Udu
David Agwu
* and
John
Nmadu
Department of Science Education, Faculty of Education, Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu-Alike (AEFUNAI), Ebonyi State, Nigeria. E-mail: daviduduagwu@gmail.com; johnnmadusaba@gmail.com
First published on 20th January 2023
This study evaluated the effectiveness of interactive engagement pedagogy, specifically, cooperative learning pedagogy in improving students’ academic achievement and academic self-concept in chemistry. A pre-test, post-test, non-equivalent, control group quasi-experimental design was adopted. The study was in senior secondary schools in one of Nigeria's North-central states. The focus was on senior secondary school class two (SS2) students of comparable academic abilities and a mean age of 15.42 years. The sample was 244 students. The chemistry achievement test on water (CATOW) and students’ academic self-concept questionnaire (SASQ) were the instruments used in data collection. The CATOW was validated by experts while the SASQ was an adapted instrument that was already validated. The reliability coefficients were 0.82 determined with Kuder–Richardson's formula 20 for the CATOW and 0.78 determined with Cronbach's alpha for the SASQ. Mixed methods of data analyses were employed in the study, involving mean, standard deviation, analysis of variance, independent sample t-test, analysis of covariance, and Pearson's correlation statistics. The results show that interactive engagement pedagogy (cooperative learning strategy) improved the academic achievement and academic self-concept of the students in chemistry more than the conventional (lecture) method. The study also found a positive linear relationship between academic achievement and the academic self-concept of the students in chemistry. The implication was for the chemistry teachers in developing nations to structure the learning environments to be more learner-centered, and activity-based by creating cooperative and collaborative learning platforms that will help in improving students’ academic achievement and self-concept. The study recommended that chemistry teachers desist from using teacher-centered pedagogies for lack of provisions for students’ active engagement in the teaching–learning process. This study is novel because it evaluated the effectiveness of interactive engagement pedagogy (cooperative learning) in improving students’ academic achievement and self-concept in chemistry in a developing nation and also identified some of the reasons for the lack of implementation of innovative pedagogies and possible remediation in developing nations, especially in Africa.
According to Hake (2002), interactive engagement pedagogy is an instructional strategy designed at least in part to promote conceptual understanding through interactively engaging the students in head-on and hands-on activities that may yield immediate feedback through discussions and interactions with peers and instructors. Schraw et al. (2005) noted that using interactive engagement pedagogies and learning models in teaching chemistry supports students’ active participation and social interaction to enhance learning. In a typical interactive engagement setting, the students usually interact with their peers, their teachers, and instructional materials (Jaenisch and Bird, 2003; Champagne and Curley, 2005; Kovas, et al., 2007). Several research studies have been conducted using various types of interactive engagement pedagogies and other active learning pedagogies, such as the collaborative learning strategy (CLS), cooperative learning pedagogy (CLP), process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL), peer-led guided inquiry (PLGI), problem-based learning (PBL), peer-led team learning (PLTL), etc. (Tauritz, 2012; Rahman and Lewis, 2019). The results show that these interactive engagement pedagogies were effective in enhancing students’ academic performance in science subjects irrespective of the location of the study (Wood and Gentile, 2003; Lewis and Lewis, 2005; Lim and Morris, 2009; Warfa, 2016; Apugliese and Lewis, 2017; Rahman and Lewis, 2019; Theobald et al., 2020). However, some recent studies in Asian and other developing countries’ contexts show that interactive engagement pedagogies are no better than, or worse than the lecture method in their effects on students’ learning (Tran, 2014). Specifically, Thanh-Pham and Gilles (2010) conducted a review of 14 studies on the impact of an interactive engagement pedagogy (cooperative learning) and conventional method (lecture) on students’ achievement and reported that 7 studies showed significantly higher achievement in the treatment groups than in the control groups, 4 revealed that the control groups outperformed the treatment groups, and 3 showed no significant differences. Similar research studies have shown that interactive engagement pedagogies are at least as effective as the lecture method in promoting students’ learning of factual knowledge, but are potentially more effective in promoting the learning of higher-order knowledge and skills (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).
Meanwhile, research findings have generally proven that interactive engagement pedagogies, specifically, cooperative learning pedagogy provides greater achievement than competitive or individualistic learning pedagogies (Johnson and Johnson, 2009; Slavin, 2011), and are effective in enhancing students’ academic achievement in science subjects (O’Sullivan, 2004; Adegoke, 2012; Udu, 2018). From the above reviews of research studies, it can be deduced that the effectiveness of interactive engagement pedagogies over conventional methods of teaching has been established in both Western and developing nations contexts. However, more research studies are needed in this area, especially, in developing countries to reinforce these claims. Hence, the justification for this study.
Research studies have shown that science teachers in developing nations, including Nigeria, have not fully embraced/incorporated interactive engagement pedagogies in their classrooms, irrespective of their effectiveness in enhancing students’ academic achievement. They have attributed the teachers’ non-implementation/non-incorporation of interactive engagement pedagogies in their classrooms to multiple and complex factors, which include: the teachers’ cultural contexts and learning experiences; pre-service and in-service training and on-the-job experiences; students and teachers rejecting the new processes; the average teacher's inability to demonstrate comprehension of the demands of innovative pedagogies; teachers’ conceptual and practical misunderstandings of the processes and practice of innovative pedagogies, etc. (Harley et al., 2000; O’Sullivan, 2004; Todd and Mason, 2005; Sriprakash, 2010; Schweisfurth, 2011; Tabulawa, 2013; Guthrie, 2018). Specifically, Tabulawa (2013) emphasized that the teachers’ cultural contexts and learning experiences are among the factors that affect teachers’ failure/inability to implement innovative, active learning and learner-centered approaches to instruction in developing nations. Hawes and Stephen (1990) noted that for these innovative pedagogies to be widely implemented in developing nations, there is a need to bear in mind and incorporate the general child-rearing practices considered appropriate and legitimate by the culture in which the teacher works and the pedagogy is applied. For instance, in African culture, the relationship between adults and children is one of respect and authority. The child is not encouraged to question an adult. The child is expected to be respectful, charming, and smiling in the company of elders (Tabulawa, 2013). This can be translated to the classroom setting where the teacher is seen as an “adult” and “elder”. However, innovative pedagogies seek to develop learners’ critical thinking skills and seek clarification by questioning their teachers (adults), which might seem to contrast with their cultural context. Based on this cultural influence, the teachers may not adapt or encourage the implementation of innovative pedagogies in their classrooms in developing nations. To mitigate against this cultural influence, the teachers should try as much as they can to redirect the students’ mindset to see culture and education as interwoven such that they can engage in active learning education without reneging in their cultural practices. Also, pre-service and in-service training and on-the-job experiences of teachers may contribute to the non-implementation of innovative pedagogies. It has been found that pre-service and in-service teachers in developing nations are not effectively trained in pedagogy other than drill and practice (Guthrie, 2018). For this reason, teachers tend to reject new approaches, especially innovative pedagogies. The students also tend to reject the innovative pedagogies because they are not familiar with the type of learning that will require them to “learn by doing it themselves” since they had only been exposed to rote learning. It might, therefore, be difficult for the teachers to help the students to transform from learning within traditional approaches to innovative approaches. Moreso, the average teacher's inability to demonstrate comprehension of the demands of innovative pedagogies might not be unconnected to the quality of training they received. This is because a teacher cannot give what he/she does not possess (Todd and Mason, 2005). Sriprakash (2010), therefore, suggests that the successful implementation of an innovative pedagogy will depend on successful teacher training because the teachers’ lack of knowledge and skills might affect the successful implementation of innovative pedagogies. Similarly, teachers’ conceptual and practical misunderstandings of the processes and practice of innovative pedagogies have been found to affect the implementation of innovative pedagogies in developing nations, especially, African countries (O’Sullivan, 2004). It has been found that the inability of the teachers to grasp fully the demands of innovative pedagogies, especially, activity-based learning, and equally their inability to translate those demands into viable classroom situations has been affecting the effective implementation of innovative pedagogies (Harley, et al., 2000; Schweisfurth, 2011). The teachers might have been underestimating the teachers’ and students’ involvement in innovative pedagogies and learner-centered education. A change to innovative pedagogies requires highly qualified and experienced teachers who fully grasp the demands of activity-based learning and have both abilities and motivations to translate those demands into viable classroom situations. As a result, the teachers tend to show reluctance in adopting and implementing innovative pedagogies in developing nations, especially in African countries (Guthrie, 2018). Based on the foregoing, this present study among other things evaluated the effectiveness of the interactive engagement pedagogy, precisely, the cooperative learning approach in improving the student's academic achievement in chemistry in secondary schools in a developing nation, Nigeria. Thereby serving as a guide to teachers in the adoption/implementation or otherwise of innovative pedagogies in the country.
Self-concept is a multidimensional construct that refers to a person's perception of self in terms of both academic and non-academic aspects (Cheung and Lau, 2001; Wilkins, 2004). Bong and Clark (1999) noted that self-concept is a composite of a “cognitive” description of one's attributes and an “affective” evaluation of those attributes in comparison with others. They added that the nature of self-concept is multidimensional in the sense that it has both cognitive and affective components. Similarly, Zheng et al. (2014) define self-concept as the set of knowledge and attributes, that a person has about himself or herself; the perception an individual assigns to himself, and the characteristics or attributes that a person uses to describe himself. According to Garaigordobil and Bernarás (2009), self-concept is understood as the notion an individual has of him/herself, based on experiences with others and on how they evaluate their behavior. They further classified self-concept into five major components/aspects, viz.; emotional, social, physical, family, and academic aspects. This present study focused on academic self-concept. According to Guay et al. (2003), academic self-concept refers to an individual's understanding and perception of self in academic achievement situations. Cokley and Patel (2007) see academic self-concept as a person's perception of self, concerning school achievement. Valentine et al. (2004) state that academic self-concept is a student's self-perception of his/her ability developed through specific endeavors and academic interactions. Furthermore, Wilkins (2004) refers to academic self-concept as the perception or belief in a student's ability to do well in any given subject. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) has shown that a student's belief in his or her ability to do well in science has value in his or her willingness to take part in quantitative situations and is recognized as an important component of scientific literacy. In experimental studies, there is normally social interaction among the students themselves and between the students and their teacher (Wilkins, 2004). It is therefore important to consider students’ academic self-concept as it affects their interaction and possible academic achievement in chemistry when taught with interactive engagement pedagogy.
Several research studies have reported significant relationships between students’ academic self-concept and academic achievement. Some of the studies found positive relationships between academic self-concept and academic achievement (Bailey, 2003; Guay et al., 2003; Valentine et al., 2004; Choi, 2005; Palomino, 2017), while others found negative relationships (Marsh, 1990; Kifer, 2002; Wilkins, 2004). However, this current study evaluated the interactive engagement pedagogy and students’ academic self-concept, precisely, the influence of cooperative learning pedagogy on students’ academic self-concept and the relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement of students in chemistry in secondary schools in a developing nation.
Several research studies in different educational settings have been conducted on different kinds of cooperative learning techniques. Such techniques include Learning Together (LT), Jigsaw Grouping (JG), Teams–Games–Tournaments (TGT), Group Investigation (GI), Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD), and Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) (Angrist and Lang, 2004; Slavin, 2011; Tran, 2014; Warfa, 2016; Apugliese and Lewis, 2017; Rahman and Lewis, 2019). Furthermore, Johnson and Johnson (2009) stated that cooperative learning consists of five basic elements: positive interdependence, promotive interaction, individual accountability, the teaching of interpersonal and social skills, and quality of group processing. According to Bertucci et al. (2010), positive interdependence requires students to work together as a cohesive group to achieve shared learning objectives. Johnson and Johnson (2009) noted that any learning environment where students are arranged into groups without positive interdependence is not a cooperative learning environment. Slavin (2011) added that positive interdependence is a major component of the cooperative learning process, whereby students must be responsible for their learning, as well as the success of other members of the group's learning. This means that the students in a cooperative learning environment must show positive interdependence by ensuring that all the members in their group complete the given tasks and achieve the academic outcomes as a whole and perceive each group member's contribution as beneficial to all (Rahman and Lewis, 2019). In addition, Johnson and Johnson (2008) stated that for every cooperative learning lesson, all the students in a group must work together in unison in the group learning activities. Therefore, positive interdependence is a vital component of cooperative learning that needs to be inculcated in cooperating groups to help students work, learn, and achieve together. Another element of cooperative learning is promotive interaction. Johnson and Johnson (2008) noted that promotive interaction occurs as individual members of a cooperating group encourage and facilitate each other's efforts to accomplish the group's goals. Johnson and Johnson (2009) elaborated further that to foster promotive interaction in cooperative learning groups, members are required to interact verbally with one another on learning tasks, exchange their opinions, explain things to one another, teach each other, and present their understanding for the benefit of the groups’ overall success. Next is individual responsibility. Johnson (2009) noted that individual responsibility entails that group members ask for assistance, put in their best in the group work, present their ideas to the group and learn as much as they can, take their tasks in the group seriously, help the group operate well and achieve the goal, and take care of one another in the group. According to Johnson and Johnson (2005), individual accountability is derived from the positive interdependence of group members. This is because positive interdependence creates a sense of responsibility and increases the individual accountability of group members for accomplishing a shared task and facilitating other group members’ work. Individual accountability is very vital in any cooperative learning environment because, without it, one or two group members may monopolize the learning process by doing all the work while others do nothing. To minimize this scenario, Slavin (1996) and Johnson and Johnson (2009) indicated that the achievement of the group should depend on the individual learning of each group member. This is to motivate and ensure that all group members master the material being studied. They added that basic learning skills in cooperative interaction should be taught to group members to enable them to work together effectively to finish their tasks. Social and interpersonal skills are another element of cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson (2005) noted that students in a cooperative group need to be taught social and interpersonal skills such as listening attentively, questioning cooperatively, and negotiating respectfully, to facilitate effective cooperation among group members. Besides, the success of cooperative learning depends on the teaching and acquisition of these skills by the students. Johnson and Johnson (2009) emphasized that to achieve the mutual goals of cooperative groups, the members should be taught how to: know and trust each other; communicate accurately and unambiguously; accept and support each other; and resolve conflicts constructively. Finally, Johnson and Johnson (1999) defined group processing as reflecting on a group session to help students analyze the members’ actions to determine the helpful and unhelpful acts, and decide on the ones to continue or change. Rahman and Lewis (2019) noted that group processing describes a reflective aspect where the group members self-evaluate their progress and adapt as necessary. In addition, Yamarik (2007) posited that group processing helps in improving the effectiveness of the group members in contributing to the shared tasks to achieve the group's goals through reflection on the learning processes. Continuing, Yamarik added that group processing is vital in cooperative learning because it serves the purpose of helping the group to clarify and improve the effectiveness of the group members in contributing to joint efforts to achieve the group's goals.
In summary, these basic elements of cooperative learning are very necessary for cooperative learning groups, because according to Johnson and Johnson (2008) they help students to achieve better, demonstrate superior learning skills, and experience more positive relationships among group members. In addition, Slavin (2011) noted that the basic elements of cooperative learning also foster positive relationships between students and the teacher, and help the students to breed more positive self-esteem and attitudes toward the subject area.
According to Johnson and Johnson (2009), and Tran and Lewis (2012) many research studies have found a significant relationship between higher cognitive and affective knowledge outcomes, and cooperative learning. Also, in comparison with cooperative learning techniques, lecture-based teaching has been reported to be less effective to the demands of high rates of cognitive and affective outcomes (Slavin, 2011). Many research studies abound that compared the effectiveness of different kinds of cooperative learning techniques with the conventional teaching method in improving students’ academic achievement and retention in different subject areas. The findings of many of these studies have revealed that the cooperative learning pedagogy was more effective in enhancing students’ academic achievement and retention of knowledge than the conventional (lecture) method (Bowen, 2000; Duran and Monereo, 2005; Ballantine and McCourt, 2007; Johnson and Johnson, 2009; Şahin, 2010; Wyk, 2010; Slavin, 2011). Moreover, several meta-analyses of recent quantitative studies that examined the effects of cooperative learning pedagogy on achievement outcomes in chemistry abound. Most of the results show a positive association between chemistry achievement and cooperative learning and concluded that cooperative learning pedagogy has the potential to effectively enhance students' academic achievement in chemistry (Ballantine and McCourt, 2007; Warfa, 2016; Apugliese and Lewis, 2017; Rahman and Lewis, 2019). From the foregoing, Tran and Lewis (2012) recommended the use of the cooperative learning method as an innovative complement to lecture-based teaching to improve students’ cognitive outcomes and academic achievement in the subject areas.
However, some recent studies in Asian and other developing countries show that cooperative learning is no better, or worse than the lecture method in its effects on students’ learning. Specifically, studies conducted independently by Sachs et al. (2003) and Zain et al. (2009) found no significant difference between the academic achievement of students taught with the cooperative learning strategy and their counterparts taught with the lecture method. Besides, studies conducted by Messier (2003) and Tan et al. (2007) found that students taught with the lecture method performed better than their counterparts taught with the cooperative learning strategy. They concluded that the lecture method enhanced students’ academic achievement more than the cooperative learning strategy. This issue of some learners in developing countries achieving better when exposed to conventional teaching strategies than in cooperative learning approaches has been a concern to researchers (Messier, 2003; Sachs et al., 2003; Tan et al., 2007; Zain et al., 2009). Researchers have attributed the development to students’ epistemic beliefs/personal epistemology (Greene et al., 2008; Barger et al., 2018), and cultural beliefs (Okebukola and Jegede, 1990; Glaser, 1991). According to Barger et al. (2018), a student's epistemic belief/personal epistemology refers to the way individual students think about knowledge and how they are influenced by the knowledge acquired. Similarly, Hofer and Pintrich (2002) see personal epistemology as beliefs about the nature and origin of knowledge. Studies have shown that personal epistemology has effects on students’ learning strategies (Muis, 2007), motivation (Buehl and Alexander, 2005; Chen, 2012), and academic achievement (Muis, 2004; Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2007). Emphasizing further, Greene et al. (2008) noted three beliefs that are the main focus of research studies on epistemology that characterize lecture-based and active-learning-based classrooms and shape the students’ knowledge. These include simple/certain knowledge; justification by authority; and personal justification. Accordingly, Hofer (2000) and Greene et al. (2008) described simple/certain knowledge as a belief that knowledge is composed of a collection of unchanging facts; justification by authority as a belief that knowledge is handed down by authority figures; and personal justification as a belief that individuals can each construct different views of knowledge. In a study conducted by Barger et al. (2016), it was found that students with strong justification by authority beliefs are inclined to lecture-based classroom environments, whereas those with strong personal justification beliefs are more inclined to active-learning (cooperative learning) classroom environments. Therefore, the extent to which learners match their epistemic beliefs to the demands of the subject matter may explain why students of different cultural backgrounds may be in tune with either the conventional/lecture-based approach or the active-learning (cooperative learning) approach of instruction (Dai and Cromley, 2014). Students from developing nations, especially African countries are more comfortable with conventional/lecture-based approaches than active-learning approaches because of their cultural orientations (Tabulawa, 2013). Cultural beliefs have a great deal to do with differences in achievement in schoolwork (Okebukola and Jegede, 1990). According to Glaser (1991), students’ cognitive activities are inseparable from the culture of the environment. This was supported by Ogbu (1992), who stated that students’ academic achievement can be influenced by complex social, economic, historical, and cultural factors. For instance, in African societies, learners look up to their teachers as authorities to depend on (Glaser, 1991). Learners believe that every piece of information gotten from their teachers is correct and factual. This is because culturally the teacher (elder) should be trusted and not be questioned in Africa (Tabulawa, 2013, Guthrie, 2018). This might have contributed to the student's apparent preference for a conventional (lecture-based) approach over active-learning pedagogies such as cooperative learning. But the students’ performance in science subjects has been generally poor and it has been attributed to the use of conventional methods of instruction among others (Khanyane et al., 2016; Zenda, 2017; Molla and Muche, 2018; Samuel and Okonkwo, 2021). However, Brownlee et al. (2001) and Muis and Duffy (2013) demonstrated that students’ epistemic and cultural beliefs can be changed through concerted efforts aimed at clearing up their misconceptions that might have been brought about by the cultural beliefs.
In summary, the effectiveness and benefits of cooperative learning have been widely reported in numerous studies. However, some studies especially in Asian and developing countries’ contexts have shown that cooperative learning is no better, or worse than the lecture method in its effects on students’ learning. The review shows further that very few research studies have investigated the effects of cooperative learning on students’ academic achievement and retention of knowledge in developing countries. However, to the best of the knowledge of the researchers, no studies have been carried out on the effect of cooperative learning on students’ self-concept in developing countries. The researchers, therefore, evaluated the effectiveness of interactive engagement pedagogy (cooperative learning pedagogy) in enhancing students’ academic achievement and academic self-concept in chemistry in a developing nation, Nigeria. Hence, justifying the novelty of this study.
The positive social interdependence learning theory breeds positive social interdependence in individuals. The individuals act to promote joint goals (Johnson and Johnson, 2009). Positive interdependence results in “promotive interaction.” Promotive interaction involves encouraging, facilitating, and helping individuals in a group to assist each other in completing tasks and accomplishing the group's goals. These are achievable through mutual help and assistance, exchange of needed resources, effective communication, mutual influence, trust, and constructive conflict management procedures. These are all required for an effective cooperative learning environment (Johnson and Johnson, 2005). In addition, Slavin (2011) noted that the positive social interdependence perspective holds that students help each other learn because they care about the group and its members. They may also derive self-identity benefits from group membership. There is a strong relationship established between cooperative learning and the social interdependence theory (Johnson et al., 2013). Johnson et al. (2013) emphasized further that the cooperating groups' goal of interdependence helps to unite the members into a “dynamic whole” such that any changes in the state of a member or subgroup may modify the status of other members or subgroups. These have confirmed that the positive social interdependence learning theory underpins the cooperative learning pedagogy theoretically because, in cooperative learning, the students are grouped in small learning teams and charged to work together to achieve their group interdependence goal (Johnson and Johnson, 2009). Johnson and Johnson (2019) claimed that the (positive) social interdependence theory provides a foundation for the practice of cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson illustrated further that positive social interdependence is directly associated with the nature of “cooperative learning pedagogy” because the students construct knowledge and skills through mutual interactions in their respective groups. The positive social interdependence theory has shown that the student's actions promote achieving their goals in a cooperative learning environment and provide teachers with the basis for designing and applying “cooperative learning pedagogy” in their classrooms (Johnson et al., 2013). Thereby encouraging the students' acquisition of interactive and cooperative skills needed for working and learning together to achieve shared goals that may help to enhance their academic achievement in chemistry (Johnson and Johnson, 2005; Johnson and Johnson, 2009).
According to Slavin (2011), the cognitive-developmental theory of learning arose from the works of Piaget (1926) and Vygotsky (1978). The learning theory stresses that reciprocal interaction among children around their academic tasks creates conceptual knowledge growth and critical skills (Slavin, 2011). Slavin noted that Vygotsky's emphases on cooperative activities were important because it promotes the growth and development of children and that learning occurring through social interaction may contribute to cognitive development. Supporting the cognitive-developmental perspective, Piaget argued that knowledge, values, regulations, morals, and systems are learned effectively through interaction among participants. And cognitive development occurring through social interactions may contribute to learning effectiveness (Van, 2013). It can be deduced from these learning theories that students engage in cooperative activities through the “cooperative learning pedagogy”. These activities may help in the development of their cognitive abilities, self-esteem, and self-concept (Garaigordobil and Bernarás, 2009). Meanwhile, the cognitive-developmental theory is consistent with the principles of cooperative learning because it encourages and emphasizes interactive, cooperative, and learner-centered approaches to learning (Slavin, 2011). Moreover, the positive social interdependence and cognitive developmental theories have provided the needed theoretical support for cooperative learning pedagogy in chemistry classrooms. The “cooperative learning pedagogy” engages the students in active learning activities in their cooperating groups, thereby increasing mutual interaction among them, which may help to enhance their academic achievement and academic self-concept in chemistry.
This study argues that these interactive processes of the students may help in the enhancement of their academic achievement and academic self-concept in chemistry. Therefore, the study evaluated the effectiveness of the interactive engagement pedagogy, specifically, the cooperative learning approach, in improving students’ academic achievement and academic self-concept in chemistry in a developing nation, Nigeria. Meanwhile, previous research by Marsh and Yeung (1997) and Choi (2005) has demonstrated independently that academic self-concept can serve as a predictor of academic performance and academic achievement. Based on this, the study assessed the relationship between students’ academic achievement and self-concept when taught with cooperative learning pedagogy. The study, therefore, tested the following three hypotheses:
• There is no statistically significant difference in the academic achievement of the students in chemistry when exposed to interactive engagement pedagogy (cooperative learning) or lecture method.
• There is no statistically significant difference in the academic self-concept of the students in chemistry when exposed to interactive engagement pedagogy (cooperative learning) or lecture method.
• There is no statistically significant relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement of students in chemistry when taught with the teaching methods.
The two groups (experimental and control) were pre-tested on the achievement test and academic self-concept questionnaire before the treatment. The results of a one-way ANOVA analysis showed no statistically significant differences in age (F(1,243) = 0.02, p = 0.89, p > 0.05), and pre-achievement test scores (F(1,243) = 0.01, p = 0.91, p > 0.05) between the experimental and the control groups (Table 1a). Similarly, the result of a t-test analysis showed no statistically significant difference in pre-academic self-concept scores (F(1,243) = 0.06, p = 0.81, p > 0.05) between the experimental and the control groups (Table 1b). These results indicate that students in both the experimental group and control group had similar ages, pre-achievement test scores, and pre-academic self-concept scores in the science subject (chemistry) before the experiment commenced.
Experimental group | Control group | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N = 135 | N = 109 | |||||||
(M = 75, F = 60) | (M = 60, F = 49) | |||||||
Variable | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean difference | df | F | Sig. |
SD = standard deviation; df = degree of freedom | ||||||||
(a) | ||||||||
Age | 15.42 | 1.03 | 15.44 | 1.05 | −0.02 | 243 | 0.02 | 0.89 |
Pre-test (CATOW) | 7.39 | 1.79 | 7.41 | 1.83 | −0.02 | 243 | 0.01 | 0.91 |
Variable | Levene's test | t-Test for equality of means | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean diff. | Std. error diff. | 95% confidence interval of the difference | |||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||
(b) | ||||||||||
Pre-academic self-concept | Equal variances assumed | 0.15 | 0.69 | −0.25 | 242 | 0.81 | −0.03 | 0.13 | −0.29 | 0.23 |
Equal variances not assumed | −0.25 | 233.94 | 0.80 | −0.03 | 0.13 | −0.29 | 0.23 |
Twelve regular chemistry teachers of the sampled schools and twelve pre-service teachers on teaching practice exercises who served as research assistants participated in the research. The teachers in the experimental schools exposed their students to the cooperative learning pedagogy (interactive engagement pedagogy), while their counterparts in the control schools taught their students with the conventional (lecture) method. These helped to prevent the treatment diffusion factor, which would have affected the validity of the study.
The instruments used in this study were the Chemistry Achievement Test on Water (CATOW), the Student's Academic Self-concept Questionnaire (SASQ), the Cooperative Learning Manual (CLM), and the Lesson Notes (LN).
The Chemistry Achievement Test on Water (CATOW) was a 40-item test instrument developed partly by the researchers from the content areas “water and solutions” in the senior secondary school class two (SS2) chemistry curriculum and adapted partly from Balabanoff et al. (2022). The CATOW contained two sections A and B. Section A covered the student's demographic data, while section B comprised 40 multiple-choice questions, with options A–D, having one correct answer and three distracters. The multiple-choice questions helped to avoid bias in grading the students' scripts when given essay-type questions. The choice of multiple-choice questions did not in any way jeopardize the purpose of the study. The CATOW was a final version of an item analysis carried out on a 50-item pilot instrument tested on 30 students of similar age and background to the sample students. The 40 items were selected based on the criteria that they have difficulty indices of between 0.40 and 0.60; possess positive item discrimination indices greater than or equal to +0.30, and have positive distracter indices (Bruce and Edward, 2003). The CATOW was validated by three experts in Science Education from one of the Universities in the Southeastern part of Nigeria. A table of specifications to determine the number of test items for each topic along with four categories of cognitive objectives: knowledge, comprehension, application, and analysis, with sixteen (16), twelve (12), eight (8), and four (4) questions respectively, was prepared. A pilot test of the CATOW on 30 students of similar age and background to the sample students was conducted to determine the internal consistency using the Kuder–Richardson formula-20. A reliability index of 0.82 was obtained. This shows that the test items were internally consistent. The pre-CATOW and post-CATOW were the same sets of questions but the questions were reshuffled in the post-CATOW to make them look different at face value. Each test item was allotted one (1) mark and the CATOW had a total maximum score of forty (40) marks.
The student's academic self-concept questionnaire (SASQ) was an adapted form of an already validated assessment scale (Reynolds, 1988; Liu and Wang, 2005). It comprised two sections A and B. Section A contained the demographic data of the respondents. Section B contained 20 questionnaire items separated into two subscales – academic confidence (10 items) and academic effort (10 items). The academic confidence (AC) subscale assessed the students’ feelings and perceptions about their academic competence in chemistry. Examples of items include “I can follow the chemistry lessons easily” and “I am smarter than most of my classmates in chemistry”. The academic effort (AE) subscale assessed the students’ commitment, involvement, and interest in chemistry schoolwork. Examples of items include “I study hard to pass my chemistry tests and examinations” and “I do not daydream in class during chemistry lessons”. The SASQ had a 4-point rating scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree and rated from 1 to 4 accordingly. All negatively worded items were rephrased positively for uniform computation. The reliability of the SASQ was determined through trial testing of the same 30 students tested with the CATOW who were not part of the subjects of the study. Cronbach's alpha results of the data show indices of 0.72, 0.84, and 0.78 for the academic confidence, and academic effort subscales, and the two subscales combined respectively, which shows that it was reliable.
The cooperative learning manual (CLM) was adapted from the Learning Together form of cooperative learning (Slavin, 1995; Johnson and Johnson, 1998), while the lesson note (LN) was the regular lesson plan. The CLM and LN guided the teachers in the implementation of the experiment.
The experiment commenced after administering the pre-CATOW and pre-SASQ to the experimental and control groups to obtain the students’ baseline data. The pre-tests were for durations of 60 minutes and 30 minutes respectively. The pre-CATOW and pre-SASQ were conducted on separate days. The experimental and control groups were exposed to the same topics in chemistry with different instructional methods; the cooperative learning pedagogy and lecture method respectively. The duration of the study was four weeks. In each of the groups (experimental and control), there were two sessions (2 days) per week. Each session was for a duration of 80 minutes (double period) per day. The official school chemistry schedules were adhered to in the teaching to avoid disrupting the school programs. The language of teaching in the experimental and control groups was the English language. This was to maintain a common language base to avoid the influence of language barriers in the measured data.
At the expiration of the four weeks, the post-CATOW and post-SASQ were administered to the two groups (experimental and control) and the scores were recorded for the analyses.
The results of the descriptive statistics and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) conducted on the chemistry achievement posttest scores shown in Tables 2 and 3 indicated that there is a significant difference (F(1,241) = 196.53, p = 0.00 < 0.05) between the experimental group (M = 25.01, SD = 3.64, SE = 0.26) and the control group (M = 19.53, SD = 2.81, SE = 0.29) with a mean difference of 5.48. The partial Eta squared value of 0.45 shows that the magnitude of the difference in the means (effect size) was moderate (McConnell et al., 2019). Besides, the standard error (SE) of the mean of the experimental group (0.26) was lower than that of the control group (0.29). This indicates that the mean of the experimental group was a more accurate reflection of the actual population mean than that of the control group (Curran-Everett, 2008). The lower SE of the experimental group was expected because of the larger sample size. The results showed that the experimental group which had engaged in the learning together model of cooperative learning pedagogy produced a higher overall improvement in the chemistry achievement post-test scores than the control group taught with the lecture method. This finding rejects the first hypothesis which states that there is no statistically significant difference in the academic achievement scores of the experimental or control groups. The results of this study are consistent with the findings of previous research (Angrist and Lang, 2004; Doymus et al., 2010; Şahin, 2010; Warfa, 2016; Apugliese and Lewis, 2017; Rahman and Lewis, 2019; Theobald et al., 2020) which indicate that cooperative learning and other interactive engagement pedagogies result in improved students' learning outcomes and higher academic achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. The effectiveness of cooperative learning over the conventional method found in this study could probably be attributed to the students’ cooperation and assistance to one another during the learning process, as opposed to the competitive approach adopted by the students in the conventional (lecture) method. Rahman and Lewis (2019) emphasized that cooperative learning pedagogy provides more conducive learning environments that promote and encourage students to work together and help one another to learn. The interactive engagement approach to chemistry instruction is innovative and a deviation from the conventional instructional strategy. These might have contributed to the overall success recorded with the cooperative learning pedagogy in improving the academic achievement of the students in chemistry more than the lecture method.
Teaching methods (treatment) | Pre-test | Post-test | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Mean | SD | SE | Mean | SD | SE | |
N = number of subjects; SD = standard deviation; SE = standard error of mean | |||||||
Experimental (cooperative learning) | 135 | 7.39 | 1.79 | 0.17 | 25.01 | 3.64 | 0.26 |
Control (lecture method) | 109 | 7.41 | 1.83 | 0.19 | 19.53 | 2.81 | 0.29 |
Total | 244 | 7.40 | 1.81 | 0.18 | 22.56 | 4.27 | 0.28 |
Tests of between-subjects effects | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable: post-test | ||||||
Source | Type III sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig. | Partial eta squared |
a R squared = 0.496 (adjusted R squared = 0.492); df = degree of freedom. | ||||||
Corrected model | 2199.44a | 2 | 1099.72 | 118.71 | 0.00 | 0.50 |
Intercept | 3990.90 | 1 | 3990.90 | 430.79 | 0.00 | 0.64 |
Pretest | 391.49 | 1 | 391.49 | 42.26 | 0.00 | 0.15 |
Grp | 1820.69 | 1 | 1820.69 | 196.53 | 0.00 | 0.45 |
Error | 2232.64 | 241 | 9.26 | |||
Total | 128![]() |
244 | ||||
Corrected total | 4432.08 | 243 |
Teaching methods (treatment) | Pre-test | SE | Post-test | SE | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||
Experimental (cooperative learning) | 135 | 2.31 | 1.03 | 0.09 | 2.62 | 1.03 | 0.08 |
Control (lecture method) | 109 | 2.34 | 1.00 | 0.10 | 2.27 | 1.01 | 0.09 |
Variable | Levene's test | t-Test for equality of means | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | Sig. | T | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean diff. | Std. error diff. | 95% confidence interval of the difference | |||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||
Post-academic self-concept | Equal variances assumed | 0.02 | 0.89 | 2.61 | 242 | 0.01 | 0.34 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.60 |
Equal variances not assumed | 2.61 | 233.17 | 0.01 | 0.34 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.60 |
The findings of this study have indicated that cooperative learning pedagogy was an effective instructional strategy that enhanced students’ academic achievement and academic self-concept in chemistry within the experimental conditions of this study. It was suggested that when teachers utilize cooperative learning pedagogy in their chemistry instructions, it has the potency of helping to create an enabling classroom environment for students’ active participation in the teaching and learning processes. This was found to enhance the academic self-concept and academic achievement of the students in chemistry.
This study supports the fact that when active learning and student-centered instructional strategies are utilized in the teaching–learning processes, the academic self-concept and academic achievement of the students are greatly enhanced in science and other subjects (Valentine et al., 2004; Palomino, 2017). The science teachers should, therefore, provide educational environments that encourage students’ active participation in the teaching and learning processes. The interactive engagement pedagogies, specifically, the cooperative learning strategy has been identified as an example of such instructional strategies because it encourages cooperation and collaboration among the students while de-emphasizing unhealthy competition and rivalry in the classroom (Rahman and Lewis, 2019). A plethora of studies from the literature section of this study has shown that cooperative learning and other active learning pedagogies are more effective than conventional methods in enhancing students’ academic achievement. However, these methods are not widely accepted and employed by teachers in developing nations, including Nigeria. This is because some factors as captured in the literature impede the effective implementation of these innovative strategies. Future research should be focused on surmounting these impeding factors for the effective implementation of innovative strategies in developing nations.
The implications that can be drawn from the findings of this study relate to the importance of designing classroom activities and learning environments that would aid in enhancing students’ academic self-concept and academic achievement. These could be achieved through creating cooperative and collaborative learning platforms where students can freely interact with their teachers, instructional materials, and their peers. Studies have shown that human achievement behavior is constantly influenced by self-constructs, as well as the classroom learning environment (Gietz and McIntosh, 2014). Teachers should, therefore, emphasize student-centered and active learning pedagogies that help to enhance students’ self-constructs. When students experience success through completing various course activities presented in the interactive engagement pedagogies, they will be more likely to experience increased academic self-concept, which, in turn, serves to improve their academic achievement in the subjects. Besides, this study will help the teachers to mitigate against cultural influence on students’ engagement in innovative pedagogies by redirecting their (students) mindset to see that culture and education are interwoven and that they can engage in active learning education without reneging in their cultural practices. The teachers can be empowered to embrace these innovative pedagogies through concerted efforts by stakeholders in the educational sector to effect a change in the system. This they can achieve by motivating the teachers through sponsored in-service training programs on innovative pedagogies, and also by implementing science teachers’ special salary structure that will serve as incentives to boost their morale, among other things. When the teachers are adequately motivated, they can contribute to the success of these pedagogies in developing nations (Adegoke, 2012; Zenda, 2017; Molla and Muche, 2018).
The researchers, therefore, recommend that chemistry teachers should be encouraged to embrace student-centered and active learning pedagogies such as cooperative learning pedagogy for improving the academic self-concept and academic achievement of the students in chemistry. The teachers should desist from the teacher-centered pedagogies such as the conventional/traditional lecture method, for lack of provisions for students’ active engagement in the teaching–learning process. In-service chemistry teachers should be encouraged to attend teacher professional development programs, especially on the effective utilization of recent innovative and interactive engagement pedagogies. The preparation and usage of innovative pedagogies should not be left to the teachers and school administrators alone but should involve all the stakeholders in education for effective implementation.
Readers can email authors for copies of the Cooperative Learning Manual (CLM), and the Lesson Notes (LN).
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2023 |