Johnson (1987)
discovered that when a cooperative learning approach was used
more in the classroom, students learned science better, they
tolerated differences more and they valued themselves more as
science students.
Several cooperative learning methods have been developed
and tested over the last 30 years. One of these is the Student
Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), which is a simple and
a good method to start for teachers who are new to the
cooperative learning (Slavin, 1995). Correspondingly, teachers
participating in the present study were not experienced with
cooperative learning, so STAD was a suitable method for
them to practice it for the first time. In this method, students
are assigned to four-or five-member heterogeneous groups

This
224 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
224

with respect to academic achievement, gender, and ethnic
background. The groups should be heterogeneous in terms
of gender, academic achievement and ethnicity so that they
might represent the position of the classroom in terms of these
characteristics. Slavin (1995) suggested five main components
for STAD: Class presentation, teams, quizzes, individual
improvement scores, and team recognition. The instruction
starts with the teacher’s presentation. The teacher presents
the material by lecturing. The students are told what they
are expected to learn and why it is important. The difference
between this approach and the class presentations of the
traditional teacher-centered method is that students should
understand that they must carefully focus on the teacher’’s
presentation because it will guide them during their group
work, quizzes, and team scores, which are determined by quiz
scores. After the teacher’s presentation, team study begins.
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.
During group activities, group members work cooperatively
on the worksheets given by the teacher and master the
material. After one to two teacher presentations and one to
two group work practice sessions, each student is given a quiz
to be answered individually. Everyone must understand the
material well in order to get high scores on the quizzes. The
group scores are calculated through these individual quizzes.
The group with the highest score is rewarded, which provides
team recognition.
In cooperative groups, students sometimes have to deal with
conflict, which leads to conceptual change (Crook, 1994, as
cited in Tao and Gunstone, 1999). Most of the models
explaining conceptual change underline the role of cognitive
conflict as a main condition to establish conceptual change
(Limon, 2001; Zohar and Aharon-Kravetsky, 2005). According
to Brown and Palincsar (1986), conceptual change is most likely
to occur when situations creating dissatisfaction with existing
knowledge are provided; by contrast, change is unlikely when
the status quo goes unquestioned. Teaching strategies supporting
questioning, evaluating, and criticizing are thought to be
fruitful breeding grounds for restructuring student thinking.
Dissatisfaction enables mental experimentation; evaluation
leads to uncertainty, and group settings are amenable to
increased questioning and criticism (Hatano, 1982; Inagaki
and Hatano, 1983). When one is required to explain, elaborate
or guard one’s position to others (or sometimes to oneself),
change in mental structure is inevitable.
One of the common strategies for conceptual change is to
create environments invoking disequilibration or cognitive
conflict (Piaget, 1985). Johnson and Johnson (1999b) stated
that the more positive interdependence that exists within a
cooperative learning group, the greater the likelihood of
intellectual disagreement and conflict among group members.
When students work in cooperative groups, their different
perceptions, information, opinions, and conclusions will cause
intellectual disagreement and conflict. When they face such
opposition, they may manage the situation constructively,
depending on their interpersonal and small-group skills. As
a result, students experience better mastery and retention of
the material being discussed and the frequent use of higher-
order thinking skills. On the other hand, students working
in competitive or individualistic situations do not have the
chance to encounter such an intellectual challenge, and,
This
225 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
View Article Online
consequently, their achievement and quality of reasoning suffer.
To encourage group productivity, some conflict may be suppor-
tive for comparing ideas to reach solutions or create products.
The motivational aspect of cooperative learning
Motivation is the inner force that drives people to attain
personal or organizational goals and objectives (Lindner,
1998); it is highly valued due to its consequences. Teachers,
managers and coaches are concerned with motivation because
it generates results. The motivational systems enhancing learning
within cooperative environments include extrinsic motivation
and intrinsic motivation.
Extrinsic motivation occurs when the source of motivation
is outside of the individual and the task being performed
(Ormrod, 1999; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996). Extrinsically
motivated individuals work on tasks because they believe that
the contribution will result in desirable outcomes such as a
reward, teacher praise and so on. Slavin (1995) claimed that
cooperative learning improves motivation through the use of
group goals and group reward; this is extrinsic motivation.
Motivational perspectives on cooperative learning mainly
concentrate on the reward or goal structures that students
operate (Slavin, 1977, 1983, 1995). From a motivationalist
perspective (e.g., Johnson and Johnson, 1992; Slavin, 1995),
cooperative goal structures (as opposed to competitive or
individualistic goal structures) necessitate that the only way
group members can achieve their own personal goals is if the
group is successful. Thus, in order to reach his or her own
personal goals, a student, as a group member, must support
group mates in order to exercise maximum efforts to master
the task. Rewarding groups depending on their performance
facilitates an interpersonal reward structure in which group
members will provide or hold back reinforcers (such as praise
and encouragement) in response to the efforts of group
members (Slavin, 1995). In cooperative classrooms, in contrast
to a traditional environment, students that work hard, attend
class regularly and help others learn are praised and appreciated
by group mates. Rewards in cooperative learning contribute to the
motivation of students to improve their academic success because
rewards allow students to value the success of the group; thus,
students encourage and assist each other to achieve (Slavin, 1995).
Another type of motivational system that promotes learning
within cooperative learning situations is intrinsic motivation
(Johnson and Johnson, 1999a; Johnson et al., 1991). Intrinsic
motivation exists when the source of motivation lies within the
individual and the task; the individual engages in activity for its
own sake (Ormrod, 1999; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996). Intrinsically
motivated students work on tasks because they find the task
enjoyable and valuable. When cooperative learning situations
are organized well, the class usually has a positive emotional
climate, in which the students are willing to participate in tasks
with greater social support, such as assistance, encouragement and
caring. These components have an effect on students’ learning.
Student comprehension of subject matter increases, and they feel
more confident about their knowledge. The students develop more
positive attitudes toward learning and perceive their learning as
interesting, which improves their intrinsic motivation to learn.
These aspects influence each other and promote student learning.
This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
225

Reviews of cooperative learning research (Cohen, 1994; Qin
et al., 1995) have indicated that cooperative learning increases
and improves achievement, positive attitudes toward the subject
area, self-esteem, and conceptual development. According to
Johnson and Johnson (1999b), working in cooperative groups
and valuing cooperation brings about better psychological health
and self-esteem than does competing with classmates or working
alone. When students work together to complete assignments, they
interact (developing social skills and competencies), encourage
each other’s success (increasing self-worth), and structure personal
and professional relationships (building the base for healthy
social development). Working cooperatively improves personal
ego-strength, self-confidence, independence, and autonomy.
Therefore, students have the opportunity to share and solve
personal problems, which enhances an individual’s resistance
and ability to deal with trouble and stress. Cooperative experi-
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.
ences are necessary for the healthy social and psychological
development of individuals who can act independently.
In light of related literature, it can be concluded that students’
prior knowledge and alternative conceptions strongly influence
their learning, and higher motivation enhances learning. In
chemistry, chemical kinetics is important in order for students
to understand how reactions occur (collision theory) and by
which factors their rates are influenced. In addition, chemical
kinetics underlies the concept of chemical equilibrium, which is
also among the most difficult topics in chemistry for students to
understand. Thus, it is necessary to design a suitable teaching
strategy other than the traditional method to deal with these
alternative conceptions and promote students’ understanding.
Based on the theoretical principles presented in this section,
cooperative learning seems to be a reasonable method or
strategy to teach a subject and improve students’ understanding
and motivation. On the other hand, more research studies on the
effectiveness of cooperative learning based on conceptual change
to enhance students’ conceptions and motivation are necessary.
Therefore, the aim of the present study is to investigate the
effectiveness of cooperative learning based on conceptual change
to teach chemical kinetics and motivate the students to learn
chemistry. Correspondingly, this study searched for information
to answer following questions:
This
226 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
View Article Online
1. Will cooperative learning based on conceptual change
strategy enhance secondary school students’ learning of
chemical kinetics?
2. Will students instructed by cooperative learning based on
the conceptual change method be more motivated in their
chemistry course?
Materials and methods
Subjects
Four eleventh grade classes, 110 students in total, participated
in the study over a period of six weeks. The classes were from
two different schools in Turkey; one was an Anatolian high
school and the other was an ordinary high school (59 students
from Anatolian high school and 51 students from ordinary
state high school). Students in the Anatolian school were
considered to be brighter than the students in the ordinary
high school since they were accepted to that school based on
higher grades received on a nationwide exam. These schools
were selected based on convenient sampling. The teachers were
willing to implement a new strategy in their classes and they
were known by the researchers, and their teaching styles were
similar. Moreover, reason of including two different schools in
the study was to increase the sample size. There were only two
classes of 11th grades for each school. Therefore, the study
was implemented in different schools. One teacher from each
school, who had two classes as one experimental and one
control class, taught the students. As a result, there were two
experimental classes and two control classes. Two classrooms
from each school were randomly assigned to the experimental
and control groups. It was not possible to assign the individuals
to experimental and control group randomly since the school
administration had already formed the classrooms at the
beginning of the semester. Therefore, from the Anatolian high
school, one class was assigned randomly as experimental group
and one class as control group. Similarly, from the other school,
one class was assigned randomly as experimental group and one
class as control group. The students were ages 16–17. The
teachers had nine and 11 years of teaching experience and
This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
226
 Fig. 1 The pattern of the intervention and the comparison for each school.
View Article Online

This
227 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
227

similar chemistry content backgrounds. The pattern of the inter-
vention and the comparison for each school is given in Fig. 1.
Instruments
Reaction rate concept test (RRCT). This test was administered as
a pre-test to examine the pre-knowledge of the experimental and
control group. The test was also administered as a post-test to
determine the effectiveness of cooperative learning based on
conceptual change conditions on addressing students’ alternative
conceptions related to chemical kinetics. An internal validity threat,
testing effect (pretest sensitization), which implies higher scores on
post-test because of having a pretest was controlled by pretesting
both experimental and control groups (Gay and Airasian, 2000).
RRCT was developed by the researchers. While some questions
were designed by the researchers, others were adapted from I˙cik
(2003) and Cakmakcı (2005) in order to specifically address
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.
students’ alternative conceptions and difficulties.
The instrument is composed of two sections; the first section
contains 16 two-tier items, and the second section contains 7
multiple-choice items in Turkish. The items of two-tier multiple
choice instruments are specifically designed to discover alternative
conceptions in a clearly defined content area. In a two-tier item,
there are two parts. The first part consists of two or three choices
to be selected. In the second part, students are expected to give
their reasoning about their answer in the first part by selecting
among four alternatives. The alternatives in the second part are
prepared based on the students’ alternative conceptions. As
Treagust (1987) stated, the second part of two-tier tests involves
four alternatives consisting of alternative conceptions, incorrect
statements and a correct alternative. Correspondingly, the multiple
choice items in the second section were prepared based on
students’ alternative conceptions derived from research studies in
the literature (Bozkoyun, 2004; Cakmakcı, 2005; Cakmakcı et al.,
2006; Garnett et al., 1995; Haim, 1989; I˙cik, 2003; Kıngır and
Geban, 2006; Nakiboglu et al., 2002).
The test covered chemical kinetics concepts including reaction
rate, collision theory, activation energy, heat of reaction, potential
energy diagrams, reaction mechanisms, rate equations and orders
and the factors affecting reaction rate (concentration, temperature,
surface area, and catalyst). Test items were developed through the
examination of related literature (I˙cik, 2003; Cakmakcı, 2005),
chemistry textbooks (e.g., Ebbing and Gammon, 1999) and several
high school test books. Each item of RRCT was examined by four
chemistry educators and two chemistry teachers in order to assess
its content validity, accuracy, and format. RRCT was piloted to
203 students who had already learned the reaction rate concept
from different schools during the 11th grade. Based on the
reliability analysis, some of the items’ alternatives were altered,
while some of the items were excluded from the test. It was piloted
again in its final form to 251 high school students who had learned
chemical kinetics before. The reliability coefficient of the test by the
KR-20 Formula was found to be 0.78. Some examples of items
from RRCT are given in the Appendix A.
Science process skill test (SPST). This test, which was
developed by Okey, Wise and Burns (1982), is composed of
36 multiple-choice items measuring five skills: identifying variables,
operationally defining variables, identifying appropriate hypotheses,
interpreting data and designing experiments. Strawitz (1989) found
This
228 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
View Article Online
a reliability of 0.89 (Cronbach’s alpha) for this instrument. She also
stated that it had satisfactory content validity. It was adapted into
Turkish by Geban et al. (1992). The reliability of the test was found
to be 0.85 for the Turkish version (Geban et al., 1992). Blosser
(1975) stated that science process skills contribute to students’
success in education. Moreover, Brotherton and Preece (1995)
claimed that there is a close link between cognitive development
and science process skills. Most science alternative conceptions
among secondary school students were related to the lack of formal
reasoning patterns such as the isolation and control of variables,
probabilistic thinking, and the schema of proportion. Science
process skills cannot be separated from the conceptual under-
standing involved in learning and applying science. Science process
skills are a means of understanding science and also a major goal
of science education. Science learning must engage students in
activities that call for a higher cognitive stage (Harlen, 1999).
Therefore, it is necessary to control students’ science process skills
while investigating improvement in their RRCT scores. For this
reason, SPST was administered as a pre-test to both groups in
order to control for its influence on students’ understanding of
reaction rate.
Motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). This
questionnaire was constructed by Pintrich et al. (1991) to assess
students’ motivational orientations and their use of different
learning strategies for a college course. It is a self-report question-
naire in which students rate themselves on a seven point Likert scale
from ‘‘not at all true of me’’ to ‘‘very true of me’’. There are two
sections in MSLQ; these include a motivation section and a learning
strategies section. In the motivation section, there are 31 items
assessing students’ goals and value beliefs for the course as well as
their anxiety about tests in the course. The motivation section is
composed of six sub-scales: (a) intrinsic goal orientation (IGO), (b)
extrinsic goal orientation (EGO), (c) task value (TV), (d) control of
learning beliefs (CLB), (e) self-efficacy for learning and performance
(SELP), (f) test anxiety. The learning strategy section is composed
of 31 items concerning students’ use of different cognitive and
metacognitive strategies. Pintrich et al. (1991) stated that MSLQ
can be used as a whole or partly depending on the needs of
researcher. Since some research studies indicated that cooperative
learning methods mostly improve students’ motivation to learn in
terms of efficacy, intrinsic value of the subject, learning goal
orientation and usage of deep processing strategies, only the
motivation part of MSLQ was included to evaluate students’
motivation (Hancock, 2004; Nicholes, 1996; Slavin, 1995). Sungur
(2004) adapted the instrument to Turkish and Turkish version was
found to be reliable. Correspondingly, it was used with minor
changes for a chemistry lesson.
Before implementing the test to the students of experimental
and control group, it was piloted to 316 eleventh and twelfth
grade students with an age range of 16–17 in different schools
of Ankara. Cronbach alpha values of the motivation
section are as follows: IGO = 0.75, EGO = 0.65, TV = 0.88,
CLB = 0.67, SELP = 0.90, TA = 0.70. During the study,
MSLQ was given to both experimental and control group as a
pre- and post-test to measure their motivation to learn chemistry
in terms of intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation,
task value, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy for learning
and performance, and test anxiety.
This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
228

Procedure
The concept of reaction rate was a part of the curriculum in the
chemistry course taught to both the experimental and control
group students over six weeks. There were three chemistry class
sessions in a week, and each class session lasted 45 min. In the
Turkish curriculum, chemical kinetics is taught at 11th grade
after the concept of enthalpy. The concepts of chemical kinetics
are definition and measurement of reaction rate, change in rate
with time, instantaneous rate, average rate, rate law, one-step and
multi-step reactions, activation energy, factors affecting reaction
rate (concentration, temperature and catalyst) and enzymes as
biological catalysts. Unfortunately, laboratory facilities are not
enough to make experiments. Therefore, the students learn this
topic theoretically.
In the experimental group, the STAD method of cooperative
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.
learning was applied. The teachers were provided with information
about the STAD method of cooperative learning and the applica-
tion of cooperative learning in the content of reaction rate. All
materials, including detailed explanations of cooperative learning,
lesson plans, instruments, group work activities, teacher manual
providing information about the role of the teacher and quizzes,
were given to the teachers to be examined in advance. After a week,
two-hour meetings were conducted with the teachers to inform
them of and discuss the application of cooperative learning as well
as answer related questions, if there were any.
Before instruction, the teacher lectured the students for two
class hours about cooperative learning, its implementation, the
aim of group work, social skills needed for group work, and what
would be expected of students during their instruction. In the next
lesson, four-member groups, heterogeneous with respect to
achievement and gender, were created by the teacher. Hence, each
group included one high achiever two average achievers, and one
low achiever. Achievement level was decided based on students’
previous chemistry grades. Depending on the number of students
in each class, one or two of the groups included five students. The
positions of the desks were placed so that students were face to
face. Teacher-student and student-student interaction was high-
lighted during the instruction.
The teacher started the instruction with a class presentation.
He presented the concepts and necessary information that
would be used by the students during their group activities
after the presentation. Teacher presentation sessions took
about one hour depending on the topic for each week. After
the teacher presentation, group members came together to
study worksheets. The worksheets demanded group members
to discuss among themselves in order to reach a common
solution instead of loading the responsibility onto one or two
students. These questions also included those requiring inter-
pretations of events from daily life related to reaction rate.
Cooperation and interdependence among group members were
crucial. Furthermore, the teacher asked some disequilibrating
questions to encourage the discussions during the group activities.
He guided students and provided help when necessary. In addition,
the teacher assessed each group’s work by means of a Group
Evaluation Form, which was intended to evaluate groups in terms
of students’ social skills, participation, and contributions to the
completion of the task. The teacher observed the groups while they
were working on the task, filled out the form for each group once a
This
229 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
View Article Online
week, and provided feedback to increase the performance of
the groups for the next week. Since the students were new to
the cooperative learning environment, they needed as much
feedback as possible from the teacher. Moreover, the teacher
oriented students when they had difficulty expressing the social
skills necessary for group work including knowing how to
share their ideas, acknowledge the contributions of others,
deal with discrepancies, manage conflicts, share resources
fairly, take turns, and engage in democratic decision making
(Johnson and Johnson, 1975).
For example, as a first group activity, students were given
the question in Fig. 2. This question was prepared in Turkish
by using common alternative conceptions related to the definition
of reaction rate and translated in English.
Using alternative conceptions in the questions created contra-
diction or disequilibrium among group members and they started
to discuss the different definitions given in the task. The researchers
observed the groups. In some groups, some of the students claimed
that there was more than one correct definition. Mostly, these
students insisted on Serap and Ali’s explanations in addition to the
correct definition. The teacher guided students to compare the rate
of a chemical reaction with the term ‘‘speed’’ in physics and then
think over the definitions given in the question again. He also asked
the students to think about how the concentrations of reactants
change during a reaction. The teacher continuously guided students
and provided help and feedback when necessary. The groups
discussed their ideas. For example, one of the students stated that
‘‘faster reactions occur in a shorter time so Serap’s definition may be
correct’’. Her group mate claimed that ‘‘time is not enough by itself
to define the rate; we must consider the amount of product, so
Murat’s definition may be correct’’. This discussion indicated that
students sometimes contradicted each other, thought over others’
perspectives, and argued actively to reach a consensus.
The students were actively involved in their own learning. The
idea was that children learn better by teaching something to a peer.
The teacher guided the groups by giving the following example:
‘‘we define the speed of a car in terms of km/hour, so we must
consider the distance to be traveled in addition to time passed’’.
When the group work was completed, the teacher chose a student
from each group randomly to present and discuss his or her
group’s solutions to the whole class. Three more examples of
worksheets are given in the Appendix B.
After two or three group activities, a quiz was given to the
experimental group students to answer individually. Group
discussion was not allowed during the process of answering the
quiz questions. Four quizzes were administered in total. These
individual quizzes provided individual accountability since each
member had to be ready for the quiz. They were collected,
corrected, and graded by the teacher. During the next lesson,
the quizzes were given back to the students in order for them to
see their in-group performance and improvement and to establish
group processing (Johnson et al., 1990). Considering the total
points of groups on quizzes, the group with the highest score was
rewarded. They got 5 point bonus for their mid-term exam and
their names were hung on the clipboard as ‘‘the best performers’’.
The reward was for encouraging and motivating the students in
their group activities.
During the instruction, the researcher and a chemistry
education Ph.D. student examined the instruction in the
This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
229
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM. View Article Online

Fig. 2 Worksheet example given to cooperative groups.

experimental group classes once a week by filling out the products. He also provided examples of endothermic and
treatment verification checklist prepared by the researchers exothermic reaction equations to highlight the idea that increasing
in order to decide whether the cooperative learning method
was applied as intended. Utilizing this checklist indicated that
many of expected characteristics of cooperative learning were
provided in experimental group classes.
In the control group, the students were taught the reaction
rate concept during a lecture. Before defining reaction rate,
teacher asked the students how the concentration of reactants
and products change with time. After the whole class discussion,
he drew concentration of reactants and products vs. time curves
for a given reaction on the board. These curves were used to
define instantaneous rate and average rate. He also emphasized
that in defining reaction rate, both change in amount of reactants
or products and time should be considered together. The teacher
calculated average rate of a reaction of which concentration-time
data was given. Then he expected the students to calculate
average rate of some other reactions by using concentration-time
data. The students confirmed that average rate of a reaction
decreases with time. In another lesson, they learned to write rate
law for one step gaseous reactions. They also discussed why
solids and liquids are not written in the rate law equation. The
teacher wrote a multi-step reaction on the board and explained
the slowest step as the rate-determining step. The teacher used an
analogy that the slowest car determines the speed of the other
cars behind it in the traffic. He presented ‘‘reaction order’’
concept through the slowest step. Before learning the effect of
temperature on reaction rate, the teacher discussed collision
theory with the students and expected them to predict the effect
of temperature on reaction rate based on this discussion. He
concluded that increasing temperature increases the number of
molecules having energy greater than the activation energy of the
reaction. He drew potential energy diagrams to explain
the potential energy of reactants, ‘‘activated complex’’ and the

This
230 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
230
temperature increases rate of both type of reactions. Relating to View Article Online
the effect of catalyst, the teacher presented the definition of
catalyst as
‘‘the substance that changes reaction rate without affecting the
composition of the products’’ and gave examples of negative and
positive catalysts. He asked them if the catalyst enters the reaction
with the reactants or not. A small discussion was conducted
and they reached the conclusion that catalyst participates in the
reaction with the reactants. He explained the inhibitor and
exemplified it from human body mechanism. The teacher
designated enzymes as biological catalysts speeding up the
biological reactions. He related the working mechanism of
catalysts with activation energy and discussed it on potential
energy curves. At the end of the chapter, effect of surface area of
the reactants was discussed on a hetero- geneous phase reaction.
The teacher used questioning and sometimes whole class
discus- sions to remedy the alternative conceptions. He also used
analogies to make some abstract points clearer. Worksheets were
distributed to the students at the end of each week as
homework, and the answers were given in the next lesson. While
at home, students were supposed to practice related problems
and interpret verbal questions. Similar problems and content
were explained in the control group as in cooperative learning
class. The instruction was teacher-centered, and student-student
interaction was very limited.

Resu
lts
Previous to treatment, the researchers conducted an
independent- samples t-test by using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS) to determine whether there was a
significant mean difference between the experimental group and
the control group in terms of SPST and pre-RRCT scores for
each school.
The results for Anatolian high school indicated that there was
no significant difference between experimental group (EG) and
control group (CG) with respect to previous conceptual
understanding measured by pre-RRCT, t(57) = 0.893, p 4
0.05, and science process skills measured by SPST, t(57) =
0.660, p 4 0.05.

This
231 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
231
 View Article Online

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the students’ pre-RRCT, SPST and concept when SPST scores were used as covariate [F(1, 48) = 5.21,
post-RRCT scores p = 0.027, partial Z2 = 0.09]. Partial Z2 of 0.09 suggests a

Pre- Post- moderate relationship between treatment and dependent variable.

RRCT SPST RRCT This means that, 9% of variance on dependent variable was

attributed to treatment in ordinary high school. Descriptive

Group N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
statistics of EG and CG students’ pre-RRCT, SPST and post-
Anatolian High School EG 30 9.73 3.85 23.70 4.06 21.60 2.28 RRCT scores are given in Table 2 for each school.
CG 29 10.48 2.47 23.06 3.21 18.10 1.65
Ordinary High School EG 26 7.42 2.85 22.42 2.85 16.76 3.52
Percentage of the students’ selections of the alternatives of
CG 25 6.92 2.46 19.04 2.46 13.28 2.71 RRCT was examined. Results for the items reflecting the alter-
native conceptions that several students had were presented.
Accordingly, Table 3 indicates the percentage of these alternative
The results for ordinary state high school indicated that conceptions identified by RRCT in each school. Item analysis
there was no significant difference between EG and CG with results supported that cooperative learning dealt better with
respect to pre-RRCT scores, t(49) = 0.672, p 4 0.05. On the students’ alternative conceptions in the experimental group. On
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.

other hand, there was a significant mean difference between
the groups with respect to science process skills measured by
SPST, t(49) = 3.501, p o 0.05. Therefore it was assigned as
covariate in the analysis of post-RRCT scores of ordinary
state high school students.
In order to test the first research question, after meeting the
assumptions, one-way ANOVA was used for the analysis of
post-RRCT scores of the students from Anatolian high
school, where treatment was the independent variable
and the understanding of the reaction rate concept was the
dependent variable for the participants to reveal the effect of
cooperative learning.
The results indicated that the cooperative learning group
displayed significantly better understanding of chemical
kinetics [F(1, 57) = 23.19, p = 0.00, partial Z2 = 0.29]. Partial
Z2 of 0.29 suggests a large relationship between treatment and
the dependent variable, implying that the magnitude of the
difference among groups was large (Green et al., 2007). In
other words, cooperative learning based on conceptual change
conditions produced better results in terms of coping with
students’ alternative conceptions about chemical kinetics compared
to traditional instruction in Anatolian high school.
After meeting the assumptions, post-RRCT scores of the
students from ordinary high school were analyzed by one-way
ANCOVA, where treatment was the independent variable,
understanding of reaction rate concept was the dependent
variable and SPST scores were the covariate. According to
the results, there was a significant mean difference between EG
and CG in terms of students’ understanding of reaction rate
the other hand, these results also revealed that some of the
alternative conceptions resisted more in the students of ordinary
state high school than those of Anatolian high school.
Findings from item analysis may suggest that more than half of
the students of control groups from both schools had difficulties in
understanding what the reaction rate is. Correspondingly, the first
alternative conception in Table 1 was selected as the answer of the
related item by 62.1% of CG in Anatolian high school and 65.5%
of CG in ordinary state high school. Furthermore, more students
in CG from both schools selected the alternative that the rate of
reaction increases at the beginning, decreases with a decrease in the
amount of reactants, and becomes zero at the end than EG. This
shows that more students in traditional groups had problems with
understanding how reaction rate changes with time. Table 3
implies that the participants of CGs of both schools confused
more with the thermochemical identity of the reactions and the
reaction rate than EGs. Specifically, they selected the following
alternative conceptions among the alternatives of the related items:
(i) exothermic reactions are faster than endothermic reactions;
(ii) in exothermic reactions, rate of forward reaction decreases
with increasing temperature; (iii) exothermic reactions have
lower activation energy than endothermic reactions. Further-
more, several students of both groups from both schools did
not understand the effect of volume on reaction rate since
many of them from Anatolian high school (40% of EG and
45% of CG) and the majority of them from ordinary state
school (60% of EG and 84.6% of CG) selected that kinetic
energy of molecules increases by decreasing the volume of the
vessel. Likewise, the learners in both groups had problems in

Table 3 The percentage of alternative conceptions identified by RRCT in each school

Anatolian School Ordinary School

Alternative conceptions EG CG EG CG
(1) The reaction rate is the amount of substance turning into products per unit time at a constant 6.7 62.1 15 65.5
temperature and concentration.
(2) The rate of reaction increases at the beginning, decreases with a decrease in the amount of reactants, 5.9 18 13.2 20
and becomes zero at the end.
(3) Exothermic reactions are faster than endothermic reactions. 6.7 17.2 15.4 24
(4) In exothermic reactions, rate of forward reaction decreases with increasing temperature. 0 0 10.5 24
(5) Exothermic reactions have lower activation energy than endothermic reactions. 20 41.4 7.7 28
(6) Kinetic energy of molecules increases by decreasing the volume of the vessel. 40 45 60 84.6
(7) Since the molecules of granulated MgO(s) are more strongly bonded than those of powdered MgO(s), 13.3 17.2 19.2 48

This
232 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
232
they hardly react compared to the powdered ones.
(8) Increase in temperature decreases the activation energy and so does the rate of the reaction. 0 17.2 View
0 Article
16 Online
(9) Catalyst increases the average speed of the molecules. 0 13.4 14 19.2
(10) Catalyst increases the reaction rate without changing the mechanism. 3.3 15 0 20

This
233 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
233
 View Article Online

Table 4 Descriptive statistics of motivational dependent variables for pre-MSLQ for each school

Anatolian High School Ordinary State High School

Mean SD Mean SD
Dependent variable CG EG CG EG CG EG CG EG
Intrinsic goal orientation 18.89 19.36 4.81 4.27 19.20 20.26 5.50 4.35
Extrinsic goal orientation 20.82 22.13 4.02 4.04 20.52 20.38 4.48 5.69
Task value 29.48 32.80 6.75 4.71 30.20 29.00 7.08 6.32
Control of learning beliefs 21.48 22.90 4.08 2.92 23.04 22.30 3.27 4.86
Self-efficacy for learning and performance 42.10 47.23 10.56 5.64 39.64 38.00 8.73 3.27
Test anxiety 18.79 18.46 5.38 5.41 20.88 21.65 5.79 5.35

understanding the effect of surface area on the reaction rate, MANOVA results for the post-MSLQ scores of ordinary state
although the experimental group students performed better in high school students revealed that there was a significant difference
their answers in each school. Correspondingly, more students between EG and CG in terms of their motivation
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.

in CGs chose the alternative that since the molecules of

granulated MgO(s) are more strongly bonded than those of
powdered MgO(s), they hardly react compared to the powdered
ones. In addition, nobody from EGs of both schools selected
the alternative conception that increase in temperature decreases
the activation energy and so does the rate of the reaction although
17.2% of CG students of Anatolian high school and 16% of
CG students of ordinary state school did so. This result
indicates that students in CGs did not understand the effect
of temperature on reaction rate completely. Similarly, participants
of EGs of each school is superior to CGs in terms of under-
standing the effect of catalyst on reaction rate since the percentage
of students from EGs choosing following alternative conceptions
are more less: (i) catalyst increases the average speed of molecules;
(ii) catalyst increases the reaction rate without changing the
mechanism.
For the analysis of the pre-MSLQ scores to explore motivational
characteristics of the experimental and control group students of
each school before the instruction, after satisfying the assumptions,
MANOVA was conducted on the six variables of intrinsic goal
orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, task value, control of learn-
ing beliefs, self-efficacy for learning and performance, and test
anxiety. The results for the students of Anatolian high school
revealed that their motivational characteristics were similar in both
groups before the instruction (F[6,52] = 1.31, p 4 .05). Likewise,
motivational characteristics of the students of ordinary state high
school were also similar in EG and CG before the instruction
(F[6,44] = 0.56, p 4 .05). Table 4 shows the descriptive
statistics of the motivational dependent variables for pre-MSLQ
for each school.
For the answer to the second research question, MANOVA
was performed on the post-MSLQ scores after satisfying the
assumptions to see the effect of cooperative learning on
students’ motivation for each school. The analysis for Anatolian
high school indicated that there was a significant mean difference
between the experimental and control group in terms of collective
dependent variables after the instruction (F[6,52] = 0.94, p o.05,
partial Z2 = .09). The Partial Eta Squared (Z2) value is medium,
meaning that the magnitude of the difference between the groups
is moderate (Green et al., 2000). In other words, 9% of the
variance of dependent variables was explained by the treatment.

This
234 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
234
(F[6,44] = 3.25, p o.05, partial Z2 = .30). The Partial Eta Squared View Article Online
(Z2) value is large, that is the difference between the groups arouse
from treatment effect, and this difference had practical value
(Green et al., 2000). Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics
of the motivational dependent variables for post-MSLQ for
each school. It revealed that EG had higher mean scores on task
value and self-efficacy for learning and performance in Anatolian
high school, and intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal
orientation and test anxiety in ordinary high school.
To determine the effect of treatment on each dependent
variable, univariate ANOVAs were applied for each school.
Table 6 indicates the results of the univariate ANOVAs for
the post-test.
As seen in Table 6, there was a statistically significant mean
difference between the groups in terms of intrinsic goal
orientation in ordinary state high school and self-efficacy for
learning and performance in Anatolian high school. Table
5 also supports that experimental group students had
higher scores on those variables than control group students
in the schools specified.
Table 7 presents the percentages of agreement with the selected
items in the intrinsic goal orientation scale (item 16 and 22) and self-
efficacy for learning and performance scale (item 5, 6, 12, 20, 21,
29) across groups.
Item 16 and 22 are among the ones contributing to the
intrinsic goal orientation scale. Item 16 states that ‘‘In
chemistry lessons, I prefer course material that arouses my
curiosity, even if it is difficult to learn’’. Accordingly, 50% of
the experimental group students from ordinary state high
school rated this item as 6 and 7, while 20% of the control
group students rated that as 6 and 7, which indicates the
agreement of this statement. Moreover, in the same school,
76.1% of the experimental group students agreed with item
22, stating, ‘‘The most satisfying thing for me in chemistry
is trying to understand the content as thoroughly as possible’’,
while 63% of students in the control group agreed with it. In
addition, students in the experimental group had higher scores
of self-efficacy for learning and performance in Anatolian
high school. For instance, item 5 stating, ‘‘I believe I will
receive an excellent grade in the chemistry lesson’’, was
rated 6 and 7 indicating agreement by 66.7% of students
in the experimental group, while 37.9% of the control group
students agreed with it. In addition,
56.6% of the experimental group students agreed with the
statement, ‘‘I’m certain I can understand the most difficult
material presented in the readings for the chemistry lesson’’
(item 6), whereas 27.5% of the control group students agreed
with it. Similarly, 80% of students in the experimental group

This
235 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
235
 View Article Online

Table 5 Descriptive statistics of motivational dependent variables for post-MSLQ for each school

Anatolian High School Ordinary State High School

Mean SD Mean SD
Dependent variable CG EG CG EG CG EG CG EG
Intrinsic goal orientation 18.06 18.66 5.07 4.24 17.40 21.88 4.67 3.94
Extrinsic goal orientation 21.48 21.96 4.70 3.35 20.36 22.50 4.79 5.10
Task value 29.62 31.20 6.49 6.91 30.12 30.00 7.50 7.57
Control of learning beliefs 21.86 22.33 4.04 3.30 24.08 23.42 3.78 3.61
Self-efficacy for learning and performance 42.13 47.50 9.34 6.66 42.40 43.73 3.13 3.93
Test anxiety 19.24 20.30 6.37 6.30 18.96 20.15 6.39 7.16

and 65.5% of the control group students agreed with the Table 7 Percentages of responses to selected items of the intrinsic
statement, ‘‘I’m confident I can learn the basic concepts taught goal orientation (Intr) in ordinary high school and self efficacy for
in the chemistry lesson’’ (item 12). Furthermore, 66% of learning and performance (Slfef) scalea in Anatolian high school
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.

students in the experimental group and 41.4% of students in

Scale Item no Groups 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) 6 (%) 7 (%)
the control group agreed with item 20 stating, ‘‘I am confident
I can do an excellent job on the assignments and tests in the Intr 16 CG 16 12 28 4 20 4 16
EG 7.7 0 7.7 15.4 19.2 34.6 15.4
chemistry lesson’’. Item 21, stating, ‘‘I expect to do well in 22 CG 8 0 3 18 8 25 38
the chemistry lesson’’ was agreed upon by 73.4% of the EG 0 0 0 11.5 12.4 30.8 45.3
experimental group students and by 58.6% of the control Slfef 5 CG 0 3.4 10.3 17.2 31 20.7 17.2

EG 0 0 0 10 23.3 26.7 40
group students. In addition, 56.7% of the experimental group 6 CG 6.9 13.8 0 13.8 37.9 17.2 10.3
students and 48.2% of the control group students agreed with EG 0 0 3.3 16.7 23.3 23.3 33.3
item 29 stating, ‘‘I’m certain I can master the skills being 12 CG 0 3.4 0 10.3 20.7 27.6 37.9
EG 0 0 0 13.3 6.7 43.3 36.7
taught in the chemistry lesson’’. 20 CG 3.4 3.4 3.4 17.2 31 27.6 13.8
By contrast, as seen in Table 6, there was no significant EG 0 0 0 23.3 13.3 30 33
21 CG 0 3.4 0 10.3 27.6 27.6 31
mean difference between groups in terms of extrinsic goal EG 0 0 0 6.7 20 36.7 36.7
orientation, control of learning beliefs, task value and test 29 CG 0 6.9 10.3 3.4 31 31 17.2
anxiety when post-MSLQ scores of students were analyzed. EG 0 3.3 6.7 13.3 20 26.7 30
a
From 1 to 7, responses represent ‘‘not at all true of me’’ to ‘‘very true
of me’’.
Discussion
ordinary state high school. As Taber (2009) addressed, lear-
The present study investigated the effects of cooperative ners’ knowledge representations is dependent on their ability
learning based on conceptual change conditions on 11th grade level. The effectiveness of cooperative learning on students’
students’ motivation and understanding of chemical kinetics in conceptions was also supported by other studies in the litera-
two different schools. According to the results, cooperative ture (e.g., Acar and Tarhan, 2008; Barbosa et al., 2004; Bilgin
learning group resulted in significantly better acquisition of and Geban, 2006; Doymus- , 2007; Felder, 1996). On the other
knowledge related to reaction rate than traditional group hand, post-RRCT scores revealed that the students had some
in both schools. However, cooperative learning improved alternative conceptions related to reaction rate even after
students’ understanding of reaction rate in Anatolian high experiencing the cooperative learning instruction based on
school more than it did in ordinary state high school because conceptual change conditions designed to cope with those
the magnitude of the difference between EG and CG in alternative conceptions. The most frequent and persistent
Anatolian high school is larger. This may be because of the alternative conceptions, which were in agreement with previous
fact that, the students in Anatolian high school were brighter studies (Bozkoyun, 2004; Cakmakcı, 2005; Cakmakcı et al.,
than the ones in ordinary state high school because they had 2006; Garnett et al., 1995; Haim, 1989; I˙cik, 2003; Kıngır and
higher scores on the nationwide exam. Therefore, it was easier Geban, 2006; Nakiboglu et al., 2002) are as follows:
for them to grasp the concepts compared to the students in

Table 6 The results of univariate ANOVA’s for post-MSLQ

Anatolian High School Ordinary High School

Source Dependent variable df F p df F p
GROUP Intrinsic goal orientation 1 0.241 0.625 1 8.309 0.006
Extrinsic goal orientation 1 0.208 0.650 1 2.379 0.129
Task value 1 0.816 0.370 1 0.003 0.955
Control of learning beliefs 1 0.241 0.635 1 0.433 0.514

This
236 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
236
 Self-effic. for learning and perf.a 1 4.280 0.043 1 0.488 0.488
View Article Online
Test anxiety 1 0.411 0.524 1 0.506 0.506
a
Self-efficacy for learning and performance.

This
237 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012 This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
237

The reaction rate is the amount of a substance turning
into products per unit time at a constant temperature and
concentration.
Students over-generalized, suggesting that the rate of
reactions always decreases as the reaction proceeds without
considering the order of the reaction.
The kinetic energy of molecules increases by decreasing
the volume of the vessel (The students had difficulty under-
standing the effect of volume on reaction rate).
Since the molecules of granulated MgO(s) are more
strongly bonded than those of powdered MgO(s), they hardly
react compared to the powdered ones.
The activation energy of exothermic reactions is lower
than that of endothermic reactions.
A catalyst increases reaction rate without changing the
mechanism.
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.
These results confirmed that alternative conceptions may be
resistant to change even after instruction that differs from a
traditional method. If the teacher does not deal with them,
they will distort students’ further learning. For example, in
school curriculum, the chemical equilibrium chapter comes
after the reaction rate concept and is strongly based on
understanding reaction rate. In other words, if students don’t
understand reaction rate completely, their learning of chemical
equilibrium will be compromised. Thus, the teacher
should consider these alternative conceptions while preparing
teaching materials for further lessons. Specifically, worksheets
activating alternative conceptions were used in experimental
groups and teacher directed discussions and lecturing high-
lighting alternative conceptions were implemented in control
groups. Some of them still existed in both groups after the
treatment although cooperative learning instruction dealt with
them better compared to the traditional one. In this study, a
cooperative learning model was designed based on conceptual
change conditions suggested by Posner et al. (1982). Posner
et al. (1982) instructional theory requires that the learner be
dissatisfied with their existing ideas and that the new concept
taught should be intelligible, plausible, and fruitful. The
group activities were prepared by considering students’
alternative conceptions of reaction rate. The worksheets were
designed to create dissatisfaction in students since they
included alternative conceptions contradicting scientifically
accepted knowledge. Moreover, discussions in cooperative
groups provided contradiction because the students noticed
that their group mates had different ideas or perspectives
from their own points of view. In addition, the teacher asked
some questions of the groups in order to encourage discussions
and to create contradictions. During the group work, students
could ask questions of the teacher related to the points
or questions that they didn’t understand. After the group
activity, each group explained their answers to whole class.
During this phase, the teacher gave feedback to the groups.
After the discussions of the whole class, the teacher provided
reasonable explanations of problematic points. This was
meant to fulfill intelligibility and plausibility. Furthermore,
some of the questions on the worksheets enabled students to
make connections between scientific knowledge and daily life.
Also, the teacher used some additional everyday life examples
while presenting the concept before group work and provided
This
238 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
View Article Online
support to the groups during group work to meet the fruitfulness
condition.
Contrary to this strategy, which requires the consideration
of students’ existing knowledge and alternative conceptions to
establish conceptual change, traditional instruction was
strongly dependent on teacher coordination without taking
students’ backgrounds and needs into account. Information
was directly transmitted from the teacher to the students
instead of permitting students to create their own knowledge.
In addition, students mostly were not allowed to talk to each
other in order to provide silence and authority in the class-
room. There was almost no student-student interaction and
little student-teacher interaction. However, students usually
prefer to ask their peers questions related to a concept that
they do not understand before asking the teacher. They
hesitate to ask the teacher. Therefore, when the teacher asks
the class if there are any questions and gets no answer, this
does not mean that everybody understands the related content.
That is why the intervention classes experienced conceptual
change more and of high quality. Pintrich et al. (1993)
criticized the conceptual change model in terms of its lack of
attention to affective, situational, and motivational factors.
In fact, although dissatisfaction provides students with an
affective reason to change their existing knowledge, Strike
and Posner (1992) recommended that it was necessary to deal
with ‘‘motives and goals and the institutional and social
sources of them need to be considered’’ to improve the model
(p. 162). In spite of the fact that students may have similar
existing knowledge; they may not have the goal of learning the
content or motivation to resolve inconsistencies between their
knowledge and the new concept. In this study, cooperative
learning environment was designed to meet the deficit of
conceptual change related to motivation. Motivational
perspective emphasizes the importance of rewarding groups
to promote individual learning of all group members and
favoring active helping of peers. Providing an incentive for
group learning efforts is critical to improve the learning
outcomes. In the present study, STAD method of cooperative
learning, which includes rewarding of high-performed group,
was implemented. It was aimed to motivate students to
provide their group mates with assistance to improve
individual learning of all group members. Correspondingly,
the results of this study showed that cooperative learning
based on conceptual change conditions improved students’
motivation significantly in both schools. On the other hand,
effect size values imply that this method was more effective on
motivation to chemistry lesson in ordinary state high school.
In other words, although their conceptual change level is lower
than the students in Anatolian high school, they are more
motivated to learn chemistry. Specifically, this strategy increased
the students’ intrinsic goal orientation in ordinary state high
school and self-efficacy for learning and performance in
Anatolian high school. This supports the idea that students
in ordinary high school instructed by the STAD method of
cooperative learning participated in the chemistry lesson for
challenge, curiosity, and mastery, and actively devoted them-
selves to the learning process to satisfy their internal needs for
improving their own competency. Moreover, the students in
Anatolian high school had a higher perception of their ability
This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
238

to perform a task and expectancy for success than the students
taught traditionally. Courtney et al. (1992) stated that cooperative
learning improves low-achieving students’ level of achievement
and self-esteem. Heterogeneous composition of groups provides
students with the feeling of being empowered as a result of
group support and the pooling of skills. Also, intrinsic motiva-
tion of the students is improved since most of them think that
working together is more enjoyable than working individually.
Courtney et al. (1992) also declared that a student’s self-efficacy
increases through repeated experiences of success with specific
tasks. Schunk (1985) claimed that self-efficacy increases when
students are provided with feedback on their progress toward
mastery. Students focus on the mastery of a task instead of
relative success or failure in comparison to their group mates
in a cooperative learning environment (Crooks, 1988). Task
mastery is strongly related to self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.
(Ames, 1984). In this sense, high-motivation students were willing
to make conceptual change by actively solving their conflict while
low-motivation students did not take an interest in learning events
and passively waited teacher to provide the answers, as a result,
poor conceptual change was observed.
The findings of the present study concerning the improve-
ment in motivation were supported by some research studies
(Bryan et al., 2011; Blaney et al., 1977, as cited in Sharan,
1980; Courtney et al., 1992; Hancock, 2004; Nicholes, 1996).
On the other hand, this study indicated that cooperative
learning did not affect extrinsic goal orientation, task value,
control of learning beliefs and test anxiety. This result might
be because of the fact that the implementation period for
cooperative learning was only six weeks. Thus, this limited
time may not be enough for participants to be aware of the
usefulness or the importance of the task and to develop
expectancy for positive outcomes with their own efforts
instead of those of the teacher or another external factor.
Furthermore, since the present study revealed that students
participated in the chemistry lesson for challenge, curiosity,
and mastery which imply intrinsic goal orientation instead of
grades or evaluation by others that denote extrinsic goal
orientation (Garcia et al., 1991), it can be concluded that
cooperative learning may have had no significant effect on
extrinsic goal orientation. Correspondingly, students having
high extrinsic goal orientation concern issues other than those
directly related to participating in the task itself (Garcia et al.,
1991). In addition, students may worry about their performance
on exams, which indicates test anxiety because the method was
totally new for them and they were administered more tests
than their ordinary classroom. In fact, though it was not
statistically significant, post-MSLQ scores of the experimental
group students in both schools were higher than that of the
control group students, demonstrating a higher level of test
anxiety in the cooperative learning group.
Novelty effect which means increased motivation, interest or
engagement of the participants since they are doing something
new or different, is a possible external threat for this study
(Gay and Airasian, 2000). It can be controlled by conducting
the study over a sufficient period of time. However, six weeks
may not be enough to control for this threat. Therefore, the
experimental group students’ performance might be affected
because they were involved in an application which is out of
This
239 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
View Article Online
ordinary. In addition, experimenter effect where the experi-
menter may unintentionally influence the procedures, the
participants or assessment of their performance is another
possible threat for the current study (Gay and Airasian, 2000).
At the beginning, the teachers were provided all materials
including worksheets for group works, lesson plans, the
instruments etc. concerning the experimental classes, and
materials including lesson plans, example problems to be
discussed in the class and homework sheets concerning the
control classes. Also, related documents and lesson plans were
reviewed with the teachers in each week for both experimental
and control groups. However, since the experimental group
instruction was new and unordinary for the teachers,
more time was spent with them concerning the application
compared to the traditional instruction. Nevertheless, we tried
to behave similarly to the participants of each group. Experi-
mental group students were not told that they would learn the
concept of reaction rate with a different way compared to the
other class to prevent the feeling of receiving special attention.
Hence, we expect experimenter effect threat to be controlled.
Moreover, treatment diffusion that happens when the treat-
ment groups communicate with and learn different aspects
from each other, which may lead overlap of treatments, was
controlled by requesting the teachers not to permitting the
classes to communicate with and to arrange the lessons of
experimental and control groups at different days. Finally,
selection-treatment interaction is another potential threat for
this study. It mainly occurs when already formed groups
(instead of selecting individuals randomly) are used for the
experiment because the selected groups may in some important
way different from each other (Gay and Airasian, 2000). In
our study, the experimental and control group students were
compared in some variables such as previous knowledge about
reaction rate, motivational characteristics and science process
skills before the implementation. They were similar in terms of
previous knowledge and motivation. The difference on science
process skills were controlled by using covariance analysis.
Therefore, selection-treatment interaction is minimized. This
study is expected to contribute to chemistry education at high
schools and to be helpful for chemistry teachers since it provides
evidence for the positive effects of cooperative learning on
students’ conceptual understanding and motivation. It also
provides directions and procedures in the context of chemical
kinetics to apply this method, which has been found to be
helpful to improve students’ understanding in science and their
motivation (e.g., Eilks, 2005; Gillies, 2008; Sisovic and Bojovic,
2000; Slavin, 1987). Moreover, considering the fact that very
limited studies have been conducted about the effect of cooperative
learning on students’ motivation in chemistry lessons (Shachar and
Ficher, 2004), the present study also contributes to the international
literature by reporting the positive effects of cooperative learning
on students’ motivation to learn chemistry.
To summarize, contributing to the progress of science
learning is difficult. Student-centered methods, which provide
students with the ability to construct their own knowledge,
require more efforts than teacher-centered methods. Presenting
a new concept or explaining to the learners that their ideas are
wrong, as traditional methods do, does not improve students’
understanding of scientific knowledge. However, teaching strategies
This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
239

where the students are actively involved in their learning
process promote meaningful learning and motivation.
Appendix A: Some example items of the reaction
rate concept test
1. The rate of a chemical reaction is calculated by measuring
the amount of substance consumed or produced per unit time.
*(I) TRUE (II) FALSE
Reason
*(A) The reaction rate is the change in the concentrations of
reactants per unit time at a constant temperature.
(B) The reaction rate is the time required for reactants to
form products.
(C) The rate of forward reaction is always equal to the rate
of reverse reaction.
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.
(D) The reaction rate is the amount of substance turning
into products per unit time at a constant temperature and
concentration.
2. A - B + C
The rate equation of the reaction above is found experi-
mentally as V = k[A]0 = k. According to this equation, the
rate of this reaction;
(I) increases (II) decreases *(III) is constant as the reaction
proceeds.
Reason
*(A) The collision frequency of molecules decreases since
the number of A molecules decreases with time.
(B) The amount of products (number of B and C molecules)
increases over time.
(C) The interaction between molecules increases as the
reaction proceeds.
*(D) The rate of this reaction does not depend on the
number of A molecules.
3.
Given the plot for the potential energy versus progress of
reaction, which of the following is correct?
(A) A - C is the rate determining step.
(B) B and D are catalysts.
*(C) C is the reaction intermediate.
(D) DH 4 0 for the reaction of A - E.
(E) The reaction takes place in 3 steps.
*Correct Alternative
Appendix B: Some examples of cooperative groups
worksheets
Worksheet 1. Digestion begins with chewing in the mouth.
Chewing facilitates swallowing by breaking food into small pieces.
This
240 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
View Article Online
It provides salivating and improves the effectiveness of saliva
and gastric enzymes. Starchy food starts to be digested in the
mouth. With reference to this information, please explain how
chewing improves the effect of saliva and gastric enzymes?
Worksheet 2. Sedef, Ezgi, Didem and Emrah exemplify the
effect of temperature on reaction rate below. Whose examples
can be accepted as correct? Please explain why they are correct
or incorrect.
Sedef: ‘‘Water evaporates faster when heated.’’
Ezgi: ‘‘Sugar dissolves faster in hot water than in cold
water.’’
Didem: ‘‘Batteries can be utilized longer if they are kept in
refrigerator when they are not used.
Emrah: ‘‘Food is cooked faster in pressure cooker.’’
Worksheet 3. A2 and B2 react to form AB. What are the
figures given below imply to you? Explain your ideas by using
collision theory.
A2 + B2 - 2 AB
References
Acar B. and Tarhan L., (2008), Effects of cooperative learning on
students’ understanding of metallic bonding, Research in Science
Education, 38, 401–420.
Ames C., (1984), Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal
structure: A cognitive-motivational analysis. In R.E. Ames and C.
Ames (ed.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 1. Student
motivation (pp. 177–208). Greenwich, CT: Academic Press.
Amir R. and Tamir P., (1994), In-depth analysis of misconceptions as
a basis for developing research-based remedial instruction: The
case of photosynthesis, The American Biology Teacher, 56(2),
94–100.
Barke H. D., Hazari A. and Yitbarek S., (2009), Misconceptions in
chemistry: Addressing perceptions in chemical education. Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Barbosa R., Jofili Z. and Watts M., (2004), Cooperating in constructing
knowledge: case studies from chemistry and citizenship, International
Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 935-949.
Bilgin I˙. and Geban, O., (2006), The effect of cooperative learning
approach based on conceptual change condition on students’ under-
standing of chemical equilibrium concepts, Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 15(1), 31–46.
Blosser P. E., (1975), How to ask the right questions. Washington, DC:
National Science Teachers Association.
This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
240

BouJaoude S. B., (1991), A study of the nature of students’ under-
standing about the concept of burning, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 28, 689–704.
BouJaoude S. B., (1993, April 16–19), Students’ systematic errors
when solving kinetic and chemical equilibrium problems. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, USA.
Bozkoyun Y., (2004), Facilitating conceptual change in learning rate
of reaction concepts. Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, Turkiye.
Brotherton P. N. and Preece F. W. P., (1995), Science process skills: Their
nature and interrelationships, Research in Science & Technological
Education, 13(1), 5–11.
Brown A. L. and Palincsar A. S., (1986), Guided, cooperative learning
and individual knowledge acquisition (Tech. Rep. No.372.). Urbana,
Illinois University, Center for the Study of Reading.
Bryan R. R., Glynn S. M. and Kittleson J. M., (2011), Motivation,
achievement, and advanced placement intent of high school students
learning science, Science Education, 95(6), 1049–1065.
Chairam S., Somsook E. and Coll R. K., (2009), Enhancing Thai
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.
students’ learning of chemical kinetics, Research in Science &
Technological Education, 27(1), 95–115.
Chi M. T. H., Slotta J. D. and Deleeuw N., (1994), From things to
processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science
concepts, Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.
Cohen E. G., (1994), Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for
productive small groups, Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
Courtney D. P., Courtney M. and Nicholson C., (1992, November
11–13), The effect of cooperative learning as an instructional practice
at the college level. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN.
Crooks T., (1988), The impact of classroom evaluation practices on
students, Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–481.
Cakmakcı G., (2005), A cross-sectional study of the understanding of
chemical kinetics among Turkish secondary and undergraduate
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of
Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Cakmakcı G., Leach J. and Donnelly J., (2006), Students’ ideas about
reaction rate and its relationship with concentration or pressure,
International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1795–1815.
Cakmakcı G., (2010), Identifying alternative conceptions of chemical
kinetics among secondary school and undergraduate students in
Turkey, Journal of Chemical Education, 87(4), 449–455.
Cakmakcı G. and Aydogdu C., (2011), Designing and evaluating an
evidence-informed instruction in chemical kinetics, Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 12, 15–28.
DiSessa A. A., (2001), Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and
Literacy. USA: MIT Press.
Doymu-s K., (2007), Teaching chemical equilibrium with the jigsaw
technique, Research in Science Education, 38(2), 249–260.
Driver R. and Easley J., (1978), Pupils and paradigms: a review of
literature related to concept development in adolescent science
students, Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.
Ebbing D. D. and Gammon S. D., (1999), General Chemistry (6th ed.),
USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Eilks I., (2005), Experiences and reflections about teaching atomic
structure in a jigsaw classroom in lower secondary school chemistry
lessons. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(2), 313–319.
Felder R. M., (1996), Active-inductive-cooperative learning: An
instructional model for chemistry? Journal of Chemical Education,
73(9), 832–836.
Gage N. L. and Berliner D. C., (1992), Educational psychology.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Garcia T., McKeachie W. J., Pintrich P. R. and Smith D. A., (1991), A
manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (Tech. Rep. No. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor, MI: The
University of Michigan, School of Education.
Garnett P. J., Garnett P. J. and Hackling M. W, (1995), Students’
alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implica-
tions for teaching and learning, Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.
Gay L. R. and Airasian P., (2000), Educational Research: Competencies
for analysis and application. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Geban O., A-skar P. and Ozkan I˙., (1992), Effects of computer
simulated experiments and problem solving approaches on high
school students, Journal of Educational Research, 86, 5–10.
This
241 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
View Article Online
Gijlers H. and de Jong T., (2005), The relation between prior knowledge
of students’ collaborative discovery learning processes, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 42, 264–282.
Gillies R. M., (2008), The effects of cooperative learning on junior high
school students’ behaviours, discourse and learning during a
science-based learning activity, School Psychology International,
29, 328–347.
Graham, C. D., (2005), Cooperative learning methods and middle
school students. Dissertation, Capella University.
Green S. B., Sulkind N. J. and Akey T. M., (2000), Using SPSS for
windows: Analyzing and understanding data (2nd ed.). New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Gregoire M., (2003), Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model
of teachers’ cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual
change, Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147–179.
Griffiths A. K., (1994), A critical analysis and synthesis of research on
students’ chemistrymisconceptions. In H.-J. Schmidt (Ed.), Proceeding
of the international seminar at Dortmund University. Problem solving
and misconceptions in chemistry and physics (pp. 70–99). Hong Kong:
ICASE.
Hackling M. W. and Garnett P. J., (1985), Misconceptions of chemical
equilibrium, International Journal of Science Education, 7(2),
205–214.
Haim A., (1989), Catalysis: New reaction pathways, not just a lowering
of the activation energy, Journal of Chemical Education, 66,
935–937.
Hancock D., (2004), Cooperative learning and peer orientation effects
on motivation and achievement, The Journal of Educational Research,
97(3), 159–168.
Harlen W., (1999), Purpose and procedures for assessing science
process skills, Assessment in Education, 6, 129–144.
Hatano G., (1982), Cognitive consequences of practice in culture
specific procedural skills, Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory
of Comparative Human Cognition, 4, 15–18.
Hodson D., (1992), In search of a meaningful relationship: An
exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and
science education, International Journal of Science Education, 14,
541–562.
Horton C., (2007), Student alternative conceptions in chemistry,
California Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 1–78.
I˙cik H, (2003), Lise II. sınıf ogrencilerinin reaksiyon hızı konusunu
kavrama duzeyleri ve kavrama duzeylerine ogrencilerin bili-ssel ve
duyu-ssal ozelliklerinin etkisi. [Effect of students’ cognitive and
affective characteristics on their level of understanding of reaction
rate concept at 10th grade]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Gazi
University, Ankara, Turkiye.
Inagaki K. and Hatano G., (1983), Collective scientific discovery by
young children, The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of
Comparative Human Cognition, 5, 13–18.
Johnson R. T. and Johnson D. W., (1987), How can we put cooperative
learning into practice? The Science Teacher, 54, 46–50.
Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (1992), Positive interdependence:
Key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz- Lazarowitz and
N. Miller (ed.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical
anatomy of group learning (pp. 145–173). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (1994), Learning together and
alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (1999a), Learning together and
alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (1999b), Making cooperative
learning work, Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–73.
Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T., Holubec E. and Roy P., (1990), Circles
of learning (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T. and Smith K., (1991), Cooperative
Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity,
(Tech. Rep. No. 4). Washington, D.C.: The George Washington
University, School of Education and Human Development.
Kıngır S. and Geban O., (2006, November 22–24), Analysis of
students’ misconceptions in rate of reaction. Paper presented at
the International Science Education Conference, Singapore.
Kind, V., (2004), Beyond Appearances: Students’ misconceptions
about basic chemical ideas (2nd ed.). Retrieved February 10,
This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
241

2012, from http://www.rsc.org/images/Misconceptions_update_tcm18-
188603.pdf.
Kousathana M. and Tsaparlis G., (2002), Students’ errors in solving
numerical chemical-equilibrium problems, Chemistry Education:
Research and Practice in Europe, 3(1), 5–17.
Limon, M., (2001), On the cognitive conflict as an instructional
strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal, Learning and
Instruction, 11, 357–380.
Lindner, J., (1998), Understanding employee motivation, Journal of
Extension, 36(3), 37–41.
Miyake N., (2008), Conceptual change through collaboration, In
S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual
change (pp. 453–478). New York: Routledge.
Mori J., (2002), Task design, plan and development of talk-in-inter-
action: An analysis of small group activity in a Japanese language
classroom, Applied Linguistics, 23, 323–347.
Nakiboglu C., Benlikaya R. and Kalın S - ., (2002, September 16–18),
Kimya ogretmen adaylarinin ‘‘kimyasal kinetik’’ ile ilgili yanlı-s
kavramalarının belirlenmesinde v-diyagraminin kullanilması. [Use
of V-diagrams to identify pre-service chemistry teachers’ misconceptions
Published on 02 April 2012. Downloaded on 2/11/2019 8:56:44 AM.
related to chemical kinetics]. Paper presented at V. National Science and
Mathematics Conference, Ankara, Turkiye.
Nicholes J. D., (1996), The effects of cooperative learning on student
achievement and motivation in a high school geometry class,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 467–476.
Okey J. R., Wise K. C. and Burns J. C, (1982), Test of Integrated
Process Skills (TIPS II). Athens: University of Georgia, Depart-
ment of Science Education.
Ormrod J. E., (1999), Human learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Piaget J, (1985), The equilibrium of cognitive structure. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Pintrich P. R., Marx R. W. and Boyle R. A., (1993), Beyond cold
conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom
contextual factors in the process of conceptual change, Review of
Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.
Pintrich P. R. and Schrauben B., (1992), Students’ motivational beliefs
and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D.
Schunk and J. Meece (ed.), Student perceptions in the classroom
(pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pintrich P. R. and Schunk D. H., (1996), Motivation in education.
Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice
Hall.
Pintrich P. R., Smith D. A. F., Garcia T. and McKeachie W. J.,
(1991), A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Tech Rep. No. 91-B-004). Ann
Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary
Teaching and Learning, The University of Michigan.
Pintrich P. R., (2003), A motivational science perspective on the role of
student motivation in learning and teaching contexts, Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Posner G. J., Strike K. A., Hewson P. W. and Gertzog W. A., (1982),
Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward of conceptual
change, Science Education, 66, 211–227.
Qin A., Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (1995), Review of
Educational Research, 65, 129–143.
Schunk D., (1985), Self-efficacy and classroom learning, Psychology in
the Schools, 22, 208–223.
Shachar H. and Ficher S., (2004), Cooperative learning and the
achievement of motivation and perceptions of students in 11th
grade chemistry classes, Learningand Instruction, 14, 69–87.
Sharan S., (1980), Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent
methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations,
Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 241–271.
Sinatra G. and Mason L., (2008), Beyond knowledge: Learner char-
acteristics influencing conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.),
International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change
(pp. 560–582). New York: Routledge.
Sisovic D. and Bojovic S., (2000), Approaching the concepts of acids
and base by cooperative learning, Chemistry Education: Research
and Practice in Europe, 1(2), 263–275.
This
242 journal
Chem.isEduc.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,
Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
View Article Online
Slavin R. E., (1977), Classroom reward structure: An analytic and
practical review, Review of Educational Research, 47, 633–650.
Slavin R. E., (1983), Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
Slavin R. E., (1987), Development and motivational perspectives on
cooperative learning: A reconciliation, Child Development, 58,
1161–1167.
Slavin R. E., (1995), Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and
practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Solomon J, (1992), Getting to know about energy in school and society.
London: Falmer Press.
Stevahn L., Johnson D., Johnson R., Green K. and Laginski A.,
(1997), Effects On high school students of conflict resolution
training integrating into English literature, Journal of Social
Pschology, 137, 302–315.
Strawitz B. M., (1989), The effects of testing on science process skill
achievement, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(8),
659–664.
Strike K. A. and Posner G. J., (1985), A conceptual change view of
learning and understanding. In L. H. T. West and A. L. Pines (ed.),
Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change (pp. 211–231), London:
Academic Press Inc.
Strike K. A. and Posner G. J., (1992), A revisionist theory of
conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl and R. J. Hamilton (Eds).
Philosiphy of Science, Cegnitive Psychology, and Educational
Theory and Practice. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York
Press.
Sungur S., (2004), The implementation of problem based learning in
high school biology courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Taber K. S., (2009), Progressing Science Education: Constructing the
scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning
science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Tao P. K. and Gunstone R. F., (1999), Conceptual change in science
through collaborative learning at the computer, International
Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39–57.
Thagard P., (1992), Conceptual Revolutions. Oxford: Princeton
University Press.
Treagust D. F., (1987), Development and use of diagnostic tests to
evaluate students’ misconceptions in science, International Journal
of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169.
Tsai C., (2000), Enhancing science instruction: the use of ‘conflict
maps’, International Journal of Science Education, 22, 285–302.
Vosniadou S., (1992), Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change,
Applied Psychology: an International Review, 41, 347–357.
Vosniadou S., (2001), What can persuasion research tell us about
conceptual change that we did not already know? International
Journal of Educational Research, 35, 731–737.
Vosniadou S., (2007), Conceptual change and education, Human
Development, 50(1), 47–54.
Vosniadou S, (Ed.), (2008), International Handbook of Research on
Conceptual Change. London: Routledge.
Vosniadou S. and Ioannides C., (1998), From conceptual development
to science education: A psychological point of view, International
Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1213–1230.
Vosniadou S., Ioannides C., Dimitrakopoulou A. and Papademetriou E.,
(2001), Designing learning environments to promote conceptual
change in science, Learning and Instruction, 11, 381–419.
Vosniadou S., Vamvakoussi X. and Skopeliti I., (2008), The frame-
work theory approach to the problem of conceptual change.
In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on
conceptual change, (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Routledge.
Voska K. W. and Heikkinen H. W., (2000), Identification and analysis
of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 160–176.
Vygotsky L. S., (1981), The genesis of higher mental functions. In
J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology
(pp. 144–188). White Plains, NY: Sharpe.
Zohar A. and Aharon-Kravetsky S., (2005), Exploring the effects of
cognitive conflict and direct teaching for students of different
academic levels, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7),
829–855.
This journal
Chem. is
Educ.
c The
Res.Royal
Pract.,Society
2012, of
13,Chemistry
221–236 2012
242