Action Research

The Effect of Modeling Stoichiometric Concept on

the Achievement and Attitude of Ten Graders

Prepared By:
Samia Al Joubeily
Karla Fakhry
Mohamad Darwish
Enayat Hijazi

Dr. Heba Naccache

PLAN
Purpose of the study
From transmission to active learning
Literature Review
Methodology
Data collection and Data Analysis
Discussion
References
Appendices
Introduction
Chemistry deals with substances that:
aggregate

interact

dissociate

-
rearrange
 Passive learning
Passive learning is a method
of learning or instruction where students
receive information from the instructor,
and "where the learner receives no
feedback from the instructor".
Passive learning
Active learning

Vygotsky
Modelling is a new method of Active
Learning
 Observation in our class

• We observed in our classes (grade 10) that students demonstrate poor

achievement in stoichiometry concept due to the lack of understanding of
stoichiometry in several ways:

- poor grades on tests and quizzes

- missing or incomplete assignments

- lack of class participation

 Purpose of the study

The purpose of our study is to check

whether modeling strategy will improve
the students’ achievement and attitude
on stoichiometric concept.
The research questions that guided this action research
study are:

• Does models improve the achievement of grade 10 students

on stoichiometric concept?

• To what extent do models enhance students’ attitude and

behavior in class?
 HYPOTHESES
General hypotheses :

H1: Modeling will enhance students’ attitude

H2: Modeling will enhance students’ achievement

The researchers’ subscale hypotheses are:

H1a: Does teaching through modeling increase students’ enjoyment?

H1b: Does teaching through modeling increase students’ Leisure?

H1c: Does teaching through modeling enhance students’ attitude toward the
teacher?
H1d: Does teaching through modeling enhance students’ attitude toward the
learning environment?
 LITERATURE REVIEW

1.- Theoretical Framework that support

Modeling Activities:
Many researchers and educators have
addressed modeling in their
work such as : Vygotsky (1962)
Bruner (1966)
Piaget (1970)
Anderson (1983)
 1.1-Modeling and Constructivism:
• One must remember that knowledge is a construction of the
learner (Piaget, 1970).

• In a traditional science teaching, ideas are presented as a

set of truths that can be understood only through an
abstract language.

• Piaget noted that the constructivist view that knowledge

must be built within the individual mind as well as
collectively in science and society (Vygotsky, 1962).

• Social constructivism is a shared experience rather than an

individual experience.
1.2-Definition of models and modeling:

A model is a simplified representation of a system that concentrates attention

on specific aspects of the system that are complex or abstract to be rendered
either visible or more easily understood .

- A model is a representation of an object, event, process or system.

- Models possess five basic types of structure: systemic, geometric,

descriptive, interactive, and temporal
2- Modeling activities and its effect on students’
achievement

• Through Modeling students develop “expert like problem-

solving skills,”

• Fewer mistakes and better understanding which translated

into better achievement

• Studies in Lebanon showed that modeling instruction had

positive results the students’ achievement more than
traditional instruction”.
3- Modeling activities and its effect on
students’ attitude
• Modeling Instruction has been shown to provide benefits
other than purely academic gains

• More student-to-student interaction while developing a

sense of community within the classroom
4- Studies related to difficulties in
stoichiometry:
• Understanding the concept of stoichiometry is critical to
solve chemistry problems

• Understanding the concept of chemistry can be achieved if

the students perform higher level of mind processing
 Methodology
• Mixed model study composed of quantitative and qualitative
action research
• Aims to determine the effectiveness of modeling
stoichiometric
• Multiple representations on stoichiometric concept at the
macro, sub-micro and symbolic levels.
 1-Participants:

- Two grade 10 class in the fall 2018 / 2019 in an official High School.

- The research samples are randomly selected from 4 available sections.

- The number of students in the experimental class is 20 and are mixed:

10 boys and 10 girls.
- The number of students in the control class is 20.

-The range of students’ age is between 15-17 years old.

 2- Instruments:

I-Questionnaire

-Used as pre-test and post-test.

- 20 items

- There were 5 items for each subscale as followed

 Table 1: Subscales and the Items of
Chemistry Attitude Grid

Subscales Items

1. Enjoyment 1,5,9,13,17

1. Leisure 2,6,10,14,18

1. Attitude toward the learning environment 4,8,12,16,20

1. Attitude toward the teacher 3,7,11,15,19

Appendix 1
• II-Test
- After the intervention of modeling

- Encourage thinking at the three levels

- Consists of 2 questions (each question is composed of

two parts) for Stoichiometry

- The test questions encourage following steps:

a- Transforming visual representation into: -verbal representation

-chemistry equations
-mathematical calculations.
b- Representing chemical reaction (macro, symbolic or sub-micro).
The duration of the test is 30 minutes (Appendix 2)
 3-Procedure:
Applied in three sessions during the second semester.
First session:  The teacher will inform the students

introductory session about the objectives of this method.

 The teacher will explain the

 The students
importance of filling the attitude grid.

 She will explain each part in the grid. should fill the
 The teacher will distribute the grid and
attitude grid.
collect them after 15 minutes.
 Application of the
Second
method.
session: The lesson plan is

Application attached.

( Appendix 3)

Appendix 3
  The teacher will ask the students  The students should fill
Third session:
to fill the grid attitude again. the attitude
(After 2 weeks)
 The teacher will distribute the
questionnaire.
post test questionnaire + test for the students to solve.
 The students should
test  The teacher will distribute
solve the test.
the test for the focus group
 The students should solve
to solve
the test.
4-Data Collection and Data Analysis:

A- Performed by assigning scores to each answer given by the

students.

B- The data undergoes analysis to describe the student’s

achievement after the implementation of the method by
comparing their score to the focus group student.

C- The calculation and the analysis of the results are done on

excel sheets and on SPSS program.
 RESULTS AND
INTERPRETATIONS
 Regarding the students’ attitude the
researchers’ hypotheses were:
1- H1: Applying modeling enhance attitude
H0: Applying modeling doesn’t enhance attitude.

p- Value= 0.008 which is less than 0.05, which support our hypothesis
that modelling enhance students’ attitude.
 Attitude subscales result:
• H1a: Applying modeling increase enjoyment
• H0: Applying modeling doesn’t increase enjoyment.
P-value = 0.056 which is less
than or equal to 0.05 = ∝ →
reject H0 then applying
modeling increase enjoyment.
As for the mean, the mean
before (3.65) is greater than
the mean after (3.14) then its
decreases which support the
researchers’ hypothesis.
 Attitude subscales result:
• H1b: Applying modeling increase leisure. P-value = 0.027 which is less

• H0: Applying modeling doesn’t increase leisure. than 0.05 = ∝ → reject H0

then applying modeling increase
enjoyment.
As for the mean the mean
before (3.48) is greater than
the mean after (3.03) then its
decreases which support the
researchers’ hypothesis.
.
 Attitude subscales result:
• H1c: Applying modeling enhance the attitude toward the teacher.
• H0: Applying modeling doesn’t increase the attitude toward the teacher.

P-value = 0.111. Even though

it is not significant, looking at
the mean, we notice a decrease
in the mean which still support
our hypothesis.
.
 Attitude subscales result:
• H1d: Applying modeling enhance the attitude toward the learning environment.
• H0: Applying modeling doesn’t increase the attitude toward the learning
environment. P-value = 0.000 which is than
0.05 = ∝ → reject H0 then
applying modeling enhance the
attitude toward the learning
environment. As for the mean
the mean before (2.36) is
greater than the mean after
(2.08) then its decreases which
support the researchers’
hypothesis.
 Regarding the students’ attitude the
researchers’ hypotheses were:
2- Modeling will enhance students’ achievement
P-value = 0.01 which is
less than 0.05. This
means that it is highly
significant. Moreover,
there is a difference
between means. This
support the
researchers’
hypothesis.
DISCUSSION
• In the study described in this paper, we investigated the two questions:

• 1- Does modeling improve the achievement of grade 10 students on

stoichiometric concept?

• 2-And to what extent do models enhance students’ attitude and behavior

in class?
• The results provide evidence that this method enhances students

understanding (higher grades than their colleagues in the focus group),

and enhances their attitude as shown in a parallel study that states

that modeling instruction has been shown to provide benefits other than

purely academic gains, such as increasing positive attitudes toward

physics and facilitating the development of more student-to-student

interaction while developing a sense of community within the classroom

(Brewe et al., 2010).

• This research finding shows that the learning model
based on multiple representation can be used as an
alternative learning model to train the students in
interconnecting the three levels of chemical
phenomenon representation.
 CONCLUNSION

• In learning the stoichiometry, the students are not only able

to learn using algorithm, but also understand the reaction
phenomena at molecular level through visual representations
and through imagination.

• Chemical learning which only focuses on the algorithm will

result in a shallow understanding (Dahsah and Coll, 2008).
 REFERENCES
• Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology
education. In Developing models in science education (pp. 3-17). Springer, Dordrecht.

• Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific
modeling. Cognition and instruction, 23(2), 165-205.

• Prins, G. T. (2010). Teaching and learning of modelling in chemistry education: authentic practices as contexts for
learning (Doctoral dissertation, CD-Beta Press).

• Kimberlin, S., & Yezierski, E. (2016). Effectiveness of inquiry-based lessons using particulate level models to develop
high school students’ understanding of conceptual stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(6), 1002-1009.

• Hestenes, D. (2010). Modeling theory for math and science education. In Modeling students' mathematical modeling
competencies (pp. 13-41). Springer, Boston, MA.

• Coll, R. K., & Lajium, D. (2011). Modeling and the future of science learning. In Models and modeling (pp. 3-21).
Springer, Dordrecht.

• Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science
education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894.
• Savinainen, A., & Viiri, J. (2008). The force concept inventory as a measure of students conceptual
coherence. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(4), 719-740.

• Abodi, A. J. K. A., Majed, N., Sahar, A. K., & Al-Bayati, R. I. (2011). Synthesis and characterization of new
1, 3-oxazol-5-(4H)-one derivatives. Journal of College of Education, (6), 583-593.

• Brewer, M., Browne, J., Joyce, R., & Payne, J. (2011). Child and working-age poverty from 2010 to 2020.
London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.

• Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-
choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain
chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, 8(3), 293-307.

• LAUGIER, A., & DUMON, A. (2004). L’équation de réaction: Un nœud d’obstacles difficilement
franchissable. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5(1), 51-68.

• Brewer, M., Browne, J., Joyce, R., & Payne, J. (2011). Child and working-age poverty from 2010 to 2020.
London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Appendix 1
• The grid is divided into two sections: the first section requests personal information. The second section
consists of 20 questions. This section gives information on students’ attitude toward chemistry. Time 10-
15 minutes.
• Section 1: Personal Information
• Date………………………... Name of the school……………………………………..
• Code of the student……………………………….
• Gender: Female………………………… Male……………………………………………...
• Grade level………………………………………….. Section……………………………………
• Name of Chemistry teacher……………………………………………………..
• Section 2: Measuring students’ attitude toward Chemistry
• This section contains statements about attitudes toward chemistry. There is no right or wrong answers.
This is not a test and only your opinion is what wanted. All answers should be given on the separate
answer sheet. Please do NOT write on this booklet. For each statement, draw a circle around:
• SA if you Strongly Agree.
• A if you Agree with the statement.
• N if you are not sure or neither agree or disagree.
• D if you Disagree
• SD if you Strongly Disagree.
• I would enjoy school more if there was no chemistry. SA A N D SD
• I would like to do science experiments at home. SA A N D SD
• I like my chemistry teacher. SA A N D SD
• I like to participate in our chemistry class. SA A N D SD
• I would like to have chemistry lessons more often. SA A N D SD
• I dislike making chemistry projects after school. SA A N D SD
• My chemistry teacher makes the learning
• environment enjoying by using different methods. SA A N D SD
• I like to express my opinions and thoughts in our chemistry class. SA A N D SD
• I dislike chemistry lessons. SA A N D SD
• Doing the chemistry activities is one of my hobbies. SA A N D SD
• There is a friendly relationship with our teacher. SA A N D SD
• I like to share my ideas and learn from my friends. SA A N D SD
• Chemistry is the subject that I enjoyed most. SA A N D SD
• I spend my free time in chemistry activities. SA A N D SD
• My teacher is my personal model; if I teach I would like to
• work like her. SA A N D SD
• I like to work with my friends in groups in chemistry class. SA A N D SD
• During chemistry lessons I am bored. SA A N D SD
• I often discuss chemistry matters with my friends and with
• members of my family. SA A N D SD
• I don’t like the way that chemistry is being taught by our teacher. SA A N D SD
• I prefer to work alone in chemistry class. SA A N D SD
Appendix 2 : Test
THANK YOU