DEVELOPMENT OF TUTORIAL WORKSHEET FOR BOHR’S ATOMIC MODEL

DEVELOPMENT OF TUTORIAL WORKSHEET FORBOHR’S ATOMIC MODEL

DANI ASMADI BIN IBRAHIMGAN FIE CHUEN

0

KOLEJ MATRIKULASI NEGERI SEMBILAN

1

DEVELOPMENT OF TUTORIAL WORKSHEET FOR BOHR’S ATOMIC MODEL

Dani Asmadi Ibrahim and Gan Fie ChuenKolej Matrikulasi Negeri Sembilan

72000 Kuala Pilah

AbstractA common practice in teaching and learning of chemistry is trainingstudents to answer test problems and calculation type questions.Researches have shown that such over emphasis in algorithmic learningis not the best way to teach chemistry concepts. Effective teaching ofchemistry to students must give consideration to inherent characteristicof chemistry as a way of visualising and thinking about matter. Inparticular, attention must be given to the macroscopic, symbolic andsubmicroscopic levels of chemistry learning. In this study, thisconsideration is translated by preparing a tutorial worksheet for Bohr’sAtomic Model according to the suggestion of three learning levels ofchemistry. This paper reports the development of this teaching materialas a way to improve instruction of Bohr Atomic model, a topic in thematriculation chemistry course. Development of the teaching material isaccording to the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implimentationand Evaluation) model of instructional design. This paper also reportstwo supporting studies: A need analysis which makeup part of theanalysis phase of the ADDIE model and a quasi experimental study toinvestigate the effect of using the worksheet compared to conventionalquestions based tutorial lessons as part of the Implementation andEvaluation phase of the model. The quasi experimental study involved 45matriculation students. It is found that there is no significant differencebetween levels of achievement between control and treatment group.However, the treatment group showed significantly higher improvementof attitude towards chemistry lesson scores. Students’ written commentsshowed that the worksheet helps them learn and understand the lessonsbetter.

Keywords: Science education, chemistry teaching and learning, macroscopic symbolic and submicroscopic levels of chemistry, instructional development.

INTRODUCTION

This paper discusses how the framework of macroscopic,submicroscopic and symbolic level of chemistry is used to improvethe teaching and learning of Bohr’s atomic model. Currentteaching practice is focused on the use calculation exercisequestions and calculation type problems. Use of this approach

2

often associated with rote learning (Saul, 2003), overemphasis onalgorithmic learning (Tsaparlis & Papaphotis, 2008) andpersistence of misconception in chemistry (Gabel, 2000). Suchteaching practices are also referred to by Kohn (2000) as"teaching to the test". All these can potentially have negativeimpact on matriculation chemistry course objective to achievemastery basic concepts of chemistry (Kementerian PelajaranMalaysia, 2006). As an alternative, teaching and learning basedon macroscopic symbolic and submicroscopic framework of chemistryis proposed, in the form of a tutorial worksheet.

According to Holbrook (2005), chemistry is not just a collectionof knowledge but a way of thinking. The way of thinking inchemistry is often associated with the three-level (symbolic,macroscopic and submicroscopic) framework of matter proposed byJohnstone (1991). Three-level framework refers to the threelevels of thinking which occur in understanding matter and thechemical changes they undergo.Macroscopic level consists of descriptions of chemicals, changesand reactions that can be observed by the senses. It also coversthe bulk properties of matter such as colour, odour, mass,temperature and reactivity. Macroscopic level discussions areusually in the form of detailed descriptions and observations.Submicroscopic level refers to the unseen world of atoms, ionsand molecules in chemistry. Consist of explanations andunderstanding chemistry based on theories and models such as thekinetic molecular theory. Symbolic level of matter is made up of various pictorialrepresentations, algebraic and mathematical relationships inchemistry. The reaction equations and chemical formulas are someexamples. Symbolic levels of chemistry simplify concepts tofacilitate understanding and communication. The symbolic levelalso includes the use of molecular models of various types thatmake abstract concepts more concrete for both physical and mentalmanipulation.

Mahaffy (2004) states that mastery of concepts in chemistryinvolves the ability to understand the chemistry at all threelevels macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic. This view issupported by another study (Kozma, 2003) which found thatchemists think about chemistry at all three levels whencompleting chemistry related tasks while the students are notfound to do so. Thus, learning chemistry should involve trainingstudents to think about chemistry in all three levels. Accordingto Johnstone (2006) this can be done integrating three features

3

Macroscopic

SubmicroscopicSymbolic

into teaching and learning of chemistry. The features are asfollows and can be simply represented by a triangle in Figure 1:

1. Teaching should start and focus on the macroscopic level.2. Each level; macroscopic, symbolic and submicroscopic be

explained separately and given equal attention during teaching and learning.

3. Inter-relationship between the three levels must be made explicit to students.

Figure 1: Three levels of chemistry learning

Bohr’s atomic model has been a subject of many studies related tomatriculation chemistry teaching and learning. A study by NorazenMd Dadi (2007) on the level of student understanding of sub-topics and concepts in Atomic Structure (a chapter inmatriculation chemistry syllabus) found that the subtopics Bohr’sAtomic Model and orbital had the lowest scores compared to othersubtopics. Therefore, he suggested better teaching approaches beused for these topics. Bohr’s Atomic Model is an important butdifficult topic. According to Syed Abdul Rahim Syed Omar (2007),the Bohr’s Atomic Model is a basic topic in the matriculationchemistry course and expands into subsequent topics like thequantum model of atom, electron configuration, periodic table andchemical bonding. He is of the view that students will not beable to master the topics mentioned, if the understanding ofearlier basic topic is not strong. He proposed the use ofphysical models and analogies to help students understand thetopic better. An analysis of the syllabus specification andlecture notes for the Bohr’s atomic model according to threelearning levels of chemistry (Dani Asmadi Ibrahim & Khairul NizamMd Dauad, 2008) found that teaching of the topic focused on thesymbolic and submicroscopic learning levels. Only one out of tenlearning outcomes to be achieved for the topic refers to themacroscopic learning level. The findings suggest that teaching

4

and learning of the topic focuses on the most abstract part,making learning difficult and uninteresting. The findings of thisstudy are similar to that of Mayer (2005) who also reportedchemistry teaching and tests in colleges of in the United Statesfocused on the symbolic level.

In following sections, the paper describes the development of anew teaching material (Bohr’s Atomic Model Worksheet) andcompares the tutorial instruction on this topic based on twoapproaches on the level of achievement and attitudes towardchemistry lessons. The first approach or the conventional way isbased on the assumption if the students are taught to answerquestions and calculation problems they will understand thechemistry concepts underlying the problems. This teachingapproach is associated with the traditional model of chemicaleducation (Dani Asmadi Ibrahim & Kamisah Osman, 2010). The secondapproach is based on the view that chemistry would be more easilyunderstood if the teaching and learning (and preparation ofteaching materials) takes into consideration the three differentlevels of chemistry learning. This approach is based on thecognitive view of learning and the information processing model(Johnstone, 2006).

WORKSHEET DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY

According to David Merrill, Leston Drake, Mark Lacy and JeanPratt (1996) a systematic approach is needed to createinstructional experiences which make the acquisition of knowledgeand skill more efficient, effective, and appealing. Thus, toensure that the development of the Bohr’s Atomic Model Worksheetis done systematically, the ADDIE model of instructional designprocess is used as guideline. The model has five phases—Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation(Gustafson & Branch, 1997). The following parts of this paperwill describe the five phases of development of the worksheet.

1. Analysis

In this phase, a need analysis is conducted. As a process, a needanalysis is a series of activities conducted to identify problemsin a classroom or workplace and determine whether improvement ininstruction and training is the correct course of action(McArdle, 1998). A need analysis is usually the first step toimplement effective change in an educational setting. A need

5

analysis determines the gaps between the current situation andthe desired and intended situation.

This phase of development of the Bohr’s Atomic Model Work Sheetwill look into the key components of an instructional setting:the students, the instructors (or teachers) and the instructionalmaterials. Student’s normative need and comparative need aredetermined. Normative need is comparison of target group’sperformance against a standard where as comparative need istarget group’s performance compared to other groups. Both needsillustrate gap between current performance level and desiredperformance level of the target group. If such gaps do exist, thenext question is whether the gap is due to the difficulty of atopic or otherwise. Therefore, comparative difficulty of thedifferent topics in the chemistry course and instructors’ viewson learning difficulties are determined. Finally, documentanalysis of the instructional material is done to characterisethe material so that improvements can be proposed.

Part 1: Student Performance Gap

This part aims to determine the students’ performance (Bohr’sAtomic Model achievement) against a standard and comparestudents’ performance of different groups.

Participants of study This study involved 58 students from three different tutorialgroups in the college. Each group represents one of threedifferent levels of chemistry achievement; high, average and low.The level of chemistry achievement is determined by mean testscore rank compared to 78 other tutorial groups in the college.

Table 1: Chemistry achievement level of groups in the study

Group N TestRank

Chemistryachievement

A 20 15/78 high B 19 52/78 average

C 19 74/78 low

MethodThe students then took a test (Bohr’s Atomic Model AchievementTest) to determine level of student achievement of Bohr’s AtomicModel. These students have attended lectures and tutorial

6

classes on the topic. Bohr’s Atomic Model Achievement Test hastwo parts: Part one consists of ten multiple choice questionscarrying ten marks and part two consist of a structural questioncarrying another ten marks. The test has been checked by twoexperienced chemistry lecturer to ensure content validity andminimise errors.

ResultsStudents’ answers for the Bohr’s Atomic Model Achievement Testwere marked. Maximum score for the test is twenty and the scoresobtained are reported as percentage. Test scores show theachievement level of Bohr’s Atomic Model; 0-40% represent lowachievement, 41-69% represent average achievement and 70-100%represent high achievement. As each of the three groups representdifferent level of chemistry achievement, one way ANOVA test wasused to determine whether differences in Bohr’s Atomic Modelachievement levels also exist.

Table 2: Bohr’s Atomic Model Achievement Tests scores andachievement levels.

Group Mean(%)

SD (%)

Achievementlevel

A 53.6 18.9 averageB 41.3 11.5 averageC 29.7 23.6 low

Overall 41.5 21.2 average

Table 3: One way ANOVA test summary for Bohr’s Atomic Modelachievement test for groups A, B and C.

Source SS df MS F P

Between group

6565 2 3282 9.4 0.000302

Within group 19548 56 349.1Total 26113 58

It is shown in Table 2 that Bohr’s Atomic Model Achievement test scores for group A and B are at the average level while group C is at low level. Group A has the highest mean score, followed by B and group C the lowest. Table 3 summarises the one way ANOVA test result and shows that the difference of mean between the groups is significant (p<0.05).

7

Discussion Overall the mean Bohr’s Atomic Model Achievement Test score ofall three groups (A, B and C) as shown in Table 3 is 41.2%. Thismeans that the achievement level is at the low end of the averagescale (40 to 69%). Thus, there is a need to improve the teachingthe topic so that the students’ achievement level can beincreased to “high”. One way ANOVA test on the test scores showsthat differences between the groups are significant. Group A(high chemistry achievers) has the highest score, group B(average achievers) has the second highest score and group C (lowachievers) has the lowest score. Thus, Bohr’s Atomic Modelachievement levels of the groups correspond to their respectivechemistry achievement level.

Part 2. Difficulty of Topics and Instructors’ View

This part aims to compare relative difficulty of differentchapters in the chemistry course based on instructors’ view andlook into their opinion on why some topics are difficult tolearn.

Respondents of studySeventeen out of thirty six chemistry teachers in the college were asked to participate in this study. Their backgrounds are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Background of respondents (instructors)

Respondent Position Grade TotalDG41 DG44 DG48 DG52

Gender Male 4 1 5Female 5 4 2 1 12

Ethnicgroup

Malay 7 5 1 13

Chinese

2 2 4

MethodInstructors’ views and opinions were used to determine relativedifficulty of the chapter, Electronic Structure where Bohr’sAtomic Model is a major subtopic was compared to other chapters.The respondents were asked to complete a Rank of DifficultyQuestionnaire. This questionnaire requires the respondent to rank

8

the seven chapters in the chemistry course according todifficulty; from the most difficult chapter (ranked one) to theleast difficult (ranked seven). The questionnaire also includesan open question as to why a respondent thinks a chapter isdifficult to learn.

ResultCompleted rank of difficulty questionnaires were collected foranalysis. The mean rank sum of each chapter was determined.Chapter with the lowest mean rank sum is considered to be mostdifficult to learn and the relative difficulty decreases withincrease of the mean rank sum. The result is shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Mean rank sum of semester 1 chemistry chapters.

Topic Mean rank sum Final rank Matter 4.12 5

Atomic Structure 3.24 2 Periodic Table 4.65 6

Chemical Bonding 4.00 3 States of Matter 4.06 4

Chemical Equilibrium 4.88 7 Ionic Equilibria 3.06 1

Friedman’s test statistics N X2 df p

17 9.81 6 0.13

Table 5 shows that the most difficult chapter is IonicEquilibria, while the least difficult is Chemical Equilibrium.Atomic Structure is the second most difficult subject to learn.The rank data collected is ordinal, thus a Friedman test wasconducted to determine whether the differences between the ranksum averages were significant. Friedman test statistics however,show they are not (p>0.05).

Based on teachers’ comments, difficulty of learning chapter 2 (Bohr’s Atom Model) is associated with its abstract nature. For example, one of the most experienced teachers among the respondents gave the following comment:

"The abstract concepts are mind-boggling (to students) even with analogies. The topic

9

involves a lot of data, so data processing is difficult if understanding is low. Topics that requires explanation is difficult if students do not understand the concepts in depth. " (Translation)

Another teacher gave similar comment:“This topic is very abstract. To imagine clearly in the mind is difficult. Students do not feelthe importance of why they need to learn these things. They do not see its application inthe lives and teachers also find it difficult to explain the topic." (Translation)

Part 3. Analysis of Teaching MaterialThis part aims to characterise the tutorial question setcurrently used in chemistry classes according to the threelearning levels of chemistry.MethodThis part involved document analysis of the tutorial questionset. Each question in the question set is classified accordingchemistry learning levels. Questions involving description ofobservable phenomena were classified as macroscopic. Questionsinvolving explanation based on particulate nature of matter wereclassified as submicroscopic. And finally learning questioninvolving the use of equations, formulas and specialised symbolswere classified as symbolic.

ResultsResult of analysis according to the three learning levels ofchemistry is shown in Table 6 and Table 7.

Table 6: Classification of tutorial structural questions.

Chemistry learninglevel

No of questions %

Symbolic 10 66.7Macroscopic 2 13.3

Submicroscopic 3 20.0Total 15 100.0

Table 6 clearly show most of questions in the structural questionset are symbolic level questions. Only 13.3 % of the questionstest the understanding of the macroscopic level of chemistry.

Table 7: Classification of multiple choice tutorial questions.

Chemistry learninglevel

No of questions %

Symbolic 3 37.5Macroscopic 1 12.5

10

Submicroscopic 4 50Total 8 100

Table 7 shows that for the multiple choice tutorial question set,submicroscopic level questions make the largest proportion while the macroscopic level questions the smallest.

Discussion Table 6 and 7 show that the teaching material (tutorial questionset), emphasised the symbolic level. This finding is similar toan earlier study (Dani Asmadi Ibrahim & Khairul Nizam Md Dauad,2008) which found that teaching material used in lectures of thesame topic focused on the symbolic level. According to the use ofthe macroscopic, symbolic and submicroscopic framework oflearning chemistry, equal attention must be given to all threelevels. Overemphasis on the symbolic and submicroscopic levelwhile neglecting the macroscopic level makes chemistry difficultto learn. It makes relating chemistry with their prior knowledgeand experience more difficult. It also encourages students toresort to rote learning. Hence, there is a need to improveteaching material by considering what is suggested by threelearning levels of chemistry.

2. Design

Clements (2011) stated that to maximise the likelihood that aplanned education strategy will meet a teaching, learning, orcurriculum need, and be seen to have met it, there are fourdesign requirements:

1. The dimensions requirement: the current situation withrespect to the problem needs to be surveyed so that itwill be adequately addressed in terms of its dimensions—the what, who, why, and how.

2. The various attitudes and motivations of key stakeholdersneed to be identified and taken into account in thedesign— this is called the affect requirement.

3. Those who develop and implement the design should haveappropriate expertise—they should not be invited to beinvolved in the research process purely foradministrative, political or other non-technical reasons.

4. The evaluation requirement: the design should incorporatea means by which the functionality, elegance andeffectiveness of the proposed solution to the problem,can be assessed.

11

Most of the above requirements have more or less been addressedby applying the ADDIE model in developing the tutorial worksheet.However, extra attention has been given to the affect requirementin establishing the design goals of the instructional material.In other words, the material, in this case the Tutorial Worksheetfor Bohr’s Atomic Model is designed to be acceptable to keystakeholders; the college administration, the instructors and thestudents. This is to ensure the material developed is not onlyreported to be effective during testing phase but also can easilybe implemented in the field.

Why a humble worksheet? Low cost. For the administrators the useof the worksheet will incur slightly more (if not as much) costas printing the current tutorial question set. In addition, theuse of the worksheet would not bring drastic change in how theteaching and learning is conducted. Using the worksheet meansthat the teacher simply assign the students to complete theworksheet instead of (or in addition to) the current tutorialquestion set. This means there should be no extra work on part ofthe teachers other than the time and effort spent to familiarisethemselves with the material and three learning levels ofchemistry. Thus, there is little reason for teachers not to use(or try to use) the worksheet. And finally, the students surelywelcome any material that would help them understand chemistrybetter.

3. Development

New teaching material developed for the Bohr’s atomic modeltutorial is in the form of worksheets. Therefore, it is as simpleand easy to use as the conventional tutorial question set. Thisworksheet is also designed with specific goals with respect tothe three learning levels of chemistry among them; to overcomethe problem of emphasis on the symbolic level and give fairconsideration to the macroscopic level; and to demonstrate tostudents the interrelationship between the different levels ofthe chemistry. These are achieved by integrating thecharacteristics of the three learning levels of chemistry intothe worksheet:

1. Teaching begins with the most concrete aspects of the topic or the macroscopic level.This was done by rearranging the sequence of the lesson contentto begin with the macroscopic level (spectrum concept and theline spectrum experiments) instead of the submicroscopic leveland symbolic level (postulates of the Bohr’s atomic model) asfound in most matriculation reference books.

12

2. Equal attention must be given to all three submicroscopic, macroscopic andsymbolic learning levels. Teaching and learning of the Bohr atomic model have been found tobe focused on the symbolic learning level of chemistry whileneglecting the macroscopic level (Dani Asmadi Ibrahim & KhairulNizam Md Dauad, 2008). Similarly, the most questions used intutorial set are problem-type calculation questions which involveuse of formulas as such as Rydberg equation (Dani Asmadi Ibrahim& Kamisah Osman 2011). Again, this shows emphasis on symboliclevel and algorithmic learning. To overcome this weakness, theworksheet is prepared with extra material on line spectrum togive greater emphasis to the macroscopic level and diagrams isused extensively to explain the postulates of Bohr’s AtomicModel. In response to teachers’ comment on the abstract natureof the topic, the use of diagrams is also aimed at helpingstudents visualise the concepts better.

3. The relationship between the three levels must be made explicit.

This is done by the activities and questions in the worksheetthat involves thinking about at least two levels of chemistrylearning; macroscopic and symbolic, macroscopic andsubmicroscopic or submicroscopic and symbolic. It is hoped thatby doing these questions and activities and teacher guidance,students will better understand the relationship betweenmacroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic levels.

4. Implementation

According to Gustafson and Branch (1997) during an implementationphase, a procedure for training the facilitators and the learnersis developed. The facilitators' training should cover the coursecurriculum, learning outcomes, method of delivery, and testingprocedures. Preparation of the learners includes training them onnew tools (software or hardware) and student registration.Implementation is also evaluation of the design. However, becausethe worksheet is designed to be easily implemented and integratedin to current teaching practice there is no change in terms ofcourse curriculum, learning outcomes, method of delivery, andtesting procedures mentioned above. The teacher involved is givenbrief explanation on three learning levels of chemistry and anyqueries on the worksheet are answered. In addition, the teacheris given specific instruction to ask the students to complete theworksheet before tutorial class and discussion of any questionfrom the tutorial question set are to be done only after

13

discussion of the worksheet. For the students, no training isnecessary.

5. Evaluation

In this phase, a quasi experimental study was conducted tocompare the effectiveness of Bohr Atomic Model Tutorial Worksheetagainst conventional tutorial question set on student achievementand attitude toward chemistry lessons.

This study is guided by the following objectives:1. To compare the change in attitude towards chemistry lessons between

students that use the tutorial worksheet and students that use theconventional tutorial question set.

2. To compare the changes in the level of achievement betweenstudents using tutorial worksheet and students who use theconventional tutorial question set.

3. Examine the students’ views on the use of the Bohr‘s AtomModel Tutorial Worksheet.

MethodThis study use the pre test and post test non-equivalent control groupsdesign (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The study used existing tutorial groupsand the students were not randomly assigned to control and treatment group,therefore it is quasi-experimental in nature.

Table 8: Design of study.

Pre test Post testTreatment Group T1,T2 X1 T1,T2, OQControl Group T1,T2 X2 T1,T2

Treatment group used the tutorial worksheet (X1) while the control groupused the conventional tutorial question set (X2). T1 is the Bohr Atomic’Model Achivement Test (BAT) and T2 is the Attitude Towards ChemistryTutorial Scale (ACQ). OQ is an open question questionaire given to thetreatment group to get students view on the use of the tutorial worksheet. ’

Study participantsThis study involved 45 students from two tutorial groups. Both groups hadthe same lecturer for both tutorial and lecture classes. The lecturer thattaught both control and treatment group volunteered to participate in thisstudy. She is senior chemistry lecturer with advanced degree and has 12years of experience teaching chemistry at matriculation level. Bohr’s Atomic Model Achievement Test (BAT)Informal discussions with chemistry teachers at the college foundthat the main purpose of teaching chemistry courses is to ensurethat students get a good result in the Matriculation Program

14

Semester Examination (PSPM). As with the STPM results for formsix students, the` matriculation semester examination results areimportant for placement and selection of courses in universities.In addition, students, parents and the directors of the collegeare very concerned about the examination performance. Thus, moreoften than not teachers will encourage students to do theexamination type questions and discuss how to answer thesequestions as preparation for examination. Therefore, in thisstudy achievement level is measured using examination typequestions.

Chemistry Achievement Test consists of two parts: The first partconsists of 10 objective questions carrying 10 marks and thesecond part consists of a structural question which carries 10marks. The questions were selected and modified from the tutorialquestions set, reference books and sets of questions that havebeen used for internal tests at the college. Pre and post testare reviewed by two experienced teachers to ensure contentvalidity and reduce errors. Scores are reported as percent. Groupmean scores and mean change in scores before and after theteaching sessions of each group, are respectively compared usingt tests.

Attitude Toward Chemistry Tutorial Questionnaire (ACQ)To compare the change in attitude towards chemistry lesson, aquestionnaire modified and translated based on Attitude TowardChemistry Lessons Scale (ATCLS) developed by Cheung (2007) wasused. Determination of internal validity of the translated andmodified questionnaire found the value of Chronbach Alphacoefficient to be 0.74. This questionnaire comprises 12 fivepoint Likert scale questions. The minimum score for ACQ is 12while the maximum is 60. The scores are reported as percentage.Differences between ACQ scores before and after Bohr’s AtomicModel lessons of the two groups were determined and comparedusing a t-test.

15

Open Ended Questionnaire (OQ) Students who used the tutorial worksheet were also asked tocomplete the Open Ended Questionnaire (OQ). This questionnaireconsists of an open question to obtain additional information andfeedback on the students' experiences using the tutorialworksheet.

Results and discussions

Both BAT and ACQ instruments were given to the students in bothcontrol group and treatment group before they had tutorialclasses for Bohr’s Atomic Model. In terms of BAT scores nosignificant difference was found between the two groups (df = 43,p = 0,467, p> 0.05), this indicates that both groups areequivalent in terms of chemistry achievement. However, there aresignificant differences in ACQ scores between the control group(M = 75.2 SD = 10.3) in the treatment group (M = 67.3 SD = 6.4) p<0.005. This suggests that the control group students have betterattitude towards chemistry lesson compared to the treatment groupstudents.

After the tutorial sessions, the students control and treatmentgroup were once again asked to complete both ACQ and BATinstruments. The question of whether the use of worksheet orconventional tutorial question set, more effectively improved theperformance and attitude were answered by comparing thedifference between the two variables before and after teachingand learning. The result is shown in Table 2.

Table 9: Summary of test results

Treatment group Control groupN Mean

(%)SD N Mean

(%)SD p

ΔBAT 23 40.9 20.6 22 40.3 18.9 0.923ΔACQ 23 3.03 2.4 22 0.08 3.9 0.005

BAT – Bohr’s atomic model achievement testACQ– Attitude towards chemistry lesson questionnaire

ΔBAT = post BAT score– pre ACQ scoreΔACQ = post ACQ score– pre ACQ score

Table 9 shows that the increase in BAT scores before and afterthe teaching and learning for both treatment group and controlgroup showed no significant difference. Both groups showedincrease in achievement level by about 40%. This demonstratesthat the use of the worksheet and the conventional question set

16

produced equivalent increase in achievement level. Table 9 alsoshows an increase in ACQ scores before and after the teaching andlearning (ΔACQ) for the treatment group is 3%, while for thecontrol group, ΔACQ is 0.08%. This difference is significant (p<0.05). This shows that use of worksheet improved students’attitude towards chemistry lessons better than use ofconventional tutorial question set. In the determination ofeffect size, Cohen's d value is 0.257. Cohen's d value of greaterthan 0.2 indicates that the use of the worksheet has small effectsize on the increase of attitude towards chemistry lesson scores.

According to the Open Ended Questionnaire (OQ) results,students generally found that the useof tutorial worksheet helped them  understandthe Bohr’s Atom Model topic.  18 out of 23 students’ commentmentioned this effect. Examples of such comments are as follows:

1. “Good, able to understand without confusion and be able to understand Bohr'satomic model in more detail before doing tutorial question set. Has manyadditional notes. Easier to see and find specific notes relating to Bohr AtomicModel. Easier to master the formulas involved.”(Translation)

2. "The worksheet is very helpful in allowing me to understand this topic deeper. Itsummarises the content to be covered in this topic. It is veryeffective.“(Translation)

3. “Suitable for quick revision. Help me understand this chapter better.”

There are students who described how the tutorialworksheet helped them understand the topic and stated theadvantages of using the worksheet. These can be categorised asfollows:A. Helps student answer the tutorials question."I used the Worksheet to answer chemistry tutorial questions. I can answer more easily and am able to understand the topic well. " (Translation)B. Helps students understand and use formulas and equations.“After discussion I understand how to use the formulas better.” (Translation)C. Summarise the topic and simplify content for better understanding.“This note helps me a lot in understanding the particular chapter as the note is short andeasy to understand. It uses simple diagram and words and it helps me a lot.”D. Source of explanation and reference .“Worksheet provided additional reference and better understanding of atomic structure chapter.” (Translation)E. Explained the difference between line spectrum and continuous spectrum.“The material is very helpful. Provide description of Bohr’s Postulates which is easily memorised and understood. Helped in understanding the difference between continuous spectrum and line spectrum." (Translation)

Students also gave views on other issues such as:

17

1. The role of teachers in the use of tutorial worksheet. Threestudents commented that discussions with the teachers aftercompleting the worksheet is important tutorial to enhanceunderstanding

2. Suggestions for improvement. There are comments on how somepart of the worksheet is difficult to complete without theassistance of teacher. In addition there are students wholiked to see more diagrams and conventional exercisequestions in the worksheet.

3. Difficult subtopic and concepts. Students specificallymentioned problems understanding meaning of line series andwavelengths.

4. Students also suggested that similar tutorial worksheets areused for teaching topics other than Bohr’s Atomic Model.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that the use of tutorial worksheet canincrease achievement test scores on par with regular tutorialquestions based teaching practice. It is worth noting thatstudents in the treatment group are exposed to the macroscopic,symbolic and submicroscopic framework of chemistry learning whichis more focused on learning of concepts compared to the algorithmbased learning using the tutorial question set. Thus the threelearning levels of chemistry can be used to teach the Bohr’s AtomModel without negative impact on achievement objectives. Thestudy also found that the use of the tutorial worksheet improvedstudents’ attitude towards chemistry. Although the effect issmall, it is still important because effective teaching shouldnot only enable students to achieve cognitive objectives, butalso have positive impact on attitude towards lessons andlearning.

In general, students’ feedbacks on their experiences using thetutorial worksheet are positive. Its application helps studentslearn and better understand Bohr’s Atomic Model. Advantages ofusing the worksheet are; it simplifies the concepts being taught,it helps students solve calculation questions, it gives clearerunderstanding of the topic, it provides additional informationand notes and it overcomes the students’ confusion on specificsub-topics. In conclusion, the use of this worksheet is a rightstep towards improving chemistry tutorial teaching practices andtutorials diversifying teaching approaches in matriculationcolleges. The study also showed how consideration of the

18

macroscopic, symbolic and submicroscopic framework of chemistrycan be used in teaching and learning.

19

REFERENCES

Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (171-246). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Clements , M. A. (2011). Beyond methodological straightjackets: designing research to meet the mathematics education needs of Southeast Asian nations. Fourth International Conference on Scienceand Mathematics Education CoSMEd 2011. Penang, Malaysia. (CD-ROM)

Cheung, D. (2007). Confirmatory factor analysis of the attitude toward chemistry lessons scale. Second NICE Symposium Proceeding July 30-31, Taipei, Taiwan. Obtained from http://dochoonho.sunchon.ac.kr/NICE2/2ndNICE-Papers/2ndNICE-oral/00029%20Derek%20Cheung.pdf

Dani Asmadi Ibrahim & Khairul Nizam Mohd Dauad (2008). Analysis of syllabus specification of Bohr s atomic model according to the three ’learning levels of chemistry. Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Keenam Program Matrikulasi, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.(CD-ROM).

Dani Asmadi Ibrahim & Kamisah Osman (2010). Model-model pendidikan kimia dan pengajaran kimia peringkat matrikulasi: suatu sorotan. Prosiding Kolokium Kebangsaan Pasca Siswazah Sains Matematik 2010, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. (CD-ROM).

Dani Asmadi Ibrahim & Kamisah Osman (2011). Kemahiran berfikir aras tinggi, pengajaran tajuk model atom dan pencapaian objektif kursus kimia. Prosiding Seminar Majlis Dekan‐dekan Pendidikan IPTA 2011, UPM, Serdang, 105-122.(CD-ROM).

Gabel, D. (2000). Theory based teaching strategies for conceptual –understanding of chemistry. Education Quimica 11(2), 236-243.

Gustafson, K.L. & Branch, R.M. (1997). Survey of Instructional Development Models. Third Edition. New York: Syracuse University.

Holbrook, J. (2005). Making chemistry teaching relevant. Chemical Education International, 6(1), 1-12.

Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.

20

Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemical education research in Glasgow in perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2006, 7(2), 49-63.

Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, 2006. Chemistry SK017 and SK027 Syllabus Specification, Bahagian Matrikulasi, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.

Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representation and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction 13, 205-226.

Mahaffy, P. (2004). The future shape of chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 5 (3), 229-245.

Mc Ardle, G. (1998). Conducting a Need Analysis. Menlo Park,CA: Thomson Crisp Learning.

Meyer, H. (2005). Is it molecules? Again! A review of students’ learning about particle theory. Chemical Education Journal, 9(2).

Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & ID2 ResearchGroup. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.

Norazen Md Dadi, (2007). Students’ understanding of atomic orbital and concepts in atomic structure. Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Program Matrikulasi Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia Tahun 2007. (CD-ROM).

Saul, H. (2003). Difficulties in acquiring theoretical concepts: A case of high school chemistry. Trames, 7(2), 99-119.

Syed Abd Rahim Syed Omar (2007). Gelang getah: meningkatkan pemahaman pelajar dalam menerangkan struktur atom Bohr. Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Program Matrikulasi Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia Tahun 2007. Bahagian Matrikulasi, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (CD-ROM).

Tsaparlis, G. & Papaphotis, G. (2008). Conceptual versus algorithmic learning in high school chemistry: the case of basic quantum chemical concepts. Part 1. Statistical

21

analysis of a quantitative study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 323–331.

22