Content uploaded by Victor Oluwatosin Ajayi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Victor Oluwatosin Ajayi on Nov 13, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
18
Ameliorating Students’ Cognitive Engagement and
Critical Thinking in Chemistry: Testing the Potency
of Practical-Based and Discussion-Based Approaches
Victor Oluwatosin Ajayi, PhD1, Lawrence Achimugu, PhD2 & Christina Tanko Audu, PhD2
1 Department of Science Education, Prince Audu Abubakar University, Anyigba, Nigeria
2 Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Taraba State University, Jalingo, Nigeria
Correspondence: Victor Oluwatosin Ajayi, PhD, Department of Science Education, Prince Audu
Abubakar University, Anyigba, Nigeria.
doi:10.56397/JARE.2024.11.04
Abstract
This research investigated if either Practical-Based Approach (PBA) or Discussion-Based Approach
(DBA) could be more effective in ameliorating students’ cognitive engagement and critical thinking
ability in Chemistry. The study adopted a quasi-experimental research design. Chemistry Cognitive
Engagement Inventory (CCEI) and Critical Thinking Ability Test (CTAT) were the instruments used
for data collection. The reliability index of CCEI was ascertained using Cronbach Alpha, which gave
reliability value of 0.86. The internal consistency of CTAT was tested using Kuder-Richardson (KR-21)
formula which yielded a reliability value of 0.92. The population is 6,837 SS2 students offering
chemistry in SSS in Dekina Local Government Area of Kogi State, Nigeria. Using multi-stage sampling
techniques, a sample of 166 students drawn from 4 schools in Dekina LGA was selected. Two research
questions and four null hypotheses guided the study. The research questions were answered using
Mean and Standard Deviation scores while the null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance
using results from Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). The study revealed that, the difference in the
cognitive engagement and critical thinking ability of students taught chemistry using PBA and those
taught using DBA was statistically significant in favour of PBA respectively {F1, 165 =138.100, P<0.05} {F1,
165 =188.900, P<0.05}. There is no significant interaction effect of approaches and gender on the
cognitive engagement and critical thinking ability of students in chemistry respectively {F1, 165 =1.765,
P>0.05} {F1, 165 =5.005, P>0.05}. It was recommended among others that; Chemistry teachers should be
encouraged to use PBA during chemistry instruction to ameliorate students’ cognitive engagement
and critical thinking ability.
Keywords: Practical-Based Approach (PBA), Discussion-Based Approach (DBA), students’ cognitive
engagement, critical thinking ability and chemistry
1. Introduction
Chemistry teaching aims at equipping the
learners with appropriate scientific and
innovative knowledge and skills which will
enable them to explore their surroundings and
become more creative and self-reliant for
Journal of Advanced Research in
Education
ISSN 2709-3980
www.pioneerpublisher.com/jare
Volume 3 Number 6 November 2024
Journal of Advanced Research in Education
19
national development. It refers to the science-
based subject taught to students in their senior
secondary school classes aimed at helping
students to have clear knowledge about
scientific reasoning and analytical problem
solving with a molecular perspective and to
provide students with the skills needed to
succeed in post-secondary school and in the
chemical industries (Ajayi, 2017). Chemistry is
the central in the drive of global sustainable
economic, science and technology development.
It plays vital roles in food, clothing, housing,
medicine and transportation. The important of
chemistry to national development cannot be
over-emphasized. Yet, students’ cognitive
engagement and critical thinking skill
respectively in chemistry has been reportedly
poor in Nigeria (Agamber, 2021; Kabiru, 2022).
Thus, preparing the students to become
successful individuals, chemistry teachers need
to ensure that their teaching is effective.
Learning by doing in science subjects,
particularly in chemistry is very important in
enabling students to understand what they are
learning. This has been emphasized by various
researchers and academics mostly those who
advocate for learning by doing (Ajayi & Ogbeba
2017; Achimugu, 2018; Shana & Abulibdeh,
2020; Ajayi & Audu, 2023). Therefore, Students’
cognitive engagement is very important in
supporting their critical thinking toward a
particular discipline. Students engagement
plays an important role in reshaping their
behaviours towards learning. Clinton-Lisell,
Strouse and Langowski (2024) opines that,
cognitive engagement involves the
psychological investment of the student in the
learning process. It is marked by the effort made
by the learner to understand what is studied
and to reach the highest levels of
comprehension on a specific area of study. By
implication, cognitive engagement is seen as the
time and effort students invest during chemistry
classroom instruction. Students cognitive
engagement reflects the degree of curiosity,
involvement, optimism and passion that
learners show when they are learning or being
taught. Thus, since cognitive engagement
focuses on students’ level of investment or
involvement in learning, there is need for
chemistry teachers to ensure the use of effective
instructional styles that are capable of
ameliorating students’ cognitive engagement
and invariable ameliorate their critical thinking.
Critical thinking is the objective analysis and
evaluation of an issue to form judgement.
Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly
and rationally about what to do or what to
believe and it includes the ability to engage in
reflective and independent thinking (King,
Goodson & Rohani, 2017). Critical thinking is
the ability to logically and rationally consider
information. Rather than accepting arguments
and conclusions presented, a person with strong
critical thinking skills will question and see to
understand the evidence provided. He will look
for logical connections between ideas, consider
alternative interpretations of information and
evaluate the strength of arguments presented.
Good critical thinkers can draw reasonable
conclusions from a set of information and
discriminate between useful and less useful
details to solve a problem or make a decision.
Similarly, Bolaji (2019) observes that a critical
thinker is able to deduce consequences from
what he knows, and he knows how to make use
of information to solve problems, and to seek
relevant sources of information to inform
himself/herself. Learners of chemistry need
critical thinking skills to evaluate and improve
their creative ideas to make firm decisions.
Critical thinking is one of the aspects of thinking
that has been accepted as a way to overcome the
difficulties and to facilitate the access to
information in life. Yenice (2017) posits that the
main target of science teaching is to develop
critical thinking skills and abilities in students
and this can only be achieved through
appropriate teaching approaches. Demirhan and
Besoluk (2019) observed that critical thinking
enables students to acquire the necessary
abilities to analyse information objectively and
make a reasoned judgement which enhances
learning outcome. However, the authors lament
the inability of science teachers to teach students
in a way that they will ‘think outside the box’ to
be able to solve problem on their own. Thinking
outside the box could enable learners cope with
future challenges which could be in other areas
of human endeavour.
The quality of education that a teacher provides
to students is highly dependent upon what
teachers do in the classroom. Foong (2019)
lamented that the teaching styles used by most
teachers could not guarantee student-centred
learning that allows learners to construct
scientific knowledge and skills. The author
further opines that critical thinking is one of
Journal of Advanced Research in Education
20
several learning and innovative skills necessary
to prepare students for post-secondary
education and professional disciples. Thus, the
learning paradigm should shift from low level
thinking skills to learning higher order thinking
skills such as prediction, evaluation and
syntheses. Since, the poor students’ cognitive
engagement and critical thinking has often been
blamed on poor teaching approaches. Thus,
there is need for chemistry teachers to use
effective instructional approaches that could
provide an enabling environment for students to
think critically both in and outside the
classroom.
Practice-based approach (PBA) is one of
promising students’ centred methodologies that
actively engage learners in the learning process.
Science subjects especially chemistry, require
more experience, tangible together with concrete
examples throughout the learning endeavour.
Colardyn and Bjornavold (2020) opine that,
chemistry is more practical than theoretical
because different knowledge, skills and
attitudes have to be developed among the
learners through the repetition of practical or
hands-on experiences. Practice-based approach
involve the regular integration of practical or
experimental session(s) during classroom
instruction in order to equip learners with
abilities to solve real life problems. Practice-
based approach may help learners to link the
content learnt with the real-world situations and
to enhance their curiosity that in turn leads to
the acquisition of higher-order thinking and
problem-solving skills. PBA involve the process
of learning that combines theory and practice,
and emphasizes the importance of practice in
generating knowledge. PBA is a learner-centred
approach that combines theory with practice. In
PBA, students apply their learning through a
reflective process and receive personalized
feedback. With practice-based learning
approach, you combine theory and experimental
experience with a strategic, reflective process
throughout the period of learning.
Discussion-based approach (DBA) is a teaching
approach that involve students and teachers
exchanging ideas about a topic or problems.
DBA is open-ended, collaborative exchange of
ideas among a teacher and students or among
students for the purpose of furthering students
thinking, understanding and problem-solving
(Wilkinson, 2020). In DBA, participants present
multiple points of view, respond to the ideas of
others, and reflect on their own ideas in an effort
to build their knowledge, understanding or
interpretation of the concept or phenomenon.
Discussion may occur among small group of
students, whole class and be teacher-led or
student-led. However, in this study, DBA is the
collaborative exchange of ideas among a teacher
and students. Hence, the study investigated if
either practical-based approach or discussion-
based approach could be more effective in
ameliorating students’ cognitive engagement
and critical thinking ability.
1.1 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate if
either Practical-Based Approach (PBA) or
Discussion-Based Approach (DBA) could be
more effective in ameliorating students’
cognitive engagement and critical thinking
ability in Chemistry. Specifically, the study was
set out to:
1) Ascertain the difference in the cognitive
engagement ratings between students
taught chemistry using PBA and those
taught using DBA.
2) Find out the interaction effect of
approaches and gender on students’
cognitive engagement ratings in chemistry.
3) Determine the difference in the critical
thinking ability scores between students
taught chemistry using PBA and those
taught using DBA.
4) Find out the interaction effect of
approaches and gender on students’ critical
thinking ability scores in chemistry.
1.2 Research Question
The following research question guided this
study.
1) What is the difference in the mean
cognitive engagement ratings between
students taught chemistry using Practical-
Based Approach (PBA) and those taught
using Discussion-Based Approach (DBA)?
2) What is the difference in the mean critical
thinking ability ratings between students
taught chemistry using PBA and those
taught using DBA?
1.3 Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses guided the study:
1) The difference in the cognitive engagement
ratings of students taught chemistry using
Journal of Advanced Research in Education
21
Practical-Based Approach (PBA) and those
taught using Discussion-Based Approach
(DBA) is not statistically significant.
2) There is no significant interaction effect of
approaches and gender on the cognitive
engagement ratings of students in
chemistry.
3) There is no significant difference in the
critical thinking ability scores between
students taught chemistry using PBA and
those taught using DBA.
4) There is no significant interaction effect of
approaches and gender on the critical
thinking ability scores of students in
chemistry.
2. Research Design and Procedure
The study adopted pre-test, post-test non-
equivalent quasi-experimental research design.
The study area is Anyigba, Kogi State, Nigeria.
Anyigba is a town in Dekina Local Government
Area of Kogi State located between latitudes
7015’N – 7029’N and longitudes 7011’E – 7032’E
and with an average altitude of 385 meters
above sea level and total land mass area of 420
Sq. Km2 and has an estimated population of 189,
976 (NPC, 2016). The major ethnic groups in
Anyigba are Igala, Ebira, Gbagyi, Okun
(Yoruba), Bassa, Nupe, Ogori, Igbo, Idoma,
Hausa and so on. The population for this study
comprises all the students offering chemistry in
senior secondary school two in Anyigba,
numbering 6,837 students from all the 56
approved senior secondary schools in Anyigba
(Kogi State STETSCOM, 2022). The sample of
this study was made up of 166 SS2 students that
were drawn from 4 schools in Dekina Local
Government Area of Kogi State, Nigeria using
purposive sampling technique. Chemistry
Cognitive Engagement Inventory (CCEI) and
Critical Thinking Ability Test (CTAT) were the
instruments used for data collection.
Chemistry Cognitive Engagement Inventory
(CCEI) was a researcher made 25 items
inventory which was intended to help students
express their engagement level during
chemistry instruction. Each of the items is a 4-
point Likert modified rating scale with 4
response options. The options are NE (Not
Engaged), SE (Slightly Engaged), ME
(Moderately Engaged) and VE (Very Engaged).
The items were developed from information
acquired through review of relevant literature
by the researchers. Critical Thinking Ability Test
(CTAT) was adapted from Watson and Glizer
(2022) Critical Thinking Ability Test. The test
items looked at individual’s ability to make
correct inferences, recognize assumptions, make
deductions, come to conclusion, interprets and
evaluate arguments. Thus, the critical thinking
test adapted in this study is based on
recognizing assumptions, evaluating arguments
and drawing conclusion. CTAT is a 30 multiple
choice tests made of short statements and
conclusions to be answered within 45 minutes.
Students were to read through the statements
carefully and come out with definite
conclusions.
Chemistry Cognitive Engagement Inventory
(CCEI), Critical Thinking Ability Test (CTAT),
the lesson notes were face validated by
presenting them to three experts in Science
Education/Measurement and Evaluation. The
items were scrutinized by these expects.
Corrections and suggestions arising from these
experts were used to review the instrument and
the instructional packages. CCEI and CTAT
upon validation were trial-tested to establish the
reliability of the instruments by administering it
to a randomly selected 41 SS2 students of a
senior secondary school which is not part of the
schools selected for this study. After 1 week of 8
periods of teaching, the CCEI and CTAT was
administered with the help of the research
assistants. Cronbach Alpha was used to
ascertain the reliability index of CCEI which
gave reliability value of 0.86. Kuder-Richardson
(KR-21) formula was used to test internal
consistency of CTAT which gave reliability
value of 0.92.
Chemistry Cognitive Engagement Inventory
(CCEI) and Critical Thinking Ability Test
(CTAT), was administered as pre-test by the
teachers that served as research assistants. This
lasted for one week before actual teaching
commences. During the main study, the four
schools were assigned randomly to Group A
(Practical-Based group) and group B
(Discussion-based group) intact classes were
assigned Group A is the Practical-Based group.
In this group all lessons taught were
accompanied with practical or experiments for
the duration of six weeks of teaching. Group B is
the discussion group which consist of students
who were taught only the theory aspect of the
same chemistry topic without any practical for a
period of six weeks. During lessons, the groups
were taught the same chemistry topics such as
Journal of Advanced Research in Education
22
identification of fats and oils, determination of
degree of purity, crystallization and solubility.
At the end of these actual teaching periods, the
pre-test was reshuffled and administered as
post-test which lasted for one week. Descriptive
statistics of mean and standard deviation scores
were used to answer the research question,
while the inferential statistic of Analysis of
Covariance (ANCOVA) were used to test the
null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance.
3. Results
Presentations in this section are based on
research question and null hypotheses.
3.1 Research Question One
What is the difference in the mean cognitive
engagement ratings between students taught
chemistry using Practical-Based Approach
(PBA) and those taught using Discussion-Based
Approach (DBA)? The answer to research
question one is presented on Table 1.
Table 1. Mean Cognitive Engagement and Standard Deviation Scores of Students Taught Chemistry
using PBA and DBA
Group
N
PRE- CCEI
POST- CCEI
Mean Gain
𝑥
𝛿
𝑥
𝛿
PBA
81
1.13
0.12
3.69
0.21
2.56
DBA
85
1.14
0.15
2.03
0.17
0.89
Mean diff.
-0.01
1.66
1.67
Table 1 reveals the mean cognitive engagement
rating and standard deviation scores of students
taught chemistry using Practical-Based
Approach (PBA) and Discussion-Based
Approach (DBA). The data in Table 1 show that
the overall mean difference between students in
PBA and DBA groups was 1.67 in favour of
PBA. This implies that students in PBA group
had higher cognitive engagement that students
in DBA group.
3.2 Research Question Two
What is the difference in the mean critical
thinking ability scores between students taught
chemistry using Practical-Based Approach
(PBA) and those taught using Discussion-Based
Approach (DBA)? The answer to research
question two is presented on Table 2.
Table 2. Mean Critical Thinking and Standard Deviation Scores of Students Taught Chemistry using
PBA and DBA
Group
N
PRE- CTAT
POST- CTAT
Mean Gain
𝑥
𝛿
𝑥
𝛿
PBA
81
8.19
1.15
25.71
3.07
17.52
DBA
85
8.17
1.13
17.83
2.16
9.66
Mean diff.
0.02
7.88
7.86
Table 2 reveals the mean critical thinking ability
rating and standard deviation scores of students
taught chemistry using Practical-Based
Approach (PBA) and Discussion-Based
Approach (DBA). The data in Table 1 show that
the overall mean difference between students in
PBA and DBA groups was 7.86 in favour of
PBA. This implies that students in PBA group
had higher critical thinking ability that students
in DBA group.
3.3 Hypothesis One
The difference in the cognitive engagement
ratings of students taught chemistry using
Practical-Based Approach (PBA) and those
taught using Discussion-Based Approach (DBA)
is not statistically significant. The answer to
hypothesis one is presented on Table 3.
Journal of Advanced Research in Education
23
Table 3. ANCOVA Result for Cognitive Engagement Rating of Students Taught Chemistry using PBA
and DBA
Source
Type III sum of
squares
𝑑𝑓
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Corrected model
176.902a
2
88.451
.221
.000
.402
Intercept
38.002
1
38.002
189.009
.000
.322
TPrCCEI
.458
1
.458
.211
.196
.000
Method
39.194
1
39.194
138.100
.000
.762
Method*Gender
.076
1
0.76
1.765
.239
.002
Error
6.006
162
.083
Total
2419.071
166
Corrected Total
117.800
165
a. R squared = .561 (Adjusted R Squared= .569).
ANCOVA Test result in Table 3 reveals that
difference in the cognitive engagement ratings
between students taught chemistry using
Practical-Based Approach (PBA) and those
taught using Discussion-Based Approach (DBA)
is significant {F1, 165 =138.100, P<0.05}. The null
hypothesis is therefore rejected. This implies
that the difference in the cognitive engagement
rating between students taught chemistry using
PBA and those taught using DBA is significant
in favour of PBA. Meanwhile, the effect size of
0.762 is considered as large effect size. This
implies that, only 76.2% of the difference in the
cognitive engagement rating scores between the
group was explained by treatments. Hence, the
difference in the cognitive engagement rating of
students between the group has a large
statistical effect size.
3.4 Hypothesis Two
There is no significant interaction effect of
approaches and gender on the cognitive
engagement ratings of students in chemistry.
The answer to hypothesis two is presented on
Table 3.
The data analysis in Table 3 is used to explain
hypothesis 2. The table presents an ANCOVA
result for cognitive engagement rating of
students taught chemistry using Practical-Based
Approach (PBA) and Discussion-Based
Approach (DBA). The table presents the
interaction effect of approaches and gender. The
data in Table 3 reveals that there is no
significant interaction effect of approaches and
gender on the mean cognitive engagement
rating of students in chemistry {F1, 165 =1.765,
P>0.05}. The null hypothesis is therefore not
rejected. Meanwhile, the effect size was 0.002
which is considered as very small effect size.
This implies that, only 0.2% of the interaction in
the cognitive engagement rating between the
group was explained by treatment and gender.
The interaction of treatments and gender on
learners’ engagement has very small statistical
effect size. Therefore, there is no need for
separation of treatment for male and female
students since PBA can be used successfully for
the two groups to enhance their cognitive
engagement during chemistry instruction.
3.5 Hypothesis Three
There is no significant difference in the critical
thinking ability scores between students taught
chemistry using Practical-Based Approach
(PBA) and those taught using Discussion-Based
Approach (DBA). The answer to hypothesis
three is presented on Table 4.
Table 4. ANCOVA Result for Critical Thinking Scores between Students Taught Chemistry using PBA
and DBA
Source
Type III sum of
squares
𝑑𝑓
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Corrected model
2376.452a
2
1188.226
135.001
.000
.402
Journal of Advanced Research in Education
24
Intercept
119.000
1
119.000
328.001
.000
.322
TPrCTAT
.748
1
.748
1.765
.280
.000
Method
299.001
1
299.001
188.900
.000
.819
Method*Gender
.119
1
.119
5.005
.110
.004
Error
12.001
162
1.233
Total
5419.001
166
Corrected Total
2671.009
165
a. R squared = .51 (Adjusted R Squared= .67).
ANCOVA Test result in Table 4 reveals that
difference in the critical thinking ability scores
between students taught chemistry using
Practical-Based Approach (PBA) and those
taught using Discussion-Based Approach (DBA)
is significant {F1, 165 =188.900, P<0.05}. The null
hypothesis is therefore rejected. This implies
that the difference in the critical thinking ability
scores between students taught chemistry using
PBA and those taught using DBA is significant
in favour of PBA. Meanwhile, the effect size of
0.819 is considered as large effect size. This
implies that, only 81.9% of the difference in the
critical thinking ability scores between the
group was explained by treatments. Hence, the
difference in the critical thinking ability scores
of students between the group has a large
statistical effect size.
3.6 Hypothesis Four
There is no significant interaction effect of
approaches and gender on the critical thinking
ability scores of students in chemistry. The
answer to hypothesis four is presented on Table
4.
The data analysis in Table 4 is used to explain
hypothesis 4. The table presents an ANCOVA
result for critical thinking ability scores of
students taught chemistry using Practical-Based
Approach (PBA) and Discussion-Based
Approach (DBA). The table presents the
interaction effect of approaches and gender. The
data in Table 4 reveals that there is no
significant interaction effect of approaches and
gender on the mean critical thinking ability
scores of students in chemistry {F1, 165 =5.005,
P>0.05}. The null hypothesis is therefore not
rejected. Meanwhile, the effect size was 0.004
which is considered as very small effect size.
This implies that, only 0.4% of the interaction in
the critical thinking ability scores between the
group was explained by treatment and gender.
The interaction of treatments and gender on
students’ critical thinking ability scores has very
small statistical effect size. Therefore, there is no
need for separation of treatment for male and
female students since PBA can be used
successfully for the two groups to enhance their
critical thinking ability in chemistry classroom.
4. Discussion of Findings
The study investigated if either Practical-Based
Approach (PBA) or Discussion-Based Approach
(DBA) could be more effective in ameliorating
students’ cognitive engagement and critical
thinking ability in Chemistry. The finding of this
study revealed that the difference in the
cognitive engagement ratings between students
taught chemistry using Practical-Based
Approach (PBA) and those taught using
Discussion-Based Approach (DBA) is
significant. This finding agrees with
Abdelhamid (2019), who found that a
percentage of 79% from the total students
enrolled in architectural course agreed that they
had benefited from experiments carried out
during site visit and also argued that sometimes
teachers’ theoretical comments or explanations
are not clear enough for them and that
experimental study is very useful as it brought
them into direct contact with the space on the
real world. The finding agrees with Ajayi and
Ogbeba (2017), findings that hands-on activities
(through experimentation) is an effective
strategy in ameliorating students’ academic
achievement and scientific process skills in
chemistry than conventional teaching method.
In the same vein, this finding is also in line with
Agamber, Achor, Ajayi (2019) findings that
teaching biology with practical work to students
as frequently as possible is more rewarding and
beneficial to learners in terms of enhancing
motivation and self-efficacy belief in solving
biology related problems likely reason for this
outcome may be attributed to the fact that PBA
Journal of Advanced Research in Education
25
helped the learners to frequently reflect, explore
and learn from the real-world experience.
The finding of this study further revealed that
difference in the critical thinking ability scores
between students taught chemistry using
Practical-Based Approach (PBA) and those
taught using Discussion-Based Approach (DBA)
is significant in favour of PBA. This finding is in
line with Nja and Neji (2017) findings that the
use of kitchen resources enhanced the
performance of students exposed to
experimentation of kitchen resources during the
teaching of Home Economic compared to those
taught without experimentation. This finding
collaborates with John and Asikong (2020)
finding that regular exposure students to
experiments have rewarding learning outcome
and retention in students than conventional
method in waves. Thus, the likely reason for this
outcome may also be connected to the fact that
the use of PBA provides a format for students to
see how knowledge is developed through the
process of reflecting, probing, investigating,
analysing, synthesizing, discovering,
discovering and critical thinking they undertake
thereby enhancing conceptual understanding
compared to discussion-based approach that
only promotes passive learning. This finding of
this study also revealed that there is no
significant interaction effect between approach
and gender on engagement and critical thinking
in chemistry. It shows that PBA is superior to
the discussion-based irrespective of gender in
fostering students’ learning engagement and
academic performance in chemistry. Therefore,
there is no need for separation of instructional
strategy for male and female students since
Practical-Based approach can be used
successfully for the two groups.
5. Conclusion
The study has established that practical-based
approach is more rewarding and beneficial to
students in terms of ameliorating students’
cognitive engagement and critical thinking
ability when compared to discussion-based
approach. It was evident from the finding the
study that there is no significant interaction
effect between methods and gender. Therefore,
Practical-Based teaching approach can be used
successfully for the two groups to ameliorate
learners’ cognitive engagement and critical
thinking ability in chemistry. The following
recommendations were made:
1) Chemistry teachers should be encouraged
to use practical-based approach during
chemistry instruction to ameliorate
students’ cognitive engagement and critical
thinking ability.
2) Practical-Based approach is not gender
sensitive. Hence, both male and female
students should be involved in practical or
experiments during chemistry instruction
to enhance their cognitive engagement and
critical thinking ability.
3) Relevant school authorities should provide
laboratory facilities and ensure strict
monitoring and supervision to ensure that
practical activities are carry out regularly
during chemistry instruction so as to
enhance learners’ cognitive engagement
and critical thinking ability.
References
Abdelhamid, M.M. (2019). Experimental based
teaching approach and architectural
students’ performance. Engineering Research
Journal, 164, 36-46.
Achimugu, L. (2018). Effectiveness of enriched
demonstration and lecture instructional
strategies on senior secondary school
students’ achievement in chemistry. Journal
of Contemporary Education Research, 2(1), 1-9.
Agamber, S.T., Achor, E.E., & Ajayi, V.O. (2019).
Enhancing students’ motivation and self-
efficacy belief in solving biology related
problems using frequent practical work.
Journal of the International Centre for Science,
Humanities and Education Research, 4(2), 20-
30. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13342343
Ajayi, V.O. & Audu, C.T. (2023). Adaptation and
implementation of spaced learning
integrated with technology (SLIT)
instructional strategy and students’
academic performance in Chemistry. Journal
of the International Centre for Science,
Humanities and Education Research, 5(3), 52-
64. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13344567
Ajayi, V.O. (2017). Effect of hands-on activity-
based method on interest of senior
secondary students in organic chemistry.
Scholarly Journal of Education, 6(1), 1-5. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/tx2yr
Ajayi, V.O., & Ogbeba, J. (2017). Effect of gender
on senior secondary chemistry students’
Journal of Advanced Research in Education
26
achievement in stoichiometry using hands-
on activities. American Journal Educational
Research, 5(8), 839-842. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12691/education-5-8-1
Ajayi, V.O., & Ogbeba, J. (2017). Effects of
hands-on activity-based and demonstration
methods on senior secondary students’
achievement in physical chemistry.
University of Jos, Institute of Education Journal
of Educational Studies, 9(1), 521-533. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13337834
Bolaji, A. S. (2017). Taxonomy and critical
thinking. Retrieved on July, 2024 at
https://www.opn.edu/openlearnworks/plugi
nfile
Clinton-Lisell, V., Strouse, G. & Langowski,
A.M. (2024). Children’s engagement during
shared reading of ebooks and paper books:
A systematic review. International Journal of
Child-Computer Interaction, 39, 1-13.
Colardyn, J. & Bjornavold, K. (2020). Critical
thinking skills development. Analysis of a
new learning management model for Thai
high schools. Journal of International Studies,
11(2), 37-48.
Demirhan, E. & Besoluk, S.O. (2019). The change
in academic performance and critical
thinking disposition scores of pre-service
teaching over time. Journal of Educational
Science, 2(4), 403-412. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100632
Foong, P. Y. (2019). Open-ended problems for
higher thinking in mathematics. American
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1),
1-4.
John, S.E. & Asikong, W.E. (2020). Effects of
experimental method of teaching on
academic performance of SS2 science
students in Calabar Education Zone,
Calabar, Cross River State. Open-Access
Global Journal of Education, 2(3), 62-70.
King, F.J., Goodson, L. & Rohani, F. (2017). Higher
order thinking skills. Retrieved on September
2024 at http://www.cala.fsu.edu/98508
Nja, H.L. & Neji, M.J. (2017). Use of kitchen
resources to enhance the performance of
students in Home Economic. Journal of
Home Economic and Innovations, 3(3), 34-40.
Shana, Z., & Abulibdeh, E. S. (2020). Science
practical work and its impact on high
students’ academic achievement. JOTSE,
10(2), 199-215.
https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.888
STETSCOM. (2022). Kogi State science, technical
education and teaching service commission
statistic unit reports on population of SS
students in Kogi State. Lokoja: STETSCOM.
Watson, G. & Glizer, E. (2022). Critical thinking
appraisal user-guide and technical manual
UK supervised and unsupervised versions.
Retrieved on September, 2024 at
https://www.talentlens.co.uk/assets/news-
and-events/watson-gazir-use-guide-and-
technical-manual
Wilkinson, A.G. (2020). Psychology of classroom
learning: Discussion methods. Retrieved on
12th September, 2024 from
https://www.ebooks.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.
ohio-state.edu/xtf-
Yenice, N. (2017). Investigating pre-service science
teachers’ critical thinking dispositions and
problem-solving skills in terms of different
variables. Educational Research and Reviews,
6(6), 497-508.
