Technology Integrated Formative Assessment: Effects on Students’ Conceptual Knowledge and Motivation in Chemical Equilibrium
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26740/jcer.v6n1.p26-43Keywords:
Conceptual knowledge, Formative assessment, Motivation, TechnologyAbstract
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of technology integrated formative assessment strategies on students’ conceptual knowledge and their motivation in chemical equilibrium. Quasi-experimental control group interrupted time series design was employed. Data were collected from 132 students which were selected using multistage random sampling technique from three governmental secondary schools. Two experimental (Technology Integrated Formative Assessment (TIFA) and Formative Assessment (FA) alone) and one comparison groups were involved in the study. A series of chemical equilibrium conceptual tests and motivation questionnaire were used to collect data. One-way ANOVA and Mixed model ANOVA were used to analyze the test scores. There was a statistically significant difference between groups in posttest on conceptual plus remembering (F (2,129) = 3.52, p=.033), understanding (F (2,129) = 4.70, p=.033), applying (F (2, 129) = 20.35, p<.001) and their motivation (F (2, 129) = 12.375, p< .001). However, there were no statistically significant differences among groups in posttest on conceptual plus analysis (F (2, 129) = 1.10, p = .335) and evaluating (F (2,129) = 3.03, p = .052). There was also an interaction effect between treatment and time point on the conceptual test scores. It was concluded that TIFA more effective in facilitating students’ conceptual knowledge and motivation in learning chemical equilibrium than the two other groups. The researchers recommended that chemistry teachers should adapt TIFA as a teaching strategy in chemistry classrooms and laboratories. They are also recommended that teachers should incorporate it into their classes to enhance students’ motivation.
Key Words: Conceptual knowledge, Formative assessment, Motivation, Technology
References
Oliveros Ruiz, M. A., Vargas Osuna, L., Valdez Salas, B., Schorr Wienner, M., Sevilla Garcia, J., Cabrera Cordova, E., & Ibarra, R. 2014. The importance of teaching science and technology in early education levels in an emerging economy. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 34(3-4),87-93. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0270467614559124
Jessani, S. I. 2015. Science education: Issues, approaches and challenges. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 2(1),79-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v2i1.51
D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. 2012. Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.001
Suud, F. M., Chaer, M. T., & Setiawan, W. 2020. Implementation educational psychology theories at traditional boarding school in Aceh. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(9),371-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.09.78
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. 2015. The challenges of defining and
measuring student engagement inscience. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
Hassard, J., & Dias, M. 2013. The art of teaching science: Inquiry and innovation in middle school and high school. Routledge.
Zoller, U. 2013. Science, technology, environment, society (STES) literacy for sustainability: what should it take in chem/science education?. Educación química,24(2),207-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(13)72464-9
Sewry, J. D., & Paphitis, S. A. 2018. Meeting important educational goals for chemistry through service-learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,19(3),973-982. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00103K
Jegede, S. A. 2007. Students anxiety towards the learning of chemistry in some Nigerian secondary schools. Educational Research and Reviews, 2(7), 193-197. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR.9000310
Ohodo, G. C. 2005. Principles and practice of chemistry education in Nigeria. Enugu: General Studies Division, Enugu State University of Science and Technology.
Prokša, M., Drozdíková, A., & Halakova, Z. 2018. Learners’ understanding of chemical equilibrium at submicroscopic, macroscopic and symbolic levels. Chemistry-Didactics-Ecology-Metrology,23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cdem-2018-0006
Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. 2009. Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1-8). Springer, Dordrecht.
Li, W. S. S., & Arshad, M. Y. 2014. Application of multiple representation levels in redox reactions among tenth grade chemistry teachers. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(3), 35-52. doi: 10.12973/tused.10117a
Kirbulut, Z. D., & Geban, O. 2014. Using three-tier diagnostic test to assess students’ misconceptions of states of matter. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(5), 509–521. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1128a
Nakhleh, M. B. 1992. Why some students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of chemical education,69(3),191. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p191
Kindu, T., & Mekonnen, T. 2016. Common difficulties experienced by grade 12 students in learning chemistry in ebinat preparatory school. AJCE, 6(2), 16-30. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajce/article/view/140984
Sokrat, H., Tamani, S., Moutaabbid, M., & Radid, M. 2014. Difficulties of students from the faculty of science with regard to understanding the concepts of chemical thermodynamics.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 368-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.223
Şendur, G., Toprak, M., & Pekmez, E. Ş. 2011. How can secondary school studentsperceivechemicalequilibrium?.EducationSciences,6(2),1512-1531. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/nwsaedu/issue/19820/212081
Shehu, G. 2015. Two ideas of redox reaction: Misconceptions and their challenges in chemistry education. IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education,5(1),15-20. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/36789429/C05111520
Chiu, M. H. 2007. A national survey of students’ conceptions of chemistry in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 421-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601072964
Gorodetsky, M., & Gussarsky, E. 1986. Misconceptualization of the chemical equilibrium concept as revealed by different evaluation methods, Eur. J. Sci. Educ.,8,427-441. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080409
Wheeler, A. E., & Kass, H. 1978. Student misconceptions in chemical equilibrium, Sci. Educ., 62, 223-232. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ187301
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. 2001. Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Brindha, V. E. 2018. Creative Learning Methodology using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Haluk, Ö., & Akbar, N.2018. Effect of simulations enhanced with conceptual change texts on university students’ understanding of chemical equilibrium. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 83(1),121-137. https://doi.org/10.2298/JSC161222065O
Bernal-Ballen, A., & Ladino-Ospina, Y. 2019. Assessment: A suggested strategy for learning chemical equilibrium. EducationSciences,9(3),174. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030174
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. 2017. Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review,22,74-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004
Gobert, J. D., Sao Pedro, M., Raziuddin, J., & Baker, R. S. 2013. From log files to assessment metrics: Measuring students' science inquiry skills using educational data mining. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 521-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.837391
Bukhari, T. Z., Khan, J., Shahzadi, I., & Khalid, A. 2014. Mediating role of motivation to learn in determining e-learning outcomes: A conceptual study. Business and Management, 6(2), 179-189.
Chan, Y. L., & Norlizah, C. H. 2017. Students’ motivation towards science learning and students’ science achievement. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 6(4), 2226-6348.
Sharaabi-Naor, Y., Kesner, M., & Shwartz, Y. 2014. Enhancing students’ motivation to learn chemistry 2(2). https://doi.org/10.25749/sis.4068
Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. R. 2006. Motivation to learn in college science. Handbook of college science teaching, 25, V32. https://my.nsta.org/resource/982
Gilbert, J. K. 2009. Multiple representations in chemical education (Vol. 4, pp. 1-8). D. F. Treagust (Ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.
Oli, N. 2014. Ethiopian students' achievement challenges in science education: Implications to policy formulation. African Journal of Chemical Education,4(1),2-18. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajce/article/view/101217
Askalemariam, A. 2015. Teachers' practices of assessment for learning in science education at East Gojjam preparatory schools, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation).
Bhagat, K. K., & Spector, J. M. 2017. Formative assessment in complex problem-solving domains: The emerging role of assessment technologies. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 312-317. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26229226
Heritage, M. 2010. Formative Assessment and Next-Generation Assessment Systems: Are We Losing an Opportunity?. Council of Chief State Sxhool Officers
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press
Black, P., Wiliam, D. 2009. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Education Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. 2000. Instrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new direction. Contemporarry educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Fretz, J. R. 2015. Creating optimal learning encironments thhrough invitational education: an alternatice to control oriented school reform. Journal of Invitation Theory and Practice, 21, 23-30
Creswell, J. W. 2014. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 2014. Using multivariate statistics . Harlow. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Morgan, G., Leech, N., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barrett, K. C. 2013. IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Elmahdi, I., Al-Hattami, A., & Fawzi, H. 2018. Using Technology for Formative Assessment to Improve Students' Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 17(2), 182-188.
Faber, J. M., Luyten, H., & Visscher, A. J. 2017. The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized experiment. Computers & education, 106, 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.008
Potter, S. E. 2017. How integrating digital formative assessment impacts the learning of sixth-grade science students. https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all/4316
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. 2021. A Framework for Mobile-Assisted Formative Assessment to Promote Students’ Self-Determination. Future Internet, 13(5), 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13050116
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Abstract views: 330
,
PDF Downloads: 290
