INNOVATIONS IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN NIGERIA, Ebele C. Okigbo, Nneka R. Nnorom, Ernest O. Onwukwe [best reads .TXT] 📗

Research Network 77, 13( 2); December .

 

Gan, G.A. (2008). Mathematics language in Nigeria’s educational system: Policy and practice. JOFRAS1, 1; 12 – 18

Hall, T.,Strangman, N.& Meyer. R. (2011). Differentiated instruction and implications                 for UDLimplementation. Retrieved from http/aim.cast.org/learn/historyachieve/backgroundpapers/differentiatedinstruction.               

Maheshappa, M. (2013). The importance of science and mathematics in technological advancement. Retrieved from www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te.800html

Mckeachie, W. (2003). Teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory of College and University teachers (10thEd). Boston MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin.

Njoku, I. O. (2017). Effects of collaborative and individualized learning                 strategies  on senior secondary school students’ achievement in Mathematics in Afikpo Education Zone. A master thesis, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria.

Okigbo, E. C. & Okoli, J. N. (2016). Techniques used by Science, Technology and Mathematics (STM) teachers for controlling undesirable classroom behaviours in Anambra state secondary schools. Journal of the Educational Research and Review,11(11) ;1025-1034. Available at http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR

Okigbo, E. C. & Okeke, N. F. (2018). Effects of student team achievement divisions and competitive learning (immediate reinforcement) strategies on achievement of secondary school students in trigonometry. The Journal of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 53; 38-53.

Protheore, N. (2007). What does good mathematics instruction look like? Principal. 7(1); 51 -56.

Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human/machine communication.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tomlinson, C.A.  (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2); 6-11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

EFFECTS OF CONCEPT MAPPING ON SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN GENETICS

 

Eugenia N. Okafor

&

Prof. Sam O.C. Okeke

 

Abstract

This study investigated effects of concept mapping on students’ achievement in genetic a branch of secondary school biology. A quasi-experimental non-randomized design involving two groups was used.  The two groups were experimental and control groups. A sample of 174 SSII biology students from four secondary school was involved. Two hypotheses guided the study. A Genetics Achievement Test (GAT) with reliability coefficient of 0.97 was used to measure the students’ achievement before and after treatment.  Analysis  of  data collected  was  done  using  mean,  standard  deviation  and  independent  t-Test computations. Results showed that concept mapping instructional technique was significantly effective than the conventional method, and knowledge retention was significantly higher in students taught genetics with concept mapping than those taught without use of concept mapping. The implications of these findings were discussed with relevant recommendations made.

Keywords: Concept mapping, achievement

 

Introduction

One of the most cited problems of teaching biology has been the use of inadequate technique for understanding difficult concepts. It arises as a result of inability of secondary  school  teachers’  use  of  concept  mapping  for  more  meaningful understanding  of  difficult  concepts  in  biology  by  students.  Students’ lack of understanding of difficult concepts in biology result to poor performance of students’ at SSCE and backwardness in the scientific and technological advancement of our nation.

Research findings have shown that a number of topics in biology amongst which is genetics contain some concepts which pose difficult for biology students (Okafor and Okeke, 2006, Nzewi 2011).

It  is  clear  that  when  concepts  in  genetics  are  not  meaningfully  understood  by
students, tend to shy away from questions arising from them during Senior Secondary
Certificate examination  (SSCE). Invariably, this may lead to poor performance of
students in biology at SSCE.  Results of  SSCE of all the states in Nigeria from 2009
to 2015 revealed general poor percentage performance as shown below (Table1).

 

 

Table. 1:  Reveals poor percentages of students with acceptable pass grades  over the years.

Table1: Performance of candidates in Biology at SSCE (May/June) 2009-2015

 

Year

Number of Candidates that sat for SSCE

% Grades :1-6

2009

481,031

18.7

2010

508,384

11.4

2011

453,353

18.9

2012

506,628

15.9

2013

609,026

16.7

2014

625,894

34.45

Repeated reports (Chikobi 1997, Flick, 2000, Okafor and Okeke, 2006, Nwagbo and
chikelu 2011) of consistent poor performance in biology at SSCE have attracted a lot
of concern from science educators. Thus research in science Education in Nigeria
continued to seek better ways of teaching biology in order to maximize meaningful
learning, and to identify casual variables for repeated failure (Esiobu, 2000, Okafor
and Okeke 2006, Nzewi 2008, Nwagbo 2008, Nwagbo and Chikelu 2011)

In spite of efforts through research into the strategies to improve performance in
biology, The WEAC chief examiners’ yearly reports have continued to highlight
students’ weakness in answering questions relating to difficult concepts such as in the
area of genetics. Such weakness lead to students’ inability to comprehend or represent
concepts in tables, graphs and diagrams (Chief Examiner’s Report West  African Examination Council 2006, 2009, 2011,2012, 2014, 2015).  The  use  of  concept  mapping  by  teachers  may  enhance  more  meaningful understanding  of difficult concepts and increase performance in biology. It has been shown  that  concept  mapping  has  a  great  potential  in  enhancing  students’ understanding of difficult concepts.

Concept  mapping  is  a  pedagogical  strategy  /  metacognitive  tool  based  on
Ausubel -Novak-Gowin theory of meaningful learning (Novak 1977; Ausubel, Novak
and Hanasian, 1978; Gowin, 1981, Novak and Gowin 1984). Concept mapping was
developed from Ausubel (1968) assimilation theory of cognitive learning.  It encourages students to learn difficult concepts. It is based on the idea that meaningful learning occurs when new knowledge is consciously, explicitly and deliberately linked with relevant concepts which the leaner already knows. That is, teaching from known to unknown concepts and from concrete to abstract concepts.

 

Concept Mapping

Concept mapping is a technique of graphically representing concepts and their interrelationships. Concepts maps rely on three qualities, which are hierarchical structure, progressive differentiation and integrative reconciliation of meaning.  In terms of hierarchical structure, lower concepts are subsumed beneath the concepts that appear in higher levels. The super-ordinate concepts are more general than the subsumed concepts. For progressive differentiation, the learner differentiates as he / she learner about the concepts. In integrative reconciliation, the learner views the relationships between the concepts as integrated concepts.

 

How to Construct Concept Maps

In  order  to  construct  a  concept  map,  the  mapper  must  be  able  to  identify  the relationship between concepts (Novak, 1984) and arrange them in a new way. The concepts are first written, using lower-case letters and are centered within circles. From the super-ordinate concepts (main concepts) at the top flow several sub-ordinate concepts with each level of the concepts increasing in specificity as it flows from top to down. All lines connecting the concepts are accompanied by link words; so that each branch of the map can be read from the top down.

Usually examples are not enclosed but they can be represented by broken circles. There may be some cross-links which show meaningful connections between one segment of the concept hierarchy and another segment. Cross links can be indicators of creative ability and integrative reconciliation of meaning (Novak, 1984).

 

Examples of concept maps for teaching difficult concepts in genetics as illustrated by the researchers are as follows:

 

A. Concept Map on Heredity, Heritable and non-heritable characters.

 

 

B. Concept Map on Nature of the gene

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept map therefore is a schematic representation of a set of concept meanings embedded in a framework of propositions (Novak and Gowin, 1984). It provides a schematic summary of what has been learned (Novak and Gowin, 1987). Concept mapping is a tool that promotes meaningful learning as opposed to rote learning (Novak, 1984).

 

Studies carried out by (Novak, 1984; Okebukola, 1989, 1990, 1998; Osisioba, 1985; Okafor and Okeke, 2006, Okafor and Okeke 2018) have shown that concept mapping facilitates  the  learning  of  science  concepts,  promotes  meaningful  learning  and enhances achievement.

 

Concept mapping as an activity based-strategy/hands-on and minds-on activities
enhances meaningful understanding of scientific concepts (Okebukola, 1992; Esiobu
and Soyibo, 1995; Okafor and Okeke, 2006; Nzewi, 2011, Okafor and Okeke 2018).
The use of concept maps by the teacher requires an active process on the part of the
teacher.

 

The recommendation and findings of  Nzewi, 2011, Okafor and Okeke, 2018 agree with the view that one of the basic problems of biology teachers today is concerned with fostering in students productive problem solving skills as well as inculcating in them  progressive  differentiation  of  concepts  and  integrative,  reconciliation  of biological information.

 

Concepts mapping as one of the hands-on and minds-on activities enables the biology teacher to involve the learners at the concrete and formal operational level. Ability of students to interpret or relate information with concept map is related to their logical reasoning ability (berg and Philips, 1994; wavering, 1989).

 

The  hierarchical  order  of  concept  mapping,  integration  therein  as  well  as  its
explicitness makes concept mapping an approach that concretizes abstract knowledge.
Its application therefore in linking the principles and concepts in genetics is a welcome
departure from algorithmic methods and conventional methods in solving genetics
problems.

 

Purpose of Study

The consistent poor performance of students in the SSCE biology entails that many prospective students will be unable to gain admission into higher institution to study biology-related courses. It is thought that the use of concept map may enhance student’s achievement in biology. The Purpose of this study therefore is to determine the effect of concept mapping on student’ achievement in genetics.

 

Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were tested at P<0.5

HO1: there is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores of biology students taught genetics by use of concept map and those taught with conventional method.

HO2: there is no significant difference in the mean retention scores of biology students
taught genetics by use of concept map and of those taught with conventional method.

 

Methodology

For this Quasi-Experimental, four senior secondary schools were randomly selected from four Local Government Areas in Awka Education Zone of Anambra State. One hundred and seventy four (174) SSII biology students from selected schools were the sample involved in the study. The instrument for the study is a 40 item multiple choice questions: Genetics  Achievement test (GAT)  developed  by  the researchers. It was validated by four experts in science education. The KR20 (kuder Richardson formula 20) estimate of internal consistency for GAT was calculated to be 0.97.

 

The different multi sampled students were pre-tested prior to treatment, which scores were used to establish equivalence of the groups. After treatment, summative post-test were given the different groups of sampled students using reshuffled GAT items. A retention test of different groups of students’ was undertaken four weeks after completion  of  treatment  using  the  post-test  as  a  base  to  measure  retention characteristics of the method. The Independent t-Test, mean and standard deviation were the statistics used in analyzing the data.

Results

Table 1: Independent t-Test comparison of mean gain scores for experimental and control groups.

 

Mode of  instruction

No of Mean students

Mean

SD

t

df

Sig(2- Tailed) difference

Concept mapping

76

 

15.14

7.42

7. 81

132

.001

Conventional method

58

6.86

3.63

 

 

 

               

From table 1 above, it is observed that the mean gain scores of SSII biology students’ taught genetics using concept mapping and of those taught without use of concept mapping were 15.14 percent and 6.86 percent respectively. T. value was 7.81.  While standard  deviation  for  the  two  groups  were 7.42  and 3.63 respectively. t-value was 7.81.

Table  2:  independent  t-Test  comparison  of  mean  of  knowledge  retention  for experimental and control groups after four (4) weeks.

 

Mode of  instruction

No of Mean students

Mean

SD

t

df

Sig(2- Tailed) difference

Concept mapping

57

 

47.02

14.11

4.78

96

.001

Conventional method

41

34.83

9.69

 

 

 

 

From table II above, it is observed that the mean score in knowledge retention among biology students taught genetics by use of concept mapping is 47.02 and 34.83 for those taught without the use concept mapping. T-value was 4.78.

 

Discussion of result

From  the  result  of  the  study,  it  is  apparent  that  the  mean  gain  academic achievement of the SSII biology students taught genetics using concept mapping and of those taught without the use of concept mapping are 15.14 and 6.86 percent respectively. While t-value is 7.81. The results showed that application of concept mapping significantly facilitated better understanding of difficult concepts and reduced learning difficulties in genetics for experimental group than for control group. It is also clear from the result that the mean achievement score in knowledge retention among biology students taught genetics by use of concept mapping is 47.02 and 34.83 for those taught without use of concept mapping. While t-value is 4.78. The results showed significant higher retention ability of biology students’ taught genetics with concept mapping than those taught without the use of concept mapping.

 

The reason for higher knowledge retention ability for the experimental group than for the control group is that use of concept mapping reduced students’