Effects of jigsaw learning strategy integrated with computer simulations on gender differences in students’ achievement and attitude in learning chemistry

Abstract

This research study investigated the impact of gender and the jigsaw learning strategy integrated with computer simulations (JLSICS) on chemistry learning, emphasizing student achievement and attitudes. Chemistry is often perceived as challenging and abstract, and traditional teaching methods have not effectively addressed these difficulties. To tackle this issue, a quantitative research approach was utilized, employing a quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-tests across non-equivalent comparison groups. The study involved three intact classes: one using conventional methods (CM) and two experimental groups implementing JLSICS and the jigsaw learning strategy (JLS) independently. The sample consisted of 144 participants aged over 15. Data were collected using the Chemistry Attitude Likert Scale Test (CALST) and the Chemistry Achievement Test (CAT). The CAT’s internal consistency was assessed with the Kuder-Richardson formula 20, yielding a reliability coefficient of 0.78, while the CALST had a reliability coefficient of 0.928 based on Cronbach’s alpha. Data analysis was conducted using two-way ANOVA. The results showed that gender did not significantly influence achievement or attitudes regarding acid and base concepts. Additionally, JLSICS was found to be more effective than JLS alone and CM in improving academic success and fostering positive attitudes, regardless of gender. It is recommended that secondary school chemistry teachers adopt JLSICS to enhance student outcomes.

Full text

INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
IN EDUCATION | RESEARCH ARTICLE
Effects of jigsaw learning strategy integrated with computer
simulations on gender differences in students’achievement and
attitude in learning chemistry
Shimelis Kebede Kekeba
Department of Chemistry, College of Natural Sciences, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia
ABSTRACT
This research study investigated the impact of gender and the jigsaw learning strategy
integrated with computer simulations (JLSICS) on chemistry learning, emphasizing stu-
dent achievement and attitudes. Chemistry is often perceived as challenging and
abstract, and traditional teaching methods have not effectively addressed these difficul-
ties. To tackle this issue, a quantitative research approach was utilized, employing a
quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-tests across non-equivalent comparison
groups. The study involved three intact classes: one using conventional methods (CM)
and two experimental groups implementing JLSICS and the jigsaw learning strategy
(JLS) independently. The sample consisted of 144 participants aged over 15. Data were
collected using the Chemistry Attitude Likert Scale Test (CALST) and the Chemistry
Achievement Test (CAT). The CAT’s internal consistency was assessed with the Kuder-
Richardson formula 20, yielding a reliability coefficient of 0.78, while the CALST had a
reliability coefficient of 0.928 based on Cronbach’s alpha. Data analysis was conducted
using two-way ANOVA. The results showed that gender did not significantly influence
achievement or attitudes regarding acid and base concepts. Additionally, JLSICS was
found to be more effective than JLS alone and CM in improving academic success and
fostering positive attitudes, regardless of gender. It is recommended that secondary
school chemistry teachers adopt JLSICS to enhance student outcomes.
IMPACT STATEMENT
The research examines the impact of integrating the jigsaw learning strategy with
computer simulations (JLSICS) on the academic progress of 10th-grade students in
complex chemistry topics like acid and base. The results of the study indicated that
instruction based on JLSICS led to a significant improvement in the academic achieve-
ment and attitudes of 10th-grade students in Jimma, compared to conventional
teaching methods, as observed through a quasi-experimental research design.
However, no interaction was found between the type of instruction and gender or
achievement levels. This study contributes to the existing knowledge by shifting the
focus from teacher-centered instructional methods to student-centered methods to
assess academic achievement and attitude as learning effects. Additionally, it suggests
that the Ethiopian educational system should consider implementing JLSICS instruc-
tional methods in secondary school chemistry classrooms and laboratories.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 28 December 2023
Revised 13 March 2024
Accepted 17 April 2024
KEYWORDS
Achievement; attitude;
gender; jigsaw learning
strategy; computer
simulation; chemistry
teachers
SUBJECTS
Science; Food Science &
Technology; Food
Chemistry; Technology;
Computer Science;
Computer Graphics &
Visualization; Information &
Communication
Technology (ICT)
Introduction
Chemistry plays a vital role in the realm of science as it allows students to understand their environment
(Sampath, 2021). Abstract concepts in chemistry are not only widespread but also essential for future
comprehension of chemistry and other scientific disciplines (Oladejo, 2021). The significance of these
abstract concepts lies in the fact that without a strong grasp of these foundational principles, students
face difficulties in comprehending more intricate chemical concepts or theories (Yıldırır, 2022). The
CONTACT Shimelis Kebede Kekeba shimeliskebed83@gmail.com Department of Chemistry, College of Natural Sciences, Jimma
University, Jimma, Ethiopia
ß2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
COGENT EDUCATION
2025, VOL. 12, NO. 1, 2346041
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2346041

challenges often encountered by students in comprehending chemistry topics can be attributed to their
limited understanding of the concepts and processes involved (Murni et al., 2022).
Over the years, many ideas have been associated with students’ineffective grasp of the basic and
practical complexities of chemistry (Penn & Ramnarain, 2019). In the past few years, extensive research
has been conducted to identify strategies for enhancing students’chemistry learning. Students in sec-
ondary school require student-centered settings that foster and facilitate the acquisition of a wide range
of understandings and cognitive abilities (Darwazeh et al., 2022).
Despite the thirty-year history of learning style theories, studies have shown that the majority of
teachers still use conventional teaching methods to give material to students without taking their learn-
ing skills into account (Yesgat, 2022). Instead of being activity-based and student-centered to improve
learning, these conventional instructional approaches are theoretical, heavily didactic, and teacher-
centered. Several investigations have shown students do poorly in secondary school chemistry courses
(Ugwu & Namani, 2023). The attainment of the objectives of scientific instruction by students was shown
to be hindered by several issues. These include the uninteresting and improper teaching methods used
by chemistry teachers. According to such researchers, teachers shy away in fear from activity-based
teaching strategies, which are proven to be more successful. They mostly rely on teaching strategies
that are simple yet frequently ineffective and inappropriate.
In today’s digital era, educational technologies are utilized to inspire students to acquire new know-
ledge and enhance their achievement. The effective use of digital technology relies on the intricate
interaction between pedagogy and technological capability (Aldon & Panero, 2022). However, it is impor-
tant to note that the relationship between the teacher, the student, and the technology plays a crucial
role in creating a positive learning environment (Christian et al., 2021). While technology can be a valu-
able tool with numerous advantages, its application determines its purpose and suitability for classroom
use (Hagos & Andargie, 2022b).
Although certain research indicates that technology can aid in deeper learning and support this the-
ory (Parker et al., 2021), other studies (Talan, 2021) don’t quite clinch. While changes in the use of tech-
nology may be linked to some of the variations in outcomes, others may be the result of variations in
teacher pedagogy or the use of technology (Dorathy & Sambo, 2023). Education experts assert that
there may be advantages for both educators and learners when technology is incorporated into the
classroom. Technology has the potential to boost students’academic achievement and furnish them
with essential resources to aid in their education (Anuar et al., 2021).
Despite extensive research and curriculum development, it appears that students still lack a complete
understanding of various aspects of chemistry (Tyson et al., 2022). Since the introduction of computers
in classrooms, researchers have been investigating whether the use of educational technology has a sig-
nificant impact on student achievement (Penn & Umesh, 2021). Numerous studies have been carried out
to explore the effectiveness of innovative and alternative teaching approaches in chemistry education.
Furthermore, numerous studies in the field of chemistry education have demonstrated the positive
effects of computer utilization on student achievement (Vieira & Pedro, 2023). These studies indicate
that employing computer simulations effectively promotes favourable attitudes towards chemistry.
Specifically, cooperative learning that involves interactions between students and computers in diverse
learning environments has been shown to enhance students’attitudes towards chemistry (Belayneh &
Belachew, 2023). Computer-assisted programs not only facilitate comprehension and critical thinking but
also discourage algorithmic problem-solving and rote memorization (Garnett & Tobin, 2021).
As a result, an increasing number of educators are supporting the integration of computers into
chemistry classrooms (Darling-Hammond et al., 2021). Computer-assisted learning environments strive to
offer students a visual depiction of molecular interactions, while also making the information conveyed
in conventional molecular representations more explicit. This enables students to grasp chemistry con-
cepts by observing molecular simulations alongside graphical output and chemical formulas. In contrast,
conventional chemistry lectures predominantly rely on verbal explanations, limiting students’chances to
witness molecular interactions (Levy et al., 2021).
According to a study conducted by P€
oys€
a-Tarhonen et al. (2022), research indicates that computer
assisted instruction (CAI) is more effective than conventional instruction. The study found that tenth-
grade students who received CAI demonstrated improved conceptual understanding compared to those
2 S. K. KEKEBA

who received conventional instruction. Additionally, an analysis of teaching acids and bases showed that
when learner-centred approaches were incorporated, CAI surpassed conventional learning approaches in
terms of student achievement and attitude (Bardach & Klassen, 2021).
Numerous empirical studies have provided evidence for the importance of incorporating technology
into jigsaw cooperative learning methods. This approach not only enhances student learning but also
ensures a positive learning environment and cultivates proficient students across various disciplines
(Adedoyin & Altinay, 2023).
Jigsaw learning strategy is a cooperative learning method that encourages learner engagement,
shared content acquisition, and mutual explanation (Sudin et al., 2021). It consists of four stages. In the
first stage (introduction), the class is divided into diverse ‘home’groups comprising three to seven stu-
dents. The teacher provides a brief overview of the topic and explains how it will be divided into sub-
topics. Moving on to stage two (focused exploration), each member of a home group selects a specific
subtopic. Students who have chosen the same subtopic then convene in ‘jigsaw groups’to study the
material and prepare to present it to their home groups. Stage three (reporting and reshaping) entails
students returning to their home groups, sharing their findings, and beginning to refine their under-
standing of the topic. Finally, stage four (integration and evaluation) involves students synthesizing their
learning to produce the final piece of work. Stages three and four offer students the chance to teach
their newly acquired knowledge to their home group peers and learn from the material presented by
other group members (Cochon et al., 2023)(Figure 1). This method has proven to be effective in chemis-
try and has demonstrated positive impacts on student achievement, attitude, and engagement.
To thrive in the twenty-first century, students must possess a comprehensive understanding of their
subjects, possess the ability to assess their progress as well as that of their peers, and take responsibility for
their education (Maruf & Helingo, 2022). It is worth noting that students’emotional reactions to test results
can significantly impact their mood and motivation to learn (Salta & Koulougliotis, 2021). Additionally, the
attitudes students hold towards studying are greatly influenced by their teachers (K€
ult€
ur & Kutlu, 2021).
A correlation has been shown in certain studies between excellent teaching and learning goals for
students, such as achievement and attitudes. Using the dynamic model of educational efficacy, Ruffina
et al. (2021), for instance, demonstrated the relationship between instructional effectiveness and student
learning outcomes in Ghana. Corresponding to this, Evans and Acosta (2021) demonstrated how the cali-
bre of instruction explains Kenyan students’success in mathematics and science. The majority of data
on teacher effectiveness and student learning results come from industrialised nations, despite their
encouraging accomplishments. For instance, a Dutch study that used data from twin pairs that attended
Figure 1. Jigsaw learning strategy implementation format.
COGENT EDUCATION 3

the same school but were exogenously placed in various classrooms looked at the causal relationship
between classroom effectiveness and student achievement. According to the study, all students do bet-
ter on examinations when their teachers have more experience, but the lowest-achieving students gain
the most from this. Regarding the significance of more teacher experience for career advancement, G€
ul
(2021) claims that there are important ramifications for other indicators of classroom quality. There is no
evidence that students’learning results are influenced by the quality of their education (Evans et al.,
2021). Nonetheless, there is proof that effective education can improve student learning outcomes in
such circumstances (Kidanemariam et al., 2021).
Theoretical framework
The integration of computer simulations with the jigsaw learning technique is based on several theoret-
ical perspectives. Nonetheless, the social interdependence and situated learning theories of learning
were the foundations of this study’s investigation.
The social interdependence theory offers a theoretical framework for comprehending the impact of
JLSICS on the disparities in achievement and attitude towards learning chemistry among students based
on their gender. As per this theory, individuals’actions and results are influenced by their social environ-
ment, specifically the interconnection among group members (Loh & Ang, 2020). The theory highlights
that fostering positive interdependence among students leads to heightened motivation, improved learn-
ing outcomes, and enhanced social abilities. It also entails promoting, facilitating, and supporting individu-
als within a group to aid one another in completing tasks and achieving the group’s objectives. These can
be attained through constructive conflict resolution techniques, effective communication, mutual influ-
ence, trade of necessary resources, mutual aid and assistance, and trust. The social interdependence theory
and jigsaw learning strategy integrated with computer simulations are strongly correlated.
In the context of learning chemistry, JLSICS fosters an interactive and cooperative learning environment
(Uno et al., 2021). Through interactive computer simulations, students can investigate and control chemical
events (Vicky & Andy, 2022). Group work encourages students to discuss and exchange ideas and know-
ledge, which develops a sense of interdependence (Marta, 2022). Gender-neutral engagement and equal
contribution are encouraged by this cooperative learning technique, which eliminates barriers between
genders.
Situated learning theory advocates for the combination of computer simulations and jigsaw learning
strategy to improve learning outcomes in chemistry. This theory highlights the significance of learning
in a context that is meaningful and relevant to learners, emphasizing authentic real-world experiences
and social interactions within those contexts (Meara et al., 2022). The integration of the jigsaw learning
strategy with computer simulations in chemistry education is in line with the principles of situated learn-
ing theory. It is a pedagogical approach that entails students collaborating in small groups to acquire
proficiency in a particular subject or idea. Within this framework, each student assumes the role of an
expert in a specific aspect of the topic and subsequently imparts their expertise to their peers, who in
turn possess expertise in different aspects (Consalvo et al., 2022). This collaborative process not only
encourages active participation but also facilitates social interaction, both of which are fundamental
principles of situated learning theory.
By integrating computer simulations into the Jigsaw Learning Strategy, students are given a practical
and engaging platform to learn chemistry. These simulations can replicate chemical reactions, lab experi-
ments, and various phenomena, enabling students to investigate and adjust variables within a controlled
setting. This interactive and experiential approach is consistent with the tenets of situated learning the-
ory, as it offers students genuine experiences that directly pertain to the topic at hand (Norman, 2021).
Through this method, students can effectively build their comprehension of chemistry by participating
in problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaborative activities.
According to this theoretical framework, JLSICS can yield various beneficial outcomes in terms of gen-
der disparities in students’achievement and attitude towards learning chemistry. Initially, it offers an
equal opportunity for both male and female students to partake in hands-on learning experiences,
thereby helping to overcome the conventional gender stereotypes and biases associated with science
subjects (Chen & Liu, 2020). Moreover, the collaborative nature of the jigsaw learning strategy fosters
4 S. K. KEKEBA

active participation and engagement from all students, thereby diminishing the gender gap in classroom
interactions (Bartholomew & Seymour, 2021). Lastly, the utilization of computer simulations amplifies stu-
dents’motivation and interest in learning chemistry, which can positively impact their achievements and
attitudes towards chemistry, regardless of their gender (Rodr

ıguez et al., 2020).
Ethiopian secondary school students’low academic achievement and attitudes have been a subject
of debate in the field of chemistry for a long time (Belayneh & Belachew, 2024). It is essential to compre-
hend the root cause of this issue before attempting to address it. Various factors have been examined
and identified as potential starting points when analyzing students’success and failure. Investigations
are carried out from multiple angles, such as student engagement, abstract subject concepts, parental
and teacher involvement, school environment, societal influences, instructional guidelines, and govern-
ment participation (Bardach & Klassen, 2021).
The previous years’releases of Ethiopia’s secondary school examination results by the National
Educational Assessment and Testing Agency indicate a declining trend (NEAEA, 2021). The data reveals
that the percentage of grade 10 students who passed chemistry with a grade over 50% was 48.1% in
2018, 46.7% in 2019, and 43.7% in 2020. Similarly, the mean score for Grade 12 students in chemistry
was 42.7% in 2018, which decreased to 40.1% in 2019 and further dropped to 37.1% in 2020. These fig-
ures fall short of the minimum requirement of 50%, indicating a declining trend in achievement over
time (Table 1). This indicates that chemistry instruction in grades 10 and 12 is difficult, which calls for
additional research. These suggested that while the teaching strategy employed is a contributing factor,
low accomplishment results are also linked to it. Surprisingly, there is a lack of research exploring the
influence of students’attitudes towards chemistry teaching and learning on their academic achievement,
as well as the underlying causes of this decline (Kim et al., 2021). Students must engage in activities that
hold personal significance and importance to them to foster attitudes (Hesti, 2022). Consequently,
Ethiopia faces challenges in attracting and motivating students to study chemistry.
Ethiopian academic attainment has been low at all levels of the system, despite high enrolment rates,
significant curriculum change, and other efforts, according to student results on national exams (Tefera
et al., 2021). Most high school students don’t have the necessary skills, knowledge, or attitudes. After
completing their studies in grades 10 and 12, students lack the competencies and knowledge necessary
to enter the workforce.
Many studies show that not all of the students have higher academic attainment in response to bet-
ter education (Sanfo & Malgoubri, 2021). Among them, there is a limited but growing body of research
that looks at how teaching strategies such as gender, attitude, and style of instruction affect students’
learning outcomes. For instance, studies by Anna-Katharina and Charalambos (2023) showed a connec-
tion between effective classroom management techniques and students’achievement in chemistry.
The learning outcomes of students are significantly influenced by their gender, especially in the field
of chemistry. However, there has been conflicting evidence regarding how gender affects learning strat-
egies. In several regions of Africa, men are generally perceived to possess superior qualities in a range
of pursuits (Oladejo et al., 2023). Males did better than girls in Ethiopia’s grade 10 and grade 12 national
exams (NEAEA, 2021). For instance, the average composite score for males was 43.23%, whereas the
average composite score for females was 39.45% (Table 2). Similarly, students’achievement in chemistry
in Ethiopia secondary schools is below a B grade which is the entry grade required for most university
disciplines. This score does not allow students concerned to join science-oriented departments in the
university. This shows that educational quality remains a challenge in Ethiopia. Several studies have
Table 1. Percentage of students who passed chemistry with a grade over 50%
for Grade 10 and the mean score for Grade 12 students in chemistry.
Year Grade 10 pass percentage Grade 12 mean score
2018 48.1% 42.7%
2019 46.7% 40.1%
2020 43.7% 37.1%
Note: The percentages and mean scores presented in this table represent the performance of
students in chemistry for Grade 10 and Grade 12 in the specified years. The pass percentage
indicates the proportion of Grade 10 students who achieved a grade over 50% in chemistry,
while the mean score represents the average score obtained by Grade 12 students in
chemistry.
COGENT EDUCATION 5

reported better achievement of male students in senior school chemistry than female students (Mwihia,
2021).
Many girls have little attraction to chemistry and hence science and science-based courses and career
options, which can be linked to this along with the perceived difficulty of teaching and mastering sec-
ondary school chemistry (Oladejo et al., 2022). It is widely acknowledged that male students tend to out-
perform their female counterparts in subjects related to science. This disparity is further attributed to
the ongoing gender gap in the academic achievement of secondary school students, both in internal
and external science exams, particularly in chemistry (Eleje et al., 2020). When a technology instructional
strategy was used to teach both male and female students, they displayed varying achievements on a
chemistry problem-solving test task involving electrolysis, wherein male students demonstrated a statis-
tically significant advantage (Shadreck & Enunuwe, 2022).
Contrary to the previous findings, there was no statistically significant gender difference in students’sci-
entific achievement (Ugwu & Namani, 2023). However, it is plausible that this difference may have interacted
with other factors to impact learning outcomes. It may be feasible to identify the optimal instructional strat-
egy and match it with a student’s characteristics to enhance learning outcomes (Ugwu & Namani, 2023). This
is because certain students with specific traits may benefit more from a particular teaching approach com-
pared to others. How chemistry teachers deliver their lessons in the classroom could potentially interact
with the gender of their students, influencing their learning outcomes (Oladejo et al., 2023). These contra-
dictory findings have caused for inclusion of gender as one of the moderating variables of this study.
Research conducted on chemistry education in Ethiopian secondary schools has revealed that conven-
tional teaching methods, such as lectures and teacher demonstrations, continue to dominate classroom
activities (Martha, 2022). However, these methods have proven to be ineffective in promoting chemistry
learning at the secondary school level. Consequently, students’attitudes towards chemistry have
remained poor. To address this issue, the integration of computer simulations with jigsaw learning
approaches is necessary. This innovative teaching technique can help overcome the differences in learn-
ing outcomes between male and female chemistry students (Hagos & Andargie, 2022a). By utilizing com-
puter simulations and jigsaw learning, both male and female students in secondary school can improve
their attitudes towards learning chemistry.
Incorporating computer simulations into the classroom with a student-centred approach has been found
to enhance the teaching of various chemistry topics. This not only makes the learning process easier and
more enjoyable for students but also leads to improved academic achievement and attitude (Ajayi, 2017).
Computer simulations are dynamic, interactive, and user-friendly programs that support both large and
small-group instruction (C¸etin, 2018). The combination of computer simulations and jigsaw cooperative
learning strategies has been shown to increase students’academic achievement, team efficacy, communi-
cation skills, and performance scores (Tefera et al., 2021). Students’poor achievement and attitudes in
chemistry can be attributed to the lack of teachers’use of innovative teaching strategies in the twenty-first-
century classroom (Belayneh & Belachew, 2024). To enhance educational outcomes, it is recommended to
utilize this combined approach during instructional sessions. By integrating computer simulations into the
jigsaw learning strategy, abstract concepts in chemistry can be illustrated more concretely and understand-
ably, thereby potentially improving students’achievement, and attitude (Hernandez & Burrows, 2021).
Nevertheless, the impact of JLSICS on Ethiopian students’achievement and attitudes towards chemis-
try has not been explored. Previous studies have focused on computer-assisted cooperative learning
strategies and conventional classroom instruction, without examining the effectiveness of JLSICS on
male and female students’achievement and attitudes (Yesgat, 2022). Similarly, there is limited empirical
evidence regarding the impact of JLSICS on the academic achievement and attitude towards chemistry
Table 2. Mean composite scores of chemistry for grade 10 male
and female students.
Gender Mean composite score
Males 43.23%
Females 39.45%
Note: The mean composite score for male students is 43.23%, while the mean
composite score for female students is 39.45%.
6 S. K. KEKEBA

of both male and female students (Tefera et al., 2021). To bridge the gap in learning outcomes between
male and female chemistry students, it is crucial to implement an innovative and learner-friendly teach-
ing method. One such method is JLSICS which has the potential to enhance both male and female sec-
ondary school chemistry students’attitudes and learning outcomes. Therefore, the objective of this
research is to investigate the impact of students’gender and jigsaw learning strategy integrated with
computer simulations on their achievement and attitude towards learning acid and base in particular
and chemistry in general at Jimma secondary school.
Objectives of the study
It specifically aims to:
Examine the interaction of students’gender and jigsaw learning strategy integrated with computer
simulations on their achievement in learning acid and base.
Assess the interaction of students’gender and jigsaw learning strategy integrated with computer sim-
ulations on their attitude towards learning acid and base.
Study hypotheses
To tackle the aforementioned objectives, the researcher formulated two distinct null hypotheses:
H01. There is no statistically significant difference in students’achievement test scores in the interaction
of intervention groups and gender in learning chemistry.
H02. There is no statistically significant difference in students’attitude test scores in the interaction of
intervention groups and gender in learning chemistry.
Research methodology
This study used a quantitative research method, which used numbers to measure the effects of JLSICS
on students’achievement and attitudes towards learning acid and base. Quasi-experimental design ‘pre-
test and post-test with nonequivalent comparison group’, which is effective for establishing cause-
and-effect relationships was used in the study. It can be used when the variables cannot be controlled,
such as when students cannot be assigned into groups randomly to study outcomes but are statistically
controlled by the researcher (Davison et al., 2022). The design includes a comparison group and two
experimental groups. According to the study’s design, students in experimental group one (EG1) were
taught using JLSICS, students in experimental group two (EG2) were taught through JLS alone, and stu-
dents in the comparison group (CG) were taught through CM.
Sample and sampling method
Using a convenience sample method, the researchers chose Jimma Town as the research site because of its
availability, ease of access, and proximity. 144 tenth-grade public secondary school students with ages greater
than 15 years old took part in this study. Using the purposive sampling technique, one secondary school with
a well-equipped computer laboratory was selected to serve as the sample. Furthermore, three entire classes
from the selected school were chosen using simple random sampling methods. These three sections were
then randomly assigned, with two for treatment (experimental) and one for comparison. A chemistry teacher
who was more qualified and experienced was deliberately selected from the school to teach all groups.
Variables of the study
Gender and intervention group instructions were the study’s independent variables. While gender only
has two levels (male and female), groups using CM, JLS alone, and JLSICS all have three levels. In this
study, attitude and achievement served as the dependent variables.
COGENT EDUCATION 7

Data collecting instruments
Data were gathered using two tests—a chemistry achievement test and a chemistry attitude Likert scale
test—to address the study’s research objectives. Both the chemistry achievement test and the chemistry
attitude Likert scale test were administered twice, as pre-and post-tests. A detailed description of the
features of these devices can be found below (Appendices 1 and 2 and Appendix Table 1).
Chemistry achievement test (CAT)
The test comprised 30 multiple-choice questions. For every question, there is only one correct response
and four possible distractions. Every question was taken from the literature and changed to meet the
requirements of the research. The students took tests to gauge their academic progress both before and
after the treatment. All achievement test items’internal consistency had a reliability value of 0.78, which
was deemed acceptable and applied in this investigation.
Chemistry attitude Likert scale test (CALST)
The researcher modified it from existing literature to assess students’attitudes toward learning chemistry
concepts such as acid and base both before and after they were exposed to JLSICS, JLS, and CM. It
comprised twenty items in the five-point response format of Strongly Disagree (coded 1), Disagree
(coded 2), Neutral (coded 3), Agree (coded 4) and Strongly Agree (coded 5). Before and following the
treatment duration, it was given to both the experimental and comparison groups. Internal consistency
tests revealed that the CALST was a dependable tool, and the study’s use of it was approved with a
coefficient alpha of 0.928.
Instruments’validity and reliability
Two measurement and evaluation experts, two chemistry education experts, and experienced secondary
school chemistry teachers with more than 15 years of experience reviewed and examined the instrument
used to collect data for the chemistry achievement test for expression and content validity. The instru-
ment was reviewed in light of the comments received. The instruments were evaluated at a single
school of thirty-six 11
th
-grade students that was not part of the study. The investigators chose to admin-
ister the pilot test in grade 11 because the participants had previously studied in grade 10. The esti-
mated reliability coefficient of the Chemistry Achievement Test was calculated using the Kuder
Richardson formula 20 (K-R20) and came out to be roughly 0.78. Using Cronbach’s alpha, the reliability
coefficient for the Likert scale test of chemistry attitude was determined to be 0.928.
Treatment procedure
The three randomly selected sections were divided into two treatment groups and one comparison
group. Training was given at the time to teachers and students in the targeted groups. We started by
briefly outlining the objectives of the research, the strategies for implementing the procedure, the tasks
that needed to be completed during treatment, and the treatment schedule. The ten-day program,
which consisted of one hour for students and two hours for teachers each day, was led by the
researcher. After the training, the three sections taught by one chemistry teacher received a pretest cov-
ering the chemistry achievement test and a chemistry attitude Likert scale test for acid and base. After
that, the intervention was given.
The ideas surrounding acid and base were presented in the same way to each group. The groups
received instruction in a classroom for three forty-minute sessions per week for a total of eight weeks.
For both the experimental and comparison groups, the same amount of time was spent learning.
Lessons for the experimental groups, on the other hand, focused on improving students’attitudes and
achievement in learning acid and base concepts by utilizing a JLS alone and a JLSICS.
8 S. K. KEKEBA

Lessons were imparted through cooperative group projects that encouraged student discussion.
Taking into consideration factors like gender and academic standing, the teacher divided the students
into several groups. Seven groups of five to six students each formed as a result, and they were made
up of five to six students. Throughout the lesson, students were given time to think before responding
to questions that tested their high-level thinking skills and encouraged them to do so. As jigsaw learn-
ing techniques in the classroom, the teacher employed discussion, guiding, monitoring, observation,
quiz, oral questions, think-pair sharing, presentation, and summarizing.
The present study utilized various technological tools including desktop computers, a laptop, a white-
board, a microphone, and a smartphone. Internet access, PowerPoint, and LCD were among the pro-
grams employed. The purpose of using these technological resources and software was to facilitate the
implementation of jigsaw learning strategies both inside and outside the classroom. The teacher utilized
PowerPoint to develop the course objectives and lessons, as well as for individual and group work. The
teacher also used LCD to display lesson activities on a computer desktop and to outline the lesson
objectives. During this time, the teacher provided ample opportunities for both individual and group dis-
cussions related to the relevant activities.
After each lesson, the teacher and researchers evaluated the employment of a jigsaw learning strat-
egy integrated with computer simulations. Teacher may always turn to researchers for assistance with
any implementation issues, as well as for feedback on how to improve the intervention. Following the
end of the research intervention, the students’achievement and attitude tests were given as a post-test,
and their achievement and attitude scores were compared with their pretest scores.
Methods of data analysis
The data was gathered, arranged, and then analysed in light of the research hypothesis. Two-way
ANOVA was used to analyse the data and increase the validity and reliability of the investigations. Mean
and standard deviation were also employed to describe the outcomes between the research variables.
The effects of covariate variables, if any, were eliminated from the variables of interest using a pretest-
posttest strategy. The Skewness-kurtosis coefficient was calculated for each group and variable to assess
normality. The typical range for skewness and kurtosis coefficients is -1.96 to þ1.96. The Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 26, was utilized as the computer software for this study. All
statistical tests were performed at the 0.05 level of significance to ensure reliable inferences from the
data.
Main findings and interpretations
Effects of treatment by gender on students’achievement
To evaluate the impact of the variations among the three groups on the academic achievement of the
participants—male and female—a two-factor (2x3) analysis of variance was employed. The findings of
the Shapiro-Wilks test and the normality test, which looked at normalized skewness, showed that the
data were statistically close to a normal distribution (Table 3). F(2, 141) ¼2.377, p ¼097 for Levene. The
underlying assumption of the two-way ANOVA was met since the test for homogeneity of variance did
not yield a significant result.
Table 3. Three groups’post-achievement and post-attitude test results using a normal distribution analysis.
Dependent variable Group type
Test of normality
N Skewness SE z-value Kurtosis SE z-value Sig
Post-achievement test JLSICS 54 −.120 .325 −0.369 −.484 .639 −0.757 .138
JLS 49 −.245 .340 −0.721 −.482 .668 −0.721 .237
CM 41 .141 .369 0.382 −.386 .724 −0.533 0.234
Post-attitude test JLSICS 54 −.078 .325 −0.24 −.695 .639 −1.088 .472
JLS 49 −.105 .340 −0.003 .284 .668 0.425 .737
CM 41 .071 .369 0.000 −.272 .724 −0.376 .821
Note: "Skewness and kurtosis values were calculated to assess the normality of the dependent variables. The z-values represent the standar-
dized deviations from normality, with positive values indicating right- skewness and negative values indicating left-skewness. Significance
levels (Sig.) were determined to evaluate the departure from normality, with values greater than .05 indicating normal distribution."
COGENT EDUCATION 9

Tables 4 and 5present the outcomes of a two-way analysis of variance and descriptive statistics for
achievement test scores concerning the two factors.
The results of achievement tests showed no significant gender effect, as shown by the two-way
ANOVA (F (1,138) ¼.219, p ¼.641, Å2¼.002). Male and female mean scores (M ¼17.17; SD ¼3.05 and
M¼16.50; SD ¼3.06) were almost identical. The primary influence of gender was found to account for
0.2% of the variation in achievement test results, with an effect size of .002 indicating a very small effect,
further supporting the notion that gender has a minimal impact on the test results.
On achievement test results, groups had a significant main influence (F (2, 138) ¼147.483, p <0.001).
The main impact of the three groups was able to explain 68.1% of the variation in achievement test
scores, with an effect size of .681, which indicates a moderate to large effect that suggests there is a sig-
nificant difference in the accomplishment test results across the three groups. Compared to the JLS
group (M ¼17.02, SD ¼1.53) and the CM group (M ¼13.07, SD ¼1.81), the JLSICS group performed sig-
nificantly better (M ¼19.37, SD ¼1.78). Furthermore, gender and groups did not significantly interact; F
(2, 138) ¼1.074, p ¼.345 as well as Å2¼.015 shows that the outcomes of the achievement test were
unaffected by gender or the three groups taken together. This indicates that the three groups under
consideration and gender had no discernible effects on the achievement test results. It was evident that
JLSICS did not take into account gender differences to improve academic achievement in the subjects
being studied because JLSICS provided equal learning opportunities for male and female grade 10 stu-
dents to grasp acid and base concepts. Therefore, hypothesis Ho1, which maintained that when gender
and intervention groups are combined in chemistry education, there is no statistically significant differ-
ence in students’achievement test scores, was not rejected.
As the lines in Figure 2’s line graph did not cross over to each other, there was no discernible inter-
action between gender and the intervention groups indicating that the results of the intervention were
not significantly influenced by gender. On the other hand, Figure 3 shows that male students in the
JLSICS group gained roughly the same as female students. These findings show that JLSICS raises stu-
dent achievement, with gains for both genders being nearly equal proving that both genders equally
understand the concepts of acid and base. However, male students’mean gain was marginally higher
than female students in both JLS alone and CM groups.
The findings of this study suggested that there was no association between the students’gender and
the kind of instruction used in class. This outcome showed that gender-sensitive JLSICS has not been
implemented to improve academic attainment on the particular topics under consideration.
Table 4. Achievement test scores’means and standard deviations as a function of a 2 (gender) x 3 (groups).
Achievement test scores
The three-level group differences
JLSICS JLS CM Total
Gender N M SD N M SD N M SD N M SD
Male 27 19.5556 1.98714 18 16.7222 1.17851 15 13.4000 1.91982 60 17.1667 3.04857
Female 27 19.1852 1.56984 31 17.1935 1.70136 26 12.8846 1.75104 84 16.5000 3.05965
Total 54 19.3704 1.78353 49 17.0204 1.53419 41 13.0732 1.80818 144 16.7778 3.06216
Note: "N" represents the number of participants in each group. "M" represents the mean scores for each group. "SD" represents the standard
deviation of scores for each group.
Table 5. Two-way ANOVA demonstrating students’achievement test results impacted by their gender and three
groups.
Source SS Df MS F Sig Å2
Intercept 36662.036 1 36662.036 12478.557 .000 .989
Group 866.608 2 433.304 147.483 .000 .681
Gender .643 1 .643 .219 .641 .002
Group Gender 6.310 2 3.155 1.074 .345 .015
Error 405.444 138 2.938
Total 41876.000 144
Note: SS: Sum of squares, Df: Degrees of freedom, MS: Mean square. F: F-value, Sig.: p-value, Å2: Effect size (Eta-squared)
10 S. K. KEKEBA

Effects of treatment by gender on students’attitude
A factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate the primary effects of gender and
groupings on attitude test scores and their interactions. The homogeneity of variance and normality cri-
teria must be satisfied for a two-way ANOVA. Leven’s test revealed that the groups’variances were equal
(F (5,138) ¼1.736, p ¼0.180) and that the sample’s normality and residuals were roughly normally dis-
tributed (Table 3). There were no presumptions discovered to be broken. Tables 6 and 7present the
findings of the two-way ANOVA, as well as the means and standard deviations.
The squared eta partial coefficient suggested a minimal impact, yet the research did not discover any sig-
nificant statistical distinction between males and females in their average attitude towards studying chemis-
try (F (1,138) ¼4.418, p ¼0.067, Å2¼0.031). Conversely, Å2¼0.619 and F (2,138) ¼112.0224, p <0.001
indicated statistically significant differences between the groups. In particular, the variation in the JLSICS
group’smeanscores(M¼3.7685, SD ¼.41981) was considerably greater than the JLS alone group’s
(M ¼3.0816, SD ¼.46712) and the CM group (M ¼2.2329, SD ¼.56553). It has a large effect size based on
Cohen’s (1992) guidelines (Table 6) demonstrating that the intervention significantly affected the result.
The effects of gender and groups on attitudes toward studying chemistry did not interact statistically
significantly, according to the results of the two-way ANOVA (F (2,138) ¼.949, p ¼.390, Å
2
¼.014) sug-
gesting that there is no substantial change in students’attitudes towards chemistry as a result of the
interaction between gender and groups. Therefore, hypothesis Ho2, which postulated that there is no
statistically significant difference in students’attitude test scores as a result of the interaction between
Figure 2. Line graph showing how treatment and gender interact to affect the average increase in test scores for
achievement.
Figure 3. Bar graphs mean of achievement test scores by three levels group by gender showing three types of
interactions.
Table 6. Attitude test’s means and standard deviations as a function of two (gender) x three (groups).
Attitude test scores
The three-level group differences
JLSICS JLS CM Total
Gender N M SD N M SD N M SD N M SD
Male 27 3.7824 .48300 18 3.2611 .45715 15 2.3633 .46693 60 3.2713 .73751
Female 27 3.7546 .35437 31 2.9774 .44737 26 2.1577 .61118 84 2.9735 .79446
Total 54 3.7685 .41981 49 3.0816 .46712 41 2.2329 .56553 144 3.0976 .78259
Note: N: Number of participants in each gender category. M: Mean score for each gender category. SD: Standard deviation of scores for each
gender category.
COGENT EDUCATION 11

intervention groups and gender in chemistry learning, was not rejected. However, the main effect of the
intervention groups on students’attitudes toward learning chemistry was significant (F (2, 138) ¼
112.022, p <0.001, Å
2
¼.619), as indicated by the substantial effect size produced by the eta partial
squared. This indicates the intervention groups are responsible for about 61.9% of the variation in stu-
dents’attitudes towards learning chemistry and as a result, students’attitudes were significantly influ-
enced by the intervention.
Figure 4’s line graph did not demonstrate any significant interaction between gender and interven-
tion groups since the lines did not intersect. However, Figure 5’s bar graph illustrates a slight average
discrepancy between males and females. Male students in the JLS and CM groups presented a some-
what higher attitude compared to female students. Conversely, male students in the JLSICS group exhib-
ited a similar attitude increase to that of female students (Figure 5). These findings suggest that JLSICS
leads to an overall improvement in students’attitudes, with no substantial disparity between genders.
Thus, JLSICS benefits both male and female students with no discernible gender difference in the
outcomes.
Discussion of main findings
The researchers analyzed the achievement and attitude test scores as independent variables for both
genders to determine the main interaction effects of the intervention groups, using a 2x3 factorial
approach. The study considered three independent factors: the intervention groups (JLSICS group, JLS-
alone group, and CM group) and gender (male and female).
Table 7. Three groups and gender’s influence on students’attitude test results displayed in a two-way ANOVA.
Source SS Df MS F Sig Å2
Intercept 1253.728 1 1253.728 5531.470 .000 .976
Group 50.781 2 25.390 112.022 .000 .619
Gender 1.001 1 1.001 4.418 .067 .001
Group Gender .430 2 .215 .949 .390 .014
Error 31.278 138 .227
Total 1469.252 144
Note: SS ¼sum of squares, Df ¼degrees of freedom, MS ¼mean square, F ¼F-statistic, Sig. ¼significance level, Å2¼effect size. The p-
value threshold for statistical significance is typically set
Figure 4. Gender against groups line graph showing attitude test mean scores.
Figure 5. Bar graphs mean of attitude test scores by three groups by gender showing three types of interactions.
12 S. K. KEKEBA

The absence of a substantial gender effect on students’academic achievement or attitudes in the
study of acids and bases imply that gender is not a determining factor in academic accomplishment or
attitudes in this particular topic. The lack of interaction between treatment and gender suggests that
both male and female students benefited equally from the instructional strategies employed. This indi-
cates that the advantages of JLSICS apply to students of both genders equally and are not based on a
person’s gender. Also, regardless of gender, the results indicate that the JLSICS was superior to the JLS
and CM groups in terms of encouraging academic success and a good attitude towards learning about
acids and bases. This shows that JLSICS offers students the opportunity to engage in interactive and
captivating learning experiences by utilizing this method. These provide students with realistic and
immersive environments, enabling them to actively delve into and engage with the subject matter. The
interactive nature of this method fosters heightened student engagement and motivation, ultimately
resulting in improved academic outcomes and positive attitudes.
Treatment by gender on students’academic achievement
The results demonstrated that while teaching acid and base concepts, JLSICS outperforms JLS alone and
CM. The students with the highest post-test mean scores were those who received JLSICS instruction,
followed by those who received JLS alone instruction, and lastly the CM group. Therefore, when it came
to teaching acid and base concepts, the JLSICS performed better than both the JLS alone and CM.
The findings of this study align with previous research that investigated various gender groups in
computer-assisted learning and found no gender disparities in learning outcome scores (Igweonu, 2021;
Wagbara, 2021). JLSICS gives students the flexibility to study at their speed, explore a variety of learning
resources, and get fast feedback by offering interactive and adaptive learning platforms; as a result, stu-
dents’motivation, self-directed learning, engagement and achievement were encouraged. This lessens
the potential impact of gender biases or preconceptions on learning outcomes in CM. Similar to the
aforementioned results, Mwihia (2021) observed no statistically significant gender disparity in student
achievement in chemistry at secondary schools. Due to the implementation of JLSICS, substantial
advancements have been achieved in the advancement of gender equality and the establishment of
inclusive learning environments. These strategies guarantee equal access to resources, opportunities,
and support for both male and female students. Additionally, they facilitate personalized and self-paced
engagement with learning materials, effectively reducing any disparities in achievement that may arise
due to gender. As a result, all students can flourish academically, regardless of their gender.
Moreover, the outcomes are consistent with several other authors’findings, indicating that the treat-
ment gender interaction has negligible influence on student learning outcomes (Hagos & Andargie,
2022a). The mean scores for boys and girls on the achievement test were almost the same, indicating
that gender had minimal influence on the scores when they were taught through JLSICS. Additionally,
there was no significant interaction between gender and the intervention groups, indicating that none
of the three groups, either individually or in combination affected achievement. However, the groups
did have a noticeable impact on the results of the achievement tests.
Female students can actively participate and engage in the learning process by working together and
sharing their experiences, thereby breaking down barriers associated with gender. A deeper comprehen-
sion of chemical topics is also promoted by JLSICS, which offers a hands-on, interactive environment
that accommodates various learning styles. Female students are empowered to achieve in chemistry and
develop positive attitudes towards the topic because of this approach, which promotes equitable partici-
pation, collaboration, and active learning (Timotheou et al., 2023).
Contrary to the aforementioned findings, a study conducted with chemistry students in secondary
school discovered a positive relationship between gender and students’chemistry achievement (Oladejo
et al., 2023). To optimize learning outcomes, it could be feasible to identify the most suitable instruc-
tional approach based on a student’s characteristics (Yıldırır, 2022). Different students with varying char-
acteristics may derive greater benefits from one instructional method compared to another. For
instance, men might perform better in competitive or individualistic learning contexts, women might
gain more from collaborative and interactive learning environments. That means, one gender was more
affected by the treatment than the other if it promoted a specific learning style.
COGENT EDUCATION 13

Furthermore, this contradicts earlier research conducted by Asamoah et al. (2022), which demon-
strated a significant interaction effect between treatment and gender on students’learning achieve-
ments. Gender differences in interactions and expectations between teachers and students can have an
impact on their achievement. For example, teachers could unintentionally give students of a certain gen-
der greater assistance or attention. These prejudices might have had a distinct impact on male and
female outcomes if the therapy entailed interactions between teachers and students.
Treatment by gender on students’attitude
The results of the analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in the mean CALST scores
between male and female students. In other words, both genders performed well in chemistry after
receiving teaching using JLSICS. Furthermore, the data from the two-way ANOVA indicated that there
was no significant interaction between gender and group effects on students’attitudes towards learning
chemistry. In the JLSICS group, there was no difference in the mean scores between male and female
students.
The results of this study align with the findings of Eleje et al. (2020) and Nicol et al. (2022), who
stated that there was no significant variation in gender attitudes towards learning chemistry when using
computer-based instruction. Students can learn in a more private and autonomous setting, which may
lessen the impact of social constraints and enable them to approach the material without regard to gen-
der norms when they learn using LSICS. It could have created equal learning possibilities for male and
female students if they had both had equal access to computers and the required software. Gender-
based differences in attitudes towards learning are less likely when the materials are easily accessible to
all students, regardless of gender. Likewise, the current research supports the results of Reilly et al.
(2022; Yang, 2023), who discovered no significant difference in mean scores between male and female
students taught chemistry using computer-based simulation packages, indicating that the packages are
inclusive and equal for both genders. The results of this study reinforce the notion that JLSICS can pro-
vide an effective learning environment for students of all genders.
This study has shown that, through JLSICS instruction, female students can have an equal chance to
succeed in chemistry, gain a deeper understanding of the topic, and develop favourable attitudes
towards it.
Furthermore, these findings are consistent with Wagbara (2021), who demonstrated that the use of
computer-assisted cooperative learning methods enhanced students’attitudes towards chemistry, and
male and female students performed equally well with no significant disparity in their mean scores. The
learning process became more dynamic and interactive by involving students in group projects that
used JLSICS, which improved their attitude towards chemistry. Additionally, there were no appreciable
differences in the mean scores of male and female students after this method was applied. This equality
can be linked to the inclusive design of JLSICS, which gave every student an equal chance to actively
participate in and gain from educational activities, regardless of gender.
However, the current study’s findings contradict those of (Guo et al., 2020), who found that male stu-
dents exhibited a higher level of positive attitude towards learning chemistry through computer-based
instruction compared to their female counterparts and perceived chemistry as being more advantageous
for males than females. There has been a cultural prejudice that devalues female participation and
accomplishment in science and technology fields, such as chemistry and links these fields with masculin-
ity. However, there’s no empirical data to back up the claim that JLSICS treatment significantly affects
students’attitudes in terms of their behavioural involvement during class activities.
Concussion and recommendation
The study discovered that, although JLS alone outperformed conventional methods, JLSICS was the
most successful method of teaching acid and base concepts in chemistry when compared to JLS alone
and CM. JLSIC has been shown to effectively enhance students’academic achievement in a manner that
is not biased towards any particular gender. This approach facilitates the development of efficient study-
ing techniques and fosters positive interactions between students and their teachers and peers.
14 S. K. KEKEBA

Students’achievement or attitude towards learning chemistry was not significantly impacted by their
gender. In addition, the results of the achievement and attitude tests did not show any interaction
between gender and therapy. The JLSIC has proven successful in improving students’achievement and
attitude towards learning chemistry, particularly in the context of acid and base concepts. Furthermore,
this strategy equally influences the academic achievement and attitudes of both male and female stu-
dents. There was no significant difference observed between the mean scores of female and male stu-
dents in the post-test. Thus, when utilizing JLSICS, gender does not play a role in a student’s
achievement or attitude towards chemistry education, since JLSICS provides an equal learning environ-
ment for all students and gender disparities in academic achievement are removed.
The research proposes that JLSICS be employed by chemistry teachers as an instructional technique
in their classrooms and laboratories to help students focus on challenging chemistry subjects and
increase their grasp of such subjects. Workshops and seminars should be organized for chemistry teach-
ers already in the profession. Teacher training programs need to include the integration of JLSICS in
their curriculum, specifically in their chemistry method courses, to ensure the readiness of prospective
chemistry teachers. Additionally, it is suggested that teachers include JLSICS in their lessons to reinforce
students’achievement and attitudes.
These findings support the growing body of evidence that disproves gender-biased assumptions and
upholds the idea that a person’s gender shouldn’t affect their attitudes or achievement in school.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the students who took part in this research. We also wish to thank teachers and school manage-
ment for their assistance, support, and guidance.
Ethics statement
While gathering, analyzing, and disseminating the data, the researcher kept several ethical issues in mind. Before
starting the study, the researcher first requested permission from the institution’s management. After giving the par-
ticipants a thorough explanation of the study’s goals, the researcher got their informed consent. This involved giv-
ing consent forms outlining the goals and procedures of the study to teachers of chemistry and natural science
students. The consent form made clear that taking part in the study was entirely voluntary. Finally, the researcher
promised to care for the privacy of the information collected from study participants.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This study received no special financing from governmental, commercial, or nonprofit institutions.
About the author
Shimelis Kebede Kekeba is a Chemistry education researcher and educator. He was an Analytical
chemistry lecturer at Fitche College of Teachers Education. He worked on the professional devel-
opment of elementary and secondary school teachers. He has 16 years of teaching and advising
experience in high school and college of teachers’education in Ethiopia. Now he is a PhD candi-
date at Jimma University. His research interests are the effects of jigsaw learning strategy inte-
grated with computer simulations on students’academic achievement, attitude and retention in
learning acid and base in particular and chemistry in general. He has contributed to the develop-
ment of educational modules for various courses, delivered professional training to primary chem-
istry/science teachers, and conducted research. As a result, he conducted four different types of research, with one
being published and three being presented at both national and international conferences. Two of these research
projects involved studying the presence of heavy metals (lead, cadmium, copper, and zinc) in roadside soils with
high traffic density, as well as investigating the factors that influence the integration of play-based learning in
COGENT EDUCATION 15

preschools. The third project focused on identifying factors that impact the implementation of a practical approach
to teaching chemistry. Lastly, he conducted a study on the impact of ICT on science education at the high school
and college levels during the COVID-19 pandemic.
ORCID
Shimelis Kebede Kekeba http://orcid.org/0009-0008-2767-6285
References
Adedoyin, O. B., & Altinay, F. (2023). Open educational resources: Evaluation of students’intention to use and motiv-
ation to create. British Journal of Educational Technology,54(6), 1790–1813. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13313
Ajayi, O. V. (2017). Effect of hands-on activities on senior secondary chemistry students achievement and retention
in stoichiometry in zone C of Benue state. SSRN Electronic Journal,5(8), 839–842. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.
2992803
Aldon, G., & Panero, M. (2022). Can digital technology change the way mathematics skills are assessed? ZDM,52(7),
1333–1348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01172-8
Anna-Katharina, P., & Charalambos, Y. C. (2023). Theorizing teaching. Swiss National Science Foundation-Springer
Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25613-4
Anuar, N. S., Bachok, N., & Pop, I. (2021). Influence of buoyancy force on Ag-MgO/water hybrid nanofluid flow in an
inclined permeable stretching/shrinking sheet. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer,123,
105236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2021.105236
Asamoah, D., Agyei-Owusu, B., & Ashun, E. (2022). Social network relationship, supply chain resilience and customer-
oriented performance of small and medium enterprises in a developing economy. Benchmarking: An International
Journal,27(5), 1793–1813. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2019-0374
Bardach, L., & Klassen, R. M. (2021). Smart teachers, successful students? A systematic review of the literature on
teachers’cognitive abilities and teacher effectiveness. Educational Research Review,30, 100312. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.edurev.2020.100312
Bartholomew, S., & Seymour, A. (2021). Through the best STEM books list. Science and Children,58(6), 68–72.
Belayneh, K. D., & Belachew, W. (2023). TSPCK-Based instruction and academic achievement of grade 11 students on
chemical kinetics and equilibrium. Cogent Education,11(1), 2292873. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.
2292873
C¸etin, A. (2018). Simulasyon Destekli _
Is¸birli
gine Dayalı
€
O
grenme Y€
onteminin Fizik Bas¸arısına, Bilimsel S€
urec¸
Becerilerine, Fizik ve AkıllıTahta Kullanımına Y€
onelik Tutumlara Etkileri. Kastamonu
€
Universitesi Kastamonu E
gitim
Dergisi,26,57–65. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.375173
Chen, H. L., & Liu, C. Y. (2020). Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude.
International Journal of Education Economics and Development,11(4), 420. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEED.2020.
10030596
Christian, S., Nduji, C. C., & Elejere, U. (2021). Effect of flipped classroom and think pair share strategy on achieve-
ment and retention among senior secondary school physics students leading schools for educational innovation
and change view project factorial validation view project. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied
Research (IJSBAR) International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research,52(2), 136–148. http://gssrr.org/
index.php?journal=JournalOfBasicAndApplied
Cochon, D. O., Lentillon, K. V., & Margas, N. (2023). Effects of the Jigsaw method on student educational outcomes:
Systematic review and meta-analyses. Frontiers in Psychology,14, 1216437. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.
1216437
Consalvo, A. L., Schallert, D. L., & Elias, E. M. (2022). An examination of the construct of legitimate peripheral partici-
pation as a theoretical framework in literacy research. Educational Research Review,16,1–18. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.edurev.2015.07.001
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2021). Implications for educational practice
of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science,24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10888691.2018.1537791
Darwazeh, A. N., Branch, R. M., Karram, O. I., & Hmoud, M. R. (2022). Darwazeh’s digital learning taxonomy: A frame
for schools’e-learnings. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,23(4), 19–29. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=169743332&site=ehost-live
Davison, J., Maguire, S., McLaughlin, M., & Simms, V. (2022). Involving adolescents with intellectual disability in the
adaptation of self-reported subjective well-being measures: Participatory research and methodological considera-
tions. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research: JIDR,66(7), 628–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12936
Dorathy, W. C., & Sambo, A. U. (2023). The use of e-learning technologies as a predictor of students academic per-
formance in public secondary schools in Port Harcourt and Obio-Akpor Lga, Rivers State. Journal of Advances in
Education and Philosophy,7(08), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.36348/jaep.2023.v07i08.002
16 S. K. KEKEBA

Eleje, L. I., Esomonu, N. P.-M., Okoye, R. O., Agu, N. N., Ugorji, C. O., Okoi, O. A., & Abanobi, C. C., Nnamdi Azikiwe
University. (2020). Students’academic achievement in secondary-school quantitative economics: Effect of feed-
back with remediation. Education Quarterly Reviews,3(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.03.04.155
Evans, D. K., & Acosta, A. M. (2021). Education in Africa: What are we learning? Working Paper 542, 1–99.
Evans, D. K., Glennerster, R., & Rogers, F. H. (2021). How to improve education outcomes most efficiently? A compari-
son of 150 interventions using the new learning-adjusted years of schooling metric. Centre for Global
Development.https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/801901603314530125
Garnett, P. J., & Tobin, K. (2021). Reasoning patterns of pre-service primary science teachers (Vol. 2(1), pp. 1–34).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262374056
G€
ul,
€
O. (2021). Academic boredom, engagement and the achievement of undergraduate students at university: A
review and synthesis of relevant literature. Research Papers in Education,35(2), 144–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02671522.2018.1536891
Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student
outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research,102, 101586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.
2020.101586
Hagos, T., & Andargie, D. (2022a). Gender differences in students’motivation and conceptual knowledge in chemis-
try using technology-integrated formative assessment. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning,12(1),
10–22. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol12.1.2.2022
Hagos, T., & Andargie, D. (2022b). Technology integrated formative assessment: Effects on students’conceptual
knowledge and motivation in chemical equilibrium. JCER (Journal of Chemistry Education Research),6(1), 26–43.
https://doi.org/10.26740/jcer.v6n1.p26-43
Hernandez, A., & Burrows, K. (2021). Implementing culturally relevant teaching in the classroom. Open Journal of
Leadership,10(04), 338–363. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2021.104020
Hesti, R. (2022). Identifying students’conceptual profile on science through series electrical circuits conceptual survey
with four-tier diagnostic test. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Madrasah Reform 2021 (ICMR
2021), 633 (pp. 125–130). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220104.019
Igweonu, R. A. (2021). The implementation of universal basic education in a school at Walden University. Journal of
Education and Learning,4(2), 1–204.
Kidanemariam, D. A., Atagana, H. I., & Engida, T. (2021). Do learning styles influence students’understanding of con-
cepts and academic performance in chemistry? Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,5(16), 256–260. https://
doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n16p256
Kim, H. K., Ahn, J., Atkinson, L., & Kahlor, L. A. (2021). Effects of COVID-19 misinformation on information seeking,
avoidance, and processing: A multicountry comparative study. Science Communication,42(5), 586–615. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1075547020959670
K€
ult€
ur, Y. Z., & Kutlu, M. O. (2021). The effect of formative assessment on high school students’mathematics achieve-
ment and attitudes. Journal of Pedagogical Research,5(4), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2021474302
Levy, S. T., Kim, H., & Wilensky, U. (2021). Connected chemistry—A study of secondary students using agent-based mod-
els to learn Chemistry. American Educational Research Association.
Loh, R. C.-Y., & Ang, C.-S. (2020). Unravelling cooperative learning in higher education. Research in Social Sciences
and Technology,5(2), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.05.02.2
Marta, S. C. (2022). Equity research (Vol. 6, pp. 1–18). Johnson & Johnson.
Martha, I. A. N. (2022). Enhancing students’attitude and achievement in biology through innovative strategies.
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences,6(2), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2020.62.134152
Maruf, N., & Helingo, A. (2022). Assessment strategy to rectify EFL students’performance: A need analysis. Jet Adi
Buana,7(02), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.36456/jet.v7.n02.2022.6191
Meara, R. P. O., Meara, R. P. O., & May, B. A. (2022). ODU digital commons communities of practice and legitimate
peripheral participation: Teacher learning in social and situated contexts. https://doi.org/10.25777/n387-3732
Murni, H. P., Azhar, M., Ellizar, E., Nizar, U. K., & Guspatni, G. (2022). Three levels of chemical representation-inte-
grated and structured inquiry-based reaction rate module: Its effect on students’mental models. Journal of
Turkish Science Education,19(3), 758–772. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2022.148
Mwihia, J. (2021). Gender difference in academic achievement of students in Kinangop sub-county, Nyandarua
county, Kenya. European Journal of Social Sciences Studies,5(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejsss.v5i4.863
NEAEA. (2021). Ethiopian third national learning assessment of grade 10 and 12 students achievement (ETNLA). 172.
http://213.55.101.25
Nicol, C. B., Gakuba, E., & Habinshuti, G. (2022). Effects of inquiry-based chemistry experimentation on students’atti-
tudes towards the teaching and learning of chemistry. Journal of Baltic Science Education,21(4), 663–679. https://
doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.663
Norman, Z. (2021). Situated learning: A legitimate peripheral participation in learning mathematics in public schools.
Paper knowledge. Toward a Media History of Documents.
Oladejo, A. I. (2021). Teaching chemistry with computer simulation: Would Senior Crawford Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research (Cjmr) 2021. Crawford Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (CJMR),2(2), 16–32.
COGENT EDUCATION 17

Oladejo, A. I., Nwaboku, N. C., Okebukola, P. A., & Ademola, I. A. (2023). Gender difference in students’performance
in chemistry–can computer simulation bridge the gap? Research in Science & Technological Education,41(3), 1031–
1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1981280
Oladejo, A. I., Okebukola, P. A., & Shabani, J. (2022). Beyond achievement of African secondary school students in chemis-
try: Critical thinking in focus (Vol. 3, pp. 1–14). Africa Centre of Excellence for Innovative and Transformative STEM
Education, Lagos State University.
Parker, C. E., Stylinski, C. D., Bonney, C. R., DeLisi, J., Wong, J., & Doty, C. (2021). Measuring quality technology inte-
gration in science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology,28(5), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10956-019-09787-7
Penn, M., & Ramnarain, U. (2019). South African university students’attitudes towards chemistry learning in a virtu-
ally simulated learning environment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,20(4), 699–709. https://doi.org/10.
1039/C9RP00014C
Penn, M., & Umesh, R. (2021). The use of virtual learning environments and achievement in physics content tests.
Education and New Developments,1, 493–497. https://doi.org/10.36315/2019v1end112
P€
oys€
a-Tarhonen, J., Care, E., Awwal, N., H€
akkinen, P., & Ahonen, A. K. (2022). Tracking student teachers’technology-
enhanced collaborative problem solving: Combining objective assessment data with subjective verbal reporting.
Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS,2, 839–842.
Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2022). Gender differences in self-estimated intelligence: Exploring the male
hubris, female humility problem. Frontiers in Psychology,13, 812483. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.812483
Rodr

ıguez, S., Regueiro, B., Pi~
neiro, I., Est
evez, I., & Valle, A. (2020). Gender differences in mathematics motivation:
Differential effects on performance in primary education. Frontiers in Psychology,10, 3050. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.03050
Ruffina, A. N., Esther, A. E., & Anastecia, I. N. (2021). Impact of class size on students’academic performance in biol-
ogy in Idemili North Local Government Area of Anambra State. International Journal of Education and Evaluation,
4(8), 22–32. www.iiardpub.org
Salta, K., & Koulougliotis, D. (2021). Students’motivation to learn chemistry: The Greek case. New Perspectives in
Science Education,10–13.
Sampath, K. B. (2021). Knowledge evaluating role of interactive visualization tools in improving students. Conceptual
Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium,18(3), 269–325. https://doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2016.403.https://uknowledge.
uky.edu/edsc_etds/18
Sanfo, J. B. M. B., & Malgoubri, I. (2021). Teaching quality and students’EFL achievements in Ethiopia: Analysis from
the perspective of the basic dimensions of teaching quality. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,11(10),
1131–1145. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1110.01
Shadreck, M., & Enunuwe, O. C. (2022). Recurrent difficulties: Stoichiometry problem-solving. African Journal of
Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences,14,25–31–31.
Sudin, M., Hermawan, C., Rosfiani, O., Ristiawati, W., & Hasanah, S. (2021). Improve mathematics pedagogical content
knowledge and verbal communication skills through cooperative learning type Jigsaw. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series,1764(1), 012094. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1764/1/012094
Talan, T. (2021). The effect of computer-supported collaborative learning on academic achievement: A meta-analysis
study. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology,9(3), 426–448. https://doi.org/10.
46328/ijemst.1243
Tefera, A., Atnafu, M., & Michael, K. (2021). The relevance of current Ethiopian primary school teacher education pro-
gram for pre-service mathematics teacher’s knowledge and teacher educator’s awareness about mathematics
knowledge for teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,17(5), em1964. https://
doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10858
Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Sobrino, S. V., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., Mon
es, A. M., & Ioannou, A.
(2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools’digital capacity and trans-
formation: A literature review. Education and Information Technologies,28 (6), 6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10639-022-11431-8
Tyson, L., Treagust, D. F., & Bucat, R. B. (2022). The complexity of teaching and learning chemical equilibrium.
Journal of Chemical Education,76(4), 554–558. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p554
Ugwu, C. B. A., & Namani, D. C. (2023). Effect of group-based mastery learning model on academic achievement of
students in basic science. Sapientia Foundation Journal of Education,5(1), 135–143. https://www.sfjesgs.com/index.
php/SFJESGS/article/view/372
Uno, H. B., Panjaitan, K., & Lamatenggo, N. (2021). Improving students’learning interest and outcome through STAD
cooperative learning model at SDN 8 Elementary School Kwandang of North Gorontalo Regency. International
Conference on Education Technology (ICoET 2019),372(ICoET), 313–319.
Vicky, J., & Andy, W. (2022). Youth shifting identities, moving aspirations, changing social norms, and positive
uncertainty in Ethiopia and Nepal. Sociological Research Online,27(4), 861–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/
13607804221087754
Vieira, C. R., & Pedro, N. (2023). Weaknesses of ICT integration in the initial teacher education curriculum. Computers
and Education Open,5, 100150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100150
18 S. K. KEKEBA

Wagbara, S. O. (2021). Effects of ethno-science instructional strategy on junior secondary school students’achieve-
ment in basic science. African Journal of Science.Technology & Mathematics Education (AJSTME),6(1), 56–62.
Yang, X. (2023). A historical review of collaborative learning and cooperative learning. TechTrends: For Leaders in
Education & Training,67(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00823-9
Yesgat, D. (2022). Secondary school students’achievement and attitude towards chemistry within computer simula-
tion assisted inquiry-based chemistry teaching: Case of Finote Selam. Ajce,12(January), 1–18.
Yıldırır, H. E. (2022). Secondary school students’initial changes in cognitive structures of argument and related con-
cepts. International Journal of Research in Education and Science,6(2), 231–249.
Appendices
Appendix 1. Chemistry Achievement Test
School of Graduate Studies
College of Natural Sciences
Department of Chemistry
Title: Effects of jigsaw learning strategy integrated with computer simulations on Students’Achievement, Attitudes
and Retention in learning chemistry at Jimma secondary school
Instruction
Dear Students!
I am conducting an empirical research. These questions aim to gather accurate and useful information about your
achievement and attitudes towards chemistry. Each question is divided into two sections: the first contains chemis-
try achievement test questions, and the second contains chemistry attitudes Likert scale test questions. There is one
right answer for each question. Your honest responses to all of the questions presented will be critical to the study’s
success. As a result, you are respectfully urged to stay patient when answering each question following the instruc-
tions. The information you provide will only be utilized for this research and will be kept private and strictly
academic.
Thank you in advance for your willingness and kind cooperation!
The researcher.
Direction:
1. Do not write your name.
2. Put a tick mark () on the space provided.
3. Write your response in the space provided for each question.
4. Respond to all questions precisely and genuinely.
Section 1: Background information
1.1. Name of school_____________________________________________________
1.2. Student’s code ____________
1.3. Sex: Male [] Female []
1.4. Age ____________________
1.5. Grade _____ Section ______
Section 2: Test items
This test consists of 30 multiple choice questions developed based on your grade ten chemistry from acid and base
topics. Choose the correct answer for each achievement question and put the letter of your choice in the provided
space.
______1. According to the Arrhenius concept, an acid is a substance that
A) Is capable of donating one or more H
þ
B) Causes an increase in the concentration of H
þ
in water solutions
COGENT EDUCATION 19

C) Can accept a pair of electrons to form a coordinate covalent bond
D) Reacts with the solvent to form the cation formed by autoionization of that solvent
E) Tastes bitter.
______2. In the Brønsted–Lowry definition of acids and bases, a base
A) Is a proton donor. D) Breaks stable hydrogen bonds.
B) Is a proton acceptor. E) Corrodes metals.
C) Forms stable hydrogen bonds.
______3. In the following reaction in aqueous solution, the acid reactant is _______ and its conjugate base product
is: CH
3
COOH þNH
3
CH
3
COO
–
þNH
þ
4
A) CH
3
COOH; CH
3
COO
–
C) NH
3
;NH
þ
4
B) CH
3
COOH; NH
þ
4
D) CH
3
COOH; H
3
O
þ
E) NH
3
;CH
3
COO
–
______4. The stronger the acid,
A) The stronger its conjugate base. C) The less concentrated the conjugate base.
B) The weaker its conjugate base. D) The more concentrated the conjugate base.
E) The more concentrated the acid.
______5. A solution with pH of 9.50 has a pOH of
A) 9.50 B) 23.5 C) 0.50 D) 19.0 E) 4.50
______6. A solution with an [OH
–
] concentration of 1.00 10
−8
M has a pOH and pH respectively.
A) 6.92 and 7.08 B) 7.08 and 6.92 C) 8.00 and 6.00
D) 5.94 and 8.06 E) 5.35 and 8.75
______7. Which one of the following is not a strong acid?
A) HNO
3
B) HCl C) H
2
SO
4
D) HClO
4
E) H
2
CO
3
______8. Each of the following pairs contains one strong acid and one weak acid except.
A) H
2
SO
4
and H
2
CO
3
B) HNO
3
and HNO
2
C) HF and H
3
PO
3
D) H
2
SO
4
and HCN E) HCl and H
2
S
______9. Which are the correct products for these reactants: HCl þNaOH
A) Cl
2
þClNa B) NaCl þH
2
OC)H
3
O
þ
þNaCl
2
D) NaOH þCl
2
E) NaCl and H
2
______10. Which of the following is a general property common to both acidic and basic solutions?
A) Tastes sour B) Feels slippery C) Reacts with metals
D) Conducts electricity E) Tastes bitter
______11. Which of the following properties are common to both strong acids and bases?
I. Taste bitter
II. Conduct an electric current
III. Cause neutral litmus to change colour
A) I and II only B) I and III only
C) II and III only D) I, II and III E) III only
______12. Which of the following is not a general property of acidic solutions?
A) A sour taste C) The ability to neutralize CH
3
COOH
B) Turns blue litmus into red D) The ability to react with Mg to produce H
2
(g)
E) React with bases to produce salts and H
2
O
______13. Consider the following reaction:
CH
3
COOH(aq) þNH
3
(aq) CH
3
COO
-
þNH
4
þ
(aq)
The sequence of Bronsted-Lowry acids and bases in the above reaction is
A) Acid, base, base, acid B) Acid, base, acid, base
C) Base, acid, base, acid D) Base, Acid, acid, base E) Acid, acid, base, base
______14. Which of the following solutions will have the greatest electrical conductivity?
A) 1 M HCl B) 1 M H
3
PO
4
C) 1 M H
2
CO
3
D) 1 M HCOOH E) 1 M HF
______15. A map of eastern North America, showing the pH of rainfall in the various states, indicates that the pH of
rain in New York State varies from 4.22 to 4.40. According to these figures, the most acidic rainfall in New York
State has a pH of.
A) 4.22 B) 4.30 C) 4.35 D) 4.40 E) 4.39
20 S. K. KEKEBA

______16. Dilute and concentrated refer to.
A) The concentration of a solution C) How high the boiling point is
B) How much water is added to the solution D) Degree of ionization in water E) All
______17. Which one of the following statements does define the concept of acid the most correctly?
A) If a species contains H in its formula and can give it to water, it is an acid
B) If a species increases the amount of H
þ
ion when it dissolves in water, it is an acid
C) If a species increases the amount of OH
−
ion when it dissolves in water, it is an acid
D) If a species melts and destroys everything, it is an acid
E) None of the above
______18. What kinds of beakers should be used to store acidic solutions such as lemon juice and vinegar?
A) Beakers made of iron B) Beakers made of glass C) Beakers made of zinc
D) Beakers made of aluminium E) Beakers made of active metals
___19. Which one of the following statements does define the concept of the base the most correctly?
A) If a species contains OH in its formula and can give it to water, it is a base
B) Bases are the matters that are composed of hydrogen ion
C) If a species increases the amount of OH
−
ion when it dissolves in water, it is a base
D) Species that can be used as household chemicals are bases
E) Species that can be used for preparing cement
______20. Which one of the following statements related to acids and bases is correct?
A) While acids are poisonous and harmful, bases are harmless
B) Acids burn and melt everything
C) Aqueous solutions of bases conduct electricity
D) If we mix an acid with a base, a neutral solution occurs every time
E) When bases dissolve in water increase the concentration of H
þ
ion.
______21. Suppose that each of the following solutions is separately put into the beaker in adjacent figure. Which
one will not light the bulb?
A) Lemon juice B) Soap solution
C) Solution of salt D) Acidic solution E) Sugar solution
______22. Which one of the following species should be used for rubbing the skin to decrease the effect of the
sting of a honeybee?
A) Lemon juice B) Vinegar C) Soap solution
D) Unripe apple juice E) HCl solution
______23. pH values of some solutions are given in adjacent Table If you consider the given information, which of
the below solutions can be X, Y and Z solutions?
XYZ
A) Salt solution Vinegar Lemon juice
B) Lemon juice Salt solution Ammonia
C) Soap solution Salt solution Ammonia
D) Vinegar Ammonia Lemon juice
E) Vinegar Soap solution Salt solution
______24. Which one of the following statements is the most correct regarding acids?
A) All acids are poisonous
B) All strong acids cannot dissociate in water
C) An aqueous solution of acid can highly conduct electricity
D) A strong acid can react with metal to produce more bubbles than a weak acid
E) An aqueous solution of weak acid can highly conduct electricity
______25. In an aqueous solution, it is determined that the amount of H
þ
ions is less than the amount of OH
–
ions. Which one(s) of the following statements is/are correct for this solution?
I. It is basic II. It is acidic
III. It conducts electricity IV. It turns blue litmus red
A) I and III B) II and IV C) I, III and IV D) II, III and IV E) I and II
XY Z
pH 4 7 11
Note: The pH values indicate the acidity or alkalinity of the solutions represented by X, Y, and Z, where a pH of 7 is neutral, values below 7
are acidic, and values above 7 are alkaline.
COGENT EDUCATION 21

______26. Which one of the following statements is the most correct regarding bases?
A) Base is highly soluble in water B) All bases are corrosive
C) Compounds that do not contain OH can also be basic
D) Aqueous solutions of bases cannot conduct electricity E) All
______27. There are some aqueous solutions of a base in two separate beakers. If we add some aqueous solution of
HCI into beaker I and some water into beaker II like adjacent figure, what can be said about the basicity of the solu-
tions in beaker I and II?
A) Basicity decreases in both beakers
B) Basicity increases in beaker I and decreases in beaker II
C) Basicity decreases in beaker I and increases in beaker II
D) Basicity decreases in beaker I and does not change in beaker II
E) Basicity increases in both beakers
______28. We know that acids turn blue litmus red and bases turn red litmus blue. If a piece of blue litmus is
plunged into the following solutions separately, what can be said about the colour of the litmus paper?
Soap solution Vinegar Lemon juice Soda water
A) Red Blue Blue Blue
B) Blue Blue Blue Red
C) Red Red Blue Blue
D) Red Blue Blue Red
E) Blue Red Red Blue
______29. Plants do not grow well when the soil is either too acidic or too basic. What do you suggest the farmers
do if the soil is too acidic?
A) He should add salt to the soil
B) He should add base to the soil
C) He should add water to the soil
D) He should unplant the soil
E) He should add acid to the soil
______30. I. It reacts with some metals to give bubbles
II. Aqueous solution of it conducts electricity
III. It turns red litmus blue
Which one(s) of the above statements is/are correct for basic solutions?
A) Only I B) Only II
C) Both I and III D) Both II and III E) I, II, and III
The above questions are adapted from: Sam (2020) and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287264892
Appendix 2. Chemistry Attitude Likert Scale Test
Title: Effects of Jigsaw Learning Strategy Integrated with Computer Simulations on Students’Achievement,
Attitudes and Retention in Learning Chemistry at Secondary Schools of Jimma Town.
Instruction: Dear students, I am conducting empirical research. The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect data
on the title indicated above. Dear respondents, since the reliability of this study depends on the objectivity of your
response, you are kindly requested to offer your response based on factual and genuine information.
Thank you in advance for your willingness and kind cooperation!
The researcher.
Direction:
1. Do not write your name.
2. Put a tick mark () on the space provided.
3. Respond to all questions precisely and genuinely.
4. Jigsaw Learning Strategy Integrated with Computer Simulations (JLSICS)
22 S. K. KEKEBA

Section 1: Background information
1.1. Name of school_____________________________________________________
1.2. Student’s code ____________
1.3. Sex: Male [] Female []
1.4. Age ____________________
1.5. Grade _____ Section ______
Section 2: Items
The following table contains a list of statements related to the title indicated above. Please read them carefully
and give a proper response to each statement. Put a tick mark (冑) on one of the options you want to show your
agreement using the scale below.
Scale: 5 5Strongly Agree; 4 5Agree; 3 5Neutral; 2 5Disagree; 1 5Strongly Disagree
The above attitude Likert scale questions are adapted from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305650994
and Mahdi (2018).
Appendix Table 1. Chemistry attitude Likert scale test.
No
To what extent would you agree or disagree with the following
statements 1 2 3 4 5
1 Learning chemistry lessons through JLSICS is encouraging me
2 I am effective in learning all lessons of chemistry through JLSICS
3 I get good chemistry results when I learn it through JLSICS.
4 Learning chemistry through JLSICS is enjoyable and attractive for me.
5 I am more interested in learning chemistry after using JLSICS
6 Learning chemistry through JLSICS is useful but time-wasting for me
7 Learning chemistry through a JLSICS is easy and fun for me
8 Learning the difficult and complex concepts of chemistry through JLSICS is clear and understandable for me
9 I like JLSICS because it reduces the abstract concepts of chemistry
10 Learning through JLSICS increases my feelings towards chemistry
11 JLSICS is important for me to be successful in chemistry lessons.
12 I like JLSICS because it saves my time and energy in learning chemistry.
13 JLSICS increases my motivation to learn chemistry
14 I am not comfortable in learning chemistry using JLSICS
15 Learning through JLSICS increases my confidence to participate actively in class.
16 Learning chemistry through JLSICS encourages me to communicate more with my classmates and teacher.
17 I pay more attention when a JLSICS is used in teaching and learning chemistry
18 I like JLSICS because it enhances my achievement in chemistry
19 I acquire essential chemistry concepts easily through JLSICS
20 Learning chemistry through JLSICS enables me to retain the main points easily.
Note: The table presents responses to statements regarding the effectiveness of JLSICS in enhancing the learning experience in chemistry.
Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The statements cover various
aspects of the JLSICS experience, including motivation, understanding, enjoyment, and effectiveness in learning chemistry concepts.
COGENT EDUCATION 23