© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 The impact of 5E ...ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19L1960.pdf ·...

© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

IJRAR19L1960 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 613

The impact of 5E’s Constructivist Model on

Achievement of Science and Retention of Learning

among Seventh Grade Students. *Hemant Lata Sharma

*Professor, Department of Education, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak

**SARITA

**Research Scholar, Department of Education, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of five elements of Constructivist model on student’s

performance and Retention of learning in Science of seventh grade students. In order to achieve the objectives of

study, Pre-test post-test control group quasi experimental design was used. Experimental and control groups were

equated before conducting the experiment on intelligence and Socio-economic status. Sample consisted of eighty

students studying in seventh class of Ranjit Public School, Chirya Carkhi Dadri district. The students in control

group were taught by conventional method and experimental group by Constructivist approach method. To

determine retention of learning same achievement test was given to students after 15 days of experiment. The

findings of the study revealed that Constructivist approach is very effective in enhancing academic achievement

and retention of learning of 7th class students in Science.

Key words: Constructivist approach, Academic achievement, Retention

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Before the beginning of 19th Century, the quest of science was either a hobby of the few people or the unity of

effort of those with scientific talent (Das, 1985; Wachanga, 2002). Since then, science has developed to today where

people live in a scientific civilization in which science is no longer confined to a few devoted persons (Newton,

1988). No sector of present era is devoid of science and technology. In other words, science affects all aspects of

human life hence every member in the society should acquire scientific knowledge. The teaching of science

therefore, becomes part of the general education of the society (Mohapatra, 1989). Scientific knowledge is

necessary to fully participate in human culture and democracy-especially as it becomes more technological. The

future of nation depends on scientifically literate public. The new vision for science education emphasizes the need

for consistent science instruction throughout a student’s academic career. Scientific literacy is a developmental

process that takes year of concerted effort to cultivate (Cafarella, Mcculloch & Bell 2017). That is why, Science

education occupies an important place in school curriculum since beginning. By studying science young minds

entering in elementary schools with reasoning skills and perceptions of the natural world actively understand the

world around them. They develop high order thinking skill, skill of planning and conducting investigation, gathering

http://www.ijrar.org/



information, team work and act responsibly when they get training of using scientific equipments and applying

scientific knowledge through new approaches of teaching. All these skills provide a sound basis for learning of

science. In order to develop favourable attitude towards science and deal with vibrant subject, which allows students

to explore their world and discover new things and increase their thinking skills a teacher has to adopt different

types of instructional approaches so as to make it more meaningful. Science teachers should try innovative strategies

so that teaching- learning process become more interactive, collaborative and learner centred. Learner centred

approaches help the teacher in making classroom environment lively and at the same time it helps students in

developing such skills which prove a boon to the students both in understanding as well as in creating interest in

the subject. The teaching approach that a teacher adopts is one factor that may affect students’ achievement (Mills,

1991) and increase high order thinking skills. Many learner centered approaches are being used by the teacher for

this purpose like cooperative learning, blended learning, flipped classroom and smart classroom etc. Among such

learner centered approaches Constructivist approach is one which is based on the belief that knowledge is not a

thing that can be simply given by the teacher at the front of the room to students in their desks. Rather knowledge

is constructed by learners through an active mental process of development (Sharma & Poonam, 2015)

1.2 Constructivism

Constructivism is basically a theory-based on observation and scientific study about how people learn.

Constructivist theory holds the belief that learning is a process in which individuals construct their own knowledge

through meaningful interactions with the world. In this process, they tend to create new knowledge by asking

questions, explaining and assessing what they already know. The concept of ‘Constructivism’ has roots in classical

antiquity with Socrates’ dialogues. In this century, Jean piaget and John Dewey developed theories of childhood

development and education, what we now call progressive education that led to the development of Constructivism.

Piaget believed that human learns through the construction of one logical structure after one another. He

demonstrated empirically that children’s mind are not tabula rasa rather children actively process their experiences.

The implications of Piaget theory have shaped the foundations for constructivist education. Dewey believed that

knowledge is constructed by a participant and there is relationship between the individual, the community and the

world mediated by socially constructed ideas (Oxford, 1997 pp 35-66). Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner and David

Ausubel added new perspectives to constructivist learning theory and practice. Vygotsky introduced the social

aspect of learning into Constructivism. He was of the view that social interaction of learners with each other as well

as with their teachers are central for constructing knowledge and new meaning by learners.

Use of Constructivist learning approach in the classroom help the teacher in making teaching-learning process

learner centered. When learners are faced with the new knowledge, they tend to relate it to their previous

experiences and either modify their own ideas or discard the new information (Sharma & Sarita,2018). Learners

take active part and teacher help them to construct knowledge rather to reproduce series of facts. The teacher

encourage observation, collaboration and multiple interpretation collaboration among students and using peer as

resources help them to review on their learning processes and pick up strategies and methods from one another.

Ching-Chung (2000) found that students learn better through Constructivist instructions than traditional

instructions. Chinwe & Chinyere (2010) found that the constructivist instructional approach was more effective in




facilitating student’s achievement in ecological concepts. Vaca (2010) found that Constructivist Teaching Strategies

are more effective than traditional method on Science achievement. Etuk and Samual (2011), found that the

Constructivist strategy was more effective than expository strategy in facilitating pupil’s achievement and attitude

towards primary science. Ekon, Ekwueme & Meremikwu (2014) found that constructivist instructional method

(CIM) enhanced their academic achievement and interest.

Various studies conducted on the Constructivist approach indicate that through this approach, classroom teaching

become a socially interactive process. Here teachers provide interactive learning activities to the learners which in

turn develop high order thinking skills among them and enhance their performance. As a result, learning is best

achieved by active participation of the students.

1.3 5 E’s Constructivist model

It is based on constructivist approach. It is based on the assumption that learners construct new knowledge on the

basis of their previous experiences and knowledge. As per National Curriculum Framework (2005), Teaching-

learning process is now shifted from transformation of information to construction of knowledge. Teaching-learning

process is now an active and collaborative enterprise where learners play an active role. Therefore, As the name

suggest this 5Emodel has five steps. All starts with English alphabet ’E’.

Engagement: At this stage, teacher should stimulate students to draws their attention, involving in the learning

process and make connections between past and present learning experiences through varied interesting and

meaningful activities; where raised questions concerning the pre-defined problem at this stage, have the students

reveal their ideas and beliefs, compare students’ ideas, let them work individually or in cooperative groups, then

the students should become mentally engaged in the concept, process, or skill to be learned.

Exploration: At this stage, the student will interact with new experiences that arouse many questions that may be

difficult to answer, and then by doing activities and try to find an answer to these questions will lead him to discover

relationships that were not known to him before, and the teacher's role will be act as facilitator to enhance continuing

such activities until the clear image of scientific concept become apparent. At this phase student’s questioning skill

will be developed.

Explanation: At this stage, the student will benefit from the results of the previous two phases where he can correct

his misconception, and the teacher's role is to collect information from students to help them in organizing and

summarizing and process it mentally until the concepts, operations, and skills become understandable and clear;

then student, at this stage reach the new ideas offered by teacher and has the ability to re-formulated these ideas in

a scientific manner, and the teacher start to draw and connect the student's interpretations with these experiences to

make sure that the student is able to interpret the exploratory experiments using scientific terms correctly.

Elaboration: At this stage, teachers challenge and extend students’ conceptual understanding and skills. Through

new experiences, the students develop deeper and broader understanding, more information, and adequate skills.

Students apply their understanding of the concept by conducting additional activities.

Evaluation: At this stage, students receive feedback on the adequacy of their explanations and abilities, informal

evaluation can occur from the beginning of the instructional sequence. It is an on-going diagnostic process that

allows the teacher to determine if the learner has attained understanding of concepts and knowledge. Evaluation




and assessment can occur at all points along the continuum of the instructional process. Some of the tools that assist

in this diagnostic process are: determined hand-in-hand with the lesson design, teacher observation structured by

checklists, student interviews, portfolios designed with specific purposes, project and problem-based learning

products, and embedded assessments.

Focussed activities in these five elements of Constructivism provide enough opportunities to use their mind to

interpret, analyze and manipulate information. As a result, the expanded use of the mind develop help in developing

reasoning, decision making, problem solving and divergent thinking abilities among the learners. These High order

thinking skills in turn help them to meet new challenges.

The aim of the study is to see the effect of Constructivist model on Achievement and retention of seventh grade

students in Science.

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To develop the Achievement test of Science for 7th grade students.

2. To develop lesson plans on Constructivist approach.

3. To compare the pre-test Academic achievement scores of control and experimental group of 7 th grade


4. To compare the post-test Academic achievement scores of control and experimental group of 7 th grade


5. To compare the mean gain Academic achievement scores of control and experimental group of 7 th grade


6. To compare the retention scores of two groups (Experimental and Control) of Seventh graders exposed to

Constructivist approach and Conventional approach in Science.

1.5 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

1. There is no significant difference between pre-test Academic achievement scores of control and

experimental group of 7th grade students in Science.

2. There is no significant difference between post-test Academic achievement scores of control and


3. There is no significant difference between mean gain Academic achievement scores of control and


4. There exists no significant difference in retention scores of two group (Experimental and Control) of seventh

graders exposed to Constructivist approach and Conventional approach in Science.




2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Method of research

In the present study, experiment method was employed.

2.2 Design of the study

In the present study, pre-test post-test control group quasi experimental design was employed with a sample in the

form of intact sections of class VII of Ranjit Public School, Chirya of Charkhi Dadri district. The intact sections

were equated on intelligence and socio-economic status. The sample of the study comprised of 80 students of class

VII (40 as control group and 40 as experimental group) studying in the Ranjit Public School, Chirya of Charkhi

Dadri district. Both groups were equal in terms of intelligence and socio-economic status. The results are shown in

table given below:

Table 1.1

‘t’-value of Intelligence test scores of two groups

Variables Group N Mean SD SEM ‘t’ Level of

Significance

Group Test

of

Intelligence

Experimental

Group

40 49.85 9.43 1.93 0.573 Not significant

Table 1.1 indicates that the ‘t’ value between the two groups is 0.573 which is not significant at 0.05 level. It means

that no significant exists between the intelligence level of two groups

Table 1.2

‘t’-value of socio-economic-status scale of two groups.

Variables Group N Mean SD SEM ‘t’ Level of

Significance

Socio-Economic

Status

Experimental

Group

40 67.93 11.21 1.93

0.932

Not significant

Control Group 40 66.29 12.05 2.03

Table 1.2 indicates that the ‘t’ value between the two groups is 0.932 which is not significant at 0.05 level, it means

that significant difference does not exists between the socio-economic status of two groups.




2.3 Variables involved

Independent variable:- Constructivist model

Dependent variable:- Academic achievement, Retention

2.4 Population and Sample

The term ‘Population’ is used in research to describe any group of individuals, events or observations in which the

researcher is interested. In the present study, the term population refers to all 7th class students studying in English

Medium Public School of Charkhi Dadri district.The sample was selected in two stages i.e. selection of school and

selection of students. School was selected purposively and students were chosen randomly. A sample of 80 students

studying in 7th class from Ranjit Public School of Charkhi Dadri district were equated on the basis of intelligence

by using intelligence test of Ahuja (2012) and socio-economic-status scale by using SES scale by Kalia and Sahu

(2012). After comparing their intelligence and socio-economic status two groups were formed (experimental and

control) consisting of 40 students in each group.

2.5 Tools used

To achieve the objectives of the study, the following tools were used:

A. Standardised Tests

(i) Group Test of Intelligence by Ahuja (2012).

(ii) Socio-economic Status Scale (S.E.S.) by Kalia and Sahu (2012).

B. Self-developed Tools

(iii) Achievement test in Science.

(iv) Constructivist Approach based Lesson Plans.

Instructional material/lesson plans were based on the chapters to be covered from the syllabus of Class VII Science

textbook prescribed by NCERT. The Chapters included were:

a) Nutrition in plants

b) Heat

c) Respiration in Organisms

d) Physical and Chemical Changes

e) Motion and Time

Experimental Procedure

After the selection of the sample and allocation of the students to the two instructional treatment, the experiment

was conducted in three phases as given below:

Phase I: Administration of Pre-test.

Phase II: Conducting the Instructional Programme; and




Phase III: Administration of Post-test.

Phase I: Administration of pre-test

This phase involved administration of Socio-economic status Scale, Intelligence and Achievement test to the

students of the both experimental and control group. Separate response sheets were provided, which were scored

with the help of scoring keys.

Phase II: Conducting the instructional programme

To find out the efficacy of treatment variables, the instructional treatment was given for about 28 days,

In these 28 days, experimental group was taught five lessons by Constructivist approach, whereas the

control group was taught by the conventional method. Same content was taught to both the groups.

Experimental group is taught by the 5E’s model of Constructivism.

Phase III: Administration of the post-test

After the completion of the experimental treatment, the achievement test was administered to both the groups, i.e.

experimental and control group. The answer sheets were collected and scored.

After 15 days achievement test is again administered to both the groups i.e. experimental and control group to find

out the retention of learning in Science.

2.6 Statistical Techniques Used

Keep in mind the nature, objective and design of the research the investigator were used the following statistical

techniques:

Descriptive Statistics: Measure of central tendency and measures of dispersion such as Mean and Standard

Deviation (SD) was used to know the data.

Inferential Statistics: Critical ratio- “t-test” was used to see the difference between the pre-test and post-

test scores, mean gain and retention scores.

Results and Discussion

To find the significance difference between the experimental and control groups, the developed null hypotheses

were tested.

Table 1.3

‘t’ value for difference in the pre-test achievement scores of experimental group and control group

Groups N Mean Std. Deviation ‘t’ value Df Level of Significance

Experimental 40 54.60 8.77 1.541 78 Not significant

Control 40 51.70 8.04




50

52

54

56

Experimental Group Control Group

54.6

51.7

Me

an S

core

Fig. 1.1: Bar graph illustrating the pre-test achievement scores of experimental group and control group

Table 1.3 shows that mean scores of achievement in science of 7th class students of Experimental and Control group

before experimental treatment were 54.60 and 51.70; besides S.D. 8.77 and 8.05 respectively; and ‘t’ value 1.541

which is not significant at any level, indicating that, “there exists no significant difference in achievement score of

7th class students of experiment and control group before experimental treatment”. Thus, the hypothesis Ho1, “There

exists no significant difference in achievement of experimental and control group of 7th class students in

Science before experimental treatment” is retained. Mean score of experimental group 54.60 is slightly higher

than that of control group (51.70) too, indicates that the two groups do not differ significantly, showing that both

the groups had almost same type of achievement before the experimental treatment.

Table 1.4

‘t’ value for difference in the post-test achievement scores of experimental group and control group

Groups N Mean Std. Deviation ‘t’ value Level of Significance

Experimental 40 65.10 8.70 5.739 Significant at 0.01 level

Control 40 54.03 8.55

0

20

40

60

80

Experimental Group Control Group

65.154.03

Mea

n Sc

ore

Fig. 1.2 Bar graph illustrating the post-test achievement scores of experimental group and control group




Table 1.4 shows that mean scores of achievement in Science of 7th class students of Experimental and Control group

after experimental treatment are 65.10 and 54.03 in that the former being much higher than the latter indicates a

significant difference between the two groups. Their S.D. are 8.70 and 8.55 respectively; and ‘t’ value is 5.739

which is significant at any level of significance, meaning thereby that “there exists a significant difference in

achievement of 7th class students of experiment and control group after experimental treatment”. It shows that

students of experimental group had better achievement in Science in comparison to students of control group. Thus,

the hypothesis Ho2, “There exists no significant difference in achievement of experimental and control group

of 7th class students in Science after experimental treatment” is not retained.

Table 1.5

‘t’ value for difference in the mean gain achievement scores of experimental group and control group

Group N Mean

Std.

Deviation

SEM ‘t’ value Level of

Significance

Experimental 40 10.5 3.88 0.712 11.860

Significant

at 0.01 level Control 40 2.33 2.28

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Mean Std. Deviation

10

.5

3.8

8

2.33 2.28

Me

an a

nd

SD

sco

res

Experimental Control

Fig. 1.3 Bar graph illustrating the mean gain achievement scores of experimental group and control group

Table 1.5 and figure 1.3 reveal that the experimental group achieved higher mean gain score than the control group

on achievement test in Science. It is evident that t-value 11.860 for the difference in the mean gain score of

achievement of students of experimental group and control group is significant at both levels of significance. Thus

the subjects exposed to Constructivist approach of teaching achieved significantly higher in comparison to those

taught with traditional method of teaching. Thus the hypothesis HO3 “There exists no significant difference

between the mean gain achievement scores of experimental group and control group of 7 th class students in




Science” is not retained. Therefore, it can be concluded that Constructivist approach of teaching is more effective

than the Conventional teaching method in raising the achievement in Science.

Table 1.6

‘t’ value of difference in the retention scores of experimental group and control group of 7th class students in

science (after 15 days of treatment)

Groups N Mean Std. Deviation SEM ‘t’ value Level of

Significant

Experimental 40 62.80 8.31 1.654 5.319 Significant at

0.01 level Control 40 54.00 6.35

Fig. 1.4 Bar graph illustrating the mean gain achievement scores of experimental group and control group

From table 1.6 and figure 1.4, it is evident that the t-value is 5.319 which is highly significant at 0.01 level of

significance. It reflects that the mean retention scores of experimental and control groups’ in Science differ

significantly. Thus the null hypothesis namely, Ho4 “There exists no significant difference between the retention

scores of two groups (Experimental and Control) of 7th class students in Science exposed to Constructivist

approach and Conventional approach” is not retained. Further, the mean achievement score of experimental

group is 62.80, which is significantly higher than the mean achievement score of control group i.e. 54. It may

therefore be concluded that Constructivist approach helps in enhancing the retention of students in Science in

comparison to the conventional teaching method.

The present study reveals the greater effect of Constructivist approach in enhancing classroom performance and

retention of 7th grade students. The results are in consonance with the findings of Onal(2008), Vaca (2010), Etuk

and Samual (2011) and Ekon, Ekwueme&Meremikwu(2014). They found that students taught though

Constructivist instructions learn and achieve more in science than traditional method. Chung (2000) found the




superiority of Constructivist approach over traditional method in Biology. Etuk and Samual (2011), found that the

Constructivist strategy was more effective than expository strategy in facilitating pupil’s achievement and attitude

towards primary science. Vaca (2010) found that Constructivist Teaching Strategies are more effective than

traditional method on Science achievement. The study conducted in other subject by Poonam (2019) found that

Constructivist Instructional Model is more effective than traditional model in English.

REFERENCES

1. Alshehri M.A. (2016). The Impact of Using (5e's) Instructional Model on Achievement of Mathematics

and Retention of Learning among Fifth Grade Students. Journal of Research & Method in Education

(IOSR-JRME)6(2) PP 43-48. www.iosrjournals.org

2. Bada,Olusegun S.(2015). Constructivism Learning Theory: A Paradigm for Teaching and Learning.

Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME)5(6)pp66-70 www.iosrjournals.org.

3. Brooks,J.G.and Brooks, M.G. (1993).In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms.

Alexandria, VA: American Society for Curriculum Development.

4. Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education, New York: Vintage Books, 1960, pp. 47. Cafarella J.,

Mcculloch A. & Bell P. (2017).Why Do We Need to Teach Science in Elementary School? Retrieved

from: http://stemteachingtools.org/brief/43

5. Chin-Chung, T. (2000). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and their

Perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Journal of Educational Constructivist curriculum,

1996. Accessed 2/14/05: http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/faculty

6. Chinwe, N., & Chinyere, O. (2010). Effects of Constructivist Instructional Approach on Student’s

Achievement in Basic Ecological Concepts in Biology. Journal of the Science Teachers Association of

Nigeria, 45 (1&2), 26-35.

7. Das, R.S.(1985). Science teaching in school. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.

8. Dev M.(2016). Factors Affecting the Academic Achievement: A Study of Elementary School Students of

NCR Delhi, India Journal of Education and Practice 7(4) www.iiste.org

9. Dewey J. (1966). Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press, 1966.

10. Ekon, E.E., Ekwueme, C. O., & Meremikwu, A. (2014). Effect of Five Phases of Constructivist Instructional

Model (CIM) on Junior Secondary School two (JSS 2) student’s Cognitive Achievement and Interest in

Basic Science and Mathematics in Cross River State of Nigeria. Education, 4(3), 74-77.

11. Etuk, E., N, & Samuel, J. (2011). Constructivist instructional strategy and pupil’s achievement and

attitude towards primary science. Journal of Science and Education Policy (BJSEP), 5(1). University of

Uyo, Nigeria. Federal College of Education (Tech) Omoku Rivers State, Nigeria. Bulgarian.

12. Karaduman, H., & Gültekin, M. (2007). The effect of constructivist learning principles based learning

materials to student’s attitudes, success and retention in social studies. The Turkish Online Journal of

Educational Technology, 6(3).


http://www.iosrjournals.org/

http://www.iosrjournals.org/

http://www.iiste.org/



13. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and

limitations. Educational Technology & Society,8(1), 17-27.

14. Kibos R.C.,Wachanga S.W. & Changeiywo J.M. (2015). Effects of constructivist teaching approach on

students’ achievement in secondary school chemistry in baringo north sub-county, Kenya. International

journal of advanced research 3(7)PP-1037-1049 http://www.journalijar.com

15. Learning.http://www.thirteen.org/rdonline/cpncepts2class/constructivism/index.html.

Mathematics. International Journal of Scientific Research, 2(10), 28-29.

16. Mills, H.R. (1991). Teaching and training. A handbook for instructors (3rd ed.). London: Macmillan

Publishers.

17. Mohapatra, J. K & Bhattacharya, S. (1989). Pupils, teachers induced incorrect generalization and the

concept of force. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 429 – 436.

18. Nagappen R. (2002). Using Constructivist Approach To Teach Higher-Order Thinking Skills: Transforming

Teaching Practice to Facilitate Mindful Learning. 10th International Conference on Thinking, Herrogate,

England.

19. Newton, D.P (1988). Relevance and science education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20 (2), 7-12.

20. Onal, I. (2008). Effects of Constructivist Instruction on the Achievement, Attitude, and Science process

Skills and retention in Science Teaching Methods II course. A thesis submitted to the graduate school

of social sciences of Middle East technical university.

21. Oxford, R.(1997). Constructivism: Shape, Shifting, Substance and Teacher Education. Pea body Journal of

Education, 72(1).

22. Piaget J.(1973). To Understand is to Invent. New York: Grossman, 1973, pg.311.

23. Poonam & Sarita (2017). Constructivism: A new Paradigm in teaching & Learning. International Journal

of Academic Research & Development, 2(4), 183-186.

24. Robert E. Yager (1991). The Constructivist Learning Model. The Science Teacher. 58(6) 53-57.

25. Sharma, Hemant Lata & Sarita (2018). Enhancing Classroom Performance of Elementary School Students

in Science through Constructivist Approach: An Experimental Study. International Journal of Research in

Engineering, IT and Social Sciences,8(7).pp284-289 http://indusedu.org

26. Sharma, Hemant Lata & Poonam (2016). Constructivist Approach for Teaching English: Making Sense

of Paradigm Shift from the traditional approach. International Journal of Science and Research, 5(10),

788-792.

27. Sharma,Hemant Lata & Sharma, Leena (2013). Effect of Constructivist Approach on Academic

Achievement of Seventh Grade Learners in Mathematics. International Journal of Scientific

Research,2(10),28-29.

28. Thirteen Ed Online (2004), Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and

Learning.http://www.thirteen.org/rdonline/concepts2class/constructivism/index.html.

29. Vaca, J.L., Jr. (2010). The effect of Constructivist Testing Strategies on Science test scores of Middle

School Students. Ed.D., Walden University, 257p;3418952 Source: DAI-A 71/10,p.Apr 2011.




30. Vygotsky, Lev S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 197

31. Wachanga, S.W. (2002). Effects of cooperative class experiment teaching method on secondary school

students motivation and achievement in chemistry. Unpublished Ph. D Thesis. Egerton University. Njoro,

Kenya.


Date post:	26-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

© 2019 IJRAR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 2 The impact of 5E ...ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19L1960.pdf ·...

Documents