European Journal of Scientific Research - EuroJournals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Effect of Mathematical Games on Nigerian Students’ Performance in Mathematics in Secondary Schools in Port Harcourt Metropolis 258 The pretest questions were administered to the two groups first, before teaching took place. This helped the researcher determine the equivalence of the groups. The experimental group was taught using the lesson plan prepared with mathematical games. In the course of the teaching, “Card games” were given to the students to play and study with in groups of “five”. After this, the posttest item consisting of twenty objective questions was administered. The control group was taught using traditional method without games. The posttest consists of a 20-item test, based on simple equation. This was administered to the 2 groups used for the study. The scores obtained enabled the determination of any difference in the achievement of students exposed to mathematical games and those not. This posttest instrument was a parallel form of the pretest instrument. (i.e similar in content). According to Mehrens and Lehman (1973) two parallel tests can be used in order to reduce the memory effects of the students. The reliability of the tests (pretest and posttest) were also computed using a pilot group of 40 students from the Federal Government Girls College, Abuloma – a subset of the population. Using Kuder – Richardson Estimates formula, the reliability of the pretest was estimated to be rxx = 0.9 while the reliability of the posttest was estimated to be ryy=0.8. For the reliability of the whole test, Peason Product Correlation Coefficient was r½x½y =0.70. Spearman Brown Prophesy Formula was applied as a correction factor and the reliability coefficient of 0.82 was obtained for the whole test. (Thorndike, 1971). From the obtained value one could predict that a person with a comparatively high score in the pretests would also score high in the posttest and vise versa all variables remaining constant. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics was used for research questions 1 to 4 and this involved computation of means standard deviation and variance of the scores. For Hypotheses Testing, Inferential statistics was applied using Non-Independent t-test statistics for Ho1 and Ho2, also used was simple Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for Ho3, and Ho4. Research Question i Is there any difference between the pretest scores and posttest scores of students in the experimental group within each school? Table 1: pretest/posttest means scores/standard deviation of students within each school Experimental group School 1 School 2 School 3 Pretest X =6.2 SD =2.5 X =4.0 SD =1.8 X =7.0 SD =3.5 Posttest X =10 SD =2.8 X =8 SD =2.1 X =11 SD =3.5 Diff. in means 4.2 4.0 4.0 The experimental group in school 1 had a pretest mean score ( X ) of 6.2 and Standard deviation (SD) of 2.5 and post test mean score of 10 and standard deviation of 2.8. Difference in the mean score is 4.2. The experimental group of school 2 had a pretest mean score ( X ) of 4.0 and standard deviation (SD) of 1.8 and post test mean score of 8.0 and standard deviation of 2.1. The difference in the mean score is 4.0 The experimental group of school 3 had a pretest mean score ( X ) of 7.0 and standard deviation (SD) of 3.5 and posttest mean score of 3.5. The difference in the mean score is 4.0. In each of the schools, using pretest means score as the basis of comparison there was an increase in the students’ posttest scores.
259 Olubunmi M. Adaramola and Jane I. Alamina Research Question ii Is there any difference between the pretest scores and the posttest scores of students in the control group within each school? Table 2: Pretest/posttest mean scores and standard deviation within each school Control group B School 1 School 2 School 3 Pretest X =5.5 SD =2.4 X =5 SD =3 X =5.1 SD =3.6 Post test X =8.0 SD =2.1 X =5 SD =3.6 X =10 SD =2.9 Diff. in means 2.5 0 4.9 The control group in school 1 had a pretest mean score of 5.5 and standard deviation of 2.4 and posttest mean score of 8.0 and standard deviation of 2.1. Difference between the means is 2.5. The control group in school 2 had a pretest mean score of 5 and standard deviation of 3 with a posttest mean score of 5 and standard deviation of 2.6. The control group in school 3 had a pretest mean score of 5.1, standard deviation of 3.6 and a posttest mean score of 10, standard deviation of 2.9. Difference between the means is 4.9. Research Question iii Is there any difference in the performance of students in the experimental group and student in the control group in all the schools? Table 3: Posttest mean score and standard deviation for both group in all the schools? Posttest School 1 School 2 School 3 Experimental (A) X =10 SD =2.8 X =8 SD =2.1 X =11 SD =3.5 Control (B) X =8 SD =3.8 X =5 SD =2.6 X =9.7 SD =2.9 Diff. in means 2 3 1.3 The experimental group in school 1 had the posttest mean score as 10 and standard deviation of 2.10 while the control group had a mean score of 8 and standard deviation of 3.8. The difference between the mean was 2. The experimental group in school 2 had the mean score as 8 and standard deviation of 2.1 while the control group had the mean score of 5 with standard deviation of 2.6. The difference between the means was 3. The experimental group in school 3 had the mean score of 11 and standard deviation of 3.5 while the control group had the mean score as 9.7 and standard deviation 2.9. The difference between the means was 1.3. Research Question iv Is there any difference in the performance of boys and girls in the experimental group in all the schools? Table 4: Posttest mean score and standard deviation for boys and girls in the experimental group in all the schools? Experimental Group School 1 Post test School 2 Posttest School 3 Posttest Total Mean Boys X =9.1 SD =2.9 X =7.7 SD =2.3 X =11.2 SD =3.1 28.0 Girls X =10.2 SD =2.7 X =8.2 SD =2 X =10.1 SD =3.2 28.5
Page 1 and 2: European Journal of Scientific Rese
Page 3 and 4: appropriate. Manuscripts may be rej
Page 5 and 6: Statistical Approach on the Impact
Page 7 and 8: Un Filtre à Sable Perforé à Alim
Page 17: Un Filtre à Sable Perforé à Alim
Page 20 and 21: Effect of Scaling on the Performanc
Page 30 and 31: The Input of Psychology in Methodol
Page 36 and 37: Effect of Mathematical Games on Nig
Page 46 and 47: Community Norms and Cultural Attitu
Page 56 and 57: 276 Muhammad Nawz Mahsud, Muhammad
Page 73 and 74: 293 Chandra Putcha 3. Validation of
Page 75 and 76: 295 Chandra Putcha 6. Results The p
Page 79 and 80: 299 Ilhan Meric, Charles W. McCall
Page 81 and 82: 301 Ilhan Meric, Charles W. McCall
Page 83 and 84: Groundwater Pollution in Africans B
Page 89 and 90:
Groundwater Pollution in Africans B
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
European Journal of Scientific Rese
Page 99 and 100:
319 Masoud Aliakbar Golkar, Shora H
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Reflection of US Policy Towards Pak
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Storage and Cost Efficient Mining o
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
345 L. Mézédjri, A. Tahar Ali and
Page 127 and 128:
347 L. Mézédjri, A. Tahar Ali and
Page 129 and 130:
Toxicokinetic Studies of Cadmium an
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Trade Diversion and Trade Creation
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Éfficacité Comparée de Deux Mét
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Generic Architecture Based Agent fo
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Photovoltaic-Stand-Alone Hydrogen S
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
399 R. Y. Tamakloe, K. Singh and Cl
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Diversity of a Mosaic Ecosystem in
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
421 Cihat Polat strategic managemen
Page 203 and 204:
423 Cihat Polat taken as a ground f
Page 205 and 206:
425 Cihat Polat techniques also ind
Page 207 and 208:
427 Cihat Polat forecasting practic
Page 209 and 210:
429 Cihat Polat show different expe
Page 211 and 212:
431 Cihat Polat advantages through
Page 213 and 214:
433 Cihat Polat Forecasting Solutio
Page 215 and 216:
435 Cihat Polat Table 1: External E
Page 217 and 218:
437 Cihat Polat possible. Thus, com
Page 219 and 220:
439 Cihat Polat within the forecast
Page 221 and 222:
441 Cihat Polat [24] Makridakis et
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
445 Omubo-Pepple V. B, Opara F. E,
Page 227:
447 Omubo-Pepple V. B, Opara F. E,
show all

European Journal of Scientific Research - EuroJournals

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?