Influence of Constructivism Instructional Approach on Students’ Achievement in Mathematics in Secondary Schools in Mandera Central Sub County, Kenya

Charles Ogembo Majiwa; Benson Njoroge; Nancy Cheseto

doi:10.37284/eajes.2.1.221

Charles Ogembo Majiwa Mount Kenya University
Benson Njoroge, PhD Mount Kenya University
Nancy Cheseto, PhD Mount Kenya University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37284/eajes.2.1.221

Keywords: Conceptual Understanding, Representation, Constructivist Teaching Approaches, Traditional Teaching Methods, Learning Experience, Self-Evaluation, School Ethos

Share Article:

Abstract

Student’s performance in Mathematics in national examinations has continued to be low. Efforts have been made to reverse this trend, but the low student performance persists. The situation is dire in Mandera Central Sub-County. Perhaps it is imperative to investigate the influence of the constructivism instructional approach on student’s achievement in mathematics in secondary schools, which is the main thrust of the current study. The objectives of the study were to examine the influence of explanation and elaboration on students' achievement in Mathematics in secondary schools in Mandera Central Sub-county, Kenya. The study was based on the concepts of individual constructivist theory, social constructivist theory and Jerome Brumer constructivist theory. The study used a mixed research methodology. The study adopted the experimental research design. The target population was a total of 2,573 respondents comprising of 120 teachers and 2,453 students from 3 boys’ schools, 3 girls’ schools and 3 mixed schools within Mandera Central Sub-county in Kenya. The sample of students to be used in the study was selected using random sampling procedures. The study sample size was 222 respondents. The validity of the instrument was ascertained by a panel of experts in Mathematics education from the Department of Education, Psychology and Technology, School of Education, Mount Kenya University. The data collected quantitatively was analysed by the use of descriptive statistics applying the use of SPSS (version 24) and its presentation was done by use of percentages, means, standard deviations and frequencies. The findings were displayed using bars, graphs, charts and in prose form. Content analysis was applied in testing the data that was qualitative in nature or aspect of the data that was gathered using open-ended questions. The findings showed that learners that were educated using the technique of constructivist had a higher achievement in Mathematics this is because there was a score in their achievement in Mathematics as compared to the students who were taught using the traditional approach. Additionally, those learners who were taught in a constructivist- learning environment had a significant improvement in their understanding and their abilities in comparison to the rest of the abilities such as knowledge and skills by 30%. The study concluded that the constructivist method of teaching is suitable in bettering the achievement of learners in Mathematics and therefore needs to be embraced for practice for schools to realize improved performance in Mathematics.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akar, H. & Yildrim, A. (2005). Use of constructive teaching activities in classroom management course: A research of action. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research. University College Dublin.

Albalawi, A. (2010). Research priorities in the field of teaching and learning mathematics in Saudi Arabia. The Excellence Centre of Science and Mathematics Education. King Saud University.

Alfarhod, S. (2009). Teaching mathematics, the reality and expectations. The Journal of education and psychology: Saudi Association for Educational and Psychological, 6(2), 283- 308

Bader, B. (2014). Methods of teaching mathematics in girl’s schools in Mecca and the extend of keep pace the modern age. The Journal of education and psychology: Saudi Association for Educational and Psychological, 3(4), 66-89.

Baybee, R., Tayler, J., Gadner, R., Scotter, P., & Powell, J. West brook, A., & Lardes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins, effectiveness and applications. Executive Summary BSCS.

Bodner, G. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873 - 878.

Borg, W. & Gall M. (1989). Education research: An introduction (4th ed.). New York.: Longman Inc.

Boud, D. (Ed.). (2012). Developing student autonomy in learning. Routledge.

Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Calkin, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmith, NH: Heinemann

Coolican, H. (1994). Research methods in psychology (2nd Eds.). White Plains, NY: Longman

Dewey, J. (1972). Experience and education. New York, NY: Colloer Books.

Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches in science teaching. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (eds.). Constructivism in education (pp. 385 – 400). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.

Ergin, İ. (2012). Constructivist approach based 5E model and usability instructional physics. Latin-American Journal of Physics Education, 6(1), 322-367.

Glover, D. & Law, S. (2002). Improving Learning: Professional practice in secondary schools. Philadelphia, USA: Open University Press.

Gregory, G. & Chapman, C. (2012). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn't fit all. London: Corwin Press.

Kibos, R. C., Wachanga, S. W., & Changeiywo, J. M. (2015). Effects of Constructivist Teaching Approach on Students’ Achievement in Secondary School Chemistry in Baringo North Sub-County, Kenya. International Journal of Advanced Research, 3(7), 1037-1049.

Kothari, C.R. (2014). Research Methodology, Third Edition, New. Age International Publishers, New Delhi.

Krishnan, S. & Howe, A. (1994). The mole concept. Developing an instrument to assess conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 7(8), 653 – 656.

Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2012). Understanding and Developing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media.

Ministry of Education (2018). KCSE Mathematics Score 2012-2016. Retrieved from MoE.Co.Ke

Mugenda, O. & Mugenda, A. (2003). Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies.

Njoroge, M. (2014). Causes of poor Mathematics performance in Thika County. International, Journal of Education and Practice, 5(35).

Piaget, J. (1954). Construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Prophet, R. B., & Rowell, P. M. (1993). Coping and control: Science teaching strategies in Botswana. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 6(3), 197-209.

Quinn, D., Amer, Y., Lonie, A., Blackmore, K., Thompson, L., & Pettigrove, M. (2012). Leading change: Applying change management approaches to engage students in blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 16-29.

Ranani, O. (2014). Methods of improving Mathematics performance in Muranga County. Journal of Creative Ideas, 4(8).

Rutherford, F. & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science

SMASSE Baseline survey (2004). Strengthening mathematics and science in Secondary Education, Science and Technology, Republic of Kenya. Retrieved from http://www.Smasse.org.

Taber, K. (2006). Beyond constructivism: the progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in science education, 42(2), 125 – 180.

Tabulawa, R. (1998). Teachers' perspectives on classroom practice in Botswana: Implications for pedagogical change. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(2), 249-68.

Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in the context of writing. The English Journal, 85(7), 15-24.

Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The journal of the learning sciences, 15(3), 379-428.