The comparison of different teaching approaches related to the achievements of students’ knowledge and skills

Authors

  • Shemsedin Abduli Albanian (State University of Tetovo)
  • Slobotka Aleksovska Institute of Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Ss. Cyril & Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia
  • Bujar Durmishi Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, State University of Tetovo, Tetovo, Macedonia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20450/mjcce.2015.706

Keywords:

acquired knowledge, teaching approaches, simulation experiments, real experiments

Abstract

This paper presents the comparative aspects of the efficiency of three different teaching approaches on the acquisition of students’ knowledge and skills. The research was carried out with students (245 in total) of the second year of secondary schools from three different cities in Macedonia in relation to the topic pH and Indicators. In one of the groups (so-called Control group), the traditional teaching approach was used; in the second, simulation experiments were carried out (Sim group); and in the third group, real experiments were performed (Real group). After the accomplishment of the topic a test of knowledge was implemented. The statistical analysis of the results showed that the Real and Sim groups showed better results than Control groups. Some of the questions concerning the understanding of the processes on molecular level were better answered in Sim groups, however, in general, it was concluded that the real experiments approach was the most efficient.

Author Biographies

Shemsedin Abduli, Albanian (State University of Tetovo)

Departement of chemistry

Slobotka Aleksovska, Institute of Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Ss. Cyril & Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia

Depatremetn of chemistry

Bujar Durmishi, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, State University of Tetovo, Tetovo, Macedonia

Departement of chemistry

References

K. S. Taber, Challenging Misconceptions in the Chemistry Classroom: Resources to Support Teachers. Educació Química., 4, 13–20 (2009).

U. Zoller, Students’ Misunderstandings and Alternative Conceptions in College Freshman Chemistry (General and Organic). J. Res. Sci. Teach., 27(10), 1053–1065 (1990).

M. Nakhleh, Why Some Students Don’t Learn Chemistry: Chemical Misconceptions. J. Chem. Educ., 69(3), 191–196 (1992).

A. Ayas and A. Demirbaş, Turkish Secondary Students’ Conception of Introductory Chemistry Concepts. J. Chem. Educ., 74(5), 518–521 (1997).

G. Nicoll, A Report of Undergraduates’ Bonding Alternative Conceptions. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 23(7), 707–730 (2001).

J. Biggs, The Process of Learning. Prentic Hall, Sydney, 1993.

B. Ybarrondo, A study of the effectiveness of computer assisted instruction in the high school biology classroom, Educational Resources Information Center, 15, 20 (1984).

A. Gerardo, Computer based learning in the engineering technology curriculum: how effective is it? Engineering Education, 76, 759–76 (1986).

L. E. Jackman and W. Moellenberg, Evaluation of three instructional methods for teaching general chemistry. J. Chem. Educ., 64, 794–960 (1987).

B. Jackson, A comparison between computer-based and traditional assessment tests, and their effects on pupil learning and scoring. School Science Review, 69(249), 809–815 (1988).

Ö. Demirel, Teaching methods, Usem Publica-tions. Ankara, 1996 pp. 55.

H. Demircioğlu and Ӧ. Geban, Comparison of computer assisted and traditional problem solving activities in science. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, 12, 183–185 (1996).

H. Ertepõnar, The relationship between formal reasoning ability, computer assisted instruction and chemistry achievement, Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, 11, 21–24 (1995).

Al-Shaie. The reality of using the computerized science labs in the secondary grade, and the trends of science's teachers towards it, Journal King Saudi University, 19, 441–497 (2006).

K. O. Oloruntegbe and G. M. Alam, Evaluation of 3d environments and virtual realities in science teaching and learning: The need to go beyond perception referents, Academic Journals, 5(9), 948–954 (2010).

M. K. Barbour and T. C. Reeves, The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature, Com-puters & Education, 52, 402–416 (2009).

L. M. Gorghiu, G. Gorghiu, T. Alexandrescu and L. Borcea, Exploring Chemistry Using Virtual Instrumentation – Challenges and Successes, Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education, 1, 371–375 (2009).

L. M. Gorghiu, G. Gorghiu, C. Dumitrescu, R. L. Olteanu, M. Bȋzoi, A-M. Suduc, Implementing virtual experiments in science education – challenges and experiences achieved in the frame of VccSSe Comenius 2.1. project, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2952–2956 (2010).

B. Demigraç, M. Kartal, C. Tuysuz, Developing a computer assisted education material related to thermochemistry, Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5, 60–71 (2008).

V. Sönmez, Teachers’ Manual in Program Developing, Yargı Yayınları, Ankara, 1986, pp. 287.

D. Bayramlı, Lesson Teaching Techniques in Chemistry Education. Hacettepe University, Institution of Science, 2000.

F. William, K. M. O-Saki, L. J. Mselle and R. Gabriel, The ICM Approach as a Way for Improving Leaning Science Subjects in High Schools in Tanzania, Int. J. Comp.Tech., 13 (9), 4965–4970 (2014).

I. Morgil, S. Yavuz, Ö. Ö. Oskay and S. Arda, Traditional and computer-assisted learning in teaching acids and bases. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 6(1), 52–63 (2005).

K. Sheppard, High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acid–base phenomena, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 7 (1), 32–45 (2006).

CROCODILE CHEMISTRY SOFTWARE, Ver. 6.0, software package, VccSSe – Virtual Community Collaborating Space for Science Education European project (no. 128989-CP-1-2006-1-RO-Comenius-C2).

B. Bloom, M. Englehart, E. Furst, W. Hill and D. Krathwohl, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. David McKay, New York, 1956.

L. Anderson, Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Longman, New York, 2001.

STATGRAPHICS PLUS, Ver. 3.0, Statistical Gra-phics Package, Educational Institution Edition, Statistical Graphics Corporation 1994–1997.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2015-11-12

How to Cite

Abduli, S., Aleksovska, S., & Durmishi, B. (2015). The comparison of different teaching approaches related to the achievements of students’ knowledge and skills. Macedonian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, 34(2), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.20450/mjcce.2015.706

Issue

Vol. 34 No. 2 (2015)

Section

Education

License

The authors agree to the following licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
  • for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

 Under the following terms:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

  • NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

Most read articles by the same author(s)