International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2015, Vol. 11(3) 32-49

Effects of an SWH Approach and Self-Evaluation on Sixth Grade Students’ Learning and Retention of an Electricity Unit

Esra Kabataş Memiş & Sabriye Seven

pp. 32 - 49   |  Manu. Number: ijpe.2021.005

Published online: September 25, 2021  |   Number of Views: 2  |  Number of Download: 25


Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of guided, inquiry-based laboratory activities using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach and self-evaluation on students’ science achievement. The study involved three sixth grade classes studying an electricity unit taught by the same primary school teacher. Before the study began, one class was randomly selected to be the control group, and the other two classes were selected to be treatment groups. In the control group, students were instructed using a traditional didactic approach. Treatment groups engaged in guided, inquiry-based activities via the SWH approach. One treatment group was randomly selected to complete a self-evaluation of their SWH reports. Data collection tools included a baseline test at the beginning of the study to establish three skill-based groups and unit-based pretests, posttests, and retention tests. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the electricity test was .91. Results indicated no significant mean differences among groups on pretest measures for the unit. Analysis of post and retention tests indicated that students in the SWH and self- evaluation SWH groups scored significantly higher than the students in the control group.

Keywords: science writing heuristic approach (SWH), guided inquiry, self-evaluation


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Memis, E.K. & Seven, S. (2015). Effects of an SWH Approach and Self-Evaluation on Sixth Grade Students’ Learning and Retention of an Electricity Unit . International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3), 32-49.

Harvard
Memis, E. and Seven, S. (2015). Effects of an SWH Approach and Self-Evaluation on Sixth Grade Students’ Learning and Retention of an Electricity Unit . International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3), pp. 32-49.

Chicago 16th edition
Memis, Esra Kabatas and Sabriye Seven (2015). "Effects of an SWH Approach and Self-Evaluation on Sixth Grade Students’ Learning and Retention of an Electricity Unit ". International Journal of Progressive Education 11 (3):32-49.

References
  1. Akdeniz, A., Bektaş, U., & Yiğit, N. (2000). The 8th grade students’ levels of understanding of the introductory physics concepts. Journal of Hacettepe University Education Faculty, 19, 5–14. [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, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrade, H.L., Du, Y. & Wang, X.(2008). Putting rubrics to the test: the efect of a model, criteria generation, and rubric- referenced self- assesment on elementary school students’ writing. Educational Measurement: Issue and Practice, 27(2), 3-13. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bağ, H., Uşak, M., & Caner, F. (2006). Metacognition. In M. Bahar (Ed.), Teaching of science and technology (pp. 249–276). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. M. Mirza and A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and learning, theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  6. Balcı, A. (2004). Research in social science: Methods, techniques and principles (4th ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem. [Google Scholar]
  7. Barman, C. (1989). Making it work. Science Scope, 12(5), 28–31. [Google Scholar]
  8. Burke, K., A., Hand., P., Poack., J., and Greenbowe, T., (2005). Using the science writing heuristic. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35 (1), 36-41. [Google Scholar]
  9. Çakıroğlu, A. (2007). Metacognition. Journal of Turkish Social Research, 11(2), 21–27. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cavagnetto, A. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in k-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80, 336–371. [Google Scholar]
  11. Çepni, S. (2005). Introduction to research and project work (7th ed.). Trabzon, Turkey: Pegem. [Google Scholar]
  12. Çepni,  S.,  &  Keleş,  E.  (2006).  Turkish  students’  conceptions  about  the  simple  electric       circuits. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 269–291. [Google Scholar]
  13. Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2007). Examining structure of science argument generated from the science writing heuristic approach across year 7 and 10 students. Paper presented at International Conference of European Science Education Research Association, Malmö, Sweden. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Davies,  P.  (2002).  Using  students  reflective  self-  assessment  for  awarding  degree      classifications. Innovations in education and teaching ınternational, 39 (4), 307-319. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2010).Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socio scientific issues in high school genetics. Science Education, 40, 133–148. [Google Scholar]
  16. Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. [Google Scholar]
  17. Eryaman, M. Y., Ozdilek, S. Y., Okur, E., Cetinkaya, Z. & Uygun, S. (2010). A participatory action research  study  of  nature   education   in   nature:   Towards   community-based   eco-   pedagogy. International Journal of Progressive Education, 6(3), 53-70. [Google Scholar]
  18. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. [Google Scholar]
  19. Grimber, B., I. (2008). Promoting high-order thinking through the use of the science writing heuristic.  In B. Hand (Ed.), Science Inquiry, Argument and Language (pp. 87-98). Rotterdam: Sense  Publisher. [Google Scholar]
  20. Günel, M., Akkuş, R., Hohenshell, H., & Hand, B. (2004). Improving student performance on higher order cognitive questions through the use of the science writing heuristic. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada. [Google Scholar]
  21. Günel, M., Hohenshell, L., & Hand, B. (2006). The impact of students' self-evaluations of the science writing heuristic: Closing the achievement gap. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. [Google Scholar]
  22. Günel, M., Kabataş Memiş, E., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on primary school students’ science achievement and attitude toward science course, Education & Science, 35(155), 49–62. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hand B. M., (2008). Introducing the science writing heuristic approach. B. M., Hand (Ed.). Science Inquiry, Argument and Language.( pp.1-11).Sense Publisher. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66, 27–29. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Jay, S., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in student inquiry, grades 5-10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E. (2004). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 131–149. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hewsen, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. International Handbook of Science Education, 1, 199–218. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty- first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hohenshell, L. M. (2008). Secondary students’ perceptions of the SWH approach to nonconventional writing:   Features   that   support   learning   of   biology   concepts   and   elements   of scientific argumentation. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic (pp. 99–110). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hohenshell, M. L. & Hand, B., (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education. 28(2), 261-289. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hsieh, J. K. (2005). Promoting students’ ability and disposition toward critical thinking through using a science writing heuristic in elementary science. Paper presented at the International Conference  of European Science Education Research Association, Barcelona, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kabataş, E., Günel, M., Büyükkasap, E., Uzoğlu, M., & Hand, B. (2008). Effect of the implementation of the science writing heuristic on students' understanding of electricity unit in sixth grade setting in Turkey. Paper presented at the conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kabataş Memiş, E., Günel, M., & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). Isı ünitesinin ilköğretim 6.Sınıf seviyesi öğretiminde yaparak yazarak bilim öğrenimi-YYBÖ yaklaşımının kullanılmasının öğrenci akademik başarı ve tutumuna etkisi [English translation]. Paper presented at the 18th National Congress of Educational Sciences, Izmir, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  34. Karasar, N. (2004). Scientific research method. Ankara, Turkey: Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining  performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871. [Google Scholar]
  36. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006).The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211–233. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö., & Günel, M. (2012). How does the science writing heuristic approach affect students' performances of different academic achievement levels? A case for high school chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 428–436. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö., & Günel, M. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Res. Sci. Educ., 43, 1645–1663. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kolb,  D.  A.  (1984).  Experiential  learning  experience  as  a  source  of  learning  and      development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ministry of National Education. (2006). Elementary science and technology curriculum (6, 7 and 8 classes). Ankara, Turkey: Author. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mohammed, E. G. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic approach as a tool for assessing and promoting students’ conceptual understanding and perceptions in the general chemistry laboratory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2010). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 9(5), 1111–1133. [Google Scholar]
  45. National  Research  Council  (NRC).  (1999).  How  people  learn:  Brain,  mind, experience,  and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999).The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576. [Google Scholar]
  47. Norton-Meier, L. (2008). Creating border convergence between science and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language (pp. 13–24). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  48. Norton-Meier, L., Nelson, S., Hockenberry, L. & Wise, K. (2008).Transforming pedagogy: Embedding language practices in elementary classrooms.In Hand, B. Science Inquiry, Argument and Language: The case for the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH). Rotterdam, the Netherlands:Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. M. (2008). The role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning.  International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1977–1999. [Google Scholar]
  50. Olina, Z., & Sullivan, H. J. (2004). Student self-evaluation, teacher evaluation, and learner   performance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 5-22. [Google Scholar]
  51. Omar, S. (2004). Inservice teachers’ implementation of the science writing heuristic as a tool for professional growth (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ozogul, G., Olina, Z. & Sullivan, H. (2008). Teacher, self and peer evaluation of lesson plans written by preservice teacher. Education Tech Research Dev, 56, 181-201. [Google Scholar]
  53. Prain, V. (2007). The role of language in science learning and literacy. In C.S. Wallece, B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom. (pp. 33-46). Science & Techonology Education Library, Springer. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ramsey, J. (1993). Developing conceptual storylines with the learning cycle. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5(2), 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rivard, L.P. (2004). Are language- based activities in science effective for all students, ıncluding low achievers?. Science Education, 88, 420-442. [Google Scholar]
  56. Schroeder, J. D. (2008). The laboratory-lecture correlation: From the science writing heuristic to the traditional organic chemistry laboratory. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science Inquiry, Argument and Language (pp. 165–176). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  57. Schwarz, B. B.(2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. M. Mirza and A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and learning, theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91–126). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sebba, J., Deakin Crick, R., Yu, G., Lawson, H. & Harlen, W.(2008). Impact of self and peer assessment on students in secondary schools. Research Brief. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sencar, S., & Eryılmaz, A. (2004). Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students' misconceptions concerning electric circuits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 603–616. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sungur, S., & Senler, B. (2009). An analysis of Turkish high school students’ metacognition and motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(1), 45–62. [Google Scholar]
  61. Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment task: Towars transparency for students and for tutors. Assessmnet & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26 (6). [Google Scholar]
  62. Tatar, N. (2006). The effect of inquiry-based learning approaches in the education of science in primary school on the science process skills, academic achivement and attitude. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  63. van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2010). Development of metacognitive skillfulness: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 220–224. [Google Scholar]
  64. Wallece, C.S. (2007). Evidence from the literature for writing as a mode of science learning. In C.S. Wallece, B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom. (pp. 9-21). Science & Techonology Education Library, Springer. [Google Scholar]
  65. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F.(2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. [Google Scholar]