BRAIN-BASED-LEARNING AND HEMISPHERICITY OF STUDENTS

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

  • To develop an instructional package based on brain–based learning
  • To analyze the hemispheric preferences of students of experimental and control groups.
  • To compare experimental and control groups on pre-test scores of the following variables: Academic Achievement, Stress, Study Habits of students.
  • To compare experimental and control groups on post-test scores of the following variables: Academic Achievement, Stress, Study Habits of students
  • To ascertain the interactive influence of Brain-based learning and hemispheric preferences of the experimental group on the following variables: Academic Achievement, Stress, Study Habits of students

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.

  • Three stage sampling technique was used at the first stage, stratified random sampling was used for selecting private-aided and private un aided schools.
  • At the second stage, through simple random sampling (lottery method) schools were assigned to the experimental and control groups and
  • at the third stage, the sampling technique used was incidental sampling in order to select 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

  • The researcher found that the teaching would be highly effective if the teachers start using the principles of brain research in their classrooms.
  • The findings of the study have a major bearing on the curriculum planners to explore new dimensions to keep students as well as teachers abreast with new explosions in research.
  • It also provides scope for self-organized and self-directed learning along with interactive and collaborative learning and learning become authentic and situated learning.
  • The findings of the research brought advantages of a holistic view of the classroom, taking the physical and affective dimensions of learners into account if their cognitive side is to function optimally.
  • The incorporation of brain-based learning and hemispheric dominance is an effective way to broaden both the goals and the range of tools at disposal for teaching in the Indian context.
  • The present study on brain-based learning and hemisphericity shows that it has got a significant influence on student’s academic achievement, their stress level and it has the potential to make a remarkable change in students study habits also.
  • The research finding supports that it develops dynamic interaction and more teacher-pupil collaboration, which leaves scope for better stress management options, which is a burning issue in the education sector.

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.

  1. c Interactive Effect of Treatment and Gender on study habits.

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.

  1. a. Interaction of Levels of Intelligence and Treatment on Academic Achievement.

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.

  1. b.a. Interaction of Levels of Intelligence and Treatment on Academic Stress.

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.

  1. b.b. Interaction of Levels of Intelligence and Treatment on Examination Stress.

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

  • There is an effect of the treatment on academic achievement in biology of VIII students.
  • A significant variation is found in the stress levels of students from the experimental groups
  • There is a significant effect of treatment on study habits of students from the experimental groups
  • The treatment is effective in improving the academic achievement in Biology, reducing the stress levels of students and thereby enables better study habits among students.
  • There is no effect of gender on academic achievement, stress- academic stress, examination stress and social stress and total stress.
  • There is no effect of intelligence on academic achievement, stress- academic stress, examination stress, social stress separately and in total stress.
  • There is a significant effect of intelligence on study habits of students. Moreover a significant interaction of intelligence (low and average IQ ) on academic achievement and study habits of students.
  • There is no significant effect of hemisphericity on academic achievement, stress- academic stress, examination stress and social stress and total stress and study habits of students.
  • There is a significant interactive effect of hemisphericity (right hemisphericity) on academic achievement and social stress of students.

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *