COOPERATIVE LEARNING INSTRUCTION FOR CONCEPTUAL CHANGE IN THE

CONCEPTS OF CHEMICAL KINETICS

Ozgecan Tas-tan Kirik and Yezdan Boz

Received 30th September 2011, Accepted 28th February 2012
DOI: 10.1039/c1rp90072b

Learning is a social event and so the students need learning environments that enable them towork with their peers so that they can
learn through their interactions. This study discusses theeffectiveness of cooperative learning compared to traditional instruction in
terms of students’motivation and understanding of chemical kinetics in a high school chemistry course.
Participants were 110 eleventh grade students from two different schools. The researchersadministered the Reaction Rate Concept
Test to measure the students’ understanding ofchemical kinetics, the Science Process Skill Test to decide whether the groups were
different interms of their science process skills before instruction, and the Motivated Strategies forLearning Questionnaire to assess
students’ motivation for a chemistry course. Results of theexperiment showed that compared totraditional instruction, cooperative
learning enabledbetter understanding of the concepts of chemical kinetics and improved students’motivation to study chemistry for
both schools.

Cooperative learning based on conceptual change to teach chemical kinetics

How science educators should teach has been the central issue of many research studies for decades. The major goal of
science teaching is to make students capable of understanding the nature of the world by enabling them to gain knowledge (Hodson,
1992). Contemporary educators have to modify their teaching methods because the ‘‘. ... teaching of higher level reasoning and
critical thinking does not depend on what is taught, but rather than on how it is taught’’ (Ruggiero, as cited in Johnson and Johnson,
1994, p. 57). Thus, we ask the following question as science educators: ‘‘what is the best teaching method for my students?’’
Cooperative learning, which is founded on constructivism, is one of the methods used to foster active student participation during
the learning process. When students work in cooperative groups, they more frequently use higher levels of reasoning and critical
thinking skills to create new ideas and solutions compared to when they work in competitive and individualistic situations (Johnson
and Johnson, 1999a).
Besides the cognitive aspects, the motivational components of academic performance are also important to students’
classroom learning (Bryan et al., 2011; Pintrich, 2003). Motivational components involve students’ perceptions of the classroom
environment as well as their own beliefs, such as personal goals, self-efficacy, interests, and value beliefs. Research studies
indicated that positive motivational beliefs such as perceptions of high self-efficacy, a focus on the mastery of goals, high value
and interest in the task or content, and low levels of test anxiety are positively related to higher academic performance and greater
use of cognitive strategies (Bryan et al., 2011; Pintrich and Schrauben, 1992). In the present study, the Student Teams-Achievement
Divisions (STAD) method of cooperative learning was intended to promote conceptual understanding in chemical kinetics and to
improve students’ motivation for a chemistry course in terms of their intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, task
value, the control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy for learning and performance and test anxiety.

Theoretical background
Conceptual change and cooperative learning
Students may have acquired thoughts about some events or concepts before formal instruction in the classroom (Amir and
Tamir, 1994). Students’ conceptions or ideas that do not match scientific explanations are called alternative conceptions (Horton,
2007). Taber (2009) mentioned the multifaceted property of students’ alternative conceptions by stating thatthey may have different
alternative conceptions related to the same concept and may shift between different alternative conceptions to explain the same
context. Different arguments about the nature of alternative conceptions have been put forward in the related literature. Alternative
conceptions have been found to be consistent and coherent by some researchers (e.g. Driver and Easley, 1978; Vosniadou, 1992),
and fragmented, inconsistent and task specific by some other (e.g. BouJaoude, 1991; Solomon, 1992). In this sense, it is important
to consider the conditions such as nature of the science topics, ability and the ages of the learners and how the learners encounter
with the topic while interpreting about the nature of alternative conceptions (Taber, 2009). Once misinformation is located in a
person’s knowledge structure, new information is often distorted, and this distortion causes the reinforcing or retaining of the
incorrect idea (Vosniadou, 2001). If a scientific concept is not clearly expressed and explained, students are more likely to hold on
to an alternative conception that makes sense to them. As a result, every new term or theory will then be incorporated into that
flawed framework. For this reason, science educators must investigate students’ science related preconceptions.

Researchers have identified numerous alternative conceptionsin chemistry (Barke et al., 2009; Horton, 2007; Kind, 2004).
Chemistry is full of abstract concepts and is difficult to grasp for students most of the time. Chemical kinetics, which covers the
concepts of the rate of chemical reactions and factors affecting that rate, is one such topic. Research studies have indicated that
students have many alternative conceptions and face great difficulties in understanding chemical kinetics (BouJaoude, 1993; C ¸
akmakc ¸ i, 2010; C¸ akmakc¸ i et al., 2006;Garnett,et al.,1995; Griffiths, 1994; Kousathana and Tsaparlis, 2002). Therefore,it is
necessary to devise proper strategies to overcomestudent alternative conceptions. Table 1 shows common alternativeconceptions
of chemical kinetics reported in the literature and included in the Reaction Rate Concept Test (RRCT) used in the present study.
 Though students’ difficulties are mentioned in the relatedliterature, number of the research studies suggesting a teaching
strategy to enhance students’ understanding of chemicalkinetics have been very limited (Chairam et al., 2009; C¸ akmaki and
Aydog˘ du, 2011). At this point, it is important to work onan appropriate teaching strategy to motivate students fo rmeaningful
learning and to deal with their alternative conceptions.To promote meaningful learning, a conceptual change approach is an
alternative way to address students’ alternativeconceptions (Tsai, 2000; Vosniadou et al., 2001). Conceptual change is a slow
process where a learner actively judges newinformation with their existing mental models. Learners form initial theoretical
framework based on their daily life experiences and when they encounter new information, they actively begin to restructure these
initial mental models and they may form synthetic models which is the synthesis of the scientific knowledge and their initial model
(Vosniadou et al., 2008). We could say that students may keep holding their existing ideas while grasping a new idea, which also
reveals the multifaceted nature of students’ conceptions (Taber, 2009). Chi et al. (1994) also claimed that conceptual change is a
gradual process, where learners continuously make additions and revisions to their initial mental models. Chi et al. (1994) suggested
that concepts are connected with ontological categories. When a concept is learned, it is identified into a special category that will
aid the comprehension of its entity and attributes. In further learning, revision of the learner’s ontological categorization is
necessary. As distinct from the knowledge as theory perspective, DiSessa (2001) stated that fragmented unstructured pieces of
knowledge called phenomenological primitives are formed in the mind as a result of the learner’s experiences and conceptual
change is defined as the reorganization of this knowledge into coherent and stable network.
coherent and stable network.

Thagard (1992) states that conceptual change process can occur through judging the usefulness of different theories. The
one that has more value to explain the concept, that has explanatory coherence, should be the one that is preferred over the others.
Therefore, it is important to increase the status of the scientifically accepted view. Conceptual change model proposed by Posner
et al. (1982) also mentioned that it is necessary to increase the status of a conception by providing conceptual change conditions.
Firstly, learners should be dissatisfied with their existing ideas and the new knowledge presented has to be intelligible, plausible,
and fruitful. Vosniadou et al. (2008) stated that making students aware of the inconsistencies between their conceptions and the
scientifically accepted knowledge is essential in order to promote conceptual change. In addition to metaconceptual awareness,
theoretical coherence is also needed for conceptual change (Vosniadou and Ioannides, 1998). For the theoretical coherence, as
mentioned above, the scientific knowledge should be made more valuable for learners to explain the concept so that children will
prefer to use that scientific knowledge. Similar to the principle of theoretical coherence, Strike and Posner (1985) described the
conditions necessary to increase the status of the scientific knowledge as being intelligible, plausible and fruitful.

Besides to cognitive variables, affective variables should also be considered in conceptual change. (Pintrich et al., 1993;
Sinatra and Mason, 2008). During the learning process, learners should make an effort and be attentive, and they should be
encouraged to be actively involved in the course of action instead of being passive. Pintrich et al. (1993) offered four general
motivational constructs including goals, values, self-efficacy and control beliefs influencing conceptual change. Similarly, Gregoire
(2003) developed the cognitive-affective model of conceptual change in which the process of conceptual change includes learner’s
goals, prior beliefs and motivational factors.

Learning is a social event, and students should be provided with learning environments to work with their peers that can
also allow for their individual differences. Miyake (2008) claimed that sociocultural factors such as collaboration and discussions
were found to influence conceptual change since discussions may make students aware of the need to change their conceptions.
Vosniadou (2007) also addressed the importance of creating social environment in classwhere students have the chance to exchange
their ideas for conceptual change. Among the conceptual change strategies, cooperative learning was found to be effective in
enhancing students’ understandings (Acar and Tarhan, 2008; Doymus, 2007; Gijlers and de Jong, 2005; Graham, 2005; Mori, 2002;
Slavin, 1987). Cooperative learning requires students to work together in small groups to support each others’ learning and
understanding and to accomplish shared goals.

Table 1 A list of common alternative conceptions covered by RRCT

Reaction Rate
Students failed to grasp the fact that reaction yield and reaction rate are different concepts that are not directly related to each other
(Kousathana and Tsaparlis, 2002).
The reaction rate is zero at the beginning. Over time, the interaction of molecules increases, and as a result, the reaction rate increases
(Cakmakc¸ i, 2005).
As reactants are used up, the formation of product increases, and accordingly, the reaction rate increases until all reactants are consumed where
the reaction rate is constant (confusion of the reaction rate and the amount of product) (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
The rate of the reaction increases at the beginning of the reaction. When reactants are used up, the reaction rate drops and at the end of the
reaction, the rate is zero (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
The reaction rate is the time required for reactants to form products (Nakibog˘ lu et al., 2002).
The reaction rate is the amount of substance turning into products per unit time at a constant temperature and concentration
(Nakibog˘ lu et al., 2002).
The forward reaction rate always equals the reverse reaction rate (Garnett et al., 1995).
The students made the general statement that the ‘‘rate of reactions decreases as reactions progress’’. Thus, they tended to make
over-generalizations of principles and ignore some variables (e.g., the order of the reaction) (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
The rate equation is written according to the fast step or net reaction equation (Bozkoyun, 2004).
The reaction rate is equal to the product of concentrations of reactants (Nakibog˘ lu et al., 2002).
Reaction rate = DHproducts _ DHreactants so, if the rate of products is greater than the reactants, the reaction rate (DH) will be DH 4 0. If the rate of
reactants is greater than the products, the reaction rate will be DH o 0(C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
Factors Affecting Reaction Rate
Many of the students assumed that as long as certain factors (e.g., temperature, concentration or catalysts) were not altered, the reaction rate
Many of the students assumed that as long as certain factors (e.g., temperature, concentration or catalysts) were not altered, the reaction rate
would remain constant or remain the same during a reaction (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
When the temperature is increased, the rate of the endothermic reaction increases, but the rate of the exothermic reaction decreases
(Hackling and Garnett, 1985; Nakibog˘ lu et al., 2002; I˙cik, 2003).
Exothermic reactions occur faster than endothermic reactions (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
An increase in temperature (temperature change) does not affect (change) the rate of exothermic reactions. Since exothermic reactions release
energy, they do not need energy to proceed, and a rise in temperature would not affect the reaction rate (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
A rise in temperature would not affect the reaction rate because the reaction rate is independent of temperature. The reaction rate only depends
on the rate constant and molarities (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
Increasing temperature increases the time necessary for a reaction to occur (Nakibog˘ lu et al., 2002).
Increasing the concentration of reactants always increases the rate of reaction (I˙cik, 2003; Kingir and Geban, 2006).
A change in concentration does not affect the reaction rate (I˙cik, 2003).
There is a linear relationship between the concentration of reactants and the reaction rate (students did not anticipate the order of the reaction
or the role of the solid catalyst). They expected a higher rate from increasing concentrations of reactants (C¸ akmakc¸ i et al., 2006).
The volume of a container does not affect the reaction rate (C¸ akmakc
When the volume of a container is decreased, the kinetic energy of molecules increases (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
A catalyst only speeds up the forward reaction (Voska and Heikkinen, 2000).
A catalyst gives energy to a reaction; therefore, it increases the activation energy of the reaction (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
A catalyst is needed to initiate reaction (Kingir and Geban, 2006).
Most of the students confused reaction intermediate and the catalyst in the reaction mechanism (Bozkoyun, 2004).
The catalyst increases the average speed of the molecules (Kingir and Geban, 2006)
When a catalyst is used, more substances react (I˙cik, 2003).
A catalyst facilitates the collision of particles by interposing them (I˙cik, 2003).
A catalyst does not affect/change the mechanisms of the reaction (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
A catalyst does not react with any of the reactants or products (I˙cik, 2003; C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
Reaction rates are the same whether the reactant is granulated or powdered since the molarities are equal in both cases (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
Molecules of granulated MgO(s) are more strongly bonded to each other than those of powdered ones (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
The surface area of reactants doesn’t affect reaction rate (I˙cik, 2003).
Activation Energy
Activation energy is the kinetic energy of reactant molecules (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
The faster a reaction, the more energy is released (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
Temperature affects activation energy (Kingir and Geban, 2006).
Increasing the temperature increases the activation energy (Kingir and Geban, 2006; C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
The bigger the activation energy, the faster a reaction occurs (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).
Exothermic reactions have lower activation energy (C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005).

According to Vygotsky (1981), children learn through their interactionswith other people. They internalize skills and
knowledge experienced during these interactions and, ultimately, they usethose internalized skills and knowledge to shape their
own behaviors. Cooperative learning has also been used successfullyas a teaching strategy to help students learn to manage conflict
(Stevahn et al., 1997). Moreover, cooperative learning positively affects motivation when high-achievers and low-achievers work
together in a small group for group rewards (Gage and Berliner, 1992). Students feel good about making a contribution to the
welfare of others. Furthermore, Johnson and Johnson (1987) discovered that when a cooperative learning approach was used more
in the classroom, students learned science better, they tolerated differences more and they valued themselves more as science
students.
Several cooperative learning methods have been developed and tested over the last 30 years. One of these is the Student
Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), which is a simple and a good method to start for teachers who are new to the cooperative
learning (Slavin, 1995). Correspondingly, teachers participating in the present study were not experienced with cooperative
learning, so STAD was a suitable method for them to practice it for the first time. In this method, students are assigned to four-or
five-member heterogeneous groups with respect to academic achievement, gender, and ethnic background. The groups should be
heterogeneous in terms of gender, academic achievement and ethnicity so that they might represent the position of the classroom
in terms of these characteristics. Slavin (1995) suggested five main components for STAD: Class presentation, teams, quizzes,
individual improvement scores, and team recognition. The instruction starts with the teacher’s presentation. The teacher presents
the material by lecturing. The students are told what they are expected to learn and why it is important. The difference between this
approach and the class presentations of the traditional teacher-centered method is that students should understand that they must
carefully focus on the teacher’’s presentation because it will guide them during their group work, quizzes, and team scores, which
are determined by quiz scores. After the teacher’s presentation, team study begins. During group activities, group members work
cooperatively on the worksheets given by the teacher and master the material. After one to two teacher presentations and one to
two group work practice sessions, each student is given a quiz to be answered individually. Everyone must understand the material
well in order to get high scores on the quizzes. The group scores are calculated through these individual quizzes. The group with
the highest score is rewarded, which provides team recognition.
In cooperative groups, students sometimes have to deal with conflict, which leads to conceptual change (Crook, 1994, as
cited in Tao and Gunstone, 1999). Most of the models explaining conceptual change underline the role of cognitive conflict as a
main condition to establish conceptual change (Limon, 2001; Zohar and Aharon-Kravetsky, 2005). According to Brown and
Palincsar (1986), conceptual change is most likely to occur when situations creating dissatisfaction with existing knowledge are
provided; by contrast, change is unlikely when the status quo goes unquestioned. Teaching strategies supporting questioning,
evaluating, and criticizing are thought to be fruitful breeding grounds for restructuring student thinking. Dissatisfaction enables
mental experimentation; evaluation leads to uncertainty, and group settings are amenable to increased questioning and criticism
(Hatano, 1982; Inagaki and Hatano, 1983). When one is required to explain, elaborate or guard one’s position to others (or
sometimes to oneself), change in mental structure is inevitable.
One of the common strategies for conceptual change is to create environments invoking disequilibration or cognitive
(Piaget, 1985). Johnson and Johnson (1999b) stated that the more positive interdependence that exists within a cooperative learning
group, the greater the likelihood of intellectual disagreement and conflict among group members. When students work in
cooperative groups, their different perceptions, information, opinions, and conclusions will cause intellectual disagreement and
conflict. When they face such opposition, they may manage the situation constructively, depending on their interpersonal and small-
group skills. As a result, students experience better mastery and retention of the material being discussed and the frequent use of
higherorder thinking skills. On the other hand, students working in competitive or individualistic situations do not have the chance
to encounter such an intellectual challenge, and, consequently, their achievement and quality of reasoning suffer. To encourage
group productivity, some conflict may be supportive for comparing ideas to reach solutions or create products.

The motivational aspect of cooperative learning

Motivation is the inner force that drives people to attain personal or organizational goals and objectives (Lindner, 1998); it
is highly valued due to its consequences. Teachers, managers and coaches are concerned with motivation because it generates
results. The motivational systems enhancing learning within cooperative environments include extrinsic motivation and intrinsic
motivation.
Extrinsic motivation occurs when the source of motivation is outside of the individual and the task being performed
(Ormrod, 1999; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996). Extrinsically motivated individuals work on tasks because they believe that the
contribution will result in desirable outcomes such as a reward, teacher praise and so on. Slavin (1995) claimed that cooperative
learning improves motivation through the use of group goals and group reward; this is extrinsic motivation. Motivational
perspectives on cooperative learning mainly concentrate on the reward or goal structures that students operate (Slavin, 1977, 1983,
1995). From a motivationalist perspective (e.g., Johnson and Johnson, 1992; Slavin, 1995), cooperative goal structures (as opposed
to competitive or individualistic goal structures) necessitate that the only way group members can achieve their own personal goals
is if the group is successful. Thus, in order to reach his or her own personal goals, a student, as a group member, must support
group mates in order to exercise maximum efforts to master the task. Rewarding groups depending on their performance facilitates
an interpersonal reward structure in which group members will provide or hold back reinforcers (such as praise and encouragement)
in response to the efforts of group members (Slavin, 1995). In cooperative classrooms, in contrast to a traditional environment,
students that work hard, attend class regularly and help others learn are praised and appreciated by group mates. Rewards in
cooperative learning contribute to the motivation of students to improve their academic success because rewards allow students to
value the success of the group; thus, students encourage and assist each other to achieve (Slavin, 1995).
Another type of motivational system that promotes learning within cooperative learning situations is intrinsic motivation
(Johnson and Johnson, 1999a; Johnson et al., 1991). Intrinsic motivation exists when the source of motivation lies within the
individual and the task; the individual engages in activity for its own sake (Ormrod, 1999; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996). Intrinsically
motivated students work on tasks because they find the task enjoyable and valuable. When cooperative learning situations are
organized well, the class usually has a positive emotional climate, in which the students are willing to participate in tasks with
greater social support, such as assistance, encouragement and caring. These components have an effect on students’ learning.
Student comprehension of subject matter increases, and they feel more confident about their knowledge. The students develop more
positive attitudes toward learning and perceive their learning as interesting, which improves their intrinsic motivation to learn.
These aspects influence each other and promote student learning.
Reviews of cooperative learning research (Cohen, 1994; Qin et al., 1995) have indicated that cooperative learning increases
and improves achievement, positive attitudes toward the subject area, self-esteem, and conceptual development. According to
Johnson and Johnson (1999b), working in cooperative groups and valuing cooperation brings about better psychological health and
self-esteem than does competing with classmates or working alone. When students work together to complete assignments, they
interact (developing social skills and competencies), encourage each other’s success (increasing self-worth), and structure personal
and professional relationships (building the base for healthy social development). Working cooperatively improves personal ego-
strength, self-confidence, independence, and autonomy. Therefore, students have the opportunity to share and solve personal
problems, which enhances an individual’s resistance and ability to deal with trouble and stress. Cooperative experiences are
necessary for the healthy social and psychological development of individuals who can act independently.
In light of related literature, it can be concluded that students’ prior knowledge and alternative conceptions strongly
influence their learning, and higher motivation enhances learning. In chemistry, chemical kinetics is important in order for students
to understand how reactions occur (collision theory) and by which factors their rates are influenced. In addition, chemical kinetics
underlies the concept of chemical equilibrium, which is also among the most difficult topics in chemistry for students to understand.
Thus, it is necessary to design a suitable teaching strategy other than the traditional method to deal with these alternative conceptions
and promote students’ understanding.
Based on the theoretical principles presented in this section, cooperative learning seems to be a reasonable method or
strategy to teach a subject and improve students’ understanding and motivation. On the other hand, more research studies on the
effectiveness of cooperative learning based on conceptual change to enhance students’ conceptions and motivation are necessary.
Therefore, the aim of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of cooperative learning based on conceptual change to
teach chemical kinetics and motivate the students to learn chemistry. Correspondingly, this study searched for information to
answer following questions:
1. Will cooperative learning based on conceptual change strategy enhance secondary school students’ learning of chemical
kinetics?
2. Will students instructed by cooperative learning based on the conceptual change method be more motivated in their chemistry
course?

Materials and methods

Four eleventh grade classes, 110 students in total, participated in the study over a period of six weeks. The classes were from two
different schools in Turkey; one was an Anatolian high school and the other was an ordinary high school (59 students from
Anatolian high school and 51 students from ordinary state high school). Students in the Anatolian school were considered to be
brighter than the students in the ordinary high school since they were accepted to that school based on higher grades received on a
nationwide exam. These schools were selected based on convenient sampling. The teachers were willing to implement a new
strategy in their classes and they were known by the researchers, and their teaching styles were similar. Moreover, reason of
including two different schools in the study was to increase the sample size. There were only two classes of 11th grades for each
school. Therefore, the study was implemented in different schools. One teacher from each school, who had two classes as one
experimental and one control class, taught the students. As a result, there were two experimental classes and two control classes.
Two classrooms from each school were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. It was not possible to assign
the individuals to experimental and control group randomly since the school administration had already formed the classrooms at
the beginning of the semester. Therefore, from the Anatolian high school, one class was assigned randomly as experimental group
and one class as control group. Similarly, from the other school, one class was assigned randomly as experimental group and one
class as control group. The students were ages 16–17. The teachers had nine and 11 years of teaching experience and similar
chemistry content backgrounds. The pattern of the intervention and the comparison for each school is given in Fig. 1.

Instruments
Reaction rate concept test (RRCT). This test was administered as a pre-test to examine the pre-knowledge of the experimental and
control group. The test was also administered as a post-test to determine the effectiveness of cooperative learning based on
conceptual change conditions on addressing students’ alternative conceptions related to chemical kinetics. An internal validity
threat, testing effect (pretest sensitization), which implies higher scores on post-test because of having a pretest was controlled by
pretesting both experimental and control groups (Gay and Airasian, 2000). RRCT was developed by the researchers. While some
questions were designed by the researchers, others were adapted from I˙cik (2003) and C¸ akmakc¸ i (2005) in order to specifically
addressstudents’ alternative conceptions and difficulties.

The instrument is composed of two sections; the first section contains 16 two-tier items, and the second section contains 7
multiple-choice items in Turkish. The items of two-tier multiple choice instruments are specifically designed to discover
alternative conceptions in a clearly defined content area. In a two-tier item, there are two parts. The first part consists of two or
three choices to be selected. In the second part, students are expected to give their reasoning about their answer in the first part by
selecting among four alternatives. The alternatives in the second part are prepared based on the students’ alternative conceptions.
As Treagust (1987) stated, the second part of two-tier tests involves four alternatives consisting of alternative conceptions,
incorrect statements and a correct alternative. Correspondingly, the multiple choice items in the second section were prepared
based on students’ alternative conceptions derived from research studies in the literature (Bozkoyun, 2004; C¸ akmakc¸ i, 2005;
C¸ akmakc¸ i et al.,2006; Garnett et al., 1995; Haim, 1989; I˙cik, 2003; Kingir andGeban, 2006; Nakibog˘ lu et al., 2002).

The test covered chemical kinetics concepts including reactionrate, collision theory, activation energy, heat of reaction, potential
energy diagrams, reaction mechanisms, rate equations and orders and the factors affecting reaction rate (concentration,
temperature, surface area, and catalyst). Test items were developed through the examination of related literature (I˙cik, 2003;
C¸akmakc¸ i, 2005), chemistry textbooks (e.g., Ebbing and Gammon, 1999) and several high school test books. Each item of
RRCT was examined by four chemistry educators and two chemistry teachers in order to assess its content validity, accuracy,
and format. RRCT was piloted to 203 students who had already learned the reaction rate concept from different schools during
the 11th grade. Based on the reliability analysis, some of the items’ alternatives were altered, while some of the items were
excluded from the test. It was piloted again in its final form to 251 high school students who had learned chemical kinetics
before. The reliability coefficient of the test by the KR-20 Formula was found to be 0.78. Some examples of items from RRCT
are given in the Appendix A.
Science process skill test (SPST). This test, which was developed by Okey, Wise and Burns (1982), is composed of 36 multiple-
choice items measuring five skills: identifying variables, operationally defining variables, identifying appropriate hypotheses,
interpreting data and designing experiments. Strawitz (1989) found a reliability of 0.89 (Cronbach’s alpha) for this instrument. She
also stated that it had satisfactory content validity. It was adapted into Turkish by Geban et al. (1992). The reliability of the test
was found to be 0.85 for the Turkish version (Geban et al., 1992). Blosser (1975) stated that science process skills contribute to
students’ success in education. Moreover, Brotherton and Preece (1995) claimed that there is a close link between cognitive
development and science process skills. Most science alternative conceptions among secondary school students were related to the
lack of formal reasoning patterns such as the isolation and control of variables, probabilistic thinking, and the schema of proportion.
Science process skills cannot be separated from the conceptual understanding involved in learning and applying science. Science
process skills are a means of understanding science and also a major goal of science education. Science learning must engage
students in activities that call for a higher cognitive stage (Harlen, 1999). Therefore, it is necessary to control students’ science
process skills while investigating improvement in their RRCT scores. For this reason, SPST was administered as a pre-test to both
groups in order to control for its influence on students’ understanding of reaction rate.

Motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). This questionnaire was constructed by Pintrich et al. (1991) to assess
students’ motivational orientations and their use of different learning strategies for a college course. It is a self-report questionnaire
in which students rate themselves on a seven point Likert scale from ‘‘not at all true of me’’ to ‘‘very true of me’’. There are two
sections in MSLQ; these include a motivation section and a learning strategies section. In the motivation section, there are 31 items
assessing students’ goals and value beliefs for the course as well as their anxiety about tests in the course. The motivation section
is composed of six sub-scales: (a) intrinsic goal orientation (IGO), (b) extrinsic goal orientation (EGO), (c) task value (TV), (d)
control of learning beliefs (CLB), (e) self-efficacy for learning and performance (SELP), (f) test anxiety. The learning strategy
section is composed of 31 items concerning students’ use of different cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Pintrich et al. (1991)
stated that MSLQ can be used as a whole or partly depending on the needs of researcher. Since some research studies indicated
that cooperative learning methods mostly improve students’ motivation to learn in terms of efficacy, intrinsic value of the subject,
learning goal orientation and usage of deep processing strategies, only the motivation part of MSLQ was included to evaluate
students’ motivation (Hancock, 2004; Nicholes, 1996; Slavin, 1995). Sungur (2004) adapted the instrument to Turkish and Turkish
version was found to be reliable. Correspondingly, it was used with minor changes for a chemistry lesson.

Before implementing the test to the students of experimental and control group, it was piloted to 316 eleventh and twelfth grade
students with an age range of 16–17 in different schools of Ankara. Cronbach alpha values of the motivation section are as follows:
IGO = 0.75, EGO = 0.65, TV = 0.88, CLB = 0.67, SELP = 0.90, TA = 0.70. During the study, MSLQ was given to both experimental
and control group as a pre- and post-test to measure their motivation to learn chemistry in terms of intrinsic goal orientation,
extrinsic goal orientation, task value, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy for learning and performance, and test anxiety.

Procedure
The concept of reaction rate was a part of the curriculum in the chemistry course taught to both the experimental and control
group students over six weeks. There were three chemistry class sessions in a week, and each class session lasted 45 min. In the
Turkish curriculum, chemical kinetics is taught at 11th grade after the concept of enthalpy. The concepts of chemical kinetics are
definition and measurement of reaction rate, change in rate with time, instantaneous rate, average rate, rate law, one-step and
multi-step reactions, activation energy, factors affecting reaction rate (concentration, temperature and catalyst) and enzymes as
biological catalysts. Unfortunately, laboratory facilities are not enough to make experiments. Therefore, the students learn this
topic theoretically.

In the experimental group, the STAD method of cooperative learning was applied. The teachers were provided with information
about the STAD method of cooperative learning and the application of cooperative learning in the content of reaction rate. All
materials, including detailed explanations of cooperative learning, lesson plans, instruments, group work activities, teacher
manual providing information about the role of the teacher and quizzes, were given to the teachers to be examined in advance.
After a week, two-hour meetings were conducted with the teachers to inform them of and discuss the application of cooperative
learning as well as answer related questions, if there were any.

Before instruction, the teacher lectured the students for two class hours about cooperative learning, its implementation, the aim of
group work, social skills needed for group work, and what would be expected of students during their instruction. In the next
lesson, four-member groups, heterogeneous with respect to achievement and gender, were created by the teacher. Hence, each
group included one high achiever two average achievers, and one low achiever. Achievement level was decided based on
students’ previous chemistry grades. Depending on the number of students in each class, one or two of the groups included five
students. The positions of the desks were placed so that students were face to face. Teacher-student and student-student
interaction was highlighted during the instruction.
The teacher started the instruction with a class presentation. He presented the concepts and necessary information that would be
used by the students during their group activities after the presentation. Teacher presentation sessions took about one hour
depending on the topic for each week. After the teacher presentation, group members came together to study worksheets. The
worksheets demanded group members to discuss among themselves in order to reach a common solution instead of loading the
responsibility onto one or two students. These questions also included those requiring interpretations of events from daily life
related to reaction rate. Cooperation and interdependence among group members were crucial. Furthermore, the teacher asked
some disequilibrating questions to encourage the discussions during the group activities.He guided students and provided help
when necessary. In addition, the teacher assessed each group’s work by means of a Group Evaluation Form, which was intended
to evaluate groups in terms of students’ social skills, participation, and contributions to the completion of the task. The teacher
observed the groups while they were working on the task, filled out the form for each group once a week, and provided feedback
to increase the performance of the groups for the next week. Since the students were new to the cooperative learning
environment, they needed as much feedback as possible from the teacher. Moreover, the teacher oriented students when they had
difficulty expressing the social skills necessary for group work including knowing how to share their ideas, acknowledge the
contributions of others, deal with discrepancies, manage conflicts, share resources fairly, take turns, and engage in democratic
decision making (Johnson and Johnson, 1975).

For example, as a first group activity, students were given the question in Fig. 2. This question was prepared in Turkish by using
common alternative conceptions related to the definition of reaction rate and translated in English. Using alternative conceptions
in the questions created contradiction or disequilibrium among group members and they started to discuss the different definitions
given in the task. The researchers observed the groups. In some groups, some of the students claimed that there was more than
one correct definition. Mostly, these students insisted on Serap and Ali’s explanations in addition to the correct definition. The
teacher guided students to compare the rate of a chemical reaction with the term ‘‘speed’’ in physics and then think over the
definitions given in the question again. He also asked the students to think about how the concentrations of reactants change
during a reaction. The teacher continuously guided students and provided help and feedback when necessary. The groups
discussed their ideas. For example, one of the students stated that ‘‘faster reactions occur in a shorter time so Serap’s definition
may be correct’’. Her group mate claimed that ‘‘time is not enough by itself to define the rate; we must consider the amount of
product, so Murat’s definition may be correct’’. This discussion indicated that students sometimes contradicted each other,
thought over others’ perspectives, and argued actively to reach a consensus.

The students were actively involved in their own learning. The idea was that children learn better by teaching something to a
peer. The teacher guided the groups by giving the following example: ‘‘we define the speed of a car in terms of km/hour, so we
must consider the distance to be traveled in addition to time passed’’. When the group work was completed, the teacher chose a
student fromeachgroup randomly to presentand discusshis or her group’s solutions to the whole class. Three more examples of
worksheets are given in the Appendix B.

After two or three group activities, a quiz was given to the experimental group students to answer individually. Group discussion
was not allowed during the process of answering the quiz questions. Four quizzes were administered in total. These individual
quizzes provided individual accountability since each member had to be ready for the quiz. They were collected, corrected, and
graded by the teacher. During the next lesson, the quizzes were given back to the students in order for them to see their in-group
performance and improvement and to establish group processing (Johnson et al., 1990). Considering the total points of groups on
quizzes, the group with the highest score was rewarded. They got 5 point bonus for their mid-term exam and their names were
hung on the clipboard as ‘‘the best performers’’. The reward was for encouraging and motivating the students in their group
activities.

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

temperature increases rate of both type of reactions. Relating to the effect of catalyst, the teacher presented the definition of catalyst
as ‘‘the substance that changes reaction rate without affecting the composition of the products’’ and gave examples of negative and
positive catalysts. He asked them if the catalyst enters the reaction with the reactants or not. A small discussion was conducted and
they reached the conclusion that catalyst participates in the reaction with the reactants. He explained the inhibitor and exemplified
it from human body mechanism. The teacher designated enzymes as biological catalysts speeding up the biological reactions. He
related the working mechanism of catalysts with activation energy and discussed it on potential energy curves. At the end of the
chapter, effect of surface area of the reactants was discussed on a heterogeneous phase reaction.

The teacher used questioning and sometimes whole class discussions to remedy the alternative conceptions. He also used analogies
to make some abstract points clearer. Worksheets were distributed to the students at the end of each week as homework, and the
answers were given in the next lesson. While at home, students were supposed to practice related problems and interpret verbal
questions. Similar problems and content were explained in the control group as in cooperative learning class. The instruction was
teacher-centered, and student-student interaction was very limited.