DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS OF MONTESSORI DIDACTIC AND DIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS ON REASONING ABILITY OF CHILDREN WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENT IN LAGOS, NIGERIA
Sažetak
Language has a noteworthy role in the cognitive development and social ability of an individual. However, a delay in language could affect an individual ability to think critically. This could be breached through impactful method of instruction from elementary school. Thus, this study examined the differential effectiveness of Montessori didactic and Direct Instructional methods on reasoning ability of children with hearing impairment in Lagos State. The research design was a quasi-experimental pretest, posttest control group. All children with hearing impairment in Lagos State constituted the population of the study while the sample size was 29 pupils comprising 15 male and 14 female pupils with hearing impairment. The simple random, hat and draw method and purposive sampling were used in the selection of the sample. Two research hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance. The Reasoning Ability Test was used to gather relevant data while mean, standard deviation, mean difference, Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and Least Significant Difference (LSD) were the statistical tool used to analyse the data. The study found out that both Montessori Didactic Material and Direct Instruction group were efficacious in teaching pupils with hearing impairment. However, the former was be more effective. Besides, the teaching methods do not have significant gender effect on pupils with hearing impairment. It was recommended that montessori didactic method should be employed in teaching of elementary school pupils because it encourages active participation in learning process in form of self- directional and independence not minding gender, intellectual and economic disparities.
Reference
Adams, G., Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seatle, W.A: Educational Achievement System, 319 Nickerson Street Suite 112, Seattle, WA 98109.
Al-Makahleh, A., & Abdul-Hameed, A. (2011).The effects of direct instruction strategy on math achievement of primary 4th and 5th grade students with learning difficulties. International Education Studies, 4(4), 199-205. doi: 10.5539/ies.v4n4p.199.
Ashmore, B. (2017). A study of the performance of deaf/heard of hearing students in high school mathematics on conceptual understanding procedural fluency and Mathematical reasoning tasks. The colleges at Brockport: State University of New York.
Baldo, J. V., Bunge, S. A., Wilson, S. M., & Dronkers, N. F. (2010). Is relational reasoning dependent on language? A voxel-based lesson symptom mapping study. Brian and language, 113(2), 59-64. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.004
Baldo, J. V., Dronkers, N. F., Wilkins, D., Ludy, C., Raskin, P., & Kim, J. (2005). Is problem solving dependent on language? Brain and Language, 92(3), 240-250. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.06.103
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2016). Poverty stress and brain development: A new direction for brain development and intervention. Academy Pediatrics, 16(3), 30-36. doi:10.1016/j.acap.2016.01.010
Brown, K. E. (2016). Evaluating the effectiveness of Montessori reading and Math instruction for third grade African American students in urban elementary schools. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation) Charlotte, University of North Carolina.
Cohen, M. T. (2008). The effect of direct instruction versus discovering learning on the understanding of science lessons by second grade students. The graduate center, city University of New York.
Dhiksha, J., & Shivakumara, K. (2017). The effect of Montessori and traditional methods of education on emotional intelligence of children. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(4), 367-382. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.399050
Edwards, L., Figueras, B., Mellanby, J., & Langdon, D. (2010). Verbal and spatial analogical reasoning in deaf and hearing children: The role of grammar and vocabulary. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(2), 189-197. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq051
Goral, T. (2001). The fight about reading. Curriculum Administrator, 37(5), 35-40.
Graves, B. (2002). Charter school's contract, name gives Portland pause. The OregonianB, 4.
Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312(5782), 1900-1902. doi: 10.1126/science.1128898
Kinder, D., Kubina, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. (2005). Special education and direct instruction: an effective combination. Journal of Direct Instruction, 5(1), 1-36.
Laurent, A. T. G. (2014). An analysis of problem solving skills of children who are deaf or hard of hearing. (Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis) Washington University of Medicine. St Louis.
Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). The early years: Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313(5795), 1893-1894.
Lillard, A. S. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York: Oxford University Press.
Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2005). Relational language and development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50(4), 315-353. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.09.004
Lopata, C., Wallace, N. V., & Finn, K. V. (2005).Comparison of academic achievement between Montessori and traditional education programs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(1), 5-13. doi:10.1080/02568540509594546
López, P., Torrance, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Fidalgo, R. (2017). Effects of Direct Instruction and Strategy Modeling on Upper-Primary Students’ Writing Development. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1054, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01054
Magliaro, S. G., Lockee, B. B., & Burton, J. K. (2005). Direct instruction revisited: A key model for instructional technology. Journal of Educational Research Technology and Development, 53, 41-55. doi.10.1007/BF02504684
Mallett, J. D., & Schroeder, J. L. (2015). Academic achievement outcomes: A comparison of Montessori and non-Montessori public elementary school students. Journal of Elementary Education, 25(1), 39-53.
Marshall, C. (2017). Montessori education: A review of the evidence base. Science of Learning, 2(1), 11. doi:10.1038/s41539-017-0012-7.
Md-Yunus, S., & Peng, H. H. (2014). Do students in Montessori school perform better on achievement test? A Taiwanese perspective. Early Childhood, Elementary and Middle Level Education, 1-21.
Miller, R. J. (2001). Controversial teaching technique winning fans in Sto-Rox Schools. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, West Edition, 7.
National Institute for Direct Instruction (2007). What is direct instruction? Retrieved from http://www.nifdi.org/
Nunnery, J., Chappell, S., & Arnold, P. (2013). A meta-analysis of a cooperative learning style model’s effects on student achievement in mathematics. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(1), 34-38.
Oladayo, O. T., & Oladayo, C. E. (2012). Effects of Direct and Indirect Instructional Strategies on Students’ Achievement in Mathematics. African Research Review, 6(4), 349-361. doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v6i4.24.
Randolph, J. M., Rosenstein, D. L. W., & Michaels, S. (2014). Montessori education for improving academic and behavioral outcomes among elementary students.The Campbell Collaboration.
Schick, B., De Villiers, P., De Villiers, J., & Hoffmeister, R. (2007). Language and Theory of Mind: A study of Deaf Children. Child development, 78(2), 376-396. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01004.x
Shen, W. (2005). To compare children mathematics ability who graduates from the Connon preschool and Montessori school in Tainan city. Child Care Science, 11(6), 34-53.
Vance, T. L. (2003). An exploration of the relationship between preschool experience and the acquisition of phonological awareness in kindergarten. (Dissertation George Mason University).
Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press.
Wilson, K. (2003). Effective reading program must go: school’s success story isn’t on state book list. Ventura County, 01.