Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
AN EXPERIMENTAL REVIEW OF THREE INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES
FOR TEACHING HISTORY AT THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEVEL
BY
Dr. (Mrs.) A. A. Jekayinfa
ABSTRACT
This study was an experimental review of three approaches to teaching history at
the secondary school level. The target population was all the second year senior
secondary school (S.S.2) students offering History in Nigeria. The sample was taken
from three towns: two in Oyo State and the third in Osun State. Seventy eight students
randomly selected from three equivalent schools were used.
Three instructional methods were used in teaching history to the students. Each
of the methods has its own peculiar technique and materials. One of the three methods
was used as a control and the other two were used as experimental. Three hypotheses
were tested. Results showed that the discussion method of teaching (student-teacher
centred approach) achieve more than any of the other two methods of teaching i.e the
personalized system of instruction (PSI) and the lecture method.
The result revealed that for effective teaching and learning of history, methods of
teaching should be diversified and different instructional materials used as so as to enable
learners to be critically minded, develop respect for evidence, be willing to change
opinion and be able to develop divergent thinking.
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
INTRODUCTION
This study was based on the theory of some great philosophers like Rousseau and
Dewey who belonged to the philosophical schools of Naturalism and Pragmatism
respectively. They believed that education should not be regarded as simply a process by
which the child receives approved knowledge from the teacher and the textbooks in a
passive manner but, that education should be an active process which should be an
interaction between the teacher, the subject and the child, within a healthy environment
and that learning should be child-centred. (Adrian and Robert, 1973).
In their book – Teaching Practice: A guide for Student Teachers, Adesina,
Daramola and Talabi (1989) also discussed about the social interaction model which
emphasizes the need for social relationship as a means of improving teaching. The model
is an attempt to improve the democratic environment in the classroom and it intends to
clarify the fact that the role of the teacher is supportive rather than dominating and it
requires the teacher to allow students to take active part in the lesson through discussion
based on their knowledge or ideas.
BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Several researches have been carried out on the popularity of different methods of
teaching. Ayot and Patel (1967) wrote that despite that the lecture method does not cater
for realizing the aims of teaching almost all subjects, and it is not helping the learner to
understand all that needs to be understood, it is almost dominant today and it is liked by
the majority of teachers. For example, Adejumobi (1978) carried out a study of High
School History Teaching. Eighty one (81) secondary school history teachers were asked
2
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
to indicate the frequency at which they use each of the six suggested methods of history
teaching: The lecture method, the question and answer method, the text-book method, the
patch or centres of interest method, the group method, and the notes methods. The
lecture method was often used by 74% of the respondents.
Similarly, Adeyinka (1983) carried out an investigation in Oyo, Ondo and Ogun
States of Nigeria. Thirty six (36) fifth-form history teachers were requested to indicate
the frequency of use of ten methods of teaching history. The rating scale was 5 for
“Always”, 4 for “often”, 3 for “sometimes” 2 for “Rarely” and 1 for “Never”. The
method investigated were the lecture methods, story telling, note giving, discussion
method, socractic method, Dalton plan, project method, textbook method, dramatization
method and excursion method. The result confirmed that the lecture method was most
frequently used for teaching history in the secondary schools in the three states. It had a
mean score of 4, out of a maximum possible score of 5, with as many as 33 (97.7%)
indicating that they use the method always and 3 (8.3%) often.
Linsday (1974) compared the effects of three methods of teaching high school
Chemistry upon achievement. The three methods compared were a student centred,
teacher-centred and CHEM study approach to high school chemistry. CHEM study is a
structural chemistry curriculum material which stressed the inquiry process. He found
that those in the student centred approach achieved more and has more scientific interest
than students in other approaches. Shaw (1982) did a comparative study of the effects of
two instructional modes in the achievement levels of selected fourth grade students. He
compared the effectiveness of a whole class instruction and individualized instruction in a
regular classroom setting on selected fourth grade students achievement levels. The
3
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
study was conducted in ten (10) elementary schools of a metropolitan school district.
The findings of the result indicated that there was a significant difference between the
achievement levels of the two groups. The whole class mode of instruction (lecture) was
superior to the individualized mode.
The objectives of this study were as follows:
1.
To find out if there would be any difference in the performance of students
taught using three different instructional approaches in a History Achievement
Test.
2.
To make suggestions and recommendations.
Hypotheses
In pursuance of these objectives, it was hypothesized that:
1.
There is no statistically significant difference in the post-test mean scores of
students (male and female) in the control group and the students in the
experimental groups in the history Achievement Test (HAT).
2.
There is no statistically significant difference in the post-test mean scores of
male students in the control group and the students in the experimental groups
in the history Achievement Test.
3.
There is no statistically significant difference in the post-test mean scores of
female students in the control group and the students in the experimental
groups in the history Achievement Test.
4
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
METHODOLOGY
Sample: subjects were seventy eight (78) SS 2 history students in co-educational
institutions. The three institutions, one in Osun State and the other two in Oyo State of
Nigeria were fairly homogenous in the sense that their students did the same pre-test and
were also equivalent in their scores on the test.
Research Design
A quasi-experimental pre-test, post-test, control group design was adopted in this
study. The design made use of non-randomised, equivalent groups which were assigned
to treatment conditions (that is to different teaching methods) as explained below:
O1
X1
O2
-
Group 1)
)
O3
X2
O5
O6
O1
O3
O2
O4
O4
Experimental
-
Group 2)
-
Group 3 – Control.
O5
-
Mean pre-test measurement
O6
-
Mean post-test measurement
Where
X1 – Experimental group 1 was exposed to the child centred approach to teaching
(Personalised System of Instruction).
5
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
X2 – Experimental group 2 was exposed to the mid-way approach to teaching (Discussion
Method of Instruction).
The third group was the control group which was exposed to the teacher-centred
approach to teaching (Lecture Method).
Training of Teachers
Teaching, which was financed by researcher, was done by three practicing history
teachers. Each of the three teachers was taken from each of the three schools where the
experiment took place. Each of the teachers had at least NCE with a minimum of 5 years
of teaching experience. Prior to instruction, the researcher discussed details of each
treatment with the teachers. They were subjected to two hours of training intended to
equip them with the necessary skills for preparing for historical activities on the British
Administration in Nigeria from 1900 – 1960. The teachers were trained in their various
schools. The training took 2 days of 1 hour a day in each school.
Instruments
Two instruments were used in this study and they are
1.
The Experimental treatment (instrument used for teaching);
2.
The Evaluation Instrument (instrument used for testing).
Experimental Treatment
The content of the experimental treatment was obtained from the senior secondary
school history syllabus. It was specifically taken from the aspect of British
6
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
Administration in Nigeria from 1900 – 1960. This aspect was chosen because it falls
within the second year scheme of work and since the SS 2 students were used for the
study, the materials, it was thought, will benefit the students.
The content was broken into four learning units, each unit was also broken into
two topics to be covered in one week of teaching. Thus, the four units of eight topics
took four weeks of teaching.
Evaluation Instrument
This instrument was researcher-made. It was known in this study as History
Achievement Test (HAT). The instrument had three sections – A, B and C. Section A
consists of forty-five (45) multiple choice objective questions that covered the cognitive
aspect of learning on the British system of Administration from 1900 to 1960. Section B
consists of five open-ended questions that reflect the affective domain of learning which
required the students to express their opinions on certain aspects of the topics while
section C consists of five questions that demanded thirty correct responses in all on the
psycho-motor domain of learning which required the students either to draw, locate or fix
in some facts in the correct places. The instrument was used for both the pre-test and the
post-test. The test was answered for two hours (2 hours) in each testing period.
Validation of the Instrument
The validity of the experimental treatment and the evaluation instrument was
done using the following measures:
7
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
1.
The instruments were given to some experienced history teachers in some
secondary schools in Oyo State who attested to their contents and confirmed
that they were in line with the approved syllabus for senior secondary II
students.
2.
Some lecturers I and Senior Lecturers in the Faculty of Education, University
of Ilorin, also examined the instruments and attested to it that the language of
the instruments is suitable for senior secondary II (SS II) students.
The content validity of the evaluation instrument (HAT) was also confirmed by a
pilot study conducted in two secondary schools, one in Ogbomoso Local Government
and the other in Ibadan Municipal Government Area of Oyo State. A sample of fifty (50)
SS 2 history students was used for the pilot study. The two schools which did the pilot
study did not take part in the experiment. Initially, sixty (60) multiple choice questions
were drawn to cover the cognitive aspect of the lesson to be taught for the four weeks of
the experiment. In the analysis that was done on the test, item total correlation ranged
from, 38 to .73. Fifteen (15) items whose correlations with the total scores in the test
were less than .40 were removed, leaving the final objective questions with forty-five
(45). The five affective and the five psycho-motor questions were left intact for they
were found to be valid.
Scoring of HAT
The forty-five (45) objective questions that tested the cognitive aspect of learning
were scored one point for each correct response, making 45 points. The five open-ended
questions were marked by two history teachers in Ogbomoso and the researcher found
8
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
the average for each student. Each question was scored out of five marks making 25
points. The five questions that tested the psychomotor skills of the students had 30
correct responses both on location, arrangement of facts and drawings. Each correct
response was scored 1 point, making 30 points. Thus, the History Achievement Test
(HAT) was scored over 100.
Procedure for Collecting Data
At different times, the researcher administered the pre-test on the first day of visit
to the students in schools where the experiment took place. The scripts were graded and
the mean scores for the three schools were calculated. Experiment commenced a week
after the pre-test. The experiment took a period of four weeks. Three lessons were taught
per week. A lesson was taught for a duration of 40 minutes. Each class had History
lessons of 5 hours, 20 minutes for the period of four weeks.
The Post Test
The History Achievement Test (HAT) had been administered on the subjects as
the pre-test; so, it served as the criterion examination. The test was re-administered on
the subject as the post-test. The researcher personally conducted all tests assisted by the
History teachers in each school. The time allowed for the administration of the test was
two hours.
On the whole, a total of six weeks was given to the experiment. One week was
given to the administration of the pre-test and random assignment of groups to treatment
9
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
conditions. Four weeks was given to the experiment (teaching) while one week was
given for the administration of the post-test.
Data Analysis Techniques
Out of the 120 students that originally started the experiment, only 106 of them,
made up of 56 boys and 40 girls, completed the six weeks. Those 14 students that
absconded during the treatment either lost interest in the exercise or were affected by
non-payment of school fees which made the school authorities to drive them out of the
schools. Out of the 106 students who completed the exercise, the scores of 78 were
finally randomly selected for analysis. This means that 26 students were used per school.
The sexes were used in equal proportions for all the three schools. One way analysis of
variance was used to test group equivalence of students on the Pre-test means. Analysis
of covariance, using pre-test scores as covariates, and Turkey’s Studentized Ranged
(HSD) were used to test the three hypotheses.
RESULTS
Presented in tables 1 and 2 are the analysis of co-variance of Post-Test scores of
history Achievement Test (HAT) using Pre-Test scores as covariates and the Turkey’s
(HSD) comparison Test between group means in (HAT). This is to test Hypothesis 1.
10
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
Table 1:
Analysis of Covariance of Post Test Scores of History Achievement
Test (HAT) by Methods of Instruction
Scores of Covariates
Df
Sum of
Mean
Squares
Square
F.Value
Significance of
F
Pre-Test
1
1026.126
1026.126
21.89
0.0001
Method
2
988.526
554.577
11.82
0.005
Explained
3
2014.652
335.775
7.16
0.0001
Residual
74
3328.643
46.882
Total
77
5343.295
Results in table 1 confirmed the existence of significant differences in the post-test scores
accounted for by differences in the effectiveness of the instructional methods. In order to
determine the direction of superiority of the instructional methods, Turkey’s Studentized
Range (HSD) Post-Hoc comparison test was employed.
Table 2 shows the summaries of the Turkey’s Studentised Range (HSD)
comparison test between group means
Table 2:
Turkey’s (HSD) Comparison Test Between Group Means in History
Achievement Test (HAT)
Group
N
Turkey’s Group/Means
Mean
Control
26
58.73
B
E1
26
62.73
A
E2
26
64.73
A
* Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 0.05 alpha level.
In testing the hypothesis that stated that there will be no statistically significant
differences between the post test mean scores of male students in the control group and
11
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
those of the experimental groups in the History Achievement Test (HAT), analysis of covariance, using pre-test scores as covariates, and Turkey’s (HSD) procedure were used.
The results set out in table 3 showed the effects of treatment on students academic
achievement as measured by the History Achievement Test (HAT). The explain variance,
which is the combination of both the covariates and the methods, was found significant
with an F-value of 5.28 at 0.0004 alpha level and at 38 degree of freedom. The methods
of instruction alone was not significant at 0.05 level. It has an F-value of 1.08. This
implies that discussion method (Teacher/student centred approach) did not differ
significantly from the other groups in improving male students’ achievement in History.
This is also reflected in the comparison test (Table 4).
Table 3:
Analysis of Covariance of Male Students’ Scores of History
Achievement Test by Methods of Instruction
Scores of Covariates
Df
Sum of
Mean
Squares
Square
F.Value
Significance of
F
Pre-Test
1
713.928
713.923
13.68
0.0007
Method
2
112.205
56.103
1.08
0.360
Explained
3
826.133
275.378
5.28
0.0041
Residual
35
1826.225
52.178
Total
38
2652.359
12
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
Table 4:
Turkey’s (HSD) Comparison Test between Means in HAT
Group
N
Turkey’s Group *
Mean
Control
13
61.69
A
E1
13
63.85
A
E2
13
65.85
A
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 0.05 alpha level.
To test the hypothesis of no significant difference in the mean scores of female
students in the three groups, tables 5 and 6 were used to present the analysis of data
collected on females’ scores.
Table 5:
Analysis of Covariance of Female Students’ Scores on History
Achievement Test by Methods of Instruction
Scores of Covariates
Df
Sum of
Mean
Squares
Square
F.Value
Significance of
F
Pre-Test
1
312.38
312.38
7.28
0.0107
Method
2
755.69
377.85
8.80
0.0008
Explained
3
1068.07
356.02
0.29
0.0003
Residual
35
1502.24
42.92
Total
38
2570.31
Table 6:
Turkey’s HSD Comparison Test Between Group Means in HAT
Group
N
Turkey’s Group *
Mean
Control
13
55.77
B
E1
13
61.65
A
E2
13
66.54
A
13
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
*Means with the same letter are not statistically significant at 0.05 alpha level.
The third hypothesis stated that there will be no statistically significant difference
between the post-test means scores of female students in the control group and those of
the experimental groups in Test of History Achievement.
This hypothesis was also tested by the use of analysis of covariance using the pretest scores as a covariate. To determine the effects of quality of instructions on the posttests, Turkey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test was employed.
Table 5 showed that with a statistically controlled covariate effect, methods of
instruction had significant effect on the post-test score with an F-value of 8.80 at 0.0001
alpha level. Results from the comparison table (table 6) showed that the teacher/student
centred approach by the use of discussion method was more effective in producing
improvement in female students’ academic achievement than either the teacher-centred
approach (lecture method) or the student-centred approach (personalized system of
instruction).
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
As revealed by the present study, the discussion method (teacher/student centred
approach) and the personalized system of instruction (Student centred approach) were
more effective than the conventional lecture method (teacher centred approach) in
teaching combined male and female students. This is in agreement with the results of
some earlier studies such as Linsday (1974) and Shaw (1982). Such studies compared
the effectiveness of individualized instruction and lecture methods and came out with
similar report that PSI was more effective than the lecture method in the teaching of
14
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
subjects like Introductory Psychology and Chemistry. On the other hand, the finding of
superiority of personalized system of instruction over the traditional method disagreed
with Collard (1987), who came out with a report that there was no significant difference
between the PSI and the lecture method for the students did equally well in either method
of instructions and that both the traditional lecture method and the personalized system of
instruction (PSI) did equally well as teaching methods regardless of sex and age.
Result from this research showed that for male students, there was no significant
difference in the post-test mean scores, between the control and the experimental group.
There was also no superiority of any method over the other. This supports the
inconclusiveness of the earlier studies on methods of teaching as found out by Gage
(1968) when he claimed that: Although methods of instruction in colleges have been
extensively studied for the past half century, the findings have been ambiguous or
inconclusive. Taken as a whole, the available research evidence suggests that there is no
demonstrable superiority of any given method.
The result of this study for the female students showed that the two experimental
methods, i.e. the discussion method and the personalised system of instruction are equally
good for the teaching of History to the female students. However, the discussion method
was more effective as shown from the mean scores of the two groups.
The major findings of this study call for more commitment on the part of History
teachers.
It gives support to the use of discussion method (Child-teacher centred
approach) in the teaching of History in co-educational institutions. Discussion method of
instruction is possible if teachers can show more concern for the students. It involves the
History teachers having contacts with the students in the classrooms. An encouragement
15
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
of discussion method leads the learners to critical mindedness, intellectual honesty,
objectivity and willingness to change opinion, open mindedness and questioning attitude.
All these affective process are important and teachers should encourage their
developments in the students in the History class.
According to Callahan and Clark (1977), in any classroom, there is constant
action and interaction going on between teachers and students themselves. Discussion
method should be introduced in the teaching of History to bring about meaningfully
action and interaction in the classroom.
16
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
REFERENCES
Adetunmobi, S.A. (1978). “Some methods of High School teaching” in Hand book of
History Teaching. Department of Education, University of Ibadan. Pp 36 – 48.
Adesina, S. Daramola S, Talabi J. (1989). Teaching Practice: A guide for Students and
Teachers. Ibadan. Board Publishers Limited, Ibadan.
Adeyinka, A.A. (1983). “A study of the place of History in the evolution of the secondary
grammar School curriculum in Oyo, Ogun and Ondo States of Nigeria, 1908 –
1988”. An unpublished Ph.D Thesis. University of Wales.
Adrian, M.D. Robert, M. (1973). Philosophy and Education. U.S.A. The Bruce
Publishing Company.
Ahmed, U.M. (1982). “West African School Certificate Syllabus: A descriptive and
Critical Reports”. Journal of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria 19 (2) 89 –
99.
Ayoi, M. O. and Patel M.M. (1987). “Instructional Methods (General Methods)” series
on provision of leadership training in Teacher Education supported by ODA
through British Council HED School Kenyattta University, Faculty of Education
and University of London, Institute of Education.
Callahan, J. F. and Clark, L.H. (1977). Innovation and Issues in Education Planning for
Competency. New York. Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc. pp. 57 – 59.
Collard, G. L. (1987). “Lecture versus Modified Personalized System of Instruction.
Differences in student achievement, addition, attitudes and other selected
variables”. Dissertation Abstract International. Vol. 49, No. 7 P. 168 I. A.
17
Ilorin Journal of Education, 13(2), December 1993
Gage, G. L. (1989). “Teaching Methods”. Encyclopaedia of Educational Research. 4th
Edition pp. 1446 – 1447.
Hillway, T. (1964). Introduction to Research. Hoighton Mifflin Co. Boston
Lawal, R. A. (1989). “A sequential 3-method Approach to the teaching of initial reading
in English in Nigeria”. A paper presented at the 3rd biennial Conference of the
Reading Association of Nigeria. Owerri.
18