The study used a quasi-experimental design. The reason for this was that in a school it is rarely neither practical nor feasible to assign samples randomly to treatments, where classes are formed at the start of the academic year (Ross & Morrison, 2004). Many researchers have defined the term experiment. Mosteller (1990), for example, suggests “in an experiment the investigator controls the application of the treatment”. Yaremko, Harari, Harrison, & Lynn (1986, p.72) describe the experiment as where “one or more independent variables are manipulated to observe their effects on one or more dependent variables”. Finally, Shadish, Cook, & Campbel (2002, p.12) describe the experiment as “a study in which an intervention is deliberately introduced [to] its effects”.
The quasi-experimental design allowed for the investigation of the impact and effectiveness of using ICSS program in primary school to improve students’ academic achievement and attitudes. In addition, the perspectives of students and science teachers toward science teaching and learning with use of ICSS were taken into consideration. Leading on from this, the independent and dependent variables were as follows:
A. The independent variables (IV)
Using simulation program (i.e. ICSS) as a treatment to improve science education in two different learning environments.
B. The dependent variables (DV):
- Students’ academic achievement
116
- Students’ attitudes toward teaching and learning science,
- Students’ and teachers’ perspective (opinion or impression) toward using ICSS as a program and tool in teaching and learning science topics.
The study investigated two different ways of using ICSS in the teaching. Two experimental groups were therefore designed.
In the first experimental group (Exg1) teachers and students used interactive computer simulation
software in a computer laboratory environment (ICSS-L). The intention was to create blended learning, with a mixture of teacher-centred (teacher talking to the class) and student-centred (student working on the computer) teaching. 20 minutes was spent on each of these in lessons lasting 40 minutes. This will be referred to as "using simulation in computer lab". An outline of the classroom (computer laboratory) is presented in figure 17.
The activities of the students in the control groups were as follows:
Control group (Cg): Teacher used traditional teaching method, without using computer or other
science. This will be referred to as "using traditional teaching”.
Figure 17. The students’ distribution in simulation in computer lab group and traditional teaching group
The second experimental group (Exg2) used interactive computer simulation software in a classroom
environment (ICSS-C). In this case, there was one computer only and a big screen that could be seen by
Traditional teaching group (Cg)
Simulation in computer lab group (Exg1)
Class 2 Clas3 Class 4 Computer
Lab 1 Computer Lab 2 Computer Lab 4 Computer Lab 3 Teacher Student Computer Data-show Printer Class 1
117
all students in classroom. The teacher was in control of the computer, but students were involved with asking questions and had a say on what actions they wanted the teacher to take. This will be referred to as "using simulation in classroom"
The teacher in the control group used a traditional teaching method, without using computer or other science equipment. This will be referred to as "using traditional teaching”. See figure 18
There were four classes in each of the experimental groups and different control groups were made to match each of these (four classrooms with traditional teaching for each experimental group). Figures 17 & 18 illustrates experimental and control groups.
Figure 18. The students’ distribution in simulation in classroom group and traditional teaching group
The design further included a series of pre- and post-tests to measure students’ knowledge, pre- and post-questionnaires to measure attitudes, a usability questionnaire to students, interviews with teachers and students and observations/self-reports from teachers. Figure 19illustrates this design.
Teacher Student Computer Data-show Printer
Traditional teaching group (Cg)
Classroom 1 Classroom 2 Classroom 4 Classroom 3
Simulation in classroom group (Exg2)
Simulation classroom 1 Simulation classroom 2 Simulation classroom 4 Simulation classroom 3
118
Figure 19. The current study design
The pre-tests were distributed to half of the classrooms in both the experimental and control groups (see Figure 20). The reason for this was the short period between the pre- and post-tests, which may give the pre-test a positive effect on the outcome of the post-test. According to the Solomon design (Krathwohl,1998, p. 511), two schools (one male and the other female) in both experimental groups took the pre-test and post-test and the others took just the post-test. After the intervention, the post-test was distributed to all sixteen classes in experimental and control groups (Figure 20).
As explained in the previous chapter, three topics taught in this experiment included Food chain, the Circulation & digestive system and Electric circuits. Pre- and post-testing was carried out separately for each topic, and distributed before and immediately after the teaching.
Exg1 (blended learning method in computer laboratory) & Exg2 (whole class method in classroom) & Cg (traditional) Post-test Questionnaire about the usability of program for students who use it only
Teachers’ observation; write report in the end of each lessons Students interviewed Pre-attitude for science learning Post-attitude for learning science
Start on Experimental & control group
Data collection Analysis
Teachers interviewed before intervention Teachers interviewed after intervention Pre-test
119
Figure 20. Pre and post-test distribution for two experimental groups with control group As for measuring the students’ attitude toward science teaching and learning, pre -and post- questionnaires were used before teaching of the first topic and after teaching of the final topic. The same questionnaire was used in both occasions. As noted in (Figure 19), the pre-questionnaire was distributed to all students in all classrooms in all groups.
The usability questionnaire was distributed only to the students in the experimental groups (Exg1 and Exg2) to exam the suitability and ease of use of ICSS for science teaching and learning. it was handed out after the teaching of the final topic.
In the end, a group of students were interviewed to examine their opinion and impression of the use of the ICSS program in science teaching and learning. All teachers involved in the study were also interviewed. All interviewed were carried out after the teaching of the last topic.
Teachers were asked to keep a ‘diary’ with observations and reflections made during the intervention. They were asked to do this after each lesson.