The Effectiveness of Using Thelen’s Model on Acquiring Physical Concepts and Developing Scientific Thinking for Tenth-Grade Students in Jordan

Fatimah Khalid Al-Nawaiseh

Abstract


The current research aims to know the effect of teaching using Thelen’s Model on acquiring physical concepts and developing scientific thinking among tenth-grade students in Jordan. The researcher used the quasi-experimental method. The sample consisted of 55 female students in the tenth grade for the academic year 2021-2022 from Mutah Secondary School for Girls. The researcher prepared a test for physical concepts and built a test for developing scientific thinking. Their validity and reliability were verified. SPSS software was used to analyze the data statistically. The results showed that the students of the experimental group who studied according to Thelen’s Model outperformed the control group who studied in the usual way in the test of acquiring physical concepts, and in the test of developing scientific thinking with a statistically significant difference. In light of the results, the researcher recommended the necessity of using Thelen’s Model in teaching physics because of its effective impact in acquiring concepts related to this subject and in developing scientific thinking.


Keywords


Thelen’s model; Physical concepts; Scientific thinking; Tenth-grade; Jordan

Full Text:

PDF

References


Al-Khataybeh, M. M. (2006). The effect of using SMS on the development of the vocabularies of English language students in Jordan. Editorial Advisory Board, 1, 59.

Al-Khataybeh, M. M. (2018). The effect of using the ‘Six Thinking Hats’ and fishbone strategies for developing Saudi EFL learners’ writing competence. Asian EFL Journal Research Articles, 1, 27.‏

Al-Khataybeh, M. M. (2022). A study of the Jordanian postgraduate students’ perceptions on research writing through online learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18.

AL-Khataybeh, M., & AL-Awasa, A. (2016). The effect of using web quests on improving seventh grade female students’ writing skills in southern AL-Mazar directorate of education. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 3(1), 1-112.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Aronson, E. (2000). The jigsaw classroom. Retrieved from http://www.jigsaw.org on 10/2-2022

Barcelona, K. (2014). 21st century curriculum change initiative: A focus on STEM education as an integrated approach to teaching and learning. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(10), 862-875.

Bertucci, A., Conte, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (2010). The impact of size of cooperative group on achievement, social support, and self-esteem. Journal of General Psychology, 137(3), 256-272. doi: 10.1080/00221309.2010.484448

Brown, A., Collins, B., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.

Carpenter, B., & Taylor, P. (2003). Racing thoughts‚ altering our way of knowing and. being in art through hypertext. Art Education,University of Missouri.

Colapinto, J. (1988). Teaching the structural way. Handbook of family therapy training and supervision, 17-37.

David, W. (2000). Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis. University of Minnesota.

Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25 (3&4), 7-55.

Davidson, N., & Worsham, T. (1992). Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning. New York: Teacher‟s College Press. Johnson,

Donovan, T., & Hoover, K. R. (2013). The elements of social scientific thinking. Cengage Learning.

Duckworth, E. (1987). The having of wonderful ideas’ and other essays on teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dunbar, K., & Fugelsang, J. (2005). Scientific thinking and reasoning. The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp.705-725).

Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(1), 1-17.

Hargreaves,E. (2009). Thinking in six models‚ Retrieval of 3 February 2022 from http://academic.evergreen.edu/h/hareri16/Docs/modelreflect.html

Ian, A,. & Samuel, G. (2005). Group investigation: How does it work?, International Forum Journal, 8 (1&2), 79-98.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (2013). Cooperation in the classroom (9th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (2009). Models of Teaching, Fifth Edition, Hall of India Private Limited,New Delhi.

Kilmer, S. J., & Hofman, H. (1995). Transforming science curriculum. In S. Bredekamp & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.).Reaching potentials: Transforming early childhood curriculum and assessment, Vol. 2. Washington, DC: NAEYC, pp. 43-63.

Knezek, M. (2002). The effectiveness of cooperative learning in the teaching of reading typical1‚ comprehension at the English for the Department of Education to train teachers and Kudos University.

Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of cognition and Development, 1(1), 113-129.

Lind, K. K. (1999).Science in early childhood: developing and acquiring fundamental concepts and skills (pp.73-83). In American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education. Washington, DC: AAAS.

Mayesky, M. (1998). Creative activities for young children (6th ed.).Albany, NY: Delmar.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Raffini, J. P. (1993). Winners without losers: Structures and strategies for increasing student motivation to learn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Scandura, J. M. (1976). Structural learning II: Issues and approaches. London: Gordon & Breach.

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York and London: Teachers Collages, Columbia University.

Zeece, P. D. (1999). Things of nature and the nature of things: Natural science-based literature for young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 26(3), 161-166.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/12743

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Author(s)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Reminder

  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

1. Register yourself in Journal B as an Author

  • Find the journal you want to submit to in CATEGORIES, click on “VIEW JOURNAL”, “Online Submissions”, “GO TO LOGIN” and “Edit My Profile”. Check “Author” on the “Edit Profile” page, then “Save”.

2. Submission

Online Submission: http://cscanada.org/index.php/css/submission/wizard

  • Go to “User Home”, and click on “Author” under the name of Journal B. You may start a New Submission by clicking on “CLICK HERE”.
  • We only use four mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases: caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net; ccc@cscanada.net; ccc@cscanada.org

 Articles published in Canadian Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

 

Canadian Social Science Editorial Office

Address: 1020 Bouvier Street, Suite 400, Quebec City, Quebec, G2K 0K9, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail:caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture