Action Learning, Value Clarification, Conventional Lecture Method, and Secondary School Students’ Attitude to Information and Communication Technology Concepts in Social Studies in Rural Learning Ecologies

  • Emmanuel O. AduEmail author
  • Olugbenga A. Ige
  • Kemi O. Adu
Conference paper
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology Yearbook book series (ECTY)


This study determined the effectiveness of action learning and value clarification instructional strategies as well as conventional lecture method on students’ attitude to information and communication technology concepts in social studies in rural schools. It also determined the confounding effects of variables such as academic ability and gender on secondary school students’ attitude to ICT concepts in social studies. Deploying a randomized pretest-posttest quasi-experimental paradigm using intact classes, 24 students were exposed to action learning instructional strategy, and 29 students benefited from the value clarification instructional strategy, while 93 were in the control group. The results show the rare benefits of using conventional lecture method over science-based instructional strategies to teach ICT concepts in social studies in rural learning ecologies. Further research is proposed to evaluate the sustainability of the observed effects in rural schools.


Action learning instructional strategy Value clarification instructional strategy Conventional lecture method Information and communication technology concepts Social studies Rural learning ecologies 


  1. Afolabi, F., & Akinbobola, A. O. (2012). Creating and sustaining action learning in physics classroom. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 1(2), 11–24.Google Scholar
  2. Akpoghol, T. V., Ezeudu, F. O., Adzape, J. N., & Otor, E. E. (2016). Effect of lecture method supplemented with music and computer animation on senior secondary school students’ academic achievement in electrochemistry. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(4), 75–86.Google Scholar
  3. Amosun, P. A., Ige, O. A., & Choo, K. K. R. (2015). Impact of a participatory cyber crime prevention programme on secondary school students’ attainment in crime prevention concepts in civic education and social studies. Education and Information Technologies, 20(3), 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avolio, B. J., Mhatre, K., Norman, S. M., & Lester, P. (2009). The moderating effect of gender on leadership intervention impact. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4), 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babayemi, J. O., Ahmed, A. A., Yisau, S. O., & Babalola, G. T. (2016). Effect of enhanced conventional lecture method on students’ academic achievement in basic science in Oyo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Benchmark (IJEB), 5(2), 74–78.Google Scholar
  6. Bello, R. M. (2011). Effectiveness of value clarification and self-management techniques in reducing dropout tendency among secondary school students in Edo State. European Journal of Educational and Development Psychology, 3(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  7. Chromsky, N. (1987). Language and problems of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Coghlan, D., & Coughlan, P. (2015). Effecting change and learning in networks through network action learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(3), 375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feenberg, A. L. (2017). Concretizing simondon and constructivism: A recursive contribution to the theory of concretization. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(1), 62–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitchett, P. G., Starker, T. V., & Salyers, B. (2012). Examining culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy in a preservice social studies education course. Urban Education, 47(3), 585–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golafrooz, S. H., & Khaghanizade, M. (2010). Introduction to oral presentation teaching method. Educational Strategies Journal, 2(4), 161–166.Google Scholar
  13. Green, R. (2015). Effect of principal and student gender on New York city high school performance outcomes. SAGE Open, July–September, 1–22.Google Scholar
  14. Haas, P. M., & Haas, E. B. (2002). Pragmatic constructivism and the study of international institutions. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 573–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ige, T. A. (2001). Concept of mapping and problem-solving teaching strategies as determinants of achievement in secondary school escology. Ibadan Journal of Educational Studies, 1(1), 290–301.Google Scholar
  16. Ige, O. A. (2012). Action cybercrime prevention programme in civics and social studies: The Nigeria experience. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing. ISBN:978-3-659-14758.Google Scholar
  17. Ige, O. A. (2013). Impact of an action cybercrime prevention programme on students’ learning outcomes in civic education and social studies concepts. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
  18. Ige, O. A., & Orungbemi, O. O. (2013). Measured effect of gender and computer literacy on students’ academic achievement in social studies and civic education in selected secondary schools in Ondo State. International Journal of Research and Development, 1(2), 104–111.Google Scholar
  19. Ige, O. A., & Hlalele, D. J. (2017). Effects of computer-aided and blended teaching strategies on students’ achievement in civic education in mountain learning ecologies. Education and Information Technologies.
  20. Kessler, O. (2016a). The contingency of constructivism: On norms, the social, and the third. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 45(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kessler, O. (2016b). The failure of failure: Constructivism, the limits of critique, and socio-political economy of economics. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(3), 348–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kus, Z. (2014). What kind of citizen? An analysis of the social studies curriculum in Turkey. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 13(2), 132–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leonard, H. S., & Lang, F. (2010). Leadership development via action learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12, 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lipe, D. (2009). A critical analysis of values clarification. Montgomery, AL: Apologetic Press. Accessed 30 April 2017 from Scholar
  25. Metcalf, L. (Ed.). (1971). Values education: Rationale strategies and procedures. 41st yearbook of the National Council for the Social Studies. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.Google Scholar
  26. Marquardt, M., & Waddill, D. (2004). The power of learning in action learning: A conceptual analysis of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the practice of action learning, Action Learning. Research and Practice, 1(2), 185–202. Scholar
  27. Mpeli, R. M., & Botma, Y. (2015). Abortion-related services: Value clarification through ‘difficult dialogue’ strategies. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 10(3), 278–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nnorom, N. R. (2015). Effect of cooperative learning strategy on senior secondary school students’ achievement in Biology in Anambra State, Nigeria. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), Special Issue, 5(1), 2424–2427.Google Scholar
  29. O’Hara, S., Bourner, T., & Webber, T. (2004). Practice of self-managed action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Neil, J., & Marsick, V. J. (2007). Understanding action learning. Saranac Lake, NY: American Management Association. Retrieved from Scholar
  31. Oliha, J., & Audu, V. I. (2015). Effectiveness of value clarification and self-management techniques in reducing dropout tendency among secondary school students in Edo State. European Journal of Educational and Development Psychology, 3(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  32. Phillipson, S., & Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Children’s cognitive ability and their academic achievement: The mediation effects of parental expectations. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13, 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Piwowar, V., Thiel, F., & Ophardt, D. (2013). Training inservice teachers’ competencies in classroom management. A quasi-experimental study with teachers of secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reber, J. S., Downs, S. D., & Nelson, P. A. J. (2017). Effects of three pedagogies on learning outcomes in a psychology of gender lecture: A quasi-experimental study. Teaching of Psychology, 44(2), 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richardson, J. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147. Scholar
  36. Rimanoczy, L., & Turner, E. (2008). Action reflection learning: Solving real business problems by connecting learning with earning. Mountain View, CA: Davies Black.Google Scholar
  37. Ross, A. A. G. (2006). Coming in from the cold: Constructivism and emotions. European Journal of International Relations, 12(2), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sadeghi, R., Sedaghat, M. M., & Ahmadi, F. S. (2014). Comparison of the effect of lecture and blended teaching methods on students learning and satisfaction. Journal of Advances in Medical Education and Professionalism, 2(4), 146–150.Google Scholar
  39. Safari, M., Yazdanpanah, B., Ghafarian, H. R., & Yazdanpanah, S. H. (2006). Comparing the effect of lecture and discussion methods on students’ learning and satisfaction. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 6(1), 59–64.Google Scholar
  40. Scott, K. S. (2017). An integrative framework for problem-based learning and action learning: Promoting evidence-based design and evaluation in leadership development. Human Resource Development Review, 16(1), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Singh, I. S., & Moono, K. (2015). The effect of using concept maps on student achievement in selected topics in chemistry at tertiary level. Journal of Education Practice, 6(15), 106–117.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, T. J., Pasero, S. L., & Mckenna, C. M. (2014). Gender effects on student attitude toward science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 34(1), 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spelke, E. S. (1994). Initial knowledge: Six suggestions. Cognition, 50, 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2003). Students’ achievement in human circulatory system unit: The effect of reasoning ability and gender. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor, E. W. (2011). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 119, 5–15.Google Scholar
  46. Van Doorn, J. R., & Van Doorn, J. D. (2014). The quest for knowledge transfer efficacy: Blended teaching, online and in-class, with consideration of learning typologies for non-traditional and traditional students. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 324. Scholar
  47. Xu, F., & Kushnir, T. (2013). Infants are rational constructivist learners. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 22(1), 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001). Action learning and action research: Paradigm, praxis, and programs. In S. Sankara, B. Dick, & R. Passfield (Eds.), Effective change management through action research and action learning: Concepts, perspectives, processes, and applications (pp. 1–20). Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanuel O. Adu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Olugbenga A. Ige
    • 2
  • Kemi O. Adu
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of Fort HareAliceSouth Africa
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of the Free StateBloemfonteinRepublic of South Africa

Personalised recommendations