Grade 10 Learners’ Science Conceptual Development Using Computer Simulations

Israel Kibirige; Hodi Elias Tsamago

doi:10.29333/ejmste/106057

Full Text (PDF)

Israel Kibirige ¹ ^* , Hodi Elias Tsamago ¹

More Detail

¹ University of Limpopo, P/Bag X1106, Sovenga, SOUTH AFRICA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study explored Grade 10 learners’ science conceptual development when conducting practical work using Computer Simulations (CS) and compared achievements with those from Traditional-Chalk-and-Talk (TCT). A pre- and post-quasi-experimental research design was used. 53 learners were assigned to the Experimental Group (EG) and 52 to the Control Group (CG). The EG was taught using CS, while CG used TCT. Interviews were used to identify learners’ experiences after interventions. The overall results show that learners in EG enjoyed science and developed conceptual understanding better than those in the CG (T-test, p < 0.05), (ANCOVA, p < 0.01). The achievements of girls (M=54.60, SD=10.93) and boys (M=54.39, SD=7.90) in EG after intervention were not significantly different t (51) =-0.08, (p < 0.05). Despite the high learner-to-computer ratio environment, these results compare well with those of low learner-to-computer ratio and this is good news to developing countries where there are limited resources.

Keywords

computer simulations
learner-computer ratio
practical work
performance

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 15, Issue 7, July 2019, Article No: em1717

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106057

Publication date: 29 Mar 2019

Article Views: 7011

Article Downloads: 4926

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Abdullah, S., & Shariff, A. (2008). The effect of Iquiry-Based Computer Simulation with Cooperative Learning on Scientific Thinking and Conceptual Understanding of Gas Laws. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(4), 387-398. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75365.
Adesoji, F. A. (2008). Managing students’ attitude towards Science through Problem –Solving Instructional Strategy. Journal of Anthropologist, 10(1), 21-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2008.11891024.
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, Personality and Behavior (2nd Ed.) Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Annetta, L. A., Holmes, S.Y., Cheng, M., & Minogue, J. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020.
Baker, D. (2013). What works: Using curriculum and pedagogy to increase girls’ interest and participation in science. Theory into Practice, 52, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.743760.
Barrel, J. (2010). Problem –based learning: the foundation for 21st century skills. In J. Bellance & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. (pp.175-200). Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
Bell, R. L., & Smetana, L. (2008). Using computer simulations to enhance science teaching and learning. In R. L. Bell, J. Gess-Newsome, & J. Luft (Eds.), Technology in the secondary science classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative methods, (3rd Ed.) California, Walnut Creek, California: Alta Mira Press.
Bosco, J. (2009). Web 2.0 and school reform: Ten contentious propositions. OSN. Austin Texas.
Butcher, N. (2003). Technological Infrastructure and Use of ICT in Education in Africa: An Overview. Association for the Development of Education in Africa, Paris.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books.
Carr, M. (1996). Interviews about instances and interviews about events. In: DF Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.): Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics (pp.44-53). New York: Teachers College Press.
Chaamwe, N. (2017). A Review on the Challenges that Hinder Sustainable Implementation of ICT as a Subject in Rural Zambia. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 217-221. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijlt.3.3.217-221.
Choi, B. S., & Gennaro, E. (1987). The effectiveness of using computer simulated experiments on junior high students’ understanding of the volume displacement concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 539-552. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240604.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th Ed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.171.
Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. London: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.
Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K., & Jones, A. (2003). Development of chemistry attitudes and experiences questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 649-668. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10103.
De Vos, A. S, Strydom, H., Fouche, C. B., & Delport, C. S. L. (2002). Research at grassroots. For Social sciences and Human service professions. (2nd Ed.). Pretoria: van Schaik.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: An introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Draper, K., Howie, S. J., & Blignaut, S. (2006). Pedagogy and ICT use in South African Science Education. Retrieved on January 4, 2017 from https://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/IRC/IRC_2008/Papers/IRC2008_ Draper_Howie_etal.pdf.
Duit, R., & Confrey, J. (1996). Reorganizing the curriculum and teaching to improve learning in science and mathematics. In: DF Treagust, R. Duit, B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 79–93.
Dwyer, W. M., & Lopez, V. E. (2001). Simulations in the learning cycle: a case study involving Exploring the Nardoo. National Educational Computing Conference, “Building on the Future”, Chicago, IL, (July 25-27, 2001).
Fleischer, H. (2017). Students’ experiences of their knowledge formation in a one-to-one computer initiative. Education Inquiry, 8(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2016.1275190.
Folaranmi, B. A. (2002). The teaching of sciences in our schools: What hope do we have for the future, bright or bleak? Journal of Science and Movement Education, 4, 132-142.
Geban, O., Askar, P., & Özkan, I. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problem solving approaches on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 5-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1992.9941821.
Gerick, J., Eickelmann, E., & Bos, W. (2017). School-level predictors for the use of ICT in schools and students’ CIL in international comparison. (the low computer-student is the high achievement. It is a predictor of achievements).
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional children, 71(2), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202.
Granland R., Bergland, E., & Eriksson, H. (2000). Designing web-based simulation for learning. Future Generation Computer Systems, 17, 171-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-739X(99)00112-0.
Hampden-Thompson, G., & Bennett, J. (2013). Science teaching and Learning activities and students’ engagement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8), 1325–1343. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.608093.
Jilani, S. F., & Yasmin, M. (2016). Analyzing the effectiveness of simulations in promoting learner autonomy perceptions of ESP Hotel Management students. Psychology, 7, 1154-1162. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.78116.
Kafai, Y. (2001). The Educational Potential of Electronic Games: from games-to-teach to games-to learn. Retrieved from http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/kafai.html.
Kennepohl, D. (2001). Using computer simulations to supplement teaching laboratories in chemistry for distance delivery. Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 58-65.
Kibirige, I., & Maoko N. (2014). Getting it from the horse’s mouth: a case of dialogic teaching in high school. Journal of Educational Studies, 13(2), 193-215.
Kraemer, H. C., & Thiemann, S. (1987). How many subjects? Statistical power analysis in research. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Krajcik J., Mamlok R., & Hug, B. (2001), Modern content and the enterprise of science: science education in the 20th century. In: L. Corno (Ed.). Education across a century: the centennial volume (pp. 205-238). Chicago, Illinois: National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE).
Livingston, K. (2017). The complexity of learning and teaching: challenges for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 141-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1296535.
Lunetta V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: historical perspectives and centres for contemporary teaching, In P. Fensham (Ed.). Developments and dilemmas in science education (pp 169-188), London, Falmer Press.
Lunetta V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: an analysis of research, theory, and practice, In N, Lederman & S. Abel (Eds,), Handbook of research on Science Education. (pp. 393-441), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lunetta, V. N., & Hofstein, A. (1981). Simulations in science education. Science Education, 65, 243-252. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730650302.
Mavhunga, F. Z., Kibirige, I., Chingonga, B., & Ramaboka, M. (2016). Smartphones in public secondary schools: Views of Matric graduates. Perspectives in Education, 34(3), 72-85. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v34i3.6.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Michael, C. W. (2013). Learning Strategies and Their Relationships to Academic Performance of High School Students in Hong Kong. Educ Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.794493.
Min, R. (2001). Designing dynamical learning environments for simulation: Micro-worlds applets on the World Wide Web. 6th Proceedings of EARLI, SIG, June 27-29, 2002, Erfurt, Germany.
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social Research Methods: Quantitative and qualitative Approaches Sixth Edition. USA: Pearson International Edition.
Okebukola, P. A. O. (1997). The state of science education in Nigeria. Science Teachers Association of Nigeria Bulletin, 14(21), 8-10.
Okpala, N. P. (1985). Teacher attitudinal variables in instructional assessment practices as correlates of learning outcomes in Physics (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis), University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Olaleye, E. O. (2002). New training and teaching technologies: Issues, problems and prospects for teacher education programme in Nigeria. Journal of Science and Movement Education, 4, 38-49.
Olanrewaju, A. O. (1994). New Approaches to the teaching of integrated science. Ibadan: Alafas Nigeria Company.
Onwu, G. (1998). Teaching large classes. In P. Naidoo & M. Savage (Eds.), African science and technology education into the new millennium: practice, policy and priorities (pp. 119-132): Juta.
Palys, T. (2008). Purposive Sampling. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 697-698). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perkins, K., & Parson, R. (2012). PhET Interactive Simulations: Using Research-Based Simulations to Transform Undergraduate Chemistry Education #1226321 Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder.
Pieterson, J., & Maree, K. (2007). Standardisation of a questionnaire. In K. Maree, First Steps in Research (pp. 214-223). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Podolesky, N. S., Perkins, K. K., & Adams, W. K. (2010). Department of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0390, USA.
Raimi, S. M. (2002). Problem-solving Techniques and Laboratory Skills as Supplements to Laboratory Teaching in Senior Secondary School Students’ Learning of Volumetric Analysis (PhD Thesis, Unpublished). University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Rajecki, D. W. (1990). Attitudes (2nd Ed.). Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates Inc.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury. A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300203.
Sentongo, J., Kyakulaga, R., & Kibirige, I. (2013). The Effect of Using Computer Simulations in Teaching Chemical Bonding: Experiences with Ugandan Learners. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(4), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2013.11890105.
Shemi, A. P., Mgaya, K. V., & Nkwe, N. (2014). Challenges and risks of ICT outsourcing: perspectives from Botswana. Botswana Journal of Business, 7(1), 45-59.
Sibanda, N. (2009). Quantitative research – Victoria University of Wellington. Retrieved from www.victoria.ac.nz/postgradlife/.
Slotta, J. (2002). Designing the web-based inquiry science environment (wise). Educational Technology, 15-20.
Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Thousand Oaks, California Sage.
Sossa, S. F., Rivilla, A. M., & González, M. L. C. (2015). Digital inclusion in education in Tarija, Plurinational State of Bolivia. Retrieved on August 20, 2018 from https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/38833/RVI115Farfan_en.pdf.
Stegmeir, M. (2015). Yes we Khan: How an ed tech innovator is changing the way students become college ready. The Journal of College Admissions, 228, 24-29.
Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1), 1-33.
Tlabela, K., Roodt, J., Paterson, A., & Weir-Smith, G. (2007). Mapping ICT access in South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Tsai, C. Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students’ scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009.
Wanjala, M. M. S. (2016). Information communication technology pedagogy in mathematics instruction among teachers in secondary schools in Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(2), 66-73.

How to cite this article

APA

Kibirige, I., & Tsamago, H. E. (2019). Grade 10 Learners’ Science Conceptual Development Using Computer Simulations. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(7), em1717. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106057

Vancouver

Kibirige I, Tsamago HE. Grade 10 Learners’ Science Conceptual Development Using Computer Simulations. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(7):em1717. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106057

AMA

Kibirige I, Tsamago HE. Grade 10 Learners’ Science Conceptual Development Using Computer Simulations. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(7), em1717. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106057

Chicago

Kibirige, Israel, and Hodi Elias Tsamago. "Grade 10 Learners’ Science Conceptual Development Using Computer Simulations". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2019 15 no. 7 (2019): em1717. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106057

Harvard

Kibirige, I., and Tsamago, H. E. (2019). Grade 10 Learners’ Science Conceptual Development Using Computer Simulations. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(7), em1717. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106057

MLA

Kibirige, Israel et al. "Grade 10 Learners’ Science Conceptual Development Using Computer Simulations". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 7, 2019, em1717. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106057