# The Effect of a Computer-Based Instructional Technique for the Learning

Free essays 0 CommentsCOMPUTER BASED INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNIQUE 5

TheEffect of a Computer-Based Instructional Technique for the Learningof Elementary Level Mathematics among High, Average, and LowAchievers

Abstract

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 aimed at identifying the impact of theinstructional methods the aforementioned students. The data involvedpretest and posttest and showed that teacher facilitated mathematicshad a better score as opposed to computer assisted and traditionalinstructional methods in teaching mathematics on the low and averageachievers. There was no notable difference in the instructionalmethods used on the high achiever elementary students.

Researchquestion(s).

Whydoes the change of instructional techniques have no effect on thehigh achiever elementary students? Is there an additional provisionthat may be included in instructional software to have an impact onthe high achiever elementary students?

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 random sample because the selection of the studentswas random.

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. In this study, the sample size can be said to berelatively low compared to the entire group thus resulting in wrongconclusions. Choosing a larger sample would reduce the errors of thestudy hence coming 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. For example, you realize that in somecases, old students tend to have mastered some of the aspects ofmathematics arising from the fact that they have been studying thesame concepts for a long time(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. Different factors could haveaffected some students to get the results they got. For example, somestudents could have been undergoing a challenging time thus postinglower grades than expected of them. Others could have just revisedthe chapters prior to the test and thus getting good grades toqualify as high achiever elementary students. This implies that theconclusions from the pretest and posttest results were not rightbecause the students were put in the wrong classification from thestart.

Despitethe above criticisms, the study is equally important in that, fromthe conclusions it is possible to determine that the use of the threemethods 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, a number of tests should have beenadministered at a given time and the average score obtained. Thescore would present the real performance of the student and wouldensure that a student is rightly put in the appropriate group eitheras a low, average, or high achiever. In the selection of the sample,a larger sample size should have been selected. This would ensurethat the generalized findings from the results produce more accurateconclusions. Equally, age should have been a consideration whenselecting 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 results 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 low number of thestudents in the group.

Reference

Tanveer,M., Gondal, B, and Fatima, N. (2014). The Effect of Computer BasedInstructional Technique for The Learning of Elementary LevelMathematics Among High, Average And Low Achievers. *InternationalJournal of Education and Development using Information andCommunication Technology (IJEDICT)*,10 (4), 47-59.