Plan and Implementation of Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) Instructional Approach and Students’ Academic Performance in Chemistry

Abstract

The study was on how to plan a Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) instructional package and investigate if the implementation of CVH instructional package in Chemistry classroom could enhance students’ academic performance. The study adopted a pre-test, post-test, control group, quasi-experimental research design. The instruments used for data collection was Chemistry Academic Performance Test (CAPT). Kuder-Richardson (KR-21) formula was used to test internal consistency of CAPT which yielded a reliability value of 0.87. The population of the study was made up of 8637 Senior Secondary 2 students offering Chemistry in the 47-government approved secondary schools in the study area. A sample of 152 students was purposively sampled from four schools out of 47 schools in the study area. Two research questions and three null hypotheses guided the study. The research questions were answered using Mean and Standard Deviation scores while the null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance using results from Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). The study revealed that there is a significant difference between CVH and discussion method of teaching in favor of CVH approach [F (1,151) = 143.005, p < 0.05]. It was found that no significant difference between the mean academic performance of male and female students taught Chemistry using CVH approach [F1, 100 = .420, P > 0.05]. It is also found that there is no significant difference between the mean academic performance of male and female students taught Chemistry using CVH approach [F1, 100 = .420, P > 0.05]. It was revealed that there is no significant interaction effect of treatments and gender on the mean academic performance scores of students in Chemistry [F1, 151 = .019, P > 0.050]. It was recommended among others that since CVH approach was found to be effective approach for improving students’ academic performance regardless of gender.

1. Introduction

Education is perceived as the master key to achieving a sustainable society. There is no doubt that the field of Chemistry and the industries related to it are in the economic heart of every highly developed industrial society [1, 2]. Chemistry is among the essential science subjects taught at the senior secondary school level in Nigeria. Chemistry is a broad science, embracing the concepts of creation of molecules, manipulation of atoms and dealing with the microscopic and macroscopic scales [3]. It covers the interaction with plants, animals and human through agriculture, biology, medicine and with the physical world through electronics, new building materials and sources of energy. Despite the usefulness of Chemistry to national advancement, various challenges plague the learning and teaching of Chemistry at the senior secondary schools [3]. The poor academic performance of students was traced to the teaching methods adopted by Chemistry teachers in secondary schools. The conventional teaching methods with it obvious and serious limitations was still observed as a popular teaching method in Chemistry classrooms. This necessitated the search for a better innovative teaching approach that have the potential of enhancing students’ academic performance in Chemistry.

Based on this a lot of researchers recommended some instructional strategies over the years to control the problem of learning outcome of students in the subject. [4, 5, 6] recommended that the use of guided inquiry, study questions and field trip strategies to enhance academic performance of students. [1, 7] recommended expository, question and discussion to enhance students’ Chemistry performance. Despite the supposed effectiveness of these varieties of strategies, students offering Chemistry persistently perform poor in external examination. It is against this deplorable trend that the researcher concluded that, Chemistry teaching can only be effective when teachers are favorably disposed to using innovative strategies that can equip learners to think collaboratively about their cognition, monitor their learning experiences and evaluate the outcomes of these experiences. Based on this, the author plan or design Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) instructional packages that have the potential to facilitate meaningful learning.

Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) is an instructional approach where four or more students in a small group setting are engaged in coordinated and sustained efforts in the creation of a V-shaped diagram to represent key elements (ideas) that are contained in the structure of knowledge with two sides namely the theoretical (thinking side) on the left and methodological (doing side) on the right in order to monitor their learning activities and evaluate the results of these activities, thereby enhancing conceptual understanding of scientific knowledge. This approach focuses on integrating students’ previous or prior knowledge relevant to a situation and exploring the appropriateness of these knowledge or experience. The approach of Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) was created from Vee Heuristic (VH) by the researcher to emphasize that, knowledge is a social construct and as a result, instruction need to involve learners working in teams or groups to accomplish a common goal easily and successfully.

A Vee heuristic diagram is a V-shaped diagram showing the relationships between conceptual or theoretical and methodological framework and the resultant knowledge or value claims of a concept [8]. Vee Heuristic strategy is a tool that helps in seeing the interplay between what is known and what needs to be known or understood. Vee Heuristic (VH) instructional strategy was first introduced in 1995 by Gowin Vee. Based on the assimilation theory of Ausubel, [8] developed the epistemological “V” to help students understand the structure and process of knowledge construction. The scholar argued that the major motive behind the VH strategy is a willingness to improve and develop experiments and activities that enhance understanding of scientific concepts.

The difference between Vee Heuristic (VH) and Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) is that CVH emphasizes on collaborative learning. Collaborative learning is an umbrella for a variety of educational strategies involving joint efforts by both teacher and learners. Collaboratives connote sharing ideas. Collaborative learning engages learners in active learning where they work and learn together in small groups to accomplish shared goals. Thus, the researcher plans a 7-step format for Collaborative Vee Heuristic instructional package as follows.

Step I: Set induction.

Teacher activity;

• Makes known to the students the teaching technique and its demand on them. The teacher explains that Vee heuristic is a learning strategy that involves making of a V-shaped diagram representation with two sides namely the theoretical (thinking side) on the left and methodological (doing side) on the right.

• The teacher rehearses each of the elements in the Vee heuristic process. The elements in the thinking side includes; theory, principles, constructs and relevant concepts that constitute the prior knowledge of the learner (what the learner knows) on the left hand side of the V-shaped diagram and the elements in the doing side includes; value claims, knowledge claims (facts), transformations and records on the right hand side that shows how to carry out a learning task for example an experiment in order to answer the focus question. At the tops and tips of the V-diagram are focus question and events or objects respectively.

• Teacher then probes into students’ prior knowledge through questioning. He coordinates the students’ responses and then introduces the topic to the whole class.

Students’ activity;

• Students jot down some points as the teacher speaks.

• Students answer the questions asked by the teacher. They are also allowed to ask questions.

Step II: Formation of groups/pooling of ideas.

Teacher activity; Teacher to

• Share students out into groups of five to seven depending on the class size.

• Ask students to assume different roles.

• A few minutes of full-class discussion will provide the students with the opportunity to reflect on their past experiences and understanding.

Students’ activity; Students to

• Move to their respective groups and assume their different roles viz.: captain, recorder, timekeeper and so on

• Students listen to the teacher explanation, and they are asked to increase their list of ideas, fact, and concepts on topic as the lesson progresses as well as write out responses to the questions asked by the teacher.

• They are also allowed to ask questions.

Step III: Group brainstorming (thinking).

Teacher activity;

• Asks students to write out all facts, ideas or thought that they feel based on their prior experience on the conceptual or theoretical side (Thinking side) of V-shaped diagram under the following Vee heuristic conceptual epistemological elements; associated words, theory, principles, constructs, and relevant concepts in relation to the focus question(s).

• Each member of the group is expected to write down their ideas/thoughts on pieces of papers.

• Ask the students to write down their ideas/thoughts on the Vee worksheet (cardboard provided) as agreed upon by the group.

• Teacher goes round various groups to supervise the activities.

Students’ activity;

• Each student write out their ideas/thought on pieces of paper in relation to the focus question(s).

• All members spread out their papers on a flat surface, where it can easily be read. Have a look at each other’s thoughts and make quick comments.

• Then, the recorder for the group or whoever is assigned, write down their thought as agreed upon by the group and directed by the group captain on the Vee worksheet for the group.

Step IV: Group carrying out learning task (doing).

Teacher activity;

• At this stage, teacher asks students to carry out a learning task. For example, an experiment to answer the focus question(s).

• Asks students to write down or record the findings of such learning task on the methodological side (doing side) of V-shaped diagram under the following Vee heuristic methodological epistemological elements; value claims, knowledge claims (facts), transformations and records.

• Each member of the group is expected to write out their experimental findings on pieces of papers.

• All members spread out their papers on a flat surface, where it can easily be read. Have a look at each other’s thoughts and make quick comments.

• Ask the students to write down their experimental findings on the Vee worksheet (cardboard provided) as agreed upon by the group.

• Teacher serves as facilitator guiding the students in various groups to do the right thing.

Students’ activity;

• Students engage in the learning task as directed by the teacher.

• Each student writes out their findings on pieces of paper.

• All members spread out their papers on a flat surface, where it can easily be read. Have a look at each other’s experimental findings and make quick comments.

• Then, the recorder for the group or whoever is assigned, write down their findings as agreed upon by the group and directed by the group captain on the Vee diagram for the group.

Step V: Presentation of group Vee diagram.

Teacher activity; Teacher

• Ask each group to present their Vee worksheet in full-class discussion, by placing the worksheet on a chalkboard. (At this stage, the Vee worksheet contains highlight of the thinking and the experimental findings for each group)

• Asks the team leaders or appointed group representatives to come out and make their presentations.

Students’ activity; Students

• Team leaders or selected group representatives makes their respective presentations in full-class discussion while member watch, listen, discuss and make contributions at the end of each presentation.

Step VI: Summary and final class Vee diagram.

Teacher activity; Teacher

• After group presentations of Vee diagram has been done, you might invite the class to discuss which thinking and experimental finding they now think are best. (This exercise is valuable for both the students and the teacher. Having full-class discussion will helps the students to reconcile any conflict between their thinking and experimental findings) (When students correlate their thinking with their experimental findings, they reconstruct their thinking).

• At this stage, the class teacher or anyone he or she may choose, harmonizes the ideas from the respective Vee diagrams posted on the board into one class Vee diagram.

• Eventually a Vee diagram that depicts the understanding of the entire class is drawn.

• Ask the students to disengage from their groupings.

Students’ activity; Students

• Reconcile any conflict between their thinking and experimental findings.

• Students move to their respective sits.

Step VII: Evaluation.

Teacher activity;

• Teacher encourages students to copy the final class Vee diagram and compare it with their respective group diagrams.

• To submit a neatly drawn and beautifully arranged individual Vee diagrams the next class.

Students’ activity; Students

• Students will perform all the tasks as detailed above and they are allowed to ask questions.

As the Vee heuristic diagram is constructed, students working in groups talk with one another to develop each area of the diagram. They agree on selected words and events and decide how to analyze data. In this setting, students can socially construct their knowledge with peers. The teacher can then move among the groups and effectively assist each group in developing their knowledge. Thus, it may be possible that Chemistry could be simplified and made easier to understand as students go through Vee heuristic teaching/learning steps or phases collaboratively. Thus, the study investigated if CVH instructional package proposed by the researcher could enhance students’ academic performance in Chemistry in senior secondary schools.

1.1 Purpose of the study

The purpose of the study was to investigate if Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) enhances students’ academic performance in Chemistry. Specifically, the study;

1. Investigate the effect of CVH on students’ academic performance in Chemistry.

2. Investigate the difference in effect of CVH between male and female students’ academic performance in Chemistry.

3. Investigate the interaction effect between strategies and gender on students’ academic performance in Chemistry.

1.2 Research questions

The following research questions guided the study:

1. What is the difference in the academic performance between students taught Chemistry using CVH and those taught using discussion method?

2. What is the difference in the academic performance between male and female students taught Chemistry using CVH?

1.3 Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were tested:

1. There is no significant difference in the academic performance between students taught Chemistry using CVH and those taught using discussion method.

2. There is no significant difference in the academic performance between male and female students taught Chemistry using CVH.

3. There is no significant interaction effect of treatments and gender on the mean academic performance scores of students in Chemistry.

2. Methods

2.1 Research design

The study employed pre-test, post-test quasi experimental design.

2.2 Study area

The study area was Ado Local Government Area of Ekiti State, Nigeria.

2.3 Population

The population of the study was made up of 8637 Senior Secondary 2 students in the 47-government approved secondary schools.

2.4 Sample

152 students were purposively sampled from four schools.

2.5 Research instrument

One instrument known as Chemistry Academic performance Test (CAPT) was used to collect data for this study. CAPT is a researcher made instrument that contains two sections. Section A contains bio-data information of the respondents, while section B contains 40 multi-choice objective items questions which respondents are expected to provide the correct answer by ticking the correct options (A–D).

2.6 Validation of instrument

Chemistry Academic performance Test (CAPT) was validated by three experts of Science Education and two experts in Measurement and Evaluation all from Benue State University, Makurdi. Corrections and suggestions arising from these experts were used to review the instrument before it was used.

2.7 Reliability of the instrument

Kuder-Richardson (KR-21) was used to obtain the CAPT reliability, which yielded a coefficient value of 0.87.

2.8 Experimental procedure

The conduct of the study took place during the normal school lesson periods. The normal timetable of the schools for the study were followed. Before the commencement of the actual treatment, the researcher used 1 week for the training of the Chemistry teachers who served as research assistants. The training program was to ensure the homogeneity of instructional situation across all groups. The training for the experimental group only differs from that of the control group by the use of CVH. The sample was divided into two groups namely; experimental and control group.

During lessons, the experimental group was taught Chemistry using CVH in line with lessons procedure prepared by the researcher while the control group was taught the same Chemistry topics using the discussion lesson notes which lasted for 4 weeks. The study covers three sub-topics under Chemistry which includes alkane, alkene, and ethanol and redox reaction selected from the SS2 scheme of work. The choice of the sub-topics was to help students overcome the difficulties associated with academic performance in Chemistry as one of the areas that standout as problem areas to Chemistry students in the report by the Chief Examiner’s for West African Examination Council (2018/2019). Chemistry Academic performance Test (CAPT) was administered as pre-test by the researcher with the assistance of the sampled schools Chemistry teachers. This lasted for 1 week before actual teaching commences. At the end of these periods, the post-CAPT was administered which lasted for 1 week.

2.9 Data analysis

The descriptive statistics of Mean and standard deviation were used to answer to the research questions while the inferential statistics of ANCOVA was used to test the null hypotheses.

3. Results

3.1 Research question 1

What is the difference in the academic performance between students taught Chemistry using CVH and those taught using discussion method? The answer to research question one is contained in Table 1.

Group	N	PRE-CAPT		POST-CAPT
		$\stackrel{\sim }{x}$	$\delta$	$\stackrel{\sim }{x}$	$\delta$	Mean gain
CVH	79	9.46	1.12	22.64	1.31	13.18
Discussion	73	9.44	1.14	14.22	1.22	4.78
Mean difference		0.02		8.42		8.40

Table 1.

Mean academic performance and standard deviation scores of students using CVH and discussion method.

The results in Table 1 reveal that, the pre-test mean scores for CVH and discussion groups are 9.46 and 9.44 respectively with their standard deviation scores of 1.12 and 1.14 respectively. The post-test mean scores accordingly were 22.64 and 14.22 with their standard deviation scores of 1.31 and 1.22 respectively. The overall difference between the CVH and discussion groups was 8.40 in favor of CVH group. This implies that the learners in CVH had higher academic performance than their counterpart in discussion group.

3.2 Research question 2

What is the difference in the academic performance between male and female students taught Chemistry using CVH? The answer to research question two is contained in Table 2.

Group	Gender	N	PRE-CAPT		POST-CAPT		Mean gain within gender
			$\stackrel{\sim }{x}$	$\delta$	$\stackrel{\sim }{x}$	$\delta$
CVH approach	Male	56	10.23	3.64	28.21	5.25	17.98
	Female	45	10.07	2.66	27.53	5.02	17.46
Mean diff. between gender			0.16		0.68		0.52

Table 2.

Mean academic performance and standard deviation scores of male and female students taught Chemistry using CVH approach.

Table 2 reveals the mean academic performance and standard deviation scores of male and female students taught Chemistry using Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH). The data in Table 2 show that the pre-test mean scores for male and female students were 10.23 and 10.07 with standard deviation scores of 3.64 and 2.66 respectively while the post-test mean scores were 28.21 and 27.53 with standard deviation scores of 5.25 and 5.02 respectively. The mean difference of both sexes was 0.52. This difference though small is in favor of the male students. This implies that male students achieved slightly higher than their female counterparts in CVH approach class.

3.3 Hypothesis 1

There is no significant difference in the academic performance between students taught Chemistry using CVH and those taught using discussion method. The analysis of hypothesis one is contained in Table 3.

Source	Type III sum of square	$\mathrm{df}$	Mean square	F	Sig.	Partial eta squared
Corrected model	4993.093a	4	1422.253	26.774	.000	.437
Intercept	4776.238	1	4776.238	94.999	.000	.408
TPr^CAPT	89.341	1	89.341	1.962	.154	.017
Group	4235.021	1	4235.021	143.005	.000	.692
Gender	29.027	1	29.027	.487	.401	.002
Group*Gender	.451	1	.451	.019	.503	.000
Error	6529.110	149	5.621
Total	94124.030	152
Corrected total	13613.303	151

Table 3.

Analysis of covariance for academic performance scores of students taught using CVH and discussion method.

a

R squared = .337 (Adjusted R Squared = .327).

ANCOVA Test result in Table 3 reveals that there is a significant difference between CVH and discussion method of teaching in favor of CVH approach [F(1,151) = 143.005, p < 0.05]. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. This implies that CVH was highly effective than discussion method in improving students’ academic performance in Chemistry. Meanwhile, the effect size was 0.692 as shown by the corresponding partial eta squared value is considered as large effect size. This implies that, 69.2% of the variance in the academic performance scores among the groups was explained by the treatments. Hence, the difference in the academic performance among the groups has a large statistical effect size.

3.4 Hypothesis 2

There is no significant difference in the academic performance between male and female students taught Chemistry using CVH. The analysis of hypothesis two is contained in Table 4.

Source	Type III sum of squares	$\mathrm{df}$	Mean square	F	Sig.	Partial eta squared
Corrected model	15.224a	2	7.612	.284	.753	.006
Intercept	6811.882	1	6811.882	254.507	.000	.722
TPr^CPT	3.655	1	3.655	.137	.713	.001
Gender	11.231	1	11.231	.420	.519	.004
Error	2622.974	98	26.765
Total	81319.000	101
Corrected total	2638.198	100

Table 4.

ANCOVA result for academic performance of male and female students taught Chemistry using CVH approach.

a

R squared = .006 (Adjusted R Squared = −.015).

ANCOVA Test result in Table 4 reveals that there is no significant difference between the mean academic performance of male and female students taught Chemistry using Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) approach [F_{1, 100} = .420, P > 0.05]. The null hypothesis is therefore not rejected. This means that CVH approach enhanced both male and female students’ academic performance in Chemistry. Meanwhile, the effect size was 0.004 is considered as very small effect size. This implies that, only 0.4% of the difference in the academic performance of male and female students taught Chemistry was explained by CVH approach. Hence, the difference in the academic performance of male and female students taught Chemistry using CVH approach has small statistical effect size.

3.5 Hypothesis 3

There is no significant interaction effect of treatments and gender on the mean academic performance scores of students in Chemistry. The analysis of hypothesis three is contained in Table 3.

The data analysis of Table 3 is used to explain hypothesis 3. The table presents the ANCOVA for academic performance of students taught Chemistry using Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) and discussion method (DM). The table also presents the interaction effect of instructional strategies and gender. The data in Table 3 reveals that there is no significant interaction effect of treatments and gender on the mean academic performance scores of students in Chemistry [F_{1, 151} = .019, P > 0.050]. The null hypothesis is therefore not rejected. Meanwhile, the effect size was 0.000 as indicated by the corresponding partial eta squared value which is considered as small effect size. This implies that, only 0.0% of the interaction in the academic performance scores among groups was explained by treatments and gender. Hence, the interaction of treatments and gender on students’ academic performance has small statistical effect size.

4. Discussion

This research focuses on how to design Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) instructional package and it also investigated if the utilization of CVH can enhance students’ academic performance in Chemistry in Nigeria. CVH can be used in educational environment to foster students’ thinking skills and force them to use these thinking skills as well as constructing positive attitudes for deeper thinking. Hence, a seven-step format for CVH instructional package designed the researcher and the effectiveness of CVH instructional package in enhancing students’ academic performance in Chemistry was also investigated. The finding of the study revealed that students taught Chemistry using Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) performed significantly higher than their counterparts taught using discussion method. This finding agrees with [9] who found that students taught Biology using VH approach had higher academic performance than those taught using traditional teaching method. Similarly, this is in line with [10, 11] findings that students improved significantly in their academic performance in Physics and Biology respectively when taught using VH approach compared to those taught using lecture method. The likely explanation for this outcome may also be connected to the fact that the use of VM approach provides a format for students to construct their knowledge about a concept. Students can see how scientific knowledge is developed through the process of reflecting on what they know and the investigation they undertake. Unlike, when compared to discussion method that only promotes passive learning. Therefore, Using CVH approach will make students begin to appreciate practical Chemistry as Vee diagram generated can be used in place of any laboratory report.

The study also revealed that male students achieved slightly higher than their female counterparts using Collaborative Vee Heuristic (CVH) approach, but ANCOVA test shows that the difference was no significant. This implies that, the difference in the academic performance of male and female students taught Chemistry using VH approach was not statistically significant. This means that CVH approach enhanced both male and female students’ academic performance in Chemistry. This finding agrees with [11] who found that Vee heuristic teaching approach facilitated students’ academic performances in Biology regardless of gender in Public Secondary Schools in Kenya. However, the finding contradicts the finding of [9] who found that female students had higher academic performance than their male counterparts in Biology using VH approach. Thus, the interaction effect between strategies and gender on the academic performance of students in Chemistry is very minimal but ANCOVA test shows that the interaction effect was not significant. Therefore, if CVH approach is implemented in classroom, it will enable male and female students to understand how concepts and processes are meaningfully learn because its purpose is to interplay between what is familiar and what they have yet to be known or understood in Chemistry in external examinations such as West African Examination Council (WAEC) and National Examinations Council (NECO).

5. Conclusion

The use of Collaborative Vee Heuristic is more effective in facilitating and enhancing students’ academic performance in Chemistry than discussion approach. By implication, this affirmed that students’ academic performance in Chemistry depend on the instructional strategies. It is also evident from the findings of this study that CVH can foster students’ academic performance irrespective of gender differences. Thus, CVH is significantly a very useful package for effective learning and teaching of Chemistry. Based on this the following recommendations are made:

1. Chemistry teachers should adopt CVH for teaching since it was found to be an effective package in improving students’ academic performances in Chemistry to prepare students for the study of Chemistry in higher institutions.

2. Workshops should be organized through administrators and professional bodies such as Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN) to sensitize Chemistry teachers with a view to improving their skills and experiences on the usage of CVH approach aimed at developing students’ academic performances in Chemistry to prepare students for the study of Chemistry in higher institutions.