Tanveer,M., Gondal, B, & Fatima, N. (2014). The effect of acomputer-based instructional technique for the learning ofelementary-level mathematics among high, average, and low achievers.InternationalJournal of Education and Development using Information andCommunication Technology (IJEDICT),10(4), 47-59.
Astudy was carried out to assess the impact of various instructionalmethods as far as mathematics teaching is concerned amongst high,average, as well as low achiever elementary students. The studyinvolved seventy-eight students from two urban and two rural randomlyselected schools. The study targeted at ascertaining the impact ofthe instructional methods on the students above. The data involvedpretest and posttest and showed that a teacher facilitatedmathematics had a better score as opposed to computer-assisted andtraditional instructional methods in teaching mathematics on the lowand average achievers. There was no notable difference in theinstructional methods used on the high achiever elementary students.
There is no substantial variation in the scores of the three categories of high achiever students taught using the traditional approach, using the mathematics software, as well as the approach of teacher facilitated mathematics software.
There is no substantial difference between the scores of the three categories of the average achiever learners taught using the method of mathematics software, teacher facilitated mathematics software, and the traditional method.
There is not vital distinction between the scores of the three groups of the low achiever students taught by the mathematics software method, teacher facilitated mathematics software and the traditional method.
of the research design
Thetype of the research in the study above is an experimental studydesign applied to identify the effect of the independent variable onthe dependent variable(Tanveer, Gondal, and Fatima, 2014).The independent variable, in this case, is the instructional methodused whereas the dependent variable is the pretest and posttestscores obtained by the students and the performance of the students.The design of the research is non-equivalent with the use ofcomparison groups and the scores in a pretest and posttest. The studymakes use of a stratified random sample, three times (once for everyability level).
Critiqueof the research
Readingthe article about the effect of instructional techniques in theteaching of elementary mathematics among the high, average, and lowachiever elementary students arouses some curiosity. The article iswritten in a clear language with the fact that the purpose of thestudy was provided at the beginning of the study. The language usedin the study is simple to understand and interpret while at the sametime stating the purpose of the study clearly and in simple terms.The method used to gather the information, and the survey is veryclear in the study. The method of sample selection is alsoappropriate. However, similar to many events in life, the study hasits set of faults.
Thenumber of students in each group low, average, and high achieverswas relatively small. In any research, making a generalization of alarge group from a small sample requires the sample to meet thesignificance level. The sample is also random so to obtain a goodcross-section that correctly represents the entire population.Choosing a larger sample would reduce the errors of the study hencecoming up with better significant findings.
Therealso exists a threat of age in the study. The selection of the sampledid not consider the age of the participants, which could haveresulted in skewed results. However, the assumption is that all theparticipants belonged in the same grade. For example, you realizethat in some cases, older students (even though they are in the samegrade), tend to have mastered some of the aspects of mathematicsarising from the fact their minds are more mature to grasp thingsquickly(Tanveer et al., 2014).In as much as wisdom does not determine the level of intelligence, itcannot be entirely ignored that the difference in age was aninfluencing factor in the pretest and the posttest results.
Lastly,the pretest was only carried out once, just the way the majority ofthe studies are done. Nonetheless, different factors could haveaffected some students to get the results they got. For example, itcan be assumed that some students could have been undergoing achallenging time thus posting lower grades than expected of them. Ithas just been assumed because there is no evidence provided, whichcan confirm this claim. Another assumption is that others could havejust revised the chapters before the test, and thus, get good gradesto qualify as high achiever elementary students. More so, a possibleteacher variable is that maybe some teachers preferred a particularmethod to the rest methods. The teachers could have also spent moretime giving a detailed appropriate explanation to the student. Allthese factors could have contributed to inaccurate results.
Despitethe above criticisms, the study is equally important in that, fromthe conclusions, it is possible to determine that the use of thethree methods did not have an impact on the high achiever elementarystudents, hence the need to come up with another method. With theintroduction of another instructional method, the high achieverelementary students would have more efficient learning method.
Inthe carrying out of pretest, some tests should have been administeredat a given time and the average score obtained. The score wouldpresent the real performance of the student and would ensure that astudent is rightly put in the appropriate group either as a low,average, or high achiever. In the selection of the sample, a largersample size should have been selected. This would ensure that thegeneralized findings from the results produce more accurateconclusions. Equally, age should have been a consideration whenchoosing the sample for more efficient results.
Thefact that the high achievers did not post differences in scores forthe different instructional methods is evident from the outcome ofthe study. This scenario presents a need for the development of a newinstructional technique for the high achiever elementary students.This could be, for instance, the use of instructional techniquespossessing comprehensive feedback. Alternatively, the strategies,exercises, and examples could be combined in software to come up witha more technical instructional technology for use, for the highachievers. It is, however, imperative to note that the consistency ofthe results, despite the instructional technique for high achieverelementary students, could be attributed to a small number of thestudents in the group.