Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 18, Issue 1, Article 7 (Jun., 2017) |

Regarding the motivation of students to learn GO, the finding of this study showed that before the intervention, students from experimental and control groups obtained almost equivalent mean scores (in the pre-test).

The data collected by the GOIMS in Table 3, indicates that in pre-test before any intervention, there were no large difference scores between students in the experimental group and the control group (M 12.61 Sd 06.79 and M 12.42 Sd 05.06).

Also, table 3 shows that the calculated value of F test (Fcacl) is smaller than a tabulated value (Ftab) with degrees of freedom of 25 (N-1=25). Therefore the two groups present a normal distribution. Since the samples arise from populations with homogeneous variances, the t-test was calculated (table 4).

Table 3.Descriptive statistics related to students` GOIMS and GOUCT scores, in the experimental and control groups

Test

Group

N

Mean

Sd

Fcalc

Ftab(25,25)

Pre- GOIMSCG

26

12,6154

6,79457

1,34

1,98

EG

26

12,4231

5,06101

Post- GOIMSCG

26

13,4231

6,95225

1,16

EG

26

22,1923

5,98678

Pre- GOUCTCG

26

1.8846

1.17735

1,34

EG

26

1.7692

1.58260

Post- GOUCTCG

26

3.0000

1.52315

1,24

EG

26

4.9231

1.89574

As shown in Table 4, the independent samples t test shows that there was no significant difference in pre-GOIMS mean scores for the EG and control groups [t(50)=0.11, p=0.91]. It means that all students, participating in this study, have the same level of intrinsic motivation.

The mean score for the treatment group increased from the pre-GOIMS (M=12.42, Sd=05.06) to the post-GOIMS [M= 22.19, Sd=05.99; t(25)=6,58, p=0.000]. Although, for the control groups, the post-GOIMS mean score (M=12.61, Sd=06.79) was slightly higher than pre-GOIMS [M=13.42, Sd=06.95; t(26)=1.4, p=0.172], with no significant difference.

Table 4.The samples t test

Groups

GOIMS

t

DF

P

GOUCT

T

DF

P

EGPre-Test

6.58

25

0.000

Pre-Test

13.242

25

0.000

Post-Test

Post-Test

CGPre-Test

1.4

25

0.172

Pre-Test

10,973

25

0.000

Post-Test

Post-Test

EG

CGPre-Test

0.11

50

0.908

Pre-Test

0.298

50

0.767

Pre-Test

Pre-Test

EG

CGPost-Test

4.87

50

0.000

Post-Test

4.032

50

0.000

Post-Test

Post-Test

Thus, after the intervention, students from the experimental group had obtained higher mean scores for GOIMS compared to the students from the control group (Table 3). The independent samples t test result as summarized in Table 4, was unable to show a significant difference between the groups in post-GOIMS.

To study conception change, we chose a quantitative approach. Based on the data obtained by the GOUCT, the students’ mean and standard deviation of pretest scores for experimental and control groups were shown in Table 3. An independent sample t-test result (see Table 4.) showed that there were no significant differences between the two groups in pre-GOUCT (t = 0.29, p > 0.05). All students in both groups have almost the same number of misconceptions about vision, propagation of light and formation of the image by lens. This indicates that the groups used in the study exhibited comparable characteristics.

Also, the paired sample t tests conducted to evaluate the impact of the interventions on the students’ scores in the GOUCT, were shown in Table 4. There was a statistically significant increase in test scores from pre-test (M=1.77, Sd=1.58) to post-test [M =4.92, Sd=1.89, t(25)= 13.24, p =0.000] for the experimental groups. The students’ understanding concepts of GO in the control groups also showed a statistically significant increase in test scores from the pre-test (M=1.88, Sd=1.18) to the post-test [M=3.00, Sd=1.52, t(25)=10.97, p<0.000].

When the post-test means scores were compared using independent samples t test, it was found that a statistically significant difference between the experimental group (M =4.92, Sd=1.89) and control group (M = 3.00, Sd =1.52) mean scores existed in favor of the experimental group [t(50)=4.03, p <0.05].

The results from the Table 5 show that there was a slight increase in the students GO understanding in the control group, while there was a net increase in the percentage of correct answers given by students in the experimental group after the treatment. For example, in question 3 (about propagation of light in vacuum), the frequency of correct responses was increased from 15% to 42% in EG and from 15% to the 19% in CG.

Table 5.Frequency of correct responses (%) in GOUCT

EG (

N= 26)CG (

N= 26)

Pre-GOUCT

Post-GOUCT

Pre-GOUCT

Post-GOUCTQ1

23

73

27

38

Q2

27

58

27

35

Q3

15

31

19

23

Q4

15

42

15

19

Q5

19

42

15

23

Q6

8

35

8

15

Q7

12

35

15

19

Q8

27

65

23

42

Q9

12

62

15

35

Q10

19

62

15

42

Figure 1.Comparison between post-GOUCT scores of EG and CGThe histogram, in Figure 1, clearly shows the difference between the frequency of correct responses of the experimental group and the control group post-GOUCT after treatment. More than 70% of the students in EG have a correct concept about vision, while almost 60% of students in CG still had misconception about vision, even though they attended courses on OG. It is very clear that the use of our sequence HoS, had a positive effect on understanding GO concepts and eliminated some misconceptions.

Pearson correlations were computed in order to find the relationship between students’ intrinsic motivation and understanding GO concepts. The findings indicated a positive significant correlation between students’ intrinsic motivation and understanding GO concepts (r= 0.812, p ≤ 0.01).

Further analysis was conducted using a regression analysis incorporating students’ intrinsic motivation, as predictor variable. The findings indicated an overall significant effect on students’ understanding GO concepts, F (1,50)=97.118, p<0.01. This result demonstrates that the relation between dependent and independent variables are linear. In the Table 6, it is seen that intrinsic motivation predicts %66 (R2=0.660) of understanding GO concepts. Intrinsic motivation is found to be significant predictors.

Table 6.Results of the regression analysis using the post-test data

Dependent variable

Independent variable

β

Standart error β

r

R2

t

F

Sig. of F

Understanding GO concepts

Intrinsic motivation

0.812

0.021

0.812

0.660

9.855

97.118

.000

Copyright (C) 2017 EdUHK APFSLT. Volume 18, Issue 1, Article 7 (Jun., 2017). All Rights Reserved.