Research Article

Effects of Graphic Organizers on Conceptual Understanding in Organic Chemistry

Bashirat Titilope Imam 1 * , Adekunle Solomon Olorundare 1, Johnson Enero Upahi 1 2
More Detail
1 Department of Science Education, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, NIGERIA2 Department of Science and Technology Education, University of Johannesburg, Kingsway Avenue, Auckland Park, Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA* Corresponding Author
Aquademia, 6(1), 2022, ep22003, https://doi.org/10.21601/aquademia/12055
Published: 28 April 2022
OPEN ACCESS   412 Views   450 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the effect of graphic organizers on conceptual understanding of organic chemistry. The study adopted a mixed-method design involving three intact classes that were purposively selected. A quasi-experimental design and focus group interview was adopted and data was gathered using a chemistry achievement test and an interview protocol whose reliability were 0.74 and 0.73, respectively. The quantitative data were analyzed using analysis of covariance while thematic analysis, with codes generated inductively, was used to analyze the qualitative data. Findings indicated that graphic organizers enhanced students’ performance in organic chemistry. Furthermore, students’ opined that using organizers facilitated their learning. Although, reports indicated that using them as advance organizers is more tasking and deter attention during instruction. It was concluded that graphic organizers are effective tools that improved students’ performance in organic chemistry, however, their use as advance organizers should be carefully guided to ensure enhanced learning outcomes.
Keywords: graphic organizers, advance organizers, concept maps, mind maps, mixed-method

CITATION (APA)

Imam, B. T., Olorundare, A. S., & Upahi, J. E. (2022). Effects of Graphic Organizers on Conceptual Understanding in Organic Chemistry. Aquademia, 6(1), ep22003. https://doi.org/10.21601/aquademia/12055

REFERENCES

  1. Adodo, S. O. (2013). Effects of mind-mapping as self-regulated learning strategy in students’ achievement in basic science and technology. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(6), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n6p163
  2. Adu-Gyamfi, K., Ampiah, J. G., & Appiah, J. Y. (2012). Senior high school chemistry students’ difficulties in writing structural formulae of organic compounds from IUPAC names. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 175-191.
  3. Agogo, P. O., & Onda, M. O. (2014). Identification of students’ perceived difficult concepts in senior secondary school chemistry in Oju local government area of Benue state, Nigeria. Global Educational Research Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, 1(10), 88-93.
  4. Akinoglu, O., & Yasar, Z. (2007). The effects of note taking in science education through the mind mapping technique on students’attitudes, academic achievement and concept learning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(3), 34-43.
  5. Ariaga, B. A., & Nwanekezi, A. U. (2018). Concept mapping strategy and its effects on students’ performance in organic chemistry in Imo state, Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 11(4), 797-809.
  6. Arokoyo, A. A., & Obunwo, J. C. (2014). Concept-mapping: An instructional strategy for retention of organic chemistry concepts. International Journal of scientific Research and Innovative Technology, 1(3), 56-61.
  7. Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in learning and intention of meaningful material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267- 272. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046669
  8. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology. A cognitive view. Rinehart & Winston.
  9. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A cognitive view. Cambridge University Press.
  10. Bamidele, E. F., Adetunji, A. A., Awodele, B. A., & Irinoye, J. (2013). Attitudes of Nigerian secondary school chemistry students towards concept mapping strategies in learning the mole concept. Academis Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(2), 475-484. https://doi.org/10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n2p475
  11. Braselton, S., & Decker, B. S. (1994). Using graphic organizers to improve the reading of mathematics. The Reading Teacher, 48(3), 276-281.
  12. Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol refinement framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811-831. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337
  13. Chawla, J., & Singh, G. (2015). Effect of concept mapping strategy on achievement in chemistry among IX grader girls. International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research, 3(3), 1036-1044.
  14. Chief Examiners’ Report. (2019). The West Africa Senior Secondary School Certificate Examinations. https://waeconline.org.ng/e-learning/Chemistry/chem2019WR.html
  15. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.
  16. Duffill, N. (2013). Choosing and using mind maps and concept maps. A short conversation for mind mappers. https://www.olympic-limited.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Choosing-and-using-Mind-Maps-and-Concept-Maps.pdf
  17. Gagic, Z. Z., Skuban, S. J., Radulovic, B. N., Stojanovic, M. M., & Gajic, O. (2019). The implementation of mind maps in teaching physics. Educational efficiency and students’ involvement. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(1), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.117
  18. Gil-Garcia, A., & Villegas, J. (2003). Engaging minds, enhancing comprehension and constructing knowledge through visual representation [Paper presentation]. Word Asssociation for Case Method Research and Application Conference. France (June, 29th-July, 2nd).
  19. Hendron, J. (2003). Advance and graphical organizers: Proven strategies enhanced through technology. www.glnd.k12.va.us/resources/graphicalorganizers
  20. Longanathan, M. (2010). Concept map vs mind map. http://cognitivenoise.wordpress.com/april2010
  21. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  22. Mayer, R. (2003). Learning and instruction. Pearson.
  23. Nousiainen, M. (2012). Making concept maps useful for physics teacher education: Analysis of epistemic content of links. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(1), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/12.11.29
  24. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173469
  25. Omorogbe, E., & Ewansiha, J. C. (2013). The challenge of effective science teaching in Nigerian secondary schools. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(7), 181-188.
  26. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
  27. Plotz, T. (2020). Are concept maps a valid measurement tool for conceptual learning? A cross-case study. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(1), em1795. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/110174
  28. Semilarski, H., Soobard, R., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2021). Exploring the complexity of student-created mind maps, based on science-related disciplinary and interdisciplinary core ideas. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(1), e2227. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/9153
  29. Shihusa, H., & Keraro, F. N. (2009). Using advance organizers to enhance students’ motivation in learning biology. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(4), 413-420. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75290
  30. Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Cognitive psychology. Thompson Wadsworth.
  31. Struble, J. (2007). Using graphic organizer as formative assessment. Science Scope, 30(5), 69-71.
  32. Usta, N. D., & Ultay, N. (2016). Prospective chemistry teachers’ abilities of creating concept maps: Hydrocarbons example. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(1), 58-67. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/16.15.58
  33. Wills, S., & Ellis, E. (2008). The theoretical and empirical basis for graphic organizer instruction. University of Alabama.
  34. Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational psychology. Allyn and Bacon.
  35. Zaini, S. H., Mokhtar, S. Z., & Nawawi, M. (2010). Effects of graphic organizer on students’ learning in school. Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 17-23.