THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE ANIMATION AND 3-D MODEL IN TEACHING PHOTOSYNTHESIS

Abstract

This study is a quasi-experimental method of research involving the making of alternative animation and 3D models as instructional materials in teaching photosynthesis. The main objective of the study was to find out whether this type of instructional material can enhance the academic performance of the students. The experimental group was exposed to the alternative animation which illustrates the light and dark reaction and the 3D model chloroplast while the control group was exposed to the 2D model of these structures which are indispensable in the topic photosynthesis. Constructivism approach is used as a teaching strategy specifically the 5E model in teaching for both groups. Two sections of Grade 8 were selected namely SSC- RNA and St. Therese. The students were randomly selected to be assigned as experimental and control group. The groups were given the teacher-made assessment composed of four levels: Knowledge, Process, Understanding and Performance. The learning outcomes were statistically treated using frequency and percentage distribution and independent t-test. Results revealed that there is a significant difference in the students’ over-all performance, knowledge and understanding levels of assessment of both groups but cannot enhance the process and performance levels of assessment.

References

1. Agun, I. (1992) Importance of Audio Visual Instruction. West African Journal of Education. 20(2).
2. Amir, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). In-depth Analysis of Misconceptions as a Basis for Developing Research-based Remedial Instruction: the Case of Photosynthesis. The American Biology Teacher,56(2), 94–100.
3. Anderson, C.W., Sheldon, T.H. & DuBay, J. (1990). The Effect of Instruction on College Nonmajors’ Conceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 761–776.
4. Andersson, B. (2008). To Understand School Science. Research Findings and New Ideas. Student litterature. Elanders Hungary Kft.
5. Archambault, R. (1964). John Dewey on education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
6. Armstrong, T.(1994). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
7. Ausman, B., Lin, H., Kidwai, K., Munyofu, M., Swain, J., & Dwyer, F. (2008). Effect of Prerequisite Knowledge on the Effectiveness of Animated Instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media.Vol.35(3).
8. Bagaforo, N and Nieto, R., (2001) . PCs for Students. Sunstar Davao. Retreived: July 24, 2014 from: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/weekend/pcs-students

9. Bahar, M., Johnstone, A.H., & Hansell, M.H. (1999). Revisiting Learning Difficulties in Biology.Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84-86
10. Barak, M., Ashkar, T., Dori, Y. (2011). Teaching Science via Animated Movies: Its Effect on Students' Learning Outcomes and Motivation. Journal of Computers & Education. Volume 56 Issue 3 Pages 839-846.
11. Bruner ,J.(1960) .The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
12. Buchanan, M., Carter, W., Cowgill, L., Hurley, D., Lewis, S.,MacLeod, J., Melton, T., Moore, J., Pessah, M.,Roberson, M. ,Robertson, T., Smith, M., and Vandenplas, M.(2005). Using 3D Animations to Teach Intracellular Signal Transduction Mechanisms: Taking the Arrows out of Cells. Journal of Veterinary.(32)1 No. 72.
13. Canal, P. (1999). Photosynthesis And ‘Inverse Respiration’ In Plants: An Inevitable Misconception? International Journal of Science education. 21: 363-371.
14. Cobb, P. (1991). Reconstructing Elementary School Mathematics. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, Vol. 13. pp.3-22.
15. Copolo, C.F., & Hounshell, P.B. (1995). Using Three-Dimensional Models To Teach Molecular Structures In High School Chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 295 -305.
16. Daniels, H. (ed.) (1996) An Introduction to Vygotsky. London : Routledge, .
17. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. Toronto: Collier-MacMillan Canada Ltd.
18. Driver, R. & Bell, B. (1986). Students’ Thinking and the Learning of Science: A Constructivist View. The School Science Review, 67(240), 443-456.
19. Duckworth, E. (1987). "The Having of Wonderful Ideas" and Other Essays on Teaching and Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
20. Eisen Y. & Stavy R. (1992). Material Cycles In Nature, A New Approach To Teaching Photosynthesis In Junior High School. The American Biology Teacher, 54(6): 339–342.
21. Falvo, D. (2008). “Animations And Simulations For Teaching And Learning Molecular Chemistry.,” International Journal Of Technology in Teaching and Learning, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 68–77,
22. Fleming, N., and Baume, D. (2006) Learning Styles Again: VARKing up the right tree! Educational Developments, SEDA Ltd, Issue 7.4, Nov. 2006, p4-7. Retreived: July 14, 2014 from: http://www.varklearn.com/documents/Educational%20Developments.pdf
23. Gabel, D., & Sherwood, R. (1980). The Effect Of Student Manipulation of Molecular Modelson Chemistry Achievement According To Piagetian Level. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 17(1), 75 - 81. Retreived:August 3, 2004 from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/34515/1033_ftp.pdf
24. Gage, N., & Berliner, D. (1992). Educational Psychology (5th ed.), Princeton, New Jersey: Houghton Mifflin Company. Retreived:August 3, 2004 from
25. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/modeltch.html
26. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
27. Gray, A. (2007).Constructivist Teaching and Learning.
28. Retrieved: July 2, 2014.from http://saskschoolboards.ca/research/instruction/97-07.htm.
29. Hiebert, J., R. Gallimore, H. Garnier, K. Bogard Givvin, H. Hollingsworth, J. Jacobs, A. M.Y. Chui, D. Wearne, M. Smith, N. Kersting, A. Manaster, E. Tseng, W. Etterbeek, C. Manaster, P. Gonzales, and J. Stigler (2003). Teaching Mathematics in Seven Countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics: US Department of Education.
30. Retreived: July 4, 2014 from:http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid
31. Johnsons, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
32. Kamin, P. and Iyer, N (2009). From Concrete to Abstact: Teaching for Transfer of Learning When Using Manipulatives. Northeaster Educational Research Association annual Conference. Retreived: September 2, 2014. From
33. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=nera_2009
34. Kroasbergen, E. H. & Van Luit, J. E. (2005). Constructivist Mathematics Education for Students with Mental Retardation. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(1).107-116.
35. Lehtinen, E. & Hannula, M. M. (2006). Attentional Processes, Abstraction And Transfer In Early Mathematical Processes. Instructional Psychology: Past, Present And Future Trends (Pp.39-55). Amsterdam:Elsevier
36. McIlrath, D., & Huitt, W. (1995). The Teaching-Learning Process: A Discussion Of Models. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved: July 22,1014 from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/modeltch.html
37. McNeil, N. M., Uttal, D. H., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Should You Show Me The Play Money? Concrete Objects Both Hurt And Help Performance On Math Problems.
38. Nsa, S. O., Ikot A. S. & Udo, M. F.(2013). Instructional Materials Utilization And Students’ Performance In Practical Agriculture. Journal of Educational Research and Reviews .Vol. 1(4), pp. 49-54, December 2013 ISSN: 2315-9859. Research Paper.Retreived: August 12, 2014 from http://www.sciencewebpublishing.net/jerr/archive/2013/December/pdf/Nsa%20et%20al.p df
39. Nwike, M., Onyejegbu, C.(2013).Effects of Use of Instructional Materials on Students Cognitive Achievement in Agricultural Science. Journal of Education and Social Research. Vol 3, No 5. Retrieved: July 25, 2014 from http://mcser.org/journal/index.php/jesr/article/viewFile/645/667
40. Oladejo, M., Olosunde, G., Ojebisi, A., Isola, O. (2011). Instructional Materials and Students’Academic Achievement in Physics: Some Policy Implications. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences.Volume 2, no.1. Retrieved: January 4, 2015. from: http://www.journalsbank.com/ejhss_2_4.pdf.
41. Özalp, I. (2006). A Study on Implementing the Technique of Caricature in Science and Environmental Education, University of Celal Bayar, Manisa.
42. Piaget, J. (1977). The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. (A.Rosin, Trans). New York: The Viking Press.
43. Rabago, L., Joaquin, C., Lagunzad, C., Carvajal, J., (2003). Functional Biology Modular Approach., Quezon City .Vibal Publishing House, Inc.
44. Resnick, L. B., & Ford, W. W. (1981). The Psychology Of Mathematics For Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. Simsek, U.(2009). The Effects of Animation and Cooperative Learning on Chemistry Students Academic Achievement And Conceptual Understanding About Aqueous Solution., World Applied Science Journal, 7 (1) , 23-33
46. http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/10351/thesis_tesfaye_demissie_hailgebreal.pdf?sequence=1
47. Twomey, F.C. (1989). Enquiring Teachers, Enquiring Learners: A Constructivist Approach for Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
48. Ürey, M. & Calık, M. (2008). Combining Different Conceptual Change Methods Within 5E Model: A Sample Teaching Design Of 'Cell' Concept And Its Organelles. Asia- Pacific Forum On Science Learning And Teaching, 9(2), Article 12.
49. Vikström, A. (2008). What is Intended, What is Realized, and What is Learned? Teaching and Learning Biology in the Primary School Classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 211-233.
50. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51. Woolfolk, A. H. (2007). Educational Psychology (10 Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
52. Wu, H., Krajcik, J., Soloway, E. (2000). Promoting Conceptual Understanding of Chemical Representations: Students’ Use of a Visualization Tool in the Classroom. Educational Research and Improvement. Educational Research and Information Center: New Orleans, LA.
53. Yürük, N. (2007). The Effect Of Supplementing Instruction With Conceptual Change Texts On Students’ Conceptions Of Electrochemical Cells. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 515-525.