Comparative effectiveness of actual practical and alternative practical chemistry teaching models on students’ achievement in volumetric analysis

Abstract

This research attempts to compare the academic achievement of learners who were taught practical lessons in volumetric analysis using conventional materials in schools with equipped laboratory facilities and practical lessons in volumetric analysis taught using improvised materials as an alternative approach in schools without well-equipped laboratory facilities in Sidama zone, SNNPRS, Ethiopia. A control group was taught with the traditional method. Two schools were assigned in each group based on the purposive sampling technique, on the criteria whether the school had laboratory facilities and/ or not. The quantitative research method was employed in generating data through the blueprint of quasi-experimental non-equivalent group research design. Three instruments were used for data collection such as achievement test(ATQ),SQCL-questionnaire and TQ-questionnaire. SQC-questionnaire was administered to two hundred learners in both actual and alternative practical chemistry teaching models schools’ groups. It compared the perceptions of learners for only after an intervention.TQ-questionnaire was administered to sixty five teachers found in all groups. The scores of the three instruments were analyzed by using descriptive and inferential statistics. Five hypotheses were set based on five research questions and tested at a 0.05 significance level. According to the result of the findings that existed among after the three interventions for academic achievements F(2,297) =3.875, P=0.022, partial eta squared = .0254 is significant in difference. thereby using Tukey’s HSD post hoc multiple comparisons (1) MD=4.911, P =.357, P > 0.05 indicate that there was non-significant difference in academic achievement between practical lessons in volumetric analysis who were taught using conventional and improvised materials as an alternative method.The hypothesis set based on the research question one was accepted; and (2) there was a significant difference in academic achievement between learners who were taught practical lessons in volumetric analysis using conventional materials and traditional method. The hypothesis was also accepted since MD =1.491, P = 0.016, P < 0.05, this difference visualized as that conventional materials (Mean=59.630, SD=10.86) and traditional method(Mean =55.48,SD =10.16) (3) there was a non-significant difference in academic achievement between learners who were taught practical lessons in volumetric analysis using traditional method of teaching and who were taught with improvised materials. Thus, the hypothesis of the research question three was not accepted. since the Tukey’s HSD post hoc MD =1.491 P =.336, P > 0.05,and (4) Based on the findings for linearly combined all items after intervention t(198) =.246, P =.004, P < 0.05 indicate a significant difference of learners’ perception between learners who were taught practical lessons in volumetric analysis using conventional materials and improvised materials. The hypothesis was rejected. The mean and standard deviation value indicates the differences in learners’ perception that existed between groups were taught practical lessons in volumetric analysis using improvised materials (M=3.5, SD=0.421) and Conventional materials (M=3.3, SD =0.453). This difference inferred that learners perceived teaching practical lessons using improvised materials is a good alternative in the absence of conventional materials due to occurrence of financial constraints or other factors.(5) Finally, based on the finding for linearly combined mean values of all items, the ANOVA test result F(2,62) =10.653, p =.000, p < 0.05 was significant in teachers’ perception. thereby using Tukey’s post hoc multiple comparisons teachers’ perceptions between the groups who were taught practical lessons in volumetric analysis using improvised materials and traditional method MD = -0.220, STD error =0.160, P =0.354, P > 0.05, is non-significant. Improvised materials versus conventional materials MD =.44545, STD error .15, P =.013, P < 0.05 is significant; conventional versus traditional method MD =.669, STD error =.141, P =0, P < 0.05, significant. Further, the mean and standard deviation values for significant results indicate the differences in teachers’ perception that existed between practicals were taught by improvised materials (M=4.161,SD=0.541) and conventional materials (Mean=3.72,SD=0.435); traditional method (M=4.385,SD,0.497) versus conventional (Mean =3.72,SD =0.435). In conclusion, teaching practical lessons of volumetric analysis using improvised materials is a good strategy in the absence of conventional materials or in conditions where financial constraints would not permit the use of conventional materials or some other factors.