EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE AND COMPETITIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PHYSICS STUDENTS IN ABIA STATE

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00006965

No of Pages: 164

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

₦5000

  • $

ABSTRACT

The study investigated the effect of cooperative and competitive learning strategies on academic achievement of secondary school physics students in Abia State. Six research questions were developed and answered and six null hypotheses were formulated and tested for the study. Quasi-experimental research design that involved experimental groups and control group was adopted for the study. The population of the study comprised 1437 students made up of all the 2018/2019 Senior Secondary (SSI) Physics students in Umuahia Education zone of Abia State. A sample size of 129 Senior Secondary School physics students was drawn from the population of Umuahia education zone involving three intact classes using Simple random sampling technique and purposive sampling technique. Instrument used for this study was Physics Achievement Test (PAT) which consists of fifty (50) multiple choice questions adapted from West African Examination Council (WAEC). It was subjected to face and content validation by three experts in the Department of Science Education, one in Physics Education and two experts in Measurement and Evaluation, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike. The reliability of PAT was determined using Kuder-Richardson 20, which yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.76. Data collected through the administration of the instruments were analyzed using mean and standard deviation to answer research questions and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test the null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance.The major findings of the study is that both cooperative and competitive learning strategies are effective teaching methods but secondary school physics students achieved better with competitive learning strategy. Based on the findings, it was recommended that competitive learning strategy was superior over cooperative learning mode and should be used by teachers to facilitate learning. That physics teachers should make competitive learning and cooperative learning strategies fundamental part of their teaching.





TABLE OF CONTENT

 

Cover page                                                                                                                             

Title page                                                                                                                                i                                                                                                              

Declaration                                                                                                                              ii

Certification                                                                                                                            iii   

Dedication                                                                                                                              iv

Acknowledgements                                                                                                                v

Table of Contents                                                                                                                   vii

List of Tables                                                                                                                          ix

List of Appendices                                                                                                                 x

Abstract                                                                                                                                  xi

 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

          1.1       Background to the Study                                                                                           1

1.2       Statement of the Problem                                                                                           7

1.3       Purpose of the Study                                                                                                  8

1.4       Research Questions                                                                                                     9

1.5       Hypotheses                                                                                                                 9

1.6        Significance of the Study                                                                                           10

1.7       Scope of the Study                                                                                                     12

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Conceptual Framework                                                                                                     13

 

2.1.1 Concepts of Physics                                                                                                       13

 

2.1.2 The Physics Curriculum                                                                                                 17

2.1.3 Teaching and Learning of Physics                                                                                 23

2.1.4 Learning Strategies                                                                                                        26

2.1.5 Gender and the Teaching and Learning of Physics                                                       36

2.2 Theoretical Framework                                                                                                     38

2.2.1 Vygotsky Constructivist Social Learning Theory by Lev Vygotsky 1978                    38

2.2.2. Gagne’s Cognitive Learning Theory by Gagne in 1985                                               39

2.3 Empirical Studies                                                                                                              40

2.4 Summary of Literature Reviewed                                                                                    47

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1                Design of the Study                                                                                                                                           49

3.2        Area of the Study                                                                                                                                                 50

3.3       Population of Study                                                                                                    51

3.4       Sample and Sampling Technique                                                                                51

3.5       Instrument for Data Collection                                                                                               52

3.6       Validation of the Instrument                                                                                      52

3.7       Reliability of the Instrument                                                                                       53

3.8       Method of Data Collection                                                                                         53

3.8.1     Experimental Procedure                                                                                              54

3.9        Control of Extraneous Variables                                                                                54

3.10     Method of Data Analysis                                                                                                      56

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results                                                                                                                             57

4.2 Summary of the major findings                                                                                        69

4.3 Discussion of Findings                                                                                                     70

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1  Summary of the Study                                                                                                      76

5.2  Conclusion                                                                                                                        79

5.3  Recommendations                                                                                                            80

5.4  Educational Implications of the Study                                                                             81

5.5  Limitations of the Study                                                                                                   82

5.6  Suggestion for Further

Research                                                                                      83

REFERENCES                                                                      84

       APPENDICES                                                                                                                 91                            

 

                                                  

 

 

 

 

                                

                                                            LIST OF TABLES

                                                                

4.1.    Mean Achievement Scores of Students Taught Physics with Cooperative Learning Strategy and those Taught with Lecture Method        57

 

4.2.   Analysis of Covariance on the Mean Achievement Scores of Students taught Physics with Cooperative Learning Strategy and those Taught with Lecture Method   58

 

4.3.   Mean achievement scores of students taught physics with competitive learning Strategy and those taught with lecture method                                59

 

4.4.   Analysis of covariance on the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with Competitive Learning Strategy and those taught with Lecture Method                60

 

4.5.   Mean Achievement Scores of Students taught Physics with Cooperative Learning Strategy and Those taught with Competitive Learning Strategy                    61

 

4.6.   Analysis of covariance on the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with Cooperative Learning Strategy and those taught with Competitive Learning Strategy                     62

 

4.7.   Influence of Gender on the Mean Achievement Scores of Students taught Physics with Cooperative and Lecture Method                               63

 

4.8.   Analysis of covariance on the mean achievement scores of Male and Female Students taught Physics with Cooperative Learning Strategy and Lecture Method                         64

 

4.9.   Influence of Gender on the Mean Achievement Scores of Students taught Physics with Competitive Learning and Lecture Method                   65

 

4.10 Analysis of covariance on the mean achievement scores of male and female students taught Physics with Competitive Learning Strategies Method                              66

 

4.11:  Interaction Effects of Gender and Learning Strategies on Students’ Achievement in Physics                                         67

 

4.12:   Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of interaction effect of Gender and Learning Strategies on Students Mean Achievement Scores in Physics       68

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF APPENDICES                                                                                                  

1.      Physics Achievement Test                                                          91

 

2.      Physics Achievement Test Model Answers                                 100

 

3.      Computation of the Physics SS I Test Blue Print or Table of Specifications

for Validity                                               101

 

4.      Kuder-Richardson 20  Computer Output of Reliability Index            102

 

5.      Conventional Teaching Method                                                   103

 

 

 

 


 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION


1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Science has been regarded as the bedrock of modern-day technological breakthroughs. Nowadays, countries all over the world, especially the developing ones like Nigeria, are striving hard to develop technologically and scientifically, since the world is turning scientific and all proper functioning of lives depend greatly on science. According to Ogunleye (2012), Science is a dynamic human activity concerned with understanding the workings of the world. This understanding helps man to know more about the universe. Without the applications of science, it would have been difficult for man to explore the other planets of the universe. Science comprises the basic disciplines such as Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Biology.

Physics is a branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of Physics includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism and the structure of atoms. The general objectives of the Physics curriculum as stated in the curriculum document (FME, 2019) are to:

i. provide basic literacy in Physics for functional living in the society

ii. acquire basic concepts and principles of Physics as a preparation for further studies

iii. acquire essential scientific skills and attitude as a preparation for the technological application of Physics.

iv. stimulate and enhance creativity.

The general sense for the secondary school Physics programme encompasses three main objectives; acquisition of relevant knowledge with understanding, ability to handle and process information and problem solving through acquired knowledge, experimental skills and scientific investigation. Physics has underpinned technological advancement across the globe and is an essential ingredient in the ongoing and future technological development in the African continent (Onasanya & Omosewo, 2010). The development of any society requires physics knowledge and skills. This implies a high priority being given to physics education. Students are the future of a nation and scientifically literate students will be agents of development (Abdullahi, 2012). Abdullahi (2012) has asserted the importance of physics by saying that the technological potential of a country is more accurately gauged by the quality of its physics education than any other single index.

Physics is an important subject in its own right but it also supports other subjects. Physics is an important subject for economic, scientific and technological development (American Physics Society, 2018; Zhaoyao, 2012).  Students who want to acquire higher educational qualifications in the fields of engineering or medical sciences must have strong background knowledge of physics. So, providing secondary students with clear and standard basic physics knowledge which they can utilize in their future studies has broad value.

However, as important as Physics is, science educators have been lamenting over the poor achievement of students in the subject in senior secondary schools for the past decades. (Ifeakor, 2016; Mari, 2012; Njoku, 2014; Nwachukwu, 2018). Many factors have been attributed to the observed poor performance of students in Physics. Some of these factors include teaching method used by Physics teachers, difficult nature of the topics/concepts, lack of equipment and instructional materials etc. (Ali, 2016; Ifeakor, 2016; Nnaka 2016; Nzewi, 2010; Ukwungwu, 2010). Students’ poor performance in Physics for quite a long time now, has resulted to inadequate number of students offering Physics oriented courses in tertiary educational institutions in Nigeria. The persistent poor performance has also contributed to poor economy, poor industrialization, lack of job, starvation, high maternal and infant mortality rate, spread of disease and sickness, environmental unfriendliness, lack of peace to mention but a few. Professionals required to take care of those problems can only be effectively produced through Physics education. Many Physics concepts in the senior secondary school curriculum are perceived to be abstract and difficult to understand by the learners. West African Examination Council Chief Examiner’s reports (2016, 2017,2018) have consistently enumerated candidates’ weakness as poor language expressions, inability to adhere to instructions, poor interpretation of questions, inability to tackle numerical questions, poor definitions, omission/wrong units, inability to write balanced equations, use of formulae instead of names, poor drawing skills, inability to read and interpret graph, inability to draw sensible inference from recorded observations. Kozma and Russell (2014) reported that the concept of mechanics is very difficult to understand. Tajudun (2015) discovered that the students perceived thirteen out of twenty (65%) topics in Physics as difficult. The study also revealed that students’ sex has no influence on their perception of difficult topics. However, the study did not cover many other important topics which examining body like West African Examination Council adjudged difficult to students. Ali (2016) opines that the most important factor for effective learning to take place in science is an interesting instructional approach. Njoku (2014) maintains that teachers are under intense pressure to cover the curriculum and get students ready for external examinations. This makes teaching of Physics inadequate as special approach needed for the teaching of difficult Physics concepts are overlooked. Learners therefore find the subject irrelevant to their daily experience and survival needs in their socio-cultural and economic environment. Ezeliora (2013) also attributes students’ poor performances in Physics to poor instructional approaches involving excessive teacher-talk, copying of notes, rote learning as encouraged by expository method of instruction. Poor instructional approach is therefore recognized as a major contributor to poor achievement in Physics. Nnaka (2016), Nzewi (2010), Okebukola (2012) suggest a shift and going beyond the lecture approaches of teaching Science, Technology and Mathematics, (STM) for better performance and interest in STM education in the primary and secondary schools. Shifting and going beyond the lecture teaching approaches according to Nnaka (2016), implies adopting the innovative approaches to teaching and learning STM. Physics can be taught in secondary schools using an innovative teaching technique such as cooperative and competitive.

Achievement is a term used to indicate the degree of success attained in some general or
specific area. Obodo (2018) stated that achievement is the extent or degree of attainment of
students in tasks, courses, or programmes to which they were sufficiently exposed. Anene (2015) asserted that achievement is quantified by a measure of the student’s academic standing in relation to those of other students of his age. Students’ achievement connotes performance in school subject as symbolised by a score or mark on a test or examination. Information gathered from the schools in the study area shows that Physics is among the subjects students experience difficulty in understanding and assimilating its content because of its abstract nature. This leads to low achievement level of students in examinations involving the concepts because the students are not sufficiently challenged to be at the centre of instruction through carrying out activities. The lecture teaching techniques used by the teachers such as planned repetition, demonstration, use of examples, questioning among others could not help increase the achievement level of students in Physics. Cooperative learning is the deliberate instructional use of small groups of students who work together to maximize each other’s’ learning. Cooperative learning is theoretically based on the work of psychologists like Levi Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner among others who propose that children actively construct knowledge in a social context (Conway, 2017). The teacher therefore should create room for cooperation amongst students for effective cross-fertilization of ideas and knowledge sharing. No child learns effectively in isolation. The teacher, who adopts the cooperative learning strategy, organizes the students in small groups of between four to six members. Each group should be heterogeneous in ability and sociocultural background; members work jointly through a given instructional assignment until every member successfully understands, and completes the assignment. The students are rewarded in their groups. Cooperative learning is a strategy in which students in a group work together to achieve success. Kagan (2011) stated that cooperative learning is a successful learning strategy in which small teams, each with students of different ability using a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of a subject. According to Akinbobola (2016) cooperative learning is a learning strategy in which students of different levels of ability work together in small groups to achieve a purpose. Fraser, Anderson and Weberg (2011) asserted that cooperative learning is an instructional use of small groups that will allow students to work together to maximise their own and each other’s learning. Kort (2012) stated that students in a group interact with one another, share ideas and information, seek additional information and make decisions about their findings to their class. Kort (2012) further stated that cooperative learning allows students to work collaboratively in small groups and also gives them the opportunity to verbalise what they know and consider each other’s view point. A suggestion by Okebukola (2012) is that in using cooperative learning strategy, the learners’ environment kindles the improvement of students in their cognitive and emotional learning. Seweje and Olojo(2011) stated that although students learn in groups, they are evaluated individually on the learning they have achieved. Under cooperative learning, students work in small heterogeneous groups of three to five, with members of the same group helping one another to accomplish a given task. Heterogeneity in grouping can be achieved by combining students of different sexes, academic ability levels, ages, religion, among others. This will enable the students get beyond their initial stereotype and be able to treat each other as fellow group members. Students may be more positive about each other when they learn cooperatively than when they learn alone. Hence, the need for the study to investigates the effect of cooperative learning strategy on students’ achievement in Physics.

Competitive learning is a strategy in which individual students work for his her own
benefit and success. Competitive learning is one in which students could work against each other to achieve a good grade (Johnson & Johnson, 2019). Competitive learning according to Bitrus (2014) is a learning strategy in which students study independently and tries to learn the materials better than others in the class without discussing the learning task with other students but only seek assistance from the teacher (an individual who is trained to impact what is worthwhile to the students in a school setting). Seweje and Olojo (2011) stated that our present educational system is based upon competition among students for grades, social recognition, scholarships and admission to top schools. The authors further stated that in our society and within the present educational framework, competition is valued over cooperation. In competitive learning, students study independently and try to learn the materials better than others in the class. They (students) wage a “win-lose” struggle to be the best. This invariably leads to poor inter-personal relationship between the students, impedes team building and development of higher-level thinking skills. The study tends to investigate the effect of competitive learning strategy used in secondary schools by the students in learning Physics on their achievement in Physics.

Gender is a term used to differentiate between male and female. Okeke (2017) stated that
gender is a socially ascribed attribute which differentiates feminine from masculine. The term gender according to Akanbi (2013) is used to describe the biological sexual characteristics by which we identify females from males. Awolanti and Abimbola (2017) stated that gender influence can affect students’ achievement in any learning activity. Thus, research is needed to determine whether the use of cooperative and competitive learning strategies would have differential effects on male and female students’ achievement in Physics. Hence, the need for the study.


1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Poor students’ achievement in Physics is alarming inspite of the fact that many researches have been carried out to ameliorate the bad situation (Abdullahi, 2012). Many instructional approaches have been proffered by psychologists like Brunner, Peaget, Gagne, Ausubel for improved achievement in Physics and other sciences. Amaefula (2019) and Njoku(2014) strongly believed that the instructional approach adopted by Physics teacher in teaching Physics is to a large extent responsible for the observed consistent poor achievement in Physics. The learning strategy exposed to the students could also be a contributing factor to their poor performances. These poor academic achievements of students lead to lack of motivation by the teachers to teach further and the much needed environmental development through sustainability and preservation of world biodiversity of Nigeria will remain a wishful thinking until the inherent problems are identified and remedied.

The lecture teaching method lack students’ cooperation and competition required for effective learning of Physics concepts. Adequate students’ cooperation and interactions are required for over learning and transfer of learning in Physics concepts, which are mainly difficult, and abstract (Nzewi, 2010). Such cooperation and interaction are found in the cooperative learning and competitive teaching strategies. The problem of this study was to find if effective instructional approach such as cooperative and competitive strategies can improve students’ achievement in Physics. In more specific terms, the problem of the study was: What are the effects of cooperative and competitive learning strategy on the achievement of senior secondary schools Physics students in Abia State?


1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of cooperative and competitive
learning strategies on academic achievement of secondary school physics students in Abia State. Specifically, the study sought to;

      1.            Determine the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with cooperative learning strategy and those taught with lecture method.

      2.            Determine the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with competitive learning strategy and those taught with lecture method.

      3.            Determine the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with cooperative learning strategy and those taught with competitive learning strategy.

      4.            Determine the influence of gender on the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with cooperative and competitive learning strategies and conventional lecture method

      5.            Determine the influence of gender on the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with cooperative and competitive learning strategies.

      6.            Determine the interaction effect of gender and the learning strategies on students’
achievement in Physics.


1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The study was guided by the following research questions:

      1.            What are the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with cooperative learning strategy and those taught with lecture method?

      2.            What are the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with competitive learning strategy and those taught with lecture method?

      3.            What is the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with cooperative learning strategy and those taught with competitive learning strategy?

      4.            What is the influence of gender on the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with cooperative and conventional lecture method?

      5.            What is the influence of gender on the mean achievement scores of students taught
Physics with competitive learning strategies and conventional lecture method?

      6.            What is the interaction effect of gender and the learning strategies on students’
achievement in Physics?


1.5 NULL HYPOTHESES

The following null hypotheses formulated were tested at 0.05 level of significance:

      1.            There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with cooperative learning strategy and those taught with lecture method.

      2.            There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with competitive learning strategy and those taught with lecture method.

      3.            There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of students taught Physics with cooperative learning strategy and those taught with competitive learning strategy.

      4.            There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of male and
female students taught Physics with cooperative learning strategy and lecture method.

      5.            There is no significant difference between the mean achievement scores of male and
female students taught Physics with competitive learning strategy and lecture method.

      6.            There is no significant interaction effect of gender and learning strategies on studentsmean achievement scores in Physics.


1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The results of the study will be beneficial to teachers, students, curriculum planners,
researchers and theorists.

Practically, the study will be of immense benefit to secondary school teachers in the study area. The mean achievement scores of students taught Physics using cooperative learning and those taught with competitive learning identified by this study will enlighten the teachers on which of the learning strategies (cooperative and competitive) will improve students’ achievement in Physics. Such knowledge will help the teachers to improve on the learning strategies which they involve students to learn.

Additionally, the effect of gender on mean achievement scores of students taught Physics using cooperative and competitive learning strategies identified by this study will also be of benefit to secondary school teachers in the study area. The result will hopefully enable the teachers to be aware of gender influence on the achievement of students taught Physics with the two learning strategies. The knowledge will help the teachers to improve their instructional delivery in order to bridge the gap between male and female students’ achievement in Physics.

The findings of this study will also be useful to students in secondary school. The
students will benefit from the result of the study by getting a better understanding of Physics concepts since it will be presented in hierarchical order (from simple to complex).
This in effect, will enable students acquire knowledge of the environment. The students will be able to work more cooperatively to achieve higher cognitive skills like critical thinking and problem solving to enable them tackle societal problems.

The findings from the study will be made available to the school through curriculum planners after the work has been published and recognised for inclusion in the schools. Curriculum planners will also benefit from the findings of this study. The findings will provide empirical evidence for curriculum planners on the effectiveness of the learning strategies (cooperative and competitive) in teaching Physics in senior secondary school. The information will hopefully influence future trend in Physics curriculum development and implementation.

The findings of this study may benefit researchers by helping them to identify the learning strategy that can be used to improve learning in Physics which will serve as a valuable reference material in school libraries for further research in Physics or other discipline.

Theoretically, the findings of the study will provide supportive evidences to constructivist
social learning theory and cognitive learning theory. Constructivist social learning theory was propounded by Lev Vygotsky in 1978. The theory states that human beings learn through our interactions and communications with others. This theory supports the cooperative learning strategy where students in a group interact and work together to achieve success. Cognitive learning theory was propounded by Gagne in 1985. The theory states that learning tasks for intellectual skills can be organized in hierarchy according to complexity. This theory supports teaching technique which organizes ideas hierarchically from simple to complex. The findings of the study will assist to substantiate the claims of these theories.


1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study focused on the effects of cooperative and competitive learning strategies on academic achievement of senior secondary school Physics students' in Abia State. The study covered Umuahia Education zone of Abia State. The study delimited to fundamental and derived quantities/units, dimension of physical quantities, motion and friction. This is because, these are topics stipulated to be taught in senior secondary one (SS1) Physics curriculum.


Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.


To Review


To Comment