Personalized Learning and Achievement in Basic Science: An Experimental Report.


  • Rashidat, A. Adepeju Department of Library Services, Tai Solarin University of Education, Ijebu-Ode, NIGERIA
  • Owolabi Paul Adelana Department of Science and Technology Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, NIGERIA
  • Gboyega A. Okubanjo Computer Science Unit, Ijebu-Ode Grammar School, Ijebu-Ode, NIGERIA
  • Olasunkanmi Opeifa FCT Secondary Education Board, Abuja, NIGERIA
  • Adekunle M. Ayanwale Department of Science and Technology Education, Faculty of Education, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, 2006, SOUTH AFRICA



Effect, personalized learning, , basic science, junior secondary school


The importance of Science to national development cannot be disputed. That is why Basic Science is taught as a foundational science subject in the Junior Secondary Schools in Nigeria. It is meant to inculcate basic scientific knowledge and skills in students. However, the subject, in which students’ performance is low, has also not enjoyed a plethora of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools to support its learning. Given these challenges, an investigation of the effect of personalized strategy on achievement in Basic Science was carried out. The study employed the pretest, posttest group, quasi-experimental design. The sample comprised of intact classes of year three (JSS 3) Basic Science students (87) from two junior secondary schools in Ijebu-Ode Local Government Area. Using the Balloting method, the students were assigned experimental and control groups. Two stimulus instruments (Teachers’ Conventional Teaching Guide (TCTG) and Teachers’ Instructional Guide on Personalized Learning (TIGPL), and, response instrument (Basic Science Knowledge Assessment Scale (BSKAS) (r = 0.78), were used for data collection. The four hypotheses raised were tested using t-test at 0.05 level of significance, to compare performances. The results show significant mean differences in the performance scores of the experimental and control groups. This was in favour of the experimental group who were instructed using personalised strategy. Based on this, more efficient ICT-based personalised packages need to be developed for students to aid their understanding and learning of Basic Science.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Owolabi Paul Adelana, Department of Science and Technology Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, NIGERIA

Educational Technologist, Microsoft Master Trainer, Microsoft Certified Educator (MCE), MIEExpert, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.


Urevbu, A. O (2001). Methodology of Science Teaching, Juland Education Publishers. Lagos. p47

Odili, G. O. (2012). Towards a New Paradigm of Teaching Mathematics in Nigerian Universities: The Role of Mathematics Educators. Online Journal of Science Teachers Association of Nigerian (STAN), 47(1).

Alamu, S. A. (2011). The State of Science and Technology Infrastructure in Secondary Schools in Nigeria. Journal of Educational and Social Research.

Omoifo, C. N. (2012). Dance of the Limits, Reversing the Trends in Science Education in Nigeria. Inaugural Lecture University of Benin, Benin City. Dubem Publishers: Benin. p56

Olasehinde, K. J. & Olatoye, R. A. (2014). A Comparative Study of Public and Private Senior Secondary School Students’ Science Achievement in Katsina State, Nigeria. Journal of Educational and Social Research, MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy, 4 (3), 20.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) (2014). National policy on education. Lagos: Federal Government press. p34

National Policy on Education (2014). Abuja: NERDC. p34

Ajayi, O. A. & Adelana, O. P. (2020). Effectiveness of multimedia self-learning package in teaching and learning of genetics in secondary schools. Journal of Psychometry and Assessment Techniques, 1 (1), 201

Olutola, O. A., Daramola, E. S. & Bamidele, E. O. (2016). Assessing Students’ Performance in Senior School Certificate Multiple Choice Test in Biology. Issues and Ideasin Education, 4 (1), 11–20.

Suman, B. (2011). Influence of parental education and parental occupation on academic achievement of students. International Referred Research Journal, 3(30), 32-33

Ogunshola, F. & Adewale, A. M. (2012). The effects of parental socio-economic status on academic performance of students in selected schools in Edu LGA of Kwara state Nigeria’ International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(7), 230-239.

Dinah, C. S. (2013). Factors which influence academic performance in biology in Kenya: a perspective for global competitiveness. International Journal of Current Research, 5(12), 4296-4300.

Akinsanyo O., Ajayi, K. O. & Salomi, M. O. (2014). Relative effects of parents’ occupation, qualification and academic motivation of wards on students’ achievement in senior secondary school mathematics in Ogun state. Journal of Education and practice, 5(22),99-105.

Abolarinwa, l. F., Gambari, A. I., Falode, O. C.1, & Uno, U. (2020). Development and validation of flipped classroom instructional model for Senior Secondary II (SSII) Physics students in Minna, Nigeria. Journal of Science, Technology, Mathematics and Education (JOSTMED), 16(4), 3

Patrick, S., Kennedy, K., & Powell, A. (2013). Mean what you say: defining and integrating personalized, blended and competency education. Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning.

Demetrios, S. & Charalampos, K. (2002). Personalised learning: educational, technological and standardization perspective. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 4, 24-39

Keamy, R., Nicholas, H., & Mahar, S., & Herrick, C. (2007). Personalising Education: from research to policy and practice. Published by Education Policy and Research Division Office for Education Policy and Innovation Department of Education and Early Childhood Development Melbourne. © Copyright State of Victoria 2007. ISBN 978-0-7594-0473-1

Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The Flipped Classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44-49.

Pennington, R. C., Ault, M. J., Schuster, J. W., & Sanders, A. (2011). Using simultaneous prompting and computer-assisted instruction to teach story writing to students with autism. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7, 24–38.

Coleman-Martin, M. B., Heller, K. W., Cihak, D. F., & Irvine, K. L. (2005). Using computer-assisted instruction and the nonverbal reading approach to teach word identification. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 80–90.

Basham, J. D., Hall, T. E., Carter, R. A., & Stahl, W. M. (2016). An operationalized understanding of personalized learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(3), 126-136

Duncan, A. (2013). How technology will revolutionize testing and learning: Greater broadband access will bring the latest digital tools to more teachers and students. Scientific American, 309, 69–71.

Danjuma, B. (2015). Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction on academic achievement among NCE Physics students of different abilities in Niger State, Nigeria. A thesis submitted to School of Postgraduate Studies, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Master Degree in Science Education, Department of Science Education, Faculty of Education, ABU, Zaria, pp45-47.

Chifwa, J. (2015). The teaching of genetics in selected secondary schools in Kitwe District, Zambia. A dissertation submitted to the University of Zambia in fulfilment for the Requirements of the Degree of Master of Education in Science Education. p17

Abubakar, A. M. (2016). An Assessment of the Use of ICT in Teaching and Learning in Public Secondary schools in Northeastern Nigeria. Submitted to the Institute of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillments of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Information and Communication Technologies in Education. 45-47

Williams, K. (2010). Using information technology: A practical introduction to computer and communication. J. Science Teach. Nig., 4(1), 174-180.

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASH#-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Brame, C. (2016). Active learning. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved on 5 September, 2021 from

Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66, 64-74.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education 93, 223-231.

Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., & Donovan, S.S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Rev. Educ. Res. 69, 21–51.

Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H., Talbot, R., & Shepard, L.A. (2011). Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science 331, 1269–1270.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111, 8410-8415.

Department for Education and Skills (2006b). Personalised learning: adding value to the learning journey, DfES, UK. Retrieved from personalisedlearning/about/ on 05 September 2021,




How to Cite

Adepeju, R. A., Adelana, O. P., Okubanjo, G. A., Opeifa, O., & Ayanwale, A. M. (2022). Personalized Learning and Achievement in Basic Science: An Experimental Report. EDUCATUM Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology, 9(1), 38–47.