The Impact of MOODLE-Supported Cooperative Learning Process on University Students’ Anxiety Levels towards Chemistry Laboratory and on Their Attitudes towards Chemistry
Cemal Tosun 1  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Faculty of Education, Bartın University, Turkey
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Cemal Tosun   

Faculty of Education, Bartın University, Turkey
Publish date: 2017-10-10
 
International Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education 2014;6(2):123–141
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to reveal the impact of MOODLE (Modular Object- Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment)-supported cooperative learning process on Elementary Science Teacher Education Program (ESTEP) undergraduate freshman students ‘anxiety levels towards chemistry laboratory and on their attitudes towards chemistry. Besides, students’ opinions on cooperation process are also worked on. The study was carried out on one group using both pre-and post-test experimental studies. The findings of the study were obtained through qualitative and quantitative approaches. The sample of the study was 46 first-year undergraduate students at a state university in Turkey taking General Chemistry Laboratory-I classes. The study was implemented during the autumn semester of the 2012-2013 academic years and for a period of 28 hours. The quantitative data were obtained using the “Chemistry Laboratory Anxiety Scale”, “Chemistry Course Attitude Scale” and “Cooperation Process Scale”. The qualitative data, on the other hand, were collected via “Questionnaire to Determine Student Opinions on MOODLE-supported Cooperation Groups”. Paired sample ttest was used for the pre-and post-test comparisons. One-sample t-test was used to analyze the data obtained from the cooperation process scale. Qualitative data were subjected to descriptive analysis and then given infrequency and percent tables. The findings of the study revealed that MOODLE-supported cooperative learning process had no impact in decreasing ESTEP students’ anxiety levels towards chemistry laboratory and on their attitudes towards chemistry. It is found that MOODLE-supported cooperative learning process has a positive impact on positive dependency, face-to-face supportive interaction, individual responsibility, small group skills and group process behaviors.
 
REFERENCES (58)
1.
Ardac, D. & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317–337.
 
2.
Arrington, C.A., Hill, J.B., Radfar, R., Whisnant, D.M., & Bass, C.G. (2008).Peer mentoring in the general chemistry and organic chemistry laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education,85(2), 288–290.
 
3.
Azizoglu, N. & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006).Chemistry laboratory anxiety scale. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30, 55-62.
 
4.
Backus, L. (2005). A year without procedures, The Science Teacher,72(7), 54-58.
 
5.
Bay, E. & Cetin, B. (2012).Development of cooperative learning process scale (CLPS). International Journal of Human Sciences,9(1), 533-545.
 
6.
Bowen, C.W. (1999). Development and score validation of a chemistry laboratory anxiety instrument (CLAI) for college chemistry students. Educational and Psychological Measurement,59(1), 171-187.
 
7.
Bowen, C.W. (2000). A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 116- 119.
 
8.
Brown, P.L., Abell, S.K., Demir, A. & Schmidt, F.J. (2006). College science teachers’ views of classroom inquiry. Science Education, 90, 784-802.
 
9.
Byers, W. (2002). Promoting active learning through small group laboratory classes. University Chemistry Education, 6, 28-34.
 
10.
Carpi, A. (2001). Improvements in undergraduate science education using web-based instructional modules: the natural science pages. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1709–1712.
 
11.
Cheung, D. (2007). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107-130.
 
12.
Cheung, D. (2009). Developing a scale to measure students’ attitudes towards chemistry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2185-2203.
 
13.
Deters, K.M. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based chemistry experiments. Hong Kong: Government Logistics Department.
 
14.
Domin, S.D. (2007). Students’ perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during laboratory instruction. Chemistry Educational Research and Practice,8(2), 140-152.
 
15.
Feyzioglu, B., Demirbag, B., Ates, A., Cobanoglu, I., Altun, E. & Akyildiz, M. (2011). Students’ views on laboratory applications: Izmir sample. Elementary Education Online, 10(3), 1208-1126.
 
16.
Forsyth, J. (1996). Teaching and learning materials and the internet, London, Kogan Page.
 
17.
Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N.E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education: London: McGraw Hill.
 
18.
Gordin, D.N., Gomez, L.M., Pea, R.D. & Fishman, B.J. (1996). Using the world wide web to build learning communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(3), Available online at: http://www.usc.edu/dept/annenb....
 
19.
Hackling, M., Goodrum, D. &Rennie, L. (2001).The state of science in Australian secondary schools. Australian Sciences Teachers’ Journal, 47(4), 12-17.
 
20.
Hedeen, T. (2003) The Reverse Jigsaw: A process of cooperative learning and discussion. Teaching Sociology, 31(3), 325-332.
 
21.
Hoffman, J.L., Wu, H.K., Krajcik, J.S. & Soloway, E. (2003).The nature of middle school learners’ science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 323–346.
 
22.
Hofstein, A. & Naaman, R.M. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105-107.
 
23.
Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
 
24.
Jones, M.E., Gott, R. & Jarman, R. (2000). Investigations as part of the key stage 4 science curriculum in Northern Ireland. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14(1), 23-37.
 
25.
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2004).Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. Pearson Education, Inc., Second Edition, 562 p, Boston.
 
26.
Johnstone, A.H. & Al-Shuaili, A. (2001). Learning in the laboratory; some thoughts from the literature. University Chemistry Education,5(2), 42-51.
 
27.
Kinzie, M.B., Larsen, V. A., Burch, J.B. & Boker, S.M. (1996). Frog dissection via the World Wide Web: implication for widespread delivery of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development,44 (2), 59–69.
 
28.
Kurbanoglu, N.I. & Akin, A. (2010).The relationship between university students’ chemistry laboratory anxiety, attitudes, and self-efficacy beliefs. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(8), 48-59.
 
29.
Kurbanoglu, N.I. & Akin, A. (2012). The relationship between university students’ organic chemistry anxiety, chemistry attitudes, and self-efficacy: A structural equation model. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(4), 347-356.
 
30.
Krajcik, J.S. (2000).Advantages and challenges of using the World Wide Web to foster sustained science inquiry in middle and high school classrooms. Keynote Speech, Taipei, Taiwan.
 
31.
Lang, Q.C., Wong, A.F.L. & Fraser, B.J. (2005). Student perceptions of chemistry laboratory learning environments, student-teacher interactions and attitudes in secondary school gifted education classes in Singapore. Research in Science Education, 35, 299-321.
 
32.
Laukenmann, M., Bleicher, M., Fu, S., Glaser-Zikuda, M., Mayring & P. Ve Von Rhöneck, C. (2003). An investigation of the influence of emotional factors on learning in physics instruction.International Journal of Science Education,25 (4), 489-507.
 
33.
Lea, N.S. & Scardamalia, M. (1997).Progressive curriculum and knowledge building uses of networked multimedia resources. Paper Presented at the Meeting of the American Education Research Association AERA, Chicago, IL.
 
34.
Lechtanski, V.L. (2000). Inquiry-based experiments in chemistry. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society/Oxford University.
 
35.
Levine, E. (2001). Reading your way to scientific literacy. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31, 122-125.
 
36.
Lunetta, V.N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In J. B. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249–262). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
 
37.
Lunetta, V.N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007).Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman & S.
 
38.
Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 
39.
Maloof, J. & White, V.K.B. (2005). Team study training in the college biology laboratory. Journal of Biological Education, 39(3), 120-124.
 
40.
McCreary, C.L., Golde, M.F. & Koeske, R. (2006). Peer instruction in the general chemistry laboratory: Assessment of student learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 804– 810.
 
41.
McLaren, B. M., Rummel, N., Pinkwart, N., Tsovaltzi, D., Harrer, A., & Scheuer, O. (2008).Learning chemistry through collaboration: A wizard-of-Oz studt of adaptive collaboration support. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 06). Beijing, China.
 
42.
Mattern, N. & Schau, C. (2002).Gender differences in science attitude-achievement relationships over time among white middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(4), 324-340.
 
43.
Mc Donnell, C., O'Connor, C. & Seery, M. K., (2007) Developing practical chemistry skills by means of student-driven problem based learning mini-projects, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 130-139.
 
44.
Nakhleh, M.B., Polles, J. & Malina, E. (2002). Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust& J. H. Van Driel (Eds.). Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69-94). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 
45.
Neumann, K. & Welzel, M. (2007). A new labwork course for physics students: Devices, methods and research projects. European Journal of Physics, 28, 61–69.
 
46.
Quek, C.L., Wong, A.F.L.& Fraser, B.J. (2002). Gender differences in the perceptions of chemistry laboratory classroom environments. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 18(2), 164-182.
 
47.
Roehrig, G.H. & Luft, J.A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24.
 
48.
Ryder, R. J. & Graves, M. F. (1997). Using the internet to enhance students’ reading, writing, and information-gathering skills. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 244– 254.
 
49.
Sanger, M.J. & Badger, S.M. II (2001).Using computer-based visualization strategies to improve students’ understanding of molecular polarity and miscibility, Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1412–1416.
 
50.
Senocak, E. (2011). A study on adaptation of the attitudes towards chemistry lessons scale into Turkish. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(2), 114-129.
 
51.
Shibley, Jr. I.A. & Zimmaro, D.M. (2002). The influence of collaborative learning on student attitudes and performance in an introductory chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education,79(6), 745-748.
 
52.
Stewart, B.Y. (1988). The surprise element of a student-designed laboratory experiment.Journal of College Science Teaching, 17, 269–270.
 
53.
Tsaparlis G. & Gorezi M.(2005). A modification of a conventional expository physical chemistrylaboratory to accommodate an inquiry/project-based component: method and students’ evaluation.Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 5, 111-131.
 
54.
Tuvi, I. & Nachmias, R. (2001). Current state of web sites in science education focus on atomic structure. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 293–303.
 
55.
Vazques-Abad, J. (1999). ‘Hebdo-Chim’, a web application to support learning in a chemistry methods pre-service course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 283–290.
 
56.
Wagner, E.P. (2000). Customized internet assessments. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30, 454–459.
 
57.
Witteck, T., Most, B., Kienast, S. & Eilks, I. (2007). A lesson plan on ‘methods of separating matter’ based on the learning company approach: A motivating frame for self-regulated and open lab-work in introductory secondary chemistry lessons, Chemistry Education Research and Practice,8(2), 108-119.
 
58.
Yaron, D., Freeland, R., Lang, D. & Milton, J. (2000).Using simulations to transform the nature of chemistry homework. A progress report, Department of Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
 
eISSN:1306-3049