Synopsis
Synopsis
A Synopsis
SUBMITTED TO SARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY, V. V.
NAGAR, ANAND IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN EDUCATION
RESEARCHER Guide
Mrs. Alpa Vaghela Dr. Usha Sharda
(M.Sc. M.Ed.)
Lecturer, Associate Professor,
District Institute of Education and Training, N. H Patel College of Education
Narmada Anand
Department of
Education
Sardar Patel University, Valabh Vidhyanagar, Anand
0|Page
2023
TABLE OF CONTENT
SR CONTENT PAGE
.NO
1 INTRODUCTION 2
5 RESEARCH QUESTION 8
12 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 15
18 CONCLUSION 24
1|Page
19 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FURTHER STUDIES 25
REFERENCE 27
1. INTRODUCTION
3|Page
To teach every student according to his/her own pace of
learning.
The effort of a child to explore and understand the environment from infancy
through the process of growth is learning. This effort to learn forms the
foundations of the language, physical skills, social understanding and
emotional development need in the future (DeVeries, Zan, Hildebrant,
Edmiaston, & Sales, 2002). In the present scenario the whole education
system is only exam oriented for students and teachers. Students are not
receivers that teacher throws and they catch. Students should not get only
information; they should have their own thinking, their own views about
everything. For that constructivism approach sounds positive. They are free to
think, to do and to apply their own understanding. In traditional approach
invisible and imposing limitations are there for the students as well as for the
teachers.
6|Page
In this research particularly for mathematics subject is focused using
Learning Activity Package. The constructivist believes that each learner must
construct meaning for himself or herself - that the only learning can take
place which is connected to the individual’s already-existing knowledge,
experiences or conceptualizations. What children learn is not a copy of what
they observe in their surroundings, but the results of their own thinking and
processing. The new paradigm, ‘Learning by doing’, is a psychological
philosophical perspective contending that individuals form or construct much
of what they learn and understand (Shunk, 1996). The other theoretical
perspective on how students learn from interacting with others is based on the
social constructivist view of (Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky believed that
student can learn from his elders as well as from his peer group. So,
ultimately in our classrooms learning process must be taken place instead of
only one-sided teaching process.
From all the thinking, discussions and observations statement of the research
problem is formulated as;
Effectiveness of Learning Activity Package in Mathematics of
8thStandard Students in Narmada District
Effectiveness
7|Page
Learning Activity Package:
In this study Learning Activity Package Learning Activity Packages are the
packages of resources materials including slides and printed materials and
models.
Mathematics:
8|Page
4. To find out the Effect of Learning activity package on
achievement of experimental group.
TASK OBJECTIVES
9|Page
Table - 1 Variables involved in the Present Study
After, the research method and design decided, on the basis of purpose,
objectives and proposed research design and also after all the variables
identified researcher had formed hypotheses for the study.
10 | P a g e
scores of the Experimental Group and Control Group urban
area.
The universe of this study is all the 8 th standard Students Studying in primary
school In Gujarat State.
In the academic year 2022-23 when this experiment executed, there were 680
upper primary school in Narmda District , in Narmda District total 6956
students were enrolled in std 8.
The population for this study is all 8th standard Students Enrolled in primary
school of Narmad Distcit of Gujarat State.
13 | P a g e
In the academic year 2022-23 when this experiment executed, there were 680
upper primary school in Narmda District , in Narmda District total 6956
students were enrolled in std 8.
14 | P a g e
In this present study researcher has adopted stratified Random – Probability
based sampling strategy. The detail distribution of the sample given the below
table 2
Table 3 Distribution of Sample
15 | P a g e
group design, the post-Test only control group design, and the Solomon
Four Group Design.
Advantages of the true-experimental design include: Greater internal
validity, casual claims can be investigated
Limitations of the true-experimental design include: Less external
validity (not like real world conditions), Not very practical
From three subcategories of true experimental research designs, researcher
have employed pre-test/post-test control group design with two randomize
group (experimental and controlled), as objectives of this study required. For
that randomised sample has been devided in two equivalent groups one is
Control Group and other is Experimental Group.
Experimental Group: The experimental group of research participants
who receives the experimental treatment.
Control Group: True Experiment must have a control group, which is
a group of research participants that resemble the experimental group
but not receive the experimental treatment.
16 | P a g e
The symbolic representation of this research design is as shown in the fig. 3.6
17 | P a g e
Effectiveness of Learning Activity Package in Mathematics of
8thStandard Students in Narmada District.
Conventional way of
Teaching through LAP
Teaching
Opinionnaire/Reaction
Scale
18 | P a g e
Table 4 Research Methodology Ascertaining for the present study
19 | P a g e
Experimental Tools / Instructional Tools:
20 | P a g e
Also, researcher was seeking feedback from the students of the
experimental group who went through intervention i.e., learning via
activity based teaching, Questionnaire had been prepared and thus
quantitate as qualitative data had been collected.
To know the effectiveness of learning through activity based teaching in
mathematics in this implemented experiment on academic achievements of
the student’s researcher had compared the following test results by ‘t’ test.
Achievement scores in previous semester exam of experimental and
controlled group students.
Pre-Test & Post-Test results
rural area in achievement scores in post test then the control group.
1. Learning through LAP was joyful experience for the students in the
experimental group.
3. Students found that the activities carried out by teacher were new
22 | P a g e
and different as compared to regular class.
participation.
way.
experiment.
13. The method of self-evaluation for the learnt content was appreciated
by the students.
15. The students had developed insight for thinking new illustrations
23 | P a g e
16. The audio-visual activities were found more effective and
meaningful for the knowledge construction.
17. The evaluation process after the activities helped to understand the
content easily.
18. CONCLUSION
24 | P a g e
Activity Packages (LAP) in mathematics positively influences students'
learning outcomes. Through the integration of interactive and practical
activities, the LAP (Learning Activity Packages ) approach has shown
promising results in enhancing students' understanding, engagement, and
retention of mathematical concepts.
Impact on Specific Skills: Dive deeper into the specific mathematical skills
or concepts that benefit the most from LAP(Learning Activity Packages )
implementation. Focusing on particular areas like problem-solving, algebraic
concepts, geometry, or critical thinking could provide insights into where
LAP (Learning Activity Packages ) has the most significant impact.
26 | P a g e
Activity Packages ) outside the classroom could contribute to a holistic
understanding of its effectiveness.
Researcher also suggest the following suggestion for the further research.
5. The other variables which are not used in this study can be used for
future study.
REFERENCE:
Agrawal, B.L., (2011). Programmed Statistics (Revised Second Edition).
New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers
Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist cautions, Phi Delta
Kappan, 78(6), 444-449.
27 | P a g e
Best, J.W., & Kahn, J. V. (2002). Research in Education. (Seventh Edition).
New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.
Best, J.W., & Kahn, J. V. (2011). Research in Education. (Tenth Edition).
New Delhi: PHI learning New Delhi: Private Limited.
Bharucha, N. (2014-15). Effectiveness of constructivist approach in teaching
of science at class IX (Unpublished Project Report). Vallabh
Vidyanagar: Sardar Patel University.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: the case
for constructivist classrooms. USA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harward Educational Review, 31,
21-32.
Bybee, R. W., (2017). Creating teachable moments: The BSCS 5E
instructional model. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA),
USA
Creswell, J. W. Research design: Qualitative quantitative & mixed method
approaches. (Third Edition)
Creswell, J. (2014). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and
Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. (Fourth
Edition)PHI Learning Private Limited, Delhi.
Cohen, Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2008). Research Methods in Education
(sixth edition)
DeVries, R., Zan B., Hildebrant, C. Edmiaston, R., & Sales, C. (2002).
Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum: Pracctical
principles and activities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience, New York; Capricorn Books.
28 | P a g e
Dewey, J. (1961). John Dewey on education (selected writings). London:
Macmillan Publishers.
Dellow, E. L. (1970). Methods of Science, New York: Universe Books.
Epstein,M.(2002).Constructivism.http://tiger.towson.edu/users/mepste1/
researchpaper.htm
Fosnot, C.T. (2005). Preface. In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory,
perspectives and practice (2nd ed., pp. ix-xii). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Fosnot, C.T. & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, &
Practice (Second Edition). Teachers college, Columbia University,
New York & London.
Gagne R.M. Learning and individual Differences. Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Co.
A Bell & Howell Company, Columbus, Ohio.
29 | P a g e
Mangal, S.K. & Mangal, S. (2015). Research Methodology in Behavioural
Sciences,
PHI Learning Private Limited, Delhi.
Newman, I., & Benz, C.R. (1998). Qualitative- quantitative research
methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale and
Edwardsviue: Southern Illionis University press.
Nuttall, J. (2003). Influences on Co-construction of the teacher role in early
childhood curriculum: Some examples from a New Zealand childcare
centre, International Journal of Early Years Education, Vol. 1, No.3,
23-31.
Piaget, J. (1968). Six Psychological Studies. Anita Tenzer (Trans.), New
York: Vintage Books.
Piaget, J. (1980). Cahier de la foundation archives Jean Piaget, Geneve:
CIEG.
Position paper, (2006). National Focus Group on Teaching of Science,
National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi.
Richards, J. C. – Theodore S.R. (2001). Approaches and Methods in
Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Schuell, T.J. (1986). Cognitive Conceptions of learning. Review of
Educational Research. 56, 411-436.
Skinner, B.F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching.
Harvard Educational Review, XXIV (2), 86-97.
Sikandar, A. (2015). John Dewey and his Philosophy of Education. Journal
of Educational and Educational Development, Vol.2, No.2 (191-201).
Sjoberg, S. (2007). Constructivism and Learning. Invited contribution to
Baker, E.; McGraw, B. & Peterson, P. (Eds.). International
Encyclopaedia of education 3rd Edition, Oxford: Elsevier (in print).
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by Hypothesis: The case of Task-Based
30 | P a g e
Instruction.
Applied Linguistics. 26(3), 376-401.
The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (1952), London:
Oxford. Tylor, P.C., Dawson, V. & Fraser B.J. (1995). Classroom
Learning Environments
Under Transform: A Constructivist Perspective. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
San Franscisco: CA.
Tylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist
classroom learning environments. International Journal of
Educational Research, 27: 293-302.
Ültanir, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist Learning
in Dewy, Piaget, & Montessori, International Journal of Instruction,
Vol.5, No. 2
Webster’s Seventh New Colligative Dictionary (1966), Springe field,
Massachusetts: G & C Merriam Company Publishers.
Young, P.V. (1966), Scientific Social Surveys & Research, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
31 | P a g e