Abstracts
Abstract
Teachers commonly employ inquiry learning, discovery, and group investigation in science education. However, there is limited research on the efficacy of these learning methods in reducing the disparity in students' scientific conceptual understanding between underachievers (UA) and high achievers (HA). The primary objective of this research was to assess the effectiveness of these learning methods in closing the disparity in scientific conceptual understanding among students. This research involved 192 twelfth-grade students (96 UA and 96 HA). Students were randomly assigned to four learning treatments: inquiry, discovery, group investigation, and varied lecture. Students took an essay test to measure their scientific conceptual understanding before and after the treatment. The gap in students’ scientific conceptual understanding was analyzed by examining the interaction between the learning methods and their academic abilities. The outcomes indicated no distinction in scientific conceptual understanding among the three treatment groups (inquiry, discovery, and group investigation). Nonetheless, variations in students' scientific conceptual understanding were observed in varied lecture learning settings. The study affirmed disparities in the comprehension of scientific concepts between UA and HA students across inquiry, discovery, and varied lecture learning. Interestingly, no variation in the understanding of scientific concepts was identified between UA and HA students in the context of group-investigation learning.
Keywords:
- Underachiever,
- Conceptual Understanding,
- Inquiry Learning,
- Discovery Learning,
- Group Investigation
Appendices
Bibliography
- Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based learning method on students’ academic achievement in science course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020104
- Abdul Rahman, M. H., & Puteh, M. (2017). Learning trigonometry using geogebra learning module: Are under achiever pupils motivated? Sains Humanika, 9(1), 40—52. https://doi.org/10.11113/sh.v9n1-2.1095
- Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross‐age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310206
- Acar Sesen, B., & Tarhan, L. (2013). Inquiry-based laboratory activities in electrochemistry: High school students’ achievements and attitudes. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9275-9
- Adeyemo, S. A., & Babajide, V. F. T. (2014). Effects of mastery learning approach on students’ achievement in physics. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 5(2), 910–920. https://www.ejmste.com/download/effects-of-mastery-learningapproach-on-secondary-schoolstudents-physics-achievement-4118.pdf
- Ayas, A., Özmen, H., & Çalik, M. (2010). Students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter at secondary and tertiary level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9167-x
- Azizah, N. R., Masykuri, M., & Prayitno, B. A. (2018). Scaffolding as an effort for thinking process optimization on heredity. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1006(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1006/1/012017
- Bächtold, M. (2013). What do students “construct” according to constructivism in science education? Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2477–2496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9369-7
- Barger, M. M., Perez, T., Canelas, D. A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2018). Constructivism and personal epistemology development in undergraduate chemistry students. Learning and Individual Differences, 63(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.03.006
- Benjamin, O., & Clement, O. (2008). Effect of mastery learning approach on senior secondary school students’ achievement in geometry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 293–302. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1191669.pdf
- Block, J. H. (Ed.). (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. Rinehart and Winston. https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/1971-block-masterylearningtheoryandpractice.pdf
- Choi, E., Lindquist, R., & Song, Y. (2014). Effects of problem-based learning vs. traditional lecture on Korean nursing students’ critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-directed learning. Nurse Education Today, 34(1), 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.012
- Demie, F., McLean, C., & Lambeth (London, E. R. and S. U. (2018). Narrowing the achievement gap for disadvantaged pupils: good practice in schools. Lambeth. https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-05/narrowing_the_achievement_gap_for_disadvantaged_pupils_2018_0.pdf
- Derting, T. L., & Ebert-May, D. (2010). Learner-centered inquiry in undergraduate biology: positive relationships with long-term student achievement. CBE life sciences education, 9(4), 462–472. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-02-0011
- Genlott, A. A., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). Closing the gaps - Improving literacy and mathematics by ICT-enhanced collaboration. Computers and Education, 99, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.004
- Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00829.x
- Ghiasvand, M. Y. (2010). Relationship between learning strategies and academic achievement; based on information processing approach. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1033–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.231
- Gunduz, N., & Hursen, C. (2015). Constructivism in teaching and learning: Content analysis evaluation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191(392), 526–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.640
- Haataja, E., Garcia Moreno-Esteva, E., Salonen, V., Laine, A., Toivanen, M., & Hannula, M. S. (2019). Teacher’s visual attention when scaffolding collaborative mathematical problem solving. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86(6), 102–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102877
- Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction 15(4), 485–529. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1504_2
- Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.899722
- Ismirawati, N., Corebima, A. D., Zubaidah, S., & Syamsuri, I. (2018). ERCoRe learning model potential for enhancing student retention among different academic ability. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 2018(77), 19–34.
- Kang, L. O., Brian, S., & Ricca, B. (2010). Constructivism in pharmacy school. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2010.01.005
- Koksal, E. A., & Berberoglu, G. (2014). The effect of guided-inquiry instruction on 6th grade Turkish students’ achievement, science process skills, and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.721942
- Lipsky, M. S., & Cone, C. J. (2018). A review of mastery learning: The Roseman model as an illustrative case. Education for Health: Change in Learning and Practice, 31(1), 39–42. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.239045
- Moccozet, L., Opprecht, W., & Léonard, M. (2009). A collaborative training platform for peer-based co-construction of knowledge and co-tutoring. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 4(7), 40–66. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v4s3.1100
- Morgİl, İ., & Yörük, N. (2006). Cross-age study of the understanding of some concepts in chemistry subjects in science curriculum. Turkish Science Education, 3(1), 1–15. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/download/457/393
- Näykki, P., Isohätälä, J., & Järvelä, S. (2021). “You really brought all your feelings out”—Scaffolding students to identify the socio-emotional and socio-cognitive challenges in collaborative learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 30(2), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100536
- Noviyanti, N. I., Mahanal, S., Mukti, W. R., Yuliskurniawati, I. D., Zubaidah, S., & Setiawan, D. (2021). Narrowing the gaps of scientific argumentation skills between the high and low academic achievers. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2330(March), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0043308
- Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11(3), 183–200. b
- Nzomo, C., Rugano, P., Njoroge Mungai, J., & Gitonga Muriithi, C. (2023). Inquiry-based learning and students’ self-efficacy in chemistry among secondary schools in Kenya. Heliyon, 9(1), 110-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12672
- Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review 14(2), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
- Prayitno, B. A., Corebima, D., Susilo, H., Zubaidah, S., & Ramli, M. (2017). Closing the science process skills gap between students with high- and low-level academic achievement. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(2), 113–128. https://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/files/pdf/vol16/266-277.Prayitno_JBSE_Vol.16_No.2.pdf
- Prayitno, B. A., & Suciati. (2017). Narrowing the gap of science students’ learning outcomes through INSTAD strategy. New Educational Review, 50(4), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2017.50.4.10
- Prayitno, B. A., Sugiharto, B., & Titikusumawati, E. (2022). Effectiveness of collaborative constructivist strategies to minimize gaps in students’ understanding of biological concepts. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(11), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i11.29891
- Probosari, R. M., Widyastuti, F., Sajidan, S., Suranto, S., & Prayitno, B. A. (2019a). Improving scientific argumentation: Opportunities and barriers analysis in inquiry-based scientific reading. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1280/3/032005
- Probosari, R. M., Widyastuti, F., Sajidan, Suranto, & Prayitno, B. A. (2019b). Students’ argument style through scientific reading-based inquiry: Improving argumentation skill in higher education. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2194. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139820
- Putra, B. K. B., Prayitno, B. A., & Maridi. (2018). The effectiveness of guided inquiry and INSTAD towards students’ critical thinking skills on circulatory system materials. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(4), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v7i4.14302
- Shin, Y., Kim, D., & Song, D. (2020). Types and timing of scaffolding to promote meaningful peer interaction and increase learning performance in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 640–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119877134
- Subba, S. B., & Gotamey, H. K. (2022). The Effects of the intervention program on low achiever students’ learning achievement in classroom. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 17(2), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.9734/jesbs/2022/v35i130399
- Tan, I. G. C., Lee, C. K. E., & Sharan, S. (2007). Group investigation effects on achievement, motivation, and perceptions of students in Singapore. Journal of Educational Research, 100(3), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.3.142-154
- Wang, X.-J., Zhao, L., & Gao, G.-F. (2013). Analysis of the traditional lecture method combined with the seminar teaching method in graduate education. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Advanced ICT and Education (Advances in Intelligent Systems Research). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icaicte.2013.20
- Wilson, J. M., Gheith, R. H., Lowery, R. P., Reber, D. D., Stefan, M. W., Koche, L. S., Rolnik, B. M., Ganz, A. B., & Sharp, M. H. (2021). Non-traditional immersive seminar enhances learning by promoting greater physiological and psychological engagement compared to a traditional lecture format. Physiology and Behavior, 238(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2021.113461
- Wyk, M. M. van. (2012). The effects of the STAD-cooperative learning method on student achievement, attitude and motivation in economics education. Journal of Social Sciences, 33(2), 261–270.