See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289652049

Changing students' misconceptions of floating and sinking using hands-on

activities

Article in Journal of Baltic Science Education · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

14 1,396

1 author:

Suat Ünal
Karadeniz Technical University
49 PUBLICATIONS 388 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

KİMYA ÖĞRETİMİ View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Suat Ünal on 05 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHANGING STUDENTS’
MISCONCEPTIONS OF
FLOATING AND SINKING
USING HANDS-ON
ACTIVITIES

Abstract. The aim of this study is to Suat Unal

develop hands-on activities and to inves- ©© Suat Unal
tigate their effects in changing students’
misconceptions of floating and sinking.
It was conducted with 28 eighth-grade
students. To assess students’ understand-
ing and the effects of the instruction based
on hands-on activities, a diagnostic test,
Floating and Sinking Conceptual Test
(FSCT), was employed in the study. It was
found out that the instruction based on
hands-on activities did have a significant
positive effect on students’ understanding Introduction
of flotation concepts and rules. Moreo-
Over the last two decades, there has been a large body of
ver, the hands-on activities designed for
research on identifying students’ understandings about various sci-
eight problematic areas where students
ence phenomena (Driver, Squires, Rushworth and Wood-Robinson,
commonly had difficulties helped them 1999; Fleer, 1999; Osborne, 1982; Palmer, 2001; Treagust, 1988).
to replace their misconceptions with the These studies have generally agreed that students enter their class-
scientific ones. It is suggested that further rooms with preconceptions as a result of their prior experiences,
studies should be undertaken to highlight textbooks, teachers’ explanations, or everyday language (Coştu
and Ayas, 2005; Çalık and Ayas, 2005; Fleer, 1999; Nakhleh, 1992;
the question ‘Does the conceptual change
Osborne, 1982; Palmer, 2001). Because students often construct
strategy used in this study affect students’
their own knowledge and theories about how the natural world
long-term memory?’ works, their construction of knowledge or theories may sometimes
Key words: science education, hands-on be contrary to those of scientists (Bodner, 1986; Geelan, 1995; Os-
activities, conceptual change, sinking and borne and Wittrock, 1983). Such views or conceptions are called
floating. misconceptions, preconceptions, alternative conceptions, naive
conceptions or common sense conceptions (Cerrah Özsevgeç,
2007; Driver and Erickson, 1983; Nakhleh, 1992; Treagust, 1988).
A plethora of research documenting student misconceptions has
also showed that they are often both pervasive and resistant to
Suat Unal change through traditional teaching strategies (Driver and Easley,
Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey 1978; Driver and Erickson, 1983; Karamustafaoğlu, Coştu and Ayas,
2005; Köse, 2007; Ozsevgeç, 2006; Tsai, 1998, Wandersee, Mintzes,
and Novak, 1994).

134
Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
ISSN 1648–3898 CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

Theoretical Frameworks

Students’ understanding of flotation

One of the areas that science education and cognitive development research have studied is flota-
tion. Students’ views on flotation were first reported by Inhelder and Piaget (1958). They have claimed
that because the formulation of flotation rules requires advanced reasoning skills, it is difficult for stu-
dents to understand these rules so that they had some misconceptions. Their findings were consistent
with current research suggesting that young students often have difficulty in reasoning with abstract
ideas, especially when they must distinguish between concrete, observable events and unobservable
properties that cause them (Bliss, 1995).
Rowell and Dawson (1977a, 1977b, 1981) carried out studies related to the results of Piaget’s work to
help students improve their understanding of the phenomenon ‘flotation’. Not only did they use concrete
examples in classes to encourage students to recognize density as the invariant ratio of the mass and volume
of an object, but also logical arguments. They reported modest outcomes on students’ understanding. Bid-
dulph and Osborne (1984) investigated 7 to 14 year-olds’ understanding of floating and sinking and found
that students offered many unrelated factors such as mass and weight as if they determined whether an
object sank or floated. Gürdal and Macaroglu (1997) investigated fifth grade students’conceptions of sinking,
floating and the Archimedes principle. They found that as students did not give correct response to any test
item, they were unable to construct scientific understanding about these concepts. Macaroglu and Şentürk
(2001) also carried out a study to elicit fourth grade students’ understanding of the flotation. They elicited
that students could not identify whether a material would sink or float, because of their misconceptions
about floating and sinking. In addition, there are numerous studies reporting students’ misconceptions
and investigating the effectiveness of alternative teaching models for flotation and related concepts (Jain,
1982; Halford, Brown, and Thompson, 1986; Hewson and Hewson, 1983; Simington, 1983; Smith, Carey, and
Wiser, 1985; Smith, Snir and Grosslight, 1992; Kariotogloy, Koumaras, and Psillos, 1993; Butts, Hofman and
Anderson, 1993; Kawasaki, 2004; Havu-Nuutinen, 2005). Among researchers who have investigated students’
understanding of flotation, there is consensus that most of the students’ difficulties about floatation stem
from erroneous or incomplete ideas about underlying concepts such as volume, mass, density, force, and
pressure (Halford et al., 1986; Jain, 1982; Mullet and Montcouquiol, 1988; Smith et al., 1985). This also shows
that students retain their ideas in a fragmented manner (Haidar, 1997, Çalık, 2005).
Although there have been many studies on students’ understanding of flotation and related con-
cepts in the literature, they have been generally focused on children’s or younger students’ understand-
ing (6 to 14). As the Archimedes principle and other related concepts are first introduced to students at
the seventh grade in Turkey, one important question should be asked: Do the students still hold their
earlier misconceptions even after formal instruction? Ünal and Coştu (2005) attempted to answer this
question and drew out that eighth grade students still had difficulties in understanding floating and
sinking as reported in the earlier studies, although they had been formally taught in seventh grade.
Moreover, the results of their study showed that there were eight problematic areas such as “effect of the
mass of an object on flotation”, “effect of the density of the liquid on flotation” where students commonly
had difficulties and misconceptions (Ünal and Coştu, 2005).

Hands-on activities and conceptual change

The research has indicated that traditional teaching ways or tools such as lectures and textbooks are
ineffective in changing students’ misconceptions with scientific ones (Champagne, Gunstone, Klopfer,
1983; Driver and Easley, 1978, Guzzetti, 2000). As a result, a growing body of research has been conducted
to find alternative teaching ways to remedy students’ misconceptions on various subjects. Alternative
teaching ways or tools such as concept mapping, concrete activities, hands-on activities, conceptual
change texts, computer-aided instruction, and so on have been exploited to achieve conceptual change
and enhance students’ conceptual understanding (Hewson and Hewson, 1983). Moreover, research has

135
 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING ISSN 1648–3898
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

showed that more active, inquiry based ways of teaching bring students to a more robust understand-
ing of physics concepts than does the traditional lecture approach (Linder and Hillhouse, 1996; Laws,
1997). In Turkey, however, although the national science education literature is full of reports including
misconceptions held by students at different ages or grades about many science concepts, little atten-
tion has been given to the effective instructional activities or strategies for the remediation. Hands-on
activities were preferred in this study for two significant reasons: (1) studies in which hands-on activities
were used for teaching of many science concepts have generally demonstrated positive effects on stu-
dents’ achievement and understanding, and (2) hands-on activities including experiences with concrete
materials could be considered as the best way for enhancing students understanding about abstract
concepts, regarding that some students’ cognitive skills may not develop in the expected time and they
may not understand abstract concepts and theories as declared by Inhelder and Piaget (1958).
Hands-on activities helping students to develop conceptual understanding can be done individu-
ally, in small groups, or as a whole class. Hands-on activities present most appropriate environment for
students to gain experiences by doing different instructional strategies. Through hands-on activities,
students use different senses in science classes by touching, feeling, moving, observing, listening,
smelling and sometimes testing materials in a controlled manner. This helps students to progress from
concrete thinking levels to more complex thinking levels (Kahle and Damnjanovic, 1994; Case and Fraser,
1999; Jones et al, 2003; Bilgin, 2006). As an active learning technique, it enable students to construct
scientific understanding in an entertaining learning environment (Case and Fraser, 1999; Kahle and
Damnjanovic, 1994). Students can engage in the process of building their own knowledge structures
from the acquired information in the activities. Moreover, hands-on activities may improve students’
attitudes towards investigation, and get students to find a chance to observe links between natural
phenomena and scientific facts (Jones et al., 2003; Bilgin, 2006). Also, they may retain the students’ in-
terest in science. By means of hands-on activities, students can acquire the basic skills required to carry
out observations and experiments as well as the methodology of investigating a subject in a scientific
manner. They may also learn to express accurately the processes involved as well as the results (Freed-
man, 1997; Kahle and Damnjanovic, 1994, Wenglinsky, 2000). Although their considerable advantages
of hands-on activities for teaching science, few studies showed that manipulating the objects alone
was not adequate to help students change their alternative conceptions towards scientific ones (Butts,
Hofman and Anderson, 1993).
Since students construct new concepts or theories on prior ones in their mental backgrounds, it
is important to elicit students’ understanding about a phenomenon at the beginning of an instruction.
Therefore, this study is based on Ünal and Coştu (2005)’s study who reported students’ preconceptions
about floatation. As a following work, the aim of this study is to develop hands-on activities and to
investigate their effects in changing students’ misconceptions of floating and sinking.

Methodology of Research

Research design

This study was the last step of an extensive effort whose aims were to identify students’ misconcep-
tions on flotation, to develop hands-on activities for remediation and to investigate the effects of this
teaching strategy on students’ understanding. In this effort, Ünal and Coştu (2005) determined students’
understanding of flotation in depth using semi-structured interviews and a diagnostic Floating and Sinking
Conceptual Test (FSCT) comprising 20 multiple-choice questions. Taking into account the results of their
study, it was decided to design an instruction accompanied with hands-on activities which allow students
actively construct their own understanding and find a chance to modify their misconceptions by consider-
ing their inadequacy. The science curriculum was examined to define the extent of the teaching content.
Three science teachers actively took part in planning and developing process of the activities.
In the study reported here, the FSCT was administered to the students under investigation as a
pre-test a week before the instruction. Firstly, seven groups each of whom consisted of four students
were set in the class in which the students would be taught flotation concepts by means of hands-on

136
Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
ISSN 1648–3898 CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

activities. Then, the sample was re-taught floating and sinking rules and related concepts using hands-
on activities for a three class-hour. To find out the changes on students’ understanding of the floating
and sinking concepts, the FSCT was re-administered to the sample as a post-test. Finally, the results
obtained from the pre- and post- tests were analyzed in both qualitatively and quantitatively, so that
the effectiveness of the instruction was described and reported.

Sample

This study was conducted with 28 eighth-grade students (15 girls and 13 boys) in a class of a public
school which was randomly chosen in the city of Trabzon, Turkey. The ages of the participants were
ranged from 14 to 16 years.

Materials and Instructional Design

Students are first introduced to the Archimedes principle, buoyancy and other related concepts in
the seventh grade. These concepts are incorporated in the curriculum with the title “All objects do not float
in the water”. In this unit, students are given the rules for flotation and the Archimedes principle. Therefore,
the instruction was designed in harmonies with both content and time stated in the curriculum.
At the beginning of each activity, the activity paper on which students would write down their
predictions, reasons, observations and explanations, was handed out to each group and students were
asked to fill in. During the instruction, the Predict-Observe-Explain teaching sequence was generally used
in the activities -except for the third (related to density concept) and the eighth activities (concerned
with the buoyant force)-. In this procedure, students were initially asked to predict what would happen
in the given circumstances in each activity to elicit their prior conceptions. Then, they were asked to
follow the steps given in the activity paper, so that they would realize and test their prior conceptions.
Finally, they were asked to compare their predictions with the results deduced by the experiments. In
harmonious with constructivist view and conceptual change model, before students first encountered
the new concepts or flotation rules, it was provided for students to become aware that their prior ideas
were insufficient in explaining the given phenomena. Challenging students’ misconceptions with the
experiences which were contradictory to their existing cognitive structures, students were forced to
be dissatisfied with their existing concepts. Then, they were provided experiences in which the new
scientific concept or rule would seem plausible, intelligible and fruitful to them.
The activities used in this study are outlined in the following Table 1:

Table 1. Targeted conceptions of each activity used in the study.

Activity Number Target Conception

Activity 1 The weight or mass of an object does not determine whether it will sink or float
Activity 2 The volume of an object does not determine whether it will sink or float
Activity 3 Description of the density concept and the effect of the density of an object on its flotation
Activity 4 Not only the density of an object but also the density of the liquid determines the flotation
Activity 5 The volume of a liquid in a container does not affect the flotation of an object
Activity 6 All objects with holes do not sink
The size of an object does not affect its flotation; each piece which is formed by cutting an
Activity 7
object in different sizes will have the same position in a liquid
Activity 8 Description and calculation of buoyancy and its effect on flotation

To achieve the objectives in each activity, students were asked some questions, given directions,
asked to measure some quantities, and provided a learning environment in which they could both
express their ideas and listen to the others. An example of the activity papers is illustrated as follows.

137
 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING ISSN 1648–3898
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

Figure 1. The activity paper for the second activity concerning the effect of the volume of an object
on its flotation.

Floating and Sinking Conceptual Test (FSCT)

To assess students’ understanding and the effects of intervention, the diagnostic Floating and
Sinking Conceptual Test (FSCT) comprising 20 multiple-choice questions was employed in this study.
The test used here drew upon the work by Ünal and Coştu (2005) who also asked the three science
teachers and three science educators to confirm its content validity. All of them had an agreement
that the FSCT was effective in eliciting students’ understanding within the related science curriculum.

138
Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
ISSN 1648–3898 CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

Cronbach alpha-reliability coefficient was measured 0.74 for the FSCT using SPSS 10 TM. Each item with
four choices includes the correct answer and three misconceptions.
Three examples of the items in the FSCT are illustrated as follows:

Figure 2. Some examples of the items in the FSCT.

Analysis

Students’ responses to the FSCT on the pre-test were analyzed regarding both correct and
incorrect responses before the instruction. The frequencies and percentages of all choices that were
chosen by the students were calculated for each item. Analyses of incorrect responses selected by
the students provided data on students’ misconceptions about the phenomenon, so that students’
misconceptions and their percentages for each item were then defined. The choices of some items
included more than one misconception since a misconception was used in more than one choice
of the same question. When calculating the percentage of students who had a misconception, the
total of the students whose choices included that misconception was considered. Moreover, during
the analyses of the responses on the pre-test, total score of each student on the pre-test was also
calculated by counting five points for each correct answer for the items.
After the instruction accompanied with the hands-on activities, the FSCT was re-administered
to the sample as a post-test to describe the changes on students’ misconceptions on floating and
sinking. Students’ responses to the FSCT on the post-test were analyzed by similar manner as in
case of the pre-test. The frequencies and percentages of choices given by the students as correct
answers were calculated for each item. Students’ misconceptions and their percentages for each
item were then defined. Finally, to find out the changes in students’ ideas on floating and sinking
and to make audience easily understand the changes in students’ misconceptions, the misconcep-
tions and their percentages on the pre- and post-tests were presented in Table 1. Moreover, in order
to make statistical comparison, paired t-test was utilized based on students’ total points in both
pre- and post-tests. The summary of the paired sample t-test is displayed in Table 2.

Results of Research

The analyses of the students’ responses to SCFT showed that the majority of the students had
misconceptions about floating and sinking before the instruction. The misconceptions revealed from
the students’ responses for each item in the pre-test were listed and the percentages of students
who had these misconceptions were calculated. Detailed descriptions of these misconceptions
and the possible sources of them were provided in the earlier work (see Ünal and Coştu, 2005).
Because assessing the effectiveness of the instruction (comparison of students’ ideas between the
pre- and post-tests) is focused on the study, these misconceptions and their possible sources are
not discussed in this paper again. After the instruction, the FSCT was also employed in order to

139
 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING ISSN 1648–3898
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

determine students’ understanding and their misconceptions. The percentages of students who
had these misconceptions after the instruction were calculated in order to gain a measure of these
changes. Table 1 shows the students’ misconceptions of flotation and their percentages on the
pre- and post-tests.

Table 1. Students’ misconceptions of flotation and their percentages in the pre- and post- tests.

Item Pre-Test (%) Post-Test

Students’ Misconceptions and Difficulties
No (%)

- Objects which are hanging on in a liquid are named as sinking objects because they are 11 ---
1
covered by the liquid
- Volume determines if an object will sink or float 39 ---
2* - Weight determines if an object will sink or float 68 ---
- The volume of the liquid determines if an object will sink or float 68 ---
- Density is the weight of an object 11 ---
3 - Density is the weight of an object in a liquid 18 ---
- Density is the force that pushes an object up 25 ---
- The density of an object hanging in a liquid is equal to that of a floating object 14 ---
- The density of an object hanging in a liquid is equal to the density of a sinking object 18 ---
4
- The density of a floating object is more than that of a sinking object and an object hang-
ing in a liquid 54 4
- The density of an object hanging in a liquid is less than the density of the liquid 7 ---
5 - The buoyancy of an object which is hanging in a liquid is more than the weight of the
liquid overflowing 46 4
- The density of an object hanging in a liquid is equal to that of a floating object 21 ---
6 - When two objects at the same mass are put into a liquid, the buoyancy on the object
hanging in the liquid is more than that on floating object 32 11
- The mass of an object determines whether it will sink or float 46 4
7 - When two objects of the same mass are put into a liquid, a geometrical shaped one will
float, but the other having no geometrical shape will sink 18 ---
- When the container is shaken, the floating object will sink 14 ---
8*
- If you make a hole through the object, it will sink 43 7
- Because the volume of the liquid affects buoyancy, the volume of the sinking part of the 46 18
objects in a container filled with a little liquid is more than another with more liquid
9* - Because the volume of the liquid in the container is little and insufficient, the volume of
the sinking part of an object is more than that in another container
39 4
- The greater the floating part (out of water) of an object, the greater its buoyancy 36 11
- When comparing buoyancies affecting three objects one of which sinks, another floats
and the other hangs in a liquid, the buoyancy of the sinking object is more than the others
10*
- Not making the connection between the volume of sinking part of an object and its 25 7
buoyancy
64 18
- Making wrong connections between the solvent and solute quantities of solutions and 89 18
11
their densities
- Making wrong connections between the densities of different liquids and their positions 43 18
12
in a container
- When the densities of the liquid changes, the buoyancy of an object changes, too 61 25
13 - The volume of the sinking part of an object becomes less when a liquid which is less
dense is poured into the container filled with a denser liquid 39 21
- When two objects, one of which is put on the top of the other, is put into the liquid one by 54 7
one, the position of the object which is beneath does not change
14
- When two objects, one of which is put on the top of the other, are then put into the liquid
one by one, the water level in the container does not change 32 25

140
Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
ISSN 1648–3898 CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

Item Pre-Test (%) Post-Test

Students’ Misconceptions and Difficulties
No (%)

- Weight determines if an object will sink or float 46 11

15* - Volume determines if an object will sink or float 57 18
- When the volume of a liquid in a container is increased, the volume of the sinking part of 18 ---
an object will decrease
16 - When the volume of a liquid in a container is increased, the volume of the sinking part of 21 4
an object will increase, too
- When the volume of a liquid in a container is decreased, a floating object will sink 18 ---
- The volume of a liquid in a container determines whether an object sinks or floats 64 4
17
- Objects which have a hole will sink in the course of time because the liquid fills the hole 54 ---
- No interpretation of the position of objects, which are tied to each other, in a liquid by
18
considering their earlier positions in the liquid 36 7
19 - Objects which are covered by the liquid have always the same density 36 18
- When a floating object is cut into two parts, the volume of the smaller sinking part will 50 18
become less
20*
- When a floating object is cut into two parts, the bigger piece will sink or the volume of the 54 18
sinking part will increase

* In some of the test items (e.g. items 2, 8, 9, 10), total percentages may not be %100 because two or more choices
include the same misconception. Therefore, in grouping misconceptions and calculating their percentages, the choices of
the test items were used more than once.
** The contents of the test items in the FSCT were not given in the table because they were given in the earlier work
by Ünal and Coştu (2005). You could find the domains being investigated in each item in that study.

Students’ responses to the test items 2, 7, 15 and 20 on the pre-test showed that most students
had the misconception ‘weight or mass determines whether an object sinks or floats’. While the percent-
ages of the students who had this misconception before the instruction were in the range of 46-68%
for different items (see Table 1), only a few students retained this misconception whose percentages
were in the range of 0-18% for different items after the instruction.
Another misconception ‘the volume of an object determines whether it will sink or float’ appeared on
the pre-test (see items 1, 2, 15 and 20). Whilst the percentages of the students who had this misconception
on the pre-test were in the range of 39-57% for different items, a few students grasped this misconcep-
tion whose percentages were in the range of 0-18% for different items after the instruction.
Before the instruction, the majority of the students held the misconception ‘the volume of a liquid
in a container determines whether an object sinks or floats’. This misconception was revealed from the
students’ responses to items 2, 9, 16 and 17. Whereas the percentages of the students who possessed
this misconception on the pre-test were 68%, 46%, 57% and 64% respectively, those of the students
who had this misconception on the post-test were 0%, 18%, 4% and 4% respectively as well.
Students’ responses to test items 3, 11, 12 and 14 on the pre-test showed that some students
could not understand density concept and had some misconceptions about it. Over half of the students
(54%) gave alternative descriptions for the density concept in the third question of the FSCT before
the instruction. However, after the instruction all students selected the correct choice including the
scientific description of density concept. In addition, some students did not consider the density of the
liquid when determining whether an object would sink or float in some items (see item 8, 9 and 13).
But, the percentages of the students whose choices were wrong for these items changed favorably
after the instruction.
Students’ responses to items 4, 6 and 19 on the pre-test indicated that they could not compare
the density of different objects by regarding their positions in a liquid. For example, the most common
misconception held by the students in this area was that the density of an object hanging in a liquid is
equal to that of a floating object (14% and 21% for item 4 and 6 respectively) or a sinking object (18% and
36% for item 4 and 19 respectively). However, after the instruction, students did not select the choices

141
 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING ISSN 1648–3898
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

including this misconception for these items except for item 19. In fact, only 18% of students still saw
the same choice including this misconception as the correct answer for item 19 on the post-test.
Another results revealed from the students’ responses to the test items 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 on the pre-
test was that the students lack of understanding of buoyancy. For example, almost half of the students
(46%) reported that the buoyancy of an object hanging in a liquid is more than the weight of the liquid
overflowing. In addition, some students (32%) had the misconception that when two objects are put
into a liquid, the buoyancy of the object hanging in the liquid is more than that of the floating object. Most
students gave up these misconceptions after the instruction. The percentages of the students who had
these misconceptions on the post-test were 4% and 11% for the item 5 and 6 respectively.
The students’ responses to test items 8 and 17 on the pre-test revealed that some students believed
that objects with holes would sink in the course of time, because the liquid filled the hole (43% for item 8 and
54% for item 17). However, nearly all students abandoned this misconception after the instruction (except
for 7% for item 8). As a matter of fact, none of the students selected the incorrect choices for item 17.
Students’ responses to item 20 on the pre-test presented that some students could not identify
the positions of the pieces in a liquid when a floating object was cut into parts of different size. Half of
the students (50%) thought that when a floating object was cut into two parts, the volume of the sinking
part of the smaller piece would become less. Similarly, 54% of them also reported that the bigger piece
would sink or the volume of the sinking part would increase, when a floating object was cut into two parts.
However, only 18% of the students possessed these misconceptions on the post-test.
To determine the changes in students’ understanding about floating and sinking totally, student
scores on the pre- and post- tests were statistically analyzed by means of paired t-test. The statistical
analysis indicates that there is a significant difference between the pre- and post- test scores in favor
of the post-test (t(26) = -20.503, p<0.05). As can be seen from Table 2, students performed significantly
higher scores in the post-test than those in the pre-test.

Table 2. The summary of the paired sample t-test.

Subject (N) Mean Std. Deviation df t p

Pre-test 28 45,0 13,1 26 - 20,503 .000

Post-test 28 79,8 9,0

Discussion and Implication for Teaching

It appears that that the instruction accompanied with hands-on activities did have a significant
positive effect on students’ understanding of flotation concepts and rules. Regarding the results, students
indicated a clear increase in understanding about flotation. Each hands-on activity has shown great
impact on students’ understanding in the eight problematic areas where students commonly have dif-
ficulties and misconceptions. Moreover, the instruction based on the hands-on activities for the teaching
of floatation concepts helped students to replace their misconceptions with the scientific ones.
Additionally, it was evident that the activities in the instruction were surprising to the students, in a
way that their ideas were confronted. Research has indicated that traditional instruction is ineffective in
changing students’ misconceptions to scientific ones (Champagne et al., 1983; Driver and Easley, 1978).
The present study indicated that the use of hands-on activities, (1) which allows students to realize and
test their prior ideas, (2) which challenges them with the experiences that are contradictory to their
existing cognitive structures, and (3) forces students to be dissatisfied with their existing concepts, is
an effective method in enhancing students’ conceptual change. This result is in harmonies with much
research proving that hands-on activities are more influential than traditional teaching approaches for
conceptual change (Case and Fraser, 1999; Freedman, 1997; Kahle and Damnjanovic, 1994, Wenglinsky,
2000). Since science teachers have complained about “crowded-curriculum” (Palmer, 2003; Çalık, Ayas

142
Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
ISSN 1648–3898 CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

and Coll, 2006), this paper presents some evidence that hands-on activities are both time efficient and
low-cost. Also, students may find these activities appeal to contribute the lesson actively.
The results indicate that the sample under investigation did not have a clear understanding of
flotation before the instruction although they had been taught with the flotation concepts at seventh
grade. If so, what could be the reason for this? Two possible reasons could be given: a) these concepts
were not taught well, and (b) these concepts are not learnable by this age group. This study did not
intend to discuss these possibilities, but some comments could be made. In the experiences of the
researcher, science teachers are generally much dependent on textbooks. Newton (2003) maintains
that if the teachers’ knowledge is not enough for the concepts presented, they generally count on the
information represented by textbooks. Therefore, they often have few or no laboratory activities to
give students a first-hand experience with concepts. Moreover, students are rarely given an opportu-
nity to talk about their ideas, to explore their conceptions, and to test them through discussions. As a
consequence, any misconceptions held by students are seldom challenged. If these observations are
consistent with the experience of the sample in this study, this might, at least in part, be the reason for
their lack of understanding. It is sure that this hypothesis would be worthy to be investigated in further
research. The other reason may stem from the teacher’s branch. That is, up till 2000’s physics, chemistry,
and biology teachers and the related pure science graduates were appointed as science teachers by
Ministry of National Education (MEB). Therefore, if the biology or chemistry teachers, who had bachelor
degree, have not any ideas on the investigated concepts, they may surpass them superficially. Thus, it
could be deserve to be further sought.
The other possibility is that these concepts are not learnable by this age group. This was discussed
by many researchers in their studies (Inhelder and Piaget, 1958; Rowell and Dawson, 1977a, b; Siming-
ton, 1983). Piaget believed that formal operation thought appears between 11 and 15 years of age.
Inhelder and Piaget (1958) claim that because the formulation of flotation rules requires advanced
reasoning skills, it is difficult for concrete operational students to understand those rules. Their findings
are consistent with the research suggesting that young students often have difficulty reasoning with
abstract ideas (Bliss, 1995). This study was conducted with the eighth grade students (14-15 year-old).
Although the sample in this study and that in the earlier study (Ünal and Coştu, 2005) are between
11 and 15 years-old, the transition of some students from concrete operation to formal operation
could have been delayed. This delay might be account for their lack of understanding. However,
contrary to these ideas, the study reported here is an attempt to teach ideas of flotation and related
concepts. Also, the results pointed out that the instruction based on hands-on activities employed
in this study enhanced students’ understanding of these concepts and promoted conceptual change
about eight problematic areas. As a consequence, it can be concluded that various materials, ways
or methods introducing new concepts gradually in a meaningful and concrete way accomplished to
afford students to catch these concepts adequately. However, although the results of this study are
not consistent with the idea “these concepts are not learnable by this age group”, further research into
this hypothesis seems warranted.
In conclusion, some important limitations of the present study should be pointed out. One was
obviously the small sample size. Because this study was conducted with the voluntary participation of
a science teacher and the students in her class, this study has a shortcoming in generalizing the results.
It should be noted that this is a preliminary study with a small sample size. Further studies with larger
sample size should be conducted to ensure the validity of these results. The absence of a control group
may be the second limitation of the study. In fact, the absence of a control group has little implication
for the results of this study, because the aim of the study is to develop hands-on activities and to inves-
tigate their effects in changing students’ misconceptions of floating and sinking, not to find out which
group (experimental or control) is better than the other. In experimental studies, being involved in the
experimental group may result in an apparent improvement. According to Trochim (2001), this issue
is the main validity thread in the intervention studies. However, future research might use hands-on
activities designed for the teaching of floatation in this study, and compare student outcomes with the
traditional teaching of the subject in terms of achievement or attitudes in science.
In fact, the findings described here emerge a more important research question to be investigated

143
 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING ISSN 1648–3898
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

in future studies: does the conceptual change strategy used in this study affect students’ long-term
memory? Since previous empirical findings have shown that students’ misconceptions in science are
highly resistant to change (Osborne and Cosgrove, 1983, Carey, 1986), it is possible that students may
return their pre-conceptions over time (Taber, 2001; Teichert and Stacy, 2002). Therefore, a delayed test
would help to highlight this question in terms of retention of related concepts.
There are a number of teaching ways or tools that are applicable in a classroom situation and that
may be used for conceptual change in students’ ideas such as concept mapping, concrete activities,
hands-on activities, conceptual change texts, and computer-aided instruction. On the basis of the
present study, it can be deduced that hands-on activities may be a powerful way to foster science
learning viewed from a conceptual change perspective. If teachers demand to get their students to
learn meaningfully, they need to employ various strategies or tools in their classes to enhance student
understanding of problematic science concepts. A variety of learning activities which optimize student
involvement in the learning process helps students to improve their performance. No one asserts that
the students who are exposed to the teaching for conceptual change will immediately relinquish their
preconceptions in favor of the scientists’ explanations of the concepts unless they are persuaded that
their preconceptions are wrong and deficient for explaining the new concepts or phenomena. Precon-
ceptions are tenacious and may require repeated challenges in different settings and contexts to replace
and rethink their newly structured knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to develop effective teaching
ways, tools or strategies and present them to the teachers for their use in science classes for teaching
abstract and difficult science concepts.

References

Biddulph, F. and Osborne, R. (1984). Children’s questions and science teaching: An alternative approach.
Learning In Science Project. Working Paper No 117. Waikato University Science Education Research Unit, Hamilton,
New Zealand.
Bilgin, İ. (2006). The effects of hands-on activities incorporating a cooperative learning approach on eight grade
students’ science process skills and attitudes towards science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 1(9), 27-37.
Bliss, J. (1995). Piaget and after: The case of learning science. Studies in Science Education, 25: 139-172.
Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: a theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10): 873-878.
Çalık, M. (2005). A cross-age study of different perspectives in solution chemistry from junior to senior high
school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3: 671-696.
Çalık, M. and Ayas, A. (2005). A comparison of level of understanding of eight-grade students and science
student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (6): 638-667.
Çalık, M., Ayas, A. and Coll, R.K. (2006). Enhancing pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptual understand-
ing of solution chemistry with conceptual change text. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
5(1), 1-28
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41(10): 1123-1130.
Case, J.M. and Fraser, D.M. (1999). An investigation into chemical engineering students’ understanding of
the mole and use of concrete activities to promote conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education,
21(12): 1237-1249.
Cerrah Özsevgeç, L. (2007). What do Turkish students at different ages know about their ınternal body parts
both visually and verbally? Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(2), 31-44.
Champagne, A., Gunstone, R. and Klopfer, L. (1983). Naive knowledge and science learning. Research in Science
and Technological Education, 1(2): 175-183.
Coştu, B. and Ayas, A. (2005). Evaporation in different liquids: secondary students’ conceptions. Research in
Science and Technological Education, 23(1): 73-95.
Driver, R. and Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development
in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5: 61–68.
Driver, R. and Erickson, G. (1983). Theories in action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of
students’ conceptual frameworks in Science. Studies in Science Education, 10: 37-60.
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P. and Wood-Robinson, V. (1999). Making Sense of Secondary Science, Rout-
ledge Press, London.
Fleer, M. (1999). Children’s alternative views: Alternative to what? International Journal of Science Education,
21(2): 119-135.
Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science and achievement
in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34: 343-357.

144
Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
ISSN 1648–3898 CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

Geelan, D.R. (1995). Matrix technique: A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Aus-
tralian Science Teachers’ Journal, 41(3): 32-37.
Gürdal, A. and Macaroglu, E. (1997). The teaching of the concepts floating and sinking according to the cogni-
tive developmental stage of the child. Marmara University Journal of Science, 10: 9-20.
Guzzetti, B.J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade
of research? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16 (2): 89-98.
Haidar, A.H. (1997). Prospective chemistry teachers’ conceptions of the conservation of matter an related
concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34: 181-197.
Halford, G.S., Brown, C.A. and Thompson, R.M. (1986). Children’s concepts of volume and flotation. Develop-
mental Psychology, 22: 218-222.
Hewson, M.G. and Hewson, P.W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual
change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20: 731-743.
Inhelder, B., and Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. London: Rout-
ledge and Kegan Paul.
Jain, S.C. (1982). A study of conservation of mass, weight and volume ability in VI to XI grade students. Indian
Psychological Review, 22: 7-17.
Jones, M.G., Andre, T., Negishi, A., Tretter, T., Kubasko, D., Bokinsky, A., Taylor, R., and Superfine, R. (2003).
Hands-on Science: The impact of haptic experiences on attitudes and concepts. Paper presented at the National As-
sociation of Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting. Philadephia, PA.
Kahle, J. B. and Damnjanovic, A. (1994). The effect of inquiry activities on elementary students’ enjoyment,
ease, and confidence in doing science: An analysis by sex and race, Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, 1: 17-28.
Karamustafaoğlu, S., Coştu, B. and Ayas, A. (2005). Efficiencies of periodical table material developing with
simple tools [Basit araç-gereçlerle periyodik cetvel öğretiminin etkililiği]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2(1),
19-31.
Kariotogloy, P., Koumaras, P. and Psillos, D. (1993). A constructivist approach for teaching fluid phenomena.
Physics Education, 28 (3): 164-169.
Köse, S. (2007). The effects of concept mapping instruction on overcoming 9th grade students’ misconceptions
about diffusion and osmosis. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(2), 16-25.
Laws, P.W. (1997). Millikan Lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics education research in
introductory physics courses. The American Journal of Physics, 65 (1): 14-21
Linder, C. J. and Hillhouse, G. (1996). Teaching by conceptual exploration. The Physics Teacher, 34: 332-338.
Macaroglu, E. and Sentürk, K. (2001). Development of sinking and floating concepts in students’ mind. Symposium
on Science Education in New Millennium, Faculty of Education, Maltepe University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mullet, E., and Montcouquiol, A. (1988). Archimedes’ effect, information integration and individual differences.
International Journal of Science Education, 10: 285-301.
Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry? Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3): 191-
196.
Newton, L.D (2003). The occurrence of analogies in elementary school science books. Instructional Science, 31:
353-375.
Osborne, R. (1982). Science education: Where do we start? The Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 28(1): 21-30.
Osborne, R. and Cosgrove, M. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 20: 825-838.
Osborne, R. and Wittrock, M. (1983). Learning science: A generative process, Science Education, 67(4): 489-508.
Palmer, D. (2001). Students’ alternative conceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about gravity,
International Journal of Science Education, 23 (7): 691-706.
Palmer, D. (2003). Investigating the relationship between refutational text and conceptual change. Science
Education, 87(5): 663-684.
Rowell, J. A. and Dawson, C. J. (1981). Volume, conservation and instruction: A classroom based Solomon four
group study of conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18: 533‑546.
Rowell, J.A. and Dawson, C.J. (1977a). Teaching about floating and sinking: An attempt to link cognitive psychol-
ogy with classroom practice. Science Education, 61: 245-253.
Rowell, J.A. and Dawson, C.J. (1977b). Teaching about floating and sinking: Further studies toward closing the
gap between cognitive psychology and classroom practice. Science Education, 61: 527-540.
Simington, D. (1983). An analyses of the LISP unit -floating and sinking. Learning in Science Project. Working Paper
No 118. Waikato University Science Education Research Unit, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Smith, C., Carey, S. and Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of
size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21: 177-237.
Smith, C., Snir, J. and Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of
weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9: 221-283.
Özsevgeç, T. (2006). Determining effectiveness of student guiding material based on the 5E model in “Force

145
 Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2008
CHANGING STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS OF FLOATING AND SINKING USING ISSN 1648–3898
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
(P. 134-146)

and Motion” unit [Kuvvet ve Hareket Ünitesine Yönelik 5E Modeline Göre Geliştirilen Öğrenci Rehber Materyalinin
Etkililiğinin Değerlendirilmesi]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3(2), 36-48.
Taber, K.S. (2001). The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learner’s conceptions: A typology
of learning impediments. Educational Studies, 27(2): 159-171
Teichert, M.A. and Stacy, A.M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through
student explanation and integration of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6): 464-496.
Treagust, D.F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science.
International Journal of Science Education, 10(2): 159-169.
Trochim, W.M.K. (2001). The research methods knowledge base. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.
Tsai, C.C. (1998). Science learning and constructivism. Curriculum and Teaching, 13: 31-52.
Ünal, S. and Coştu, B. (2005). Problematic issue for students: Does it sink or float? Asia Pasific Forum on Science
Learning and Teaching, 6 (1) www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt.
Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J. and Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel
(ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (New York: Macmillan), 177-210
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom Back into Discussions of Teacher Quality.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Received 07 December 2007; accepted 10 September 2008

Suat Unal Assistant Professor, Karadeniz Technical University, Fatih Faculty

of Education, Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics
Education, Trabzon, Turkey.
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.ktu.edu.tr/ing/

146

View publication stats