IMPACT OF A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO LEARNING ON HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS’ COMPREHENSION OF ELECTROCHEMISTRY CONCEPTS

Year 2016, Volume: 4 , 220 - 231, 01.09.2016

Kwaku Darko Amponsah Chukunoye Enunuwe Ochonogor

Abstract

This paper is part
of a larger study to investigate ‘The impact of a constructivist approach to
learning on physical sciences students’ comprehension of electrochemistry
concepts’ in the Ximhungwe circuit of the Bohlabela district in the Mpumalanga
province of South Africa. The study explored the impact of using a
constructivist type of teaching intervention – collaboration combined with
conceptual change texts, otherwise called conceptual change teaching strategy
(CCTS) on students in high achieving schools (HAS) in their comprehension of
electrochemistry concepts. The
study utilized non-equivalent
pretest and posttest control group quasi-experimental research design. The
theoretical framework for this study was based on Vygotsky’s social
constructivism theory, which he defines as a sociological theory of knowledge
that applies the general philosophy of constructivism into social settings. A
sample of 51 12^th grade physical sciences students from two high
achieving public schools in the circuit was randomly selected using a table of
random numbers to participate in the study. Students were given
electrochemistry concept test (ECT) Chemistry Classroom Environment Questionnaire
(CCEQ) as pretest and posttest. One-way between group analysis
of covariance (ANCOVA) and post hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment conducted on ECT showed that students taught
with the CCTS had significantly better acquisition of
scientific conceptions related to electrochemistry than students taught with the traditional teaching method (TTM). Pearson
Product-Moment Correlation also revealed that there was significant
relationship between achievement and students’ perception of their chemistry classroom
environment. The study provides statistical evidence on the
importance of meaningful learning combined with social process to improve
students’ understanding of electrochemistry.

Keywords

Collaboration, electrochemistry, high achieving schools, social constructivism, traditional teaching method

References

• Alexander, P. A. (1998). Positioning conceptual change within a model of domain literacy. In B. Guzzetti & c. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change (pp.55-76). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bojczuk (1982). Electrochemistry Misconception. School Science Review. 64, 545-551. Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1-40. Conley, A.M., Pintrich, P.R., Vekiri, I. & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186-204. DEMP (2015). Feedback on the 2012 NSC examination and resource material in physical sciences. Mpumalanga Province: Mpumalanga Department of Education. Duit, R. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671- 688. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688. Dykstra, D. I. J. (2005). Against realist instruction: Superficial success masking catastrophic failure and an alternative. Constructivist Foundations, 1(1), 49-60. Garnett, P. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1992a). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1079-99. Hanson et al. (1998). Improving Teaching and Learning Process in General Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 75(2), 143-147. Kelly, G., & Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world. (pp. 145-182). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kittleson, J. M., & Southerland, S. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 267-293. Leedy, P. D., Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research planning and design (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Niaz, M. (2002). Facilitating conceptual change in students’ understanding of electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 425,439. Novak (2002). Meaningful Learning. Science Education. 548-571. Ogude, A. N. & Bradley, J. D. (1994). Ionic conduction and electrical neutrality in operating electrochemical cells. Journal of Chemical Education. 71, 29-34. Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M.C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67, 489-508. Özmen, H. (2004). Some students’ misconceptions in chemistry: A literature review of chemical bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 147-159. Özkaya, A. R. (2002). Conceptual difficulties experienced by prospective teachers in electrochemistry: Half-cell potential, cell potential, and chemical and electrochemical equilibrium in galvanic cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 735-738. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227. Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997a). Common student misconceptions in electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic, and concentration cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3), 377 - 398. Sanger, M. J., and Greenbowe, T. J. (1997b). Students’ misconceptions in electrochemistry: Current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(7), 819-823. Schmidt, H-J., Marohn, A., & Harrison, A. G. (2007). Factors that prevent learning in electrochemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 258-283. Scott, P., Asoko, H. & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education. (pp. 31-56). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sinatra, G.M. & Pintrich, P.R. (Eds.). (2003). Intentional Conceptual Change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils' understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63-82. Stathopoulou, C. & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between chemistry-related epistemological beliefs and chemistry comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 255-281. Suping, S. M. (2003). Conceptual change among students in science. Retrieved January 18, 2005, from www.eric.ed.gov Treagust D.F., (1988), Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students' misconceptions in science, International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159-169. Treagust, D., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 297-328. Vellom, R. P., Anderson, C. W., & Palinscar, A. (1993). Scientific reasoning in school contexts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, Georgia. Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (1994). Capturing and Modeling the Process of Conceptual Change. In S. Vosniadou (Guest Editor), Special Issue on Conceptual Change, Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wandersee, J., Mintzes, J., & Novak, J. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. (pp. 177-210). New York: MacMillan. Wittrock, M.C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychology, 11, 86-95.