Main Article Content
The study explored the effects of IEPT constructivist instructional model on students’ Academic performance in Mathematics. The study adopted a pre-test post test control group design. One hundred and ninety Junior Secondary two (JS2) students in two co-educational schools in Umuahia Education Zone of Abia State were used for the study. The experimental group was taught using invitation, exploration, proposing explanation, taking action (IEPT) constructivist instructional model and the conventional method (CM) served as control. The main instrument for data collection was the Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT). The pre-test was administered before the experiment while the post-test was administered at the end of the study. One research question and one hypothesis guided the study. The research question was answered by mean and standard deviation while hypothesis was analyzed with the use of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The result obtained shows that students who were taught using IEPT constructivist instructional model performed significantly better than students taught with conventional method. It is recommended among other things that there should be a “paradigm shift” from the traditional expository method to active teaching/learning where teachers will be able to help students create cognitive maps, link ideas, address misconceptions and reinforce meaning.
Aremu, O.A & Sokan, B.O. (2003). A Multi-casual Evaluation of Academic Performance of Nigerian Learners: Issues and Implications for National Development. Department of Guidance and Counselling, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Asikhia, O.A. (2010). Students and Teachers Perception of Causes of Poor Academic Performance of Ogun State Schools Nigeria:
Implications for Counseling for National Development. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(2), 229 – 242.
Boekets, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where are we today? International Journal of Educational Research.
Brooks, M.G. and Brooks, J.G. (Fall, 1987). Becoming a teacher for thinking: Construction chance and consequences. The Journal of Staff Development, 8(3) 16 – 20.
Bybee, R.C.; Buchward, C.; Crissman, S.; Heil, O.; Kuerbis, P.; Matsumoto, C.; and McNerneney, J. (1989). Science and technology education for elementary years: framework for curriculum and instruction.
Andovers Mass: The national centre for improving science education.
De jager, B.; Greemers, B.P.M.; & Reezigt, G. (2002). Constructivism and direct instruction: competing or completing models? Paper presented at the “International Congress of School Effectiveness and Improvement” Copenhagen.
Federal Ministry of Education (1985). National Curriculum for Senior Secondary Schools, NERC, Lagos.
Greeno, J.G. (2001). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. J. Res. Maths. Educ. 22(3): 110 – 218.
Kim, D. (2005). “The Effects of Constructivist Teaching Approach on Students Academic Achievement Self Concept and Learning Strategies” Asia Pacific Education Review 6(1): 7 – 19.
Nzewi, U. (2000). Strategies for Teaching Erosion in Formal Setting. Environmental Education Project Series No.4 of Science Teachers’ Association of Nigeria, 58 – 64.
Odogwu, H.N. (1995). The laboratory approach on the performance and retention of different ability groups in “2” and “3” dimensional geometry. Journal of Studies in Curriculum, 56 (1,2): 9 – 15.
Ogbonna, C.C. (2003). Effects of constructivist Instructional Approach on Senior Secondary School Students Achievement and Interest in Mathematics. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Ogbonna, C.C. (2007). Effects of Two Constructivist Instructional Models on Students Achievement and Retention in Number and Numeration. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Okpala, P. (2010). WAEC released result. Saturday Punch. September, 27:10.
Uwadiae,I.(2008). WAEC released result. Sunday Punch September, 27: 10.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognitive, Construction of Knowledge and Teaching .Synthesis 89, 121 – 140.