Options
The effectiveness of the guided discovery method and the telling method in the teaching of geography at secondary one level
Loading...
Type
Thesis
Author
Ng, Ju Lang
Supervisor
Ko, Peng Sim
Then, Lian Mee
Abstract
This paper reports the findings of a study which was designed to investigate the effectiveness of two teaching methods, i.e., Guided Discovery and Telling in the teaching of Geography at Secondary One level. In Singapore, Geography is one of the subjects in the school curricula and only taught in secondary schools. It is normally taught in a very traditional way and in most schools, the Telling Method is used as the main method of instruction. When the New Secondary Geography Syllabus was introduced in 1982, it came with the recommendation that the new syllabus could be more effectively taught by student-centred approaches such as Guided Discovery. The idea was that stronger motivation on the part of students would be obtained through approaches which emphasise problem-solving and student-involved activities. As Guided Discovery is relatively new to many of the Geography teachers in local schools, the immediate concern is how effective this method will be as compared to the traditional Telling Method. Research on instructional methods indicates that there is no single method which can be claimed as the 'best' method of instruction. Any study on the effectiveness of an instructional method, therefore, has to take into consideration other relevant factors such as students' abilities and the types of lesson content being taught.
This study is designed to ask two questions : -
1. Which of the two teaching methods, i.e., Guided Discovery or Telling Method, is relatively more effective in the teaching of Geography when effectiveness is defined in terms of students' performance in Geography Achievement Test?
2. Will the two teaching methods be equally effective to students irrespective of their abilities, i.e., if students receiving the instruction consist of both high and low ability students, will the high ability students perform better than the low ability students?
Two schools, with a total of 120 students participated in the study. Two classes of 30 students each, one from the lowest end of the Express stream representing the low ability group and one from the Special stream representing the high ability group, were assigned to the Guided Discovery Method as the experimental group. The other two classes, an Upper end Express stream and a Special stream were treated as the Control group. They were taught by the Telling Method. All the participating students went through a seven-week special instruction period during which they were taught by the investigator herself, using the specific method they were assigned to. A Geography test was given as a pre-treatment for all students prior to the instruction to establish the baseline of the students' knowledge and understanding of basic Geography. Another Geography test, an Assessment Test (GAT No. 1), was developed to assess the students' achievement immediately after the seven-week instruction. The same test was given two weeks later to serve as a measure of retention over time. An analysis of variance was performed on the 2x2x3 factorial design (2 types of teaching method, 2 levels of student ability and 3 kinds of lesson content). The results in the study showed the following:
1. There were significant first order interaction effects. All the three first-order interactions, i.e. method x ability, ability x lesson content, and method x lesson content were significant.
2. Students of high ability who were taught by the Telling Method performed better than those taught by the Guided Discovery Method. For the low ability students, the reverse was true.
3. Whilst the high ability students consistently performed better than the low ability students, the differences in scores were only substantial in the knowledge component, especially when the Telling Method was used.
4. Guided Discovery could be of particular relevance in the teaching of comprehension as both high and low ability groups performed quite well in comprehension under this method.
Performance by individual students in the test known as GAT No. 1 immediately after the seven-week instruction was further compared with their performance on the "retention" test. It was observed that while most students showed sign of improvement, the overall pattern of the distribution of scores in the retention test was not much different from that of GAT No. 1.
The findings of this study suggest that one needs to take into account the nature of lesson content as well as students' ability when deciding on what methods to use in the teaching of Geography at Secondary One level.
This study is designed to ask two questions : -
1. Which of the two teaching methods, i.e., Guided Discovery or Telling Method, is relatively more effective in the teaching of Geography when effectiveness is defined in terms of students' performance in Geography Achievement Test?
2. Will the two teaching methods be equally effective to students irrespective of their abilities, i.e., if students receiving the instruction consist of both high and low ability students, will the high ability students perform better than the low ability students?
Two schools, with a total of 120 students participated in the study. Two classes of 30 students each, one from the lowest end of the Express stream representing the low ability group and one from the Special stream representing the high ability group, were assigned to the Guided Discovery Method as the experimental group. The other two classes, an Upper end Express stream and a Special stream were treated as the Control group. They were taught by the Telling Method. All the participating students went through a seven-week special instruction period during which they were taught by the investigator herself, using the specific method they were assigned to. A Geography test was given as a pre-treatment for all students prior to the instruction to establish the baseline of the students' knowledge and understanding of basic Geography. Another Geography test, an Assessment Test (GAT No. 1), was developed to assess the students' achievement immediately after the seven-week instruction. The same test was given two weeks later to serve as a measure of retention over time. An analysis of variance was performed on the 2x2x3 factorial design (2 types of teaching method, 2 levels of student ability and 3 kinds of lesson content). The results in the study showed the following:
1. There were significant first order interaction effects. All the three first-order interactions, i.e. method x ability, ability x lesson content, and method x lesson content were significant.
2. Students of high ability who were taught by the Telling Method performed better than those taught by the Guided Discovery Method. For the low ability students, the reverse was true.
3. Whilst the high ability students consistently performed better than the low ability students, the differences in scores were only substantial in the knowledge component, especially when the Telling Method was used.
4. Guided Discovery could be of particular relevance in the teaching of comprehension as both high and low ability groups performed quite well in comprehension under this method.
Performance by individual students in the test known as GAT No. 1 immediately after the seven-week instruction was further compared with their performance on the "retention" test. It was observed that while most students showed sign of improvement, the overall pattern of the distribution of scores in the retention test was not much different from that of GAT No. 1.
The findings of this study suggest that one needs to take into account the nature of lesson content as well as students' ability when deciding on what methods to use in the teaching of Geography at Secondary One level.
Date Issued
1986
Call Number
G76.5.S5 Ng
Date Submitted
1986