Important Announcement
PubHTML5 Scheduled Server Maintenance on (GMT) Sunday, June 26th, 2:00 am - 8:00 am.
PubHTML5 site will be inoperative during the times indicated!

Home Explore คู่มือสัมมนาการสอนวิทย์ปี 4

คู่มือสัมมนาการสอนวิทย์ปี 4

Published by boypak1999, 2022-03-11 08:49:34

Description: คู่มือสัมมนาการสอนวิทย์ปี 4

Search

Read the Text Version

SNRUScience teSaecmhiinnagr Journal of science teaching วันที่ 15 มีนาคม พ.ศ.2565 โดยนักศึ กษาสาขาวิชาวิทยาศาตร์ ชั้นปี ที่ 4 คณะครุศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏสกลนคร

คำนำ PREFACE คู่มือสัมมนาการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์ จัดทำขึ้นโดยนักศึกษาสาขาวิชาวิทยาศาสตร์ ชั้นปี ที่ ๔ คณะครุศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏสกลนคร ซึ่งเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของรายวิชาสัมมนาการ เรียนการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์ (๒๑๐๒๔๓๐๔) คู่มือสัมมนาการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์เล่มนี้ จัดทำ ขึ้นเพื่อให้ผู้เข้าร่วมรับฟังการสัมมนา ที่จัดขึ้นในวันที่ ๑๕ มีนาคม พ.ศ. ๒๕๖๕ ในหัวข้อ เรื่อง การสอนวิทยาศาสตร์ในต่างประเทศ ภายในคู่มือสัมมนาการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์นี้ ประกอบด้วย กำหนดการสัมมนาการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์ต่างประเทศ ป้ายประชาสัมพันธ์ บทคัดย่อ และวิจัยฉบับเต็ม ของแต่ละกลุ่มจำนวน ๙ กลุ่ม คู่มือสัมมนาการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์ฉบับนี้สำเร็จได้ด้วยดี เพราะความเมตตาและ ความกรุณาจาก อ.ดร.อัจฉรา ไชยสี ขูรีรัง อาจารย์ประจำรายวิชาและอาจารย์ประจำสาขา วิชาวิทยาศาสตร์ทุกท่านที่กรุณาให้คำปรึกษา คำแนะนำให้แก้ไขข้อบกพร่องต่าง ๆ ด้วย ความเอาใจใส่อย่างดียิ่ง ตั้งแต่เริ่มต้นการวางแผนสัมมนาจนสำเร็จลุล่วงลงด้วยดี คณะผู้จัดทำ รู้สึกซาบซึ้งในความเมตตา และขอกราบขอบพระคุณเป็นอย่างสูงไว้ ณ โอกาสนี้ คณะผู้จัดทำหวังเป็นอย่างยิ่งว่า คู่มือสัมมนาการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์เล่มนี้ จะเป็น ประโยชน์ต่อผู้ที่สนใจและผู้เข้าร่วมฟังสัมมนา เพื่อนำไปประยุกต์ใช้พัฒนาการเรียนรู้ของ ผู้เรียนได้อย่างเหมาะสม และสามารถนำความรู้ที่ได้ไปประยุกต์ใช้ในชีวิตประจำวัน หาก ผิดพลาดประการใดขออภัย ณ ที่นี้ด้วย คณะผู้จัดทำ

สารบัญ คำนำ สารบัญ กำหนดการ กลุ่มที่ 1 ป้ายประชาสัมพันธ์ บทคัดย่อ เอกสารงานวิจัย กลุ่มที่ 2 ป้ายประชาสัมพันธ์ บทคัดย่อ เอกสารงานวิจัย กลุ่มที่ 3 ป้ายประชาสัมพันธ์ บทคัดย่อ เอกสารงานวิจัย กลุ่มที่ 4 ป้ายประชาสัมพันธ์ บทคัดย่อ เอกสารงานวิจัย กลุ่มที่ 5 ป้ายประชาสัมพันธ์ บทคัดย่อ เอกสารงานวิจัย

สารบัญ กลุ่มที่ 6 ป้ายประชาสัมพันธ์ บทคัดย่อ เอกสารงานวิจัย กลุ่มที่ 7 ป้ายประชาสัมพันธ์ บทคัดย่อ เอกสารงานวิจัย กลุ่มที่ 8 ป้ายประชาสัมพันธ์ บทคัดย่อ เอกสารงานวิจัย กลุ่มที่ 9 ป้ายประชาสัมพันธ์ บทคัดย่อ เอกสารงานวิจัย

กำหนดการ สมั มนาการเรียนการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์ นักศึกษาสาขาวิชาวิทยาศาสตร์ชัน้ ปที ่ี ๔ ณ วนั ที่ ๑๕ มนี าคม ๒๕๖๕ ผ่านระบบออนไลน์โปรแกรม ZOOM สาขาวชิ าวิทยาศาสตร์ คณะครุศาสตร์ วันองั คารท่ี ๑๕ มนี าคม ๒๕๖๕ เวลา กิจกรรม ๐๙.๐๐-๐๙.๓๐ น. พิธีเปิดสมั มนาการเรยี นการสอนวทิ ยาศาสตร์ ๐๙.๓๐-๑๐.๐๐ น. กลมุ่ ที่ ๑ ๑๐.๐๐-๑๐.๓๐ น. กลุ่มท่ี ๒ ๑๐.๓๐-๑๑.๐๐ น. กลุ่มที่ ๓ ๑๑.๐๐-๑๑.๓๐ น. กลุม่ ท่ี ๔ ๑๑.๓๐-๑๒.๐๐ น. กลมุ่ ที่ ๕ ๑๒.๐๐-๑๓.๐๐ น. รับประทานอาหารกลางวนั ๑๓.๐๐-๑๓.๓๐ น. กลุ่มที่ ๖ ๑๓.๓๐-๑๔.๐๐ น. กลุ่มที่ ๗ ๑๔.๐๐-๑๔.๓๐ น. กล่มุ ที่ ๘ ๑๔.๓๐-๑๕.๐๐ น. กลุ่มที่ ๙ ๑๕.๐๐-๑๕.๓๐ น. พิธีปดิ สมั มนาการเรียนการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์ หมายเหตุ - การแตง่ กาย : ชุดนกั ศกึ ษา - กำหนดการอาจมีการเปลีย่ นแปลงตามความเหมาะสม

กำหนดการ สมั มนาการเรียนการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์ นกั ศึกษาสาขาวชิ าวิทยาศาสตรช์ นั้ ปีท่ี ๔ ณ วนั ท่ี ๑๕ มนี าคม ๒๕๖๕ ผ่านระบบออนไลน์โปรแกรม ZOOM สาขาวิชาวิทยาศาสตร์ คณะครุศาสตร์ เวลา กิจกรรม อาจารย์ที่ปรึกษา ๐๙.๐๐-๐๙.๓๐ น. ๐๙.๓๐-๑๐.๐๐ น. พธิ ีเปดิ สมั มนาการเรียนการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์ ๑๐.๐๐-๑๐.๓๐ น. กลมุ่ ท่ี ๑ อาจารย์ ดร.กฤตภาส วงค์มา ๑๐.๓๐-๑๑.๐๐ น. หัวข้อสมั มนา Is Peer Instruction in Primary School Feasible? : The Case Study in Slovenia ๑. นางสาวนัฐนรี โยธาตรี ๒. นางสาวพิมานมาศ ดรี ักษา ๓. นายจตุ พิ ฒั น์ ศรีทอง ๔. นางสาวอัมรนิ ทร์ คณุ สมบัติ กลุ่มที่ ๒ อาจารย์ ดร.อรณุ รตั น์ คำแหงพล หัวขอ้ สัมมนา The effect of augmented reality technology on middle school students’ achievements and attitudes towards science education ๑. นายภาคนิ ย์ ปานแกว้ ๒. นางสาวธนิตนันท์ โพธิ์สุ ๓. นางสาวชลธชิ า คงเลศิ ๔. นายวงศกร คำภษู า กลุ่มที่ ๓ อาจารย์ ดร.วาทนิ ี แกสมาน หัวขอ้ สัมมนา Effectiveness of constructivist approach on academic achievement in science at secondary level ๑. นายอดพิ งษ์ จันทร์ไทย

เวลา กจิ กรรม อาจารยท์ ีป่ รึกษา ๑๑.๐๐-๑๑.๓๐ น. ๒. นางสาวอาทติ ยา ไชยธรรม อาจารย์ ดร.อรณุ รตั น์ คำแหงพล ๓. นางสาวกัลยาณี เอยี่ มใส ๑๑.๓๐-๑๒.๐๐ น. ๔. นายนรนิ ทร์ แกว้ ฝา่ ย อาจารย์ วัชราภรณ์ เขาเขจร ๑๒.๐๐-๑๓.๐๐ น. กลุ่มท่ี ๔ อาจารย์ ดร.กฤตภาส วงคม์ า ๑๓.๐๐-๑๓.๓๐ น. หัวข้อสมั มนา Educational Videogame to Learn the Periodic Table: Design Rationale and Lessons Learned ๑. นางสาวประกายเดือน กินนะสี ๒. นางสาวศิลตา เนตมหา ๓. นางสาวรพพี รรณ ชั้นน้อย ๔. นายชนัญชัย โถชารี ๕. นางสาวอินทิรา บญุ แผน กลมุ่ ท่ี ๕ หัวข้อสมั มนา Element Enterprise Tycoon: Playing Board Games to Learn Chemistry in Daily Life ๑. นางสาวบญุ วรา เจริญพชื ๒. นางสาวสนิ ทิ รา เขม็ ตูม ๓. นางสาวธนัชพร ฤกษ์ฉวี ๔. นางสาววไิ ลวรรณ ดมุ กลาง รบั ประทานอาหารกลางวนั กลมุ่ ที่ ๖ หัวขอ้ สมั มนา Applying digital escape rooms infused with science teaching in elementary school: Learning performance, learning motivation, and problem-solving ability ๑. นางสาวอรสา ชยั สรุ นิ ทร์ ๒. นางสาวลัลลล์ ลิต แสงวงศ์

เวลา กจิ กรรม อาจารยท์ ่ปี รกึ ษา ๑๓.๓๐-๑๔.๐๐ น. ๓. นายรณภพ วงค์ตระกูล อาจารย์ ดร.อจั ฉรา ไชยสี ขูรีรงั ๔. นางสาวกลั ยา เพริศแก้ว ๑๔.๐๐-๑๔.๓๐ น. กลมุ่ ท่ี ๗ อาจารย์ ดร.กฤตภาส วงคม์ า หัวขอ้ สมั มนา Impact of instruction with ๑๔.๓๐-๑๕.๐๐ น. concept cartoons on students’ academic อาจารย์ ดร.วาทินี แกสมาน achievement in science lessons ๑๕.๐๐-๑๕.๓๐ น. ๑. นางสาวอาทติ ยา อดุ ารักษ์ ๒. นางสาวอญั ชนา น้อยพิทักษ์ ๓. นางสาวสุกฤตา สนอดุ ม ๔. นางสาววิชดิ า ศนู ยจ์ ันทร์ กลมุ่ ท่ี ๘ หัวข้อสมั มนา The Development of Web-Based Learning using Interactive Media for Science Learning on Levers in Human Body Topic ๑. นางสาวโสรยา สเี ทา ๒. นางสาวพรไพลนิ จิตรปรดี า ๓. นายชิตณรงค์ สวุ รรณไตร ๔. นางสาวศริ เิ ทพ อินทรวชิ ะ กลุ่มที่ ๙ หวั ข้อสัมมนา The Effects of 4MAT Teaching Model and Whole Brain Model on Academic Achievement in Science ๑. นายปฐมพงค์ สิงห์คราม ๒. นางสาวสพุ รรษา จะยนั รัมย์ ๓. นางสาวอัมพิกา เคหะฐาน ๔. นางสาวมทุ ติ า สมผล พิธีปิดสัมมนาการเรียนการสอนวทิ ยาศาสตร์ หมายเหตุ - การแตง่ กาย : ชุดนักศึกษา - กำหนดการอาจมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงตามความเหมาะสม

Is Peer Instruction in Primary School Feasible? : The Case Study in Slovenia. * JernejaPavlin University of Ljubljana, SLOVENIA * Tina Čampa Primary school BrinjeGrosuplje, SLOVENIA Natnaree Yothatree Pimanmas Deeruksa Amarin Kunsombat Jutipat Srithong 61101208118 61101208131 61101208130 6110120 8110 Professor Group 1 Dr. Krittaphat Wongma Dr. Adchara Chaisri Khureerung A Report Submitted in the Requirement for Seminar in Science Learning and Teaching 21024304 Bachelor of Education (Science) Faculty of Education Sakon Nakhon Rajabhat University 2022

YOU ' ER INVITED Topic Is Peer Instruction in Primary School Feasible? : The Case Study in Slovenia. Speaker * JernejaPavlin University of Ljubljana, SLOVENIA * Tina Čampa Primary school BrinjeGrosuplje, SLOVENIA MissNatnaree Yothatree 110 MissPimanmas Deeruksa 118 Mr.Jutipat Srithong 130 MissAmarin Kunsombat 131 Science Education Faculty of Education March 15 , 2022 09.00 am - 16.00 pm At online Zoom Sakonnakhon Rajabhat University Professor CONTACT : Anastasia Anas , Pimanmas Deeruksa Dr. Krittaphat Wongma Dr. Adchara Chaisri Khureerung Jutipat Srithong , Amarin Kunsombat

Is Peer Instruction in Primary School Feasible? : The Case Study in Slovenia เป็นไปไดห้ รือไมท่ ่ีจะจดั การเรียนรู้แบบเพื่อนสอนเพือ่ น (Peer Instruction) ในโรงเรียนประถม : กรณีศึกษาในสโลวีเนีย Jerneja Pavlin ,Tina Čampa Abstract An evidence-based, interactive teaching method peer instruction (PI) is promoted to support effectiveness over more commonly used teaching methods. Usually it is proposed for the university and upper secondary school. The research reports on the implementation of the PI approach in teaching subject Science and Technology (S&T) in the 4th grade of primary school. The aim of this research was to verify the feasibility of this approach for much younger students in primary school by evaluating the students’ progress in the subject S&T, identifying the differences in individual progress in relation to students’ general learning success, and determining students’ opinions about the approach and where no desired progress has been made. In a selected Slovenian primary school, a classroom with 26 students (age 9 – 10) was included in the study and 5 different content areas (Earth’s motion, Matter, Magnetism, Forces and motion, and Electricity) were taught using this PI approach. Results show that students made progress in all content areas and no differences were identified in the progress of individual students in terms of general learning success. Students were satisfied with the approach, although more than half of them found the multiple-choice questions as too difficult. Although the PI approach is successful, teachers must be aware that some persistent and widespread misunderstandings may still remain and require additional intervention. Keywords: Misconceptions in physics and chemistry, peer instruction approach, primary education, science and technology subject. การเรียนการสอนแบบเพื่อนสอนเพื่อน (PI) เป็ นวิธีการสอนแบบโตต้ อบโดยใชห้ ลกั ฐานเชิงประจกั ษ์ ไดร้ ับการส่งเสริมเพ่ือสนบั สนุน ประสิทธิผลมากกวา่ วธิ ีการสอนที่ใชก้ นั ทว่ั ไป โดยปกติจะจดั สอนในมหาวทิ ยาลยั และโรงเรียนมธั ยมศึกษาตอนปลาย การวิจยั น้ีรายงานเก่ียวกบั การ นาแนวทาง PI ไปปฏิบตั ิในการสอนวิชาวิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี (S&T) ในช้นั ประถมศึกษาปี ท่ี 4 จุดมุ่งหมายของการวิจยั น้ีคือ เพื่อตรวจสอบ ความเป็ นไปไดข้ องแนวทางน้ีสาหรับผูเ้ รียนท่ีอ่อนกว่า คือนกั เรียนในโรงเรียนประถมศึกษา โดยการประเมินความกา้ วหนา้ ของนกั เรียนในวิชา S&T ระบุความแตกต่างของความกา้ วหนา้ ส่วนบุคคลที่สัมพนั ธ์กบั ความสาเร็จในการเรียนรู้ทว่ั ไปของนกั เรียน และการตรวจสอบความเห็นของ นกั เรียนเก่ียวกบั แนวทาง PI และตรวจสอบกรณีที่ไม่มีความคืบหนา้ ตามท่ีตอ้ งการ การศึกษาน้ีไดใ้ ชน้ กั เรียน 26 คน (อายุ 9-10 ปี ) โรงเรียนประถม ของสโลวีเนีย และเน้ือหา 5 หวั ขอ้ ท่ีแตกต่างกนั (การเคล่ือนที่ของโลก สสาร แม่เหลก็ แรงและการเคล่ือนที่ และไฟฟ้า) ที่ไดร้ ับการสอนโดยใช้ แนวทาง PI ผลการศึกษาพบว่านกั เรียนมีความคืบหน้าในทุกเน้ือหา และไม่พบความแตกต่างในความกา้ วหนา้ ของนักเรียนแต่ละคนในแง่ของ ความสาเร็จในการเรียนรู้ทวั่ ไป นกั เรียนพอใจกบั แนวทางน้ี แมว้ ่ามากกว่าคร่ึงพบว่าคาถามแบบปรนัยยากเกินไป ถึงแมแ้ นวทาง PI จะประสบ ความสาเร็จ แต่ครูตอ้ งตระหนกั วา่ ความเขา้ ใจผดิ ท่ีเกิดข้ึนอยา่ งตอ่ เนื่องและแพร่หลายบางอยา่ งอาจยงั คงอยแู่ ละตอ้ งมีการแนะนาเพม่ิ เติม คำสำคัญ : ความเขา้ ใจผิดในวิชาฟิ สิกส์และเคมี, แนวทางการสอนแบบเพ่อื นสอนเพ่ือน, ประถมศึกษา, วิชาวทิ ยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี ลงช่ือ อาจารยท์ ี่ปรึกษา (อาจารย์ ดร. กฤษตภาค วงคม์ า) นกั ศึกษาช้นั ปี ท่ี 4 กลุ่มท่ี 1 รหสั 110 118 130 131 นาเสนอวนั ที่ 15 มีนาคม พ. ศ. 2565 ลาดบั ท่ี 1

Research Article doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.10.2.785 European Journal of Educational Research Volume 10, Issue 2, 785 - 798. ISSN: 2165-8714 https://www.eu-jer.com/ Is Peer Instruction in Primary School Feasible? : The Case Study in Slovenia Jerneja Pavlin* Tina Čampa University of Ljubljana, SLOVENIA Primary school Brinje Grosuplje, SLOVENIA Received: December 2, 2020 ▪ Revised: March 6, 2021 ▪ Accepted: March 20, 2021 Abstract: An evidence-based, interactive teaching method peer instruction (PI) is promoted to support effectiveness over more commonly used teaching methods. Usually it is proposed for the university and upper secondary school. The research reports on the implementation of the PI approach in teaching subject Science and Technology (S&T) in the 4th grade of primary school. The aim of this research was to verify the feasibility of this approach for much younger students in primary school by evaluating the students’ progress in the subject S&T, identifying the differences in individual progress in relation to students’ general learning success, and determining students’ opinions about the approach and where no desired progress has been made. In a selected Slovenian primary school, a classroom with 26 students (age 9 – 10) was included in the study and 5 different content areas (Earth’s motion, Matter, Magnetism, Forces and motion, and Electricity) were taught using this PI approach. Results show that students made progress in all content areas and no differences were identified in the progress of individual students in terms of general learning success. Students were satisfied with the approach, although more than half of them found the multiple-choice questions as too difficult. Although the PI approach is successful, teachers must be aware that some persistent and widespread misunderstandings may still remain and require additional intervention. Keywords: Misconceptions in physics and chemistry, peer instruction approach, primary education, science and technology subject. To cite this article: Pavlin, J., & Čampa, T. (2021). Is peer instruction in primary school feasible?: The case study in Slovenia. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(2), 785-798. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.2.785 Introduction Early science education lays the foundation for the later development of science concepts, practices and attitudes. Therefore, it is essential to gradually and systematically introduce scientific experiences, awareness, and vocabulary at an early stage in the education system. The preparation of lessons to achieve these goals is demanding, but there are strategies to enhance students’ and teachers’ scientific literacy (Dewi et al., 2020; Holbrook & Rannikmae, 2007; James, 2013; Jarvis et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2011). The formation of awareness, attitudes toward and understandings about nature begins early in child’s development, as children naturally ask questions and draw conclusions from experiences and progress with them (Dawes, 2015; Eshach & Fried, 2005). Effective science teaching enables students to change, reconstruct and generate science concepts (Krnel et al., 2005). Concepts are formed not only through concrete direct experience, but also through secondary language- based experiences, which students use for articulate, reflect upon and discuss ideas related to nature and doing (Dawes, 2015). Moving science instruction from a teacher-directed approach toward a more student-engaged approach is bringing forward the development of student autonomy and responsibility for learning (Arthurs & Kreager, 2017; Kaya & Kablan, 2013; Prince, 2004). An example of a method is peer learning, which plays an increasingly important role in education, especially in primary education. Peer learning in general might be described as learning in smaller groups in which students (potentially) achieve the best learning outcome when they consider peers’ ideas, develop them and at the same time help other students to achieve their best learning outcomes (Thurston et al., 2007). One of techniques used in peer learning is the PI approach that enables applying concepts in a non-threatening environment and gives students rapid feedback on their work, usually used at university level (Correia & Harrison, * Corresponding author: Jerneja Pavlin, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Slovenia.  [email protected] © 2021 The Author(s). Open Access - This article is under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

786  PAVLIN & ČAMPA / Peer Instruction in Primary School 2020; Lasry et al., 2008; Mazur, 1997; Vickery et al., 2015). An attempt was made to implement the PI in primary school. The paper presents the PI, alongside the evaluation of PI implementation in Grade 4 in chemistry and physics content areas within the subject of S&T in primary school. Literature Review The PI approach was developed in 1991 by Eric Mazur, a Harvard University professor of physics, with the aim of increasing learning outcomes in physics courses at university level (Lasry et al., 2008). The PI approach helps students to uncover inaccurate prior knowledge, find correct solutions and dispel common misconceptions, improve the articulation of opinions, accept the opinions of others, accept one’s own mistakes, improve metacognitive skills, readiness to listen and discuss peer statements, and improve self-esteem (Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Gok, 2012–2015; Kim & Song, 2006). Several authors identified teachers’ positive views on the PI approach and demonstrated that after the discussion more secondary school and university students answered multiple choice questions correctly (Crouch et al., 2007; Lasry, 2008; Šestakova, 2013). For example, Crouch et al. (2007) report that 93% of teachers considered the PI approach to be a useful technique and that 70% of students gave positive feedback. Fagen et al. (2002) also report that teachers positively evaluated the technique. Crouch et al. (2007) and Pilzer (2001) find that 80% or more students chose the correct answer after the discussion. Suppapittayaporn et al. (2010) report on the average effectiveness of the PI approach with structured inquiry and on significantly better knowledge from comparing pre- and post-tests results with the results of the control group. Moreover, Turpen and Finkelstein (2009) reported a variety of practices that are supported and modelled in the use of PI by faculties. Students were observed trying out, applying new physics concepts, and discussing physics with their peers in all the classrooms involved in the study. There were large differences in students’ opportunities to take part in formulating and asking questions, evaluating the correctness and completeness of problem solutions, communicating scientific ideas in a public place, etc. However, Campbell and Schell (2012) and Šestakova (2013, 2016) presented their experiences with the PI approach in secondary schools. They discuss the adaptation of the PI approach for upper secondary school, especially concerning written learning materials for individual work before the questions and group work (or work in pairs), and the formulation of questions based on curriculum content. Campbell and Schell (2012) suggested assigning reading materials at homework to ensure that students have the prior science knowledge necessary for discussions because it is time consuming to read them in school. Experience shows that in a school lesson in duration of 45 minutes fewer than 6 ConcepTest questions are solved by students. However, ConcepTests are conceptual multiple-choice questions suitable for immediate quantitative assessment of student understanding. The arrangement of seats has to enable communication with all group members. Groups of students should be heterogeneous regarding learning abilities (Mazur, 1997). Šestakova (2016) reported that prior science knowledge is important. After a few uses of PI, some students became curious about what other students thought. Most students (94%) liked the lesson more or equally when PI was used, and it was observed that students deepened their science knowledge and understanding and developed communication skills as a result of the PI approach. The PI approach was transferred from university physics courses to different fields (mathematics, physiology, science, social studies etc.) and different levels of education (Bulut, 2019; Giuliodori et al., 2006; Lasry et al., 2008; Olpak et al., 2017; Pilzer, 2001; Šestakova, 2016). It is evident that not only university students but also secondary school students progressed in their science knowledge and understanding of science concepts as a result of using the PI approach. Moreover, the literature review shows that Mazur’s active learning PI approach is most often applied at the university level, especially in physics lectures (Crouch & Mazur, 2001). However, the PI is also adapted for the secondary school level, more often for the upper secondary level (Campbell & Schell, 2012; Eryilmaz, 2004; Iverstine, 2010; Šestakova, 2016). There are some studies on groups from lower secondary level as well (from Grade 7 onwards) (Atasoy et al., 2014; Balta et al., 2017; Šeštakova, 2013). However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no reports on implementation PI in primary schools according to literature search. Moreover, a review of the science education literature demonstrates that students have a limited understanding of science concepts, especially from physics and chemistry (e. g. density, electric circuit, Earth’s motion, forces, heat, states of matter, etc.) and that there are many misconceptions among students from different educational, national and age levels. Researchers have identified that several misconceptions in physics and chemistry for primary and secondary school students are very difficult to change by commonly used teaching methods (Allen, 2010; Barrow, 2012; Buber & Coban Unal, 2017; Glauert, 2009; Grubelnik et al., 2018; Kind, 2004; Krnel, Watson & Glažar, 2005; Pine et al., 2001; Suppapittayaporn et al., 2010; Ugur et al., 2012).

European Journal of Educational Research 787 Methodology Research Goal The aim of this study was to design PI lessons for primary schools on topics from the curriculum where several misconceptions occur, focusing on assessing the feasibility of the approach in primary schools and identifying which misconceptions still exist. As PI is relatively rarely used in primary schools, it would enable a deepening of science knowledge at primary school level, cover learning objectives from the curricula and allow students in a different way to learn from their peers and build science knowledge, communicate in the language of science and last but not least develop scientific literacy. Therefore PI approach was implemented as approach in 5 different chemistry and physics curriculum content areas: Earth’s motion, Matter, Magnetism, Forces and motion, and Electricity. The concrete research objectives were to evaluate the students’ progress in science knowledge and understanding in the 4th grade as a result of the PI approach, to identify the students for whom the PI approach is most appropriate, gather student opinions about PI, and determine which misunderstandings of the students in the investigated class cannot be corrected by the PI approach for considered contents. The research questions were following: RQ1: What is students’ overall progress in science knowledge after discussing in pairs compared to their science knowledge before the discussion in terms of number of correct answers? RQ2: How much do individuals progress in terms of number of correct answers after discussing in pairs compared with their pre-discussion answers? RQ3: Which students would, according to students’ general learning success, benefit most from the PI approach? RQ4: What is students’ opinion about the use of the PI approach? RQ5: What misunderstandings are identified in the 5 content areas studied (Earth’s motion, Matter, Magnetism, Forces and motion, Electricity)? Sample and Data Collection The sampling method was non-randomized and purposive. The study included all students in an intact class, a total of 26 students from Grade 4 of a selected rural primary school, including 10 girls and 16 boys aged 9 and 10 years. Fourth-grade students were chosen due to their ability to read fluently and understand the content of the multiple- choice questions. Pairs were chosen instead of groups due to the arrangement of seats in the computer room and to allow for the active participation of all students. From the end of school year 3 and onwards, the teacher creates a final numerical grade for all subjects. Based on his or her average grades in each subject, the student’s general learning success in the class is determined as follows: ‘satisfactory’ (2), ‘good’ (3), ‘very good’ (4) and ‘excellent’ (5) (Taštanoska, 2017). In terms of their general learning success, the students were a mixed group. Before the study, the parents were briefed about the research. Consent was obtained for the research participants (i.e., students) from their parents, as required by the ethics standards at the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana. To ensure anonymity, each student was assigned a code consisting of P and a number (e.g., P1). All data were collected in Slovenian. The knowledge data were obtained using 5 learning content tests with multiple- choice questions, a questionnaire and field notes. The multiple-choice questions in the presented study are not called the ConcepTest questions because the multiple-choice questions sometimes tested science knowledge and not the understanding of the science concept. Content tests included 9 to 15 multiple-choice questions, each with 3 distracters and 1 correct answer. Multiple-choice questions were designed in line with the learning objectives from the curricula of the S&T subject, minimal standards of knowledge and higher levels of understanding and were based on the research published in Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, 2007, 2011), as well as on S&T textbooks. The number of questions for each content test differed according to the curricular learning objectives and the complexity of the learning content. This approach and careful review of the knowledge test questions by two science educators and two primary school teachers ensured content validity and reliability of the knowledge tests. Answers were collected by clickers and the program TurningPoint. A paper-pencil questionnaire based on students’ opinions of the approach was also used. It consisted of 6 questions covering the popularity and sensitivity of the PI approach, the advantages and disadvantages of the PI, the complexity of the posed questions, and the opinions about the answering systems, i.e., clickers. The instruments were prepared specifically for this research. After careful consideration, the PI was implemented in a Grade 4 classroom. The primary school teacher, who was already a teacher at the selected school, was trained in PI by an expert in science education. According to the yearly teacher plan for the subject S&T, the selection of content areas throughout the school year was performed first. One

788  PAVLIN & ČAMPA / Peer Instruction in Primary School hour for the introduction tutorials and 10 school hours (2 block school hours for the selected content area) were allotted for PI implementation in the classroom. Five content areas (Earth’s motion, Matter, Magnetism, Forces and motion, Electricity) with a certain number of learning objectives from three curricular content blocks (Forces and motion, Matter and Phenomena) were chosen, and multiple-choice questions were prepared. The electricity and magnetism content areas are presented to the students in Grade 4 for the first time, whereas other contents are partially included in the curriculum for Environmental studies in previous years (Balon et al., 2011; Kolar et al., 2011). Students were taught each selected content area for three school hours according to the curriculum for S&T, taking into account the textbook and the teacher’s autonomy. In this way, students should have already acquired experiences and science knowledge and understanding of the content areas. Before the first implementation of the PI approach, one school hour was spent on presenting the PI approach to students by using a schematic presentation of the PI steps, as shown in Figure 1; presenting instructions for discussion; and presenting clickers and the TurningPoint program for collecting the answers in the computer classroom. Figure 1. The structure of the PI approach (Lasry et al., 2008). The teacher formed pairs by taking into account friendships and heterogeneity in prior science knowledge. The procedure of the PI approach was presented with a few examples of multiple-choice questions illustrating all the steps of the PI approach. The teacher presented examples of arguments to present students the idea of how to discuss and justify the selection of the answer. It was stressed that students could use everyday language and list arguments related to previous experiences, facts, observations, etc. The teacher translated the everyday wording to scientific language during the final explanation. The teacher confronted students with time limitations for the answering and the condition for the end of the discussion – quiet in the classroom. She also clearly presented her role (reading questions and leading the explanation). Students were encouraged to rely on their knowledge and understanding during the discussion, not on the opinion of the most convincing member of the pair, the person who has better grades in general, etc. The school hours with the PI approach were carried within 5 months of school process. The teacher collected data on students’ answers and field notes on the PI implementation. Analyzing of Data The data were collected using the TurningPoint program and the questionnaire, and were analysed using Excel. Because this research was done on a relatively small sample the basic statistics for the analysis of the results only (arithmetic mean (M) and standard deviation (SD)) of the numerical variables, average normalized gain (<g>) and fractional gain (g) was used. To find the effectiveness of the PI approach, an average normalized gain was calculated from the percentage of correct answers before and after the discussion, <g> = (<correct answers after the discussion in %> - <correct answers before the discussion in %>) / (100% - <correct answers before the discussion in %>). Benchmarks to define low gain (0-0.3), medium gain (0.3-0.7) and high gain (0.7-1.0) are listed by Hake (1998). Because <g> is a class average normalized gain, the fractional gain for an individual student was calculated similarly, taking into account all the answers from all content areas. In this case, g might be negative if a student answers more questions correctly before the discussion that after it. The suggested specific ranges for g are the same (Hake, 1998; Suppapittayaporn et al., 2010). Progress might be achieved only for questions that were first answered incorrectly. The percentage of questions in which students progressed was calculated as a share of arithmetic mean of correct answers first answered incorrectly in % to arithmetic mean of in correct answer before the discussion in %. The percentage of questions in which students

European Journal of Educational Research 789 regressed was calculated as a share of arithmetic mean of incorrect answers first answered correctly in % to arithmetic mean of correct answers before the discussion in %. The questionnaire contained six questions, four closed and two open, covering a research question on the students’ opinion of the approach. Data were entered into Excel and responses to the open-ended questions were coded. Two researchers (i.e., the authors of this paper) independently read and coded the responses multiple times (Vogrinc, 2008). Cross-checking revealed the ideal level of agreement between the codes assigned by the two researchers. Results Table 1 presents the arithmetic mean of the percentage of correct answers and the standard deviation before the discussion and after the discussion for each learning content area. It is necessary to take into account that the number of multiple-choice questions for each content test for a specific content area varies. An average normalized gain is presented in Table 1 for each content set. The difference between the percentage of correct answers before and after the discussion is the highest in the forces and motion content area (medium gain, <g> = 0.55) and the lowest in magnetism (medium gain, <g> = 0.32). The percentage of students who had an ability to progress and progressed in number of correct answers varied between 44% and 63%, whereas up to 17% of students regressed. Table 1. Arithmetic mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for the percentage of correct answers before and after the discussion, the average normalized gain (<g>), and the percentage of questions in which students progressed and regressed Content area Correct answers Correct answers <g> Questions with Questions with before the after the students’ students’ Earth’s motion discussion discussion 0.49 Matter 0.45 progress [%] regression [%] Magnetism M [%] SD [%] M [%] SD [%] 0.32 Forces and motion 0.55 58 9 Electricity 51 19 75 28 0.38 44 4 Average 35 12 64 13 0.44 56 8 53 17 68 36 63 9 51 14 78 9 55 17 55 13 72 31 55 9 49 15 71 23 Table 2 shows the percentage of correct answers for all 5 content areas for individual students after the discussion and the fractional gain g, for which the average for all students in all content areas is 0.44. Most of the individual students progressed in science knowledge and understanding after the PI approach across 5 content areas identified by g (range from 0.20 [P15] to 0.71 [P17], average g: 0.44, high gain: 1 student, medium gain: 22 students, low gain: 3 students. P17 and P2 progressed the most (g ranges 0.71 and 0.65) but P17 did not have the highest number of correct answers in the group of fourth graders. The general learning success of P17 was ‘very good’ and that of P2 was ‘very good’, as they were paired with ‘excellent’ students. P17 actively participated only if the activity was intense or somehow invigorating, and it seems that the PI was that type. P2 was paired with communicative students who had highly developed argumentation skills that might have helped their constructive discussion and therefore retention. Students who answered most of the questions correctly before the discussion did not have the opportunity to progress. Therefore, their g is small. For example, P15 was an ‘excellent’ student who gave the highest amount of correct answers before the discussion (34 out of 44), but since he answered only 2 more questions correctly after the discussion, his g is the smallest. Table 2. Percentage of correct answers before and after the discussion for all 5 content areas and fractional gains (g) per student Student Correct g Student Correct g Student Correct g answers [%] answers [%] answers [%] P1 0.50 P10 0.50 P19 0.32 P2 Before After 0.65 P11 Before After 0.39 P20 Before After 0.26 P3 0.43 P12 0.58 P21 0.40 P4 59 80 0.29 P13 68 84 0.29 P22 43 61 0.43 P5 41 80 0.45 P14 59 75 0.37 P23 48 61 0.47 P6 32 61 0.38 P15 41 75 0.20 P24 55 73 0.62 P7 45 61 0.40 P16 61 73 0.56 P25 52 73 0.36 P8 25 59 0.40 P17 57 73 0.71 P26 66 82 0.30 P9 34 59 0.53 P18 77 82 0.61 Average 52 82 0.44 55 73 59 82 43 64 55 73 45 84 48 64 66 84 59 84 52 73

790  PAVLIN & ČAMPA / Peer Instruction in Primary School Students with ‘good’ general learning success progressed in 13.25 questions (out of a total of 44 included in the discussions) on average (Table 3). Furthermore, students with ‘good’ general learning success progressed the most, while those with ‘satisfactory’ general learning success made the least progress. Table 3. General learning success of the student sample and the arithmetic mean of the number of questions (M) in which students progressed, with added standard deviation (SD). General learning success Number of students M SD ‘Satisfactory’ 1 8.00 / ‘Good’ 4 13.25 3.30 ‘Very good’ 13 12.15 4.16 ‘Excellent’ 8 10.13 2.36 All students 26 11.54 3.60 The results of a questionnaire showed that most students (85%) liked the PI approach to deepen their knowledge and understanding of science content and believed that it led them to greater content acquisition. More than half of the students (65%) assessed the questions as too demanding in general. Eighty-five per cent of the students agreed with the statement that the discussions in pairs helped them in learning the content. In the PI approach, 38% of students liked working with clickers, and 38% liked working in pairs. Some mentioned their interest in learning the content questions, the anonymity of the results, the presentation of the results on the screen, some learning content-specific questions, the fact that they did not need to write in notebooks, etc. The majority of students (92%) would not change anything when using the PI approach, and 8% of students suggested using shorter questions. Table 4 presents examples of multiple-choice questions according to the learning objective from the curriculum. Tables 5–9 present the percentage of students who correctly answered various multiple-choice questions before and after the discussion. Table 4. Examples of multiple-choice questions according to the learning objectives from the S&T curriculum and their level according to Bloom’s taxonomy. The percentage of students who already knew the answer and who progressed was added. In the first two examples, all the answers given by the students were correct after the discussion Learning Students [%] objective from the curriculum Level (Bloom's Already Students explain Question why day and taxonomy) knew Progressed night vary Why is it dark at night? according to the Comprehension 69 100 A) Because there is no sun. brightness. B) Because the light does not fall on that part of the Earth. Knowledge 69 100 C) Because we go to sleep. Students know D) Because the sun does not shine at night. that a magnet has a north pole Magnet has two poles. What are they called? and a south pole. A) Upper and lower pole B) North and South pole C) East and West pole D) Positive and negative pole Mark is taller than Anna, and Nick is shorter than Anna. Students Each of them is marked with the number on the sketch. interpret the They are placed between the spotlight and the wall in a interdependence way that their shadows on the wall are equally tall. Which of the position of statement is correct? the light and the A) Mark is marked with number 1. illuminated B) Mark is marked with number 2. object in relation C) Mark is marked with number 3. to the size and D) The circles on the sketch are shown incorrectly, as position of the everyone should be equally far from the wall. shadow. Analysis 38 56

European Journal of Educational Research 791 Table 4. Continued Learning Students [%] objective from Level (Bloom's Already Question the curriculum taxonomy) knew Progressed The grandfather pulls the sleigh on which Bob sits. Which force decelerate the movement of the sleigh on a frozen surface? A) Bob’s force. Students B) Friction force. summarize the C) Gravity force. friction force in D) Grandfather’s hand force. practical case. Comprehension 31 44 From Table 5 it is evident that students discussed 8 out of 10 multiple-choice questions in the content area Earth’s motion. After the discussion, students’ knowledge and understanding increased in 7 items. Table 5. The percentage of students who answered correctly on questions from the content area Earth’s motion before and after the discussion. Question Learning goal from the curriculum in Earth’s motion Correct answers Correct answers before the discussion after the 1. Connect the formation of day and night with the rotation 2. of the Earth. [%] discussion [%] 3. Explain why day and night differ in brightness. 4. List some natural and artificial lights. 69 85 5. Explain the interdependence of the position of the light 100 / 6. and the illuminated object in relation to the size and 69 100 7. position of the shadow. 58 100 8. Recognizes the Moon’s eclipse on a sketch. 92 / 9. Explain the formation of the Moon’s phases. 62 92 10. Know that objects are seen because light reflects. 62 92 31 23 23 46 62 92 Table 6 shows that students discussed 9 out of 10 multiple-choice questions in the content area Matter. After the discussion, the percentage of students who answered correctly was higher in all 9 items. Difficulties were identified in identifying the separation steps of the mixture of three components and their influence on the change in the properties of the substances. Although, students have difficulties in linking school science to everyday life, in details, identifying the hardness of rocks that travels longest from their shape and connecting clearing of dust water due to the density of the substances in the mixture, as 54 % of the students answered these questions correctly after the discussion. Table 6. The percentage of students who answered correctly on questions from the content area Matter before and after the discussion. Question Learning goal from the curriculum in Matter Correct answers Correct answers before the after the 1. Know the procedures for mixture separation. discussion [%] discussion [%] 2. 3. Prove that the heating and cooling of the substance cause 50 85 7. changes in the properties of the substance. 35 46 4. Classify substances according to their properties (kneading, 92 / 5. compressibility, hardness, and density). 62 85 6. 35 62 9. Identify the essential properties of permeable and non- 65 92 8. permeable substances for water and air. Explain the 46 54 correlation of the properties of a substance with their use. 35 54 10. Identify the essential properties of permeable and non- 46 69 permeable substances for water and air. 35 62 Students discussed 8 out of 10 multiple-choice questions in the content area Magnetism (Table 7). The percentage of students who answered correctly after the discussion increased in 7 items. However, 31 % of students still think that

792  PAVLIN & ČAMPA / Peer Instruction in Primary School magnets attract gold objects (2nd question). Despite the learning how the compass works, 38 % of the students have difficulty in recognizing what happens when the compass is next to the magnet (6th question). Question 10 was the most complex as it involved the figure of 4 car toys with magnets and asked what happens if the first car breaks. However, it was found that question 10 is complex for students in Grade 4, despite the understanding, it also emphasizes the reading abilities of students. Table 7. The percentage of students who answered correctly on questions from the content area Magnetism before and after the discussion. Question Learning goal from the curriculum in Magnetism Correct answers Correct answers after before the discussion the discussion [%] 1. Show that there are attractive forces between a 2. magnet and iron. [%] / 7. 92 69 3. Know that a magnet has a north pole and a south pole. 50 69 8. 46 100 4. Show that there are attractive and repelling forces 69 92 5. between magnets. 69 92 6. 65 100 9. Explain the importance of the practical use of 69 62 42 / magnets. 88 10. Show that there are attractive and repelling forces 23 31 between magnets. Explain the importance of the practical use of magnets. From Table 8 it is evident that students discussed about 8 out of 10 multiple-choice questions on Forces and motion. After discussion, students’ knowledge and understanding increased in all items discussed. The discussions were rich in this content area and students asked several constructive questions to the teacher. This could confirm students’ rich experience with the content. Table 8. The percentage of students who answered correctly on questions from the content area Forces and motion before and after the discussion. Question Learning goal from the curriculum in Forces Correct answers before Correct answers after and motion the discussion [%] the discussion [%] 1. Show that bodies move down due to the force of 3. gravity. 54 84 4. 69 85 5. Know that bodies move when force is applied. 92 / 2. Prove friction force in practical cases. 88 / 6. 8. Identify the different ways that bodies move. 69 92 7. Explain the importance of the properties of 9. surfaces with respect to different modes of 38 69 movement. 38 69 46 77 42 69 Table 9 shows that students discussed 12 out of 15 multiple-choice questions in the content Electricity. After discussion students’ knowledge and understanding increased for 8 items discussed. During the PI implementation of electricity, students did not feel comfortable; therefore, discussions were short. 3 questions did not take part in discussion because 70% or more correct answers before discussion. For 2 items, the percentage of questions after discussion was lower than before the discussion. The results showed that students were not familiar with different power plants (question 5) and the problem with interpretation of question 15 came to the fore.

European Journal of Educational Research 793 Table 9. The percentage of students who answered correctly on questions from the content area Electricity before and after the discussion. Question Learning goal from the curriculum in Correct answers before the Correct answers after the Electricity discussion [%] discussion [%] 1. Know different types of power plants. 2. List the sources and consumers of electric 38 69 3. current. 46 62 4. Describe the path of electricity from the 38 38 power plant to the consumer. 81 / 5. Know different types of power plants. 6. Know the elements of the electric circuit 46 38 7. and their roles. 69 100 8. 65 100 10. Understand the importance of electric 81 11. conductors and insulators. 54 / 12. Know the dangers of electric currents. 62 15 9. Identify the benefits of saving energy. 42 100 13. 69 46 14. 77 92 15. 65 / 8 100 0 Discussion The research results demonstrate the feasibility of the PI approach for primary school students by assessing students’ progress in the subject S&T, identifying the differences in individual progress in relation to students’ general learning success, and identifying students’ opinions about the approach and remaining misconceptions. The answers are formed with regard to the research questions. The first research question relates to the differences between students’ overall progress in terms of the correct answers given by students by content area. The PI implementation was effective because the <g> was medium for all 5 content areas (ranging from 0.32 [Magnetism] to 0.55 [Forces and motion] (Table 1). However, lower normalized gains for the content areas Magnetism and Electricity may due to students’ lack of experience with the content. Overall, according to PI, students made progress in their science knowledge and understanding in the various content areas: from 49% correctly answered questions prior to the discussion to 71% after the discussion. The percentage of students who made progress varied between 44% and 63%, while the overall, 9% declined (ranging from 4% [Matter] to 17% [Electricity]). This result is comparable to the results of the study conducted among physics students at Harvard University, which found that about 6% of students regressed, while the percentage of correct answers was approximately 80% (Crouch et al., 2007). It is shown that active participation and immediate feedback result in students’ science knowledge and understanding being internalized, reflected or revised in discussions, without the pressure to use only scientific language (Correia & Harrison, 2020; Dawes, 2015, Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Ketonen et al., 2020). The second research question deals with the differences that relate to the progress of individuals in terms of the number of correct answers after discussion in pairs compared to their answers before the discussion (Table 2). It might be speculated that the PI brings science knowledge and understanding benefits to students with average (‘good’ and ‘very good’) general learning success (of course, when paired with students with greater science knowledge and understanding). The obtained results are comparable to those of a study on the PI approach conducted in Thailand for forces and motion learning content, where <g> was 0.45 (Suppapittayaporn et al., 2010). The finding supports heterogeneous grouping regarding reading abilities, prior science knowledge and argumentation skills. The third research question deals with the benefit of students from the PI approach with different learning success (Table 3). This finding could lead to the conclusion that the PI approach is most suitable for students with ‘good’ general learning success and that the formation of heterogeneous pairs or groups is necessary. However, one must consider how group discussions in pairs assist in solving qualitative problems in physics (Tao, 1999). The fourth research question relates to identification of students’ opinion about the use of the PI approach. Overall, students were satisfied with the PI approach. They noted that the PI approach helped them to better assimilate the learning content, which might be a consequence of active participation, being allowed to make and correct mistakes, and hidden coercion as a result of thinking aloud and discussing the learning content (Dawes, 2015; Šestakova, 2016). Working in pairs, clickers, anonymity and interesting content areas were positively highlighted. Similarly to our study at the primary school level, working with clickers was revealed as an advantage (because it was not necessary to sit, listen and write) of the PI in surveys conducted in 2016 by Šestakova and in 2007 by Crouch et al. at the secondary and university levels. The presented results of the PI approach reflect the effect of the teacher less thoroughly because the teacher taught S&T to the students in the study sample for the whole school year. However, this situation is rarely

794  PAVLIN & ČAMPA / Peer Instruction in Primary School achieved in the Slovenian school system because new teaching techniques are implemented only by the most enthusiastic teachers. The following remark must be added as an incentive to any teacher deterred by new techniques. When the students evaluated the S&T subject at the end of the school year, they all highlighted the PI approach as a positive aspect. They explained that, in addition to learning the new science learning content, they learned to accept the opinions of their peers and to work together to find correct answers to questions. The fifth research question deals with the identification of misunderstandings in solving multiple-choice questions on 5 content areas (Earth’s motion, Matter, Magnetism, Forces and motion, Electricity). However, Moon phases and Moon’s eclipse are identified as difficult contents, as less than 50 % of the students answered correctly after the discussion. Trundle et al. (2007), however, summarize research by many authors on basic astronomical concepts and show that the content on Moon phases is too complex to be introduced to the lower grades of primary school, as students are developmentally unable to assimilate complex phenomena. In a sense, the present results confirm the above and underline the role of the qualified teacher to present the content with embodiment (Geršak et al., 2020; Susman & Pavlin, 2020). It is a similar situation to the 9th graders, e.g. Tüysüz (2009) reports that 71% of the students had problems in choosing the order of separation techniques for mixtures with three or more components. Content Matter is included in the curriculum from Grade 1 of primary school onwards (Balon et al., 2011), However, this reflects the importance of previous experimental experience comes to the fore (Kiray & Simsek, 2020; Logar et al., 2017). The common misconception is that all metals are attracted by a magnet (American Institute of Physics, 1998; Hickey & Schibeci, 1999). Here, the importance of the development and use of language (specialized vocabulary) and reading abilities come to the fore, as these are very important for being able to communicate in the field, to read fluently and to understand science texts (Mullis et al., 2013). Forces and motion were a familiar area of content for students, while the correct formulation of arguments can be difficult even for excellent students (Gok, 2011; Liu & Fang 2016). Some sub- contents of the examined contents are after the PI still identified as those where the prior knowledge is negligible, which is why it is difficult to discuss them. This is shown by the small percentage of students who show progress or even regression in their answers. The difficult sub-contents identified are Moon phases, separation of mixtures, magnetic properties of metals and electricity per se. These sub-contents are also identified as challenging also by other researchers (American Institute of Physics, 1998; Liu & Fang, 2016; Trundle et al., 2007). It is therefore necessary to consider how they can be presented to students in a more holistic and understandable way from the very beginning. Conclusion The aim of the present study was to determine whether the PI approach is feasible in primary-school science education. The study was conducted with a group of 4th grade students in selected content areas in physics and chemistry. The PI was adapted in a way that students worked in pairs in the computer room after the regular presentation of the contents in the classroom. It was ascertained that the number of correct answers given after pair discussion was greater than the number of correct answers given before the discussion. The results of the study show that the PI approach results in primary school students’ science knowledge and understanding progression in all selected content areas and that general learning success does not affect the individuals’ progress. For the selected sample, however, it was ascertained that students who progressed the most had ‘good’ general learning success. The students were satisfied with the PI approach even though more than half of the students evaluated the questions as being too difficult. They expressed that they acquired the learning contents better with the PI approach. They liked working in pairs and using the clickers for providing immediate feedback. However, some sub-contents are due to the lack of prior knowledge, experience and/or complexity still identified as those where teacher should use different teaching methods and approaches. The results show that it is possible to implement the PI approach in the primary school classroom, where it is shown to be appropriate not only for secondary and university students, but also for students in primary schools. Furthermore, the results of our research and TIMSS might predict similar results of the PI approach with fourth graders in other cultural contexts. Recommendations Implications for the educational process The duration of the lesson using the PI approach should be limited to one school hour (45 minutes), as the students were already quite tired after the discussion, which lasted two school hours (90 minutes). Pairs/groups of students should be formed after the pre-test covering the material to be discussed and then, based on the results, divided into mixed groups according to academic achievements. Students should have prior knowledge that can be acquired in regular classes in primary school. Multiple-choice questions in PI lessons should carefully address misconceptions and follow Bloom's taxonomy from easiest to most difficult. However, to cover individual topics, it is important for the teacher to have a good professional content knowledge to identify misconceptions about the topic and prepare materials for the pedagogical process.

European Journal of Educational Research 795 Further research guidelines The study has raised several issues for follow-up studies on the PI approach in primary schools. First, it would be interesting to compare science knowledge and understanding gained in one subject between the control and experimental groups. Moreover, further research is also necessary to properly understand the impact of active learning through the PI approach on the retention of science knowledge, the motivation for science education, achievement in tests with science learning content, the long-term understanding of science concepts, reading abilities, and the contribution to a positive classroom climate in primary schools. Limitations Nevertheless, the present study on PI approach implementation has several limitations. The number of multiple-choice questions in the content tests was not equal for all content areas, and the number of diverse questions according to the taxonomy was not the same. Some possible answers were not of equal length, and some wrong answers were not convincing enough. Multiple-choice questions that caused difficulties for excellent students were also identified. The duration of two school hours of work with the PI approach in each content area was too long for the 4th graders. Working in groups of 3 or 4 students instead of pairs allows for more interactions. The formation of pairs might have also influenced the result. The sample was small. The result cannot be generalized to the basic set. Acknowledgements Authors are grateful to Mojca Čepič and Saša Ziherl for useful discussions and for their comments during the preparation of the paper. References Allen, M. (2010). Misconceptions in primary science. Open University Press. American Institute of Physics. (1998). Children's misconceptions about science. Brookhaven National Laboratory. https://www.bnl.gov/education/static/pdf/Childrens_Misconceptions_about_Science.pdf Arthurs, L. A., & Kreager, B. Z. (2017). An integrative review of in-class activities that enable active learning in college science classroom settings. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2073–2091. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1363925 Atasoy, S., Ergin, S. & Sen, A. I. (2014). The effects of peer instruction method on attitudes of 9th grade students toward physics course. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 6(1), 88–98. Balon, A., Gostinčar Blagotinšek, A., Papotnik, A., Skribe Dimec, D., & Vodopivec, I. (2011). Učni načrt, program osnovna šola, naravoslovje in tehnika [Curriculum, program of primary school, science and technology]. National Education Institute Slovenia. Balta, N., Michinov, N., Balyimez, S., & Ayaz, M. F. (2017). A meta-analysis of the effect of peer instruction on learning gain: Identification of informational and cultural moderators. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.009 Barrow, L. H. (2012). Helping students construct understanding about shadows. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 188–191. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v1n2p188 Buber, A., & Coban Unal, G. (2017). The effects of learning activities based on argumentation on conceptual understanding of 7th graders about “force and motion” unit and establishing thinking friendly classroom environment. European Journal of Educational Research, 6(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.6.3.367 Bulut, B. (2019). The impact of peer instruction on academic achievements and creative thinking skills of college students. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(3), 503–512. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.3.503 Campbell, R., & Schell, J. (2012, June 19). Does peer instruction work in high schools? Turn to your neighbor. The Official Peer Instruction Blog. https://blog.peerinstruction.net/2012/06/19/does-peer-instruction-work-in-high-schools- 2/ Correia, C. F., & Harrison, C. (2020). Teachers’ beliefs about inquiry-based learning and its impact on formative assessment practice. Research in Science and Technological Education, 38(3), 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1634040 Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fager, A. P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Harvard University. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249

796  PAVLIN & ČAMPA / Peer Instruction in Primary School Dawes, L. (2015). Discussion and science learning. In R. Gunstone (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Science Education (pp. 339– 346). Springer. Dewi, M. S., Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Ulfa, S. (2020). Analysis of kindergarten teachers on pedagogical content knowledge. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(4), 1701–1721. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.4.1701 Eryilmaz, H. (2004). The effect of peer instruction on high school students' achievement and attitudes towards physics. Doctoral Thesis. The Middle East Technical University. https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12604702/index.pdf Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4674-x_1 Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher 40(4), 206–209. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1474140 Geršak, V., Smrtnik Vitulić, H., Prosen, S., Starc, G., Humar, I., & Geršak, G. (2020). Use of wearable devices to study activity of children in classroom: Case study - learning geometry using movement. Computer Communications, 150, 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2019.12.019 Giuliodori, M. J., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2006). Peer instruction enhanced student performance on qualitative problem-solving questions. Advanced Physiology Education, 30(4), 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00013.2006 Glauert, E. B. (2009). How young children understand electric circuits: Prediction, explanation and exploration. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1025–1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802101950 Gok, T. (2011). The Impact of peer instruction on college students’ beliefs about physics and conceptual understanding of electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9316-x Gok, T. (2012). The effects of peer instruction on students’ conceptual learning and motivation. Asia-Pacific Forum of Science Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 1–17. Gok, T. (2013). A comparison of students’ performance, skill and confidence with peer instruction and formal education. Journal of Baltic Science Education 12(6), 747–758. Gok, T. (2014). Peer instruction in the physics classroom: Effects on gender difference performance, conceptual learning, and problem solving. Journal of Baltic Science Education 13(6), 776–788. Gok, T. (2015). An Investigation of Student's Performance after Peer Instruction with Stepwise Problem-Solving Strategies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(3), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9546-9 Grubelnik, V., Marhl, M., & Repnik, R. (2018). Determination of the size and depth of craters on the Moon. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 8(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.322 Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/doi:10.1119/1.18809 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Hickey, R., & Schibeci, R. A. (1999). The attraction of magnetism. Physics Education, 34(6), 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/34/6/408 Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601007549 Iverstine, W. (2010). Application of peer instruction in the high school setting [Master's thesis, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College]. Louisiana State University Archive. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2309&context=gradschool_theses James, J. (2013). Have words, will understand? Primary Science, 127, 10–13. Jarvis, T., Pell, A., & Hingley, P. (2011). Variations in primary teachers’ responses and development during three major science in- service programmes. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(1), 67–92. Kaya, S., & Kablan, Z. (2013). Assessing the relationship between learning strategies and science achievements at the primary school level. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(4), 525–534.

European Journal of Educational Research 797 Ketonen, L., Hähkiöniemi, M., Nieminen, P., & Viiri, J. (2020). Pathways through peer assessment: Implementing peer assessment in a lower secondary physics classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1465–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10030-3 Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features in peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9005-2 Kind, V. (2004). Beyond appearances: students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas (2nd ed.). Durham University, School of Education. https://edu.rsc.org/download?ac=15564 Kiray, S. A., & Simsek, S. (2020). Determination and evaluation of the science teacher candidates’ misconceptions about density by using four-tier diagnostic test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10087-5 Kolar, M., Krnel, D., & Velkavrh, A. (2011). Učni načrt, program osnovna šola, spoznavanje okolja [Curriculum, program of primary school, environmental studies]. National Education Institute Slovenia. Krnel, D., Watson, R., & Glažar. (2005). The development of the concept of “matter”: A cross‐age study of how children describe materials. International Journal of Science Education 27(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690412331314441 Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? The Physics Teacher, 46(4), 242–244. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2895678 Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year old college. American Journal of Physics, 76(11), 1066–1069. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2978182 Liu, G., & Fang, N. (2016). Student misconceptions about force and acceleration in physics and engineering mechanics education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(1), 19–29. Logar, A., Peklaj, C., & Ferk Savec, V. (2017). Effectiveness of student learning during experimental work in primary school. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 64(3), 661–671. https://doi.org/10.17344/acsi.2017.3544 Lucas, A. (2009). Using peer instruction and i-clickers to enhance student participation in calculus. Primus, 19(3), 219– 231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970701643970 Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Prentice Hall. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2013). The Impact of Reading Ability on TIMSS Mathematics and Science Achievement at the Fourth Grade: An Analysis by Item Reading Demands. In M. O. Martin & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), TIMSS and PIRLS 2011: Relationships among Reading, Mathematics, and Science Achievement at the Fourth Grade – Implications for Early Learning (pp. 67–110). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement . Olpak, Y. Z., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2017). Development of a student evaluation form toward peer instruction. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, (Special Issue for INTE 2017), 839–845. Pilzer, S. (2001). Peer instruction in physics and mathematics. Primus, 11(2), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970108965987 Pine, K., Messer, D., & St. John, K. (2001). Children’s misconceptions in primary science: A survey of teachers’ views. Research in Science and Technological Education 19(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140120046240 Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223– 231. Smith, K. V., Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Dimitrakopoulos, C. (2012). Developing scientific literacy in a primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.565088 Suppapittayaporn, D., Emarat, N., & Arayathanitkul, K. (2010). The effectiveness of peer instruction and structured inquiry on conceptual understanding of force and motion: A case study from Thailand. Research in Science and Technological Education, 28(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903513573 Susman, K., & Pavlin, J. (2020). Improvements in teachers’ knowledge and understanding of basic astronomy concepts through didactic games. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(6), 1020–1033. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.1020 Šestakova, J. (2013). Peer Instruction for the Age Group 12–15. ICPE-EPEC 2013 Proceedings Prague: Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University. https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/ws/files/5487483/5049463.pdf Šestakova, J. (2016). Case study of using peer instruction at upper secondary school. Scientia in Educatione, 7(2), 111– 127. https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.298

798  PAVLIN & ČAMPA / Peer Instruction in Primary School Tao, P. K. (1999). Peer collaboration in solving qualitative physics problems: The role of collaborative talk. Research in Science Education, 29(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02461599 Taštanoska, T. (2017). The Education System in the Republic of Slovenia 2016. Tiskarna Radovljica. https://eng.cmepius.si/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Education-System-in-the-Republic-of-Slovenia-2016- 17.pdf Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. (2007). Matematične in naravoslovne naloge za nižje razrede osnovne šole [Mathematics and Science Tasks for Primary Schools]. The Educational Research Institute. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. (2011). Naravoslovne naloge raziskav TIMSS [Science Tasks from TIMSS Research]. The Educational Research Institute. Thurston, A., Van de Keere, K., Topping, K. J., Kosack, W., Gatt, S., Marchal, J., Mestdagh, N., Schmeinck, D., Sidor, W., & Donnert, K. (2007). Peer learning in primary school science: Theoretical perspectives and implications for classroom practice. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5(13), 477–496. https://doi.org/10.25115/EJREP.V5I13.1242 Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. (2007). Fourth-grade elementary students' conceptions of standards- based lunar concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600779932 Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 5(2) 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevstper.5.020101 Tüysüz, C. (2009). Development of two-tier diagnostic instrument and assess students’ understanding in chemistry. Scientific Research and Essay, 4(6), 626–631. Ugur, G., Dilber, R., Senpolat, Y., & Duzgun, B. (2012). The effects of analogy on students’ understanding of direct current circuits and attitudes towards physics lessons. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(3), 211–223 Vickery, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. Life Science Education, 14(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198 Vogrinc, J. (2008). Kvalitativno raziskovanje na pedagoškem področju [Qualitative research in the field of education]. Faculty of Education.

SEMINAR Dilara Sahin and Rabia Meryem Yilmaz Presented by Pakhin Pankaew (102) Thanitnan Phosu (123) Chonthicha Khongloed (125) Wongsakorn Khumphusa (136) Advisor Miss Arunrat Khamhengpon, Ph.D 2 Group

YOU'RE INVITED TOPIC TTHHEE EEFFFFEECCTT OOFF AAUUGGMMEENNTTEEDD RREEAALLIITTYY TTEECCHHNNOOLLOOGGYY ON MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS ’ ACHIEVEMENTS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE EDUCATION DILARA SAHIN, RABIA MERYEM YILMAZ 15 March 2022 09:00 a.m. Online Seminar via Zoom SPEAKER Pakhin Pankaew, Thanitnan Phosu, Chonthicha Khongloed and Wongsakorn Khumphusa REGISTRATION : 095-671-8131 [email protected]

The effect of augmented reality technology on middle school students’ achievements and attitudes towards science education ผลการใช้เทคโนโลยีเสมือนจริงในการเรียนการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์ของนักเรยี นช้นั มัธยมศกึ ษาตอนตน้ ABSTRACT This study aims to investigate the impact of learning materials developed with augmented reality ( AR) technology on middle school students’ achievement and attitudes towards the course, and to determine their attitudes towards AR applications. In this study, a quasi-experimental design was used in which intact classrooms at two different schools, consisting of a total of one hundred 7th grade middle school students, were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control group. The experimental group completed the “Solar System and Beyond” module of their science course using AR technology, while the control group completed the same module using traditional methods and textbooks. Students in the experimental group were found to have higher levels of achievement and more positive attitudes towards the course than those in the control group. In addition, the results revealed that the students were pleased and wanted to continue using AR applications in the future. They also showed no signs of anxiety when using AR applications. In addition, it was found that academic achievements and attitudes of the students in the experimental group showed a positive, significant and intermediate correlation. Keywords: Improving classroom teaching Applications in subject areas Media in education Multimedia/hypermedia systems Virtual reality บทคดั ยอ่ การวิจัยคร้ังน้ีมีวตั ถุประสงค์เพื่อศึกษาผลของการใช้ส่ือการเรียนรู้ที่พัฒนาขึน้ ด้วยเทคโนโลยีเสมอื นจริง (AR) ที่มีต่อผลสัมฤทธิ์ทางการเรียนและเจตคติของนกั เรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาตอนต้นที่มีต่อวิชาวิทยาศาสตร์ และ เพื่อศึกษาเจตคติที่มีต่อการใช้เทคโนโลยีเสมือนจริง การวิจัยนี้เป็นการวิจัยกึ่งทดลองที่ใช้ห้องเรียนตามสภาพ จริงของโรงเรียนสองแห่งที่แตกต่างกัน กลุ่มตัวอย่างเป็นนักเรียนช้ันมัธยมศึกษาปีที่ 1 จานวน 100 คน แบ่งเป็น กลุ่มทดลองและกลุ่มควบคุมด้วยวิธีการสุ่มแบบกลุ่ม โดยในกลุ่มทดลองจะใช้บทเรียน AR ในจัดการเรียนการ สอน เร่ือง ระบบสุริยะ ส่วนกลุ่มควบคุมจะมีจัดการเรียนการสอนโดยใช้วิธีการแบบเดิม ผลการวิจัยพบว่า นักเรียนในกลุ่มทดลองมีผลสัมฤทธิ์ทางการเรียนที่สูงกว่าและมีเจตคติเชิงบวกต่อบทเรียนที่มากกว่ากลุ่ม ควบคมุ นอกจากนีน้ กั เรียนยังมคี วามพึงพอใจและตอ้ งการเรียนด้วย AR ต่อไปในอนาคต โดยนักเรียนไม่ได้แสดง ความวิตกกังวลเม่ือเรียนด้วยเทคโนโลยีเสมือนจริง และพบว่าผลสัมฤทธิ์ทางการเรียนของนักเรียนกลุ่มทดลอง มีความสมั พันธ์เชิงบวกกบั เจตคติตอ่ การเรียนอย่างมีนัยสาคัญทางสถิติ คาสาคญั : ปรับปรุงการสอนในห้องเรียนโดยประยุกตใ์ ชส้ ่อื ทางการศกึ ษา มัลตมิ เิ ดีย/ไฮเปอร์มิเดีย เทคโนโลยเี สมอื นจรงิ Original copy ลงชือ่ …………………………………….......……อาจารย์ที่ปรึกษา (อาจารย์ ดร. อรณุ รตั น์ คาแหงพล) นักศกึ ษาช้ันปีที่ 4 สาขาวิทยาศาสตร์ รหัสนักศกึ ษา 102 123 125 136 นาเสนอวันที่ 15 มีนาคม 2565 ลาดับที่ 2

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Computers & Education journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu The effect of Augmented Reality Technology on middle school students’ achievements and attitudes towards science education☆ Dilara Sahin a, Rabia Meryem Yilmaz b,* a Science Teacher in Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education, Turkey b Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology, K.K. Education Faculty, Ataturk University, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: This study aims to investigate the impact of learning materials developed with augmented reality Improving classroom teaching (AR) technology on middle school students’ achievement and attitudes towards the course, and to Applications in subject areas determine their attitudes towards AR applications. In this study, a quasi-experimental design was Media in education used in which intact classrooms at two different schools, consisting of a total of one hundred 7th Multimedia/hypermedia systems grade middle school students, were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control Virtual reality group. The experimental group completed the “Solar System and Beyond” module of their science course using AR technology, while the control group completed the same module using tradi- tional methods and textbooks. Students in the experimental group were found to have higher levels of achievement and more positive attitudes towards the course than those in the control group. In addition, the results revealed that the students were pleased and wanted to continue using AR applications in the future. They also showed no signs of anxiety when using AR ap- plications. In addition, it was found that academic achievements and attitudes of the students in the experimental group showed a positive, significant and intermediate correlation. 1. Introduction Changes in science and technology have affected the structure of societies and have led to rapid change in human profile. In order to adapt to the changing human profile, reforms in education as well as scientific and technological enrichment in educational envi- ronments have become necessary. In an era where the use of technology in daily life is rapidly increasing, effective use of technology in education has become important (Alkan, 1998). Since abstract concepts are frequently used in explaining nature and natural phe- nomena during science courses, supporting these courses with technology has become a necessity. In order to enrich students’ learning environments, it is important to amplify their visual and intellectual engagement through the use of technology, especially when explaining abstract and difficult concepts. The use of technology also allows students to perceive phenomena in science courses in a multidimensional manner, to interpret information better and to keep their attention on the course (Akpinar, Aktamis, & Ergin, 2005). Educational technologies in science teaching serve to improve the quality of science courses through effective scientific activities, ☆ This study was carried out as part of the master thesis (ID no ¼ 459513), entitled “Effect of Science Teaching with the Augmented Reality Technology on Secondary School Students’ Achievements and Their Attitudes towards the Course”. Also, a part of this study was presented at Future Learning 2018 conference in Turkey. * Corresponding author. Ataturk University, Kazim Karabekir Education Faculty, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Tech- nology, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (R.M. Yilmaz). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103710 Received 5 December 2018; Received in revised form 23 September 2019; Accepted 27 September 2019

D. Sahin and R.M. Yilmaz develop students’ reasoning skills in science courses, help students discover knowledge, enhance their problem-solving abilities and convey difficult-to-comprehend situations that are difficult to recognize in daily life (Karamustafaoglu, Cakir, & Topuz, 2012). It is important to provide technology-based instructional materials for students in science courses and to reorganize learning environments in accordance with students’ needs, thereby enabling them to learn through action and experience (Akpinar, Aktamis, & Ergin, 2005). An emergent technology, augmented reality (AR) was used in the study. Thanks to AR technology, it has become possible to prepare effective and interesting technology-based instructional materials. Students at primary school have difficulty fully comprehending complex abstract concepts. For example, basic astronomy concepts are abstract in nature, which interferes with students’ comprehension of the material and negatively affects their attitudes towards the course (Gundogdu, 2014). In order to overcome these difficulties, it is necessary to make abstract concepts in science more concrete through the use of visuals in teaching. As a result, a more meaningful learning environment can be designed in which enhanced achievement and the development of positive attitudes can be expected. AR plays an important role in embodying and visualizing abstract concepts in accordance with students’ comprehension levels, and in enabling the observation of phenomena that are impossible to encounter in real life (Arici, Yildirim, Caliklar, & Yilmaz, 2019). Considering the importance of AR applications, this study aims to investigate whether AR technology affects middle school students’ achievement and attitudes during their science courses. AR can be described as an interactive platform which presents a combination of virtual objects and the real world (I_bili & S¸ ahin, 2015; Milgram & Kishino, 1994). When a real-world image is taken with a camera, AR is able to attach virtual objects to pre-determined points in the image and interprets the output through specific programs (Azuma, 1997; Yilmaz, 2016; Yilmaz & Goktas, 2017). Since AR applications contain many virtual objects, it is used for educational purposes especially in three dimensional objects (Shelton, 2002). In educational contexts, AR technology increases students’ interest and motivation through the interaction between real and virtual worlds (Chen & Tsai, 2012). It is thought that the usefulness of AR in education lies in its ability to present complex information in easier to understand ways, teach subjects that are impossible to observe directly, demonstrate dangerous phenomena and objectify abstract concepts (Walczak, Wojciechowski, & Cellary, 2006). In the literature, there are many studies on the use of AR in science education (Arici, Yildirim, Caliklar, & Yilmaz, 2019). For example, Shelton and Hedley (2002) observed AR’s effect on undergraduate Geography students’ comprehension of Earth-Sun re- lationships. At the end of the study, it was concluded that AR technology positively affected students’ understanding of the subject. Another study, carried out by Kerawalla, Luckin, Seljeflot, and Woolard (2006), investigated the impact of AR on dialogues between teachers and students. They found that the experimental group which learnt via AR had better dialogues with their teacher and had to warned less about poor behavior during their lessons as they were more focused than usual. Additionally, Wang and Chi (2012) investigated the effects of AR on students’ satisfaction and achievement. Their data demonstrated that students’ achievement had improved and that they were satisfied with the AR system. Abdüsselam (2014) stated that AR technology would be useful in teaching magnetism in Physics courses. It was revealed that AR technology could enable visualization of the magnetic field and contribute to the concretization of the subject. Additionally, a study conducted by Wojciechowski and Cellary (2013) showed that students found AR-aided classes entertaining and enjoyed the application. They also found a strong positive relationship between attitudes and the use of AR applications. Di Serio, Iban~ez, and Delgado-Kloos (2013) investigated the effects of AR technology on students’ motivation. Results indicated that AR had a positive effect on middle school students’ motivation. Delello (2014) studied prospective teachers’ perception on the use of AR in science courses. In this study, it was found that AR applications positively affected the learning environment by increasing motivation, class commitment and the teacher’s excitement, and enabled the partnership in the implementation of the application. Cai, Wang and Chiang’s (2014) study also concluded that AR, as a computer-aided tool, had considerable integrative effects on learning. In another study, Erbas, 2016 used a mobile AR application on tablet computers in a 9th grade biology class. He investigated these students’ academic achievements and attitudes towards the course. It was concluded that the use of AR technology in courses enhanced student achievement and improved their attitudes towards the course. Yildirim, 2016 investigated the effect of AR applications on students’ achievement, motivation, perception of their own problem-solving skills and attitudes. In this study, there was two exper- imental groups which are students who learnt via computer-based AR applications and students who learnt via computer-based AR applications. Students who learnt via computer-based AR applications were more successful than those who learnt via tablet-based applications. The study also demonstrated that both experimental groups had higher motivation levels than the control group. Summarizing the studies about AR in the literature, it is seen that students’ attitudes, motivations, interests and achievements are frequently discussed. In general, a single variable was considered and there were few studies dealing with multiple variables. Addi- tionally, although various scientific topics have been covered in investigations on the impact of AR, the solar system has not yet been investigated in detail. Accordingly, this study aims to fill this gap in the literature. The main aim of the study is to investigate the effects of AR technology on middle school students’ achievements and attitudes towards the course, and to determine their attitudes towards AR applications. In parallel with the aim of this study, the following research questions will be answered. (1) Is there a significant difference between the academic achievement of middle school students using AR applications and those using traditional methods? (2) Is there a significant difference between the attitudes of middle school students towards their science course based on whether they learned via AR technology or traditional methods? (3) What attitudes do students who used AR technology have towards AR applications? (4) Is there a correlation between middle school students’ attitude towards AR, their attitude towards the course and their academic achievement in experimental group?

D. Sahin and R.M. Yilmaz 2. Method 2.1. Research model This study was based on a quasi-experimental design, which is a quantitative research method. A quasi-experimental design is adopted in cases in which experimental and control groups are not formed randomly; instead, they are formed with already-existing classes (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). In this design, the experimental and control groups are compared with each other based on a pre-test to determine whether the groups have equal levels of knowledge and achievement. If the knowledge and achievement levels are equal in both groups, one of the classes is chosen to be the experimental group that follows an intervention program. In this study, the students in the experimental and control groups were selected from intact 7th grade classes at two different schools. This was necessary because of the limited number of classes (one for each) in each grade in the district where this study was conducted. Students’ average grade in their previous science class was taken as their pre-test scores, which were compared using an independent samples t-test. This analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the mean values for the control group (M ¼ 68.00, SD ¼ 14.73) and the experimental group (M ¼ 68.38, SD ¼ 15.48), t(98) ¼ 0.126, p ¼ .900. Both groups took courses on the “Solar System and Beyond”, which is a unit in the science curriculum. While the experimental group completed this unit with AR technology, the control group completed this same unit with traditional methods and textbooks. In order to evaluate the experimental and control groups’ achievement and attitudes towards the course, the “Science Course Achievement Test” and the “Attitude towards Science Course Scale” were used. In addition, the “Attitude towards AR Activities Scale” was used to determine the experimental group’s attitude towards AR applications. All data collection tools were applied at the end of the implementation period. The research model is shown in Fig. 1. 2.2. Sample The sample of the study consisted of one hundred 7th grade students between the ages of 12 and 13 from two different public schools. They had never seen or used AR technology before. The demographic characteristics of the students are given in Table 1. In this study, convenience sampling was used. This method allows researchers speed and easy access to a sample. In addition, it enables researchers to access large sample sizes (Doymus¸, 2009). This sampling method was preferred since the selected schools were willing to participate in the study. The first school was selected because one of the researchers had been working there as a science teacher. The second school was chosen because of its contact and transportation facilities. In this context, 7th grade classes at these schools were assigned to either the experimental or control group. 2.3. Design of AR-Based learning materials Firstly, the topic, the “Solar System and Beyond”, was chosen because of its potential to attract students’ attention and draw their interest. Additionally, this topic involves many abstract concepts and there is no other way to objectify these concepts in schools. That Fig. 1. Research model of the study.

D. Sahin and R.M. Yilmaz Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the sample. Groups Girl Boy Total Experimental Group 24 26 50 Control Group 24 26 50 Total 48 52 100 leads to a decrease in students’ interest in the subject over time and also negatively affects their academic achievement. As the subject matter of the “Solar System and Beyond” is difficult to perceive and requires students to use their imagination and think abstractly, teaching should be concretized and enriched. AR-based learning materials were designed and developed by an expert with a degree in Computer Education and Instructional Technologies. These materials were prepared as an activity booklet, consisting of a total of 32 activities. The activity booklet contained training videos obtained from the Morpa Campus education web site (https://www. morpakampus.com), three-dimensional visuals of the planets in the Solar System, and information about the planets, other celestial bodies and important concepts. In addition, different exercises for in-class evaluation were also included in the activity booklet. The topic sequence of the activity booklet followed that of the course book given by the Ministry of National Education. 2.4. Main implementation process Over the course of four weeks (16 h), the subject was taught to the experimental group via the AR-based activity booklet, while traditional methods were used with the control group. In the experimental group, the topic was taught by the teacher with the AR- based activity booklet, the students participated actively in class and each student had the opportunity to use the booklet to com- plete the activities. During the lesson, virtual objects from the AR-based activity booklet were projected onto the board, enabling a synchronized learning environment in the classroom. The procedure followed during the implementation phase and associated visuals can be found in Fig. 2. 2.5. Data collection tools In the current study, the “Science Course Achievement Test”, the “Attitude Towards Science Course Scale” and the “Attitude to- wards AR Activities Scale” were used as data collection tools. 2.5.1. Science course achievement test This achievement test was based on a test developed by Arici, 2013 and was adapted by the researchers. The test consisted of 20 questions with a reliability coefficient of 0.73. The test questions were based on the Solar System and Beyond unit gains in the 7th grade Science and Technology curriculum. In light of these gains, a table of specifications was formed and questions reflecting each of the gains were created. There were 30 multiple choice questions in the final version of the achievement test. During the preparation process, questions from the Ministry of National Education’s terminal exams, course books and Ministry-approved test books were used. The final version of the test was reviewed by two science teachers and an academician whose expertise is in science education. Any problematic items were revised. The reliability of the achievement test was calculated based on the data obtained from the pilot implementation. If the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is between 0.00 α < 0.40 interval, the scale is not reliable; if it is between 0.40 α < 0.60 interval, the scale’s reliability is low; and if it is between 0.60 α < 0.80 interval, the scale is quite good (Doymus¸, 2009). As the achievement test’s Cronbach’s Alpha value is 0.678, it can be accepted as reliable. 2.5.2. Attitude towards Science Course Scale In the current study, the 20-item “Attitude Towards Science Course Scale” was used in order to determine the attitudes of students towards science course. It is a 5-Point-Likert scale and composed of 20 items. This scale was developed by Oguz, 2002 and its Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient is 0.85. Sample scale items include:  I like my science course.  I learn a lot of useful information in my science course.  I don’t like the course topics in science.  Science course is fun.  There are many unnecessary topics in my science course.  I always apply what I have learnt in science course.  I enjoy listening to topics related to science.  I love science experiments.  Science course is enjoyable.  I like answering science questions.  It gives me great pleasure to have a science course.

D. Sahin and R.M. Yilmaz Fig. 2. Implementation procedure and visuals from the AR-based activity booklet. 2.5.3. Attitude towards AR Activities Scale In this study, a scale developed by Kucuk, Yilmaz, Baydas, & Go€ktas¸, 2014 was used to measure students’ attitudes towards AR activities. This scale consists of 15 items that reflect 3 factors: satisfaction, anxiety and willingness. Satisfaction relates to students’ thoughts on whether AR technology is easy to use and useful for their learning. Willingness reflects students’ desire to use the technology in future. If students’ satisfaction and willingness levels are high, their attitudes towards AR technology will also be positive. Anxiety relates to any doubts about using AR technology that students might have. When anxiety level is high, students’

D. Sahin and R.M. Yilmaz attitudes are negatively affected. This scale was rated on a 5-Point-Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) and had an internal reliability coefficient 0.83. The lowest score on the scale is 15 and the highest score is 75. However, students’ scores were converted to a 100-point scale. 2.6. Data analysis In this study, descriptive and predictive analyses were conducted. Firstly, three values were identified as outliers and the extreme data were removed. Then, skewness and kurtosis statistics were controlled for each variable. It was observed that the data had normal distribution since these values were between À2 and þ2. Attitude was normally distributed, with skewness of À0.156 (SE ¼ 0.340), and kurtosis of À0.607 (SE ¼ 0.668). Achievement was normally distributed, with skewness of 0.010 (SE ¼ 0.340) and kurtosis of À0.942 (SE ¼ 0.668). Independent samples t-test was used in order to determine group differences. In addition, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine correlations between the variables due to confirming the assumptions of normal distribution. 3. Findings Within the scope of the study, the academic achievement levels and attitudes of the students were determined. Detailed information on students’ attitudes towards the course and the academic achievement of those in the experimental and control groups can be found in Table 2. Table 2 shows that students in the experimental group had both higher levels of positive attitudes towards the course (M ¼ 83.71, SD ¼ 7.385) and a higher level of academic achievement (M ¼ 81.69, SD ¼ 10.886) than students in the control group. 3.1. Is there a significant difference between the academic achievement of middle school students using AR applications and those using traditional methods? In order to determine for any significant difference between the students in the experimental and control groups in terms of their academic achievements, an independent samples t-test was carried out and the results are presented in Table 3. Table 3 indicates that there is a significant difference in the level of academic achievement of students between the experimental and control group (t ¼ 5.48, p < .05), such that students who use AR technology had higher levels of academic achievement compared to students in the control group. 3.2. Is there a significant difference between the attitudes of middle school students towards their science course based on whether they learned via AR technology or traditional methods? In order to reveal whether there is a significant difference in the course-related attitudes of students in the two groups, an inde- pendent samples t-test was carried out. The results can be found in Table 4. Table 4 shows a significant difference in students’ attitude towards the course (t ¼ 5.86, p < .05), such that those whose science lesson featured AR technology had more positive attitudes towards the course compared to those who learnt via traditional methods. 3.3. What attitudes do students who used AR technology have towards AR applications? Descriptive statistics were used in order to identify the experimental group’s attitude towards AR applications. The results are presented in Table 5. According to the results, students were pleased to use AR applications (M ¼ 4.55, SD ¼ 0.445) and they were willing to use them again (M ¼ 4.60, SD ¼ 0.638). These students also showed no anxiety while using AR applications (M ¼ 1.36, SD ¼ 0.619). 3.4. Is there a correlation between middle school students’ attitude towards AR, their course-related attitudes and their academic achievement in experimental group? Pearson correlations were obtained in order to determine the nature of the relationship between achievement, attitude towards the course and attitude towards AR applications for students who used AR technology. These results can be seen in Table 6. The correlations between the variables reveal that, for those in the experimental group, there was a significant positive rela- tionship, of moderate size, between academic achievement and attitudes towards the science course (r ¼ .553, p < .01). No significant Table 2 Attitudes and Academic Achievement of Students in Experimental and Control Groups. Groups N M SD Attitude Towards the Course Experiment Group 49 83.71 7.385 Academic Achievement Control Group 48 69.75 14.783 Experiment Group 49 81.69 10.886 Control Group 48 67.98 13.616

D. Sahin and R.M. Yilmaz Table 3 Differences between the Academic Achievements of Students. Group M SD t p 5.48 .000 Academic Achievement Experiment Group 81.69 10.886 Control Group 67.98 13.616 Table 4 Differences in the Course-Related Attitudes of Students towards Science Course. Group M SD t p 5.86 .000 Attitude Towards Course Experiment Group 83.71 7.385 Control Group 69.75 14.783 Table 5 Attitudes of students in experimental group towards AR Applications. Factor Min. Max. M SD Use satisfaction 3.29 5.00 4.55 .445 Use willingness 2.00 5.00 4.60 .638 Use anxiety 1.00 4.33 1.36 .619 relations were observed between attitude towards AR activities and attitude towards the course, and between academic achievement and attitude towards AR applications (p > .05). 4. Discussion The aims of the current study were to identify the effect of AR technology on middle school students’ academic achievement and attitudes towards their science course, and to determine their attitudes towards AR technology. In addition, another aim of the current work was to investigate the relationships between these students’ academic achievement, attitudes towards the course and attitudes towards AR applications. It was observed that the students in the experimental group had higher levels of academic achievement and positive attitudes towards the course than those in the control group. This significant group difference can be taken as evidence of the positive effect of AR technology. AR applications related to the “Solar System and Beyond”, one of the topics covered in the science course, were developed and implemented in the experimental group because students find this topic very interesting. However, as it contains mostly abstract concepts, students generally have difficulty learning the relevant concepts and fall through to achieve meaningful learning (Gundogdu, 2014). With the help of AR applications, however, students were able to see these abstract concepts physically through 3D virtual objects, achieve more meaningful learning, and consequently, greater academic achievement than those in the control group. A significant difference was observed between the experimental and control group in academic achievement, such that students who took their science lessons with AR technology scored higher on a science course achievement test than those who learnt via traditional methods. These results are in accordance with the relevant literature (Abdüsselam, 2014; Cai, Wang, & Chiang, 2014; Fleck & Simon, 2013; Liu, Tan, & Chu, 2007; Shelton & Hedley, 2002; Shelton & Stevens, 2004; Sin & Badioze-Zaman, 2010; Vilkoniene, 2009; Ozarslan, 2013). There are many reasons for the positive effect of AR technology on achievement. First of all, encountering this technology for the first time is a new and interesting experience for students (Yilmaz, Kucuk, & Goktas, 2017). Accordingly, with the experimental group’s increased engagement with the material, their level of success also increased. In the literature, it is stated that when new technologies are used in education, they attract students’ interest and increase their motivation towards the course. Thus, students are active during the learning process, which facilitates understanding of the content they are learning (Kreijns, Acker, Vermeulen, & Buuren, 2013; Kucuk, 2015; Shen, Liu, & Wang, 2013). Moreover, AR technology can be perceived as magic by students as it reflects the appearance of objects on a piece of paper (Billinghurst, Kato, & Poupyrev, 2001). The transformation of objects in AR applications is remarkable for students and draws their attention (Bujak et al., 2013; Wojciechowski & Cellary, 2013). This might also Table 6 Correlations between Academic Achievement, Attitude towards the Course and Attitude towards AR Applications for Students who Used AR Technology. Academic Achievement Attitude towards Science Course Attitude towards AR Activities Academic Achievement 1 1 1 Attitude towards Science Course .553** .174 Attitude towards AR Activities .076 **p < .01.

D. Sahin and R.M. Yilmaz contribute to students’ achievement. In fact, the experimental group’s greater achievement may be due in part to the 3D objects of AR technology. According to the literature, AR provides the opportunity to see objects in 3D and examine them completely, which is much more effective than learning with 2D objects (Wu, Lee, Chang, & Liang, 2013). Moreover, AR applications, created with adding audio, video and 3D virtual objects into the image of real world, are thought to objectify abstract notions, enable meaningful learning and render content more comprehensible, all of which positively affects students’ achievement throughout the learning process (Bujak et al., 2013; Kerawalla et al., 2006; Shelton & Hedley, 2002; Wu et al., 2013). Effectively, AR technologies facilitate students’ success because they make the course and its content more exciting (Mahadzir & Phung, 2013). Moreover, students actively participate in the lesson and ask the teacher more questions. (Delello, 2014; Sirakaya, 2015; Zhang, Sung, Hou, & Chang, 2014). Additionally, in the literature, it is stated that activities prepared with AR technology can be useful teaching material (Fleck and Simon, 2013; Matcha & Rambli, 2013; Medicherla, Chang, & Morreale, 2010; Nún~ez et al., 2008; Perez-Lopez & Contero, 2013; Sin & Badioze-Zaman, 2010; Tian, Endo, Urata, Mouri, & Yasuda, 2014). Depending on how these materials are used, greater efficiency in the learning process can be expected (Iordache, Pribeanu, & Balog, 2012). In conclusion, it is clear that AR positively affects students’ academic achievement. Differences in the experimental and control group’s attitudes towards the course were also investigated in the current work. Results indicated that the attitudes of students whose science lessons were taught via AR technology were significantly more positive than those who learnt with traditional methods. There are other studies with similar results in the literature (Cai et al., 2014; Delello, 2014; Liu et al., 2007; Martín-Gutierrez et al., 2010; Sumadio & Rambli, 2010; Wojciechowski & Cellary, 2013; Ozarslan, 2013; I_bili, 2013). For instance, a study carried out by Mejías Borrero and Andújar Marquez (2012) revealed that AR applications enhance students’ motivations. They also found that students have positive attitudes towards their AR-based course and find AR applications enjoyable and interesting. These results can be explained by the characteristics of AR. Specifically, AR is a new and interesting technology, sometimes considered to be magical, which some students will encounter for the first time in the lesson. All these factors may render the course more interesting for students and change their perceptions for the better. Also, learning with 3D objects attracts students’ attention. In the literature, it is stated that since AR uses 3D objects, students can observe these objects in a more concrete way and can experience learning by doing, which leads to more effective and permanent learning (Chen, Chi, Hung, & Kang, 2011; Wojciechowski & Cellary, 2013). AR applications offer extraordinary experiences to students, and thus, facilitate the development of positive attitudes towards the course (Kerawalla et al., 2006). It is thought that activities prepared with AR technology turn the classroom into a more enjoyable place and increase students’ attention. Indeed, many studies indicate how easily AR attracts students’ attention and interest in the course (Delello, 2014; Perez-Lopez & Contero, 2013; Tomi & Rambli, 2013; I_bili, 2013). Also, AR applications motivate students to participate in ongoing activities. AR technology is of great importance in encouraging an active learning process and associates the subjects with real life, which increases their motivation and positively affects attitudes (Delello, 2014; Tian et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2014). It is well-known that elementary school students have difficulty fully grasping abstract concepts, such as those prevalent in as- tronomy, the subject matter of the current study. The fact that students in the control group did nothing to overcome this difficulty, this may have affected their attitudes towards the course. In the literature, it is stated that students who face difficulties in courses can develop a negative attitude towards that course (Gundogdu, 2014). On the other hand, since the experimental group was equipped with AR-aided booklets and 3D visuals, they were able to concretize the concepts in their minds. As such, they comprehend the in- formation more easily than those in the control group, which facilitated the development of more positive attitudes towards the course. These results support an idea commonly reported in the literature, namely that AR is a great tool for teaching abstract subjects (Somyurek, 2014; Walczak et al., 2006). The attitudes of students in the experimental group towards AR applications was also examined in the current study. Results indicate that students were pleased and eager to use AR applications, and they did not show any signs of anxiety while using AR applications. Yusoff, Dahlan, and Kasım (2013) emphasize in their study that AR can easily draw students’ attention, making them very willing to use AR materials and participate in the course. Additionally, a positive correlation exists between perceived ease of use and intention to use AR technology (Chang & Liu, 2013). In fact, studies show that students want to use AR applications again, are satisfied with using AR learning materials (Gun, 2014; Taskiran, Koral, & Bozkurt, n.d.; Ozarslan, 2013), find AR easy to use, and that using AR does not provoke anxiety (Sin & Badioze-Zaman, 2010; Taskiran, Koral, & Bozkurt, n.d.; Tian et al., 2014; Tomi & Rambli, 2013; Ozarslan, 2013). Sirakaya, 2015 study concludes that students are able to use AR learning materials very easily and they are willing to use them again. Overall, these findings show that students do not face any serious difficulties while using AR technology. This was true for the students in the current study who were glad to use AR technology, want to use it again in the future and did not experience much anxiety related to its use. Problems related to external factors, such as the lighting, printing, image quality and other technical problems, occur sometimes during the use of AR technology. However, use of the AR application employed in the current study was supervised by the teacher, so technical problems were minimized or overcome during the course. It is important to note that, in addition to AR applications, other technologies that feature 3D models can also be used as teaching or learning materials. For example, virtual reality technology can be used in order to visualize abstract concepts. The main difference between AR and virtual reality technology is that AR is based on a combination of virtual objects in the real environment while virtual reality is based on the pre- sentation of virtual objects in virtual environments. As long as virtual reality materials and other similar technologies use 3D objects, the same positive results found here and elsewhere can be expected. Lastly, correlations between students’ achievement, attitudes towards the course and attitudes towards AR applications were examined in this study. A significant correlation between students’ achievement and attitudes towards the science course was observed. No other significant correlations were obtained. Thus, it can be concluded that students who learned science concepts via AR held better attitudes towards the course, and therefore, achieved greater academic success in the course. Based on the findings of the current work, the following suggestions are given:

D. Sahin and R.M. Yilmaz  AR-aided science teaching makes positive contributions to students’ achievement and attitudes towards the course. Positive out- comes can also be achieved via AR technology in different courses.  AR technology was used to teach the “Solar System and Beyond” module of the science syllabus. Students’ achievement was enhanced. Using AR to teach other topics in the science syllabus might also be beneficial.  The study was carried out with 7th grade students. Similar studies can be conducted with students in different grades.  AR applications are affected negatively by physical factors such as lighting, output quality and camera quality. Therefore, it is important to take measures to minimize the effects of these factors.  Within the scope of this study, the effect of AR technology on students’ achievement and attitudes towards the course were analyzed. However, its effect on the permanence of the knowledge acquired was not examined. This may be fruitful area for future studies to explore.  Keeping in mind that it is important to make use of this technology in convenient subjects and taking the FATI_H project carried out by the Ministry of National Education into consideration (MoNe, 2019), it is thought that implementation of AR technology in the classroom will be useful for further developments.  This study is limited by the fact that only a single treatment was applied and the focus was on a specific environment. In order to concretize and visualize abstract concepts and enable the observation of phenomena that are impossible to meet in real life, AR can be used for different course topics. Other technologies using 3D models would also be useful as teaching or learning materials. Funding No Fund. Ethical approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. References Abdüsselam, M. S. (2014). Teachers’ and students’ views on using augmented reality environments in Physics education: 11th grade magnetism topic example. Pegem Journal of Education & Instruction, 4(1), 59–74. Akpinar, E., Aktamis, H., & Ergin, O€ . (2005). Students’ views on use of educational technology in science courses. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(1), 93–100. Alkan, C. (1998). Educational technology and Conceptional dimensions of distance education. Ankara: AU Egitim Fakültesi Yayınları. Arici, F., Yildirim, P., Caliklar, S., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2019). Research trends in the use of augmented reality in science education: Content and bibliometric mapping analysis. Computers & Education, 142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103647. Arici, V. A. (2013). A Study on virtual reality Programs in science education: Example of “solar System and beyond: Space riddle”. non-published master’s thesis. Aydın: Adnan Menderes University, Institute of Science. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385. Billinghurst, M., Kato, H., & Poupyrev, I. (2001). The magic book-moving seamlessly between reality and virtuality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Application, 21(3), 6–8. Bujak, K. R., Radu, I., Catrambone, R., MacIntyre, B., Zheng, R., & Golubski, G. (2013). A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Computers and Education, 68, 536–544. Cai, S., Wang, X., & Chiang, F. K. (2014). A case study of augmented reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 31–40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.018/. Chang, Y. H., & Liu, J. (2013). Applying an AR technique to enhance situated heritage learning in a ubiquitous learning environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(3), 21–32. Chen, Y. C., Chi, H. L., Hung, W. H., & Kang, S. C. (2011). Use of tangible and augmented reality models in engineering graphics courses. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice, 137(4), 267–276. Chen, C. M., & Tsai, Y. N. (2012). Interactive augmented reality system for enhancing library instruction in elementary schools. Computers & Education, 59(2), 638–652. Delello, J. A. (2014). Insights from pre-service teachers using science-based augmented reality. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(4), 295–311. Di Serio, A., Iban~ez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68, 586–596. Doymus¸, K. (2009). Lecture notes on SPSS. Retrieved from https://kemaldoymus.wordpress.com/. (Accessed 24 March 2017). Erbas, C. (2016). Effect of mobile augmented reality Applications on academic Achievement and Motivation of the students. Non-published master’s thesis. Isparta: Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Educational Sciences. Fleck, S., & Simon, G. (Kasım, 2013). An augmented reality environment for astronomy learning in elementary grades: An exploratory study (Vol. 25). Bordeaux, France: Assertion presented in Conference Francophone Sur Interaction Homme-Machine. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education (4th ed.). London: McGraw Hill.

D. Sahin and R.M. Yilmaz I_bili, E., & S¸ ahin, S. (2015). Investigation of the effects on Computer Attitudes and Computer Self-Efficacy to use of Augmented Reality in Geometry Teaching. Necatibey Faculty of Education Journal of Electronics, Science and Mathematics (EFMED), 9(1), 332–350. Iordache, D. D., Pribeanu, C., & Balog, A. (2012). Influence of specific AR capabilities on the learning effectiveness and efficiency. Studies in Informatics and Control, 21 (3), 233–240. Gun, E. (2014). The effects of augmented reality on elementary school students’ spatial ability and academic achievement. Master’s Thesis. Ankara: Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences. Gundogdu, T. (2014). The analysis of the relationship between 8th grade students’ success and conceptual understanding of astronomy and their attitudes towards science courses. Non-published master’s thesis. I_stanbul: Marmara University Institute of Educational Sciences. I_bili, E. (2013). Development and implementation of augmented reality materials for the Geometry courses and the assessment of its effect. Ankara: Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences. Karamustafaoglu, O., Cakir, R., & Topuz, F. (2012). Investigating teachers’ attitudes towards using materials and technology in science courses. In 10th national education of science and mathematics congress. Nigde: Nigde University. Kerawalla, L., Luckin, R., Seljeflot, S., & Woolard, A. (2006). “Making it real”: Exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Reality, (10), 163–174. Kreijns, K., Acker, F. V., Vermeulen, M., & Buuren, H. V. (2013). What stimulates teachers to integrate ICT in their pedagogical practices? The use of digital learning materials in education. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 217–225. Kucuk, S. (2015). Effects of learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality on medical students’ academic achievement, cognitive load, and views toward implementation. Erzurum: Atatürk University Institute of Educational Sciences. Non-published doctoral thesis. Kucuk, S., Yilmaz, R. M., Baydas, O€ ., & Go€ktas¸, Y. (2014). Augmented reality applications attitude scale in secondary schools: Validity and reliability study. Education in Science, 39(176), 383–392. Liu, T. Y., Tan, T. H., & Chu, Y. L. (2007, July). 2D barcode and augmented reality supported English learning system. In Computer and information science, 2007. ICIS 2007. 6th IEEE/ACIS international conference on (pp. 5–10). IEEE. Mahadzir, N., & Phung, L. F. (2013). The use of augmented reality pop-up book to increase motivation in English language learning for national primary school. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1(1), 26–38. Martín-Gutierrez, J., Saorín, J. L., Contero, M., Alcan~iz, M., Perez-Lopez, D., & Ortega, M. (2010). Design and validation of an augmented book for spatial abilities development in engineering students. Computers & Graphics, 34(1), 77–91. Matcha, W., & Rambli, D. R. A. (2013). Exploratory study on collaborative ınteraction through the use of augmented reality in science learning. Procedia Computer Science, 25, 144–153. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-basedinquiry (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Medicherla, P. S., Chang, G., & Morreale, P. (2010). Visualization for ıncreased understanding and learning using augmented reality. New York, NY, USA: International Conference on Multimedia Information Retrieval’da sunulmus¸ bildiri. Mejías Borrero, A., & Andújar Marquez, J. M. (2012). A pilot study of the effectiveness of augmented reality to enhance the use of remote labs in electrical engineering education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 540–557. Milgram, P., & Kishino, A. F. (1994). Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321–1329. MoNe. (2019). Ministry of national education FATI_H project. Retrieved from http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr. (Accessed 12 June 2019). Nún~ez, M., Quiros, R., Nún~ez, I., Carda, J. B., Camahort, E., Mauri, J. L., et al. (Temmuz, 2008). Collaborative augmented reality for inorganic chemistry education. vd.. In 5th WSEAS/IASME assertation presented in international conference on engineerıng education, Heraklion, Greece Oguz, M. (2002). Effect of creative problem-solving method on achievement and attitude in primary school science courses. Master’s thesis. Ankara: Hacettepe University, Social Sciences Institute. Ozarslan, Y. (2013). Effects of the effect of learning materials that are enriched through extended reality on student’s achievement and satisfaction. Doctoral Thesis. Eskis¸ehir: Anadolu University Social Sciences Institute. Perez-Lopez, D., & Contero, M. (2013). Delivering educational multimedia contents through an augmented reality application: A case study on its impact on knowledge acquisition and retention. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 12(4), 19–28 Accessed on http://eric.ed.gov/?id¼EJ1018026. (Accessed 11 January 2015). Shelton, B. E. (2002). Augmented reality and education: Current projects and the potential for classroom learning. New Horizons for Learning, 9(1). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/itls_facpub/96/at 02/04/2017. Shelton, B. E., & Hedley, N. R. (2002). Using augmented reality for teaching earth-sun relationships to undergraduate geography students. In Augmented Reality Toolkit, The First IEEE International Workshop, (8). Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1106948/at 02/04/2017. Shelton, B., & Stevens, R. (2004, June). Using coordination classes to interpret conceptual change in astronomical thinking. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference for the learning sciences. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Shen, C. X., Liu, R. D., & Wang, D. (2013). Why are children attracted to the internet? The role of need satisfaction perceived online and perceived in daily real life. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 185–192. Sin, A. K., & Badioze-Zaman, H. (Haziran, 2010). Live solar system (LSS): Evaluation of an augmented reality book-based educational tool. In 2010 international symposium on information technology conference. Malaysia: Kuala Lumpu Convention Center. Sirakaya, M. (2015). The effect of augmented reality applications on students’ academic achievements, misconceptions and their participation in the course. Non-published master’s thesis. Ankara: Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences. Somyurek, S. (2014). Attracting Z generation’s attention in learning process: Augmented reality. Educational Technology Theory and Implementation, 4(1), 63–80. Sumadio, D. D., & Rambli, D. R. A. (2010). Preliminary evaluation on user acceptance of the augmented reality use for education. Proceedings of Second International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications, 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCEA.2010.239. Taskiran, A., Koral, E., & Bozkurt, A. (S¸ ubat, 2015). Use of augmented reality applications on foreign language teaching. In Assertation presented in Akademik Bilis¸im (Vol. 15). Eskis¸ehir: Anadolu University. Tian, K., Endo, M., Urata, M., Mouri, K., & Yasuda, T. (2014). Multi-viewpoint smartphone ar-based learning system for astronomical observation. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, 6(5), 396–400. Tomi, A. B., & Rambli, D. R. A. (2013). An interactive mobile augmented reality magical playbook: Learning number with the thirsty crow. Procedia Computer Science, 25, 123–130. Vilkoniene, M. (2009). Influence of augmented reality technology upon pupils’ knowledge about human digestive system: The results of the experiment. Online Submission, 6(1), 36–43. Walczak, K., Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W. (2006). Dynamic interactive VR network services for education. Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 277–286. Wang, C. H., & Chi, P. H. (2012). Applying augmented reality in teaching fundamental earth science in junior high schools. In Computer applications for database, education, and ubiquitous computing (pp. 23–30). Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W. (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education, (68), 570–585. Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers and Education, 62, 41–49. Yildirim, S. (2016). The effect of augmented reality applications in Science courses on students’ achievement, motivation, perception towards problem solving skills and attitudes. Non-published master’s thesis. Ankara: Ankara University Institute of Educational Sciences. Yilmaz, R. M. (2016). Educational magic toys developed with augmented reality technology for early childhood education. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.040.

D. Sahin and R.M. Yilmaz Yilmaz, R. M., & Goktas, Y. (2017). Using augmented reality technology in storytelling activities: Examining elementary students’ narrative skill and creativity. Virtual Reality, 21(2), 75–89. Yusoff, Z., Dahlan, H. M., & Kasım. (2013). Mobile based learning: An integrated framework to support learning engagement through Augmented Reality environment. In Research and innovation in information systems (ICRIIS), assertation presented in 2013 international conference. Kuala Lumpur. Yilmaz, R. M., Kucuk, S., & Goktas, Y. (2017). Are augmented reality picture books magic or real for preschool children aged five to six? British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 824–841. Zhang, J., Sung, Y.-T., Hou, H.-T., & Chang, K.-E. (2014). The development and evaluation of an augmented reality-based armillary sphere for astronomical observation instruction. Computers & Education, 73, 178–188. Dilara Sahin is a science teacher and completed master education at the Department of Science Teaching. Her research interest is augmented reality in science education. Rabia M. Yilmaz is currently an Associate Professor at the Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology. She has completed her Ph.D. degree in Department of Computer Education from Ataturk University in Turkey. Her research interests are in the computer-based instruction, augmented reality in education (PhD. thesis subject), 3D virtual worlds, instructional design, and research methods. She has lots of published papers in these fields.







Vol. 12(22), pp. 1074-1079, 23 November, 2017 Educational Research and Reviews DOI: 10.5897/ERR2017.3298 Article Number: 8584D6D66651 ISSN 1990-3839 Copyright © 2017 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR Full Length Research Paper Effectiveness of constructivist approach on academic achievement in science at secondary level Samaresh Adak Satyapriya Roy College of Education, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. Received 15 June, 2017; Accepted 13 October, 2017 The present study investigated the effectiveness of constructivist approach on academic achievement in science at secondary level using pre-test, post-test, experimental and control group design, with 58 samples grouped as experimental group (29) and control group (29) on the basis of matching by intelligence test. The investigators conducted this experiment over three weeks by using both traditional and constructivist 7E-model. The self-developed achievement test covering Class IX Textbook of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, India was used as tool. The study found that the students exposed to the constructivist 7E-model significantly achieved better than traditional method. In addition, students exposed to the 7E-model performed significantly higher than those exposed to the traditional teaching method in respect of their gained scores at every intelligence levels. The constructivist approach strategy is capable of improving student’s mastery of content at the higher order levels of cognition. It is therefore recommended that constructivist 7E-model strategy be used in science teaching for the development of student’s higher achievement in science at secondary level. Key words: Constructivist 7E-model, science, secondary level. INTRODUCTION to compare the difference between the traditional lecture methods with constructivist approach. Constructivist Education is a social process that changes society as teaching is based on constructivist learning theory which well as adult’s role of society, shifting responsibilities of has emerged as a prominent approach to teaching during education from parents to teacher and from family to this past decade. The work of Dewey, Montessori, Piaget, school. Societies change its effective use of education in Brunner and Vygotsky among others provides historical designing, developing, producing, implementing and precedents for constructivist learning theory. evaluating curriculum. It aids teaching learning process in Constructivism represents a paradigm shift from a classroom situation, increases both learning outcome education based on behaviorism to education to and students’ achievements, reduces students’ dropouts education based on cognitive theory. Behaviorist and burden, stress, anxieties and frustration. So today’s epistemology focuses on intelligence, domains of development of new teaching strategies is essential for all-round developments of students. This research aims E-mail: [email protected]. Authors agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License

Adak 1075 objectives levels of knowledge and reinforcement. Miheso (2002), Becker and Maunsaiyat (2004), Obiekwe Formalization of the theory of constructivism is generally (2008), Abu (2008), Hussein (2009), Hijazi (2009), attributed to Jean Piaget, who articulated mechanism as Bimbola and Deniel (2010), Ovute (2014) and Qarareh that by which knowledge is internalized by the learners. (2016) studied on science subjects and Daloğlu et al. He suggested that through process of ‘accommodation’ (2009) studied on language subject and have reported and ‘assimilation’, individuals construct new knowledge that students taught through constructivist approach from their experiences. scores higher than those taught with traditional method. The existing literature in science education is The Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) team inconclusive about gender achievement in science; along with its principal investigator Roger Bybee hence, there is a need to examine the role of developed an instructional model for constructivism, constructivist 7E model on the performance of male and called the 5Es which was recommended for science female students in science. Lin (1998), Panda (2005), teaching. In this model, the process is explained by Agrawal and Chawla (2005), and Satyaprakasha and employing 7 E’s. They are Elicit, Engage, Explore, Patnaik (2005) have reported that co-operative learning Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate and Expand. has a significant effect on student’s achievement in science and sociability among learners. Kim (2005) have Rationale of the study found that constructivist teaching is more efficient than traditional; also, ineffective in relation to self-concept and Throughout the world, science is one of the compulsory learning strategy but has some effect on motivation subjects in schools. Majority of students in schools anxiety towards learning and self-monitoring. Dhindsa ignored learning science due to lack of interest and and Emran (2006), Hijazi (2009), and Qarareh (2016) motivation that leads to low academic achievement in have reported that there was no gender difference in the science. Majority of teachers generally follow the mean achievement score for the constructivist group than traditional methods of instruction in schools. The traditional method. Pritinanda (2007) had found that icon conventional teaching method of teachers as sole model has no significant effect on achievement of information giver to passive students appears outdated. English, but a statistically significant effect on At secondary level, scientific concepts to be taught communicative competency like reading, writing and should comprise everyday experiences. speaking. Folasade and Akinyemi (2009) had concluded that constructivist learning technique is more efficient, Apart from simple experiments and hands on and also reported that there was no significant difference experiences, an important pedagogic practice at this between the performance of male and female students stage is to engage the students (in groups) in meaningful taught with constructivist approach. Saran (2011) investigations; particularly of the problems they perceive reported that low achiever students that learnt through to be significant and important. Indian Education constructivist approach had achieved significantly higher Commission (1964 to 1966) criticized that if science is score as compared to their counterpart that learnt by poorly taught and badly learnt, then it will become a traditional method for social science (Geography) subject. burden for the learner’ mind. Therefore, appropriate NCF-2005 has emphasized following constructivist method of curriculum transactions must be to inculcate approach in classroom so that students can construct scientific temper. Science inculcates the value of their own knowledge and understand the concept at creativity and logical thinking. Due to limitations of grass-root level. Ultimately their achievement will be traditional teaching, nowadays some skills such as enhancing. However, many research finding are in favor updating, practicing, criticizing and analyzing of of it. Based on this, the researcher wants to find out the knowledge gain importance. Constructivist theory thus extent of significant effect constructivist approach has on plays an import role in the field of education. student achievement in comparison to traditional method; hence it is worthwhile to study the effect of constructivist Secondary education is the base for future education approach on the achievement of physical science and it prepares students for higher education. In students. secondary level, science knowledge construction is very essential and welcomes constructivist approach (Icon- An analysis of all the above studies indicates that the model/7E-model) of teaching. Lee and Fraser (2000) application of constructivist approach during the teaching have reported that science students independently of science has been widely used. Majority of researchers perceived their classroom environment in a more have found that the constructivist approach of teaching is favorable light than students of other stream. Miheso better than traditional method of teaching in Biology, and (2002) revealed that girls achievement score is better in some Social Science subjects it is most significant but than boys by using icon model than traditional teaching it has no significance on English subject. It has been method. It is also found that other researchers (Jong, found that the low achievers students highly benefit from 2005; Peter et al., 2010; Nayak, 2010; Cakici and Yvuz, the constructivist approach. From the above analysis, no 2010; Enok and Joel, 2011; Saran, 2011) used the such study has been found on the effect of 7E-Model in constructivist approach in social science subjects; also,

1076 Educ. Res. Rev. achievement of students in physical science subjects in high achievement in physical science than traditional method. relation to intelligence and gender. The most important 2. There is no significant difference in achievement test score point here is that all the studies have been conducted on among High, Average, and Low IQ students through constructivist the English medium C.B.S.E. curriculum; hence the approach over traditional method of teaching in physical science. researcher aims to study the effect of constructivism (7E- Model) on academic achievement of secondary school Delimitations students in West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Bengali Medium) on the basis of intelligence. i) This study was conducted in Bengali medium Dakshineswar Adyapeath Annada Vidyamandir, (Bengali medium) of Kamarhati Statement of the problem Municipality, Kolkata, which is affiliated to West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. NCF-2005 has emphasized the following constructivist ii) The present study was conducted on 80 Class IX students only. approach in classroom so that students can construct iii) This study was limited to physical science subjects only. their own knowledge and understand the concept at iv) This study is a purposeful study limited to two lessons (from grass-root level. At secondary level, science knowledge physical science) of Class 9th science and other units not covered. construction is very essential and can be meaningfully achieved through the use of constructivist approach Study design (Icon-model) of teaching. Thus, the present study is aimed at examining the effectiveness of constructivist The design of study was quasi-experimental Pre-test, Post-test, approach on academic achievement in science at control group design). secondary level. Population METHODOLOGY Class 9th students of Dakshineswar Adyapeath Annada Operational definition of the key terms Vidyamandir were the population of this research. Constructivist approach Sample i) This refers to knowledge constructed by connecting new Purposive sampling was used in selecting Secondary School. 58 ideas/experience to existing ideas /experience. students were selected from two sections for the purpose of the ii) Here, the researcher has taken 7E-Model of constructivism for study. Section ‘A’ was regarded as experimental group and Section intervention. ‘B’ as control group. Achievement Tools and techniques i) This refers to performance of the students. Two types of tools have been used in this research, viz; i) ii) Here, achievement refers to the scores obtained by secondary Instructional and ii) Measuring Tool. school students in science before and after using constructivist approach. Instructional tool: This was in the form of unit-wise lesson plans based on 7E model of teaching. Moreover, other teaching aids like Secondary school students pictures, chart papers, models etc., were also used. i) The students studying in Class V to Class X are considered as Measuring tool: For grouping the students, Ravens Progressive secondary school students. Matrices was used. Measuring tools is in the form of teacher made ii) In this study, the researcher has selected Class IX students only. achievement test questions based on constructivist principles (7E- model). Objectives of the study Data analysis 1. To study the effect of constructivist approach over traditional method on students’ achievement in physical science. The data were analyzed by using appropriate statistical techniques 2. To compare the effect of constructivist approach over traditional like Mean, SD, SEM, t-test, ANOVA. method on students’ achievement in physical science with respect to their intelligence. FINDINGS Hypotheses of the study On the basis of the results and their interpretation, the following major findings were found 1. Students taught through constructivist approach gain significantly i) There was no significant difference between experimental and control group in pre-test [M1=7.1,

Adak 1077 M2=6.1, ‘t’-value is 1.042, significance value is 0.306, significant (0.003) at 0.01 level and for low intelligence, that is, no significant difference between two group at gain score mean difference is significant (0.005) at 0.01 0.05 levels]. In the present study, it is found that there levels. Since previous basic knowledge of high exists no significant difference between the mean scores intelligence students are comparatively higher with of students in experimental group and control group respect to average and low intelligence, high intelligence before intervention. From the above statistical analysis, it students scored high with respect to average and low is clear that mean of pre-test score of experimental group intelligence students in pre-test before interventions. But were slightly higher than the mean score of control group after intervention, achievement score is more or less but no significant difference found in students’ similar for all intelligence levels. Thus, the mean achievement in between both groups before difference of gain score (1.9) is lower with respect to interventions. average (3.42) and low (4.86). ii) There exists significant difference between the mean scores of students in experimental group and control There is no significant difference in achievement test group in post-test. From the comparison of achievement score among High, Average, and Low IQ students score of control and experimental group in post test the through constructivist approach over traditional method of mean difference between two groups in post test is 4.24 teaching in physical science. Variance (ANOVA) of and its ‘t’ value is 5.627 which is significant at 0.01 levels. experimental post test in relation to intelligence level is as So from mean difference (4.2) and significance value shown in Table 1. (0.000), it can be concluded that there is difference between experimental and control groups post-test ANOVA of experimental post test in relation to achievement scores, which arises due to different intelligence treatment, that is, by constructivist 7E approach and traditional approach. From the ANOVA Table 1, F-value is 1.856 and iii) Constructivist approach (7E-model) had significant significance value is 0.176 which proves that there is no effect on the achievement of class 9th students in physical significant difference in score among High, Average, and science than traditional method. Experimental group gain Low intelligence students. score mean is greater than control group gain score mean with 3.24, ‘t’- value is 4.387, and significance value Educational implications is 0.000, that is, there is significant difference between gain scores of experimental and control groups at 0.01 The study and its findings will be applicable for: levels). From both mean difference and significant difference it can be concluded that there is significant The most outstanding characteristics of any research is difference between the gain score obtained by that it must contribute something new to the development experimental and control group. Hence, it can be of the area concerned. The present study was conducted concluded that there is difference between experimental on regional medium students to find the effectiveness of and control groups post-test achievement scores, which 7E model of teaching in science. The result is useful for arises due to different treatment, that is, by constructivist teachers, curriculum planner, students, teacher 7E approach and traditional approach. From the mean educators, text book writers, researchers, corporate and values of experimental (10.38) and control group (7.14), government organization. 7E model can be used by a this research found that gain by experimental group is teacher as effective teaching methodology for difficult and higher than the gain by control group. Hence, it can be complex concepts; a model of learning that may also help concluded that experimental group gain greater the learners construct their knowledge in a meaningful achievement (constructivist 7E-approach) than control way as it gives enough scope for active participation and group (Traditional-approach). Thus, the stated hypothesis interaction in classroom with peers and teachers. is accepted. Finally, it can be concluded that Through 7E interaction, low intelligent students can get constructivist approach has significantly improved the better opportunity to acquire knowledge and comprehend achievement of students in science at secondary level. what they are learning. In addition, this model will create iv) Constructivist approach had significant effect on low a joyful learning environment between teacher and and average intelligent students by constructivist 7E- students. The implications can also be categorized as approach with respect to high intelligent students. Mean follow: difference gain score between experimental and control groups by low intelligent students (4.86) is higher than i) For learners: In general constructivist approach and in the gain by average intelligence students (3.42), which is particular, 7E’s model of teaching helps the learners also higher than gain by high intelligent students (1.9). construct their knowledge positively. It gives enough For high intelligence level, mean difference in gain score scope for active participation and social interaction in is not significant (0.281) at 0.05 level; for average intelligence level, gain score mean difference is

1078 Educ. Res. Rev. Table 1. Analysis of variance of experimental posttest in relation to intelligence level. Parameter Sum Squares df Mean Squares F-value Significance Between groups 0.176 Within groups 38.384 2 19.192 Total 268.857 26 10.341 1.856 307.241 28 classroom with peers and teachers. Through interaction, school students. Further studies can be conducted with students of all intelligent levels can get better opportunity other group of sample and also study can be conducted to acquire new knowledge, especially for low intelligent on school located at rural area process using students. They can develop the ability of analysis, constructivist 7E-model. divergent thinking, interpretation, ability, critical thinking 2) The study was conducted on students’ achievement in and scientific attitude towards science education. science at secondary level. Therefore, study can be conducted on the specific branch of science like on ii) Teachers: Teacher will benefit greatly by Chemistry, Physics and Biology at secondary level and understanding the constructivist approach of teaching also non science subjects required to be studied. which the findings of the present study handles. As such, 3) A study can be undertaken to know the effect of teachers need to encourage peer interaction, group constructivist approach on students’ self-concept and discussion, experimentation, field visiting etc. 7E’s model their learning process. of learning can provide such situation between teacher 4) In this study, only 7E’s Model has been implemented. and student. This model promotes joyful learning among Other models of constructivist approach Interpretation students in classroom situation by facilitating learning Construction model (ICON-model) may be taken up for process as a two-way mode of learning between learners the purpose of study. and teacher. The ideals of teaching learning process of 5) Problems and issues regarding assessment through teacher as a facilitator while students develop their constructivist approach is an emerging topic to potentialities after getting instructions from teacher is investigate for the present situation. what the study indicated. 6) The study also can be undertaken by taking larger sample and other context. iii) School administration: School atmosphere plays crucial role in managing the teaching learning process. Conclusions The administration of school has important role to develop a congenial atmosphere among teachers as well From the whole review, analysis and discussions, the as students. 7E’s model may create such situation where following conclusions can be arrived at: a learner can interpret the concepts in many ways and teachers always try to provide them appropriate learning 1) Constructivist approach is an effective learning tool, situation. Constructivist approach of learning brings better which has significant effect on the achievement in academic achievement of the students. For successful science concepts among all psychological groups of implementation of this strategy, the school administration students. should understand how learning need to be supported 2) Constructivist approach helps in achieving meaningful and provide all required learning resources to the learning in science concepts among Class 9th students. learners. 3) There is no significant difference in achievement test score among High, Average, and Low IQ students iv) Policy makers: The present study and its finding has through constructivist approach over traditional method of shown how the constructivist approach learning in teaching in physical science. science at secondary level enhance students’ achievement and this need is taken into consideration CONFLICT OF INTERESTS while framing the policies of school education to bring qualitative change. At the same time, curriculum planner The author has not declared any conflict of interests. may incorporate this strategy in curriculum planning and development and preparation of framework/guidelines for REFERENCES achievements of intended learning outcomes. Agrawal R, Chawla N (2005). Influence of cooperative learning on Suggestions for further research achievement. J. Indian Educ. 31(2):52-59. 1) The present study was conducted only on secondary Becker K, Maunsaiyat S (2004). A comparison of students’ achievement

Adak 1079 and attitudes between constructivist and traditional classroom Lee SSV, Fraser BJ (2000). Constructivist learning environment in environments in Thailand vocational electronics programs. J. Vocat. science classes in Korea. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED431611. Educ. Res. 29(2):133-153. Bimbola O, Daniel OI (2010). Effect of constructivist- based teaching Lin WJ (1998). The effect of reconstructing biological teaching by a strategy on academic performance of students in integrated science constructivist teaching. An Action Research online: at the junior secondary level. Educ. Res. Rev. 5(7):347-353. https/www.eric.ed.gov Cakici G, Yvuz E (2010), Comparison between Traditional Text-book Method and Constructivist Approach in Teaching the Concept Miheso OMK (2002). The relationship between interactive teaching and ‘Solution’. J. Res. Reflections Educ. 7:41-51. the acquisition of high order thinking skills in mathematics Daloğlu A, Baturay M, Yildirim S (2009). Designing a constructivist classrooms: The Kenyan experience. Afr. J. Educ. Stud. 1(1):73-79. vocabulary learning material. In R. de Cássia Veiga Marriott, & P. Lupion Torres (Eds.), Handbook of research on e-learning Nayak RK (2012). Constructivist pedagogy on Students’ Achievement in methodologies for language acquisition Hershey, P.A.: Information mathematics at Elementary Level, National Institute of Open Science. pp. 186-203. Schooling 12:1-15. Enok A, Joel TE (2011). Influence of constructivist approach in enhancing attitudes towards Computer Science at Higher Secondary Obiekwe CL (2008). Effect of constructivists instructional approach on Level. Int. J. Humanities and Soc. Sci. 2(5). students’ achievement and interest in basic ecological concepts in Folasade A, Akinyemi A (2009). Constructivist problem based learning biology (Unpublished M. Ed. Thesis, University of Nigeria). technique and the academic achievement of Physics students with low ability level in Nigerian Secondary school. Eurasian J. Phys. Qarareh A (2016). The Effect of using the constructivist learning model chem. Educ. 1(1):45-50. in teaching science on the achievement and scientific thinking of 8th Hijazi A (2009). The effect of constructivist learning in the teaching of grade students. Int. Educ. Stud. 9(7):178. science on the development of achievement and the creative thinking among preparatory stage graders. J. College Educ. 4(8):56-81. Hussein U (2009). The effect of using constructivist learning model in the teaching of chemistry on the achievement and critical thinking among secondary school students (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Sudan for Science and Technology, Sudan. Jong SK (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student. Eurasian J. Phys. chem. Educ. 1(1): 45-50. Kim JS (2005). Academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review Copyright by Education Research Institute 6(1):7-19.

Educational Videogame to Learn the Periodic Table: Design Rationale and Lessons Learned Members (Group 4) Prakatduean kinnasee 61101208105 Silata Netmaha 61101208117 Raphiphun Channoi 61101208129 Chananchai Thocharee 61101208133 Intira Bunphaen 61101208138 Advisor Dr.Arunrat Khamhaengpol A Report Submitted in the Requirement for Seminar in Science Learning and Teaching 21024304 Bachelor of Education (Science) Faculty of Education Sakon Nakhon Rajabhat University 2022

ขอเชิญเข้าร่วมรับฟั งสัมมนา EDUCATIONAL VIDEOGAME TO LEARN THE PERIODIC TABLE : DESIGN RATIONALE AND LESSONS LEARNED Traver, V. J., Leiva, L. A., Marti-Centelles, V., and Rubio-Magnieto, J. Speakers Science Education march 15, 2022 Faculty of Education 08:30 am - 17:00 pm Silata Intira Live on zoom meeting Prakatduean Raphiphun Contacts Chananchai 061-030-4973 [email protected]


Like this book? You can publish your book online for free in a few minutes!
Create your own flipbook