Research Paper
E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 8 | AUG 2017
COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONVERGENT AND DIVERGENT TEACHING METHODS ON SENIOR SECONDARY STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN STOICHIOMETRY ACHIMUGU, LAWRENCE (PH.D) 1 | ONOJAH, P.K. (PH.D) 2 1 DEPT. 2
OF SCIENCE EDUCATION, KOGI STATE UNIVERSITY, ANYIGBA. DEPT. OF CHEMISTRY, KOGI STATE UNIVERSITY, ANYIGBA.
ABSTRACT This paper provided an insight on the comparative effectiveness of convergent and divergent methods of teaching on senior secondary students’ achievement in stoichiometry in Igalamela/Odolu Local Government Area of Kogi State. The study was guided by three hypotheses and a quasi – experiment, specifically the non – equivalent pretest, posttest control group was used. A multistage sampling technique was used to select one hundred and twenty-six (126) senior secondary two (SS2) students from the entire population of 1,004 SSII students in the local government. The instrument used for data collection was stoichiometry achievement test (SAT, r = 0.83). Data collected was analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and Schaeffer post hoc test. The results showed that: students taught stoichiometry using divergent method performed significantly better than those taught with convergent and traditional lecture methods; both male and female students do not differ significantly and there was no significant interaction between teaching methods and gender. The study recommended among other things, that chemistry teachers should be adequately trained and they should adopt the use of divergent teaching method in teaching stoichiometry and other topics in senior secondary school chemistry that require mathematical tasks. Keywords: Convergent, Divergent, Teaching Method, Students’ Achievement, Stoichiometry, Chemistry.
Introduction Stoichiometry is an important aspect of chemistry and the understanding of it and mole concept is very essential for students’ academic achievement in chemistry. Mittal (2014) defined stoichiometry as the relative proportions in which elements from compounds or in which substances react. He went further to point out, that every chemical reaction has its characteristics proportions. Offiah and Njelita (2010) defined stoichiometry as the study of quantitative relationship in chemical reactions involving mass, pressure and volume. They pointed out that the basic mathematical concepts used in solving stoichiometric problems include: Simple equation, ratio and simple proportion, change of subject of formula, calculation of mass and volume, subtraction of values in algebraic equation, use of calculators in multiplication and division, and putting answers in standard forms. From these definitions, some mathematical tasks occur frequently in chemistry and their knowledge is important in understanding senior secondary school chemistry especially the aspect of stoichiometry. Thus, students’ achievement in stoichiometry and related chemistry aspects hinge on effective teaching and learning of basic mathematical principles contained in chemistry. There is need therefore for teachers to adopt teaching methods that will foster students’ conceptual understanding of the mathematical concepts in stoichiometry. Such teaching method should be activity-based to promote critical thinking. Critical thinking according to Alsagosf (2012) is a mental process of analysing and evaluating information to offer evidence and to form judgments about facts. Thus, chemistry teachers have to teach in a way that critical
thinking will be promoted. And there are two broad types of thinking, namely convergent and divergent thinkings. According to Wikipedia (2017), convergent thinking is the type of thinking that follows a particular set of logical steps to arrive at one solution which in some cases is correct solution. When using convergent thinking, one uses logical steps in order to choose the single best solution. Williams (2003) defined convergent or linear thinking as that, which deals with learning facts, following instructions and solving problems with one right answer. According to him, many tests that are used in assessing students such as multiple – choice tests, quizzes and standard tests are measures of convergent thinking. Therefore, convergent thinking is the process of using one’s sense to narrow ideas until a single best solution is solved. Convergent thinking stand firmly on logic that is not significantly creative. Divergent thinking, on the other hand, is a thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions (Wikipedia, 2017). It takes place in spontaneous, free flowing, and non – linear manner such that many ideas are generated in emergent cognitive manner. Many possible solutions are explored in a short amount of time and unexpected solutions drawn. Williams (2003) defined divergent thinking as the process of creating several unique solutions with intention to solve a problem. Therefore, divergent thinking is the process of generating idea by exploring many possible solutions. Distinguishing between convergent and divergent thinking’s, Ritchhart, Church and Morisson (2011) pointed out that convergent thinking relies heavily on logic and
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL
17
Research Paper
E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 8 | AUG 2017
less on creativity but divergent thinking is mostly based on creativity. Some research works have been carried out on the area of comparative effectiveness of convergent and divergent teaching methods. Hajesfandiari, Mehrdadi and Karimi (2014) investigated the effects of convergent and divergent teaching methods on students’ performance on mathematics and found that the convergent thinkers scored significantly higher than divergent thinkers on the achievement test. In other hand, Ann (2003) studied the relationship between creativity, convergent and divergent methods of teaching and the result revealed that there is no significant difference in achievement between children taught by a convergent method and their counterparts taught by a divergent method. A study by Eluwa and Kebbi (2016) on convergent and divergent methods of teaching statistics revealed that teaching statistic using divergent instructional method proved more effective in enhancing students’ cognitive achievement than their counterparts exposed to convergent instructional method. The conflicting reports on the effects of convergent and divergent teaching methods on students’ achievement in mathematics and science subjects throw a challenge to science education researchers. It is against this background that this study investigated the effects of convergent and divergent methods of teaching on senior secondary chemistry students achievement in stoichiometry aspect of chemistry. Studies on the influence of gender on academic achievement in chemistry exist with different findings. While some chemistry educators like Oginni, Awobodu, Alaka and Shaibu (2013) found out that gender has significant influence on students’ academic achievement in chemistry, other chemistry educators like Aluko (2004) and Sani (2014) found out that gender has no significant influence on students’ academic in chemistry. In view of the above conflicting reports on the influence of gender on students’ achievement in chemistry, the issue of gender using convergent and divergent teaching methods is worthy of verification. The study seeks to explore the comparative effectiveness of convergent and divergent teaching methods on senior secondary achievement in stoichiometry. Specifically, the study sought to: 1) Determine the effect of convergent and divergent teaching methods on senior secondary students’ academic achievement in stoichiometry. 2) Determine the main effect of convergent and divergent teaching methods on male and female senior secondary students’ achievement in stoichiometry. 3) Determine the interaction effects of the teaching methods and gender on the senior secondary students’ achievement in stoichiometry.
Hypotheses The following hypotheses guided the study.
Ho1:
There is no significant difference between the achievement scores of students taught stoichiometry using convergent and divergent teaching methods and those taught using traditional lecture method.
Ho2:
There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of male and female students taught stoichiometry using convergent, divergent and traditional lecture methods.
Ho3:
There is no significant interaction effect of the teaching methods and gender on the students’ academic achievement in stoichiometry.
Methods A quasi – experiment of pre-test, post-test and non-equivalent control group design was used in the study. The design was considered appropriate for the study because intact classes were used instead randomly selected samples. Three intact classes were used: one for convergent teaching method (experimental group one), another one for divergent teaching method (experimental group 2) and yet another one for traditional lecture teaching method (control group). The target population was 1, 004 senior secondary school two (SS2) students of public and private secondary schools in Igalamela/Odolu Local Government Area of Kogi State. A total of 126 students (69 males and 57 females) were sampled for the study using multiple stage sampling technique. Firstly, purposive sampling technique was used to select 12 secondary schools that were similar in terms of standard facilities, quality teachers and co-educational out of 21 of such schools in Igalamela/Odolu Local Government Area of Kogi State. Co-educational schools were used because gender was a variable in the study. Furthermore, simple random sampling technique by balloting was used to select three (3) secondary schools from the 12 secondary schools that have similar characteristics. Also Intact classes of the three selected secondary schools were assigned to the two experimental groups and the control group by also simple random sampling technique by dip of hand. The instrument used for data collection was stoichiometry achievement test (SAT). It was developed by the researcher and consisted of 50 objective questions. The content and face validities of the stoichiometry achievement test were validated by two chemistry educators and one measurement and evaluation educator. The study was pilot-tested using 40 SSII chemistry students who were not part of the sample in order to determine the reliability of the instrument. And the reliability coefficient of SAT was established using Kuder – Richardson formula (K – R20) and was found to be 0.83. The value was considered reliable and appropriate to be used for this study. The three regular chemistry teachers were trained based on the purpose of the study, content area of the stoichiometry to be covered, the use of lesson notes and the use of convergent and divergent methods by chemistry teachers in experimental group 1 and 2 respectively. The
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL
18
Research Paper
E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 8 | AUG 2017
chemistry teacher who used the convergent teaching method was exposed to one method of solving mathematical tasks in stoichiometry using mainly formula method while the chemistry teacher who used the divergent method was exposed to several methods of handling mathematical tasks in stoichiometry such as mole ratio method, working from the first principle, formula method, etc. Training programme emphasized that the teaching, involving the two experimental groups should be interactive while that of the control group coordinated only with a lesson note should be chalk-talk method. Students were pre-tested before the treatment and after the treatment, the same instrument was reshuffled and administered as post-test. The teaching lasted for six weeks. The following steps were taken to control the extraneous variables. The regular chemistry teachers of the intact groups carried out the actual teaching to avoid students’ interaction and experimental bias; teachers were trained to avoid error arising from teachers’ variable (differences); schools have the same quality of teachers and similar facilities to avoid school variables; analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to control the initial differences of students since intact classes were used. The data collected were analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and Schaeffer post-hoc test.
Results The results were presented according to the hypotheses that guided the study.
Ho1:
There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of students taught stoichiometry using convergent and divergent teaching methods and those taught using traditional lecture method.
Ho2:
There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of male and female students taught stoichiometry using convergent, divergent and traditional lecture methods.
Ho3:
There is non significant interaction effect of the teaching methods and gender on the students’ academic achievement in stoichiometry.
Table 1: Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) for Students’ Overall Stoichiometry Achievement Scores by Teaching Methods and by Gender with the Interaction Effect. Source
Sum Square s
Df
Mean Squar e
F
Signifi cant
Corrected Model
7852.6 79
6
1308. 679
80.5 00
0.000
Intercept
3962.7 18
1
3962. 718
241. 699
0.000
Pre-test
22.655
1
22.65 5
1.39 4
0.000
Decis ion
Method
6647.5 42
2
3323. 771
204. 477
0.000
S*
Gender
6.743
1
6.743
0.41 5
0.477
NS **
Method*G ender
1.382
2
0.691
0.04 33
0.138
NS **
Error
1966.9 04
1 2 1
16.25 5
Total
926520 .000
1 2 6
Corrected total
9082.6 26
1 2 5
S* means significant at 0.05 level of significance and NS** mean not significant at 0.05 level of significance. On hypothesis one, the results in the table 1 reveals that F(2. 121) = 204.477, P< 0.05 for methods of teaching. Since the P – value of 0.000 is less than alpha level of significance (P< 0.05), the hypothesis 1 is hereby rejected, indicating that there is significant difference in the mean achievement scores of students taught chemistry using the three teaching methods. Subsequent analysis of Schaeffer Post-hoc Test will determine the direction of the difference. On hypothesis 2, the data in table 1 reveals that F(1, 121) = 0.415, P < 0.05 for the gender. Since the P – value of the calculated significance of (0.477) is more than the alpha level of significance (P < 0.05), hypothesis 2 is not rejected indicating that there is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores of male and female students taught stoichiometry using convergent, divergent and traditional lecture methods. On hypothesis 3, the data in table 1 shows that F(2, 121) = 0.043, P< 0.05 for the interaction effect of methods by gender. Since the P – value of calculated significance of (0.138) is more than the alpha level of significance (P < 0.05) hypothesis 3 is not rejected, indicating that there is no significant interaction effect between the teaching methods and gender on the academic achievement of students in stoichiometry.
Table 2: Schaeffer Post-Hoc Test for the Three Adjusted Mean Achievement Scores in stoichiometry by Methods. Method
Sampl e
Mea n
Converge nt
45
62.5 8
Divergent
40
71.1 6
Converge nt
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL
Diverge nt
Contr ol
*
19
Research Paper Control
41
E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 8 | AUG 2017 49.8 3
*
*
*pairs of group significantly different at P<0.05. Table 2 reveals that the: divergent method is significantly different from the control group; divergent method significantly different from the convergent method; and the convergent method significantly different form the control group. These differences can further be explained as follows: Divergent and control (71.16 – 49.83) = 21.33
implies that the uses of divergent and convergent teaching method are gender friendly. The finding of this study also showed that there was no significant interaction effects between methods of teaching and gender on academic achievement of students in stoichiometry. This result is in line with that of Emecheta (2016) who found no significant interactions between innovative teaching method and gender on the academic achievement of students in mathematics.
Conclusion
In other words, the difference between divergent and control was significant in favour of divergent teaching method. Also the difference between divergent and convergent was significant in favour of divergent teaching method. While the difference between the pair of convergent and control was significant in favour of the convergent teaching method in terms of students’ academic achievement in stoichiometry.
The results of this study revealed that students exposed to both convergent and divergent teaching methods performed better than those exposed to traditional lecture method. On comparative term, divergent teaching method proved significantly more effective than convergent teaching method in teaching stoichiometry. Furthermore, both male and female students do not differ significantly in their academic achievement using convergent, divergent and traditional lecture methods. Finally, there was no interaction effect between the teaching methods and gender on students’ academic achievement in stoichiometry.
Discussion
Recommendations
Students that were exposed to divergent teaching method had higher mean achievement scores in SAT than their counterparts exposed to both convergent and traditional teaching methods. However, students exposed to convergent and divergent teaching methods had higher mean scores than those exposed to the traditional lecture method. Comparing the divergent and convergent teaching methods, the students exposed to divergent teaching method had higher mean achievement scores and the mean difference was significant in favour of the divergent teaching method. The finding is in agreement with the findings of the Waine (2010) and Eluwa and Kebbi (2016) who found that students exposed to divergent teaching method performed better than those exposed to convergent teaching method. The reason for the difference maybe that students exposed to divergent teaching method are at home with many ways they can tackle a particular mathematical task in stoichiometry to arrive at the correct answer than students who are exposed to convergent teaching method, that arrive at an answer using only one step or formula, which they may fail to remember during examinations thereby leading to their poor performances relative to their counterparts expose to the divergent teaching method.
The following recommendations were made:
Divergent and convergent (71.16 – 62.58) = 8.58 Convergent and control (67.58 – 49.83) = 12.75
The finding of this study shows that there is no significant difference between male and female students taught with divergent, convergent and traditional lecture methods. This finding is in conformity with the finding of Aluko (2004) and Sani (2015) who revealed that gender has no significant effect on students’ achievement in chemistry when innovative teaching methods were used. The finding of Njoku and Akwali (2016) also conform to the study as they reported that there was no significant difference in gender on students’ motivation in learning chemistry. This
1.
Chemistry teachers should adopt the use of divergent teaching method in teaching stoichiometry and other related topics in chemistry that require mathematical tasks.
2.
There is a need for training and retraining of chemistry teachers on the skills of divergent teaching method to ensure effective use of method in teaching stoichiometry and other related topics requiring mathematical tasks.
3.
Teacher training institutions should incorporate divergent teaching method in the curriculum of the teacher education programmes to ensure that trainee teachers acquire the necessary competences in the use of the divergent teaching method.
REFERENCES 1. Alsagoff, Z. (2012). Thinking critically about teaching critical thinking. Crossroads of learning, 13, (3), 23 – 25. 2. Aluko, K.O. (2004). Effects of cooperative and individual instructional strategy on students’ problem solving ability in secondary school chemistry in Ilesha, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Ilorin: University of Ilorin. 3. Ann, J. (2003). Convergent and divergent methods of teaching spelling in relation to creativity. Creativity, 8, (6) 1-7. 4. Eluwa, I.O. & Kebbi, J.A.(2016). Convergent and
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL
20
Research Paper
E-ISSN NO : 2455-295X | VOLUME : 3 | ISSUE : 8 | AUG 2017
divergent methods of teaching statistics on students’ statistical reasoning and creativity. In P.M.C. Ogomaka (Ed), 18th Annual National Conference Abstracts Proceedings of Association of educational Researchers and evaluators of Nigeria (ASSEREN), 73 – 74, Owerri, Richgrip House.
definitions, examples and quiz. Educational portal, 13, (3). 7-15 15. Wikipedia (2017). The free encyclopedia. Retrieved on 3rd March, 2017 from www.en.wikipedia.org/eki/convergentthinking/diverg entthinking
5. Emecheta, I. A. (2016). Effects of cooperative learning strategy on students’ academic achievement in mathematics. In P.M.C.Ogomaka (Ed), 18th Annual National Conference abstracts Proceedings of Association of educational researcher and evaluators of Nigeria (ASSEREN).77 – 78, Owerri, Richgrip Publishing house. 6. Hajesfandiari, B. Mehrdadi, A.G. & Karimi, L. (2014). Comparing the effects of convergent teaching methods on using articles by Iranain EFD learners. International Journal of Educational Investigation, 1, (1), 313 – 327. 7. Mittal, A. (2014). Dictionary of chemistry. New Delhi – India, APH publishing corporation. 8. Njoku, Z.C. & Akwali, C.P. (2016). Gender and school location as factors of students’ motivation to learning chemistry in Nigerian secondary schools. Journal of Science Teachers’ Association of Nigeria, 51, (1), 117 – 126. 9. Offiah, F.C. & Njelita C.B. (2010). Use of pre-requisite mathematical concepts in teaching stoichiometry. in M.A. Olayimola & W.S. Umoh (Ed), A handbook for chemistry teachers, Science Teachers’ Association of Nigeria (STAN) chemistry panel series 5, Kano, Abioye Dynamic printers. 10. Oginni, A.M.; Awobodu, V.J.O.; Alaka, M.O. & Shaibu, O.S. (2013). School factors as correlates of students’ achievement in chemistry. International Journal of Cross – Disciplinary subjects in Education, 3, (3), 1516 – 1523. 11. Ritchart, R.; Church, M. & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding and independence for all learners, San Francisco, Jossey – Bass. 12. Sani, U. T. (2015). Effects of cooperative learning strategy on senior secondary school students’ performance in qualitative chemistry in Kebbi State. Journal of Education and social sciences, 1, 30 – 35. 13. Waine, J.T. (2010). An analysis of convergent and divergent teaching on high school students’ understanding of selected lightening principles. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin – Stout. 14.
Williams,
Y.
(2003).
Convergent
thinking
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH JOURNAL
21