Analysis of The Interaction Patterns of Chemistry Teachers and Students During Laboratory Classes in Delta State Senior Secondary Schools

Agboro-Eravwoke Ochuko Urhievwejire (Ph.D)¹, Okose, Faith Nneka²

¹Department of Science Education, Delta State University, Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria

²Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Warri, Delta State

ABSTRACT: The study explored how chemistry teachers and students interact during laboratory instruction.  Two research questions served as the basis for this investigation. The study used a non-participant observation case study research approach. Thirty (30) chemistry teachers and one thousand two hundred (1,200) senior high school students from Delta State comprised the study’s sample. Data was gathered using a behaviour checklist known as Science Laboratory Interaction Categories (SLIC). One of the study’s main conclusions was that chemistry teachers had more teacher-student (vertical) interaction patterns (ii). Another finding was that chemistry students have student-student interaction patterns while they are participating in laboratories activities. It was concluded that the knowledge of what chemistry teachers and students do in laboratories can provide valuable insights for enhancing science education across all educational levels. It was recommended that both chemistry teachers and students should be re-trained through workshops and seminars on how to promote student-teacher interaction pattern for effective learning to take place.

KEYWORDS: Laboratory, Interaction; Interaction pattern; laboratory interaction pattern.

1. INTRODUCTION

The essence of all educational process is to cause learning to take place. The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary says that learning is the process of gaining information or abilities through instruction, experience, or study. It also described as a relatively permanent change in behavior.  Learning in form of acquired skills, knowledge or attitude result from identifiable psychological or social experience (Seifert, 2019).  In the view of Schneide (2024), learning is a basic concept in the field of educational science and psychology. From the definition of Solfert (2019), it can be seen that one of the determinants of learning is social experience. Social experience is achieved through social interaction. Social interaction can be achieved over one another during social relationship.  According Hurst, Wallace and Nixon (2013) one of the ways in which students can take up their responsibility in learning is by writing, reading, thinking and speaking in the classroom.  This act enables them to interact with one another.  Interaction is the term used to describe communication between people.  One way of engaging students during learning is by interaction in the classroom. Classroom interaction denotes the communication occurring between the instructor and students, as well as among the students themselves, within the classroom environment. Interaction enables one communicate his/her ideas. No matter the method employed in teaching, interaction is a key factor used to convey ideas.  When effective interactions occur in the classroom, students are made to participate in the teaching and learning process thereby constructing knowledge.

From the perspective of social constructivist theorist, active construction of knowledge evolves round being active and engaging in mind process.  This is to say that students must mentally process and mentally act on   the information they received in order to make meaning out of it (Sigel and cocking, 1977). In line with the constructivist view, learners learn by building on their background knowledge and by restructuring their initial knowledge. To achieve this, interaction must take place. Hurst, Wallace, and Nixon (2013) observed that teachers, like students, can enhance their learning abilities by engaging in frequent discussions with peers who are currently facing similar challenges regarding the dynamics of their classroom. Additionally, they observed that effective teachers are highly motivated to enhance the quality of their interactions with parents and administrators, as well as the content of their curricula.

The teaching and learning of chemistry are not devoid of interaction, one major method that is used in the teaching of chemistry is the laboratory methods According to Ugwok (2023) the laboratory method is the hands-on and minds-on approach in science instruction that gives students opportunity to gain some concrete experience with phenomena associated with their course of study.  This method is a unique because science students are given opportunity to observe and manipulate equipment and materials to demonstrate certain aspects of the subject matter which they have learnt in the classroom through lectures, discussions and textbooks.  Carrying out laboratory activities by teachers and students is a very important aspect of the learning of science in general and chemistry in particular. When teachers and students are in the laboratory, they are bound to interact.  This interaction could be between teachers and students and among students themselves. There are different interaction patterns. These are classified under four major categories: the teacher –students (Vertical/ up the line) interaction pattern and the students- teacher (up the line) interaction pattern. For the teacher –students’ interaction pattern demonstration, explanation guidance, questioning, supervision and provision of assistance are all carried out by the teachers. On the other hand, student –teacher interaction patterns include inquiry, reporting, requesting for help, discussion, reflection are all done by the students. Interaction in the teaching and learning process is not limited to the verbal communication that happens in the classroom, it also includes the activities that takes place with the learning materials, students–students’ interaction which involves students interacting among themselves, and teacher-students –material interaction which involves manipulation of learning materials by the teachers and the students. Osakwe et al. (2019) grouped the interaction pattern exhibited by teacher and students into four basic categories: student-student pattern, teacher-student pattern, teacher-material pattern, and student-material patterns.

For Nnorom and Erhabor (2019), interaction encompasses all activities occurring in the classroom during the teaching process among the teacher, the learner, and the learning materials. Nnorom and Erhabor (2019) assert that interaction between teachers and students during the teaching-learning process facilitates behavioural modification, socialisation, the development of desirable attitudes and interests, and fosters an environment conducive to problem-solving skill development. Edeh (2024) posits that the patterns of interaction between teachers and students, including verbal exchanges, questioning, and responses, constitute the climate of the learning environment. Classroom interaction in the teaching-learning process may involve both verbal and non-verbal behaviours. Key factors in a classroom environment include the interactive exchanges initiated by both teachers and students. This is regarded as an effective pedagogical method. The entire spectrum of activities and learning experiences involves the interaction among the teacher, curriculum materials, and learners (Abe & Bello, 2019).In the views of Olugbenga and Ojo (2017), to the paradigm of the persistent usage of lecture method by most teachers, classroom interaction needs to be improved upon;

Some of the benefits of interaction in the laboratory are: enhancement of learning outcome, improvement of laboratory skills, development of critical thinking, problem -solving and communication skills.  When teachers have an understanding of the existing interaction patterns, they will be able to optimize laboratory activities in order to foster a collaboration, promote inquiry –based learning environment and maximally enhance chemistry students’ achievement and learning experiences.

Looking at the benefit of interaction, one can say that adequate interaction in the teaching and learning process is a necessity for effective learning to take place. It is against this background that this study seeks to investigate the interaction Patterns of chemistry teachers and students during laboratory activities in Delta State Senior Secondary Schools, with the intention of identifying the interaction patterns, the behviour strategy of chemistry teachers in the laboratory and the manipulation of equipment during laboratory activities.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

This study was necessitated by three factors (i) the fact that interaction is an important determinate in promoting learning as propounded by social constructivist theorists, (ii) the fact that literature has shown that lecture method is the predominate method used in the teaching (Ajaja 2013) and (iii) the dearth of literature in this area. In line with this, the statement of problem is: what interaction pattern exist among students and teachers during Chemistry laboratory activities, what behviour strategies do Chemistry teachers exhibit in the laboratory and to what extent do students manipulate equipment during laboratory activities?

Research Questions

1. What are the interaction patterns exhibited by Chemistry teachers during Chemistry practical lessons?
2. What are the interaction patterns exhibited by Chemistry students during Chemistry practical lessons?

Design of the Study

The study adopted the case study research design to investigate the interaction patterns of Chemistry teachers at the senior secondary school level in science in Delta State. In particular, the study looked into how instructors and students interacted in SS1 and SS2 laboratory classrooms across six science disciplines: The kind of case study that was used was the non-participant observation design. Since the observer only sat in the laboratory to code the teachers’ interaction patterns as the laboratory lesson progressed, this was deemed appropriate. According to Johnson and Christensen (2000), a case study is any research design in which the researcher alone examines the features of a single unit of interest.

STUDY POPULATION AND SAMPLE

The study population is made up of all chemistry teachers and students in schools with laboratory facilities, who carry out practical activities at the secondary school levels in Delta State. The study sample involved 30 chemistry teachers selected from the three senatorial zone/districts in Delta State. From each of the senatorial districts, ten chemistry teachers   were randomly selected. Fifteen of whom taught SS1 and the other fifteen of whom taught SS2 and one thousand two hundred students.

Instrument

The study utilised the Science Laboratory Interaction Categories (SLIC) behaviour checklist, originally developed by Shymansk and Penick (1979), with modifications made by the researcher to include Section C for the purpose of eliciting student behaviour. The checklist serves as an observational tool primarily intended for coding behaviours within science laboratories. Observers utilise the checklist to code exhibited behaviour in a laboratory at intervals of 3-5 seconds, employing codes that represent three dimensions of the interaction. The three dimensions are: the specific nature of the exhibited behaviour, the recipient of the specific behaviour, and the sex of the student to whom the behaviours are directed. The Science Laboratory Interaction Categories (SLIC) comprise 30 distinct categories of laboratory behaviours exhibited by science teachers and students. These categories delineate the intricate framework of six overarching teaching strategies-giving directions, asking questions, observing, transmitting information, manipulating equipment, providing feedback, gathering information, or administering programmes.

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

In collecting data that used to answer the research questions raised for the study, research assistants were trained on how to observe the interaction patterns exhibited by the teachers and students. Two research assistants were assigned to each school. One research assistant is to observe the interaction pattern exhibited by the teachers and the other to observe the interaction patterns exhibited by the students and used codes that represented the three aspects of the interaction to code the behaviour displayed in a lab every three to five seconds.

RESULTS

Research Question One: What is the interaction pattern exhibited by Chemistry teachers during Chemistry practical lessons.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Frequency and Percentage  showing the interaction pattern exhibited by Chemistry  teachers during chemistry practical lessons.

________________________________________________

Itemson Interaction                                     

Pattern                        Exhibited behaviour     Not Exhibited

                                           F (%)                   F (%)   

Asks extended thought

question; entails students

to  create ideas; Comprises

questions preordained to

prompt predictions, premises,

clarifications, or evaluations.  6(20.0)            24(80.0)

Ask factual recall question;

needed no synthesis by

students, comprises

questions for descriptions

of what happened.              25(83.3)               5 (16.7)

Demonstrates Procedure; teachers manipulation

to inform students about how

to carry out a task .             27(90.0)            3(10.0)

Gives Direction; verbal/oral

behaviours that communicate to

students how to do, designed to

redirect student actions/behaviour. 29(96.7)      1(3.3)

Shows illustrates; any teacher

equipment manipulation

carried out for the reason of

conveying non-directive information

(conveys information that is not

explicitly directive to the students). 12(40.0)   18(60.0)

Transmits information; send information

that is not directed and is sent orally, without

the use of physical objects.     28(93.3)              2(6.7)

Positive-reinforcement: positively promote

student behaviour.                  2(6.7)              28(93.3)

Negative reinforcement: Reviewing

student actions in a negative light    7(23.3)   23 (76.7)

Active Observation; the instructor

gathers information from the student

by having them manipulate or make

reference to an object or material.   3(10.0)   27(90.0)

Acknowledges student behaviour;

Uses non-evaluative remarks or gestures

to show that you are paying attention to

to what students are doing, such as

paraphrasing or repeating what they said 5(16.7)     25(83.3)

Listens to student; getting information

from student through their thoughts/

discussions as they speak to the teacher.   6(20.0)     24(80.0)

Passive observation; when a teacher just

watches or listens to the students without

actively participating/actively involved.    3(10.0)  27(90.0)

Reads and/or writes; any reading or

writing that is done by the teacher,

either with or without the pupils’

direct involvement, that is linked to the lesson. 30(100)            0(0.00)

Get supplies; procurement/purchase of

necessary materials/resources for utilision

in the laboratory                                      23(76.7)          7(23.3)

Non-lesson-related behaviours;

Any action taken by a teacher that

has nothing to do with the actual

delivery of the lesson.                         16(53.3)        14(46.7)

________________________________________________

Table 1 show the frequency of occurrence (expressed in percent) of individual chemistry teacher interaction pattern. As seen in the table, chemistry teachers interaction pattern in Chemistry laboratories (expressed in percentages) showed a teacher to student interaction pattern (vertical). The uniformity in the interaction pattern of Chemistry teacher during Chemistry laboratory class may be due to the fact that most teachers irrespective of the subject and content taught persistently use the lecture method of teaching. The persistent usage of lecture method could be traced to how the teachers were trained and the time allocated to the teaching of the subjects. This is buttressed by the view of Ajaja (2013) who noted that the predominate method of teaching is the lecture method.  The table also showed that a large percentage of laboratory time is spent by most chemistry teachers transmitting information to students. This shows the communication pattern in the laboratory is vertical (from teacher to students).

Research Question Two: What are the interaction patterns exhibited by Chemistry students during Chemistry practical lessons?

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Frequency and Percentage showing the interaction pattern exhibited by Chemistry students during Chemistry practical lessons.

________________________________________________

Items on

Interaction                                     

Pattern           Exhibited behaviour  Not Exhibited

                                           F(%)                    F (%)   

Asks extended thought question;

requires students to ask themselves

or the teacher questions to synthesize

ideas; includes question designed to

elicit predictions, hypotheses, explanations,

or evaluations.                   906(75.5)             294(24.5)

Ask factual recall question;

no teacher synthesis required,

includes questions asked for

descriptions of what was done

or happened.                      886(73.8)             314 (26.2)

Demonstrates Procedure;

any students manipulation to

tell fellow student what to do

or how to do an activity.    1002(83.5)          198(16.5)

Gives Direction;

verbal behaviours which a student

tells another student what to do or

how to do, designed to redirect

student behaviour.                        1010(84.2)      190 (15.8)

Shows illustrates; any students

manipulation of equipment

done for the purpose of

transmitting non-directive

information (not designed to

tell teacher what is been done

or how to do an activity).            900(75.0)       300(25.0)

Transmits information;

verbally transmitted non-directive

information without the use of

manipulative materials.                  1100(91.7)   100(8.3)

Positive-reinforcement: positive

evaluation of student behaviour by

another student                               779(65.0)     421 (35.0)

Negative reinforcement: negative

evaluation of student behaviour by

another student.                               958(79.8)    242(20.2)

Active Observation; receiving

information from among students

through the direct manipulation of

or references to material or object   1112(92.7)        88(7.3)

Acknowledges student behaviour:

non-evaluative statements or gestures

used to indicate attentiveness to student

behaviour, includes repeating or rephrasing

student response among students.         668(55.7)   532(44.3)

Listens to  fellow students:

receiving information from student

through discourse directed at the

teacher.                                          906(75.5)      294(24.5)

Passive observation;

watching or listening to teachers

in situations where students  are not

directly or actively involved.           545 (45.4)    655(54

Reads and/or writes;

any lesson related reading

or writing done by the students,

with or without                            302(25.2)     898(74.8)

________________________________________________

Table 2 shows the frequency of occurrence (expressed in percent) of individual chemistry students interaction pattern. As seen in the table, Chemistry students’ interaction pattern in Chemistry laboratories (expressed in percentages) is more of student–student interaction pattern. The interaction pattern of Chemistry students in Chemistry laboratory may be due to the fact that most teachers irrespective of the subject and content taught persistently use the lecture method of teaching, students are made to carry out the laboratory activities with little or no assistance from their teachers and also because laboratory activities are carried out in groups. This gives the students the opportunity to freely interact with themselves.  This shows the communication pattern in the laboratory is more from       students to students.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The laboratory is an integral part of science learning. It can be described as the workshop of scientist where important activities are carried out by scientists and science students. Ajaja (2013) asserts that the laboratory is the most appropriate setting for scientists to evaluate hypotheses prior to their acceptance as valid or invalid. This study is significant as it provides insights into the actions of chemistry teachers and students during laboratory operations. The findings will provide essential information for enhancing scientific education at all levels through policy guidelines on the behaviours that science teachers should predominantly show during laboratory lessons.

One of the findings of this study showed that most chemistry teachers exhibit  a  common interaction pattern in the laboratory. From the data collected, it can be seen that during the laboratory exercises information is giving to the students by the teachers is the dominate behaviour. The laboratory is a place where hands on activities are carried out. These activities are to be carried out in such a way that ideas are supposed to be shared between the teachers and the students and among the students themselves. The finding which did not much show that, may be due to the usage of lecture method by chemistry teachers. This finding agrees with that of Eden (2024) and Ingram et al. (2018) whose findings showed that most teachers use lecture method of teaching in the laboratory but   disagrees with that of Ajaja (2013) whose findings shows an uncommon interaction pattern among science instructors and student in the laboratory.

The second finding of the study showed that most Chemistry students exhibits’ students-students interaction pattern in the laboratory. From the data collected, it can be seen that during the laboratory exercises the students interact more among themselves. This may be as a result of the fact that they are made to work in groups, the way they were taught by their teachers and also due to the fact that they have more confidence discussing with their mates. The laboratory is a place where hands on and minds on activities are carried out. These activities are carried out in such a way that ideas are shared. This must have promoted the students to share ideas   among the students themselves thereby promoting more of students-students interaction pattern. This finding agrees with that of Setianingsih (2018) who found a higher ratio of pupil-talk-response to pupil-talk-initiation which resulted from the methods employed by the teachers and shyness and poor language ability on the part of pupils as factors responsible for more student-talk-response than student-talk-initiation.

CONCLUSION

Since interaction is an important factor to be considered in the teaching and learning process, The interaction patterns between chemistry teachers and students in laboratories must be evaluated and refined to adequately prepare students for scientific careers and effective, systematic teaching. One method to accomplish this is to examine their interaction patterns through an observational schedule to gather data throughout laboratory operations. An accurate analysis of the information regarding the events and activities of teachers and students during laboratory sessions is a crucial initial step towards enhancing science instruction. The science laboratory interaction category employed in this study offered a clear, user-friendly, and comprehensible method for assessing the laboratory interaction patterns of chemistry educators. Chemistry teachers may only embrace improvements that enhance scientific education at all levels provided they possess a comprehensive understanding of their laboratory practices. The study concludes that observing the activities of Chemistry professors and students in laboratories can provide valid insights for enhancing scientific education at all levels. The quality of instructions received by students is contingent upon the training their teachers obtained from higher education institutes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Since the findings of the study showed that the interaction pattern is mostly teacher –students and students-students pattern, it is therefore recommended that to help practicing teachers adopt the skills of effective classroom interaction patterns, it is advised that workshops, symposia, and in-service training be organised and made mandatory whereby they will be trained on how to promote student- teacher interaction pattern effectively for meaningful teaching and learning to take place.  Also, school-based workshops and seminars should be organized by school heads for students in order to build self-confidence and boldness in the students and to encourage them to freely communicate with their teachers.

REFERENCES

1. Abe, R. T. & Bello, G. (2019). Patterns of classroom interactions and students reactions toward study barriers in Biology lessons. Lonaka JoLT, 10(1), 82-93.
2. Ajaja, O. P. (2013). Coding and analysing behaviour strategies of instructors in university science laboratories to improve science teachers training. International Education Studies; 6(1), 64-73.
3. Edeh, O. M. (2024). Influence of classroom interaction patterns on achievement in biology among senior secondary school students in Awka. Global Journal of Applied, Management and Social Sciences (GOJAMSS), 28, 108 – 116
4. Hurst, B, Wallace, R. & Nixon, S. B. (2013). Impact of social interaction on students learning. Reading Horizons, Journal of literacy and Language Arts, 63(2),24-33. https://scholarworkswmich.edu/readinghorizons/vol63/iss2/1
5. Ingram, J., Andrews, N., & Pitt, A. (2018). Revisiting the roles of interactional patterns in mathematics classroom interaction. In Proceedings of CERME10
6. Johnson, B.& Christensen, L. (2000). Educational research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7. Nnorom, N. R., & Erhabor, P. O. (2019). Effect of classroom interaction patterns on secondary school students’ cognitive achievement in biology. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 10(1), 3981-3985.
8. Olugbenga, O., & Ojo, O. E. (2017). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic classroom interaction patterns on students’ academic performance in physics in Ogun State, Nigeria. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(10), 595-608.
9. Osakwe, I. J., Obodo, G. C., & Inweregbuh, O. C. (2019). Improving secondary school students’ achievement in geometric construction using interaction pattern approach. Journal of the Mathematical Association of Nigeria (Mathematics Education Series), 44(1), 151-157.
10. Sigel, I. E., & Cocking, R. R. (1977). Cognitive development from childhood to adolescence: A constructivist perspectiv Rinehart & Winston
11. Schneide, K. (2024), What is learning? Psychology, 15(5). http//www.scrip.org on 16^th 2024.
12. Seifert, K. (2019). The learning process. Educational Psychology. http//www.google.org on 16^th 2024.
13. Setianingsih, R. (2018). Patterns of interactions at grade 5 classroom in learning the topic of statistics viewed from cognitive load theory patterns of interactions at grade 5 classroom in learning the topic of statistics viewed from cognitive load theory. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 953, 012212
14. Shymansky, J. A., & Penick, J. E. (1979). Use of systematic observation to improve college science laboratory instruction. Science Education, 63(2), 195-203. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/ sce.3730630207
15. Ugwok, A. (2023). Science teaching in emerging technologies for achieving sustainable goals. ESUT journal of Education, 6(1) http//www.google.com