The Effect of Systemic Synthesis Questions [SSynQs] on Students’ Performance and Meaningful Learning in Secondary Organic Chemistry Teaching
- 536 Downloads
Many studies in the field of chemical education have emphasized the fact that students at secondary level have considerable difficulties in mastering organic chemistry contents. As a result, they choose to learn these contents in a “rote” way. Taking this fact into consideration, the first aim of our study was to help students in overcoming the aforementioned difficulties by applying new instructional tools—systemic synthesis questions [SSynQs]. To achieve the aim of our research, an experiment with two parallel groups was conducted. The experimental group was taught using [SSynQs] and the control group was taught using a traditional approach. The study included 65 students, 41 males, and 24 females, aged between 17 – 18 years. All the students attended the same high school and were taught by the instructions of the same teacher. The results showed that students from the experimental group achieved higher scores on the final testing than students from the control group. This confirmed the fact that application of [SSynQs] in the educational process improves students’ meaningful learning in organic chemistry domain. Additionally, after conducting an exploratory factor analysis of the obtained data, [SSynQs] were characterized as highly effective tools for assessing students’ meaningful understanding. Furthermore, our study has highlighted and connected two applications of [SSynQs] in the chemistry educational process. Firstly as an instructional tool and secondly as an assessment tool. The important task for future research would be to evaluate a third application of [SSynQs] as a diagnostic tool.
KeywordsAssessment tool Instructional tool Meaningful learning and understanding Organic chemistry Student’s performance Systemic synthesis questions [SSynQs]
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia under Grant number 47003.
- Al-bashaireh, Z. (2011). Systemic approach effect on achievement of Tafila school students in science. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(3), 47–52.Google Scholar
- Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
- Eroğlu, M. G. & Kelecioğlu, H. (2011). An analysis of the validity and reliability of concept map and structural communication grid scores. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 210–220.Google Scholar
- Fahmy, A. F. M. & Lagowski, J. J. (1999). The use of systemic approach in teaching and learning chemistry for the 21st century. Purre and Applied Chemistry, 71(5), 859–863.Google Scholar
- Fahmy, A.F.M. & Lagowski, J.J. (2002). Systemic approach to teaching and learning chemistry: SATLC in Egypt. Chemical Education International, 3 (1), AN-1. Retrieved from: http://old.iupac.org/publications/cei/vol3/0301x0an1.html.
- Fahmy, A.F.M. & Lagowski, J.J. (2004). Using SATL techniques to assess student achievement in chemistry. Paper presented at 18th International Conference on Chemical Education, Istanbul.Google Scholar
- Fahmy, A. F. M. & Lagowski, J. J. (2012). Systemic assessment as a new tool for assessing students learning in chemistry using SATL methods: Systemic true false [STFQs] and systemic sequencing [SSQs] question types. African Journal of Chemical Education, 2(2), 66–78.Google Scholar
- Hrin, T. N., Segedinac, M. D. & Milenković, D. D. (2013). Development of ontological knowledge representation: Learning hydrocarbons with double bonds at the secondary level. African Journal of Chemical Education, 3(2), 76–90.Google Scholar
- O’Dwyer, A. & Childs, P. (2011). Second level Irish pupils’ and teachers’ view of difficulties in Organic Chemistry. Paper presented at the Western Europe IOSTE Mini-Symposium—Science Education Research, Limerick, Ireland.Google Scholar
- Osterlind, S. J. (2002). Constructing test items: Multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats. New York, NY: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Scalise, K. & Gifford, B. (2006). Computer-based assessment in e-learning: A framework for constructing “Intermediate Constraint” questions and tasks for technology platforms. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(6), 4–44.Google Scholar
- Stojiljković, A. (1989). Hemija za III razred gimnazije prirodno-matematičkog smera, medicinske, veterinarske i škole za negu lepote [Chemicals for the third year of high school Natural Sciences directions, medical, veterinary and Beauty Schools]. Beograd, Serbia: Zavod za udžbenike.Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Vachliotis, T., Salta, K. & Tzougraki, C. (2013). Meaningful understanding and systems thinking in organic chemistry: Validating measurement and exploring relationships. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 239–266. doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9382-x.