Comparative Effect of Mastery Learning and Mind Mapping Approaches in Improving Secondary School Students’ Learning Outcomes in Physics
Science Journal of Education
Volume 3, Issue 4, August 2015, Pages: 78-84
Received: Jun. 23, 2015; Accepted: Jul. 20, 2015; Published: Jul. 28, 2015
Views 4541      Downloads 147
Authors
Oluwatosin Omolara Blessing, Department of Science and Technology Education, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Bello Theodora Olufunke, Institute of Education, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of Mastery Learning Approach (MLA) and Mind Mapping Approach (MMA) in improving students’ academic performance in Physics and also determined their effect in enhancing students’ retention of Physics. These were with a view to ascertaining the best teaching method for improving students’ learning outcomes in Physics. The study adopted the non-equivalent pre-test, post-test control group experimental design. Simple random sampling technique was used to select three co-educational secondary schools in Ikere Local Government Area of Ekiti State in Nigeria. The sample for the study was 74 senior secondary school one (SSS1) Physics students from the three selected secondary schools. Three intact classes were used for the study. The instrument used for data collection was “Physics Achievement and Retention Test” (PART). Data collected were analyzed using t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results showed that there was a significant effect of treatment on the academic performance of students taught with MLA, MMA and conventional method with students taught using MMA showing the best academic performance, followed by MLA and then Conventional. Also, no significant effect of treatment was found in the retention ability of students taught with MLA and MMA with students from both methods having nearly the same mean score. The study concludes that both MLA and MMA could improve students’ learning outcomes in Physics; however, MMA could improve students’ learning outcomes better. It therefore recommends that ministry of education should organize training for science teachers especially Physics teachers on how best they can adopt these innovative teaching strategies during instruction so that learners would be guided to learn meaningfully and be assisted to retain what is learnt in Physics.
Keywords
Mastery Learning, Mind Mapping, Retention, Learning Outcomes, Conventional, Teaching
To cite this article
Oluwatosin Omolara Blessing, Bello Theodora Olufunke, Comparative Effect of Mastery Learning and Mind Mapping Approaches in Improving Secondary School Students’ Learning Outcomes in Physics, Science Journal of Education. Vol. 3, No. 4, 2015, pp. 78-84. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20150304.12
References
[1]
Adodo, S. O. (2013). Effect of mind mapping as a self-regulated learning strategy on students’ achievement in basic science and technology. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4 (6). 163-172.
[2]
Alarcon, M. (2005). Physics without tears. A World of Science, 3 (1), 1-7.
[3]
Bello, T. O. (2011). Effect of group instructional strategy on students’ performance in selected Physics concepts. The African Symposium: An on-line Journal of African Educational Research Network, 11(1), 71-79.
[4]
Bello, T. O. (2012). Effect of Availability and Utilization of Physics Laboratory Equipment on Students’ Academic Achievement in Senior Secondary Schools Physics. World Journal of Education. Vol. 2 (5), 1-7.
[5]
Bassey, M. (2003). School science for tomorrow’s citizen. New York: Pergamon Press.
[6]
Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
[7]
Buzan, T. & Buzan, B. (1996). The mind map book: How to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain’s untapped potential. New York: Plume.
[8]
Daniel, L. & David C. (2011). Mind the map: How thinking maps affect student achievement. Networks online Journal, 13 (2), 1-7.
[9]
Farrand, P., Hussan, F., & Hennessy, E. (2002). The efficacy of the mind map study technique. Medical Education, 36 (5), 426-431.
[10]
Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004). National Policy on Education. Lagos: NERDC Press.
[11]
Ho, F.E. & Boo, H.K. (2007). Cooperative learning: Exploring its effectiveness in Physics classroom. Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and teaching, 8 (2).
[12]
Kibett, J.K. & Kathuri, N.J. (2005). Effects of projected-based learning on students’ performance in secondary school Agriculture. Zimbabwe Journal of Educational Research, 17 (1), 30-38.
[13]
Madu, B. C. & Metu, I. C. (2012).Effect of mind map as a note-taking approach on students’ achievements in Economics. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 3 (3), 247-251.
[14]
Mills, H.R. (1991). Teaching and Training. A handbook for Instructors (3rd Ed.). London: Macmillan Publisher.
[15]
Obih, S. O. &Ekomaru, C. I. (2011).Innovative teaching strategies emerging myths and realities in teaching and tearning.International Association for Teaching and Learning, 271-277.
[16]
Ogunniyi, M. B. (2009). Science, technology and Mathematics.International Journal of Science Education, 18 (3), 267-284.
[17]
Owolabi, O. T. & Oginni O. I. (2013). Assessing the relative effectiveness of three teaching methods in the measurement of students’ performance in Physics. International Journals of Material, Methods and Technologies, 1 (8), 116-125.
[18]
Pan Z. (2010). Promoting e-learners’ self-monitoring with mind map. Proceedings of the third international symposium on computer science and computational technology.
[19]
Rao, D. (2001). Science education in developing countries. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.
[20]
Rooda, L. A. (1994). Effects of mind mapping on student achievement in a nursing research course. Nurse Education, 19, 25-27.
[21]
Singh, Y.K. (2004). Teaching of social studies. New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation.
[22]
Steinert, Y. & Snell, L. S. (1999).Interactive lecturing strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Medical Teacher. 21 (1), 37-42.
[23]
Thomas, H. S. (2007). Today’s topics on creativity engineering system division. Massachusetts: Institute of Technology.
[24]
Yore, L. D. (2001). What is meant by constructivist science teaching and will the science education community stay the course for meaningful reform? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5 (4).
[25]
Zoller, U. (2000). Teaching tomorrow’s college science courses – Are we getting it right? Journal of College Science Teaching, 29 (6), 409-414.
[26]
Zollman, D. & Robert, G. (2008).Teaching and learning physics with interactive Video. Lincoln, USA, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Press.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186