I=
Pakistan Research Repository Home
 

Title of Thesis

Comparative Effectiveness Of Expository Strategy And Problem Solving Approach Of Teaching Mathematics At Secondary Level

Author(s)

Kousar Perveen

Institute/University/Department Details
University Institute of Education and Research / Pir Mehr Ali shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi
Session
2009
Subject
Education
Number of Pages
237
Keywords (Extracted from title, table of contents and abstract of thesis)
Comparative, Mathematics, Economy, Expository, Strategy, Solving, Experimental, Achievement, Effectiveness, Teaching, Secondary, Strategy, Level

Abstract
A sound education in mathematics is important for any modern knowledge based economy. Mathematics is now important in many areas where it has not previously played much of role, for example, in biology, social sciences etc. If the proper mathematical foundations are not laid during the formative years of childhood and adolescence, it becomes increasingly difficult to address this weakness in later life. The attempts to confront these shortcomings during retraining in later life are generally wasteful and only partly successful.
The present study was designed to investigate the comparative effectiveness of problem-solving approach on the academic achievement of secondary school students in mathematics. The major objectives of the study were: (1) To determine whether the problem solving approach is more effective than expository strategy of teaching on academic achievement of students in mathematics. (2) To determine whether the problem solving approach is more effective than expository strategy of teaching on attitude of students in mathematics. (3) To examine the effect of problem-solving approach on the academic achievement of low achievers. (4) To measure the effect of problem-solving approach on the academic achievement of high achievers. (5) To find out the effect of problem-solving approach on the retention of students in mathematics.
To achieve the objectives of study, following null hypotheses were tested: (1) There is no significant difference between the pre-test mean achievement scores of experimental and control group. (2) There is no significant difference between the pre-test mean achievement scores of low achievers of experimental group and control group. (3) There is no significant difference between the Pre-test mean achievement
scores of high achievers of experimental and control group. (4) There is no significant difference between pre-test mean attitude scores of experimental group and control group. (5) There is no significant difference between the post-test mean achievement scores of experimental group and control group. (6) There is no significant difference between post-test mean achievement scores of low achievers of experimental group and control group. (7) There is no significant difference between post-test mean achievement scores of high achievers of experimental group and control group. (8) There is no significant difference between post-test mean attitude scores of experimental group and control group. (9) There is no significant difference between mean achievement scores of experimental group and control group and control group on retention test. (10) There is no significant difference between mean achievement scores of high achievers of experimental group and control group on retention test. (11) There is no significant difference between mean achievement scores of low achievers of Experimental group and control group on retention test.
Secondary school students studying mathematics constituted the population of study. The student of 10th class of Govt. Pakistan Girls Higher School, Rawalpindi (Pakistan) was selected as a sample of the study. The pre-test post-test equivalent-group design was used for the study. The sample size consisted of forty eight students who were divided into experimental group and control group, each consisting of 24 students by equating them on their previous knowledge in mathematics, as determined through a pre-test. A treatment of planned problem-solving approach was provided to the experimental group while the control group was taught by expository strategy for a period of six weeks.
During that period the experimental group was taught with help of series of lesson plans designed on guide lines of Sharan (2006) and Polya (1945) heuristics steps of problems solving approach. After the treatment, the post-test was used to see the effects of that treatment. On the basis of pre-test, the experimental group and control groups were further subdivided into two groups: high achievers and low achievers. Significance of difference between the mean scores of the both groups was tested at 0.05 level of significance by applying two-tailed t-test.
Data analysis revealed that both the experimental and control group were almost equal in mathematics base at the beginning of the experiment. The experimental group outscored significantly than control group on the post-test, and long term retention showing supremacy of problem solving approach over expository strategy. The performance of high achievers and low achievers of experimental group was found better than those of control group. The attitude towards math of experimental group also improved. Hence, the ultimate result of the study indicated that problem-solving approach was more effective in terms of achievement, attitudes and retention in the subject of mathematics as compared to the expository strategy.

Download Full Thesis
2,005 KB
S. No. Chapter Title of the Chapters Page Size (KB)
1 0 CONTENTS

 

iii
32 KB
2

1

INTRODUCTION

 

1
93 KB
3 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Mathematics Education
2.2 Expository Strategy
2.3 Problem Solving Approach
2.4 Review Of Related Studies

11
410 KB
4 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Population
3.2 Delimitation Of The Study
3.3 Sample
3.4 Variables
3.5 Design
3.6 Research Instruments
3.7 Validation Of Instruments
3.8 Selection And Training Of Teachers For The Experiment
3.9 Procedure
3.10 Scoring Of Responses Obtained From Instruments
3.11 Precaution Observed
3.12 Analysis Of Date

98
164 KB
5 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 118
233 KB
6 5 LITERATURE CITED & APPENDICES

150


1,147 KB