Examining J.H.S Mathematics Teachers' Perception and Use of The Principles of Constructivism in The Effutu Municipality

University of Education,Winneba http://ir.uew.edu.
gh
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA
EXAMINING J.H.S MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION
AND USE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IN THE
EFFUTU MUNICIPALITY
DAVID KWAME DOTSE
2017
University of Education,Winneba http://ir.uew.edu.gh
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA
DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION
EXAMINING J.H.S MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION AND USE OF
THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IN THE EFFUTU MUNICIPALITY
DAVID KWAME DOTSE
(8150030002)
A THESIS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION, FACULTY OF
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE
STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA, IN PARTIAL
FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE
MASTERS OF PHILOSOPHY IN BASIC EDUCATION
OCTOBER, 2017
DECLARATION
STUDENT’S DECLARATION
I, David Kwame Dotse, declare that this dissertation, with the exception of quotations and
references contained in published works which have all been identified and duly
acknowledge, is entirely my own original work, and it has not been submitted, either in
part or whole, for another degree elsewhere.
SIGNATURE:………………………………………………………………..
DATE:………………………………………………………………………..
SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of this work was supervised in
accordance with the guidelines for supervision of dissertation as laid down by the
University of Education, Winneba.
NAME OF SUPERVISOR: DR. JOSEPH NYALA
SIGNATURE:……………………………………………………………………
DATE:……………………………………………………………………………
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My first and most important acknowledgement is to God almighty for giving me the
strength and wisdom to successfully complete my study in the University of Education,
Winneba. I would like to show gratitude to my father, Mr. Theophilus Dotse, and my
mother, Mrs. Leticia Dotse, for the marvelous support they provided me throughout my
study in the university.
I apprecitate the guidance and support of my supervisor, Dr. Joseph Nyala. I say thank
you for your patience and direction which has resulted to the success of this work. A big
thank you to all the teachers in the Effutu Municipality for availing themselves to be used
for this research, this work would not have been possible without you.
I would also like to show gratitude to my lecturer and mentor, Mr. Nixon Saba Adzifome,
for his wise counsel and support that has seen me this far. To my lovely sister, Theodora
Fafa Dotse and friend, Godfred Asiedu Mireku, I say thank you for the love and support
you have shown and continue to show me. Finally, to colleagues with whom I have
journeyed this far, thank you for making my study in the University of Education,
Winneba, exciting and worthwhile.
iii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to God almighty and the entire Dotse family.
iv
ABSTRACT
This study examined Junior High School mathematics teachers’ perception and use of the
principles of constructivism in the Effutu Municipality of the Central Region, Ghana.
This study used the descriptive survey research design and adopted a mixed method
approach to data analysis and presentation. The purposive sampling technique was used
to sample one hundred and thirty-eight (138) JHS mathematics teachers for the study.
Instruments such as documents, a structured questionnaire and an interview guide served
as tools for data collection. Data collected through these instruments were further
analysed as follows: documents were analysed using content analysis; responses from the
structured questionnaire were analysed using descriptive statistics such as mean, standard
deviation and simple percentages; while responses from the interview were transcribed
and analysed thematically. Also, the hypothesis for the study was tested using the
Pearson product-moment correlation analysis. The study revealed that, contrary to the
view that teachers in the basic school employ teacher centred methods of instruction, JHS
mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality of the Central Region always employed
the constructivist principles of learning in their classroom instructions which is a child
centred approach and has been proven to maximize learning outcome. It again revealed
JHS mathematics teachers’ in the Effutu municipality had a positive perception about
constructivism and that their perception of constructivism influenced their classroom
instruction. The study also revealed that majority of the teachers had not attended any
form of in-service training while others had not received any form of education on
constructivism. It was thus recommended that the Ministry of Education (MoE) in
collaboration with the Ghana Education Service (GES) establish clear policies to ensure
and guide the professional development of teachers of mathematics so as to keep them
abreast with modern theories of education, such as the constructivist theory of learning as
well as effective methods of lesson delivery.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................. iii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... ix
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Overview ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background to the Study........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 5
1.3 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 7
1.4 Objective of the Study .............................................................................................. 8
1.5 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 8
1.6 Research Hypothesis ................................................................................................. 9
1.7 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 9
1.8 Delimitation ............................................................................................................ 10
1.9 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................... 10
1.10 Definition of Terms............................................................................................... 11
1.11 Organisation of the Study ..................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Overview ................................................................................................................ 13
2.1 Theoretical Framework of the Study ...................................................................... 13
2.2 Theories of Learning that Informs Teachers’ Instructions ..................................... 33
2.3 Perception and its Influence on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics ......... 68
2.4 The Mathematics Curriculum and Basic Education Mathematics Education ........ 75
2.5 Empirical Review on Constructivism ..................................................................... 86
vi
2.6 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................... 90
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.0 Overview ................................................................................................................. 93
3.1 Research Design...................................................................................................... 93
3.2 Setting ..................................................................................................................... 94
3.3 Population ............................................................................................................... 95
3.3.1 Target Population ................................................................................................. 96
3.3.2 Accessible Population .......................................................................................... 96
3.4 Sample and Sampling Techniques .......................................................................... 96
3.5 Research Instrument................................................................................................ 98
3.5.1 Documents ........................................................................................................... 98
3.5.2 Questionnaires.................................................................................................... 100
3.5.3 Interview ............................................................................................................ 102
3.6 Validity ................................................................................................................. 104
3.7 Reliability.............................................................................................................. 106
3.8 Pilot Testing .......................................................................................................... 107
3.9 Data Collection Procedure .................................................................................... 108
3.10 Data Analysis Procedure ..................................................................................... 109
3.10.1 Analysis of Qualitative Data ............................................................................ 109
3.10.2 Analysis of Quantitative Data .......................................................................... 110
3.11 Ethical Consideration .......................................................................................... 111
3.12 Summary ............................................................................................................ 111
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.0 Overview ............................................................................................................... 113
4.1 Response Rate ....................................................................................................... 113
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents ................................................ 113
4.3 Presentation and Analysis of Data ........................................................................ 115
4.4 Test of the Study’s Hypothesis ............................................................................ 144
4.5 Discussion of Results ........................................................................................... 145
vii
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Overview ............................................................................................................... 151
5.1 Summary of the Study .......................................................................................... 151
5.2 Major Findings of the Study ................................................................................. 152
5.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 153
5.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 154
5.5 Suggestion for Further Studies.............................................................................. 154
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 156
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................. 169
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................. 175
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................ 177
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................. 179
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................. 181
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1: Overall percentage correct score of primary pupils by grade

and subject 83
2.2: TIMSS result for JHS 2 pupils 84
3.1: Schedule of Data Collection 109
4.1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 114
4.2: Mean and Standard Deviation of the Learning theory that 133
Predominantly informs teachers’ practice
4.3: JHS mathematics teachers’ perception of constructivism 135

in the Effutu Municipality
4.4: Mean and Standard Deviation of the Extent to which JHS 143
Mathematics Teachers Employ Principles of Constructivism
4.5: Table 4.5: Correlations for Teachers Perception and Influence of 145
Constructivist Principles on Classroom Instructions
ix
ABBREVIATIONS
CRDD: CURRICULUM RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
GES: GHANA EDUCATION SERVICE
J.H.S: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
MoE: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
NCM: NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR MATHEMATICS
RPK: RELEVANT PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE
TIMSS: TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE
STUDIES
TLMs: TEACHING AND LEARNING MATERIALS
x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Overview
This chapter presents the background to the study, statement of the problem, purpose of
the study, the objectives of the study, research questions, the significance of the study,
delimitation, limitations, definition of terms, and organisation of the study.
1.1 Background to the Study
Education is the development of the inherent abilities in a person which will enable him
or her to control his or her environment as well as fulfill his/her possibilities to a large
extent (Ampofo & Osei-Owusu, 2015). In the 21st century, a nation that contributes and
places much emphasis on education of its citizens reaps the benefits of sustained
economic development. Connected to this is the fact that quality education and a positive
beginning on academic and social experiences pupils receive in their early years of
learning puts them on a path to academic excellence by stimulating their curiosity and the
desire to learn (Yakubu, 2015). Thus, quality education is needed if one is to be able to
contribute immensely toward personal achievement and national development. Due to
this, stakeholders of education have over the years constantly sought for ways to improve
the quality of education provided to children to help keep up with the changing trends of
the society.
This can be said for all subjects taught in schools, especially mathematics education. This
is because mathematics is viewed as the bedrock of other subjects such as the sciences
(Dotse, 2014). There are different views among mathematicians regarding the exact
1
meaning and scope of mathematics. According to Asafo-Adjei (2001), mathematics is the
study of quantity, structure and change. It is a subject which deals with finding solutions
to problems, making use of knowledge on shapes and measurement in everyday life,
counting and calculating as well as identifying patterns and relationships (Asafo-Adjei,
2001). Asafo-Adjei further states that, in dealing with mathematics, one goes through
processes such as abstracting, generalizing, classifying, grouping, sorting, just to mention
a few. Therefore mathematics learning is a means of developing logical and qualitative
abilities and skills. Mathematics serves as the mother or back bone of all the subjects
studied in our schools and according to the Ministry of Education and Employment
(2012), mathematics is a logical, reliable and growing body of concepts which makes use
of a specific language and skill to model, analyse and interpret the world. Recognising
the important role mathematics plays in the overall development of a nation, many
countries have made it a core subject of study from the basic level to the university, of
which Ghana is included.
Mathematics finds its applications in almost all the disciplines, especially in science and
other science-related subjects, such as the social sciences. It provides a medium of
communication that is precise, concise and powerful. As a human activity, mathematics
involves creativity in the discovery of patterns of shapes and numbers, the recognition of
relationships, the modelling of situations, the interpretation of data and communication of
emerging ideas as well as concepts. There is therefore the need to address issues such as
type of environment and conditions that are conducive for teaching and learning of
mathematics, nature of assistance teachers should give or offer to learners, kind of
experience teachers should have to help learners and ways teachers should present or
interact with learners to facilitate effective teaching and learning of mathematics.

2
All of these factors are, one way or the other, influenced by the perception a teacher holds
with regards to the teaching and learning process. As Pickens (2005) puts it, perception is
closely linked to ones’ attitudes. Though there might be a laid down procedure or
structure for the implementation of the curriculum, the teacher’s view or perception of the
teaching and learning process comes to play due to the fact that they are the final
implementers of the curriculum. Jonassen (1991) cited by Applefield, Huber and Moallem
(2001), purports that, a person’s knowledge is usually founded on his unique perception of his
physical and social experiences; while using their varied mental capabilities to explain, predict, or
make inferences about a phenomena in the real world. In addition, teachers’ views of teaching
and learning guide them as they make decisions about desirable means of implementing
and assessing their instruction (Applefield et al., 2001). This therefore implies that the
perception of mathematics teachers towards the teaching of mathematics, with regards to
theories and procedures governing its planning, activities and assessment, plays an
important role in ensuring a positive academic achievement of the child.
Trends in education have seen significant shifts to the adoption and use of teaching
practices based on certain perceptions and philosophical ideas coined into learning
theories. Davis (2013) sees learning theories as theories that explain, predict, and
influence the part of behavior which is related to the acquisition of knowledge. Ertmer
and Newby (2013), add that “learning theories provide instructional designers with
verified instructional strategies and techniques for facilitating learning as well as a
foundation for intelligent strategy selection” (p.43). The quest to improve the quality of
education in the 21st century, has led to a shift from the use of traditional teaching
methods such as teacher centred instructions to child centred instructions. The goal of
education in this new age is to prepare students to use their skills to solve real-world
3
problems; yet, education has been criticized for failing the task (Dotse, 2014). The
common reason cited is that the learning experience provided in school is so different
from the experience in the real world that students cannot transfer the skills between the
two environments (Chen, 2003). This has been the bane of mathematics education in
Ghana (Yakubu, 2015). Child-centred instruction is an approach to education that lays
much emphasis on the use of practical activities, explicit skill instruction, reflective
practice, collaborative learning, and child-controlled learning process (Weimer, 2002)
rather than focusing on teachers. “This approach emphasizes a variety of methods that
shift the role of teachers from givers of information to facilitators of pupils’ learning”
(Blumberg, 2008, cited by Yakubu, 2015, p.3).
Semple (2000) purports, child centred learning is a teaching method whose principles are
founded on constructivism. The theory of constructivism has gained much prominence in
the world Education. It places much emphasis on the learners with the view that they are
able to and needed to be guided to construct their own knowledge. Findings from several
research such as that of Nayak (2007), Karaduman and Gültekin (2007), Barman and
Bhattacharyya (2015) and Yakubu (2015); have pointed to the fact that when children are
allowed to play active part in the teaching and learning process, it improves their
academic achievement. As Dhindsa and Emran (2006) cited in Hussain (2012) puts it, in
the world of children “knowledge is constructed through observation, reflection and
interaction with the surrounding environment such as their peers, teachers or technology”
(p.180). The constructivist approach thus provides the needed solution to modern
learning needs of children by engaging learners in experimentation.
4
Learning mathematics is a mental activity and as such educators should endeavour to
comprehend the thinking processes that learners undergo in order to assist them develop
love and interest for the subject right from the lower levels of education. Thus, teachers at
all levels of education should find first, how learners think about mathematics, how their
understanding of mathematics concepts develop, how mathematics skills could be learnt
with ease and how the skills are applied in solving mathematical problems (Dotse, 2014).
Constructivism, in line with this, provides a framework for understanding the cognitive
processes of learning in children and provides principles that guide the teaching and
learning. It incorporates different forms of activities such as cooperative learning,
experiential learning, problem-based learning and inquiry learning (Hussain & Reza,
2010), and provides learners with the necessary critical thinking, problem-solving and
analytical skills seen as essential constructs of higher education (Hussain, 2012).
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The general performance of students in mathematics education is on a constant decline.
Sogbey (2011) posits that data collected from the West African Examination Council
(WAEC) have shown that the pass-rate of pupils who take the Basic Educating
Certificate Examination (BECE) is nothing to write home about. The abysmal
performance of students in mathematics is evident in the analysis provided by the Trends
in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) for 2003 and 2007 as well as
in the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE)
results which indicates a poor performed of students (Sarfo, Eshun, Elen, & Adentwi,
2014). Findings from the National Education Assessment for 2016 revealed also that
pupils’ performance was “noticeably lower for mathematics than for English, with only
22% of P4 pupils and 25% of P6 pupils achieving proficiency in mathematics compared

5
to 37% of P4 pupils and 36% of P6 pupils achieving proficiency in English” (MoE, 2016,
p.8-9). Similarly, the Chief Examiner’s report for 2016 shows that the performance of
candidates in mathematics did not meet expectations since about 65% of the candidates
scored marks below 50% (Baffour, 2017).
Recent studies have revealed that the decline in students’ mathematics performance is
due to the process by which mathematics is taught in schools (Anthony & Walshaw,
2009). Mathematics classrooms are often characterized by teacher-directed instruction
with an emphasis on rules and technical procedures, testing for the right answer and a
reliance on texts as well as decontextualised forms of learning (Brinkworth, 1994).
According to Fredua-Kwarteng (2005), mathematics teaching in Ghana, especially at the
basic level, is characterized by transmission and command models. Thus, “pupils are not
encouraged to pose questions or engage in hands-on activities and problem-solving
activities in order to attain both conceptual and procedural understanding of what they are
taught” (Sarfo et al., 2014, p.768). Due to this, most basic school pupils in Ghana lack the
necessary conceptual understanding underlining mathematics and its concepts (Baffoe &
Mereku, 2010).
Society is dynamic and so is education. The methods used a century or two ago which
proved to be very effective might not be effective today. This explains the emergence of
different theories of learning, from time to time, to guide the perceptions, philosophies
and practices of teaching and learning; the current one being the theory of constructivism.
Per the rationale of mathematics education in Ghana, there is the need to address issues
such as the type of environment and conditions that are conducive for teaching and
learning of mathematics, the nature of assistance teachers should give or offer to learners,
6
the kind of experience teachers should have to help learners and the ways teachers should
present or interact with learners to facilitate effective teaching and learning of
Mathematics (CRDD, 2012). Research has proven that constructivist approach to learning
provides a framework which caters for all of these in the sense that it incorporates most
principles and practices of other theories of learning (Amineh & Asl, 2015) while at the
same time providing learners with the necessary critical thinking, problem-solving and
analytical skills seen as essential constructs of higher education (Hussain, 2012).
Clearly adopting a constructivist approach to teaching and learning is beneficial for the
improvement of students’ mathematical achievement but it lies in the hands of teachers,
being the final implementers of the curriculum with varied beliefs and perceptions, to
ensure its implementation in the classroom. According to Huitt and Hummel (2003),
constructivism forms the basis for child centeredness and allows children to learn in their
own pace while allowing them to be in charge of their own learning which leads to better
understanding. Despite its benefit and world-wide accreditation, little research has been
conducted on its awareness amongst Ghanaian teachers, their perceptions about it and
how it influences their teaching, as in the case of teachers in the Effutu Municipality.
Hence the need to examine JHS mathematics teachers’ perception and use of the
principles of constructivism in the Effutu Municipality.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine Junior High School mathematics teachers’
perception and use of the principles of constructivism in the Effutu Municipality. This
research also determined whether the mathematics curriculum (syllabus) conformed to
constructivist principles of teaching and learning.
7
1.4 Objective of the Study
The specific objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To determine whether the basic school mathematics curriculum (syllabus)
conforms to constructivist principles of teaching and learning.
2. To identify the teaching and learning theory that predominantly informs JHS
mathematics teachers’ instruction in the Effutu Municipality.
3. To investigate JHS mathematics teachers’ perception on constructivism as a
modern theory for lesson delivery in the Effutu Municipality.
4. To determine to what extent JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality
employ constructivist principles in teaching and learning.
1.5 Research Questions
The following research questions were formulated to guide this study:
1. To what extent does the basic school mathematics curriculum (syllabus) conform
to the constructivist principles of teaching and learning?
2. What is the teaching and learning theory that predominantly informs JHS
mathematics teachers’ instructional practices in the Effutu Municipality?
3. How do JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality perceive
constructivism as a guide to lesson delivery?
4. To what extent do JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality employ
the principles of constructivism in teaching and learning?
8
1.6 Research Hypothesis
The following hypothesis was formulated and tested in the study:
H0: There is no statistically significant difference between JHS mathematics teachers’
perception of constructivism and its influence on their classroom practice in the Effutu
Municipality
H01: There is a statistically significant difference between JHS mathematics teachers’
Municipality
1.7 Significance of the Study
The outcome of this study would provide information to teachers, educational authorities,
Curriculum Research and Development Division (CRDD) and the general public on the
state of mathematics teaching and learning.
It would then inform educational authorities and Curriculum developers in planning a
good and effective curriculum for the educational system in the country as well as
prepare syllabuses and textbooks to cater for the changes that occur in the teaching and
learning of mathematics.
The outcome of this study again would inform educational authorities and head teachers
to structure in-service training that would keep their teachers abreast with modern trends
of teaching and learning mathematics thereby improving teachers teaching skills which
would lead to high level of performance on the part of pupils.
9
It will enlighten teachers about the need for continuous professional development as a
means of keeping up with changing trends in education and demystify their perception
towards the adoption and implementation of modern methods of lesson delivery.
The recommendations of this study would add to the existing body of knowledge about
the best approach to instruction at the basic school level. Other researchers can use the
findings as reference for conducting further research into the constructivist approach to
teaching and learning.
1.8 Delimitation
This study was carried out in the Effutu Municipality of the Central Region therefore
teachers in other districts may not directly benefit from this research. Also, this research
will target only Junior High School Mathematics teacher due to subject specialization and
not all basic school teachers.
1.9 Limitations of the Study
Schools within the Effutu municipality were widely interspersed and as such
administration and collection of data was difficult adding to the financial constraints of
the researcher.
Also, little studies have been conducted in Ghana with regards to constructivism and its
practices in the Ghanaian classroom hence getting access to such data was quite difficult.
This also led to limited Ghanaian content on constructivism in the literature review.
10
1.10 Definition of Terms
1. Constructivism: Teaching philosophy based on the concept that learning (cognition)
is the result of 'mental construction' - students construct their own understanding by
reflecting on their personal experiences, and by relating the new knowledge with
what they already know (Thompson, 2000).
2. Perception: The process by which people translate sensory impressions into a
coherent and unified view of the world around them. Though necessarily based on
incomplete and unverified (or unreliable) information, perception is equated with
reality for most practical purposes and guides human behavior in general (Akurugu,
2010).
3. Learning theories: Learning theories refers to theoretical frameworks which try to
explain how people and animals learn, thereby helping us understand the inherently
complex process of learning (Davis, 2013).
1.11 Organisation of the Study
For effective and successful research work, the study would be organised into five
chapters. Chapter One discusses the introduction which involve the overview,
background to the study, statement of the problem, the research questions, objectives
of the study, delimitation, definition of terms and the organisation of the study. Chapter
Two deals with literature review, that is, the review of relevant literature related to the
study.
Chapter Three details with the methodology employed in the study. This covers the
research design, population, sampling, instruments, data collection procedure, method of
data analysis and ethical considerations. Chapter Four focuses on data presentation and
11
analysis where data collected were be analysed based on responses provided for each
research questions as well as discussion of the findings. Chapter Five provides a
summary of findings, conclusion and recommendations based on the findings of the
study.
12
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Overview
This chapter discusses literature related to the subject understudy. Literature reviewed in
this chapter is summarised into the following main headings:
 Theoretical Framework of the Study
 Theories of Learning that Informs Teachers Instructions
 Perception and its influence on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics
 The Mathematics Curriculum and Basic School Mathematics Education
 Empirical Review on Constructivism
2.1 Theoretical Framework of the Study
This study is hinged on the theory of cognitive development ascribed to Jean Piaget in
relation to the constructivist theory of learning. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development
purports that every child, as they grow, builds mental maps and a network of concepts
which helps them to understand and respond to physical experiences within their
environment. This theory was adopted for the study because it forms the basis for
constructivism (Huitt & Hummel, 2003).
2.1.1 The Theory of Cognitive Development
According to Madole and Oakes (1999), as cited by the Carlifonia Department of
Education (2017), the last twenty years of child research has witnessed dramatic changes
to the way developmental psychologists perceive the initial stages of cognitive
development. The child, who was once regarded as a simple sensorimotor driven
13
organism, is now seen a possessor of refined cognitive skills as well as sophisticated
concepts that guide their acquisition of knowledge (Carlifonia Department of Education,
2017).
Cognitive development refers to the development of the capacity or the skill of thinking
and reasoning (Stanford Children’s Health, 2017). The Encyclopedia of Children’s
Health (2017) also define cognitive development as the formation of thought processes,
which encompasses remembering, problem solving, and decision-making, from
childhood to adulthood. They further purport that cognitive development refers to the
means by which an individual perceives, reason, and gains knowledge of their world by
the communication of genetic and learned factors. Cognitive development covers areas
such as information processing, intelligence, reasoning, language development, and
memory (Encyclopedia of Children’s Health, 2017). According to the Carlifonia
Department of Education (2017), the term cognitive development refers to the process
involving the growth and change in an individual’s intellectual or mental skills such as
thinking, reasoning and understanding which includes the attainment and consolidation of
knowledge. “The cognitive developmental theories explain the change in reasoning level
of a child acquiring new ways of understanding their world” (Lefa, 2014, p.1).
Many researches have been conducted with regards to the cognitive development of
children. The oldest of them being intelligence tests, of which includes the Stanford Binet
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test which was first adopted for use in the United States by
psychologist Lewis Terman in 1916 from a French model pioneered in 1905
(Encyclopedia of Children’s Health, 2017). As purported by Grohol (2016), intelligence
quotient (IQ) is a theoretical concept used by psychologists in a standardized tests as a
14
means of describing a persons’ level of intelligence. Scoring made on intelligence
quotient is based on the concept of "mental age"; the scores of a child of average
intelligence matches his or her age, a gifted child's performance can be compared to the
intelligence of an older child, while a slow learner's performance can be compared to a
younger child (Encyclopedia of Children’s Health, 2017).
This means of measuring the cognitive development of children have come under
criticisms: first, for limiting the scope of defining ones’ intelligence and secondly, for
being race and gender biased. Due to these inaccuracies, researchers such as Jean
Piaget (1896-1980) and Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) probed into a more comprehensive
study on the process of children’s cognitive development. According to Huitt and
Hummel (2003), Jean Piaget can be said to be one of the most prominent researchers in
the field of developmental psychology during the 20th century. They further add that, his
main interest was in "how we come to know" and believed the main difference between
human beings and other animals is our ability to reason abstractly. Lev Vygotsky, on the
other hand, studied more into social interaction as the principal source of cognition and
behavior; in all the writings of Piaget and Vygotsky, supported by the work of John
Dewey, Jerome Bruner and Ulrick Neisser, form the basis of the constructivist theory of
learning and instruction (Huitt & Hummel, 2003).
2.1.2 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development
Jean William Fritz Piaget, popularly known as Jean Piaget, was born in Neuchâtel,
Switzerland, on the 9th of August, 1896. He was a clinical psychologist as well as a
philosopher. Piaget was one of the leading researchers in developmental psychology in
the 20th century and was best known for his pioneering work on the development of
15
intelligence amongst children. He was very passionate about child education and most of
his studies have had a major impact on the fields of psychology and education (Zhou &
Brown, 2014). Piaget was interested in the development of thinking and how it relates to
development in a child’s life. According to Boundless Psychology (2016), Piagets’ theory
of cognitive development, presented in the mid-20th century, remains one of the most
influential and widely accepted theories in cognitive development amongst children to
this day. They further add that Piagets’ theory of cognitive-development was founded on
the idea that a child actively constructs his/her own knowledge as they investigate and
manipulate the world around them.
2.1.3 Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development
According to the Barnardos’ Training and Resource Service (2002), Jean Piaget’s
concepts on the stages of cognitive development is, by far, the most prominent and
influential theory in developmental psychology. Flavell (1963), as cited by Simatwa
(2010), is also of the view that Piaget’s theory of intellectual development can be
considered the leading theory on cognitive development. Through a series of clinical
interviews based on open ended questions and conversations with children, he studied the
processes involved in children’s thinking (Barnardos’ Training and Resource Service,
2002). “Piaget’s theory asserts that intellectual development is a direct continuation of
inborn biological development. That is, the child is born biologically equipped to make a
variety of motor responses, which provide them with the framework for the thought
processes that follow” (Simatwa, 2010, p.366). According to Awwad (2013), Piaget
maintained the view that when a child is born into the world, their mind is not blank, but
rather they possess certain beliefs and inherited potential which helps them to start
16
growth. Piaget also believed that there are two types of genotypes transmitted to the child
through the genetic media. These types include:
1. Physical structures: These include structures such as the eye, hands, nervous
system and the senses. These physical structures help the individual to familiarise
himself with the surrounding environment.
2. Involuntary behavioral reactions: Like reflections that occur automatically when
a particular incident occur in the surroundings of the child such as sucking and
baby's screaming when they are hungry. These activities do not need any special
training, but is considered inevitable for direct contact with the environment and
these responses play a great role in the early years of a child's life because it is
these reflections which are subsequently modified by the child and converted into
mental and psychological constructs that serve as the basis of mental activity later
(Jaber, 1984, cited by Awwad, 2013).
In Piaget’s perspective, intelligence is seen by how one interacts with his environment
through mental adaptation (Lutz & Huitt, 2004). This adaptation, according to Lutz and
Huitt (2004), is manipulated by mental structures that an individual uses as a
representation of the world and is motivated by a natural impulse to obtain balance
(homeostasis or equilibrium) between those mental organisations and the environment.
Piaget is of the view that intelligence is entrenched in two biological traits which is found
in every living creature: organisation and adaptation. “Organization is the tendency of
every living organism to integrate processes into coherent systems. It occurs, for instance,
when an infant, originally capable of either looking at objects or grasping them,
integrates these two separate processes into a higher order structures which enable them
17
to grasp something at the same time he looks at it. Adaptation is the innate tendency of a
child to interact with his environment. This interaction fosters the development of a
progressively complex mental organization” (Simatwa, 2010, p.366). According to Lefa
(2014), the process of adaptation is an innate tendency to adjust to conditions imposed by
the environment. Thus, in a way making an organism more attuned to its environment.
According to Simatwa (2010), “adaptation comprises two complementary processes of
assimilation and accommodation. The child assimilates experiences and fits them into the
expanding structure of the intellect when he encounters new experiences which he cannot
fit into the existing structure accommodation, or modified way of reacting takes place”
(pp. 366-367).
In the view of Huitt and Hummel (1998) as cited by Lutz and Huitt (2004), Piagetian
theory can be discussed in two parts: 1) his theory of adaptation and the process of using
cognitive schemes and 2) his theory of cognitive developmental stages. The first aspect of
Piaget’s theory holds the view that children are born with natural reflexes, also referred to
as physical structures (Awwad, 2013), which allows them to communicate effectively
with the environment. “These reflexes are quickly replaced by constructed mental
schemes or structures that allow them to interact with, and adapt to, the environment”
(Lutz & Huitt, 2004, p.2). Piaget (1952), cited by McLeod (2015), defines schema as “a
cohesive, repeatable action sequence possessing component actions that are tightly
interconnected and governed by a core meaning” (p.2). Schema (schemata-plural),
according to Fournier (2016), is a means of processing information by categorizing
objects into mental structures representing various aspects of the world. For instance, a
child may have a primary schema for a “fish” as including all animals that live in water
18
thus upon seeing a frog, the child might calls it a fish. With time, due to experience and
other factors, the child gets to know the differences between animal found in water and
associates each of them by their appropriate names. Wadsworth (2003) posits that schema
can be assumed as ‘index cards’ kept within the brain, each one signaling to an individual
how to react to incoming stimuli or information.
This adaptation, as purported by Lutz and Huitt (2004), occurs in two different ways,
thus: assimilation and accommodation, and is crucial in building mental structures as
well as a critical element of modern constructivism. “Adaptation is predicated on the
belief that the building of knowledge is a continuous activity of self-construction; as a
person interacts with the environment, knowledge is invented and manipulated into
cognitive structures” (Lutz & Huitt, 2004, p.2). As disagreements occur between the
environment and mental structures, the child either changes his perception of the
environment in order for the new knowledge to be aligned with existing schemes through
assimilation, or he changes mental structures as a result of the interaction through
accommodation (Lutz & Huitt, 2004). Should any of these two fail, it child leaves the
child in a cognitive conflict also referred to as disequilibrium. When a child recieves
information from their environment which is unfamiliar with their mental structure to be
accommodated yet makes sense that denying it becomes difficult, they are said to be in a
state of disequilibrium (Wankat & Oreovicz, 2015). According to Lefa (2014), “these
cognitive conflicts occur when the learner is confronted with the information which
he/she cannot deal with in terms of the current cognitive structures” (p.2). In this state,
the child therefore strikes a balance (or harmonizes) by creating new schemes or
modifying the old schemes (Wordsworth 1990, cited by Awwad, 2013). This is referred
19
to as equilibrium. In the state of equilibrium, assimilation and accommodation
continuously interact; accommodation opens up to the possibility of assimilation and vice
versa in an ever expanding cycle making the child capable of solving more complex
situations (Lefa, 2014).
The second stage studies how the mental structures (schemes) of children are formed.
“From his observation of children, Piaget understood that children were creating ideas.
They were not limited to receiving knowledge from parents or teachers; they actively
constructed their own knowledge. Piaget's work provides the foundation on which
constructionist theories are based” (Zhou & Brown, 2014, p.13). Piaget, as purported by
the Centre for Learning Innovation (2006), believed that childrens’ thinking process
passed through four separate stages and changes substantially in each of these stages. He
further emphasized the importance of maturation and the provision of a stimulating
environment for children to explore. Piaget maintain that a child matures mentally, they
chronologically pass through four major stages of cognitive development, each stage
having several sub stages (Hertherington & Park, 1975, cited by Simatwa, 2010).
The four major stages of cognitive development as proposed by Paiget (1954) include:
1. Sensory motor stage: 0 - 2 years
2. Preoperational or intuitive stage: 2 - 7 years
3. Concrete operations stage: 7 - 11 years
4. Formal operations stage: 11 - 15 years
20
At every stage of Piaget’s levels of cognitive development there is peculiar level of
analysis, internal organisation and knowledge as well as in the level of understanding the
environment, and events (Lefa, 2014). Piaget`s theory again clearly shows that the child`s
understanding is very much dependent on the stage that he/she has reached and as such,
teachers must take this into consideration when teaching learners at different levels of
intellectual development (Lefa, 2014).
2.1.3.1 Sensory Motor Stage (Ages 0-2 years)
The sensory motor stage is the first stage in Piaget’s level of cognitive development. “In
general, this stage lasts from birth to about two years of age. At this point intelligence is
based on physical and motor activity, but excludes the use of symbols” (Lutz & Huitt,
2004, p.2). At this stage, the child mainly acquires information through his senses, thus
touch, sight, feeling, taste and smell; he therefore builds knowledge by interacting with
the environment and through experiences. “Mobility, crawling, and walking facilitate
knowledge acquisition, and progress is shown through the modification of reflexes in
response to the environment” (Lutz & Huitt, 2004, p.3). The child’s cognitive structure
(schema) or knowledge is limited at this stage hence cannot predict reaction, and
therefore must continuously experiment and learn through trial and error (Zhou & Brown,
2014). An important milestone at this stage, beginning at about 7 months, is that the child
starts to understand the fact that objects continue to exist even though they cannot be
seen. The end of stage, the child develops an immature use of symbols and language
development that signals the progression to the second stage (Lutz & Huitt, 2004).
21
2.1.3.2 Preoperational or Intuitive Stage (Ages 2-7 years)
This stage follows immediately after the sensory motor stage and at this stage intuitive
mode of thought prevails characterized by free association, fantasy and unique illogical
meaning (Simatwa, 2010). According to Zhou and Brown (2014) “during this stage
children begin to use language; memory and imagination also develop. In the
preoperational stage, children engage in make believe and can understand and express
relationships between the past and the future” (p. 14). The child can symbolize
experience mentally and this is facilitated by the development of language skills (Meyer
& Dusek, 1979, cited by Simatwa, 2010). According to Lutz and Huitt (2004), children at
this stage are able to mentally represent objects and events, as well as possess a well-
developed memory and imagination. “An important signifier of this stage is the ability of
a child to do monological, nonreversible thinking; children in this stage can deal with or
determine only one aspect of a problem at a time, and they cannot think or process
information in a multidimensional fashion” (Lutz & Huitt, 2004, p.3). They further add
that children’s’ thinking at this stage is also highly self-centred (egocentric) and they fail
to understand or accept any perspective which differs from theirs. This stage ends with
the child being able to discriminate between the quantities of objects irrespective of their
dimensions.
2.1.3.3 Concrete Operations Stage (Ages 7 - 11 years)
This is the third stage in Piaget’s theory of cognitive development and begins from ages 7
to 11 years. According to Lazarus (2010), problem solving and reasoning becomes a
powerful tool for the child in this stage, thus, the child is able to reason logically on
issues based on concrete evidence. Reedal (2010), reports that a child, at this stage, thinks
logically and begins classification based on several features and characteristics rather
22
than only visual representation. At this point in development, the child’s exposure to, and
integration of, knowledge has matured such that all three types of knowledge (physical,
logical-mathematical, and social) can be used by the child to interact with the
environment to a relatively high degree (Lutz & Huitt, 2004, p.4). The child then
becomes less egocentric (Zhou & Brown, 2014) and is able to accept as well as relate to
the views of others. They are also able to engage in reversible mental operations such as
being able to study or tackle issues from different perspectives (Lutz & Huitt, 2004).
“The major milestone yet to be reached by the concrete operational child, however, is the
ability to make abstractions and hypothesize [and their] development is still limited to the
application of knowledge to concrete objects and stimuli” (Lutz & Huitt, 2004, p.4).
2.1.3.4 Formal Operations Stage (11 - 15 years)
The formal operation stage is the final stage in Piaget’s theory of cognitive development
and it is from ages 11 to 15 years thus, the period from adolescence through to adulthood.
“At this stage, intelligence is shown through the logical use of symbols related to abstract
concepts” (Lutz & Huitt, 2004, p.4). Thus, the child begins to think more logically as
well as abstractly. During this stage in Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, children
do not necessarily need the concrete material and experiences for understanding; they
form their own hypotheses and can determine possible results of a particular situation
based on differing perspectives (Reedal, 2010). Simatwa (2010) adds to this by saying
“when the student has reached the stage of formal operations, he can construct theories
and make logical deductions about their consequences without having had previous
direct experience on the subject. He can deal with abstractions and mentally explore
23
similarities and differences because he has mastered reversibility and decentration”
(p.369).
Siegler (1991) as cited by Lutz and Huitt (2004) suggests one important ability of
individuals at this stage is the ability to reason abstractly about issues on truth, morality,
justice, and the existence of things as well as provide alternative, competing beliefs with
regards to these issues. Thus, cognitive development becomes a foundation for the
constructing morality based on abstract principles (Lutz & Huitt, 2004).
According to Driscoll (2001), three types of knowledge must be evident at all the stages
of cognitive development, these are: physical, logical-mathematical, and social
knowledge. As Lutz and Huitt (2004) posit:
1. Physical knowledge is very concrete in nature and is gained through hands-on or
direct interaction with the environment.
2. Logical-mathematical knowledge is an abstract reasoning that is applicable
without interacting physically with a concrete stimulus. Thus, while physical
knowledge is discovered, logical-mathematical knowledge is gained through
repeated exposure and interaction with different objects and in different settings
in order for cognitive structures to be modified and created.
3. Social knowledge is a type of knowledge acquired through interaction with others.
It is culture specific and its acquisition is based on actions rather than physical
perception of objects.
24
2.1.4 Factors Affecting the Cognitive Construction
Piaget (1954) is of the view that the process of cognitive development occurs gradually
from the time of ones’ birth till he/she matures. According to Awwad (2013), the
following are some factors that affect the cognitive construction of a child:
1. Inheritance: Piaget acknowledges the role of inheritance in the cognitive
development of every child. He believes that inheritance affect cognitive
development in two ways:
a. Construct nerve: These nerves are found in every individual and is believed to
somewhat naturally delay cognitive function or facilitate it.
b. Functional constants: “Piaget believes that within each person there is an
internal self-regulation mechanism that responds to environmental stimulation
by constantly fitting new experiences into existing cognitive structures
(assimilation) and revising these structures to fit the new data
(accommodation). Piaget refers to these cognitive structures as schemas”
(Webb, 1989, p.93).
2. Content, Function and Construction: Piaget is of the view that intelligence
consists of three components:
a. Content: means behavioral patterns, observation and perceived kinetic
abilities that reflect intellectual activity. This intelligence differs from time to
time and from one child to another.
b. Function: means the processes that are resorted to by the individual when he
interacts with environment.
25
c. Constructions: indicates extracted educational characteristics; they are plans
(knowledge and information) that explain the emergence of special behavioral
techniques as the learner is faced with new challenges.
3. Activity: The cognitive growth of the child requires activities that engages them
directly with the environment
4. Maturity: Piaget believes that maturity is one of the main contributors to a
child’s cognitive development. Maturation, which is dependent on
neurodevelopment, endocrine system, and the maturation of the nervous system,
determines the extent of one’s potential with the help of the social environment.
5. Social Interaction: social interaction is the exchange of ideas amongst people. It
may be in several forms such as dealing with comrades, parents and teachers.
“Social interaction offers opportunities for the observation of a wide varietv of
behaviors, for direct instruction, and for feedback concerning the individual's
performance” (Webb, 1989, p.93).
2.1.5 Educational Implications of Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development
According to Mwamwenda (2009), it is possible to integrate Piaget`s theory of cognitive
development in the classroom. Thus, each stage equips the teacher with information upon
which they can rely to teaching and learning more fulfilling. Piaget takes a constructivist
point of view to learning which states that learners are not passive during the process of
knowledge acquisition; his theory posits that learners need a teaching curriculum which
supports every level of their cognitive development and makes the learning of concepts
more logical and systematic (Lefa, 2014). Driscoll (2001) provides three basic
instructional principles:
26
1. The learning environment should support the activity of the child.
2. Children’s interactions with their peers are an important source of cognitive
development
3. Instructional strategies that make children aware of conflicts and inconsistencies
in their thinking should be adopted.
Zhou and Brown (2014) are of the view that one important implication of Piaget's theory
of cognitive development is to adapt instructions to suit the learner's level of cognitive
developmental, thus, the content of an instruction needs to be consistent with the
developmental level of the learner. They propose the following as some of the
implications of Piaget’s theory to education:
 Provide concrete props and visual aids, such as models and/or time line.
 Use familiar examples to facilitate learning more complex ideas, such as story
problems in mathematics.
 Allow opportunities to classify and group information with increasing
complexity; use outlines and hierarchies to facilitate assimilating new information
with previous knowledge.
 Present problems that require logical analytic thinking; the use of tools such as
"brain teasers" is encouraged.
Lefa (2014) again posits that “Piaget emphasizes that learning take place as a result of
active engagement of learners is important, so teachers have to see the learners take an
active role by participating in whatever is being taught and learned” (p.7). The role of the
teacher here, therefore, is to serve as a facilitator and not an instructor. Piagets theory
acknowledges the difference that exist between learners (Lefa, 2014), hence it is the
27
teacher’s duty to arrange activities, teaching methodology and teaching materials, in a
way that is appropriate to each learners’ cognitive level (Simatwa, 2010). Simatwa (2014)
further adds that “since the theory says that there is a mutual interaction between the
learner and the environment, teaching materials should come from the learner’s
environment” (p.370). Also, discovery learning should be encouraged since it provides
varied opportunities for learners to explore and experiment, thus encouraging new
understandings (Zhou & Brown, 2014). McLeod (2015) provides the following as the role
of the teacher within the classroom based Piaget’s theory:
 Focus on the process of learning, rather than the end product of it.
 Using active methods that require rediscovering or reconstructing "truths".
 Using collaborative, as well as individual activities (so children can learn from
each other).
 Devising situations that present useful problems, and create disequilibrium in the
child.
 Evaluate the level of the child's development through suitable tasks.
Huitt and Hummel (1998), as cited by Zhou and Brown (2014), assert that many school
graduates from industrialised countries do not fully operate in the formal operational
characteristics of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development during adulthood. To help
prevent this, they therefore propose the:
 Use visual aids and models.
 Provision of opportunities to discuss social, political, and cultural issues.
28
 Teaching of broad concepts rather than facts, and to situate these in a context
meaningful and relevant to the learner.
Curriculum, instructional and assignments developers should make a special effort to
understand the child’s world and should not assume that they know what is good for the
child; this will enable them design educational experiences based on the child’s need and
readiness and this will help avoid teaching children something before they are ready to
learn it (Simatwa, 2014).
2.1.6 Connection between Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development and

Constructivism
According to Zhou and Brown (2014) Piaget's work serves as the foundation upon which
principles of constructivism are based. The term constructivism might most certainly be
derived from his work as he made reference to his views as “constructivist”, supported by
Bruner, who described discovery learning as “constuctionist” (Gruber & Voneche, 1977;
Bruner, 1966 all cited by Applefield et al., 2001).
Piaget’s work on the cognitive development of learners serves as a foundation for child-
centred learning. Thus, the major connection between Piaget’s theory of cognitive
development and the constructivism is the fact that both theories support child-centred
learning. According Qvortrup, Wiberg, Christensen and Hansbøl (2016) Piaget was of the
view that “traditional teaching created overly passive learners left without the possibility
of making the necessary operations, such as analysis, experiment, suggestions,
communication” (p.109). Constructivist also believe that learners are not empty slate and
are capable of constructing knowledge for themselves through experience and practice
given a conducive learning environment. Each stage of Piaget’s theory has a major goal
29
which needs to be achieved and each principle held by constructivists provides a way of
dealing with learners’ specific needs at every developmental level.
The first stage of Piaget’s cognitive development, the sensory motor stage, emphasize
that children at this level are beginning to construct knowledge about the world in which
they live and they do this mainly through their senses. At this stage the constructivist
believes a conducive learning atmosphere needs to be created coupled with the provision
of appropriate manipulative materials for learners gain mastery over concrete objects so
as to develop appropriate mental structures for future learning. The second stage of
Piaget’s cognitive development, the operational stage, emphasizes the development and
use of language; memory and imagination among children. At this stage also, the child is
egocentric and Piaget together with constructivist believes that allowing children lean
collaboratively will help solve this problem while at the same time making use of pupils’
previous knowledge constructions, beliefs and attitudes (Qvortrup et al., 2016; Koohang,
2009). Constructivists encourage exploration at this stage so as to help learners develop
abstract thinking and memory development. The third stage of Piaget’s cognitive
development, the concrete operations stage, emphasize problem solving and reasoning as
a powerful tool for the child (Lazarus, 2010). The child thus, begins to think logically and
begins classification based on several features and characteristics rather than only visual
representation. Constructivist at this stage say that learners should be provided with the
opportunity for apprenticeship learning in which there is an increasing complexity of
tasks, skills and knowledge acquisition such as in scaffolding while stressing on
collaborative and cooperative learning in order to expose the learner to alternative
viewpoints (Koohang, 2009). The final stage of Piaget’s cognitive development, the
30
formal operations stage, emphasizes the ability to “reason in terms of theories and
abstractions, as well as concrete realities” (Lefa, 2014, p.5). At this stage learners mastery
over their thoughts and the constructivist believe that engaging them in projects and as
well, lessons and activities should provide multiple perspectives and representations of
concepts and content while learning situations, environments, skills, content and tasks are
relevant, realistic, authentic and represent the natural complexities of the real world
(Koohang, 2009).
By viewing learning as an active process, taking students prior knowledge into
consideration, building on preconceptions, and eliciting cognitive conflict, Piaget’s work
on the cognitive development helps teachers to design instruction that goes beyond rote
learning to meaningful learning that is more likely to lead to deeper, longer lasting
understandings (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002, p.4). Ertmer and Newby (2013) purport the
following as some principles from the constructivist position that have direct relevance
for designing instruction:
1. An emphasis on identifying the context in which the skills will be learned and
subsequently applied (anchoring learning in meaningful contexts).
2. An emphasis on learner control and the capability of the learner to manipulate
information (thus, pupils actively using what is learned).
3. Presenting information in a variety of different ways (revisiting content at
different times, in rearranged contexts, for different purposes, and from different
conceptual perspectives).
31
4. Supporting the use of problem solving skills that allow learners to go beyond the
information given (developing pattern-recognition skills, presenting alternative
ways of representing problems).
5. Focusing assessment on transfer of knowledge and skills (presenting new
problems and situations that differ from the conditions of the initial instruction).
In all, both Piaget and constructivists agree on the fact that knowledge does not exist
independently from the learner but that, the individual is responsible for his own
understanding of the world in which they live. “Piaget’s position towards the existing
teaching in contemporary schools can best be summed up as a critique of an ideology
founded on authoritarian beliefs and “heterogeneous’ morals, forced upon the individual
from without” (Qvortrup et al., 2016, p.110). The individual, thus, have to be encouraged
to construct knowledge by exploring and investigating into whatever he is presented with,
store them in a form of mental structures and constantly review or update those mental
structures for a more accurate description of events and phenomena. They both believe
the learner is capable of constructing knowledge for themselves, that lessons should be
planned systematically based on the learners’ ability and prior experiences (schema), that
lessons should be authentic (having a bearing on pupils’ everyday life), that learners
should be provided with the necessary learning materials as well as a conducive learning
atmosphere, that collaborative learner is of great importance and that the teacher should
serve as a facilitator in the classroom and not an instructor. In effect, both Piaget and
constructivist believe in child-centred learning; after all, Piaget’s theory of cognitive
development has served as the foundation for constructivist theories (which will be
discussed in details under theories of learning) (Bhattacharjee, 2015).
32
2.2 Theories of Learning
Before venturing into what learning theories are, lets first try to establish the meaning of
‘learning’ and ‘theories’. Learning, as frequent as one may hear this word, has been
without a universally acceptable definition. According to Shuell (1986) as cited by
Schunk (2012), amongst theorists, researchers, and practitioners there has not been one
definition of learning that is universally accepted. This may be because of the several
perspectives held by experts in the field of education who try to define it. The most
common definition given for learning is that it is any activity that results to a permanent
change in behavior. Shunck (2012) thus, defines learning as “an enduring change in
behavior, or in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or
other forms of experience” (p.3). To him, we can consider an activity as learning if it
involves gaining and modifying knowledge, skills, strategies, beliefs, attitudes, and
behaviors. De Houwer, Barnes-Holmes and Moors (2013) also defined learning as the
changes that occur in the behavior of an organism as a result of consistencies in the
environment where the organism is found. This is to say as the individual becomes more
and more conversant with his environment through exploration, he learns.
According to Darling-Hammond, Rosso, Austin, Orcutt and Martin (2001), a theory is
“an idea that explains a set of relationships that can be tested” (p.19). They add that a
theory: is developed from research as well as practical experience and systematic
observation, is modified over time on the basis of practitioners’ insights as well as the
work of researchers, and is interrelated, thus, the come together to help explain a more
complex phenomena. Sunday (2015) provides the following as the definition for a theory:
33
1. Theory is a model or framework for observation and understanding, which shapes
both what we see and how we see it. Theory allows the researcher to make links
between the abstract and the concrete; the theoretical and the empirical; thought
statements and observational statements etc.
2. Theory is a generalized statement that asserts a connection between two or more
types of phenomena – any generalized explanatory principle.
3. Theory is a system of interconnected abstractions or ideas that condenses and
organizes knowledge about the world.
From the definitions provided so far, we can thus conclude that a theory is a framework
for studying and analyzing the truth or falsity of a phenomenon. According to Neuman
(1997) as cited by Sunday (2015), a good theory should:
1. Provide basic concepts and directs us in answering important questions.
2. Suggests ways for us to make sense of research data.
3. Enables us to connect a single study to the immense base of knowledge to which
other researchers contribute.
4. Helps a researcher see things in a wider view instead of just pointing to a single
spot.
5. Increases a researcher’s awareness of the interconnections and of the broader
significance of data.
Therefore, in studying any issue or event, theories provide a foundation upon which one
can develop understanding as well as make projections since they contain in themselves,
explanations to the occurrence of event.
34
We now shift focus to what learning theories are. From the above definitions for both the
terms ‘learning’ and ‘theory’, we can define learning theories as ideas, frameworks or
models propounded for learning with each model explaining the manner through which
knowledge is constructed or acquired by an organisms. Davis (2013) see learning theories
as theories that explain, predict, and influence the part of behavior which is related to the
acquisition of knowledge. According to Ertmer and Newby (2013), “learning theories
provide instructional designers with verified instructional strategies and techniques for
facilitating learning as well as a foundation for intelligent strategy selection” (p.43).
Learning theory focuses on the role of environmental factors in shaping the intelligence
of children, especially on a child's ability to learn by having certain behaviors encouraged
and others discouraged (Encyclopedia of Children’s Health, 2017). The teachers’ views
of learning guide them as they make decisions about desirable means of implementing
and assessing instruction (Applefield, Huber & Moallem, 2001).
Lefrancois (1988) as cited by Davis (2013) provide two models that represent most
psychologists’ perception about human beings:
1. The Mechanistic Model which envisions humans as, in many ways, resembling
machines predictable and highly responsive to environmental influences.
2. The Organismic Model which considers humans to be more like dynamic, active,
exploring organisms
These two models serve as the proponent for three main learning theories that have
helped shape the nature of teaching and learning in the history of learning. These are the
behaviorist theory of learning (from the mechanistic model) and the cognitivist as well as
the constructivist theories of learning (from the organismic model). Ertmer and Newby
35
(2013) are also of the view that learning theories are divided into two main categories:
behavioral and cognitive but later approve the addition of a third category, thus the
constructive theory, due to the uniqueness of its instructional design. Chen (2003)
explains this by saying that constructivism is an improvement of cognitive science.
Ertmer and Newby (2013) adds that these theories may seem to overlap but are
“distinctive enough to be treated as separate approaches to understanding and describing
learning” (p.46). It should be noted, however, that behaviorism, cognitivism and
constructivism are not the only learning theories that have helped to shape the course of
teaching and learning but rather, they form the main pillars from which other learning
theories have evolved.
2.2.1 The Behaviorist Theory of Learning (Behaviorism)
According to Wikibooks (2016) the behaviorist theory of learning can be traced back to
the days of Aristotle, who wrote an essay on “memory” focusing on associations that
existed between events such as lightning and thunder. Black (1995) as cited by
Wikibooks, (2016) posits that “other philosophers that followed Aristotle’s thoughts are
Hobbes (1650), Hume (1740), Brown (1820), Bain (1855) and Ebbinghause (1885)”.
“Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson, Edward Thorndike and B.F. Skinner later developed the
theory in more detail [however] Watson is the theorist credited with coining the term
behaviorism” (Black, 1995, p.3).
The contributions of Pavlov, Watson, Thorndike and Skinner has, by far, added greatly to
the theory of behaviorism. Pavlov (1849-1936) was studying the digestive process of a
dog, specifically the interaction of salivation and stomach function, when he stumbled
upon the fact that reflexes in the autonomic nervous system closely linked these actions
(Zhou & Brown, 2014). To be sure whether external conditions (which he referred to as
36
‘stimuli’) had an effect on this process, he rang a bell then after some time gave food to
the dog. He observed, upon a repetition of this pattern, that the dog salivated shortly
before the food was given. He later realized, after some time, the sound of the bell alone
(which he referred to as a ‘conditioned stimulus’) would cause the dogs to salivate. He
referred to this as a ‘conditioned response’. “Pavlov also found that the conditioned reflex
was repressed if the stimulus proved "wrong" too frequently; [thus] if the bell rang and
no food appeared, the dog eventually ceased to salivate at the sound of the bell” (Zhou &
Brown, 2014, p.5). Pavlov referred to the cessation of response from an organism when a
conditioned stimulus is presented repeatedly without being paired with the unconditioned
stimulus as extinction and the restoration of the response when the conditioned stimulus
is presented after some time has elapsed since extinction as spontaneous recovery
(Glassman & Hadad, 2009). This suggests that a learnt behavior can be unlearnt and that
conditioned responses are not necessarily permanent without repetition.
Watson's view of learning was partly based on Pavlov’s studies. Watson (1878-1958) was
of the view that the behavior of human beings results from specific stimuli that elicit
certain responses. “Watson's basic premise was that conclusions about human
development should be based on observation of overt behavior rather than speculation
about subconscious motives or latent cognitive processes” (Zhou & Brown, 2014, p.5).
Skinner, just like other proponents of this theory, was of the view that how human beings
respond to situations could be manipulated like machines to produce required results
(Zhou & Brown, 2014). In his research on animals, he came to a conclusion that both
animals and humans would repeat certain behaviors that led to favorable outcomes, and
stop behaviors that was accompanied with unfavorable outcomes (Shaffer, 2000). Skinner
37
referred to the action or behavior of the organism as ‘operant behavior’, and the response
as ‘reinforcer’. It should be noted however that the reinforcer may be positive or negative
with regards to whether one wants to encourage or suppress a behavior. Negative
reinforcers can also be referred to as Punishment. “Skinner believed the habits that each
of us develops result from our unique operant learning experiences” (Zhou & Brown,
2014, p.6).
Also, Thorndike in his thesis published in 1898, analyzed the conditions under which
animals changed their behaviour by focusing on the connection between response and its
consequences. He referred to this connection as the ‘law of effect’ which purported that,
“any response which leads to an outcome that the organism finds satisfying is likely to be
repeated, and any response which leads to an unpleasant outcome is not likely to be
repeated” (Thorndike, 1898, as cited by Glassman & Hadad, 2009, p.112). This is to say
a behavior which is rewarded is likely to be repeated while those which are punished are
likely to end. According to Glassman and Hadad (2009), this idea of reward and
punishment extends back to the ancient Greeks but Thorndike’s version was different in
the sense that it was supported by experimental data thereby making it scientific in nature
and this paved the way for behaviorism.
2.2.1.1 Principles of Behaviorism
“Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable and measurable aspects of human
behavior [and] in defining behavior, behaviorist learning theories emphasize changes in
behavior that result from stimulus-response associations made by the learner” (Zhou &
Brown, 2014, p.4). According to Rotfeld (2007), as cited by Weeger and Pacis (2012),
behaviorism provides a roadmap for research which allow the control and measurement
38
of all relevant variables by ignoring human thought or cognition thus, disregarding what
might occur in people's minds and strictly focusing on behavioral responses (observable
characteristics). According to Glassman and Hadad (2009), Watson’s proposition holds
these three central principles in behaviorism:
1. The emphasis on observable responses and environmental stimuli;
2. The rejection of mentalistic concepts not grounded in direct observation; and
3. The focus on learning and experience as central to the understanding of human
behaviour.
Cunningham, Gannon, Kavanagh, Greene, Reddy and Whitson (2007) also propose the
following as principles underlying behaviorism:
1. Knowledge is infinite and is itself an action or at least rules for action. “It is a set
of passive, largely mechanical responses to environmental stimuli” (GSI Teaching
& Resource Center, 2016, p.3).
2. Learning is said to be overt, observable and measurable using empirical methods
such as observing the changes in a learner’s behavior.
3. Thought processes fall outside the remit of the controlled environment and are
therefore of little or no concern.
4. When specific stimuli are introduced within a controlled environment, it triggers
appropriate learning to achieve specific goals.
5. Behavior is largely influenced by external factors, as opposed to internal thought
processes.
6. Learning occurs where specific stimuli are introduced to the learner causing
certain responses to occur which result in a change in behaviour.
39
7. Learning usually takes place in incremental steps and can be increased through
repetition and reinforcement.
The GSI Teaching & Resource Center (2016) adds that motivation, in the view of
behaviorists, is explained in terms of schedules of positive and negative reinforcement.
Thus rewarded actions (positive reinforcement) leads to the repetition of desirable results
while punished or ignored actions (negative reinforcements) helps to extinguish
undesirable behaviors. To Cunningham et al. (2007), “it is the prospect of receiving
positive reward that drives learning, such as passing an exam [thus] extrinsic motivation
drives students to do things for tangible rewards or pressures” (p.5).
2.2.1.2 Pedagogies based on Behaviorism
Teaching methods or pedagogies based on behaviorism “tend to rely on so-called ‘skill
and drill’ exercises to provide the consistent repetition necessary for effective
reinforcement of response patterns” (GSI Teaching & Resource Center, 2016, p.4). From
the skill and drill exercises we obtain teaching methods such as question (stimulus) and
answer (response), rote learning, guided practice; and regular reviews of learnt materials
(mental drills).
One of the most prominent teachings methods adopted by behaviorists is the lecture
method. This is method of teaching is based on the premise that learners are empty slates
or tabula rasa and thus come to school with virtually nothing in their head; the teacher is
also seen as a warehouse of knowledge whose duty is to fill the empty heads of learners
with the knowledge needed at their level. Hence in the classroom, the teacher is seen as
an instructor rather than a facilitator and is virtually the only person licensed to talk while
providing little or no room for contributions from learners. The Academic Practice and
40
Organizational Development (2010) refers to this method as the traditional method which
is largely based on “behavioral learning where the learner is reactive to conditions in the
environment rather than taking an active role in discovering the environment” (p. 15).
They add that this method is most appropriate for recalling facts, defining and illustrating
concepts, applying explanations and automatically performing a specified procedure
where the learners’ role is mostly passive and is almost totally dependent on the teacher.
2.2.1.3 Teaching and Learning in the Behaviorist Classroom
Behaviorist classrooms are mostly teacher-dominated or what is mostly referred to as
teacher centred where learners basically receive knowledge without necessarily
questioning or examining it. Below are some characteristics of a behaviorist classrooms:
1. Teacher centred lessons where learners are passive receivers of knowledge.
2. Use of teacher centred methods such as lecture as well as skill and drill methods
3. Non reliance on pupils prior experiences during learning.
4. Desirable behaviors are rewarded to ensure repetition while undesirable ones are
punished to cause its termination.
5. Assessment of student performance is done mainly through their actions, thus the
ability to recall fact, perform an experiment, etc.
6. Emphasizing the observable end product of learning rather than the mental
processes involved in learning.
As purported by Ertmer and Newby (2013), there is no attempt to determine the structure
of a student’s knowledge nor to assess the mental processes necessary for them to use.
They also outline the following as assumptions or principles that have direct relevance to
instructional design:
41
1. An emphasis on producing observable and measurable outcomes in students
[behavioral objectives, task analysis, criterion-referenced assessment]
2. Pre-assessment of students to determine where instruction should begin [learner
analysis]
3. Emphasis on mastering early steps before progressing to more complex levels of
performance [sequencing of instructional presentation, mastery learning]
4. Use of reinforcement to impact performance [tangible rewards, informative
feedback]
The GSI Teaching & Resource Center (2016) adds that there is a heavy “use of positive
reinforcements such as verbal praise, good grades, and prizes [and that] behaviorists
assess the degree of learning using methods that measure observable behavior such as
exam performance” (p.4). The job of the teacher, according to Gropper (1987) as cited by
Ertmer and Newby (2013), is to (1) determine which cues can elicit the desired
responses; (2) arrange practice situations in which prompts are paired with the target
stimuli that initially have no eliciting power but which will be expected to elicit the
responses in the “natural” (performance) setting; and (3) arrange environmental
conditions so that students can make the correct responses in the presence of those target
stimuli and receive reinforcement for those responses.
Behaviorist teaching methods prove very successful where there is a need for memorizing
a fact or providing a singular appropriate response. Parkay and Hass, (2000) as cited by
Zhou and Brown (2014), add that behaviorism ensures that “students work for things that
bring them positive feelings, and for approval from people they admire; they change
behaviors to satisfy the desires they have learned to value [and] they generally avoid
42
behaviors they associate with unpleasantness and develop habitual behaviors from those
that are repeated often” (p.9).
2.2.2 The Cognitive Theory of Learning (Cognitivism)
Cognitivism dates back to the early twenty century. According to Yilmaz (2011), the
move from behaviorism to cognitivism was as a result of the failure behaviorist to explain
how individuals process information. “Psychologists and educators began to de-
emphasize a concern with overt, observable behavior and stressed instead more complex
cognitive processes such as thinking, problem solving, language, concept formation and
information processing” (Snelbecker, 1983, as cited by Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p.50).
This led to early advocates to “demand an approach to learning theory that paid more
attention to what went on inside the learner's head” (GSI Teaching & Resource Center,
2016, p. 5). They were of the view that prior knowledge and mental processes played a
bigger role than stimuli in building and adjusting behavior or response but also intervene
between a stimulus and response (Deubel, 2003; Winn & Snyder 1996; all cited by
Yilmaz, 2011).
Early proponents of this theory simply opposed the view that all human beings can be
programed to behave like machines and thus can respond similarly in the same situation;
they then developed what is now referred to as the cognitive theory which focuses on the
mental processes of an organism rather than just the observable characteristics. “Common
to most cognitivist approaches is the idea that knowledge comprises symbolic mental
representations, such as propositions and images, together with a mechanism that
operates on those representations” (GSI Teaching & Resource Center, 2016, p. 5).
According to Yilmaz (2011), “Piaget’s theory of individual cognitive development,
43
Vygotsky’s theory of social cognitive growth or zone of proximal development,
Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory, Spiro’s cognitive flexibility theory, Sweller’s
cognitive load theory, Bruner’s cognitive constructivist learning theory, and Tolman’s
theory of sign learning” (p.205), have all contributed to the growth of cognitivism.
2.2.2.1 Principles of Cognitivism
As opposed to behaviorism, cognitivists believe that organisms, and human beings for
that matter, are not passive when it comes to knowledge construction but rather, they
actively construct their own knowledge always makes reference prior experiences as well
as to already built cognitive structures. As the GSI Teaching & Resource Center (2016)
puts it, they believe that “knowledge comprises active systems of intentional mental
representations derived from past learning experiences [and] because knowledge is
actively constructed, learning is presented as a process of active discovery.” (p.5). The
Academic Practice and Organisational Development (2010) proposes the following as the
key tenets of cognitivism:
1. Learning improves as the quality of cognitive engagement increases.
2. Cognitive engagement enables the intentional and purposeful processing of lesson
content.
3. Engagement requires strategies that promote manipulation of information rather
than memorization.
4. Learning takes place most effectively when students are actively engaged and
learn in the context in which the knowledge is to be used.
The GSI Teaching & Resource Center (2016) adds that while the behaviorist learning
theory focuses on extrinsic factors such as rewards and punishment to motivate or
44
demotivate behavior, the cognitive learning theory sees motivation as intrinsic. In the
view of Perry (1999) as cited by the GSI Teaching & Resource Center (2016), this is
because behavior modification involves a significant reorganization of existing mental
structures therefore a successful learning requires a personal investment on the part of the
learner which is intrinsic. They argue that any form of behavior modification or learning
which does not have a firm foundation or reason in the learners mind will sooner or later
be questioned by the individual and at that moment, that information may be discarded
should the individual find no use or application for that piece of information or
knowledge.
Ertmer and Newby (2013) also proposed the following as assumptions or principles that
have direct relevance to instructional design
1. Emphasis on the active involvement of the learner in the learning process [learner
control, metacognitive training (e.g., self-planning, monitoring, and revising
techniques)]
2. Use of hierarchical analyses to identify and illustrate prerequisite relationships
[cognitive task analysis procedures]
3. Emphasis on structuring, organizing, and sequencing information to facilitate
optimal processing [use of cognitive strategies such as outlining, summaries,
synthesizers, advance organizers, etc.]
4. Creation of learning environments that allow and encourage students to make
connections with previously learned material [recall of prerequisite skills; use of
relevant examples, analogies]
45
Ertmer and Newby (2013) however identify some commonalities between some
cognitivist and behaviorist principles though they perform different functions in the case
of each theory. One of these principles is the use of feedback during learning. They
purport behaviorists employ the use of feedback to modify the behavior of learners in a
preferred direction, while cognitivists make use of feedback to guide and support
accurate mental connections (Thompson, Simonson & Hargrave, 1992, cited by Ertmer &
Newby, 2013). Ertmer and Newby (2013) add that both the cognitivist and behaviorist
engage in learner and task analysis. They purport the cognitivist engage in learner and
task analysis to determine their predisposition to learning, thus, how they activate,
maintain, and direct their learning (Thompson et al., 1992, cited by Ertmer & Newby,
2013); as well as to determine how to design teaching so that concepts can be easily
understood. The behaviorist on the other hand, engage in learner and task analysis to
determine where to begin a lesson as well as which reinforcers would be most effective
for a lesson (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
2.2.2.2 Pedagogies based on Cognitivism
According to Ertmer and Newby (2013), since cognitivism places much emphasis on
mental structures, it is usually considered more suitable for explaining complex forms of
learning such as reasoning, problem-solving and information-processing. The Academic
Practice and Organisational Development (2010) add that examples of teaching methods
related to cognitivism include: problem-solving, research projects, creative visualization
and brainstorming. Yilmaz (2011, p.209) also proposes the following as methods of
teaching based on a cognitive perspective on learning:
46
1. Cognitive Apprenticeship: Cognitive apprenticeship is a method of helping
students grasp concepts and procedures under the guidance of an expert such as
the teacher. This approach characterized by the following phases of instruction:-
a. Modeling: The teacher performs a task or explains a process for students to
observe, which helps them understand what it takes to accomplish the learning
task. Modeling allows students to generate conditionalised knowledge, thus,
when, where, and how to use knowledge to solve different kinds of problems.
b. Coaching: This is where the teacher observes students and provides hints,
cues, feedback, and help, if needed.
c. Articulation: At this stage, students are allowed to think out loud about how
they performed the task and offer reasons for the strategies that they used.
d. Reflection: Here, students retrospectively think of their performance on
completing the task and compare their actions with the teacher’s or other
students’ actions.
e. Exploration: The teacher at this point urges students to identify a problem,
formulate a hypothesis, and seek needed information to solve it. Students look
at the different aspects of the problem from different perspectives on their
own. (Collins, Brown, & Newman 1989; Wilson & Cole 1991; Wilson,
Jonassen, & Cole 1993, all cited by Yilmaz, 2011).
2. Reciprocal Teaching: This is defined as an instructional activity in the form of a
conversation happening between teachers and students about parts of text
(Palincsar, 1986, cited by Yilmaz, 2011). The main purpose is to bring meaning to
the text in question to facilitate learning and understanding.
47
3. Anchored Instruction: Anchored instruction refers to designing and
implementing instruction in a realistic setting around certain anchors such as
cases, stories, or situations to encourage some kinds of case-study and problem
solving.
4. Inquiry Learning: This teaching method grows out of Piaget’s cognitive
development theory and resembles the scientific inquiry method. The main goal
here is to help students develop their higher-order thinking skills by involving
them in a process of either investigating an issue or formulating and testing a
hypothesis in order to find solutions to a problem (Saskatchewan Education,
1997, cited by Yilmaz, 2011).
5. Discovery Learning: This teaching method is also informed by Piaget’s theory of
cognitive development. Ormrod (1995) as cited by Yilmaz (2011), defines this
method as an instructional approach whereby students communicate with their
environment by exploring and manipulating objects, grappling with questions or
performing experiments. As the name suggests, discovery learning encourages
students to discover principles and important relationships by engaging them in
activities like asking questions, formulating hypothesis, doing experiments and
research, and investigating a phenomenon (Schunk 2004, cited by Yilmaz, 2011).
6. Problem-based Learning: Problem-based learning involves presenting students
with an well-structured, open-ended, authentic or real-life problem with many
possible correct solutions and asking them to find answers to it. As opposed to
traditional instruction that teaches facts and skills first and then introduces the
problem, this method introduces the problem at the very beginning of instruction
48
on the basis of what students’ prior knowledge as well as teaches facts and skills
in a relevant context.
As purported by Ertmer and Newby (2013), cognitivists employ the use of two
techniques to achieving effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge transfer: simplification
and standardization. This simply refers to the analysis, decomposition, and simplification
of knowledge or information into basic building blocks as well as the removal of
irrelevant information (Ertmer & Newby, 2013) which may render the information or
knowledge too cumbersome for assimilation.
2.2.2.3 Teaching and Learning in a Cognitivist Classroom
To the cognitivist, learning is equal to discrete changes between states of knowledge
rather than with changes in the probability of response and as such, cognitivism focuses
on the conceptualization of students’ learning processes as well as addressing the issue of
how learners receive, organize, store, and retrieve information by the mind (Ertmer &
Newby, 2013). “Learning is concerned not so much with what learners do but with what
they know and how they come to acquire it” (Jonassen, 1991, cited by Ertmer & Newby,
2013, p.51). Below are some characteristics of a cognitive classroom:
1. Emphasis is placed on the progress of learning than the end result of learning.
2. Lessons are planned based on the cognitive level of pupils.
3. Assesment of learning is made based on the cognitive level of pupils.
4. Assessment of learning is done at every stage of the learning process and not
necessarily at the end of the learning process.
49
5. Students encouraged to memorize the core points of a lesson. For instance,
through the use of mnemonics.
6. Much emphasis is placed on the mental processes of learning.
7. Reasoning, problem-solving and information-processing activities are most likely
employed during lessons.
Ertmer and Newby (1993) as cited by Yilmaz (2011), also summarizes the following as
the basic characteristics of a classroom instruction based on cognitive theories:
1. Emphasis on the active involvement of the learner in the learning process (learner
control).
2. Metacognitive training (e.g., self-planning, monitoring, and revising techniques).
3. Use of hierarchical analyses to identify and illustrate prerequisite relationships
(cognitive task analysis procedures).
4. Emphasis on structuring, organizing, and sequencing information to facilitate
optimal processing (use of cognitive strategies such as outlining, summaries,
synthesizers, advanced organizers, etc.).
5. Creation of learning environments that allow and encourage students to make
connections with previously learned material (recall of prerequisite skills; use of
relevant examples, analogies).
Unlike the behaviorist who views learners as empty vessels and thus incapable of
contributing meaningfully to lessons, the “cognitive school views (1) learning as an
active process “involving the acquisition or reorganization of the cognitive structures
through which humans process and store information” and (2) the learner as an active
50
participant in the process of knowledge acquisition and integration” (Good & Brophy,
1990; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999; Simon, 2001, all cited in Yilmaz, 2011, p.205). The
teacher’s role however, is to serve as a guide or facilitator by providing a conducive
atmosphere and a well structure as well as simplified content for learners.
2.2.3 The Constructivist Theory of Learning (Constructivism)
Constructivism is a “theory of education that has great influence in every field of
education like educational research, evaluation, educational outcomes and enhancing
teaching and learning experience” (Muhagir, 2014, p.2). According to Cooper (1993),
cited by Applefield, Huber and Moallem (2001):
“the field of education has undergone a significant shift in thinking about the
nature of human learning and the conditions that best promote the varied
dimensions of human learning. As in psychology, there has been a paradigm shift
in designed instruction; from behaviorism to cognitivism and now to
constructivism” (p.4).
Constructivism surfaced as interest in behaviorism waned (Mayer, 1996, cited by Liu &
Matthews, 2005). Vygotsky, together with many others, condemned the behaviorist
approach to learning as too narrow, specialised, isolated and intrapersonal to say the least
(Liu & Matthews, 2005). Likewise, Phillips (1995), as cited by Liu and Matthews (2005),
added that “the mechanistic underpinning by an orderly, predictable, and controllable
view of the universe proved inadequate to capture the active and social characteristics of
learners” (p.387). This gave raise to the emergence of cognitivism which was later
improved to become constructivism. As Chen (2003) puts it “constructivism is an
outgrowth of cognitive science” (p.19).

51
Taber (2011) sees constructivism as “a major referent in education, although it has been
understood in various ways, including as a learning theory; a philosophical stance on
human knowledge; and an approach to social enquiry” (p.39). Phillips (2000) also
purports that constructivism can be viewed with two different lenses: sociological and
psychological.
1. With the sociological lens, we have the social constructivism. This theory purport
that knowledge cannot be considered to provide an objective representation of the
external world because knowledge is as a result of “human constructs”, and that
these forms of knowledge are influenced by such things as “politics, ideologies,
values, the exertion of power and the preservation of status, religious beliefs, and
economic self-interest” (Phillips, 2000, p. 6). This perspective basically focuses
on the ways in which human structures such as the economy, power, political
systems and social factors, affect how the society form understandings which in
turn influences the way they interpret the world (Richardson, 2003).
2. With the psychological lens, we have the psychological constructivism. “This
approach relates to a developmental or learning theory that suggests that
individual learners actively construct the meaning around phenomena, and that
these constructions are idiosyncratic, depending in part on the learner’s
background knowledge” (Richardson, 2003, p.1625). this is to say that every
individual tend to develop understanding of issues and come to know by relating
the new information to the one he already has constructed based on personal
experience.
52
The difference between these two lenses from which the theory of constructivism can be
viewed is that, while sociological constructivism focuses on the construction of
knowledge influenced by external factors, psychological constructivism focuses on the
construction of knowledge based on ones’ own understanding based on experience.
According to Phye (1997), as cited by Chen (2003), “constructivism is a movement that
combines cognition from a developmental perspective with other important issues, such
as motivation, self-directed learning, and a focus on the social context of learning” (p.19).
In the view of Resnick (1989), as cited by Richardson (2003), constructivism is a theory
of learning or a theory of meaning making whereby individuals create their own
knowledge through an interaction between their experience and/or perceptions and the
new information they are confronted with. To Thompson (2000), constructivism is not a
theory of learning but a model that can be followed to acquire knowledge and may serve
as a foundation upon which learning theories are built. Chen (2003) views constructivism
as a process of constructing knowledge with concept development and comprehensive
understanding as it ultimate goals. “Constructivism learning theory is defined as [the]
active construction of new knowledge based on a learner’s prior experience” (Koohang,
Riley, Smith & Schreurs, 2009, p.92). According to Woolfolk (1993), as cited by Koohang
et al. (2009), the main idea when it comes to constructivism is that learners actively build
their own knowledge by mediating between inputs from the outside world and one’s
experiences thus making learning an active mental work and not a passive reception of
teaching.
All the explanations provided as the definitions for constructivism presents the idea that
developing one’s understanding requires the active involvement of the individual in the
53
process of constructing meaning. In contrast to behaviorism, constructivists are of the
view that learners are not empty slates who passively receive knowledge but rather build
it up through cognitive structures and experience, thereby shifting the focus from
knowledge as a product to knowing as a process (Von Glasersfeld, 1995, as cited by
Applefield et al., 2001). Constructivism can thus be defined as a theory of learning which
holds the view that learners are not tabula rasa and are capable of constructing their own
knowledge through their interaction with the environment and their experiences. Those
who believe in the theory of constructivism are referred to as constructivists and they
basically hold the view that “learning in school demands students with the ability to relate
actively to the academic subject and through dialogue, experiment, reflection etc. thereby
creating a personal academic identity” (Qvortrup, Wiberg, Christensen & Hansbøl, 2016,
p.101).
2.2.3.1 Principles and Characteristics of Constructivism
Constructivism purports that learners construct their own truths based on their
perceptions of prior experiences. “Thus, each person’s knowledge is a function of his or
her prior experiences, how they are perceived and how they are organized” (Applefield et
al., 2001, p.22). Constructivism is based on a philosophical view that reality is
independent of our way of knowing and that we as human have no access to an objective
reality. Rather, we build understanding of the world from our perceptions and
experiences, which are themselves mediated through our previous knowledge (Simon,
1995). Constructivism suggests that learner acquires knowledge via making meaningful
investigations by engaging in a process of constructing individual interpretations of their
experiences (Applefield et al., 2001). The constructivist believes that “knowledge is
54
constructed and learning occurs when children create products or artifacts. They assert
that learners are more likely to be engaged in learning when these artifacts are personally
relevant and meaningful” (Zhou & Brown, 2014, p.13). As purported by Taber (2011)
constructivism as a theory of learning, holds the following as the nature of human
learning:
1. Human learning is constrained and channeled by the nature of the cognitive
apparatus that inevitably has built-in biases; and
2. Human learning is contingent upon the cognitive resources that are available to
any particular individual to interpret (make sense of) information.
Taber describes information as the electrical signals that passes through the senses
(tough, smell, sight, feel and taste) of an individual into the brain providing them with
signals which are representations of the external environment in the form of electrical
pulses.
According to von Glasersfeld (1989) “constructivism is a theory of knowledge with roots
in philosophy, psychology, and cybernetics” (p.1). Glasersfeld asserts that constructivism
has two main principles whose is useful for the study of cognitive development and
learning. These principles are that:
1. knowledge is not passively received but actively built up by the cognizing subject;
and
2. the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the
experiential world, not the discovery of ontological reality.
55
Hein (1991) in his presentation at a conference in Israel gave the following as some
guiding principles of constructivism:
1. Learning is an active process in which the learner uses sensory input and
constructs meaning out of it. This is to say that learning is not the passive
acceptance of knowledge which exists somewhere but that learning involves
learner’s engaging with the world.
2. People learn to learn as they learn, thus, learning consists both of constructing
meaning and constructing systems of meaning. Meaning we construct makes us
better able to give meaning to other sensations which can fit a similar pattern.
3. The crucial action of constructing meaning is by using the mind. This to say,
physical actions and hands-on experience may be necessary for learning,
especially for children, but these should be consolidated with activities which
engage the mind as well as the hands.
4. Learning involves language, thus, the language we use influences learning.
5. Learning is a social activity. This is to say, our learning is intimately associated
with our connection with others such as our teachers, our peers, our family as well
as casual acquaintances.
6. Learning is contextual. Thus, we do not learn isolated facts and theories separate
from the rest of our lives but rather we learn in relationship to what we know,
what we believe, our prejudices and our fears.
7. One needs knowledge to learn. This means that it is not possible to assimilate new
knowledge without having some structure developed from previous knowledge to
56
build on, thus, the experience or prior knowledge of every individual is necessary
for knowledge construction.
8. It takes time to learn; learning is not instantaneous and that for learning to be
permanent we need to revisit ideas, ponder them try them out, play with them and
use them.
9. Motivation is a key component in learning. It does not only helps learning, it is
essential for learning. This may be through the provision of a conducive learning
environment and accepting the view of learners without discrimination.
These principles serve as the foundation upon which instructional strategies under
constructivism are designed. Jonassen (1994), as cited by Yakubu (2015), proposed the
following eight characteristics that underline the constructivist learning environments:
1. Constructivist learning environments provide multiple representations of reality.
2. Multiple representations avoid over simplification and represent the complexity of
the real world.
3. Constructivist learning environments emphasise knowledge construction instead
of knowledge reproduction.
4. Constructivist learning environments emphasise authentic tasks in a meaningful
context rather than abstract instruction out of context.
5. Constructivist learning environments provide learning environments such as real-
world settings or case-based learning instead of predetermined sequences of
instruction.
57
6. Constructivist learning environments encourage thoughtful reflection on
experience.
7. Constructivist learning environments enable context and content dependent
knowledge construction.
8. Constructivist learning environments support collaborative construction of
knowledge through social negotiation, not competition among learners for
recognition.
“In constructivism, constructing an understanding requires that the learners have the
opportunities to articulate their ideas, to test those ideas through experimentation and
conversation, and to consider connections between the phenomena that they are
examining and other applications of the concept” (Chen, 2003, p.19). In a nut shell, a
constructivist class is characterized by the fact that learners collaborate with each other
and actively participate in lessons; knowledge is constructed based on the learners’ prior
life experiences, activities are very interactive through the use of manipulatives as well as
using examples that are familiar to learners, the whole learning process is child-centred
and the teacher serves as a facilitator.
2.2.3.2 Misconceptions about Constructivism
There are numerous misconceptions that have developed from the instructional practices
of constructivism usually stemming from misinterpretations of the underlying principles
derived from constructivism (Applefield et al., 2001). Popular amongst these
misconceptions are that:
58
1. The teacher loses his authority over learners: This stemming from the
misconception that the teachers’ only duty is to arrange activities and observe
pupils discover knowledge for themselves. The teacher in a constructivist
classroom does not only observe learners as they construct knowledge but
provides useful cues and clues through questioning so as to guide learners on the
path of constructing knowledge.
2. Constructivist instructions are time wasting: Some assume that instructional time
may be too limited to indulge in constructivist instructional practices since much
has to go into planning, more structured activities and constant supervision which
can be easily achieved using traditional methods of instructions like the lecture
method. Constructivist rely on the end product of learning, thus learners acquiring
knowledge that they can personally apply to solve other issue they may later be
confronted. Hence, rather than clumping up a lot of materials for learners, a
teacher influenced by the constructivist principles rather makes learning meaning
and permanent in the learner by breaking the syllabus into smaller, teachable and
enjoyable units which prepares learners for the life ahead.
3. Constructivist instructional practices automatically leads to learning: this also
stems from the misconception that a lesson with the right activities will lead to
learning but if the lesson is not sequentially planned and the necessary guidance
of the teacher is absent, learners may achieve nothing.
Applefield et al. (2001) refer to these misconceptions surrounding constructivist
instructional practices as myths and talks about five of such misconceptions:
59
1. There is no focus for learning, no clear goal in constructivist-based instruction.
They affirm it is possible to create a purposeful learning environment under the
knowledge construction assumptions of constructivist learning and that learners
will actively strive to achieve a cognitive objective. They emphasize that the fact that
constructivism does not offer clear guidelines for planning a particular sequence of
instruction nor prescribe a particular set of activities the learner must engage in, it does
not mean that no learning outcomes can be identified for learners as a group or that
instruction cannot be planned in any systematic way. “Rather, it emphasizes the design of
learning environments that focus on knowledge construction, instead of reproduction”
(Duffy & Jonassen, 1993 cited by Applefield et al., 2001, p.24).
2. Constructivist based instruction is not thoughtfully planned; careful preparation is less
important than in traditional instruction. Contrary to this assumption, constructivist
instructions rather demand a lot of careful planning. Identifying an authentic activity as
well as identifying the problems learner may face in advance is not an easy task and
demands careful planning. Carefully planned activities is the driving force of a
constructivist instruction, this means that careful attention needs to be given to whatever
content and material the teacher employs to administer his lesson. This is because the
quality and suitability of the activity coupled with the right guidance by from the teacher
will lead to effective learning and vice-versa.
3. There is an absence of structure for learning in a constructivist learning environment.
Contrary to this assumption, structure does exist in a constructivist classroom and
according to Applefield et al. (2001), it emerges in two ways: the first being that, “a
curriculum or a lesson has an organizing topic, task or question (design and construct a
parallel and a series circuit) that sets the initial direction of the classroom conversation”
(Applebee, 1996, cited by Applefield et al., 2001, p.25). The second aspect is that there
60
is a relationships among the various parts of a learning experience in the sense that when
confronted with a problem to be solved, both the teacher and learners collaboratively
search for its causes, note similarities and differences with tasks with which the learners
are conversant, and classify it hierarchically as part of a larger system. These systems
provide a perfect structure for the constructivist classroom though not a clear cut as other
traditional methods of teaching.
4. As long as learners are involved in discussion and other forms of social
interaction, learning will take place. In every classroom learners interests vary
and necessarily needs guidance. Teachers in a constructivist learning environment
must constantly monitor discussions and intervene where necessary to maintain
the focus of the discussions as well as ensure learners do not get off track or
develop any misunderstanding on the topic being treated. It is thus necessary that
the teacher carefully monitors group work and whole-class discussions, to keep
students on track, to stimulate consideration of key issues and perspectives, and to
guide learners in correcting their misunderstandings. This shows that pupils’
interaction alone does not automatically lead to learning and that the absence of
the teachers’ guidance may lead to disaster in the constructivist classroom.
5. Since teachers are not primarily engaged in delivering instruction (lecturing
and explaining), their role in the classroom is less important. As discussed in
the third and fourth point above, the teacher’s role in the constructivist classroom
is of vital importance owing to the fact that he has to be able to anticipate
learners’ needs and problem before hand, plan authentic activities and provide
guidance while maintaining a friendly learning environment. These duties show
relevance of the teacher in the classroom and can be seen as even more critical as
61
compared to traditional methods of teaching because the teacher has to be more
versatile to be able to, not only, plan lessons systematically but also facilitate
learning and take on-the-spot decisions to ensure a successful lesson.
2.2.3.3 Pedagogies derived from Constructivism
According to Jones and Brader-Araje (2002), constructivism provides teachers with
instructional methodologies which correlate with current research on learning. The
different perspectives held by constructivist on learning have paved way to a number of
teaching strategies in the classroom (Palmer, 2005). Some of these teaching strategies
include: problem-based, inquiry learning and discovery method, enquiry learning, co-
operative learning, just to mention a few. Muhagir (2014) also identified and discussed
three of these methods namely: scaffolding, discovery learning and cooperative learning.
These three are further discussed below:
1. Scaffolding: According to Wood and Middleton (1975) as cited by Jonassen
(1999), the concept of scaffolding represents any kind of support for cognitive
activity that is provided by an adult when the child and adult are performing the
task together. Collins et al. (1987) as cited by Muhagir (2014), scaffolding can be
seen as a teacher carries out “parts of the overall task that the student cannot yet
manage. As such, it involves a kind of cooperative problem-solving effort by
teacher and student in which the express intention is for the student to assume as
much of the task on his own as possible, as soon as possible” (p.6). Scaffolding,
in the view of Muhagir (2014), is the support the teacher or other colleagues of
the learner provide to the learner. He adds that it can be seen in various forms of
62
learning like problem based learning, classroom discussion, cooperative learning,
and brainstorming.
2. Discovery Learning: Hammer (2009) defined discovery learning as a form of
curriculum in which learners are exposed to certain specific questions and
experiences in order for them to discover for themselves the intended underlying
concept. Discovery learning is based on the assumption that pupils are more likely
to retain the knowledge they discover for themselves. “In this teaching / learning
approach of learning students are given assignment to do scientific experiment or
to investigate a problem in order to discover concepts by themselves” (Muhagir,
2014, p.7). The student's inquiry is usually guided by the teacher and the material.
Spencer and Walker (2011) as cited by Muhagir (2014, p.7), purport that
discovery learning “exploits the strategies of engagement, exploration,
explanation, elaboration, and evaluation of learning experiences” as well as strict
supervision of learning activities by the teacher to ensure learners stay on track.
To Yakubu (2015), “the role of the teacher in discovery learning is to provide
pupils with problems and provide feedback when necessary, without actually
directing their efforts” (p.26).
3. Cooperative learning: According to Muhagir (2014) in cooperative learning
learners are put in groups to work collaboratively towards implementing a
learning tasks. He adds that collaborative learning comes in different variations
such as problem solving, laboratory work and in projects such as designing a
prototype of a product or an object. Assignments given under co-operative
learning should be clearly explained so as to ensure a correct division of task and
to maximize learning.
63
In the view of Yakubu (2015) the constructivism has given rise to many different but
related instructional approaches; some of which include:
1. Case-based learning: Herreid (1997) as cited by Yakubu (2015) explains case-
based learning as using real-life illustrations to build a learners knowledge by
solving questions about specific cases usually focusing on small groups and the
interactions between the participants. She further adds that learners in case-based
learning benefit from because they are given an opportunity to take decisions and
address different perspectives as part of their learning process. “By engaging
themselves in collaborative learning and provocative group discussion, pupils are
coached to become accustomed to taking responsibility and respecting different
views. They also acquire critical thinking, creativity, self-learning and
communication skills” (p.26).
2. Inquiry-based learning: as purported by Edelson, Gordin, and Pea (1999) cited
by Yakubu (2015), inquiry-based learning places the responsibility for learning
and understanding concepts, thus determining the content, the learning process,
and the assessment of learning, on pupils by actively involving and leading them
to understand concepts usually through questions that serve as guide to instruction
rather than predetermined topics. Lee (2004) as cited by Yakubu (2015) posits
that “if this method is implemented effectively, pupils would learn to formulate
good questions, identify and collect appropriate evidence, present results
systematically, analyse and interpret results, formulate conclusions, and evaluate
the worth and importance of those conclusions” (p. 27).
64
3. Problem based learning: Problem-based learning teaches pupils to think
critically, analyze problems, and use appropriate resources to solve real-life
problems (Yakubu, 2015) by presenting them with open-ended and authentic
problems as they work in teams to find hints and develop solutions with the
teachers acting as facilitators (Tan, 2003). Yakubu (2015) adds that throughout
this process, the teacher plays the role of a facilitator, mainly providing guidance
and advice, rather than directing and managing pupil’s work. “At the end, pupils
demonstrate their newly acquired knowledge and are judged by how much they
have learned and how well they communicate it” (p.28).
4. Active learning: Yakubu (2015) describes the process of active learning as create
an environment in which learners solve problems, answer questions, formulate
questions of their own, discuss, explain, debate, or brainstorm during lessons.
This, she adds, greatly encourages the learner as they are actively involved in the
learning process. Active learning involves learners in two ways, thus, doing things
while at the same time thinking about the things they are doing (Yakubu, 2015)
under the guidance of the teacher.
2.2.3.4 Teaching and Learning in the Constructivist Classroom
From a constructivist perspective, meaning is understood to be the result of humans
setting up relationships, reflecting on their actions, and modeling and constructing
explanations (Fosnot, 2005). One of the core ideas to constructivism is that learners are
not passive receivers of knowledge but play an active role in constructing their own
meaning through the process of accommodation or adaptation based on their experiences
or ideas (Jenlick & Kinnucan-Welsch 1999, cited by Le-Cornu & Peters, 2005).
According to Windschitl (2002, p 135) teaching is now seen as “co-constructing

65
knowledge with students, acting as conceptual change agent, mentoring apprentices
through the zone of proximal development and supporting a community of learners”. One
of the main functions of a teacher in constructivist classroom is to be a reflective
practitioner, thus one who is constantly pondering over lessons before, during and after
lessons. The teacher therefore has to engage in reflective processes for themselves as well
as engage the students in reflective processes (Le-Cornu & Peters, 2005). Dewey (1933),
as cited by Le-Cornu and Peters (2005), identified three attitudes as prerequisites for
reflective teaching:
1. Open-mindedness: Having an active desire to listen to more sides of an issue than
just one.
2. Responsibility: Having the ability to question as well as find answers to why you
are doing what you are doing in the classroom.
3. Wholeheartedness: Having an ability to take risks and act.
Teachers are, as well, challenged to provide teaching techniques that support students’
construction of their understanding (Chen, 2003). Chen further proposes the following to
help make learning more effective in the constructivist classroom:
1. Concept must be presented in realistic, meaningful contexts, and the
interconnections among knowledge components must be made explicit.
2. Providing the experience alone is not sufficient; the teacher should ask questions
and listen carefully to students’ interpretations of the data.
3. The teacher must push students to think as clearly as they can about their ideas.
This can usually be achieved through constructive follow-up questioning and
providing cue and clues where necessary.
66
4. The teacher should perceive errors as the results of the learners’ conceptions for the
moment, because at that moment that is what makes sense to the student.
5. To modify learners misconceptions, the teacher will need to elicit an explanation
as to how the students have arrived at their answers, and ask questions or provide
a different perspective which will allow the learner to discover their errors and
construct the correct concept (von Glasersfeld, 1995, cited by Chen, 2003).
6. Allow learners to manipulate objects as this will make concepts become visible to
them.
7. A playful atmosphere needs to be maintained because as long as learners are
having fun, they are motivated and attentive, and it also helps to release the
frustration inherent in constructing understanding.
8. The learners, not the teacher, are responsible for defending, proving, justifying,
and communicating their ideas to the classroom.
The Australian Council for Educational Research (2015), provides three functions as
being the teachers’ role to facilitate learning in a constructivist learning environments:
modelling, couching and scaffolding.
1. Modeling –Modeling is the most commonly used instructional strategy in a
constructivist learning environment. According to Jonassen (1999) there are two
types of modeling: behavioural modeling of the overt performance and cognitive
modeling of the covert cognitive processes. Behavioural modeling deals with
demonstrating how to perform the activities identified while cognitive modeling
articulates the reasoning that learners should use while engaged in the activities.
67
2. Coaching – One of the functions of the teacher in the constructivist learning
environment is coaching. Jonassen (1999) acknowledges that a good coach
motivates learners, analyzes their performance, provides feedback and advice on
the performance and how to learn about how to perform, and provokes reflection
and articulation of what was learned.
3. Scaffolding – Scaffolding provides temporary frameworks to support learning
and student performance beyond their capacities. Thus students are given tasks
beyond their level of understanding then provided with the necessary guidance to
help them complete the task. The concept of scaffolding represents any kind of
support for cognitive activity that is provided by an adult when the child and adult
are performing the task together (Wood & Middleton, 1975, cited by Jonassen,
1999).
2.3 Perception
To appropriately assess the actions of people, one needs to analyze the elements that
interact to inform a person’s behavior. One of these elements is the individuals’
perception which is closely linked to ones’ attitudes (Pickens, 2005). Gould (2003) states
that perception is a cognitive activity and is individualistic in the sense that it is subject to
the perceiver. He adds that sensation takes place before perception and defines sensation
as the process by which our “sensory receptors receive, transduce, and code stimulus
information into electrochemical impulses in our nervous system [thus] it is the initial,
relatively simple process of detecting individual stimuli” (p.1). Fazio and Williams
(1984) as cited by Akurugu (2010) defines perception as “those subjective experiences of
objects or events that ordinarily result from stimulation of the receptor organs of the
body” (p.27). They further add that, this stimulation is converted into neural activity and
68
is transmitted to the nervous system for further neural processing. According to
Bodenhausen and Hugenberg (2009), perception is basically the border between the
internal and external worlds of an individual. To them, “the outer environment create
signals (visual, auditory, etc.) that can be sensed, and the perceiver receives these signals
and converts them into psychologically meaningful representations that define our inner
experience of the world” (p.2). Perception is the means through which “organisms
interpret and organize sensation to produce a meaningful experience of the world”
(Lindsay & Norman, 1977, as cited by Pickens, 2005, p.52). This is to say, if a person is
confronted with an unfamiliar situation, the person interprets and provides a meaningful
explanation to it based on knowledge constructed through prior experiences. Similarly the
manner in which the individual responds to a situation relies largely on the cognitive
structures and belief systems obtained through exploration and experience. Greenberg
and Baron (1999) as cited by Akurugu (2010) defines perception as “the process through
which we select, organise and interpret information gathered by our senses in order to
understand the world around us” (p.14).
2.3.1 Elements and Conditions of Perception
The ability of an individual to perceive is dependent on certain elements and conditions.
According to Lewis (2001), some fundamental elements of perception is that:
1. There is an experiencing person or perceiver (the one who performs the
perceiving activity).
2. Something is being perceived and this can either be an object, person, situation or
a relationship.
3. There is the context within which objects, events or persons are perceived.
69
4. Perception occurs through certain processes (known as the perceptual process)
starting with the experiencing of multiple stimuli by the senses and ending with
the formation of a mental concept or cognitive structures which can help an
individual take decisions.
Lewis (2001) adds that certain conditions must certainly be satisfied for the perception to
take place. These conditions include:
1. There must be a sensory system (such as the ear, tongue, skin, eye and nose) in
place that functions normally (Jordaan & Jordaan, 1994, cited by Lewis, 2001).
2. The sensory system be subjected to basic sensory stimulation (such as the ability
to smell, touch, hearing, sight and taste).
3. The stimulation should be in a constant state of changes, both physiologically and
psychologically. Thus, stimulation from the senses should not be fixed so as to
create room for modification of knowledge.
2.3.2 Stages of Perception
According to Bodenhausen and Hugenberg (2009), “the very same social stimulus can be
experienced in distinctly different ways by individuals who have different motives,
attitudes, expectancies, and recent experiences” (p.14). Pickens (2005) purports that the
perception process of an individual follows four stages:
1. Stimulation: This is the first stage of the perception process and according to
Pickens (2005), the individual at this stage receives sensory stimuli through their
sensory organs in the form of touch, smell, taste, sight and sound.
70
2. Registration: At this stage of the perception process, the data collected from the
sensory organs are recorded in the cognitive structures of the individual for
organization.
3. Organization: This is the third stage in the perception process as purported by
Pickens (2005). At this stage the individual classifies or categorizes sensory data
recorded based on cognitive structures.
4. Interpretation: This is the final stage of the perception process and is characterized
by the individual making analysis and trying to understand classified data
collected again based on based on prior experiences, beliefs, etc.
Pickens (2005) adds that feedback plays an important role in the interpretation of
information collected. According to him the feedback could be positive or negative and
that positive feedback reinforces interpretation of one's reality while negative feedback
cause internal conflict need for re-examination for future reference.
Kashyap (2016) also proposes three stages for the processes involved in ones’ perception:
1. Perceptual Inputs: We are constantly being confronted with a lot of stimuli from
the environment in the form of information, objects, events, people, etc.; these
serve as the inputs for further perceptual processes. According to Kashyap (2016),
this is basically through the senses such as touch, sight, smell, taste and hearing.
He adds that some stimuli do not affect the senses of an individual consciously
and this process is referred to as subliminal perception.
2. Perceptual Mechanism: This is the second stage of the perceptual process.
According to Kashyap (2016), after a person receives information, they try to
71
process it through the following sub processes of selection, organisation and
interpretation.
a. Perceptual Selectivity: An individual is exposed to a lot of activities in the
environment at the same time. However, equal attention cannot be given
to all the information around, hence the need for perceptual selectivity.
Perceptual selectivity refers to the tendency to select certain objects from
the environment for attention. Usually, the objects which are selected are
those which are relevant and appropriate for an individual or those which
are consistent with our existing beliefs, values and needs. Pickens (2005)
refers to this as perceptual vigilance. According to Kashyap (2016), the
ability to select the right stimuli depends on external factors (such as size,
intensity, repetition, status, constrast, movement, familiarity, nature) and
internal factors (such as prior knowledge, motivation, personality).
b. Perceptual Organisation: After selecting the essential data from the range
of stimuli available in ones’ environment at any given time, we then try to
organize the perceptual inputs in such a manner that would facilitate us to
extract meaning out of what we perceive. In other words, person’s
perceptual process organizes the incoming information into a meaningful
whole. According to Kashyap (2016) some factors underlying this
organization are: similarity, proximity, closure and continuity.
3. Perceptual Outputs: Perceptual outputs encompass all that results from the
organization and interpretation of information received. These would include such
factors as one’s attitudes, opinions, feelings, values and behaviours resulting from
the perceptual inputs. Perceptual errors adversely affect the perceptual outputs;
72
the lesser ones’ biases in perception, the better our chances of perceiving reality
as it exists or at least perceiving situations with the minimum amount of
distortions.
Kashyap (2016) adds an important aspect of the perception process, thus perceptual
interpretation. Kashyap purports that perception is said to have taken place only after the
data have been interpreted and that without interpretation, selection and organisation of
information do not make any sense at all; this is because after the information has been
received and organized, the perceiver needs to give interpretation or assigns meaning to
them. The person, after receiving and interpreting data, tends to check whether his
interpretations are right or wrong usually through introspection and then react to the
information by indulging in some action in relation to the perception arrived at in the
form of perceptual outputs (Kashyap, 2016). Pickens (2005) however adds that whenever
information received is not congruent with the person’s current beliefs, attitudes,
motivation, a perceptual defence is formed which creates an internal barrier that limits the
external stimuli passing through the perception process when it. He refers to this as
selective perception. “Selective perception occurs when an individual limits the
processing of external stimuli by selectively interpreting what he or she sees based on
beliefs, experience, or attitudes” (Sherif & Cantril, 1945, cited by Pickens, 2005, p.54).
Lewicki (2005) suggests the internal and external encoding style of individuals as
accounting for differences in thier perception. The external encoding style refers to the
traditional, sensory-driven approach to perception whereby reactions to stimuli is
governed mainly by environmental factors while internal encoding styles, on the other
hand, rely on the readiness or ability of an individual to make theory-driven assumptions
73
based on cognitive structures or expereince. Thus, though all individuals may be exposed
to similar information, one may interpret information received using the external
encoding style while another may rely on internal encoding style thereby leading to
differences in perception and actions.
2.3.3 Influence of Perception on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics
Teachers are no exception to the influence of perception on their teaching and learning
activities. According to Applefield, Huber and Moallem (2001), teachers’ perception of
learning theories and teaching in general, have been seen to have a considerable influence
on almost all aspects of their instructional decisions. As Jonassen (1991), cited by
Applefield et al., (2001), puts it, person’s knowledge is usually founded on his unique
perception of his physical and social experiences; while using their varied mental capabilities to
explain, predict, or make inferences about a phenomena in the real world. In addition, teachers’
views of teaching and learning guide them as they make decisions about desirable means
of implementing and assessing their instruction (Applefield et al., 2001).
As far back as in 1950’s, researchers sought evidence with regards to the influence of
teacher practice, expectations, and perceptions on learning outcome (Contreras, 2011). It
was later discovered by a sociologist, Howard Becker, in a research that “teachers in
schools within lower socioeconomic areas used different teaching techniques and
expected less from their students than did teachers in middle-class schools” (Contreras,
2011, p.28). Similarly, in 1974, Chaiken and colleagues conducted a research where they
videotaped the teaching and learning process of a class where the teachers were alerted
that certain students were gifted; they realized, upon analyzing the videos, that
74
unconsciously teachers favored those students who they knew were talented and treated
the rest normally (Contreras, 2011).
Areepattamannil and Kaur (2013) in a study which sought to determine the effect of
Mathematics teachers’ perceptions on their students’ mathematical competence in
Singapore and Australia, revealed that mathematics teachers’ perception of their students’
competencies where positively liked to students’ achievement in mathematics, their
attitude towards mathematics and their engagement in mathematics lessons. This is to
say, teachers who had positive perception about their student mathematical competencies
channeled their efforts to providing materials and classroom situations which fostered in
turn led to a positive learning outcome. It can thus be said that, a mathematics teacher
with a positive perception and expectation towards their students is not in itself a solution
to students learning problems but helps the teacher to understand as well as select well
established teaching strategies, which promotes students’ motivation, commitment and
involvement in school activities which inevitably leads to high performance among
students (Jussim, Robustelli & Cain, 2009)
2.4 Basic Education Mathematics Curriculum
Mathematics serves as the mother or back bone of several subjects studied in our schools
and according to the Curriculum Research and Development Division [CRDD] (2012),
“Mathematics is a logical, reliable and growing body of concept which makes use of
specific language and skill to model, analyse and interpret the world. It [therefore]
provides a medium of communication that is precise, concise and powerful” (p.iv).
Ziegler (2011) accepts that there is no definite definition for Mathematics and adds that it
is normally referred to as a science that helps to investigates abstract structures for their
75
properties and patterns. He defines mathematics as the “science that developed from the
investigation of figures and computing with numbers” (p.vii).
As an activity carried out by human, “Mathematics involves creativity in the discovery
of patterns of shapes and numbers, the recognition of relationships, the modelling of
situations, the interpretation of data and communication of emerging ideas as well as
concepts” (CRDD, 2012, p.iv). As purported by Piagets’ constructivist theories, “people's
acts must be considered the genetic source of mathematical conceptualization” (Godino,
2015, p.3). Thus, Mathematics can be said to originate from daily human activities in the
quest to understand the world. As the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008), cited
by Sarfo, Eshun, Elen and Adentwi (2014), puts it “mathematics is the invisible culture of
our age; it manifests in our lives in many ways: practical, civic, professional, recreational,
and cultural” (p.766). We can thus say that mathematics is the oldest and well-structured
body of knowledge which helps us to understand and appreciated the world through the
study of relationships, structures, space and patterns. The Universal Encyclopedia (1996),
as cited by Dotse (2014), assert that mathematics is divided into arithmetic, which studies
numbers, geometry, which studies space, algebra, which studies structures, analysis,
which studies infinite processes and probability and statistics, which study random
processes.
The term curriculum has been defined in several ways by several authorities in the field
of curriculum development (Tse Nga, 2013). Earlier definitions of curriculum were given
by Tyler and Wheeler. To Tyler (1949), the curriculum could be seen as ”all of the
learning of students which is planned by and directed by the school to attain its
educational goals” while Wheeler (1967) sees the curriculum as “the planned experiences
76
offered to the learner under the guidance of the school” (Tyler, 1949, Wheeler, 1967;
cited by Stefan, 2010). Edward, Ebert and Bentley (2013), also define the curriculum as
“the means and materials with which students will interact for the purpose of achieving
identified educational outcomes” (p.1). In simple terms, the curriculum can be defined as
what to teach and how to teach it under the guidance of the school.
We can therefore define the mathematic curriculum as a curriculum as which guides and
directs the learning experiences of students in mathematics education under the guidance
of a school. As discussed earlier, mathematics serves as a bedrock for other important
subjects in our basic schools such natural and integrated science. It is for this reason that
mathematics education has undergone several transformation coupled with educational
reforms and is treated as one of the core subjects from the Primary school to the Senior
High School level. However, deciding what to teach and how to teach is influenced by
identifying what “repertoire of knowledge and skills that are important for the young
learner to master, what role the child should play in achieving mastery, and what
organization of learning experience is most likely to yield maximum cognitive power”
(Frede & Ackerman, 2007, p.1).
The Basic Education mathematics curriculum in Ghana is thus “designed based on the
recognition that mathematics is not only a collection of concepts and skills to be mastered
but also involves processes that will help the individual to develop his ability to explore,
conjecture, solve problems and reason logically” (Ministry of Education, 2007, cited by
Sarfo et al., 2014, p.766). Due to this, Mathematics has been made on of the core subjects
in both the basic and secondary school levels of education in Ghana. According to the
Curriculum Research and Development Division (2012), the rational of the Basic
77
Education Mathematics Curriculum is to equip every citizen with the necessary problem
solving and decision making skills thereby making every citizen Math literate and able to
discover, adapt, modify and be innovative in facing changes and future challenges. As
purported by the CRDD (2012),
“the learning of mathematics at all levels involves more than just the basic
acquisition of concepts and skills; it involves, more importantly, an understanding
of the underlying mathematical thinking, general strategies of problem solving,
communicating mathematically and inculcating positive attitudes towards an
appreciation of mathematics as an important and powerful tool in everyday life”
(p.iv).
To achieve the above rational proposed by the Curriculum Research and Development
Division (2012), the following aims were set to guide the mathematics curriculum:
1. to help children appreciate the value of mathematics and its usefulness to them, to
develop confidence in their own mathematical ability, to foster a sense of personal
achievement and to encourage a continuing and creative interest in mathematics;
2. develop in children the skills, concepts, understandings and attitudes which will
enable them to cope confidently with the mathematics of everyday life;
3. help children develop a variety of problem solving strategies involving
mathematics and develop the ability to think and reason logically;
4. help children become mathematically literate in a world which is information
technology (IT) oriented; and
5. provide a foundation for those children who may wish to further their studies in
mathematics or other subjects where mathematical concepts are essential.
78
From these aims, the following objectives were made to guide the syllabus at the basic
level:
1. work co-operatively with other pupils and develop interest in Mathematics
2. read and write numbers
3. use appropriate strategies to perform number operations
4. recognise and use patterns, relationships and sequences and make generalizations
5. identify and use functions, formulae, equations and inequalities
6. identify and use arbitrary and standard units of measure
7. draw and use graphical representations of equations and inequalities
8. use the appropriate unit to estimate and measure various quantities.
9. identify solids and plane shapes and appreciate them in the environment
10. collect, analyse and interpret data and find probability of events
11. use the calculator to enhance understanding of numerical computation and solve
real-life problems
12. manipulate learning materials to enhance understanding of concepts and skills
To meet the above aims and objectives requires a sound mathematics curriculum,
competent and knowledgeable teachers who can integrate instruction with assessment,
classrooms with ready access to technology, and a commitment to both equity and
excellence (CRDD, 2012).
2.4.1 The Junior High School Mathematics Syllabus
According to Kelly (1999), as cited by Tse Nga (2013), the curriculum can be viewed as
a syllabus which guides teachers to select appropriate content or the body of knowledge
they wish to transmit within a given subject. The National Syllabus for mathematics
79
(Junior High School 1-3), serves as the curriculum that guides mathematics education in
the Junior High School level. It therefore includes what must be taught, how it must be
taught and how to measure the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process (Asafo-
Adjei, 2001). One of its main aims is to help children to develop a deep understanding of
Mathematics concepts by building a strong foundation for them at the basic level of
education as well as shaping their personality in a way that will be acceptable by the
society.
The curriculum is designed under the strict supervision of Curriculum Research and
Development Division under the Ministry of Education, based on the current needs and
aspirations of the nation. According to Essuman (2009), the preparation of the
curriculum for the various subjects treated in the basic school level goes through a well-
structured process to ensure no area, being it culture, religion, gender, just to mention a
few; is left out. This process, as purported by Essuman (2009), involves:
1. Evaluating existing curriculum based on feedback or responses after its
implementation
2. Selecting Subject Panels; which includes subject teachers, university professors,
curriculum expert, CRDD expert, textbook researchers and secondary school
teachers.
3. Drafting syllabuses integrating societal needs such as belief systems, culture,
human rights, courtesy and etiquettes, gender issues, health and sanitation,
personal safety, population & family life, environmental issues, science and
technology.
4. Trailing Drafts
80
5. Analyzing the trialed data
6. Drafting the Syllabuses
7. Proof reading
a. Check Correct Sequencing of Instructional Objectives
b. Check Appropriateness and Weighting of Profile Dimensions
c. Link Themes and Topics Horizontally and Vertically
d. Check Correctness of Content Information
8. Curriculum specialists check
9. Proof reading for spellings mistakes, grammatical errors and punctuations
10. Updating of Syllabuses
11. Typesetting, printing and binding
12. Distribution to schools
13. Collecting feedback and evaluation
This process of curriculum development adopted by the Curriculum Research and
development Division, according to Essuman (2009) is an ideal syllabus development
process which ensure that no one is left out in its preparation while ensuring that it meets
the current trends of education as well as the society.
2.4.2 Ghanaian Pupils Mathematics Academic Achievement
Mathematics literacy is the ability to apply skills and concepts, reason through,
communicate about, and solve mathematical problems (NCTM, 1989, cited by Sarfo et
al, 2014). As purported by Sarfo et al (2014), the importance of mathematics to our lives
have made stakeholders of education such as policy makers, educators, employers, and
81
parents worldwide, to become more and more interested in the mathematics curricula and
students’ performance in mathematics.
Mathematics teaching in Ghana, at the basic education level especially, is characterized
by transmission and command models (Fredua-Kwarteng, 2005). “Pupils are not
encouraged to pose questions or engage in hands-on activities and problem-solving
activities in order to attain both conceptual and procedural understanding of what they are
taught” (Sarfo et al., 2014, p.768). Due to this, most basic school pupils in Ghana have
lack the necessary conceptual understanding underlining mathematics and its concepts
(Baffoe & Mereku, 2010).
According to Sogbey (2011), data collected from the West African Examination Council
(WAEC) has shown that the pass-rate of pupils who take the Basic Educating Certificate
Examination (BECE) is nothing to write home about. “The abysmal performance in
mathematics of basic school students (Grade 8 – in Ghana also called Junior Secondary
School [JSS2] or Junior High School [JHS2]) is evident in the results of the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) 2003 and 2007” (Sarfo et al.,
2014, p.766). Students’ poor performance can also be seen in the 2008, 2009, 2010 and
2011 Basic Education Certificate Examination [BECE] (Sarfo et al., 2014). Yakubu
(2015) posit that the “academic performance of pupils during assessment keeps on
declining despite several curriculum reforms intended to improve performance [and that]
most candidates perform poorly in English, Mathematics and the Sciences in
examinations conducted by WAEC” (p.48).
Findings from the National Education Assessment for 2016 indicated that “primary
school pupils were challenged by both English and mathematics, with no more than 37%
82
of pupils achieving proficiency levels in any grade or subject” (Ministry of Education
[MoE], p.8). They add that pupils’ performance was “noticeably lower for mathematics
than for English, with only 22% of P4 pupils and 25% of P6 pupils achieving proficiency
in mathematics compared to 37% of P4 pupils and 36% of P6 pupils achieving
proficiency in English” (MoE, 2016), p.8-9). Table 2.1 shows the overall percentage
correct score by grade and subject:
Tab 2.1: Overall percentage correct score of primary pupils by grade and subject
Mean scores by grade
Subject/Class P4 P6
Mathematics 41.7 (40.5 – 42.8) 43.8 (43.0 – 44.7)
English 50.9 (49.4 – 52.3) 47.8 (46.4 – 49.2)
Source: National Education Assessment, 2016 (MoE, 2016)
Table 2:1 shows the national means based on percentage correct scores obtained from
pupils responses during examinations with regards to their grade and subject. By
comparing the average means obtained for both Primary 4 and Primary 6, pupils seem to
find mathematics more challenging than English. That notwithstanding, pupils
performance in mathematics was below average; thus, 41.7% and 43.8% for Primary 4
and Primary 6 respectively.
According to the Ministry of Education (2016) “the results of the 2016 NEA showed
clearly that the performance of P4 and P6 pupils was generally [low and that] There has
been no significant or substantive change in pupil performance since the 2013” (p.26).
They add that, although scores obtained for both English and mathematics were low,
83
mathematics seemed to pose a greater challenge to Ghanaian pupils in both the public and
private schools.
Table 2.2 shows the performance of JHS 2 pupils in the last three study conducted by the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) on student
performance.
Table 2.2: TIMSS Results for JHS 2 Pupils
Year Overall mean mathematic scale score
2003 276 (4.7)*
2007 309 (4.4)*
2011 331 (4.3)*
Source: Yakubu (2015), *Standard error in parentheses
Data presented in Table 2.2 shows the abysmal performance of JHS 2 pupils in the last
three study conducted by TIMSS. The mean score attained by pupils (276, 309, and 331
for the year 2003, 2007 and 2011 respectively) is significantly lower as compared to
TIMSS average scale of 500. The reason for such performance is due to the poor nature
of mathematics pupils experience in the various school across the country thereby
causing them to performed poorly when it comes to items that tested pupils ability to use
concepts, solve non-routine problems and reason mathematically (Anamuah-Mensah &
Mereku, 2005; Anamuah-Mensah, Mereku & Asabere-Ameyaw, 2004).
In todays’ society, self-fulfillment and the ability to live a successful life with regards to
acquiring a good job, better standard of living and good health is dependent on higher and
84
quality education which indirectly contributes to a country’s growth and economic
stability. “All these numerous advantages cannot be achieved in Ghana if a child fails to
perform creditably in national examinations such as Basic Education Certificate
Examination (BECE) and West Africa Senior Secondary Certificate Examination
(WASSCE) to ensure admission into tertiary or higher education” (Iddi, 2016, p.17).
2.4.3 Improving Basic School Pupils’ Mathematical Competency
As Iddi (2016) puts it, the development of a nation is linked to the academic performance
of the student within it. This is because, if students perform better in school, the nation
gets to acquire quality graduates in future who will one day serves as human capital as
well as leaders to steer the affairs of the country (Mushtaq & Khan, 2012). The abysmal
performance of students may be due to several factors. Mushtaq and Khan (2012) classify
these factors into two: internal and external school factors. The internal factors include:
teachers’ role, students competence in the language of instruction, class schedules; class
sizes; availability of textbooks, the conduct of regular assessment, effective internal
supervision, the availability of teaching and learning materials; while the external factors
comprise: culture, economic status of household, parental educational attainment,
religion, family size, etc.
Recent study has revealed that the decline in students’ mathematic performance is due to
the process by which mathematics is taught in schools (Anthony & Walshaw, 2009).
“Constructing a new curriculum, without a corresponding change in teaching pedagogy
will not achieve the set aims intended” (Yakubu, 2016, p.52). This attests to the reason
why students’ performance, especially in mathematics, keeps dwindling almost every
year. Teachers are thus encouraged to upgrade their knowledge on lesson delivery
85
periodically to meet the demands of modern trends in teaching and learning. As Fredua-
Kwarteng (2005) puts it, countries that fail to invest in the continuous professional
development of their teachers is destined for failure in all of its affairs. This is because
such a country will lack the necessary human capital to manage the affairs of the country
in future thereby rendering it vulnerable and enslaved.
Additionally, modern methods of teaching which are child-centred and with a
considerable evidence of classroom success, such as the constructivist approaches to
teaching and learning, should be made the bedrock national curriculum.
“Mathematics education relies closely on constructivism, its exploratory and
inquisitive strategies [therefore] adopting constructivism would enable the
teachers design instructional activities that take into consideration the learning
style, ability and interest of pupils; in order to reduce the failure rate of pupils”
(Yakubu, 2016, p.52-53).
Mathematics teachers thus, need to adopt constructivist principles and strategies to
teaching and learning to ensure a wholesome development of students’ cognitive,
affective and psychomotor domain thereby making them reasonable, open minded and
more self-reliant.
2.5 Empirical Review on Constructivism
According to Qvortrup et al. (2016), nearly all leading theories of learning today believes
in the constructivist view of learning (developed by Piaget) that “learning in school
demands students with the ability to relate actively to the academic subject and through
dialogue, experiment, reflection etc. thereby creating a personal academic identity”
(p.101); showing that learning is subjective involves cognitive construction on the part of
86
the learner. Amineh and Asl (2015) add that “constructivism is a synthesis of multiple
theories diffused into one form [thus] … the assimilation of both behaviorist and
cognitive ideals” (p.9).
Herman and Knobloch (2004) are of the view that constructivist approach to teaching and
learning generates increases in both the affective and cognitive domains. To them,
learners prefer the constructivist approach to teaching and learning because they see
themselves actively responsible for constructing their own knowledge. Cunningham
(2004), as cited by Yakubu (2015), found out that learners become more engaged in the
lesson when discussing ideas in small groups which is also a constructivist method of
teaching. He revealed in his study that mathematics learners gained higher reasoning
skills and deeper understanding of mathematical concepts (Cunningham, 2004, cited by
Yakubu, 2015)
Nayak (2007) conducted an experimental study on the effect of students’ learning in
Constructivist environment and its subsequent effect on achievement in mathematics at
the elementary level of learners vis-à-vis traditional pedagogy in three different urban
schools of Odisha, India. His finding revealed that students who were taught through the
constructivist approach gained significantly higher achievement score in Mathematics
than those who were taught using traditional medium. He added that “students taught in
constructivist- learning environment have significantly enhanced their understanding and
application abilities as compared to other abilities like knowledge and skill” (p.13).
Kim (2005), as cited by Yakubu (2015), in his study found that using constructivist
teaching methods for 6th graders led to better understanding as well as improved pupils’
achievement than when using traditional teaching methods. The study also brought to
87
bear the fact that learners preferred constructivist methods of teaching and learning to
traditional ones.
Karaduman and Gültekin (2007) in their study, which sought to investigate whether
learning based on constructivist approach has an effect on fifth grade Social Studies
students’ attitudes, their academic success and their retention, revealed that teaching and
learning material prepared with regards to constructivist learning principles increased the
academic achievement as well as the retention levels of students in the study of Social
Studies. In addition to that, learners found materials prepared according to constructivist
learning principles as more appropriate than those based on other approaches.
Barman and Bhattacharyya (2015) conducted a study to ascertain the effectiveness of using
the Constructivist Teaching Method on students’ academic achievement in the study of Physical
Science at the secondary level. The following were their findings after conducting the study:
1. The constructivist teaching method is found to be significantly more effective and
fruitful in teaching Physical Science as compared to traditional method of
teaching.
2. The constructivist teaching method is found to be significantly more effective to
enhance the performance of students in their academic achievement in the subject
Physical Science as compared to traditional method of teaching.
3. The constructivist teaching method makes teaching learning process less abstract
and meaningful to the students.
4. The constructivist teaching method is found to be significantly more fruitful in the
formation of concept among the VIII grade school students as compared to
traditional method of teaching.
88
5. The constructivist teaching method motivates students better to their learning than
the traditional method of teaching.
They therefore concluded that, “Constructivist Teaching Method is more effective and
fruitful in teaching Physical Science than the Traditional Method of Teaching” (p.75).
Doğru (2007), as cited by Yakubu (2015), studied the effect of traditional teacher-centred
approaches to that of the child-centred constructivist methods. Initial test to assess learner
performance after the lessons showed no significant difference between traditional and
constructivist methods. “However, in the follow-up assessment 15 days later, learners
who learned through constructivist methods showed better retention of knowledge than
those who learned through traditional methods” (Yakubu, 2015, p.34).
In a study conducted by Chowdhury (2016) to ascertain the effectiveness of the
constructivist approach on student’s achievement in mathematics, it was revealed that the
orthodox methods of teaching and learning was not enough to develop critical thinking
and risk taking attitude amongst students of today. Hence, the need for an urgent reform
in our teaching practices in light of the NCF-2005 framework which views the child as a
"discoverer" who can actively construct knowledge and build understanding through
experimentation (National Council of Educational Research and Training, 2005).
According to Chowdhury (2016), “the framework advocates the use of constructivism at
every stages of Mathematics teaching” (p.40).
According to Le-Cornu and Peters (2005), South Australia now supports the adoption of
teaching and learning practices proposed by constructivists. They believe constructivist
pedagogy provides a framework which stimulates generative thought and creativity
within the learner; ingredients that are needed for the future. As their commitment to
89
these beliefs, the South Australian government has produced a new curriculum
frameworks and standards documents which emphasizes the importance of
constructivism as a theoretical basis for educational improvement in government schools;
“it draws on and promotes constructivism as a theory appropriate to rethinking learning
processes and moving towards achieving improved meta-learning (Le-Cornu & Peters,
2005, p.52). In addition to this, the National Curriculum Framework, 2005, has confirmed
the use of constructivist approaches to teaching and learning in Indian classroom situation
(NCERT, 2005). All these studies provide solid empirical evidence to the effectiveness of
the constructivist approach to learning over other learning theories hence the need for its
adoption and use in the Ghanaian classroom.
2.6 Chapter Summary
In the 21st century, a nation that contributes and place much emphasis on education of its
citizen enjoys reaps the benefits of sustained economic development. In fact, a person’s
education is closely linked to his/her life chances, income and wellbeing (Battle & Lewis,
2002). This is why “the academic performance (learning achievement) of pupils/students’
in schools remains a top priority for many educators, parents and national governments”
(Iddi, 2016, p.17).
One of the most important subjects studied in our schools today is mathematics. It has
been referred to as the mother of all subjects due to its early discovery as a body of
knowledge and its appearance in almost all subjects studied in school (Dotse, 2014).
“Despite the critical role mathematics plays in intellectual and social development of the
students and despite the lavish attention paid to the study of mathematics in Ghana,
students at the basic level do not perform well in mathematics examinations” (Sarfo et al.
90
2014, p.766). According to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (2012), as cited by Yakubu (2015), though there might be several factors
contributing to this, one of the major cause is the use of traditional, teacher-centred
methods of lesson delivery which dwindles students’ academic growth due to the fact that
it does not actively involve them in lessons thereby causing them to drop out of school.
They thus, encourage the use of active learning techniques, which is a constructivist
approach, to encourage student’s participation.
Several other research have advocated the use of the constructivist approach to teaching
and learning due to its enormous contribution to student achievement. Herman and
Knobloch (2004) are of the view that constructivist approach to teaching and learning
generates increases in both the affective and cognitive domains. To them, learners prefer
the constructivist approach to teaching and learning because they see themselves actively
responsible for constructing their own knowledge. Cunningham (2004), as cited by
Yakubu (2015), found out that learners become more engaged in the lesson when
discussing ideas in small groups which is also a constructivist method of teaching. He
revealed in his study that mathematics learners gained higher reasoning skills and deeper
understanding of mathematical concepts (Cunningham, 2004, cited by Yakubu, 2015). If
there should be a change in student performance when it comes to mathematics education
in Ghana, the government support teachers not only by providing them with the necessary
materials but must also invest in the professional development teachers. This will keep
them abreast with modern result oriented strategies to teaching and learning such as the
constructivist approaches. In line with this, national policies should also be drawn to
support and ensure the review, adoption and use of modern methods of teaching which
91
contributes positively to students’ academic achievement so as to guide curriculum
implementers as well as ensure national development.
92
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Overview
This chapter provides detailed description of the methodology employed in the study. It
discusses the research design, population, sample and sampling techniques, the research
instruments, validity of the research instruments, reliability of the research instruments,
procedure for data collection and method of data analysis.
3.1 Research Design
This study was the descriptive research which adopted the concurrent triangulation mixed
method research design. As purported by Salaria (2012), descriptive research is
concerned with gathering information about prevailing circumstances for the purpose of
description and interpretation of behavior. According to Salaria, this type of research
design does not just amass and tabulate facts but incorporates “proper analyses,
interpretation, comparisons, identification of trends and relationships” (Salaria, 2012,
p.1). Opoku (2005) adds that descriptive research enables the researcher to obtained
samples from a given population in a very effective and economic way. The concurrent
triangulation design under the mixed method approach was then adopted as a means of
data analysis and presentation. Creswell (2014) posits that researchers who are new to
this approach most often think of it as just a combination of quantitative and qualitative
data. Though this might be true to some extent, he adds that in the concurrent
triangulation mixed method design, a researcher separately collects quantitative and
qualitative data, analyzes them separately, and then compares the results to see if it agrees
with each other with respect to a given phenomenon (Creswell, 2014).
93
Using the mixed method research approach for a study provides strengths that offset the
weakness of both quantitative and qualitative research approach and provides more
comprehensive evidence for studying a research problem than either quantitative or a
qualitative research approach alone (Creswell, 2008).
3.2 Setting
The research was conducted in the Effutu Municipality in the Central Region of Ghana.
The population of Effutu Municipality, according to the 2010 Population and Housing
Census, is 68,592 which represents 3.1% of the region’s total population of 2,201,863;
with males and females representing 48.8% and 51.2% respectively (Ghana Statistical
Service, 2014). The municipality is characterized by a youthful population since one-
third of the population fall below the ages 15 years and in terms of occupation, majority
of the populace (31.4%) are engaged in craft and related trades, followed by service and
sales (24.9%); about 27% of the male population are into agriculture (Ghana Statistical
Service, 2014). Manufacturing is the most dominant industry in the Municipality,
followed by retail services then agriculture, forestry and fishing. A third (33.8%) of the
population with school going age are currently in primary school with 13.3% at the
Junior High School (JHS) level, less than one-tenth (6.9%) in the Senior High School
(SHS) and close to 28% are at the tertiary level (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). Effutu
Municipality is divided into three circuits: the east, west and central circuits. The number
of basic schools, both public and private, in the east, west and central circuits are 39, 33
and 23 respectively (Effutu Municipal Education Directorate, 2017). The number of
teachers in each circuit is as follows: 395 in the east circuit, 333 in the west circuit, and
211 in the central circuit; making a total of 939 teachers, of which 540 are primary school
94
teachers and the remaining 399 are Junior High School (JHS) teachers. Figure 3.1 below
shows a map of the Effutu Municipality:
Fig 3.1: Map of Effutu Municipality.
Source: Ghana Statistical Service, 2014
3.3 Population
A research population is a “well-defined collection of individuals or objects known to
have similar characteristics” (Explorable, 2012, p.1). According to Polit and Hungler
(1999) as cited by Mbokane (2009), the population of a study is the totality of all the
objects, subjects or members that conform to a set of a given criteria. Nonetheless,
researchers sometimes find it difficult testing every individual in the general population
due to the large size thus, sometimes making a research too expensive and time-
95
consuming (Explorable, 2012). Many researchers therefore tend to rely on sampling
techniques.
3.3.1 Target Population
Target population, according to Lavrakas (2008), includes all units for which a study or
research data are to be used to make inferences. This is to say that the target population of
a study defines the people or objects for which a research finding can be generalized.
Explorable (2012) adds that a target population also known as theoretical population
refers to the “entire group of individuals or objects to which researchers are interested in
generalizing the conclusions” (p.1). The target population of this study comprised of all
basic school teachers in the Effutu Municipality totalling nine hundred and thirty-nine
(939).
3.3.2 Accessible Population
The accessible population also known as the study population, according to Explorable
(2012), is the section of a population the researcher can apply his conclusions to. The
accessible population is derived from the target population and as such can be said to be a
subset of the target population. The accessible population was composed of all basic
school mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality totalling three hundred and
ninety-nine (399). “It is from the accessible population that researchers draw their
samples” (Explorable, 2012, p.2).
3.4 Sample and Sampling Techniques
A sample is defined as “a group of relatively smaller number of people selected from a
population for investigation purposes” (Alvi, 2016, p.11). According to Webster (1985)
as cited in Mugo Fridah (2002), a sample is “a finite part of a statistical population whose
96
properties are studied to gain information about the whole” (p. 1). Mugo Fridah (2002)
adds that in terms of human beings, it can be said to be a set of respondents taken from a
larger population for the purpose of a survey. Alhassan (2006) posits that sampling
technique is the process through which a portion of the population is selected to represent
the entire population.
The sample size for this study was composed of all Junior High School Mathematics
teachers of the Effutu municipality in the Central Region of Ghana with a total of one
hundred and thirty-eight (138). The researcher employed the census and purposive
sampling technique. The census sampling was used to sample all basic school teachers in
the Effutu Municipality while the purposive sampling technique was used to sample JHS
mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality. In purposive sampling, the sample is
obtained having a prior purpose in mind. Purposive also known as the judgmental or
purposeful technique is a non-probability sampling technique used to select a sample of
the accessible population on the basis of ones’ “own knowledge of the population, its
elements, and the nature of your research aims” (Babbie, 1990, cited by Latham, 2007,
p.9). As purported by Alvi (2016), purposive sampling is used when people within a
given population bear certain characteristics that meet the criteria of the researcher or the
study. Mugo Fridah (2002) adds that purposive sampling provides rich and in-depth
information into cases whereby size and specific characteristics of the sample depend on
the study purpose. As Latham (2007) puts it, purposive sampling is usually based on a
particular characteristic possessed by the sample to help answer questions about a certain
matter or product.
97
The purposive sampling technique was thus used to select all basic school JHS
mathematics teachers for the study due to subject specialisation and their experience in
the teaching of mathematics.
3.5 Research Instrument
Annum (2017) defines research instrument as the tools for data collection. Thus, research
instruments are tools designed to measure as well as obtain data on a given situation.
They include, but are not limited to observations, questionnaires, interviews and reading
(Annum, 2017). The research instrument employed for this study comprised of
documents, questionnaires and interviews.
3.5.1 Documents
Bowen (2009), refer to documents as “social facts, which are produced, shared, and used
in socially organised ways” (p.27). Documents contain texts and images recorded without
a researcher’s intervention and can be in the form of “advertisements; agendas,
attendance registers, and minutes of meetings; manuals; background papers; books and
brochures; diaries and journals; event programs (i.e., printed outlines); letters and
memoranda; maps and charts; newspapers (clippings/articles); press releases; program
proposals, application forms, and summaries; radio and television program scripts;
organisational or institutional reports; survey data; and various public records” (Bowen,
2009, p.27-28). Bowen (2009) adds that documentary analysis is often used together with
other qualitative research methods as a means of triangulation. Merriam (1988) as cited
by Bowen (2009) also pointed out that, “documents of all types can help the researcher
uncover meaning, develop understanding, and discover insights relevant to the research
problem” (p. 29).
98
Bowen (2009) provided the following as some importance of using documents in a study:
1. Less time-consuming: since document analysis requires data selection, instead of
data collection, it is less time-consuming and therefore more efficient than other
research methods.
2. More accessible: gaining access to documents in the public domain has become
relatively easy due to the advent of the Internet and computers. Documents are
now obtainable with or without the authors’ permission. This makes document
analysis an attractive option for qualitative researchers.
3. Cost-effective: Document analysis is less costly than other research methods and
is often the method of choice when the collection of new data might not be
feasible.
4. Stability: Documents are always stable and thus cannot be affected by the
presence of the investigator’s presence neither does it alter what is being studied
(Merriam, 1988, cited by Bowen, 2009).
5. Exactness: The presence of “exact names, references, and details of events makes
documents advantageous in the research process” (Yin, 1994, cited by Bowen,
2009, p.31).
The main document used for this study was the Junior High School mathematics
curriculum, thus, the National Syllabus for Mathematics (JHS 1-3, 2012). The National
Syllabus for mathematics (Junior High School 1-3), serves as the curriculum that guides
mathematics education in the Junior High School level across the country. It therefore
includes what must be taught, how it must be taught and how to measure the
effectiveness of the teaching and learning process (Asafo-Adjei, 2001). It is prepared
99
under the strict supervision of Curriculum Research and Development Division (CRDD).
It begins with a theoretical framework which presents the rationale of the syllabus, its
general aims, general objectives, scope of the syllabus, approaches to teaching and
learning mathematics and the forms of assessment. This is followed by the actual
framework for teaching and learning which is structured in five columns: Units, Specific
Objectives, Content, Teaching and Learning Activities and Evaluation. The JHS
mathematics syllabus has been planned on the basis of Years and Units. Each year's work
is covered in a number of units sequentially arranged and in a meaningful manner such
that each unit’s work will provide the necessary and enabling skills for the next unit. JHS
1 has 14 units; JHS 2 has 14 units, while JHS 3 has 7 units of work. The unit topics for
each year have been arranged in the sequence in which teachers are expected to teach
them (CRDD, 2012).
This document was analysed to determine the congruence of its theoretical framework to
the constructivist principles of teaching and learning developed by the researcher from
studies of existing documents on constructivism (Phillips, 2000; Richardson, 2003;
Applefield et al., 2001; Taber, 2011; Koohang, 2009; Chen, 2003).
3.5.2 Questionnaires
According to Yakubu (2015), a questionnaire is a written document in survey research
that has a set of questions given to participants. Annum (2017) states that a questionnaire
is a data collection instrument normally used in surveys and defines it as a
“systematically prepared form or document with a set of questions deliberately designed
to elicit responses from respondents or research informants for the purpose of collecting
100
data or information” (p.1). Thus, questionnaires contain printed list of questions used to
find out the views or opinions of people about an issue, product or service.
According to Hague (2006), there are three types of questionnaires: the structured, semi-
structured and unstructured questionnaire. Structured questionnaires, in the view of
Hague (2006), consist of “closed or prompted questions with predefined answers”
(p.136). He adds that with this type of questionnaire, the researcher anticipates all
possible answers to a given question and provides respondents with pre-coded responses
from which they make a choice. A typical example is ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or ‘true’ or ‘false’
questions. Unstructured questionnaires consist of open ended question which allows the
respondents to express themselves (Hague, 2006). Annum (2017) adds that open ended
questions “constitute questions which give the respondent an opportunity to express his
or her opinions from a set of options [thus,] the respondent frames and supplies the
answer to the question raised in the questionnaire”. Semi-structured questionnaires
consist of both closed and open ended questions. According to Hague (2006), they help
gather a large range of different responses from people and allows for the collection of
qualitative and quantitative information for a study.
This study employed the use of a structured questionnaire (see Appendix A for sample of
questionnaire). The questionnaire consisted of four sections (A-D). Section A consisted
of information with regards to respondents’ biographical data. Section B consisted of
thirty (30) closed ended questions which sought to determine the learning theory that
predominantly influenced JHS mathematics teachers’ lessons in the Effutu Municipality.
Section C consisted of eighteen (18) closed ended questions which sought to establish the
degree to which JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality apply the
101
constructivist principles in their classroom instruction. Finally Section D, which is the
last part of the questionnaire, consisted of six (6) items which sought to find out JHS
mathematics teachers’ perception of constructivism.
Sections B to D were rated based on a five-point likert scale, where 1 = strongly
Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Uncertain, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. Every section
of the questionnaire began with specific instructions as to the intent of the items as well
as how to respond to items in that section.
3.5.3 Interview
Annum (2017) posit that an interview is an interaction between two people or a group of
people, where oral questions are posed by the interviewer(s) to elicit response from the
interviewee(s). Annum is of the view that, “interviews become necessary when
researchers feel the need to meet face-to-face with individuals to interact and generate
ideas in a discourse that borders on mutual interest” (p.2). Flick (2006) also adds that the
purpose of an interview “is to reveal existing knowledge in a way that can be expressed
in the form of answers and so become accessible to interpretation” (p. 160). Fox (2009)
posits that interviews are research tools commonly used in survey designs, exploratory
and descriptive studies; and is an important “data gathering technique involving verbal
communication between the researcher and the participant” (p.4). Apart from interviews
being face-to-face, they can also be conducted over the phone or the computer terminal
via video conferencing technology (Annum, 2017). Turner (2003) cited by Zohrabi
(2013) provides the following as some advantages of using an interview:
1. Good for measuring attitudes and most other content of interest.
2. Allow probing by the interviewer.
102
3. Can provide in-depth information.
4. Allow good interpretative validity.
5. Moderately high measurement validity for well-constructed and well-tested
interview protocols.
6. Relatively high response rates often attainable.
According to Fox (2009), there are three types of interview: structured or standardized
interviews, semi-structured and unstructured or in-depth interviews. Annum (2017) is of
the view that in structured interview, “the interviewer follows a set pattern usually
adhering as much as possible to the order of questions on the interview questionnaire
whilst posing the questions in a formal manner” (p. 2). Fox (2009) purport that a
structured interview is an interview where questions are set in advance to enable the
interviewer to ask each respondent the same questions in the same way. Such questions
are, as much as possible, geared towards eliciting a specific answer from the respondent.
An unstructured interview, on the other hand, is a less formal type of interview whereby
the researcher prepares a set of questions and freely modifies its sequence, changes the
wording and sometimes explains them or adds to them during the interaction process
(Annum, 2017). Fox (2009) adds that, the interviewer “approaches the interview with the
aim of discussing a limited number of topics, sometimes as few as one or two, and frames
successive questions according to the interviewee's previous response” (p.7). Semi-
structured interviews are ”similar to structured interviews in that the topics or questions
to be asked are planned in advance, but instead of using closed questions, semi-structured
interviews are based on open-ended questions” (Fox, 2017, p. 6). We can also say that it
is a mixture of both structured and unstructured interview techniques since it employs the
103
use of structured questions while providing room for the addition of extra questions to
allow the respondent throw more light on an issue. According to Fox (2009), “semi-
structured interviews are useful when collecting attitudinal information on a large scale”
(p.6).
The researcher carried out a semi-structured face to face interview with ten (10)
respondents to obtain data on their perceptions of the constructivist theory of learning
(see appendix B). The semi-structured interview guide was made up of two parts: the first
part sought to find out participant biographical data while the second part, consisting of
thirteen (13) questions, probed their perception in relation to the constructivist theory of
learning. The data were collected through audio-recording and later transcribed.
3.6 Validity
Burns (1999), cited by Zohrabi (2013), makes it clear that “validity is an essential
criterion for evaluating the quality and acceptability of research” (p.258). To Zohrabi
(2013), validity is concerned with “whether our research is believable and true and
whether it is evaluating what it is supposed or purports to evaluate” (p.258). Validity is
basically defined as the extent the extent to which a test or instrument measures what it is
intended to measure. As Yakubu (2015) puts it, “validity of a measurement tool is the
degree to which the tool measures what it claims to measure” (p.63). Validity provides
trust, usefulness and dependability to a research and therefore, it lies within the onus of
the researcher to ensure validity in the different phases of his research, thus, from data
collection through to data analysis and interpretation by ensuring the quality of research
instruments used (Zohrabi, 2013) since the “conclusions researchers draw are based on
the information they obtain using these instruments” (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003, p.158).
104
Zohrabi (2013) provides two forms of validity: content validity and internal validity.
Content validity, according Zohrabi (2013), is a type of validity whereby an expert in the
field of research reviews the different elements, skills and behaviors captured by an
instrument in a research to ensure they are adequately and effectively measured. Zohrabi
adds that, this helps to eliminate or revise unclear and obscure questions while rewording
complex items. To ensure the content validity of research instruments used, four (4)
senior lecturers from the University of Education, Winneba (UEW) were used: two from
the Basic Education Department and two from the Mathematics Department.
Internal validity, according to Zohrabi (2013), is “concerned with the congruence of the
research findings with the reality [as well as] the degree to which the researcher observes
and measures what is supposed to be measured” (p.258). Merriam (1998), as cited in
Zohrabi (2013), proposed six methods for ensuring internal validity of research
instruments: triangulation, member checks, long-term observation at research site, peer
examination, participatory or collaborative modes of research and researcher’s bias. To
ensure the internal validity of research instruments used, the researcher employed
triangulation. In the view of Zohrabi (2013), triangulation is the process of collecting data
through several sources such as the use of questionnaires, interviews and classroom
observations. Zohrabi adds that “gathering data through one technique can be
questionable, biased and weak [therefore] collecting information from a variety of
sources and with a variety of techniques can confirm findings” (p.258). Denzin (1970) as
cited by Bowen (2009), purports that triangulation involves blending different
methodologies in a study of the same phenomenon. According to Bowen (2009), “by
examining information collected through different methods, the researcher can
105
corroborate findings across data sets and thus reduce the impact of potential biases that
can exist in a single study” (p.28).
3.7 Reliability
According to the Institute for Educational Development and Extension (2003), reliability
refers to how well a test provides a consistent set of results across similar test situations
and time periods (p.63). In the view of Zohrabi (2013), reliability deals with the
consistency, dependability as well as the replicability of the results obtained from a
research. Yakubu (2015) adds that reliability is a “measure of consistency of research
instruments to obtain the same result with the same measure” (p.63). In this study, a pilot
study was conducted and Cronbach Alpha co-efficient of 0.70 served as the criterion for
determining the overall consistency of the scales. According to McMillan and
Schumacher (2010), a Cronbach alpha coefficient of at least 0.70 is indicative of internal
consistency.
According to Zohrabi (2013), ensuring reliability of quantitative research instruments
such as the questionnaire, is easier and straightforward because data collected are usually
in numerical form. However, “in qualitative approaches to research, achieving the
identical results are fairly demanding and difficult [and this is] because the data are in
narrative form and [is] subjective” (Zohrabi, 2013, p.259). In view of this, Lincoln and
Guba (1985) cited in Zohrabi (2013), points out that when it comes to qualitative research
data, such as interviews and documentation, one should not necessarily think about
obtaining the same results, but rather think about the dependability and consistency of the
data. This can be achieved through the use of three techniques: the investigator’s
106
position, triangulation and audit trial (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, & Merriam, 1998, all cited
in Zohrabi, 2013).
3.8 Pilot Testing
Researchers agree that pilot testing of research instruments helps to ensure the validity
and reliability of the data it collect (Dillman, 2000). A pilot test was thus, conducted on
30 teachers in the Awutu Senya District, who were not part of the research, to ensure that
the research instrument provided a stable and consistent result devoid of any ambiguities
(Creswell, 2008).
Data from the pilot test were analysed to determine its reliability using Cronbach Alpha.
The Section B part of the questionnaire, which had three categories that measured the
predominant learning theory of JHS mathematics: cognitivism, behaviourism and
constructivism, yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.70, 0.71 and 0.83 respectively.
Similarly, the Section C part of the questionnaire, which sought to determine the extent to
which JHS mathematics teachers employed the constructivist principles in the classroom
instructions, yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.75 while the section D part which
measures the perception of JHS mathematics teachers on constructivism yielded a
reliability coefficient of 0.72. McMillan and Schumacher (2010) argue that a Cronbach
alpha coefficient of at least 0.70 is indicative of internal consistency. Hence, based on the
results obtained for the pilot study it could be concluded that the test instrument was
reliable.
The pilot test was very crucial because it helped the researcher to know the internal
consistency of the instrument, check the data analysis procedure and also helped to
107
restructure the items. It also enabled the researcher to identify and correct some research
items that were wrongly formulated and could have given some unintended results.
3.9 Data Collection Procedure
The researcher visited some schools with an official letter of introduction (see Appendix
E) from the University of Education, Winneba, seeking permission from the heads of
schools to carry out the study. The researcher then sought permission from the school
heads to organise the teachers for the study. The researcher familiarised himself with
teachers and explained to them how the questionnaires should be responded to as well as
how the interview will be conducted.
A structured questionnaire which consisted of closed ended questions on a five-point
Likert scale was used. Respondents were required to tick the degree to which they agreed
with each question after which the researcher collected the questionnaires for analysis. A
face to face interview was conducted with nine (9) JHS mathematics teachers in the
Effutu Munipality using a semi-structured interview guide. Their responses were audio-
taped and later transcribed for analysis.
Also, the Junior High School mathematics curriculum, thus, the national syllabus for
mathematics (JHS 1-3, 2012) which served as the main document for the documentary
coupled with studies on constructivism by researchers (Phillips, 2000; Richardson, 2003;
Applefield et al., 2001; Taber, 2011; Koohang, 2009; Chen, 2003) in the form of journals
and books were downloaded and used for the study.
The researcher, in all cases of administering the instruments, openly and honestly
communicated the purposes and the uses of the data collected as well as assured
108
participants of the confidentiality of their responses. This was to ensure that the research
was conducted under standard conditions.
The schedule in Table 3.1 guided the data collection phase of the study
Table 3.1: Schedule of data collection
Visit Purpose
First visit Distribution of letters and getting acquainted with head
teachers and JHS mathematics teachers
Second visit Taking teachers through the purpose of the exercise and
Administration of questionnaires
Third Visit Interviewing selected teachers
3.10 Data Analysis Procedure
Data were collected from documents, responses from questionnaire and interviews to
answer the research questions in this study. Yakubu (2015) define data analysis as the
“process of organizing and summarizing data, using descriptive statistics and/or
inferential statistics” (p.67). As mentioned earlier, this study employed both quantitative
and qualitative methods of data analysis.
3.10.1 Analysis of Qualitative Data
To respond to research question one, content analysis was employed to analyse the
National Mathematics Syllabus for JHS (2012), which was the main document used for
the documentary analysis. According to Bowen (2009), content analysis just like thematic
analysis, is a form of documentary analysis which involves “organizing information into
109
categories related to the central questions of the research” (p.32). The analysis was done
by comparing the contents of the theoretical framework of the JHS mathematics syllabus
to the principles of constructivism developed by the researcher based on the literature and
study of renowed researchers (Phillips, 2000; Richardson, 2003; Applefield et al., 2001;
Taber, 2011; Koohang, 2009; Chen, 2003) in the field of constructivism. These principles
include: teachers’ duty as a facilitator, building lessons on pupils prior experience (RPK),
actively engaging learners in lessons through activities, encouraging the use of
manipulative material (TLMs), encouraging social interaction, and assessment is
individualistic and based on knowledge application.
To answer research question three, audio records from interview sessions were
transcribed by listening to a playback of the audio recorded and writing down the
responses provided by interviewees to the interview questions. The result was reported
thematically using narrative style with embedded direct quotations in support of the
quantitative data collected via the questionnaire in response to this same research
question.
3.10.2 Analysis of Quantitative Data
A structured questionnaire was administered to respond to research questions 2, 3 and 4.
This contained closed ended questions which were coded and analysed using mean,
standard deviation and percentages. Participants’ scores for the items within the same
sub-scale were added. The mean score for the sub-scales were used to describe the
learning theory that predominantly influences teachers’ lessons as well as the extent to
which the principles of constructivism influences teachers’ instructions. In the analysis,
‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ were categorised as ‘agree’, ‘strongly disagree’ and
110
‘disagree’ were categorised as ‘disagree’ while ‘uncertain’ was categorised as ‘neutral’.
A mean score above 3.0 was interpreted as ‘high’ or ‘always’ while that below 3.0 was
interpreted as ‘low’ or ‘never’. A mean score of 3.0 was considered as ‘occasionally’ or
‘sometimes’. Percentage scores were also employed to analyse responses provided to
items in Section D of the questionnaire to help answer research question three which
dealt with JHS mathematics teachers’ perception on the theory of constructivism.
Finally, in order to test the hypothesis formulated for the study, thus the influence of JHS
teachers’ perception of constructivism on their classroom instruction, a Pearson product-
moment correlation analysis was used.
3.11 Ethical Consideration
According to Jack and Norman (2003), it is necessary in every research studies, to treat
ethical issues with a high degree of caution. As such, ethical issues governing human
subjects in a research were strictly adhered to. The names of pupils, teachers and schools
were not released in the research. Secondly, the features of the questionnaires such as
ease of completion and sensitivity of the questionnaire were all considered. There were
no biases towards any religion, race or culture. Permission was sought from participants
to involve them in the study. Their names were not needed on the questionnaire and they
were assured of subject anonymity and confidentiality.
3.12 Summary
This chapter discussed the methodological procedure that was followed in the study.
Issues relating to population, sampling procedure, instrumentation, data collection and
analysis as well as the ethical principles were discussed. Descriptive statistics as well as
content and thematic analysis help answered the research questions while inferential
111
statistics helped to answer the research hypothesis. The next chapter presents the analysis
of data collected and the discussion of findings.
112
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Overview
This chapter presents the results of the analyses of data and discussion of the findings.
The chapter is organised under four sub-sections. The first section presents the return rate
and the reasons that accounted for it while the second section shows the demographic
characteristics of the sample for the study. Thereafter, the analysis of data for each
research questions follows as well as the testing of hypothesis, then finally, the discussion
of the findings.
4.1 Response Rate
Out of the 138 questionnaires distributed to the respondents, 133 were completely
responded to and returned, representing a return rate of 96.4%. This return rate was
realised because some of the respondents did not return the questionnaire. The researcher
made several attempts to retrieve the questionnaires, but it was later realised the teachers
had misplaced the instruments. Nonetheless, this response rate was adequate for
statistical analysis based on the suggestion of Dillman (2000) that a response rate of 70%
is adequate for a surveys study. The next sub-section presents the demographic
characteristics of the respondents.
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
The demographic characteristics of respondents obtained using the Section A part of the
questionnaire designed for this study. It comprised items as the sex, age, academic
qualification, teaching experience and the number of in-service training attended.
The demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 4.1.
113
Table 4.1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents (n = 133)
Variables Frequency Percentage

Sex
Male 75 56.4
Female 58 43.6
Age
Less than 30 1 0.8
31 to 40 66 49.6
41 to 50 54 40.6
51 and above 12 9.0
Academic Qualification
Cert. A 3 2.3
Diploma 73 54.9
Bachelor’s Degree 47 35.3
Master’s Degree 10 7.5
Experience
1-5 28 21.1
6-10 76 57.1
11-15 21 15.8
16 and Above 8 6.0
In-Service Training Attended
Nill 74 55.6
1 16 12.0
2 15 11.3
3 13 9.8
4 and Above 15 11.3
Source: Survey Data, 2017
It could be seen from Table 4.1 shows that there were more male teachers (n = 75,
56.4%) than female teachers (n = 58, 43.6%) who participated in the study. Majority of
the respondents fell between the ages of 31-40 years (n = 66, 49.6%) while a few were
between the ages of 41-50 (n = 54, 40.6%) as well as 51 and above (n = 12, 9.0%). Only
one of the respondents was less than 30 (n = 1, 0.8%) years.
The composition of the respondents based on academic qualification showed that the
frequency of those who had diploma (n = 73, 54.9%) was more than bachelor’s degree
114
holders (n = 47, 35.3%), and masters (n = 10, 7.5%) holders respectively. The
distribution of the respondents by years of teaching experience in mathematics revealed
that majority (n = 76, 57.1%) had spent 6-10 years, followed by those who have spent 1-5
years (n = 28, 21.1%), 11-15 years (21, 15.8%) and 16 years and above (n = 8, 6.0%).
More than half of the respondents indicated never to have attended any mathematics in-
service training (n = 74, 55.6%), followed by those who had attended it once (n = 16,
12.0%), twice (n = 15, 11.3%), four times and more (n = 15, 11.3%), and then those who
had attended it three times (n = 13, 9.8%).
4.3 Presentation and Analysis of Data
Research Question 1: To what extent does the basic school mathematic curriculum
(syllabus) conform to the constructivist principles of teaching and learning?
This research question was formulated to determine whether the curriculum for
mathematics education at the Junior High School (JHS) level, thus the National Syllabus
for Mathematics Education (JHS 1-3), conforms to the constructivist principles of
learning as it guides teacher instruction in the classroom. Content analysis was employed
to analyse theoretical framework of syllabus with respect to constructivist principles
developed by the researcher based on the literature and study of renowed researchers in
the field of constructivism.
Determining the conformity of the JHS mathematics syllabus to constructivist
principles
With the rationale of producing citizens who are mathematically competent so as to help
them reason or use their minds logically in solving problems for the benefit of the society
(CRDD, 2012), the JHS mathematics syllabus has served as the curriculum for
115
mathematics education in the Junior High School level throughout the nation and has
undergone several reforms (Eshun, 2013) with the most current one in use being the
‘National Syllabus for Mathematics (Junior High School 1 - 3)’ which was introduced in
September, 2012. According to the Ministry of Education (2017, p.8), the following have
been the usual reason for curriculum reforms due to the burden it places on learners:
1. Curricula that is dissociated from their personal and social context.
2. Teachers who are not able to respond to individual needs.
3. Poor development of numeracy and literacy skills among pupils.
4. Teachers lack the skills and resources required to integrate ICT into teaching.
5. There is a lack of emphasis on critical thinking, innovation, creativity and
problem solving skills in the school curriculum.
These reasons provided might be true due to the fact that society is dynamic, therefore
factors that guided the construction of the curriculum in the last three to five decades
might have changed drastically due to shift in the preference of the people and the nation
at large. This explains why there has been several educational reforms, such as those led
by the Dozdo Committee in 1974 and Anamoah Mensah committee in 2002 as well as the
Free Compulsory and Universal Basic Education (FCUBE) providing an action plan for
the years 1996 to 2005 (Eshun, 2013; UNESCO, 2010), which has led to the restructuring
of the Ghanaian education system and its functions.
With the continuous reformation and restructuring of the educational system in Ghana
coupled with a global shift from the teacher centred system of education to the adoption
of the child centered system of education (Mungoo & Moorad, 2015), one may ask if the
curriculum meets the current needs of learners or follows the current trends education
116
worldwide. Report from a study conducted by UNESCO (2006) states that high and
quality education requires trained teachers who are well acquainted with the learner
centred methods of instruction. “Consequently, the demand for quality education has led
to the proliferation of constructivist approaches and Leaner Centred Education (LCE) has
been promulgated in many developing countries” (Mungoo & Moorad, 2015, p.161).
Sahlberg (2007) as cited by Mungoo and Moorad (2015), purport that the constructivist
approach originate from strong global educational policies which opt for the move for
change and an improvement in the educational system. Mungoo and Moorad (2015) adds
that “the promulgation of such policies elsewhere is intended to emulate best educational
practices” (p.161).
Teacher are known to be the final implementers of the curriculum since they are
responsible for ensuring that its’ intended purpose is achieved through the lessons they
teach daily in the classrooom. Though a teacher is allowed to flexible and creative during
the implementation of the curriculum with regards to the situation that might arise in the
teaching and learning process (Adentwi, 2005; CRDD, 2012), majority of their
instruction is directly influenced by the dictates of the curriculum. If teachers are to
successfully employ the constructivist principles in their teaching and learning of
mathematics at the JHS level to fully reap its benefit as purported by researchers (Herman
& Knobloch, 2004; Nayak, 2007; Mungoo & Moorad, 2015; Yakubu, 2015), it is
important that the mathematics curriculum is prepared to conform to the constructivist
principles of teaching and learning. Hence the need to determine whether the National
Syllabus for Mathematics (Junior High School, 1 – 3) conforms to the constructivist
principles of teaching and learning.
117
The JHS Mathematics syllabus is organised into several aspects however to determine its
conformity or otherwise to the constructivist principles of teaching and learning, its
analysis will be restricted to the: aims and objectives, approaches to teaching learning,
medium of instruction, use of teaching and learning materials and assessment. The
analysis will be made by examining the contents of the aspects identified under the
following benchmarks developed by the researcher based on the study of other renowned
researchers in the field of constructivism (Piaget, 1954; Phillips, 2000; Applefield et al.,
2001; Koohang, 2009; Chen, 2003: Richardson, 2003; Taber, 2011):
1. Teachers’ duty as a facilitator.
2. Building lessons on pupils prior experience (RPK).
3. Actively engaging learners in lessons through activities.
4. Encouraging the use of manipulative material (TLMs).
5. Encouraging social interaction.
6. Assessment is individualistic and based on knowledge application.
Teachers’ duty as a facilitator
Central to the constructivist principle of teaching and learning is that learners are capable
of constructing knowledge for themselves given the right environment and activities.
According to Gore (2001) as cited in Pitsoe (2008), contrary to the traditional practice,
the role of the constructivist teacher in a classroom is to be a coach, thus, serving as a
guide or a facilitator by helping learners to process information independently as well as
facilitating learners’ thinking process. Alzahrani (2013) agrees to this by stating that the
teachers’ role in a constructivist classroom is to help learners build their own knowledge.
Olusegun (2015) adds too this by stating that “constructivism requires a teacher to act as
118
a facilitator whose main function is to help students become active participants in their
learning and make meaningful connections between prior knowledge, new knowledge,
and the processes involved in learning” (p.69). Smith (1999), as cited by Pitsoe (2008),
therefore outlines the following as facilitative role of the teacher in the constructivist
classroom:
1. Having faith in his or her learners.
2. Seeing each child as a different person that can succeed in their own unique way.
3. Encouraging learners by asking open-ended, probing questions that encourages
the learner to share their knowledge and experiences with other members of the
class
4. Helping children feel confident in whatever they can do.
5. Provides a "meaningful path" for the learners by providing assistance to help
learners create their own understanding.
6. Helping pupils to understand that it is alright to make mistakes so as to make
them feel confortable to tryout different ideas.
Ndon (2011) summarises this by saying “a teacher as a facilitator, should provide rich
environments, experiences, and activities for learning by incorporating opportunities for
collaborative work, problem solving, authentic tasks” (p. 253).
The JHS mathematics syllabus developed by the CRDD (2012) explicitly states, under
heading ‘Medium of Instruction’, that teachers should ensure they “facilitate the
development and acquisition of mathematical concepts” (p.vii). With regards to catering
for the individual needs of learners, which is clearly in support of child-centredness – a
position strongly supported constructivists –, the syllabus states that all learners should be
119
given the chance to achieve the maximum of their potential and it is the duty of the
teacher to ensure this by relating whatever they are to learn to knowledge they have
acquired in the past. It further adds that “the extent to which teachers are able to facilitate
this process significantly affects how well children learn” (p.ix). Also, teachers are
encouraged to facilitate pupils understanding of mathematical language through the use
of flash cards, pictures and real-life objects.
Nowhere in the JHS mathematics syllabus are teachers encouraged to instruct or spoon-
feed learners with the knowledge they need, though it encourages the use of mental
exercises to begin lessons which some might argue as being a traditional approach to
teaching since it basically encourages the recall of facts; but rather it provides room for
learners to “discover, adapt, modify and be innovative in facing changes and future
challenges” (p.iii). It is thus safe to conclude that the JHS mathematics syllabus
developed by the CRDD (2012) supports the constructivist principle which places the
role of the teacher as a facilitator rather than an instructor or a dispenser of knowledge.
Building lessons based on learners’ experiences (RPK)
Another well acclaimed principle of constructivist is the idea that learners construct their
own knowledge based on prior experiences through their interaction with the
environment (Surgenor, 2010). As Olusegun (2015) puts it “the theory suggests that
humans construct knowledge and meaning from their experiences” (p.66). Olusegun
further adds that as learners receive each new experience, they continually update their
‘mental models’ to reflect the new information, thereby constructing their own
interpretation of reality. Oliver (2000) supports this by stating that it is the duty of the
teacher to always ensure he builds lessons on learners’ experiences by making sure he
120
understands the students' pre-conceived ideas and with that knowledge provide activities
to address them and then build upon them. By so doing they become engaged “by
applying their existing knowledge and real-world experience, learning to hypothesize,
testing their theories, and ultimately drawing conclusions from their findings” (Olusegun,
2015, p.67).
In line with the view of Surgenor (2010) and Olusegun (2015), the CRDD’s JHS
mathematics syllabus, 2012, notes that “new experiences cause children to refine their
existing knowledge and ideas [and that] some children fail to reach their potential
because they do not see the applicability of mathematics to their daily lives and because
they are not encouraged to connect new mathematical concepts and skills to experiences,
knowledge and skills they already have. As a result these children develop a negative
attitude towards mathematics” (p.ix). This statement indicates that the CRDD the
important role the prior experience of learners play in the teaching and learning activity.
It equally show that they place high premium on teachers building lessons on pupils prior
experiences as it helps them to appropriately connect with new mathematical concepts
and skills.
According to the syllabus, “children learn mathematical thinking most effectively
through the application of concepts and skills in interesting and realistic contexts that are
personally meaningful to them. This implies that mathematics is best taught by helping
children to solve problems drawn from their own experiences” (p.vi). This statement
clearly falls in line with the constructivist principle which supports that lesson are built
based on pupils prior experiences. However, the syllabus provides room for the teacher,
in some cases (not all) to “add some more information based upon [their] own training
121
and based also on current knowledge and information” (p.xvii). It states that “there are
times when the teacher must show, demonstrate, and explain [but immediately follows by
saying] … the major part of a pupil's learning experience should consist of opportunities
to explore various mathematical situations in their environment to enable them make their
own observations and discoveries” (p.xvii). We can thus conclude that the JHS
mathematics syllabus, 2012, supports the constructivist view of building lessons on
pupils’ experiences, that is, learning from the known to the unknown.
Actively engaging learners in lessons through activities
Engaging learners in the teaching and learning process through well-structured activities
is one of the premise for the constructivist theory of learning. As Olusegun (2015) puts
it, “teachers cannot simply transmit knowledge to students, but students need to actively
construct knowledge in their own minds [this is to say] they discover and transform
information, check new information against old, and revise rules when they do not longer
apply” (p.66). This constructivist view of learning, according to Olusegun (2015), views
the learner as an active agent in the process of knowledge acquisition hence must be
actively involved in the teaching and learning process. According to Ngussa and Makewa
(2014), active participation of learners is at the heart of constructivist theory. They
further outline the following as characteristics that indicate active participation from
constructivist point of view:
1. Students are allowed to ask questions.
2. Students are allowed to analyze, interpret and predict information.
3. The learner is the key player in the teaching- learning transaction.
122
4. The learners cannot passively accept information by mimicking others’ wording
or conclusion.
5. Students connect new learning with already existing knowledge.
6. Learners actively seek solutions to problems and share ideas of what they
constructed themselves.
Smaldino, Lowther and Russel (2008) postulate that the constructivist approach to
teaching seeks to engage students in problem solving as well as experimental and
experiential or exploratory activities. This is to say, “learning occurs most effectively
when students are directly involved in problem solving activities and measurement of
learning is based on the ability for learners to solve problems and use knowledge to
facilitate critical thinking in real life situations” (Ngussa & Makewa, 2014, p.2).
It has already been established that the 2012 JHS mathematics syllabus prefers the use of
child-centred methods of instruction over teacher centred methods and advocates to a
large extent that teachers should serve as facilitators in the classroom rather than
instructors. For this to be possible, the syllabus ought to provide learning experiences as
well as activities that would ensure that the learner is made the focus of teaching and
learning and this can be possible if, as suggested by Smaldino, et. al. (2008), students are
engaged in problem solving as well as experimental and experiential or exploratory
activities.
The JHS mathematics syllabus of the CRDD (2012) postulates the teaching and learning
activities it provides ensures “maximum pupil participation in the lessons” (p.xvii). It
adopts the ‘problem solving approach’ as its main approach to the teaching and learning
of Mathematics. Though it does not treat “Problem solving and Application as a distinct
123
topic, nearly all topics in this syllabus include solving word problems as activities” (p.vi).
It adds that “children learn mathematical thinking most effectively through the
application of concepts and skills in interesting and realistic contexts that are personally
meaningful to them [implying that] mathematics is best taught by helping children to
solve problems drawn from their own experiences” (p.vi). In line with Smaldino, et. al.
(2008), the syllabus states that “pupil's learning experience should consist of
opportunities to explore various mathematical situations in their environment to enable
them make their own observations and discoveries” (p.xvii). It further states that this can
be done by beginning each lesson with a practical problem which will in turn help pupils
acquire the capacity for analytical thinking and the capacity for applying their knowledge
to problems and issues they may face daily.
It is however worth noting that teachers are encouraged to “re-order the suggested
teaching/learning activities and also add to them where necessary in order to achieve
optimum pupil learning” (CRDD, 2012, p.xvii). It further suggests when necessary, the
teacher must show, demonstrate, and explain issues based on their experience, yet, it
warns against the use of teacher centred methods of teaching such as “rote learning and
drill-oriented methods [while emphasizing] participatory teaching and learning” (CRDD,
2012, p.xvii).
Encouraging the use of manipulative materials (TLMs)
Due to the abstract nature of mathematics certain concepts can be difficult for students to
understand. It is therefore adviced that teaching that facilitates students understanding in
mathematics through multiple representations should be encouraged (National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, 2000; Cope, 2015). One of these representations is the use of
124
manipulative or teaching and learning materials. Browning and Willis (2012) define
Manipulative materials as “concrete models that can be touched and moved around by the
students, thereby providing tangible investigative experiences for abstract mathematics
concepts as well as how concepts are related” (p.9). According to Cope (2015),
manipulative materials can be in the form of “physical (concrete), pictorial (static visual),
and virtual (dynamic electronic) representations” (p.11). Dienes (1960) as cited by Cope
(2015), in a study revealed that “learners’ whose mathematical understandings are firmly
grounded in manipulative experiences would be more likely to make connections
between the world in which they live and the abstract world of mathematics”.
It will be almost impossible to talk about constructivism without talking about the use of
manipulative (Teaching and learning materials). Inculcating the use of manipulative
materials in the teaching and learning process therefore forms one of the major principles
of constructivism (Phillips, 2000; Applefield et al., 2001; Chen, 2003 & Koohang, 2009).
As Shaw (2002, p.1) puts it “manipulatives help students develop conceptual
understanding of mathematical ideas by representing the ideas in multiple ways” thereby
making it easy for learners to assimilate and grapple with complex concepts.
The JHS mathematics syllabus of the CRDD (2012), talks about the need for the use of
teaching and learning materials throughout the instructional process. It refers to teaching
and learning materials as “concrete materials or manipulatives” (p. x). It agrees with
Shaw (2002) on the importance of manipulative or teaching and learning materials in
helping children form mathematical concepts. The JHS mathematics syllabus clearly
shows how important the need for and the use of manipulative materials by stating that it
“provides a foundation of practical experience on which children can build abstract ideas.
125
It [again] encourages them to be inventive, helps to develop their confidence and
encourages independence” (p.x). The syllabus further goes on to encourages teachers to
make use of the “appropriate range of apparatus to focus the children’s thinking on the
concept to be developed [as well as] modifying the TLMs as the learner’s understanding
grows” (p.x). It can thus be said that the JHS mathematics syllabus encourages the use of
manipulatives as it facilitates the children’s thinking during the problem solving process.
Encouraging social interaction
Interaction among learners through collaborative activities is another major tenet of
constructivism. This is because according to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development,
children develop mental structures known as ‘schemas’ and through exploration or
interactions with the environment and with one another, the child assimilates or
accomodates changes to existing knowledge thereby gaining a clearer representation of
the world (Lutz & Huitt, 2004). As purported by Amineh and Asl (2015), constructivists
strongly believe that “meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social
activities such as interaction and collaboration” (p.9). This is to say that, individuals are
likely to make more meanings through interactions with each other as well as with the
environment they live in. Wertsch (1997) cited by Amineh and Asl (2015), adds that
“young children develop their thinking abilities through interaction with other children,
adults and the physical world” (p.14).
Surgenor (2010) emphasizes that one way of ensuring social interaction among learners
collaborative activities. He defines collaborative learning as a “process of peer interaction
that is mediated and structured by the teacher” (p.6). Social interaction among learners is
usually through collaborative activities such as scaffolding, reciprocal teaching,
126
cooperative learning, situated learning, projects and anchored instruction (Surgenor,
2010). Surgenor (2010) adds that discussions, which is a good social interaction tool,
should be promoted in classrooms through specific concepts, problems or scenarios, as
well as guiding pupils interaction through directed questions, the introduction and
clarification of concepts and information, and references to previously learned material.
The JHS mathematics syllabus of the CRDD (2012) provides little information with
regards to the use of social interaction through collaborative activities among learners.
However, there are several clues that suggest the use of collaborative activities to ensure
social interaction. For instance, it states that “children need to be given various
opportunities to work on open-ended problems” (p.vii). It adds that teachers should
“provide opportunities for the pupils to work co-operatively in small groups to carry out
activities and projects which may require out-of-school time” (p.vi). This helps to
sharpen their thinking abilities as purported by Amineh and Asl (2015) while at the same
time help pupils to tolerate the other. The syllabus also acknowledges that the skill of
critical reflection, which is an essential skill needed for pupils to think mathematically,
can be developed by encouraging children to share ideas (CRDD, 2012) which will
invariably expose them to seeing and tackling problems from different perspectives rather
than just in a particular way while encouraging cooperation and team work.
Assessment is individualistic and based on knowledge application
Assessment is a vital part of every curriculum design and implementation process
(Adentwi, 2005). It provides immediate feedback as to the progress of learning as well as
the effectiveness of the methods and activities employed in the teaching and learning
process. The constructivist viewpoint of assessment is that, emphasis must be placed on
127
students' learning process and on their ability to make meaning as well as apply the
knowledge gained to solve problems rather than just acquiring knowledge (Dagar &
Yadav, 2016). Ertmer and Newby (2013), purports that assessment in the constructivist
classroom is more criterion based. This is because it places much emphasis on the
performance of an individual learner to a given standard than to the performance of other
individuals in the whole class, as in norm-referenced assessment, due to individual
differences. Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy and Perry (1992), cited by Abulnour (2016),
provides the following as the constructivist way of assessment:
1. First is how well students are able to function within a content domain,
2. Their ability use knowledge gained in a specific domain to solve problems, and
3. If involved in an authentic task, then assessing whether the student successfully
completed that task irrespective of their collegues
Abulnour (2016, p.26) postulates that this process relates to the four stages in applying
constructivist teaching:
1. Eliciting prior knowledge,
2. Creating cognitive dissonance,
3. Authenticity and applying to new contexts with feedback, and
4. Reflecting on learning.
Also, the constructivist subscribes to the use of formative assessment more than the
summative assessment even though they employ both in the evaluation processes (Ertmer
& Newby, 2013). This is due to the individual differences that exist among learners,
therefore to them, waiting till the end of the lesson to evaluate learning might not provide
an accurate picture of students performance since their rate of learning might be different.
128
Therefore, to them there is the for learners to be constantly monitored throughout the
teaching and learning process to ensure no one is left behind while providing varied
evaluation exercises to low, average and high performers at the end of the teaching and
learning process to ensure the learning needs of all learners are met (Ertmer & Newby,
2013).
Assessment is an integral part of the JHS mathematics syllabus (CRDD, 2012). As a
matter of fact, it states that “evaluation of children’s achievement is an essential part of
mathematics education [and that] assessment should be an integral part of the normal
teaching and learning programme” (p.xi). It further provides the following as purpose for
assessment:
1. to give teachers feedback on the success of their methods and approaches and to
assist planning for new learning (formative); and
2. to evaluate children’s readiness for new learning and to find out what they have
learnt (summative).
This is to say, as per the JHS mathematics syllabus (CRDD, 2012), both formative and
summative assessment is deemed necessary. However, in line with the view of Ertmer
and Newby (2013), the syllabus states that “pupils come from various backgrounds and
have different learning styles and abilities. It must [therefore] be recognised that each
pupil is an individual whose learning development and rate of progress is different from
others” (CRDD, 2012, p.vi). It further adds that due to the individual differences that
exist among learners “pupils will be ready for particular mathematical content and
experiences at different times. It is therefore not expected that all children of the same
age will be achieving at the same level at the same time, nor that an individual child will
129
necessarily be achieving at the same level in all content areas of the mathematics
curriculum” (p.vi). This therefore stands to suggest that the curriculum developers of the
JHS mathematics syllabus prefers individualised teaching where attention is provided for
the varied needs of learners while ensuring they attain the expected competency in the
JHS level. This also means that during teaching and learning, the teacher must pay
particular attention every child while providing them with the necessary guidance to help
them learn at their own. This approach will therefore demand constant evaluation by the
teacher throughout the teaching and learning process rather than just at the end of the
lesson suggesting an assessment which is more formative and criterion based.
Again line with Abulnour (2016), the JHS mathematics syllabus states that “skills
assessed should include the ability to communicate findings, to present an argument and
to exploit an intuitive approach to a problem” (p.xi) rather than just recalling of
information and stating facts. It adds that “teachers should avoid carrying out only tests
which focus on a narrow range of skills (or profile dimensions) such as the correct
application of standard algorithms (procedures)” (p.xi). It retorts that though they are
helpful, a continuous use of such methods will resort to students learning that way
thereby limiting their imaginative and creative skills as well as causing them to view
mathematical skills and concepts with “little obvious connection to other aspects of
learning or to their world” (CRDD, 2010, p.xi).
The 2012 JHS mathematics syllabus has also adopted a new form of assessment referred
to as the School Based Assessment. It consists of “12 assessments a year instead of the 33
assessments in the previous continuous assessment system [thereby showing a] reduction
by 64% of the work load [on both teachers and pupils] compared to the previous
130
continuous assessment system” (CRDD, 2012, p.xiv). It provides the following as the
importance of this new form of assessment:
1. To provide a reduced but more effective system of internal school assessment
replacing the former Continuous Assessment system which was rather tedious for
both teachers and pupils/students.
2. To standardize the practice of internal school assessment throughout the country.
3. To provide teachers with guidelines for constructing assessment items/questions.
4. To provide teachers with advice on how to conduct remedial instruction to
improve pupil/student school performance.
5. To provide guidance in marking and grading test items and questions and carry
out general appraisal of pupil/student performance.
In all, it can be said that the 2012 JHS mathematics syllabus appreciates the importance
of both formative and summative assessment. This notwithstanding, just as the
constructivists, the syllabus it opts for a more individualised approach to approach to
assessment where each learner is assisted to learn and develop within their own space
while at the same time achieving the national mathematics competency.
Conclusion
Reviewing the 2012 JHS mathematics syllabus, developed by the Curriculum Research
and Development Division, has provided valuable insight into the vision held by our
curriculum developers with regards to mathematics education. The CRDD (2012) reveals
that the national constitution makes it clear that “all children should be given the
opportunity to achieve the maximum of their potential” (p.xi). The JHS mathematics
syllabus therefore emphasizes the acquisition of “mathematical knowledge and skills that
131
should help the young person to develop basic numeracy competence to be able to
function effectively in society” (CRDD, 2012, p.xvii). It adds that general aims of the
subject can “only be most effectively achieved when teachers create learning situations
and provide guided opportunities for pupils to acquire as much knowledge and
understanding of mathematics as possible through their own activities (CRDD, 2012,
p.xvii).
With regards to its conformity or otherwise to the main principles of constructivism such
as: teachers’ duty as a facilitator, building lessons on pupils prior experience (RPK),
actively engaging learners in lessons through activities, encouraging the use of
manipulative material (TLMs), encouraging social interaction and encouraging
individualistic assessment which is based on knowledge application; the 2012 JHS
mathematics syllabus leaves little room for one to argue against the fact that, to a greater
extent, it agrees with most of the constructivist principle of learning. Though it does not
categorically state its allegiance to any theory of learning, amongst the learning theories
reviewed in this study (Behaviorist, Cognitivist and Constructivist), evidence gathered
from its analysis with regards to the duty of the teachers in the classroom, planning of
lessons, engaging learners in lessons, the use of manipulative material (TLMs),
encouraging interactions and the kind of assessment used, clearly suggest that it conforms
more to the constructivist theory of learning than any other theory of learning.
132
Research Question 2 - What is the teaching and learning theory that predominantly
informs JHS Mathematics teachers’ instructional practices in the Effutu
Municipality?
The second research question investigated the teaching and learning theory that
predominantly informed the instructional practice of participants in the Effutu
Municipality. To do this, the mean and standard deviation of responses collected from the
questionnaire was calculated such that a mean less than 3.0 (m < 3.0) indicated ‘rarely’, a
mean of 3.0 (m = 0) showed ‘sometimes’, and a mean above 3.0 (m > 3.0) indicated
‘always’ based on a 5-point Likert scale used for the data. The results are presented in
Table 4.2:
Table 4.2: Mean and Standard Deviation of the Learning theory that predominantly
informs teachers’ practice
Learning Theories N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Constructivist 133 2.10 5.00 4.15 0.54
Cognitivist 133 2.00 5.00 3.81 0.53
Behaviorists 133 1.30 4.90 3.40 0.61
The results in Table 4.2 revealed that the constructivist learning theory obtained a mean
and standard deviation of 4.15 and 0.54, followed by the cognitivist learning theory with
a mean and standard deviation of 3.81 and 0.53 respectively and lastly the behaviorist
learning theory with mean and standard deviation of 3.40 and 0.61 respectively. It can be
clearly seen that the constructivist learning theory predominantly influenced the
instructional practices of JHS Mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality since it
had the highest mean indicating that majority of teachers’ instructional practice was
133
always influenced by it. This is followed by the cognitivist learning theory and lastly the
behaviorist learning theory which had the lowest mean. It is however worth noting that
the mean score for all the theories were above 3.0 indicating that the facets of all the three
learning theories were common in the classrooms of JHS Mathematics teachers in the
Effutu Municipality but the dominant one being that of the constructivist learning
principles.
Research Question 3: How do JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality
perceive constructivism as a modern approach to lesson delivery?
This research question was formulated to explore JHS mathematics teachers’ perception
of constructivism as a modern approach to lesson delivery in the Effutu Municipality.
Data was collected using a close ended questionnaire (see Appendix A, Section D)
coupled with a semi-structured interview. The interview was conducted for ten teachers
who were randomly selected from the three circuits in the Effutu Municipality (see
Appendix B for interview guide). Data collected from the questionnaire were analysed
using simple percentages together with quotations from responses gathered during the
interview. Responses were analysed and discussed based on the following themes:
1. Teachers knowledge of learning theories
2. Learning theories teachers believe in
3. Teachers knowledge of the constructivist theory of learning
4. Application of the constructivist principles in teaching and learning
5. Constructivism as a learning theory that maximizes learning outcome
6. Challenges associated with constructivism and how to overcoming them
134
Table 4.3 provides a summary of data collected from the questionnaire followed by
responses from the interview.
Table 4.3: JHS mathematics teachers’ perception of constructivism in the Effutu

Municipality
Items Responses Frequency Percentage(%)

54. I am familiar with learning theories Agree 121 91.0
Disagree 12 9.0
Uncertain - -
55. I believe mostly in one of the Behaviorism 37 27.8

following theories: Cognitivism 29 21.8
Constructivism 46 34.6
Others 21 15.8
56. I have received some level of Agree 68 51.1

education about the constructivist Disagree 50 37.6
theory of learning Uncertain 15 11.3
57. I often apply the constructivist Agree 75 56.4

principles in my classroom during Disagree 17 12.8
teaching and learning Uncertain 41 30.8
58. I believe applying the constructivist Agree 86 64.7

principles during lessons maximizes Disagree 12 9.0
learning outcome Uncertain 35 26.3
59. I face challenges applying the Agree 65 48.9

constructivist principles in my Disagree 23 17.3
classroom Uncertain 45 33.8
Source: Survey Data 2017
Result from Table 4.3 revealed that 91.0% of respondents agree to being familiar with
learning theories while 9.0% were not. This indicated that majority (n = 121, 91.0%) of
the JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu municipality were familiar with learning
theories while the remaining (n = 12, 9.0%) had no idea what it was.
135
Qualitative data collected from the interview also support this finding as majority of
respondents were familiar with learning theories as a system of ideas which guides the
teaching and learning process. As one respondent remarked:
“Learning theories are theories that shows the teacher what teaching methods or
teaching strategies he should use in the classroom” (Teacher 5, Interview data,
2017).
Another respondent also said:
“I see it to be like a set of rules which you can follow to make your lesson
successful” (Teacher 2, Interview data, 2017)
It was however noted that few of the respondent had no idea of teaching theories while
others confused teaching theories with teaching strategies.
Again from Table 4.3 it was revealed that majority of the JHS mathematics teachers (n =
46, 34.6%) in the Effutu Municipality believed in the constructivist theory of learning,
followed by the behaviorist theory of learning (n = 37, 27.8%), then the cognitivist theory
of learning (n = 29, 21.8%). The remaining 21 (15.8%) respondents believed in learning
theories other than the behaviorist, cognitivist and the constructivist.
Qualitative data collected from the interview supported these findings as responses from
majority of the respondents showed that they believed in child-centred learning which has
its foundations from the constructivist theory of learning. One respondent remarked:
“Children learn much by observation and imitations, so when they are in a
conducive environment for learning it will mean that the behavioral aspect of the
136
child is developed. It means that the correlation between the teacher and the
pupils helps them to learn” (Teacher 7, Interview data, 2017).
Another respondent had this to say:
“I believe in the child centred approach because usually when you use the child
centred learning it makes the class interactive, the child is able to communicate
and you are able to tell if the child has any problem with the topic you are
teaching” (Teacher 3, Interview data, 2017).
It was however noted that a few made mention of the behaviorist or the cognitivist
learning theory while some respondents provided other learning theories other than the
behaviorist, cognitivist and the constructivist. As one respondent remarked:
“I believe in the child motivation theory. This is whereby pupils have firsthand
experience and are allowed to contribute to the lesson using motivation to
reinforce the good aspect of the learning” (Teacher 6, Interview data, 2017).
Table 4.3 again revealed that majority of JHS mathematics teachers (n=68, 51.1%) in the
Effutu Municipality have had some level of education about the constructivist theory of
learning. However, 37.6% (n=50) of teachers responded negative to having had any
education with regards to the constructivist theory of learning while the remaining 11.3%
(n=15) were uncertain. This result shows that quite a sizeable amount of respondents
(n=65, 48.9%) were not familiar with the constructivist theory of learning, that
notwithstanding, more than half of the JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu
Municipality had received some knowledge of what the constructivist learning theory
entails.
137
Data collected from the interview also revealed that most respondents were familiar with
the constructivist learning theory, though some them thought it to be the same as child
centred learning. The following are excerpts of their responses with regards to their
knowledge of the constructivist learning theory:
“What I know is that it talks about the creative aspect of the child, where the child
is made to do things and experience things and is involved in finding solutions
himself” (Teacher 6, Interview data, 2017).
“I think it talks about groups, the child finds out issues in a group and then tries
to work out to find solutions to it” (Teacher 7, Interview data, 2017).
“It is when the child is allowed to search for something for himself in the process
of learning” (Teacher 5, Interview data, 2017).
Results from Table 4.3 also revealed that 56.4% (n = 75) of JHS mathematics teachers in
the Effutu Municipality often apply the constructivist principles in their teaching and
learning process, 12.8% (n = 17) of respondents did not often apply its principles while
30.8% (n = 41) of respondents were uncertain. This may be due to the fact that they had
not received any education on constructivism. That notwithstanding, majority of JHS
mathematics teachers (n = 75, 56.4%) in the Effutu municipality often applied the
constructivist principles in their classroom instruction.
Data collected from the interview support this finding as the response from majority of
the respondents showed they applied some, if not all, of the constructivist theory of
learning. The following are excerpts of some of their responses with regards to their
138
application of the constructivist learning principle when it comes to lesson planning,
assessment, using TLMs, and collaborative learning:
“Children come from different backgrounds, children in the classroom also have
different abilities so when you plan the lesson based on their experience, it will
benefit all of them” (Teacher 1, Interview data, 2017).
“When you are assessing throughout the lesson, sometimes you get to know
whether they are following the lesson and whether they are getting it or not but if
you are going to assess at the end of the lesson, the assessment may not be
accurate” (Teacher 4, Interview data, 2017).
“TLMs are good because sometimes it makes the lessons simple and makes
teaching easy” (Teacher 8, Interview data, 2017).
“Children learn from each other and also group work makes the children to be
confident and everybody talks because they discuss in a group. So when you ask a
child to talk maybe because of the population of the class, the child may not be
able to talk but when you put that child in a group, that child will be able to talk
and he or she will develop experience” (Teacher 1, Interview data, 2017).
From Table 4.3, it was revealed that 64.7% (n = 86) of JHS mathematics teachers in the
Effutu municipality believed applying the constructivist principles in their teaching and
learning process maximises learning outcome while 9.0% (n = 12) of respondents
believed contrary. The remaining 26.3% (n = 35) of JHS mathematics teachers were
uncertein as to whether it maximises learning outcome or not. This may be due to the fact
that they do not have any education on constructivism nor apply its principles during
139
instruction. This notwithstanding, majority of JHS mathematics teachers (64.7%, n = 86)
in the Effutu municipality believe that applying the constructivist principles maximises
learning outcome.
Qualitative data from the interview also affirmed this as almost all of the respondents
professed that applying the constructivist principles maximises learning. As some of them
retorted:
“When a child is allowed to do things himself, he will not easily forget. So you
will see that the child always remembers what has been taught and they apply it
in their daily activities” (Teacher 1, Interview data, 2017).
“You realize that the teacher is less active so the children do the activities
themselves so it stays longer in their mind” (Teacher 4, Interview data, 2017).
“It boosts their confidence level because once they are able to come out with
suggestions which the teacher too have aided, it gives them some amount of
confidence that yes, they actually did this thing themselves” (Teacher 3, Interview
data, 2017).
“It helps learners to come out with their own idea and ways of solving problems
on their own” (Teacher 6, Interview data, 2017).
Finally, results from Table 4.3 revealed that 48.9% (n = 65) of JHS mathematics teachers
in the Effutu municipality face challenges when applying the constructivist principles in
their classrooms while 17.3% (n = 23) of the respondents believed otherwise. However,
33.8% (n = 45) of respondents were uncertain as to whether applying the constructivist
principles came with challenges or not probably because they do not apply the
140
constructivist principles during instruction. It can therefore be said that majority of the
JHS mathematics teachers (48.9%, n = 65) in the Effutu municipality face some
challenges when applying the principles classroom instructions.
Qualitative data collected from the interview affirmed that teachers often faced
challenges applying the principle of constructivism during lesson. The following are
excerpts of the responses given with regards to the challenges teachers faced applying the
principle of constructivism:
“When specific rules are not set, the class becomes noisy” (Teacher 2, Interview
data, 2017).
“It is very time consuming. Since majority of the work is done by the children, a
lot of activities are involved and this makes it time consuming as compared to if it
is teacher centred where you come to do lecturing, that one moves fastor”
(Teacher 7, Interview data, 2017).
“When you are teaching a practical lesson, you may spend a lot of time”
“It is a tedious task because they want us to deal with the children as an
individual. So you have to be moving from child to the other” (Teacher 4,
Interview data, 2017).
“The class sometimes become playsome because when the children interact with
one another, they easily begin to play if the teacher does not supervise them”
141
As a follow-up question, respondents were asked how some of the problems they have
identified could be solved and these were what some of them said:
“Setting objectives that will meet the time that you are using to teach the lesson”
“Setting rules and regulation whenever you decide to use activities or group work
to guide children’s behavior” (Teacher 9, Interview data, 2017).
“The way of teaching using the TLM should be child centred because children at
the elementary level usually believe in manipulating with items but many at times
it is either the TLM is less used or sometimes we don’t even use it at all. So we
should modernize our TLM using in the classroom” (Teacher 3, Interview data,
2017).
“The teacher should always supervise the work of the pupil” (Teacher 5,
Interview data, 2017).
In all, it could be derived from the results provided that generally, JHS mathematics
teachers in the Effutu Municipality have a positive perception of the constructivist
principles of learning though they acknowledged it had some few challenges which can
easily be overcome through careful planning and supervision.
Research Question 4 - To what extent do JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu
Municipality employ the principles of constructivism in teaching and learning?
Research question four sought to investigate the extent to which JHS Mathematic
teachers in the Effutu Municipality apply the principles of constructivism in their
instructional practices. This was done by calculating the mean and standard deviation of
142
responses collected from the questionnaire such that a mean less than 3.0 (m < 3.0)
indicated ‘rarely’, a mean of 3.0 (m = 0) showed ‘sometimes’, and a mean above 3.0 (m >
3.0) indicated ‘always’ based on a 5-point Likert scale used for the data.
The general view of respondents with regards to the extent to which they employ the
principles of constructivism in their instructional process is presented in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Mean and Standard Deviation of the Extent to which JHS Mathematics
Teachers Employ Principles of Constructivism
Principles of Constructivism Mean Std. Deviation Extent of Use

1. Teacher as a Facilitator 4.07 0.62 Always Used
2. Building Lesson on RPK 4.03 0.70 Always Used
3. Assessment based on 4.01 0.61 Always Used
Knowledge Application
4. Social Interaction through 3.97 0.69 Always Used
Collaborative Activities
5. Active Engagement of 3.94 0.61 Always Used
Learners
6. Use of Manipulative 3.75 0.77 Always Used
Materials
Data from Table 4.4 showed that each principle of constructivism, thus, teacher serving
as a facilitator, building lessons on pupils RPK, assessment based on knowledge
application, encouraging social interactions through collaborative activities, active
engagement of learners and the use of manipulative material; yielded a mean and
standard deviation of 4.07 and 0.62, 4.03 and 0.70, 4.01 and 0.61, 3.97 and 0.69, 3.94 and
0.61, and 3.75 and 0.77 respectively. A review of results revealed that the mean score
obtained from data collected were all above the mean (m > 3.0) indicating that JHS
mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality “ALWAYS USED” all the principles of
constructivism in their classrooms instructions. However, per the level of application,
mathematics teachers applied acting as a facilitator (M = 4.07, SD = 0.62) more than the
143
other principles of constructivism, followed by building lesson on pupils RPK (M = 4.03,
SD=0.70), assessment based on knowledge application (M = 4.01, SD = 0.61), social
interaction through collaborative activities (M = 3.97, SD = 0.69), active engagement of
learners in lessons (M = 3.94, SD = 0.61) and finally the use of manipulative materials
(M = 3.75, SD =0.77) being the least applied principle.
In all, it can be said that JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality always
employed the constructivist principles during classroom instructions.
4.4 Test of the Study’s Hypothesis
H0: There is no statistically significant difference between JHS mathematics teachers’
Municipality
H01: There is a statistically significant difference between JHS mathematics teachers’
Municipality
In testing this hypothesis, a Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was employed
and the results are presented in Table 4.5.
144
Table 4.5: Correlations for Teachers Perception and Influence of Constructivist

Principles on Classroom Instructions
TPC ACP
Teachers perception of Pearson Correlation 1 .820**
constructivism (TPC) Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 133 133
Application of the constructivist Pearson Correlation .820** 1
principles in classroom Sig. (2-tailed) .000
instructions (ACP) N 133 133
Note: ** Correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level
The Pearson product-moment correlation result in Table 4.5 showed that there was a
statistically significant difference between teachers perception of constructivism and the
application of its principles in their classroom instructions [r =.82, p < .01, 2-tailed]. We
therefore reject the null hypothesis. This is to say that there is a strong positive
correlation between JHS mathematics teachers’ perception of constructivism and the
application of its principles in their classroom instructions within the Effutu Municipality.
4.5 Discussion of Results
Research question one was formulated in response to the first research objective which
sought to determine the conformity of the mathematics curriculum for mathematics
education at the Junior High School (JHS) level, thus the National Syllabus for
Mathematics Education (JHS 1-3), to the constructivist principles of learning. After
analysing the contents of its theoretical framework with the constructivist principles of
learning such as: teachers’ duty as a facilitator, building lessons on pupils prior
experience (RPK), actively engaging learners in lessons through activities, encouraging
the use of manipulative material (TLMs), encouraging social interaction and encouraging
individualistic assessment which is based on knowledge application; developed from the
145
study of renowned researchers in the field of constructivism (Piaget, 1954; Phillips, 2000;
Applefield et al., 2001; Koohang, 2009; Chen, 2003; Richardson, 2003; Taber, 2011); it
could be concluded that the 2012 JHS mathematics syllabus to a greater extent, conforms
to the constructivist principles of learning more than any of the learning theories adopted
for this study.
Research question two was formulated in response to the second research objective which
sought to investigate the teaching and learning theory that predominantly informed the
instructional practice of Junior High School mathematics teachers in the Effutu
Municipality. This was done using a questionnaire based on the five-point Likert scale
where a mean below 3.00 indicated rarely, a mean of 3.00 showed sometimes, and a
mean above 3.00 indicated always. With a mean of 4.15 and a standard deviation of 0.54,
the constructivist theory of learning proved to be the learning theory which
predominantly influenced the instructional practices of JHS Mathematics teachers in the
Effutu Municipality. This was followed by the cognitivist learning theory with mean and
standard deviation of 3.81 and 0.53 respectively and lastly the behaviorist theory of
learning with mean and standard deviation of 3.40 and 0.61 respectively. However, with
the mean mark of 3.0 as an indicator for average preference, it could be noticed that all
the learning theories were above the mean mark of 3.0 which implies that the facets of
these three learning theories were common with JHS Mathematics teachers in the Effutu
Municipality with respect to their instructional practices in the schools but the dominant
one being that of the constructivist. This disproves to some extent the idea that
mathematics teaching in Ghana, at the basic education level especially, is characterised
146
by teacher centred approach as purported by Fredua-Kwarteng (2005) and Sarfo, et.al
(2014).
The third research question was formulated in response to third research objectives which
sought to investigate JHS mathematics teachers’ perception on constructivism as a
modern theory for lesson delivery in the Effutu Municipality since according to
Applefield, Huber and Moallem, (2001), teachers’ perception of learning theories and
teaching in general, have been seen to have a considerable influence on almost all aspects
of their instructional decisions. A closed ended questionnaire was administered to JHS
mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality whose data was analysed using simple
percentages coupled with a semi-structured interview conducted for ten JHS mathematics
teachers based on teachers knowledge of learning theories, learning theories teachers
believe in, teachers knowledge of the constructivist theory of learning, application of the
constructivist principles in teaching and learning, constructivism as a learning theory that
maximises learning outcome, challenges associated with constructivism and how to
overcoming them.
Analysis of responses provided to the questionnaire revealed that majority of JHS
mathematics teachers in the Effutu municipality were familiar with learning theories and
believed in the constructivist theory of learning. Majority of them had also received some
level of education on constructivism and quite often apply its principle in their classroom
instructions. They also believed that applying the constructivist principles during
teaching and learning maximises learning outcome.
Data gathered from the interview also affirmed these findings as responses provided
indicated that they are aware of many learning theories and believed it served as a
147
foundation for learning. This affirms Davis (2013) view that learning theories help to
explain, predict, and influence the part of behavior which is related to the acquisition of
knowledge. Majority of them identified the behaiviorist, motivational and child centred
learning as some theories of learning they were familiar with and tended to believe most
in the child centred learning theory. However, as Semple (2000) purports, child centred
learning is not a learning theory but a teaching method whose principles are founded on
the theory of constructivism. So it could be said that they believed in the constructivist
theory of learning as it served as a foundation for child centred learning.
Further interrogations based on the principles of constructivism showed that though they
applied all its principles, either partially or fully, in their teaching and learning activities.
This was so because almost all the principles of constructivism were found in the
principles of child centred learning which they all believed in backed by the latent
support of the JHS mathematics syllabus for the application of constructivist principles in
the teaching and learning process. It is therefore not surprising that in response to
research question two, majority of them subscribed to the constructivist learning theory,
followed by the cognitive learning theory which also served a foundation for
constructivism (Chen, 2003).
Majority of the respondents believed applying the constructivist learning principles in
classroom instructions maximized learning outcome. This confirms the views of several
researchers such as Chen (2003), Applefield et al. (2001) and Koohang et al. (2009) with
regards to the fact that applying constructivist principles to teaching and learning allows
children to learn in their own pace while allowing them to be in charge of their own
learning which leads to better understanding. They however acknowledged that applying
148
the constructivist principles came with certain challenges as large classes coupled with
inadequate TLMs, boredom, inadequate time and the tediousness of tasks involved;
which could easily be managed through careful planning and supervision
In all, it could be said that JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality had a
positive perception about the constructivist theory of learning as it reflected in their
attitude towards it use. This affirms the view of Applefield, et al. (2001) that a teachers’
perception of learning theories and teaching in general, has a considerable influence on
their instructional decisions.
Research question four was formulated in response to the fourth research objective which
sought to determine the extent to which JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu
Municipality employ the principles of constructivism in teaching and learning. This was
done using a questionnaire based on the five-point Likert scale where a mean below 3.00
indicated rarely, a mean of 3.00 showed sometimes, and a mean above 3.00 indicated
always. Questions were asked under the following themes which form the principles of
constructivism developed for this study: teacher serves as a facilitator, encouraging social
interaction through collaborative activities, use of manipulative material, actively
engaging learners, assessment is based on knowledge application, and building lessons
on pupils prior experience (RPK) (see Appendix C for items under each theme). The
mean mark obtained in each case, was above the mean mark of 3.00 which showed that
JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu Municipality ‘always’ applied the constructivist
principles in their classroom instructions. However, a critical analysis of their responses
to each theme showed that they believed more in the teacher acting as a facilitator (M =
4.07, SD = 0.62), followed by building lesson on RPK (M = 4.03, SD = 0.70), assessment
149
of knowledge based on application (M = 4.01, SD = 0.61), encouraging social interaction
through collaborative activities (M = 3.97, SD = 0.69), actively engaging of learners in
lessons (M = 3 .94, SD = 0.61), and use of manipulative materials (M = 3.75, SD = 0.77).
The result form the correlation analysis to test the hypothesis for the study revealed that
there was a strong positive correlation between JHS mathematics teachers’ perception of
constructivism and the application of its principles in their classroom instructions within
the Effutu Municipality. This is to say, the positive the perception of JHS mathematics
teacher in the Effutu Municipality towards constructivism, the more likely they were to
apply its principles during classroom instructions. This again affirms the view of
Applefield, Huber and Moallem (2001) that the attitude of a teacher towards teaching and
learning is greatly influenced by his perception towards it and this has a direct effect on
pupils learning.
150
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Overview
This chapter presents the synopsis of this study. It comprise of the summary of the
findings, conclusions drawn as well as recommendations base on the findings of this
study.
5.1 Summary of the Study
This study investigated Junior High School mathematics teachers’ perception of the
constructivism and the influence of its principles on their teaching in the Effutu
Municipality of the Central Region. This was answered by first reviewing the JHS
mathematics curriculum (syllabus) to determine its conformity or otherwise to the
constructivist learning theory, finding out the learning theory which predominantly
influenced JHS mathematics teachers’ classroom instruction, investigating their
knowledge and perception of the constructivist theory of learning as a modern theory of
lesson delivery, and determining the extent to which JHS mathematics teachers in the
Effutu Municipality employ the principles of constructivism in teaching and learning.
Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development served as the theoretical framework for the
study.
The study was a descriptive survey which adopted a mixed method approach to data
analysis and presentation. The purposive sampling technique was used to sample one
hundred and thirty-eight (138) JHS mathematics teachers for the study. Instruments used
for the collection of data for this study included documents, a structured questionnaire
and an interview guide. Data collected through these instruments were further analysed as
151
follows: documents were analysed using content analysis; responses from the
questionnaire was analysed using descriptive statistics; while responses from the
interview were transcribed and analysed thematically. The next section highlights the
findings of the study.
5.2 Major Findings of the Study
1. The study revealed that, though the Junior High School mathematics curriculum
(syllabus) does not categorically state that it derives its inspiration from the theory
of constructivism, it construction and processes, to a very large extent, adopts
majority, if not all, of the principles of constructivism.
2. The study again revealed that, contrary to the view that classroom instructions in
Ghanaian basic schools is characterised by lecture and command models which is
basically teacher centred, the teaching and learning process of JHS mathematics
teachers’ in the Effutu municipality is influenced predominantly by the
constructivist theory of learning which is more child-centred.
3. It again revealed that JHS mathematics teachers’ in the Effutu municipality have a
positive perception about constructivism as it positively affects their classroom
instruction.
4. It also was revealed that JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu municipality
always employed majority, if not all, of the constructivist principles in their
teaching and learning process.
5. There was a strong positive relationship between JHS mathematics teachers’
perception of constructivism and the application of its principles in their
classroom instructions within the Effutu Municipality.
152
6. Finally, it was revealed that some of JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu
Municipality had not received any form of education on constructivism as well as
majority of them had not attended any form of in-service training.
5.3 Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions were made: The JHS
mathematics curriculum (syllabus) adopts the constructivist principles of learning more
than any other modern theory of teaching and learning and clearly discourages the use of
traditional methods of teaching which places much emphasis on the teacher as an
instructor rather than a guide. The study also establishes that contrary to the view that
classroom instructions in all Ghanaian basic schools is characterised by the traditional
approach to education, classroom instructions of JHS mathematics teachers in the Effutu
municipality is influenced predominantly by the constructivist theory of learning where
majority, if not all, of its principles were applied. This can be attributed to the position of
the JHS mathematics syllabus as it adoption and promotion of the use of the
constructivist principles. As such, poor performance of pupils or their failure to obtain
high academic achievement cannot be attributed to the fact that teachers use outmoded or
teacher centred methods in their lesson delivery. This is to say, apart from the teaching
methods employed, other factors may account for pupils poor performance in the
mathematics education within the Effutu municipality. Finally, the study also affirms the
essence of in-service training as it keeps teachers abreast with current developments in
the field of education.
153
5.4 Recommendations
In view of the findings of this study and the conclusions drawn, the following
recommendations were made:
1. The Ministry of Education in collaboration with the Ghana Education Service
should have a clear policy which periodically ensures the review of teaching
methods as well as the adoption of effective modern theories of education, such as
the constructivist theory of learning, so as to improve pupils’ academic
achievement.
2. Also, there should be clear policies to ensure and guide the professional
development of teachers of mathematics so as to keep them abreast with modern
and effective methods of lesson delivery.
3. Mathematics teachers should be encouraged to constantly attend in-service
training, not only to keep them abreast with modern trends, but also ensure they
maintain a positive perception towards the teaching and learning of mathematics
since it directly affects the long-term and short-term outcome of students’
performance.
4. Since the JHS mathematics syllabus conforms to the constructivist theory of
learning, the Curriculum Research and Development Division in collaboration
with the Ghana Education Service should ensure that teachers’ and pupils’
Mathematics textbooks as well as work books also conforms to the constructivist
principles of education to ensure uniformity and efficiency in classroom
instruction.
154
5. Circuit supervisors should also ensure periodic visitation of schools and together
with school heads make sure to supervise the work basic school mathematics
teachers to ensure they comply with activities and processes outlined by the
syllabus.
5.5 Suggestions for Further Studies
It is suggested that effect of constructivism on JHS pupils’ academic performance be
investigated in the Effutu Municipality. It is again suggested that this study be replicated
in basic schools in the various districts across the country to ascertain a comprehensive
picture as to whether classroom instructions is characterised by teacher centred or child-
centred methods of instructions, and whether teachers are aware of the constructivist
principles of learning and how it influences their lessons.
155
REFERENCES
Abulnour, R. (2016). Constructivist assessment & evaluation in secondary science.

Retrieved on 27th July, 2017, from
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/72140/1/Abulnour_Raghda_A_2
01606_MT_MTRP.pdf
Academic Practice and Organisational Development (2010). Enquiry-based learning

from theory into practice. Retrieved on 20th June, 2017, from
https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/cladls/edudev/documents/public/ebl/literaturr
ereview.pdf
Adentwi, K.I. (2005). Curriculum development: An introduction. Ghana: WILAS Press

Limited.
Akurugu, B. M. (2010). The attitudes and perceptions of students about the study of
English grammar: the case of selected senior high school students in Northern
Region. A thesis submitted to the Department Of English, Kwame Nkrumah
University of science and technology, Ghana.
Alhassan, S. (2006). Modern approaches to research in educational administration.

Kumasi, Ghana: Payless publication Ltd.
Alvi, M. (2016). A Manual for Selecting Sampling Techniques in Research. Retrieved on

15th July, 2017, from https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/70218/1/MPRA_paper_70218.pdf
Alzahrani, I. (2013). The role of the constructivist learning theory and collaborative
learning environment on wiki classroom, and the relationship between them.
Retrieved on 24 July, 2017, from
file:///D:/Role%20of%20the%20teacher%20in%20the%20classroom.pdf
Amineh, R. J. & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism.

Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9-16.
Ampofo, E. T. & Osei-Owusu, B. (2015). Determinants of academic performance among
Senior High School (SHS) students in the Ashanti Mampong Municipality of
Ghana. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences,
3(3), 33-48.
Anamuah-Mensah, J., & Mereku, D. K. (2005). Ghanaian Junior Secondary School two
pupils abysmal Mathematics Achievement in TIMSS 2003: A consequence of the
Basic school Mathematics. Mathematics Connection, 5(1), 1-11.
Anamuah-Mensah, J., Mereku, D. K., & Asabere-Ameyaw, A. (2004). Ghanaian JSS
pupils Achievement in Mathematics and Science: Results from Ghana’s
participation in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS). Accra: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
156
Annum, G. (2017). Research instruments for data collection. Retrieved on 16th July,
2017, from
http://campus.educadium.com/newmediart/file.php/137/Thesis_Repository/recds/
assets/TWs/UgradResearch/ThesisWrit4all/files/notes/resInstr.pdf
Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2009). Effective pedagogy in mathematics. Belgium:

International Academy of Education.
Applefield, J. M, Huber, R. & Moallem, M. (2001). Constructivism in theory and
practice: toward a better understanding. High School Journal, 84(2), 35-53.
Areepattamannil, S. & Kaur, B. (2013). Mathematics teachers’ perceptions of their

students’ mathematical competence: relations to mathematics achievement, affect
and engagement in Singapore and Australia. Retrieved on 28th June, 2017, from
https://www.merga.net.au/documents/Areepattamannil_et_al_MERGA36-
2013.pdf
Ary, D., Lucy, C. J., & Asghar, R. (2002). Introduction to Educational Research. USA:
Wadsworth Group Press.
Asafo-Adjei, R. (2001). Teaching basic mathematics for colleges of education. Accra:
Bayoba LTD.
Australian Council for Educational Research (2015). Construction of knowledge.

Teaching and learning, 9(3),8-11.
Awwad, A. A (2013). Piaget's theory of learning. Interdisciplinary journal of

contemporary research in business, 4 (9), 106-129.
Baffoe, E., & Mereku, D. K. (2010). The van hiele levels of understanding of students
entering Senior High School in Ghana. African Journal of Educational Studies in
Mathematics and Science, 8, 51-61.
Baffour, M. N. (2017). Using cuisenaire rods and paper folding to enhance subtraction
of unlike fraction among basic seven pupils of Domeabra M/A Junior High
School. An unpublished project work submitted to the Department of Basic
Education, University of Education, Winneba.
Barman, P. & Bhattacharyya, D. (2015). Effectiveness of constructivist teaching method:

an experimental study. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences and
Humanities, 5(1), 69-76.
Barnardos Training and Resource Service (2002). Child development. Retrieved on 1st
June, 2017, from https://www.barnardos.ie/assets/files/information-
pack/Child%20Development%20IP.pdf
157
Battle, J. & Lewis, M. (2002). The increasing significance of class. The relative effects of
race and socioeconomic status on academic achievement. Journal of Poverty, 6
(2), 21-35.
Bhattacharjee, J. (2015). Constructivist approach to learning–an effective approach of

teaching learning. International Research Journal of Interdisciplinary &
Multidisciplinary Studies (IRJIMS), 1(6), 65-74.
Black, E. (1995). Behaviorism as a learning theory. Retrieved May 2, 2017, from

http://129.7.160.115/inst5930/Behaviorism.html.
Bodenhausen, G. V. & Hugenberg, K. (2009). Attention, perception, and social

cognition. Retrieved on 26th June, 2017, from
http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/bodenhausen/BH09.pdf
Boundless Psychology (2016). Piaget's stages of cognitive development. Retrieved on 7th

June, 2017, from https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-
psychology-textbook/human-development-14/theories-of-human-development-
70/piaget-s-stages-of-cognitive-development-270-12805/
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative

Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Browning, S. T. & Willis, J. M (2012). Introduction to mathematics manipulatives:

preservice teachers create digital stories illustrating types and applications of
manipulatives. Retrieved on 26th July, 2017, from
http://archives.math.utk.edu/ICTCM/VOL24/S080/paper.pdf
Brinkworth, M. E. (1994). Understanding teachers, students and learning. Columbus-

Ohio: PEARSON.
Carlifonia Department of Education (2017). Cognitive development domain. Retrieved on

6th June, 2017, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/itf09cogdev.asp
Centre for Learning Innovation (2006). A basic introduction to child development

theories. South Wales: Department of Education and Training
Chen, C. (2003). A constructivist approach to teaching: implications in teaching

computer networking. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance
Journal, 21 (2), 17-27.
Chowdhury, S. R. (2016). A Study on the effect of constructivist approach on the

achievement in Mathematics of IX standard students. Journal of Humanities and
Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 21(2), 35-40.
158
Contreras, M. E. (2011). The effects of teacher perceptions and expectations on student

achievement. Retrieved on 22nd June 2017, from
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1b84k07z.pdf
Cope, L. (2015). Math manipulatives: making the abstract tangible. Delta Journal of
Education, 5 (1), 10-19.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (4th ed.). U.S.A, California: SAGE Publications Inc.
Cunningham, T., Gannon, J., Kavanagh, M., Greene, J., Reddy, L. & Whitson, L.
(2007). Theories of learning and curriculum design-key positionalities and their
relationships. Retrieved on 25th June, 2017, from
http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=beschrecart
Curriculum Research and Development Division (2012). National Syllabus for

Mathematics (Junior High Schools 1-3). Accra: Ministry of Education.
Curriculum Research and Development Division (2012). National Syllabus for

Mathematics (Primary School 1-6). Accra: Ministry of Education.
Darling-Hammond, L., Rosso, J., Austin, K., Orcutt, S. & Martin, D. (2001). How people
learn:introduction to learning theory. Retieved on 20th June, 2017, from
https://www.learner.org/courses/learningclassroom/support/01_intro.pdf
Dagar, V. & Yadav, A. (2016). Constructivism: a paradigm for teaching and learning.
Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 7, 200.
Davis, P. M. (2013). Cognition and learning: a review of the literature with reference to
ethnolinguistic minorities. Retrieved on 14th June, 2017, from http://www-
01.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/928474552168/ebook_49_Davis_Cognition_and_Learnin
g_FINAL.pdf
De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D. & Moors, A. (2013). What is learning: on the nature
and merits of a functional definition of learning. Retrieved on 21st June, 2017,
from https://ppw.kuleuven.be/okp/_pdf/DeHouwer2013WILOT.pdf
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Driscoll, M. (2001). Psychology of Learning for Assessment (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
159
Dotse, D. K. (2014). The use of paper folding, mathematical game and adequate practice
exercises to assist in the multiplication of fractions among basic seven pupils of
the Presbytarian Junior High School, Centarl Region. An unpublished project
work presented to the Department of Basic Education, University of Education,
Winneba.
Edward, S. Ebert, S. E, Ebert, C. & Bentley, M.L (2013). Curriculum definition.

Reterived on 21st July, 2017, from https://www.education.com/pdf/curriculum-
definition/
Effutu Municipal Education Directorate (2017). School statististics. Winneba: Ghana

Education Service
Encyclopedia of Children’s Health (2017). Cognitive development. Retrieved on 6th June,

2017 from http://www.healthofchildren.com/C/Cognitive-Development.html
Ertmer, P. A & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism:

comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.
Eshun, F. M. (2013). The 2007 educational reform and its challenges. Retrieved on July
23, 2017, from https://www.modernghana.com/news/475340/1/the-2007-
educational-reform-and-its-callenges.html
Essuman, M. A. (2009). A critical study of textbook publishing for primary education in

Ghana. Retrieved on 18th July, 2017, from,
http://ir.knust.edu.gh/bitstream/123456789/486/1/ESSUMAN%20MICHAEL%20
ATO.pdf
Explorable (2012). Research population. Retireieved on 14th July, 2017, from

https://explorable.com/printpdf/research-population
Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in

education. (5th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Frede, E., and Ackerman, D. J. (2007). Preschool Curriculum Decision-Making.

https://www.isbe.net/documents/preschool_curriculum.pdf
Fredua-Kwarteng, Y. (2005). Ghana Flunks at Math and Science: Analysis (1). Retrieved
May 20, 2017, from http://www.modernghana.com/news/116014/1/ghana-flunks-
at-math-and-science- analysis-1.html.
160
Fournier, G. (2016). Schema. Retrieved on 8th June, 2017, from

https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/schema/
Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd Ed.). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Fox, N. (2009). Using interviews in a research project. Retrieved from https://www.rds-

yh.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/15_Using-Interviews-2009.pdf
Ghana Statistical Service (2014). Population and Housing Census: Effutu Municipality.
http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010_District_Report/Central/Effutu.pdf
Glassman, W. E. & Hadad, M. (2009). Approaches to psychology (5th Ed.). UK:

McGraw-Hill Education Limited
Godino, J. D. (2015). Mathematical concepts, their meanings, and understanding.

Retrieved on 7th June, 2017, from
http://www.ugr.es/~jgodino/articulos_ingles/meaning_understanding.pdf
Gould, J. E. (2003). What is perception. Retrieved on 23rd June, 2017, from

http://uwf.edu/jgould/perception.pdf
GSI Teaching & Resource Center (2016). Learning: theory and research. California:
University of California, Graduate Division.
Grohol, J. M (2016). IQ test. Retrieved on 3rd June, 2017, from

https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/what-is-an-iq-test/
Hague, P. (2006). A practical guide to market research. UK: Grosvenor House

Publishing Ltd
Hammer, D. (2009). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and

Instruction, 15, 485-529.
Hein, G. E (1991). Constructivist learning theory. Retrieved on 15th June, 2017 from
https://www.exploratorium.edu/education/ifi/constructivist-learning
Herman, J. M., & Knobloch, N. A. (2004). Exploring the effects of constructivist teaching
on pupils’ attitudes and performance. Proceedings from the 2nd Annual North
Central Region AAAE Research Meeting, Lafayette.
Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Educational
Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
Hussain, I. (2012). Use of constructivist approach in higher education: an instructors’

observation. Creative education, 3(2), 179-184.
161
Hussain, I., & Reza, A. (2010). Getting into varsity: A country case study of Pakistan. In
B. Vlaardingerbroek, & N. Taylor (Eds.), Get-ting Into Varsity—Comparability,
Convergence and Congruence (pp. 117-126). Amherst, NY: Cambria Press Inc.
Iddi, A. (2016). A comparative assessment of the academic performance among public

and private Junior High Schools in the Tamale metropolis of Ghana. A Thesis
Submitted to the Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah University of
Science and Technology.
Institute for Educational Development and Extension. (2003). Methods and Assessment in
Integrated Science. Ghana-Winneba: Institute for Educational Development and
Extension.
Jack, R. F., & Norman, E. W. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill Publishers.
Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Constructivist Learning Environments on the Web: Engaging

Students in Meaningful Learning. Retrieved on 15th June, 2017, from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=A042B5263E0AE166A
3AB6FD0E1ABCECC?doi=10.1.1.137.618&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Jones, M. G. & Brader-Araje, L. (2002).The Impact of Constructivism on Education:

Language, Discourse, and Meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3).
Jussim, L., Robustelli, S. & Cain, T. R. (2009). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling
prophecies. In Wentzel, K. & Wigfield, A. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at
school (pp. 349-380). New York: Routledge.
Karaduman, H. & Gültekin, M. (2007). The effect of constructivist learning principles

based learning materials to students’ attitudes, success, and retention in social
studies. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(3), 98-112.
Kashyap, D. (2016). Stages Involved in Perception Process. Retrieved on 4th July, 2017,
from, http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/organization/perception/stages-involved-
in-perception-process/63815/
Koohang, A. (2009). A learner-centered model for blended learning design. International

Journal of Innovation and Learning, 6(1), 76-91.
Koohang, A., Riley, L., Smith, T. & Schreurs, J. (2009). E-Learning and constructivism:
from theory to application. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning
Objects, Vol. 5, 91-109.
Latham, B. (2007). Sampling: What is it?. Retrieved on 20th May, 2017, from
http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/rlatham/Coursework/5377(Quant))/Sampling_
Methodology_Paper.pdf.
162
Lavrakas, P. J (2008). Target Population: Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods.

http://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-
methods/n571.xml
Lazarus, S. (2010). Educational Psychology: in social context (4th ed.). Cape Town:
Oxford University Press.
Le-Cornu, R. & Peters, J. (2005). Towards constructivist classrooms: the role of the
reflective teacher. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 6(1), 50-64.
Lefa, B. (2014). The Piaget theory of cognitive development: an educational

implications. Retrieved on 7th June, 2017, from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Baken_Lefa/publication/265916960_THE_P
IAGET_THEORY_OF_COGNITIVE_DEVELOPMENT_AN_EDUCATIONAL
_IMPLICATIONS/links/542168e10cf2ce3a91b71d06/THE-PIAGET-THEORY-
OF-COGNITIVE-DEVELOPMENT-AN-EDUCATIONAL-
IMPLICATIONS.pdf
Lewicki, P. (2005). Internal and external encoding style and social motivation. In J. P.
Forgas, K. D. Williams, & S. M. Laham (Eds.), Social motivation: Conscious and
unconscious processes (pp. 194–209). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, A. (2001). The issue of perception: some educational implications. Educare, 30:272-288.
Liu, C. H. & Matthews, R (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: constructivism and its

criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 2005, 6(3), 386-399.
Lutz, S., & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism:
Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the
Human Sciences, 9(1), 67-90.
Mbokane, A. (2009). Research design, research method and population. Retrieved on

15th July, 2017, from
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/1313/04chapter3.pdf
McLeod, S. A. (2015). Jean Piaget. Retrieved on 10th June, 2017, from

www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html
McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: evidence-based

inquiry (7th Ed.). Boston, M. A: Pearson.
Ministry of Education and Employment (2012). A National Curriculum Framework for

All. Malta: Salesian Press
163
Ministry of Education (2016). Ghana 2016 national education assessment-report of

findings. Ghana Education Service, Accra: National Education Assessment Unit.
Ministry of Education (2017). Teachers make the nation. Retrieved on 23 August, 2017,
from http://www.t-
tel.org/files/docs/Institutional%20Development/compressed%20campaign%20pac
k.pdf
Mugo Fridah, W. (2002). Sampling in research. Retrieved on 15th July, 2017, from
http://indiana.edu/~educy520/sec5982/week_2/mugo02sampling.pdf
Muhagir, M. (2014). Constructivism in education. Retrieved on 13 June, 2017, from

https://muhagir.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/constructivism_in_education_.pdf
Mungoo, J. & Moorad, F. (2015). Learner centred methods for whom? Lessons from
Botswana Junior Secondary Schools. African Educational Research Journal, 3
(3), 161-169.
Mushtaq, I. & Khan, S. N. (2012). Factors Affecting Students' Academic

Performance. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12 (9), 17-
22.
Mwamwenda, T, S. (2009). Educational psychology. An African perspective (3rd

edition). Durban: Heinemann.
National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2005). NCF 2005- Position
paper on Teaching of Mathematics. New Delhi: NCERT.
National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2005). NCF 2005- Position
paper on Teacher Education. New Delhi: NCERT
Nayak, R. K. (2007). A study on effect of constructivist pedagogy on students’

achievement in
mathematics at elementary level. Retrieved on 20th June, 2017, from
http://www.ncert.nic.in/pdf_files/Rajendra%20Kumar%20Nayak.pdf
Ndon, U. (2011). Hybrid-context instructional model: The internet and the classrooms-
the way teachers experience it. USA: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Ngussa, B. M. & Makewa, L. N. (2014). Constructivism experiences in teaching-

learning transaction among Adventist Secondary Schools in South Nyanza,
Tanzania. American Journal of Educational Research, 2 (11A), 1-7.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for

school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
164
Oliver, K.M. (2000). Methods for developing constructivism learning on the web.
Educational Technology, 40 (6).
Olusegun, B. S. (2015). Constructivism Learning Theory: A Paradigm for Teaching and

Learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5 (6), 66-70.
Opoku, J. Y. (2005). A short guide to research writing in the social sciences and
education. (2nd ed.). Accra: Ghana Universities Press.
Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching.

International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853-1881.
Phillips, D. (2000). Constructivism in education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Piaget, J. (1954). Construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Pickens, J. (2005). Attitudes and perceptions. Retrieved on 25th June, 2017, from
http://healthadmin.jbpub.com/Borkowski/chapter3.pdf
Pitsoe, V. J. (2008). A conceptual analysis of constructivist classroom management.

Unpublished Doctoral Thesis submitted to the University of Pretoria.
Qvortrup, A., Wiberg, M., Christensen, G. & Hansbøl, M. (2016). On the definition of
learning. Denmark: University Press of Southern Denmark.
Reedal, K. E (2010). Jean Piaget’s cognitive development: theory in mathematics

education. Retrieved on 2nd June, 2017, from
https://ugyen.wikispaces.com/file/view/K.+Reedal+-+Piaget+Theory.pdf
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9),

1623–1640.
Salaria, N. (2012). Meaning of the term- descriptive survey research method.

International journal of transformations in business management, 1(6).
Sarfo, F. K., Eshun, G., Elen, J. & Adentwi, K. I. (2014). Towards the solution of
abysmal performance in mathematics in Junior High Schools: comparing the
pedagogical potential of two designed interventions. Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology, 12(3), 763-784.
Schunk, D. H (2012). Learning theories: an educational perspective (6th Ed.). Boston:

Pearson Education, Inc.
Semple, A. (2000). Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of
educational technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46 (3).
Shaffer, D. (2000). Social and personality development (4th Ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
165
Shaw, J. (2002). Manipulatives enhance the learning of mathematics. Retrieved on 26th

July, 2017, from https://www.eduplace.com/state/pdf/author/shaw.pdf
Simatwa, E. M. W. (2010). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development and its

implication for instructional management at presecondary school level.
Educational Research and Reviews, 5(7), 366-371.
Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist

perspective. Journal for research in Mathematics, 26(2), 114-145.
Smaldino, S. E, Lowther, D. L, & Russel, J. D. (2008). Instructional technology and

media for learning. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Sogbey, J. A. Y. (2011). Mathematics for all; all for mathematics. Retrieved 10th July,
2017, from http://www.gms.mathned.org/node/5169
Stanford Children’s Health (2017). Cognitive development. Retrieved on 6th June, 2017 from
http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=cognitive-development-90-P01594
Stefan, D. C. (2010). Developing a framework for an undergraduate haematology

curriculum in a faculty of health sciences. A dissertation presented to the
Department of Curriculum Studies, Stellenbosch University.
Sunday, C. E. (2015). The role of theory in research. Retrieved on 22nd June, 2017, from
https://www.uwc.ac.za/Students/Postgraduate/Documents/The%20role%20of%20
theory%20in%20research.pdf
Surgenor, P. (2010). How students learn 4. Retrieved on July 25, 2017, from
https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/UCDTLT0019.pdf
Taber, K.S (2011). Constructivism as educational theory: contingency in learning, and

optimally guided instruction. In J. Hassaskhah (Ed.), Educational theory (pp.39-
61). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Tan, O.S. (2003). Problem-based learning innovation. Singapore: Thomson.
Thompson, P. (2000). Radical constructivism: reflections and directions. In L. P. Steffe,

& P. W. Thompson (Eds.), Radical constructivism in action: Building on the
pioneering work of Ernst von Glaserfeld (pp. 412–448). London: Falmer Press.
Tse Nga, C. J. (2013). The active classroom. Retrieved on 21st July 2017, from
https://www.eduhk.hk/aclass/Resources/HE/student/Identifydifferentconcepts.pdf
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In T. Husen & N. Postlewaite

(Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education [Suppl.], (pp.162-163). Oxford,
England: Pergamon Press.
166
UNESCO (2006). Cross-national studies of the quality of education: planning their

design and managing their impact. International Institute for Educational
Planning, Paris. UNESCO
UNESCO (2010). World Data on Education (7th Ed.). retrieved on 20th August 2017,
From
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/WDE/2010/pdf-
versions/Ghana.pdf
Wadsworth, B. J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development:

Foundations of constructivism. USA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wankat, P. C. & Oreovicz, F. S. (2015). Teaching engineering: models of cognitive

development. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
Weeger, M. A. & Pacis, D. (2012). A Comparison of two theories of learning:

behaviorism and constructivism as applied to face-to-face and online learning.
Retrieved on 23rd June, 2017, from https://www.g-
casa.com/conferences/manila/papers/Weegar.pdf
Webb, P. K. (1989). Piaget: implications for teaching. Theory into practice, 19 (2), 93-
97.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-Centred Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wikibooks (2016). Learning Theories/Behavioralist Theories. Retrieved on 28th June,

2017, from
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_Theories/Behavioralist_Theories
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of

dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political
challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.
Yakubu, W. (2015). Primary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions and practices of

constructivist instructional strategies. An unpublished thesis presented to the
Department of Basic Education, the University of Education Winneba.
Yilmaz, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: its theoretical underpinnings

and implications for classroom practices. The Clearing House, 84: 204–212.
Ziegler, G. M. (2011). What is Mathematics. Retrieved on 6th July, 2017 from

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783642
195327-p1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1140845-p174105361
167
Zhou, M. & Brown, D. (2014). Educational learning theories. Retrieved on 7th June,
2017, from
http://rrscholar.openrepository.com/rrscholar/bitstream/10758/337833/1/EDUC21
30+Textbook+Educational+Learning+Theories.pdf
Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability

and
reporting findings. Theory and practice in language studies, 3(2), 254-
262.
168
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JHS MATHEMATICS TEACHERS IN THE EFFUTU

MUNICIPALITY
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for accepting to be part of this research. This questionnaire is designed to
elicit information from teachers in order to investigate JHS mathematics teachers’
perceptions of constructivism and the influence of its principles on teaching amongst
basic school teachers of Effutu Municipality. You will be contributing immensely
towards the successful teaching and learning of Mathematics in Basic Schools if you
answer the following questions as sincere as possible. Your name is not required and any
information given will be treated as confidential. Thanks for your co-operation.
SECTION A
BIOGRAPHIC DATA
Please, tick [ ] the appropriate box [ ] or column; or write in the blank spaces where
necessary
1. Sex: Male [ ] Female [ ]
2. Age: Below 20 years [ ] 21– 30 years [ ] 31– 40 years [ ]
41– 50 years [ ] 51– 60 years [ ].
3. Your highest academic/professional qualification.

Cert. ‘A’ 3-Year [ ]
Diploma [ ]
169
First Degree [ ]
Masters Degree [ ]
Others (specify)…………………… …
4. For how long have you been teaching Mathematics?

Less than 1 year [ ]
1 – 5 years [ ]
6 – 10 years [ ]
11 – 15 years [ ]
16 years and above [ ]

5. How many in-service training in the teaching of Mathematics have you attended?
Nil [ ], 1 [ ], 2 [ ], 3 [ ], 4 and above [ ].
SECTION B
PREDOMINANT LEARNING THEORY AMONG JHS MATHEMATICS
TEACHERS
Please respond to all items given below by putting a tick [  ] in the appropriate space
using the following scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree (SD), 2 = Disagree (D), 3 = Uncertain
(U), 4 = Agree (A) and 5 = Strongly Agree (SA).
No. Item SD D U A SA
6 I am much concerned with the process of learning than the
end result of learning
7 I give assignment based on the cognitive level of pupils
8 I plan lessons based on the cognitive level of pupils
9 I assess pupils’ learning at every stage of the learning
process and not necessarily at the end of the learning process
10 I encourage pupils to memorize core points of every lesson
11 I place much emphasis on the mental processes of learning
170
12 I use much of problem solving activities

13 I use more mnemonics to ensure pupils can memorize core
points of a lesson
14 I evaluate the content of every lesson I cover
15 I give assignments which is within the learning scope of
pupils
16 I enjoy conducting drills exercises before class begin
17 I punish those who are unable to answer questions in class
18 I commend those who are able to answer questions in class
19 I assess pupils’ learning mainly through their actions
20 I provide a very conducive environment for learning
21 I see learning to have taken place if learners can recall facts
learnt
22 I am always in charge during lesson delivery
23 I believe pupils come to school with little or no experience
necessary for learning
24 I give a lot of exercises to ensure pupils practice and
remember lesson taught
25 I focus on the end product of learning and not necessarily
the process
26 I direct pupils to explore when learning
27 I use methods that encourage interaction and collaborative
learning among pupils
28 During teaching and learning I serve as a guide to pupils
29 I plan lessons in ways that allow pupils to acquire knowledge
for themselves as they explore
30 I see learning to have taken place if learners can apply
knowledge acquired from a lesson
31 I appreciate divergent views from pupils
32 I reflect on every lesson in order to make modifications to
subsequent lessons
171
33 I always use examples from pupils environment and

experiences
34 I use a lot of teaching and learning materials during lessons
35 I appreciate a democratic learning environment
SECTION C
USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PRINCIPLES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

Please respond to all items given below by putting a tick [  ] in the appropriate space
using the following scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree (SD), 2 = Disagree (D), 3 = Uncertain
(U), 4 = Agree (A) and 5 = Strongly Agree (SA).
36 I always allow pupils to explore through activities rather
than telling them what to do
37 I use strategies that always encourage interaction among
students irrespective of topic treated
38 I use group assignment regularly to ensure collaboration
among pupils
39 During teaching and learning I always serve as a guide to
pupils
40 I always plan lessons in ways that allow pupils to acquire
knowledge for themselves than telling them what they need
to know
41 I see learning to have taken place only if learners can apply
knowledge acquired from a lesson to solve other problems
42 I always encourage divergent views from pupils irrespective
of whether it an appropriate or inappropriate.
43 I always reflect on every lesson in order to make
modifications to subsequent lessons
44 I use activities and examples which pupils are familiar with
in their environment than those provided by their textbooks
172
45 I build lessons more on pupils experiences than on my

experience
46 I ensure the use of manipulative materials in every topic I
treat regardless of its nature
47 I always encourage a democratic learning environment
where everyone contributes to lessons
48 I always access pupils learning throughout a lesson rather
than at the end of the lesson
49 I always cue and clues to guide pupils explore and discover
knowledge for themselves without directly telling them what
to do
50 I place much emphasis on the learning process by actively
engaging in pupils in activities irrespective of the time
allocated
51 My classroom environment is usually comfortable and non-
threatening
52 I structure lessons in a way that challenge pupils thinking
always
53 I more often than usual, use exercises to test pupils ability to
apply knowledge gained than to recall vital information
taught
SECTION D
MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON CONSTRUCTIVISM
Please respond to items given below by putting a tick [  ] in the appropriate space using
the following scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree (SD), 2 = Disagree (D), 3 = Uncertain (U), 4 =
Agree (A) and 5 = Strongly Agree (SA).
54 I am familiar with learning theories
55 I believe mostly in one of the following theories:
Behaviorism
Cognitivism
Constructivism
Others
173
56 I have received some level of education about the

constructivist theory of learning
57 I often apply the constructivist principles in my
classroom during teaching and learning
58 I believe applying the constructivist principles
during lessons maximizes learning outcome
59 I face challenges applying the constructivist
principles in my classroom
174
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (GUIDE) FOR TEACHERS
SECTION A - BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Gender
a. Male [ ]
b. Female [ ]
2. Age
a. 20 - 30 [ ]
b. 31 - 40 [ ]
c. 41 - 50 [ ]
d. 51 and above [ ]
3. Academic Qualification
a. Cert A [ ]
b. Diploma [ ]
c. Bachelor’s Degree [ ]
d. Master’s Degree [ ]
e. Others Specify..…………
4. How long have you been teaching?
a. 1 – 5 year(s) [ ]
b. 6 – 10 years [ ]
c. 11 – 15 years [ ]
d. 16 – 20 years [ ]
e. 21 years and above [ ]
5. How long have you been teaching
Mathematics?………………………
…………
6. At what class are you teaching
Mathematics in your
school?.............................
175
SECTION B
1. Do you know any theory of learning?
2. Can you mention some of them?
3. Which one do you believe in?
4. Which learning theory do you think predominantly influences your teaching?
5. Do you know of the constructivist theory of learning?
6. Tell me what you know about the constructivist theory of learning.
7. What are some of its principles?
8. Does the constructivist principles guide your teaching and learning process?
9. In what ways do you employ its principles in your teaching?
10. Do you think applying its principles maximizes learning outcome?
11. How does it maximizes learning outcome?
12. What are some of the challenges associated with the constructivist principles of
learning that prevents you from using it?
13. How do you think that challenge can be overcome?
176
APPENDIX C
CLASSIFICATION OF QUESTIONS UNDER VARIOUS THEORIES
Cognitivist SD D U A SA
6 I am much concerned with the process of learning than the
end result of learning
7 I give assignment based on the cognitive level of pupils
8 I plan lessons based on the cognitive level of pupils
9 I assess pupils’ learning at every stage of the learning process
and not necessarily at the end of the learning process
10 I encourage pupils to memorize core points of every lesson
11 I place much emphasis on the mental processes of learning
12 I use much of problem solving activities
13 I use more mnemonics to ensure pupils can memorize core
points of a lesson
14 I evaluate the content of every lesson I cover
15 I give assignments which is within the learning scope of
pupils
No. Behaviourist SD D U A SA
16 I enjoy conducting drills exercises before class begin
17 I punish those who are unable to answer questions in class
18 I commend those who are able to answer questions in class
19 I assess pupils’ learning mainly through their actions
20 I provide a very conducive environment for learning
21 I see learning to have taken place if learners can recall facts
learnt
22 I am always in charge during lesson delivery
23 I believe pupils come to school with little or no experience
177
necessary for learning

24 I give a lot of exercises to ensure pupils practice and
remember lesson taught
25 I focus on the end product of learning and not necessarily
the process
No. Constructivist SD D U A SA
26 I direct pupils to explore when learning
27 I use methods that encourage interaction and collaborative
learning among pupils
28 During teaching and learning I serve as a guide to pupils
29 I plan lessons in ways that allow pupils to acquire
knowledge for themselves as they explore
30 I see learning to have taken place if learners can apply
knowledge acquired from a lesson
31 I appreciate divergent views from pupils
32 I reflect on every lesson in order to make modifications to
subsequent lessons
33 I always use examples from pupils environment and
experiences
34 I use a lot of teaching and learning materials during lessons
35 I appreciate a democratic learning environment
178
APPENDIX D
PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
THEMES QUESTIONS
Teacher serves as a facilitator 39. During teaching and learning I always serve as
a guide to pupils
40. I always plan lessons in ways that allow pupils
to acquire knowledge for themselves than telling
them what they need to know
43. I always reflect on every lesson in order to
make modifications to subsequent lessons
Encouraging social interaction 37. I use strategies that always encourage

through collaborative activities interaction among students irrespective of topic
treated
38. I use group assignment regularly to ensure
collaboration among pupils
51. My classroom environment is usually
comfortable and non-threatening
Use of manipulative material 46. I ensure the use of manipulative materials in
every topic I treat regardless of its nature
49. I always cue and clues to guide pupils explore
and discover knowledge for themselves without
directly telling them what to do
Actively Engaging learners 36. I always allow pupils to explore through
activities rather than telling them what to do
42. I always encourage divergent views from pupils
irrespective of whether it an appropriate or
inappropriate
47. I always encourage a democratic learning
environment where everyone contributes to lessons
50. I place much emphasis on the learning process
by actively engaging in pupils in activities
179
irrespective of the time allocated
Assessment is based on 41. I see learning to have taken place only if

knowledge application and learners can apply knowledge acquired from a
occurs throughout lesson lesson to solve other problems
48. I always access pupils learning throughout a
lesson rather than at the end of the lesson
52. I structure lessons in a way that challenge
pupils thinking always
53. I more often than usual, use exercises to test
pupils ability to apply knowledge gained than to
recall vital information taught
Building lessons on pupils prior 44. I use activities and examples which pupils are
experience (RPK) familiar with in their environment than those
provided by their textbooks
45. I build lessons more on pupils experiences than
on my experience
180
APPENDIX E
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
. ."""
H., ~
, - pol
""""'
m.", M>cu;"'. n_ ..,
,~.... " """"""",.,... "". ,,.... K _ " ' -. "" ... ..... , ........ of lh< ~", of
H"", ~""""_ . " " ,_ ;". ",,,,,,,,-00.. W """",,, ~' '" ,.,.;""" ... ,, _ " >00.1 «" '.
",r_,-.
. ,,,-,",· r".w.... to""'"
0.-;'
T__Iw_",
rot. '''''''' h, ~''' " ""';< " ... .,"~"' ;""
.._ . 'if C.,..""",,,,,,.. """ "'t.""", ..j., 1 7; ~''''''' ~ .. A_,,,
&.H< .",,,,",,, r~ ... ,.' "f ~• _ "'''i(y''
.
n-. " •.
MR. KWEl<{: k>JA· J)ON" O n

("<. Ik,., ~'n._ , _~)
181

Examining J.H.S Mathematics Teachers' Perception and Use of The Principles of Constructivism in The Effutu Municipality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examining J.H.S Mathematics Teachers' Perception and Use of The Principles of Constructivism in The Effutu Municipality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examining J.H.S Mathematics Teachers' Perception and Use of The Principles of Constructivism in The Effutu Municipality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Education,Winneba http://ir.uew.edu.

UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA

EXAMINING J.H.S MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION

AND USE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IN THE

DAVID KWAME DOTSE

UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA

DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION

EXAMINING J.H.S MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION AND USE OF

THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IN THE EFFUTU MUNICIPALITY

DAVID KWAME DOTSE

A THESIS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION, FACULTY OF

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE

STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA, IN PARTIAL

FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE

MASTERS OF PHILOSOPHY IN BASIC EDUCATION

part or whole, for another degree elsewhere.

University of Education, Winneba.

NAME OF SUPERVISOR: DR. JOSEPH NYALA

strength and wisdom to successfully complete my study in the University of Education,

study in the university.

Winneba, exciting and worthwhile.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.6 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................... 90

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1: Overall percentage correct score of primary pupils by grade

2.2: TIMSS result for JHS 2 pupils 84

3.1: Schedule of Data Collection 109

4.1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 114

4.3: JHS mathematics teachers’ perception of constructivism 135

CRDD: CURRICULUM RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

GES: GHANA EDUCATION SERVICE

J.H.S: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

MoE: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

NCM: NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR MATHEMATICS

RPK: RELEVANT PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE

TIMSS: TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE

TLMs: TEACHING AND LEARNING MATERIALS

delimitation, limitations, definition of terms, and organisation of the study.

1.1 Background to the Study

contribute immensely toward personal achievement and national development. Due to

meaning and scope of mathematics. According to Asafo-Adjei (2001), mathematics is the

to problems, making use of knowledge on shapes and measurement in everyday life,

counting and calculating as well as identifying patterns and relationships (Asafo-Adjei,

processes such as abstracting, generalizing, classifying, grouping, sorting, just to mention

a few. Therefore mathematics learning is a means of developing logical and qualitative

which Ghana is included.

other science-related subjects, such as the social sciences. It provides a medium of

communication that is precise, concise and powerful. As a human activity, mathematics

relationships, the modelling of situations, the interpretation of data and communication of

mathematics, nature of assistance teachers should give or offer to learners, kind of

interact with learners to facilitate effective teaching and learning of mathematics.

perception of mathematics teachers towards the teaching of mathematics, with regards to

important role in ensuring a positive academic achievement of the child.

verified instructional strategies and techniques for facilitating learning as well as a

Ghana (Yakubu, 2015). Child-centred instruction is an approach to education that lays

practice, collaborative learning, and child-controlled learning process (Weimer, 2002)