International Journal of Education and Management Engineering (IJEME)
IJEME Vol. 15, No. 3, 8 Jun. 2025
Cover page and Table of Contents: PDF (size: 571KB)
Effects of Constructive Controversy Strategy and Self-efficacy on Students‟ Attitude to Genetics
PDF (571KB), PP.57-66
Views: 0 Downloads: 0
Author(s)
Index Terms
Attitude To Genetics, Constructive Controversy Strategy, Self-Efficacy In Genetics, Situated Learning
Abstract
This study determined the effect of constructive controversy strategy (CCS) and the moderator effect of self-efficacy on students’ attitude to genetics concepts in Oyo State, Nigeria. The study was anchored to situated learning theory, while the pretest-posttest control group quasi-experimental design was adopted. The sample comprised senior secondary school II science students from six public-owned secondary schools randomly selected from two local government areas using fishbowl without replacement. An intact class of secondary school II science students from each school was randomly assigned to CCS (121) and conventional strategy (119). Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance at p<0.05. There was a significant main effects of treatment on student’ attitude (F(1;215)=4.42; partial η2=0.02) to genetics concepts. This implies that the observed difference in the attitude mean scores of students to genetics after they were exposed to CCS and control groups was significant. Students taught with CCS had improved attitude (x ̅=65.00) than those in the conventional strategy (x ̅=56.63). Hence, CCS enhanced students’ attitude to genetics. In terms of interaction, treatment and genetics self-efficacy had significant interaction effect on students’ attitude to genetics (F(2; 213)=3.04; partial η2 = 0.05), indicating that self-efficacy of the students influenced the effectiveness of the strategies employed in this study and this will favour medium self-efficacious students whenever these strategies are used. The implication of this is that biology teachers should always consider students’ self-efficacy whenever they want to implement constructive controversy strategy in biology classroom.
Cite This Paper
Ojo. Ayodeji Temitope, "Effects of Constructive Controversy Strategy and Self-efficacy on Students’ Attitude to Genetics", International Journal of Education and Management Engineering (IJEME), Vol.15, No.3, pp. 57-66, 2025. DOI:10.5815/ijeme.2025.03.05
Reference
[1]T. D. Sadler, S. A. Barab, and B. M. Scott, “What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 371–391, 2007.
[2]N. J. Ekong, M. C. Anongo, E. Okrikata, and G. A. Akpan, “Influence of selected variables on students' academic performance in genetics and their implications for effective application of STEM Education,” J. Emerg. Trends Educ. Res. Policy Stud., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 331–337, 2015.
[3]R. Sri, S. Arum, D. A. Anisyah, and F. M. Noor, “High school students’ attitudes about socioscientific issues contextualized in inquiry-based chemistry instruction,” ICEMT, pp. 80–84, 2018.
[4]G. Ekici and M. Hevedanli, “Analyzing high school students’ attitudes towards biology course in different variables,” J. Turkish Sci. Educ., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 97–109, 2010.
[5]D. C. S. Dinah, “Factors which influence academic performance in biology in Kenya: a perspective for global competitiveness,” Int. J. Curr. Res., vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 4296–4300, 2013.
[6]S. Y. Chen, Y. R. Chu, C. Y. Lin, and T. Y. Chiang, “Students' knowledge and attitudes towards biotechnology revisited, 1995-2014: Changes in agriculture biotechnology but not in medical biotechnology,” Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 475–491, 2016.
[7]A. Cimer, “What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views?” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 7, pp. 61–71, 2012.
[8]P. M. Armbruster, E. Patel, and M. Weiss, “Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology,” Educ., vol. 8, pp. 203–213, 2009.
[9]G. Hagay, R. Peleg, E. Laslo, and B. T. Ayelet, “Nature or nurture? A lesson incorporating students’ interests in a high-school biology class,” J. Biol. Educ., vol. 47, pp. 117–122, 2013.
[10]R. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson, and M. Stanne, “Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis,” Mar. 28, 2018. [Online]. Available: [insert source information].
[11]R. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, “Cooperative learning and teaching citizenship in democracies,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 76, pp. 162–177, 2016.
[12]J. Lave, “Situating learning in communities of practice,” in Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley, Eds. Washington, DC, USA: Am. Psychol. Assoc., 1991, pp. 63–82. doi: 10.1037/10096-003
[13]I. L. Maigoro, M. D. Nansoh, and E. D. Pam, “The relationship between types of misconceptions and achievement in genetics among senior secondary school biology students in Jos North LGA of Plateau State”. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1–26, 2017.
[14]C. Asterhan, and B. Schwarz, “Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer‐to‐peer dialog”. Cognitive Science, vol. 33, pp. 374–400.
[15]C. W. Nam, “The effects of trust and constructive controversy on student achievement and attitude in online cooperative learning environments,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 37, pp. 237–248, 2014.
[16]D. H. Schunk and F. Pajares, “Self-efficacy theory,” in Handbook of Motivation at School, K. R. Wentzel and A. Wigfield, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2009, pp. 35–53.
[17]S. K. Bryant, “Self-Efficacy sources and academic motivation: A qualitative study of 10th graders,” Oct. 24, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3231.
[18]O. F. Icoz, “The relationship among secondary school students’ attitudes, motivation and self-efficacy beliefs toward chemistry lessons”. Thesis. The Graduate School. Dept. of Natural and Applied Sciences. Middle East Technical University. 2012.
[19]H. K. Yau, and Y. F. Leung,“The Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Attitudes towards the Use of Technology in Learning in Hong Kong Higher Education”. In Proceedings of the International Multi-Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, pp. 832-834, 2018.
[20]R. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, Creative Controversy: Intellectual Challenge in the Classroom, 4th ed. Edina, MN, USA: Interaction, 2007.
[21]M. C. Wittrock, “Generative learning processes of the brain,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 27, pp. 531–541, 1992.
[22]M. Tichy, D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson, and C. Roseth, “The impact of constructive controversy on moral development,” J. Appl. Soc. Psychol., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 765–787, 2010.
[23]H. Gloudemans, Critical Thinking and Self-Efficacy: Useful Concepts in Nursing Practice and Education, Ridderkerk, The Netherlands: Ridderprint, 2013.
[24]B. Akram and L. Ghazanfar, “Self-efficacy and academic performance of the students of Gujrat university, Pakistan,” Acad. Res. Int., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 283–290, 2014.
[25]H. K. Yau and Y. F. Leung, “The relationship between self-efficacy and attitudes towards the use of technology in learning in Hong Kong higher education,” in Proc. Int. Multi-Conf. Eng. Comput. Sci., pp. 832–834, 2018.
[26]A. Kund and A. Gbose, “The relationship between attitude and self-efficacy in mathematics among higher secondary students,” IOSR J. Humanit. Soc. Sci., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 25–31, 2016.
[27]O. F. Icoz, “The relationship among secondary school students’ attitudes, motivation and self-efficacy beliefs toward chemistry lessons,” M.S. thesis, Dept. Nat. Appl. Sci., Middle East Tech. Univ., Ankara, Turkey, 2012.
[28]R. Schwarzer and M. Jerusalem, “Generalized self-efficacy scale,” in Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs, J. Weinman, S. Wright, and M. Johnston, Eds. Windsor, U.K.: Nfer-Nelson, 1995, pp. 35–37.
[29]J. A. Baldwin, D. Ebert-May, and D. J. Burns, “The development of a college biology self-efficacy instrument for nonmajors,” Sci. Educ., vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 397–408, 1999.
[30]R. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, “Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict,” Educ. Res., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 37–51, 2009.
[31]J. Lave, and E. Wenger, “Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991.
[32]Latosha, G., Larry, P., Marie, A. and Rolando, P. 2007. Theory presentations: Situated learning and cognition. Retrieved Mar. 7, 2018, from http://doc.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache/SL-Theory.pdf
[33]D. W. Johnson, and R. T. Johnson, R. T. “Constructive controversy as a means of teaching citizens how to engage in political discourse. Policy Futures in Education, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 417–430, 2014. doi:10.2304/pfie.2014.12.3.417.
[34]U. Toharudin, A. Rahmat, and I. S. Kurniawan, “The important of self-efficacy and self-regulation in learning: How should a student be”? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157, 022074, 2019. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022074
[35]M. Jenkins and J. Lonsdale, “Evaluating the effectiveness of digital storytelling for student reflection,” in Proc. ASCILITE, Singapore, 2007, pp. 440–444.
[36]O. Sadi and M. Uyar, “The relationship between self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategies and achievement: A path model,” J. Baltic Sci. Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 21–33, 2013.
[37]I. M. Al Dafaei, Z. Ismail, M. A. Samsudin, and F. J. Shakir, “The mediating effect of self-efficacy towards the relationship between attitudes and level of use towards instructional computer technology in Oman,” Int. J. Asian Soc. Sci., vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 2382–2398, 2013.
[38]S. Sen and A. Yilmaz, “Devising a structural equation model of relationships between preservice teachers’ time and study environment management, effort regulation, self-efficacy, control of learning beliefs, and metacognitive self-regulation,” Sci. Educ. Int., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 301–316, 2016.