Effect of Previous Knowledge on Students’ Cognition in Some Content Areas in Chemistry

Olufunmilayo Ikedolapo Oloyede; Catherine Ohunene Omole

doi:10.51724/ijpce.v5i1.75

Authors

Olufunmilayo Ikedolapo Oloyede University of Swaziland
Catherine Ohunene Omole AbubakarTatari Ali Polytechnic

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v5i1.75

Keywords:

Chemistry, cognition, content areas, previous Knowledge

Abstract

This study was undertaken to determine the effect of previous knowledge on students’ cognition on some content areas in chemistry. Reading, Comprehension monitoring, Summarizing, Questioning, Instruction, and Evaluation (RCSQIE) forms the component of the previous knowledge. The sample consists of 80 senior secondary 11 students from two schools in Jos, Plateau state, Nigeria. The design of the study was the pre – test post – test experimental research design. The instruments used were Fry readability model used to determine the readability level of the selected textbook and Science Reasoning Task used to determine students cognitive level. The experimental group was given a previous knowledge of the topic before lessons by allowing them to read the topic before classes while the control group had no previous knowledge. The cognitive levels of the students were determined before and after treatment. The findings showed that the experimental group students’ cognitive level improved with previous knowledge. It was concluded that previous knowledge improves students understanding of chemistry. It was therefore recommended that teachers’ should encourage students’ to read content before lessons.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ababio, O.Y. (2001). New School Chemistry for SSS (3rded.) Onitsha:African Fep. Publishers.

Alexander, P.A. & Kulikowich, J. M. (1991). Domain knowledge and analogic reasoning ability as predictors of expository text comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(2), 165-191.

Allington, R.L. (2002). You can’t learn much from books you can’t read. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 16-19.

Ashman, A.F. & Conway, N.F. (1993). Using Cognitive methods in the classroom, London & N.York :Routledge.

Barton, M.L., Heidema, C. & Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and science. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 24-28.

Bean, T. W. (2001). An update on reading in the content areas: Social constructionist dimensions. Reading Online, 5(5). Retrieved May 6, 2004 from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/bean/index.html.

Buehl, D. (2001). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Frayer Model Activity Sheet from Instructional Strategies for Engaging LearnersGuilford County Schools TF, 2002

Demide, C.O. (2000) Enhancing the Transition from concrete to formal Cognitive functioning for improved Achievement in Chemistry. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi.

Demide, C.O. (2011) Effect of previous knowledge on students cognition, comprehension and achievement in some content areas in chemistry. Unpublished Ph.D thesis of Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi.

Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Frayer Model (2011) www.longwood.edu/staff/jonescd/projects/.../fraym.htm

Fry, E. (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarification, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21(3), 242-252.

McKenna, M.C. & Robinson, R.D. (2002).Teaching through text: Reading and writing in the content areas. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Meltzer, J. (2001). Supporting adolescent literacy across the content areas: Perspectives on policy and practice. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Oloyede, O.I. (1996). The Predictive Validity of Students Achievements from their Reasoning Level and the Cognitive demand of the Chemistry Curriculum. Unpublished PhD. Thesis Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi.

Oloyede, O.I. (2007). Educational Measurement and Evaluation for tertiary institutions, an introduction. Kaduna. Euneeks and Associates.

Readence, J.E., Bean, T.W. & Baldwin, R.S. (2001). Content area reading: An integrated approach. 7th Ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/shin Publishing Company.

Ryder, R.J. & Graves, M.F. (1994).Reading and learning in content areas. New York, NY: Macmillan College Publishing Company, Inc.

Saskatchewan, E. (1988). Understanding the Common essentials of learning. A handbook for teachers. Regina SK: Saskatchewan Education.

Shayer, M. & Wylam, H. (1978). The distribution of Piagetian stages of thinking in British middle and secondary school children, 11–14 to 16 year olds and sex differentials, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 62–70.

Snow, C. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

Smith, F. (1982). Understanding reading (3rd ed.). New York: Holt

Wright, E.L. (1998). The academic language of college-bound at-risk secondary students: Self-assessment, proficiency levels, and effects of language development on instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(10), 3909A. (UMI No. 9812098) (http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/ImplementALiteracyProgram/SchemaTheoryOfLerning.htm) Schema Theory.