Volume : 2, Issue : 7, JUL 2016

DETERMINING AN EFFECTIVE PEDAGOGICAL METHOD FOR TEACHING STUDENTS OF LOW-INCOME BACKGROUNDS

Saksham Goel

Abstract

Learners from poor backgrounds due to limited exposure have difficulty in co-relating to what is being taught them. As a result, they lack interest, determination and motivation. The main purpose of the study was to determine which teaching methodology (Direct instruction method or Activity-based learning) is more relevant to the students from poor backgrounds with respect to their learning outcomes. The study employed the descriptive survey research design. In order to study the impact of the two different pedagogical methods- Baseline, Midterm and Terminal Assessment Surveys were taken at different periods of time during the eight-month study. The tests were administered to assess the literacy and numeracy level of 50 Grade 2 and Grade 3 students attending the Bal Mandir Nursery School in Muzaffarnagar, India.Then the students' achievement level in the three tests were compared in order to determine the more effective instructional method.The research study employed both quantitative and qualitative techniques in collecting and analysing data. Findings revealed that there was an improvement in the achievement level of the students in case of both the teaching methodologies: Direct instruction method and Activity-based learning. However, for most of the criteria average scores increased more during the period of activity-based learning. The research concludes by proposing a multifaceted approach to teaching that includes teaching the students in low-income schools through lectures, activities and videos. The researcher also recommends the creation of a print-rich environment as it will not only help the student but also increase the literacy level in the low-income household and will thereby serve as a medium to educate the family as a whole.

Article : Download PDF

Cite This Article

Article No : 27

Number of Downloads : 734

References

1. Activity Based Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved June 20, 2016, from http://www.
educationinnovations.org/program/activity-based-learning
2. Boumová, B. V. (2008). Traditional vs. Modern Teaching Methods: Advantages and
Disadvantages of Each. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from https://is.muni.cz/
th/86952/ff_m_b1/MgrDiplomkaBoumova.pdf
3. Coley, R. J., & Baker, B. (2013). Poverty and Education: Finding the Way Forward.
Retrieved February 15, 2016, from https://www.ets.org/s/research/pdf/poverty_
and_education_report.pdf
4. Hariharan, P. (2011, April). Effectiveness of Activity- Based- Learning Methodology
for Elementary School Education. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://www.cry.org/
resources/pdf/NCRRF/Prabha_Hariharan_2010_Report.pdf
5. Kingdon, G. G. (2007). The progress of school education in India. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 23(2), 168-195.
6. Nehru, A., and Raghupathi, H. (2011). ASER 2010: Shocking primary learning report
card. Special Report, Education World: The Human Development Magazine, March
2011. Retrieved May 4, 2016, from http://educationworldonline.net/index.php/pagearticle-
choice-more-id-2628
7. SarvaShikshaAbhiyan. (2007). Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://ssa.nic.in/
8. Status of Education in India National Report. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2016, from
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/National_Reports/ICE_2008/india_NR08.pdf
9. Teale, W. H., &Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading.
10. Thangavelu, S. (n.d.). Activity based learning- A radical change in Primary Education.
Retrieved February 21, 2016, from http://unicef.in/Story/603/Activity-basedlearning-
A-radical-change-in-Primary-Education
11. Yadav. S.K. (2007). Implementation of school curriculum at primary stage in different
states. Indian Education Review, 43(1),107-119