1

Table 3: Overall Summary of mean scores of students.

TEST GROUP N PRE-TEST POST-TEST
Male (Control)
Female (Control)
Male (Analogy)
Female (Analogy)
Male (Concept Map)
Female Concept Map)
16
16
16
16
16
16
27.70
27.30
27.30
26.90
27.90
27.13
54.60
53.80
66.00
59.40
75.00
73.10

The results in table 3 showed a slight higher performance by male
students over the female students in the post tests. Similarly, the
performance of the students in the CPST as taught using the different
strategies is in the order male (concept map > female (concept map) >
male (analogy) > male (control) > female (control).
General, the students taught using concept mapping instructional
strategies performed better than students taught using analogy
instructional strategies.

Table 4: Details of students mean performance in post test according
to the three questions in the CPST.

2

TEST GROUP Q1 Q2 Q3 TOTAL
Male (Control)
Female (Control)
Male (Analogy)
Female (Analogy)
Male (Concept Map)
Female Concept Map)
17.90
17.66
20.50
17.57
24.10
23.48
19.51
18.02
25.10
23.50
24.50
23.58
17.19
18.12
20.40
18.33
26.40
26.40
54.60
53.80
66.00
59.40
75.40
73.10
Mean Score 20.20 22.37 21.08 63.65

A careful consideration of the mean score of the students in the different
questions (electrolysis, stoichiometry and mole respectively), shared that
concept mapping instructional strategy is more effective. It is suitable for
teaching all the concepts and most especially, the mole. Analogy is most
suitable only for teaching stoichimetry. Mean score of students taught in
the control group are generally lower than those taught using other
strategies.

4.2.1 Pretest Results
The pretest scores of male and female students in the control,
analogy and concept mapping groups were analysed and the

3

results presented in table. The analyses and presentation were
done according to the research questions and the corresponding
hypotheses.
Research question one: Will there be any diff..
Research Hypothesis one: There is no sign..

Table 5: Pretest mean score of male students in control, analogy and
concept mapping groups.
TEST GROUP N MEAN
SCORE
STUDENT
ERROR
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Control
Analogy
Concept Mapping
16
16
16
27.70
27.30
27.90
0.472
0.410
0.482
16.70
16.70
16.70
36.70
36.70
36.70
Total 48 27.63 0.258 16.70 36.70

Table 5 showed the mean score of the male students in the pretest where
the minimum and maximum score were the same in each group. The
mean score for the groups do not show any differences.


4

Table 6: ANOVA of Pretest mean score of male students in control,
analogy and concept mapping groups.
TEST GROUP Sum of Squares df Mean square F P-sig.
Between groups
Within groups
0.292
149.625
2
45
0.146
3.325
0.044 0.957
Total 149.917 47

The analysis of the results in table 6 gives a p-value of 0.957. Since the p-
value, 0.957 > 0.05, the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore there is no
significant different between the pretest mean score of male students in
a chemistry problem solving test in the control, analogy and concept
mapping groups.
Research question two: will there be ..
Research Hypothesis two: There is no sign.






5

Table 7 Pretest mean score of female students in control, analogy and
concept mapping groups.
Test Group N Mean
Score
Student
Error
Minimum Maximum
Control
Analogy
Concept Mapping
16
16
16
27.30
26.90
27.10
0.440
0.536
0.605
16.70
13.30
10.00
36.70
36.70
36.70
Total 48 27.10 0.300 13.33 36.70

The results showed that the mean score in each group is about same,
twenty seven. There is therefore, no difference in the mean score of the
female students in the pretest in all three groups.

Table 8: ANOVA of Pretest mean scores of female students in control,
analogy and concept mapping groups.
Test Group Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P-sig.
Between groups
Within groups
0.125
203.125
2
45
0.063
4.514
0.014 0.987
Total 203.250 47


6

From the analysis in table 8, P-sig, 0.986 > 0.05. The null hypothesis is
accepted. Therefore, there is no
.

4.2.2 Pretest Vs Post-test Results.
The pretest and post-test results of male and female students
in the control and two experimental groups were also analysed
according to the research questions and hypothesis. The results
were also presented accordingly.
Research question three: will there be
Research hypothesis three: There is no sign ..

Table 9 Group statistics of Pretest and post-test mean scores of male
students in the control.
Test Group N Means Score Standard Error Mean difference
Pretest
Posttest
16
16
27.70
54.60
0.472
0.700
-26.90


7

The results in table 9 showed that there is a remarkable difference in the
pretest and post-test mean scores. The pre-test mean score (27.70)
differed by 26.90 from the post-test mean score of 54.60.

Table 10: Independent sample test for equality of means.
Test Group Mean
Difference
t df Standard
error diff
P-sig.(2
tailed
Equal variance assumed -26.90 -9.546 30 0.845 0.000


Analysis using t-test for independent samples showed that P-value,
0.000 < 0.05. This showed that there is a highly significant difference
(99.99% significant) between the pretest and post-test mean score of
male students in the control group. Hypothesis three is therefore
rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted. Therefore, there is a
significant difference between the pre-test and post test mean scores of
Male students in a chemistry problem solving test in the control group.
Research question four:
Research Hypothesis four: There are no sign .


8

Table 11: Group statistics of pretest and post-test mean scores of female
students in the control group.
Test Group N Means Score Standard Error Mean difference
Pretest
Posttest
16
16
27.30
53.80
0.442
0.694
-26.50


It was revealed from the analysis presented in table 11 that there was a
different between the mean score of the female students in pre- and post
tests.

Table 12: Independent sample test for equality of means.
Test Group Mean
Difference
T df Standard
error diff
P-sig.(2
tailed
Equal variance assumed -26.50 -9.656 30 0.822 0.000


The analysis of the pretest and post-test mean scores of female students
in the control group yielded a P-value of 0.000. Since the P-sig, 0.000 <
0.05, there is a 99.99% significant difference between the scores. The null

9

hypothesis (four) was rejected, giving place to the alternate hypothesis.
Therefore, there is a significant ..
Research question five
Research hypothesis five

Table 13: Group statistics of the pre-test and post test mean scores of
male students in the analogy group.
Test Group N Means Score Standard Error Mean difference
Pretest
Posttest
16
16
27.30
66.00
0.410
0.593
-38.70


The mean different (-38.70) indicates that there is a difference between
the pretest and post-test scores of the students taught using analogy.

Table 14: Independent sample test for equality of means.
Test Group Mean
Difference
T df Standard
error diff
P-sig.(2
tailed
Equal variance assumed -38.70 -16.12 30 0.721 0.000


10


The analysis and results presented in table 14 showed that the P-value is
0.000, a value less than 0.05. There is a 99.99% significant difference
between the pretest and post-test mean score of male students in the
analogy group. Hypothesis five is therefore rejected and the alternate
hypothesis accepted. There is a significant difference

Research question six
Research hypothesis six
Table 15: Group statistics of pretest and post-test mean scores of female
students in the analogy group.
Test N Means Score Standard Error Mean difference
Pretest
Posttest
16
16
26.90
59.40
0.536
0.518
-32.50


Table 15 showed that there was a difference between the pre-test and
post-test mean scores of the female student taught with analogy. The
post-test performance was significantly higher, giving a mean difference
of 32.50.

11

Table 16: Independent sample test for equality of means.
Test Group Mean
Difference
T df Standard
error diff
P-sig.(2
tailed
Equal variance assumed -32.50 -13.08 30 0.745 0.000

The t-test for Independent sample revealed that there was a significant
difference between the pretest and post-test mean scores of the female
students in the analogy group (P sig, 0.000 < 0.05). The null hypothesis
(six) was rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted to read
..
Research Question Seven
Research Hypothesis Seven
Table 17: Group statistics of pretest and post-test mean scores of male
students in the concept mapping group.
Test N Mean scores Standard error
mean
Mean diff.
Pretest
Post-test
16
16
27.90
75.00
0.482
0.658
- 47.10



12

The results showed that there was a huge difference between the pretest
and post-test scores. The difference of 47.10 attests to this fact.
Table 18: Independent sample test for equity of means
Mean
diff.
t df Standard
error diff.
P-sig (2
tailed)
Equal variance
assumed
-47.10 -17.31 30 0.816 0.000

The t-test results in table 18 showed a highly significant difference
between the pretest and post-test mean scores of male students who
were taught using concept mapping instructional strategy. The null
hypothesis (seven) was rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted in
its place. Therefore there is a significant..
Research Question Eight
Research Hypothesis Eight



13

Table 19: Group statistics of pretest and post-test mean scores of female
students in the concept mapping group.
Test N Mean scores Standard error
mean
Mean diff.
Pretest
Post-test
16
16
27.10
73.10
0.605
0.403
- 46.10


The results in table 19 revealed a difference between the pretest and
post-test mean scores of the female chemistry students in the concept
mapping group.
Table 20: Independent sample test for equality of means involving the
pretest and post-test mean scores of females in concept mapping class.
Mean
diff.
t df Standard
error diff.
P-sig
(2 tailed)
Equal variance
assumed
-46.00 -19.01 30 0.727 0.000

The analysis in table 20 showed the P-value to be 0.000, less than 0.05.
This showed a highly significant difference between the scores.

14

Hypothesis eight was rejected as a result, and the alternate hypothesis
was accepted to read: There is a significant difference
Research Question Nine
Research Hypothesis Nine
Table 21: Post test mean scores of male students in control, analogy and
concept mapping groups.
Group N Mean score Minimum Maximum
Control
Analogy
Concept map.
16
16
16
54.60
66.00
75.00
36.70
53.30
60.10
70.00
80.00
86.7%
Total 48 65.20 50.00 78.90

From the mean scores of the male students in table 21, it is clear that
they differ from one another. The performance of male students in the
post-test were not the same. Those in the control were the least while
those in concept mapping performed better.


15

Table 22a: ANOVA of the post-test mean scores of male students in
control, analogy and concept mapping groups (Between subjects effects)
Source Type III sum
of squares
df. Mean
square
F P-sig.
Intercept
Group H
0
9
Error
Total
18369.187
301.625
306.188
18977.000
1
2
45
48
18369.187
150.813
6.804
2699.697
22.165
0.000
0.000
Corrected Total 607.812 47
a. R squared = 0.496 (Adjusted R squared = 0.474).
The ANOVA carried out on the mean scores in table 22 for within
groups and between subjects yielded p-values less than 0.05. The
analysis showed that there was a significant difference between the post-
test mean scores of the male students in control, analogy and concept
mapping groups. The null hypothesis (nine) was rejected and the
alternate accepted. Therefore ..
The analysis also yielded an R-squared value of 0.49. This means that the
treatments given contributed to 49.6% variation in the subjects. A

16

pairwise multiple comparison test was carried out to find the source of
variation and the result tabulated as follows:-
Table 22b: Pairwise comparison test.
Group (i) Group (i) Mean
diff. (i-j)
Standard
error
Sig.
Concept
mapping

Analogy

Control

Analogy
Control
Concept
mapping
Control
Analogy
Concept
mapping
9.00*
20.40*
-9.00*
11.40*
-11.40*
-20.40*
0.922
0.922
0.922
0.922
0.922
0.922
0.020
0.000
0.20
0.002
0.000
0.002

The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level in all cases. Based on
the observed means, the error term is mean square (error) and is 6.804.
The multiple comparison test showed that concept mapping has more
effects on male students performance than analogy. It is in concept
mapping group that the variation arose.

17

Table 22c: Scheffes test
Group N 1 Sub-set 2 3
Control
Analogy
Concept mapping
16
16
16
54.60
66.00


75.00

Based on observed means, the error term is mean square (error) = 6.804
Alpha = 0.05 and harmonic mean sample size is 16.00.
Research Question Ten
Research Hypothesis Ten
Table 23: Post test mean scores of female students in control, analogy
and concept mapping groups.
Group N Mean score Minimum Maximum
Control
Analogy
Concept mapping
16
16
16
53.80
59.4
73.10
40.00
50.00
63.30
73.30
76.70
83.30
Total 48 62.10 51.10 77.77


18

The mean scores of the results presented in table 23 indicated differences
in the performances of the female students in the control and
experimental groups. As in the case of their male counterparts (table 21),
the female students in the concept mapping class performed better than
those of control and analogy in chemistry problem solving tasks.
Table 24: ANOVA of the post-test mean scores of female students in the
control, analogy and concept mapping groups (test of between subject
effects).
Source Type II sum
of squares
df Mean
square
F P-sig.
Intercept
Group H
0
10
Error
Total
Corrected total
16650.750
286.125
219.125
17156.10
505.250
1
2
45
48
47
16650.750
143.063
4.869
3419.435
29.380
0.000
0.000


a. R squared = 0.566 (Adjusted R. Squared = 0.547)

19

Results of the analysis presented in table 24 yielded P-values of 0.000,
less than 0.05-alpha level. This showed that there was a 99.99%
significant difference between the mean scores of the female students in
a chemistry problem solving test when taught in control, analogy and
concept mapping groups. The null hypothesis ten was rejected in favour
of the alternate hypothesis. Therefore.. The R-squared value
was 0.566, meaning that the treatment given in the experimental groups
accounted for 56.6% of the variations in the subjects. A pair wise
comparison test carried out to find the source of variation gave the
following results:
Table 24b: Pair wise comparism test.
Group (1) Group (i) Mean diff
(i-j)
Standard
error
Sig.
Concept mapping

Analogy

Control
Analogy control
Concept
Concept mapping
Control
Concept mapping
Analogy
13.70*
19.30*
-13.70*
5.60
-19.30*
-5.60
0.780
0.780
0.780
0.780
0.780
0.780
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.108
0.000
0.108

20

Based on the observed means, the error term is mean square (error) and
is 4.869. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level except for the
control-analogy pair where theres no significant difference, P-value
being greater than 0.05. Concept mapping again showed itself as an
instructional strategy that has more effects on students (female)
performance in chemistry problem solving test than control and
analogy.
Table 24c: Scheffes test
Group N 1 subset 2
Control
Analogy
Concept mapping
16
16
16
53.80
59.40


73.10

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Based on the
observed means, the error term is mean square (Error) = 4.869, at alpha
= 0.05.
Research question eleven..
Research hypothesis eleven.

21

Table 25: Group statistics of post-test mean scores of male chemistry
students in analogy and concept mapping groups.
Group N Mean score Standard error Mean diff.
Analogy
Concept mapping
16
16
66.00
75.00
0.593
0.658
-910

The mean scores and mean difference indicated in table 25 revealed that
the performances of the male students in chemistry problem solving
tests differ in the two experimental groups analogy and concept
mapping groups.
Table 26: Independent sample test for equality of means
Mean diff. t df Standard
error diff.
P-sig
(2-tailed)
Equal variance assumed -9.00 -3.033 30 0.886 0.005

The results showed that the mean scores are significantly different at
P<0.01 (99%). The P-value is 0.005. Therefore the null hypothesis is
rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted that there is a.

22

Research question twelve..
Research hypothesis twelve..
Table 27: Group statistics of post test mean scores of female chemistry
students in analogy and concept mapping groups.
Group N Mean score Standard
error
Mean diff.
Analogy
Concept mapping
16
16
59.4
73.10
0.518
0.403
013.70

The results in table 27 showed a marked difference between the scores of
females students taught with analogy and when taught with concept
mapping strategies. The mean difference of 13.70 is a further proof to
this. Those in the concept mapping class performed better.
Table 28: Independent sample test for equality on means
Mean diff. t df Standard
error diff.
P-sig
(2-tailed)
Equal variance assumed -13.70 6.285 30 0.656 0.000


23

The P-value, 0.000 < 0.05. This means there was a significant difference
in the post-test mean scores of the female students in the analogy and
concept mapping classes in chemistry problem solving test. Hypothesis
twelve is therefore rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted.
Therefore.
Research question thirteen..
Research hypothesis thirteen..
Table 29: Group statistics of post-test mean scores of male chemistry
students in CPST when taught using analogy and female students that
were taught using concept mapping.
Group N Mean score Standard
error
Mean diff.
Male
Female
16
16
66.00
59.40
0.593
0.518
6.60

The results showed that the mean scores of male and female students
taught with analogy are not the same. They differ from one another, the
mean scores of male students being higher.

24


Table 30: Independent sample test for equality of means
Mean diff. t df Standard
error diff.
P-sig
(2-tailed)
Equal variance assumed 6.60 2.539 30 0.788 0.017
The P-value, 0.017 < 0.05. This showed that the mean score of male
students in the CPST when taught with analogy differed significantly
from that of the female students. It is significant at about 95%.
Hypothesis thirteen was rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted.
Therefore, there is a significant.
Research question fourteen..
Research hypothesis fourteen..
Table 31: Group statistics of post-test mean scores of male and female
students in CPST when taught with concept mapping.
Group N Mean score Standard
error
Mean diff.
Male
Female
16
16
75.00
73.10
0.658
0.403
1.90

25


The mean score of male students does not differ significantly from the
mean score of female students when both are taught with concept
mapping instructional strategy. The mean difference is just 1.90.
Table 32: Independent sample test for equality of means.
Mean diff. t df Standard
error diff.
P-sig
(2-tailed)
Equal variance assumed 1.90 0.729 30 0.772 0.472

The P-value, 0.472 > 0.05. This indicated that there was no significant
difference between the mean scores of male and female students taught
using concept mapping instructional strategy. Hypothesis fourteen
(null) was therefore retained. This means that there was no






26

4.3 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
The study was a pretest-post-test control group design aimed at finding
out the effects of two metacognitive instructional strategies on gender and
problem solving ability in three selected chemistry concepts. These were:
electrolysis, stoichimetry and mole. Question one was drawn from
electrolysis, question two from stoichiometry and question three from
mole concept. The three questions made up the chemistry problem
solving test. In all, ninety six students participate, with thirty two students
(16 males and 16 females) in each of control, analogy and concept
mapping groups. Analysis of the pretest and posttest mean scores yielded
the following results:

1. Generally, students taught using concept mapping instructional strategy
performed better in the post test than others taught with analogy and in
the control. Both male and female students in the concept map class did
well with mean scores of 75.00 and 73.10 respectively almost the same
score. The male students in the analogy group performed better than their
female counterparts with mean scores of 66.00 against 59.4. The result
also showed that female students in the concept mapping class performed
better than males in the analogy group. Table 3 contains all these.

27

2. The study revealed that concept mapping is suitable/effective for teaching
stoichiomety, electrolysis and mole. The effectiveness cuts across gender.
Analogy was found most suitable only for teaching male students
stoichiometry.
3. Tables 5-8 showed that the pretest results of males in the control, analogy
and concept mapping had no significant difference (p=0.957). Similarly,
the pretest result of female students in the control and the two
experimental groups did not yield any significant difference in their
pretest means scores. The p-value was 0.986.
4. Results presented in tables 9 to 20 showed that there was a significant
difference between the pretest and post-test mean scores of both male and
female students in CPST when taught in the control, analogy and concept
mapping strategies. The mean differences between the pretest and post-
tests however differ from one group to the other. The control being the
least while concept mapping class, the highest.
5. Another finding of the study (from ANOVA) was that a significance
difference occurred between the post-tests mean scores of male students
in the control, analogy and concept mapping groups. The ANOVA
yielded p=0.000 < 0.05. The analysis also revealed that treatment of
groups accounted for 49.6.% of variation in the subjects.
6. Regarding the comparison of the post-test mean scores of female students
in the CPST in the control, analogy and concept mapping groups, the

28

study found that there was a significant difference between their mean
scores (P=0.000 < 0.05). The treatment accounted for 56.6% of the
variation in the subjects. However, Scheffes test identified the female
analogy vs female control pairs as having no significant difference (P=0.
). Tables 23-24 give this.
7. Results in table 25 and 26 indicated that there was a moderately
significant difference between the post-test mean scores of male students
in CPST when taught with analogy and concept mapping. With P=0.005
and mean difference of 9, the study showed that concept map is more
effective than analogy in the teaching of the three concepts to male
chemistry students.
8. The study found also that concept mapping strategy produced greater
effects in female chemistry students than their counterparts taught with
analogy. Mean score difference was 13.70 and P=0.000. The difference
was highly significant.
9. The use of analogy as instructional strategy produced a 95% significant
difference between male and female students. The mean difference
between the two (male and female) in CPST when taught with analogy
was 6.60. Using analogy to teach students the three chemical concepts
will give the male students a slight edge over the female students.
10. The study found that concept mapping instructional strategy is effective
for both male and female chemistry students. No significant difference

29

was found between the post-test mean scores of the male and female
students in CPST when taught the three chemistry concept with concept
mapping (P=0.472).



CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 Introduction:
The study was a pretest-post-test control group design carried out in order
to compare the effects of two metacognitive instructional strategies on
gender and students problem solving ability in some selected chemistry
concepts. These were: electrolysis, stoichiometry and the mole. The two
instructional strategies were analogy and concept mapping.
This chapter presents a discussion of the results that were obtained as a
result of the analyses of the pre-test and post-test scores of male and
female students in a chemistry problem solving test when taught in the
control group and using the strategies in the experimental group. The
results are discussed with reference to other research results related to the
study.
5.2 Result of the Students Pre-test

30

One of the findings of the study was that there was no significant
difference between the pre-test mean scores of male students in the
control, analogy and concept mapping groups. Similarly, no significant
difference was found to exist between the pre-test mean scores of female
students in the control, analogy and concept mapping groups. This
happened due to a number of factors.
First of all, the mode of selection of the student sample through the use of
the MST and CAT ensured that the students were those of similar if not
equal ability. Secondly, randomization of the groups also ensure that all
the groups are equivalent before the treatment (Akuezuido and Agu,
1993). The students have not been taught the concepts before. No one had
an edge over the other hence there was not significant differences in the
post-test mean scores of the students in all the groups.
5.3 Pre-tests Vs Post-tests Results.
The general results showed that students performance (mean scores) in
the CPST in the post-tests were generally higher than the pre-test mean
scores. Even the students in the control performed better after being
taught using conventional methods. The post-tests results of male and
female students in the analogy and concept mapping groups were,
however, higher than those of the control groups.
The purpose of the pre-test and control were to provide a background
against which the effectiveness of the experimental treatment (use of

31

analogy and concept mapping) can be compared. The higher performance
(from tables 3 and 4) of the student in analogy and concept mapping over
those in control can be attributed to the treatment given the experimental
group and which was absent in the control. Results obtained from tables 5
and 6, and tables 7 and 8 had earlier shown that there was no significant
difference between the pretest mean scores for all groups and gender, the
student sample being equivalent and equal variance assumed. Whatever
variation there is in the results must be the effect of the treatment.
5.4 Post-tests Results
From the analyses of the post-test mean scores of male and female
students in the control and experimental groups, it was discovered that
there was a statistically significant difference between the post-test mean
scores of male students in the control, analogy and concept mapping
groups (tables 21 and 22). Further analyses showed that the treatment
given was responsible for 49.6% variation in the subjects. Concept
mapping pair-wise comparison with other groups was found to be
responsible for the variation according to Scheffes test. The result also
showed a statistically significant difference between the post-test mean
scores of female students in the control, analogy and concept mapping
(tables 23 and 24). The treatment accounted for 56.6% of the variation in
the subjects. The variations in the treatment was more in the females than
the male chemistry students.

32

The implications of the results here was that the two metacognitive
instructional strategies, analogy and concept mapping, were effective in
teaching the three chemistry concepts and hence in chemistry problem
solving tasks. This is not surprising as early researchers have found out
that analogy and concept mapping are effective in the teaching and
learning of science. Gabel (2003), Harrison and Treagust (2006) observed
that analogies are good explanatory devices and promote conceptual
understanding in sciences. Fechner and Sumfleth (2008) noted that the
problem of linking the often multi-dimensional nature of chemistry can
be talked through the use of concept maps. The results here agreed with
Gabels (2003b) findings that metacognitive instructional strategies are
effective in learning chemistry and science in general. It agreed with
Foxwel and Menasce (2004) finding that analogy is essential in learning
new concepts that lead to problem solving as it increases a students
belief about their problem-solving abilities. Uzuntiryaki and Gedan
(2005) also found out that concept maps as instructional strategies,
caused significant acquisition of scientific concepts and reduces anxiety
toward learning, hence enhancing achievement and problem solving.

5.5 Post-tests Results: Concept Map Vs Analogy
Results analysed and presented generally showed that the gain scores
(mean scores) in post-tests of both male and female students in groups

33

taught using concept mapping were higher than those of students taught
using analogy. For instance, table 3 gives the post-test mean scores of
male students taught using analogy was 66.00. Female students in
concept mapping and analogy groups had mean score of 73.10 and 59.40
respectively: The results show the superiority and effectiveness of
concept mapping over analogy.