Effect of Mathematics Laboratory Instructional Approach on the Performance of Junior Secondary Students in Plane Geometry

Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences Journal of Mathematics and Science Education
Print ISSN: 2814-0885 e-ISSN: 2814-0931
www.fnasjournals.com
Volume 3; Issue 1; November 2021; Page No. 62-68

EFFECT OF MATHEMATICS LABORATORY INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ON THE

PERFORMANCE OF JUNIOR SECONDARY STUDENTS IN PLANE GEOMETRY

Abel, V.C.
Department of Curriculum Studies and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education,
Ignatius Ajuru University of Education Rumuolumeni, Port Harcourt, NIGERIA

Corresponding author(email): [email protected]

Abstract
This study determined the effect of the mathematics laboratory instructional approach on the performance of
junior secondary students in plane geometry in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State. The study
employed the pretest and posttest non-equivalent, non-randomized intact class quasi-experimental research
design. A simple random sampling technique was used to choose two (2) schools out of fourteen (14) schools.
The study population included 8,431 JSS2 students while the sample included ninety-six (96) students. Two
research questions and two hypotheses guided the study. The Mathematics Performance Test (MPT) was used
to collect the data, the instrument was validated and the reliability was determined to be 0.82. The mean and
standard deviation were used to answer the research questions, while Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was
used to test the hypotheses at the 0.05 level. The result of the study revealed that there was a significant
difference in the performance of students taught properties of plane shapes with mathematics laboratory
instructional approach and those taught with the conventional approach. Also, no significant difference existed
in the performance of students taught properties of plane shapes with mathematics laboratory instructional
approach by gender. This study, therefore, recommended among others that all secondary schools should have a
Mathematics laboratory.

Keywords: Mathematics performance, Mathematics laboratory instructional approach, Plane geometry,

Gender.

Introduction

Everything about a man’s life dwells on the level of knowledge he has acquired. This knowledge has a long
way to help man succeed. It is believed that a nation’s prosperity lies in the quality of its education. It is also a
fact that a nation’s standard of living depends on how far it has gone with science and technology. Science is
the basis on which technology is invented while Mathematics is the key to sciences. However, Mathematics has
become the most important subject of study for everybody and it has made an in-road into everyone’s
endeavour. Nigerian schools have recommended a minimum credit level in Mathematics WASSCE/NECO as a
requirement for admission into most of the higher institutions of learning.

Mathematics is a subject that has been defined by various authorities. One of the main characteristics of
Mathematics due to the different definitions is that it is a subject that is encapsulated in abstractions, and it is
also a subject that many students experience because of the myths that surround it. The subject (Buckley, 2013,
Taylor, 2010) cited by George and Amadi(2016). Glenda and Walshaw (2009) postulated that many students
have difficulty with math and this leads to them doing very poorly at it. Mathematics lessons in schools today
are dominated by textbooks that deal primarily with the manipulation of symbols and are often largely removed

62 Cite this article as:

Abel, V.C. (2021). Effect of mathematics laboratory instructional approach on the performance of junior secondary students in
plane geometry. FNAS Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), 62-68.
 Effect of Mathematics Laboratory Instructional Approach on the Performance of Junior Secondary Students in Plane Geometry

from the child's real world. Endless repetition, pointless memorization, and a lack of general interest are some
of the reasons ascribing a negative attitude towards Mathematics.

Mathematics relies on logic and creativity. The study of Mathematics has pursued a variety of practical
purposes and its intrinsic value. Mathematicians and other professionals study Mathematics because of its
beauty and
intellectual challenges. Albert quoted by Odogwu (2015), sees Mathematics as “security, certainty, truth,
beauty, insight structure, and architecture … the part of human knowledge that she calls Mathematics as one
thing, one great glorious thing”. Odili (2019) defines Mathematics as the science of quantity and space. “It is a
systematized, organized and exact branch of science”. It is a creation of the human mind, concerned primarily
with ideas and reasoning. According to Abakpa and Iji (2011). Mathematics is an intellectually stimulating
subject that affects every talent of human activities such as politics, economics science and technology.
Agwagah and Nwoye, (2012) observed that students lack interest in the study of Mathematics and perform
poorly. In addition, inadequate qualified teachers, insufficient instructional materials, lack of Mathematics
laboratory, poor use of instructional materials, and improper approach of teaching have contributed to making
the teaching and learning of Mathematics ineffective.

One of the objectives of the new Mathematics curriculum in the country is to get rid of the dogmatic ways of
teaching Mathematics. One such way is the use of the procreative approach in the Mathematics laboratory and
the use of games. This is an era of media-driven innovation and Mathematics teachers must devise ways of
teaching concepts in an interactive way that develops the interest of the students and their cognitive,
psychomotor, and affective domains. The teacher of Mathematics has a difficult task making it fun and yet
educative. Games provide an opportunity for building students’ confidence and enthusiasm for Mathematics,
problem-solving, and higher-level thinking. Mathematics games develop Mathematics communication by
having students explain and justify their movements with one another.

Elaine (2013) defines Mathematics as a science that deals with the logic of form, quantity, and arrangement.
Elaine went on to explain that Mathematics surrounds us everywhere, in everything we do; as it is the building
block for everything in our daily life including mobile devices, architecture (old and modern), art, money,
technology, and even sports. Implicitly, Mathematics is a logical way of thinking aimed at solving personal and
social problems. Problems; and has improved our communication, accommodation, production, and leisure
activities promptly. In the opinion of Paul (2015), the importance of Mathematics has never been more
important than it is now and in the foreseeable future, given mathematical skills for a wide variety of analytical,
technological, scientific, safety, and economic application. Paul further emphasized that Mathematics applies to
all basic sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics; the social sciences such as economics, psychology,
and sociology; Engineering sciences such as civil, mechanical, and industrial engineering; technological areas
such as computers, missiles, and communications. There are even uses of math in the arts like sculpture,
drawing, and music.

The Mathematics process involves creativity and exploration which is the most important facet of the subject. It
is, therefore, recommended that the teaching of Mathematics should focus on the process and not just on
transferring knowledge into the students’ notebooks. This can easily be achieved when students learn
Mathematics with an instructional laboratory approach (Manjunath, 2018). According to Odili (2006), the math
laboratory can also be defined as a resource centre for learning math, it consists of a specially equipped room in
the building where math classes meet regularly, or in a corner of the regular classroom with tables and while
math is none experimental science such as Physics or Chemistry, a Mathematics laboratory can make a great
contribution to the practical learning of Mathematics concepts and skills. It leads to the development of abstract
thinking and concept formation (Odogwu, 2015).

The word geometry comes from the Greek, geo means earth and material means correct perception and
measurement. Lassa (2012), quoted by Odogwu (2015), defines geometry as the study of space and its subsets.
Geometry could be a formal systematic definition of shape, volume, and spatial relationships between totally
different points in space. It is additionally a sort of spatial thinking that students use all the time while not being
63 Cite this article as:
Abel, V.C. (2021). Effect of mathematics laboratory instructional approach on the performance of junior secondary students in
plane geometry. FNAS Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), 62-68.
 Effect of Mathematics Laboratory Instructional Approach on the Performance of Junior Secondary Students in Plane Geometry

responsive to it. Zeeman (2001), cited by Jones (2006), defines geometry as a branch of Mathematics that uses
visualization to enable students to remember theorems, understand the evidence, suggest guesswork, perceive
reality, and a global vision admits.

Okigbo and Osuafor (2008) explored the effect of using a Mathematics laboratory in teaching mathematics on
the achievement of mathematics students. The purpose of this study was to see how using a mathematics
laboratory in the classroom affected students' performance in Junior Secondary School Mathematics. The study
enlisted the participation of 100 JS 3 Mathematics students. The research is a quasi-experimental study. The
utilization of a mathematics laboratory was found to improve mathematical achievement. The findings also
revealed that there is no significant difference in achievement between male and female mathematics students
who are taught in a mathematics laboratory.

Statement of the Problem

There has been a negative attitude towards the learning of Mathematics for years. This is evident in their poor
performance in the subject as revealed by Zalmon and Wonu (2017) who carried out a comparative analysis of
students’ Mathematics achievement in the West African Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination
(WASSCE) in Nigeria. Nwabueze (2010) observed that most students see Mathematics as a very difficult
subject such that they cannot scale through, especially when they begin to score low marks or even zero in the
subject. Therefore, they lose interest in learning and get bored whenever they enter Mathematics class. Also, in
a topic like geometry, teachers rather than making the students participate actively in constructing the shapes
using cardboard papers, scissors, markers, etc will prefer to ask them to draw the shapes in their exercise books
using just a ruler and pencil. This is because most secondary schools do not have Mathematics laboratories.
Therefore, the study assessed the effect of the Mathematics laboratory on plane geometry. It also assessed the
effect of this approach (Mathematics lab) on students understanding of this topic as was compared with those
taught using the traditional approach or approach.

Purpose of the Study

Specifically, the purpose of this study is to examine the effect of the Mathematics laboratory instructional
approach on the performance of junior secondary students in plane geometry. And the objectives of this study
are to:
1. Determine if there is any difference in the academic performance of students who were taught the
properties of plane shapes using the Mathematics laboratory instructional approach and those who
were taught the same subject using the traditional instructional approach
2. Ascertain if there is any difference in the academic performance of the male and the female students
taught properties of plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory instructional approach.

Research Questions
The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What is the mean difference in academic performance between students who were taught the
properties of plane shapes using the Mathematics laboratory instructional approach and those who
were taught the same subject using the traditional instructional approach?
2. To what extent are the mean difference in the academic performance of the male and the female
students who studied properties of plane shapes using a Mathematics laboratory instructional
approach?

Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 significant levels;
Ho1: There is no significant difference in the performance mean score of students taught properties of plane
shapes using Mathematics laboratory instructional approach and those taught the same topic using the
conventional instructional approach.

64 Cite this article as:

Abel, V.C. (2021). Effect of mathematics laboratory instructional approach on the performance of junior secondary students in
plane geometry. FNAS Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), 62-68.
 Effect of Mathematics Laboratory Instructional Approach on the Performance of Junior Secondary Students in Plane Geometry

Ho2: No significant difference exists in the performance mean score among male and female students taught
properties of plane shapes using the Mathematics laboratory approach.

Materials and Methods

Research Design
This study adopted a quasi-experimental research design in which pretest and posttest were administered to the
students. The study involved two groups; the experimental and control groups.

Population of the Study

The population of the study comprised all the 8,431 Junior Secondary Two (JSS2) students in Obio/Akpor
Local Government Area of Rivers State.

Sample and Sampling Technique

The sample for this study comprised of ninety-six (96) JSS2 students. Fifty (50) were in the experimental group
and forty-six (46) in the control group. A simple random sampling technique was adopted to choose the sample
size, which consists of two (2) intact classes from the fourteen (14) public schools in the Obio/Akpor zone.

Instrument for Data Collection

The researcher developed an instrument titled ‘Mathematics Performance Test (MPT)’ which was used for data
collection. The MPT was used to conduct the pretest and posttest to elicit the achievement of students in
Mathematics. The test item was derived from the properties of plane shapes for which lesson plans were also
prepared. The test was made up of twenty-five (25) items of multiple-choice questions with four options
(lettered A – D) each, of which only one option is the correct answer. The lesson plans for teaching the two (2)
groups (experimental and control) were prepared considering the lesson topic, age, and class of the students,
class size, sex and qualification of the intact class teachers, lesson duration of 40 minutes per teaching session,
students’ previous knowledge, specific objectives of the lesson, instructional materials, reference materials, and
instructional approach.

Validity of the Instrument

The face and content validity of the instruments was determined by an expert in the area of Mathematics
education in the Department of Mathematics/Statistics who certified them fit for the study.

Reliability of the Instrument

To determine the reliability of the instrument (MPT), a retest approach was performed using the same simple
random sampling technique for twenty (20) JSS2 students in a non-degree school. This group of students had
not previously been taught the topics before the administration of the instrument (MPT). Students were asked
to try all twenty-five (25) items in the MPT. The same instrument was administered to the same sample after
the two (2) week period with a change in the series of questions. The initial and reassessment results of the
sample were correlated with Pearson's product-moment correlation and the coefficient of confidence was 0.82,
which was sufficient for the test.

Method of Data Collection

A pre-test of the Mathematics Performance Test (MPT) was administered to the students before the treatment
started. After which the teaching sessions of the Mathematics concepts for two weeks of four periods each
commenced. Each group (control and experimental group) was taught using the content by the researcher, for
the duration of time under similar environmental conditions using the same lesson plans. The different scores
obtained during pre-test and post-test were used for data analysis. Again, the MPT was administered to JSS2
students who were not included in the experiment.

65 Cite this article as:

Abel, V.C. (2021). Effect of mathematics laboratory instructional approach on the performance of junior secondary students in
plane geometry. FNAS Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), 62-68.
 Effect of Mathematics Laboratory Instructional Approach on the Performance of Junior Secondary Students in Plane Geometry

Method of Data Analysis

The mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research questions while Analysis of Covariance
(ANCOVA) was used to test the hypotheses at a 0.05 significant level.

Results
Research Question1:What is the mean difference in academic performance between students who were taught
the properties of plane shapes using the Mathematics laboratory instructional approach and those who were
taught the same subject using the traditional instructional approach?

Table 1: Mean and standard deviation on the difference in the performance of students who were
taught the properties of plane shapes using the Mathematics laboratory instructional approach
and those who were taught the same subject using the traditional instructional approach

Pretest Posttest Gain

Group N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
MLS 50 33.76 11.67 49.84 8.65 16.08 10.20
CVM 46 36.83 12.34 42.26 10.38 5.43 13.20

Table 1 showed the mean and standard deviation on the difference in the performance of students who were
taught the properties of plane shapes using the Mathematics laboratory instructional approach and those who
were taught the same subject using the traditional instructional approach. The table showed that the students
taught properties of plane shapes with the Mathematics laboratory instructional approach had a mean gain
performance of 16.08, SD=10.20 while those taught with the conventional approach had a mean gain
performance of 5.43, SD=13.20. This implies that students who were taught properties of plane shapes with the
Mathematics laboratory instructional approach had a higher mean gain than those taught using the conventional
approach.

Research Question2:What is the difference in the academic performance of the male and the female students
taught properties of plane shapes using Mathematics laboratory instructional approach?

Table 2: Mean and standard deviation on how the performance of the students in the
experimental group taught properties of plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory instructional
approach differ by gender
Pretest Posttest Gain

Gender N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Female 28 32.36 10.94 48.71 9.19 16.36 10.05
Male 22 35.55 12.57 51.27 7.87 15.73 10.61

Table 2 showed the mean and standard deviation on how the performance of the students in the experimental
group taught properties of plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory instructional approach differs by gender.
The table showed that the male students taught properties of plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory
instructional approach had a mean gain performance of 15.73, SD=10.61 while the female students had a mean
gain performance of 16.36, SD=10.05. This implies that the female students outperformed the male
counterparts in the experimental group.

H01: There is no significant difference in the performance of students taught properties of plane shapes with the
Mathematics laboratory instructional approach and those taught with the conventional approach.

66 Cite this article as:

Abel, V.C. (2021). Effect of mathematics laboratory instructional approach on the performance of junior secondary students in
plane geometry. FNAS Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), 62-68.
 Effect of Mathematics Laboratory Instructional Approach on the Performance of Junior Secondary Students in Plane Geometry

Table 3: Summary of ANCOVA on the difference in the performance of students taught properties of
plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory instructional approach and those taught with the
conventional approach.
Dependent Variable: Posttest

Type III Sum of

Source Squares Df Mean Square F p-value
Corrected Model 2907.851a 2 1453.925 19.361 .000

Intercept 11395.168 1 11395.168 151.740 .000

Pretest 1531.607 1 1531.607 20.395 .000

Group 1747.298 1 1747.298 23.267 .000

Error 6983.983 93 75.097

Total 214872.000 96

Corrected Total 9891.833 95

a. R Squared = .294 (Adjusted R Squared = .279)

Table 3 showed the summary of ANCOVA on the difference in the performance of students taught properties of
plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory instructional approach and those taught with the conventional
approach. The result showed that there is a significant difference in the performance of students taught
properties of plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory instructional approach and those taught with the
conventional approach (F1, 93=23.267, p<.05). The null hypothesis one was rejected at 0.05 alpha levels.

H02: No significant difference exists in the performance of the students in the experimental group taught
properties of plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory instructional approach by gender.

Table 4: Summary of ANCOVA on the difference that exists in the performance of the students in
the experimental group taught properties of plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory
instructional approach by gender
Dependent Variable: Posttest

Type III Sum of

Source Squares Df Mean Square F p-value
Corrected Model 1051.109b 2 525.555 9.458 .000

Intercept 6949.136 1 6949.136 125.061 .000

Pretest 970.467 1 970.467 17.465 .000

Gender 21.428 1 21.428 .386 .538

Error 2611.611 47 55.566

Total 127864.000 50

Corrected Total 3662.720 49

a. Group = MLS
b. R Squared = .287 (Adjusted R Squared = .257)
67 Cite this article as:
Abel, V.C. (2021). Effect of mathematics laboratory instructional approach on the performance of junior secondary students in
plane geometry. FNAS Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), 62-68.
 Effect of Mathematics Laboratory Instructional Approach on the Performance of Junior Secondary Students in Plane Geometry

Table 4 showed the summary of ANCOVA on the difference that exists in the performance of the students in the
experimental group taught properties of plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory instructional approach by
gender. The result showed that no significant difference exists in the performance of the students in the
experimental group taught properties of plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory instructional approach by
gender (F1, 47=.386, p>.05). The null hypothesis two was retained at 0.05 alpha levels.

Discussion of findings Laboratory approach and students’ performance

Research question one (1) and its hypothesis one (1) investigated the mean difference in the performance of
students taught properties of plane shapes with the Mathematics laboratory instructional approach and those
taught with the conventional approach. The findings revealed that students who were taught properties of plane
shapes with Mathematics laboratory instructional approach performed higher (MG = 16.08, SD = 10.20) than
those who were taught with conventional approach (MG = 5.43, SD = 13.20). Also, the hypothesis showed
there was a significant difference in the academic performance of the students, therefore, the use of the
Mathematics laboratory instructional approach significantly affected the academic performance of students
taught properties of plane shapes. However, Okigbo and Osuafor (2008) established that the utilization of a
mathematics laboratory was found to improve mathematical achievement.

Gender associated performance of students

Research question (2) and its corresponding hypothesis (2) on the mean difference in the academic performance
of students in the experimental group taught properties of plane shapes with Mathematics laboratory
instructional approach by gender. The findings showed that the female students who were taught properties of
plane shapes with the use of the Mathematics laboratory instructional approach in the experimental group
achieved more (MG = 16.36, SD = 10.05) than their counterparts in the same group (MG = 15.73, SD = 10.61).
Also, the hypotheses showed that no significant difference exists in the performance of the students in the
experimental group who were taught properties of plane shapes with the Mathematics laboratory instructional
approach by gender. This result disagreed with Ganley et al., (2018) who revealed that girls tend to have less
positive attitudes in Mathematics. From this study, it was discovered that boys have higher levels of
Mathematics anxiety and lower levels of confidence in their Mathematics skills instead of girls against what
was discovered by Ganley, et al. (2018). It is boys that are not too sure of themselves and not girls, even when
they show similar performance in their levels to girls. Okigbo and Osuafor (2008) also revealed that there is no
significant difference in achievement between male and female mathematics students who are taught in a
mathematics laboratory.

Conclusion
This study revealed that students have mean score gains in their performances when taught plane geometry
using the Mathematics laboratory approach than when taught with the conventional approach. There is a
significant difference in the mean scores of students taught plane geometry with the Mathematics laboratory
approach and those taught without Mathematics laboratory approach for better performance. The Mathematics
laboratory approach is also not gender bias in advancing the learning outcome of the students. The findings
imply that when students are taught in the Mathematics laboratory, they explore things themselves.

Recommendations
The researcher made the following recommendations based on the findings of this study;
1. Mathematics laboratory should be established in all the secondary schools to enable students to
develop more interest in the learning of Mathematics and participate actively in the class.
2. Teachers should always use the conventional approach in teaching Mathematics, but should also allow
the students of both sexes to experiment and explore patterns and ideas through Mathematics
laboratory instructional approach, while they are guided.
3. Curriculum planners should include Mathematics laboratory instructional approach as a subject of its
own and emphasize interactive activities.

68 Cite this article as:

Abel, V.C. (2021). Effect of mathematics laboratory instructional approach on the performance of junior secondary students in
plane geometry. FNAS Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), 62-68.
 Effect of Mathematics Laboratory Instructional Approach on the Performance of Junior Secondary Students in Plane Geometry

References
Abakpa, B. O., & Iji, C. O. (2011). Effect of mastery learning approach on senior secondary school students’
achievement in geometry. Journal of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 8(2), 24-31.
Agwagah, U. N.V. & Nwoye, M.N. (2012). Binary code system approach in pupils achievement and interest in
binary numbers: a factor for achievement of millennium development goals. ABACUS. The Journal of
Mathematics Association of Nigeria, 37(1), 1-9.
Buckley, S. (2013). To overcome fear of Maths, let’s confront the myths.
Elaine J. H. (2013). What is Mathematics? http://m.livescience.com/38936-mathematics.htnAccessed on
11/12/2016.
Ganley, C. M., George, C. E., Cimpian, J. R., & Makowski, M. B. (2018). Gender equity in college majors:
Looking beyond the STEM/Non-STEM dichotomy for answers regarding female participation.
American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 453-487.
George, N.R.,&Amadi, O.(2016). Improvisation skills possessed by mathematics teachers in Junior Secondary
Schools in Rivers State. International Journal of Education and Research 4(7), 36-37.
Glenda, A.G. & Walshaw, M. (2009). Characteristics of effective teaching of mathematics: Journal of
Mathematics Education, 2(2), 147-164.
Jones, K. (2006). Issues in the teaching and learning of geometry. In Linda Haggarry (ed.), Aspect of teaching
secondary mathematics perspective on practice. Open UniversityLondon and New York.
Lassa, P.N. (2012). The teaching of Mathematics for Nigerian secondary schools. Jos, Anieh Nigeria Ltd.
Manjunath, D. (2018). Mathematics Laboratory: An alternative method of instruction. Educational Research
2(5).
Nwabueze, J. N.(2010). Effect of Explicit Instruction on the Mathematics Achievement of Pupils with
Dyscalculia. Journal of the Nigeria Academy of Education 15(1), 207-211.
Odili, G.A (2006). Mathematics in Nigeria Secondary Schools: A Teaching Perspective. Rex Charles & Patrick
Limited in Association with Anachuna Educational Books.
Odili, G.A. (2019).The Philosophy and History of Mathematics. Mary Godwin Press.
Okigbo, E. C., & Osuafor, A. M. (2008). Effect of using mathematics laboratory in teaching mathematics on the
achievement of mathematics students. Educational Research and Reviews, 3(8), 257-261.
Odogwu, H. (2015).Comprehensive guide for teaching mathematics in secondary schools. Sibon Books Ltd..
Paul, M. S. (2015).The importance of mathematics. Page-Willowside Middle School.
Taylor, M. (2010).Mathematical myths and legends.
Zalmon, I.G.&Wonu N. (2017). Comparative analysis of students mathematics achievement in West
African Senior Secondary School Certificate examination in Nigeria. European Journal of Research and
Reflection in Education Science, 5(1), 25-31

69 Cite this article as:

Abel, V.C. (2021). Effect of mathematics laboratory instructional approach on the performance of junior secondary students in
plane geometry. FNAS Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), 62-68.