activity based teaching

1
Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
The aim of present study is to sort out the effective outcome of activity based teaching
method in secondary school students learning capabilities.
2.1 ABT approach
ABT approach has been adopted to monitor cause and effect relationship in secondary
class students. A pretest and a posttest design was used for this experimental study. In order to
monitor the effect of various factors which is determining internal and external validity,
equivalent group design was used for this study. In present study a secondary school in public
sector was chosen as population of study under consideration. A control group was subjected
to lecture method and an experimental group was subjected to activity method.
2.2 Sample of study
Sialkot Grammar School Gujranwala branch was chosen as a sample school. A random
selection of 50 students from 9th class constituted as a sample of study. 50 students were
randomly divided into two equivalent groups of 25 students in each. Previous marks attained
by students in weekly tests conducted by experienced Montessori teachers were also considered
at the time of selection. One group served as a control group and another one served as an
experimental group from 9thclass in Physics subject
2.3 Study content of test

Test was taken from text books of Punjab board. For the research purpose, a pretest and
a post test was constructed. The test construction techniques were reviewed and revised for it.
The pretest consisted of same content of study for both of the groups. The presence of control
group, random assignment of groups, and presence of pretest gave rise to an experimental
design.
Techniques of test construction:
2.4 Pilot testing
A pretest was conducted on the basis of Bloom’s taxonomy. For the collection of data,
a written test comprising of MCQs type and short questions were developed from the first three
chapters of 9th class Physics. This test consisted of 40multiple choice questions with 8 items
related to knowledge, 8 items related to comprehension, 8items related to application, 8 items
related to analytical skills, 8 items related to synthesis and 5short questions were related to
evaluation. Pilot test was taken for the validation of test.
2.5 Post-test
Post-test was constructed from the last three chapters of the Physics textbook. The
questions were evenly distributed for each of the domain as in the pre-test. This test consisted
of 40 multiple choice questions with 8 items related to knowledge, 8 items related to
comprehension, 8 items related to application, 8 items related to analytical skills, 8 items
related to synthesis and 5 short questions were related to evaluation. Total number of items was
45.

2.6 Construction of test
Number of items was kept in proportion to the contribution of the factor to that ability.
Item difficulty level and item discrimination index were calculated and selected test items of
mixed difficulty were evenly distributed.
2.7 Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was carried out to determine the difficulty level and validity of each
item as well as the validity and reliability of the teat score as a whole.
Minimizing the extraneous variable:
Extraneous variables affect the results, making it difficult to observe the changes caused by
dependent variables. So a rival hypothesis is given out to account for observed changes. These
variables cannot be eliminated but can be identified and their affect can be minimized through
appropriate research design.
2.8 Procedural details
The research study was carried out for four weeks, 5/7 days a week. A pretest was
conducted before treatment for both groups. For this purpose, 20 lessons were prepared on the
behalf of class teachers. A research member monitored all the activities and treatment T0 was
given by Montessori teachers. Pretest was conducted in order to determine the achievement
scores of both groups. The instructions for using activity method and lecture method were done
by the researcher for both groups (experimental and control groups).After treatment T1, a post

test was conducted for both experimental and control groups. Pretest and post test scores
offered compare and contrast opportunity for experimental and control groups.
2.9 Validity of instruments used
The degree to which the test actually succeeds in measuring what it sets out to measure
is called its validity. In order to perform a pretest, marks obtained by students in recently taken
weekly test were used as criterion for distribution of students in experimental and control
groups.
Content validity evidence involves the degree to which the content of the test matches
the content domain associated with the construct. A careful selection of items built up content
validity. Items were chosen by thorough examination of the subject with the help of subject
specialists and established a content validity of test was improved.
2.10 Reliability of instruments used
Reliability is the context to which a test yields the same results on repeated trials. It is
consistency of observations over repeated trials for a particular subject under consideration.
Split half reliability
It measures the extent to which all parts of the test contribute equally to what is being
measured. It is done by comparing the results of one half of a test with the results from another
half of test conducted.
Mathematically:
R =
𝑛𝑝
1+(𝑛−1)𝑃

R= reliability of the test k times as long as the original test
P= reliability of original test k
n = factor by which the length of the test is changed
Reliability of the two tests, a pre-test and a post-test, was calculated to be 0.868 and
0.897 by using split-half reliability formula given above. For this purpose 45 items were
divided into even and odd questions and reliability for pretest was 0.3 and reliability of posttest
was 0.5.
The judgmental validation as well as test retest validation method was also used for the
same. Three lessons were organized for experimental group in order to expose them to activity
based method of teaching and 3 lessons were organized for control group in order to expose
them to traditional lecture method of teaching of control group. The activity based teaching
was used as a treatment T1 for experimental group whereas lecture methods was used for the
teaching control group. The post-test was administered on both groups (experimental and
control groups) after the 4 weeks treatment. The data of the research was obtained from the
scores of the students on pre-test and post-test. In order to analyze the data, t-test, mean score
and standard deviation were used.
2.11 Research design
A pretest and posttest equivalent group design was employed. Control group and
experimental group were pre-tested and observation O1and O3 were noted. These observations

were based upon scores of test administrated by research team before the treatment and post-
tested O2. After treatment T1, observations O 2 and O 4 were made respectively.
RE = O1 T1 O 2
RC = O 3 - O 4
dRE = O2 - O 1
dRC = O4 - O 3
D = dRE - dRC
R= Randomly selected
E= Experimental group
C= Control group
O= Observation
T= Treatment

Chapter 3
INTERPRETING THE RESULTS
The study sought to explain academic outcomes in secondary school physics in terms
of activity method of teaching towards academic gains in the subject.
In order to probe the significant difference between the mean scores, “t-test” was
applied. In this study, two null hypotheses were tested. The significance level was taken at
0.05. The critical value of “t” at significance level of 0.05 was taken as 2.0. Null hypotheses
were designed to test the effect of treatment difference between the control group and
experimental group.
1.1 Pre-test results
In the pretest, conducted under supervision of research team, the achievement scores of
students in control group as well as experimental are represented in table 3.1. The mean
achievement scores of students were found to be comparable. There was no significant
difference in the mean scores of the students of control group and experimental group in the
pre-test. In this equivalent group design the calculated “t” value was lower than the critical
value in all the six domains of Bloom’s taxonomy. So it was concluded that all the students
selected for pre testing were of comparable capabilities in all the domains of knowledge,
comprehension, application, analytical skills, synthesis and evaluation before treatment T.

Table 3.1: Comparison of mean scores of students of control group and experimental group in
Pre test
Domain Group N Mean Df t-value P
Knowledge
Experimental 25 5.34
48 0.57 0.57 < 2.01
Control 25 5.14
Comprehension
48 -0.59 -0.59 < 2.01
Control 25 5.38
Application
48 0.68 0.68 < 2.01
Control 25 5.14
Analytical Skills
48 0.87 0.87 < 2.01
Control 25 4.62
Synthesis
48 0.47 0.47 < 2.01
Control 25 5.18
Evaluation
48 0.35 0.35 < 2.01
Control 25 5.10
3.2 Post-test results
After the treatment the scores of both groups of students were analysed by using t-test
and mean score. In the domain of knowledge, no significant difference was observed in the
mean achievement scores of the students of control group and experimental group on post-test.
In this equivalent group design the calculated “t” value (calculated t = 1.01 and table value =
2.01) was less than the critical value in the domain of knowledge. Hence, it was concluded that

there was no significant difference in achievement score of experimental and control groups
after treatment in the taxonomic hierarchy of knowledge.
The mean scores and data analysis is as follows in table 3.2:
Table 3.2: Achievement Scores of control group and experimental group on post-test t in the
domain of knowledge
Group N Mean Df t-value P
48 1.01 1.01 < 2.01
Control 25 5.60
In the domain of comprehension, no significant difference was observed in the mean
achievement scores of the students of control group and experimental group on post-test. In
this equivalent group design the calculated “t” value (calculated t=1.31 and table value=2.01)
was less than the critical value in the domain of comprehension. Hence, it was concluded that
there was no significant difference in achievement score of experimental and control groups
after treatment in the taxonomic hierarchy of comprehension.
domain of Comprehension
48 1.31 1.31 < 2.01
Control 25 5.79

In the domain of application, a significant difference was observed in the mean scores
of the students of control group and experimental group on post-test. In this equivalent group
design the calculated “t” value (calculated t=3.20 and table value=2.01) was greater than the
critical value in the domain of application. Hence, it was concluded that there was a significant
difference in achievement scores of experimental and control groups after treatment in the
taxonomic hierarchy of application. Hence, activity based teaching method produced a
significant difference in the achievement of students in experimental group.
domain of Application
48 3.20 3.20 > 2.01
Control 25 5.08
In the domain of analytical ability, a significant difference was observed in the mean
scores of the students of control group and experimental group on post-test. In this equivalent
group design the calculated “t” value (calculated t=2.71 and table value=2.01) was greater than
the critical value in the domain of analytical ability. Hence, it was concluded that there was a
significant difference in achievement scores of experimental and control groups after treatment
in the taxonomic hierarchy of analytical ability. Hence, activity based teaching method

produced a significant difference in the achievement of students in experimental group. The
mean scores and data analysis is as follows in table 3.5:
domain of Analytical Skills
48 2.71 2.71 > 2.01
Control 25 4.90
In the domain of synthesis, a pronounced difference was observed in the mean scores
design the calculated “t” value (calculated t=4.05 and table value=2.01) was significantly
greater than the critical value in the domain of synthesis. Hence, it was concluded that there
was a significant difference in achievement scores of experimental and control groups after
treatment in the taxonomic hierarchy of synthesis. Hence, activity based teaching method
produced a significant difference in the achievement of students in experimental group.
domain of Synthesis
48 4.05 4.05 > 2.01
Control 25 3.90

In the domain of evaluation, a significant difference was observed in the mean scores
design the calculated “t” value (calculated t=2.30 and table value=2.01) was greater than the
critical value in the domain of evaluation. Hence, it was concluded that there was a significant
difference in achievement score of experimental and control groups after treatment in the
taxonomic hierarchy of evaluation. Hence, activity based teaching method produced a
significant difference in the achievement of students in experimental group.
domain of Evaluation
48 2.30 2.30 > 2.01
Control 25 5.04

3.3 Graphical Presentation of results
Figure 3.1: Comparison of scores of students on Pre-test.
The post test results have been presented graphically in fig. 3.1. All the six domains of bloom’s
taxonomy have been considered for this study. Post test results of all the students are expressed
in terms of their mean scores. Post test scores show no difference in learning achievements of
control and experimental groups. Bar graph in terms of mean scores of students show that there
is no significant difference in the academic achievement of students in the cognitive domains
of learning. No pronounced difference has been shown in all the domains of learning. So, we
can make an inference that whole class would act as an equivalent group design. So pre-test
post-test equivalent group design is truly depicted in this study and fulfils the criteria of
research scheme. The only variable is activity based teaching method that will produce the
effect on overall performance of students
5.34 5.14 5.18 5.38 5.38 5.14 4.90 4.62 5.34 5.18 5.22 5.10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Knowledge Comprehension Application Analytical Skills Syntesis Evaluation
MeanScore for Pre-test

Figure 3.2: Comparison of scores of students on Post-test.
The post test results have been presented graphically in fig. 3.2. All the six domains of bloom’s
taxonomy have been considered for this study. Post test results of all the students are expressed
in terms of their mean scores. Post test scores show a significant difference in learning
achievements of control and experimental groups. Bar graph of mean scores of students show
that activity based teaching method produced a significant difference in the academic
achievement of students in the cognitive domains of learning. A pronounced difference has
been shown in the analytical skills and synthesis domain of learning. So, we can make an
inference that activity based teaching strategy has produced a significant difference in the
students’ academic achievement in whole class as compared to the traditional method of
teaching.
5.88 5.60 6.08 5.79 5.99 5.08 5.70 4.90 4.96 3.90 5.72 5.04
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Experimental
Control
Knowledge Comprehension Application Analytical Skills Syntesis Evaluation
MeanScore for Post-test

Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
In this research study, control group was taught by traditional method of teaching and
experimental group was taught by activity method of teaching. The presence of control group
gave rise to a true experimental design. An equivalent group design was formulated for this
study.While considering the aims and objectives formulated for this framework of study and
by the testing of the null hypotheses formulated, the principle research findings of the study
are as follows:
1. Activity based teaching method improves the learning outcome of the students.
2. A pronounced difference was found in terms of achievement scores of the students in
physics subject taught through Activity Based method of teaching in contrast with Traditional
method of teaching.
It can be inferred therefore that activity method of teaching aroused the interest of
learner towards physics subject [28]. Making use of all available resources in the form of
activity method rather than resorting to the use of chalk and talk which is less interesting can
help the learners to learn well. This learning style is long lasting and more practical. And this
can help the teacher a lot to disseminate his teaching to the best of his ability and knowledge
when learners show no interest or negative attitude. Good impartation of physics knowledge
by use of practical work on the part of the teacher; coupled with student’s interest in the physics
lead to positive attitude of students towards learning. Hence, activity method significantly
increased the academic outcome of the students which resulted in better achievement in

physics. The mean scores of experimental group, in the domain of synthesis and analytical
skills is significantly greater than control group, which means that activity based teaching is
more effective for higher order thinking skills (application, synthesis, analysis and evaluation)
than lower order thinking skills (knowledge and comprehension). These results are in
accordance with literature values as described previously by Gallagher and Stepien, Lieux and
Zumbach et al. regarding the effectiveness of activity based method of teaching [29,30,31,32].
Chapter 5

CONCLUSION
The idea of activity-based learning is well established and well acknowledged for active
learning rather than absorbing information passively. Activity based teaching is child centered
and child friendly approach. Activity-based teaching approach provides an exemplary
environment for teaching science at secondary level. In activity-based teaching methods,
students are actively involved in hands-on/minds on experiences and correlate scientific
concepts and theories with actual phenomenon. Activity based teaching method develops a true
understanding of the scientific concepts and help the students to apply scientific knowledge in
real life work. Activity based teaching method stimulates and inspires the students interest in
science subject. The major reason behind student’s poor achievement in class is the loss of
interest. In order to create interest with natural curiosity activity based teaching method plays
a vital role. Currently performed research studies indicate that activity- based teaching method
helps to improve their academic achievement in science .Therefore, in schools mainly in
secondary classes this approach should be practiced in all subjects such as science ,math, social
science, languages etc,.
Chapter 6

SUGGESTIONS AND FUTURE RCOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Suggestions
From all perspectives, discussed in the literature review and research studies some of
the suggestions can bring out as ways of improving students achievement through activity
based teaching are:
 Arouse an interest in science teaching.
 Distinctive qualities such as capability, background and habits must be considered.
 Recognize the learners abilities by arranging various learning experiences according to
Biehler and Snowman (1986);
“Try to send your students away from your instruction anxious to use what they have
been taught and eager to learn more by associating subjects with liked and admired situations,
things or individuals and also arranging conditions so that students feel comfortable when in
the presence of a subject” [33].
All the activities must however be framed within the framework of the school
curriculum. More specifically, with science teaching, these ideas could provide guidelines in
formulating types of methods or strategies, which could be used in activity based teaching to
make the learners learn science.
6.2 Implications and Future Recommendations

The research findings reported in this academic work justify that activity method of
teaching enhances the academic output of students in secondary classes. In this research finding
there is a repercussion for the teachers of science subject that they should try to opt activity
based teaching method in schools. Instead of using chalk and board for instructions activities
should be arranged during the course of instructions. In order to improve the students’ academic
achievement, the parents as well as the government should take steps to arrange programs
which can enhance the academic achievement of students. It is therefore, expected that these
research findings will serve the purpose of resource materials for science teachers, school
authorities, government educators and parents and significant others who are involved in
academic progress of the students. The role of activity based teaching is well acknowledged
and should be adopted for higher order thinking skills at secondary level. This method of
teaching can be well opted at secondary level to higher level of education.
REFERENCES

1. Harfield, T., Davies, K., Hede, J., Panko, M.& Kenley, R. (2007). Activity-based
teaching for Unitec New Zealand construction students. Emirates Journal for
Engineering Research, 12 (1), 57-63 (2007)/
2. Abdelhamid, T. S. (2003). Evaluation of teacher-student learning style disparity in
construction management education. Journal of Construction Education. Vol. 8(3) 124-
145.
3. Blumberg, P. and Michael, J. A. (1992). Development of self-directed learning
behaviors in a partially teacher-directed problem-based learning curriculum. Teaching
Learn. Med., 4(1), 3–8.
4. Lebuffe, J. R. (1994). Hands-on science in the elementary school. East Lansing, MI:
National Center for Research on Teacher Learning (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 375003).
5. Ewers, T. G. (2001). Teacher-directed versus learning cycles methods: effects on
science process skills mastery and teacher efficacy among elementary education
students.Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(07), 2387A (UMI No. AAT3022333).
6. Morey, M. K. (1990). Status of science education in Illinois elementary schools. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 27(4), 387-398.
7. Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education,
74(4), 421-431. [

8. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R. (1956).
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York:
David McKay Co Inc
9. Hopkins, C.D, & Antes, R.L (200). Classroom Measurement and Evaluation, (3rd
Ed).
10. Joppe, M (2000), The research Process. Retrieved December 16, 2006,
11. Bazovksy, I (1961). Reliabailty Theory and practice. Prentice-Hall Report.
12. Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Philips, S. M. (1996). Psychological Testing and
Measurement: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement. Moutain View, CA:
Mayfiled Publishing Company.
13. Crooks, T.J (1998). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on Students.
Review of Educational Research, 58(4): 438-481
14. Hills, J. R. (1986). All of hill’s handy hints. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
15. Kubiszyn, T ., & Borich, G. (!1987). Educational tests and measurement:
classroom application and practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Comapny.
16. Lyman, H. B. (1986). Test scores and what they mean (4th ed,). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: prentice-Hall.
17. Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantative information. Cheshire, Ct:
Graphic

18. Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21
, 14-23.
19. Best, J .W., and James V. Kahn: Researchin Education, New Jersey, Englewood
Cliffs, (Eighth Edition), 1986
20. Sax, Gilbert: empirical Foundations of Educational Research , New Jersey,
Englewood Cliffs, Press Prentice hall, Inc., 1968.
21. Wiersma, William: Research Methods in Education – An Interoduction, New
York: Lippincott Company, 1969.
22. Best, john W : Research in education, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, Inc., second
edition, 1970.
23. Cochran, William G: Sampling Techniques, New York: John Willey and Sons, Third
edition, 1977.
24. Garrett Henry E: Statistics in Psychology and education, Bombay: Vakils, Feffer and
Simons Ltd., Eleventh Indian reprint, 1985.
25. Hillway, Tyrus, Handbook of Educational Ressearch, Boston: Houghthon Mifflin
Company, 1969
26. Worthen, B.R., Borg, W.R., & White, K.R. (1993). Measurement and evaluation in the
schools. New York: Longman. Chapter 5 presents a pratical discussion of the meaning
of test scores.

27. Praeger. Hamill, D. (1987) Assessing the abilities and instructional needs of students.
Austin, TX; Pro-Ed Salvia, J. & Ysseldyke, J (1992) Assessment in special and
remedial education, 5th edition.Boston:
28. Aremu, Ayotola, (1998). Motivating Learners for more effective achievement in
mathematics. Nigerian Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 27-34.
29. Gallagher, S. A. and Stepien, W. J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based
learning: depth versus breadth in American studies. J. Educ. Gifted, 19(3), 257–275.
30. Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., and Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-
based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Q., 36(4), 195–200.
31. Lieux, E. M. (2001). A skeptic‟s look at PBL. In The Power of Problem-Based
Learning: A Practical „How To‟ for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in Any
Discipline, edited by B. Duch, S. E. Groh, and D. E. Allen, pp. 223–235. Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing
32. Zumbach, J., Kumpf, D., and Koch, S. (2004). Using multimedia to enhance problem-
based learning in elementary school. Inform. Technol. Child. Educ. Annu., 16, 25–37.
33. Biehler, R. F. and Snowmnan, J. (1986). Psychology Applied to Teaching (5th Ed.)
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

activity based teaching

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to activity based teaching (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

activity based teaching