The Effectiveness of (SWOM) Strategy Based on ChatGPT Technique on Academic Achievement in Science Subject for Eighth-Grade Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21271/mj.1.1.12Keywords:
School-Wide Optimum Model (SWOM), ChatGPT, Academic Achievement, Active Learning.Abstract
The study explored the integration of an AI language model such as ChatGPT into (SWOM) Strategy to enhance the science academic achievement of eighth graders. In many traditional classroom settings, higher-order thinking skills and meaningful student engagement are not developed, both of which are crucial for deep and long-lasting learning. AI tools such as ChatGPT may help bridge gaps in education by offering immediate feedback, promoting interactive learning, and tailoring instruction to individual student needs. This study was conducted in a private school and involved a sample of (40) students divided into two groups: an experimental group, which was treated with the SWOM strategy enhanced by ChatGPT, and a control group, which was taught via regular teacher-led teaching methods. Academic achievement was measured using a 30-item multiple-choice test to assess the outcome. To ensure the reliability of the test, two methods were employed. First, Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) was used. to evaluate the internal consistency of the test, which yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.891, indicating high reliability. Second, split-half reliability was used, resulting in a coefficient of 0.886. Drawing on Cognitive Learning Theory, Constructivism, and Mayer's Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML), the study posits that meaningful learning can occur more readily when students construct knowledge actively through verbal communication and digital interaction. There was a statistically significant increase in the academic performance of the experimental group, highlighting the advantages of using AI techniques in combination with novel teaching methods. These results will support educators, curriculum developers, and efforts to modernize science education.
References
Ahmed, O. (n.d.) School Wide Optimum Model (SWOM). Idrak Center for Learning Thinking and Talent Development.
Agustini, R., Meilanie, R. and Pujiastuti, E. (2024) ‘Enhancing critical thinking and curiosity in early childhood through inquiry-based science learning’, Indonesian Journal of Science and Education, 8(1), pp. 15–26. doi: 10.31004/aulad. v7i3.780.
Al Ali, R., Wardat, Y. and Al-Qahtani, M. (2023) ‘SWOM strategy and influence of its using on developing mathematical thinking skills and on metacognitive thinking among gifted tenth-grade students’, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(3), Article em2238. doi: 10.29333/ejmste/12994.
Al-Edwan, Z. and Daoud, M. (2018) ‘The effectiveness of SWOM strategy in developing critical thinking skills among students’, Journal of Educational Sciences, 12(3), pp. 45–60.
Belay, A. (2022) ‘Cognitive learning and technology-enhanced instruction’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 44(3), pp. 265–278.
Belay, M.A. (2022) ‘Book review: Learning Theories: Educational Perspectives, 8th edition by Schunk, D.H.’, International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 14(3), pp. 95–98. doi: 10.18844/ijlt.v14i3.7888.
Bergmann, J. and Sams, A. (2012) Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Bonwell, C.C. and Eison, J.A. (1991) Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Brooks, J.G. and Brooks, M.G. (2020) Becoming a constructivist teacher: Reimagining your practice. 3rd edn. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, pp. 45–60. doi: 10.4135/9781483363733.
Brown, J.D. (2020) Testing in language programs. 2nd edn. Routledge.
Brown, T. (2021) ‘Language models are few-shot learners’, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, pp. 1877–1901.
Bubeck, S. et al. (2023) ‘Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4’, Microsoft Research. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12712 (Accessed: 20 July 2025).
Bull, P. and Hillier, M. (2023) ‘Revisiting Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory in Digital Learning’, Educational Review, 75(1), pp. 15–21.
Candy, P.C. (2019) Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 112. doi: 10.1002/9781119268566.
Çibukçiu, R. (2025) ‘Constructivist Approaches to Modern Classrooms: A Review’, International Journal of Pedagogical Research, 31(1), pp. 1–6.
Clark, R.C. and Mayer, R.E. (2016) E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. 4th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2018) Research methods in education. 8th edn. Abingdon: Routledge.
College of Education, Illinois (2024) ‘AI in schools: pros and cons’. Available at: https://education.illinois.edu/about/news-events/news/article/2024/10/24/ai-in-schools--pros-and-cons (Accessed: 16 March 2025).
Dai, W. et al. (2023) ‘Can large language models provide feedback to students? A case study on ChatGPT’, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, pp. 1–12.
Darling-Hammond, L. et al. (2023a) ‘How teaching matters: Redefining instructional impact’, Educational Researcher, 52(1), pp. 5–16. doi: 10.1177/0022487100051003002.
Darling-Hammond, L. et al. (2023b) ‘Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development’, Applied Developmental Science, 27(2), pp. 97–140. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 (Accessed: 20 July 2025).
Duffy, T.M. and Cunningham, D.J. (1996) ‘Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction’, in Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 170–198. Available at: https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/6c203a19d46b3e3273275269e0c238a7 (Accessed: 20 July 2025).
Elliott, S.N. (2016) ‘Observation in school settings’, in Goldstein, G. and Hersen, M. (eds.) Handbook of Psychological Assessment, pp. 443–465. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. Available at: https://shop.elsevier.com/books/handbook-of-psychological-assessment/goldstein/978-0-12-802203-0 (Accessed: 20 July 2025).
Engel, S. (2011) ‘Children’s need to know: Curiosity in schools’, Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), pp. 625–645. doi: 10.17763/haer.81.4.h054131316473115.
Ertmer, P.A. and Newby, T.J. (1993) ‘Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective’, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), pp. 50–72.
Felder, R.M. and Brent, R. (2016) Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fitzpatrick, J.L., Sanders, J.R. and Worthen, B.R. (2011) Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. 4th edn. Boston, MA: Pearson. Available at: https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/program-evaluation-alternative-approaches-and-practical-guidelines/P200000005731 (Accessed: 20 July 2025).
Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. and Wenderoth, M.P. (2014) ‘Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), pp. 8410–8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Gottlieb, J. et al. (2013) ‘Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: Computational and neural mechanisms’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(11), pp. 585–593. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.001.
Gruber, M.J., Gelman, B.D. and Ranganath, C. (2014) ‘States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit’, Neuron, 84(2), pp. 486–496. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060.
Haladyna, T.M., Rodriguez, M.C. and Downing, S.M. (2013) ‘A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment’, Applied Measurement in Education, 26(4), pp. 273–291.
Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/Visible-Learning-A-Synthesis-of-Over-800-Meta-Analyses-Relating-to-Achievement/Hattie/p/book/9780415476188 (Accessed: 20 July 2025).
Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004) ‘Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?’, Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), pp. 235–266.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M. and Fadel, C. (2021) Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Hwang, G.J., Xie, H., Wah, B.W. and Gašević, D. (2020) ‘Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education’, Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001.
Hussein, H.N. and Mater, F.A. (2020) ‘Effectiveness of teaching by SWOM strategy in achievement and retention of second intermediate-grade students in science’, International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 12(2), pp. 24–34. doi: 10.9756/INT-JECSE/V12I2.201053.
Jameel, A.S. (2019) ‘The impact of the SWOM strategy on the achievement of male students in the preparatory stage and developing their mathematical power at Tikrit, Salah al-Din, Iraq’, Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 13(3), pp. 45–60.
Jasim, F. (2020) ‘Enhancing cognitive skills through the SWOM approach in UAE schools’, International Journal of Innovation in Education, 7(2), pp. 89–104.
Johnson, L., Al-Maadeed, R. and Fadel, A. (2024) ‘Social Constructivism in the AI Era: Applications of Vygotsky in Digital Classrooms’, Learning and Instruction, 43(2), pp. 1–8.
Jones, K. (2019) ‘How traditional teaching methods fail today’s students’, Journal of Educational Innovation, 14(2), pp. 45–60.
Kasneci, E. et al. (2023) ‘ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education’, Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274.
Kashdan, T.B., Rose, P. and Fincham, F.D. (2004) ‘Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities’, Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(3), pp. 291–305. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_05.
Litman, J.A. (2010) ‘Relationships between measures of I and D type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need for closure’, Personality and Individual Differences, 48, pp. 397–402. Available at: https://drjlitman.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Litman-2010.pdf (Accessed: 20 July 2025).
Luckin, R. (2018) Machine learning and human intelligence: The future of education for the 21st century. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.
Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M. and Forcier, L.B. (2016) Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. London: Pearson.
Marzano, R.J. (2017) The new art and science of teaching. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Mayer, R.E. (2005) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–18. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816819.
Mayer, R.E. (2008) ‘Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction’, American Psychologist, 63(8), pp. 760–769.
Mayer, R.E. (2009) Multimedia learning. 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–104. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811678.
Mayer, R.E. (2014) ‘Cognitive theory of multimedia learning’, in R.E. Mayer (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–71. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139547369.005.
Molenaar, I. (2022) ‘Towards hybrid human-AI learning technologies’, European Journal of Education, 57(4), pp. 632–645.
Mukhtar, M. and Musa, A. (2024) ‘Effects of Numbered-Heads-Together (NHT) strategy on academic achievement and interest of secondary school biology students’, Science Education Journal, 15(1), pp. 112–128.
Naji, H.Q., Ali, A.H. and Qasim, E.M. (2021) ‘Effect of (SWOM) strategy on personal struggle and learning the combined offensive for students’, Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology, 25(6), pp. 552–564.
Nwaukwa, F.C. and Okolocha, C.C. (2020) ‘Effect of Think-Pair-Share instructional strategy on senior secondary students’ academic achievement and self-efficacy in financial accounting’, Journal of Business and Educational Research, 8(2), pp. 75–90.
Piaget, J. (2013) The psychology of intelligence. Revised edn. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203715972.
Popham, W.J. (2020) Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. 9th edn. Pearson.
Prince, M. (2004) ‘Does active learning work? A review of the research’, Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), pp. 223–231.
Raji, A. (2016) ‘Integrating thinking skills into curriculum: The role of SWOM in modern education’, Educational Research Quarterly, 40(1), pp. 22–37.
Schunk, D.H. (2020) Learning theories: An educational perspective. 8th edn. New York: Pearson. doi: 10.4324/9780429263848.
Selwyn, N. (2019) Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sorden, S.D. (2015) ‘The cognitive theory of multimedia learning’, Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 8(1), pp. 31–48. Available at: https://www.jetde.org/index.php/JETDE/article/view/166. (Accessed: 16 March 2025).
Teachflow.AI. (2023) ‘The evolution of AI in education: Past, present, and future’. Teachflow.AI. Available at: https://teachflow.ai/the-evolution-of-ai-in-education-past-present-and-future/ (Accessed: 16 March 2025).
Tech and Learning. (2023) ‘AI’s big deal: AI in the classroom continues to evolve’. Tech and Learning. Available at: https://www.techlearning.com/news/ais-big-deal-ai-in-the-classroom-continues-to-evolve (Accessed: 16 March 2025).
Ting, C.L. and Siew, N.M. (2014) ‘Effects of outdoor school ground lessons on students' science process skills and scientific curiosity’, Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 15(2), Article 6.
von Stumm, S., Hell, B. and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011) ‘The hungry mind: intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), pp. 574–588. doi: 10.1177/1745691611421204.
Vygotsky, L.S. (2012) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Updated edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4.
Wertsch, J.V. (2018) Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.4159/9780674042200.
York, T.T., Gibson, C. and Rankin, S. (2015) ‘Defining and measuring academic success’, Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 20(5), Article 5, pp. 1–20. doi: 10.7275/hz5x-tx03.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V.I., Bond, M. and Gouverneur, F. (2019) ‘Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators?’, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), pp. 1–27.
Zhai, X. et al. (2021) ‘A review of artificial intelligence (AI) in education from
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Paiza Mirahmed
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
