The Effect of Previous Experience on Improving Cognition, Comprehension and Achievement of Selected Chemistry Students in Stem Education
Keywords:
Previous experience, cognition, comprehension, stem education, chemistry, studentsAbstract
The main purpose of the study was to determine the effect of previous
experience on student's cognition, comprehension and achievement on
STEM Education, by using some selected content areas in chemistry as
the area of focus. RCSQIE . Two research questions were investigated and
four null hypotheses were tested at the 0.05 level of significance. A quasi
experimental design (Non equivalent control group design) was employed
of which two Schools was picked for the study from Jos north local
government area of plateau state. Two groups consisting of fourty students
each from intact classrooms were used for the study of which one was used
for the control group and the other was used as the experimental group.
The target population was SSS II students. Three instruments were used
for the data collection and a treatment was administered only to the
experimental group. Both groups were handled by research assistants. The
instruments were validated and a reliability value of 0.89 was established
by the kunder Richardson formula. The results showed that there was a
significant difference between the experimental and the control groups
post test results, which goes to show that RCSQIE as an instructional
strategy had a positive impact in improving the cognitive levels and
achievement of the students which could prove useful in aiding STEM
education. Among the recommendations made was that teachers should
go an extra mile to encourage students to read ahead, ask questions and
form notes on their own to improve comprehension.
References
Ababio O. Y. (2001). New School Chemistry for Senior Secondary Schools (3rd Edition)
Onitsha: African Fep. Publishers.
Alexander, P. A., and Kulikowich, J. M. (1991). Domain knowledge and analogic reasoning
ability as predictors of expository text comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior,
(2), 165-191.
Allington, R. L. (2002). You can't learn much from books you can't read. Educational
Leadership, 16-19.
Barton, M. L., Heidema, C., and Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and
science. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 24-28.
Bean, T. W. (2001). An update on reading in the content areas: Social constructionist
dimensions. Reading Online, 5(5). Retrieved May 6, 2004 from http://
www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/bean/index.html.
Comprehensive Strategies (2008). Educational help website webstactics.
Durkin, D. (1978). Teaching them to read, Massachusetts pp 417,418, 455
Guilford, L. (1956). The structure of the Intellect. Physiological Bulletin,53. 267-293
Meltzer, J. (2001). Supporting adolescent literacy across the content areas: Perspectives
on policy and practice. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
Pinnet, M. (1992). A Primer on teaching higher order thinking in intro geology courses .
Journal of Geo-sciences Education 40, 293-301.
Sambo, A. A. (2005). Research Methods in Education. Ibadan: Evans Publishers.
Saskachwan, K. (1988). Understanding the Common essentials of learning.
Smith, F. (1982). Understanding reading (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading
Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
Stone D. R. (1978) Educational Psychology Development of teaching skills Pp10.
Webtactics, F. (2008). Reading Comprehenshion. Htm (871)280-286.
Wright, E. L. (1998). The academic language of college-bound at-risk secondary students:
Self-assessment, proficiency levels, and effects of language development on
instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (10), 3909A. (UMI No. 9812098)
