Abstract

Chemistry education in Rwandan secondary schools faces challenges, especially after the adoption of a competence-based curriculum that prioritizes student-centered learning. Traditional teacher-centered approaches often result in poor student performance. This study investigates the impact of structured group discussions on chemistry achievement in senior high schools in Kigali, addressing gaps in student engagement. Using a mixed-methods quasi-experimental design, 50 students were divided into an experimental group (taught with group discussions) and a control group (taught with traditional methods). Data were collected via a Chemistry Achievement Test, student questionnaires, and interviews with 6 science teachers and 2 administrators. Quantitative data were mainly analysed using independent statistical t-tests, while qualitative data were thematically analysed. The findings showed that students in the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group, suggesting group discussions effectively enhance chemistry learning. Furthermore, the results from the effect size calculations suggest that group discussions had a meaningful positive impact on student performance in chemistry, indicating the effectiveness of this teaching strategy. The study also revealed that smaller group sizes (four to six students) promote more productive discussions, and that group discussions foster peer learning and deeper subject understanding. These results offer new insights into the benefits of group discussion in chemistry education, which have been underexplored in previous studies. This study suggests that integrating group discussions can improve both academic performance and student participation in chemistry classrooms.  

Keywords

References

• Adams, D. (Ed.). (2022). Education in Malaysia: Developments, Reforms and Prospects. Taylor & Francis.
• Alam, A., & Mohanty, A. (2024). Happiness Engineering: impact of hope-based intervention on life satisfaction, self-worth, mental health, and academic achievement of Indian school students. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2341589. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2341589
• Allen, J., Brown, E. R., Ginther, A., Graham, J. E., Mercurio, D., & Smith, J. L. (2021). Nevertheless, she persisted (in science research): Enhancing women students’ science research motivation and belonging through communal goals. Social Psychology of Education, 24(4), 939-964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09639-6
• Ameringer, S., Serlin, R. C., & Ward, S. (2009). Simpson's paradox and experimental research. Nursing research, 58(2), 123-127. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e318199b517
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in education: Principles, policy & practice, 25(6), 551-575. http://doi.org/10.1021/ed101066x
• Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
• Campbell, D. T., & Boruch, R. F. (1975). Making the case for randomized assignment to treatments by considering the alternatives: Six ways in which quasi-experimental evaluations in compensatory education tend to underestimate effects. In Carl A. Bennett, Arthur A. Lumsdaine (Eds.), Evaluation and experiment: Some critical issues in assessing social programs (pp. 195-296). Academic Press, Inc.
• Cavinato, A. G., & Mullaugh, K. M. (2022). Field-Based analytical chemistry laboratory experiences performed in collaboration with governmental agencies and in the context of a study abroad program. In T. J. Wenzel, M. L. Kovarik & J. K. Robinson (Eds.), Active learning in the analytical chemistry curriculum (pp. 205-220). ACS Publications.
• Cen, L., Ruta, D., Powell, L., Hirsch, B., & Ng, J. (2016). Quantitative approach to collaborative learning: Performance prediction, individual assessment, and group composition. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 187-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9234-6
• Chang, D., Hwang, G. J., Chang, S. C., & Wang, S. Y. (2021). Promoting students’ cross-disciplinary performance and higher order thinking: A peer assessment-facilitated STEM approach in a mathematics course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 3281-3306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10062-z
• Chiappetta, E. L. (1997), “Inquiry-Based Science. Strategies and Techniques for Encouraging Inquiry in the Classroom,” The Science Teacher, 64, 22-26.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
• Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Wadsworth.
• Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by 'collaborative learning'?. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Elsevier.
• Dragnić-Cindrić, D., Lobczowski, N. G., Greene, J. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2024). Exploring the teacher’s role in discourse and social regulation of learning: Insights from collaborative sessions in high-school physics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 42(1), 92-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2023.2266847
• Elevate K-12. (2024, April 29). What are the biggest benefits of small-group instruction? https://elevatek12.com
• Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215-235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x
• Fay, N., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 481-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00292
• Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage
• Fukuzawa, S., Boyd, C., & Cahn, J. (2017). Student motivation in response to problem-based learning. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10, 175-188. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v10i0.4748
• Garfield, J. (1993). Teaching statistics using small-group cooperative learning. Journal of Statistics education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.1993.11910455
• Georgopoulou, M.-S. (2024). The power of synergy: Unlocking the potential of group dynamics through team-building practices in junior high school. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 5(2), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2024.5.2.803
• Gillies, R. M. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7
• Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., & Willems, P. P. (2024). Middle-school students and digital homework: The evolving role of family engagement. Middle School Journal, 55(4), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2024.2376481
• Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. John Wiley & Sons.
• Gross Davis, B. (1999). Motivating students. Tools for teaching, 6(5), 1-7.
• Haq, I. U., Anwar, A., Rehman, I. U., Asif, W., Sobnath, D., Sherazi, H. H. R., & Nasralla, M. M. (2021). Dynamic group formation with intelligent tutor collaborative learning: a novel approach for next generation collaboration. IEEE Access, 9, 143406-143422. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.312055
• Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2015). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
• Haynes, S. N., Richard, D., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
• Heflin, H., & Macaluso, S. (2021). Student ınitiative empowers engagement for learning online. Online Learning, 25(3), 230-248. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i3.2414
• Hennig-Thurau, T., Aliman, D. N., Herting, A. M., Cziehso, G. P., Linder, M., & Kübler, R. V. (2023). Social interactions in the metaverse: Framework, initial evidence, and research roadmap. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(4), 889-913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00908-0
• Herrera-Pavo, M. Á. (2021). Collaborative learning for virtual higher education. Learning, culture and social interaction, 28, 100437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100437
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
• Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Jo, K. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014. Educational Research Review, 28, 100284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
• Johnson, J. P., & Mighten, A. (2005). A comparison of teaching strategies: lecture notes combined with structured group discussion versus lecture only. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(7), 319-322. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20050701-06
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
• Kassem, C. L. (2000). Theory into practice: Best Practices for a school-wide approach to critical thinking instruction. Ramapo College of New Jersey.
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano R, J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y
• Kyprianidou, M., Demetriadis, S., Tsiatsos, T., & Pombortsis, A. (2012). Group formation based on learning styles: can it improve students’ teamwork?. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 83-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9215-4
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
• Li, Y., Xie, H., & Li, D. (2016). Does self-selection work in academic group work? The effect of random group formation on participation and performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7), 966-979.
• Liang, C., Majumdar, R., Nakamizo, Y., Flanagan, B., & Ogata, H. (2024). Algorithmic group formation and group work evaluation in a learning analytics-enhanced environment: implementation study in a Japanese junior high school. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(4), 1476-1499. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2121730
• Lin, E. C.-L., Chen, S.-L., Chao, S.-Y., & Chen, Y.-C. (2013). Using standardized patient with immediate feedback and group discussion to teach interpersonal and communication skills to advanced practice nursing students. Nurse education today, 33(6), 677-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.07.002
• Loyens, S. M., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: Introducing a multidirectional approach. Instructional Science, 36(5), 351-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9059-4
• Lyall, C., & Meagher, L. R. (2012). A masterclass in interdisciplinarity: Research into practice in training the next generation of interdisciplinary researchers. Futures, 44(6), 608-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.03.011
• Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
• Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
• Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers' conceptions of learners' prior knowledge. Science education, 88(6), 970-983. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20006
• Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (Eds.). (2023). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Taylor & Francis.
• Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis year 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
• Mora, H., Signes-Pont, M. T., Fuster-Guilló, A., & Pertegal-Felices, M. L. (2020). A collaborative working model for enhancing the learning process of science & engineering students. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 140-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.008
• Mozaffari, S. H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 496-516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816641703
• National Research Council (1996). From analysis to action: Undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. National Academy Press
• Nungu, L., Mukama, E., & Nsabayezu, E. (2023). Online collaborative learning and cognitive presence in mathematics and science education. Case study of university of Rwanda, college of education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(9), 10865-10884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11607-w
• Oviedo, M. C. N. (2004). Teacher-student co-construction processes in biology: Strategies for developing mental models in large group discussions [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
• Park, J., Lee, H., Kim, J., & Zhou, A. Q. (2024). Trajectories of learning attitude profiles in Korean middle school students: Examining developmental patterns and the influence of parenting. Child & Youth Care Forum, 53(2), 485-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-023-09763-8
• Parmar, P. (2022, June 14). Importance of group discussion in teaching. Classplus Growth Blog. Retrieved from https://classplusapp.com
• Pfeiffer, J. M., & Butz, R. J. (2005). Assessing cultural and ecological variation in ethnobiological research: the importance of gender. Journal of Ethnobiology, 25(2), 240-278. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771_2005_25_240_acaevi_2.0.co_2
• Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
• Prata, M. J., Festas, I., Oliveira, A. L., & Veiga, F. H. (2019). The impact of a cooperative method embedded in a writing strategy instructional program on student engagement in school. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.), 24(2), 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2018.12.001
• Putzeys, K., Van Keer, H., & De Wever, B. (2023). Unknown is not chosen: University student voices on group formation for collaborative writing. Education Sciences, 14(1), 31.. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010031
• Roseth, C. J., Garfield, J. B., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2008). Collaboration in learning and teaching statistics. Journal of Statistics Education, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2008.11889557
• Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223
• Sancho-Thomas, P., Fuentes-Fernández, R., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009). Learning teamwork skills in university programming courses. Computers & Education, 53(2), 517-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.010
• Saxton, E., Burns, R., Holveck, S., Kelley, S., Prince, D., Rigelman, N., & Skinner, E. A. (2014). A common measurement system for K-12 STEM education: Adopting an educational evaluation methodology that elevates theoretical foundations and systems thinking. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 40, 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.11.005
• Shyiramunda, T. (2023). Datasheet.Excel. Pretest-posttest.Statistical t-test results.xlsx [Dataset]. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24486685
• Smith, J. (2023). Supporting metacognitive talk during collaborative problem solving: a case study in Scottish primary school mathematics. Education 3-13, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2023.2187670
• Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom‐based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.x
• Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021
• Stanford Teaching Commons (2024). Increasing student engagement. Stanford University. https://teachingcommons.stanford.edu/
• Steinert, Y. (2004). Student perceptions of effective small group teaching. Medical Education, 38(3), 286-293. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01772.x
• Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4
• Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the p value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
• Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., & Sines, M. C. (2012). Utilizing mixed methods in psychological research. Handbook of Psychology, 2, 428-450. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop202015
• Thompson, P. (2013). Learner-centred education and ‘cultural translation’. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(1), 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.02.009
• Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500345172
• Topping, K.J, Buchs, C., Duran, D., & Van Keer, H. (2017). Effective peer learning: From principles to practical implementation. Routledge.
• Tsai, C. W., Lee, L. Y., Cheng, Y. P., Lin, C. H., Hung, M. L., & Lin, J. W. (2024). Integrating online meta-cognitive learning strategy and team regulation to develop students’ programming skills, academic motivation, and refusal self-efficacy of Internet use in a cloud classroom. Universal Access in the Information Society, 23(1), 395-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00958-9
• Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes: Harvard University Press.
• Wang, B., & Li, P. P. (2024). Digital creativity in STEM education: the impact of digital tools and pedagogical learning models on the students’ creative thinking skills development. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(6), 2633-2646. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2155839
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
• Wilkinson, I. A., & Fung, I. Y. (2002). Small-group composition and peer effects. International journal of educational research, 37(5), 425-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00014-4
• Wu, X., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Miller, B. (2013). Enhancing motivation and engagement through collaborative discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 622. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032792
• Yan, J., & Li, L. (2024, June). Board 183: A Case Study of AFL Models on Factors of Engaged Learning in STEM Education. 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
• Yang, X. (2023). Undergraduate students’ frustrations in collaborative group work. [Doctoral dissertation,University of Georgia].
• Zuin, V. G., Eilks, I., Elschami, M., & Kümmerer, K. (2021). Education in green chemistry and in sustainable chemistry: perspectives towards sustainability. Green Chemistry, 23(4), 1594-1608. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0GC03313H

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.