pslooks

EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTIVIST BASED TEACHING STRATEGY ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF JUNIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER ONE

1.0      Introduction

1.1     Background of the Study

1.2     Statement of the Problem

1.3     Purpose of the Study

1.4     Research Questions

1.5     Research Hypotheses

1.6     Significance of the Study

1.7     Delimitation of the Study

1.8     Operational Definition of Terms

 

CHAPTER TWO

2.0     Literature Review

2.1     Theoretical Framework

2.2     Basis of Constructivist Teaching

2.3     Epistemological base of Constructivist Teaching

2.4     Psychological base of Constructivist Teaching

2.5     Theoretical Assumption of Constructivist Teaching

2.6     Principles and Strategies of Constructivist Teaching

 

CHAPTER THREE

3.0     Research Method

3.1     Research Design

3.2     Population

3.3     Research Procedure

3.4     Research Instrument

3.5     Validation of Research Instrument

3.6     Reliability

3.7     Data Analysis

 

CHAPTER FOUR
4.0     Analysis of Data
4.1     introductions
4.2     Result
4.2.1  Hypothesis one
4.2.2  Hypothesis two
4.2.3  Hypothesis three
4.2.4  Hypothesis four
4.3     Discussion of Findings

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0     Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1     Summary

5.2     Conclusion

5.3     Recommendations

5.4     References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

 

ABSTRACT

The study investigated the relative effect of constructivist based teaching strategy on academic performance of junior secondary school students in integrated science. Four (4) Junior Secondary Schools were randomly selected for the study. In all a total of 120 junior secondary school students participated in this study. The instruments used for data collection are instructional package with the use of constructivist based teaching strategy and traditional instructional strategy and Integrated science achievement test (ISAT).The data obtained for the study were analyzed using SPSS 14.00 package and T-test statistics to test the four (4) research questions as well as the four (4) hypotheses generated for this study at 0.05 level of significant. The findings revealed that: there is a significant difference in achievement test scores between students instructed with constructivist-based teaching strategy and those taught using traditional classroom teaching method using one sample t-test presented in table (1), this finding supports earlier findings, (Popoola, 2002; Awofala, 2002; Olajengbesi, 2006) which revealed that students instructed with constructivist based teaching strategy perform better than the traditional method of instruction, the results of this study showed that there is a significant difference in achievement test scores between male and female students instructed with constructivist-based teaching strategy. This study revealed that the male students performed better than their female counterpart using the constructivist based teaching strategy. This finding is a variance with previous research findings of researchers (Awofala & Adeneye O. A, 2010, and Nneji, Love M. 2010) which revealed that there were no significant interaction between treatment, gender and styles of categorization on students mean achievement in mathematics. Results obtained from this study revealed that there is no significant difference in achievement test scores of students with high abilities instructed in constructivist-based teaching strategy and those taught with traditional classroom teaching method. The finding of this study are consistent with a number of scholars including; Staffolani and Bratti, (2002), McDonald, Newton, Whetton and Benefield (2001), Mohammad and Almaheed (1988) Waller and Foy (1987) and who all demonstrated that students of high abilities instructed with constructivist based teaching strategy perform better than the students instructed with other instructional methods in college and university. The researcher noted that the studies by Geiser and Santelics (2007), Anderson, Benjamin and Fuss (1994) and Waller and Foy (1987) and Mohammad and Almaheed (1988) were all correlative studies and they had similar conclusions and so was this study. Finally, further result from this study revealed that there is no significant difference in achievement test scores between students of low abilities instructed with constructivist-based teaching strategy and those taught with traditional classroom teaching method. The finding of is in line with the research findings of Saigo (1999); White (1999) and Brad (2000). Based on the findings some recommendations are hereby made for effective teaching and learning of integrated science: Government should continuously organize seminars and workshop for science teachers for the promotion and the application of constructivist approach to classroom instructional process in secondary schools, Science curriculum must stress educational choices based on our values and purposes and provide the materials that can help advance the agenda of scientifically based child-centered pedagogy. There should be active experiential, meaningful and student centered learning experiences for children in public schools. Teaching approach should be such that will allow students to discover or gain knowledge on their own and to develop knowledge construction for solving future scientific problems and Additional studies should be conducted to determine other variables that affect student’s academic performance.

CHAPTER ONE

1.0     INTRODUCTION

1.1     BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM

Critics of public education have argued that many Nigerian students do not possess the depth of knowledge or skills to assure either personal life success or national economic competitiveness (Akpan, 1996). A particular concern of the critics has been the apparent inability of many students to engage in complex problem-solving activities and to apply school knowledge and skills to real-life problems in workplace settings (Akpan, 1996). What teachers and schools face is a fundamental redefinition of what it means to be a student or a teacher and what it means to learn or to teach.  Educators are confronted with a paradigm shift in teaching and learning which is driven by the increasing anomalies of the current educational system (Kim, 2002). High drop-out rates, low skill and knowledge levels among many students, low levels of student engagement in school work and poor international comparisons suggest that the current educational paradigm is weak or inappropriate. Educators must understand that changes in students’ outcomes must be supported by parallel changes in curriculum and instruction. However, it is apparent that many of today’s teachers are caught in the midst of a change for which they may not have been professionally prepared (Dogru and Kalender, 2007). Many teachers were educated in the classrooms where the role of the student was to memorize information, conduct well regulated experiments, perform mathematical calculations using a specific algorithm and were then tested on their ability to repeat these tasks or remember specific facts. The ideas which are central to an education which defines competence as the ability of the student to apply knowledge and skills to unfamiliar problems are not new. These ideas were found in traditional apprenticeship programs, where daughters and sons learned life sustaining skills from parents and they were central to the successes of all traditional peoples. Theorists in cognition, curriculum and instruction (e.g. Di Vesta, Vgotsky, Von Glaserfed, etc.) are now providing the underlying rationale and language for discussing this fundamental change in teaching and learning which is at the heart of the current school improvement agenda. Constructivist theory provides a framework through which the emergent ideas about teaching, learning and assessment can be unified (Young and Collin, 2003). The difficulty and challenge confronting classroom professionals is that the reform strategies in curriculum, instruction and assessment organized around the theory of “constructivism” are informed by different assumptions and beliefs about the nature of knowledge and about the human capacity to learn than are traditional classroom practices (Kim, 2005). Additionally, the conventional teaching method of teacher as sole information-giver to passive students appears outdated. In a study carried out by (Colburn, 2000) on undergraduates in a large lecture hall setting, it was found that only 20% of the students retained what the instructor discussed after the lecture. They were too busy taking notes to internalize the information. Also, after a lecture has passed eight minutes, only 15% of the students are paying attention, no link between former present schools.  

 

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

From the research questions raised, four hypotheses will be tested at 0.05 level of significance.

Ho1:  There is no significant difference in achievement test scores between students instructed with constructivist-based teaching strategy and those taught using           Conventional classroom teaching method.

Ho2:  There is no significant difference in achievement test scores between male and female students      instructed with constructivist-based teaching strategy.

Ho3: There is no significant difference in achievement test scores between students of high abilities instructed with constructivist-based teaching strategy and those taught with traditional classroom teaching method.

Ho4: There is no significant difference in the achievement test

scores of students of low ability instructed with constructivist based teaching strategy and those taught with  traditional classroom teaching method.

 


Can You Feel How Much Want This?

That feeling in your heart, How much is it worth :

to get your project done within few weeks?

to stop the rejection of your project from your supervisors?

to stop wasting your time in searching for materials over and over again?  

Never having to worry about the problems you are facing writing your project.  

What do you think Would be fair price to get a COMPLETE PROJECT DOWNLOAD?

I bet you’d say over =N=40,000 Naira – Looking at the amount you have spent on sourcing for materials. Yet,  No good results from your Supervsor..  

If we sell it for N30,000 you might say it’s cheap.   But N30,000 price tag would keep this out of reach of a lot of students that wish to get their project done within few weeks with good results from their Supervisor.

See, my mission now in life is to help a lots of Students to have a good project result and get rid of repetition of your project chapters. Stop wasting your hard earned money.  

So, because I have received lots of rewards and testimonials from those that used our materials to solve their project problems.

 

However, because you are here TODAY you won't pay that price. In fact, you won't pay even for =N=20,000 (which is half of the total value).

 

You only need to pay  =N=5,000 if you act fast. 

 

 Offer Expires In:

Now You Can Use Our project materials for one Month With NO Issue with the Supervisor!

If you think that our materials is useless for you, Just call us on 07033897023 to get your money back, I’m sure you won’t do that if you adhere to the steps of the material that comes with it strictly.

 So, If you don’t start moving from chapter to chapter within few weeks, you’ll get every kobo of your money back as fast as we can.

Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Terms of Use

Copyright 2018 pslooks.com

Check other project topics Click Here
Join Waitlist We will inform you when the product arrives in stock. Just leave your valid email address below.
Email Quantity We won't share your address with anybody else.
X

This is the bottom slider area. You can edit this text and also insert any element here. This is a good place if you want to put an opt-in form or a scarcity countdown.