See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303722320

Effect of Active Learning Approach in Teaching Chemistry 101 in Samar State

University, Philippines

Article · July 2014

CITATION READS

1 3,591

1 author:

Vivian Lucaban Moya

Samar State University
32 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Countryside Development Research Journal, 2015 View project

Development and Evaluation of a Natural Rodent Repellant View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vivian Lucaban Moya on 02 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Standard Journal of Educational Research and Essay Vol 2(3) pp. 118– 122 June 2014 (ISSN: 2310-7545)
Available online http://standresjournals.org/journals/SJERE/index.html
Copyright ©2014 Standard Research Journals
Accepted 21 June, 2014

Research Article

Effect of active learning approach in teaching

Chemistry 101 in Samar State University, Philippines
Vivian L. Moya
College of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, Samar State University, Catbalogan City, Samar, Philippines

Author E-mail: vivimoya12@gmail.com

Abstract

The study aimed to determine the effect of active learning approach in teaching Chemistry in Samar
State University. This study employed two research designs. The descriptive-developmental design
was used during the development stage using the Interest Inventory as its instrument. It aimed at
determining what topics in Chemistry 101 can be developed as materials for active learning approach.
The result of the Interest Inventory became the basis of the development of the materials. In the
validation stage, the experimental method of research was employed in this study using randomized
pretest and posttest design. The study consisted of 60 students as respondents that were divided into
control and experimental group. Thirty students comprised the control group were subjected to the
traditional lecture-discussion method. The other thirty students were taught in an active learning
approach of instruction. The result of the study revealed that active learning approach is effective in
teaching Chemistry. Hence, teachers should make use of active learning strategies in teaching
college Chemistry. Training of teachers in the effective use of active learning materials should also be
conducted. Similar studies could be done by conducting experimental validation on other topics in
college Chemistry.

Keywords: active learning approach, science teaching, Chemistry

INTRODUCTION

The mark of a Chemistry teacher who has grown in teaching is his /her ability to organize and develop instructional
materials suited to the students’ level of readiness, capabilities and understanding. The teaching-learning process has
been the concern of chemistry educators. The problem of how to make teaching more effective and for optimum learning
to take place has beset the educational system as a whole.
Ogena pointed out that “the general observation that students attend chemistry class simply to fulfill a requirement is
probably not confined in the Philippines. Fewer students appreciate the thinking and rigor that goes with the subject. In
the Philippine educational system one of the most disturbing problems is the poor achievement of Filipino students in the
areas of science and technology” (Ogena, 1998). One, in a study entitled “Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study reported in 2003, Filipino students performed dismally in Math and Science international tests ranking 41st
and 42nd respectively, among 45 participating countries. Two, in a diagnostic test given by the Department of Education
showed that only thirty percent of Grade 6 students have mastered their expected competencies in English, Math and
Science subjects. The results further revealed that our students could correctly answer only half of the questions in the
National Elementary Achievement Test (NEAT) and National Secondary Achievement Test (NSAT). The lowest scores
were recorded in Science and Math indicating that these are the most difficult subjects for the students (Presidential
Commission on Educational Reform, 2000). Hence, educators agreed that one of the major causes of this problem has to
do with the method of facilitating the learning of mathematics and science concepts and processes inside the classroom.
Somehow, the current methods do not fully develop skills of both students and teachers.
Stand. J. Edu. Res. Essay Moya 119

Many studies show that learning is enhanced when students become actively involved in the learning process.
Instructional strategies that engage students in the learning process stimulate critical thinking and a greater awareness of
other perspectives. Thus, Blair commented that the best way to think of active learning in the classroom is to focus on
learning processes rather than on learning products. Active learning redefines classroom practice from a static view of
learning in which knowledge is poured into the passive empty minds of student learners to a more dynamic view where,
through project-based, collaborative, and problem-based activities, students play a more vital role in creating new
knowledge (Blair, 2011).
Chickering and Gamson (1987) opined that active learning approach involves modular instruction where students
themselves are the main focus of the attention while the role of the teacher is to guide and facilitate in the learning
process. This approach encourages the students to be “active learners”. Hence, active learning students must read, write
and be engaged in solving problems. Most important, to be actively involved, students must engaged in such higher order
thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
Active learning refers to techniques where students do more than simply listen to a lecture. Students are doing
something including discovering, processing, and applying information. It is involving students directly and actively to the
learning process itself. This means that instead of simply receiving information verbally and visually, students are
receiving and participating and doing [5]. Thus, students should be involved in more than listening. In active learning,
less emphasis is placed on transmitting information and more on developing student’s skills and engaging them in
activities such as reading, discussing, and writing.
In active learning, the principle of self-activity is emphasized wherein it does not demand of activity alone but all-sided
activity of the whole self. Hence, this approach in teaching requires the learners to participate in planning, executing
and evaluating tasks. If learning is to be effective, there should be an active participation of the students in the learning
process.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study is to determine the effectiveness of active learning approach in teaching Chemistry 101.
Specifically the study aims to determine the profile of respondents as to age, gender, and scholastic performance in high
school; identify what topics in Chemistry 101 can be developed as material for active learning approach and determine
the effectiveness of active learning approach in teaching Chemistry.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study employed two research designs. The descriptive-developmental design was used during the development
stage using the Interest Inventory as its instrument. It aimed at determining what topics in Chemistry 101 can be
developed as materials for active learning approach. In the validation stage, the experimental method of research was
employed in this study using randomized pretest and posttest design. The study consisted of sixty students as
respondents that were divided into two groups namely: the control group and the experimental group. Thirty students
comprised the control group were subjected to the traditional lecture-discussion method. The other thirty students were
taught in an active learning approach of instruction. The experimental design by Herrin was used in the study (Herrin,
1987). The pretest and posttest was administered to both control and experimental groups. The performance of students
in both pretest and posttest was compared statistically to determine the difference of performance of both groups which
eventually reveal the effectiveness of the experimental intervention.

Instrumentation

The Interest Inventory was made and validated to find out what topics in Chemistry 101 can be developed as materials for
active learning approach. It consisted of 20 positive statements in a five-point Likert scale and administered to First Year
students of BS Marine Engineering of Samar State University. Their scores obtained were item analyzed using the
formula by Edwards (1979).
The pretest and posttest were administered to both the control and the experimental group. A table of specification was
prepared based on the syllabus in Chemistry 101 to ensure content validity. The test instrument was then subjected to
analysis for facility values and discrimination indices. The formula of Wright was used in calculating the facility value and
index of discrimination. After the item analysis of the test, a 30-item was developed. The Kuder-Richardson formula 21
 Moya 120

was applied to determine the reliability of the test instrument wherein the data used was the scores of the students who
participated in the try-out (Fraenkel, 1993).The test reliability coefficient was computed to be 0.73, which is acceptable for
research purposes.

FINDINGS

Profile of Respondents

Majority of the subjects in both groups were 16 years old. The oldest was 17 ½ years old for both groups. The average
age in the experimental group was 16. 47 years while in the control group was 16.42 years. Majority of the groups were
females inasmuch as out of 30, 20 or 66.67 percent where of this gender while only 10 or 33.33 percent were males.
The average grade in the control group was 84.68, where 15 or 25 percent belonged to the “above the mean” group and
the remaining 15 or 50 percent belonged to the “below the mean” group. The data on the scholastic performance of the
subjects implied that the performance of the experimental and control groups was both satisfactory. Both the
experimental group and the control group have a favorable interest level in chemistry as evidenced by the grand means
of 4.85 and 4.05, respectively.

Interest Inventory

The subjects pegged the highest mean of 4.48 on which they strongly agree on the statement that they can relate
scientific method in solving problems and do activity related to it. It was followed with a mean of 4.43 which interpreted
as “agree” to the statement that the subjects love to do experiments related to solid, liquid and gas. The third highest
mean of 4.37 signified agree to the statement that the subjects can easily classify matter into elements, compounds
and mixtures.
Based on the interest inventory, the three statements on the topic “Matter” posted the highest mean of 4.83, 4.75 and
4.60 respectively. Hence, topics on Matter were developed as Active Learning Materials for the study.

Comparison of Pre-Test Scores of Experimental and Control Group

Table 1 shows that the experimental and control group have the same level of performance prior to experimentation.
When the t-test of independent samples was employed , the result was that the computed t of 0.42 was lesser than the
tabulated t which were 1.67 for one-tail and 2.00 for two-tail at α=0.05 level of significance and 58 degrees of freedom.

Table 1. Pre-test scores of the experimental and control group

Groups N X Sd Computed t
Experimental Group 30 13.07 3.39 0.42
Control Group 30 13.40 2.70

Comparison of the Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores of the Control Group

Table 2 shows that the use of traditional method of teaching Chemistry was effective. The standard deviation in the
pretest was 2.70 while in the posttest was 2.84. The t-test for dependent samples was employed to find out if significant
difference existed between the two sets of data. The computed t which was 5.86 was proved to be higher than the
tabulated t of 2.05 at α=0.05 and 29 degrees of freedom.

Table 2. Pre-test and post-test scores of the control group

TESTS N X Sd Computed t
Pre-Test 30 13.40 2.70 5.88
Post-Test 30 17.60 2.84

Comparison of the Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores of the Experimental Group

Table 3 shows that the experimental group gained marked improvement after they were taught using active learning
approach in Chemistry. The t-test for dependent samples was employed to find if significant difference existed between
the two sets of data. The computed t which was 9.34 was proved to be higher than the tabulated t of 2.05 at α= 0.05 and
29 degrees of freedom.
 Moya 121

Table 3. Pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental group

TESTS N X Sd Computed t
Pre-Test 30 13.07 3.39 9.34
Post-Test 30 22.10 4.07

Comparison of the Post-Test Scores of the Experimental and Control Group

Table 4 shows that there is a significant difference in the post-test scores of the control and the experimental group.

Table 4. Post-test scores of the experimental and control group

Groups N X Sd Computed t
Experimental Group 30 22.10 4.07 4.97
Control Group 30 17.60 2.84

Evaluation of the Active Learning Approach

Table 5 shows that the active learning approach in teaching Chemistry was favorable to the experimental group.

Table 5. Evaluation of the active learning material

Statements X Interpretation
The purpose of the active material is well-defined. 4.43 A
The objectives of the active learning approach and materials are attainable. 4.47 A
Content presentation is clear and logical. 4.23 A
Level of difficulty is appropriate for the target audience. 4.10 A
Use of active learning approach is motivational. 4.90 SA
The active learning approach effectively stimulates student’s creativity. 4.47 A
Feedback on student’s responses is effectively employed. 3.90 A
The learner controls the rate and sequence of presentation and drill. 4.17 A
GRAND MEAN 4.33 Agree
Legend:
5-Strongly agree (SA) 2-Disagree (D)
4-Agree (A) 1-Strongly disagree (SD)
3-Uncertain (U)

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

According to the results of the t-test analyses of the post-test scores of the treatment group (X=22.10, SD=4.07) and
control group (X=17.60, SD=2.84) showed that the use of active learning approach was effective.
The use of the active learning approach in teaching Chemistry showed a positive response from the experimental group
as evidenced by the evaluation of the active learning approach administered after the instruction.
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusion, i recommend that;
Teachers should make use of active learning strategies in teaching college Chemistry besides the traditional lecture
discussion method to break the monotonous mode in the classroom.
Training of teachers in the effective use of active learning materials and other innovative strategies, techniques and
methods of teaching appropriate to the level of their students be conducted.
Administrators should provide opportunity to teachers to actively involve in the development and use of innovative
teaching strategies.
Administrators should strengthen and sustain professional development program to teachers to update their
knowledge and upgrade their strategies of teaching which enhance effective and meaningful learning of students.
Similar studies could be done by conducting experimental validation of active learning materials on other topics in
college Chemistry.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express her gratitude to her adviser, Engr. Esteban A. Malindog for his guidance and invaluable
assistance. Deepest gratitude and love to her family and her precious, Vin Michelle L. Moya who has supported and
encouraged the author to strive towards her goal. Above all, to Almighty God for wisdom and amazing life.
 Moya 122

References

Blair K(2011). Preparing 21st-Century Faculty to Engage 21st Century Learners: The Incentives and Rewards for Online Pedagogies. Higher
Education, Emerging Technologies and Community Partnerships, eds. Melody Bowdon and Russell Carpenter. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Pp.141-
152.
Chickering A, Gamson Z(1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice. AAHE Bulletin 39: 3-7. ED 282 491. 6 pp. MF-01.
Edwards AL(1979). Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1957.
Fraenkel JR(1993). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 2nd ed.
Herrin AF(1987). Evaluating Development Projects: Principles and Applications, Philippines: National Economic Development Council.
Meyers C, Jones TB(1993). Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom. Jossey Bass Pub; San Francisco.
Ogena E(1998). Science Education in the Philippines: An Overview In Science Education in the Philippines: Challenges for Deve lopment, Ogena, E.,
Brawner, F., Eds.; Science Education Institute: Quezon City. Pp. 7-28.
Presidential Commission on Educational Reform(2000). Philippine Agenda for Educational Reform: The PCER Report. Manila.
Wright BD, Stone MH(2001). Best test design: Rasch measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.

View publication stats