拼图教学法和粉笔教学法对南非12年级学生反应率成绩的比较研究

Q3 Social Sciences
Israel Kibirige, Moyahabo Jeridah Lehong
{"title":"拼图教学法和粉笔教学法对南非12年级学生反应率成绩的比较研究","authors":"Israel Kibirige, Moyahabo Jeridah Lehong","doi":"10.18844/cjes.v17i11.8448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study compared the Jigsaw Method and the Chalk-and-Talk methods of learners’ achievements in grade 12 reaction rates. A quasi-experimental design was used, with two classes of 44 learners, one class of 21 as the experimental group and another with 23 as the control group. Data were collected using Achievements Test for pre-test and post-tests and analysed using percentages, Means, Standard Deviations, t-tests and Analysis of Covariance. The post-test results from EG using Jigsaw Method and the control group using the Chalk-and-Talk show significant differences. Analysis of Covariance shows significant effects between experimental and control groups post-test using pre-test covariate. The experimental group outperformed the control group, and the former had no significant differences in gender achievements, suggesting Jigsaw Method favours both genders. The experimental group learners had minimal misconceptions compared to the control group. Thus, the Jigsaw Method enabled experimental group learners to overcome difficulties and misconceptions. \nKeywords: : Cooperative learning, conceptual understanding, learners’ achievements","PeriodicalId":37121,"journal":{"name":"Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of the Jigsaw and Chalk-and-Talk Methods on grade 12 learners’ achievements in reaction rates in South Africa\",\"authors\":\"Israel Kibirige, Moyahabo Jeridah Lehong\",\"doi\":\"10.18844/cjes.v17i11.8448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The study compared the Jigsaw Method and the Chalk-and-Talk methods of learners’ achievements in grade 12 reaction rates. A quasi-experimental design was used, with two classes of 44 learners, one class of 21 as the experimental group and another with 23 as the control group. Data were collected using Achievements Test for pre-test and post-tests and analysed using percentages, Means, Standard Deviations, t-tests and Analysis of Covariance. The post-test results from EG using Jigsaw Method and the control group using the Chalk-and-Talk show significant differences. Analysis of Covariance shows significant effects between experimental and control groups post-test using pre-test covariate. The experimental group outperformed the control group, and the former had no significant differences in gender achievements, suggesting Jigsaw Method favours both genders. The experimental group learners had minimal misconceptions compared to the control group. Thus, the Jigsaw Method enabled experimental group learners to overcome difficulties and misconceptions. \\nKeywords: : Cooperative learning, conceptual understanding, learners’ achievements\",\"PeriodicalId\":37121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v17i11.8448\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v17i11.8448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究比较了拼图法和粉笔对话法对12年级学生成绩的反应率。采用准实验设计,两个班44名学生,一个班21名作为实验组,另一个班23名作为对照组。使用测试前和测试后的成就测试收集数据,并使用百分比、平均值、标准差、t检验和协方差分析进行分析。使用竖锯法的EG和使用粉笔和谈话的对照组的测试后结果显示出显著差异。协方差分析显示,使用测试前协变量进行测试后,实验组和对照组之间存在显著影响。实验组的表现优于对照组,前者在性别成就方面没有显著差异,这表明竖锯法有利于两性。与对照组相比,实验组学习者的误解最少。因此,竖锯法使实验组学习者能够克服困难和误解。关键词:合作学习、概念理解、学习者成就
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative study of the Jigsaw and Chalk-and-Talk Methods on grade 12 learners’ achievements in reaction rates in South Africa
The study compared the Jigsaw Method and the Chalk-and-Talk methods of learners’ achievements in grade 12 reaction rates. A quasi-experimental design was used, with two classes of 44 learners, one class of 21 as the experimental group and another with 23 as the control group. Data were collected using Achievements Test for pre-test and post-tests and analysed using percentages, Means, Standard Deviations, t-tests and Analysis of Covariance. The post-test results from EG using Jigsaw Method and the control group using the Chalk-and-Talk show significant differences. Analysis of Covariance shows significant effects between experimental and control groups post-test using pre-test covariate. The experimental group outperformed the control group, and the former had no significant differences in gender achievements, suggesting Jigsaw Method favours both genders. The experimental group learners had minimal misconceptions compared to the control group. Thus, the Jigsaw Method enabled experimental group learners to overcome difficulties and misconceptions. Keywords: : Cooperative learning, conceptual understanding, learners’ achievements
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences
Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences Social Sciences-Education
自引率
0.00%
发文量
283
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信