Greener Journal of Educational Research Vol. 11(1), pp. 33-42,
2021 ISSN: 2276-7789 Copyright ©2021, the
copyright of this article is retained by the author(s) |
|
Enhancing Students’ Conceptual Understanding
in Physics using Brain-Based Learning Instructional Approach
Department of Science Education, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria.
ARTICLE INFO |
ABSTRACT |
Article
No.: 081221078 Type: Research |
The study
examined how brain-based learning (BBL) instructional approach could be used
to enhance SS 2 physics students’ conceptual understanding of the concept of
projectiles. An 18-item physics concept evaluation (PCE) developed by the
researcher was used for data collection from a sample of 97 SS 2 students
offering physics using pretest posttest.
The sample was selected using multi-stage sampling technique. The instrument
was validated by experts. Kuder-Richardson
formula-20 was used to establish the reliability of the instrument which
yielded a reliability index of 0.81. Two research questions and three
hypotheses guided the study. The research questions were answered using mean
and standard deviation while the hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of
significance using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The result indicated
that BBL instructional approach can be used to enhance SS2 physics students’
conceptual understanding of the concept of projectiles; students in rural
school outperformed their counterparts in urban school when exposed to BBL.
The interaction effect of instructional approach and school location was not
significant (P <0.05). Recommendations were made which included among
others that physics teachers should strive to explore the application of BBL
in the classroom instruction. |
Accepted: 13/08/2021 Published:
08/09/2021 |
|
*Corresponding
Author Madeleine Nwankwo E-mail:
mac.nwankwo@ unizik.edu.ng |
|
Keywords:
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
There is a rapid advancement in science and
technology worldwide. In line with this, there is urgent need for corresponding
adjustment in the manner of delivering science especially physics concepts to
the students. The implication is that
the orthodox or traditional teaching methods as presently used are no longer adequate
since they make students only act like receivers of information sent by the
teachers, thus denying them the opportunity to think independently and process
such information using their brain. This is why Aziz (in Shabatat
& AlTarawneh, 2016) stated that teaching
approaches are still concentrating on memorizing.
Most science teachers often struggle to cover the
syllabus as stipulated by the curriculum at the expense of the students’ brain.
Such teachers and the students seem to forget that there is a connection
between the brain and everything that goes on in school. According to Jensen
(2014), any attempt to disconnect the brain with the curriculum contents will
lead to failure, frustration, and disaster in teaching and learning as is witnessed
in science, especially physics education today in Nigeria. The students on many
occasions had too much which the brain cannot cope with. This is why students
can receive several hours of lessons without assimilating much. Most teachers
forget that the human brain is like an individual who requires conducive and
enabling environment to function well. The learning environment
as seen presently in Nigeria are deplorable and hence, the brain reacts
resulting in poor performance on their part. For this reason, educators and
psychologists came up with Brain-based learning instructional approach, a
refinement of teaching process using neurocognitive concept (Shabatat & AITarawneh, 2016).
Brain-based learning (BBL) as defined by Sani, Rochintaniawati & Winarno (2019) is a student-focused and instructor
encouraged methodology that uses students' intellectual gifts and accentuating
important learning. It is an education strategy which brings the learning
system of the brain forward, taking into cognizance how the brain receives,
processes and interprets information.
BBL, being student-centered learning utilizes the whole brain and
recognizes that not all students learn in the same way. It is also an active
process where students are actually engaged in constructing their own knowledge
in a variety of learning situations and contexts (Caine & Caine, 1994,
1997). BBL is therefore anchored on the constructivism theory.
The theory on constructivism hinged on the
understanding that the students should be able to use the previous experience
to construct new information and knowledge; an essential situation for learning
in science education as Aina (2017) explained in his
paper “Developing a constructivist model for effective Physics learning.” The brain
therefore helps the students to actively process the new information as a
result of the storage in the spatial memory system making it possible for the students
to naturally remember the experience without any rehearsal because it connects
with the new information to learn. This
exemplifies the principle that the brain understands and remembers best when
facts and skills are embedded in natural spatial memory. Using BBL
instructional method, learning becomes more expressive because the brain
supports the processes in search of meaning and patterning. BBL is best favoured in a brain based classroom.
BB classrooms are called brain-friendly places
(BFP). Such places as opined by Fogarty (2002) are learning environments where the
brain functions and their role in learning are regarded in terms of teaching
and learning processes. BFPs are emotionally-enriched environment where
learners are immersed into challenging experiences. In BFPs, learners are
unique and former knowledge serves as a baseline for new learning including a
situation where learners are encouraged to acquire skills. Such places are
richly equipped with resources as bulletin boards, aquaria where needed,
various models, computing facilities and simulations. Lesson plans are flexible
and serve learners’ emotional needs; teachers are able to link secondary school
courses with their sub-disciplines as well as other disciplines. For instance,
physics courses are linked with related issues in chemistry, biology,
mathematics, and even related professional courses like engineering, pharmacy
and others. This integration of courses makes them more meaningful and
interesting for learners. In BFPs, teachers can, for instance, integrate
refraction in physics with concept of colour in Art.
Uzezi & Jonah, (2017) further recommends that in Brain-Based Learning,
educators must submerge students in perplexing, intuitive encounters that are
both rich and genuine, stating that the meaningful challenge can stimulate
students’ mind to the desired state of alertness required for meaningful
learning to take place. The teachers should support more physical activities,
recess and classroom movement. The brain need all
these to function at its best. The nature of cognition, the functioning of the
human brain and the construction of knowledge are tied to one another.
Fig 1: the BBL conceptual
framework (Adapted from Aina & Ayodele, 2018)
Figure 1 is the Brain-Based
Learning-conceptual framework as adapted from Aina
& Ayodele, (2018) by the researcher.
The brain-based learning utilizes twelve
principles as listed below according to Caine & Caine (1990). These
are: the brain is a parallel processor,
learning engages the entire physiology, the search for meaning is innate, the
search for meaning occurs through patterning, emotions are critical to
patterning, every brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts and
whole, learning involves both focused
attention and peripheral perception, learning always involves conscious and
unconscious processes, we have two types of memory systems: spatial and rote
learning, the brain understands and remembers best when facts and skills are
embedded in natural spatial memory,
learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat and finally
every brain is unique.
The brain-based learning also valued
interactions during the class teaching as very useful. These could be
teacher-student (vertical) or students-students (horizontal) interactions.
Kaufman and Akers (2014) identified three crucial interactive teaching strategies
used in BBL which are:
1.
Relaxed alertness: This means
challenging learners in a proper way but with a low level of threat (Caine
& Caine, 1995). Learners need to feel secure so that they can take risks.
If the objective is to change the thinking styles of learners through
establishing associations between the old and new knowledge, then learners need
to be secure and require a challenging relaxed alertness.
2.
Orchestrated immersion: in orchestrated
immersion, learners are surrounded with a learning environment that is
interesting, related and enriched with hands-on activities. Orchestrated
immersion and relaxed alertness play a significant role in the ongoing process
of searching for meaning in the brain.
3.
Active processing: Active
processing is the theoretical organization and internalization of the meaningful
information by learners. Here information is linked to prior learning and the
student is allowed to process the information actively (Caine & Caine, 1997;
Sousa, 1995).
As Materna (2000)
states, the brain struggles to form meaningful patterns from experiences as it
processes information. Learners make associations in order to set up permanent
learning prior to grasping the newly encountered information and storing it for
further use. Integration of all these in the classroom is a major factor that
makes BBL a very interesting and effective instructional strategy which is
capable of bringing about in students, deep understanding of the concepts in
physics.
Conceptual understanding in the
view of Johnson (2005) is a person’s ability to see connectedness between concepts
and procedures as well as being able to apply a given principle in a variety of
contexts and explaining why some facts are consequences of others (National
Research Council, 2001). Integration and functional grasp of science especially
physics ideas are very useful components in conceptual understanding. Students with conceptual understanding knows why an idea is
important and the kind of contexts in which it is useful. They have organized
their knowledge into a coherent whole which enables them to transfer what is
learned in one situation to a different area of study. Rote learning has no
place in conceptual understanding. Conceptual understanding involves seeing the
connection between concepts and procedures. This is why when concepts are
understood, facts are no longer isolated, but become organized in coherent
structures based on relationships, generalizations and patterns (Nworgu & Ugwuanyi, 2014).
Another factor worth investigating is how
school location effect students’ conceptual understanding when students are
taught using brain-based learning instructional approach.
School location according to Okorie and Ezeh (2016) is
particular place in relation to other areas in the physical environment (urban
and rural) where the school is sited. Oredein (2016)
posited that though human beings have unlimited capacity to learn, they may
however be limited by the behavior patterns and facilities that the immediate
environment offers. Adebule and Aborisade
(2013) observed that students who live in urban centers especially where there
are tertiary institutions are likely to have inclination for higher education
than those in rural areas.
Urban schools are also favoured
in the distribution of human and material resources. It is not any news that
experienced teachers hardly accept postings to rural schools. Furthermore, in
terms of distribution of material resources, the situation is even worse. In
2009, for instance, the Federal Government of Nigeria equipped 474 schools in
the country with internet facilities (Aginam, 2009 in
Okwor, 2011). Similarly, Anambra state Government and
some philanthropists equipped some schools with Information, Communications and
Technology (ICT) gadgets but not many of the schools especially the ones
located in rural areas benefited from the gesture. It is therefore of great
importance that in addition to providing these tools and amenities, extra
efforts should be put in place to ensure that they are equitably distributed to
both rural and urban schools as well as ensuring that they be functional too.
This has posed a great problem in many states in Nigeria and also in most
developing countries. Mulemwa (2002) posited that the majority of countries in
Africa experience a serious urban-rural divide due to drastic difference in
between the facilities and opportunities available in the urban and rural
areas. This view was supported by Olamiju and Olujimi (2011) who reported that most schools in remote
(rural) areas in Ondo State were not serviced with educational facilities and
that teachers were more concentrated in urban schools due to lack of necessary
facilities in the rural areas. However, rural school offer the advantage of
small class size which promises increased students evaluation, provides greater
flexibility in teaching strategy and allows for better class control.
Effect of BBL on students
The following, according to Ozden and Gultekin (2008), are
the effects of BBL on students:
1.
Learners
grasp the gist of how learning takes place since they are actively involved in
the learning process
2.
Learners
discover that learning depends on their abilities to externalize their
knowledge rather than their scores in examinations
3.
Learners
understand that knowing how to think will support their studies
Evaluation Using BBL Instructional Approach
While using BBL instructional technique, a
reliable evaluation should involve these five components namely: the context,
emotions, physical environment, the process and the organization. In the view
of Jensen (2000), these areas involve mental, physical and emotional processes
as well as past, present and future.
Statement of the Problem
Poor academic performance of students in
physics as a result of lack of conceptual understanding of physics concepts has
become a threat to national development. It has also been observed that such
poor performance of students in physics is grossly linked to the method of
teaching the subject to students among others. The conventional (lecture)
method presently used in teaching physics does not encourage conceptual
understanding of the subject and this eventually results in poor academic
performance of such students in qualifying examinations. To combat
misconceptions in physics and enhance deep understanding of physics concepts,
it is necessary to review the methods of teaching the subject to students. Such
methods that will engage students’ entire physiology and recognize the
uniqueness of each individual learner, making him emerge as holistic learner
will go a long way to develop in students conceptual
understanding of physics concepts. The present study therefore investigates one
such method - the Brain-based learning instructional approach to ascertain its
effect in enhancing students’ conceptual understanding in physics.
Purpose of the Study
This study was done to investigate how BBL instructional
approach could be used to enhance students’ conceptual understanding in physics.
Specifically, the study examined the:
1.
effect of BBL in
enhancing conceptual understanding of physics concepts among SS 1I physics students
in Anambra State.
2.
influence of school
location on SS1 I physics students’ conceptual understanding in physics when
taught using BBL instructional approach in Anambra State.
3.
Interaction
effect of treatment and school location on SS 1I physics students’ conceptual
understanding in physics in Anambra State.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the
study:
1.
What is the effect
of BBL in enhancing conceptual understanding of physics concepts among SS I1
physics students in Anambra State?
2.
What is the influence
of school location on SS I1 physics students’ conceptual understanding when
taught using BBL instructional approach in Anambra State?
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested at 0.05 alpha level:
1.
There is no
significant difference in the conceptual understanding of physics concepts
among SS I1 physics students in Anambra State when exposed to BBL instructional
approach.
2.
There is no
significant difference in the conceptual understanding of SS 11 physics
students in the urban and rural schools when taught physics concepts using BBL instructional
approach in Anambra State.
3.
There is no interaction
effect of treatment and school location on SS 11 physics students’ conceptual
understanding in Anambra State.
METHOD
The design of the study was quasi-experimental. Brain-based learning instructional
approach has been selected as independent variable while conceptual
understanding has been selected as dependent variable. The specific research
design was a non-equivalent, control groups design involving pretest-posttest. The
research subjects were not randomly assigned to the groups since randomization
will disrupt the school activities.
The study design is symbolically represented as:
Group Pre-Test
Treatment Post-Test
BG O1 X O2
------------------------------------------------------------
CG O1 ~X
O2
Fig. 1: Symbolic representation of the research design
where;
BG = Brain-based
learning (Experimental) Group
CG = Conventional
(control) Group
O1
= Pre-test
X = Treatment
using brain -based approach
~X = No experimental
treatment
O2
= Post-test
----- = Two groups not equated by random assignment (Nworgu, 2015)
The population of the study consisted of all SS 11 physics students in
all the 61 secondary schools in Awka Education Zone of
Anambra State, Nigeria. Multi-stage sampling approach was used to constitute
the sample. Purposive sampling technique was firstly used to select two schools
in the zone (one urban and one rural) that are known to have two arms of
physics classes together with qualified, registered, well experienced teachers as
well as having well–equipped and functional physics laboratories. The next
stage was using simple random sampling technique, specifically balloting to constitute
two experimental and two control groups, one from each school. A total of 97
students were used for the study, 62 from urban and 35 from rural schools. For
the experimental group, 34 and 19 students were used from urban and rural
schools respectively totaling 53 students while 28 and 16 were used as control
totaling 44 students. Instruction in the control groups was carried out using
the conventional teacher-centered approach while in the experimental group instruction
was done in accordance with brain-based learning and teaching principles. Data
collection was done using physics concept evaluation (PCE). The PCE consists of
18-item short answer questions designed to ascertain the level of students conceptual understanding of concept of projectiles
in physics. The test items were selected from past questions of WASSCE, NECO
and standard physics text books. The instrument has four options, A - D. Each
item has a score that exposes the learner’s level of conceptual understanding
of the concept under study. Hence 3 = sound understanding (SU); 2 = partial
understanding (PU), 1 = alternative conception and 0 = no conception. Sound
understanding represents the most acceptable scientific conception; partial understanding
shows a situation where learner has abandoned his / her naïve conception but has
not fully grasped the scientific conception, alternative conception represents
a situation where the learner has not actually dropped his naive or alternative
conception while no conception is scored when the respondent did not give any
answer to the question. The test items and their model answers were validated
by experts to ensure that it measures what it is supposed to measure. The
reliability of the instrument was established using Kuder-Richardson
formula-20 and the reliability index was found to be 0.81
The items were developed using well-constructed Table of
specifications presented as follows:
Table of Specifications for PCE
Objectives
% knowledge comprehension application
analysis synthesis evaluation Totals
Contents
Concept of 25 2 2 - -
- - 4
Projectiles
explanation of 25 2 3 - - - -
5
terms used in
projectiles
Analysis of 25 -
2 1 2 - - 5
projectile motion
with constant
acceleration
Application of 25 - 1
3 - -
- 4
projectile motion
in everyday life
and warfare
Totals 100 4 8 4
2 - -
18
(22.2%) (44.4%)
(22.2%) (11.1%) - - (100%)
RESULTS
In the
following Tables, the research questions were answered using mean and standard
deviation while the hypotheses were tested at 0.05 alpha level using analysis
of covariance (ANCOVA)
Research Question 1
What is the effect of BBL in enhancing
conceptual understanding of physics concepts among SS I1 physics students in Anambra State?
Table 1: Effect of BBL in enhancing conceptual understanding of
physics concepts among SS I1 physics students in Anambra State.
Pre-test Posttest
Gain in mean
Group N Mean SD N Mean SD
BBL 53 23.56 10.88 53 47.86 14.87 24.30
Conventional
44 26.09 10.97 44 41.80 11.36 15.71
TOTAL 97
The result in Table 1 reveals that physics students taught using BBL
instructional approach performed better with a pre- and posttest mean conceptual
understanding scores of 23.56 and 47.86 respectively, while their gain in mean scores were 24.30. Their counterparts taught the same concepts in
physics using conventional method had pre- and posttest scores of 26.09 and
41.80 respectively and a gain in mean score of 15.71.
Research
Question 2
What is the influence of school location on SS I1 physics students’
conceptual understanding scores when taught using BBL instructional approach in
Anambra State?
Table 2: Influence of school location on SS I1 physics
students’ conceptual understanding scores when taught using BBL instructional
approach in Anambra State.
School Pre-test Posttest
Gain in mean
Location N Mean SD N Mean SD
Urban 62 26.74 10.53 62 44.19 12.72 17.45
Rural
35 21.11 10.88 35 46.74 15.25 25.63
TOTAL 97
The result in Table 2 reveals that rural students taught using BBL
instructional approach performed better with pre- and posttest mean scores of 21.11
and 46.74 respectively and a mean gain score of 25.63. Their counterparts
exposed to the same physics concepts in urban school and using the same BBL
instructional approach had pre- and posttest mean
scores of 26.74 and 44.19 with a gain in mean score of 17.45.
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested at 0.05 alpha level:
1.
There is no
significant difference in the conceptual understanding of physics concepts
among SS I1 physics students in Anambra State when exposed to BBL instructional
approach.
2.
There is no
significant difference in the conceptual understanding of SS 11 physics students in
the urban and rural schools when taught physics concepts using BBL
instructional approach in Anambra State.
3.
There is no Interaction
effect of treatment and school location on SS 11 physics students’ conceptual
understanding in Anambra State.
Table 3: Summary
of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of students’ scores in post treatment
response by treatment and school location.
Source |
Type III
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean
Square |
F |
Sig. |
Decision |
Corrected
Model |
9767.896a |
4 |
2441.974 |
27.519 |
.000 |
|
Intercept |
8590.360 |
1 |
8590.360 |
96.806 |
.000 |
|
pretest |
8132.366 |
1 |
8132.366 |
91.645 |
.000 |
|
group |
1611.538 |
1 |
1611.538 |
18.161 |
.000 |
S |
location |
845.119 |
1 |
845.119 |
9.524 |
.003 |
S |
group *
location |
177.300 |
1 |
177.300 |
1.998 |
.161 |
NS |
Error |
8163.857 |
92 |
88.738 |
|
|
|
Total |
215348.000 |
97 |
|
|
|
|
Corrected
Total |
17931.753 |
96 |
|
|
|
|
Hypothesis 1:
The test of hypothesis one is also presented
in Table 3. The data presented
in Table 3 showed that there is statistically significant difference in the
conceptual understanding scores of students taught projectile concepts in
physics using BBL instructional approach F(1,92) = 18.161, P(.000) < 0.05. This
calls for the rejection of hypothesis one. There is therefore a statistically
significant difference in the conceptual understanding scores of students
taught projectile concept in physics using BBL instructional approach
Hypothesis 2:
The test of hypothesis two is also presented
in Table 3. The data in Table 3 showed that there is statistically significant
difference in the conceptual understanding scores of urban and rural students
taught projectile concept in physics using BBL instructional approach F(1,92) =
9.534, P(.003) < 0.05. Hypothesis two was therefore rejected. Hence, there
is a statistically significant difference in the conceptual understanding
scores of urban and rural students taught projectile concept in physics using
BBL instructional approach in favour of rural
students.
Hypothesis 3:
The test of hypothesis 3 is still presented in
Table 3. The data in Table 3 showed that there is no statistically significant interaction
between teaching approach and school location on students’ conceptual
understanding scores in physics using BBL instructional approach F(1,92) = 1.996,
P(.161) > 0.05. By this, hypothesis three was therefore not rejected. This
implies that the interaction between teaching approach and school location on
students’ conceptual understanding scores in physics using BBL instructional
approach was not statistically significant.
Findings of the Study
The findings of the study are summarized as follows:
1.
Experimental
group taught the concepts of projectile in physics using BBL instructional
approach had higher posttest conceptual understanding scores and greater gain
in mean scores in conceptual understanding than those of control group taught
the same concepts using conventional method. There is therefore a statistically
significant difference in the conceptual understanding scores of the students
taught using BBL than their counterparts taught using the conventional method.
2.
Students in
rural school exposed to the concepts in projectile motion in physics using BBL instructional
approach performed better than those in urban school taught the same concepts
and using the same method
3.
The study
shows no statistically significant interaction between teaching approach and
school location on physics students’ conceptual understanding scores.
DISCUSSIONS
From the result of the study as seen in Table
one, students taught physics using BBL instructional approach performed better
than their colleagues taught the same concepts using conventional method. The
findings agree well with the observation made by Caulfield, Kidd and Kocher
(2000) who reported that BBL effects the students’
academic, attitudes and motivation positively. The result was further supported
by that of Noureen, Awan and
Fatima (n. d.) who reported that BBL showed better result than conventional
method by improving academic scores and enhancing the working of the brain. Duman (2006) further added that the effectiveness of BBL is
due to provision of positive mood for learning which is quite conducive for
performance.
Also Sani, Rochi and Winarno (2019) supported our result by stating that BBL teaching approach was more
effective in developing students, conceptual understanding than conventional
method.
With
regard to school location, the study result showed that students in rural
school outperformed their counterparts in urban school when taught using BBL
instructional approach. The findings disagree with most studies that urban
students performed better than rural students (Igboegwu
& Okonkwo, 2012; Adebule
& Aborisade, 2013). The difference in result
could be due to the fact that students in rural schools are more relaxed and
are free from unnecessary distractions that exist in urban environments. This
relaxed mood and the simple life style in rural areas according to Alordiah, Akpodia and Oviogbodu (2015) to a great extent favours
the application of BBL instructional strategy. The result of this study also disagreed
with the findings of Obioma (1985) and Kissau (2006). Obioma (1985) observed that
students in urban areas perfumed better in achievement test than those in rural
area while Kissau (2006) reported that students all
performed well in achievement test irrespective of school location. Josaiah (2012) used computer assisted instructional (CAI)
method to teach physics students and observed no significant difference in
physics achievement between the urban and rural students exposed to learning
physics using CAI.
The findings also revealed that there was no interaction
effect between BBL instructional strategy and school location on students’
conceptual understanding of concept of projectiles in physics. This was further
affirmed by the ANCOVA result on Table 3 which shows that the interaction
effect between teaching method-BBL and school location was not significant. This implies that school location did not combine with
instructional strategy to affect the student’ conceptual understanding in
physics. hence, one may begin to appreciate the
fact that the simple main effects of the BBL instructional strategy do not
change as a function of variations in school location and vice versa. The
finding however disagreed with that of Agboghoroma
(2009) who discovered significant interaction between guided discovery instructional
method and school location on integrated science students’ knowledge in
Nigeria.
Amadi (2018) also found a significant interaction effect of teaching method
and location on achievement in reading.
CONCLUSION
The outcome of the study shows that BBL
instructional strategy is capable of enhancing physics students’ conceptual
understanding of concepts of projectiles since the students exposed to the
concept of projectiles using BBL instructional strategy performed significantly
better than those of conventional approach.
Secondly, it was observed that students in
rural school benefited more from the approach when compared with their
counterparts in urban school. Finally, no interaction effect was observed
between the approach and school location on students’ conceptual understanding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of the study, the
following recommendations were proffered:
1.
The school
authorities and significant stakeholders in education should jointly encourage
and promote the use of BBL instructional strategy in secondary schools in
Nigeria.
2.
Teacher
training institutions should incorporate BBL as a technique in physics method
course content in order to ensure that physics teachers are adequately and
professionally trained on the use of the strategy. Regular in-service courses
should be organized for those already in the field by ministry of education.
3.
Textbook
authors should strive to produce adequate textbooks on BBL instructional
strategy.
4.
Physics teachers should strive to explore the
application of BBL in the classroom instruction as the task is enormous
REFERENCES
Adebulu,
S. O. & Aborisade, O. J. (2013). Influence
of study interest and school location on the attitude of secondary school
students towards mathematics in Ekiti State, Nigeria.
Greener Journal of Educational Research,
3 (6), 229-232.
Agboghoroma, T. E. (2009). Interaction
effects of instructional mode and school setting on students’ knowledge of
integrated science. International
journal of scientific research in education (IJSRE), 2 (2), 67-75.
Aina, J. K. (2017). Developing a constructivist model
for effective physics learning. International
Journal of Trend in Scientific Research
and Development, 1(4), 59-67.
Aina, J. K. & Ayodele,
M. O. (2018). The Application of
Brain-Based Learning Paradigm in Science Education, Nigeria: A Review. Journal of Scientific and Engineering
Research, 5(7), 325-331.
Alordiah, C. O., Akpadaka,
G. & Oviogbodu, C. O. (2015). The influence of gender, school location and socio-economic
status on students’ academic achievement in mathematics. Journal of Education and Practice, 6
(17), 130-136.
Amadi, E. A., Nnamani, A.
P. & Ukoha, E.O. (2018). School location as a predictor of achievement in
reading among Nigerian learners of English as a second language. Covenant journal of language studies (CJLS),
6 (2), 65-73.
Caine, R. N. & Caine, G. (1990). Understanding a brain-based approach to learning
and teaching. Educational
Leadership, 66-70.
Caine, G. & Caine, R. N. (1994). Making
connections: teaching and the human brain. Menlo park, CA:
Addison-Wesley.
Caine, R. N. & Caine, G. (1997). Education on
the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: ascd.
Caulfield, J., Kidd, S. & Kocher, T.
(2000). Brain-based instruction in
action. Educational
leadership, 58 (3), 62-65.
Duman, B. (2006). The effect of brain-based instruction to improve on
students’ academic achievement in social studies instruction. 9th international
conference on engineering education, July 23-28.
Jensen, E. (2014). Jensen learning guide to brain-based teaching. Retrieved July 14, 2018, from http://www.jensenlearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/10MostEffectiveTips.pdf.
Johnson, S.K. (2005). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics:
an introductory analysis. Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of
mathematics (p. 1-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from
Http://Wik.Ed.Uiuc.Ed/Index.Php/Conceptual
Knowledge.
Josaiah, M. M. (2012). School location versus academic
achievement in physic. Does computer assisted instruction has any
effect? Journal of education and social
research,6 (8), 162-168
Kaufman, E.K., & Akers, C. (2014). Engaging students with brain-based learning.
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253117676
Kissau, S. (2006). Gender difference in motivation to learn French.
Canadian modern
language review, 62 (3), 65-96. In Africa, 22-29
Mulenwa, J. (2002). The challenges of providing quality school science in Africa.
Proceedings of 43rd annual
conference of the science teachers association of Nigeria (STAN) on
science, technology and mathematics education for sustainable development
National Research Council. (2001). A framework for k-12 science education:
practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: national
academies press.
Noureen, G., Awan, R. N. & Fatima, H. (n. d). Effect of Brain-based Learning on academic
achievement of V11 Graders in mathematics. Journal of elementary education, 27 (2),
85-97.
Nworgu, B. G. (2015). Educational
research: basic issues and methodology. Ibadan, wisdom publishers limited.
Nworgu, B. G. & Ugwuanyi,
C. S. (2014). Assessment of senior
secondary school physics students’ conceptual understanding of force and
motion. Journal of
science teachers association of Nigeria, 49 (1), 170 - 186.
Obioma, G. O. (1985). THE development and validation of a diagnostic
mathematics achievement test for Nigerian secondary school students. Journal of mathematics
association of Nigeria, 19 (1), 41-46.
Okorie, E. U. & Ezeh,
D. N. (2016). Influence
of gender and location on student’ achievement in chemistry bonding. Mediterranean journal of
social sciences, 7 (3), 309-318.
Okwor, A. N. (2011). Nigeria’s digital divide-cog in the
wheel of vision 20-2020. Journal of the science teachers association of Nigeria (JSTAN), 46
(1), 149-164.
Olamiju, I. O. & Olujimi,
J.
(2011). Regional analysis of locations of public educational facilities
in Nigeria: the Akure region experience. Journal of geography and
regional planning, 4 (7), 428-442.
Oredein, O. (2016). Effects of school variables on students’ academic
performance in Calabar municipal area of cross river
state. Retrieved 06/02/2021.
Ozden, M & Gultekin,
M. (2008). The
effects of brain-based learning on academic achievement of and retention of
knowledge in science courses. Electronic journal of science education, 12 (1), 1-15.
Sani, A.; Rochintaniawati,
D. & Winarno, N. (2019). Using
Brain-Based Learning to Promote Students’ Concept Mastery in Learning Electric
Circuit. Journal of Science
Learning, 2(2), 42-49.
Shabatat, K., & Al-Tarawneh,
M. (2016). The Impact of a Teaching
Learning Program based on a Brain-Based Learning on the Achievement of the
Female Students of 9th Grade in Chemistry. Higher Education Studies, 6(2), 162.
Sousa, D. (1995). How the brain learns. A classroom
teacher’s guide. Reston, VA: National association of secondary school
principals.
Uzezi, J. G.
& Jonah, K. J. (2017). Effectiveness of
Brain-based Learning Strategy on Students’ Academic Achievement, Attitude,
Motivation and Knowledge Retention in Electrochemistry. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 21(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.9734/JESBS/2017/34266.
Cite this Article: Nwankwo,
MC (2021). Enhancing Students’ Conceptual Understanding in Physics using
Brain-Based Learning Instructional Approach. Greener Journal of Educational Research, 11(1): 33-42. |