Integration of programmed instructon into mathematics and science teaching: A panacea to students dwindling interest in mathematics and science in Nigerian schools

Abstract

This study examined Programmed Instruction (PI) a panacea to students’ dwindling interest in mathematics. Descriptive research of survey design was adopted for the study. A questionnaire was designed to collect data from a sample of seven hundred and fifty (750) respondents which include 700 Students and 50 Teachers from Public and Private Secondary Schools in Ado-Ekiti Local Government Area of Ekiti State in Nigeria. The study revealed that usage of programmed instruction beef up curiosity in mathematics students and resulted to greater retention and mastery of subject matter. Also, the study revealed that lack of trained personnel to help guide students in the use of programmed books, scarcity of programmed books in the society, high cost of procuring programmed books and machine and lack of necessary infrastructural facilities have been the factors militating against the implementation of programmed instruction in schools. Based on the findings, it was recommended that curriculum experts should develop various using the programmed instruction approach. Government should release fund for the development of programmed books and school authority should encourage their teachers to attend seminars and workshops, were they could gain knowledge of how to implement programmed instruction and other pedagogical skills that will enhance the teaching and learning of mathematics. Also, there should be provision of necessary infrastructural facilities in schools for easy implementation of programmed instruction.

Keywords

• Programmed instruction, mathematics teaching, science teaching

References

1. Aigbomian, D. O., & Umeoduagu, T. N. (1992). The relationship between students’ attitude and their performance in Integrated Science. BENSU. Journal of Education, 3(2), 93.
2. Aigbomian, D. O. (2002). Science For All: Implication for the Teacher and National Development: Inaugural Lecture in Ambrose Alli: University, Ekpoma 27th June. Ambik Press
3. Anderson T., & Fretzin, L., (2004): Programmed instruction, http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/fretzin/epl1q2programmed.htm, (accessed on July 2004).
4. Author W. (1996): Advantages of pattern Based Mathematics Curriculum. Retrieved from http//www.Aims.edu.org.Documents/pattern/part2.
5. Borasi, R. (1990): The invisible hand operating on mathematics instruction: Students conceptions and expectations. In T. J. Cooney (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s (NCTM Yearbook) (pp. 174-182). Reston: NCTM.
6. B.F. Skinner Foundation, (2002). Brief biography of B.F. Skinner. Retrieved from September 9, 2002, http://www.bfskinner.org/bio.asp
7. Center for Programmed Instruction (2002): Programmed Instruction Tutorial. Retrieved from October 8, 2002, http://www.centerforpi.com.
8. Charanchi, A. A. (2001). Catalogue of Generators of Interest In Mathematics, JORIND 9(2) Retrieved from December 1, 2011, www.transcampus.org

9. Chen, I. (2006): An electronic textbook on instructional technology. Retrieved from July 4, 2006 http://viking.coe.uh.edu/~ichen/ebook/et-it/cover.htm.
10. Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2000): Learning in Science: A Comparison of Deep and Surface Approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109-138.
11. Colbum, A. (2005). What Teacher Education Need to Know about Inquiry-based Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.csulb.edu/~acolbum/AETS.htm
12. Dallos, R. (1991): The effects of anxiety and intelligence on learning from Programmed Instruction. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 13(2), 69–76.
13. Dee, J. (2003). Classroom--Based Practices. Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101
14. Ellison, John, (2002): Computer-Assisted Instruction/Programmed Instruction. Retrieved October 8, 2002 from http://informatics.buffalo.edu/faculty/ellison/Syllabi/519Complete/formats/programmedinstr/program.html#unique.
15. Eshleman, J. W., (1999): Pluses and minuses of programmed instruction. Retrieved from July 4, 2006, http://members.aol.com/johneshleman/comment05.html.
16. Fenemma, E. (2000). Gender and Mathematics. What is known and what I wish was known? A paper presented at the fifth annual forum of the National Institute for Science Education. Wisconsin centre for educational research.
17. Gilbert, C. (1986). Infuence familiale le coixd’une carrie’re non traditionalle chex les files. Lafortune (ed)
18. Glas, E: (1999). Teaching and Learning with cases: New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers
19. Harden, J., & Whitelegg, E. (1997). Encore? Gender, Science and Technology. Where are they now? Science Education Newsletter, 135(9)
20. Haury, D. (1993): Teaching Science through Inquiry. ERIC/CSMEE Digest, ED359048
21. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its Contribution as a Mental Resource for Learning. Review of Education Research, 60(4), 549-571.
22. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006): The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
23. HighBeam Encyclopedia, & University of Columbia (2006). Programmed Instruction. Retrieved from December 9, 2006
24. Jaehnig, W., &Miller, M.L. (2007): Feedback types in programmed instruction: A systematic review. The Psychological Record, 57, 219-232.
25. Joyce, B., Weil, M., Calhoun, E. (2000). Models of Teaching (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
26. Kislenko, K. (2005). Structuring students’ beliefs in Mathematics: A Norwegian case. Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.
27. Knowlton, J., & Hawes, E. (1995). Attitude: Helpful predictor of audiovisual usage. AV Communication Review, 10(3), 147–157.
28. Kurbanoglu, N. I., Taskesengil, Y., & sozbilir, M. (2006). Programmed instruction revisited: a study on teaching stereochemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 7 (1), 13-21
29. Lee, V. S. (2004): Teaching and Learning through Inquiry. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing
30. Leshin, C., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C. (1992): Instructional Design Strategies and Tactics. New Jersey, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
31. Lockee, B. B., Moore, D. M., & Burton, J. K. (2001): Old concerns with new distance education research. Educause Quarterly, 24, 60–62.
32. Lysaught, J. P., & Williams, C. M. (1993): A guide to programmed instruction. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
33. Mckeon, D., & Comber C. (2003): Gender Difference in Science learning and Performance: Journal Science Education, 12-15
34. McPhan, G., Morony, W., Pegg, J., Cooksey, R., & Lynch, T. (2008): Maths? Why Not? (Report): Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR).
35. Morell, P. D. (1999): The effects of computer -assisted instruction and students' achievement in high school biology. School Science and Mathematics, 92(4) 177-181
36. McDonald, J. K., Yanchar, S. C., & Osguthorpe, R.T. (2005): Learning from programmed instruction: Examining implications for modern instructional technology. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(2), 84-98.
37. Nowell, A. M. B. & Quinn, D. W. (2001): Learning from Home while Comparing Abroad: Mathematics achievement in TIMSS and the first in the world Schools. TIMSS Report, 2001 National Conference at NMC Abuja.
38. Obodo, G. C. (1996). Gender Difference in the Mathematical Potentials of Fourteen year Old children: Implication for pace Education. Journal of Research in Science and Technology Education
39. Obodo G.C (2001), The generating student’s interest in Mathematics A paper presented at National Conference at NMC Abuja.
40. Ogundola, I. P. (2010). Design and use of various Instructional Strategies in the Dynamics of Instruction edited by Jegede S. A. & Popoola A. A.
41. Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., & Gibson, H. W. (2001): Teaching Strategies: A guide to better instruction. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
42. Phillips S. D. (1984): Contribution and Limitations in the use of computers in counselling training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 24(2), 186-192.
43. Programmed Instruction (2001), The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). Retrieved from August,16 2007, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Columbia-Encyclopedia
44. Programmed Instruction (2006): In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from July 4, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmed_instruction.
45. Seweje, P. O., & Jegede, S. A. (2005). Science Education and Science Teaching Methods. Lagos: Atlantic Associated Publishers.
46. Skinner, B.F. (2003): The technology of teaching. Cambridge, MA: B.F. Skinner Foundation..
47. Smith, K. U., & Smith, M. F. (1996): Cybernetic principles of learning and educational design. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
48. Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 299-323.
49. Tolhurst, D. (1995). Hypertext, hypermedia, multimedia defined? Educational Technology, 35(2), 21-26.
50. Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Köller, O., Marsh, H. W., & Baumert, J. (2006): Tracking, grading, and student motivation: Using group composition and status to predict self-concept and interest in ninth-grade mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 788-806.
51. Tretter, T. R., & Jones M. G. (2003). Relationship Between Inquiry-based Teaching and Physical Science Standardized Test scores. School Science and Mathematics, 103(7), 345-350.