Perceived Benefits and Post-Programme Electrochemistry Attainment Following Collaborative Teaching in Foundation Chemistry II

Electrochemistry is often considered as amongst the conceptually most challenging subjects in introductory chemistry since students are required to bridge the redox concepts, symbolic representations, particulate reasoning, and quantitative problem solving. This paper is a journal-like assessment of this collaborative teaching project, which seeks to reinforce the learning process of electrochemistry in CHM096 Foundation Chemistry II. The sources that were analysed are documentary, evaluative, and assessment related sources that are pertinent to implementation and effects of the programme. It was a lecture-based programme about redox reactions, galvanic cells and standard electrode potential in a cooperative learning session between course lecturers and a guest lecturer. The response of students was extremely positive: 87 responses were obtained, 86 of 87 students stated that they completed the session, the mean score rating was approximately 4.70 out of 5, and around 95.9% of all the ratings were 4 or 5. The most impressive dimensions were meeting programme goals, mastery of the speaker, good presentation, and clarity of explanation. Nonetheless, confidence in responding to electrochemistry questions, final-exam preparation, galvanic cells, and standard electrode potential, was found to have relatively lower ratings. Examining charting revealed that electrochemistry provided 20 marks to the CHM096 final paper, with most of the requirements being within the structured section. An analysis of 99 valid 2025 scripts revealed moderate but encouraging post-programme performance, the mean score in Question 4 was 4.41/8, in Question 5 was 3.48/8 and in electrochemistry structured score was 7.90/16 (49.4%). Notably, electrochemistry structured section performance was higher as compared to performance on the remainder of the structured questions in general. The results indicate that the collaborative teaching was positively accepted and linked to the promoting post-programme attainment of electrochemistry, and also indicated that galvanic-cell reasoning, standard electrode potential and examination-type problem solving requires further reinforcement.

collaborative teaching, electrochemistry, foundation chemistry, student feedback, final examination

1. Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(10), 1079–1099. https://doi.org/10.1002/TEA.3660291006;SUBPAGE:STRING:ABSTRACT;WEBSITE:WEBSITE:PERICLES;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Tien, L. T., & Arshad, M. Y. (2009). Miskonsepsi Pelajar Tingkatan Empat Mengenai Elektrokimia: Misconception in Electrochemistry amongst Form Four Students. Journal of Science and Mathematics Letters, 1(2), 52–64. https://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/index.php/JSML/article/view/375 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Özkaya, A. R. (2002). Conceptual Difficulties Experienced by Prospective Teachers in Electrochemistry: Half-Cell Potential, Cell Potential, and Chemical and Electrochemical Equilibrium in Galvanic Cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 735. https://doi.org/10.1021/ED079P735 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Rahayu, S., Treagust, D. F., Chandrasegaran, A. L., Kita, M., & Ibnua, S. (2011). Assessment of electrochemical concepts: a comparative study involving senior high-school students in Indonesia and Japan. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2010.536949 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997). Students’ Misconceptions in Electrochemistry Regarding Current Flow in Electrolyte Solutions and the Salt Bridge. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(7), 819–823. https://doi.org/10.1021/ED074P819 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1999). An Analysis of College Chemistry Textbooks As Sources of Misconceptions and Errors in Electrochemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(6), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1021/ED076P853 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Özkaya, A. R., Üce, M., Sariçayir, H., & Şahin, M. (2006). Effectiveness of Conceptual Change-Oriented Teaching Strategy To Improve Students’ Understanding of Galvanic Cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(11), 1719–1723. https://doi.org/10.1021/ED083P1719 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Brush, S. S. (2024). Investigating Student Performance, Course Completion, and Student Perceptions in the Blended-Flipped Teaching (BFT) Model with Collaborative Teaching Teams (CTT) in Large-Sized College Chemistry Classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(11), 4541–4551. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.JCHEMED.3C01026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1319030111;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Newell, C., & Bain, A. (2018). Team-Based Collaboration in Higher Education Learning and Teaching. SpringerBriefs in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1855-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Vembye, M. H., Weiss, F., & Hamilton Bhat, B. (2024). The Effects of Co-Teaching and Related Collaborative Models of Instruction on Student Achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 94(3), 376–422. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231186588;REQUESTEDJOURNAL:JOURNAL:RERA;WEBSITE:WEBSITE:SAGE;ISSUE:ISSUE:DOI [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Nor Hashim, N. Z., & Hanibah, H. (2024). Exploring Integrated Online Instructional Approaches Among The Foundation Chemistry I in Malaysia by Utilizing Youtube and Google Classroom. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning. https://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/index.php/AJATeL/article/view/9184/4956 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871/METRICS [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2729.1991.TB00230.X;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lewis, S. E. (2011). Retention and Reform: An Evaluation of Peer-Led Team Learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(6), 703–707. https://doi.org/10.1021/ED100689M [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705. https://doi.org/10.1021/ED070P701 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012E [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070306 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. John, G., & David, F. T. (2009). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, 4, 1–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878. https://doi.org/10.1021/ED063P873 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. VYGOTSKY, L. S. (2019). Mind in Society. Mind in Society. https://doi.org/10.2307/J.CTVJF9VZ4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for Creating Effective Practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative Learning Returns To College What Evidence Is There That It Works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/J.2168-9830.2004.TB00809.X;ISSUE:ISSUE:DOI [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Walker, L., & Warfa, A. R. M. (2017). Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL®) marginally effects student achievement measures but substantially increases the odds of passing a course. PLoS ONE, 12(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0186203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/CEPS.1999.1020 [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