Students’ interactive engagement, academic achievement and self concept in chemistry: an evaluation of cooperative learning pedagogy
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
Abstract
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.
Introduction
Research studies have shown that students’ average academic performance in science subjects, especially chemistry, over the years has consistently been poor and unimpressive in both internal and external examinations in the world's developing countries, particularly in most African countries such as Nigeria (Nwagbo, 2006; Adegoke, 2012; Bamiro, 2015; Ajayi and Ogbeba, 2017; Samuel and Okonkwo, 2021), South Africa (Muwanga-Zake, 2000; Zenda, 2017), Ethiopia (Molla and Muche, 2018), and Lesotho (Khanyane et al., 2016). Furthermore, the West African Examination Council chief examiners’ report added that the standardized tests and evaluations conducted by the Council in the past decade have shown that students’ performance in chemistry and other science subjects in the West African countries has been below expectations (West African Examination Council, WAEC, 2018). These students’ results were below the government's expected average performance of 60% in science-related subjects, specifically in Nigeria (Federal Government of Nigeria, FGN, 2004). A plethora of research has been conducted to identify the causes of the poor performance of students. Most of these research studies have attributed the poor performance to the methods adopted by the science teachers in lesson deliveries (Khanyane et al., 2016; Ajayi and Ogbeba, 2017; Zenda, 2017; Molla and Muche, 2018; Samuel and Okonkwo, 2021). It has been established that the instructional strategies adopted by a teacher can either enhance or hinder the academic performance of students in sciences (Schraw et al., 2005; Michael, 2006; Wilson and Varma-Nelson, 2016; Ajayi and Ogbeba, 2017; Zenda, 2017; Samuel and Okonkwo, 2021). Similarly, Adegoke (2012) and Bamiro (2015) noted that a key determinant of student achievement is the quality of instructional strategies employed by the teachers in the teaching–learning processes. Because of that, Udu (2017) reiterated that appropriate pedagogical approaches must be sought to convey the message of science to the learners. This is because the quality of instructional strategy employed by the teacher is a potentially powerful determinant of the levels of learners’ achievement, affection for the subject, and involvement in the learning process. Greeno et al. (1996) have identified three main categories of instructional strategies that researchers mostly focus on. These include direct instruction, socially mediated instruction, and autonomous learning approaches. Accordingly, Greeno et al. elaborated that direct instruction is characterized by teacher-led classrooms where teachers utilize conventional/traditional instructional approaches such as the lecture method. Socially mediated learning involves a variety of student-centered and active-learning approaches such as cooperative learning. And autonomous learning involves individualized instructions such as computer-assisted programmed instruction. All three approaches can be effective and are not mutually exclusive (Shuell, 1996). Researchers have, therefore, advocated for a blend of the three varieties of instructional strategies for more effective instruction that can culminate in improved academic performance and achievement of students in science (Paulson, 1999). Despite the advantages of the utilization of more than one instructional strategy and the recommendation for a blend of the three main varieties of instructional strategies by teachers, research studies have shown that science teachers predominantly utilize conventional methods in their lesson deliveries in developing nations and particularly in African countries (Nwagbo, 2006; Adegoke, 2012; Zenda, 2017; Molla and Muche, 2018). According to Hake (2002) and Wilson and Varma-Nelson (2016), conventional teaching approaches require little or no active participation/involvement of the students, and may not be effective in enhancing the student's academic performance in the science subjects, notwithstanding the perceived advantages. Emphasizing further, Bamiro (2015) added that conventional methods which are teacher dominated and characterized by information transmission and involve telling, reading, and memorizing, have failed to help the students to acquire the scientific knowledge needed for development. Bamiro observed that children learn best by being interested fully and actively participating in their work, through seeing, doing, puzzling, verifying, experimenting, and drawing conclusions on the strength of evidence that they have collected. Hence, any instructional strategy that can expose the students to active participation in the teaching–learning processes may enhance their acquisition of scientific knowledge (Inuwa et al., 2018). Meanwhile, there is a current debate world over among science educators on the effectiveness of the conventional/traditional methods of instruction and innovative teaching strategies, especially, interactive engagement pedagogies in improving students’ academic performance in science subjects. Many of these research studies have reported the effectiveness of interactive engagement pedagogies in enhancing students’ academic performance in science subjects and have recommended that science educators should embrace them in their classroom teaching–learning processes because they are innovative, student-centered, and active-learning pedagogies (Hake, 2002; Nwagbo, 2006; Apugliese and Lewis, 2017; Canelas et al., 2017; Rahman and Lewis, 2019; Theobald et al., 2020). The interactive engagement pedagogies they claimed can enhance students’ active participation in the classroom, thereby improving their academic achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education (Adegoke, 2012; Warfa, 2016; Apugliese and Lewis, 2017; Rahman and Lewis, 2019; Theobald et al., 2020).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.
Cooperative learning and studies on achievement
Apugliese and Lewis (2017) defined cooperative learning as a pedagogical technique that facilitates students’ active engagement with the lesson content, communicating the same to their fellow peers in structured group work. According to Slavin (2011) cooperative learning is an instructional strategy in which teachers organize students into small groups that work together to help one another learn academic content. Slavin added further that cooperative learning is one kind of student-centered approach to instruction that has emerged as an internationally important area of social science and educational research among researchers. Johnson and Johnson (2019) stated that cooperative learning is the pedagogy within which students are active constructors of knowledge in the learning process instead of passive receivers of any given knowledge. Rahman and Lewis (2019) see cooperative learning as a general term for students working together on a task. Johnson et al. (2013) classified cooperative learning into four main categories based on their implementation. There are; Formal cooperative learning – to teach specific content; Informal cooperative learning – to ensure active cognitive processing of information during direct teaching; Cooperative based groups – to provide long-term support and assistance; Constructive controversy – to create academic intellectual conflicts to enhance achievement and creative problem-solving.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.
Theoretical framework
Several theoretical perspectives are underlying interactive engagement pedagogies, specifically, the cooperative learning pedagogy. However, this study examined the positive social interdependence and cognitive developmental theories of learning.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.
Method and materials
The study adopted the pre-test, post-test, non-equivalent, control group quasi-experimental design. The area of the study was one of the North-central States in Nigeria. The population comprised 7451 senior secondary school class two (SS2) chemistry students from all the government-owned co-educational secondary schools in the area of study. The sample was 244 students drawn from 6 schools of the population through convenience and purposive sampling techniques (Creswell, 2009). The following parameters guided the selection of the sampled schools: availability of two or more experienced chemistry teachers in the school for up to a decade, and the school must have presented candidates for the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) examinations for a decade. The six schools were randomly assigned to experimental groups (three schools) and control groups (three schools). In the experimental group of 135 students, there were 75 males (55.6%) and 60 females (44.4%) with a mean age of 15.42, while in the control group of 109 students, there were 60 males (55.1%) and 49 females (44.9%) with a mean age of 15.44.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.
Procedure
Before the commencement of the study, the researchers organized a 5 day pre-instruction conference/training for the chemistry teachers in both experimental and control groups separately. The training of the teachers in the experimental schools was for a duration of 3 days, while that of the control schools was for 2 days. The training introduced the teachers to the objectives of the research work and the proper use of cooperative learning pedagogy in classroom lesson deliveries. The researchers pointed out some of the impediments the teachers will encounter during the process of the implementation of innovative pedagogy in their classrooms. The teachers were trained on guiding the students in achieving the five elements of cooperative learning: positive interdependence, promotive interaction, individual accountability/responsibility, interpersonal and social skills, and group processing. The teachers pilot tested the CLM on 30 equivalent (similar age range, sociocultural and ethnic background, class SS2, and subject chemistry) students in a different school which were not part of the sampled schools. This enabled the researchers to identify areas that the teachers found difficult to implement and guided them through it to ensure a common instructional standard among the chemistry teachers. The teachers in the control groups were also introduced to the objectives of the study during the training and were told to teach their students using the conventional lecture method in addition to explaining the concepts with problem-solving examples intermittently, including occasional administration of assignments and home-works.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.
Experimental group
There were 5-member teams in the cooperative learning pedagogy. Each of the groups appointed its leaders and recorders. The members took turns leading the groups for each lesson for the four weeks the experiment lasted. The teachers distributed the learning manual (CLM) booklets to the students in their respective groups. The CLM had the introduction, the main objectives, the frames, and various activities itemized for easy understanding. In each of the groups, the students carried out the activities collectively and each of them contributed their opinions on the topics before recording their decisions. The teachers/facilitators were consulted by the students only when necessary. The teachers/facilitators followed the CLM procedures as stipulated in the manual. In the experimental schools, one school had 8 groups/teams, while the other two had 9 groups/teams each. Each group had a fair mix of students from different ability levels, which was determined using their previous examination scores. Before retiring to their different group works for any lesson, the teachers used the first 20 minutes of the lesson for a “whole class presentation” during which they explained the engagement procedures. The teachers de-emphasize intra-group competition among the students by awarding marks to the groups, and not individuals. The teachers moved from group to group to ensure the active participation of the members of the groups in the activities contained in the CLM. The students continued the group activities for 40 minutes. In the last 20 minutes of the lesson, the teachers summarized, corrected the students’ misconceptions, and evaluated their learning outcomes. These processes were repeated for the entire four weeks duration of the study. By the end of each lesson week, the group with the highest points was rewarded. Two research assistants monitored the implementation of the experiment in each of the schools, and also got some feedback from the students on the innovative instructional processes. Also, one of the researchers visited each school every week for objective observations and monitored the instructional processes in the classrooms. The researcher also obtained verbal feedback from the teachers and research assistants that guided the researchers in framing the limitations of this study. The teachers ensured that the students incorporated the five basic elements of cooperative learning (positive interdependence, promotive interaction, individual accountability, interpersonal and social skills, and group processing) in their studies through the following processes: for positive interdependence, the students worked together as a cohesive group. They saw themselves as responsible for each other's learning (Johnson and Johnson, 2009). Promotive interaction was achieved by the members who encouraged each other's efforts toward the accomplished group's goals. Those with higher ability levels never hijacked the learning process but worked in harmony with members with lower ability levels and they respected each other's views. For individual accountability/responsibility, the students usually attempted to solve difficult problems within the groups but sought the teacher's attention when they couldn’t solve them. They all participated actively in the group work. Each member took his/her assigned tasks seriously and learned as much as he/she could learn. For social and interpersonal skills, the students listened attentively, asked questions, and negotiated respectfully within themselves. Finally, for group processing, the students analyzed their group's activities and selected the ones that were relevant and improved on others before they presented their reports to the teachers (Ballantine and McCourt, 2007). These processes were not easy to be achieved at the beginning of the experiment, but as they worked together and were guided by the teachers, tremendous progress was recorded.Control group
The students in the control groups were taught by their teachers using the conventional method. The teachers announced the topics for the four weeks of the study to the students and encouraged them to study at home in their chemistry textbooks. The teachers wrote on the chalkboard and explained the concepts to the students, provided some examples on the chalkboard, while the students asked questions, copied notes, and answered the teachers’ questions. The main points of the lessons were summarized on the chalkboard at the end of every lesson and class assignments were given to the students. The teachers evaluated the students' learning outcomes at the end of every lesson week. They asked them questions about the contents of the lesson for the week.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.
Data analysis
The data collected were analyzed using mixed-methods data analyses involving the use of mean, standard deviation, standard error, analysis of variance (ANOVA), independent sample t-test, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and Pearson's correlation statistics. The baseline data and the pre-tests scores of the groups were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t-test to establish the compatibility of the experimental and control groups at the beginning of the experiment. Mean with standard deviation (SD) and standard error (SE), independent sample t-test, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and Pearson's correlation statistics were employed to test the null hypotheses. Partial Eta squared values reported the effect size of the intervention on the dependent measures. The analyses were computed with the SPSS software version 23 at a 0.05 alpha level. Fig. 1 shows the flowchart graphical summary of the methods. | ||
| Fig. 1 Flowchart presentation of the research method. | ||
Results and discussion
Students’ academic achievement and the teaching methods
The results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in Table 1 show no statistically significant difference in the chemistry achievement pretest scores (F(1,243) = 0.01, p = 0.91, p > 0.05) between the experimental group (M = 7.39, SD = 1.79) and the control group (M = 7.41, SD = 1.83). These results show that students in both experimental and control groups had similar academic knowledge of chemistry before the experiment commenced. This is essential to demonstrate the effect of the teaching strategies on the academic achievement of the students. The result agrees with Bahar and Aksüt (2020) that pre-test scores for experimental and control groups should be as close as possible in an ideal experimental study.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![[thin space (1/6-em)]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_2009.gif) 633.00 |
244 | ||||
| Corrected total | 4432.08 | 243 | ||||
Students’ academic self-concept and the teaching methods
Tables 4 and 5 are the results of the descriptive statistics and independent sample t-test conducted on the experimental and control groups’ academic self-concept post-test scores in chemistry. The results indicated that there was a significant difference between the experimental group (M = 2.62, SD = 1.03, SE = 0.08) and the control group (M = 2.27, SD = 1.01, SE = 0.09); t(242) = 2.61, p = 0.01. The standard error of the mean (SE) of the experimental group (0.08) was slightly lower than that of the control group (0.09). This indicates that the mean of the experimental group was slightly 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 academic self-concept of the students in the post-test scores than the control group taught chemistry with the lecture method. This finding rejects the second hypothesis which states that there is no statistically significant difference in academic self-concept scores of the experimental or control groups in chemistry. This implies that the interactive engagement pedagogy (cooperative learning) engaged by the students in the experimental groups resulted in a higher students’ academic self-concept in chemistry than the lecture method engaged by the control groups. The results of this study are in agreement with the findings of previous research (Johnson and Johnson, 2005; Slavin, 2011) which suggest that cooperative learning and other active learning pedagogies could result in greater students’ academic self-concept, and improved social and psychological benefits in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.| 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 | |||
Relationship between students’ academic self-concept and academic achievement in chemistry
Table 6 shows the Pearson correlation coefficient that was computed to assess the linear relationship between students’ academic self-concept and academic achievement scores in chemistry. The Table shows that there was a statistically significant linear positive relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement of the students in chemistry, r(242) = 0.32, p = 0.00. The magnitude of the relationship between the two variables, (0.3 < |r| < 0.5) is approximately moderate (McConnell et al., 2019). This implies that the variables tend to increase together moderately, meaning that an improvement in students’ academic self-concept is associated with a moderate improvement in students’ academic achievement in chemistry. This finding rejects the third hypothesis which states that there is no statistically significant relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement of the students in chemistry when taught with the teaching methods. The results of this study are consistent with the findings of previous research (Ma and Kishor, 1997; Wilkins and Ma, 2003; Bailey, 2003; Guay et al., 2003; Valentine et al., 2004; Choi, 2005; Palomino, 2017) which found a positive relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement of students in science and other subjects. However, this study's finding contrasts with the findings of some previous research (Marsh, 1990; Kifer, 2002; Wilkins, 2004) which found a negative relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement of students. Furthermore, Marsh and Yeung (1997) and Choi (2005) have demonstrated independently that academic self-concept can serve as a predictor of academic performance and academic achievement.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.
Conclusion and recommendations
This case study research evaluated the effectiveness of interactive engagement pedagogies, specifically, cooperative learning pedagogy in improving students' academic achievement and academic self-concept in chemistry in senior secondary schools in Nigeria. The findings of the study have established that cooperative learning pedagogy (interactive engagement pedagogies) was more effective than the conventional method in improving the academic achievement and academic self-concept of the students in chemistry. Specifically, the results of the study showed that the students taught with the cooperative learning strategy had higher mean academic achievement and academic self-concept ratings than their counterparts taught with the lecture method. Moreover, the differences in the mean achievement scores and academic self-concept ratings of the experimental and control groups were found to be statistically significant, thereby validating the effectiveness of the cooperative learning strategy over the lecture method in improving the academic achievement and academic self-concept of the students. The study also found a moderately linear positive relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement of the students in chemistry. This implies that an increase in academic self-concept results in a corresponding increase in the 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).
Limitations of the study
Although this study generally found the interactive engagement pedagogy (cooperative learning strategy) more effective than the lecture method in improving the academic self-concept and academic achievement of the students in chemistry. However, it is really difficult to conduct a completely reliable study. This present study might have some weaknesses in terms of design and some aspects which may not have been implemented strictly according to specifications thereby leading to some biases and unreliable findings. The authors, therefore, identified some major limitations of the study as follows: the verbal feedback obtained from the students showed that they found it difficult to cope with the cooperative learning approach because they were accustomed to learning passively from teachers, taking notes, and preparing for tests and examinations. They were not accustomed to conducting academic activities, solving problems, acquiring information by themselves, from their peers, or learning in groups. The students preferred to receive the academic materials from their teachers in the traditional method instead of being asked to carry out the activities by themselves. Such passive learning culture completely conflicts with one of the main principles of the cooperative learning strategy which emphasizes students’ active participation and independence in their learning (Johnson and Johnson, 2009). This might have affected the results of the study. However, the verbal feedback obtained from the participants instead of qualitative data might have affected this study, because it might not be an accurate representation of the opinions of the participants. Secondly, the teachers verbally reported that they did not initially support the use of cooperative learning wholeheartedly because they were doubtful of its workability and were reluctant to change to a classroom organization that was so different, and which seemed to de-emphasize competition and individual merit they have operated for decades. However, by providing some incentives, the teachers were motivated and they willingly accepted to participate in the experiment. The teachers’ initial reluctance might have also affected the result of the study. Furthermore, the student cooperative groups might not have worked effectively because the students might have been influenced by an inherent strong culture of competitive learning. This made team members spend much of their time engaging in competitive and individualistic learning which necessitated the teachers’ regular interventions, thereby violating the interdependence processes of cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson, 2005). Another factor was time constraints. The teachers complained that the 80 minutes allotted for the experiment was not enough because it could not allow the students to complete their cooperative tasks properly. This made the students often feel anxious when sharing points of view in groups discussion which may have limited the effectiveness of the strategy because group discussion is an essential component of cooperative learning strategies (Johnson and Johnson, 2009). Another factor was that due to the intermittent rowdy nature of the classrooms during the cooperative learning sessions, some students were uncomfortable with the arguments and conflicts that arose in the groups. Therefore, they were unwilling to participate fully and honestly in the group discussions which may have affected the ‘face-to-face promotive interaction’ which is one of the essential components of the cooperative learning strategy (Johnson and Johnson, 2009). The findings of this study could not be generalized because of the limited number of schools used. Moreover, generating and analyzing qualitative data would have helped to validate the feedback obtained from the participants. Hence, the use of quantitative data only might have affected the study. Finally, teacher differences arising from the use of the regular chemistry teachers of the sample schools might have made some of the teachers deviate from the stipulated guidelines, which might have affected the results of this study.Ethical procedures
The researchers obtained approval from the principals of the sampled schools and the Area Inspector of Education of the Local Government Education Authority in the State, before embarking on the research. This is the procedure for using students for a research study that does not alter the school arrangement and schedules for the term. Besides, the topics treated were contained in the chemistry curriculum for the term, therefore, the research did not in any way disrupt the school programs.Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest to declare.Acknowledgements
The researchers wish to acknowledge all the teachers and pre-service teachers who served as research assistants in the sampled schools. We specifically recognize the zeal, competence, and professionalism they all showed during the study. We also appreciate the Area Inspector of Education of the Local Government Area for the assistance rendered to us by providing us with the required data that enabled us to commence and complete the experiments. We also appreciate everyone that contributed in any way to the successful completion of this research.References
- Adegoke B. A., (2012). Impact of interactive engagement on reducing the gender gap in quantum physics learning outcomes among senior secondary school students, Phys. Educ., 47(4), 462–470 DOI:10.1088/0031-9120/47/4/462.
- Ajayi O. V. and Ogbeba J., (2017), Effect of gender on senior secondary chemistry students’ achievement in stoichiometry using hands-on activities, Am. J. Educ. Res., 5(8), 839–842 DOI:10.12691/education-5-8-1.
- American Association for the Advancement of Science, (1990), Science for all Americans, New York: Oxford University Press.
- Apugliese A. and Lewis S. E., (2017), Impact of instructional decisions on the effectiveness of cooperative learning in chemistry through meta-analysis, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(1), 271–278 10.1039/c6rp00195e.
- Angrist J. D. and Lang K., (2004), Does school integration generate peer effects? Evidence from Boston's Metco Program, Am. Economic Rev., 94(5), 1613–1634 DOI:10.1257/0002828043052169.
- Bahar M. and Aksüt P., (2020), Investigation on the effects of activity-based science teaching practices in the acquisition of problem-solving skills for 5 and 6 years old preschool children, J. Turkish Sci. Educ., 17(1), 22–39 DOI:10.36681/tused.2020.11.
- Bailey J. A., (2003), Self-image, self-concept, and self-identity revisited, J. Natl. Med. Assoc., 95(5), 383–386.
- Balabanoff M., Al Fulaiti H., DeKorver B., Mackc M. and Moon A., (2022), Development of the water instrument: a comprehensive measure of students’ knowledge of fundamental concepts in general chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2022(23), 348–360 10.1039/d1rp00270h.
- Ballantine J. and McCourt L. P., (2007), Cooperative learning: a pedagogy to improve students' generic skills? Educ. Training, 49(2), 126–137 DOI:10.1108/00400910710739487.
- Bamiro A. O., (2015), Effects of guided discovery and think-pair-share strategies on secondary school students’ achievement in chemistry, SAGE Open, 5(1), 215824401456475 DOI:10.1177/2158244014564754.
- Barger M. M., Wormington S. V., Huettel L. G. and Linnenbrink-Garcia L., (2016), Developmental changes in college engineering students* personal epistemology profiles, Learn. Individ. Differ., 48, 1–8 DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2016.04.002.
- Barger M. M., Perez T., Canelas D. A. and Linnenbrink-Garcia L., (2018), Constructivism and personal epistemology development in undergraduate chemistry students, Learn. Individ. Differ., 63, 89–101 DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2018.03.006.
- Bertucci A., Conte S., Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (2010), The impact of the size of the cooperative group on achievement, social support, and self-esteem, J. General Psychol., 137(3), 256–272 DOI:10.1080/00221309.2010.484448.
- Bong M. and Clark R. E., (1999), Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educ. Psychol., 34(3), 139–153 DOI:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_1.
- Bowen C. W., (2000), A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement, J. Chem. Educ., 77(1), 116–119 DOI:10.1021/ed077p116.
- Brownlee J., Purdie N. and Boulton-Lewis G., (2001), Changing Epistemological Beliefs in Pre-service Teacher Education Students, Teach. Higher Educ., 6(2), 247–268 DOI:10.1080/13562510120045221.
- Bruce M. K. and Edward W. M., (2003), Statistical reasoning in psychology and education, 4th edn, New York: Wiley & Sons Inc.
- Buehl M. M. and Alexander P. A., (2005), Motivation and Performance Differences in Students’ Domain-Specific Epistemological Belief Profiles, Am. Educ. Res. J., 42(4), 697–726 DOI:10.3102/00028312042004697.
- Canelas D. A., Hill J. L. and Novicki A., (2017), Cooperative learning in organic chemistry increases student assessment of learning gains in key transferable skills, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(3), 441–456 10.1039/c7rp00014f.
- Champagne F. A. and Curley J. P., (2005), How social experiences influence the brain, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol., 15(6), 704–709 DOI:10.1016/j/conb/2005/10/001.
- Chen J. A., (2012), Implicit theories, epistemic beliefs, and science motivation: a person-centered approach, Learn. Individ. Differ., 22(6), 724–735 DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.013.
- Cheung P. C. and Lau S., (2001), A multi-perspective multi-domain model of self-concept: structure and sources of self-concept knowledge, Asian J. Social Psychol., 4(1), 1–21 DOI:10.1111/1467-839x.00072.
- Choi N., (2005), Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’ academic performance, Psychol. Schools, 42(2), 197–205 DOI:10.1002/pits.20048.
- Cokley K. and Patel N., (2007), A psychometric investigation of the academic self-concept of Asian American college students, Educ. Psychol. Measurement, 67(1), 88–99 DOI:10.1177/0013164406288175.
- Creswell J. W., (2009), Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach, London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
- Curran-Everett D., (2008), Explorations in statistics: standard deviations and standard errors, Adv. Physiol. Educ., 32(3), 203–208 DOI:10.1152/advan.90123.2008.
- Dai T. and Cromley J. G., (2014), The match matters: Examining student epistemic preferences about epistemic beliefs about chemistry, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 39(3), 262–274 DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.002.
- Doymus K., Karacop A. and Simsek U., (2010), Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on students’ understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 58(6), 671–691 DOI:10.1007/s11423-010-9157-2.
- Duran D. and Monereo C., (2005), Styles and sequences of cooperative interaction in fixed and reciprocal peer tutoring, Learn. Instruct., 15(3), 179–199 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.002.
- Federal Government of Nigeria, (2004), National policy on education, Lagos, Nigeria: Government press.
- Garaigordobil M. and Bernarás E., (2009), Self-concept, self-esteem, personality traits and psychopathological symptoms in adolescents with and without visual impairment, Spanish J. Psychol., 12(01), 149–160 DOI:10.1017/s1138741600001566.
- Gietz C. and McIntosh K., (2014), Relations between student perceptions of their school environment and academic achievement, Canadian J. School Psychol., 29(3), 161–176 DOI:10.1177/0829573514540415.
- Glaser R., (1991), The maturing of the relationship between the science of learning and cognition and educational practice. Learn. Instruction, 1(2), 129–144 DOI:10.1016/0959-4752(91)90023-2.
- Greeno J. G., Collins A. M. and Resnick L., (1996), Cognition and Learning, in Berliner D. C. and Calfee R. C. (ed) Handbook of educational psychology, New York: Macmillan, pp. 726–764.
- Greene J. A., Azevedo R. and Torney-Purta J., (2008), Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: philosophical perspectives and methodological directions, Educ. Psychol., 43, 142–160 DOI:10.1080/00461520802178458.
- Guay F., Marsh H. W. and Boivin M., (2003), Academic self-concept and academic achievement: developmental perspectives on their causal ordering, J. Educ. Psychol., 95(1), 124–136 DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.124.
- Guthrie G., (2018), Classroom change in developing countries: from progressive cage to the formalistic frame, London and New York: Routledge.
- Hake R., (2002), Lessons from the physics education reform effort, Conservation Ecology, 5(2), 28 DOI:10.5751/ES-00286-050228.
- Harley K., Barasa F., Bertram C., Mattson E. and Pillay S., (2000), The real and the ideal: teacher roles and competencies in South African policy and practice, Int. J. Educ. Dev., 20(4), 287–304 DOI:10.1016/s0738-0593(99)00079-6.
- Hawes H. and Stephen D., (1990), Question of quality: primary education and development, Harlow: Longman.
- Hmelo-Silver C. E., (2004), Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educ. Psychol. Rev., 16(3), 235–266 DOI:10.1023/b:dpr.0000034022.16470.f3.
- Hofer B. K. and Pintrich P. R., (2002), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
- Inuwa U., Abdullah Z. and Hassan H., (2018), A mixed-method study of the effect of the demonstration method on students’ achievement in financial accounting, Int. J. Instruct., 11(4), 577–592.
- Jaenisch R. and Bird A., (2003), Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals, Nat. Genet., 33, 245–254 DOI:10.1038/ng1089.
- Johnson D. W., (2009), Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
- Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (1998), Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning, 5th edn, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
- Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (1999), Cooperative learning and achievement, in Kluge D., McGuire S., Johnson D. and Johnson R. (ed.) Cooperative learning: JALT Applied Materials, New York: Greenwood Press, Inc., pp. 23–37.
- Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (2005), New developments in social interdependence theory, Genetic, Social, General Psychol. Monographs, 131(4), 285–358 DOI:10.3200/mono.131.4.285-358.
- Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (2008), Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning: the teacher's role, in Gillies R. M., Ashman A. and Terwel J. (ed.) Teacher's role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom, New York, USA: Springer, pp. 9–37 DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-70892-8_1.
- Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (2009), An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning, Educ. Rese., 38(5), 365–379 DOI:10.3102/0013189x09339057.
- Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (2019), Cooperative learning: the foundation for active learning, in Brito S. M. (ed.), Active Learning – Beyond the Future, London: IntechOpen Limited, pp. 59–70 DOI:10.5772/intechopen.81086.
- Johnson D. W., Johnson R. and Holubec E., (2013), Cooperation in the classroom, 9th edn, Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
- Khanyane M., Mokuku T. and Nthathakane M. C., (2016), Perceived gender differences in performance in science: the case of Lesotho secondary schools, Afr. J. Res. Math., Sci. Technol. Educ., 20(3), 278–288 DOI:10.1080/18117295.2016.1228826.
- Kifer E. W., (2002), Students’ attitudes and perceptions, in Robitaille D. F. and Beaton A. E. (ed.) Secondary analysis of the TIMSS data, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 251–275.
- Kovas Y., Haworth C. M. A., Petrill S. A. and Plomin R., (2007), The mathematical ability of 10 year-old boys and girls: Genetic and environmental etiology of typical and low performance, J. Learn. Disability, 40(6), 554–567 DOI:10.1177/00222194070400060601.
- Lewis S. E. and Lewis J. E., (2005), Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative, J. Chem. Educ., 82(1), 135–139 DOI:10.1021/ed082p135.
- Lim D. H. and Morris M. L., (2009), Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcome within a blended learning environment, Educ. Technol. Soc., 12(4), 282–293. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.12.4.282.
- Liu W. C. and Wang C. K. J., (2005), Academic self-concept: a cross-sectional study of grade and gender differences in a Singapore secondary school, Asia Pacific Educ. Rev., 6(1), 20–27 DOI:10.1007/bf03024964.
- Ma X. and Kishor N., (1997), Attitude toward self, social factors, and achievement in mathematics: a meta-analytic review, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 9(2), 89–120 DOI:10.1023/a:1024785812050.
- Marsh, H. W., (1990), Influences of internal and external frames of reference on the formation of math and English self-concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 107–116 DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.107.
- Marsh H. W. and Yeung A. S., (1997), Causal effects of academic self-concept on academic achievement: structural equation models of longitudinal data, J. Educ. Psychol., 89(1), 41–54 DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.41.
- McConnell M. M., Monteiro S. and Bryson G. L., (2019), Sample size calculations for educational interventions: principles and methods, Canad. J. Anesthesia, 66, 864–873 DOI:10.1007/s12630-019-01405-9.
- Messier W., (2003), Traditional teaching strategies versus cooperative teaching strategies: Which can improve achievement scores in Chinese middle schools? J. Student-Centered Learn., 2(3), 231 – 238.
- Michael J., (2006), Where's the evidence that active learning works? Adv. Physiol. Educ., 30(4), 159–167 DOI:10.1152/advan.00053.2006.
- Molla E. and Muche M., (2018), Impact of cooperative learning approaches on students’ academic achievement and laboratory proficiency in biology subject in selected rural schools, Ethiopia, Educ. Res. Int., 2018, 1–9 DOI:10.1155/2018/6202484.
- Muis K. R., (2004), Personal Epistemology and Mathematics: A Critical Review and Synthesis of Research, Rev. Educ. Res., 74(3), 317–377 DOI:10.3102/00346543074003317.
- Muis K. R., (2007), The Role of Epistemic Beliefs in Self-Regulated Learning, Educ. Psychol., 42(3), 173–190 DOI:10.1080/00461520701416306.
- Muis K. R. and Duffy M. C., (2013), Epistemic climate and epistemic change: Instruction designed to change students’ beliefs and learning strategies and improve achievement, J. Educ. Psychol., 105(1), 213–225 DOI:10.1037/a0029690.
- Muwanga-Zake J. W. F., (2000), Is science education in South Africa in a crisis? The Eastern Cape experience, Afr. J. Res. Math., Sci. Technol. Educ., 4(1), 1–11 DOI:10.1080/10288457.2000.10756114.
- Nwagbo C., (2006)., Effects of two teaching methods on the achievement in and attitude to biology of students of different levels of scientific literacy, Int. J. Educ. Res., 45(3), 216–229 DOI:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.11.004.
- Ogbu J. U., (1992), Understanding Cultural Diversity and Learning, Educ. Res., 21(8), 5 DOI:10.2307/1176697.
- Okebukola P. A. and Jegede O. J., (1990), Eco-cultural influences upon students* concept attainment in science, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 27(7), 661–669 DOI:10.1002/tea.3660270706.
- O’Sullivan M., (2004), The reconceptualization of learner-centered approaches: a Namibian case study, Int. J. Educ. Dev., 24(6), 585–602 DOI:10.1016/s0738-0593(03)00018-x.
- Palomino M. del C. P., (2017), An analysis of self-concept in students with compensatory education needs for developing a mindfulness-based psychoeducational program, SAGE Open, 7(2), 215824401770881 DOI:10.1177/2158244017708818.
- Paulson D. R., (1999), Active learning and cooperative learning in the organic chemistry lecture class, J. Chem. Educ., 76(8), 1136–1140.
- Piaget J., (1926), The language and thoughts of the child, New York: Harcourt Brace.
- Rahman T. and Lewis S. E., (2019), Evaluating the evidence base for evidence-based instructional practices in chemistry through meta-analysis, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 57(5), 765–793 DOI:10.1002/tea.21610.
- Reynolds W. M., (1988), Measurement of academic self-concept in college students, J. Personality Assess., 52(2), 223–240 DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa5202_4.
- Sachs G. T., Candlin C., Rose K. R. and Shum S., (2003), Learner behavior and language acquisition project: developing cooperative learning in the EFL/ESL secondary classroom, RELC J., 34(3), 338–369 DOI:10.1177/003368820303400305.
- Şahin A., (2010), Effects of Jigsaw III technique on achievement in written expression, Asia Pacific Educ. Rev.12(3), 427–435 DOI:10.1007/s12564-010-9135-8.
- Samuel N. N. C. and Okonkwo I. G., (2021), Relationship between metacognition, locus of control, and academic achievement in secondary school chemistry students in Anambra State, Nigeria, Educ. Res. Int., 2021, 6698808 DOI:10.1155/2021/6698808.
- Schraw G. P., Brooks D. W. and Crippen K. J., (2005), Using an interactive, compensatory model of learning to improve chemistry teaching, J. Chem. Educ., 82(4), 637–640 DOI:10.1021/ed082p637.
- Schweisfurth M., (2011), Learner-centered education in developing country contexts: from solution to the problem? Int. J. Educ. Dev., 31(5), 425–432 DOI:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.03.005.
- Shuell T. J., (1996), Teaching and learning in a classroom context, in Berliner D. C. and Calfee R. C. (ed.) Handbook of educational psychology, New York: Macmillan, pp. 726–764.
- Slavin R. E., (1995), Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
- Slavin R. E., (1996), Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 21, 43–69 DOI:10.1006/ceps.1996.0004.
- Slavin R. E., (2011), Instruction based on cooperative learning, in Mayer R. E. and Alexander P. A. (ed.) Handbook of research on learning and instruction, London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 344–360.
- Sriprakash A., (2010), Child-centered education and the promise of democratic learning: pedagogic messages in rural Indian primary schools, Int. J. Educ. Dev., 30(3), 297–304 DOI:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.11.010.
- Tabulawa R., (2013), Teaching and learning in context: Why pedagogical reforms fail in Sub-Saharan Africa, Dakar: CODESRIA.
- Tan I. G. C., Lee C. K. E. and Sharan S., (2007), Group investigation effects on achievement, motivation, and perceptions of students in Singapore, J. Educ. Res., 100(3), 142–154 DOI:10.3200/joer.100.3.142-154.
- Tauritz R. L., (2012), How to handle knowledge uncertainty: Learning and teaching in times of accelerated change, in Wals A. E. J. and Corcoran P. B. (ed) Learning for sustainability in times of accelerating change, Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 299–316.
- Thanh P. T. H. and Gillies R., (2010), Group composition of cooperative learning: Does heterogeneous grouping work in Asian classrooms? Int. Educ. Studies, 3(3), 12–19 DOI:10.5539/ies.v3n3p12.
- Theobald E. J., Hill M. J., Tran E., Agrawal S., Arroyo E. N., Behling S. and Freeman S., (2020), Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 201916903 DOI:10.1073/pnas.1916903117.
- Todd A. and Mason M., (2005), Enhancing learning in South African schools: strategies beyond outcomes-based education, Int. J. Educ. Dev., 25(3), 221–235 DOI:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2004.08.003.
- Tran V. D., (2014), The effects of cooperative learning on academic achievement and knowledge retention, Int. J. Higher Educ., 3(2), 131–140 DOI:10.5430/ijhe.v3n2p131.
- Tran V. D. and Lewis R., (2012), Effects of cooperative learning on students at An Giang University in Vietnam, Int. Educ. Studies, 5(1), 86–99 DOI:10.5539/ies.v5n1p86.
- Trautwein U. and Lüdtke O., (2007), Epistemological beliefs, school achievement, and college major: a large-scale longitudinal study on the impact of certainty beliefs, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 32(3), 348–366 DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.11.003.
- Udu D. A., (2017), Effect of cooperative learning instructional strategy on academic retention of senior secondary school students in organic chemistry, Afr. J. Sci., Technol. Math. Educ., 3(1), 133–146.
- Udu D. A., (2018), Efficacies of cooperative learning instructional approach, learning activity package, and lecture method in enhancing students’ academic retention in chemistry, Sci. Educ. Int., 29(4), 220–227. http://www.icaseonline.net/sei/December2018/p4.pdf.
- Valentine J. C., DuBois D. L. and Cooper H., (2004), The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review, Educ. Psychol., 39(2), 111–133 DOI:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_3.
- Van D. T., (2013), Theoretical perspectives underlying the application of cooperative learning in classrooms, Int. J. Higher Educ., 2(4), 101–115 DOI:10.5430/ijhe.v2n4p101.
- Vygotsky L. S., (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Warfa A. R. M., (2016), Using cooperative learning to teach chemistry: A Meta-analytic Review, J. Chem. Educ., 93(2), 248–255 DOI:10.1021/acs.scheme.5b00608.
- West Africa Examination Council, (2018), Chief examiner's report, Lagos, Nigeria: Afi Prints.
- Wilkins J. L. M., (2004), Mathematics and science self-concept: An international investigation, J. Exp. Educ., 72(4), 331–346 DOI:10.3200/jexe.72.4.331-346.
- Wilkins J. L. M. and Ma X., (2003), Modeling change in student attitude toward and beliefs about mathematics, J. Educ. Res., 97(1), 52–63 DOI:10.1080/00220670309596628.
- Wilson S. B. and Varma-Nelson P., (2016), Small groups, significant impact: A review of peer-led team learning research with implications for STEM education researchers and faculty, J. Chem. Educ., 93(10), 1686–1702 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00862.
- Wood W. B. and Gentile J. M., (2003), Education enhanced: Teaching in a research context, Science, 302(5650), 1510–1510 DOI:10.1126/science.1091803.
- Wyk, M. M., (2010), The effects of teams-games-tournaments on achievement, retention, and attitudes of economics education students, J. Soc. Sci., 26(3), 183–193 DOI:10.1080/09718923.2011.11892895.
- Yamarik S., (2007), Does cooperative learning improve student learning outcomes? J. Economic Educ., 38(3), 259–277 DOI:10.3200/JECE.38.3.259-277.
- Zain Z. M., Subramaniam G., Rashid A. A. and Ghani E. K., (2009), Teaching students' performance and attitude, Canadian Soc. Sci., 5(6), 92–102.
- Zenda R., (2017), Essential teaching methods to enhance learner academic achievement in physical sciences in rural secondary schools, Inf. Learn. Sci., 118(3/4), 170–184 DOI:10.1108/ils-03-2017-0014.
- Zheng C., Erickson A. G., Kingston N. M. and Noonan P. M., (2014), The relationship between self-determination, self-concept, and academic achievement for students with learning disabilities, J. Learn. Disabilities, 47(5), 462–474 DOI:10.1177/0022219412469688.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2023 |