Enhancing Learning Outcomes and Motivation of Grade 9 Learners in Chemical Bonding Utilizing Contextualized 3D Manipulatives

Chemical bonding is one of the abstract topics in Chemistry. Students find it hard to imagine how bonding between two or more atoms occurs. Failure to do so leads to low performance and motivation, especially for those who are struggling to understand the lessons due to poor prior knowledge. This study aims to enhance learning outcomes and motivation of grade 9 learners in chemical bonding by utilizing contextualized 3D manipulatives. It used a quantitative, one-group pretest–posttest action research design. Purposive sampling was employed to select learners who met the inclusion criteria, a Science grade of 74 and below during the previous quarter. The participants were 16 Grade 9 challenged learners from Mindanao State University – University Training Center (MSU-UTC), Marawi City. The results demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in students’ performance from the pretest to the posttest. Findings suggest that the contextualized 3D manipulatives had a positive effect on students’ motivation, supporting research that emphasizes the role of hands-on, concrete learning tools in enhancing learners’ engagement and interest in science. The absence of a significant relationship before the intervention underscores the need for instructional strategies, such as contextualized 3D manipulatives, that can simultaneously support conceptual learning and provide conditions under which motivation and achievement may become more closely aligned. Overall, although a positive trend between postintervention motivation and achievement was observed, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that increased motivation directly contributed to higher posttest performance in this study. These results only suggest that integrating contextualized 3D manipulatives into instruction can be an effective strategy for fostering both achievement and motivation among learners of challenging content.

Contextualized 3D Manipulatives, Students’ Performance, Learning Motivation, Challenged Learners

1. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2016). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096– 1097. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Çalik, M., Ayas, A., & Coll, R. K. (2015). A review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional approaches in chemical bonding. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1008294 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). The modelling ability of non-major chemistry students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90033F [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cooper, M. M., Corley, L. M., & Underwood, S. M. (2017). An investigation of college chemistry students’ understanding of structure–property relationships. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21065 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Concreteness fading in mathematics and science instruction: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2015). Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 804–820. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21202 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kibirige, I., & Tsamago, H. (2019). Learners’ performance in physical sciences using locally produced teaching aids. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 23(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2019.1652047 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lombardi, D., Shipley, T. F., Bailey, J. M., & Astronomy Team. (2021). Students’ interest and engagement in science through hands-on and visual learning tools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(7), 1007–1034. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21681 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Millar, R. (2014). Teaching science for understanding. McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Padalkar, S., & Hegarty, M. (2015). Models as feedback: Developing representational competence in chemistry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037516 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K–12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85– 129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Theories and applications. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429469031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Stull, A. T., & Hegarty, M. (2016). Model manipulation and learning: Fostering representational competence with virtual and concrete models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000079 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Stull, A. T., Gainer, M., Padalkar, S., & Hegarty, M. (2018). Promoting representational competence with molecular models. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(3), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00492 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B., & Stieff, M. (2012). Representational translation with concrete models in organic chemistry. Cognition and Instruction, 30(4), 404–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2012.719956 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Uribe-Flórez, L. J., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2016). Elementary school students’ manipulative use and mathematics learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1541–1557. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9727-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study