ONLINE – MERGE – OFFLINE (OMO) CLASSROOM MODEL AS INNOVATION TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ MASTERY LEVEL AND ATTITUDE IN TEACHING BALANCING CHEMICAL EQUATION
Keywords:
Attitude, balancing chemical equation, innovation, onlineAbstract
This study evaluated the effectiveness of online – merge – offline (OMO) classroom model as innovation to improve students’ mastery level and attitude in teaching balancing chemical equation. The study determines level of mastery and attitude of the students towards the utilization of the Online – Merge – Offline (OMO) Classroom Model in teaching Balancing Chemical Equation. In juxtaposition, the study tests significant difference that exists between the pre-test and post-test results of using Online – Merge – Offline (OMO) Classroom Model in teaching Balancing Chemical Equation. In addition, the researchers made used of validated pretest-posttest and attitude surveyquestionnaire as the primary tools of the study. The findings showed that the students showed a closely approximating mastery as exposed to online – merge – offline (OMO) classroom model had a positive effect on the teaching balancing chemical equation. Affirmatively, it is evident have positive effect on the teaching balancing chemical equation among Grade 9 students as evidenced by the significantly greater mean in the posttest than in the pretest. There was significant difference in the pretest and posttest score of students in the utilization of online – merge – offline (OMO) classroom model had a positive effect on the teaching balancing chemical equation. Engagingly, the students have positive attitude in learning balancing equation as exposed to online – merge – offline (OMO) classroom model. From these findings it is clear pathways for prospective use online-merge-offline (OMO) to other educational institution in the Philippines to integrate towards its vision of educating for the best
References
Anamuah-Mensah, J. & Apafo, N.T. (2014). Students perceived difficulties with ordinary level chemistry topics. Chemistry and Industry Proceedings, 1(1), 38-39.
Bello, O. O. (2013). An analysis of students’ error in stoichiometric problems. Nigerian Education Forum, 1 (2), 181- 186.
ClasIn. (2020). Three key insights to leverage technology for better learning and growth from after school tutoring industry in China. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@eeoclassin/3-key-insights-to-leverage-technology-for-better-learning-and-growth-from-after-school-tutoring-f91a68580be8.
Hinampas, et. al., (2018). Blended Learning Approach: Effect On Students’ Academic Achievement And Practical Skills In Science Laboratories. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research Volume 7 (11).
Hines, C. (2010). Students’ understanding of chemical equations in secondary schools in Botswana. School Science Review, 72(285), 138-140.
Javier, Billy S. and Dirain, Estela L. (2018). EDMODO as Supplemental Tool to Blended Learning: The Case of Filipino University Students. International Journal of Science and Research.
Kasvio, M. (2011). The Best School in the World: Seven Finnish Examples from the 21st Century. Museum of Finnish Architecture, Helsinki.
Lazonby, J. N., Morris, J. E., & Waddington, D. J. (2014). The muddle some mole. Education in Chemistry. 9, 109111.
Lee, K. (2018). Everyone already has their community beyond the screen: reconceptualizing online learning and expanding boundaries. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 66 No. 5, pp. 1255-1268, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9613-y
Lorenzo, Arnold R. (2017). Comparative Study on the Performance of Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSE) Students in Educational Technology Using Blended Learning Strategy and Traditional Face-to-Face Instruction. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Volume 16 (3).
Gower, D. M., Daniels, D.J., & Lioyd, G. (2017). Hierarchies among the concepts which underlie the mole. School Science Review, 59 (201), 285-297.
OECD (2006). “21st century learning environments. paper presented at the Creating 21st Century Learning Environments, Croydon.
OECD (2015). Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems. Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: the (mis)application of constructivism to the design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 46 (3). pp. 53-65.
Rabacal, Judith S. (2018). Blended Learning: Unveiling its Potential in One ASEAN Classroom Setting. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol. 6 (3).
Samosa, R. C. (2020). Understanding the End – to – End Praxis of Quantitative Research From Proposal to Paper Presentation. Book of Life Publication.
Savoy, L.G. (2012). Balancing chemical equations. School Science Review, 69(249), 713-720.
Seely, B.J. and Adler, R.P. (2008). Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 16-20.
Xiao J, Lin H, & Cheng H. (2019) An Online-Merge-Offline (OMO) Classroom for Open Education: A Preliminary Study. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAOUJ-08-2019-0033/full/html
Xie, S.-X. (2018). Smart classroom and university classroom teaching innovation. paper presented at 2018 International Conference on Information, Electronic and Communication Engineering, available at: www.dpi-proceedings.com/index.php/dtcse/article/view/26602 (accessed 29 March 2019).
Yang, J., Pan, H., Zhou, W. and Huang, R. (2018). Evaluation of smart classroom from the perspective of infusing technology into pedagogy. Smart Learning Environments, Vol. 5 No. 20, pp. 1-11, available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0070-1
Zhang, J., Jing, Q., Liang, Y., Jiang, H. and Li, N. (2016). Smart learning environments in school: design principles and case studies.Spector, M., Lockee, B. and Childress, M. (Eds), Learning, Design, and Technology, Springer, Cham, pp. 1-29.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
