Effect of 7E instruction on primary students’ non-ionizing radiation knowledge and protective behaviors

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

This study examined the effect of a 7E learning model–based instructional process on primary school students’ knowledge, perceptions, and protective behavior awareness regarding nonionizing radiation.

MATERıALS AND METHODS:

A mixed-methods design was used, including a quasi-experimental pretest–posttest–control group and qualitative interviews. The study involved 48 fourth-grade students from a public primary school in Türkiye. Two classes were selected by drawing lots and randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Quantitative data were collected using the rubric-based Radiation Information Form; Mann–Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were applied, and effect sizes were calculated. Qualitative data were obtained through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using inductive thematic content analysis.

RESULTS:

Both groups showed significant posttest improvement, but the experimental group demonstrated significantly greater gains with a very large observed effect size. Qualitative findings suggested more coherent conceptual understanding and increased awareness of protective behaviors among experimental group students.

CONCLUSION:

The 7E learning model appears to support the development of children’s understanding and awareness regarding nonionizing radiation. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to the single-school sample, short intervention duration, and reliance on students’ self-reported data.

Introduction

With the rapid spread of digital technologies, mobile phones, tablets, and wireless communication systems have become an integral part of daily life. This transformation does not only concern adults but also children who encounter digital tools for educational and entertainment purposes at very early ages. Current data indicate that the time children spend in digital environments is increasing rapidly both nationally and globally. It has been reported that a large majority of children aged 6–15 in Türkiye use the internet, a significant proportion own personal smartphones, and many are in regular interaction with digital games.[1] Similarly, international reports also indicate that children’s access to digital technologies and their level of interaction with these technologies are increasing worldwide.[2,3] Children’s intensive interaction with digital devices at school and at home brings along environmental exposures associated with prolonged technology use,[4] and one of these exposures is nonionizing radiation originating from mobile and wireless technologies.

Radiation is defined as the emission and propagation of energy through space in the form of electromagnetic waves or particles, and its physical and biological effects vary depending on wavelength and energy level.[5,6] In terms of health effects, radiation is generally classified into two categories—ionizing and nonionizing—based on its ability to remove electrons from atoms. Ionizing radiation possesses sufficient energy to cause ionization in biological tissues and is associated with health risks such as DNA damage, mutation, and cancer.[7,8] In contrast, nonionizing radiation does not have enough energy to ionize atoms, although it may lead to biological effects such as excitation processes or increases in temperature.[5]

Nonionizing radiation encompasses a wide spectrum, including ultraviolet (UV), visible light, infrared (IR), radio frequencies (RFs), microwaves, and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields, originating from both natural sources (e.g., sunlight) and human-made technological devices such as mobile phones, wireless modems, tablets, and household electronic equipment.[5,6] Its biological effects may vary depending on factors such as exposure duration, frequency range, tissue characteristics, and the developmental status of the exposed individual.[6,9] Some studies have suggested that long-term and low-level exposure may influence thermal processes, cellular stress responses, nervous system functions, and hormonal regulation, although the mechanisms underlying these effects remain unclear.[9,10,11] Therefore, the potential health effects of nonionizing radiation are often discussed within the framework of uncertainty and the precautionary principle, which emphasizes adopting informed and protective measures when scientific evidence remains inconclusive. Within this context, children are frequently considered a potentially more sensitive group due to ongoing developmental processes, the immaturity of the nervous system, higher tissue conductivity, and longer lifetime exposure durations.[3,12] Moreover, children’s intensive use of digital devices and their tendency to keep such devices close to their bodies may influence exposure patterns, highlighting the importance of developing children’s awareness and understanding of radiation within a scientific and realistic framework.

When the existing literature is examined, it is observed that studies on radiation have largely focused on high school students or university students studying in health-related fields, and that these studies have mostly been limited to describing individuals’ general knowledge and awareness levels.[13,14,15,16,17] In contrast, it is noteworthy that experimental studies involving structured instructional processes targeting younger age groups—who are considered potentially more sensitive to nonionizing radiation exposure due to their developmental characteristics—are highly limited. Nevertheless, considering that children interact intensively with digital technologies from an early age, it is important for them to acquire scientifically accurate conceptual knowledge about nonionizing radiation, to reach a level of awareness that enables them to recognize sources of such radiation and situations of exposure in their daily lives, and, based on this knowledge and awareness, to develop conscious and precautionary usage tendencies aimed at reducing exposure and engaging in protective behaviors. In this context, educational institutions can be regarded as the most appropriate environments in which children can systematically acquire knowledge and awareness related to radiation within a scientific framework. Nevertheless, the abstract nature of the concept of radiation and its lack of direct observability make it particularly difficult for younger students to comprehend, leading traditional lecture-based teaching methods to remain limited in this regard. This situation highlights the need for alternative instructional approaches that are appropriate to the cognitive levels of younger learners, enrich the learning process, and actively Engage students in learning.

In this context, instructional models based on constructivist learning theory and actively involving students in the learning process come to the forefront. One such model is the 7E learning model, which consists of stages that activate students’ prior knowledge (Engage), enable them to experience concepts through exploratory activities (Explore), provide a scientific conceptual framework (Explain), allow them to apply knowledge to new situations (Elaborate), relate learning to different contexts (Extend), support peer interaction (Exchange), and evaluate learning in a multidimensional manner (Evaluate).[18] In this respect, the 7E learning model offers an instructional framework that enables abstract concepts to be concretized in accordance with students’ age and cognitive levels, supports the development of conceptual understanding, and facilitates the connection of learned knowledge to everyday life. However, when the existing literature is examined, it is observed that experimental studies investigating the effects of the 7E learning model on primary school students’ knowledge and awareness of nonionizing radiation, as well as the reflection of these gains in daily life, are limited. For this reason, in the present study, an enriched instructional plan consisting of interactive and practice-based activities appropriate to students’ age and cognitive characteristics was developed and structured according to the stages of the 7E learning model. Within this context, the present study aims to examine the effects of a 7E learning model–based instructional process on primary school students’ knowledge and awareness regarding nonionizing radiation. In addition, the study explores how students interpret and relate these concepts to their daily technology use and precautionary practices.

Materials and Methods

Study design and setting

This research was conducted using a mixed-methods approach in which quantitative and qualitative data were collected and integrated.[19] In the quantitative phase of the research, a quasi-experimental design with a pretest–posttest–control group was employed, since full randomization at the individual level was not feasible. The experimental design, presenting the quantitative and qualitative phases of the research, the data collection points, and the process between the groups, is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Study design

Ethical considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Gazi University in Türkiye with the approval number 2023/1063 dated September 05, 2023, and the Ethical Committee Permission Document (ECPD) number E-77082166-604.01.02-745049 dated September 13, 2023 was also obtained. Participation in the current study was voluntary. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents of all participating children, and assent forms were obtained from the children themselves before data collection. Confidentiality and anonymity of all collected data were fully ensured throughout the study.

Study group

The study group of the current research consisted of fourth-grade students studying at a public primary school in Türkiye. Among the seven fourth-grade classes available at the school, two classes were selected through drawing lots; one of these selected classes was assigned to the experimental group and the other to the control group. This assignment was carried out at the class (cluster) level, which represents a commonly used approach in quasi-experimental studies conducted in school settings where individual randomization is not feasible. The experimental group consisted of 24 students, including 11 girls and 13 boys, whereas the control group consisted of 24 students, including 12 girls and 12 boys. All participating students were 10 years old.

Both groups were studying in the same school, were at the same grade level, and followed the same national curriculum determined by the Ministry of National Education. In addition, the lessons in both the experimental and control groups were conducted by the same classroom teacher. While using the same teacher in both groups helped to reduce instructional variability, the possibility of a teacher expectation effect cannot be fully ruled out and is therefore considered among the limitations of the study. However, some individual background variables, such as parental education level, access to technology at home, and students’ prior knowledge levels, were not directly measured within the scope of this study. These variables are among the limitations that should be taken into consideration in the interpretation of the findings, as they may influence both students’ technology use patterns and their responses to the instructional intervention. In order to evaluate the comparability of the baseline levels of the groups before the intervention, a pretest was administered to both groups, and the findings indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups.

Data collection tools

Radiation Information Form

In this study, the Radiation Information Form was used to evaluate students’ conceptual understanding and awareness regarding nonionizing radiation. This form was designed not as a large-scale psychometric measurement tool, but as a learning outcome–based assessment instrument developed to evaluate the targeted learning outcomes within the instructional process structured according to the 7E learning model. During the development process of the form, the content of the activities implemented within the scope of the intervention and the expected learning outcomes of students were taken as the basis.

The Radiation Information Form consists of four open-ended questions in total. Each question includes two parts: (1) a structured Yes/No response aiming to reveal students’ basic awareness, and (2) an explanatory part designed to determine students’ level of conceptual understanding. The questions cover the main learning areas targeted in the instructional process, including (a) defining the concept of radiation and recognizing the radiation warning symbol, (b) distinguishing natural and artificial sources of radiation, (c) recognizing radiation sources encountered in daily life, and (d) developing awareness regarding protective measures against radiation.

The primary rationale for using a limited number of questions in the form is the developmental characteristics of fourth-grade primary school students who constituted the study group. Being in the concrete operational stage cognitively, students at this age may experience difficulties related to attention, motivation, and comprehension in long and multi-item scales. The measurement and evaluation literature in education emphasizes that, for younger age groups, a smaller number of questions requiring deeper thinking, explanation, and exemplification are more functional in revealing students’ conceptual structures.[18,19] Therefore, the instrument was designed with a learning outcome–based structure aiming primarily to reveal students’ conceptual understanding rather than focusing on purely quantitative scoring.[20,21]

The content validity of the form was evaluated based on the opinions of experts in the field of science education, and necessary revisions were made before finalizing the instrument. Before the main implementation, the form was piloted with 10 students who had similar characteristics to the study group. In the evaluation of student responses, an analytical rubric developed for each question was used. Responses were scored at three levels in the rubric as “inadequate (0),” “needs improvement (1),” and “good (2).” The scoring of students’ responses was conducted independently by the researcher and an expert in science education. Since the rubric criteria were based on clearly defined response categories (e.g., correct identification of radiation symbols, correct classification of radiation sources, or correct examples of radiation-emitting objects), the scoring process relied on objective criteria rather than interpretative judgment. Any minor discrepancies between the two scorers were discussed and resolved through consensus before the final dataset was created. The rubric and scoring criteria are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Rubric and scoring criteria

Scoring criteria
Insufficient (0)		• Answer is no • No explanation provided
Needs improvement (1)		• Answer is yes • Explanation is incorrect or incomplete
Good (2)		• Answer is yes • Explanation is complete

Considering the structure and intended purpose of the Radiation Information Form, it was designed as a learning outcome–based assessment instrument rather than a psychometric scale. Therefore, the primary strength of the instrument lies in its rubric-based scoring approach and its alignment with the targeted learning outcomes of the instructional process. The quantitative scores obtained from the form were used to examine students’ conceptual development before and after the instructional intervention.

Semi-structured interview form

In the qualitative dimension of this study, a semi-structured interview form was used to explore students’ experiences related to technology use, their perceptions of nonionizing radiation, and their awareness and self-reported tendencies regarding protective measures. Semi-structured interviews are widely preferred in qualitative research as they allow participants to express their experiences in detail in their own words while also providing flexible data collection opportunities within predetermined thematic areas.[19,22]

The interview form was prepared by the researcher in line with the relevant literature and the aims of the study, and it initially consisted of six open-ended questions. The questions were structured to cover three main thematic areas: (a) students’ daily technology use behaviors, (b) their perceptions of radiation emitted from mobile devices and wireless technologies, and (c) their awareness and behaviors regarding protective measures against radiation. The questions were reviewed based on the opinions of three experts in the field of science education, and two questions that were considered to cause content repetition and insufficiently align with the targeted themes were removed from the form, after which the interview form was finalized.[23]

To evaluate the comprehensibility and age appropriateness of the interview questions, pilot interviews were conducted with five fourth-grade students who had similar characteristics to the study group. As emphasized in the literature, clarity, concreteness, and age-appropriate language are critical for data quality in qualitative studies conducted with younger learners.[24] The pilot implementation indicated that students were able to respond to the questions clearly, and no further revisions were required.

The final interview form was administered at two different time points—before the intervention and one month after the intervention—to seven students selected from each group. The interviews were conducted individually by the researcher in an environment where students could express themselves comfortably, and responses were documented through detailed field notes. Audio recording was not employed due to the age characteristics of the participants (9–10 years old) and the potential of voice recording to create anxiety or limit the naturalness of responses in younger children. Therefore, detailed field notes were preferred to support a more relaxed and authentic interview atmosphere. At the same time, it is acknowledged that the absence of audio recordings constitutes a methodological limitation in terms of data completeness and reproducibility. Accordingly, the qualitative findings are interpreted as students’ self-reported expressions rather than direct evidence of actual behavior change. To mitigate this limitation, systematic field notes were taken throughout the interview process, focusing on meaningful units reflecting students’ technology use experiences, their perceptions of nonionizing radiation, and their precautionary practices.

The interview data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. During the analysis process, the data were read repeatedly, meaningful expressions were coded, and similar codes were grouped to form themes in line with the theoretical framework of the study and the structure of the interview questions.[25] Given that the coding process was conducted by a single researcher, the findings are presented with an emphasis on descriptive depth, and the limitations related to researcher interpretation are acknowledged. To support transparency in the analytic process, detailed field notes were maintained, coding decisions were documented throughout the analysis, and representative student quotations were included in the presentation of findings. Detailed qualitative findings are presented in the Results section together with themes, codes, and representative student quotations.

Data analysis

Before the main analyses, the distributional characteristics of the data were examined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test with Lilliefors correction and the Shapiro–Wilk test. Given the small sample size, nonnormal distributions, and the ordinal and bounded nature of the rubric-based scores, nonparametric statistical procedures were employed. Accordingly, Mann–Whitney U tests were used for between-group comparisons, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for within-group pre–post comparisons.

Effect sizes for the nonparametric comparisons were calculated using the formula r = Z/√N, where N represents the total number of observations involved in each comparison. This approach is commonly recommended for reporting effect magnitude in nonparametric analyses.

Confidence intervals (CIs) for effect sizes were not computed, as standard implementations of nonparametric tests in SPSS do not provide confidence intervals for r values. Additionally, bootstrap-based CI estimation was not feasible within the constraints of the present analysis. Therefore, the effect size estimates should be interpreted with caution. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 20), and the level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. While SPSS version 20 was used for the statistical analyses, the analytical procedures employed in the study remain methodologically appropriate despite the older software version.

Pre-implementation

Before the implementation, the Radiation Information Form was administered as a pretest to all students in both the experimental and control groups. Within the scope of the qualitative data collection process, seven students from each group were selected on a voluntary basis. The students in the experimental group were coded as S1–S7, whereas those in the control group were coded as C1–C7. Basing participation in the interviews on voluntariness was preferred in order to ensure ethical appropriateness and participant comfort, which is particularly important in studies conducted with child participants.

Application process

Experimental group application

The 7E model–based activity plan used in the study was originally developed and enriched within the scope of an ERASMUS+ project. The finalized version aimed to help students:

• Understand the concept of radiation,

• Classify radiation as natural or artificial,

• Identify protective measures against radiation.

Engage stage

In the Engage stage, an image reflecting the post-accident period of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was projected onto the smart board in order to attract students’ attention to the topic and activate their prior knowledge. After showing the image, the teacher asked the students, “What place do you think this might be?” and collected their predictions. At this stage, the teacher did not provide any confirmation or guidance regarding the students’ responses.

Then, the teacher stated that the image belonged to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine and started to read a short text, suitable for the age group and free of traumatic details, explaining that a major explosion occurred in this plant in 1986. The teacher emphasized that some of the effects of the explosion appeared years later and intentionally interrupted the narration at this point. The students were then asked to individually write what kinds of situations might have occurred in people years after this explosion.

A short period of time was given to the students to complete the writing task, and at the end of the allotted time, the students shared their writings in the classroom environment. The teacher again ended the process without making any explanatory statements. This approach was deliberately preferred in order to sustain students’ curiosity, create cognitive conflict, and provide mental readiness for the subsequent learning stage.

Explore stage

In the Explore stage, the teacher provided a short and age-appropriate explanation stating that various health-related problems emerged in some individuals years after the explosion. Then, the students were asked the question, “What do you think may have caused this situation?” and were requested to revise the texts they had previously written by considering this new information.

A short period of time was given for the students to complete the individual writing activity, and at the end of this period, the students shared their revised texts in the classroom environment. During this process, the teacher carefully listened to the students’ opinions and, instead of providing direct information, attempted to reveal their associations related to the concept of radiation through their responses. At this stage, the teacher did not provide an explanation regarding the definition or characteristics of radiation, but rather guided the students to think about possible causes based on their own ideas.

The rewriting activity implemented at this stage aimed to support students in analyzing the given information, establishing cause–and–effect relationships, and constructing their thoughts in their own words. In this way, it was ensured that students developed mental readiness for the concepts to be addressed in the subsequent stage.

Explain stage

In the Explain stage, the teacher asked the students to make their own definitions in response to the question “What is radiation?” and gathered their existing ideas. Then, through the smart board, a cartoon image showing the “before–after” states of a character was projected to the classroom [Figure 2]. In the image, it is seen that the character, who appears unhappy in the first situation, becomes happier in the second situation.

Figure 2.

Caricature on the smart board

The teacher structured the discussion by asking guiding questions based on the visual. In this process, in line with the students’ responses to questions such as “Why did the character become happy?” and “What has changed?”, the teacher established an analogy between the change in the character and the behavior of atoms. The teacher explained that some atoms in nature may exist in an unstable (imbalanced) state, and this situation could be likened to the unhappy character in the cartoon. Similar to the character getting rid of burdens in order to become happier, unstable atoms release energy or particles to become more stable. It was stated that this process, in which atoms become more stable by emitting energy or particles, is called radiation.

Following this explanation, the students were divided into four equal groups within the classroom (six students in each group). Each group was provided with visual puzzle pieces representing unstable atoms, the process of emitting radiation, and the stable atom state. The students were asked to assemble these pieces in the correct order to construct the process. When the group work was completed, the students had the opportunity to visually examine how atoms become more stable by emitting radiation [Figure 3].

Figure 3.

Illustration of the activity process

At this stage, the visual analogy and group-based puzzle activity supported students in concretizing radiation, which is an abstract concept, making sense of the process through visualization, and reinforcing their conceptual learning.

Elaborate stage

In the Elaborate stage, the teacher introduced the concept of radioactive atoms in order to enable students to use the knowledge they gained in the Explain stage in new contexts. The teacher stated that atoms emitting radiation are called radioactive atoms and explained that radiation sources can be addressed in two main categories: natural and artificial. In this explanation, it was emphasized that natural radiation originates from naturally occurring sources in the environment, whereas artificial radiation is emitted from human-made technological devices.

Following this fundamental framework, the students were divided into four equal groups, and each group was provided with visuals representing natural and artificial radiation sources, as well as cardboard, scissors, and glue. The students were asked to create a mind map that classified natural and artificial radiation sources under two separate headings using the given materials. During the activity, students discussed within their groups which visual belonged to which category and shared their justifications.

After the preparation of the mind maps was completed, they were exhibited in the classroom, and the students had the opportunity to explain natural and artificial radiation sources through the visual products they created [Figure 4].

Figure 4.

Illustration of the activity process

At this stage, the mind map activity supported students in constructing relationships between concepts through visualization, organizing knowledge, and using the information they acquired in a new context. In this way, it was aimed to deepen students’ conceptual awareness regarding radiation sources.

Extend stage

In the Extend stage, the teacher initiated a classroom discussion with guiding questions, including examples from daily life, to enable students to transfer their knowledge to different contexts. Within this scope, the teacher asked, “Have you noticed that devices emitting artificial radiation are used in some hospitals? What kind of precautions do you think should be taken in such environments?” and encouraged students to share their opinions. The students’ responses were discussed in the classroom, and different views were compared.

Then, in order to raise awareness regarding natural radiation sources, the teacher asked, “Do you think staying under the sun for a long time during midday hours in summer may cause any harm?” and gathered students’ opinions on this issue. Through these questions, students were encouraged to evaluate both natural and artificial radiation sources in different settings and to question possible risks.

As the discussion continued, the teacher introduced the radiation warning symbol used in radiation-related environments and explained its meaning. Thus, it was aimed for students to recognize radiation-related situations not only at a conceptual level but also through the warning signs and symbols they may encounter in daily life.

The discussions conducted at this stage supported students in recognizing radiation sources in different contexts, evaluating possible risks, and thinking about protective measures. In this way, it was aimed to enable students to transfer the knowledge they acquired to new situations and to develop informed decision-making skills.

Exchange stage

In the Exchange stage, the teacher drew attention to the fact that some household devices frequently used in daily life (such as tablets, mobile phones, microwave ovens, televisions, and similar electronic devices) may emit radiation. Then, the students were asked to think about safety precautions that could be taken regarding the use and placement of these devices in the home environment.

For this purpose, within the scope of group work, the students prepared drawings representing different living spaces, such as a kitchen, bedroom, or living room, using cardboard and markers. In their drawings, the students visualized their own suggestions regarding the safer use and placement of household devices. A specific time was allocated for the completion of the activity.

At the end of the allotted time, each group presented their drawings in the classroom and verbally explained the precautions included in their visual products [Figure 5].

Figure 5.

Illustration of the activity process

At this stage, students had the opportunity to share their own ideas with their peers and to evaluate the suggestions of other groups. The sharing activities carried out in the Exchange stage increased interaction among students and supported the reinforcement of learned concepts through peer learning.

Evaluate stage

In the Evaluate stage, it was aimed to assess the knowledge and conceptual understanding that students acquired throughout the process. Within this scope, the teacher briefly reviewed the key concepts addressed in the lesson and summarized the learning process by obtaining students’ opinions. Then, the Radiation Information Form was administered as a posttest in order to determine students’ knowledge levels and conceptual understanding regarding nonionizing radiation.

The assessment tool used in this evaluation process aimed to reveal students’ knowledge levels regarding the concept of radiation, their ability to distinguish natural and artificial radiation sources, and their awareness of protective measures against radiation. In this way, the knowledge and awareness that students gained throughout the learning process were evaluated quantitatively.

The entire instructional process was implemented over four class hours, covering the Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Extend, Exchange, and Evaluate stages, with a total planned duration of 160 min.

Control group application

The instructional process for the control group students was conducted in line with the lesson plan presented in Figure 6. During this process, the teacher addressed the topic of radiation using lecture, question–and–answer, and discussion methods, and the lessons were carried out with a teacher-centered and explanation-based approach. The instructional process implemented in the control group did not include the 7E learning model–based activities used in the experimental group.

Figure 6.

Control group application plan

Although a formal fidelity checklist was not used in this study, the instructional processes in both the experimental and control groups were guided by detailed lesson plans prepared in advance. While the instructional plan for the experimental group was structured according to the stages of the 7E learning model, the instructional plan for the control group was based on a teacher-centered, explanation-based approach developed within the scope of the study and implemented without the use of 7E-based activities. In both groups, the materials, activities, and durations were determined before the intervention. Throughout the implementation process, the teacher followed the predetermined plans as closely as possible, and the lessons were delivered in accordance with the planned instructional frameworks. In this way, particular attention was paid to implementing the instructional processes as intended in both groups.

The fact that the lessons in both the experimental and control groups were conducted by the same teacher was preferred in order to ensure consistency in terms of instructional content and classroom management. This approach increased comparability between the groups by reducing teacher-related differences. However, it is acknowledged that teacher expectancy effects cannot be completely eliminated in studies conducted with a single teacher. This situation was considered as one of the limitations of the study; nevertheless, standardization through the use of predetermined lesson plans and a single-teacher implementation was used as a practical strategy to reduce instructional variability across groups.

Post-implementation

After the implementation, the Radiation Information Form was administered as a posttest to both the experimental and control groups. Subsequently, a one-month waiting period was observed. One month later, semi-structured interviews were conducted again with the same seven students from the experimental group and the same seven students from the control group (a total of 14 students).

The purpose of the one-month interval was to explore students’ retention of the knowledge they had acquired and to examine their self-reported reflections and perceived use of this knowledge in daily life. This interval was selected to allow students time to recall the instructional content and to reflect on how they interpreted and related the learned concepts to their everyday experiences, rather than to provide direct evidence of actual behavior change.

Findings

Results of the Radiation Information Form

The Radiation Information Form consisted of four open-ended items. Each item included a Yes/No prompt followed by a task requiring students to provide an explanation or produce an output. Specifically, students were asked to (a) recognize and draw the radiation warning symbol, (b) provide examples of objects or materials that emit radiation (eight examples), (c) classify radiation sources as natural or artificial (four examples in each category), and (d) propose protective measures against radiation (six examples). Students’ responses were scored using the rubric described earlier, and total scores obtained from the rubric-based evaluations were used in the quantitative analyses.

Before conducting the main analyses, the distributional characteristics of the pretest and posttest total scores were examined to determine whether the data met the assumptions required for parametric procedures. Normality was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test with Lilliefors correction and the Shapiro–Wilk test [Table 2].

Table 2.

Tests of normality for Radiation Information Form scores

Variable		Kolmogorov–Smirnov Statistic		df		P		Shapiro–Wilk Statistic		df		P
Pretest–control		0.430		24		<0.001		0.609		24		<0.001
Pretest–experimental		0.404		24		<0.001		0.656		24		<0.001
Posttest–control		0.179		24		0.045		0.924		24		0.072
Posttest–experimental		0.476		24		<0.001		0.413		24		<0.001

As presented in Table 2, the Shapiro–Wilk test results indicated that the pretest scores of both the control group and the experimental group significantly deviated from normality (P < 0.05). Although the posttest scores of the control group approached a normal distribution according to the Shapiro–Wilk test (P > 0.05), the posttest scores of the experimental group did not meet the normality assumption (P < 0.05). Considering the small sample size, the ordinal and bounded scoring range of the rubric-based scores (0–2 per item), and the presence of floor effects in the pretest distributions, nonparametric statistical tests were employed in the subsequent analyses.

The first research question addressed in the study was: “Is there a significant difference between the Radiation Information Form scores of the experimental and control group students before the implementation?” The analyses conducted to examine this question are presented below. The pretest scores of the students are provided in Table 3.

Table 3.

The rubric scoring of students’ responses to the questions

Group		Evaluation		Rubric score		Statistic		Q1		Q2		Q3		Q4
Control group		Rubric evaluation		0		F		24		17		24		20
						%		100		70.8		100		83.3
				1		F		0		7		0		4
						%		0		29.2		0		16.7
				2		F		0		0		0		0
						%		0		0		0		0
Experimental group		Rubric evaluation		0		F		24		15		24		21
						%		100		62.5		100		87.5
				1		F		0		8		0		3
						%		0		37.5		0		12.5
				2		F		0		0		0		0
						%		0		0		0		0

Note: Q1=Question 1; Q2=Question 2; Q3=Question 3; Q4=Question 4

Table 3 presents the rubric-based distribution of students’ responses to each item of the Radiation Information Form before the implementation. While the table provides descriptive evidence regarding students’ initial performance levels, a statistical comparison was required to determine whether there was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups’ overall pretest scores.

The results of the Mann–Whitney U test conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference between the scores of the two groups on the Radiation Information Form before the implementation are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Results of the Mann–Whitney U test

Group		n		Mean rank		Sum of ranks		U		P
Control		24		24.50		588.00		288.00		1.000
Experimental		24		24.50		588.00

According to the results, there was no statistically significant difference between the pre-implementation scores of the two groups (P = 1.000), indicating that the experimental and control groups were comparable in terms of their initial performance on the Radiation Information Form.

The second research question addressed in the study was as follows: “Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the control group students after the implementation?” Before proceeding with the statistical analyses to answer this question, the rubric-based distributions of the students’ responses are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

The rubric scoring of students’ pretest and posttest responses

Group		Rubric Score		Statistic		Q1		Q2		Q3		Q4
Pretest		0		F		24		17		24		20
				%		100.0		70.8		100.0		83.3
		1		F		0		7		0		4
				%		0.0		29.2		0.0		16.7
		2		F		0		0		0		0
				%		0.0		0.0		0.0		0.0
Posttest		0		F		10		3		4		0
				%		41.7		12.5		16.7		0.0
		1		F		0		16		17		20
				%		0.0		66.7		70.8		83.3
		2		F		14		5		3		4
				%		58.3		20.8		12.5		16.7

Note: Q1=Question 1; Q2=Question 2; Q3=Question 3; Q4=Question 4

The table shows an increase in the responses provided by the students. To determine whether this increase is significant, the results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired samples are presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for pre and posttests

Pretest–posttest		n		Mean rank		Sum of ranks		z		P
Negative ranks		0		0.00		0.00		4.04*		0.001
Positive ranks		24		12.50		300.00
Ties		0

*Based on negative ranks

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated a statistically significant increase in the control group’s scores from pretest to posttest, Z = −4.04, P < 0.001. Examination of the rank distributions showed that none of the students demonstrated a decrease in scores, whereas 21 students showed higher posttest scores, and three students showed no change. Descriptive statistics supported this result, with the median score increasing from 0 (IQR = 0–1) at pretest to 5 (IQR = 3–5.75) at posttest. Although the magnitude of this change was large (r = 0.82), this finding reflects an increase in rubric-based scores within the control group following instruction and should be interpreted with consideration of the limited scoring range of the instrument.

Another research question addressed was as follows: “Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the experimental group students after the implementation?” Before proceeding with statistical analyses to answer this question, the responses provided by the students, as represented on the rubric, are presented in Table 7.

Table 7.

The rubric scoring of students’ pretest and posttest responses

Group		Rubric Score		Statistic		Q1		Q2		Q3		Q4
Pretest		0		F		24		15		24		21
				%		100.0		62.5		100.0		87.5
		1		F		0		8		0		3
				%		0.0		37.5		0.0		12.5
		2		F		0		0		0		0
				%		0.0		0.0		0.0		0.0
Posttest		0		F		2		0		0		0
				%		7.3		0.0		0.0		0.0
		1		F		0		2		4		0
				%		0.0		7.3		16.7		0.0
		2		F		22		22		20		24
				%		91.7		91.7		83.3		100.0

Note: Q1=Question 1; Q2=Question 2; Q3=Question 3; Q4=Question 4

The table shows an increase in the responses provided by the students. To determine whether this increase is significant, the results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired samples are presented in Table 8.

Table 8.

Results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for pre- and posttests

Pretest–posttest		n		Mean rank		Sum of ranks		z		P
Negative ranks		0		0.00		0.00		4.36*		0.001
Positive ranks		24		12.50		300.00
Ties		0

*Based on negative ranks

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed a statistically significant increase in the experimental group’s scores from pretest to posttest, Z = −4.36, P < 0.001. All students demonstrated higher posttest scores, with no negative ranks or ties observed. Descriptive statistics indicated a marked shift in central tendency, with the median score increasing from 0 (IQR = 0–1) at pretest to 8 (IQR = 8–8) at posttest. Although the magnitude of this change was a very large (r = 0.89), this result reflects a substantial increase in rubric-based scores following the 7E model–based instructional activities and should be interpreted in light of the bounded scoring range and ceiling effects observed in the posttest distributions.

The final research question addressed is as follows: “Is there a significant difference between the posttest scores of the control and experimental group students after the implementation?” To answer this question, the results of the Mann–Whitney U test are presented in Table 9.

Table 9.

The results of the Mann–Whitney U test

Group		n		Mean rank		Sum of ranks		U		P
Control		24		15.13		363.00		63.00		0.001
Experimental		24		33.88		813.00

According to the Mann–Whitney U test results, there was a statistically significant difference between the posttest scores of the experimental and control groups, U = 63.00, P < 0.001. Examination of the mean rank values indicated that this difference was in favor of the experimental group. The effect size was calculated as r = 0.71, indicating a large effect. This result indicates that students in the experimental group obtained higher rubric-based posttest scores than those in the control group following the instructional process. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution, taking into account the bounded scoring range of the assessment tool and the ceiling effects observed in the experimental group’s posttest distributions.

Qualitative data analysis

The interview data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach. During the analysis process, a preliminary reading of the data was first conducted in line with the interview questions, and then, the students’ statements were divided into meaningful units and coded. The codes were grouped into clusters representing similar meanings and were organized under three main themes: (1) technology use behaviors, (2) perceptions of radiation, and (3) protective behaviors. While presenting the findings, transparency was ensured by indicating which students expressed which types of statements (through student codes) and by including direct quotations representing each theme. The quotations were presented without altering the original expressions of the students. A summary of the qualitative themes, codes, and representative quotations is presented in Table 10 to provide an overview of the analytical structure of the findings.

Table 10.

Summary of qualitative themes, codes, and representative quotations

Theme		Codes		Representative Quote
Technology Use Behaviors		device usage duration; parental regulation; reduced screen time; self-regulated technology use		“I no longer play on my phone as much because I learned that it emits radiation.”
Radiation Perception		parental influence; skepticism toward radiation risk; emerging conceptual understanding; radiation awareness after instruction		“My mom says they emit harmful rays, but I didn’t really believe it.”
Protective Behaviors		limiting device use; unplugging electronic devices; keeping devices away during sleep; sharing knowledge with family		“Now we unplug the modem every night before going to bed.”

Theme 1: Technology use behaviors

Under this theme, students’ views regarding the duration of phone and tablet use and the purposes for which they used these devices were examined. The findings were evaluated based on the data obtained from the semi-structured interviews conducted before and after the implementation, and the results are presented in Tables 11 and 12.

Table 11.

Results for question 1

Duration used		Control				Experimental
		Before application		After application		Before application		After application
Never used
0–1 h range		C2, C5		C2, C5		S5		S1, S2, S3, S5, S6, S7
1–2 h range		C7		C6, C7		S1, S7		S4
2–3 h range		C3, C4, C6		C3, C4		S2, S6
More than 3 h		C1		C1		S3, S4

Table 12.

Purposes of students’ tablet or phone usage

Purpose of usage		Control				Experimental
		Before application		After application		Before application		After application
For playing games		C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7		C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7		S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7		S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7

Daily duration of phone or tablet use

When Table 11 is examined, it is seen that, before the implementation, all students in both the control group (C1–C7) and the experimental group (S1–S7) were using a phone or tablet in their daily lives. Before the implementation, it was noteworthy that some students reported relatively high device usage durations. In the experimental group, students coded S3 and S4 stated that they used such devices for more than three hours a day, whereas in the control group, student C1 similarly reported extended daily use.

Following the implementation, it was observed that, for the majority of the control group students (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C7), there was no notable change in their daily phone or tablet usage durations. Only student C6 reported a decrease in device use. However, when the reason for this change was further explored, the student associated the decrease not with radiation awareness but with parental pressure. Student C6 expressed this situation as follows:

“Teacher, I don’t play games on my phone as much anymore because my parents get angry.”

This statement suggests that the reported decrease in device use in the control group was attributed by the student to parental regulation rather than to an increased awareness related to radiation.

In the experimental group, all students (S1–S7) reported a decrease in their daily phone and tablet usage durations after the implementation. In their statements, students frequently associated this reported change with the instructional activities and the information they had learned about radiation during the learning process. For example, student S3 stated:

“I no longer play on my phone as much. Because I learned that it emits radiation.”

Similarly, student S4 explained the reported change as follows:

“I had heard the word ‘radiation’ before but didn’t know what it meant. Now I do. That’s why I’ve significantly reduced my tablet usage. My mom was very happy about this.”

Student S2 described the reported change in daily technology use by referring to both personal experiences and family reactions:

“Family members are very surprised because now I only use the phone for a limited time. I used to grab my dad’s phone as soon as he came home from work and play games on it. He always scolded me for that. But now I take it very rarely because I learned it’s harmful.”

These statements reflect students’ own interpretations and language when explaining how the instructional process influenced their awareness and evaluation of technology use. The findings are therefore presented as students’ self-reported perceptions and attributions rather than as direct evidence of objectively verified behavioral or health outcomes. In this context, the qualitative data illustrate how students made sense of the concept of radiation and related it to their daily technology use practices.

Purpose of phone or tablet use

The findings regarding the purposes for which students used phones or tablets are presented in Table 12.

According to the table, both before and after the implementation, all students in both the control group and the experimental group (C1–C7; S1–S7) stated that they used these devices solely for playing games. None of the students reported using their phones or tablets for homework, research, or educational purposes.

These findings suggest that the instructional process did not lead to a reported change in the primary purposes for which students used their devices. Rather, students’ statements indicate that the learning experience was reflected in how they evaluated the duration and manner of their technology use. In this sense, although students in the experimental group continued to report using devices for playing games, they described limiting the duration of use and approaching this activity in a more cautious and self-regulated manner.

Theme 2: Radiation perception

Within this theme, students’ perceptions regarding radiation emitted from phones and tablets were examined. The findings were evaluated based on the data obtained from the semi-structured interviews conducted before and after the implementation, and the results are presented in Table 13.

Table 13.

Students’ views on whether phones or tablets emit radiation

Emit harmful rays?		Control				Experimental
		Before application		After application		Before application		After application
Yes		C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7		C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7		S1, S2, S4, S5, S6, S7		S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7
No						S3

When Table 13 is examined, it can be seen that before the implementation, all students in the control group (C1–C7) and the majority of the students in the experimental group (S1, S2, S4, S5, S6, S7) stated that phones and tablets emit harmful radiation. Only student S3 in the experimental group expressed the view before the implementation that these devices do not emit harmful radiation.

The pre-implementation interviews indicated that, for many students, these views were primarily shaped by statements they had heard from adults rather than by their own explanations or scientifically grounded reasoning. Although students frequently reported that they were familiar with the term “radiation,” they experienced difficulty articulating why it might occur or what its effects could be. For example, student S6 from the experimental group stated:

“My mom says they emit harmful rays, but I don’t really believe it.”

Student S5 expressed a similar hesitation:

“Teacher, how harmful can they be? Playing games is so enjoyable.”

Likewise, student S4 described radiation as a concept used by parents to restrict technology use:

“Teacher, my parents are tricking me by saying it’s harmful. They don’t want me to play with their phones, but I don’t think it’s that harmful.”

Comparable views were also expressed by students in the control group. For instance, student C2 stated:

“I know it’s harmful because my family keeps telling me, but I can’t control myself.”

Student C5 questioned the credibility of such warnings as follows:

“Is it really harmful, teacher? I think they say that just to trick kids. If it were harmful, they wouldn’t use it themselves.”

Taken together, these statements illustrate that, before the implementation, students’ views about radiation were often tentative, inconsistent, and largely dependent on external discourse rather than on personally constructed explanations.

Following the implementation, students in the experimental group (S1–S7) more consistently described phones and tablets as emitting radiation and attempted to explain their views using ideas introduced during the instructional process. In particular, student S3, who had initially expressed a different opinion, revised their explanation in the post-implementation interview. These changes are presented as shifts in students’ expressed explanations and interpretations rather than as evidence of stable or generalized conceptual change.

In the control group, students (C1–C7) continued to state after the implementation that phones and tablets emit radiation. However, their explanations did not show a noticeable increase in elaboration or detail compared with their pre-implementation statements. This finding suggests that students’ expressed views in the control group remained largely similar across the two interview points.

Theme 3: Protective behaviors against radiation

Within this theme, the precautions that students reported taking against radiation in their daily lives were examined. The findings are presented in Table 14 and were compared based on students’ statements before and after the implementation.

Table 14.

Students’ self-reported precautionary practices related to radiation

I take precautions		Control				Experimental
		Before application		After application		Before application		After application
Yes				C7				S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7
No		C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7		C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6		S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7

According to Table 14, before the implementation, all students in both the control group (C1–C7) and the experimental group (S1–S7) stated that they did not take any precautions related to radiation in their daily lives, either at home or in outdoor environments. Although students frequently referred to the existence of radiation in the interviews, they did not describe any precautionary practices at this stage.

Following the implementation, students in the experimental group (S1–S7) reported that they had begun to take certain precautionary actions in their daily routines. In their statements, students often associated these reported practices with what they had learned during the instructional process and how they interpreted this information in their everyday contexts. Some students also described sharing what they had learned with their family members. For example, student S6 stated:

“Teacher, I told my parents what I learned, and now we unplug the modem every night before going to bed. I don’t play games on my phone as much anymore.”

Student S4 described a change in bedtime habits as follows:

“Teacher, I used to put my phone under my pillow at night, but I don’t do that anymore because I don’t want it to harm my brain.”

Similarly, student S2 explained their reported behavior in this way:

“After that lesson, I’m much more careful. I use my tablet very little now. We unplug the TV at night.”

Student S3 emphasized the role of family interactions in this process:

“I told my family at home what I learned, and now we always take precautions against radiation at home. My parents don’t sleep in the same room with their phones anymore, and I play less with my tablet now.”

These statements are presented as students’ self-reported perceptions and descriptions of their own and their families’ practices. They reflect how students interpreted the instructional content and related it to their daily lives, rather than serving as objective evidence of verified or sustained behavioral change.

In the control group, only one student (C7) reported taking precautionary actions after the implementation. Student C7 described this situation as follows:

“Teacher, we now turn off the Wi-Fi at night before going to bed. I also no longer sleep in a room with a phone.”

The statements from the control group suggest that such reported practices were limited and not commonly expressed among students. These findings indicate differences in how students in the two groups described and interpreted precautionary practices following the instructional process, based on their own accounts.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine a 7E learning model–based instructional process in relation to fourth-grade students’ knowledge, perceptions, and self-reported protective tendencies regarding nonionizing radiation, using both quantitative and qualitative data. The findings indicate that the quantitative and qualitative results complement each other by providing converging but distinct insights into students’ learning experiences.

The quantitative findings indicated statistically significant increases in students’ rubric-based scores in both the experimental and control groups following the instructional process. The magnitude of the increase observed in the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, accompanied by a large observed effect size within the bounded scoring structure of the assessment. These results suggest that, within the context of the present study, constructivist and student-centered instructional approaches may support higher post-instruction performance on outcome-based assessments compared with traditional lecture-based instruction. This interpretation is consistent with previous studies highlighting the potential of learning cycle and constructivist models in supporting students’ engagement with abstract scientific concepts, such as those reported by Bybee,[18] Duran and Dokme,[26] and Balta and Sarac.[27]

The qualitative findings provided additional insight into how differences between the groups were reflected in students’ explanations and self-reported interpretations. Interview data suggested that students in the experimental group articulated radiation not only in terms of harm, but also by referring to its sources, types, and situations in which precaution might be required. Before the implementation, students in both groups tended to frame their views on radiation largely through parental or adult discourse rather than through scientifically grounded explanations. This pattern is consistent with previous research indicating that children’s perceptions of environmental and technological risks are often shaped by adult narratives and everyday discourse, as discussed by Ahirwar and Tripathi[12] and WHO.[3]

After the implementation, students in the experimental group tended to provide explanations that were more internally consistent and elaborated when describing what radiation is, where it originates, and in which situations precaution may be required. The behaviors reported by students—such as turning off modems at night, keeping devices away from sleeping areas, or limiting screen time—were not interpreted as directly observed or verified behavior change, but rather as self-reported indications of increased awareness and precautionary orientation. This interpretive framework is consistent with research suggesting that educational interventions are more likely to influence awareness, understanding, and behavioral intentions than to produce demonstrable long-term behavior change, as discussed by Bandura[28] and Cousins and colleagues.[8]

In the control group, although a quantitative increase in knowledge was observed, qualitative results suggested that this improvement remained limited in terms of conceptual depth and daily-life relevance. Students frequently stated that radiation was harmful, but they had difficulty justifying this belief. This pattern parallels evidence indicating that teacher-centered and lecture-based instruction may support short-term knowledge acquisition but offer limited support for conceptual restructuring and knowledge transfer, similar to arguments presented by Prince (2004).[29]

Taken together, the findings suggest that the 7E learning model provides an effective pedagogical framework for supporting cognitive engagement, conceptual structuring, and contextualization of learning. The Engage and Explore stages appeared to stimulate curiosity and cognitive conflict, whereas the Explain and Elaborate stages supported the structured construction of scientific understanding. The Extend and Exchange stages facilitated the transfer of learning to daily-life contexts, which was reflected in students’ real-life examples during interviews. This supports the view that learning cycle models promote conceptual change, as highlighted in the work of Bybee (2006)[30] and colleagues and Eisenkraft (2003).[31]

Overall, the findings of this study suggest that instruction based on the 7E learning model may contribute to supporting primary school students’ conceptual understanding and awareness related to nonionizing radiation. However, these findings are based on rubric-based quantitative scores and students’ self-reported qualitative statements and therefore do not allow conclusions regarding long-term or directly observed behavior change. Within this scope, the present study is considered to offer a cautious but meaningful contribution to the literature on science education and environmental health awareness in childhood, particularly by illustrating how structured, developmentally appropriate instructional designs may support students’ engagement with abstract scientific concepts.

Limitations

Despite the contributions of the present study, several limitations should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings. First, the study was conducted with a relatively small sample drawn from a single public primary school. In addition, group assignment was carried out at the class (cluster) level rather than through individual randomization. Although this approach is common in school-based quasi-experimental research, the potential effects of intra-cluster correlation were not statistically examined. Therefore, the generalizability of the findings beyond the specific study context is limited.

Second, the instructional process in both the experimental and control groups was implemented by a single classroom teacher. While this approach helped to reduce variability related to instructional style and classroom management, the possibility of a teacher expectancy effect cannot be fully ruled out. Although efforts were made to ensure consistency by following predetermined lesson plans, this factor represents an additional limitation of the study design. No formal observation checklist or external monitoring procedure was employed to assess implementation fidelity.

Third, limitations related to the measurement tools should be considered. The Radiation Information Form was developed as a learning outcome–based assessment instrument aligned with the instructional content, rather than as a standardized psychometric scale. The form consisted of four open-ended questions scored using a rubric with a limited range (0–2), which resulted in floor effects at the pretest stage and ceiling effects at the posttest stage, particularly in the experimental group. This restricted score variability may have reduced the sensitivity of the instrument to detect individual differences and may have contributed to the very large effect sizes observed. Accordingly, the quantitative results should be interpreted with caution and within the boundaries of the measurement approach used.

The quantitative scoring of open-ended responses was conducted independently by the researcher and a science education expert using the rubric criteria. Minor discrepancies were resolved through discussion; however, formal inter-rater reliability coefficients were not calculated.

Fourth, the qualitative component of the study also has methodological limitations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted without audio recording due to concerns about creating anxiety and inhibiting spontaneous responses among young children. While this approach supported a more natural interview environment, reliance on field notes may have reduced data completeness and reproducibility. Moreover, the qualitative coding process was conducted by a single researcher, and procedures such as peer debriefing or intercoder agreement were not employed. These factors limit the confirmability of the qualitative findings.

Furthermore, qualitative findings were based on students’ self-reported statements and reflections. As such, reported changes in daily practices and precautionary actions should be interpreted as expressions of awareness and perceived tendencies rather than as objectively verified or sustained behavior change. The short duration of the intervention and the one-month follow-up period further limit conclusions regarding long-term behavioral outcomes.

Taken together, these limitations highlight the need for cautious interpretation of the findings. Future research would benefit from the use of larger and more diverse samples, multi-teacher implementations, more sensitive and validated measurement instruments, longitudinal follow-up designs, and multi-source data (e.g., parent or observational reports) to more comprehensively examine the development and sustainability of radiation-related knowledge, awareness, and protective behaviors among children.

Conclusion

The findings of the present study suggest that instruction structured around the 7E learning model may support primary school students’ knowledge development and awareness related to nonionizing radiation, with higher rubric-based outcomes observed in comparison with traditional, teacher-centered instruction. These findings should be interpreted within the context of the study’s design, measurement tools, and reliance on students’ self-reported data, and they do not imply directly observed or long-term behavior change.

From a health and science education perspective, the results highlight the potential value of developmentally appropriate, student-centered instructional approaches for addressing abstract and everyday-relevant topics such as environmental and technological risks. Rather than offering definitive policy prescriptions, the present study suggests that instructional models emphasizing active engagement, conceptual understanding, and awareness-building may provide a useful framework for supporting children’s understanding of radiation-related concepts within educational settings. Collaboration between schools and families may further support the reinforcement of awareness beyond the classroom, although the effectiveness of such approaches requires further empirical investigation.

Future research should involve larger and more diverse samples, incorporate longitudinal designs, and employ more sensitive and multi-source measurement approaches (e.g., observational data or family reports) to examine the sustainability of knowledge, awareness, and precautionary tendencies over time. In addition, the applicability of the 7E learning model to other abstract science topics may be explored through comparative and multi-site intervention studies.

AI policy statement

During the preparation of this manuscript, ChatGPT (OpenAI) was used solely for language editing and formatting assistance. The author takes full responsibility for the study design, data analysis, interpretation of the findings, and the final content of the manuscript.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Gazi University, Türkiye (Approval No. 2023/1063, September 5, 2023). In addition, institutional permission to conduct the study was obtained (Permission No. E-77082166-604.01.02-745049, September 13, 2023).

Author’s contributions

All stages of the study, including conceptualization, methodology, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation, were carried out by the author.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available because they contain confidential information from participants but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with permission from the relevant ethics committee.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

Nil.