1

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 1-17, March 2021
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.3.1

Effective Social Studies Pedagogy:

Effect of Simulation Games and Brainstorming
Strategies on Students’ Learning Outcome

Sunday Obro, Clifford Edore Ogheneakoke and Williams P. Akpochafo

Delta State University, Nigeria
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7675-9166
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8545-6274
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8632-3323

Abstract. This study explored the effects of game simulation and

brainstorming pedagogy strategies on students’ learning outcomes. In
addition, the study compared the effects of three strategies on students’
learning outcomes. This study tested pedagogical strategies for effects
on learning outcomes. The quasi-experimental research involved 180
students. The results reliably indicate that a simulation-game
pedagogical strategy boosted students’ learning outcomes, while a
brainstorming pedagogical strategy was effective on students’ learning
outcomes. When equated with brainstorming and the lecture strategies
in enhancing students’ learning outcomes, the superiority of the
simulation-game pedagogical strategy was also observed. These
findings indicate that innovative and student-centred pedagogical
strategies such as simulation-game and brainstorming strategies
improve students’ learning outcomes. In-service teachers should be
appropriately trained through seminars and conferences on modern
pedagogical strategies such as brainstorming and simulation games for
better Social Studies pedagogical strategies.

Keywords: brainstorming; pedagogy; Social Studies; simulation game;

students’ learning outcomes

1. Introduction
In the face of challenging experiences of the present time, one needs to advance
and create diverse and innovative solutions for what seems like a problematic
life task. In Nigeria, Social Studies is a mandatory discipline at the Basic
Education level. Irrespective of the ethnic, racial and cultural differences, Social
Studies is seen as a tool for building and creating a robust Nigerian nation. With
recent modifications or changes in the Upper Basic Social Studies curriculum,
what still dominates Social Studies classrooms is the lecture strategy with no
quality or lasting learning outcomes (Essien et al., 2015). Teachers generally rely

©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
 2

on the lecture strategy for imparting Social Studies knowledge and skills. This
lack of an inventive, creative teaching strategy and critical progression in Social
Studies lessons and classrooms can be linked to teachers’ disinclination to learn
and use novel and creative teaching strategies. Also, the dictate of high-stakes
experimentation and execution involves students’ churning out factoids to grasp
the content. Thus, there is a lack of real motivation for teachers or students to
learn more than a particular fact. Any challenging of the subject matter is
regarded as unnecessary and unimportant. According to Wood (2011), the
typical Social Studies classroom inhibits critical and creative thinking and
strengthens the idea that facts and information are unchangeable and not free for
criticism or interpretation. Students stuck in this type of Social Studies classroom
or environment quickly discover that they are bored and helpless, having been
taught from the standpoint that Social Studies is an assemblage of useless
inconsequential knowledge.

Simulation games challenge students’ understanding to comprehend difficult

tasks by means other than the traditional lecture strategy. In other words, they
have the potential for helping students achieve more than the conventional
teaching method (Nja et al., 2019). On the other hand, a brainstorming strategy
enhances the productivity of ideas and explores solutions. It helps learners to
discover better solutions or answers to problems (Malkawi & Smadi, 2018).

In the expository strategy, learners are passive and collect information that can
be reclaimed when the teacher requires it from them (Tarman & Kuran, 2015).
However, evidence has shown that knowledge gained through an active
discussion strategy is generally retained better than knowledge gained through
a lecture strategy. Furthermore, according to Jack and Kyado (2017), students
more often favour active participation in discussion than being inactive or
passive in a lecture. Through meaningful or fruitful learning, Social Studies
learning need no longer be a matter of memorisation facts and principles that
cannot be applied to novel problem-solving situations (Shear, 2016). Students are
given the means and the opportunity to participate actively in the teaching and
learning situation in activity-based learning, unlike in the conventional
pedagogical strategy.

Study outcomes of other research have shown that brainstorming and

simulation-game pedagogical strategies aided students' learning outcomes.
Customarily, students' inculcation of knowledge using a lecture strategy is
inefficient to grasp curriculum contents. There are various Social Studies
pedagogical strategies. Some of these strategies are thought to be more valuable
and successful than others. The question is which strategy is more productive
and beneficial for Social Studies teaching, specifically at the Upper Basic level.
Hence, this study compares and establishes the effect of the selected strategies
(simulation games and brainstorming strategies) on Social Studies students’
learning outcome. This study is intended to find the answers to the following
propositions: a simulation-games pedagogical strategy will not enhance
students’ learning outcomes; students instructed by means of a brainstorming
pedagogical strategy may not increase their learning outcomes; and differences

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 3

will not be found among brainstorming, simulation-games, and lecture

pedagogical strategies on Social Studies students’ learning outcomes.

The hypotheses listed below were formulated and tested:

i) Students’ involvement in simulation-game strategies will not improve their
learning outcomes.
ii) Students’ involvement in brainstorming strategies will not improve their
learning outcomes.
iii)There is no statistically significant difference among brainstorming,
simulation-games and lecture pedagogical strategies regarding students’
learning outcomes.

1.1 Practical gaps

The study could provide teachers with the desired information to design and
adopt the right teaching strategies to suit varied learners and enhance students’
learning outcomes in Social Studies. Similarly, the study could provide
researchers in Social Studies areas with future research in instructional
strategies. It could also help authors and publishers in their presentation of
content to readers. Finally, the results obtained may lead to further research in
other subject areas.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Simulation-Game Pedagogical Strategy
As indicated by Mozelius et al. (2017), a simulation game denotes a board game,
or those various teacher-made games for teaching and learning purposes. The
focus of these pedagogical games is usually on the socioeconomic, religious,
political and aspects of society. A variety of games is accessible which cover
substantial areas of the Social Studies programme. The varieties include, among
others, chess, tug of war, Diplomacy, Monopoly, Risk, Die Macher, Scrabble, and
Hacienda, among others (Nja et al., 2019). Ochoyi (2018) opined that simulation-
assisted learning merges distinctive characteristics that make it appropriate to
situations where the emphasis is on interactive or cooperative learning. It
produces excitement, enhances learning and almost mirrors the real-life world.
They refer to simulation games as contrived or artificial activities which match
some facet of reality. A simulation game is a representation of a real social or
physical situation reduced to manageable sizes to serve a particular function or
purpose. It is any environment or game among challengers functioning under
rules towards achieving a goal such as winning, or a victory. It has two
features, namely overt rivalry or competition, and rules.

Simulation games give students the understanding to comprehend difficult

tasks. In other words, they have the potential for helping students achieve more
than they would by means of the conventional teaching method (Nja et al.,
2019). On the other hand, a brainstorming strategy enhances the productivity of
ideas and explores solutions. It helps learners to discover better solutions or
answers to problems (Malkawi & Smadi, 2018).

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 4

According to Ezeudu and Ezinwanne (2013), a simulation game is often referred

to as an activity that is based, partially or wholly, on the judgment and
decisions of the players. It is an excellent enhancement to the standard
traditional lecture. It is a didactic tool whereby students learn through the
application of decision-making and theories to a simulated real-life scenario
(Folta, 2010). Antunes et al. (2012) contend that simulation games are applied in
the teaching-learning process because they provide fascinating challenges to
learners and add interest, activity and novelty to the lesson. According to
Mozelius et al. (2017), it increases their enthusiasm and leads to learning
outcomes.

However, despite the several positive educational benefits or advantages, it still

has some shortcomings. Guy and Lownes-Jackson (2015) pointed out that
teachers using the simulation game strategy must be aware that it takes much
time, and students are likely to be very noisy, unmanageable and might at times
be uncontrollable. Students should therefore be organised and educated on how
to behave during simulation activities. Simulation games demand adequate
preparation and coordination from both the teacher and the institution.

2.2 Brainstorming as a Pedagogical Strategy

Hashempour et al. (2015) described the brainstorming pedagogical strategy as
a group or individual creative strategy by which members attempt to solve a
particular problem or issue by collecting a list of instinctive ideas contributed by
its member(s). Ashammari (2015) asserted that it is called brainstorming because
it involves a situation where individuals generate as many fresh ideas as
possible around a particular concern or problem using guidelines which
eliminate shyness and produce creative thinking and novel solutions and ideas.
In that way they, they come up with several new ideas and answers. The
participants or contributors shout out ideas as they come to mind and
subsequently build on the ideas suggested by others. All views or opinions are
recorded but not criticised or evaluated. It is only when the brainstorming
session is over that students’ ideas are evaluated. Rowan (2014) defined
brainstorming as a creative individual or a groupactivity in which efforts are
made to ascertain a definite solution or conclusion for a particular problem by
gathering facts in the form of a list of opinions and ideas instinctively
contributed by the members. When used as a Social Studies strategy for
teaching, particularly in introducing and laying out new facts and ideas, a
brainstorming pedagogical strategy is simple, less complicated, and very useful.

Jack and Kyado (2017) opined that a brainstorming strategy is an instructional

strategy that emphasises students’ participation, dialogue, input and two-way
interaction. The fundamental purpose of a brainstorming pedagogical strategy is
to build and boost communication andinteraction skills, enhance thinking and
decision-making or judgement skills, and simultaneously foster different
opinions. It is effective for the reason that it stimulates the students’ background
knowledge and raises their interest. The teacher can ascertain whether the
students have sufficient background experience and knowledge to go ahead

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 5

with the study during the learning process (Rashtchi & Beiki, 2015).
Brainstorming can be utilised in all relevant facets of learning.

However, in spite of all the usefulness and qualities of a brainstorming strategy,

weaknesses or inadequacies abound: the brainstorming strategy has its
shortcomings. The major shortcoming is that brainstorming groups’
contributions and productivity may be inhibited by fear of critical evaluation.
Students may desire to follow the prevalent practice and pattern of idea
generation. For Owo et al. (2016), brainstorming is generally not appropriate at
the primary school level because of the level of reasoning required to work out
and achieve known objectives. Simultaneously, the teacher must be equipped to
guide and be of assistance as necessary, bearing in mind the class environment
as such considerations often determine the outcomes. As mentioned earlier,
these barriers can lower levels of enthusiasm and effort when individuals work
cooperatively in the classroom. When these barriers are present, the individual
gives up on the group, and interaction and cooperation are reduced. Moreover,
the kind and amount of time dedicated to assigned tasks may also affect
individuals’ decisions to leave the group (Owo et al., (2016).

2.3 Studies Related to Simulation Games and Students’ Learning Outcome

Balasubramanian and Brent (2010) explored the challenges and opportunities
offered by simulation and games to improve learning with students’ ethnicity
and gender as factors. They found that students from all groups exhibited
significant learning outcomes through the employment of simulation and
games. However, Hsu et al. (2011) found no effect of games on students’
learning outcomes. Ezeudu and Ezinwanne (2013) examined the effects of
simulation games on chemistry students’ learning outcomes. They deduced that
simulation games brought about improved performance in mathematics. Ahmad
et al. (2013) examined the computer games’ effects on students’ interest and
achievement in geometry. The study found that students taught using games did
better than those instructed by means of the traditional strategy. The study of
Beuk (2015) looked into the effect of sales’ simulation games on students’
learning. The research established that the academic learning of those students
who were exposed to simulation games improved.. This result means that
students subjected to games teaching methods did better than students in the
control condition. Carenys and Moya (2016) explored students’ learning
outcomes in digital game-based business and accounting education. The study
found that digital game-based pedagogical strategies significantly improved
students’ learning in business and accounting education.

2.4 Studies Related to Brainstorming Strategy and Students’ Learning

Outcome
Owo et al. (2016) examined whether the brainstorming method would improve
students’ knowledge in chemistry. The study established that the brainstorming
method did not improve their performance. In addition, Hashempour et al.
(2015) examined the usefulness of a brainstorming strategy on students’
learning. The study found that a brainstorming strategy failed to enhance
students’ learning outcomes. Also, students did not differ due to gender. Owo

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 6

et al. (2016) explored the brainstorming strategy efficacy on students’ previous

knowledge and learning outcomes in chemistry. Their finding proved that the
brainstorming strategy did not boost students’ learning outcomes. However,
Jack and Kyado (2017) concluded that a brainstorming pedagogical strategy
resulted in students’ better learning outcomes in electro-chemistry. In addition,
Malkawi and Smadi (2018) examined the effect of the brainstorming method on
students’ learning outcomes in English grammar in Jordan. The study concluded
that the brainstorming pedagogy method improved students’ learning
outcomes.

3. Theoretical Background/Framework
The present study is grounded on Albert Bandura’s (1999) social cognitive
learning. The theory accentuates the importance of observation and modelling in
the actions, attitude, and emotional reactions or responses of others. Therefore, it
centres on learning by modelling and observation. Social cognitive learning
theory explains how both cognitive and environmental factors interact to affect
human learning and conduct. Its emphasis is on learning within a social setting
or framework. As indicated by Bandura (1999), people learn from each other’s
ideas through observational learning, imitation, and modelling. This theory is
pertinent to this study because its propositions are traditionally considered
necessary ingredients required for activity-based teaching.

The theory provided the theoretical foundation for organising simulation-game

environments and developing brainstorming, which can be utilised as practical
teaching strategies. The theory has shown why teachers must promote the most
creative and helpful strategies by moving away from ineffective practices and
moving towards more supportive learning strategies for all students. The theory
is robustly associated with this study because students will boost their learning
outcomes as they actively build their knowledge through imitation, modelling,
observation, and interactions with different simulation games and
brainstorming exercises that Social Studies teachers provide. Furthermore, the
social cognitive theory is vital to this study because it is used to examine this
study's cause and effect. It is additionally suitable and relevant to highlight and
relate it to pedagogical strategies (simulation games and brainstorming) on
learning outcomes.

Simulation
Games
Social Studies
Learning Outcome
Brainstorming
Test (SSLOT)

Control
Condition

Figure 1: The conceptual framework

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 7

4. Methodology
4.1 Study Design
The research design was quasi-experimental. The design encompassed three
groups, namely two experimental groups (EGs) and one control group (CG). The
pedagogical strategies include simulation games (SGs) and brainstorming as
treatment or intervention, and the traditional lecture strategy was utilised for the
control group. The study design signifies the following:

Table 1: Research blueprint

Groups Pretest Treatment Posttest
Experimental Group 1 O1 X O2
Experimental Group 1 O3 X O4
Control Group O5 O6

The codes are explained as follows:

O1 = Pretest measurement for Experimental Group I
X1 = Treatment for Experimental Group I (Simulation games)
O2 = Posttest extent for Experimental Group I
O3 = Pretest extent for Experimental Group II
X2 = Treatment for Experimental Group II (Brainstorming)
O4 = Posttest measurement for Experimental Group II
O5 = Pretest measurement for Control Group
O6 = Posttest measurement for Control Group (Rogers & Révész, 2020).

As detailed previously, an intervention was introduced to the two experimental

groups, while there was no such intervention or no difference in treatment with
the control group. Accordingly, changes observed in the posttest learning
outcomes were ascribed to the intervention or treatment effect.

4.2 Participants
Participants are all Upper Basic Education 2 students of the public schools in
Delta and Edo States, Nigeria. The study sample consisted of 180 Basic 2 (Upper)
students who constitute 0.22% of the total population as the study was an
experimental study. The multistage sampling method at four levels through the
balloting method was utilised to select the study sample. The first level of
sampling was the senatorial districts which were used as the sampling units. For
the second level of sampling, a local government area was randomly selected. In
the third level of sampling, a school was chosen from the local government areas
by means of a balloting method. The judgemental approach was employed in
selecting all the students from the six (6) schools. Furthermore, a class of Upper
Basic level eight was sampled as the fourth sampling level from each school.

All the students in that class from the six (6) government secondary schools were
the experimental study subjects. In selecting the schools for the study, only
mixed schools were considered as appropriate for the research as gender was a
variable that was investigated. The ballot method was used to assign these
schools to either the experimental or control groups. The schools selected were
sufficiently far off from each other, and no school had double treatment to
prevent interference. Specifically, the topics were not taught at any school before

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 8

the start of the experiment. The classes used in the research were carefully
chosen using a die.

4.3 Instrument
The instrument employed for the study was a test instrument titled “Social
Studies Learning Outcome Test” (SSLOT) (see Appendix 1). The SSLOT
contained fifty (50) items (multiple choice) which were Social Studies topics
taught in Upper Basic level 2 during the period of experimentation. The test
items were spread to cover the following topics: Drugs abuse, Harmful
substances and Drug trafficking. In constructing the test, a specification table
was worked out. It was a two-dimensional table showing the test objectives and
the content to be tested. In drawing up the SSLOT, the researcher took
cognisance of the taxonomy of objectives in the cognitive domain using three
cognitive reasoning skills: Remembering, Understanding and Thinking (RUT).
The items were shared around the three levels of Remembering (25%),
Understanding (50) and Thinking (25), all totalling 100%.

Table 2: Test blueprint for Social Studies learning outcomes (SSLOT)

REMEMBERING 25%

UNDERSTANDING

THINKING 25 %

SYLLABUS SECTIONS
50%

% TOTAL
Drug abuse 28% 3 6 3 12
Drug trafficking 32% 4 9 4 17
Harmful substances 40% 6 10 5 21
Total 100% 13 25 12 50

Instrument reliability was confirmed by using 30 students in a test-retest

process. Using the Pearson coefficient (r), a value of 0.74 was obtained. Thus, the
instrument was deemed reliable and therefore suitable for the study.

4.4 Research Procedure

The experiment took six (6) weeks. Students were assigned after selection to
intervention groups and control conditions. The SSLOT was administered as a
pretest. This was followed by the intervention (experimentation) through the
subject matter or content instruction as presented in the curriculum using the
selected instructional conditionstrategies. Two teachers were employed to
conduct the experiment or treatment (that is, two treatment administrators).

The students selected for the experiment (experimental group) were taught
Social Studies content three days per week with each lesson lasting 40 minutes
per period, making a total of 120 minutes a week. Students were pretested with
the SSLOT to establish their learning outcomes level prior to experimentation.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 9

After six weeks of experimentation or treatment, a posttest was administered to

determine students' learning outcome levels.

The control groups were instructed using only the lecture strategy and both a
pretest and posttest were administered. The teaching and test administration
were done simultaneously in the six schools.

5. Results
RQ 1
Will a simulation-game pedagogical strategy lead to enhanced students’ learning
outcomes?

Table 3: Students’ pretest and posttest learning outcome scores of simulation-game

pedagogical strategy
Pretest Posttest Learning
Strategy/ Standard Standard outcome
Treatment No Mean Deviation No Mean Deviation Gain
Simulation game 58 53.34 12.50 58 70.78 11.85 17.44

Table 3 shows that students taught using a simulation-game pedagogical

strategy had a mean score of 53.34 in the pretest and a mean score of 70.78 in the
posttest, making a pretest-posttest learning outcome gain to be 17.44. The result
proved that students instructed using a simulation-game pedagogical strategy
had a better learning outcome in the posttest than in the pretest.

Ho1
Students’ involvement in simulation-game strategies will not improve their
learning outcomes.

Table 4: Results of ANCOVA of learning outcome test according to simulation game

strategy
Sum of Mean
Source Square DF Squares F value Sig. of F
Corrected/Adjusted
5476.124 1 5476.124 35.254 .000
Model
Intercept 682325.124 1 682325.124 4320.159 .000
Simulation 5476.124 1 5476.124 35.254 .000
Error 28558.197 178 158.893
Total 755678.001 180
Corrected/Adjusted
33834.121 179
Total

Table 4 shows that students involved in a simulation-game pedagogical strategy

had improved learning outcomes. Data in the table revealed that simulation
games' effect on students' learning outcomes was significant (F (1,178) = 35.254,
p = 0.000). Consequently, the hypothesis that students’ involvement in
simulation-game strategies will not improve their learning outcomes was
rejected.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 10

RQ 2
Will students instructed by means of a brainstorming pedagogical strategy
improve their learning outcomes?

Table 5: Students’ retest and posttest learning outcome scores of brainstorming

strategy
Pretest Posttest Learning
Strategy/ Standard Standard outcome
Treatment No Mean Deviation No Mean Deviation Gain
Brainstorming 64 50.77 12.28 64 64.46 13.14 13.69

Table 5 shows that students instructed using brainstorming had a mean score of
50.77 and a standard deviation of 12.28 in the pretest and a mean score of 64.46
and standard deviation of 13.14 in the posttest, making a pretest-posttest
learning outcome gain to be 13.69. The result showed that students instructed
using a brainstorming pedagogical strategy had better learning outcomes in the
posttest than in the pretest.

Ho2
Students’ involvement in brainstorming conditions will not improve their
learning outcomes.

Table 6: Results of ANCOVA of learning outcomes test according to brainstorming

strategy
Sum of Mean Sig. of
Source Square DF Squares F value F
Corrected/Adjusted
115.824 1 115.824 .610 .043
Model
Intercept 630084.358 1 630084.358 3316.401 .000
Brainstorming 115.824 1 115.824 .610 .043
Error 33818.287 178 189.990
Total 754668.000 180
Corrected/Adjusted
33935.112 179
Total

As shown in Table 6, students involved in the brainstorming conditions

improved their learning outcomes. This is confirmed by the value (F (1,178)
=.610, p=0.043). This demonstrates that the brainstorming strategy boosted
students’ learning outcomes. The implication is that the effect on students’
learning outcomes due to treatment or teaching strategy was significant. Thus,
the hypothesis was rejected.

RQ 3
Will there be a difference amongst brainstorming, simulation games, and lecture
strategies on students' learning outcomes in Social Studies?

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 11

Table 7: Pretest/Posttest of students’ learning outcomes by strategies

Strategies Pretest Posttest Learning
Standard Standard outcome
No Mean Deviation No Mean Deviation Gain
Simulation game 58 53.34 12.50 58 70.78 11.85 17.44
Brainstorming 64 50.77 12.28 64 64.46 13.14 13.69
Lecture strategy
(control) 58 45.60 12.09 58 55.37 10.91 9.77
Total 180 49.90 12.29 180 63.54 11.97 13.63

Table 7 shows that at pretest, students' mean score when exposed to simulation
games was 53.34, which was better than the pre-test total mean of 49.90.
Brainstorming had a mean score of 50.77, which was also better than the pretest
total mean (49.90), while the lecture method pretest mean score was 45.60 which
was lower than the total mean of 49.90. However, at the posttest, the simulation
games had a mean score of 70.78, which was better than the total mean of 63.54
and a learning outcome gain of 17.44 which was better than the grand mean gain
of 13.63. The brainstorming strategy mean score at the post-test was 64.46, which
was also better than the total mean of 63.54 while the learning outcome gain of
13.69 was slightly better than the learning outcome gain of 13.63.
Simultaneously, the control groups had an overall mean score of 55.37 that was
less than the total mean of 63.54 and a learning outcome gain of 9.77, which was
lower than the total learning outcome gain. Thus, the table's results indicate that
students exposed to brainstorming and simulation strategies attained a better
score than the control group. In effect, simulation games proved to be superior
to both brainstorming and lecture strategies in enhancing students' learning
outcomes. On the other hand, the brainstorming strategy proved to be better
than the lecture strategy in improving students' learning outcomes.

Ho3
There is no statistically significant difference among simulation game,
brainstorming and lecture strategies on students’ learning outcomes.

Table 8: ANCOVA summary of the posttest according to strategies

Sum of Mean
Source Square DF Squares F value Sig. of F
Corrected/Adjusted model 8509.920 2 4254.960 59.245 .000
Intercept 717131.541 1 717131.541 4992.579 .000
Strategies 8509.920 2 4254.960 59.245 .000
Error 25424.191 177 143.639
Total 754669.010 180
Corrected/Adjusted Total 33935.112 179

Table 8 displays a statistically significant difference among simulation-game,

brainstorming and lecture (control) pedagogical methods on learning outcomes
of students’ (F (1, 177) = 59.245, p= .000). This implies that the hypothesis stating
there is no significant statistical difference among simulation-game,
brainstorming and lecture pedagogical methods on students’ learning outcomes

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 12

was rejected. To prove the difference among the groups, Scheffe’s posthoc was
used. The outcome is presented in Table 9.

Table 9: Scheffe’s posthoc analysis by strategies

Subset
STRATEGIES No 1 2 3
Control 59 54.2667
Brainstorming 64 64.4561
Simulation 57 70.7937
Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Table 9 indicates that significant differences existed between the posttest mean
scores among the different groups. According to the results of Scheffe’s posthoc
analysis, there is a significant difference among the groups of simulation (70.79),
brainstorming (64.45) and control (54.27). From the result, the simulation
pedagogical strategy was superior to both the brainstorming pedagogical
strategy and the lecture pedagogical strategy as it obtained the highest mean
score. However, brainstorming also proved to increase learning outcomes more
significantly than the lecture strategy did.

The posthoc scores proved that the experimental groups differ significantly from
the control or lecture group. These pairs contributed to the observed significant
differences among the three strategies on students’ learning outcomes. Thus, the
hypothesis which stated there is no significant statistical difference among the
three pedagogical strategies or methods on students’ learning outcomes was
rejected.

6. Discussion
Simulation games and brainstorming pedagogical strategies have been proved
to increase and boost learning outcomes more significantly than the lecture
strategy. Students instructed using a simulation-game pedagogical strategy
improved more than students tutored by means of the lecture strategy.
Similarly, students taught with a brainstorming pedagogical strategy had
significantly better learning outcomes than those instructed using the lecture
pedagogical strategy. The result supports the views of Balasubramanian and
Brent (2010), Ezeudu and Ezinwanne (2013), Ahmad et al. (2013), Beuk (2015),
Rashtchi and Beiki (2015), Owo et al. (2016) and Dankbaar et al. (2016), who had
earlier testified that students instructed using a simulation-game pedagogical
strategy demonstrated better learning outcomes than those students instructed
by means of the lecture strategy. However, this finding is in contrast with that
of Hsu et al. (2011) who proved that simulation games did not improve students'
learning outcomes. Furthrmore, this study’s results also confirmed the findings
of Mehr et al. (2016) and Jack and Kyado (2017), namely that the use of a
brainstorming pedagogical strategy enhanced students’ learning outcomes more
than the lecture strategy did. However, this finding disagreed with those of
Hashempour et al. (2015) and Owo et al. (2016).

A simulation game pedagogical strategy is significantly superior to

brainstorming in enhancing students’ learning outcomes. This superiority of a

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 13

simulation-game pedagogical strategy in improving students’ learning outcomes

is consistent with the views of Kikot et al. (2013), Ranchhod et al. (2014), Lu et al.
(2014), and Carenys and Moya (2016). They reported that a simulation-game
pedagogical strategy motivates and enhances students’ learning outcomes.

The limitations of students’ learning outcomes are that they may be given
greater importance than they deserve. They may be treated as sacrosanct,
whereas learning outcomes are merely the end product of a value judgement on
the teachers’ part. It may lead to turning out students who are undoubtedly
well-trained in particular areas but are inadequate in a broad range of skills,
desirable attitudes and abilities associated with a comprehensive education.

7. Study Limitations
The study was conducted using Social Studies teachers; however, their
personalities, experience and attitudes were not considered, which may have
affected the study results. The content used was also limited to what is in the
school syllabus. It is believed that the application of more units of instruction
might make for a better generalisation of the study results.

8. Conclusions
The aims of the study were established. This study proved the effectiveness of
simulation games and brainstorming pedagogical strategies as well as the
superiority of simulation game strategy to brainstorming and the lecture
strategies in enhancing students’ learning outcomes. It was concluded in the
study that if Social Studies teachers embrace simulation games, students will
achieve better Social Studies learning outcomes. Thus, rather than limiting
students at the upper basic education level to conventional pedagogical strategy,
introducing modern pedagogical strategies for teaching such as simulation-
game and pedagogical brainstorming strategies will help students improve their
learning outcomes.

The study could provide teachers with the desired information to design and
adopt the right teaching strategies to suit varied learners and enhance students’
learning outcomes in Social Studies. Similarly, the study could provide Social
Studies researchers with areas for future research in instructional strategies. It
could also help authors and publishers in their presentation of content to
readers.

9. Implication of the study

This study’s observable implication rests on confirming that activity-based
strategies such as simulation games and brainstorming are superior to the
lecture strategy in boosting students’ learning outcomes. Teachers could attract
and sustain students’ interest and make learning permanent through the use of
these strategies. The strategies include numerous activities that will encourage
and enable both male and female students from different environments and
experiences to assimilate and internalise Social Studies skills and knowledge
effectively.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 14

10. Recommendations
i) In-service teachers should be appropriately trained through seminars and
conferences on modern pedagogical strategies such as brainstorming and
simulation games for better Social Studies pedagogical strategies.
ii) Educational institutions charged with training teachers responsiblyshould
restructure the methodology course to include simulation games and
brainstorming pedagogical strategies. This will ensure that Social Studies
teachers are effectively trained in employing these Social Studies teaching
strategies. iii) Social Studies textbook writers should include explicit instructions
and illustrations in their textbooks for applying these strategies to enable
teachers to utilise in teaching.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the participants in this study.

11. References
Ahmad, S. M. S., Fauzi, N. F. M., Hashim, A. A., & Zainon, W. M. N. W. (2013). A study
on the effectiveness of computer games in teaching and learning. Journal of
Advanced Studies in Computers, Science and Engineering, 2(1), 1-8.
https://www.academia.edu.
/8177173/A_Study_on_the_Effectiveness_of_Computer_Games_in_Teaching_and
_Learning_1
Antunes, M., Pacheco, M. A. R., & Giovanela, M. (2012). Design and implementation of
an educational game for teaching chemistry in hgher education. Journal of Chemical
Educational, 89, 577–521. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed2003077
Ashammari, M. K. (2015). Effective brainstorming in teaching social studies for
elementary schools in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 2(3), 70–75.
http://jes pnet.com/journals/Vol_2_ No_3_September_ 2015/8. pdf
Balasubramanian, N., & Brent, G. W. (2010). Games and simulations. Instructional
Technology Forum (ITFORUM). http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper73/paper
73.html
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspec tive. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 21-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00 024
Beuk, F. (2015). Sales simulation games student and instructor perceptions. Journal of
Marketing Education, 38(3), 170-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475315604686
Carenys, J., & Moya, S. (2016). Digital game based learning in accounting and business
education. Accounting Education, 25(6), 598-651.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2016. 1241951
Dankbaar, M. E. W., Alsma, J., Jansen, E. E. H., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Van Saase, J. L.
C. M., & Schuit, S. C. E. (2016). An experimental study on the effects of a
simulation game on students’ clinical cognitive skills and motivation. Advances in
Health Sciences Education, 21(3), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-
9641-x
Essien, E. E., Akpan, O. E., & Obot, I. M. (2015). Students’ interest in social studies and
academic achievement in tertiary institutions in Cross Rivers State, Nigeria.
European Journal of Training and Development Studies, 2(2), 35-40.
Ezeudu, F. O., & Ezinwanne, O. P. (2013). Effects of simulations on students’
achievement in senior secondary school chemistry in Enugu east local
government area of Enugu State, Nigeria. Journal of Edu & Practice, 4(19), 58-66.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 15

Folta, E, E. (2010). Investigating the impact on student learning and outdoor science interest
through modular serious educational games: A design-based research. [Doctoral
dissertation, North Carolina State University].
Guy, R. S., & Lownes-Jackson, M. (2015). The use of computer simulation to compare
student performance in traditional versus distance learning environment. Issues
in Informing Science and Information Technology, 12, 95–109.
Hashempour, Z., Rostampour, M., & Behjat, F. (2015). The effect of brainstorming as a
pre-writing strategy on EFL advanced learner’s writing ability. Journal of Applied
Linguistics and Language Research, 2(1), 86-99.
Hsu, C., Tsai, C., & Liang, J. (2011). Facilitating preschoolers’ scientific knowledge
construction via computer games regarding light and shadow: The effect of the
prediction observation explanation (POE) strategy. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 20(5), 482-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9298-z
Jack, G., & Kyado, J. (2017). Effectiveness of brain-based learning strategy on students’
academic achievement, attitude, motivation and knowledge retention in
electrochemistry. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioral Science, 21(3), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.9734/ JESBS/2017/34266
Kikot, T., Costa, G., Magalhães, R., & Fernandes, S. (2013). Simulation games as tools for
integrative dynamic learning: The case of the management course at the
University of Algarve. Procedia Technology, 9, 11–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.002
Lu, J., Hallinger, P., & Showanasai, P. (2014). Simulation-based learning in management
education: A longitudinal quasi-experimental evaluation of instructional
effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 33(3), 218–244.
https://doi.org/10.1108/J MD-11-2011-0115
Mehr, M. M., Aziz-Malayeri, F., & Bayat, A. (2016). The effects of brainstorming as a
prewriting activity on Iranian EFL learners prompted expository
writing. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(3), 85-93.
Malkawi, N. A. M., & Smadi, M. (2018). The effectiveness of using brainstorming
strategy in the development of academic achievement of sixth grade students in
english grammar at public schools in Jordan. International Education Studies, 11(3),
92-100. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n3p92
Mozelius, P., Hernandez, W., Sällström, J., & Hellerstedt, A. (2017). Teacher attitudes
toward game-based learning in history education. ICTE Journal, 6(4), 27-35.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijicte-2017-0017
Nja, O. C., Cornelius-Ukpepi, B. U., & Orim, E. R. (2019). Effect of simulation
instructional method on undergraduate chemistry education student’s academic
performance in sodium reactions. European Journal of Scientific Research, 155(1), 6-
12.
Ochoyi, U. E. (2018). Effects of computer simulated games and power point on senior secondary
students’ attitude and achievement in geometry in Adamawa State. [Ph.D. thesis,
Benue State Univeristy, Markudi, Nigeria].
Owo, W. J., Idode, V. O., & Ikwut, E. F. (2016). Validity of brainstorming strategy on
students’ prior knowledge and academic performance in chemistry in selected
secondary schools in South-South Nigeria. American Scientific Research Journal for
Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 24(1), 113-130.
Ranchhod, A., Gurău, C., Loukis, E., & Trivedi, R. (2014). Evaluating the educational
effectiveness of simulation games: A value generation model. Information Sciences,
264, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.09.008
Rashtchi, M., & Beiki, M. (2015). The effect of teachers’ generated cooperative
brainstorming versus learner-generated cooperative brainstorming on activating

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 16

EFL learners’ background knowledge in essay writing classes. Indian Journal

of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5(s2), 1218-1227.
Rowan, K. (2014). Glossary of instructional strategies. Beesburg.com.
http://www.beesburg.com/edtools/glossary.html
Shear, S. B. (2016). Does critical theory have a place in social studies research? A
commentary. Journal of Social Studies Research, 40(3), 229-231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2016. 03.009
Tarman, B., & Kuran, B. (2015). Examination of the cognitive level of questions in social
studies textbooks and the views of teachers based on Bloom Taxonomy.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015. 1.2625
Wood, K. R. (2011). Simulation video games as learning tools: An investigation of instructor
guided reflection on cognitive outcomes. [Dissertation, Georgia State University].

Appendix 1
Social Studies Learning Outcome (SSLOT) Instrument
Time: 1hr
INSTRUCTIONS: ATTEMPT ALL QUESTIONS

Choose from the options lettered A-E the one that best answers each of the
following questions and write out in your answer sheet the correct letter only.
Give only one answer to each question.
1. One of these is NOT a symptom of drug abuse: A. Depression; B. Violent
behaviour tendencies; C. Impaired vision; D. Lack of sleep; E. Good health.
2. ……. is the name of the agency responsible for the control and prevention of
harmful substances. A. NECO; B. EFCC; C. NURTW; D. NAFDAC; E.
NDLEA
3. ……… is one of the ways to prevent trafficking in drugs. A. Education;
B. Conflict; C. War; D. Disturbance; E. Greed.
4. All of the following ways would help to discourage drug abuse EXCEPT........
A. strict penalties on drug offenders;
B. education. C. constructive use of time;
D. choosing good friends. E. belonging to cult.
5. The following are factors responsible for drug trafficking EXCEPT ……
A. bad nation economy; B. education; C. greed; D. poverty;
E. unemployment.
6. The agency responsible for controlling and preventing drug abuse and drug
trafficking is called …. A. NDLEA; B. ICPC; C. EFCC;
D. FRSC; E. JAMB.
7. The following are the effects of harmful substances EXCEPT……………. A.
vomiting; B. death; C. good health; D. ill health; E. frequent stooling.
8. The following are the consequences of drug abuse to the individuals
EXCEPT…
A. mental disorder; B. poor attitude to work; C. good health; D. brain fatigue;
E. long disease.
9. The process whereby a person prescribes drugs for him- or herself is called….
A. acceptance;
B. drug abuse; C. discipline; D. protection; E. injection.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 17

10. These are the negative impacts of drug trafficking on a country’s economy
EXCEPT …. A. currencies are buried underground; B. leads to death of
victims; C. increases development; D. increases crime rate; E. increases
money laundry.
11. One of the following is correct about harmful substances EXCEPT ….. A. can
make people sick; B. can lead to diabetes; C. healthy growth; D. can be
destructive to the body; E. damage to internal organs.
12. Which of the following is NOT a consequence of drug abuse on the
individual? A. good nutrition; B. death;
C. mental illness; D. depression; E. leads to crime.
13. A powerful person in an organisation that deals in illegal drugs is called…
A. Drug baron; B. Distributor; C. Drug officer; D. Drug master; E. Drug
seller.
14. ……… is the misuse or excessive consumption of drug. A. Drug trafficking;
B. Medication; C. Drug abuse; D. Treatment; E. Operation.
15. Food that has been exposed to insects is called….. A. stale food; B. good
food; C. infested food; D. expired food; E. rotten food.
16. The following are some of the causes of drug abuse EXCEPT… A. emotional
disturbance; B. broken homes; C. desire to feel high; D. education; E.
curiosity/ experiment.
17. …… food’s life span has been outlived. A. Expired; B. Rotten; C. Stale; D.
Immature; E. Infested.
18. One who sells illegal drugs is called …… A. drug baron; B. drug dealer; C.
drug carrier; D. drug runner; E. drug addict .
19. The following are the consequences of drug abuse on the community
EXCEPT…. A. development of gangsters; B. insecurity of lives and
properties.
C. increase in crime; D. destruction of the youths in the community;
E. growth and development of the community.
20. The following are consequences of drug trafficking EXCEPT ……
A. Bad image for the country; B. shame and disgrace;
C. improved education; D. Imprisonment;
E. Death penalty.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter