Impact of Laboratory-Based Instructional Intervention on the Learning Outcomes of Low Performing Senior Secondary Students in Physics

Isaac Ayodele Ojediran, Daniel Idowu Oludipe, Olusola Joseph Ehindero

Department of Special Education and Curriculum Studies, Faculty of Education, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.
Integrated Science Department, School of Science, Tai Solarin College of Education, Ijebu-Ode, Nigeria.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2014.54029                

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of laboratory-based instructional intervention on the learning outcomes of low performing senior secondary students in Physics. The study adopted the pre-test and post-test control group quasi-experimental design. The treatments were at two levels (LBII and CTM). A total number of 194 SSS II students participated in the study. Physics Achievement Test (PAT) was the main instrument used to collect data from students. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics and t-test, using SPSS 15.00 statistical packages at 0.05 level of significance. The results of this study indicated that there was significant difference in the achievement in Physics of low performing students exposed to laboratory-based instructional intervention (LBII) and those exposed to conventional teaching method (CTM). This study concludes that the use of laboratory based instructional intervention method of teaching should be embraced as a good asset to Physics Students and teachers in the senior secondary schools.

Keywords

Laboratory; Instructional-Intervention; Low-Performing; Senior Secondary Students; Learning Outcome

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Adesoji, F. A. (1992). A Comparative Analysis of Problems Solving and Self Learning Techniques in Teaching Electrolysis. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ile-Ife: Obafemi Awolowo University.
[2]	Adesoji, F. A. (1997). Average Students and Effectiveness of Problems Solving Instructional Strategies. Ife Journal of Educational Studies, 4.
[3]	Adesoji, F. A. (2008). Students Ability Levels and Effectiveness of Problem—Solving Instructional Strategy. Journal of Social Physics, 17, 5-8.
[4]	Buntine, M. A., Read, J. R., Barrie, S. C., Bucat, R. B., Crisp, G. T., George, A. V., Jamie, I. M., & Kable, S. H. (2007). Advancing Chemistry by Enhancing Learning in the Laboratory (ACELL): A Model for Providing Professional and Personal Development and Facilitating Improved Student Laboratory Learning Outcomes. Journal of Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8, 232-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b6rp90033j
[5]	Burke, K. A., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2006). Heuristic in the Chemistry Laboaratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 10321038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1032
[6]	Burke, K. A., Thomas, J. G., & Brian, M. H. (2006). Implementing the Physics Writing.
[7]	Ehindero, O. J. (cited from Oyekan, S. O.) (1980). Cognitive Styles, Sex and Achievement in Biology. Journal of Education and Society, 2, 141-152.
[8]	Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) (2004). National Policy on Education. Lagos: NERDC Press.
[9]	Greenbowe, T. T., & Hand, B. M. (2005). Introduction to the Physics Writing. In N. P. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
[10]	Guzel, H. (2004). The Relationship Between Students Success in Physics Lessons and Their Attitudes towards Mathematics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 1, 1-2.
[11]	Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What Is the Purpose of This Experiment? Or Can Students Learn Something from Doing Experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 655-675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<655::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-E
[12]	Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum: An Overview. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum (pp. 3-26). London: Routledge.
[13]	Hodson, D. (1993). Re-Thinking Old Ways: Towards a More Critical Approach to Practical Work in School Science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057269308560022
[14]	Hofstein, A. (2004). The Laboratory in Chemistry Education: Thirty Years of Experience with Developments, Implementation, and Research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5, 247-264.
[15]	Ireogbu, Y. O. (1998). Problem-Based Learning, Numerical ability and Gender as Determinants Achievement in Line Graphing Skills and Meaningful Learning in Energy Concepts. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Ibadan: University of Ibadan.
[16]	Kempa, R. F., & Dube, C. E. (1974). Physics Interest and Attitude Traits in Students’ Subsequent to the Study of Chemistry at the Ordinary Level of the G.C.E. Journal of Research in Physics Technology, 11, 361-370.
[17]	Lavioe, D. R. (1993) The Development, Theory and Application of Cognitive Network Model of Prediction of Cognition Network Model of Prediction Problem Solving in Biology. Journal of Research in Physics Teaching, 30, 767-785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300713
[18]	Leonard, W. L., Dufrense, R. J., & Mester, J. P. (1998). Using Quantitative Problem-Solving Strategies to Highlight the Role of Conceptual Knowledge in Solving Problems. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1495-1503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.18409
[19]	Lunette, V. N., & Hofstein (1991). Simulation and Laboratory Practical Activity. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical Science (pp. 125-137). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
[20]	Long, J. C., et al. (1981). The Effect of a Diagnostic-Prescriptive Teaching Strategy on Student’s Achievement and Attitude in Biology. Journal of Research in Physics Teaching, 30, 515-523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660180606
[21]	Macmillan (2007). Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. A&C Black Publishers LTD. Oxford.
[22]	Mari, J. S. (2002). Gender Related Differences in Acquisition of Formal Reasoning Approach. Journal of the Physics Teachers’ Association of Nigeria, 37, 76-81.
[23]	Meltem, D., & Oguz, O. (2010). The Effects of Scientific Process Skills.
[24]	Millar, R. (1995). A Means to an End: The Role of Processed in Physics Education. In B. Wodnough (Ed.), Practical Physics. Milton Keynes, Philadelphia: Open Universities Press.
[25]	Morgil, I., Gungor, S. H., & Secken, N. (2009). Investigating the Effects of Project-Oriented Chemistry Experiments on some Affective and Cognitive Field Components. Journal of Turkish Physics Education, 6, 108-114.
[26]	National Research Council (2006). Americas’ Lab. Report: Investigations in High School Physics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. www.nap.edu
[27]	Njoku, Z. C. (2002). Enhancing Girls’ Acquisition of Physics Process Skills in Co-educational Schools: An Experience with Sex Grouping for Practical Chemistry. Journal of Physics Teachers’ Association of Nigeria, 37, 69-75.
[28]	Nwosu, A. A., & Okeke, E. A. C. (1995). The Effect of Teacher Sensitization of Students’ Acquisition of Science Process Skills. Journal of Science Teacher Association Nigeria, 30, 39-45.
[29]	Obioha, N. E., & Bomide, G. S. (1986). Concept Development and Physics Achievement among Junior High School Students. 27th Science Teachers’ Association of Nigeria (STAN) Annual Conference Proceedings, 295-301.
[30]	Ogunniyi, M. B. (1986). Teaching Physics in Africa. Ibadan: Salem Media.
[31]	Okebukola, P. A. O. (1992). Can Good Concept Mappers Be Good Problem Solvers? Education Psychology, 12, 113-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341920120203
[32]	Psillos, D., & Niedderer, H. (2002). Teaching and Learning in the Physics Laboratory. Physics and Technology Education Library, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[33]	Salami, I. O, (2000). Effect of Three Instructional Models of Students Teachers’ Performance in Selected Teaching Skills. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Ibadan: University of Ibadan.
[34]	Ulric-Marie, K., & Robin, S. (2004). Too Much of a Good Thing? Unwanted Side Effects of Successful Instructional Intervention.
[35]	Usua, A. (cited from Oyekan, S. O.) (1994). Cognitive Styles, Sex and Achievement in Biology. Journal of Education and Society, 1, 10.
[36]	Wellington, J. (1998). Practical Work in School Science: Which Way Now? In Routledge (Ed.), London.
[37]	Woolnoungh, B. E. (1994). Why Students Choose Physics or Reject It. Physics Education, 29, 368-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/29/6/006