314-Article Text-1218-1512-10-20190917

81
African Journal of Education and Practice ISSN (Online)

ISSN 2520-467X (Online)
Vol.3, Issue No.1 pp 81 -96, 2019 www.carijournals.org/
PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS IN
PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN UGANDA
1
Harriet Ludigo
Faculty of Education, Makerere University
2
C. B. Mugimu
3
A. M. Mugagga
*Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Purpose: This study analysed the relationship between pedagogical strategies and academic
achievement of students in public universities in Uganda. Specifically, the study analysed the
relationship between student-centred, teacher-centred and teacher-student pedagogical strategies
with academic achievement of students.
Methodology: The study adopted a correlational design and data were collected using a
questionnaire on a sample of 383. Quality control of data was ensured by carrying out
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and calculating Cronbach’s alpha. Data analysis involved
descriptive and inferential analyses.
Findings: Regression results revealed that the student-centred strategy had a positive and
significant influence on academic achievement of students but the teacher-centred and teacher-
student interaction strategies did not. Therefore, the student-centred pedagogical strategy is
essential for academic achievement of students, the teacher-centred pedagogical strategy is less
affective teaching strategy for academic achievement of students and the teacher-student
pedagogical strategy is not the most important teaching strategy for academic achievement of
students.
Contribution to policy, practice and policy: The study suggests that lecturers in the
universities should prioritise the student-centred pedagogical strategy when teaching students,
should give least priority to teacher-centred pedagogical strategy when teaching students, and
should not over prioritise the teacher-student pedagogical strategy when carrying teaching of
students.
Key Words: Academic achievement, Pedagogical strategies, Student-centred, Teacher-centred,
Teacher-student Interaction.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Academic achievement refers to performance outcomes that indicate the extent to which a person
has accomplished specific goals that were the focus of activities in instructional environments,
specifically in school, college or university (Mimrot, 2016). Pickard (2007) indicates that
academic achievement is a multidimensional concept referring to factual, conceptual, procedural
and meta-cognitive knowledge achievement. Factual knowledge refers to the discrete facts and
82
basic elements that experts use when communicating about their discipline, understanding it, and
organising it systematically (Watts & Hogdson, 2019). Conceptual knowledge refers to students’
ability to explain the concepts in their own words and transfer information to new situations
(Pickard, 2007). Procedural knowledge refers to mastery of the criteria of when to use various
procedures and reflects knowledge of different process (Hailikari, Katajavuori & Lindblom-
Ylanne, 2008). Meta-cognitive knowledge refers to awareness of the learning process by the
learner and the ability to adapt to challenges that occur during this process through effective
strategies (Orlando, 2016). Students’ academic achievement is important as far as work place
performance is concerned one they have graduated. This is because academic achievement is
associated with a combination of cognitive skills (technical knowledge, expertise and abilities),
and personal or behavioural characteristics (principles, attitudes, values & motives), which
are a function of an individual’s personality (Hodges & Burchell, 2003).
Graduates with high academic achievement have work knowledge, skills, are able to apply
knowledge gained to work situations, desire to learn more and understand subject matter
(Cardoso, Ferreira, Abrantes, Seabra & Costa, 2011). Therefore, successful work performance is
dependent on academic achievement. If initially graduates who have attained high academic
achievement are recruited they should be able to quickly acquire the relevant (technical)
knowledge and skills in order to attain their employers’ performance objectives (Hodges &
Burchell, 2003). Owing to the importance of academic achievement, there have been concerns
about factors learners’ education and achievement for a long time (Ebanks, 2010). For instance,
Grimes and Allinsmith (1961) reported that the choice of instructional methods and taking into
account of the personality of the pupils determined academic achievement. Reporting on
influences of academic achievement in a comparison of results from Uganda and more
industrialised societies, Heyneman (1979) made two observations. First, the relationship between
socio-economic status and academic achievement was weaker in less industrialized societies.
Two, schools in less industrial societies had stronger effects on cognitive achievement than one
would expect given the data from industrialized societies. Geringer (2005) reporting on the
educational experience of Southern and Eastern European immigrants from 1894-1926
paralleling it with that of the years 1960-1988 found out that the family demographics of gender
expectations and socioeconomic status significantly contributed to academic achievement.
Abrantes, Seabraa and Lages (2007) in a study on how pedagogical methods affected learning
performance of students revealed that pedagogical methods in terms of student–instructor
interaction had a positive significant impact on student's learning performance.
Cardoso et al. (2011) reported that teacher-student interaction directly and positively influenced
student-student interaction and directly and positively influenced academic achievement.
Asoodeh, Asoodeh and Zarepour (2012) found out that the student-centred learning approach
was successful and effectual as a technique for teaching. On the other hand, Lancaster (2017)
established that incorporating alternative learning environment programs and a student-centred
classroom environment promoted independence and leadership skills and higher academic
achievement. Zhao, Valcke, Desoete, Sang and Zhu (2014) revealed that teacher-centred
teaching had a positive impact on students’ performance. Precisely, the studies above suggest
that factors that relate to academic achievement include instructional strategies (Abrantes et al.,
2007; Asoodeh et al. 2012; Cardoso et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2014), personality of the pupils
(Grimes & Allinsmith, 1961), socio-economic status (Geringer, 2005; Heyneman, 1979) and
83
demographics of gender expectations (Geringer, 2005). However, empirical gaps emerge from
the studies above. For instance, whereas all the other scholars emphasised the significance of the
student centred and teacher-student interactional approaches, China et al. (2014) reported that
teacher-centred teaching had a positive impact on students’ performance. This empirical gap mad
it imperative for this study to investigate the relationship between pedagogical strategies and
academic achievement.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Review.
The Cognitive Constructivist Theory, The behavioural Learning Theory and Attachment Theory
were the basis for this study. The cognitive constructivist theory indicates that knowledge is
something that individuals actively construct through a series of intellectual stages (Cholewinski,
2009). Learning takes place through the use prior experiences and knowledge (Shapira-
Lishchinsky, 2014). Constructivist pedagogy involves active learning, contextual learning,
construction of meanings, prior knowledge use, motivation of learners, authority sharing,
learning facilitation and group learning (Cholewinski, 2009; Olusegun, 2015; Richardson, 2003).
The cognitive constructivist theory thus suggests a student centred strategy in which learning
involves active involvement, contextual learning, construction of meanings, prior knowledge use,
motivation of learners, authority sharing, learning facilitation and group learning. On the other
hand, the Behavioural Learning Theory posits that learning is the product of the stimulus
conditions (S) and the responses (R). Therefore, to modify people’s attitudes and responses, there
is need to either alter the stimulus conditions in the environment or change what happens after a
response occurs (Ormrod, 2004).
The assumption of the Behaviourist Theory is that observable behaviour indicates whether or not
the learner has learned something. Therefore, learners should be given immediate feedback,
tested to determine whether or not they have achieved the learning outcome and carry out repeat
practice with feedback. Also stimulus-response associations should be strengthened through
instructional cues, practice and reinforcement (Alzaghoul, 2012; Ertmer & Newby, 2013). The
Behaviourist Theory shows that the work of the teacher is to change the behaviour of the learner
using measures such as immediate feedback, testing, continuous practice/ revision, instructional
cues and reinforcement. Therefore, Behaviourist Theory suggests the use of the teacher centred
approach to teaching. With the Attachment Theory, it suggests that people are predisposed to
form attachment relationships from which they can experience security and comfort. Secure
attachments allow individuals to develop trust in others and self-reliance in themselves. Securely
attached individuals with positive expectations of self and others approach life with confidence
(Bowlby, 2007). Secure students are optimistic about coping with stress and are likely to relate
better with others, have greater capacity for concentration and cooperation and are more
confident and resilient (Fleming, 2008). The Attachment Theory proposes the use of the teacher-
student pedagogical strategy by which teachers develop relationships with students to facilitate
academic achievement. The above three theories were thus the basis relating pedagogical
strategies and academic achievement of students.
84
2.2 Empirical Review
2.1.1 Student-Centred Strategy and Academic Achievement of Students.
Different scholars (e.g. Andersen &Andersen, 2017; Asoodeh, Asoodeh & Zarepour, 2012; Ayaz
& Sekerci, 2015; Cheang, 2009; Cornelius-White; 2007; Ganyaupfu, 2013; Lak, Soleimani &
Parvaneh, 2017; López, Bertomeu, Chornet, Olmedo & Félix, 2014; Tebabal & Kahssay, 2011)
have related student-centred strategy and academic achievement of students. For instance,
Andersen and Andersen (2017) carried out a study on student-centred instruction and academic
achievement using students in secondary schools in Denmark. The findings revealed that
student-centred instructional strategy had a negative impact on academic achievement in general.
Asoodeh et al. (2012) in an investigation of the effects of student-centred learning approach on
academic achievement and social skills in elementary schools in South Khorasan in Iran reported
that student centred approach was successful and effectual as a technique toward teaching pupils.
In a meta-analysis, Ayaz and Sekerci (2015) on the effects of the student centred approach on
students’ academic achievement reported that the student centred approach had positive effects
on the student’s academic achievement. Cheang (2009) in an assessment of the learner-centred
approach to students at the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) School of Pharmacy in
the USA revealed that compared to baseline, students’ intrinsic goal orientation control of
learning beliefs, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive self-regulation improved after
taking the course.
Cornelius-White (2007) in a meta-analysis on learner-centred teacher-student relationships
found out that learner-centred teacher approach encouraged thinking and learning and had
positive student outcomes on critical thinking, satisfaction, math achievement, drop-out
prevention, self-esteem, verbal achievement, positive motivation, social connection, IQ, grades,
reduction in disruptive behaviour, attendance, and perceived achievement. Ganyaupfu (2013) ain
an investigation on the differential effectiveness of teaching methods on students’ academic
performance established that that the teacher-student interactive method was the most effective
teaching method, followed by student-centred method while the teacher-centred approach was
the least effective teaching method. Lak et al. (2017) revealed learner-centred instruction was
more effective than teacher centred instruction in improving performance. López et al. (2014)
indicated that student centred approaches namely; expository methodology, questions, problem
solving, development of a monograph, laboratory practices and team work led to significant
improvements in learning strategies and academic performance. Tebabal and Kahssay (2011)
reported that student-centred instruction significantly in improved students graphical
interpretation skill and conceptual understanding. The literature above showed that scholars
above had made significant effort to relate student-centred strategy and academic achievement of
students. However, empirical gaps emerged with the study by Andersen and Andersen (2017)
producing controversial findings because whereas all the other studies concurred that the student
centred strategy related to academic achievement, this study revealed that student-centred
instructional strategy had a negative impact on academic achievement in general. This gap made
it imperative for this proposed study to test the hypothesis to the effect that:
H1: There is a relationship between the student-centred strategy and academic achievement.
85
2.1.2 Teacher-Centred Strategy and Academic Achievement of Students.
Several scholars (e.g. Andala & Ng’umbi, 2016; Ganyaupfu, 2013; Lak et al., 2017; Napoles &
MacLeod; 2016; Oskouei & Saemian, 2012; Ottman, 2007; Zohrabi, Torabi & Baybourdiani,
2012) have related teacher-centred strategy to academic achievement of students. For example,
Andala and Ng’umbi (2016) in an experiment designed to test how teaching methods related to
the academic performance in universities revealed that the traditional lecture method (teacher
centred approach) was the least beneficial teaching approach in determining students’ academic
achievement. Ganyaupfu (2013) in a study on the differential effectiveness of teaching methods
on students’ academic performance demonstrated that the teacher-centred approach was the least
effective teaching method. Lak et al. (2017) investigating the effect of teacher-centred method
versus learner-centred method on learners performance with learners revealed that learner-
centred and teacher-centred groups had positive results on the improvement of learners’
performance. Napoles and MacLeod (2016) while examining how teacher delivery, student
engagement, and observation focus influenced teaching effectiveness found out that lessons with
high teacher delivery with a view of the teacher were the most effective than lessons with low
teacher delivery. Oskouei and Saemian (2012) in a comparison of student-centred and teacher-
centred teaching approaches revealed that the average of the students receiving student-based
instruction was higher than the other students.
Relatedly, Ottman (2007) compared the effects of student-directed presentation and traditional
teacher centred presentation on learning using senior-level high school statistics classes. The
results revealed that both groups showed significant improvement under both instructional
approaches, but showed no significant differences gained by a particular instructional method.
On their part, Zohrabi et al. (2012) compared the use of leaner-centred approach compared to
teacher-centred approach using high school students. Experimental results showed that
implementation of teacher-centred process led to higher academic achievement. While the
studies above reveal that scholars have expended significant effort to relate teacher-centred
strategy and academic achievement of students, empirical gaps emerged with scholars producing
contradicting results. For instance, whereas the studies (e.g. Lak et al., 2017; Napoles &
MacLeod, 2016; Oskouei & Saemian, 2012; Ottman, 2007; Zohrabi et al. 2012) indicated that
the teacher-centred strategy had a positive effect on academic achievement, studies (e.g.
Ng’umbi, 2016; Ganyaupfu, 2013) indicated that had the least and negative effect on academic
achievement of students. This empirical gap made it necessary for this study to investigate the
hypothesis to the effect that:
H2: There is a relationship between the teacher-centred strategy and academic achievement.
2.1.3 Teacher-student pedagogical strategy and Academic Achievement.
Scholars (e.g. Allen, Pianta, Gregory, Mikami, & Lun, 2011; Allen et al., 2013; Andala &
Ng’umbi, 2016; Ayaz et al., 2013; Granot, 2014; Lee, 2012; Roorda, Koomen, Spilt & Oort,
2011) have studied the relationship between teacher-student pedagogical strategy and academic
achievement. Allen et al. (2011) in a study on an interaction-based approach to enhancing
secondary school instruction and student achievement revealed that interaction-based approach
produced substantial gains in measured student achievement in the year following its completion.
Accordingly, the achievement was equivalent to moving the average student from the 50 th to the
59th percentile in achievement test scores. Further, Allen et al. (2013) in a multilevel modelling
86
used secondary school students Virginia State. The findings revealed that classrooms
characterized by a positive emotional climate, with sensitivity to adolescent needs and
perspectives, use of diverse and engaging instructional learning formats, and a focus on analysis
and problem solving were associated with higher levels of student achievement. Andala and
Ng’umbi (2016) testing how teaching methods related to the academic performance in
universities found out that interactive lecture method was a major determinant of students’
academic achievement. Ayaz et al. (2013) in an investigation on the impact of student-teacher
relationship on academic achievements at secondary level revealed a positive significant
correlation between students’ marks and students-teachers relationship dimensions of
connectivity, connectivity, availability and communication.
On the other hand, Granot (2014) assessed the contribution of teacher-student relationships to the
explanation of student school adaptation with Israeli homeroom teachers and their students as
units of analysis. The findings revealed that children in the secure teacher-student attachment-
like group showed lower levels of behaviour problems (externalising, internalising), difficulties
in learning self-regulation, higher levels of frustration tolerance, task orientation, popularity
among peers, and better academic achievement than did the children in the insecure teacher-
student attachment-like group. Lee (2012) while examining relationships between students’
perceptions of the school social environment and student outcomes showed that supportive
teacher-student relationships predicted of performance. Roorda et al. (2011) in a meta-analytic
analysis found positive a statistically significant association between positive teacher–student
relationships and academic achievement with stronger effects found in the higher grades. The
studies above suggest that scholars have made effort to examine the relationship between
teacher-student pedagogical strategy and academic achievement. However, the studies raised
contextual gaps. Other than the study by Andala and Ng’umbi (2016) carried out in the context
of a developing country in Africa, all the studies (e.g. Allen et al., 2011; Allen et al., 2013; Lee,
2012) biased towards the Western World context while the studies (e.g. Ayaz et al., 2013;
Granot; 2014) were done in Asia. These gaps made it essential in the context of Uganda for this
study to analyse the hypothesis to the effect that:
H3: There is a relationship between the teacher-student pedagogical strategy and academic
achievement.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Sample and procedure. The sample comprised 383 students from two universities that were
Makerere and Kyambogo in South Western Uganda. To attain the sample size, the researcher
used two-stage sampling whereby in the first stage, the students were clustered according to the
universities. In stage two, the students were stratified according to faculties and from each
university one faculty that is the faculty of Education were selected. This was because the
faculties of Education were considered to have been keen to pedagogical strategies since they
trained teachers. Thus, students from the College of Education and External studies Makerere
University and faculty of education Kyambogo were studied. The respondents were drawn from
the sampled population using simple random sampling.
Instrument. The study adopted a self-administered questionnaire with five sections that were
sections A through E. The question items will be close-ended items based on nominal scale with
87
appropriate alternatives given for section A and ordinal scale based on the five-point Likert from
a minimum of 1 through 5 for sections B through E. The questions in section A were on the
background characteristics that are namely; gender, age group, year of study, marital status and
university. The questions in section B were on the dependent variable and those in sections C
through E were on the independent variables. Section B on academic achievement (IVI) covered
four aspects that were namely; factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge
and Meta Cognitive Knowledge achievement. The questions in section C were on the student
centred pedagogical strategy. The questions in section D on teacher centred pedagogical strategy
and the questions in section teacher-student pedagogical strategy.
Data Quality Control. The validities of multi-item constructs were tested using Principal
Component Factor Analysis. In considering construct validity, only items whose first
component/ factor had an Eigenvalue that exceeded 1.00 were rotated for interpretation. For
items that cross loaded, that is with more than one Eigenvalue exceeding 1.00, hence loading
highly on more than one component/ factor, such items were considered complex items and thus
identified for dropping from subsequent analysis (Baglin, 2014). Items loading 0.50 or better
were considered but cross-loaders, that is items loading 50 or better more than once and those
that loaded below 0.50 were removed (Costello & Osborne, 2005). The reliabilities of the
constructs were established using Cronbach Alpha method provided by SPSS. The reliabilities
were as follows: academic achievement (31 items: α = 0.934), student-centred (54 items: α =
0.940), teacher-centred (20 items: α = 0.880) and teacher-student (29items: α = 0.952).
Data Analysis. The data collected was processed by coding all data questionnaires, entering them
into the computer using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), summarising them
using frequency tables and editing them to remove errors. Data were analysed at bivariate and
multivariate levels. At the bivariate level, the dependent variable (DV), academic achievement
was correlated with each of the three pedagogical strategies which were the independent
variables (IVs), namely student-centred, teacher-centred and teacher-student. At multivariate
level, the DV, was regressed on the three pedagogical strategies (IVs) using multiple regression.
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) facilitated the data analysis.
4.0 FINDINGS
4.1 Demographic Characteristics.
The results in Table 1 shows that male students (54.1%) were the larger percentage with the
females being 45.9%. The larger percentage (75.0%) were in the age category of 20-25 years,
followed by those above 25 years and the remaining 1.0% was in the age category of those below
20 years. The larger percentage (36.8%) were in first year, followed (32.5%) in second year and
30.7% were in third year. Those that were single never married before were 82.0, the married/
cohabiting were 16.1% and 1.9% were single but ever married. The larger percentage (53.1%)
of the students that provided data was from Makerere University and 46.9% were from
Kyambogo University.
88
Table 1: Respondents’ Background Characteristics
Item Categories Frequency Percent
Gender Male 198 54.1
Female 168 45.9
Total 366 100.0
Age Groups Below 20 years 5 1.0
20-25 years 269 75.0
Above 25 years 88 23.7
Total 372 100.0
Year of Study Year 1 138 36.8
Year 2 122 32.5
Year 3 115 30.7
Total 375 100.0
Marital Status Single never married before 300 82.0
Married/ cohabiting 59 16.1
Single but ever married 7 1.9
Total 366 100.0
University Makerere University 199 53.1
Kyambogo University 176 46.9
Total 375 100.0
4.2 Pedagogical Strategies and Academic Achievement of Students.

To establish the relationship between academic achievement and pedagogical strategies that is to
test the first three hypotheses (H1-H3) in this study, correlation analysis was done. The three
pedagogical strategies were student centred, teacher-centred and teacher-student interaction
strategy. The results were given as in Table 2.
The results in Table 2 suggest that all pedagogical strategies namely; student centred (r = 0.636,
p = 0.000 < 0.05), teacher-centred (r = 0.286, p = 0.000 < 0.05), teacher-centred (r = 0.658, p =
0.000 < 0.05) and teacher-student interaction strategy (r = 0.433, p = 0.000 < 0.05) had a positive
89
and significant relationship with academic achievement. This means that hypotheses (H1-H3)
were supported.
Table 2: Correlation of Academic Achievement on Pedagogical Strategies
Academic Student centred Teacher centred Teacher-Student
Achievement Pedagogical Pedagogical Interactional
Strategy Strategy Pedagogical Strategy
Academic 1 0.636** 0.286** 0.658**
Achievement
0.000 0.000 0.000
Student centred 1 0.116** 0.222**
Pedagogical
0.000 0.000
Strategy
Teacher centred 1 0.252**
Pedagogical
.000
Strategy
Teacher-Student 1
Interactional
Pedagogical
Strategy
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4.3 Regression Analysis
To find out whether pedagogical strategies predicted academic achievement, at the confirmatory
level, to establish whether pedagogical strategies namely; student centred, teacher-centred and
teacher-student interaction strategies influenced academic achievement, a regression analysis
was carried out. The results were as in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Regression of Academic Achievement on Pedagogical Strategies
Teacher-student pedagogical Strategy Standardised Significance
Coefficients (p)
(β)
Student-centred 0.509 0.000
Teacher-centred 0.019 0.802
Teacher-student interaction strategy 0.214 0.073
Adjusted R2 = 0.498
F = 67.892, p = 0.000
Dependent Variable: Academic Achievement
The results in Table 3, show that pedagogical strategies namely; student centred, teacher-centred
and teacher-student interaction strategies influenced academic achievement explained 49.8% of
the variation in academic achievement of students (adjusted R 2 = 0.498). This means that 50.2%
of the variation was accounted for by other factors not considered under this model. However,
only the student-centred strategy (β = 0.509, p = 0.000 < 0.05) had a positive and significant
90
influence on academic achievement of students. On the other hand, teacher-centred (β = 0.019, p
= 0.802 > 0.05) and teacher-student interaction strategies (β = 0.214, p = 0.073 > 0.05) had a
positive but insignificant influence on academic achievement. This means that only the
hypothesis one (H1) was supported but hypotheses two and three (H2 & H3) were not.
4.4 Discussion
Student-Centred Strategy and Academic Achievement. The first hypothesis was to the effect that
there is a relationship between the student-centred strategy and academic achievement was
derived. Regression test results revealed that there is a positive significant relationship between
the student-centred strategy and academic achievement. Hence the hypothesis was supported.
This finding is consistent with the findings of most previous scholars. For instance, Asoodeh et
al. (2012) showed that student centred approach was successful and effectual as a technique
toward teaching pupils. Likewise, Ayaz and Sekerci (2015) revealed that constructivist learning
approach (student-centred approach) had positive effects on the student’s academic achievement.
Also, Cheang (2009) revealed that students responded positively to the learner-centred approach.
Similarly, Cornelius-White (2007) reported that learner-centred teacher variables namely non-
directivity, empathy, warmth and encouraging thinking and learning had above-average
associations with positive student outcomes on critical thinking, satisfaction, math achievement,
drop-out prevention, self-esteem, verbal achievement, positive motivation, social connection, IQ,
grades, reduction in disruptive behaviour, attendance, and perceived achievement.
In agreement with the finding of the study, Ganyaupfu (2013) reported that the student-centred
was an effective teaching method. In the same vein, Lak et al. (2017) indicated that the learner-
centred instruction was more effective than teacher centred instruction in improving
performance. Also, López et al. (2014) revealed that student centred approaches namely;
expository methodology, questions, problem solving, development of a monograph, laboratory
practices and team work lead to significant improvements in learning strategies and academic
performance.Further, Tebabal and Kahssay (2011) revealed that student-centred instruction
significantly in improved students graphical interpretation skill and conceptual understanding.
Scholars above have made significant effort to relate student-centred strategy and academic
achievement of students. However, contextual and empirical gaps emerge. However, the finding
of the study was inconsistent with the finding by Andersen and Andersen (2017) who revealed
that student-centred instructional strategy had a negative impact on academic achievement in
general. Nevertheless, with the finding of the study consistent with the findings of the previous
scholars, this means that the student-centred approach has a positive and significant relationship
with academic achievement of students.
Teacher-centred Strategy and Academic Achievement. The second hypothesis was that there is a
relationship between the teacher-centred strategy and academic achievement of student.
However, regression test results showed that there was appositive but insignificant relationship
between teacher-centred strategy and academic achievement of students. Therefore, the
hypothesis was rejected. This finding agrees with the findings of some previous scholars. For
example, Andala and Ng’umbi (2016) revealed that the traditional lecture method (teacher
centred approach) was the least beneficial teaching approach in determining students’ academic
achievement. Similarly, Ganyaupfu (2013) found out that that the teacher-centred approach was
the least effective teaching method.
91
However, the finding disagrees with the findings of most of the previous scholars. For instance,
Lak et al. (2017) revealed that learner-centred and teacher-centred groups had positive results on
the improvement of learners’ performance. On their part, Napoles and MacLeod (2016) indicated
that lessons with high teacher delivery with a view of the teacher were the most effective than
lessons with low teacher delivery. On their part, Ottman (2007) revealed that both student-
directed presentation and traditional teacher centred presentation led to significant improvement
in academic achievement of students and there were no significant differences gained students
taught using a particular instructional method. Further, Zohrabi et al. (2012) reported that
implementation of teacher-centred process led to higher academic achievement. Owing to the
fact that the finding of the study disagreed with the findings of most scholars but agreed with the
findings of some scholars, the findings indicate that the significance of the teacher-centred is
shrouded in controversy.
Teacher-Student Strategy and Academic Achievement of Students. The third hypothesis
conjectured that there is a relationship between the teacher-student strategy and academic
achievement of students. However, regression test results showed that teacher-student
pedagogical strategy had a positive but insignificant relationship with academic achievement of
students. This means that the hypothesis was rejected. However, this finding is inconsistent with
the findings of previous scholars. For instance, Allen et al. (2011) revealed that interaction-based
approach produced substantial gains in measuring student achievement. Also, Allen et al. (2013)
reported that classrooms characterised by a positive emotional climate, with sensitivity to
adolescent needs and perspectives, use of diverse and engaging instructional learning formats,
and a focus on analysis and problem solving were associated with higher levels of student
achievement. Likewise, Andala and Ng’umbi (2016) found out that interactive lecture method
was a major determinant of students’ academic achievement. Similarly, Ayaz et al. (2013)
revealed a positive significant correlation between students’ marks and students-teachers
relationship dimensions of connectivity, availability and communication.
Also, Granot (2014) indicated that children in the secure teacher-student attachment-like group
showed lower levels of behaviour problems (externalising, internalising), difficulties in learning
self-regulation, higher levels of frustration tolerance, task orientation, popularity among peers,
and better academic achievement than did the children in the insecure teacher-student
attachment-like group. Lee (2012) revealed that supportive teacher-student relationships
predicted performance. Similarly, Roorda et al. (2011) reported that there was a positive
statistically significant association between positive teacher–student relationships and academic
achievement with stronger effects found in the higher grades. Nevertheless, the effects of
negative relationships were stronger in primary than in secondary school. With the findings of
the study inconsistent with the findings of the previous scholars, this means that in the context of
the current study, it was different which calls for further research.
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion
This study concludes that the student-centred pedagogical strategy is essential for academic
achievement of students. It is also concluded teacher-centred pedagogical strategy is less
affective teaching strategy for academic achievement of students and the teacher-student
92
pedagogical strategy is not the most important teaching strategy for academic achievement of
students.
5.2 Recommendation
The study recommended that lecturers in the universities should prioritise the student-centred
pedagogical strategy when teaching students. However, lecturers in universities should give least
priority to teacher-centred pedagogical strategy when teaching students. In addition, lecturers in
universities should not over prioritise the teacher-student pedagogical strategy when carrying out
teaching of students.
5.3 Limitations and Areas for Future Research
This study makes significant contributions regarding how to use the different pedagogical
strategies to promote academic achievement of students. However, a number of limitations
emerged from this study. First, the findings of the study on teacher-student pedagogical strategy
contradicted the findings made by all previous scholars by indicating that it had an insignificant
relationship with academic achievement at confirmatory level. This finding calls for further
research to clarify the importance of the variable in predicting academic achievement of students.
Besides, the study was based on data collected from students from only two public universities.
This suggests that the generalisation of the research findings to all universities should be
considered with care. Therefore, future studies should make effort to carry similar or related
studies on a larger number of universities including private universities.
REFERENCES
Abrantes, J. L., Seabra, C., & Lages, L. F. (2007). Pedagogical affect, student interest, and
learning performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 960-964.
Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Lun, J. (2011). An interaction-based
approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science,
333(6045), 1034-1037.
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of
effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student
achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system-secondary. School
Psychology Review, 42(1), 76-98.
Alzaghoul, A. F. (2012). The implication of the learning theories on implementing e-learning
courses. The Research Bulletin of Jordan ACM, 11(11), 27-30.
Andala, O. H., & Ng’umbi, M. (2016). The teaching methods used in universities in Rwanda and
their effect on the students’ academic performance. World Journal of Educational
Research, 3(5), 1-18.
Andersen, I. G., & Andersen, S. C. (2017). Student-centred instruction and academic
achievement: linking mechanisms of educational inequality to schools’ instructional
strategy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 533-550.
Asoodeh, M. H., Asoodeh, M. B., &Zarepour, M. (2012). The impact of student-centred learning
on academic achievement and social skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences,
46, 560-564.
93
Ayaz, M. F., & Sekerci, H. (2015). The effects of the constructivist learning approach on
student's academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(4), 143-156.
Baglin, J. (2014). Improving your exploratory factor analysis for ordinal data: A demonstration
using FACTOR. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(5). 19(5). Available
at: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=19&n=5.
Mimrot, B. H. (2016). A study of academic achievement relation to home environment of
secondary school students. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 4(1), 30-40.
Bowlby, R. (2007). Attachment theory into practice: An overview. In K. S. Golding, Attachment
theory into practice (Ed). Leicester, UK: The British Psychological Society.
Cardoso, A. P., Ferreira, M., Abrantes, J. L., Seabra, C., & Costa, C. (2011). Personal and
pedagogical interaction factors as determinants of academic achievement. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1596-1605.
Cholewinski, M. (2009). An introduction to constructivism and authentic activity. Journal of the
school of contemporary international studies Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, 5,
283-316.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-
analysis. Review of educational research, 77(1), 113-143.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best Practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research
and Evaluation, 10(7). Retrieved from: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7
Ebanks, R. A. (2010). The influence of learner-centered pedagogy on the achievement of
students in Title I elementary schools. Unpublished PhD Thesis of the North Central
University, Prescott Valley, USA.
Ganyaupfu, E. M. (2013). Teaching methods and students’ academic performance. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 2(9), 29-35.
Geringer, J. (2005). A historical perspective of academic achievement in low socioeconomic
status English language learners. Unpublished Masters Dissertation of University of
Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA.
Granot, D. (2014). Teacher-student attachment and student school adaptation: A variable centred
and person centred analytical approaches. American Journal of Educational Research,
2(11), 1005-1014.
Grimes, J. W., &Allinsmith, W. (1961). Compulsivity, anxiety, and school achievement. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 7(4), 247-271.
Hailikari, T., Katajavuori, N., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2008). The relevance of prior knowledge
in learning and instructional design. American journal of pharmaceutical
education, 72(5). Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2630138/
Heyneman, S. P. (1976). Influences on academic achievement: A comparison of results from
Uganda and more industrialized societies. Sociology of education, 49, 200-211.
94
Hodges, D., & Burchell, N. (2003). Business graduate competencies: Employers’ views on
importance and performance. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 4(2), 16-
22.
Lak, M., Soleimani, H., & Parvaneh, F. (2017). The effect of teacher-centeredness method vs.
learner-centeredness method on reading comprehension among Iranian EFL Learners.
Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 5(1), 1-10.
Lancaster, R. W. (2017). A comparison of student-centred and teacher-centred learning
approaches in one alternative learning classroom environment. Unpublished PhD
Dissertation, Arkansas State University, Arkansas, USA.
Lee, J. S. (2012). The effects of the teacher–student relationship and academic press on student
engagement and academic performance. International Journal of Educational Research,
53, 330-340.
López, B. G., Bertomeu, I .M., Chornet, S. I., Olmedo, M. J. C., Félix, S. N. O. E. G. (2014).
Revista Española de Pedagogía, 47. Available at: https://revistadepedagogia.org/.../
learning-centered- methodology-its-impact-on-learning...
Mimrot, B. H. (2016). A study of academic achievement relation to home environment of
secondary school students. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 4(1), 30-40.
Napoles, J., & MacLeod, R. B. (2016). Influences of teacher delivery, student engagement, and
observation focus on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Journal
of Music Teacher Education, 25(3), 53-64.
Olusegun, B. S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning.
IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.
Orlando, M. (2016). Training 21st century translators and interpreters: At the crossroads of
practice, research and pedagogy. Berlin, Germany: Frank &Timme GmbH
Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Oskouei, N. N., & Saemian, F. (2012). Analysing and comparing the effects of two teaching
methods, student-centered versus teacher-centered, on the learning of biostatistics at
SBMU. Journal of Paramedical Sciences, 3(4), 17-24.
Ottman, L. (2007). The effect of student-directed versus traditional teacher-centered
presentations of content on student learning in a high school statistics class. New Jersey,
United States of America: Haddon Heights.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640.
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective
teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-
analytic approach. Review of educational research, 81(4), 493-529.
Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2015). Simulation-based constructivist approach for education leaders.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(6), 972-988.
95
Tebabal, A., & Kahssay, G. (2011). The effects of student-centered approach in improving
students' graphical interpretation skills and conceptual understanding of kinematical
motion. Latin-American Journal of Physics Education, 5(2), 374-381.
Watts, L., & Hogdson, (2019). Social justice theory and practice for social work: Critical and
philosophical perspectives. Singapore: Springer
Zhao, N., Valcke, M., Desoete, A., Sang, G., & Zhu, C. (2014). Does teacher-centered teaching
contribute to students’ performance in primary school? A video analysis in Mainland
China. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 3(3), 21-34.
Zohrabi, M., Torabi, M. A., & Baybourdiani, P. (2012). Teacher-centred and/ or student-centred
learning: English language in Iran. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(3), 18-30.
96

314-Article Text-1218-1512-10-20190917

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

314-Article Text-1218-1512-10-20190917

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

314-Article Text-1218-1512-10-20190917

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

81

African Journal of Education and Practice ISSN (Online)

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Item Categories Frequency Percent

Gender Male 198 54.1

Female 168 45.9

Total 366 100.0

Age Groups Below 20 years 5 1.0

20-25 years 269 75.0

Above 25 years 88 23.7

Total 372 100.0

Year of Study Year 1 138 36.8

Year 2 122 32.5

Year 3 115 30.7

Total 375 100.0

Marital Status Single never married before 300 82.0

Married/ cohabiting 59 16.1

Single but ever married 7 1.9

Total 366 100.0

University Makerere University 199 53.1

Kyambogo University 176 46.9

Total 375 100.0

4.2 Pedagogical Strategies and Academic Achievement of Students.

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

You might also like