Effect of Simulated Chemistry Practicals on Students’ Performance at Secondary School Level

Farkhanda Jabeen, Muhammad Tanveer Afzal

Abstract


The study was conducted to compare the performance of students working in chemistry laboratory with those working in chemistry laboratory supplemented with simulations at secondary school level.  The focus of the study was to find out the effectiveness of laboratory work supplemented with simulation on the performance of students. The study was experimental in nature and posttest only control group design was used.  Qualitative data is collected by means of interview of chemistry teachers. Quantitative data was also collected and analyzed. The sample comprised of 118 (60 males and 58 female) students and (02) Chemistry teachers of class IX of Public schools of Peshawar. The control group worked in the Chemistry laboratory under normal condition whereas experimental group performed practicals with the help of simulated software. At the end of the treatment practical examination was conducted on the pattern of Peshawar Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (PBISE). The scores of both control and experimental groups were compared in three main areas i.e. written, viva voce and notebook. For the sake of comparison of control group and experimental group independent sample t-test was used. The result of t-test indicates that there is a significant difference between the performance of control and experimental groups with large effect size. The qualitative data was collected by means of interview which indicated that both the interviewees were motivated and showed keen interest in the simulated software. Both the respondents confirmed that the use of simulated software results in better understanding of concepts in students but at the same time both interviewees reported that it seems difficult to apply the simulated software in our system of Education.  The performance of the students of experimental groups showed improvement, results in the rejection of hypotheses that there is no significant difference between the performance of students taught by conventional demonstration in laboratory and laboratory work facilitated with simulation. If proper physical facilities were available simulated software is the solutions of many problems faced by students and teachers in Chemistry laboratories.


Keywords


chemistry practicals, control group, experimental group, performance, simulation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia‐based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(4), 317-337.

Banerji, R., Bhattacharjea, S., & Wadhwa, W. (2013). The annual status of education report (ASER). Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(3), 387-396.

Banks, J. J. S. Carsonll., B. L. Nelson., & D. M. Nicol. (2005). Discrete event system simulation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2008). Active learning: effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 296.

Bell, R. L., & Trundle, K. C. (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 346-372.

Clark, D. B., Nelson, B., Sengupta, P., & D’Angelo, C. (2009). Rethinking science learning through digital games and simulations: Genres, examples, and evidence. Paper commissioned for the National Research Council Workshop on Gaming and Simulations, October 6-7, Washington, DC.

Dahar, M. A., & Faize, F. A. (2011). Effect of the availability and the use of science laboratories on academic achievement of students in Punjab (Pakistan). European Journal of Scientific Research, 51(2), 193-202.

Dani, D. E., & Koenig, K. M. (2008). Technology and reform-based science education. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 204-211.

Dickerson, J., & Kubasko, D. (2007). Digital microscopes: Enhancing collaboration and engagement in science classrooms with information technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(4), 279-292.

Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(1).

Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 39-60.

Geban, O., Askar, P., & Özkan, Ï. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problem-solving approaches on high school students. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 5-10.

Government of Pakistan, (2009). The national education policy 2009, Ministry of Education.

Gunstone, R. F., & Champagne, A. B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 159–182). London: Routledge.

Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2006). Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 701-732.

Higgins, T. E., & Spitulnik, M. W. (2008). Supporting teachers’ use of technology in science instruction through professional development: A literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 511-521.

Hill, C. E., Loch, K. D., Straub, D., & El-Sheshai, K. (1998). A qualitative assessment of Arab culture and information technology transfer. Journal of Global Information Management, 6(3), 29-38.

Hodson, D. (1998) Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105-107.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2003). The Laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st century. Journal of Science Education,88(1), 28-54

Iqbal, A. (2004). Problems and prospects of higher education in Pakistan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Institute of Education and Research, University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Jeschke, S., Richter, T., & Zorn, E. (2010). Virtual labs in mathematics and natural sciences. In International conference on technology supported learning & training: Online educa Berlin (pp. 183-204). Retrieved from http://www.ibi.tuberlin.de/diskurs/veranst/online_educa/ oeb_04/Zorn%20TU.pdf

Khitab, U., Ghaffar, A., & Zaman, A. A. 2013. An investigative study of the construction of low cost material by secondary science teachers. Word Applied Science Journal, 28(10), 1427-1436

Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology‐enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010-1030.

Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology‐enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010-1030.

Kim, Y. C., & Fisher, M. E. (2005). Singular coexistence-curve diameters: Experiments and simulations. Chemical Physics Letters, 414(1-3), 185-192.

Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143.

Kubala, T. (1998). Addressing student needs: Teaching on the internet. The Journal, 25(8), 71-74.

Lee, H. S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology‐enhanced inquiry science units’ impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 71-90.

Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2004). Specific design principles: Elaborating the scaffolder knowledge integration framework. In In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 315–340). London: Routledge.

Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2003). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory and practice. Handbook of Research on Science Education, 2.

Malik, U. (2007). Exploring science education in Pakistan. Journal of the American Physical Society, 16(9). 34-39.

Mathews, M. R. (2000). Times for science education. New York: Kluwer.

Mbajiorgu, N., & Reid, N. (2006). Factors influencing curriculum development in chemistry. Hull: Higher Education Academy.

McCoy, E. D., & Bell, S. S. (1991). Habitat structure: The evolution and diversification of a complex topic. In Habitat structure. Dordrecht: Springer.

Mistler‐Jackson, M., & Butler Songer, N. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459-479.

National Research Council. (2006). America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

Okon, M., Kaliszan, D., Lawenda, M., Stoklosa, D., Rajtar, T., Meyer, N., & Stroinski, M. (2006). Virtual laboratory as a remote and interactive access to the scientific instrumentation embedded in grid environment. In 2006 Second IEEE International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing (e-Science'06) (pp. 124-124). IEEE.

Roth, W. M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 197–223.

Rouse, D. P. (2007). Computer-assisted instruction: An effective instructional method. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 2(4), 138-143.

Rowlands, S. (2008). The crisis in science education and the need to enculturate all learners in science. In Petroselli, C. L. (Ed.), Science education issues and development (pp. 117-1). New York: Nova Science Publisher.

Shami, P. A., & Hussain, K. S. (2005). Basic education in Pakistan (No. 181). Academy of Educational Planning and Management, Ministry of Education.

Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students' achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (1), 159–170.

Tobin, K. G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities; In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning, School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418.

Varma, K., Husic, F., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Targeted support for using technology-enhanced science inquiry modules. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 341-356.

Woolnough, B. E. (1991). Setting the scene. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 3–9). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v7i1.2600

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License