International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2020, Vol. 16(1) 168-191

The Effect of Cooperative Reading- Writing- Application Method on Environmental Science Learning and Writing Skills Development

Seda Okumuş

pp. 168 - 191   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1912-13-0005

Published online: February 09, 2020  |   Number of Views: 93  |  Number of Download: 500


This study aimed to investigate the effect of the reading-writing-application method from cooperative learning on the understanding of environmental science. Intervention mixed method design was used. The quantitative part of the study was designed with pre- and post-test applied the quasi-experimental design. For the qualitative part of the study, writing reports of preservice science teachers were examined. 58 (31 experiment, 27 control group) third level preservice science teachers were enrolled in the study. To collect data, Environmental Achievement Test, the Scale of Cooperative Working Skills and group reports prepared by preservice teachers were used. The reliability and validity of the measurement tools were assessed, and the test and scale were finalized. In the study, the cooperative reading-writing-application method was found effective for learning environmental science course. According to the data obtained from the Scale of Cooperative Working Skills, there was no difference between the groups in pre- and post-views. According to the data obtained from the group reports, there was progress in writing skills of preservice science teachers.

Keywords: Cooperative learning; reading- writing- application; environmental science course; writing skills; cooperative working skills

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Okumus, S. (2020). The Effect of Cooperative Reading- Writing- Application Method on Environmental Science Learning and Writing Skills Development . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1), 168-191. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.228.13

Okumus, S. (2020). The Effect of Cooperative Reading- Writing- Application Method on Environmental Science Learning and Writing Skills Development . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1), pp. 168-191.

Chicago 16th edition
Okumus, Seda (2020). "The Effect of Cooperative Reading- Writing- Application Method on Environmental Science Learning and Writing Skills Development ". International Journal of Progressive Education 16 (1):168-191. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.228.13.

  1. Akçay, H., Özyurt, B.B., & Bezir Akçay, B. (2014). Çoklu yazma etkinliklerinin fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretiminde kullanılmasının öğrenci başarısı ve kavram öğrenmeye etkisi [The impacts of multimodal writing opportunities on science and technology teaching concerning student achievement and concept learning]. Bayburt Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 15-31. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akkuş, R., Günel M., & Hand B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: are there differences? International Journal of Science Education 29(14), 1745–1765. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aksoy, G., & Gürbüz, F. (2013). The effect of group research and cooperative reading-writing- application techniques in the unit of “what is the Earth‟s crust made of?” on the academic achievements of the students and the permanent. Balkan Physics Letters, 21, 132-139. [Google Scholar]
  4. Almedia, A., & Vasconceles, C. (2013). Teachers’ perspectives on the human-nature relationship: implications for environmental education. Research in Science Education, 43, 299–316. [Google Scholar]
  5. Armstrong, N.A., Wallace, C.S., & Chang, S.M. (2008). Learning from writing in college biology. Research in Science Education, 38, 483–499.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Artun, H., & Özsevgeç, T. (2018). Influence of environmental education modular curriculum on academic achievement and conceptual understanding. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 8(2), 150-171. [Google Scholar]
  7. Aslan Efe, H. (2015). Animasyon destekli çevre eğitiminin akademik başarıya, akılda kalıcılığa ve çevreye yönelik tutuma etkisi [The effects of animation supported environmental education on achievement, retention of ecology and environmental attitude]. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 3(5), 130-143.3(5), 130-143. [Google Scholar]
  8. Assaraf, O.B., & Orpaz, I. (2010). The “life at the poles” study unit: Developing junior high school students’ ability to recognize the relations between earth systems. Research in Science Education, 40, 525–549. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bay, E., & Çetin, B. (2012). İşbirliği süreci ölçeği (İSÖ) geliştirilmesi [Development of cooperative learning process scale (CLPS)]. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 1063- 1075. [Google Scholar]
  10. Belge Can, H., & Boz, Y. (2016). Structuring cooperative learning for motivation and conceptual change in the concepts of mixtures. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 635-657. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bermudez, G.M.A., Battistón, L.V., García Capocasa, M.C. & De Longhi, A.L.D. (2017).  Sociocultural variables that impact high school students’ perceptions of native fauna: a study on the species component of the biodiversity concept. Research in Science Education, 47, 203–235.  [Google Scholar]
  12. Bodzin, A.M., & Fu, Q. (2014). The effectiveness of the geospatial curriculum approach on urban middle-level students’ climate change understandings. Journal of Science Education Technology, 23, 575–590. [Google Scholar]
  13. Braun, T., & Dierkes, P. (2017). Evaluating three dimensions of environmental knowledge and their impact on behaviour. Research in Science Education, DOI 10.1007/s11165-017-9658-7. [Google Scholar]
  14. Büyüköztürk, Ş. Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, F. ve Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (Geliştirilmiş 13. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  15. Can, A. (2017). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi (5.baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  16. Can, D., Üner, S. & Akkuş, H. (2016). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin çevre okuryazarlıklarının belirlenmesi [Determination of the secondary school students' environmental literacy]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2), 23-35. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chin, C.C., Yang, W.C., & Tuan, H.L. (2016). Argumentation in a socioscientific context and its influence on fundamental and derived science literacies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 603–617.  [Google Scholar]
  18. Christidou, V., & Koulaidis, V. (1999). Children's models of the ozone layer and ozone depletion. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 421-436. [Google Scholar]
  19. Christenson, N., Rundgren, S.C., & Zeidler, D.L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44, 581–601.  [Google Scholar]
  20. Conner, L.N. (2007). Cueing metacognition to improve researching and essay writing in a final year high school biology class. Research in Science Education, DOI: 10.1007/s11165-004-3952-x.  [Google Scholar]
  21. Creswell, J.W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. (Trans. ed.) Sözbilir, M. 2017. Karma yöntem araştırmalarına giriş, Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  22. Çalık, M., Özsevgeç¸ T., Ebenezer, J., Artun, H., & Küçük, Z. (2014). Effects of ‘environmental chemistry’ elective course via technology-embedded scientific inquiry model on some variables. Journal of Science Education Technology, 23, 412–430.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Çokadar, H., & Yılmaz, G.Ç. (2010). Teaching ecosystems and matter cycles with creative drama activities. Journal of Science Education Technology, 19, 80–89. [Google Scholar]
  24. Daskolia, M., Flogaitis, E., & Papageorgiou, E. (2006). Kindergarten teachers’ conceptual framework on the ozone layer depletion. Exploring the associative meanings of a global environmental issue. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 168-178. [Google Scholar]
  25. Deniz, H., Donnelly, L.A., & Yılmaz, I. (2008). Exploring the factors related to acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: toward a more informative conceptual ecology for biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 420–443. [Google Scholar]
  26. Doğanca Küçük, Z., & Saysel, A.K. (2018). Developing seventh grade students’ understanding of complex environmental problems with systems tools and representations: a quasi-experimental study. Research in Science Education, 48, 491–514.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Ebenezer, J., Kaya, O.N., & Kassab, D. (2018). High school students’ reasons for their science dispositions: community-based innovative technology-embedded environmental research projects. Research in Science Education, DOI 10.1007/s11165-018-9735-6. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ergazaki, M., & Zogza, V. (2008).Exploring lake ecology in a computer-supported learning environment. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 90-94.  [Google Scholar]
  29. Fettahlıoğlu, P., & Aydoğdu, M. (2018). Developing environmentally responsible behaviours through the implementation of argumentation and problem-based learning models. Research in Science Education, DOI 10.1007/s11165-018-9720-0 [Google Scholar]
  30. Green, S.B., & Salkind, N.J. (2005). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh analyzing and understanding data. (5.edition). New Jersey: Pearson [Google Scholar]
  31. Groves, F.H., & Pau, A.F. (1999). Cognitive illusions as hindrances to learning complex environmental issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(4), 381- 390. [Google Scholar]
  32. Güngör, S.N., & Özkan, M. (2012). İlköğretim 7. sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersindeki insan ve çevre ünitesinin işbirlikli öğrenme yöntemiyle işlenmesinin öğrenci başarısı üzerine etkisi [The effect of cooperative learning method on teaching the unit of “human and environment” in science and technology course on the achievement of 7th grade elementary school students]. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 249-258. [Google Scholar]
  33. Günel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354–367. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gürbüz, H., Çakmak, M., & Derman, M. (2012). Çevre eğitiminde jigsaw tekniği kullanımının öğrencilerin akademik başarısına etkisi ve öğrencilerin bu tekniğe ilişkin görüşleri [The effect of jigsaw on students’ environmental education academic success and students’ views about this technique]. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(7), 1-12. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hashimoto-Martell, E.A., McNeill, K.L., & Hoffman, E.M. (2012). Connecting urban youth with their environment: the impact of an urban ecology course on student content knowledge, environmental attitudes and responsible behaviors. Research in Science Education, 42, 1007–1026.  [Google Scholar]
  36. Herman, B.C. (2018).  Students’ environmental NOS views, compassion, intent, and action: Impact of place-based socioscientific issues instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 600–638. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hokayem, H., & Gotwals, A.W. (2016). Early elementary students’ understanding of complex ecosystems: a learning progression approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1524–1545.  [Google Scholar]
  38. Jang, J., & Hand, B. (2017). Examining the value of a scaffolded critique framework to promote argumentative and explanatory writings within an argument-based inquiry approach. Research in Science Education, 47, 1213–1231. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jin, H., Hokayem, H., Wang, S., & Wei, X. (2016). A US-China interview study: biology students’ argumentation and explanation about energy consumption issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 1037–1057. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jin, H., Johnson, M.E., Shin, H.J., & Anderson, C.W. (2017). Promoting student progressions in science classrooms: a video study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(7), 852–883.  [Google Scholar]
  41. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T (1999). Joining together: group theory and group skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  42. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2014). Using technology to revolutionize cooperative learning: An opinion. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1-3. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kahraman, S. (2019). Evaluating university students’ understanding of atmospheric environmental issues using a three-tier diagnostic test. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 9(1), 1-17. [Google Scholar]
  44. Karpudewan, M., & Roth, W.M. (2018). Changes in primary students’ informal reasoning during an environment-related curriculum on socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 401–419. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kılınç, A., Yeşiltaş, N.K., Kartal, T., Demiral, Ü. & Eroğlu, B. (2013).  School students’ conceptions about biodiversity loss: definitions, reasons, results and solutions. Research in Science Education, 43, 2277–2307. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö. & Günel, M. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Education, 43, 1645–1663. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kiryak, Z., & Çalık, M. (2018).  Improving grade 7 students’ conceptual understanding of water pollution via common knowledge construction model. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 1025–1046.  [Google Scholar]
  48. Koç, Y., & Şimşek, Ü. (2016). İşbirlikli öğrenme yöntemlerinin 7. sınıf “maddenin yapısı ve özellikleri ünitesi” üzerine etkisi [The effectiveness of cooperative learning methods on 7th level “the structure of matter and properties” unit]. Bilgisayar ve Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(7), 1-23.  [Google Scholar]
  49. Lawwill, K.S. (1999). Using writing to learn strategies: Promoting peer collaboration among high school science teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia. [Google Scholar]
  50. Liampa, V., Malandrakis, G.N., Papadopoulou, P., & Pnevmatikos, D. (2017). Development and evaluation of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess undergraduate primary teachers’ understanding of ecological footprint. Research in Science Education, DOI 10.1007/s11165-017-9643-1 [Google Scholar]
  51. Liu, S., & Roehrig, G. (2017). Exploring science teachers’ argumentation and personal epistemology about global climate change. Research in Science Education, DOI 10.1007/s11165-017-9617-3.  [Google Scholar]
  52. Lombardi, D., Bickel, E.S., Bailey, J.M., & Burrell, S. (2018). High school students’ evaluations, plausibility (re) appraisals, and knowledge about topics in Earth science. Science Education, 102, 153–177. [Google Scholar]
  53. Marinopoulos, D., & Stavridou, H. (2002). The influence of a collaborative learning environment on primary students' conceptions about acid rain. Journal of Biological Education, 37(1), 18-25. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mandrikas, A., Stavrou, D., & Skordoulis, C. (2017). Teaching air pollution in an authentic context. Journal of Science Education Technology, 26, 238–251. [Google Scholar]
  55. McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education evidence-based inquiry (7th edition). Boston, Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  56. MEB, (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) [science education program (primary and secondary, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Degree). Ankara.  [Google Scholar]
  57. Meehan, C.R., Levy, B.L.M., & Collet-Gildard, L. (2018). Global climate change in U.S. high school curricula: Portrayals of the causes, consequences, and potential responses. Science Education, 102, 498–528. [Google Scholar]
  58. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. (Second edition). California: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  59. Moleón, M., & Sánchez-Zapata, J.A. (2015). The living dead: time to integrate scavenging into ecological teaching. BioScience, 65(10), 1003-1010. [Google Scholar]
  60. Okumuş, S., & Doymuş, K. (2018a). Modellerin okuma- yazma- uygulama yöntemi ve yedi ilke ile uygulanmasının maddenin tanecikli yapısı ve yoğunluk konularının kavramsal anlaşılmasına etkisi [The effect of using models with seven principles and cooperative learning on students’ conceptual understandings]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3), 1603-1638. [Google Scholar]
  61. Okumuş, S., & Doymuş, K. (2018b). İyi bir eğitim ortamı için yedi ilkenin işbirlikli öğrenme ve modellerle birlikte uygulanmasının 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen başarısına etkisi [The effect of implementing the seven principles for good practice with cooperative learning and models on 6th graders’ academic achievement in science]. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13 (25), 203-238. [Google Scholar]
  62. Okur Akçay, N., & Doymuş, K. (2014). The effect of different methods of cooperative learning model on academic achievement in physics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(4), 17-30. [Google Scholar]
  63. Özdilek, Z., Okumuş, S., & Doymuş, K. (2018). The effects of model supported cooperative and individual learning methods on preservice science teachers’ understanding of solutions. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(6), 945- 959.  [Google Scholar]
  64. Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Preservice primary teachers’ understanding of climate change, greenhouse effect, and ozone layer depletion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 299-307.  [Google Scholar]
  65. Puttick, G., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2018). Building systems from scratch: an exploratory study of students learning about climate change. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27, 306–321.  [Google Scholar]
  66. Rozenszayn, R., & Assaraf, O.B., (2011). When collaborative learning meets nature: collaborative learning as a meaningful learning tool in the ecology inquiry based project. Research in Science Education, 41, 123–146.  [Google Scholar]
  67. Schramm, J.W., Jin, H., Keeling, E.G., Johnson, M., & Shin, H.J. (2018). Improved student reasoning about carbon-transforming processes through inquiry-based learning activities derived from an empirically validated learning progression. Research in Science Education, 48, 887–911.  [Google Scholar]
  68. Shea, N.A., Mouza, C., & Drewes, A. (2016). Climate change professional development: design, implementation, and initial outcomes on teacher learning, practice, and student beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 235–258.  [Google Scholar]
  69. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69. [Google Scholar]
  70. Trauth-Nare, A. (2015).  Influence of an Intensive, field-based life science course on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for environmental science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 497–519.  [Google Scholar]
  71. Uluçınar Sağır, Ş., & Bozgün, K. (2017). Öğretmen adaylarının küresel ısınma ve sera etkisi ile ilgili bilgi düzeylerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of knowledge levels about global warming and greenhouse effect of preservice teachers]. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 8(30), 1777-1793. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ungan, S. (2007). Yazma becerisinin geliştirilmesi ve önemi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23, 461-472. [Google Scholar]
  73. Uyanık, G. (2017). Investigation of the attitudes towards environmental issues and knowledge levels of preservice teachers. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Faculty of Education, 36(1), 133-145. [Google Scholar]
  74. Varank, İ., & Kuzucuoğlu, G. (2007). The effect of learning together technique of cooperative learning method on students’ mathematics achievement and cooperative study skills. Elementary Education Online, 6(3), 323-332. [Google Scholar]
  75. Varela, B., Sesto, V., & García-Rodeja, I. (2018). An investigation of secondary students’ mental models of climate change and the greenhouse effect. Research in Science Education, DOI 10.1007/s11165-018-9703-1.  [Google Scholar]
  76. Weelie, D. & Boersma, K. (2018) Recontextualising biodiversity in school practice. Journal of Biological Education, 52(3), 262-270. [Google Scholar]
  77. Yılar, M.B., & Şimşek, U. (2016). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde farklı işbirlikli öğrenme uygulamalarının sosyal beceriler üzerindeki etkileri [Effects of different implementations of cooperative learning on social skills in social studies course]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 17(3), 835-854. [Google Scholar]
  78. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (güncelleştiriliş ve genişletilmiş 6. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  79. YÖK (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği lisans programı [Science teacher education degree program]. Ankara.  [Google Scholar]