Two Puzzle Models-Based Instructional Strategies’ Efficacy and Parental Educational Background of Junior Secondary School Students’ Achievement in Selected Concepts in Basic Science

Authors

  • Adodo S. O Science and Technical Education Department, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba Akoko. P.M B 001, Ondo State, Nigeria.
  • Ogundare Samuel Akinola Department of Teacher Education University of Ibadan. Nigeria.

Keywords:

Instructional strategies, Achievement inbasic science, Basic science.

Abstract

The persistent poor performance of students in basic science at junior secondary school has been traced to dated teaching methods. Hence, the constant recommendations from scholars and teachers of the subject for the use of game-like instructional strategies. Regardless of these recommendations, little attention has been paid to these strategies by basic science teachers. This study, therefore, determined the potency of maze puzzle-based instructional strategy (MPS) and logic mechanical puzzle-based instructional strategy (LMPS) on students’ achievement in basic science in Ondo State, Nigeria. The pretestposttest, control group, quasi-experimental design was adopted. Participants were randomly assigned to MPS, LMPS and conventional lecture method (CLM). The treatment was for 13 weeks which involved MPS, LMPS and Conventional Instructional Guide. Two instruments used were: Students’ Achievement Test (r=0.81), al one hypothesis was tested at 0.05 level of significance. Data were analyzed using ANCOVA and Scheffe’s post hoc test. There were significant main effects of treatments on achievement score (F(2, 277)=197.93, ƞ2=0.588). The LMPS (=18.28) performed better than MPS (=14.92) and CLM (=12.53). Logic mechanical and maze puzzle-based strategies enhanced students’ achievement in basic science. Parental educational background had significant main effects on students’ achievement (F(2, 277)=78.60, ƞ2=0.356) High PEB (=16.67) students performed better than their moderate (=15.40) and low (=13.67) counterparts. Logic mechanical and maze puzzle-based strategies enhanced students’ achievement in basic science. Therefore, the two strategies should be adopted by teachers to enhance better performance in basic science.

References

References

Adeyemi, T.O. 2006. The Education Industry in Ondo State, Nigeria.An evaluation 2nd edition. Ado –Ekiti Adebayo publishers Nigeria .10-25.

Afuwape M.O. and Olatoye, R.A. 2003. Using Simulation Game-Assisted Instruction to modify Nigerian Students Attitudes towards Integrated Science. UNIQWA Research Chronicle, University of the North Republic of South Africa 4,1: 231-252.

Afuwape, M. O. and Olatoye, R. A 2004.Improving Students’ Achievement in Integrated Science.The Role of Simulation Game and Numerical ability. Prorgamme and abstract European Conference on Research in/chemical Education.24th – 28th August, Ljubljana, Stovenia. Pp. 39 – 41.

Ajala, O.P. and Kpangba, E. 2000 Enriching Biology teaching in 21st century in Nigeria. Implication for the Teacher.41st STAN Annual Conference Proceeding 130 –140.

Ajayi, A.C. 2005.Effect of concept mapping on students’ achievement and interest in integrated science. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis University of Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria.

Ajayi, D.O. 2011. Assessment of Teacher’s Effectiveness in Teaching Biology. Essential Ingredient for the 21stcentury Biology Educators. Journal of Ekiti-State Science teacher’s Association of Nigeria 1, 19-18

Anany V.L., Mary-Angela Papalaskari, 2010. Using puzzles in teaching algoriths. Processing of the 3rd SIGCSE technical Symposium on computer Science education. Cincinante Kentucky.

Anderson, J.E. and Eric V.W. 2008. Gravity with Gravitas: A solution at the Border Puzzles”: America Economic Review 93,1:170-192.

Arnold, A.A. 2008. Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education 7,1: 15-27.

Augustine, C.H. 2006.Multiple methods of teaching mathematics in elementary school. London Harper and ROW Publishers. Pp. 95-113.

Awe, J. A. 2010: Evaluation of Environmental Hazard Aspect of Junior Secondary School basic science in Ondo State. Unpublished Ph. D Thesis, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti.

Beeky, L.S. and Susie, S.L. 2010: Puzzles – Toys … or Teaching Tools? Super Duper publications.www.superduperinc.com

Bower Ann, 2006: Teaching with puzzles: http://edcauiton. More 4 kids info/26/teaching with puzzles Assessed 10/9/2008.

Brenda T, & Robert L. 2005. Assessment of Active learning with upper division computer science students. 33rd – ASEE/TEE. Frontiers in education conference, November 5-8. 2003. Bounder. Co.

Cassidy, S. 2004. Learning Style: An Overview of Theories, Model and Measure. Educational Psychology, 24, 4: 419 – 444.

Childers, C.D. 2006.Using crossword puzzles as an AID to Studying Sociological Concepts. Teaching Sociology: 24(1), 231-235.

Chukwuma F.S.A. 2006. Influence of home on students’ achievement in Junior Secondary School Certificate examination in Anambra State. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis, University of Benin, Benin-city.

Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2008: National Policy on Education, Abuja 4th Edition. Federal Government press. 4-7

Felder, R.M. 2003. Reading the Second tier: Learning and Teaching Style in College Science Education. Journal of College Science Teaching 235, 286, 290.

Gardner, P. L. 2006: Mathematics Puzzling. Dover, Mineola, New York. Pp. 56-64.

Geddes A. and Grosset T. 2011. Pocket Puzzles 5 David Dale House Publishers, Scotland.

Grasha, A.F. 2004.The Naturalistic approach to learning styles. College Teaching 38, 3:106-113.

Habiballa, H. 2006. Non-clausal resolution theorem proving for fuzzy description. logic. In proceeding of SOFSEM06 Matfyz Press. Pan (to appear).

Jacob, I.A. 2006. Improving the teaching – learning process. The act of teaching. Ado-Ekiti Green Line publishers. Pp. 51-60.

Kendall G. Parkes A and Spoerer, K 2008. Survey of N.P- Complete puzzles.

International computer Games Association Journal. 31 PP 13 – 34.

Klepper, J.R. 2006. A comparison of fourth Grade students’ Testing Scores Between an Independent Worksheet, Review and a Bingo Game Review. ‘dissertation’ Johnson Bible College. Pp. 93-97.

Kratzig, G.P. and Arbuthnoth, K.D. 2006. Perceptual Learning Styles and Learning Proficiency: A test of the Hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 98,1:1-16.

Lauric Williams and Robert, R Kessler, 2011: “Experimenting with industry’s pair programming model in the computer Science Classroom”: Journal of Science Education. Pp. 21, 54-63.

Moore, L.S., & Dettlaff, A. J. 2005. Using Educational Games as a form Teaching in Social Work. Arete. 29,1. Pp. 58-72.

NERDC 2007.Nigerian educational research and development council: Universal Basic Education Commission. Abuja. Pp 5-28.

Ogundare, S.A. & Olagunju A. M. 2009.Effects of two modes of instructional strategies on students’ achievement in Integrated Science Educational Focus. Journal of the Institute of Education University of Ado-Ekiti. Vol 2,1pp 116-122.

Ogunmakinwa, A.A; 2006. Parental educational background as determinants of students' cognitive performance in primary schools. Journal of Science Teachers’ Association of Nigeria. 37, 2: 10-17.

Okafor J. 2010. Home factor and students’ performance in schools. Sociology of education 1,115-128.

Okebukola, P.A. 1998. Concept maps as instructional tools for promoting meaningful learning in Biology in Ajewole et al eds. Instructional tools for teaching Biology in secondary schools 1-12.

Scott Kim, 2005. Ten ways to use puzzles in Mathematical Education

http://scottkimn. Com/education.

Weisskirch, R.S. 2006. An analysis of Instructors – created crossword puzzles or students Review. College Teaching. 54,1:198-202.

Downloads

Published

2016-10-13

How to Cite

S. O, A., & Samuel Akinola, O. (2016). Two Puzzle Models-Based Instructional Strategies’ Efficacy and Parental Educational Background of Junior Secondary School Students’ Achievement in Selected Concepts in Basic Science. International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities (IJSSH), 1(1), 29–39. Retrieved from http://ijssh.ielas.org/index.php/ijssh/article/view/3