The effect of constructivist science teaching on 4th grade students’ understanding of matter

The research results showed that teaching activities designed with a constructivist approach had a significant effect on the student achievement in the EG, as shown by previous studies (Balci, Çakiroglu & Tekkaya, 2006; Ceylan & Geban, 2009). However, the CG was taught using traditional teaching methods and displayed a lack of knowledge and several misconceptions about matter including:

• Some children tended to consider vapor as a different state of matter or as a fourth state of matter (Andersson, 1992).

• Although children mention that matter has three states, some had difficulty in applying their knowledge to the substances in their environment e.g. sponge is not solid because it is soft. Sand is powder or a granular state of matter (Stavy & Stachel, 1985; Varelas et al., 2007). Bag is a plastic state of matter.

• In this study, distinct from the literature, we asked children “Do you think that a tomato is matter?” Interestingly, some children thought that a tomato is not matter but only a vegetable. The reason for this view may be that children, from their early years, often hear about the terms tomato and vegetables, and are very familiar with these terms. Therefore, it is easy for them to associate tomato with vegetable, but seems difficult to think accurately in regard to whether a tomato is a matter.

It is obvious from the results that children consider the states of matter not restricted to only three kinds. For some children, there are more than three kinds of stuff in nature: powder, food, plastic, sand, grain, dough, etc. The main reason is that children’s sensory experience leads them to a naive view of matter including more than three states (Kind, 2004). For example, sand is the powder or granular state of matter. Children are not aware that if a solid is crumbled into small bits it will pour and fill a container it is poured into. Small solid particles can move like liquid particles, but unlike liquids they will pile up on any flat surface instead of being pulled by gravity to form a horizontal surface. Clearly some children understand the standard solid, liquid and gas concept, but then classify some materials as different from these three states of matter. In this context, children’s own theory of matter works very well from their standpoint (Millar, 1989). Children obtain naive views about matter through their experiences during childhood. These naive views lead them to incorrect ideas (Brook et al., 1984).

Before attributing the poor understanding problem to the pupils, we must consider the possibility that the difficulties are sometimes unnecessarily created for the pupils by the “teaching” (Johnson, 1998, p.393). During the teaching of the unit on matter, teachers should give a particular importance to basic concepts related to matter, e.g. mass, volume, state, vapor, etc. Rather than giving classical examples for matter in the classroom, such as table, stone, pencil, water and air, they should stress examples from different contexts, as in the case of the tomato. Teachers also need to help children think that matter is everything around us, i.e. the books we read, shirts we wear, and chocolate we eat, are all made up of matter. We are made of matter. This study shows that giving different and thought-provoking examples in the classroom, such as a plastic (bag), sponge, paper, oil, sand, sugar and rice, can be very effective in developing children’s understanding about matter and its states.

In conclusion, children’s understanding of matter in the CG seemed to be based on memorization of some scientific knowledge, rather than comprehending matter and its states. Traditional ways of teaching, which are based on transmission of knowledge, does not effectively help children to use their knowledge in the similar examples given from everyday lives (Papadimitriou, 2004). In order to provide more effective science education, any teaching-learning strategy should take into account the ideas that the pupils already have prior to instruction (Driver & Oldham, 1986). Millar (1989, p.589) states that the process of eliciting and the construction of new ideas takes place internally within the learner’s own mind, and hence “science should be taught in whatever way is most likely to engage the active involvement of learners.” It is important to consider what children bring with them into the learning situation and the consequent active construction of meaning by them in the classroom. However, as Ayas, Özmen and Çalik, (2009) pointed out, the practice of the newly structured science curricula, which is based on constructivism and a student-centered approach, will take time to change the existing situation and to convince the teachers of its effectiveness.