A STUDY OF INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF BRAIN-BASED-LEARNING AND HEMISPHERICITY OF STUDENTS OF STANDARD VIII ON THEIR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN BIOLOGY, STUDY HABITS AND STRESS
Author: Dr. Mary George Varghese, Asst. Professor, MES Pillai College of Education and Research, Chembur Mumbai
[shc_shortcode class=”shc_mybox”]Published in: Contemporary Researches in Education, Edited by Dr.Asha J.V. and Naseerali M.K.[/shc_shortcode]
Brain-based learning is an interdisciplinary answer to the question of, “what is the most effective way of the brain’s learning mechanism?”(Jensen 1998).Brain-based learning is an effective teaching technique that represents abstract or complex content matter in to simple and meaningful scaffolds and it has the potential to delay the learning platue since it provides great scope for interaction among and between students and teacher.
Brain-based learning requires three interactive elements: Relaxed alertness, Immersion and Active processing. Relaxed alertness: Learning environment should give possibility for taking safe risks to increase the learning at the highest level. Sense of safety that accepts a risk at suitable level is a part of being relaxed. Immersion: It is the students’ focusing on the context. When the wholeness and connecting to each other are inevitable, the students have to use local memory systems to discover the context. Active Processing: In active processing, teachers should work with the students purposefully because the students need to connect and innate the knowledge both meaningfully as a character and conceptually harmonious.
The study includes the following variables which can be operationally defined as:
Academic Achievement: refers to the total scores obtained by an individual as measured on the test constructed by the researcher in the selected topics from the subject of Biology of std. VIII.
Study Habits: For the purpose of the present study, study habits has been operationally defined as the tendency of a student to study when the opportunity of study is given and the way of studying in test taking skills, text book study, time management, nutritional aspects of the study, note taking skills, concentration and memory, analytical thinking and problem solving and vocabulary skills.
Stress: It is defined as a reaction to any event in which environmental demands, internal demands or both tax or exceeds the adaptive resources of a student.
Aims of the Study
The broad aim of the study was:
To ascertain the interactive influence of Brain-Based learning and Hemisphericity on Academic Achievement in biology, Stress among students and Study Habits of students.
Objectives of the Study
Hypotheses of the Study
The hypotheses formulated in the study were:
1) There is no significant difference between experimental and control groups on pre-test scores of the following variables: Academic Achievement, Stress, and Study Habits of students
2) There is no significant difference between the experimental and control groups on post-test scores of the following variables: Academic Achievement, Stress, and Study Habits of students
3) There is no significant interactive influence of brain-based learning and hemisphericity of the experimental group on the basis of following variables: Academic Achievement, Stress, and Study Habits of students
Methodology
Quasi-Experimental method was selected for the study. The design adopted was factorial design, the pre-test, and post test quasi-experimental design. Experimental group constituted students which are selected randomly and they underwent experimental treatment namely brain based learning strategy.
Sample The study was carried out on a sample of 240 students from 4 schools in which two were private-aided 120 students and two were private-unaided 120 students.
Tools
Educational Hemisphericity (Venkataraman 1996),Study Habits Inventory Scale(Ferris, 2001),Stress (D’souza, 2007),Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Achievement Test in Biology(Researcher-made) Personal Data Sheet
Instructional Material Lessons based on Brain-Based learning and Lessons based on lecture method.
Techniques of Analysis of the Data
t-test, ANOVA, ANCOVA were used for the analysis of the data
Significance of the Study
MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
1(a) The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference in the pre-test scores on academic achievement of students of experimental and control groups.
The technique used for testing this hypothesis is t-test. The obtained t ratio is 0.64, which is less than 1.96 and hence it is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted.
1 (b) Comparison of Pre-Test Scores on stress of Experimental and Control Groups
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference in the pre-test scores on stress of experimental and control groups. The obtained t ratio is 0.75 which is less than 1.96 and hence is not significant. Hence null hypothesis is accepted at 0.05 level.
1.b.a. Comparison of Pre-Test Scores on academic stress of Experimental and Control Groups.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference in the pre-test scores on academic stress of experimental and control groups. The obtained t ratio is 3.29which is greater than 2.58 and hence is significant at 0.01level. Hence null hypothesis is rejected.
1.b.b. Comparison of Pre-Test Scores on examination stress of Experimental and Control Groups.
The pre-test scores on examination stress of experimental and control groups are found to be not significant. The obtained t ratio is 0.78 which is less than 1.96, it is clear that the control group and experimental group do not differ on the examination stress.
1.b.c. Comparison of Pre-Test Scores on social stress of Experimental and Control Groups
The obtained t- ratio 1.58 for the pre-test scores on social stress is less than 1.96 hence it is not significant at 0.05 level.
1 (c) Comparison of Pre-Test Scores on study habits of Experimental and Control Groups
The hypothesis states that there is no significant difference in the pre-test scores on study habits of experimental and control groups.The t- ratio obtained for the pre-test scores on study habits is 1.90 which is less than 1.96. Hence it is not significant at 0.05 level. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted.
2 (a) Comparison of Post-Test Scores on Academic Achievement of Experimental and Control Groups
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference in the post-test scores on academic achievement of students of experimental and control groups.
2 (b) Comparison of Post-Test Scores on Stress of Experimental and Control Groups
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference in the post-test scores on total stress of experimental and control groups. The obtained t ratio 20.61 is greater than 2.58 and hence is significant at 0.01 level. Hence null hypothesis is rejected.
2.b.a. Comparison of Post-Test Scores on Academic Stress of Experimental and Control Groups.
The obtained t-ratio 17.02 is greater than 2.58 and hence is significant at 0.01 level. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected.
2.b.b. Comparison of Post-Test Scores on Examination Stress of Experimental and Control Groups.
The obtained t ratio14.07 is greater than 2.58 and hence it is significant at 0.01 level. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected.
2.b.c. Comparison of Post-Test Scores on social stress of Experimental and Control Groups.
The t- ratio obtained is 12.24 for the post-test scores on social stress of experimental and control groups. This is greater than 2.58 hence it is significant at 0.01level. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected.
2 (c) Comparison of Post-Test Scores on study habits of Experimental and Control Groups
The hypothesis states that there is no significant difference in the post-test scores on study habits of experimental and control groups. The t- value obtained for the post-test scores on study habits is 27.42 which is greater than 2.58. Hence it is significant at 0.01 level. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected.
3.a Interactive Effect of Treatment and Gender on Academic Achievement.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant interactive influence of treatment and gender on academic achievement. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA).The obtained value of F= 0.02 for gender is fall short of the tabulated value of F=3.38 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to gender must be accepted. The obtained value of F= 794.03 for treatment is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 8.76 for interaction is larger than the tabulated value of F= 6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interaction is untenable and must be abandoned. Conclusion Since the F- ratio with respect to gender is found less than the table values hence the null hypothesis must be accepted.
3.b Interactive Effect of Treatment and Gender on Stress.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant interactive influence of treatment and gender on total stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA).The obtained value of F= 3.01 for gender is less than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to gender accepted. The obtained value of F= 326.58 for treatment is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 0.80 for interaction is less than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is accepted. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on total stress. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and gender on examination is accepted.
3.b.a Interactive Effect of Treatment and Gender on Academic Stress.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant interactive influence of treatment and gender on academic stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 3.14 for gender is less than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to gender is accepted. The obtained value of F= 175.47 for treatment is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 0.56 for interaction is less than the tabulated value of F= 6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interaction is accepted. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on academic stress, but the treatment is significant. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interaction effect of treatment and gender on academic stress is accepted.
3.b.b Interactive Effect of Treatment and Gender on Examination Stress.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant interactive influence of treatment and gender on examination stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 3.81 for gender is larger than the tabulated value of F=3.38 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to gender is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 138.62 for treatment is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 0.71 for interaction is less than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is accepted. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on examination stress. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and gender on examination is accepted.
3.b.c Interactive Effect of Treatment and Gender on Social Stress.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant interactive influence of treatment and gender on social stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F=0.4 for gender is less than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence there is no significant effect of gender on social stress. The obtained value of F= 181.37 for treatment is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 0.33 for interaction is less than the tabulated value of F=3.38 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is no significant interactive effect of gender on social stress. Conclusion There is no significant effect of gender and interaction effect of treatment and gender on social stress. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and gender on examination is accepted.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant interactive influence of treatment and gender on study habits. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 3.84 for gender is larger than the tabulated value of F=3.38 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to gender is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 1140.75 for treatment is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 10.29 for interaction is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. Conclusion There is significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on study habits of students. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and gender on study habits of students is untenable and must be abandoned.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of levels of intelligence and treatment on academic achievement. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 3.01 for different levels of intelligence fall short of the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is no significant effect of levels of intelligence on academic achievement. The obtained value of F= 794.03 for treatment is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.75at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 4.06 for interaction is larger than the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is significant interaction effect of intelligence and treatment on academic achievement. Conclusion There is no significant effect of levels of intelligence on academic achievement and there is a significant interaction effect of intelligence and treatment on academic achievement. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and intelligence on academic achievement must be abandoned.
4.b. Interaction of Levels of Intelligence and Treatment on Total Stress.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of levels of intelligence and treatment on stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 1.18 for different levels of intelligence is less than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence there is no significant effect of levels of intelligence on total stress. The obtained value of F= 324.87 for stress is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 1.12 for interaction fall short of the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence there is no interaction effect of intelligence on stress. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of intelligence on stress. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and intelligence on stress is accepted.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of levels of intelligence and treatment on academic stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 0.28 for different levels of intelligence is less than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence there is no significant effect of different levels of intelligence on achievement stress. The obtained value of F= 175.05 for treatment is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to stress is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 3.01 for interaction fall short of the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence there is no interaction effect of intelligence on academic stress. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of intelligence on academic stress. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and intelligence on academic stress is accepted.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of levels of intelligence and treatment on examination stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 0.58 for different levels of intelligence is less than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence there is no significant effect of different levels of intelligence on examination stress. The obtained value of F= 135.79 for stress is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to stress is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 0.12 for interaction fall short of the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence there is no interaction effect of intelligence on examination stress. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of intelligence on examination stress. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and intelligence on examination stress is accepted.
4.b.c. Interaction of Levels of Intelligence and Treatment on Social Stress.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of levels of intelligence and treatment on social stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 0.004 for different levels of intelligence is less than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence there is no significant effect of different levels of intelligence on social stress. The obtained value of F= 181.10 for stress is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to stress is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 1.34 for interaction fall short of the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence there is no significant interaction effect of intelligence on social stress. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of intelligence on social stress. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and intelligence on social stress is accepted.
4.c. Interaction of Levels of Intelligence and Treatment on Study Habits of students.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of levels of intelligence and treatment on study habits of students. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 11.83 for different levels of intelligence is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to different levels is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 1135.04 for study habits is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to stress is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 10.43 for interaction is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.75 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence there is significant interaction effect of intelligence on study habits. Conclusion There is a significant interaction effect of intelligence on study habits. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and intelligence on study habits is untenable and must be abandoned.
4.d.a. Interaction of Hemisphericity and Treatment on Academic Achievement of students.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of hemisphericity and treatment on academic achievement of students. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 0.093 is less than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to hemisphericity must be rejected. The obtained value of F= 777.89 for academic achievement is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect academic achievement is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 3.85 for interaction fall short of the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is no interaction effect of hemisphericity and treatment on academic achievement. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of hemisphericity and treatment on Academic achievement. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of hemisphericity and treatment on Academic achievement is accepted.
4.d.b. Interaction of Hemisphericity and Treatment on stress of students.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of hemisphericity and treatment on stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 0.24 for hemisphericity is less than the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is no significant effect of hemisphericity on total stress. The obtained value of F= 325.01 for stress is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 2.11 for interaction fall short of the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is no interaction effect of hemisphericity on total stress. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of hemisphericity on stress. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and hemisphericity on stress is accepted.
4.d.b.a. Interaction of Hemisphericity and Treatment on academic stress of students.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of hemisphericity and treatment on academic stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 0.63 for hemisphericity is less than the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is no significant effect of hemisphericity on academic stress. The obtained value of F= 176.10 for achievement stress is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 2.78 for interaction fall short of the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is no interaction effect of hemisphericity on achievement stress. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of hemisphericity on achievement stress. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and hemisphericity on academic stress is accepted.
4.d.b.b. Interaction of Hemisphericity and Treatment on examination stress of students.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of hemisphericity and treatment on examination stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 0.038 for hemisphericity is less than the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is no significant effect of hemisphericity on examination stress. The obtained value of F= 136.99 for treatment is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 2.41 for interaction fall short of the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is no interaction effect of hemisphericity on examination stress. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of hemisphericity on examination stress. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and hemisphericity on examination stress is accepted.
4.d.b.c. Interaction of Hemisphericity and Treatment on Social Stress of students.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of hemisphericity and treatment on social stress. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 0.0246for hemisphericity is less than the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is no significant effect of hemisphericity on social stress. The obtained value of F= 160.76 for treatment is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 132.96 for interaction is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to social stress is untenable and must be abandoned. Conclusion There is a significant interaction effect of hemisphericity on examination stress. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and hemisphericity on social stress must be abandoned.
4.d.c. Interaction of Hemisphericity and Treatment on Study Habits of students.
The null hypothesis states that there is no significant effect of hemisphericity and treatment on study habits of students. The technique used to test this null hypothesis is the two-way classification of analysis of variance, (ANOVA). The obtained value of F= 2.97 for hemisphericity fall short of the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence there is no significant effect of hemisphericity on study habits of students. The obtained value of F= 1116.74 for treatment is larger than the tabulated value of F=6.74 at 0.01 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to treatment is untenable and must be abandoned. The obtained value of F= 2.72 for interaction fall short of the tabulated value of F=3.88 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to study habits of students is accepted. Conclusion There is no significant interaction effect of hemisphericity on study habits of students. Hence the null hypothesis with respect to interactive effect of treatment and hemisphericity study habits of students must be accepted.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bruer, J. T. (1999). In Search of Brain-Based Education. Phi Delta Kappan. V:80, N: 9. (648–654, 656–657)
Best, J. and Kahn, J. Research in Education (9 ed), New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. 2006.
Borg, W. R. and Gall, M. D. Educational Research and Introduction New York: Longman Inc. 1979.
Caine, G., Nummela-Caine, R., & Crowell, S. (1999) Mind shifts: A Brain-Based Process for Restructuring Schools and Renewing Education, 2nd edition. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press. ISBN: 1569760918.
Diamond, M., and Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind: How to nurture your child’s intelligence, creativity, and healthy emotions from birth through adolescence (p. 37). New York: Dutton.
Dhority. L.F. Jensen. E.(1998). Joyful Fluency Brain Compatible Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: He Brain Stone, Inc.
D Falk, Braindance, Henry Holy, New York, 1992.
LeDoux, J. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York.