EFFECTS OF THINK PAIR SHARE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY ON SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION IN CHEMICAL BONDING AND MOLECULAR STRUCTURE

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00006913

No of Pages: 147

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

$20

ABSTRACT

 

This study sought to investigate the effects of think pair share instructional strategy on senior secondary school students’ achievement and retention in chemical bonding and molecular structure. The study adopted a Quasi Experimental Design. Six research questions and six hypotheses were formulated to guide the study. The hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance. The population for the study was ten thousand, six hundred (10,600) SS1 secondary school students in Akwa Ibom State. Multistage sampling technique was used to select two hundred (200) SS1 chemistry students that were used for the study. Chemistry achievement test (CAT) and chemistry retention test (CRT) were developed by the researcher and used for data collection. Data collected were analyzed using mean, standard deviation and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The findings of the study were, that there was a significant difference between the mean achievement scores of chemistry students taught chemical bonding and molecular structure using think pair share and those taught using lecture method in favor of students in the experimental group (Think pair share instructional strategy) at 0.05 level of significance. There was a significant difference between the mean retention scores of chemistry students taught chemical bonding and molecular structure using think pair share and those taught using lecture method in favour of students in experimental group (Think pair share strategy) at 0.05 level of significance. There was no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of male and female students in chemical bonding and molecular structure when taught using think pair share. There was no significant difference between the mean retention scores of male and female students in chemical bonding and molecular structure when taught using Think Pair Share. There was no significant interaction effect of gender and teaching methods on students’ mean achievement scores in chemical bonding and molecular structure. There was no significant interaction effect of gender and teaching methods on students’ mean retention scores in chemical bonding and molecular structure. One of the implications of the findings is that Think Pair Share strategy is effective in enhancing the achievement of students in chemical bonding and molecular structure. It was recommended, among others, that Science educators should incorporate think pair share as an innovative strategy in teaching and learning aspects of chemistry, such as chemical bonding and molecular structures.






TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page                                                                                                                    i          

Declaration                                                                                                                  ii

Certification                                                                                                                iii

Dedication                                                                                                                  iv

Acknowledgements-                                                                                                   v

Table of contents                                                                                                        vi

Abstracts                                                                                                                     vii

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

           

1.1             Background to the study                                                                    1

1.2             Statement of the problem                                                                   7

1.3             Purpose of the study                                                                           8

1.4             Research questions                                                                              9

1.5             Hypotheses                                                                                         9

1.6             Significance of the study                                                                    10

1.7             Scope of the study                                                                              11

CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

 

2.1.                        Conceptual Framework                                                                   12

2.1.1.                  Chemical bonding and molecular structure                                        12

2.1.2.                  Teaching and learning of chemical bonding                                       18

2.1.3.                  Difficulties students’ undergo in understanding chemical

bonding.                                                                                              20

2.1.4.                  Teaching methods                                                                               22

2.1.5.                  Lecture methods                                                                                 23

2.1.6.                  Co-operative method of learning                                                        24

2.1.7.                  Think pair share instructional strategy                                                25

2.1.8.                  Challenges of using think pair share instructional strategy                 28

2.1.9.                  Retention as a factor in learning                                                         29

2.1.10.              Students’ achievement in chemistry                                                   30

2.1.11.              Gender as a factor in teaching & learning situation                            31

2.2.                        Theoretical Framework                                                                       33

2.2.1.                  Vygotsky’s theory of social cognitive development

(Vygotsky’s 1971)                                                                              33

2.2.2.                  Jerome Bruner’s theory of learning (Bruner, 1915)                            35

2.3.                         Empirical Studies                                                                               37

2.3.1.                  Studies on influence of gender on students’ achievement in

Science                                                                                                37

2.3.2.                  Studies on think pair share                                                                  38

2.3.3.                  Studies on students’ achievement in chemistry                                  40

2.3.4.                  Studies on students’ retention in chemistry                                        42

2.3.5.                  Summary of Related Literature                                                          44

CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY     

3.1              Methodology                                                                                      46

3.2              Design of the Study                                                                            46

3.3              Area of the Study                                                                               47

3.4                                      Population of the Study                                                                      48

3.5                                      Sample & Sampling Techniques                                                         48

3.6                                      Instruments for Data Collection                                                         48

3.7                                      Validation of the Instrument                                                              49

3.8                                      Reliability of instrument for darts collection                                      50

3.9                                      Method of Data Collection                                                                 50

3.10                      Method of Data Analysis                                                                   52

CHAPTER 4 – RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1              Result                                                                                                  53

4.2              Major Findings                                                                                    64

4.3              Discussion of the Findings                                                                 66

CHAPTER 5 – SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION, AND CONCLUSION

5.1              Summary                                                                                             69

        5.2           Conclusion                                                                                          70

        5.3           Recommendations                                                                              71

        5.4           Educational Implication of the Findings                                           72

        5.5           Suggestions for Further Research                                                       72

        5.6           Limitations of the Study                                                                     72

                        List of tables

                        List of figures

                   References                                                                                       74

                        Appendices                                                                                         81

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE                                              TITLE                                                            PAGE

 4.1:     Mean Achievement Scores of Students Taught Using Think Pair                

Share Strategy and Lecture Method                                                             53                                                      

4.2       Analysis of Covariance of Chemistry Students’ Achievement, Using Think

Pair Share and Lecture Method                                                                      54

 

4.3        Mean Retention of Students Taught Using Think Pair Share and Lecture

      Method                                                                                                           55

 

4.4       Analysis of Covariance of Chemistry Students Mean Retention When

Taught Using Think Pair Share And Lecture Method.                                   56

 

4.5       Mean Achievement Score of Male and Female Students Taught Using

Think Pair Share Strategy                                                                               57

 

4.6       Analysis Of Covariance on the Mean Achievement Scores of Male

and Female Chemistry Students Taught Using Think Pair Share.                  58

 

4.7       Mean Retention Scores of Male and Female Students Taught Using           

Think Pair Share                                                                                              59       

                                                                       

4.8       Analysis of Covariance on The Mean Retention Scores of Male and

Female Chemistry Students Taught Using Think Pair Share.                         60       

 

4.9       Mean Interaction Effect of Gender and Methods on Students’ Mean

            Achievement Scores in Chemical Bonding and Molecular Structure.            60                   

4.10     Analysis Of Covariance For Test of Significant of Interaction Effect of

Gender and Teaching Methods on Students’ Mean Achievements.              61

 

4.11     Mean Interaction Effect of Gender and Teaching Methods on Students

Mean Retention Scores in Chemical Bonding and Molecular Structure.       62

 

 4.12    Analysis of Covariance for Test of Significant of Interaction Effect of

Gender and Teaching Methods on Students’ Mean Retention Scores.          63

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Formation of sodium chloride                                                                                    14

Formation of magnesium oxide                                                                                  15

Diagram of Hydrogen bonding                                                                                  15

Formation of chlorine molecule                                                                                  16

Formation of nitrogen molecule                                                                                  16

Formation of oxygen molecule                                                                                   16

Diagram showing metallic bonding                                                                            17

Diagram hydrogen fluoride                                                                                        18       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1  BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY:

Chemistry as an aspect of science studies the composition, properties, and product of matter. According to Ababio (2011) it is one of the physical sciences that study the composition, structure, properties and changes that matter undergoes. Oxford Learner’s Dictionary (2016), chemistry is a physical science which deals with substances that matter is composed of, the analysis of their physical and chemical properties for the formation of new substances. Majekodunmi (2007) observed that chemistry has contributed to the development and growth of Nigeria and the world at large.  Chemistry has made food more abundant by improving agricultural production, provided improved clothing through chemically treated and natural fibers by making them resistant to stain, wrinkles and water. It’s provides shelter and materials for building, medicines for health care and fuel for transportation. Chemistry is applied in medical field, Biology, Pharmacy, Food, and Nutrition, Textile industry, Engineering, among other sciences. Students need a better knowledge in Chemistry before undertaking courses in any of the fields mentioned.

Inspite of the key role of Chemistry as a central science that forms the basic foundation of many disciplines and in improving the qualities of life, the performance of senior secondary school students in Nigeria in this discipline has remained low over the years. (Jegede, 2010; Oloyede 2004). For instance, in the year 2013, 82.70% of the total number of students who registered for chemistry with the West African Senior School Certificate Examination made D7 – F9 grade. In 2014 70% made D7 – F9 grade. In 2015, 75.67% made D7 – F9 and in 2016, 65.90 % made D7 – F9. Also in 2017, 65.97 made D7 – F9 grade. Essien (2017) carried out trend analysis of West African Examination Council from 2013 – 2017 and found that the achievement of students over these years was generally poor. See Appendix 1 for summary. The poor scenario in performances of students in Chemistry at external examinations may be linked to their poor understanding of chemical bonding and molecular structure concepts in Chemistry. If the poor understanding of these concepts continues, the overall poor achievement of students in Chemistry may linger, since this concept forms an important aspect of chemistry study. 

Boo and Kim (2000) defined bonding as the sharing or transfer of valence  electrons between atoms of non metallic elements which results in a noble gas structure in the outermost shell of the atom involved. Ababio (2011) also explained that ionic bonding refers to the transfer of electrons from metallic atom to the non metallic atom which results in a noble gas electronic structure in the outermost shell of the ions formed.  This concept plays a vital role in the teaching of chemistry and accurate knowledge of it is pertinent in comprehending every aspect of Chemistry, such as carbon compound, Acids and bases, energy and chemical reactions, polymers (Hurst, 2002). According to Robinson (2003) and Taber (2001), chemical bonding is perceived by students and chemists to be a complicated concept. The concept and structures such as covalent bond, molecules, ions, giant lattice, and hydrogen  bonds are fundamental topics, and need to be given proper attention at senior secondary one (SS1). In order to understand these concepts, students must be encouraged to be interested in learning of the concept of chemical bonding.

Franz and Harkirat (2010) reported that students often had challenges in comprehending the concept in Chemistry and this is based on the method of teaching used. Boo and Kim (2000) reported that this concept attracts a critical evaluation which cannot be compared with the common experiences of senior secondary school students. Taber (2001) reported that students lacked a proper conception of the major concepts concerning chemical bonding and the integration of their models into a sequential frame work. Also, Levy, et al (2004) found that students manifested unimaginable attitude towards chemical bonding, not because of its complexities, but the method applied in teaching this concept the bonding is archaic. Thus, there is need to consider an alternative approach to the teaching of chemical bonding.

Students’ inability to comprehend chemical bonding lesson, especially the one involving ionic or electrovalent and covalent bonding has been observed. Several researches have been conducted to know the causes of failure and have revealed amongst other factors that teachers usually adopt traditional method in the teaching this concept. Udoh, (2008). According to Udoudo (2005) lecture method is an instructional approach where teachers communicate their ideas to learners by direct verbal discourse called “the talk and chalk” method. There is therefore a need to develop more effective strategies to teach senior secondary school chemistry. One of such strategies whose impact on students’ understanding concept in chemistry that seem not to have been adequately investigated is the think pair share strategy. It is instructional strategy in which 2-4 students in a group use a variety of learning aids given by the teacher for the improvement of a concept. The team or group of students must work together not only to learn the new concept, but to also help one another to learn. Students work and discuss together until all group members understand the concept. Loh (2003) defined Think Pair Share as a principle to work together in groups. Sharan as cited in Attah (2014) added that it is a group and students centered approach to class room teaching and learning.

It is a co-operative instructional strategy that encourages students’ interest; it could be used in all situations (grade levels and sizes) by applying three major ways;

i     Think: In this step, teachers instruct their students to be actively engaged in solving questions independently.

ii    Pair: Students in each group are given topics for deliberation. It affords them the opportunity to visualize their notion by reasoning with others.

iii  Share: Students  discuss their ideas with their partner; thereafter, one person presents the answer to the whole class. Usually, they are always confident in their presentation with supporting ideas from their group members. In addition, students’ thoughts have been authenticated by the application of these three steps (Pressley as cited in Goodman, 2010).

According to Oladipupo and Ajayi (2016) Think Pair Share is a co-operative strategy that incorporates the segments; time for thinking, sharing, and time to discuss with the class. The application of this approach concretizes learning technique thereby ensuring enhancement and the accumulation of knowledge. Think Pair Share approach is more beneficial than Lecture Method. It allows all students to develop elaborate answers that could be given for discussed. Students are eager to take risk by suggesting ideas because they have already practice with their partners. This strategy differs from Lecture Method because it makes interaction possible among learners during the pairing and sharing stages.  According to Cooper (2002) Think Pair Share Strategy is an informal learning strategy where students think of an answer to a question, discuss their ideas with partners, and then one person discusses the answer with the whole class. This activity may take an interval of 5-10 minutes. Indeed, Think Pair Share instructional strategy refers to collaborative technique which involves presenting students with a task or question by giving them time to think individually and in a group of 2-4, they report their individual findings, discuss their own thoughts and confirm their individual work. This strategy may encourage students’ participation in discussing and this may help to promote interest and retention in the chemistry class, there by leads to better achievements.  

Achievement is the measure of realization or attainment of goals in certain areas. It is the measurement of the effect of specific programme of instruction or training Gimbia (2012). It can also be defined as something that somebody has succeeded in doing, especially several attempts. It is an act of finishing something successfully.  Academic achievement in this context means success in writing and deriving molecular structure of some compounds, writing and arriving at how electrons are shared or transferred within the atoms of an element to form a compound, ions and molecules when Think Pair Share is used in learning process.

According to Oladipupo and Ajayi (2016) it was found out that when students were taught using guided discovery and Think Pair Share Strategy, They had a high posttest mean scores than those taught using traditional method. Ayaja (2010) suggested that practicing science teachers should use guided discovery and Think Pair Share Strategy in science classroom, as these strategies foster inquiry and cooperation among them despite their different strength and weaknesses with respect to cognitive entry behavior and other different aspect of learning factor. Ekpo (2006) carried out study on the tips of teaching difficult concept in chemistry. The result revealed that students learn better when a collaborative strategy is used in teaching difficult chemistry concept than when conventional strategy is used. The researcher therefore commends that science teachers should use cooperative strategy in teaching difficult chemistry concept as it challenges students to be actively involved in the class room as this  also enhances retention.

Kundu & Tutoo (2002) defined “retention” as a preservative factor of the mind. The consciousness of the mind results in the acquisition of knowledge. For the development of knowledge to be possible the information acquired from the conscious state must be duly retained. Retained images can be reproduced whenever a stimulating situation occurs which makes memorization possible. More so, structure should be shown to students in a manner which influences their unconsciousness which can trigger them to reflect on the concept being taught or learnt. Using Think Pair Share Strategy, both average and under average learners may be able to collaborate in terms of understanding, explaining and retaining concept they have learnt in a chemistry class. Reservation is the process of pondering over leant concept. Gimbia (2012). Students’ retention could be manifested through an appropriate teaching method. Other variables can also influence achievement of students in chemical bonding when Think Pair Share Strategy is used and one of such variable is students’ gender.

Gender issues in chemistry and science in general is still controversial. Njoku (2000) and Okeke (2000) found out that there is no significant difference in the achievement in chemistry between boys and girls. However, Adigwe as cited in Attah (2014) asserted that females performed better than their male counterparts in sciences. Contrary to this, Ukozor (2011) found out that boys performed better than girls in sciences. In view of these contradictions, further studies are required to determine the effect of a different instructional strategy such as Think Pair Share on academic achievement of boys and girls. Would Think Pair Share Instructional Strategy be effective in enhancing the achievement of male and female students in chemical bonding? Okeke (2000) argued that so far there is no biological evidence that boys have innate superior, intellectual abilities over girls; the difference in achievement may be caused by other factors such as method of instruction. Some studies like Igwe (2008) and Okeke (2000) showed that males and females respond differently to specific teaching methods. The question then is; Can Think Pair Share Instructional Strategy yield the same effect on achievement and retention on male and female students in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure?

1.2       STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Many senior secondary schools students perform poorly in Chemistry particularly in topics like chemical bonding and Molecular Structure. Chemical bonding being a key concept, should be taught with appropriate method of instruction in order to enhance students’ better understanding of other concepts like energy, chemical reactions, ions, and molecules which are linked to chemical bonding and Molecular Structure. According to WEAC Chief Examiner’s reports of 2013 – 2017, concern have been raised about the poor academic performances of students in chemistry, particularly in areas of chemical bonding. Therefore,  if students’ achievement  in chemistry are to be enhanced, there may be need to improve students’ understanding of this basic concept in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure using appropriate method of instruction. Research has shown that most teachers use convectional approach in teaching chemical bonding and Molecular Structure which has yielded poor results. Perhaps a newer instructional strategy such as Think Pair Share may help to enhance students’ achievement and retention in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure. Presently, however it seems that no research has investigated the efficacy of Think Pair Share Instructional Strategy on students’ achievement. Thus the problem of this study, put in question form is: what is the effect of Think Pair Share Instructional Strategy on senior secondary school students’ achievement and retention in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure at senior secondary school level be investigated?

1.3       PURPOSE OF STUDY

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of Think Pair Share Instructional Strategy on students’ achievement and retention in chemical bonding and molecular structure. specifically, the study sought to determine;

1)      students’ mean achievement scores in chemical bonding and molecular structure   when taught using Think Pair Share instructional strategy and lecture method respectively;

2)      students’ mean retention scores in chemical bonding and molecular structure   when taught using Think Pair Share instructional strategy and lecture method;

3)      influence of gender on students’ mean achievement scores in chemical bonding and molecular structure   when taught using Think Pair Share instructional strategy; 

4)      influences of gender on students’ mean retention scores in chemical bonding and molecular structure when taught using Think Pair Share instructional strategy;

5)      interaction effects of gender and teaching methods on students’ mean achievement scores in chemical bonding and molecular structure; and

6)      interaction effects of gender and teaching methods on students’ mean retention scores in chemical bonding and molecular structure;

1.4       RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following research questions guided the study:

1.            What are the mean achievement scores of students’ in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure   when taught using Think Pair Share Instructional Strategy and Lecture method?

2.            What are the mean retention scores of students’ in chemical bonding when taught using Think Pair Share Instructional Strategy and Lecture method?

3.            What is the influence of gender on students’ mean achievement scores in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure   when taught using Think Pair Share Instructional Strategy 

4.            What is the influence of gender on students’ mean retention scores in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure   when taught using Think Pair Share Instructional Strategy 

5.            What is the interaction effect of gender and teaching methods on students’ mean achievement scores in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure?

6.            What is the interaction effect of gender and teaching methods on students’ mean retention scores in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure?

1.5       HYPOTHESES

The following Hypotheses were formulated to guide the study and were tested at 0.05 level of significance.

Ho1 There is no significant difference between the mean achievements scores of chemistry students’ taught chemical bonding using Think Pair Share and those taught using Lecture method.

Ho2 There is no significant difference between the mean retention scores of chemistry students’ taught chemical bonding and Molecular Structure   using Think Pair Share and those taught using Lecture method.

Ho3 There is no significant difference between achievement mean scores of male and female students’ in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure   when taught using Think Pair Share Instructional Strategy

Ho4 There is no significant difference between the mean retention scores of male and female student in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure   when taught using Think Pair Share Instructional Strategy.

Ho5 There is no significant interaction effect of gender and teaching methods on students’ mean achievement scores in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure.

Ho6 There is no significant interaction effect of gender and teaching methods on students’ mean retention scores in chemical bonding and Molecular Structure.

1.6       SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The findings of this study is hoped to be beneficial to the following; students, nation, Chemistry teachers, curriculum planners or developers. It is hoped that when the findings of this study is presented in seminars, workshops, conferences and implemented the following may be achieved. It may enhance students’ achievement and retention in chemistry and increase the number of students who will go into the study of important science courses like engineering, pharmacy, medicine, nursing science, and applied science like biology, chemistry, and physics. These courses mention above has chemistry as a pre-requisite and promote national and economic development and scientifically skilled. 

It is expected that it may enhance male and female achievement and retention scores in chemical bonding and molecular structure.

It may also enhance male and female interaction for higher achievement and retention in chemical bonding.  

1.7       SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of the study is delimited to senior secondary one students in Eket Educational Zone in Akwa Ibom State. The content scope for the study includes types of chemical bonding, properties of compounds formed from different types of bonding, (electrovalent or ionic bonding, covalent bonding, coordinate or dative bonding, metallic bonding, hydrogen bonding and Vander Waal’s force of attraction).

 

 

Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.


To Review


To Comment