The results in table 3 showed a slight higher performance by male students over the female students in the post - tests. Students taught using concept mapping instructional strategies performed better than students taught using analogy instructional strategies. A careful consideration of the Mean Score of the students in the different questions (electrolysis, stoichiometry and mole respectively) shared that concept mapping instructional strategy is more effective.
The results in table 3 showed a slight higher performance by male students over the female students in the post - tests. Students taught using concept mapping instructional strategies performed better than students taught using analogy instructional strategies. A careful consideration of the Mean Score of the students in the different questions (electrolysis, stoichiometry and mole respectively) shared that concept mapping instructional strategy is more effective.
The results in table 3 showed a slight higher performance by male students over the female students in the post - tests. Students taught using concept mapping instructional strategies performed better than students taught using analogy instructional strategies. A careful consideration of the Mean Score of the students in the different questions (electrolysis, stoichiometry and mole respectively) shared that concept mapping instructional strategy is more effective.
Table 3: Overall Summary of mean scores of students.
TEST GROUP N PRE-TEST POST-TEST Male (Control) Female (Control) Male (Analogy) Female (Analogy) Male (Concept Map) Female Concept Map) 16 16 16 16 16 16 27.70 27.30 27.30 26.90 27.90 27.13 54.60 53.80 66.00 59.40 75.00 73.10
The results in table 3 showed a slight higher performance by male students over the female students in the post tests. Similarly, the performance of the students in the CPST as taught using the different strategies is in the order male (concept map > female (concept map) > male (analogy) > male (control) > female (control). General, the students taught using concept mapping instructional strategies performed better than students taught using analogy instructional strategies.
Table 4: Details of students mean performance in post test according to the three questions in the CPST.
2
TEST GROUP Q1 Q2 Q3 TOTAL Male (Control) Female (Control) Male (Analogy) Female (Analogy) Male (Concept Map) Female Concept Map) 17.90 17.66 20.50 17.57 24.10 23.48 19.51 18.02 25.10 23.50 24.50 23.58 17.19 18.12 20.40 18.33 26.40 26.40 54.60 53.80 66.00 59.40 75.40 73.10 Mean Score 20.20 22.37 21.08 63.65
A careful consideration of the mean score of the students in the different questions (electrolysis, stoichiometry and mole respectively), shared that concept mapping instructional strategy is more effective. It is suitable for teaching all the concepts and most especially, the mole. Analogy is most suitable only for teaching stoichimetry. Mean score of students taught in the control group are generally lower than those taught using other strategies.
4.2.1 Pretest Results The pretest scores of male and female students in the control, analogy and concept mapping groups were analysed and the
3
results presented in table. The analyses and presentation were done according to the research questions and the corresponding hypotheses. Research question one: Will there be any diff.. Research Hypothesis one: There is no sign..
Table 5: Pretest mean score of male students in control, analogy and concept mapping groups. TEST GROUP N MEAN SCORE STUDENT ERROR MINIMUM MAXIMUM Control Analogy Concept Mapping 16 16 16 27.70 27.30 27.90 0.472 0.410 0.482 16.70 16.70 16.70 36.70 36.70 36.70 Total 48 27.63 0.258 16.70 36.70
Table 5 showed the mean score of the male students in the pretest where the minimum and maximum score were the same in each group. The mean score for the groups do not show any differences.
4
Table 6: ANOVA of Pretest mean score of male students in control, analogy and concept mapping groups. TEST GROUP Sum of Squares df Mean square F P-sig. Between groups Within groups 0.292 149.625 2 45 0.146 3.325 0.044 0.957 Total 149.917 47
The analysis of the results in table 6 gives a p-value of 0.957. Since the p- value, 0.957 > 0.05, the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore there is no significant different between the pretest mean score of male students in a chemistry problem solving test in the control, analogy and concept mapping groups. Research question two: will there be .. Research Hypothesis two: There is no sign.
5
Table 7 Pretest mean score of female students in control, analogy and concept mapping groups. Test Group N Mean Score Student Error Minimum Maximum Control Analogy Concept Mapping 16 16 16 27.30 26.90 27.10 0.440 0.536 0.605 16.70 13.30 10.00 36.70 36.70 36.70 Total 48 27.10 0.300 13.33 36.70
The results showed that the mean score in each group is about same, twenty seven. There is therefore, no difference in the mean score of the female students in the pretest in all three groups.
Table 8: ANOVA of Pretest mean scores of female students in control, analogy and concept mapping groups. Test Group Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P-sig. Between groups Within groups 0.125 203.125 2 45 0.063 4.514 0.014 0.987 Total 203.250 47
6
From the analysis in table 8, P-sig, 0.986 > 0.05. The null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is no .
4.2.2 Pretest Vs Post-test Results. The pretest and post-test results of male and female students in the control and two experimental groups were also analysed according to the research questions and hypothesis. The results were also presented accordingly. Research question three: will there be Research hypothesis three: There is no sign ..
Table 9 Group statistics of Pretest and post-test mean scores of male students in the control. Test Group N Means Score Standard Error Mean difference Pretest Posttest 16 16 27.70 54.60 0.472 0.700 -26.90
7
The results in table 9 showed that there is a remarkable difference in the pretest and post-test mean scores. The pre-test mean score (27.70) differed by 26.90 from the post-test mean score of 54.60.
Table 10: Independent sample test for equality of means. Test Group Mean Difference t df Standard error diff P-sig.(2 tailed Equal variance assumed -26.90 -9.546 30 0.845 0.000
Analysis using t-test for independent samples showed that P-value, 0.000 < 0.05. This showed that there is a highly significant difference (99.99% significant) between the pretest and post-test mean score of male students in the control group. Hypothesis three is therefore rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted. Therefore, there is a significant difference between the pre-test and post test mean scores of Male students in a chemistry problem solving test in the control group. Research question four: Research Hypothesis four: There are no sign .
8
Table 11: Group statistics of pretest and post-test mean scores of female students in the control group. Test Group N Means Score Standard Error Mean difference Pretest Posttest 16 16 27.30 53.80 0.442 0.694 -26.50
It was revealed from the analysis presented in table 11 that there was a different between the mean score of the female students in pre- and post tests.
Table 12: Independent sample test for equality of means. Test Group Mean Difference T df Standard error diff P-sig.(2 tailed Equal variance assumed -26.50 -9.656 30 0.822 0.000
The analysis of the pretest and post-test mean scores of female students in the control group yielded a P-value of 0.000. Since the P-sig, 0.000 < 0.05, there is a 99.99% significant difference between the scores. The null
9
hypothesis (four) was rejected, giving place to the alternate hypothesis. Therefore, there is a significant .. Research question five Research hypothesis five
Table 13: Group statistics of the pre-test and post test mean scores of male students in the analogy group. Test Group N Means Score Standard Error Mean difference Pretest Posttest 16 16 27.30 66.00 0.410 0.593 -38.70
The mean different (-38.70) indicates that there is a difference between the pretest and post-test scores of the students taught using analogy.
Table 14: Independent sample test for equality of means. Test Group Mean Difference T df Standard error diff P-sig.(2 tailed Equal variance assumed -38.70 -16.12 30 0.721 0.000
10
The analysis and results presented in table 14 showed that the P-value is 0.000, a value less than 0.05. There is a 99.99% significant difference between the pretest and post-test mean score of male students in the analogy group. Hypothesis five is therefore rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted. There is a significant difference
Research question six Research hypothesis six Table 15: Group statistics of pretest and post-test mean scores of female students in the analogy group. Test N Means Score Standard Error Mean difference Pretest Posttest 16 16 26.90 59.40 0.536 0.518 -32.50
Table 15 showed that there was a difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the female student taught with analogy. The post-test performance was significantly higher, giving a mean difference of 32.50.
11
Table 16: Independent sample test for equality of means. Test Group Mean Difference T df Standard error diff P-sig.(2 tailed Equal variance assumed -32.50 -13.08 30 0.745 0.000
The t-test for Independent sample revealed that there was a significant difference between the pretest and post-test mean scores of the female students in the analogy group (P sig, 0.000 < 0.05). The null hypothesis (six) was rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted to read .. Research Question Seven Research Hypothesis Seven Table 17: Group statistics of pretest and post-test mean scores of male students in the concept mapping group. Test N Mean scores Standard error mean Mean diff. Pretest Post-test 16 16 27.90 75.00 0.482 0.658 - 47.10
12
The results showed that there was a huge difference between the pretest and post-test scores. The difference of 47.10 attests to this fact. Table 18: Independent sample test for equity of means Mean diff. t df Standard error diff. P-sig (2 tailed) Equal variance assumed -47.10 -17.31 30 0.816 0.000
The t-test results in table 18 showed a highly significant difference between the pretest and post-test mean scores of male students who were taught using concept mapping instructional strategy. The null hypothesis (seven) was rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted in its place. Therefore there is a significant.. Research Question Eight Research Hypothesis Eight
13
Table 19: Group statistics of pretest and post-test mean scores of female students in the concept mapping group. Test N Mean scores Standard error mean Mean diff. Pretest Post-test 16 16 27.10 73.10 0.605 0.403 - 46.10
The results in table 19 revealed a difference between the pretest and post-test mean scores of the female chemistry students in the concept mapping group. Table 20: Independent sample test for equality of means involving the pretest and post-test mean scores of females in concept mapping class. Mean diff. t df Standard error diff. P-sig (2 tailed) Equal variance assumed -46.00 -19.01 30 0.727 0.000
The analysis in table 20 showed the P-value to be 0.000, less than 0.05. This showed a highly significant difference between the scores.
14
Hypothesis eight was rejected as a result, and the alternate hypothesis was accepted to read: There is a significant difference Research Question Nine Research Hypothesis Nine Table 21: Post test mean scores of male students in control, analogy and concept mapping groups. Group N Mean score Minimum Maximum Control Analogy Concept map. 16 16 16 54.60 66.00 75.00 36.70 53.30 60.10 70.00 80.00 86.7% Total 48 65.20 50.00 78.90
From the mean scores of the male students in table 21, it is clear that they differ from one another. The performance of male students in the post-test were not the same. Those in the control were the least while those in concept mapping performed better.
15
Table 22a: ANOVA of the post-test mean scores of male students in control, analogy and concept mapping groups (Between subjects effects) Source Type III sum of squares df. Mean square F P-sig. Intercept Group H 0 9 Error Total 18369.187 301.625 306.188 18977.000 1 2 45 48 18369.187 150.813 6.804 2699.697 22.165 0.000 0.000 Corrected Total 607.812 47 a. R squared = 0.496 (Adjusted R squared = 0.474). The ANOVA carried out on the mean scores in table 22 for within groups and between subjects yielded p-values less than 0.05. The analysis showed that there was a significant difference between the post- test mean scores of the male students in control, analogy and concept mapping groups. The null hypothesis (nine) was rejected and the alternate accepted. Therefore .. The analysis also yielded an R-squared value of 0.49. This means that the treatments given contributed to 49.6% variation in the subjects. A
16
pairwise multiple comparison test was carried out to find the source of variation and the result tabulated as follows:- Table 22b: Pairwise comparison test. Group (i) Group (i) Mean diff. (i-j) Standard error Sig. Concept mapping
The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level in all cases. Based on the observed means, the error term is mean square (error) and is 6.804. The multiple comparison test showed that concept mapping has more effects on male students performance than analogy. It is in concept mapping group that the variation arose.
17
Table 22c: Scheffes test Group N 1 Sub-set 2 3 Control Analogy Concept mapping 16 16 16 54.60 66.00
75.00
Based on observed means, the error term is mean square (error) = 6.804 Alpha = 0.05 and harmonic mean sample size is 16.00. Research Question Ten Research Hypothesis Ten Table 23: Post test mean scores of female students in control, analogy and concept mapping groups. Group N Mean score Minimum Maximum Control Analogy Concept mapping 16 16 16 53.80 59.4 73.10 40.00 50.00 63.30 73.30 76.70 83.30 Total 48 62.10 51.10 77.77
18
The mean scores of the results presented in table 23 indicated differences in the performances of the female students in the control and experimental groups. As in the case of their male counterparts (table 21), the female students in the concept mapping class performed better than those of control and analogy in chemistry problem solving tasks. Table 24: ANOVA of the post-test mean scores of female students in the control, analogy and concept mapping groups (test of between subject effects). Source Type II sum of squares df Mean square F P-sig. Intercept Group H 0 10 Error Total Corrected total 16650.750 286.125 219.125 17156.10 505.250 1 2 45 48 47 16650.750 143.063 4.869 3419.435 29.380 0.000 0.000
a. R squared = 0.566 (Adjusted R. Squared = 0.547)
19
Results of the analysis presented in table 24 yielded P-values of 0.000, less than 0.05-alpha level. This showed that there was a 99.99% significant difference between the mean scores of the female students in a chemistry problem solving test when taught in control, analogy and concept mapping groups. The null hypothesis ten was rejected in favour of the alternate hypothesis. Therefore.. The R-squared value was 0.566, meaning that the treatment given in the experimental groups accounted for 56.6% of the variations in the subjects. A pair wise comparison test carried out to find the source of variation gave the following results: Table 24b: Pair wise comparism test. Group (1) Group (i) Mean diff (i-j) Standard error Sig. Concept mapping
Analogy
Control Analogy control Concept Concept mapping Control Concept mapping Analogy 13.70* 19.30* -13.70* 5.60 -19.30* -5.60 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.108 0.000 0.108
20
Based on the observed means, the error term is mean square (error) and is 4.869. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level except for the control-analogy pair where theres no significant difference, P-value being greater than 0.05. Concept mapping again showed itself as an instructional strategy that has more effects on students (female) performance in chemistry problem solving test than control and analogy. Table 24c: Scheffes test Group N 1 subset 2 Control Analogy Concept mapping 16 16 16 53.80 59.40
73.10
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Based on the observed means, the error term is mean square (Error) = 4.869, at alpha = 0.05. Research question eleven.. Research hypothesis eleven.
21
Table 25: Group statistics of post-test mean scores of male chemistry students in analogy and concept mapping groups. Group N Mean score Standard error Mean diff. Analogy Concept mapping 16 16 66.00 75.00 0.593 0.658 -910
The mean scores and mean difference indicated in table 25 revealed that the performances of the male students in chemistry problem solving tests differ in the two experimental groups analogy and concept mapping groups. Table 26: Independent sample test for equality of means Mean diff. t df Standard error diff. P-sig (2-tailed) Equal variance assumed -9.00 -3.033 30 0.886 0.005
The results showed that the mean scores are significantly different at P<0.01 (99%). The P-value is 0.005. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted that there is a.
22
Research question twelve.. Research hypothesis twelve.. Table 27: Group statistics of post test mean scores of female chemistry students in analogy and concept mapping groups. Group N Mean score Standard error Mean diff. Analogy Concept mapping 16 16 59.4 73.10 0.518 0.403 013.70
The results in table 27 showed a marked difference between the scores of females students taught with analogy and when taught with concept mapping strategies. The mean difference of 13.70 is a further proof to this. Those in the concept mapping class performed better. Table 28: Independent sample test for equality on means Mean diff. t df Standard error diff. P-sig (2-tailed) Equal variance assumed -13.70 6.285 30 0.656 0.000
23
The P-value, 0.000 < 0.05. This means there was a significant difference in the post-test mean scores of the female students in the analogy and concept mapping classes in chemistry problem solving test. Hypothesis twelve is therefore rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted. Therefore. Research question thirteen.. Research hypothesis thirteen.. Table 29: Group statistics of post-test mean scores of male chemistry students in CPST when taught using analogy and female students that were taught using concept mapping. Group N Mean score Standard error Mean diff. Male Female 16 16 66.00 59.40 0.593 0.518 6.60
The results showed that the mean scores of male and female students taught with analogy are not the same. They differ from one another, the mean scores of male students being higher.
24
Table 30: Independent sample test for equality of means Mean diff. t df Standard error diff. P-sig (2-tailed) Equal variance assumed 6.60 2.539 30 0.788 0.017 The P-value, 0.017 < 0.05. This showed that the mean score of male students in the CPST when taught with analogy differed significantly from that of the female students. It is significant at about 95%. Hypothesis thirteen was rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted. Therefore, there is a significant. Research question fourteen.. Research hypothesis fourteen.. Table 31: Group statistics of post-test mean scores of male and female students in CPST when taught with concept mapping. Group N Mean score Standard error Mean diff. Male Female 16 16 75.00 73.10 0.658 0.403 1.90
25
The mean score of male students does not differ significantly from the mean score of female students when both are taught with concept mapping instructional strategy. The mean difference is just 1.90. Table 32: Independent sample test for equality of means. Mean diff. t df Standard error diff. P-sig (2-tailed) Equal variance assumed 1.90 0.729 30 0.772 0.472
The P-value, 0.472 > 0.05. This indicated that there was no significant difference between the mean scores of male and female students taught using concept mapping instructional strategy. Hypothesis fourteen (null) was therefore retained. This means that there was no
26
4.3 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY The study was a pretest-post-test control group design aimed at finding out the effects of two metacognitive instructional strategies on gender and problem solving ability in three selected chemistry concepts. These were: electrolysis, stoichimetry and mole. Question one was drawn from electrolysis, question two from stoichiometry and question three from mole concept. The three questions made up the chemistry problem solving test. In all, ninety six students participate, with thirty two students (16 males and 16 females) in each of control, analogy and concept mapping groups. Analysis of the pretest and posttest mean scores yielded the following results:
1. Generally, students taught using concept mapping instructional strategy performed better in the post test than others taught with analogy and in the control. Both male and female students in the concept map class did well with mean scores of 75.00 and 73.10 respectively almost the same score. The male students in the analogy group performed better than their female counterparts with mean scores of 66.00 against 59.4. The result also showed that female students in the concept mapping class performed better than males in the analogy group. Table 3 contains all these.
27
2. The study revealed that concept mapping is suitable/effective for teaching stoichiomety, electrolysis and mole. The effectiveness cuts across gender. Analogy was found most suitable only for teaching male students stoichiometry. 3. Tables 5-8 showed that the pretest results of males in the control, analogy and concept mapping had no significant difference (p=0.957). Similarly, the pretest result of female students in the control and the two experimental groups did not yield any significant difference in their pretest means scores. The p-value was 0.986. 4. Results presented in tables 9 to 20 showed that there was a significant difference between the pretest and post-test mean scores of both male and female students in CPST when taught in the control, analogy and concept mapping strategies. The mean differences between the pretest and post- tests however differ from one group to the other. The control being the least while concept mapping class, the highest. 5. Another finding of the study (from ANOVA) was that a significance difference occurred between the post-tests mean scores of male students in the control, analogy and concept mapping groups. The ANOVA yielded p=0.000 < 0.05. The analysis also revealed that treatment of groups accounted for 49.6.% of variation in the subjects. 6. Regarding the comparison of the post-test mean scores of female students in the CPST in the control, analogy and concept mapping groups, the
28
study found that there was a significant difference between their mean scores (P=0.000 < 0.05). The treatment accounted for 56.6% of the variation in the subjects. However, Scheffes test identified the female analogy vs female control pairs as having no significant difference (P=0. ). Tables 23-24 give this. 7. Results in table 25 and 26 indicated that there was a moderately significant difference between the post-test mean scores of male students in CPST when taught with analogy and concept mapping. With P=0.005 and mean difference of 9, the study showed that concept map is more effective than analogy in the teaching of the three concepts to male chemistry students. 8. The study found also that concept mapping strategy produced greater effects in female chemistry students than their counterparts taught with analogy. Mean score difference was 13.70 and P=0.000. The difference was highly significant. 9. The use of analogy as instructional strategy produced a 95% significant difference between male and female students. The mean difference between the two (male and female) in CPST when taught with analogy was 6.60. Using analogy to teach students the three chemical concepts will give the male students a slight edge over the female students. 10. The study found that concept mapping instructional strategy is effective for both male and female chemistry students. No significant difference
29
was found between the post-test mean scores of the male and female students in CPST when taught the three chemistry concept with concept mapping (P=0.472).
CHAPTER FIVE 5.1 Introduction: The study was a pretest-post-test control group design carried out in order to compare the effects of two metacognitive instructional strategies on gender and students problem solving ability in some selected chemistry concepts. These were: electrolysis, stoichiometry and the mole. The two instructional strategies were analogy and concept mapping. This chapter presents a discussion of the results that were obtained as a result of the analyses of the pre-test and post-test scores of male and female students in a chemistry problem solving test when taught in the control group and using the strategies in the experimental group. The results are discussed with reference to other research results related to the study. 5.2 Result of the Students Pre-test
30
One of the findings of the study was that there was no significant difference between the pre-test mean scores of male students in the control, analogy and concept mapping groups. Similarly, no significant difference was found to exist between the pre-test mean scores of female students in the control, analogy and concept mapping groups. This happened due to a number of factors. First of all, the mode of selection of the student sample through the use of the MST and CAT ensured that the students were those of similar if not equal ability. Secondly, randomization of the groups also ensure that all the groups are equivalent before the treatment (Akuezuido and Agu, 1993). The students have not been taught the concepts before. No one had an edge over the other hence there was not significant differences in the post-test mean scores of the students in all the groups. 5.3 Pre-tests Vs Post-tests Results. The general results showed that students performance (mean scores) in the CPST in the post-tests were generally higher than the pre-test mean scores. Even the students in the control performed better after being taught using conventional methods. The post-tests results of male and female students in the analogy and concept mapping groups were, however, higher than those of the control groups. The purpose of the pre-test and control were to provide a background against which the effectiveness of the experimental treatment (use of
31
analogy and concept mapping) can be compared. The higher performance (from tables 3 and 4) of the student in analogy and concept mapping over those in control can be attributed to the treatment given the experimental group and which was absent in the control. Results obtained from tables 5 and 6, and tables 7 and 8 had earlier shown that there was no significant difference between the pretest mean scores for all groups and gender, the student sample being equivalent and equal variance assumed. Whatever variation there is in the results must be the effect of the treatment. 5.4 Post-tests Results From the analyses of the post-test mean scores of male and female students in the control and experimental groups, it was discovered that there was a statistically significant difference between the post-test mean scores of male students in the control, analogy and concept mapping groups (tables 21 and 22). Further analyses showed that the treatment given was responsible for 49.6% variation in the subjects. Concept mapping pair-wise comparison with other groups was found to be responsible for the variation according to Scheffes test. The result also showed a statistically significant difference between the post-test mean scores of female students in the control, analogy and concept mapping (tables 23 and 24). The treatment accounted for 56.6% of the variation in the subjects. The variations in the treatment was more in the females than the male chemistry students.
32
The implications of the results here was that the two metacognitive instructional strategies, analogy and concept mapping, were effective in teaching the three chemistry concepts and hence in chemistry problem solving tasks. This is not surprising as early researchers have found out that analogy and concept mapping are effective in the teaching and learning of science. Gabel (2003), Harrison and Treagust (2006) observed that analogies are good explanatory devices and promote conceptual understanding in sciences. Fechner and Sumfleth (2008) noted that the problem of linking the often multi-dimensional nature of chemistry can be talked through the use of concept maps. The results here agreed with Gabels (2003b) findings that metacognitive instructional strategies are effective in learning chemistry and science in general. It agreed with Foxwel and Menasce (2004) finding that analogy is essential in learning new concepts that lead to problem solving as it increases a students belief about their problem-solving abilities. Uzuntiryaki and Gedan (2005) also found out that concept maps as instructional strategies, caused significant acquisition of scientific concepts and reduces anxiety toward learning, hence enhancing achievement and problem solving.
5.5 Post-tests Results: Concept Map Vs Analogy Results analysed and presented generally showed that the gain scores (mean scores) in post-tests of both male and female students in groups
33
taught using concept mapping were higher than those of students taught using analogy. For instance, table 3 gives the post-test mean scores of male students taught using analogy was 66.00. Female students in concept mapping and analogy groups had mean score of 73.10 and 59.40 respectively: The results show the superiority and effectiveness of concept mapping over analogy.