Skip to main content
editor@theusajournals.com | Oscar Publishing Services Journal Home
Login

International Journal of Pedagogics

Peer Reviewed | Open Access | E-ISSN: 2771-2281
Published Article

Collaborative Discourse In Secondary Chemistry: Unlocking Academic Growth And Pedagogical Innovation

Collaborative Discourse In Secondary Chemistry: Unlocking Academic Growth And Pedagogical Innovation

Authors

  • Dr. Alistair R. Thorne
    Department of Chemical Education, Sterling University, Manchester, United Kingdom

Keywords:

Collaborative learning group discussions chemistry education secondary school

Abstract

Background: Traditional didactic approaches in secondary chemistry often fall short in fostering deep understanding, engagement, and critical thinking [42, 58]. Active learning strategies, particularly group discussions, are posited as effective alternatives that align with constructivist and sociocultural theories of learning [49, 84]. However, empirical evidence on the specific impact and optimal implementation of these methods within secondary chemistry contexts remains an area ripe for further exploration [37]. This study aims to unveil the "pedagogical alchemy" wherein structured peer interaction transforms learning outcomes.

Purpose: This research investigates the effect of integrating structured group discussions on secondary school students' academic achievement, engagement, and critical thinking skills in chemistry. It also explores the perceptions of both students and teachers regarding the benefits and challenges of this collaborative approach.

Methods: Employing an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, the study utilized a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test approach. Secondary chemistry students were divided into an intervention group (participating in structured group discussions) and a control group (receiving traditional instruction). Quantitative data on academic achievement (standardized tests) and student engagement (surveys) were collected, alongside qualitative data from student and teacher interviews and classroom observations. Data were analyzed using inferential statistics (e.g., t-tests, ANCOVA) and thematic analysis.

Findings: Preliminary findings indicate that students in the group discussion intervention group demonstrated significantly higher academic achievement in chemistry post-intervention compared to the control group (e.g., p\<.01). Qualitative data revealed enhanced student engagement, motivation, and the development of collaborative problem-solving and critical thinking skills through peer interaction and diverse perspectives. Students reported increased understanding and confidence, while teachers noted improved classroom dynamics and deeper conceptual comprehension. Challenges included initial adjustment and managing group dynamics, which were mitigated by structured facilitation.

Conclusion: Structured group discussions serve as a potent pedagogical tool in secondary chemistry education, significantly contributing to academic advancement, fostering greater student engagement, and cultivating essential critical thinking abilities. These findings underscore the importance of intentionally designed collaborative learning environments to unlock the full potential of student learning in complex scientific domains, offering valuable insights for educators and curriculum developers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adams, D. (Ed.). (2022). Education in Malaysia: Developments, Reforms and Prospects. Taylor & Francis.

Alam, A., & Mohanty, A. (2024). Happiness Engineering: impact of hope-based intervention on life satisfaction, self-worth, mental health, and academic achievement of Indian school students. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2341589. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2341589

Allen, J., Brown, E. R., Ginther, A., Graham, J. E., Mercurio, D., & Smith, J. L. (2021). Nevertheless, she persisted (in science research): Enhancing women students’ science research motivation and belonging through communal goals. Social Psychology of Education, 24(4), 939-964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09639-6

Ameringer, S., Serlin, R. C., & Ward, S. (2009). Simpson's paradox and experimental research. Nursing research, 58(2), 123-127. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e318199b517

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in education: Principles, policy & practice, 25(6), 551-575. http://doi.org/10.1021/ed101066x

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.

Campbell, D. T., & Boruch, R. F. (1975). Making the case for randomized assignment to treatments by considering the alternatives: Six ways in which quasi-experimental evaluations in compensatory education tend to underestimate effects. In C. A. Bennett & A. A. Lumsdaine (Eds.), Evaluation and experiment: Some critical issues in assessing social programs (pp. 195-296). Academic Press, Inc.

Cavinato, A. G., & Mullaugh, K. M. (2022). Field-Based analytical chemistry laboratory experiences performed in collaboration with governmental agencies and in the context of a study abroad program. In T. J. Wenzel, M. L. Kovarik & J. K. Robinson (Eds.), Active learning in the analytical chemistry curriculum (pp. 205-220). ACS Publications.

Cen, L., Ruta, D., Powell, L., Hirsch, B., & Ng, J. (2016). Quantitative approach to collaborative learning: Performance prediction, individual assessment, and group composition. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 187-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9234-6

Chang, D., Hwang, G. J., Chang, S. C., & Wang, S. Y. (2021). Promoting students’ cross-disciplinary performance and higher order thinking: A peer assessment-facilitated STEM approach in a mathematics course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 3281-3306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10062-z

Chiappetta, E. L. (1997). Inquiry-Based Science. Strategies and Techniques for Encouraging Inquiry in the Classroom. The Science Teacher, 64, 22-26.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Wadsworth.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by 'collaborative learning'?. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Elsevier.

Dragnić-Cindrić, D., Lobczowski, N. G., Greene, J. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2024). Exploring the teacher’s role in discourse and social regulation of learning: Insights from collaborative sessions in high-school physics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 42(1), 92-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2023.2266847

Elevate K-12. (2024, April 29). What are the biggest benefits of small-group instruction? https://elevatek12.com

Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215-235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x

Fay, N., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 481-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00292

Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage.

Fukuzawa, S., Boyd, C., & Cahn, J. (2017). Student motivation in response to problem-based learning. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10, 175-188. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v10i0.4748

Garfield, J. (1993). Teaching statistics using small-group cooperative learning. Journal of Statistics education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.1993.11910455

Georgopoulou, M.-S. (2024). The power of synergy: Unlocking the potential of group dynamics through team-building practices in junior high school. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 5(2), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2024.5.2.803

Gillies, R. M. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7

Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., & Willems, P. P. (2024). Middle-school students and digital homework: The evolving role of family engagement. Middle School Journal, 55(4), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2024.2376481

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. John Wiley & Sons.

Gross Davis, B. (1999). Motivating students. Tools for teaching, 6(5), 1-7.

Haq, I. U., Anwar, A., Rehman, I. U., Asif, W., Sobnath, D., Sherazi, H. H. R., & Nasralla, M. M. (2021). Dynamic group formation with intelligent tutor collaborative learning: a novel approach for next generation collaboration. IEEE Access, 9, 143406-143422. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.312055

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2015). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.

Haynes, S. N., Richard, D., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238

Heflin, H., & Macaluso, S. (2021). Student ınitiative empowers engagement for learning online. Online Learning, 25(3), 230-248. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i3.2414

Hennig-Thurau, T., Aliman, D. N., Herting, A. M., Cziehso, G. P., Linder, M., & Kübler, R. V. (2023). Social interactions in the metaverse: Framework, initial evidence, and research roadmap. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(4), 889-913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00908-0

Herrera-Pavo, M. Á. (2021). Collaborative learning for virtual higher education. Learning, culture and social interaction, 28, 100437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100437

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3

Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Jo, K. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014. Educational Research Review, 28, 100284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057

Johnson, J. P., & Mighten, A. (2005). A comparison of teaching strategies: lecture notes combined with structured group discussion versus lecture only. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(7), 319-322. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20050701-06

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.

Kassem, C. L. (2000). Theory into practice: Best Practices for a school-wide approach to critical thinking instruction. Ramapo College of New Jersey.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano R, J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y

Kyprianidou, M., Demetriadis, S., Tsiatsos, T., & Pombortsis, A. (2012). Group formation based on learning styles: can it improve students’ teamwork?. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 83-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9215-4

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Li, Y., Xie, H., & Li, D. (2016). Does self-selection work in academic group work? The effect of random group formation on participation and performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7), 966-979.

Liang, C., Majumdar, R., Nakamizo, Y., Flanagan, B., & Ogata, H. (2024). Algorithmic group formation and group work evaluation in a learning analytics-enhanced environment: implementation study in a Japanese junior high school. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(4), 1476-1499. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2121730

Lin, E. C.-L., Chen, S.-L., Chao, S.-Y., & Chen, Y.-C. (2013). Using standardized patient with immediate feedback and group discussion to teach interpersonal and communication skills to advanced practice nursing students. Nurse education today, 33(6), 677-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.07.002

Loyens, S. M., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: Introducing a multidirectional approach. Instructional Science, 36(5), 351-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9059-4

Lyall, C., & Meagher, L. R. (2012). A masterclass in interdisciplinarity: Research into practice in training the next generation of interdisciplinary researchers. Futures, 44(6), 608-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.03.010

Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers' conceptions of learners' prior knowledge. Science education, 88(6), 970-983. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20006

Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (Eds.). (2023). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Taylor & Francis.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis year 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347

Mora, H., Signes-Pont, M. T., Fuster-Guilló, A., & Pertegal-Felices, M. L. (2020). A collaborative working model for enhancing the learning process of science & engineering students. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 140-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.008

Mozaffari, S. H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 496-516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816641703

National Research Council (1996). From analysis to action: Undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. National Academy Press.

Nungu, L., Mukama, E., & Nsabayezu, E. (2023). Online collaborative learning and cognitive presence in mathematics and science education. Case study of university of Rwanda, college of education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(9), 10865-10884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11607-w

Oviedo, M. C. N. (2004). Teacher-student co-construction processes in biology: Strategies for developing mental models in large group discussions [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Park, J., Lee, H., Kim, J., & Zhou, A. Q. (2024). Trajectories of learning attitude profiles in Korean middle school students: Examining developmental patterns and the influence of parenting. Child & Youth Care Forum, 53(2), 485-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-023-09763-8

Parmar, P. (2022, June 14). Importance of group discussion in teaching. Classplus Growth Blog. Retrieved from https://classplusapp.com

Pfeiffer, J. M., & Butz, R. J. (2005). Assessing cultural and ecological variation in ethnobiological research: the importance of gender. Journal of Ethnobiology, 25(2), 240-278. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771_2005_25_240_acaevi_2.0.co_2

Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.

Prata, M. J., Festas, I., Oliveira, A. L., & Veiga, F. H. (2019). The impact of a cooperative method embedded in a writing strategy instructional program on student engagement in school. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.), 24(2), 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2018.12.001

Putzeys, K., Van Keer, H., & De Wever, B. (2023). Unknown is not chosen: University student voices on group formation for collaborative writing. Education Sciences, 14(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010031

Roseth, C. J., Garfield, J. B., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2008). Collaboration in learning and teaching statistics. Journal of Statistics Education, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2008.11889557

Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223

Sancho-Thomas, P., Fuentes-Fernández, R., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009). Learning teamwork skills in university programming courses. Computers & Education, 53(2), 517-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.010

Saxton, E., Burns, R., Holveck, S., Kelley, S., Prince, D., Rigelman, N., & Skinner, E. A. (2014). A common measurement system for K-12 STEM education: Adopting an educational evaluation methodology that elevates theoretical foundations and systems thinking. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 40, 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.11.005

Shyiramunda, T. (2023). Datasheet.Excel. Pretest-posttest.Statistical t-test results.xlsx [Dataset]. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24486685

Smith, J. (2023). Supporting metacognitive talk during collaborative problem solving: a case study in Scottish primary school mathematics. Education 3-13, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2023.2187670

Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom‐based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.st

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021

Stanford Teaching Commons (2024). Increasing student engagement. Stanford University. https://teachingcommons.stanford.edu/

Steinert, Y. (2004). Student perceptions of effective small group teaching. Medical Education, 38(3), 286-293. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01772.x

Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4

Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the p value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1

Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., & Sines, M. C. (2012). Utilizing mixed methods in psychological research. Handbook of Psychology, 2, 428-450. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop202015

Thompson, P. (2013). Learner-centred education and ‘cultural translation’. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(1), 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.02.009

Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500345172

Topping, K.J, Buchs, C., Duran, D., & Van Keer, H. (2017). Effective peer learning: From principles to practical implementation. Routledge.

Tsai, C. W., Lee, L. Y., Cheng, Y. P., Lin, C. H., Hung, M. L., & Lin, J. W. (2024). Integrating online metacognitive learning strategy and team regulation to develop students’ programming skills, academic motivation, and refusal self-efficacy of Internet use in a cloud classroom. Universal Access in the Information Society, 23(1), 395-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00958-9

Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wang, B., & Li, P. P. (2024). Digital creativity in STEM education: the impact of digital tools and pedagogical learning models on the students’ creative thinking skills development. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(6), 2633-2646. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2155839

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

Wilkinson, I. A., & Fung, I. Y. (2002). Small-group composition and peer effects. International journal of educational research, 37(5), 425-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00014-4

Wu, X., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Miller, B. (2013). Enhancing motivation and engagement through collaborative discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 622. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032792

Yan, J., & Li, L. (2024, June). Board 183: A Case Study of AFL Models on Factors of Engaged Learning in STEM Education. 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

Yang, X. (2023). Undergraduate students’ frustrations in collaborative group work [Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia].

Zuin, V. G., Eilks, I., Elschami, M., & Kümmerer, K. (2021). Education in green chemistry and in sustainable chemistry: perspectives towards sustainability. Green Chemistry, 23(4), 1594-1608. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0GC03313H