Impact of Virtual Laboratory on the Achievement of Secondary School Chemistry Students in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Collaborative Environments

Year 2018, Volume: 9 Issue: 3, 246 - 263, 16.07.2018

Amosa İsiaka Gambari Halima Kawu Oluwole Caleb Falode

https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.444108

Abstract

The study investigated the impact of virtual laboratory on the achievements of secondary school chemistry
students in homogeneous and heterogeneous collaborative settings in Minna,
Niger state, Nigeria. Three hypotheses
were formulated, analyzed and tested at 0.05 alpha level. Stratified
sampling technique was used to select 60 Senior Secondary Class Two (SS II) Chemistry
Students. The subjects were stratified along gender and ability levels. Sixty
students were randomly selected from two secondary schools in Minna, Nigeria.
Thirty students (male, n = 15; female, n = 15) were selected from each school. Pretest,
posttest, and experimental group design was employed. Experts validated 20-item
multiple-choice Chemistry Achievement Test (CAT) was used for data collection. A
reliability coefficient of 0.91 was obtained from the pilot testing using Kuder
Richardson (KR-20). ANCOVA and Sidak post-hoc statistics were used for testing
the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. The results showed that: (a) students in homogeneous ability grouping
taught Chemistry using virtual laboratory instruction in collaborative setting
performed better than their counterpart taught Chemistry in heterogeneous grouping
composition; (b) female students in homogeneous group performed better than
their counterparts in heterogeneous groups; (c) the higher achiever students in
homogeneous groups outperformed those in heterogeneous groups. Based on
these findings, it was recommended that the use of virtual laboratory
instruction in homogeneous gender and ability level grouping in collaborative
setting should be encouraged in teaching practical chemistry at senior
secondary schools in Nigeria.

Keywords

Virtual laboratory, Cooperative group composition, Gender, Ability grouping

References

• Abakpa, B. O. & Iji, C. O. (2011). Effect of mastery learning approach on senior secondary school students’ achievement in geometry. Journal of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 8(2), 24-31.
• Adodo, S. O. & Agbayewa, J. O. (2011). Effect of homogenous and heterogeneous ability grouping class teaching on student’s interest, attitude and achievement in integrated science. International Journal of Psychology and Counselling, 3(3), 48-54.
• Anyanwu, C. R., Ezenwa, V. I., & Gambari, A. I. (2014). Bridging the gap between low, medium and high ability students through the use of computer-based multimedia instruction. Journal of Information, Education, Science and Technology, 1(1), 105-115.
• Bayrak, B., Kanli, U., & Kandilingec, Ş. (2007). To compare the effects of computer based learning and the laboratory based learning on students’ achievement regarding electric circuits. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(1), 15-24.
• Burris, C. C., Heubert, J. P., & Levin, H. M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 105-136.
• Cen, L., Ruta, D., Powell, L., Hirsch, B. & Ng, J. (2016). Quantitative approach to collaborative learning: Performance prediction, individual assessment, and group composition. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 187-225.
• Cohen, E. (1994). Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood D. R. (2009). Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry students, Computers & Education, 53(3), 853–865.
• Dalton, D. (1990). The effects of cooperative learning strategies on achievement and attitudes during interactive video. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17, 8-16.
• Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blay, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In H. Spada & P. Reimann (Eds), Learning in human and machines. Oxford: Elsevier.
• Dobson, J. (2009). Evaluation of the virtual physiology of exercise laboratory program. Advances in Physiology Education, 33, 335-342.
• El-Koumy, A. A. (2009). The effects of homogeneous versus heterogeneous reading-style grouping on EFL students' non-preferred reading style and reading comprehension. Retrieved on 22 January 2017 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509192.pdf
• Emily E. & Susie J. (2006). Gender and sex: A sample of definitions. Retrieved on 15 May 2007 from http://www.genderequality..ac.ukbooks/students02014
• Faris, A. O. (2009). The impact of homogeneous vs. heterogeneous collaborative learning groups in multicultural classes on the achievement and attitudes of nine graders towards learning science. Retrieved on 22 January 2017 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id= ED504109
• Felder M., Felder, N., Mauney, M., Hamrin, E., & Dietz, J. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention: Gender differences in student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(2), 151.
• Gambari, A. I., Falode, O. C., Fagbemi, P. O. & Idris, B. (2013). Efficacy of virtual laboratory on the achievement and attitude of secondary school students in physics practical. Journal of Research in Curriculum, 9(1), 9-20.
• Garcia-Luque, E., Ortega, T., Forja, J. M., & Gomez-Perra, A. (2004). Using a laboratory simulator in the teaching and study of chemical processes in estuarine system. Computer Education, 43(1-2), 81-90.
• Gamoran, A. & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 415-435.
• Hafner, W. & Ellis, T. J. (2004, January). Project-based, asynchronous collaborative learning. Paper presented at the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, HI.
• Hooper, S. & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 413-424.
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta- analysis. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
• Josephsen, L. & Kristensen, A. (2006), Simulation of laboratory assignments to support students' learning of introductory inorganic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(4), 266-279.
• Kaya, S. (2015). The effect of the type of achievement grouping on students' question generation in science. Australian Educational Researcher, 42(4), 429-441.
• Kerr, M. S., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. C. (2004).Innovative educational practice: using virtual labs in the secondary classroom, The Journal of Educators Online, 1(1), 1-9.
• Kuo, Y., Chu, H., & Huang, C. (2015). A learning style-based grouping collaborative learning approach to improve EFL students' performance in English courses. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 284-298.
• Kulik, C. L. (1985). Effects of inter-class ability grouping on achievement and self Esteem. Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association (93rd), Los Angeles, California. Retrieved on 15 May 2007 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id= ED263492
• Melser, N. A. (1999). Gifted students and cooperative learning: A study of grouping strategies. Roeper Review, 21(4), 315-321. Moore, S. M. B. (2015). School administrators' and teachers' perceptions of single-gender classrooms in coeducational public middle schools within South Carolina (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gardner-Webb University.
• Mulcahy, R. S. (2012). The effects of experience grouping on achievement, satisfaction, and problem-solving discourse in professional technical training. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 15-29.
• National Examination Council (NECO, 2008-2013). May/June chief examiner’s report. Minna, Nigeria: NECO.
• Njoku, Z. C. (2007). Comparison of students’ achievement in the three categories of questions in SSCE practical chemistry examination. Journal of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 42(1&2), 67-72.
• Obrentz, S. B. (2012). Predictors of science success: The impact of motivation and learning strategies on college chemistry performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education, Georgia State University.
• Okebukola, P. A. O. (2006). Students’ performance in practical: A study of some related factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(2), 119-126.
• Pritchard, T., McCollum, S., Sundal, J., & Colquit, G. (2014). Effect of the sport education tactical model on coeducational and single gender game performance. Physical Educator, 71(1). Retrieved on 22 January 2017 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1059778
• Poole, D. (2008). Interactional differentiation in the mixed-ability group: A situated view of two struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 228-250
• Pyatt, K. & Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes, performance and access. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 133-147.
• Rhea, M. (2010). The power of collaborative learning for associations. Retrieved on 22 January 2017 from http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/ANowDetail.cfm?ItemNumber
• Rosser, S. V. (1997). Re-engineering female friendly science. New York: Columbia Teachers College Press.
• Sampson, P. M., Gresham, G., Leigh, M., & McCormick-Myers, D. (2014). Do you want single-gender science classrooms in your middle schools? Teacher Education and Practice, 27(1), 190-202.
• Sandler, B. R., Silverberg, L. A., & Hall, R. M. (1996). The chilly classroom climate: A guide to improve the education of women. Washington, DC: National Association for Women in Education.
• Sheppard, K. (2006). High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acid-base phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(1), 32-45.
• Shi, W., He, X., Wang, Y., & Huan, W. (2015). Effects of lab group sex composition on physics learning. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 87-92.
• Shin, D., Yoon, E. S., Park, S. J., & Lee, E. S. (2002). Web-based interactive virtual laboratory system for unit operations and process systems engineering education. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 24, 1381–1385.
• Simsek, A. (1993). The effects of learner control and group composition on student performance, interaction, and attitudes during computer-based cooperative learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
• Simsek, A. & Tsai, B. (1992). The impact of cooperative group composition on student performance and attitudes during interactive videodisc instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(3), 86-91.
• Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Swan, A. & O'Donnell, A. (2009). The contribution of a virtual biology laboratory to college students' learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 405-419.
• Subramanian, R. & Marsic, I. (2001). VIBE: Virtual biology experiments. Retrieved on 10 August 2010 from http://www.hkwebsym.org.hk/(2001)/E4-track/vibe.pdf
• Tatli, Z. & Ayas, A. (2013). Virtual chemistry laboratory: Effect of constructivist learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 183-199.
• Takeda, S. & Homberg, F. (2014). The effects of gender on group work process and achievement: An analysis through self- and peer-assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 373-396.
• Thomas, E. & Feng, J. (2014, October). Effects of ability grouping on math achievement of third grade students. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Georgia Educational Research. Savannah, GA.
• Tsai, C. (2012). Peer effects on academic cheating among high school students in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(1), 147-155.
• Tuyuz, C. (2010). The effects of virtual laboratory on students’ achievement and attitudes in chemistry. International Online Journal of Sciences, 2(1), 37-53.
• Vasiliou, A. & Economides, A. A. (2007). Mobile collaborative learning using multicast MANETs. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 5(4), 423-444.
• Webb, N. M. (1991). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology. 76(1), 33-44. Retrieved on 9 July 2007 from http://psycnet. apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1984-16230
• Yelland, N. (1995). Collaboration and learning with LOGO: Does gender make a difference. Proceedings of CSCL’95. Retrieved on 15 May 2007 from http://wwwcscl95.indiana.edu /cscl95/yelland.html
• Yu, J. Q., Brown, D. J., & Billet, E. E. (2005). Development of virtual laboratory experiment for biology. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 1–14. Retrieved on 9 July 2007 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials.htm
• Yusuf, A. (2004). Effects of cooperative and competitive instructional strategies on junior secondary school students’ performance in social studies, in Ilorin, Nigeria (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Curriculum Studies and Educational Technology, University of Ilorin, Nigeria.
• Yusuf, M. O. (1997). Effects of videotape and slide-tape instructions on junior secondary students’ performance in social studies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Curriculum Studies and Educational Technology, University of Ilorin, Nigeria.