Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
e-ISSN: 23207388,p-ISSN: 2320737X Volume 5, Issue 2 Ver. II (Mar - Apr. 2015), PP 52-59
www.iosrjournals.org
Abstract: This paper will describe the use of Electrochemical Series Love Cards in practicing memory
cognition regarding oxidation numbers for certain ions. The class design as groups game. The Electrochemical
Series Cation & Anion very importance in answering questions related to Electrochemistry. Lastly, the
groups game results are compared to the Electrochemistry Final Exam (EFE) related to Electrochemistry
concepts.
Keywords: Electrochemical Series; Game cards; Memory; Ions Discharged
I.
Introduction
Cooperative is the main factor in groups study. Togetherness and communication skills are also the
factors enhanced the groups to achieve learning goals [1]. Game-based learning makes studying more fun and
motivates the learners. Through this ES Love Cards (PC), the participants will try to make abstract concepts into
concrete objects. This will make them easier to learn [2].
Contextual learning make senses of learning. Chemistry is a study about non-living things. To make it
clearer, involving its concepts with living things become more interesting. Human is a complicated creatures.
Thus, we have not only physical body, but emotional and intelligences. So, in this study, we combine the
concepts of Chemistry discharging ions by accepting or donating electrons into concrete object (PC). The
Electrochemical Series is the most important to be memorized. Without it, the students cannot answer the
questions about the ions selected to be discharged at the cathode/ anode.
L. V. Jones suggested that Science is Mathematics and Mathematics is Science. So, to improve Science
education, Steen (1987) agenda to improve Mathematics education should be followed [3]. For this study, the
students were let to study until they were ready to sit for the examinations. The Principles and teachers
commitment were gained before this programme started. The Learning Model (LM) for this study is a
combination of games structured and traditional. But, the LM we do not adhere here.
II.
Respondents
60 respondents selected from two schools SMK Bukit Jana and SMK Kamunting, Perak. They were
16 years old, in Form 4, Pure Science students.
Research Hypotheses
H1: The students performances in Post-PC scores influence their results in Post-ML, -LT, -SRS, and EFE.
H2: The students performances in Post-SRS scores influence their results in Post-ML, -PC, -LT, and -EFE.
H3: The students performances in Post-EFE scores influence their results in Post-ML, -PC, -LT, and -SRS.
Tests
The test for PC consists of 8 questions, filling in the blank type. The test is constructed followed the
Electrochemical Series and the charges of cations and anions. The EFE is objectives and subjective questions
containing in 15 questions about Electrochemistry concepts. They must answered the questions in 3 minutes for
pre- and post-PC Test, while for EFE is 1 hour and 15 minutes. The Scientific Reasoning Skills Test (SRS)
consists of 5 questions related to Electrochemistry concepts that must be answered in 20 minutes with evidence
using simple statistics. The 25 minutes Motivational Level Test (ML) contains 40 questions about self-goal,
values, epistemological beliefs, self-potential beliefs, and test anxiety. 7 simple questions of the Logical
Thinking Test (LT) must be answered in 20 minutes.
DOI: 10.9790/7388-05225259
www.iosrjournals.org
52 | Page
www.iosrjournals.org
53 | Page
III.
Levene Statistic
0.837
3.787
2.481
1.573
Levene Test
df1
df2
7
51
7
51
7
51
7
51
Sig.
0.562
0.002
0.028
0.165
Brown-Forsythe Test
Brown-Forsythe Statistic
df1
df2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sig.
.
.
.
.
The results of Levene Test showed that the Post-ML and Post-EFE had met the homogeneity of the
variances due to p > 0.05 [4]. The majority of respondents had highest scores of PC, but their ML was moderate
(see Table 2).
Table 2. The descriptive statistics on Post-ML and Post-EFE using PC as IV.
Post-PC
Post-ML
Mean
178.80
176.00
165.00
169.00
155.00
153.40
150.71
161.08
161.90
0
0-3
4-7
8-11
12-15
5
6
7
8
Std. Deviation
17.484
.
1.414
15.706
9.899
10.761
7.697
14.477
13.917
Post-EFE
Mean
9.00
19.00
17.50
16.25
16.50
20.00
15.57
14.46
18.29
N
5
1
2
4
2
5
7
13
21
Std. Deviation
3.000
.
4.950
6.185
10.607
8.246
4.315
6.132
8.415
N
5
1
2
4
2
5
7
13
21
Table 3. The results for One-Way ANOVA Independent Samples (Tests of Between-Subjects Effects and
Univariate Test) using PC as IV.
DV
Post-ML
Post-LT
Post-SRS
Post-EFE
Univariate Test
F value
2.191
2.234
2.483
1.194
Sig.
0.044
0.040
0.023
0.321
df1
8
8
8
8
df2
51
51
51
51
Sig.
0.044
0.040
0.023
0.321
From Table 3, there are significant differences of ML among the Post-PC scores groups. While for EFE, no
significant differences showed due to p > 0.05.
Table 4. The results for One-Way ANOVA Independent Samples (Pairwise Comparisons Test) using PC
as IV and Post-ML as DV.
(J) Post-PC
(I)
Post-PC
0-3
6
6
0
DOI: 10.9790/7388-05225259
Mean Difference
(I J)
28.086*
-28.086*
Std. Error
7.894
7.894
Sig.
.029
.029
www.iosrjournals.org
54 | Page
Post-ML
Post-PC
Post-LT
Post-EFE
Levene
Statistic
1.147
1.927
3.450
1.207
Levene Test
df2
df1
8
8
8
8
Sig.
79
49
79
79
0.342
0.077
0.002
0.306
Brown-Forsythe Test
Brown-Forsythe
df1
df2
Statistic
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sig.
.
.
.
.
Using the SRS as IV, Post-ML, -PC, and EFE had met the homogeneity of the variances (in Table 5).
The descriptive statistics for SRS as IV showed in Table 6.
DOI: 10.9790/7388-05225259
www.iosrjournals.org
55 | Page
Post-ML
Mean
0-3
12-15
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Std.
Deviation
194.00
188.00
168.40
152.33
155.09
159.18
159.00
157.84
168.00
154.80
167.83
.
.
15.274
15.535
15.611
14.428
12.505
8.610
5.701
14.237
15.536
Post-PC
Mean
N
1
1
5
3
11
22
12
19
5
5
6
Std.
Deviation
.00
.00
2.50
7.00
6.14
5.69
7.80
7.27
6.00
4.80
6.17
Post-EFE
Mean
.
.
1.732
.000
2.795
2.626
.447
.905
2.550
2.280
2.137
1
1
4
2
7
13
5
11
5
5
6
Std.
Deviation
10.00
12.00
12.20
12.67
13.82
15.45
16.83
20.05
22.20
20.20
24.17
.
.
5.891
4.509
3.573
5.352
6.834
5.126
3.701
7.328
9.704
N
1
1
5
3
11
22
12
19
5
5
6
Table 7. The results for One-Way ANOVA Independent Samples (Tests of Between-Subjects Effects and
Univariate Test) using SRS as IV.
DV
Post-ML
Post-PC
Post-LT
Post-EFE
Univariate Test
df1
df2
10
10
10
10
F value
2.159
3.708
7.549
3.224
79
49
79
79
Sig.
0.029
0.001
0.000
0.002
Table 8 shows the results for One-Way ANOVA Independent Samples (Pairwise Comparisons Test)
using SRS as IV. All the p value for Pairwise Comparisons Tests for Post-ML and Post-EFE as DV are more
than 0.05. So, I do not present here. While using Post-PC, all the p values are > 0.05, except for some groups as
in Table 8. These give impact that the SRS influenced Post-PC scores especially for (I) Post-SRS 5 (J) Post-SRS
9, (I) Post-SRS 5 (J) Post-SRS 10, (I) Post-SRS 8 (J) Post-SRS 5, and (I) Post-SRS 9 (J) Post-SRS 5, with the
differences in mean values -5.300, -4.773, 5.300, and 4.773 respectively.
Table 8. The results of Pairwise Comparisons Test for SRS as IV and Post-PC the DV.
(I)
SRS
Post-
(J)
SRS
Post-
Mean Difference
(I J)
9
-5.300*
10
-4.773*
8
5
5.300*
9
5
4.773*
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
5
Sig.b
Std. Error
1.412
1.229
1.412
1.229
.026
.017
.026
.017
The profile plots for EMM of Post-ML, - PC, and EFE are shown in Figure 3, 4, and 5 respectively.
www.iosrjournals.org
56 | Page
Levene Test
df2
df1
1.721
3.628
1.671
3.082
DOI: 10.9790/7388-05225259
20
17
20
20
Sig.
65
35
65
65
0.052
0.001
0.062
0.000
BrownForsythe
Statistic
.
.
.
.
www.iosrjournals.org
df1
Brown-Forsythe Test
df2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sig.
.
.
.
.
57 | Page
Post-ML
Mean
Std. Deviation
149.00
188.00
154.00
149.00
170.33
174.60
156.00
164.00
152.00
152.00
146.00
168.33
156.33
166.50
170.33
163.33
159.38
160.83
148.00
158.50
158.67
164.50
172.33
173.00
186.00
Post-SRS
Mean
.
.
16.971
11.314
11.150
16.891
16.197
33.941
9.522
11.165
9.274
22.008
16.537
9.192
8.963
9.730
5.370
7.026
8.042
12.396
9.018
3.536
7.767
.
.
1
1
2
2
3
5
7
2
7
4
4
3
6
2
3
6
8
6
4
4
3
2
3
1
1
Std. Deviation
5.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
6.33
6.60
9.00
6.00
7.29
9.00
8.50
6.67
8.00
11.50
9.00
8.33
9.50
9.67
9.50
11.00
11.00
10.50
11.33
10.00
13.00
.
.
.000
4.243
1.155
3.209
1.915
2.828
1.704
1.155
1.291
1.528
1.789
2.121
3.606
1.033
1.069
1.033
1.732
1.414
2.646
2.121
1.528
.
.
1
1
2
2
3
5
7
2
7
4
4
3
6
2
3
6
8
6
4
4
3
2
3
1
1
Table 11. The results for One-Way ANOVA Independent Samples (Tests of Between-Subjects Effects and
Univariate Test) using EFE as IV.
DV
Post-ML
Post-PC
Post-SRS
Post-LT
F value
1.848
1.490
2.538
1.466
Univariate Test
df1
df2
24
24
24
24
65
35
65
65
Sig.
0.027
0.138
0.002
0.113
The scores mean differences of ML and SRS in Post-EFE groups are significant due to p < 0.05 (as can
be seen in Table 11). But, the Pairwise Comparisons Test do not show which groups are differ due to all the p
value is > 0.05. So I do not present the Pairwise Comparisons Test here. The figure plots EMM of Post-ML and
SRS when using EFE as IV can be seen in Figure 6 and 7 respectively.
www.iosrjournals.org
58 | Page
IV.
Conclusion
The Post-PC scores as IV influenced students performances in Post-ML. The Post-SRS scores as IV
influenced students performance in Post-PC. The EFE as IV influenced the students scores in Post-ML and
SRS.
Acknowledgements
My deepest gratitude for those involved in this programme especially to my supervisor, Dr. Salmiza
Salleh, my parents Mr. Yahaya B. Ibrahim and Mrs. Anisah Bt Abdul Mutalib, my husband Mr. Muhammad
Shukri Alhafiz B. Mohamad Yusof, School of Educational Studies, USM, the Malaysian Ministry of Education,
Mr. Amir Sayuti B. Abd. Hanip representative from PPDLMS, JPN Perak, Chemistry teachers in LMS area,
Perak, Pure Science students of SMKBJ, SMKKP, and SMKK, Larut Matang & Selama, Perak, Malaysia.
References
[1].
[2].
[3].
[4].
Munawaroh, The Effect of Type Stad Cooperative Learning Model, the Way of Learning, And Learning Motivation toward
Entrepreneurial Attitudes (A case Study in SMK N I Jombang), IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR -JRME),
3, 2013, 38-44.
Samuel B. Day & Robert L. Goldstone, The Import of Knowledge Export: Connecting Findings and Theories of Transfer of
Learning, Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 2012, 153-176.
L. V. Jones, Chapter 8: School Achievement Trends in Mathematics and Science, and What Can Be Done to Improve Them,
Review of Research in Education, 15, 1988, 307 341.
Piaw, C. Y., Statistik Penyelidikan Lanjutan (KL, McGraw-Hill Msia Sdn. Bhd.: 2009), 46 .
DOI: 10.9790/7388-05225259
www.iosrjournals.org
59 | Page