May 10, 2000 - Adetoro, for laying a solid foundation for my morality and education. ...... and polarised by perpetual war and armed conflict will interpret peace ...
LEARNING TOGETHER, CONSTRUCTIVE CONTROVERSY AND LEARNING OUTCOMES OF OGUN STATE JUNIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN PEACE EDUCATION ASPECT OF SOCIAL STUDIES
BY
ADETORO, RASHEED ADENRELE Matric No: 06/09/006013
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CURRICULUM STUDIES AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY TO THE SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY OF OLABISI ONABANJO UNIVERSITY, AGO-IWOYE, NIGERIA. SEPTEMBER, 2014 i
Abstract There is need to promote group understanding, tolerance and culture of peace among young Nigerians in order to reverse the orgy of young violence. This study investigated the relative effectiveness of learning together, constructive controversy and the conventional method in teaching and learning peace education aspect of social studies among Junior Secondary School (JSS) students in Ogun State, Nigeria. The study adopted a pre-test, post-test, quasi-experimental design with a 3x2x4 factorial matrix. A total of 99 students from three ‘intact’ classes located in three schools were involved in the study. The four instruments used are Peace Education Achievement Test (PEAT); Attitude towards Peace Education Questionnaire (ATPEQ); Conflict Resolution Skill Test (CRST); and Learning Styles Classification Test (LSCT). A reliability index of 0.63 was obtained for PEAT, 0.68 for ATPEQ, 0.59 for CRST and 0.62 for LSCT. The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test the twenty-one hypotheses raised in the study. Findings from the study revealed that there were no significant differences in the post-test mean achievement test scores (F(2,78) = 1.429, P>0.05), attitude test scores (F(2,78) = 1.72, P>0.05), and conflict resolution skill test scores (F(2,78) = 0.021, P>0.05) of the students in peace education after their exposure to the three instructional packages. However, the Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) revealed that the students exposed to constructive controversy had higher adjusted post-test mean achievement scores of 14.55, followed by the learning together group with 14.00 while those exposed to the conventional method had 13.73. For attitude scores, the MCA also showed that the students treated with constructive controversy strategy recorded the highest adjusted mean score of 91.97, followed by the learning together
ii
group with 89.79 while the least mean score of 88.49 was recorded by those exposed to the conventional method. On conflict resolution skills, the MCA results revealed that the students exposed to learning together recorded the highest adjusted post-test mean score of 70.76, followed by the constructive controversy group with 69.26 and the conventional method group with 69.06. Gender and learning styles had no significant interactive effects on the learning outcomes of the students in all the groups (P< 0.05). The study concluded that there was equality of instructional potency in the three methods of teaching. This tends to support the “thesis” that there is no best method in the teaching of themes within the social studies curriculum and that the conventional method should not be thrown to the dustbin. It was recommended, among others, that Social Studies teachers should get acquainted with the use of learning together and constructive controversy for integration into methodology courses, in addition to the conventional method, particularly when handling peace education aspect of social studies. Keywords:
Learning Together, Constructive Controversy, Conventional Method, Gender, Learning Styles, Peace Education.
Word Counts: 444
iii
Certification This is to certify that this research work was carried out by Adetoro, Rasheed Adenrele in the Department of Curriculum Studies and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, under my supervision.
_________________________________
Supervisor Abiodun Ogunyemi B.Sc (Ed.) (Ogun); M.Ed., Ph.D (Ibadan) Professor of Social Studies and Citizenship Education
iv
Dedication This work is dedicated to my Late Father, Pa Salami Adio who toiled day and night for the education of his children.
v
Acknowledgements Glory be to Almighty Allah for making the dream of this research effort and academic attainment possible. No doubt, when a child is born into the world, he or she passes through a lot of teachers at different levels. However, the unique ones among them shall remain indelible in the memory of the child. Professor Abiodun Ogunyemi, the supervisor of this project, stands tall among the unique mentors to be remembered till eternity. Not only did he painstakingly and thoroughly supervised and critique this work till the end but also induced me with contemporary Social Studies Education. May God Almighty reward him abundantly (Amen). The tolerance and academic guidance of Dr. H. T. Benedict, the Head of Department of Curriculum Studies and Instructional Technology as well as that of Professor J. B. BilesanmiAwoderu, the Dean Faculty of Education, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye and Professor K. A. Alebiosu (the former Head of the Department) are quite outstanding. The encouragement given by Prof. O. O. Odedeyi, Provost of the Postgraduate School, Dr. A. V. Jibowo, Prof. Taiwo Edun and Dr. Bola Ogunyemi can never be forgotten as the impetus for realizing this dream. Drs. A. S. Ifamuyiwa and A. Ifegbesan are quite appreciated for providing necessary statistical analysis and editorial guidance respectively. I equally acknowledge the tenacious training and motivational speeches given to me by Professors O. A. Oyedeji, and S. Y. Erinosho.
The seminar contributions of
Drs. Tayo
Omoniyi, S. A. O. Oladunjoye, M. O. Afuwape, B. D. Oludipe, B. O. Adekola, J. O. Adetayo and O. T. Iyunade are quite appreciated. Also appreciated are the contributions of Mrs. E. M. Aanu, Mr. A. Ogunsanya and Dr. Alaba Agbatogun.
vi
I also thank my colleagues in the Department of Social Studies, Federal College of Education, Osiele, Abeokuta in persons of Messers G. O. Ibikunle, K. O. Olugbuyi, M. O. Lijadu, I. Sobola, K. G. Adelegun, M. N. Ibrahim, J. A. Atanda, A. A. Adediran, C. T. Tyokase, O. A. Makanjuola and O. A. Adetunji for their support and encouragement. Indeed, the editorial contribution of Mr. M. O. Omiyefa is highly appreciated. To my immediate family, I say “well done” for their support for this lofty achievement. Most importantly, I wish to express my invaluable gratitude to my wives (Mrs. Afusat Adetoro and Mrs. Muibat Adetoro) and my children (Miss. Khadijat Adetoro, Master Abdulsalam Adetoro, Miss. Ruqayat Adetoro and Miss. Zainab Adetoro) for their endurance and perseverance during my course of study. I equally thank my research assistants in persons of Mrs. M. O. Awonuga of Christ Apostolic Grammar School, Iperu-Remo; Mrs. B. J. Atinuke of Asero High School, Abeokuta and Mrs. M. A. Sobulo of Itori High School, Itori for their endurance throughout the experiment. The moral support of Mr. Moruf Adetoro, Dr. A. Dasaolu, Professor, O. O. Adetoro, Mrs. R. A. Lawal, Dr. S. Iposu, Pa. A. A. Shittu, Dr. T. L. Ibraheem, Mr. I. Okanlawon, Dr. A. D. O. Adesina, Prof. A. O. Ogunsiji, Dr. A. O. Aworanti, Prof. E. O. A. Ajayi, Dr. K. A. Salawu, Mr. O. Oyedare, Dr. S. A. Fajenyo, Mr. S. O. Oladunjoye, Dr. M. A. Idowu, Mr. I. Olajojo, Dr. S. O. Folajin, Prof. A. B. J. Aina and Dr. A. Atanda are highly commendable. The enabling environment for scholarship as provided by Dr. A. A. Ajayi (Provost, Federal College of Education, Abeokuta) is well appreciated. The Registrar of the College (Mr. R. A. Akinola) is also worthy of commendation for constantly reminding me of the need for selfactualization. Alhaji A. Ololade will also be remembered for his fervent prayers.
vii
In a special way, I thank my late father and mother, Pa S. A. Adetoro and Madam Wosilat Adetoro, for laying a solid foundation for my morality and education. Also, I wish to express my gratitude to Mrs. F. B. Bolarinwa and Miss. Nneka Emmanuel for their able secretarial work on this thesis. Last, but not the least, I humbly acknowledge all the authors and scholars whose publications provided the useful guidance for the completion of this thesis.
viii
Table of Contents PAGE Title
…………………………………………………………
i
Abstract
…………………………………………………………
ii
Certification …………………………………………………………
iv
…………………………………………………………
v
Acknowledgements
…………………………………………………
vi
Table of Contents
…………………………………………………
ix
Dedication
List of Tables …………………………………………………………
xiv
List of Figures …………………………………………………………
xvi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1
Background to the Study …. ………………………………….
1
1.2
Statement of the Problem ………….. ……………………………
15
1.3
Objectives of the Study ……. ………………………………….
15
1.4
Research Questions …………………………………………….
16
1.5
Hypotheses ………………….………………………………….
16
1.6
Significance of the Study …. …………………………………..
18
1.7
Scope of the Study ………..…………………………………….
19
1.8
Operational Definition of Terms ……………………………….
20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1
Theoretical Review ………………………………………………
22
2.1.1
Theoretical Framework for the Study ……………………………
23
2.1.3
The concept of Peace Education
….…………………………
25
ix
2.1.2
An Overview of the History of Peace Education .…………………
36
2.1.4
Peace Education in Nigeria
41
2.1.5
Conflict and Conflict resolution
2.1.6
Relationship between Peace Education and Social Studies Education …
56
2.1.7
Perspectives on Cooperative Learning …………………………….
59
2.1.8
Perspective on Conventional Method (CM) of Teaching……………
67
2.2
Empirical Review
……………………………………………….
72
2.2.1
Studies on Social Studies Teaching …………………………………
72
2.2.2
Studies on Cooperative Learning ……………………………………
79
……………………………………… ……………………………….
45
2.2.2.1 Studies on Learning Together as a Model of Cooperative Learning
87
2.2.2.2 Studies on Constructive Controversy as a Model of Cooperative Learning
90
2.2.3
Studies on Gender and Learning Outcomes …………………………..
95
2.2.4
Studies on Learning Styles and Learning Outcomes …………………
98
2.2.5
Studies on Peace Education in Nigeria …………………………………
103
2.6
Conceptual Model ……………………………………………………….
106
2.7
Appraisal of the Reviewed Literature
108
……………………………….
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 3.1
Research Design………………………………………………………..
110
3.2
Target Population……………………………………………………
111
3.3
Sample and Sampling Techniques …………………………………….
112
3.4
Instrumentation ………………………………………………………..
112
3.4.1
Instructional Packages …………………………………………………
112
3.4.1.1 Learning Together Instructional Package (LTIP) …………………….
113
3.4.1.1.1 Guides for Using Learning Together ……………………………..
113
x
3.4.1.2 Constructive Controversy Instructional Package (CCIP) ………...
114
3.4.1.2.1 Guides for Using Constructive Controversy ……………………
114
Conventional Method of Instruction Package (CMIP) ………….
116
3.4.1.3.1 Guides for Using Conventional Method of Instruction …………
117
3.4.1.3
Treatment Packages …………………………………………………
117
3.4.2.1 Peace Education Achievement Test (PEAT) ……………………….
117
3.4.2.2 Attitude Towards Peace Education Questionnaire (ATPEQ)……….
119
3.4.2.3 Conflict Resolution Skill Test (CRST) ………………………..……
119
3.4.2.4 Learning Styles Classification Test (LSCT) ………………………..
120
3.5
Pilot Survey………………………………………………………….
121
3.6
Procedure for the Experiment ………………………………………
123
3.6.1
Training and Orientation Programmes (Pre-Treatment) ……………
123
3.6.1.1 Training of Research Assistants …………………………………….
123
3.6.1.2 Orientation for Participating Students………………………………
123
3.7
Method of Data Collection ………………………………………….
124
3.7.1
Pre–Test …………………………………………………………….
124
3.7.2
Treatment (Post-Test) ………………………………………………
124
3.7.2.1 Experimental Group 1 ………………………………………............
124
3.7.2.2 Experimental Group II ………………………………………………
125
3.7.2.3 Control Group ………………………………………………………
125
Method of Data Analysis ……………………………………………
125
3.4.2
3.8
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 4.1
Presentation of Descriptive Findings ….………………………………… 126
xi
……………………………………………………. 131
4.2
Test of Hypotheses
4.3
Summary of Findings ……………………………………………………. 145
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1
Discussion of Findings …………………………………………………… 147
5.1.1. Effects of the treatments using Learning Together, Constructive Controversy and Conventional Method of Instruction on Learning Outcomes of Students in Peace Education ……………………………… 5.1.2
147
Interaction effects of Gender on the Students’ Knowledge, Attitude and Conflict Resolution Skills in Peace Education using Learning Together, Constructive Controversy and Conventional Method of Instruction ……. 152
5.1.3
Interaction effects of Learning Styles on the Students’ Knowledge, Attitude and Conflict Resolution Skills using Learning Together, Constructive Controversy and Conventional Method of Instruction ……
153
5.2
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………. 154
5.3.
Recommendations ……………………………………………………….
155
5.4
Suggestions for Further Studies …………………………………………
156
References ……………………………………………………………….
157
Appendix I
Lesson 1 (A) ……………………………………
187
Appendix II
Lesson 1 (B) ……………………………………
190
Appendix III
Lesson 1 (C) ……………………………………
194
Appendix IV
Lesson 2 (A) ……………………………………
197
Appendix V
Lesson 2 (B) ……………………………………
200
Appendix VI
Lesson 2 (C) ……………………………………
204
xii
Appendix VII
Lesson 3 (A) ……………………………………
207
Appendix VIII
Lesson 3 (B) ……………………………………
211
Appendix IX
Lesson 3 (C) ……………………………………
215
Appendix X
Peace Education Achievement Test (PEAT) ……
218
Appendix XI
Attitude Towards Peace Education Questionnaire
224
Appendix XII
Conflict Resolution Skills Test (CRST) ………… 226
Appendix XIII
Learning Styles Classification Test (LSCT) …….. 229
Appendix XIV
Answers to the Peace Education Achievement Test (PEAT) Items .…………………………….. 233
Appendix XV
Visual-Auditory-Reading-Kinaesthetic (VARK) Scoring Chart ………………………………….. 234
xiii
LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1:
Models of Cooperative Learning among Researchers ………….
61
Table 2.2:
Meta-Analysis of Controversy Studies: Average Effect Size …..
92
Table 3.1:
The Factorial Matrix for the Study……………………………
111
Table 3.2:
Table of Specification for Peace Education Achievement Test ....
118
Table 4.1:
Comparison of Pre-test and Post-test Scores of the students in
Table 4.2:
Peace Education…………………………………………….….
126
Gender Factor in the Students’ Learning outcomes …………..
127
Table 4.3:
Learning Styles Factor in the Students’ Learning outcomes ...….
Table 4.4:
Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Students’ Achievement
129
Scores in Peace Education according to Treatment, Gender and Learning Styles……………………………………………… Table 4.5:
131
Summary of Multiple Classification Analysis of Students’ Achievement according to Treatment, Gender and Learning Styles ………………………………………………………….
Table 4.6:
132
Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Students’ Attitude to Peace Education Scores according to Treatment, Gender and Learning Styles ………………………………………………..
Table 4.7:
136
Summary of Multiple Classification Analysis of Students’ Attitude Scores according to Treatment, Gender and Learning Styles ………………………………………………………….
Table 4.8:
Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Students’ Peace Education Conflict Resolution Skills Scores according to Treatment, Gender xiv
137
and Learning Styles ………………………………………..… Table 4.9:
141
Summary of Multiple Classification Analysis of Students Conflict Resolution Skill Scores According to Treatment, Gender and Learning Styles ………………………………………………
xv
142
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1:
Components of Peace Education …………………………………
35
Figure 2.2:
Conceptual Model for the Study …………………………………
107
Figure 3.1:
A Schematic Illustration of the Variables under Study…………..
111
xvi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Study The culture of peace seems not to have taken roots in Nigeria. Since the civil war of 1967-1970, several political, religious, socio-cultural and ethnic-related conflicts have claimed many lives and property. Recent instances include the political violence perpetuated in the aftermath of the 2011 general elections (Bekoe, 2011; Campbell & Bunche, 2011; Human Rights Watch, 2011; Nwakanma, 2011); over one hundred and fifty religious riots between 2001 and 2008 (Adeniji, 2008); the currently rampaging Boko Haram insurgency; incessant Niger-Delta crises; and kidnapping of Nigerians and foreigners for ransom (Ayim, Ikemefuna & Ekwoaba, 2012; Campbell, 2012; Cook, 2010; Lynne, 2012; Nanna, 2012; Olawale, 2011; Thomson, 2012). This trend calls for new strategies to promote the peace culture through education. UNESCO (1998) argued that Peace Education is a veritable means of promoting necessary attitude change to evolve a culture of peace and non-violent behaviour.
In 1997, the United Nations (UN) declared the year 2000 as the International Year for the Culture of Peace and 2001-2010 as the Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for children of the World. The UN General Assembly, as a follow-up, adopted the Declaration and Programme Action on a Culture of Peace through resolution 53/243 in 1999. These and other activities of the United Nations underscore the importance of global peace as sine-qua-non for personal and societal development (Ogunyemi, 2006a). As Ejiwale (2004) rightly observed, one of the prerequisites for national development is peaceful co-existence among the various communities that make up a country. It is perhaps in this context that the Federal Republic of 1
Nigeria (FRN) identified its goals for promoting peace as to (a) Live in unity and harmony as one indivisible, indissoluble, democratic and sovereign nation founded on the principles of freedom, equality and justice; and (b) Promote inter-African solidarity and world peace through understanding (FRN, 2004:6). This implies that efforts at achieving peaceful co-existence are foundations for the development of sustainable human societies at both the micro and macro levels. Education is a veritable means of achieving this goal.
Nigeria is now regarded a terror state with ransom placed on some Boko Haram leaders (Alli, 2012; The Rainbow, 2013). This was necessitated by evidences of Boko Haram rootless killing of innocent civilians and wilful destruction of properties (Reuters, 2012; Integrated Regional Information Network, 2013). For example, in July 2009, the Boko Haram insurgents were reported to have launched several attacks on Bauchi, Maiduguri and Damaturu claiming more than 700 lives and millions worth of property destroyed (Reuters, 2012). Reports further indicated that the insurgents’ attack on Abuja in December 2011 and Kano in January 2012, led to the death of 37 and 186 people respectively (Reuters, 2012). The Niger-Delta uprising was equally noted to have claimed 20,000 civilians with 50,000 people displaced from their homes (Ero, 2009).
In 2013, violent conflicts that claimed some lives were reported in form of kidnapping (Agabe, 2013), cultic violence (Adetayo, 2013), communal clashes (Kayode-Ayodeji, 2013; Aborisade, 2013), domestic violence (Akinkuotu & Oremichen, 2013) and political riot (Ariyibi, 2013). Indeed, the Human Right Watch (2011) observed that more than 15,700 people were killed in Nigeria between 1999 and 2011 as a result of inter-communal, political and sectarian violence.
2
Conclusions from these and other accumulated reports of political and ethno-religious conflicts in Nigeria suggests that there is need to explore new ways of promoting peace education to achieve a sustainable peace culture. This need is made more expedient by the UNESCO’s call for a culture of peace and possibly explains why the 2007 nine-year Basic Education Social Studies Curriculum for the Junior Secondary School has generated themes on peace education. Among such themes and concepts are Meaning of Peace, Types of Peace, Importance of Peace, Ways of Promoting Peace (tolerance, social justice, human rights, etc).
Others include Meaning of
Conflict, Types of Conflict, Examples of Conflict, and Causes of Conflict. Also included are Non-violent Methods of Resolving Conflicts, and Global/International Cooperation (Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council - NERDC, 2007).
Peace education in school programmes is a mechanism for positively influencing the minds of young learners positively for healthy co-existence in communities and countries of the world. As Ogunyemi (2006a), quoting Mustapha (2004), submitted, the “clash of civilization” that led to the destruction of September 11, 2001 necessitates the need for young ones to appreciate other peoples’ cultures, customs, religions and world views. Consequently, the goals of the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) (2002) Action Plan for a Culture of Peace through Education as identified by Ogunyemi (2006a) are to focus on training decision-makers and educators in skills needed to promote peace and non-violence; revising curriculum materials to promote mutual understanding and remove bias or stereotypes; creating new curriculum materials to address peace and human rights; producing and disseminating education materials and textbooks on education for a culture of peace and human rights; promoting linguistic pluralism and encouragement of 3
multilingualism; promoting networking among national institutions, non-governmental organisations and civic education specialists; and developing new methods of violent/conflict resolution that include traditional peaceful approaches. All these are to challenge educators and curriculum specialists on innovative strategies for entrenching the philosophy of peace education through school learning. An additional justification for Peace Education can be found in the slogan of UNESCO (1996) on promoting the ‘culture of peace’ in school programmes to the effect that “since wars begin in the minds of men (and women), it is in the minds of men (and women) that the defenses of peace must be constructed” (Kester, 2007:2). Indeed, the American Society for Design in Education (2013) observed that the level of global peace has fallen by 5% since 2008. According to the report, global peace decreased by 1.958% in 2008, 1.9% in 2009, 3.4% in 2010, 4.0% in 2011, 4.4% in 2012 and 4.9% in 2013. The report further noticed serious violence in 110 countries all over the world since the past six years costing over 9.46 trillion United States of America’s dollars (i.e. over 11% world Gross Domestic Product). Kester (2007) further asserted that the current unprecedented violent occurrences necessitate the urgency for Peace Education as education for social transformation. Ogunyemi (2006b), citing Bir (2003), equally stressed that Peace Education should promote ‘learning to live together’. He quoted Burnley (2003) who canvassed for ‘Peace education for … lifelong learning … and conflict resolution’ (p.229). As noted by Wahistron (1991), the process of redressing the culture of violence and aggression in order to promote dignity and rights of humans is what peace education is all about. Thus, the common concern in all ideas expressed about peace education and conflict resolution skills is how to translate the various concepts of peace education into practical activities at the classroom level. 4
Gumut (2006) advocated for ‘Peer group mediation’ as a strategy for the promotion of Peace Education among young persons. On its part, the United Nations International Children Fund (UNICEF, 1999) emphasized the use of teaching and learning methods that stress participatory problem-solving and respect for differences while Galtung (2003) argued for ‘dialogue and negotiation’ among individuals, groups and nations to foster a culture of peace through education. As suggested by Ogunyemi (2006b), what may be required is the training of a pool of educators and activists who possess an appreciable level of competence in not only promoting knowledge of the various dimensions of the culture of peace, but are also skilful in sharing values associated with same in their day-to-day activities and practices. This may be helpful in achieving the Hague Appeal for Peace Global Campaign for Peace Education (1980) which calls for systematic education for peace to make people have skills to resolve conflicts and struggle for non-violent justice, live by international standards of human rights and equity, appreciate cultural diversity, and respect the earth and each other. Sandy and Perkins (1980) submitted that there is urgent need to teach for peace and not just about peace. Equally, Albert (2004) suggested the need to educate people to understand that appropriate limit should be applied to certain types of behaviour. The challenge of teaching and learning for peace therefore throws up the challenge about methods. This is especially so because research on the efficacy of methods has remained inconclusive. The contention had been between protagonists of teacher-centred and studentcentred pedagogies. In the words of White (2002), “the older philosophy was you teach content and now the philosophy is you teach students” (p.6). The teaching of content has always been emphasized under lecture, discussion and illustrations while the ‘teaching’ of students has been the focus of values clarification, field trips, dramatization, role playing, project, laboratory 5
works, problem-solving and cooperative learning strategies, among others. Haring-Smith (2000) asserted that, where the primary mission is to supply information, the lecture format is generally more effective. In contrast, he said when the goals are oriented more toward process and changing behaviour, the interactive methods (including cooperative learning) are preferred. However, it has been discovered that when cooperative learning strategies are used by teachers, they are used incidentally rather than intentionally; which suggests that attention needs to be paid to training on the essential features of cooperative learning (Sparapani, 1997; Adeyemi, 2008).
Between 1970s and 1980s, research-supported practices were intensified to develop what is called ‘effective teaching’, ‘active teaching’ and ‘explicit instruction’ that focused on explicit content and skills demonstration in contrast to the popular student-centred constructivist approaches (Schug, 2003). This sudden paradigm shift was in favour of teacher-centred instruction (Schug, Tarver & Western, 2001) or Direct Instruction approaches (Adams & Engelmann, 1996) of which lecture method is the main procedure. Some leading proponents of this paradigm shift are the Contrarians who queried where social studies went wrong in the United States of America and submitted that it had all along produced ‘idiots’, ‘ignorant activists’, and ‘garbage in garbage out’ in civic knowledge and activism (Rochester, 2003; Leming, 2003; Frazee & Ayers, 2003). In support of the contrarians, Tabulawa (2013) argued that one of the reasons for the failure of learner-centred pedagogies in Sub-saharan Africa is because the African reformers failed to realise that pedagogical innovations are social constructions and value-laden. According to him, these educational reformers failed to give due weight to the resilience of schools as institutions that operate in socio-cultural context. Learnercentred pedagogy is even seen as an imposition of cultural supremacy on African didactic mode 6
of instruction because, as a neo-liberalist paradigm shift, it was meant to establish a relationship between political democratization and economic development – a potent vehicle for delivering capitalist democracy across the globe (Tabulawa, 2013). Consequently, in a body of research work spanning over 25 years (1972 to 1996), Adams and Engelmann (1996) reported that 87 per cent of post-treatment test scores favoured Direct Instruction as compared to 12 per cent favouring other approaches. They equally reported that 64 per cent of the statistically significant outcomes favoured Direct Instruction as compared to only one per cent favouring other approaches and 35 per cent favouring neither. The meta analysis of the results also yielded large effective sizes for direct instruction (Schug, 2003, citing the works of Adams and Engelmann). Even in Nigeria, Iyamu and Obiunu (2010), using a direct instruction to teach a group of 100 young citizens at a holiday camp, discovered a significant mean post-test result of 2.98 as against a pre-test mean result of 2.01 in civic values and responsibilities knowledge. Like recent findings on lecture, cooperative learning has been found to be a successful teaching strategy at all levels of schooling, from pre-school to post-secondary. In particular, the developmental characteristics of junior secondary school (early adolescent) students, with needs for shared feelings, emotional support and group socialization, tend to support the use of cooperative learning (Dotson, 2001). It is a peer-centred pedagogy that promotes academic achievement and builds positive social relationships (Sapon-Shevin, 1994). More importantly, social studies classes lend themselves to cooperative learning methods due to the skills and values that promote critical thinking, communication and information-sharing for increasing content knowledge and interpersonal relationships among students. The Science Education Resource Centre (2010) argued that the goal of cooperative learning is the development of 7
students’ analytical and critical thinking with social and cooperative skills in order to enhance their ability to work well together. Justifying the need for cooperative strategies in promoting a culture of peace, Thoresen (2005) asserted that if a pedagogical discourse leads us to choose only in favour of specialized performance and does not manage to prove the need for solidarity, it will most likely lead to attitudes favourable to destructive conflict and not to positive peace. This is perhaps why the use of cooperative learning strategies would look quite appealing for teaching peace education concepts and conflict resolution skills in the face of the seemingly intractable regime of conflicts that Nigeria has experienced in recent years. What is not clear however is whether lecture will produce better learning outcomes in this regard than the cooperative learning strategies or vice versa. Indeed, Nigerians’ attitude to peaceful coexistence demanded (and still demands) an intervention through peace education. Equally, global concern on the need for entrenching a culture of peace further motivated this study. Although many studies have not been done in Nigeria on students’ attitude to peace education and conflict resolution using cooperative learning strategies, research findings elsewhere are quite revealing. For example, Johnson and Johnson (1989) discovered that working cooperatively creates far more positive relationships among diverse and heterogeneous students than does learning competitively or individualistically. Using social judgement theory, they found that individual’s likeness or dislikeness of other people is as a result of the process of acceptance or rejection and that relationships with peers influence what attitudes and values to be adopted by such a student (whether pro-social or anti-social). Learning Together (LT) and Constructive Controversy (CC) have been found to be among the most successful instructional models of cooperative learning over the years (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 2000). LT as a model of social and cooperative learning refers 8
to students in a group of five each working together with division of labour and sharing opinions and materials to achieve specific instructional objectives. Its procedure includes selection of group leaders/moderators and recorders; shared-contributions by all members of each group; presentation of consensus by group leaders to the whole class and group reward for achievement. On the other hand, CC as a model of constructive engagement in cooperative learning is an instructional procedure involves a situation in which when one person’s ideas, information, conclusions, theories, and opinions are incompatible with those of another, and the two seek to reach an agreement (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1995, 2000). The steps for engaging students in constructive controversy include dividing the whole class into group of six each (three each for advocacy and opposing views), each advocate persuasively presenting the best case for his or her position in the group to create a reversing perspective, each perspective is to be critically but respectfully analysed to reveal its strength and weaknesses. It also involves creating a synthesis or integrated joint position in the group to be presented to the whole class by the group leader.
Studies by Lowry and Johnson (1981), Smith, Johnson and Johnson (1981), Johnson, Brooker, Stutzman, Hultman and Johnson (1985) showed that participating in a controversy consistently promoted more positive attitudes toward an experience than did participating in debate, concurrent-seeking discussion or individualistic efforts. Specifically, Johnson, Johnson and Tiffany (1984) found that participants in a controversy re-evaluated their attitudes about the issues and incorporated opponent’s arguments into their own attitudes. Furthermore, LeCount, Evans and Maruyama (1992) discovered that participating in a controversy resulted in a shift of attitudes on gender issues over a period of one week after the controversy ended.
9
Conflict resolution skill is a social and problem-solving skill that involves intellectual and nonintellectual components (Greenspan & Granfield, 1992). The intellectual components involve practical and social intelligence that covers emphatic judgement, personal perception, moral judgement, referential communication, role-taking, inter-personal tactics, cognitive reasoning, perspective-taking and creativity (Johnson & Johnson, 2000). The non-intellectual components include inherited traits, personality, temperament (self-control) and character (Perry & Felce, 2010). Sommerfelt and Vambheim (2008) in an investigation of the Sweedish-based peace education project found gradual decrease in the rate of factors that promote conflicts in schools. For example, in one-tailed test of significance, they found that the psychological distress of the 13-15 years old students reduced from 6.1 pre-test score to 4.8 post-test score; 4.4 to 2.5 on Depression pre-test and post-test scores; and 12.3 to 11.8 on Aggression pre-test and post-test scores respectively. In another experiment using the same group but on a two-tailed test of significance, the researchers equally found a progressive reduction in the same conflict factors except on aggression where the post-test score was 9.5 as against 8.6 pre-test score. In a review of selected school-based conflict resolution and peer-mediation projects across four states in United States of America, Powell, Muir-McClain and Halasyamani (1995) discovered that the conflict resolution skills of the students in Florida increased from a pre-test mean score of 21.39 to 21.55 post-test for the controlled group (t = 0.41, p > .001), and 22.10 pre-test mean score for the experimental group as against 25.73 post-test score (t = -6.5, p < .001). In the peer-mediation projects where students were trained as mediators, between 93-95 percents dispute resolutions were recorded in Maryland, 5.6-6.9 percents reduction in criminal rates in Missouri and 47-50 percents increase in conflict resolution skills in North Carolina. 10
The use of cooperative learning procedures in the classroom had been found to create the cooperative context necessary for constructive conflict resolution and helped students learn the social interaction skills that contributed to mutually resolving conflicts (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1993). Furthermore, participants engaged in constructive controversies were found to invent more creative solutions to problems, original in thinking, generate and utilize quality ideas, raised more issues and were more committed to solving the problems and satisfied with the resulting decisions (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1995). This is to state that conflict resolution skill is a potent means of promoting non-violent behaviour and building solidarity among people.
In promoting higher academic achievement, however, researchers have discovered that understanding the role of certain moderator variables like gender, learning environment, age, experience, home background, locus of control, and cognitive/learning styles (Johnson & Johnson, 1989) is essential. Gender in the context of this study refers to male/female characteristics. The outcome of some studies in the field of Social Studies (Baldi, Perie, Skidmore, Greenberg, & Hahn, 2001; Ogunbiyi, 2006; Adeyemi, 2008; Omiyefa, 2009) actually pointed to the effect of gender factor in academic achievement of students. For example, while Baldi et al (2001) discovered that girls significantly out-performed boys on the measure of civic skills in the United States of America, Omiyefa (2009) discovered no significant difference between male and female students’ perceptions of the relevance of social studies to values and moral development in Nigeria. It is along this gender factor contention that Adeyemi (2008) equally discovered that boys exhibited higher academic achievement in social studies under cooperative learning and conventional lectures while girls outperformed boys under the problem –solving strategy. 11
In 2000, a United Nations Security Council resolution was passed in recognition of the significant contributions of women in the maintenance and protection of international peace and security (Mutunga, 2006). The outstanding efforts of the Mano River Women’s Peace Network (MRWPN) in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia in promoting dialogue and confidence-building that helped to pursue peaceful and sustainable processes of conflict resolution in the region (Oluyemi-Kusa, 2006) were highly appreciated in the 1980s and 1990s by the international community. As it was acknowledged that most cases of domestic violence that arose in Nigeria were highly “genderised” (Best, 2006), gender factor was made an important element in this study for better understanding of the diverse human interactions in conflict resolution.
Learning style is another moderator variable considered in the study. Different definition and categories of learning style had been given by different researchers (College Reading and Learning Association, 2001; Dunn & Dunn, 1993; Dunn & Griggs, 2000; Keefe, 1987; Khan, 2009 Kolb, 1984; Meyers, 1962; Schmeck, 1983). However, it is widely agreed that learning styles refer to learners’ preferred ways of processing, assimilating and acquiring new information, knowledge, attitudes, values and skills in the educational settings. Meyers (1962) used personality traits to identify four learning styles; namely, sense-thinking, sense-feeling, intuition-thinking and intuition-feeling styles. According to him, if a learner is sense-thinking, it is better to apply independent study approach. If he or she is sense-feeling, he or she would prefer coaching technique. Where the learner is intuition-thinking, it is advised that such learner would benefit more in lecture method. However, if the learner exhibits intuition-feeling traits, he or she is likely to benefit more when social inquiry method of teaching is applied.
12
In terms of categorization, while Dunn and Griggs (2000) identified four categories of auditory, visual, tactile and kinaesthetic styles, the College Reading and Learning Association (2001) collapsed these categories to three as auditory, visual and haptic styles. Khan (2009), on the other hand, used the psychoanalyst point of view to arrive at four types of learning styles which are activist, reflector, theorist and pragmatist. In his study, Khan (2009) discovered that the Bachelor of Technology and Medical (MBBS) students showed greater preference for reflector’s learning style with 2.45 t-value and 4.82 t-value in theorist style; whereas the Master in Business Administration (MBA) and Law (LLB) students prefer the activist style with 2.35 t-value and 2.96 t-value in theorist style respectively. Only the medical (MBBS) students showed little preference for the pragmatist learning style with 2.72 t-value. In a related study by the College Reading and Learning Association (2001), using 27 College students, 52 per cent preferred visual modality while 17 per cent preferred auditory style and 37 per cent preferred haptic (Kinaesthetic – tactile) modality. This justifies the assertion that every person has different ways of processing and storing information.
This
study
adopted
the
visual-auditory-reading-kinaesthetic
(VARK)
learning
style
categorization because of its ease of being understood and being the latest adopted by the College Reading and Learning Association (2011). It must be noted, however, that just because one student does not learn the same way as other students do does not mean that he or she is any less intelligent. Consequently, as suggested by Sze and Cowden (2009), it is important to teach students how to make what they are learning fit into their learning style. Sze and Cowden further advised that, if a student is a visual learner, encourage him or her to draw a picture in order to help him or her solve a word problem; and if he or she is an auditory learner, the student may
13
want to read a question aloud to others in order to help him or her understand the problem. This is to say that the first step to helping students help themselves is to help them identify their learning styles. Once they know their learning styles, according to Sze and Cowden (2009), they can start to learn ways to change what they are learning to accommodate them. Learning style was therefore chosen as a moderator variable in this study so as to ensure that each learner learns through his or her best learning modality. This is moreso because “very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education” (Pashler, McDaniel. Rohrer & Bjork, 2009: 106).
Much of the research on cooperative learning in Nigeria had been done in the field of Science Education. Among these are applications of Students Team Achievement Division (STAD), Jigsaw II and Think-Pair-Share as specific models of cooperative learning by Alebiosu (1998), Oludipe (2011) and Bamiro (2011) respectively. The few studies in the field of Social Studies Education like those of Adeyemi (2008), Salako, Eze and Adu (2012) and Usulor (2012) did not give attention to peace education concepts and conflict resolution skills. This gap cannot be left unaddressed particularly with the introduction of Peace Education themes as an aspect of Social Studies in the 2007 nine-year Basic Education curriculum for the Nigerian Junior Secondary Schools. Consequently, the gap that this study set out to fill was investigate whether two models of cooperative learning (Learning Together and Constructive Controversy), with the consideration of different learning styles and gender, could lead to higher academic attainment in peace education and conflict resolution skills than the conventional method.
14
1.2 Statement of the Problem Arising from the foregoing background is how to teach for improved relationship among people to achieve the culture of peace as advocated by experts and UNESCO. While some experts argued in favour of direct instruction, others believe that cooperative learning strategies can inculcate the desired culture of peace in people through solidarity and tolerant attitudes. The latter school of thought argues that teaching for tolerance and solidarity, as the basis of Peace Education requires “catching them young” through cooperative interactions in the classroom. Yet, little or no evidence is available to support this position in the Nigerian environment. Hence this study, using gender and learning styles as moderator variables, focused on relative effectiveness of learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method (a form of direct instruction) in promoting students’ learning outcomes in Peace Education aspects of Social Studies in Ogun State, Nigeria.
1.3 Objectives of the Study In specific terms, this study was designed to achieve the following objectives: 1) Explore the relative effectiveness of learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method in enhancing students’ learning outcomes (knowledge) of peace education among junior secondary school social studies students in Ogun State, Nigeria. 2) Investigate changes in attitudes of students towards peace education when taught using learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method.
15
3) Assess the students’ skills in conflict resolution following exposure to peace education concepts using learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method. 4) Assess the moderating effects of gender and learning styles on students’ learning outcomes in peace education when taught using learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method.
1.4 Research Questions The following research questions were raised to guide this study: 1. Which of the treatment conditions among learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method will lead to highest learning outcomes in peace education? 2. Which of the gender will have higher learning outcomes when exposed to different treatment conditions? 3. Which of the different learning styles will lead to highest learning outcomes of the
students when exposed to different treatment conditions?
1.5 Hypotheses To answer the research questions, the following hypotheses were tested in the study: Ho1:
There is no significant difference in the post-test mean achievement scores of students exposed to peace education under the different treatment conditions.
Ho2:
There is no significant difference in the post-test mean achievement scores of male and female students exposed to peace education under different treatment conditions.
16
Ho3:
There is no significant difference in the post-test mean achievement scores of students with different learning styles.
Ho4:
There is no significant interaction effect of the treatment and gender on the post-test mean achievement scores of the students in peace education.
Ho5:
There is no significant interaction effect of the treatment and learning styles on the posttest mean achievement scores of the students in peace education.
Ho6:
There is no significant interaction effect of gender and learning styles on the post-test mean achievement scores of the students in peace education.
Ho7:
There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender and learning styles on the post-test mean achievement scores of the students in peace education.
Ho8:
There is no significant difference in the post- test mean attitude scores of students exposed to peace education under the different treatment conditions.
Ho9:
There is no significant difference in the post-test mean attitude scores of male and female students exposed to peace education under the different treatment conditions.
Ho10: There is no significant difference in the post-test mean attitude scores of the students with different learning styles. Ho11: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on the post-test mean attitude scores of the students in peace education. Ho12: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and learning styles on the post-test mean attitude scores of the students in peace education. Ho13: There is no significant interaction effect of gender and learning styles on the post-test mean attitude scores of the students in peace education.
17
Ho14: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment, gender and learning styles on the post-test mean attitude scores of the students in peace education. Ho15: There is no significant difference in the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of students exposed to peace education under the different treatment conditions. Ho16: There is no significant difference in the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of male and female students exposed to the different treatment conditions. Ho17: There is no significant difference in the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of students with different learning styles. Ho18: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of the students. Ho19: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and learning styles on the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of the students. Ho20: There is no significant interaction effect of gender and learning styles on the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of the students. Ho21: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment, gender and learning styles on the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of the students.
1.6 Significance of the Study This study is a modest contribution towards resolving the on-going debates about ‘effective methods’. More specifically, it was designed to provide some evidence on innovative ways of inculcating peace education and conflict resolution skills in social studies students at the junior secondary school level in Nigeria. The results of the experiment were to become documentary
18
evidence for using learning together and constructive controversy in enhancing knowledge and attitude in peace education as well as skills in conflict resolution.
The direct potential beneficiaries of this research are social studies teachers in junior secondary schools whose skills and competence in the use of cooperative learning procedures for teaching peace education could be improved through seminars and workshops that may result from the study. Students of social studies could also find attainment of concepts in peace education and conflict resolution skills motivating for working towards achieving the peace culture in their immediate environment and the society at large. Future researchers could also find the report of this investigation a useful addition to literature on pedagogies of Peace Education in Social Studies.
1.7 Scope of the Study This study focused attention on the application of learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method for teaching peace education concepts and conflict resolution skills in junior secondary schools. With the use of gender and learning styles as moderating variables, only three public junior secondary schools (one each from three of the four administrative divisions in Ogun state were chosen for the experiment.). The investigation covered the knowledge, attitude and conflict resolution skills of the students in Peace Education aspect of Social Studies. The participants were drawn from Junior Secondary School (JSS) class II of each of the three schools using themes in Peace Education as contained in the Social Studies Junior Secondary School Curriculum (NERDC, 2007).
19
1.8 Operational Definition of Terms Learning Together: As used in this study is a model of cooperative learning strategies which involved students in a group of five discussing ideas together through role sharing, group processing, collective evaluation and social interdependence. Constructive Controversy: As used in this study is a model of cooperative learning strategies which involved six students in group activities. Two of the students assume the role of advocates of an issue, another two as opponents, while a person plays the role of a moderator. They process facts through consensus building after thorough group evaluation. Conventional Method: Is the traditional teaching method which involves the teacher dominating classroom activities with the students playing passive roles for much of the presentation. It involves much of direct instruction. Learning Outcomes: Refer to the students’ performance scores with reference to three aspects of Peace Education. These are the students’ mean scores in the Peace Education Achievement Test (PEAT), mean scores in Attitude Towards Peace Education Questionnaire (ATPEQ) and mean scores in the Conflict Resolution Skills Test (CRST) Peace Education: In this study, peace education is about knowledge and attitude towards building cultural of peace and conflict resolution skills as found in the current junior secondary school (JSS) Social Studies Curriculum. Learning Styles: Refer to the various modes (ways) of learning as preferred by students. The Visual - Auditory - Reading - Kinaesthetic (VARK) learning style framework was adopted from the College Reading and Learning Association (2011) for use in this study.
20
Conflict Resolution Skills: In this study, conflict resolution skills are conceived as practical application of knowledge of peace education in the classroom setting. Ogun State: This is one of Nigeria’s thirty-six states. It is located in the South-West zone of the Country.
21
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews the relevant theoretical and empirical studies under the following headings to give direction to the study: 2.1
Theoretical Review
2.1.1 Theoretical Framework for the Study 2.1.3 The Concept of Peace Education 2.1.2 An Overview of the History of Peace Education 2.1.4 Peace Education in Nigeria 2.1.5 Conflict and Conflict Resolution 2.1.6 Relationship between Peace Education and Social Studies Education 2.1.7 Perspectives on Cooperative Learning 2.1.8 Perspectives on Conventional Method of Teaching 2.2
Empirical Review
2.2.1 Studies on Social Studies Teaching 2.2.2 Studies on Cooperative Learning 2.2.2.1 Studies on Learning Together as a Model of Cooperative Learning 2.2.2.2 Studies on Constructive Controversy as a Model of Cooperative Learning 2.2.3 Studies on Gender and Learning Outcomes 2.2.4 Studies on Learning Styles and Learning Outcomes 2.2.5 Studies on Peace Education in Nigeria 2.6
The conceptual model
2.7
Appraisal of the reviewed literature
2.1 Theoretical Review This section of the review covers the theoretical framework for the study, the history and concept of peace education, peace education in Nigeria, conflict and conflict resolution, relationship between peace education and social studies education, perspectives on cooperative learning, and perspectives on conventional method of teaching. 22
2.1.1 Theoretical Framework for the Study The theoretical foundation upon which this study was built can be found in social learning and social constructivist theories. These theories could support ‘participant modelling’ for peace education in order to promote the culture of peace. Using Bobo dull experimentation, Bandura (1976) explained that an individual learns aggressive responses from observing others personally or through the media and environment. By extension, Siegel (1992) submitted: Children learn to act aggressively when they model their behaviour after violent acts of adults, especially family members. For example, the boy who witnesses his father repeatedly strike his mother will more than likely become an abusive parent and husband (p. 170).
It was along this submission that Bandura (1977) reported that individuals that live in high crime rate areas are more likely to act violently than those who dwell in low-crime areas. In social learning, therefore, it is believed that in observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed and, on later occasions, this coded information serves as a guide for action (Adamolekun, 1987). Thus, it is believed that if aggression is detected very early and if possibly cooperative learning strategies are applied, there is the tendency that ‘the individual would be reframed from being adult criminals’ (Isom, 1988: 3). Indeed, Bandura’s social learning theoretical framework provided the interactive basis for cooperative learning (Learning Together and Constructive Controversy) which was to promote tolerant attitude and solidarity behaviour among learners in the classroom.
In social constructivism, it is believed that reality is constructed through human activity and that members of a society together invent properties of the world (Baylor, Samsonov & Smith, 2007). It is equally believed that social interaction leads to increased knowledge. This view supports 23
learning and development both as a social and collaborative activity (Vygotsky, 1978). Bruner (1966) submitted that learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge through ‘Schema or mental models’ in order to ‘go beyond the information given’ (p.1). From the ethical point of view, however, social constructivists asserted that even though knowledge results from personal experience, it must conform with a “community of practice” (Barbara, 2007: 3). This supports the promotion of culture of peace (peace education) as an alternative to violence. Indeed, social constructivists supported cooperative learning for the promotion of culture of peace by arguing that students mostly work in groups (Baylor, Samsonov & Smith, 2007) and engage in shared meaning through negotiation in the learning environment (Barbara, 2007). Such engagement, they argued, would help students to sort out the confused social world through extrapolation because “learning is contextual … we learn in relationship to what else we know, what we believe, our prejudices and our fears” (Dimitrios, 2007: 4).
Wikipedia (2007) summed up this position by
stating that: Wherever a desired result is achieved by the cooperation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the pre-cursive faith in one another of those immediately concerned (p. 9). The foregoing assertions therefore support the ‘participant modelling’ of cooperative learning for the acquisition of peace education concepts and conflict resolution skills. Indeed, Bandura (1973), pointed out that such strategies would make individuals more likely to adopt a modelled behaviour if it results in outcomes they value, if the model is similar to the observer’s admired status with functional value. In essence, applying ‘participant modelling’ as represented by cooperative learning strategies to peace education, would enable the individual not only to
24
perform, with positive outcome, tasks leading to the desired goal but also permit the introduction of other devices to induce the individual to persist until a sense of mastery is achieved (Bandura, Jeffery & Wright, 1974). This social learning process includes initial observation of a model, the performance of a graded series of tasks with the assistance of the model at carefully spaced intervals, and a gradual phasing out of supportive aids, leaving the individual progressively dependent on his or her own efforts (Adamolekun, 1987). In other words, such social learning strategies would enable the individual to develop “a sense of self-efficacy, the expectation that one can, by one’s personal efforts, master situations and bring about desired outcomes” (Adamolekun, 1987: 203).
The relevance of both the social learning and social constructivist theories resides in the fact that they support peace education pedagogy which is participatory and dialogical, using such methods as dyads, cooperative learning projects, discussion groups, brainstorming sessions, problem-solving frameworks, alternative future exercises, and case studies of peace movements across the globe in order to foster critical thinking (Readon & Cabezudo, 2002 cited in Kester, 2007). In this study, the participatory process and brainstorming activities were engineered by cooperative learning strategies. Indeed, these are what Jerkins (2006) and Kester (2007) termed “pedagogies of engagement” which are to promote community values and practices of sharing, caring and fellowship.
2.1.3 The Concept of Peace Education The term “Peace Education” has been conceived differently by educationists, policy makers, politicians as well as other stakeholders interested in the culture of peace and non-violent 25
behaviour. It must be noted, however, that peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of justice, of law, of order – in short, of good governance (Einstein, 1968). Peace in its progressive or dialectical mode denotes active individual and collective efforts and emancipatory empowerment for peace-making and peace-keeping (Webel, 2007). Webel further cited the Hobbesian philosophy that peace is both a means of personal and collective ethical transformation and an aspiration to cleanse the planet of human-inflicted destruction. In the views of Marthe (2012), however, peace is contextual and situational based on historical and political experiences. For example, it has been argued by Francis (2006) that society fragmented and polarised by perpetual war and armed conflict will interpret peace as the absence of war while a political community driven by unjust structures and policies will equate peace with justice and freedom. Furthermore, Francis (2006) observed that people suffering material deprivation and poverty will inevitably perceive peace as equity, development and access to essential necessities of life. Indeed, as at 2002, the Nigerian youths’ involvements in violent conflicts were assessed to be in the range of 90 – 95 per cent due to their inability to cope with the demands and requirements for survival (Garba, 2004). Consequently, the concept of peace in Nigeria because of her experience of oppressive colonialism between 1914-1960, civil war between 1967-1970, pervasive military injustice between 1983-1999, annulment of June 12, 1993 presumed freest democratic election, the Niger-Delta incessant oil- pipeline vandalisation and the current Boko Haram insurgency would need prevention of conflict and restoration of justice.
Education therefore plays a vital role in sustaining peace and paradoxically, Peace Education has to come from exposure to conflict in order to make people that disagree to learn how to agree 26
with one another (Davis, 2005). This is why Sharma (2013) submitted that education serves as a major state intervention for peace-building so as to “develop positive frame of mind in social unity and creative activity” (Read, 2012:3). Consequently, if peace is both the destination and the journey towards absence of violence, then what we teach and how we teach it must not be separated in our preparations for working with pupils (Whitaker, 1980). The importance of peace education as one of the ‘journies’ to achieve non-violent status in the world is no longer in doubt. Indeed, the United Nations has called on every country to: Ensure that children from early age benefit from education to enable them acquire knowledge on how to resolve any dispute peacefully and in a spirit of respect for human dignity and of tolerance (UNESCO, 1998:3).
Along the same thought, Page (2008b) suggests that Peace Education involves a process of acquiring values, knowledge, skills, attitudes and other forms of competencies needed to live in harmony with oneself, with others, and with the natural environment. As a concrete field of activity to reach and preserve peace (Thoresen, 2005), the long range goal of peace education should be elimination of war as a method of resolving disputes (Sandy & Perkins, 1980). This is perhaps why Ajayi (2012) argued that the costliest peace is cheaper than the cheapest conflict. Indeed, Reardon (1988) also submitted that peace education must confront the need to abolish the institution of war and the quest should be to teach for peace and not just about peace. Consequently, Peace Education from the UNICEF perspective refers to the: Process of promoting the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values needed to bring about behaviour changes that will enable children, youth and adults to prevent conflict and violence, both overt and structural; to resolve conflict peacefully; and to create the conditions conducive to peace, whether at an intrapersonal,
27
interpersonal, intergroup, (UNICEF, 1999:1).
national
or
international
level
Peace education is a dynamic, interdisciplinary and multicultural study that grows out of the works of educators like John Dewey, Maria Montessori, Paulo Freire, Jordan Galtung, Elise Boulding and Kenneth Boulding, James Calleja, James Page and many others (Ogunyemi, 2006a). The Bouldings were acknowledged for feminist peace theories about personal and interpersonal violence and their emphasis on future thinking and the key role of international non-governmental organizations in the promotion of peace. Freire (1997) emphasized developing a questioning attitude towards challenging the status quo by evolving a dialogue pedagogy that seeks alternatives to violence. According to Kester (2007), Freire actually advocated the development of a resistant attitude towards violence and the use of dialogue to seek alternatives to rise above oppression. According to Freire (1992), Peace Education should be seen as a process of ‘conscientization’ through which peoples’ consciousness are raised to appreciate their world, their rights, issues of contemporary lives, exploration of our common values and aspirations as well as negotiation of a shared future based on love, respect and human dignity. Thus, it is observed that coexistence in peace is not a utopian myth but an education based on ‘conscientization’ of realism for transformative humanism (Borelli, 1979). Friere’s conscientization focuses on raising awareness against oppression and overcoming oppression through transformative humanism. Similarly, Calleja (1991) suggested that a philosophical basis for peace education might be located in the Kantian notion of duty while in the views of Page (2008b) it is found in ethics (consequentiality ethics, conservative political ethics, aesthetic ethics and the ethics of care).
28
Much of the new thinking about the peace culture and peace education is informed by current realities at the community, national, regional and global levels. As rightly observed by Ogunyemi (2006b), …the global peace longed for at the end of the cold war in the early 1990s is still forlorn. Instead, crises and conflicts, accompanied by massive loss of lives and properties among ethnic nationalities, religious groups, and nation-states, have continued to characterize today’s world (p. 225). Consequently, Peace Education is fastly being taken away from the world of abstraction to pragmatic programming. A working definition given by the Peace Education Network (2009) viewed peace education as a means to learn about and to learn for peace. According to this definition, ‘learning about peace’ means obtaining knowledge and understanding of what contributes to peace while ‘learning for peace’ involves learning the skills, attitudes and values that one needs in order to contribute to peace and help maintain it. It is thus based on a philosophy that teaches non-violence, love, compassion, trust, fairness, cooperation and reverence for the human family and all life on our planet (Harris, 1980). Harris went further to add that Peace Education is about empowering people with skills, attitudes and knowledge to build, maintain and restore relationships at all levels of human interaction and to build a sustainable environment and protect it from exploitation of war. Along the same line, Wikipedia (2009) submitted that peace education is the process of acquiring the values, skills, and behaviours to live in harmony with oneself and with others. It is a process of making change to happen with human value and conducting conflict constructively by devising alternatives to violence (Albert, 2004).
Peace Education is therefore a deliberate attempt to educate children and adults in the dynamics of conflict and the promotion of peace-making skills in homes, schools, and communities 29
throughout the world, using all the channels and instruments of socialization (Menon, 2001; Gumut, 2006). Ogunyemi (2006b) and Galtung (2003) equally submitted that culture of peace through peace education requires a set of values, attitudes, modes of behaviour and ways of life that reject violence and prevent conflicts by tackling their root causes to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation among individuals, groups and nations. This effort, according to him, necessitates that peace education should promote respect for all human rights, ensures equality and participation, and promotes sustainable economic and social development. It also promotes cooperative and participatory learning methods in an environment of tolerance, care and respect (Peace Education File, 2004). It is along this line of thought that Harris (1980) submitted that Peace Education is about empowering people with skills, attitudes and knowledge to build, maintain and restore relationships at all levels of human interaction, develop positive approaches towards dealing with conflicts from the personal to international, create safe environments, both physically and emotionally, that nurtures each individual, create a safe world based on justice and human rights, build a sustainable environment and protect it from exploitation and war.
Peace Education involves building a culture of peace through learning the culture of peace. Thus, Peace Education is education for and about cultural change (reproduction) that leads to (preserve) positive peace (Thoresen, 2005). UNESCO (1996) and Adenigbagbe (2007) agreed that it involves a cluster of attributes and behaviours to become rooted in a society. It is the enthronement of a belief and value system that fosters peace building based on the principles of equality, stewardship and equitable sharing of resources, security of humankind at the individual, family, group or national level, without resulting to violence. Indeed, Peace Education is a way of educating peoples’ minds in the virtue of peace, skills of conflict analysis and management to
30
promote security for humanity (Izom, 2010). It is the overall total effort made by people to overcome physical, psychological and structural violence (Adenigbagbe, 2007). Physical violence includes harmful attack on people’s bodies, while psychological violence involves injustice and inequalities trauma as experienced by the individual (Atack, 2005). On the other hand, structural violence amounts to a state of oppression, suppression and marginalization as witnessed by a group of people in the hands of those in authority and power (Atack, 2005; Adenigbagbe, 2007). The resource control agitations by the ‘Niger-Deltans’ and the Boko Haram insurgence in Nigeria could therefore be termed as instances of structural violence. As the conceptualisation of the field remains an on-going process, the purpose and goals of Peace Education have continued to engage the attention of scholars. For example, Ikwumelu (2010) argued that Peace Education needs to engage the students in three major roles: i)
inculcating relevant knowledge, skills, and attitudes in relation to non-violence;
ii)
spurring students into personal and social action using the acquired knowledge, skills and attitude to establish non-violent structure; and
iii)
serving to protect the environment/society from wars or conflicts (pp. 205-206).
As a precondition, however, the creation of an environment for living that is consistent with human dignity, in which all those who are excluded, isolated and marginalized would find an opportunity for genuinely becoming part of society is the bedrock of culture of peace needed in Nigeria (Ajala, 2003; Albert, 2004). This implies the elimination of poverty and its attendant ills, equitable sharing of prosperity and knowledge, and the possibility of everyone to receive education or return to education. It equally involves consolidation of democratic processes, because only democracy can ensure the right to the rule of law and respect for human rights. It calls for global efforts to change how people think and act in order to promote peace. It involves 31
transforming conflict and rebuilding peace through people’s confidence. Thus, the promotion of culture of peace through peace education implies: a) Promotion of peaceful settlement of conflicts, mutual respect and understanding and international cooperation; b) Enabling people at all levels to develop skills of dialogue, negotiation, consensusbuilding and peaceful resolution of differences; c) Strengthening democratic institutions and ensuring full participation in the development process; and d) Ensuring free flow of information at all levels and enhancing access thereto (UNESCO, 1999, p.3). Upeace (2006:13) reported Laing (1978) as stating that “peace education is an attempt to respond to problems of conflict and violence on scales ranging from the global and national to the local and personal. It is about exploring ways of creating more just and sustainable futures”. Schmidt and Friedman (1987) asserted that peace education is a holistic knowledge based on philosophy that teaches love, compassion, trust, fairness, cooperation and reverence for the human family and all life on the planet. In other words, Peace Education can be regarded as a non-destructive way of settling conflicts and empowering people to live in harmony with one another in the world.
In summary, Upeace (2006) submitted that Peace Education is a process of developing knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviours and values that enable learners to:
32
identify and understand sources of local and global issues and acquire positive and appropriate sensitivities to these problems.
resolve conflicts and attain justice in a non-violent way.
live by universal standards of human rights and equity by appreciating cultural diversity, respect for the earth and for each other (p. 14).
Page (2008a) submitted that the review of field-based projects on Peace Education in the 20th century could be found in the domains of conflict resolution training, democracy education, and human rights education. However, new approaches to Peace Education in the 21st century focus on the “integrative theory of Peace” for healthy development and maturation of human consciousness to mitigate conflict create unity in the context of diversity and establish sustainable cultures of peace (Page, 2008a). This integrative study of Peace Education, according to Marthe (2012), covers a wide range of issues like Educating for Dismantling the culture of war; Conflict Resolution and Non-violence; Educating for Living with Justice and Compassion; Educating for Promoting Human Rights and Responsibilities; Educating for Building Cultural Respect, Reconciliation and Solidarity; Educating for Living in Harmony with Earth and Educating for Cultivating Inner Peace. Thus, as rightly submitted by Julius, Ngao, David and Paul (2012), Peace Education is to promote both inner and outer peace such that education can create shield for human survival on the planet.
The content to achieve these laudable goals of Peace Education, according to Galtung (2008), should be from the five phases of peace research efforts that involves: 1) Analysis of our present;
33
2) Goal formation based on societal interest and values; 3) Critique on the state of things to diagnose the past, present and future; 4) Proposal-making to get from the real world to the preferred world based on the questions about what to do, who should do it, when and where, how, and why it should be done, leading to 5) Peace action of demonstration, peace-keeping activities and peace-building simulations in the classroom. The teachers’ role therefore becomes being models of peace with appropriate feelings, respecting and accepting differences and employing cooperative learning activities to resolve conflicts constructively (Patel, 2012).
Indeed, Peace Education is to ‘de-segregate the mind’ and build the ‘culture of tolerance’ (Ogunyemi, 2006b) using transformative approaches as against what Freire (1992) called the “banking model” of education. Peace Education, as a dynamic process, involves teaching for integration rather than compartmentalization, cooperation rather than competition, aesthetics as well as science, empirical knowledge as well as abstract (Kester, 2007). It also involves contemporary issues like gender education, education for social justice, human rights education, multicultural education, sustainable development education and conflict transformation education. Figure 2.1 attempts to illustrate the broad learning areas embedded in Peace Education thus:
34
Education for Social Justice
Human Rights Education
Education for Non-Violent conflicts Transformation
Peace
Multicultural Education
Education
Gender Education
Sustainable Development Education Personal & Inner Peace Education
Governance & Leadership education
Figure 2.1: Components of Peace Education (Source: Upeace, 2006)
The diagram in Figure 2.1 indicates that Peace Education is an integrated study that relates with other studies like Gender Education, Sustainable Development Education, Human Rights Education, Multicultural Education, Education for Social Justice and Non–Violent conflict transformation. It also covers Governance and Leadership Education as well as Personal and Inner Peace Education. Consequently, Peace education becomes a ‘moving train’ (Ogunyemi, 35
2006a) through which the individual thinks positively and acts rationally to ensure harmony and stability among people and nations of the world. It does not teach students what to think, but rather how to think through cooperative learning methods and alternative dispute resolution strategies.
2.1.2
An Overview of the History of Peace Education
The history of Peace Education is rooted in a long tradition of continued search for strategies in managing human actions and human interactions for progressive development of humanity (Ogunyemi, 2006a). In pre-colonial Africa (Nigeria inclusive), Peace Education was enshrined in the spirit of communalism as internalised value for community solidarity (Akinwale, 2010). It was based on the concept of being ‘brothers keepers’ known as ‘ubuntu’ in South Africa, ‘utu’ in East Africa (Muigau, 2010); as well as ‘itunu’ and ‘ifokanbale’ meaning harmony among the Yoruba in Nigeria. According to Oyewumi (2011), ‘good fellowship’ was the ultimate goal of peace education among the Africans. The concept of good character otherwise known as ‘omoluabi’ in Yorubaland, ‘mutum-kirki’ in Hausaland and ‘esigbu-nwa’ in Igboland (Akinwale, 2010) served as the core value being emphasized in traditional peace education in Nigeria. Oyewumi (2011) submitted that it is believed that charity begins at home among the Yoruba. Adeyemi and Salawudeen (2014) further acknowledged the substantial roles of indigenous proverbs in promoting peace education in Nigeria. Albert and Herault (1995) and NOUN (2010) observed that traditional peace education and conflict resolution activities in Nigeria were done at different levels of human interaction. At the family level, ‘mutual exclusive trust’ and ‘collective responsibility’ for a ‘common destiny’ were highly emphasized by the house/compound heads and ward-heads known as ‘Baale’ and ‘olori36
ebi’ or ‘mogaji’ respectively among the Yoruba (Albert et al, 1995; NOUN 2010; Oyewumi, 2011). The opinions and decisions of the heads were usually respected based on customs and traditions of the land. Oyewumi (2011) observed that quarrels and disputes between individuals from different households and families were settled by ward elders who sat under the trees and could be transferred to various traditional courts – ‘Ile-ejo baale’ (compound court), ‘Ile-ejo ijoye adugbo’ (court of the ward chief) and ‘Ile-ejo oba’ (court of the king) if necessary. It is on record that when disputes were not resolvable at the family and ward levels, sometimes the power and authorities of the supernatural and the ancestors could be evoked for ‘pervasive and absolute’ resolution of the disputes. As noted by Oyewumi (2011) and Eluwa, Ukagwu, Nwachukwu and Nwanbani (1988), such were the supernatural powers of ‘Olodumare’ (supreme creator), Sango (god of thunder), Ogun (god of iron), ‘Egungun’ (masquerade) etc. in Yorubaland and ‘Chineke’ (supreme god) in Igboland and ‘Ekine’ (secret-cult masquerade) in Ijawland for making peace offerings in respectively. The roles of the traditional royal leaders (known as god on earth) in peace education and conflict resolution were very outstanding during the pre-colonial and colonial eras because they are known to be ‘repository of cultural values’ (Oyewumi, 2011). The chiefs also assisted them in peace – making and settling disputes. Daudu (2009) noted how traditional rulers in Adamawa region were encouraging the spirit of ‘self respect’, ‘patience’, ‘perseverance’ and ‘accommodation’ known as ‘Pulaaku’ among their subjects. He also recalled that they created the ‘soro’ (beating game) to encourage bravery and settling of old scores in the land during the pre-colonial and colonial era. According to him, oath-taking was a common means of dispute settlement in the Emir’s palace. It is also on record that excommunication known as ‘kommbol’ (using economic and social linkages denial) was a means of sanction adopted by the Emirs to 37
discourage inter-group conflicts in the land (Daudu, 2009). Oyewumi (2011) acknowledged imposition of moral and legal sanctions as well as exchange of gifts as means of promoting peace and good relations by the Yoruba traditional rulers. In the old Oyo empire, diplomatic strategies through ambassadorial appointments (like the ones to old Dahomey and Egbaland) were equally observed to be peace education strategy adopted by the Alafin in the 17th and 18th centuries (NOUN, 2010). The royal leaders like Sardauna of Sokoto and Oni of Ife were equally observed to be activists towards constitutional developments for peace and progress in Nigeria during the colonial era (Segiru, 2010). Market associations, secret societies, professional bodies and agegrade associations are also contributors to traditional peace education and conflict resolution. The market is considered an economic centre where agents of peace education and dispute resolution known as ‘Iyaloja’ (Market Head) helped to facilitate peace, equity and justice in the market system (Oyewumi, 2011). The professional bodies also ensured that everybody in the profession maintained good conduct and ethics of their profession while the secret societies (like Ogboni in Yorubaland) assisted in ensuring respect for the custom and values of the communities.
The
age-grade
associations
encouraged
inter-marriages
and
ensured
implementation of reconciliation and resolutions between different communities (NOUN, 2010). Indeed, the traditional peace education strategies were based on respect for the customs and traditions of the people with the spirit of collectivism. Howlett (2008) however traced the history of formal Peace Education to post-Franco-Prussian war of 1870 when peace advocates became alarmed with the Americans admiration for the Prussian state education for its military system which stressed the principles of democracy and non-aggressive pursuit. It was also noted that Julia Ward Howe, a poet and a reformer canvassed through “An appeal to Womanhood Throughout the World” in September 1870 for “Our 38
husbands shall not come to us reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience” (Howlett, 2008: 4). The Peace Journal’s recommendation for the moulding of the youths’ minds to oppose war in 1907 was equally recognised as the formative campaign for Peace Education (Stomfay-Stitz, 2008). In 1909, the American School Peace League held its annual meetings in conjunction with the National Education Association and mandated schools to organise peace study groups for teachers, peace days in schools and develop curriculum materials for Peace Education (Howlett, 2008). This activity of the League was observed by Zeiger (2000) to be the most influential platform for reforming juvenile youths in the world.
In the early 20th century, John Dewey was praised for his argument on “A curriculum in history, geography, and literature which will make it more difficult for the flames of hatred and suspicion…but feelings of respect and friendliness for the other nations and peoples of this world” (Howlett, 2008). This was the basis of Dewey’s Democratic Education for the reconstruction of experience in the 1930s. Equally, in line with Dewey’s campaign was the call for “transnational patriotism” in America by the Association for Peace Education in 1924 and Paul Klapper’s call for the elimination of “bigoted nationalism and martial propaganda from history” through a critical analysis of the “human cost of war” with a view to use Social Studies as an instrument to “answer humanity’s prayer for the abolition of war” (Howlett, 2008:6). Then Social Studies became a means to unlearn war and “develop in children the will to peace” and “social integration” (Carter, 1977:34-36). While acknowledging Betty Reardon for promoting campaign against discrimination and violence against women in all parts of the globe between 1960s and 1990s, Stomfay-Stitz (2008) equally noted that the Peace Education Network 39
spearheaded the introduction and development of non-violent and conflict resolution culture in America.
The development of Peace Education became more prominent after World War II when the United Nations (1948) declared in its Universal Human Rights Article 26 that “Education shall be directed…to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” The Declaration connotes that it shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace (United Nations General Assembly, 1948). It was equally observed that all the UNESCO declarations in 1945, 1974, 1980 and 1995 were geared towards the promotion of the culture of peace and this led to the formation of Associated Schools Project Network involving 7,900 educational institutions in 176 countries which were to promote “peace and international understanding” through “learning to know, learning to be, learning to do, and learning to live together” (Page, 2008). Energizing the development of Peace Education were the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. The 1959 declaration states that a child has the right to an education that will develop a sense of moral and social responsibility while Article 29.1(d) of the 1989 convention emphasizes “the preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of the sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and person of indigenous origin” (UNICEF, 1989).
Article 40 of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on International Decade for a Culture of Peace and non-violence for the Children of the World Peace, 2001-2010 further
40
strengthens the promotion of culture of peace through strategies and actions that will “ensure that education programmes and materials reflect fully the promotion and protection of human rights and the values of peace, tolerance and gender equality” (UNGA, 2002a). In Article 5 of the same document on “A World Fit for Children”, it is further declared that the world shall be “founded upon principles of democracy, equality, non-discrimination, peace and social justice and the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights, including the right to development” (UNGA, 2002a). The United Nations Study on Disarmament and Nonproliferation Education also recognises Peace Education as an education that is based on “theoretical and practical knowledge which allows individuals to choose for themselves values that reject violence, resolve conflicts peacefully and sustain a culture of peace” (UNGA, 2002b). All these United Nations’ declarations are “symbolic” in that they paved the way for gradual increase in awareness of the importance of civil and social processes in the encouragement of peace and the importance of education as a veritable means of promoting culture of peace all over the world (Page, 2008a). In addition, the November 2007 International Education for Peace Conference was noted to be a great platform where participants consulted on “the challenge of conflict, violence, and peace, and together formulate realistic plans for the effective education of children as peacemakers” (Stomfay-stitz, 2008:6). Consequently, Peace Education had a rich tradition upon which to build and its historical development continues as people struggle to grapple with the challenges of cooperation and conflicts the world over.
2.1.4 Peace Education in Nigeria A formal recognition of Peace Education first emerged in Nigerian school system through the Nine-year Basic Education Social Studies Curriculum with such concepts and themes like 41
meaning of peace, types of peace, importance of peace, ways of promoting peace, meaning of conflict, types of conflict, examples of conflict, causes of conflict, non-violent methods of resolving conflicts, global/international cooperation (NERDC, 2007: 43, 44 & 50). In the 1950s and 1960s, the study of civic responsibilities and citizen’s duties and obligations dominated the Social studies curriculum (Ogundare, 2010). However, in the 1990s came the introduction of Citizenship Education and currently Civic Education was drawn from Social Studies to cater for human rights and democratic education in the Primary and Secondary schools (NERDC, 2007).
Earlier, the 1969 Curriculum Conference and Second National Development Plan (through the 1977 National Policy on Education) had given recognition to “a free and democratic society”, “respect for the worth and dignity of the individuals” and promotion of “moral and spiritual values in interpersonal and human relations” as the basic objectives of Nigeria’s civic instruction (Olatunji, 2010: 255). However, the revised edition of the policy in 1981 was more categorical on the objective of Secondary Education to “foster Nigeria’s unity with an emphasis on the common ties that unite us in our diversity” as the major way for promoting culture of peace among Nigerian youths (Abdullahi, 2010). It has been argued that the educational reform of Dr (Mrs) O. K. Ezekwesili as Minister of Education with the slogan of “WE CAN”, which stands for “we educate for character, aptitude and our needs”, could be regarded as a giant step towards promoting discipline in Nigeria educational sector (Oniemayin, 2008). As noted by Olarewaju (2005: 119), this is because the Nigeria’s school system had earlier been bedevilled by “riots, boycott of classes, rampage, destruction of school or public property, truancy, apathy, insubordination, stealing, aggression, drug abuse, fighting, disruptive behaviour, lateness to school, absenteeism, laziness and rudeness”. 42
Consequently, one of the five major objectives of the Universal Basic Education Act 2004 is “ensuring the acquisition of the ethical, moral and civic values” as the basic foundation for peaceful coexistence (Olubodun, 2008). Furthermore, one of the national goals of the 2004 National Policy on Education was emphatic on promotion of culture of peace by stating “inculcation of national consciousness and national unity” as the bedrock of living together peacefully in Nigeria (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004: 8). All these attempts were to curb “tribal and regional sentiments” and make Nigerians to shift their ethnic and religious dispositions towards patriotism and national unity (Amaele, 2010).
Today, the challenge for Peace Education in Nigeria, according to Pate (2009), is at six levels including the individual, the family, the community, the socialisation institutions, the government and the country at large. At the individual level, it is to minimize the ‘increased individualization’ that has continually decreased positive interpersonal relationship. At the family level, it is to protect the “family system that is experiencing considerable stress characterised by squabbles, disputes, deprivations, poverty, divorces, domestic violence, abandonment and other elements of ‘peacelessness’ caused by human and environmental factors” (Pate, 2009: 5). At the community level, it is to minimize misunderstandings, incompatibility of values, competitive access to resources and other such discriminating elements. According to Pate, it is expected that with adequate Peace Education, every community in Nigeria would reject corruption, domesticate processes of negotiation and downplay cultural ethnocentrism and relativism in diverse settings. The socialisation institutions like the peer groups, religious bodies, mass media and civil societies are expected to be platforms 43
for peace-building through inculcation of positive attitudes and building skills on issues of ethics, negotiations and human rights. In particular, the mass media is expected to promote “peace journalism” with balanced news coverage, positive education on the divided society and controlling dangerous rumours by providing trusted sources of information (Pate, 2009 quoting Albert, 2002), Government at its own level is expected to be the promoter of the concepts of Peace Education and policies as well as sponsors of the enabling environment where rights of citizens are respected and sources of poverty, deprivations and injustice are addressed. The country at large is expected to strive towards keeping ethos of culture of peace through commitment to productive and constructive engagement of its citizens.
Indeed, what is on ground presently for promoting Peace Education in Nigeria has remained ‘patchy’ with a little take-off from policy statements. Thus, aside from the teaching of some Peace Education concepts in the new JSS Social Studies curriculum, it is only the NonGovernmental Agencies like the Human Rights Organisations and the Faith-based Organisations that have continuously canvassed for the protection of peoples’ rights, democratic values, nonviolent dialogues and citizenship education to keep the hope of culture of peace alive in Nigeria. However, with the seeming success story of the amnesty programme introduced by the Late President Yar’Adua’s government in 2009 to douse the tension generated by the militants’ activities in the Niger-Delta, the National Orientation Agency (NOA) appears to be more interested in seminars, workshops and roundtable conferences on non-violent conflict resolution strategies in Nigeria (Ibrahim, 2011). The current study was also conceived as part of efforts to explore new ways of promoting the teaching and learning of Peace Education in Nigeria’s formal education sector. Hence, it explored the effectiveness of three methods of teaching (Learning
44
Together, Constructive Controversy and Conventional Method) in inculcating Peace Education as an aspect of Social Studies at the junior secondary school level.
2.1.5
Conflict and Conflict Resolution
Conflict is an incidental phenomenon in human relationship and it is inherent in every human society irrespective of location, composition and mode of organization (Ajayi, 2012). It is also varied in meanings among different group of people in different contexts (Marthe, 2012). According to Jeong (2000: 13), conflict is a “situation or process in which two or more social entities are linked by at least one form of antagonistic psychological relation or at least one form of antagonistic interaction”. It refers to the pursuit of incompatible goals or interests by different groups or individuals (Bakut, 2006). Onu (2009) posited that conflict is a manifestation of hostile attitude in the face of conflicting interests between individuals, groups or states which can be over resources, identity, power, status or values. It is also perceived as a state of war, prolonged fighting, disharmony or opposition between characters and action (Aloysius-Michaels, 2009). This is to state that conflict exists whenever incompatible activities occur (Johnson & Johnson, 2009) or disagreements between two actors (individuals, groups, organizations or nations) in their interaction over issues of interests, values, beliefs, emotions, goals, space, positions, scarce resources etc. Its aim may be to neutralize, injure or eliminate rivals (Coser, 1959). From a process model point of view however, Galtung (2007) posited that Conflict= Attitude + Behaviour + Contradiction, meaning that conflict starts from inner/attitudinal life and finds behavioural expression which could result to verbal or physical violence.
45
Indeed, Marthe (2012) noted that conflict has ontological basis in human needs. This is why Galtung (1990: 292) identified four basic needs that often lead to conflict as “survival needs”, “well-being needs”, “identity needs” and “freedom needs”. A multi-disciplinary approach to the study of conflict categorized causes of conflict into three viz: communication causes, organizational structure causes and personality/value variables causes. By communication theory, it is argued that ‘semantic difficulties’ and ‘misunderstandings’ are usually fundamental causes of many interpersonal conflicts. Three explanations have emerged under organizational structure. These are: i)
The existence of an organization often leads to group interdependence.
ii)
The greater the degree of interdependence, the greater the likelihood of communication difficulties.
iii)
The greater the interdependence, the more the possibility of shared scarce resources which often engender and increase conflict.
On personality / value system theory, it is observed that our personalities are different and the way we want to be identified also differs, and if we do not take time to understudy or recognize it, we are bound to misunderstand each other and this may lead to conflict. It is equally argued that value systems also differ in our daily interactions with each other and the way and manner we prioritize our values are also different. Using organizational management perspective, Ajayi and Adegbite (2011) identified causes of conflict as greed and avarice, over-centralization of power, communication gap, ambiguous and unpopular government directives, rumour mongering, subjective attitude of management and role ambiguity. In general, therefore, the various causes of conflict as identified in the literature are communication failure, value differences,
methodological
differences,
lack 46
of
cooperation,
differences
regarding
responsibility, non-compliance with rules, personality conflict, goal differences, substandard performance, differences regarding authority and competition over resources. These diverse causes of conflict inform several classification of conflict and situations underlying them.
UNICEF (1999), however, classified conflicts into overt and structural types while Kester (2009), using dimensional extent, classified them into macro and micro conflicts. Galtung (1969) and Atack (2005) identified three types of conflict as direct (personal), structural and cultural conflicts. However, Corkalo (2010), using relationship analysis in human community, could only identify inter-personal and inter-group conflict in the society. These two categories were expanded into six by Ajayi and Adegbite (2011) as inter-personal, intra-personal, inter-group, intra-group, inter-organisational and intra-organisational conflicts which, according to them, could develop in stages (from latent stage to perceived stage, from perceived stage to felt stage, from felt stage to manifest stage, and from manifest stage to aftermath stage). On its part, Wikipedia classified conflict into ‘man’ against ‘man’, ‘man’ against “society”, ‘man’ against nature and ‘man’ against self. While Johnson and Johnson (1995) recognized three types of conflict as conceptual conflicts, conflicts of interest and developmental conflicts; the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN, 2006) expanded it to include relationship conflicts, data conflicts, structural conflicts, values conflicts, pseudo conflicts and ego conflicts.
A person is said to be experiencing conceptual conflict if his or her original position is incongruent with the new ideas. Developmental conflict however exists when there are incompatible activities between an adult and a child based on “opposing forces of stability” and “change within the child circles” (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). The relationship conflict most 47
times arises from conflict of interest and could be on sharing of physical or economic resources. This could eventually translate to conflicts in ethics and values (Wang, 2010; Oregon Mediation Centre, 2012).
From the Nigerian perspective, Adedoja and Fakokunde (2010: 215) identified the various types of conflict common in the country as inter-personal, communal, inter-ethnic, religious, organizational and environmental resource-based. According to them, these types of conflicts are usually products of “injustice, resource control struggle, wrong role performance, differences in values, clash of interest, differences in ideology, jurisdiction ambiguity, status struggle and communication barrier”. Ibeanu (2006) also noted conflicts that usually arise as a result of struggle for political participation or over political space as very common in Nigeria. Cases of such conflicts were the Ife/Modakeke crises (1849-2000) which almost became a decade recurring decimal for Modakekes’ political recognition and participation in Osun State, Nigeria (Agbe, 2001). The inter-communal clashes between Aguleri/Umuleri of South-Eastern Nigeria from 1895 to 1999 could be attributed to identification crises and persistent attachment to territory (Nwanegbo, 2009). The yearly Hausa/Fulani conflicts in Plateau State of Nigeria had always been for the control of local government administration tussle between the Hausa indigenes and the Fulani settlers (Adisa, 2012), The Tiv/Fulani clashes which dated back to several decades in the past had been for land ownership in Benue State, Nigeria (Ejembi, 2011; British Broadcasting Corporation, 2013).
Major resource control agitations and conflicts in Nigeria were that of the Niger-Delta militancy over crude-oil exploration leading to the hanging of Ken Saro-wiwa and eight other Ogoni
48
activists in 1995, the Ijaw unrest between 1998 and 1999, the escalated kidnapping and crude-oil pipeline vandalisation between 2004-2008 (Human Rights Watch, 2002 & 2005; Newsom, 2011). However, Adeniji (2008); Akpuru-Aja (2009) and Integrated Regional Information Network (2013) catalogued several conflicts that arose from religious fanaticism as that of Kafanchan riot in 1996, sagamu oro-cult crisis in 1999, Kaduna religious riot in 2002, Kano religious riot in 2004 and Boko Haram insurgency till date.
Recent discoveries have however, shown that conflicts still have some positive dimensions. Indeed, the value of conflict can be appreciated from the advice of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that people should have “deep faith in the power of conflict, harnessed through political discourse, in moving society toward optimal decisions about the course of action to adopt” (Johnson & Johnson, 2000: 18). This is to state that conflicts, as dreadful as they are, have considerable value when they are managed constructively (Johnson & Johnson, 1994, 1995a). This is where conflict transformation comes in. According to Jeong (2000), conflict, when actually transformed, engenders the coming into being of new situations, perceptions, relationships and communication patterns. This in the views of Lederach (1995) involves a longterm process for peace-building. The key element being “changes in the personal, structural, relational and cultural aspects of life, brought about over different time-periods and affecting different system levels at different times” (Miall, 2001:3). This is why conflict transformation that always arises overtime in conflictual situation can be regarded as the essential platform for peace-building and development.
49
In the views of Janis (1982), conflict helps to promote ‘groupthink’ which arises from a strong desire to preserve the harmonious atmosphere of the group, on which each member has become dependent for coping with the stresses of external crises and for maintaining self-esteem (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Indeed, intellectual conflict had been discovered to lead to “epistomic curiosity” (Hammond, 1965) which in turn leads to “reconceptualized and refined conclusions” (Doise & Mugny, 1979). It could also promote advocacy skill (Baron, 1995; Voss & Means, 1991); creative and complex reasoning in perspective-taking (Tjosvold, 1998). Ajayi and Adegbite (2011: 127) equally observed the values of conflict in human organization as promotion of “improved ideas, tendency to search for new approaches, appearance and resolution of long-standing problems, clarification of individual views, increased interest and creativity. This is perhaps why Ajayi (2012) submitted that if conflict is properly managed, it could be an excellent way of diffusing tension and anger, as well as a useful tool in achieving the desired objectives. Other values of conflict, according to Johnson and Johnson (2007, 2009), include increased motivation and energy to take action, joint identity, higher quality reasons, increased incentive to change and belief in the importance of egalitarianism.
Conflict resolution is a major part of Peace Education (Oyitso & Olomukoro, 2007). Several scholars have proposed different conflict resolution skills and styles from multidisciplinary perspective. From a relational point of view, Scott (2005) viewed four basic processes of conflict resolution as including avoidance, accommodation, competition and solution. However, a fivecommon styles, as prescribed by Thomas and Kilmann (1970) and adopted by NOUN (2006) which vary in their degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness are so highlighted below:
50
I.
Competitiveness: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand and usually operate from a position of power using rank, expertise and persuasive ability. This approach was regarded as the dominance approach by Ojiji (2006). This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a decision needs to be made fast. However, it can leave people feeling bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations. This is ‘I win, you lose approach’.
II.
Collaboration: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. In the views of Best (2006), this approach is one of the best methods of maintaining friendly relations, and is least costly for peace building. It helps to build trust, confidence and mutual respect and does not involve a third party. This is ‘I win, you win approach’ through joint problem-solving strategies.
III.
Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something and the compromiser himself or herself also expects to relinquish something. It has been discovered that compromising is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strong opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming. This is we both win and loses approach.
IV.
Accommodating: This style involves a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person’s own needs. This approach is appropriate when the
51
issues matter more to the other party, when peace is more valued than winning or when you want a favour in return. This is ‘I lose, you win approach’. V.
Avoidance: This means evading the conflict entirely. This style is a weak and an ineffective approach since it may not resolve the conflict but allows independent relationship. It is typical of delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions and not wanting to hurt anyone. This is ‘I lose, you lose approach’. However, as positioned by Ojiji (2006), conflict avoidance could sometimes provide a temporary reprieve from a potentially dangerous situation as it does not pay to confront a situation or attempt to negotiate when the conditions are unsafe.
Aside the five major conflict resolution skills and styles identified earlier, other processes involved in conflict resolution as identified by Best (2006) are negotiation, conciliation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication.
Negotiation: Best (2006) defined negotiation as “a structured process of dialogue between conflicting parties about issues in which their opinions differ” (p.105). Equally, Miller (2003) posited that negotiation from the perspective of the United Nations University for Peace is a communication that is usually governed by preestablished procedures, between representatives of parties involved in a conflict or disputes. Thus, negotiation is seen as a direct process of dialogue and discussion between at least two parties who are faced with a conflict situation or a dispute. The goal of negotiation is to reach agreement through joint decision making among aggrieved parties. Best (2006) and Onuoha (2009) identified the two major types of negotiation as positional and collaborative negotiations and recognizes the fact that communication and competition are critical to negotiation. While positional 52
negotiation easily breaks down quite often, collaborative negotiation which recognized equality of the two parties through mutual understanding and respect is highly recommended. This is why Gould (2013) canvassed for engaged thinking which will help the individual to “think across difference” in order to “reduce positionality by being more fluid and negotiable”. According to him, with the skills of engaged thinking, the goals of peace education can be met through a “fluid process of reframing our differences”, while recreating the processes of our interactions leading to transformation of identities and relationships for enduring peace.
Conciliation: Conciliation requires facilitation and involves a third party intermediary effort at persuading conflicting parties to work towards a peaceful resolution. The conciliator communicates separately with the two parties and provides necessary assistance as a third party. His or her aim is to reduce tension between the conflicting parties preparatory for possible mediation.
Mediation: This is a voluntary, informal and non-binding process undertaken by an external party that fosters the settlement of differences or demands between directly interested parties (Best, 2006). Godongs (2006) identified six stages of mediation process to include initiation, preparation, introduction, problem statement, problem clarification, generation and evaluation of alternatives, selection of alternatives and agreement. Mediation is a common skill always used in settling interpersonal disputes in our daily living. The mediator helps conflicting parties to identify and arrive at common grounds with a view to overcoming their fears and satisfying their real needs. In mediation, there is need for objectivity, neutrality, trust, persuasiveness, balance,
53
supportive and non-judgemental approach towards win-win settlement (Horowitz, 2007).
Arbitration: This is another third party intervention that is a step higher than both the conciliation and mediation. Arbitration involves hearing the evidence from both parties, and thereafter presenting a decision, usually called an award, which is expected to be binding on both parties. It is higher than mediation because the award is binding but not enforceable as may be under adjudication.
Adjudication: This is the highest level of non-violent processes involved in conflict resolution. It involves the use of the courts and litigation processes. Parties to a dispute may choose not to use any of the earlier four methods or processes but may choose to engage the use of settlement in the court of law. In this case, legal counsels may represent them in the court and when judgment is given, it is enforceable by law enforcement agencies of the state. Peace obtained using adjudication process is always relative as litigation tends to destroy trust, love, friendship, respect and sometimes loss of properties and it is very expensive. Indeed, litigation always ends in a ‘win-lose’ outcome as in the case of the International Court of Justice ruling on Bakassi Peninsula that was in favour of Cameroon.
Shame-trips versus guilt-trips: In laying foundation for behaviouralization of conflict resolution tactics, Johnston and LeBaron (2007) identified ‘shame-trips’ and ‘guilt-trips’ as very fundamental to conflict resolution. According to them, shame-trips aim to demean the global identity of a person, whereas the guilt-trips aim to demean the thing the person has done. Therefore, guilt is to evaluate certain behaviour while shame is to demean an individual. Typical examples given by them are:
54
Guilt-trip: “You did a bad thing” Shame-trip: “You are a bad person” They remarked further that sometimes parties in a conflict do combine guilt-trips and shametrips like “because you didn’t take out the garbage, you are a bad person”. They also found out from their pilot study that some people can be shame-prone while others are guilt-prone. According to them, Shame-proneness was consistently correlated with anger arousal, suspiciousness, resentment, irritability, a tendency to blame others for negative events, and indirect (but not direct) expressions of hostility. Proneness to ‘Shame-Free’ guilt was inversely related to externalization of blame and some indices of anger, hostility and resentment (Johnson & LeBaron, 2007: 5).
It was also noted that shame-prone individuals are not only more prone to anger in general, they are also more likely to do unconstructive things with their anger when compared with their less shame-prone peers. Indeed, the feeling of shame is an acutely painful experience because the entire self is being scrutinized and negatively evaluated. Drawing distinctions between shame and guilt, Johnston and LeBaron (2007: 6) remarked that “the implicit distinction between self and behaviour, inherent in guilt, serves to protect the self from unwarranted global devaluation”.
In actual fact, while the guilt-trips can help to build relationships, the shame experience is far more painful and devastating. Illustrating the situation further, Johnston and LeBaron (2007: 7) submitted that “shaming tends to leave the victim not wanting to approach the person who did the shaming because it involved the direct attack to his or her personhood”.
55
This is to state that when people are shame-tripped, they do not attempt to go back to the person who shamed them and redress the problem. Thus, while shame motivates behaviours that are likely to severe interpersonal contact, guilt motivates desire to repair, to confess, apologize, or make amends. Consequently, shame-tripped individuals may be motivated to anger in selfdefence and this can escalate conflict, whereas guilt–tripped individuals are mobilized to accept responsibilities to repair damages done. It is therefore advised that third parties in conflict resolution should understand these emotional dynamics that serve as the differences between shame-trips and guilt-trips. This is why Nwachukwu (2009) advised that the main actors in conflict resolution should always put respect for human dignity and ethnic harmony into consideration in resolving disputes.
2.1.6 Relationship between Peace Education and Social Studies Education The incorporation of Peace Education in Social Studies curriculum is to build culture of tolerance, understanding and care in the world. As human beings continue to have interactions among themselves, so also they continue to generate conflicts among themselves. Hence, Peace Education becomes a mitigating programme for building a culture of peace in the society. This is to state that since Peace Education can be seen as learning to effect a shift in perspective from culture of intolerance and violence to a culture of peace (Mezirow, 2000; Ukpokodu, 2007; United Nations, 1998) and social studies education focuses attention on harmonious relationship in the society, then the inculcation of peace education becomes desirable in social studies programme.
56
Indeed, the school social studies world over, has been seen as a more relevant liberal education which furnishes a greater understanding of humankind (Ezeoba, 2012). By its nature, it is useful for national integration, socio-economic development, as well as provision of the right attitudes and values which are needed for peace education (Edozie & Ezeoba, 2010). Kissock (1980) defined social studies as a programme of study which a society uses to instill in students the knowledge and skills, attitudes, values and actions it considers important concerning the relationship human beings have with each other, their world and themselves. Thus, the type of values, skills and attitudes that Peace Education is expected to inculcate through Social Studies are ‘redressing the culture of violence and aggression’, ‘human dignity and human rights’ in a given nation (Wahistron, 1991). Others include ‘mediation process’, ‘awareness of cultural heritage’, ‘recognition of prejudice’, ‘ability to cooperate’, ‘critical thinking’, ‘problem-solving’, ‘constructive conflict resolution’, ‘conflict prevention’, ‘ability to live with change’, ‘selfrespect’, ‘positive self-image’, ‘tolerance’, ‘accepting others’, ‘respect for differences’, ‘gender equity’, ‘empathy’, ‘reconciliation’, ‘solidarity’, ‘social responsibility’, ‘sense of justice and equality’ (UNICEF, 1999).
The idea of integrating peace education into social studies curriculum has been well recognized by educators and communities alike as a means of effecting changes in violent attitudes for environmental sustainability (Bajaj & Chiu, 2009). According to Harris and Mische (2004:.21), “peace will require environmental sustainability and environmental sustainability will require peace” because in the view of UNICEF (1999), peace is essential for children survival, development, protection and participation in society. This therefore suggests that the required environmental sustainability as inculcated in social studies education is provided from concepts
57
and themes in peace education. It equally suggests that peace education in social studies, as a corrective measure of reconstruction and rehabilitation, is required for sustainability of a peaceful nation (Enu, 2005).
Peace Education has been recognized for promoting civic responsibilities and democratic culture in social studies education. According to Kester (2009), peace education is a democratic pedagogy to foster peaceful personal relationship in a non-violent manner. It raises dialogue on critical issues to transform oppressive systems from a violent orientation toward a culture of peace. This is because peace educators teach the values of respect, understanding, tolerance, social justice, free and fair elections as well as non-violent governmental transitions. Equally, peace education deals with ‘constructive responses to human tension and violence’, and helps students to appreciate the importance of good government, respect for the rule of law and solidarity among other people (Mustapha, 2004). To this end, peace education is a peacebuilding programme for democratic education in social studies.
Ezugwu (2009), Izom (2010) and Ezeoba (2012) agreed that the search for peaceful coexistence in Nigeria that has been plagued by series of problems such as ethno-religious crises, unethical conduct and unpatriotic acts of varied dimensions can mostly be solved through systematic exploration of peace education in social studies curriculum. This is because peace education is to “address the prevention and resolution of all forms of conflict and violence, whether overt or structural, from the inter-personal level, to the societal and global level” (UNICEF, 1999: 3).
58
Consequently, it was to achieve non-violent culture and improve the relevance of social studies in Nigeria that made NERDC (2007) to integrate peace education concepts and themes into the new social studies curriculum for the Junior Secondary Schools. However, these concepts and themes appear inadequate as observed by Wisdom and Imo (2010), Izom (2010), and Aghulor and Iwegbu (2010). This is because education for peace cannot be separated from education for desirable behaviour which social studies education propagates. The change to desirable behaviour according to UNICEF (1999), is expected to progress through a sequence of stages that will make an individual to become aware of issues that can lead to conflictual situations, get concerned about them, get motivated on new attitudes and values, intend to act, try-out new desirable behaviours, evaluate the trial and practice the recommended non-conflictual behaviours. This UNICEF framework for change to non-conflictual (desirable) behaviours can be likened to the Flower-Petal (Kester, 2009) model of peace education which focuses on intercultural solidarity, disarmament education, subversion of ethnocentrism and de-segregation to foster peace and global environmental stewardship in social studies education. Consequently, if social studies education is to promote corrective behaviour in a society, then peace education is to help sustain such behaviour through culture of peace.
2.1.7 Perspectives on Cooperative Learning Cooperative learning is a generic term for various small group interactive instructional procedures (Walker, 1998). It is a case of two heads learn better than one (Johnson & Johnson, 1983). It suggests that students in cooperative learning environment interact in purposely structured heterogeneous groups of supporting the learning of oneself and others in the same group (Wikipedia). According to the Educational Broadcasting Corporation (2004), cooperative groups work face-to-face, learn to work as a team, share strengths and also develop their weaker 59
interpersonal skills. In strengthening interpersonal skills, cooperative learning, according to South West Educational Development Laboratory (1994: 2), “allows individual to contribute his/her ideas, listen to others’ ideas, give everyone a chance to speak, ask all teammates for help before asking the teacher and use consensus to settle disputes”. Among the various cooperative learning models that have been developed, Johnson, Johnson and Stanne (2000) identified the summary in Table 2.1 as the most popular trends among researchers.
60
Table: 2.1 S/N 1.
Models of Cooperative Learning Among Researchers
Researcher /Developer Johnson/Johnson
2.
DeVries Edwards
3.
Sharan & Sharan
4.
Date
Method
Process
Mid 1970s
Learning Together
Involves social interdependence in learning amongst students of 5-6 group members. Students take part in a tournament of skilltesting games, compete as a representative of a group at a similar level and win points for their group. Students work in small group of not more than six members using cooperative inquiry, group discussion, cooperative planning and project executions. Involves advocating and refuting of positions on issues for new perspectives among 5-6 members. As an expert group, students work in four to six members using story cards and quiz. Scores made by each member of the group are summed-up for the group. STAD involves group contingencies achievement through rewards and punishment Emphasizes discovery-orientation which focuses on building respect for students’ abilities and skills. Students work in four or five member teams on self-instructional materials at their own levels and rates and help one another on their problems. Involves heterogeneous group of students working together with varying abilities from mentally impaired to the gifted but for a common purpose. Students in pairs partners in reading activities, grammar, story retell, writing responses and spelling practice.
& Early 1970s
Teams-Games – Tournaments
Mid 1970s
Group Investigation
Johnson Johnson
& Mid 1970s
Constructive controversy
5.
Slavin Associates
& Late 1970s
Jigsaw
6.
Slavin Associates
& Late 1970s
7.
Choen
Early 1980s
Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) Complex Instruction
8.
Slavin Associates
& Early 1980s
Teams Assisted Instruction (TAI)
9.
Kagan
10.
Stevens, Slavin Late 1980s & Associates
11.
Kagan
Late 1980s
12.
Kagan
Late 1980s
Mid 1980s
Cooperative Learning Structures Cooperative Integrated Reading& Composition (CIRC) Inside-outside circle
Three-step Interview (Adapted from Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 2000) 61
Involves students standing in pairs in two concentric circles for reviewing and mastering information. Involves students interviewing themselves in pairs for information
Indeed, it has been argued that learners in cooperative opportunities are provided with avenues to be curious, self-expressive and more involved with one another in the classroom to build a culture of mutual caring, dialogical research, emotional and humorous connections as well as exceptional interpersonal skills (Sewell, 2006).Hence, cooperative learning is working together on learning tasks to accomplish shared goals to the benefit of all in the group.
In cooperative learning situations, there is a positive interdependence among students’ goal attainments; students perceive that they can reach their learning goals if and only if the other students in the learning group also reach their goals (Deutsch, 1962; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). As Damon (1984: 337) pointed out, when children explore new possibilities jointly, their thinking is not constrained by an expert who “knows better, but rather is limited only by the boundaries of their mutual imaginations”.
The underlying principles of cooperative learning are the philosophies of “collective sinking or swimming together”, “collective celebration of each other’s successes” and “interdependent working relationships” (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Therefore, the essential components of cooperation are positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual and group accountability, interpersonal and small group skills, and group processing (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1993). As reported by Kagan (1994) and Balkcom (1992), one of the earliest and strongest findings on cooperative learning is that students who cooperate with each other, like each other and have improved relations among themselves and different ethnic groups that cooperated with them. Slavin (1995), Alebiosu (1998), Veenman, Kenter and Post (2000) and Ifamuyiwa (2006) however, cautioned that if cooperative learning must be instructionally effective, it must avoid a ‘free rider effect’ or ‘social loafing’ by which some group members do 62
most or all of the task (learning activities) while others simply watch. The free-rider effect or social loafing, according to Ifamuyiwa (2006), could be responsible for a unique part of the group’s task with each student accounting individually for his or her learning. On the other hand, there could be a ‘perfectionist’ or ‘hitchhiker’ who will hijack the whole group work (Science Education Resource Centre, 2010). Hence, it is suggested that only effective monitoring and task assignments to all can minimize social loafing and hitchhiking in cooperative learning.
With cooperation comes conflict and how conflict is managed largely determines how successful cooperative efforts are (Johnson& Johnson, 2000). Hence, inculcating peace-making in learners requires a lot of cooperative efforts. Indeed, schools need to become positive conflict places where destructive conflicts are prevented and constructive conflicts are structured, encouraged, and utilized to improve the quality of instruction and classroom life. To do this successfully requires three parts, namely: i)
Establishing a cooperative context as in the works of Johnson and Johnson (1994); and Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1998).
ii)
Using constructive controversies to teach students how to manage intellectual conflicts and to increase achievement and motivation to learn (Johnson & Johnson, 1979, 1995b).
iii) Establishing a Peacemaker Programme where students learn how to negotiate constructive resolutions to their conflicts and mediate the conflicts of their schoolmates (Johnson & Johnson, 1995a). The Peace-making Programme as recommended by Johnson and Johnson (1995a) involves the following steps.
63
First, let the students learn what is and what is not a conflict and that conflicts potentially have many positive outcomes when they are managed constructively.
Second, teach students how to negotiate and solve conflicts. Let them know that negotiation occurs when persons who have shared and opposed interests and want to come to an agreement try to work out a settlement. A person may negotiate to win or to mutually solve the problem. The steps in a conflict resolution negotiation are for both disputants to state wants, describe feelings, give reasons for wants and feelings, reverse perspectives and together invent three possible solutions to maximize joint outcomes as well as reach agreement and shake hands on one of the solutions.
Third, teach students to mediate classmates’ conflicts: students must be taught how to mediate conflicts when schoolmates are unable to negotiate a constructive resolution by themselves. The roles of the mediator (a third party) are to end hostilities between disputants, ensure commitment to the mediation process, facilitate problem-solving negotiations between them, and formalizes the agreement that they reach by completing a Mediation Report Form (MRP).
Fourth, implement the Peer Mediation Programme by ensuring that everyday pairs of students are chosen to serve as class or school mediators in a rotational manner given equal amount of time.
Fifth, refine and upgrade students’ negotiation and mediation procedures and skills weekly, termly and yearly to ensure that over-learning takes place so that conflict resolution habits become part and parcel of the students’ life.
Sixth, be sure to arbitrate students’ conflicts when negotiation, mediation and agreement amongst them have failed. This is done by the class teacher or school
64
principal who ensures that final judgements are binding on all the disputants (Johnson & Johnson 1995a). It is expected that these 6-point Peacemaking Programme Agenda should be adopted by all teachers in the school systems in the country if the culture of peace is to be fully entrenched in Nigerians’ national life. The factor of social interdependence in social learning is the greatest foundational framework upon which cooperative learning is built (Johnson & Johnson, 2009d). According to Johnson and Johnson (1989), social interdependence exists when the outcomes of individuals are affected by their own and others’ actions. Building on Gestalt Psychological theory, Lewin (1948) submitted that the essence of group interaction (being a dynamic whole) is for a change in the state of a member to affect the state of other members. It is along this submission that Deutsch (1962) conceptualized two types of social interdependence thus: positive and negative interdependence.
Positive interdependence exists where achievement of group goals are only attainable when individual members in a group cooperatively worked together through promotive interaction (Deutsch, 1962; Johnson & Johnson, 2009d). On the other hand, negative interdependence occurs when the individual member of a group works towards the attainment of the group goals is in oppositional or congruent direction. Consequently, social interdependence can be structured into three categories of outcomes, means and boundary (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2009d). While outcomes interdependence includes goals and rewards, means interdependence involves resources, role and task. Boundaries interdependence includes differences of the group members, similarities, past history, expectations and group differentiation from other groups.
Slavin and Tanner (1979), Scott and Cherrington (1974) and Hagman and Hayes (1986) agreed that structuring positive outcome interdependence into a task tends to result in increased
65
achievement and productivity while Johnson and Johnson (1986) discovered that knowing that one’s performance affects the success of group mates seems to create responsibility forces that increase one’s effort to achieve. This is to say that positive interdependence requires that one ought to do one’s part, pull one’s weight, contribute, and satisfy peer norms (Deutsch, 1962); giving room for individual accountability and personal responsibility to promote group achievement.
Positive social interdependence is a means of promoting solidarity in peace
education processes and this can be achieved through: i.
acting in trusting and trustworthy ways;
ii.
exchanging needed resources such as information and materials;
iii.
providing efficient and effective help and assistance to group mates;
iv.
being motivated to strive for mutual benefit;
v.
advocating and exerting effort to achieve mutual goals;
vi.
having a moderate level of arousal, characterized by low anxiety and stress;
vii.
influencing each other’s efforts to achieve the group’s goals;
viii.
providing group mates with feedback in order to improve their subsequent performance of assigned tasks and responsibilities;
ix.
challenging each other’s reasoning and conclusions in order to promote higher quality decision making and greater creativity; and
x.
taking the perspectives of others more accurately and thus being better able to explore different points of view (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
Social interdependence in cooperative learning therefore promotes individual accountability and personal responsibility for completing one’s share of the group work and facilitates the work of other group members. It also prevents social loafing as students work in small groups with
66
assigned responsibilities to promote greater learning outcomes. The group processing in social interdependent interactions helps group members to reflect on which member actions are helpful and unhelpful in order to make appropriate decision about which actions to continue or change for compensation effect (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Positive social interdependence has also been found to promote appropriate use of social skills that makes group members to trust each other, communicate accurately and unambiguously, accept and support each other and resolve conflicts constructively (Putnan, Pujnders, Johnson & Johnson, 1989).
2.1.8
Perspectives on Conventional Method (CM) of Teaching
The conventional method as used in Nigeria is full of direct instruction. According to Swanson and Torraco (1995), this method was formally established centuries ago as a teaching process that began with a literal reading of important passages from the text by the master, followed by the master’s interpretation of the text. As a content-knowledge giver (Frazee & Ayers, 2003), Vella (1992) equally observed this method as the formal presentation of content by the educator (subject matter expert) for subsequent learning and recall in examinations. This means that CM is simply an oral presentation of instructional materials (Ruyle, 1995).
CM is seen as a necessity in the classroom if only to convey instructions. It has been asserted that many instructors lean toward this method because they enjoy it, and it allows them to retain control of the course in the class (Bauers, 2010). This method is also praised for helping students’ to develop note – taking skills (Bauers & Magar, 2010). Chism, Macce and Mounford (1990) further asserted that CM can provide students with role models to emulate, useful for teaching large audience, relatively inexpensive to use, useful in conveying large amounts of 67
factual materials within shortest possible time and can be stimulating to communicate the intrinsic interest of the subject matter.
However, this method as one of the oldest and culture-bound teaching methods in explaining and clarifying concepts, ideas, theories, principles and laws;
is criticized for lack of students’
interaction in the context of learning (Manson, 1992). According to Sullivan and McIntosh (1996), this “teaches as I was taught” approach is a passive, one-way means of transferring knowledge as against participatory and experimental approaches of cooperative learning engagement. Other criticisms of CM are the fact that it sets the teacher up as the sole authority on learning, lacks consideration for the kinesthetically-inclined students. The blind bats and the learning impaired are also put at disadvantage and students hardly remember more than 10 per cent of what they have heard (Suttor & Magar, 2010). Research findings, as cited by Hardwick (2009), suggested that most people forget 50 per cent of what is said in the first 2 minutes, 25 per cent after 8 minutes and can retain only 10-25 per cent of what is heard after a 30 day period. Chism, et al. (1990) equally observed that CM places the burden of organizing and synthesizing content solely on the teachers as well as the fact that it is not suited to complex-abstract materials. They further submitted that this method fails to show students that knowledge is constantly changing with no room for application of knowledge either individually or cooperatively.
Indeed, what goes on in the Nigerian classroom as the conventional method is the “banking model” of lesson presentation (Ogunyemi, 2006b), which involves too much verbalization and textbook reading (Jimoh, 2009; Okobia, 2012), with the teacher assuming the status of ‘know-it-
68
all’ that gives “little or no room for students’ participation” in the lesson (Adetoro, 2012). While describing the use of conventional method in social studies classroom in Nigeria, Adekunle (1991) and Adeyemi (2008) observed that the method is the most commonly used with students quietly sitting and listening to the “talk-about“ the subject matter. According to them, the students are expected to “take-notes” with the teacher sometimes “writing notes on the chalkboard” with a “summary and few recapitulating questions”. In this situation, the teacher is the “expositor and drill master” in the classroom, with the students serving as the “storehouse” of knowledge (Bruner, 1969; Berliner, 1975). However, as argued by Gleitman (2000), even when the lectures are finely presented and well organised and the lecturer magnificently charismatic, many educators will continue to argue that the method is still a poor second best because lecturing tends to keep students passive. Tarawald, Bull and Seeler (2009) submitted that the acceptance of lecturing by some tutors as asserted by Creed (1986) was because it is being felt as ‘a tradition’, ‘part of training’ and ‘being guilty’ when not doing it. This position is supported by Hardwick (2009) who quoted Eric Hoffer’s declaration that ‘if I always do what I have always done, I will always get what I have always gotten’ (p.1).
This meant that social studies
educators that were used to teacher-centred approaches (including conventional method) were generally reluctant in using ‘esoteric forms’ of instruction like cooperative learning that are student-centred because of strong belief in tradition (Schug, 2003). This is equally because the benefits of the student-centred approaches appeared to them to be highly uncertain and distant, unlike the teacher-centred approaches which helped them to focus on what content to teach, the sequence of ideas, the examples used, the demonstrations performed, the questions asked, the students’ responses and the details of instruction (Schug, 2003).
69
Scheurman (1998) submitted that, “it is difficult to imagine any learning encounter without a certain transmission of knowledge on the part of the teacher” (p.8). He went further to state that even the most collaborative method of teaching requires instructions and prerequisite information from the teacher. Thus, conventional method of instruction is required for ‘cognitive coaching’, ‘knowledge transmission’, ‘social scaffolding’, ‘authoritative learning’, ‘substantive knowledge given’ etc. (Schug, 2003) and is a means of averting 50 per cent reduction in teaching (Science Education Resource Centre, 2010). Indeed, in strong support of this method, Frazee and Ayers (2003) submitted that direct instruction is the backbone of good teaching.
On the contrary however, Martorella (2001) dismissed the use of teacher-centred instruction when he submitted that it is only useful for low-level cognitive objectives and probably not worth-employing in social studies classroom. According to him, it is devoid of ‘reflective’ and ‘affective’ reasoning. Even though student-centred approaches like cooperative learning had been found to require additional time to prepare for lessons and class instructions (Schug, 2003), yet Frazee and Ayers (2003) remarked that the teacher who lectured in public schools in the United States of America were merely doing ‘cognitive coaching’. Consequently, support for student-centred methods of teaching continues unabated. The question is no longer whether direct instruction (CM inclusive) is relevant but how successfully can it be used to make learning stimulating, participatory and rewarding with particular reference to the subject matter of peace education and conflict resolution. To achieve a successful CM, Hardwick (2009) developed an elocution strategy that involves the following:
70
Structuring Presentation: - Here, a teacher is expected to provide road maps for his lesson to provide for ‘attention grabber’. The presentation should involve an opening summary (Silberman, 1990) and be well-organized.
The lesson should include repetition and restatement of critical information and the significant overriding goal. Key terms are expected to act as verbal sub-heading or memory aids.
The lesson should involve interactive session through engaging discussions, reflective thinking, and exchange of ideas, trigger questions, stimulus responses and real life illustrations (examples and case studies).
The teacher should make use of the ‘Make Me Feel Important’ (MMFI) rule to find unique ways to connect with the audience by creating psychological safe climate, making closeness and openness by using peoples’ names, nodding your head and using natural gestures.
Use descriptive analogies to help the audience remember your message and visualize a complex technical issue. Hence, there must be the use of visual backups in direct instruction (Silberman, 1990). Hardwick (2009) observed that while analogy is one of the most powerful communication techniques during lesson, it is least used because most teachers lack appropriate imagination and creativity to do so.
In a technical lesson, presenters are advised to use statistical and factual evidences.
Teachers are also advised to use brief relevant stories to illustrate their view points; they should avoid complex vocabularies and should provide glossaries for professional terminologies when used.
71
From the point of view of Ausubel (1977), an advocate of “meaningful verbal learning”, the weakness of direct instruction (including CM) is “not due to the method, but due to the abuse of the method” as it is not usually combined with “other innovative methods”(Abimbola, 2009), and low-use of “teaching aids” in Nigeria (Afolabi & Adesope, 2010; Obayan, 2010). What is therefore required to make the CM effective in Nigeria is a paradigm shift to “transformational teaching” which would require the teacher to change from being “a conductor of learning to a joint organizer of learning, …a solo presenter of information to a team-player in discussion, …a dictator of learning to an encourager of learning,… a purveyor of knowledge to a co-seeker of awareness and insight,… a talker to a listener and facilitator of learning” (Afolabi, 2012: 7).
2.2
Empirical Review
2.2.1
Studies on Social Studies Teaching
Studies on the teaching of Social Studies in schools have reported mixed results. For example, Leming, Ellington, Schug and Dieterle (2009), in a survey of how teachers taught social studies in the United States of America, found that 67.8 per cent of the teachers with 1 to 9 years of teaching experience, 59 per cent of those with 10 to 19 years teaching experience and 55.7 per cent of those having 20years and above teaching experience favoured student-centred approaches (including cooperative learning strategies) respectively. According to them, while 61% of the teachers in general viewed their own teaching style as student-centred, only 47% of them indicated that they used whole-class teacher presentation and discussion in their most recent classroom teaching. Contrary to the tolerant principle of Peace Education, the researchers reported that 52% of the teachers disagreed with the idea of being careful to present information that might offend students of any other cultural background because only 33% of the teachers
72
believed that the emphasis placed on civic education in social studies curriculum should be for promoting the acceptance of cultural diversity. Furthermore, only 12% of the teachers believed in building cultural understanding while majority (62%) of them saw forming critically-minded and reflective citizens as necessary emphasis in social studies teaching. This is why social studies teaching in the United States of America are more civic-engagement driven rather than Peace Education focussed. Using descriptive analyses on how Lecture and Jigsaw methods affect students’ social studies achievement in Delta Middle Schools in the country, Daugherty (2008) discovered that although the post-test mean scores of the pupils increased with the two methods but that of the Jigsaw increased higher than that of the lecture method. For examples, while the Jigsaw post-test mean score of the pupils increased by 23% (62-39), that of the Lecture method increased by 10% (72-62) in the first school. In the second school, while the Jigsaw post-test mean score of the pupils increased by 16% (70-54), that of the Lecture method group increased by 21% (50-29).
In Nigeria, social studies teaching by its objectives and contents are more citizenship education driven. This is why Okunloye (2000) while analysing the conflicting conceptions of social studies curriculum goals among some teachers in Nigerian secondary schools found that the conception of graduate and non-graduate teachers on the purpose of the subject as Citizenship Education (t = 2.10, p = 2.00), was significant but as Reflective Inquiry (t = 0.47, p = 2.00) and Social Science Structure were not significant at 0.05 alpha level. The results also showed that teaching experience did not reflect significant differences in the conceptions of the teachers (CE = -.33, p = 2.00; RI = -1.15, p = 2.00; SSS = -.25, p = 2.00).
73
Studies on social studies teaching have also been progressive. In a study of team-teaching in social studies, Iyewarun (1984) discovered that out of the ninety teacher-trainees in Kwara state, Nigeria; 18.60% of them were not familiar with team-teaching arrangement which 80% of them believed might encourage cooperative efforts among teachers. Ofordile (1995) found that binary teaching strategy in social studies had significant (P< 0.05) effect on pupils’ achievement and interest in social studies while conventional method did not. Ofordile further found that as school location (rural/urban) exerted significant influence on pupils’ achievement, gender did not on the pupils’ interest in the selected social studies units in Enugu state. Jekayinfa (2001) however found that 52.90% of the total 446 sampled teachers in seven states of Nigeria were not aware of the introduction of social studies in the Senior Secondary School curriculum because of what Ogunyemi (2010:8) called “contemporary revisionism and reductionism driven more by curriculum politics” which made the curriculum at that level unimplemented in Nigeria up till today. The study also showed that only globes (69.5%), maps (72.4%), charts (63.0%) and Audio aids (72.7%) were the instructional materials available for the teaching of social studies in the seven states. The Audio-visual aids such as projectors, video, computers etc. accounted for only 20.9% of the available social studies instructional materials in the states. Today, the story might have not changed significantly because of dwindling budgetary allocation to educational sectors in Nigeria.
With steady progress in pedagogical training however, Jekayinfa (2006), found that majority of social studies teachers (56.6%) in Kwara state, Nigeria had positive perception on the introduction of the subject into the senior secondary school curriculum with no significant 74
difference between the teachers’ perceptions based on gender (χ2 = 0.214, p > 3.84) and qualifications (χ 2 = 0.373, p > 3.84); but significant based on their specialization (χ2 = 22.37, p < 3.84) and teaching experience (χ2 = 45.72, p < 3.48) at 0.05 alpha level. But in a study of the use of educational technology in teaching social studies, Iyamu and Ogiegbaen (2006) discovered that out of 200 sampled teachers in Western Nigeria, 92% (184) of them never used educational technology before, 7%(14) used it less than once per month and the remaining 1%(2) used it at least once per month. The majority that never used educational technology before hinged it on lack of computers in the classroom (X = 3.06), lack of computer laboratory (X = 2.98) and lack of regular electricity (X = 2.76).
In another study, Iyamu and Otote (2006) discovered that the overall inquiry teaching competencies of social studies teachers in the South-Central Nigeria’s Junior Secondary schools was significantly less than the acceptable level of 2.5 and there was a significant difference in the level of such competencies between Trained Graduate Teachers and Trained Non-graduate Teachers. Okobia (2011) in a study of social studies teachers’ perception of the Junior Secondary School Social Studies curriculum in Edo state found that out of 173 teachers that participated in the study, only 121 (69.9%) of them scored 50% and above (Z = 5.25 > 1.96 at 0.05 alpha level) and there was no significant difference in the perceptions of the Nigeria Certificate in Education (NCE) and Graduate teachers’ perceptions on the content and theme of the curriculum (t = 0.168, p = 0.867 at 0.05 alpha level). Ezeoba (2012), equally found that there were no significant differences in the perceptions of Curriculum Studies and Social Studies graduates on the needed additional concepts for the new social studies curriculum (t = 0.14, p > 1.96) and their views on
75
strategies for enhancing peace education through social studies curriculum (t = -0.09, p > 1.96) at 0.05 alpha level in Anambra State, Nigeria.
Edinyang and Ubi (2012) in a quasi-experimental study discovered that there was no significant difference in the pre-test performance of social studies students using inquiry and expository methods of teaching (t = 0.16 < p = 1.96), but their post-test performance (t = 9.29 > p = 1.96) was found to be significant. Equally the result of the experiment revealed no significant result in the pre-test performance of the female social studies students (t = 0.35 < p = 1.98), but their posttest performance (t = 6.33 > p = 1.98) was found significant. Furthermore, no significant result in the pre-test performance of the male social studies students was found (t = 0.61 < p = 1.98), but their post-test performance (t = 6.75 > p = 1.98) revealed a significant difference when exposed to inquiry and expository methods of teaching social studies. In all the results, the students treated with expository method of teaching performed significantly higher than those treated with the inquiry method in social studies.
In a study of Akure South Local Government Area of Ondo State, Nigeria, Afolabi, Abidoye and Afolabi (2012) found that social studies students taught with instructional media (X = 59.3) significantly achieved higher than those taught without the media (X = 41.0). This is because the t-calculated of 9.6 was greater than the t-critical value of 2.0 at 0.05 level of significance. However, they found no significant difference between the male and female students’ performance in the study (t = 0.09, p < 2.0).
76
In a quasi-experimental study of the effects of service learning and educational trips in social studies on Primary school pupils’ environmental knowledge, Ajitoni and Gbadamosi (2012) discovered that the pupils treated with educational trips performed significantly higher (X = 13.97) than those treated with service learning (X = 12.42) with the control group having the least score (X = 11.01). These results actually showed a significant effect of treatment on the pupils’ environmental knowledge in social studies (F(2,251) = 29.98, p < 0.05). However, the study showed no gender significant difference in the performance of the pupils (F(1.251) = .00, p > 0.05) with the females having a mean score of 12.41 as against 12.40 scored by their male counterparts. While analysing the acceptable level of Secondary schools’ social studies teachers’ evaluation of the affective domain of their students in Ogun state, Nigeria, Ogunbiyi (2012) discovered that with a mean score of 52.905, the teachers performance was significantly higher than the hypothesized mean of 50.0 with the calculated Z of 2.39 greater than the critical Z value of 1.96 at 0.05 alpha level. The study further revealed that the social studies teachers that were capable of performing affective evaluation in social studies to the acceptable level lies between 43% and 64% with Z-calculated value of 0.65 lower than the Z-critical value of 1.96 at 0.05 alpha level.
In a study of the effects of two puzzle-based instructional strategies on primary school pupils’ learning outcomes in social studies in Ondo state, Nigeria; Adedoja, Abidoye and Afolabi (2013) discovered that pupils exposed to Three-Dimensional Puzzle-Based Instruction attained the highest post-achievement mean score of 13.03, followed by those treated with Paper and Pencil Puzzle-Based Instruction with 8.841 and lastly by the control group with 5.882. These results showed a significant effect of treatment on the pupils’ learning outcomes (F(2.227) = 112.203, p
0.03). Sasikala (2013) found a significant difference (t = 2.04, significant at 0.05 level) in the learning outcomes of Indian Higher Secondary School students taught with cooperative learning (Jigsaw) and the prevailing method in Biology. In a study of effects of cooperative, competitive and individualistic instructional strategies on Secondary School Students’ attitude towards Mathematics in Oyo State, Nigeria, Olojo and Ojo (2011) discovered that with no statistical significant differences, the individualistic learning group had the highest adjusted posttest mean score of 139.23, followed by the competitive learning group with 137.49. While the cooperative learning group came third with 135.30, the conventional learning group however, came last with 131.08 as its adjusted post-test mean score. Using 342 student-teachers to investigate the effects of cooperative learning in India, Nandola (2010) found that there was a significant difference in the mean scores obtained by the students of granted and non-granted secondary schools on cooperative learning scale (t = 4.088, p > 0.05) with the non-granted school scoring 110.64 as against the score of 105.41 obtained by the granted schools. Martins-Umeh (2009) in her study of the effect of cooperative learning on students’ achievement in Sociology found that the t-calculated value of 4.24 was greater than the t-critical value of 1.98, indicating that cooperative learning (STAD) was significantly superior in achieving learning outcomes than the competitive method of instruction in a Nigerian College of Education. Indeed, the mean post-test score of the experimental group (X=71.02) proved more significant than (X=60.46) scored by the competitive group. While studying the impact of cooperative learning approach on Senior Secondary School Students’ performance in Mathematics, Jebson (2012) discovered that cooperative learning had a significant effect on the
80
students’ performance with the experimental mean score of 41.91 higher than the control group mean score of 36.60 (t –value 3.13 greater than t-critical 1.98 at 0.05 level of significance).
In a comparison of effects of competitive, cooperative and individualistic learning outcomes in Mathematics in Nigerian Senior Secondary Schools; Oloyede, Adebowale and Ojo (2012) found that the cooperative strategy was significantly better than individualistic method with a mean difference of 18.075. It was also better than the competitive strategy with a significant mean difference of 9.880 and individualistic approach with a significant mean difference of 8.192. Using ANCOVA, a significant mean effect of (F3,475 = 162.496, p< .05) was obtained. Olele and Williams (2010), while using cooperative learning to foster democratic practices in Nigerian schools discovered that out of 30 items generated for democratic practices, only 30 percent of them were practised dominantly in the schools with a mean score of between 2.62 and 3.11. On a study of the effects of cooperative learning strategy on academic performance and attitude of Basic Science students in large classes, Dyel (2011) found that the cooperative learning enhanced the academic performance of students in large classes with a mean score of 14.76 for the experimental group as against 9.11 for the control (lecture) group (t= 14.254, p< 0.05). Equally, a significant difference in the pre and post attitude of the experimental group (t = 6.105, p > 0.001) was found.
In a study of the correlation between individual student’s involvement in cooperative learning and their academic performances, Tsay and Brady (2010) discovered that the more actively a student participated in cooperative learning, the higher his/her scores as an individual and in group Reading Assessment Tests and his/her final course grade (X = 77.61, 92.94 and 87.79
81
mean scores) respectively. Akinbobola (2008) while looking for how to enhance Nigerian students’ attitude in Physics, discovered that there was a significant difference in the attitude of those taught with cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning with the main effects of 20.57 greater than the critical F-value of 3.91 at p < .05 alpha level. Indeed, while the mean gain score of 5.28 was recorded for cooperative learning, 1.89 was achieved by the competitive group and -7.20 was recorded by the individualistic learners. Judging the benefits of cooperative learning in a Business Education class; Karim, Rutledge and Titard (2000) found that both the experimental and control groups felt that cooperative learning as a group method of teaching is very interesting and enjoyable (E = 4.10, C = 4.08), makes them to learn better (E = 4.41, C = 4.17), makes them to have better grades (E = 3.01, C = 3.46), good for future use (E = 4.17, C = 3.79), advantageous to change groups (E = 2.62, C = 3.82) but is time wasting (E = 1.78, C = 2.12).
Ajaja and Eravwoke (2010) discovered that there was a significant difference between achievement mean scores of students taught with cooperative learning and traditional method in Integrated Science (F = 6.663, p < 0.05). Indeed, the cooperative learning group recorded the highest post-test mean score of 58.11 as against 38.62 scored by those taught with the traditional method. The cooperative learning group also had higher attitude post-test mean score of 85.05 as against 73.7 scored by the traditional method group (F = 131.684, significant at 0.05 level). Significant differences were equally found between students’ varying abilities in the cooperative learning group (F = 31.468, p < 0.05) and among the students taught with the traditional method (F = 100.803, p < 0.05) respectively. While comparing students’ performance using cooperative learning (Marburger, 2005) discovered that out of seven groups of multiple-choice answers in
82
Economics, there was no significant learning outcome with a mean grade point of 3.05 for the cooperative learning students as against 2.86 for the students taught with lecture method. In this case, both the lecture and cooperative learning strategies proved closely effective for teaching Economics.
In a study of 350 purposively selected Senior Secondary School II students from Ijebu-North Local Government Area of Ogun State, Nigeria; Ifamuyiwa (2006) discovered that Cooperative learning had significant main effects on students’ achievement in Mathematics (F(2,337) = 22.7; p < 0.05) and attitude towards Mathematics (F(2,337) = 33.5; p < 0.05). It was further reported that the students exposed to cooperative learning strategy recorded the highest post-test mean achievement score (X = 10.94), followed by those treated with Self-Instructional method (X = 9.93) and the least score (X = 9.79) was recorded by the Conventional method group. The SelfInstructional group however had the highest post-test attitude mean score (X = 95.10), followed by the Cooperative learners (X = 89.12) and lastly by the Conventional method group (X = 83.51). The study found no significant main effects of locus of control and gender on the achievement (F(1,337) = 0.190; p > 0.05; F(1.337) = 0.022; p > 0.05) as well as on the attitude (F(1,337) = 0.064; p> 0.05; F(1,337) = 0.605; p > 0.05) of the students respectively.
The finding of Chianson, Kurumeh and Obida (2010) on the effect of cooperative learning strategy on students’ retention in Circle Geometry however revealed that students taught with cooperative learning method retained significantly better than those taught with conventional method among Secondary School students in Benue State, Nigeria (t (358) = 8.474, p < 0.05, r =0.041). In actual fact, the cooperative learning group had 22.3 post-test mean score as against 83
12.7 recorded by their counterparts taught with the conventional method. Kolawole (2008) while comparing the effects of competitive with cooperative learning strategies on Mathematics learning outcomes discovered that the respective 50.2 and 62.6 post-test mean scores proved that cooperative learning strategy was significantly superior to the competitive method (Z = 11.97, p < 1.96). Zhang (2012) equally found a significant difference in the language retention achievement scores of cooperative and non-cooperative learners (t = 2.45, p = 0.016), with the experimental group scoring 79.23 as against 74.48 scored by the control group.
In a study of achievements of pupils with learning and behaviour problems with cooperative teaching strategy in Aboh, Delta State, Nigeria; Obiyo (2011) discovered that experimental group performed higher with 76.06 mean score than the control group with 53.84. This outcome reflects the fact that within the cooperative learning group, the pupils learnt among themselves with good working relations. While teaching Physics to the Eighth grade classes using Jigsaw model of cooperative learning, Hanze and Berger (2007) discovered that jigsaw participants showed higher achievement test scores in the areas that were assigned to them as “experts” as compared to students that had been taught in the traditional lecture form. Indeed, students’ academic performance in their own expert segments (M = 72%) was significantly better than their performance on tutored segments (M = 54%; t (87) = 4.96, p < .001). Oludipe and Awokoya (2010) while investigating the effect of cooperative learning on the reduction of students’ anxiety for learning Chemistry in Ogun State, Nigeria found that the Jigsaw made more students to have lesser anxiety than the Lecture method (F1,118 = .000 sig) with the post=test level mean score of the cooperative learners (79.78) greater than that of the Lecture method group (28.32).
84
In a study of the effects of two modes of Student-Teams–Achievement-Division (STAD) strategies on students’ learning outcomes in Chemical kinetics in Nigerian Secondary Schools, Ibraheem (2011) discovered that there was a significant main effect of treatment on the learners achievement with (F(2,281) = 190.518; p < 0.05). The result actually showed that students that were exposed to STAD (without competition) obtained the highest mean achievement score in chemical kinetics (X = 61.16), followed by the control group (X = 60.23) and lastly by the students taught with STAD (with competition) that scored (X = 38.98). The investigator also found that there was a significant difference in the attitudinal scores of the students with (F(2,281) = 379.25, p < 0.05) with STAD (with competition) group having the highest attitude mean score (X =52.06), followed by the STAD (without competition) group having (X = 25.23) and the least attitude mean score obtained by the control group with (X = 21.41). These findings were contrary to an earlier findings of Abu and Flowers (1997) in Home Economics among North Carolina students where the STAD method did not show any significant difference in the students’ knowledge outcomes (t = 1.67, df =164, p = .01). The adjusted mean score of the STAD group was 19.61 as against 19.52 scored by the control group. On the students’ retention, Abu and Flowers (1997) further discovered that no significant difference was obtained in the scores of the two groups of students (F(2,18) = 0.14, p = .99). Their findings further revealed that no significant improvement was recorded on the attitude scores of the students (t = 1.84, df = 164, p = .07).
In Social Studies, while using cooperative learning structures to determine learning achievements in an heterogeneous settings, Dotson (2001) discovered a large effect size of significant difference of 0.60 between the experimental and control groups (t = 2.102, p < .0409). Adeyemi
85
(2008) while finding the effects of cooperative learning and problem-solving strategies on Junior Secondary School Students’ social studies learning outcomes in Osun State, Nigeria, discovered that the cooperative learning group had the highest mean score of 11.891, followed by the problem-solving group with 7.671 and the least by the conventional method with 6.901. The main effect of (F2,149 = 158.734, p < 0.05) also showed the significant superiority of cooperative learning over both the problem-solving and conventional methods of teaching social studies. Yusuf (2007) equally found a significant difference in the mean gain scores of cooperative learning group (10.73) as against that of the control group (3.28) in social studies. He however, observed no significant difference in the mean gain scores of the high, medium and low-scoring abilities of the students taught with cooperative learning (F(2,44) < 9.105).
In a study of the effect of cooperative learning on Junior Secondary School Students’ learning outcomes in social studies in Ebonyi State, Nigeria; Usulor (2012) discovered that with 79.96 achievement mean score for the experimental (STAD) group and 50.37 for the control (Lecture) group, cooperative learning strategy proved more significant than the lecture method (F = 292.679, significant at 0.05 level). Using multicultural education concepts in Social Studies, Salako, Eze and Adu (2012) also discovered that there was a significant difference between the knowledge outcomes of Nigerian Junior Secondary School Students taught with Jigsaw and Conventional methods (F(1,117) = 77.39, p < 0.05). It was actually found that the experimental (Jigsaw) group had higher mean score of 24.96 as against 17.65 obtained by the control (conventional method) group. The import of these available studies on the use of cooperative learning in social studies teaching is that except for general cooperative learning strategy used by the earlier researchers like Yusuf (2007) and Adeyemi (2008) as well as STAD and Jigsaw used
86
by Usulor (2012) and Salako et al (2012) respectively, it appears such quasi-experimentation report rarely existed on the application of Learning Together and Constructive Controversy for teaching Peace Education aspect of Social Studies in Nigeria.
2.2.2.1
Studies on Learning Together as a Model of Cooperative Learning
In over 375 studies conducted over the past 90 years to give answer to the question of how successful competitive, individualistic and cooperative efforts were in promoting productivity and achievement; Johnson and Johnson (1989), discovered that learning together to achieve a common goal produces the highest achievement and greatest productivity than other cooperative learning strategies. It was discovered that when the impact of cooperative lessons was compared with competitive learning, Learning Together (LT) promotes the greatest effect with 0.85 effective size (Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 2000). LT has therefore been a popular cooperative learning strategy among students-centred researchers. Ozsoy and Yildiz (2004) noted that the learning together technique was first developed by D.W. Johnson and R.T. Johnson in 1991. It is based on social interdependence theory which states that when individuals share common goals with others, their learning outcomes are affected by the actions of their group (Deutsh, 1962; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). This acknowledges the fact that learning together helps to give support, encouragement and assistance to each member of a group to make academic progress (Johnson, Johnson & Smith 1991; Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1992). According to Johnson and Johnson (1989), when students learn together, the individual cares more about each other and are more committed to each other’s success and well-being to achieve the group goals.
87
Slavin (1995) discovered that about 68 percent of studies on learning together significantly promoted positive learning outcome. In the same vein, Ghazi (2003) also reported that learning together promoted improvement on the learning of English as a foreign language than the traditional lecture method. Although Ghazi report showed that a significant difference was found in the academic achievement of the students (F(1,53) = 7.69, p = .00) between the experimental and control groups, but not so for the self-esteem (F(1,46) = 0.48, p = .49) and alienation from school (F(1,44) = 1.23, p = 1.27) for the two groups. Indeed, the various results were tested at 0.05 alpha level with the mean scores of the LT group only higher in the achievement level (48.33 as against 44.33) while that of the control group was higher at the self-esteem level (15.19 as against 14.73) and at the alienation level (32.00 as against 31.18). Ozsoy and Yildiz (2004) also found that using learning together in mathematics experimental class yielded a mean score of 3.53 as against the control group (lecture method) score of 2.82 which also proved statistically significant (p < 0.05). This trend therefore supports the view that it is ‘”through working and studying together and constructing knowledge together that we can challenge the change in postmodern society” (Passi & Vahtivuori, 2009: 2). The Science Education Resource Centre (2010) submitted that learning together gives a good give–and-take discussion that can produce unmatched learning experiences as students articulate their ideas, respond to their classmates’ points, and develop skills in evaluating the evidence of their own and others’ positions. Consequently, the most important properties of learning together are the existence of group goal, sharing of opinions and materials in the group, division of labour among group members and group reward for swimming or sinking together (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). Furthermore, group evaluation, appropriate arrangement of the class into groups of five or six and teacher’s
88
monitoring of group processing of task and relationships are essential elements of the learning together strategy.
Learning Together (LT) has been found to have promoted higher level of cognition and moral reasoning, positive relationships and social supports among learners (Johnson & Johnson, 1991 & 2000). In a web-based instructional mode, using LT for enhancing metacognition, Thanudca, Houksuwan and Suksringarm (2012) found that on awareness level, a group of undergraduate students experimented upon had 41.93 post-test mean score as against 32.47 pre-test mean score. At the level of planning, the same group had 41.10 post-test mean score as against 32.00 pre-test mean score and at the level of group evaluation, they had 40.59 post-test mean score as against 32.07 pre-test mean score. In an investigation of the effect of two models of cooperative learning strategies on Nigerian Junior Secondary School Students’ academic achievement in Basic Science, Bilesanmi-Awoderu and Oludipe (2012) discovered a significant main effect of treatment on students’ post-test academic achievement scores (F2,119 = 0.000) with adjusted scores of 6.28 for Jigsaw group, 2.64 for learning together group and -9.26 for lecture method group. On the retention level, the Jigsaw group recorded the highest adjusted delayed post-test achievement mean score of 30.279, followed by the learning together with 27.029 and the least score recorded by the conventional lecture group with 11.619. On the anxiety level, the low anxiety students recorded the highest adjusted delayed post-test achievement mean score of 24.709 while the high anxiety students recorded the low adjusted delayed post-test achievement mean score of 21.609.
89
In a book titled ‘Learning Together in the multicultural classroom’, Coelho (1994) debunked the myth of healthy competition and submitted that students learn languages best when they are engaged in real interaction. She emphasized the importance of explaining task objectives and rationale to students, as well as bringing to their explicit attention the social skills they are developing in LT. This is why in the views of Passi and Vahtivuori (2009), it is through working together and studying together that we can make a change in post-modern society. Learning Together is therefore predicated on the believe that the creation of knowledge depends on social interactions by expressing opinions, exchanging knowledge and accepting one another (Vygotsky, 1978). 2.2.2.2
Studies on Constructive Controversy as a Model of Cooperative Learning
In cooperative learning, constructive controversy is a necessity so as to enhance the quality of decision making and learning achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1995a). It follows the pattern when individuals or groups argue a position before a judge who will decide which position is best; which results in higher productivity, greater mastery and retention of ideas, more frequent use of complex reasoning, greater exchange of information, more creativity in problemsolving, positive interpersonal relationships, greater social competence and self-esteem as well as achievement of higher quality decision (Johnson & Johnson, 1995a). From the words of wisdom, Johnson and Johnson (1998: 7&42) noted that the principles of constructive controversy emerges from the fact that “differences of opinion leads to inquiry and inquiry to truth” and “He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill, our antagonist is our helper”. Indeed, constructive controversies involve what Aristotle called deliberate discourse (the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of proposed actions) aimed at synthesizing novel solutions (Johnson & Johnson, 2009as). Some educators like Janz and Tjosvold, 1985; Slaikev
90
and Hasson, 1998; Dana, 1999; Chin and Khoo 2003; Johnson and Johnson, 2009 believed that constructive controversies can lead to undesirable outcomes like anger, hostility, rejection, divisiveness, damaged relationships and reductions in learning. However, close monitoring, informed intervention and structured argument would bring out the positive effects of constructive controversies (Johnson & Johnson, 2005, 2007). The steps to be taken to make constructive controversies to be positive include research and preparation of positions, persuasive presentation and advocating of positions, refuting opposing position, reversing perspective, synthesizing and integrating best evidence and reasoning from all sides (Johnson & Johnson, 1998). In a meta-analysis of constructive controversy studies with their average effect size covering a period between 1970 and 1989, Johnson and Johnson (2000) discovered that constructive controversies when compared with other techniques yielded the results as outlined in Table 2.2
91
Table 2.2: Meta-Analysis of Controversy Studies: Average Effect Size Dependent Variable
Mean
SD
Quality of Decision Making Controversy/ concurrence seeking 0.68 0.41 Controversy/ Debate 0.40 0.43 Controversy/ individualistic efforts 0.87 0.47 Cognitive Reasoning Controversy/ concurrence seeking 0.62 0.44 Controversy/ Debate 1.35 0.00 Controversy/ individualistic efforts 0.90 0.48 Perspective Taking Controversy/ concurrence seeking 0.91 0.28 Controversy/ Debate 0.22 0.42 Controversy/ individualistic efforts 0.86 0.00 Motivation Controversy/ concurrence seeking 0.75 0.46 Controversy/ Debate 0.45 0.44 Controversy/ individualistic efforts 0.71 0.21 Attitudes Controversy/ concurrence seeking 0.58 0.29 Controversy/ Debate 0.81 0.00 Controversy/ individualistic efforts 0.64 0.00 Interpersonal Attraction Controversy/ concurrence seeking 0.24 0.44 Controversy/ Debate 0.72 0.25 Controversy/ individualistic efforts 0.81 0.11 Debate / Individualistic Efforts 0.46 0.13 Social Support Controversy/ concurrence seeking 0.32 0.44 Controversy/ Debate 0.92 0.42 Controversy/ individualistic efforts 1.52 0.29 Debate / Individualistic Efforts 0.85 0.01 Self-Esteem Controversy/ concurrence seeking 0.39 0.15 Controversy/ Debate 0.51 0.09 Controversy/ individualistic efforts 0.85 0.04 Debate / Individualistic Efforts 0.45 0.17 Note: SD = Standard deviation, N = Number of Researchers (Source: Johnson & Johnson, 2000: 14-15)
92
N 15 6 19 2 1 15 9 2 1 12 5 4 5 1 1 8 6 3 2 8 6 3 2 4 2 3 2
As can be seen from Table 2.1, the effect size of constructive controversy versus concurrence seeking is more on perspective-taking (0.91), followed by the motivation of students to learn (0.75), promotion of quality of instruction (0.68), cognitive reasoning (0.62) and attitudinal changes (0.58). However, for promoting interpersonal attraction, controversy versus individualistic efforts technique is supported with 0.81, controversy versus individualistic efforts equally yielded 1.52 for social support and 0.85 for building individual social esteem. Debate versus individualistic efforts yielded effect sizes of 0.46, 0.85 and 0.45 on interpersonal attraction, social support and self-esteem variables respectively. Also controversy versus concurrence seeking yielded 0.24, 0.32 and 0.39 on the same variables respectively.
The research on constructive controversy has primarily focused on five sets of dependent variables (Johnson & Johnson, 2000). The first is the quality of decision making and problem solving that includes higher-level reasoning, accurate understanding of perspectives, creative thinking, and openness to influence (that is, attitude change). The second is the continuing motivation to learn about the issue being considered. The greater the continuing motivation to learn about the issue, the higher the quality of reasoned judgements about what the decision should be. The third is valuing engagement in controversy (political discourse) and the decision making process. The more positive the attitudes toward the procedures and task, the greater the commitment to implement the decision will be. The fourth is the relationship resulting from participating in the procedure, the greater the commitment to continue to participate and the greater the long-term health of the group (i.e., society). The fifth is how participants in a controversy feel about themselves. The more positive participants feel about themselves as a
93
result of participating in the process, the greater their commitment to continue to participate and the greater the long-term health of the group (Johnson & Johnson, 2000).
Therefore, for controversies to be better managed constructively, emphasis has to be placed on participants’ opportunity to have interpersonal and small group skills with the advice that they should:
Be critical of ideas not people.
Separate personal worth from criticism of ideas.
Remember that they are together to sink or swim.
Encourage everyone to participate and to master all the relevant information.
Listen to everyone’s ideas even if someone does not agree.
Restate what someone has said if it is not clear.
Differentiate before they try to integrate.
Try to understand both sides of the issues.
Change mind when the evidences clearly show.
Emphasize rationality in seeking the best possible answer, given the data available.
Follow the golden rule of controversy – acting towards opponents as they would want them to act towards them (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
In this study therefore, it is hypothesized that the application of constructive controversy would enhance students’ ability to tolerate and accommodate others’ views on peace education concepts for improved learning outcomes.
94
2.2.3 Studies on Gender and Learning Outcomes The effect of gender as a moderator variable in cooperative learning has been reported with mixed outcomes. Some studies by Gardner, Mason and Matyas, (1989); Gardner, (1993); suggested that girls benefited more from cooperative settings than boys. Equally, other studies (Cosden, Pearl & Bryan, 1985; Charlesworth & Dzur, 1987; Anderman, 1999) also revealed that girls are more inclined to engage in behaviour associated with successful cooperative learning such as helping others, verbal organization and turn–taking. Equally, Busato, Ten Dam, Eeden and Terwel (1995) while analyzing gender – related effects of cooperative learning in a mathematics curriculum for 12 – 16years – old discovered that no significant difference existed in the learning outcomes of the students based on their gender differences. Even when Samuel and John (2004) discovered that girls performed slightly higher on the mean score than boys when taught with cooperative learning strategy in chemistry, they still found such gender – related difference in performance not to be statistically significant.
Along the same findings, Hijzen, Boekeaerts and Vedder (2006) reported that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2003 indicated the preference of cooperative learning strategy by female students than their male counterparts. Further, in their own studies, Hijzen and others concluded that female students obtained higher scores than their male contemporaries on cooperative learning goal preferences. Contrarily however, in a research on effects of Peace Education on empathy skills, Sagkal, Turnuklu and Totan (2012) found that there were statistical significant differences between the pre-test and post-test scores of both male and female students in both control and experimental groups. The male results yielded (F1.135 = 43.990, p = .000) and that of the female was (F1.132 = 12.282, p = .001). On the overall, a significant score of (F1.268 = 52.902, p = .000) was obtained between the adjusted post-test means 95
of experimental and control groups in favour of the experimental group. Sasikala (2013), using Jigsaw model of cooperative learning, did not find any significant gender moderation (t = 1.06, not significant at 0.05 level) in the Biology learning outcomes of Indian Higher School students.
In the Nigerian context, Kolawole (2008), Adeyemi (2008) and Adeyemo (2010) found a significant main effect of gender on students’ learning outcomes using cooperative learning strategies. However, Yusuf (2007), Akinbobola (2009), Ajaja and Eravwoke (2010), Oludipe and Awokoya (2010), Dyel (2011), Olojo and Ojo (2011), Adebowale and Ojo (2012), Jebson (2012), Oludipe (2012), Salako, Eze and Adu (2012) did not. Specifically, Kolawole (2008) while comparing the effects of competitive method against cooperative learning strategy discovered that the gender factor proved significant (Z =6.51, p < 1.96) with the male (56.8) mean score higher than the female (42.4) mean score in Mathematics. Adeyemi (2008), in a comparative application of cooperative learning and problem–solving strategies in social studies teaching also discovered that boys outperformed girls in the cooperative class (F1,149 = 11.453, p < 0.05). Adeyemo (2010) in his study of the influence of cooperative learning and problemsolving strategy in Senior Secondary School Mathematics achievement equally discovered that the perception of the students on the benefits of cooperative learning was dependent on their sex differences (χ2, 1.225 > 0.542 at 0.05 level of significance).
In the contrary was the study of Yusuf (2007) on the effect of cooperative learning in Social Studies which discovered no gender significant factor in the students’ performance (F(2.45), p > 2.72, not significant at 0.05 level) with the female mean gain 12.50 just a little higher than that of their male counterparts that scored 10.017.
Along the same finding, Akinbobola (2009)
discovered that gender did not mediate in the use of cooperative, competitive and individualistic 96
learning strategies in Physics because the gender main effect of 0.012 is less than the critical Fvalue of 3.91 at p < 0.05 alpha level. Ajaja and Eravwoke (2010) also found that no significant difference existed between male and female students’ performance in Integrated Science (F = 1.42, p > 0.05) with the female adjusted mean score of 63.39 just slightly higher than 60.94 scored by their male counterparts. Gender difference equally did not account for the post-test result of Oludipe and Awokoya (2010) on the effect of cooperative learning for students’ reduction of anxiety in Chemistry with (F1,118 = .235, not significant). Indeed, the female posttest adjusted score of 57.29 was not significantly higher than that of their male counterparts of 51.57 in anxiety reduction at 0.05 level.
On the effect of cooperative learning in large classes, Dyel (2011) discovered no significant difference between the male mean score of 14.80 and that of their female counterparts of 14.73 in Basic Science. This was because the t-calculated value of 0.150 was found to be lower than the t-critical value of 0.881 at 0.05 level of significance. Gender, as equally discovered by Olojo and Ojo (2011), showed no significant result on the attitude of the students when exposed to Mathematical concepts in three treatments because F- calculated (0.249) is less than F-table (2.60) at 0.05 level of significance. Jebson (2012) while studying the impact of cooperative learning in Mathematics class found that although the male students scored higher (45.80) than their female counterparts (41.30), but this was not statistically significant (t, 1.69 < 1.98, not significant at 0.05 level).
In a comparative study of cooperative learning, competitive and individualistic strategies for learning Mathematics; Oloyede, Adebowale and Ojo (2012) discovered that gender had no
97
significant moderating effect on the students’ learning outcomes (F3,471 = 0.085, p > .05). The findings actually showed that although the male students performed generally better with 47.92 mean score than their female counterparts who scored 46.09, but this was not statistically significant contrary to the findings of Adeyemi (2008) and Adeyemo (2009) as earlier discussed. In a specific study of the effect of gender difference in cooperative learning on Nigerian Junior Secondary Students’ academic achievement in Basic Science, Oludipe (2012) found no statistical significant difference in the pre-test scores (t(1,118) = .719, p< 0.05), post-test scores (t(1,118) = .390, p < 0.05) and delayed post-test scores (t(1,118) = .287, p < 0.05) of the students. Although the mean scores of the female students were higher at the three levels of achievement with 7.91, 24.89 and 24.23 as against that of their male counterparts with 7.81, 23.66 and 22.28 respectively, but they could not yield any significant difference statistically. Furthermore, Salako, Eze and Adu (2012) did not find any significant gender difference in a study of the effects of cooperative learning on students’ knowledge in multicultural education concepts in Social Studies among Nigerian Junior Secondary School students (F(1,117) = 0.678, p > 0.05). Indeed, all the conflicting results arising from gender–related researches are expected because of varied learning contexts. Coupled with this, are the varied abilities of the students, instructional procedures and motivational strategies adopted by the teacher.
2.2.4 Studies on Learning Styles and Learning Outcomes Learning styles refer to the variations in individual’s ability to accumulate as well as assimilate information (Ldpride. net, 2008). It is a concept that individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer & Bajork, 2009). It is genetically determined and present at birth (Eeden & Altun, 2006) but can change and be developed through experiences (The Free Library, 2009). As people have various learning styles 98
and points of view, some people learn through feeling, thinking, watching and doing (Kolb, 1984), others learn through hearing and experience (Dunn & Dunn, 1993). In the initial categorization of Kolb (1981), there are Diverger, Assimilator, Converger and Acommodator learners. According to him, the diverger perceives information through concrete experience and processes it through reflective observation. They are good at working in groups but could be emotional, people-oriented and imaginative (Fox & Bartholomae, 1999). The Assimilator perceives information through abstract conceptualization and processes them also through reflective observation. They are more systematic in their approach to ideas and theories. On the otherhand, the converger perceives information through abstract conceptualization but processes it by active experimentation. Convergers are less people-oriented but more technically-minded (Kolb, 1981). The Accomodator perceives information through concrete experience and processes it through active experimentation. Accomodators, according to Fox and Bartholomae (1999) learn through interaction with others, enjoy risk-taking and new challenges. The Felder model of Learning Style however covers Sensing/Intuition, Active/Reflective, and Visual/Verbal with Sequential/Global dimensions of information processing (Zywno & Waalen, 2002). The Visual-Auditory-Reading-Kinaesthetic (VARK) model adopted for this study was adapted from the College Reading and Learning Association (2011) for its simplicity and comprehensiveness.
Evidence from research suggests that, apart from a dominant learning style, an individual has other learning styles at varying degrees (Temel, 2002). It is acknowledged that learning is a personal process, and that individual learns through different methods and techniques (The Free Library, 2009). All these make the role of learning styles in students’ learning outcomes pertinent. Using VARK in a study of gender preferences in learning styles among students in a
99
Physiology laboratory at Michigan State University, USA, Wehrwein, Lujan and DiCarlo (2007) discovered that 54.2% of the female students preferred a single mode of learning style as against 12.5% among their male counterparts. Among the female students, 4.2% preferred the V, 0% preferred the A, 16.7% preferred the R and 33.3% preferred the K learning styles. In contrast, the male students were evenly distributed in their preferences, with 4.2% preferring the A, R, or K and 0% preferring the V learning styles. Furthermore, 45.8% of the female students preferred multimodal learning styles as against 87.5% among their male counterparts.
However, Ldpride.net (2008) observed that 65 per cent of the generality of people are visual learners, 30 per cent in auditory category and 5 per cent in kinaesthetic or tactile category. Earlier, Dunn and Dunn (1992) in a study of students’ preferences for learning styles in primary schools discovered that less than 12% of the students preferred auditory learning while 40% preferred visual learning. Swassing and Barbe (1984) studied a group of teachers and found that 84 per cent of them preferred visual style, 10 per cent had a preference for auditory style and 5 per cent preferred haptic (Kinaesthetic/tactile) style. In a survey of fifty college students, Lemire (1998) found that 62 per cent of them preferred the visual learning modality as against 5 per cent that preferred auditory style and 33 per cent that preferred the kinaesthetic/tactile learning styles. Thus, it is evident that majority of learners always prefer the visual learning modality and this should be encouraged to promote greater learning outcomes.
In a study of 419 undergraduate students, Fox and Bartholomae (1999) discovered that the Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory was not a strong predictor of success in Financial Management (r=0.42, p=0.000). This was because the learning styles did not significantly correlate with the demographic and time-use variables that were regressed on the students’ academic performance.
100
In a similar development on Kolb’s model combined with Bar-On (2004) Emotional Quotient Inventory, Wafika (2010) discovered that both the control and experimental groups favoured divergent learning style with no significant difference in the academic achievement of the two groups (t = 1.251, p = .214). Using the Felder Learning Style Model for evaluating Engineering students’ learning styles, Zywno and Waalen (2002) discovered that 78.3% of the students preferred visual learning style, followed by 70% that preferred sequential learning style. Next were those that preferred Active learning style with 63% and in the fourth position were the Sensory learners with 60.7%. Furthermore, a significant difference was obtained by them between the mean scores of the experimental and control groups (t=2.047, p=0.044) across the various learning styles. While studying learning styles preferences among 110 undergraduate Nursing students, Rassool and Rawaf (2008) discovered that 44% preferred Reflector style, 16% preferred Activist style, 5% preferred both Theorist and Pragmatist styles and the remaining 30% preferring dual styles. However, they found no statistical significant differences in the postadjusted mean scores of the students based on their preferred learning styles on knowledge (F(2,106) = 2.645, p = .076) and attitude (F(2,106) = 0.341, p = .712) but significant at intervention confidence skills (F(2,106) = 6.915, p = .002).
In three meta-studies of the effects of students’ learning styles on discipline, attitudes and knowledge acquisition in technology-enhanced Statistics Education, Christou and Dinov (2010) discovered that students’ learning styles and attitude towards a discipline may be important confounds of their final quantitative performances (F(8,29) = 2.17, p > 0.06), (F(8,62) = 4-01, p > 0.00) and (F(8,24) = 0.55, p > 0.807) respectively. While studying the relationship between learning styles and academic achievement of High School students, Snyder (2000) found that
101
81% of the students were Kinaesthetic who learnt best by doing rather than just listening and watching in language classrooms. In a forty-two experimental studies based on Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model conducted between 1980-1990 however; Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Beasley and Gorman (2010) found that 36 of the studies covering 3,181 participants with a weighted correlation value size of 0.353 proved that matching students’ learning style preferences with educational interventions compatible with those preferences are beneficial to their academic achievements.
In an assessment of the impact of multimedia on learning outcomes across learning styles and modal preferences, Sankey, Birch and Gardiner (2011) discovered that majority of the students (93.4%) in concept A and (91.8%) in concept B improved from pre-test to post-test scores significantly. The report also indicated that out of the sixty participants (68.4% Female and 31.6% Male), 52.6% of the male students were multimodal learners as against 26.8% females. Using the VARK Learning Inventory, Adams (2008) discovered that the mean scores’ difference of 18.51 and 27.68 in the pre-test and post-test of control and experimental Undergraduate classes were not statistically significant at 2-way ANOVA level (F(2,87) = 0.035, p > 0.05). But in a recent correlational study of learning style, school environment and test anxiety with learning outcomes among secondary school students in Oyo state, Nigeria; Ogundokun (2011) discovered that learning style correlated most with learning outcomes (r = .136, p< 0.05) than the school environment and test anxiety. Equally, it was found that learning style predicted learning outcomes (β = 0.242, t = 3.234, p < 0.05) next to test anxiety but better than the school environment.
102
Arising from the various reports however, the visual learners are known to love reading magazines, books, graphs, maps, diagrams, charts, flashcards, etc. They are photographic, tidy, and quiet, like verbal directions and watching videos, observe body language and are good in spelling. They therefore prefer such test–types like essays, maps and diagramming. The auditory learners on the other hand are usually talkatives in the class, like memorization, enjoys listening to news and music, enjoys speaking and singing, read slowly, tend to be articulate speakers and love studying in groups and prefer audio books, lectures, oral presentations and verbal instructions. They love oral examination, written responses to lectures but hate reading comprehension. The kinaesthetic or tactile learners on the other hand, enjoy action learning and experiential discovery. They like manipulating things, demonstrations, field trips and can use hand to communicate well. They also like to use tools in practical activities and good in sports. They like to play with musical instruments, enjoy arts and crafts, love to move freely when learning, likes fiddling with objects and good in performing experiments. Although they are weak at spellings, and not good in handwriting, they love to collect items. This category of learners learn best in practical activities, making models and jotting down while reading (Lemire, 1998).
2.2.5 Studies on Peace Education in Nigeria A major factor responsible for the latest emphasis on Peace Education themes in the new Basic Education Social studies curriculum was the absence or lack of peace in Nigeria (Noddings, 2006 & Oyeyemi, 2012) as well as persistent deviant and aggressive behaviours among secondary school students (Jegede, Ememe & Kolawale, 2013). This is because as discovered by Akudolu (2006), learners are neither involved in activities that demonstrate values and principles 103
of peace education nor do they frequently engage in peace-making skill activities in Nigeria. Oyeyemi (2012) in an evaluative study of Peace Education as a mainstream curriculum among 120 students drawn from six education districts in Lagos State, Nigeria found no significant difference in the pre-test, post-test and control group scores of the Junior Secondary School students. Taken as percentages, the scores were pre-test 56%, post-test 55% and control group 52%. However, both the pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental group were higher than the scores of the control group. In another study of how to curb deviant behaviours through Peace Education in Lagos State; Jegede, Ememe and Kolawale (2013) while using Behaviour Rating Scale, Weekly Behavioural Assessment Record, Dialogue Module and Focus Group Discussions discovered that deviant behaviours decreased among the experimental group more than the control group. For examples, disobedience to school rules and regulations reduced to 42.85% amongst the experimental group than 57.14% amongst the control group. Gang fighting reduced to 37.06% amongst the experimental group as against 62.94% amongst the control group. Taking drugs also reduced to 32.90% amongst the experimental group as against 67.10% amongst the control group. Bully also reduced to 39.13% amongst the experimental group as against 60.87% amongst the control group while rudeness to teachers reduced to 42.86% amongst the experimental group as against 57.14% amongst the control group. The test of significant difference revealed that the t-calculated value of 4.20 was greater than the t-table value of 1.67 at 0.05 level. It therefore showed that the peace education package significantly empowered the deviant individuals to the right skills and attitudes. The results equally showed that peace education is not only useful in changing deviant behaviours but can also be used to reintegrate the deviants back into the society as well as help them live responsible and peaceable lives.
104
Using Peace Education and Industrial Relations Evaluation Questionnaire (PEAIREQ), Ajala (2007) found that anger management (β = 0.237) was the most potent contributor to industrial peace, followed by community-building (β = 0.204), interaction procedure (β = 0.175), divergent idea management (β = 0.173), bouncing back from stress (β = 0.165), job designation (β = 0.151), common interest management (β = 0.143), violence prevention by labour (β = 0.138), violence prevention by management (β = 0.125), strike occurrence and management relations ability (β = 0.120), and effect of strike on labour (β = 0.096) in that order. On the whole, the regression analysis F(11.964)=296.801, p < .05 indicates that all the eleven variables so tested on management-labour peace education relations helped to avoid conflicts and promote industrial harmony within the eight selected labour sectors in Nigeria.
In a recent survey of Social Studies teachers personal variables, knowledge and disposition to the teaching of Peace Education concepts in Ogun State, Nigeria, Ogunyemi and Adetoro (2013) discovered that both the professional and non-professional JSS Social Studies teachers were favourably disposed to the fact that peace education can promote unity in diversity in Nigeria (χ2 = 5.957, p > 0.05), both male and female teachers agreed that Peace Education is a means of ‘catching them young’ to minimize the spirit of intolerance that engenders conflict all over the world (χ2 = 6.139, p > 0.05), and that Peace Education skills require additional training for Social Studies teachers (χ2 = 9.488, p > 0.05) as they ranked the teaching of tolerance (1st), cooperation (2nd), Rule of law (3rd), Human Rights (4th) and obedience to authority (5th) as the necessary basic concepts for teaching Peace Education in Nigeria. However, only 41.4% of the teachers agreed that Peace Education is for promoting a culture of tolerance and a disposition of 105
give-and-take thereby indicating their limited knowledge of the subject matter. Even only 20.7% of the teachers agreed that cooperative learning is suitable for the teaching of Peace Education in the Junior Secondary Schools as against 25.2% that chose role-playing. They further submitted that the adding of Peace Education concepts and themes to Social Studies curriculum continues to overload the curriculum in Nigeria (χ2 = 14.630, p > 0.05).
2.6 Conceptual Model The conceptual model (see Figure 2.2) for this research hinges on the application of learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method of teaching as independent variables to engender acquisition of peace education among Junior Secondary School II students. The themes for achieving these according to NERDC (2007) as adopted by the researcher are meaning of peace, types and importance of peace, ways of promoting peace, global/international cooperation, meaning of conflict, types and examples of conflict, causes of conflict and nonviolent methods of resolving conflicts. The moderator variables are the students’ different learning styles (visual, auditory, reading & kinaesthetic modes) and gender (male or female). Students’ learning outcomes (dependent variables) in peace education concepts, attitude towards peace education and conflict resolution skills were assessed through peace education achievement test, attitude towards peace education questionnaire and conflict resolution skill test.
106
Acquisition of Peace Education
Using
Learning Together
Constructive Controversy
Conventional
Method
With
1. Peace Education Concepts Achievement Test 2. Attitude Towards Peace Education Questionnaire 3. Conflict Resolution Skill Test
Can lead to
A. Concepts Attainment in Peace Education B. Attitude Towards Peace Education C. Conflict Resolution Skill
Figure 2.2: Conceptual Model for the Study (Source: Author) 107
Non-violent methods of resolving conflict
Global/International cooperation
Using
Causes of conflict
Ways of promoting peace
1. Learning Styles 2. Gender as Moderators
2.7
Appraisal of the Reviewed Literature
The reviewed literature has underscored the relevance of the theoretical and conceptual models of Bandura’s (1976, 1977) social learning, Vygotsky (1978) and Barbara’s (2007) social constructivism, Bruner’s (1966) conceptual mental models, Jerkins’ (2006) pedagogies of engagement, Friere’s (1997) conscientization of knowledge, Galtung‘s (2003) and Bouldings’ (1988) feminist approach to peace education and Gumut’s (2006) theory of peer–mediation in conflict studies. While UNESCO (1996) provided the humanist approach to conflict resolution, the Upeace’s (2006) transformative engagement in peace education served as the platform for behaviour modification in this study. On the one hand, the contrarians’ and Tabulawa’s arguments provided some justifications for the conventional method or direct instruction used in the control–group in the study. On the other hand, findings from Johnson and Johnson (19832009)’s extensive research, among others, in cooperative learning served as the major impetus for adopting ‘learning together’ and ‘constructive controversy’
pedagogies for the
two
experimental groups.
The inconclusive and conflicting research outcomes on gender factor in cooperative learning as evident in the reviewed literature made the use of gender as a moderator variable in this study very pertinent. Indeed, most studies that explored the influence gender in cooperative learning found no sex differences learning outcomes of students. It was also discovered in the literature that studies into the effects of learning styles in students’ learning achievements are scanty. Yet, it has been consistently reported that the more a teaching technique fixes into the learning style of a student, the greater his or her learning outcomes. Hence, a model of learning style known as VARK (Visual – Auditory – Reading and Kinaesthetic) equally gained considerable attention in the review and was subsequently used as another moderating variable in the study. 108
In general however, the gaps in the existing literature revealed the need to classify various scholars position on peace education into various schools of thought such as the Pragmatists as represented by Freire (1992), Ogunyemi (2006), Reardon (1988), Galtung (2008); the Essentialist Peace Educators such as Harris (1980), Webel (2007), Kester (2007); and the Idealist Peace Educators as represented by Plato (360 B.C.E.), Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.), Howlett (2008) and Page (2008). The existing literature also revealed limited knowledge about African indigenous approaches to peace education and conflict resolution. It equally showed few empirical evidences on effects of cooperative learning strategies on students’ learning outcomes in peace education aspect of social studies in Nigeria.
109
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY The methodology chapter for this study involved the design, target population, sample and sampling procedure, research instruments, data collection procedure and method of data analysis.
3.1 Research Design The study adopted a pre–test, post–test, control group, quasi experimental design. The treatment was at three levels thus: Experimental Group 1:
O1 X1 O2 (Learning Together)
Experimental Group 2:
O3 X2 O4 (Constructive Controversy)
Control Group 3:
O5 X3 O6 (Conventional Method)
Where: O1, O3, O5 represent pre-test scores X1, X2, X3 represent treatments in experimental and control groups O2, O4, O6 represent the post-test scores.
In conducting the experiment, the two moderator variables considered were gender at two levels (male and female) and learning styles at four levels (visual, auditory, reading and kinaesthetic styles).
The 3 x 2 x 4 factorial matrix for the study is illustrated in Table 3.1.
110
Table 3.1: The Factorial Matrix for the Study Treatment
Gender Male
Learning Together (T1)
Learning Styles Female
17
17
Visual Auditory Reading Kinaesthetic
Constructive Controversy (T2)
11
21
Conventional Method (T3)
14
19
Visual Auditory Reading Kinaesthetic Visual Auditory Reading Kinaesthetic
A schematic illustration of the variables of the study is as presented below: Independent Variables
Instructional Mode i) Learning Together (T1) ii) Constructive Controversy (T2) iii) Conventional Method (T3)
Moderator Variables
A. Gender i) Male ii) Female B. Learning Styles i) Visual ii) Auditory iii) Reading iv) Kinaesthetic
Dependent Variables
Attainments 1. Knowledge in Peace Education 2. Attitudinal Attainment in Peace Education 3. Conflict resolution Skills
Figure 3.1: A schematic illustration of the variables under study iv ii) Reading 3.2
Target Population
The target population for this study consisted of all public Junior Secondary School II (JSSII) students in Ogun State, Nigeria. The target schools run the same academic calendar and
111
syllabus/curriculum in social studies. The main focus was on the co–educational ones because of gender as a moderator variable.
3.3
Sample and Sampling Techniques
A total of 99 students drawn from three junior public secondary schools in Ogun State constituted the sample of the study. The students were selected through simple random sampling technique. First, three out of the four administrative divisions (Yewa, Egba, Ijebu and Remo) in the State were randomly selected through balloting. One Junior Secondary School (JSS) in each of the three sampled divisions was again randomly sampled for the experiment. In each school, an intact arm of JS II class taught by a professionally qualified social studies teacher was randomly selected for the experiment. Where a school could not meet the criterion of teacher qualification, such a school was replaced. All the three schools selected were co-educational. The three schools selected were thereafter randomly allocated to the experimental and control groups. Thus, in the three chosen schools and classes, one was experimented with learning together, the second with constructive controversy and the third (control group) with the conventional method. In terms of the mortality rate 2 students dropped out of the LT group, 3 from the CC group and 1 from the CM group (either due to sickness or absentism). Thus, the number of the students that completed the experiment were 33 students for the conventional method, 34 students for the learning together and 32 students for the constructive controversy.
3.4
Instrumentation
The research instruments consisted of the instructional packages and treatment packages. 3.4.1 Instructional Packages Three instructional packages were used for the study thus: 112
i)
Learning Together Instructional Package (LTIP)
ii)
Constructive Controversy Instructional Package (CCIP)
iii)
Conventional Method Instructional Package (CMIP)
All the instructional packages focused on three major Peace Education concepts – Peace, Conflict, and Global/International Cooperation. The concepts were part of the emerging issues that were thematically listed in the new JSS II Social Studies curriculum. However, the Peace concept was further broken into meaning, types and ways of promoting peace in the instructional packages. The conflict concept also had meaning, types, examples and non-violent methods of resolving conflicts
as
its
sub-themes
in
the instructional
packages.
Equally, the
Global/International Cooperation concept was treated under meaning, types and examples.
3.4.1.1
Learning Together Instructional Package (LTIP)
This package consists of step–by-step lesson plans supported with story cards on the concepts of ‘peace’, ‘conflict’ and ‘Global/International cooperation’. Learners worked in groups of maximum of five members, having their leaders and note-takers with every member contributing his/her own ideas in the group within 30 minutes. Specifically, each of the group member studied the story cards for 10 minutes, they discussed it among themselves for another 10 minutes and they used the last 10 minutes to reach consensus on the questions/issues. At the end, each group leader presents their answers to issues on the topic for another 10 minutes to the whole class. 3.4.1.1.1
Guides for Using Learning Together
The following were the steps the experimental teacher used in school A: 1. The teacher wrote the topic on the chalkboard.
113
2. The teacher guided the students to break into groups of five members each (choosing their group leader and armed with a note-taker), and role assignments rotated in different lessons. 3. The teacher distributed pieces of worksheets/notepads and story cards to each student. 4. The teacher informed the students to study the story cards given to each person for 5 to 10 minutes. 5. The teacher directed the students in each group to attempt answers to each of the evaluative questions (as in the lesson notes) written on the worksheets for 10minutes. 6. The teacher informed the students in each group to discuss the answers given to each question without quarrelling, noise-making or yelling, while the group leader moderated their responses politely. 7. The teacher informed the students that they were to arrive at a jointly-written position on answer to each question with everybody contributing one after the other. 8. The teacher moved round all the groups to assist them where they were having challenges and made sure that they do not make noise to disturb other groups in the class. 9. The teacher then requested that each group leader presented his/her group’s answers on each evaluative question to the whole class. 10. As each group presented their answers to the whole class, the teacher made positive remarks and commendations appropriately and requested each student to jot points down and keep their worksheets/notepads for future revision (See Appendices I, IV & VII). 3.4.1.2
Constructive Controversy Instructional Package (CCIP)
This package equally consists of step–by-step lesson plans supported with story cards on the concept of ‘peace’, ‘conflict’ and ‘Global/International cooperation’. However, learners in the
114
class were divided into groups of six. Some of the group members served as ‘advocates’ while others as ‘opposing’ members. They engaged themselves in opposing dialogue within 30 minutes. Each group had a leader and a note-taker. Specifically, the advocate members of the group spoke in favour of each topic while the opposing members spoke against the topic. Their speech are guided by the dialogue boxes and note pads already prepared by them at the first 10 minutes. They used the next 10 minutes for the actual dialogue and the last 10 minutes to take collective resolution on answers to each question/issue in the group. The leader for each group then presented their group response on specific issues of the topic for 10 minutes to the whole class.
3.4.1.2.1
Guides for Using Constructive Controversy
The following were the steps the experimental teacher used in school B: 1. The teacher wrote the topic on the chalkboard. 2. In a group of six students each, the teacher encouraged two to volunteer as advocates and two as opposing members on the topic with the fifth and sixth persons being the moderator and note-taker respectively for the group. 3. The teacher distributed story cards, dialogue cards, and worksheets/notepads to every member of each group. 4. The teacher then wrote the following rules for the dialogue on the chalkboard. a. Group members can only object to ideas but must respect each person and opinion. b. Students are not to interject any opinion but listen and object only when it comes to their turn.
115
c. Each member in a pair is to contribute his or her own position based on the dialogue card given and be ready to shift ground/position when necessary. d. The group leader was to moderate the dialogue. He/she in consultation with the notetaker thereafter presented the group position to the class. 5. The students are to be guided by the dialogue box attached to each story card, refute opposing views, engage in group processing and evaluate positions before arriving at consensus which is jotted down by the note-taker. 6. During dialogue, the teacher moved round each group to ensure that they do not abuse one another and do not make noise to distract other groups. 7. The teacher then requested each group leader (moderator) to present their final answers to the evaluative items on the lesson to the class. 8. As the group leader presented each group final position on each evaluative item, the teacher gave commendation, correct them where necessary and requested the students to jot points down for future revision (See Appendices II, V & VIII).
3.4.1.3
Conventional Method of Instruction Package (CMIP)
This package followed the traditional mode of lesson delivery. Equipped with the lesson plans and the story cards, the teacher only gave information on the concepts of ‘peace’, ‘conflict’ and Global/ International Cooperation’ to the learners while the learners took down notes and listened in the class. In each lesson of 40 minutes, the teacher engaged the class in discussion for 30 minutes while the remaining 10 minutes was used for feedback from the students and clarifications by the teacher.
116
3.4.1.3.1
Guides for Using Conventional Method of Instruction
The following were the steps undertaken by the teacher in school C: 1. The teacher wrote the topic on the chalkboard. 2. The teacher distributed the story cards to each student to study for 10minutes. 3. The teacher then read the story card to the hearing of all the students. 4. The teacher requested the students to ask questions on the story. 5. The teacher then asked the students to answer the evaluative questions on the lesson orally and commend them where necessary. 6. Students engaged in listening attentively, asking questions, and responding to teacher’s questions. 7. The teacher equally corrected the students’ answers and asked them to jot points down in their worksheets/notepads for future revision (See Appendices III, VI & IX).
3.4.2
Treatment Packages
Four treatment packages were used for the study thus: i)
Peace Education Achievement Test (PEAT)
ii)
Attitude Towards Peace Education Questionnaire (ATPEQ)
iii)
Conflict Resolution Skill Test (CRST)
iv)
Learning Styles Classification Test(LSCT)
3.4.2.1
Peace Education Achievement Test (PEAT)
PEAT is divided into two sections: Section A of this instrument consists of demographic information like name, school, class and sex while section B contains 30 multiple – choice items
117
covering the concepts of ‘Peace’ ‘Conflict’ and ‘Global/International cooperation’, ‘Ways of promoting peace’, and ‘non – violent methods of resolving Conflicts’ (See Appendix X). The 30 items were arrived at after the initial 45 items were subjected to item analysis. The selected items are classified as in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2:
Table of Specification for Peace Education Achievement Test
Behavioural Objectives Knowledge Comprehension Application Total
Peace
Conflict
1, 3, 4,7,10 2, 6, 8 5, 9 10
11, 13, 18, 25 12, 14, 15, 20, 24 16, 17, 21, 22, 23 14
Global/International
Total
Cooperation
Items
26, 28 27, 30 19, 29 6
11 10 9 30
Validity and Reliability of Peace Education Achievement Test The experts’ initial reactions to the 30 – item generated for PEAT indicated that some English language expressions used might be unfamiliar to the targeted respondents. After the language moderation by two junior secondary school social studies teachers, the items were adjudged to be adequate for administration. For determining its reliability, the Peace Education Achievement Test was administered in a secondary school not involved in the main study. Using an intact JS II class and analysis of the scores by a statistician, item difficulty index of between 0.19 and 0.48 were obtained. Each correct item attracted one mark and incorrect answer received no score. After modification of some items, the item difficulty index on the average became 0.52 while the internal consistency of the test items using Kuder–Richardson formula (K21) yielded 0.63.
118
3.4.2.2
Attitude Towards Peace Education Questionnaire (ATPEQ)
ATPEQ is divided into two sections: Section A of the questionnaire sought personal information like name, school, sex and class from the students while Section B contains 30 multiple-choice items on the concepts of ‘peace’, ‘conflict’ ‘Global/International cooperation’, ‘ways of promoting peace’ and ‘non – violent methods of resolving conflicts’. The four-point Likert scale format used ranges from Strongly Agreed (SA), Agreed (A), Disagreed (D) to Strongly Disagreed (SD) - See Appendix XI.
Validity and Reliability of Attitude Towards Peace Education Questionnaire After the initial pre-field corrections, the 30 – item questionnaire with 4–point Likert scale was trial–tested among the JS II students of the same secondary school not involved in the main study to ascertain the reliability of the instrument. Each ‘Strongly Agreed’ response was scored four points, ‘Agreed’ three points, ‘Disagreed’ two points, and ‘Strongly Disagreed’ one point. Using a test–retest procedure (whereby the questionnaires were administered twice to the same set of students within an interval of three weeks), a reliability coefficient of 0.68 was obtained. This suggested that the instrument was sufficiently reliable for use in the study.
3.4.2.3
Conflict Resolution Skill Test (CRST)
CRST is divided into two sections: Section A of the test solicit information on demographic variables like name, school and sex while section B presented a case study of a conflict which started from a school and subsequently engulfed the whole community and turning to a legal tussle. This instrument, which aimed at measuring conflict resolution skills of the students, was adapted from Johnston and LeBaron (2007). Following this model, a 34–item projective rating
119
scale was generated in section C to guide the responses of students to the narrative in the case study. The projective scales were to be rated thus: Very necessary (3points), Necessary (2 points) and Not necessary (1 point). See Appendix XII.
Validity and Reliability of Conflict Resolution Skill Test Face and content validities were done by two experts in psychological testing to arrive at an adapted 34–item from the initial thirty-five items generated for CRST. On its reliability, the Guttman split–half method of reliability testing was used. The items were randomly sorted into two parts of seventeen each and the split-half test yielded an index of 0.59. This result showed that all the thirty four items were reliable for administration.
3.4.2.4
Learning Styles Classification Test (LSCT)
The mode of learning styles classification as adapted from the College Reading and Learning Association (2011) involved Visual, Auditory, Reading and Kinaesthetic (VARK) styles. Section A of it requested for name, school and sex from the students. In Section B, the students were to respond to sixteen items to detect their learning styles. In classifying students into the four major learning styles, the scoring chart adapted from the College Reading and Learning Association (2011) was used. This instrument was used to classify the students into their best learning styles (see Appendix XIII for the LSCT Package and Appendix XV for the scoring chart).
Validity and Reliability of the Learning Styles Classification Test In the validity assessment of the VARK, the two measurement experts consulted observed that some English wordings like ‘websites’, ‘hook–up’, ‘preview’, ‘brochure’ and ‘movie’ might be difficult for the JS II students in a typical Nigerian public secondary school to understand. 120
Hence, the words ‘websites’ was changed to ‘computer’, ‘hook–up’ to ‘open’, ‘preview’ to ‘see it before’, ‘brochure’ to ‘textbook’ and ‘movie’ to ‘film’. These efforts made the learning styles classification test items to become adaptable and were subsequently adjudged valid for administration in the Nigerian Junior Secondary Schools. A test–retest procedure was also adopted to determine the reliability of the instrument. Using Pearson Product Moment Correlation statistic, a reliability index of 0.62 was obtained, which suggests that the instrument was reliable.
3.5
Pilot Survey
A pilot survey was conducted to assess teachers’ understanding of the concept of peace education and their readiness for the use of innovative methodologies in teaching at the Junior Secondary School (JSS) level. In addition, the opportunity of the survey was used to try out the research instrument among some selected respondents within the survey sample (details of the validation of the instruments as a subset of the pilot survey was discussed under instrumentation).
The survey was carried out in sixty (60) randomly selected public secondary schools in Ogun State. Out of 120 questionnaires distributed to social studies teachers, a total of 111 were returned. The questionnaire contained twenty-five (25) items of four-point Likert scale model with Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD) options.
Findings from the survey revealed that, although majority of the social studies teachers (61.3%), were aware of the inclusion of peace education concepts and themes in the JSS social studies
121
curriculum, only 41.4% of them had the correct understanding that peace education is about promoting a culture of tolerance and a disposition of give-and-take. Furthermore, only 20.7% of the teachers agreed that cooperative learning is the most suitable method of teaching peace education contrary to findings of numerous researchers such as Kagan (1994) and Johnson and Johnson (1989, 2009) that cooperative learning improved students’ relationship with others and helped them to use consensus to settle disputes respectively. The discovery that teachers had low rating of cooperative learning among other methods for teaching peace education was perhaps due to the submission of majority of the teachers (64.5%) that peace education skills would require additional training for social studies teachers.
The possible gaps in knowledge and skills observed in findings from the pilot survey were subsequently factored into the planning and execution of the main study with specific reference to the following: (i) A comprehensive manual was developed to ensure that concepts and themes focused in the study were explicitly made clear so as to prevent any form of ambiguity in the course of executing the experiment at the classroom level. (ii) Experts in cooperative learning pedagogies were enlisted as trainers for teachervolunteers who were to participate in the main experiment. (iii)A benchmark of 95 per cent mastery of steps and techniques involved in the cooperative learning strategies used for the experiment was set for the recruited social studies teachers and only those who met this standard were allowed to participate.
122
3.6
Procedure for the Experiment
The researcher first obtained the permission of the principals of the three selected schools. The cooperation of the participating students and their selected social studies teachers who also served as the research assistants were sought and obtained. Then, a one week training and orientation programme was organised for both the selected social studies teachers and the participating students in the three selected schools. 3.6.1 Training and Orientation Programmes (Pre-Treatment) 3.6.1.1 Training of Research Assistants: The three social studies teachers who volunteered to participate in the experiment were exposed to the following principles and guidelines of the experiments as they applied to their respective groups: (i)
Aims and objectives of the study
(ii)
Time and duration of the experiment.
(iii)
Prepared lesson materials on Learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method of instruction (depending on which was applicable to each of the three teachers).
(iv)
Step–by–step instructional guides for each of the three instructional modes (depending on which is applicable to each teacher).
(v)
Assignment of roles to students and their monitoring in group discussion.
(vi)
Administration of the research instruments and their scoring.
3.6.1.2 Orientation for Participating Students All students that participated in the experiments were exposed to required orientation activities including their roles in the class during the experiment, skills and rules of social interdependence, constructive advocacy engagement, and attentiveness to speakers.
123
3.7
Method of Data Collection
The entire study lasted a total of six weeks under four phases. The first phase was the orientation/training of students and teachers which took place in the first week. This was followed by the pre-test which was carried out in the second phase for the purpose of obtaining scores on the students’ background knowledge, attitude and skills on peace education. The third phase involved treatment for three weeks while the last phase took place in the sixth week with the post-tests using the PEAT, ATPEQ, CRST and LSCT as done under pre-test.
3.7.1 Pre–Test Prior to the experiment, the students were administered with the Learning Styles Classification Test, Peace Education Achievement Test, the Attitude towards Peace Education Questionnaire and the Conflict Resolution Skill Test in determine their learning styles, knowledge, attitude and skills in conflict resolution. 3.7.2 Treatment (Post-Test) Treatment was carried out for five weeks for the three groups. Group 1 students were taught with Learning Together Instructional package, Group 2 students with Constructive Controversy Instructional package and Group 3 with the Conventional Method of Instruction. 3.7.2.1 Experimental Group 1 This was the group that was treated with Learning Together Instructional Package. In this group of an intact JSS II class, all the students were grouped into 5 members with assigned roles among them i.e. one person to be a group leader, another one to serve as a note-taker and others to become active participants. After thorough discussion and sharing of ideas on the topic in the story card in each lesson, the leader of the group presented their position to the whole class following the instructional procedure as earlier explained under the instructional packages. 124
3.7.2.2
Experimental Group II
This was the group that was treated with the Constructive Controversy Instructional Package. In this group of another intact JSS II class (from another Division of Ogun State – about 100 km away from the first group), all the class members were grouped into six with a group leader and a note-taker chosen by them. Among the four remaining members of each group using the story card, two served as the advocates of the positions and the other two opposing the position while the group leader moderated them. The group leader moderated them to build up a consensus that was finally presented to the whole class. Specific features of this procedure were earlier highlighted under the instructional packages. 3.7.2.3
Control Group
The control group was treated with the Conventional Method of instruction. In this group of another intact JSS II class (from another Division of Ogun State – about 100 kms away from each of the two experimental groups); using the story cards, all the members of the class were taught the lessons by the class teacher through the traditional talk-and-chalk method.
3.8
Method of Data Analysis
The data collected were coded and analysed using the 14.0 version of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The analyses involved the descriptive analysis of the three research questions (using mean and standard deviation) and the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) to test the twenty-one hypotheses with the Pre-test scores as covariates. By using the pre-test scores as covariates, ANCOVA catered for the initial differences among the controlled and experimental groups.
125
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS Findings in the study are presented in this chapter in two parts: descriptive and inferential. The descriptive part focuses mainly on the research questions while the inferential section addresses the hypotheses. 4.1
Presentation of Descriptive Findings
Research Question 1: The first research question states: “Which of the treatment conditions among learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method will lead to highest learning outcomes in Peace Education?” Table 4.1 below presents findings in relation to this question. Table 4.1:
Comparison of Pre-test and Post–test Scores of the Students
Treatment Groups
Achievement
Attitude
Pre-test
Pre-test Posttest 34 34 84.91 86.09 10.13 7.99 61 72 103 105
Conflict Skill Pre-test
Resolution
34 66.91 8.47 51 80
34 66.47 8.29 50 84
Learning Together
N Mean SD Min Max
34 10.88 2.09 5 15
Posttest 34 13.21 2.29 8 17
Constructive Controversy
N Mean SD Min Max
32 11.13 2.99 5 17
32 13.84 2.53 5 19
32 86.72 8.85 76 114
32 89.13 6.18 73 98
32 68.66 13.12 51 103
32 65.25 9.46 50 84
Conventional Method
N Mean SD Min Max
33 11.21 3.07 6 20
33 12.97 3.27 7 19
33 87.79 9.97 72 124
33 86.97 7.78 70 101
33 64.00 6.92 52 80
33 65.52 7.83 50 84
126
Post- test
As can be seen in Table 4.1, thirty–four students were treated with learning together, thirty–two with constructive controversy and thirty–three with the conventional method. In all the three groups, the students taught with constructive controversy strategy had the highest post–test achievement and post–test attitude mean scores of 13.84 and 89.13 respectively. However, the same group had the least post-test mean conflict resolution skill score of 65.25. While the students taught with learning together had 13.21 post–test achievement mean score, those taught with conventional method had 12.97. Furthermore, on the post–test attitude mean scores, the students taught with the conventional method had a mean of 86.97 and appeared better in attitudinal learning outcomes than the learning together group that scored 86.09. In post–test conflict resolution mean scores however, the learning together group had the highest score with 66.47 as against 65.52 and 65.25 scored by the conventional method and constructive controversy groups respectively. This tends to suggest that no single instructional strategy recorded the best fit in all the three areas of learning outcomes in this study. Research Question 2: The second research question states: “Which of the gender will lead to higher learning outcomes of the students when exposed to the different treatment conditions?” Table 4.2 presents data relevant to addressing this research question. Table 4.2: Treatment Groups
Learning Together Constructive Controversy Conventional Method
Gender
M = 17 F = 17 M = 11 F = 21 M = 14 F = 19
Gender factor in the students’ learning outcomes Achievement
Attitude
Pre-Test
PreTest 84.88 84.94 85.09 87.57 90.00 86.16
11.41 10.35 12.45 10.43 11.57 11.89
PostTest 13.06 13.35 13.06 13.57 13.07 12.89
127
Conflict resolution Skill PostTest 84.12 88.06 87.73 89.86 87.79 86.37
Pre-Test
Post-Test
67.47 74.59 68.18 68.90 64.21 63.84
65.88 67.06 65.36 65.19 63.71 66.84
Table 4.2 indicates that when taught with learning together, female students performed higher in the post-test achievement, attitude and conflict resolution skills than their male counterparts as they recorded the mean scores of 13.35, 88.06 and 67.06 respectively. However, when taught with constructive controversy, male students performed higher with 14.36 and 65.36 in post-test achievement and conflict resolution skills respectively. Furthermore, the female students performed higher with 89.86 mean score than their male counterparts in constructive controversy group. Under conventional method however, male students performed higher with 13.07 and 87.79 in post-test achievement and post-test attitude mean scores respectively. On the other hand, the female students performed higher in post-test conflict resolution skill with 66.84 mean score as against 63.71 mean score recorded by male students. Thus, female students appeared to have posted better test scores in learning together with regards to post-test achievement, attitude and conflict resolution skills tests. On the other hand, the male performed higher than females in constructive controversy in post-test achievement and conflict resolution skills tests. Equally, for the conventional method of teaching, the male out-performed their female counterparts in the post-test achievement and attitude scores while their female counterparts out-performed them in post-test conflict resolution skills. These findings showed that gender has a considerable effect on students’ knowledge, attitude and skills in peace education when exposed to the different treatment conditions.
Research Question 3: The third research question states: “Which of the different learning styles will lead to highest learning outcomes of the students when exposed to different treatment conditions?”
Findings on question 3 are summed up in Table 4.3.
128
Table 4.3: Treatment Groups
Learning styles factor in the students’ learning outcomes
Learning styles
Achievement
Attitude
Conflict Resolution Skill
Learning
V=3
11.67
PostTest 12.67
Together
A=6
10.67
13.33
86.83
92.17
69.67
72.83
R = 23
10.74
13.30
84.48
85.57
67.39
65.70
K=2
12.00
12.50
76.00
78.50
60.50
62.00
Constructive
V=2
10.50
13.50
88.50
90.50
80.00
66.50
Controversy
A=6
13.67
14.33
91.67
88.00
65.83
68.33
R = 16
11.44
13.69
83.06
89.94
70.31
64.75
K=8
10.38
13.88
89.88
88.00
64.63
63.63
Conventional
V=2
16.00
13.00
88.00
82.50
63.00
68.50
Method
A=4
8.50
11.75
83.00
83.25
67.25
65.00
R = 21
11.62
13.05
87.33
88.38
64.33
65.67
K=6
10.00
13.50
92.50
86.00
61.00
64.33
Pre-Test
PreTest 90.33
PostTest 83.00
Pre-Test
Pre-Test
62.00
62.67
Table 4.3 presents effects of different learning styles on the students’ learning outcomes in Peace Education. In learning together, the Auditory students performed best in all the three domains of learning, that is, 13.33 in post-test achievement scores, 92.17 in post-test attitude scores and 72.83 in post-test conflict resolution skill scores. Next were the students with Reading styles that had mean scores of 13.30, 85.57 and 65.70 in post-test achievement, attitude and post conflict resolution skills respectively. The least scores of 12.50, 78.50 and 62.00 were recorded by the kinaesthetic learners in post-test achievement, attitude and conflict resolution skills respectively when taught with learning together strategy.
129
In constructive controversy, while students in Auditory style group had the best mean scores of 14.33 in the post-test achievement and 68.33 in the post-test conflict resolution skill tests respectively, it was those in the Visual Learning style that scored highest with a mean of 90.50 in the post-test attitude scores. Students in the Kinaesthetic learning style group came second with a post-test mean achievement score of 13.88, followed by those in the Reading style with 13.69 and lastly were those in the Visual style with a mean post-test achievement score of 13.50. In the post-test attitude test, students in the Reading modality came second with a mean score of 89.94, followed by the Auditory and Kinaesthetic students that scored 88.00. Furthermore, students in the Visual style category came second with 66.50 mean scores in the post-test conflict resolution skill test. This was followed by students (constructive controversy group) that studied with Reading style with a mean score of 64.75, and the kinaesthetic students with 63.63 post-test conflict resolution skills score respectively.
Using the conventional method, the students in the Kinaesthetic style group had the best result of 13.50 post-test achievement mean score while those in the Reading and Visual styles had the best mean scores of 88.38 in the post-test attitude test and 68.50 in the post-test conflict resolution skills test respectively. Students with the Reading style came second with 13.05 post-test mean achievement score, followed by the Visual learners with 13.00 and, at the bottom, were the Auditory learners with 11.75. In the post-test attitude test, the Kinaesthetic learners came second with 86.00 mean score, followed by the Auditory learners with 83.25 mean score and the least mean score of 82.50 was recorded by the Visual learners. Equally, in the post-test conflict resolution skills test, the Reading learners came second with a mean score of 65.67. This was closely followed by the Auditory learners that had a mean score of 65.00. The least score of 64.33 was recorded by the Kinaesthetic learners. Consequently, different learning styles 130
appeared to have affected the students’ knowledge, attitude and skills in Peace Education differently when taught with learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method in this study.
4.2
Test of Hypotheses
The results of the twenty-one hypotheses tested in this study are hereby presented. Ho1:
There is no significant difference in the post-test mean achievement scores of students exposed to peace education under the different treatment conditions.
Table 4.4:
Summary of Analysis of covariance of students’ achievement scores in Peace Education according to Treatment, Gender and Learning Styles
Source of variation
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig of F
Covariates (pre-test)
179.296
1
179.296
32.452
.000
Intercept
158.358
1
158.358
28.663
.000
15.792
2
7.896
1.429
.246
.427
1
.427
.077
.782
11.337
3
3.779
.684
.564
Treatment X Gender
14.602
2
7.301
1.321
.273
Treatment X Learning Style
20.706
6
3.451
.625
.710
Gender X Learning Style
22.090
3
7.363
1.333
.270
18.770
2
9.385
1.699
.190
Explained
297.060
20
14.853
2.688
.001
Residual
430.940
78
5.525
728.00
98
Treatment Group Gender Learning Styles 2-Way Interaction
3-Way Interaction Treat X Gender X Learning Style
Total R squared = .408 (Adjusted R squared = .256).
Table 4.4 presents the result of the main and interaction effects of treatment, gender and learning style on students’ achievement in peace education at the .05 level of significance. The result, 131
with respect to hypothesis one, reveals no significant main effect of treatment on the students’ achievement scores in peace education (F(2,78) =1.429, P>0.05). This outcome implies that the observed difference in the post-test mean achievement scores of the students in peace education after exposure to different treatment group is not significantly different. As a result, null hypothesis one cannot be rejected. The magnitudes of the post-test mean achievement scores of the students exposed to the different treatment conditions are however displayed in the accompanying multiple classification analysis (MCA) presented in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5:
Summary of Multiple Classification Analysis of Students’ Achievement According to Treatment, Gender and Learning Styles (Grand mean = 12.976)
S/N
Variable + Category
N
Treatment Groups
Unadjusted
Eta
Adjusted for Independent
Deviation
+ Covariates
1.
Learning together
34
-1.26
1.02
2.
Constructive controversy
32
-0.43
1.57
3.
Conv. method of Instruction
33
-1.48
.04
0.75
Beta
.59
Gender 1.
Male
42
-1.35
2.
Female
57
-0.52
0.69 .01
1.07
.32
Learning styles 1.
Reading
60
-0.19
1.05
2.
Auditory
16
-1.72
0.92
3.
Visual
07
-2.57
1.18
4.
Kinaesthetic
16
-0.72
.03
2.03
.51
Multiple R squared
.408
Multiple R
.639
The result of the MCA in Table 4.5 reveals that with a grand mean of 12.976, the students exposed to constructive controversy strategy recorded the highest adjusted post-test achievement 132
score of 14.546 (i.e. 12.976 + 1.57). The students exposed to learning together strategy recorded the next higher adjusted post-test achievement score of 13.996, while the students exposed to conventional method recorded the lowest adjusted post-test achievement mean score of 13.726. The outcome shows that constructive controversy strategy recorded the best post-test mean achievement scores but not significantly different from the other post-test mean achievement scores. The Table also reveals that, while treatment condition alone accounted for 34.81% (0.59)2 of the variance in the students’ achievement scores, the independent and moderator variables jointly accounted for 40.8% (.639)2 of the variance in the dependent measure.
Ho2:
There is no significant difference in the post-test mean achievement scores of male and female students exposed to peace education under different treatment conditions.
The result in Table 4.4 revealed no significant main effect of gender on the students’ post-test mean achievement scores in peace education (F(1,78)=0.077,P>0.05). This outcome implies that the post-test mean achievement scores of male and female students are not significantly different at the .05 significant level. Hence, null hypothesis two cannot be rejected. However, the result of the MCA in Table 4.5 shows that the female students recorded better adjusted post-test mean achievement score of 14.046 (i.e. 12.976+1.07), than the male students who recorded an adjusted post-test mean achievement score of 13.666; although the difference is not statistically significant. The result in Table 4.5 further reveals that gender alone accounted for 10.24% (0.32)2 of the variance in the students’ achievement scores in peace education.
Ho3:
There is no significant difference in the post-test mean achievement scores of students with different learning styles. 133
The result in Table 4.4 reveals no significant main effect of learning style on the students’ achievement scores in peace education (F(3,78)=0.684, P>0.05). This outcome implies that there is no significant difference in the post-test mean achievement scores of the students with different learning styles, be it reading, auditory, visual or kinaesthetic. Hence, null hypothesis three cannot be rejected. However, the result of the MCA in Table 4.5 shows that the students with kinaesthetic learning style recorded the highest adjusted post-test mean achievement score of 15.006(12.976 + 2.03). This performance was followed by the students with visual learning style whose post-test mean achievement score was 14.156. The next higher adjusted post-test achievement score of 14.026 was recorded by the reading learners, while the students with auditory learning style recorded the least adjusted post-test mean achievement score of 13.896. The result in Table 4.5 further reveals that learning style alone accounted for 26.01% (0.51)2 of the variance in the students achievement scores in peace education.
Ho4:
There is no significant interaction effect of the treatment and gender on the post-test mean achievement scores of the students in peace education.
The result of the 2-way interaction effect in Table 4.4 revealed no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on the students’ achievement scores in peace education (F(2,78)=1.321, P>.05). The result implies that students’ post-test achievement scores in peace education do not vary significantly between male and female students after exposure to the different treatment conditions. Hence, null hypothesis four is not rejected. Ho5:
There is no significant interaction effect of the treatment and learning style on the post test mean achievement scores of the students in peace education.
The result of the 2-way interaction effect in Table 4.4 revealed no significant interaction effect of treatment and learning style on the students’ achievement scores in peace education 134
(F(6,78)=0.625,P>0.05). This outcome implies that students’ post-test mean achievement scores in peace education, after exposure to different treatment conditions, do not vary significantly among students with different learning styles (reading, auditory, visual and kinaesthetic). Hence, null hypothesis five cannot be rejected.
Ho6:
There is no significant interaction effect of gender and learning styles on the post-test mean achievement scores of the students in peace education.
The result of the 2-way interaction effect in Table 4.4 revealed no significant interaction effect of gender and learning style on the students’ achievement scores in peace education (F(3,78)=1.33, P>.05). This outcome implied that the effect of gender (male or female) on students’ achievement in peace education is not significantly sensitive to their learning styles. Therefore, the null hypothesis six is not rejected.
Ho7:
There is no significant interaction effect of the treatment, gender and learning styles on the post-test mean achievement scores of the students in peace education.
The result of the 3-way interaction effect in table 4.4 revealed no significant interaction effect of treatment, gender and learning styles on the students’ achievement scores in peace education (F(2,78)=1.699,P>0.05). This outcome implies that there was no significant difference in the students’ post-test achievement scores, after exposure to different treatment conditions, among all the possible gender-learning style combinations: male – reading; female – reading; male – auditory; female – auditory; male – visual; female – visual; male – kinaesthetic and femalekinaesthetic. Hence, null hypothesis seven is not rejected.
Ho8:
There is no significant difference in the post-test mean attitude scores of students exposed to different treatment conditions. 135
Table 4.6:
Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Students’ Attitude to Peace Education Scores According to Treatment, Gender and Learning Styles
Source of Variation
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
156.010
1
156.010
3.014
.087
5127.071
1
5127.071
99.047
.000
178.039
2
89.020
1.720
.186
55.158
1
55.158
1.066
.305
186.854
3
62.285
1.203
.314
36.795
2
18.398
.355
.702
Treatment X Learning Style
300.635
6
50.106
.968
.453
Gender X Learning Style
249.012
3
83.004
1.604
.195
11.978
2
5.989
.116
.891
Explained
1353.319
20
67.666
1.307
.200
Residual
4037.590
78
51.764
Total
5390.909
98
Covariates (pre-test) Intercept Treatment Group Gender Learning Styles
F
Sig of F
2-Way Interaction Treatment X Gender
3-Way Interaction Treat X Gender X Learning Style
Rsquared = .251 (Adjusted Rsquared = .059) Table 4.6 presents the result of the main and interaction effects of Treatment, Gender and Learning Style on the students’ attitude to peace education scores at .05 level of significance. The table reveals no significant main effect of treatment on the students’ attitude to peace education scores (F(2,78)=1.72, P>0.05). This outcome implies that there was no statistically significant difference in the students’ post-test attitude to peace education scores after exposure to the different treatment conditions. Hence, null hypothesis eight cannot be rejected. The result of the accompany MCA, Table 4.7, however revealed the magnitudes of the post-test mean attitude to peace education scores of the students exposed to the different treatment conditions.
136
Table 4.7:
Summary of Multiple Classification Analysis of Students’ Attitude Scores According to Treatment, Gender and Learning Styles (Grand Mean = 86.648)
S/N
Variable + Category
N
Treatment Groups
Unadjusted
Eta
Adjusted for Independent +
Deviation
Covariates
1.
Learning together
34
-3.86
3.14
2.
Constructive cont.
32
0.80
5.32
3.
Conv. method
33
-5.00
.04
1.84
Beta
.65
Gender 1.
Male
42
-3.01
2.
Female
57
-2.54
3.27 .02
2.33
.36
Learning styles 1.
Reading
60
-0.45
3.36
2.
Auditory
16
-2.68
5.42
3.
Visual
07
-7.03
4.34
4.
Kinaesthetic
16
-7.09
.04
1.31
.66
Multiple R squared
.251
Multiple R
.501
The result in table 4.7 shows that, with a grand mean of 86.648, the students exposed to constructive controversy strategy recorded the highest adjusted post-test mean attitude score of 91.968 (i.e. 86.648 + 5.32).
The next higher adjusted post-test mean attitude score of 89.788
was recorded by the students exposed to learning together strategy while the students exposed to the conventional method obtained the lowest adjusted post-test mean attitude score of 88.488. This outcome shows that the constructive controversy strategy recorded the best post-test mean achievement scores even though the mean score is not significantly different from the mean scores recorded by the other treatment groups. The result in Table 4.7 further revealed that while treatment alone accounted for 42.25% (0.65)2 of the variance in the students’ attitude to peace 137
education scores, the independent and moderator variables jointly accounted for 25.1% (.501)2 of the variance in the dependent variable.
Ho9:
There is no significant difference in the post-test mean attitude scores of male and female students exposed to peace education under the different treatment conditions.
The result in Table 4.6 revealed no significant main effect of gender on the students’ attitude to peace education scores (F(1,78)=1.066, P>0.05). This outcome implies that there was no significant difference between the attitude to peace education scores of the selected male and female students. Hence, null hypothesis nine cannot be rejected. However, the result of the MCA in Table 4.7 showed that the male students recorded higher adjusted post-test mean attitude scores of 89.918 against the adjusted post-test mean attitude score of 88.978 obtained by the female students. The result in Table 4.7 further reveals that students’ gender alone accounted for 12.96% (0.36)2 of the variance in the students’ attitude to peace education scores. Ho10: There is no significant difference in the mean post-test attitude scores of students with different learning styles. The result in Table 4.6 revealed no significant main effect of learning style on the students’ attitude to peace education scores (F(3,78)=1.203,P>0.05). This outcome implies that there was no statistically significant difference between the attitude scores of students with reading, auditory, visual and kinaesthetic learning styles. Thus, null hypothesis ten was not rejected. The result of the MCA in Table 4.7 however reveals that in the order of mean attitude scores, the students who preferred the auditory learning style had the highest adjusted post-test mean attitude score of 92.068 (i.e. 86.648+5.42); followed by the students who preferred visual learning style who had adjusted post-test attitude score of 90.999; then comes the reading
138
students with post-test mean attitude score of 90.008 while the lowest post-test mean attitude score of 87.958 was recorded by students who preferred the kinaesthetic learning style. The result in Table 4.7 further revealed that learning styles of students alone accounted for 43.56% (0.66)2 of the variance in the students’ attitude to peace education scores.
Ho11: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on the post-test mean attitude scores of students in peace education. The result of the 2-way interaction effect in Table 4.6 revealed no significant interaction effect of treatment, gender on the students’ attitude to peace education scores at the .05 level of confidence (F(2,78)=0.355, P>0.05). This outcome implies that students’ attitude to peace education, after exposure to different treatment conditions, do not vary significantly between male and female students. Hence, null hypothesis eleven cannot be rejected. Thus, male and female students do not differ significantly in their attitude to peace education after exposure to learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method of teaching peace education.
Ho12: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and learning style on the post-test mean attitude scores of students in peace education. The result of the 2-way interaction effect in Table 4.6 reveals no significant interaction effect of treatment and learning styles on the students’ attitude to peace education scores (F(6,78)=0.968, P>0.05). This outcome implies that students’ attitude to peace education, after exposure to different treatment conditions, do not vary significantly among learners with reading, auditory, visual and kinaesthetic learning styles. Hence, null hypothesis twelve cannot be rejected. This,
139
implies that students with different learning styles do not differ significantly in their attitude to peace education after exposure to different treatment conditions. Ho13: There is no significant interaction effect of gender and learning styles on the post-test mean attitude scores of students in peace education. The result of the 2-way interaction effect in Table 4.6 reveals no significant interaction effect of gender
and
learning
style
on
the
students’
attitude
to
peace
education
scores
(F(3,78)=1.604,P>0.05). This outcome implies that the effect of gender on the students’ attitude to peace education scores is not significantly sensitive to their different learning styles (reading, auditory, visual and kinaesthetic). Hence, null hypothesis thirteen cannot be rejected. In other words, male and female students with different learning styles do not differ significantly in their attitude to peace education. Ho14: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment, gender and learning style on the post-test mean attitude scores of students in peace education. The result of the 3-way interaction effect in Table 4.6 reveals no significant interaction effect of treatment, gender and learning styles on the students’ attitude to peace education scores (F(2,78)=0.116,P>0.05). This outcome implies that there was no significant difference in the students’ attitude to peace education scores, after exposure to different treatment conditions, among all the possible learning styles-gender combinations, reading-boys, reading-girls, auditory-boys, auditory-girls, visual-boys, visual-girls, kinaesthetic-boys and kinaesthetic-girls. Hence, null hypothesis fourteen is not rejected. Ho15: There is no significant difference in the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of students exposed to peace education under the different treatment conditions.
140
Table 4.8:
Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Students’ Peace Education Conflict Resolution Skills Scores According to Treatment, Gender and Learning Styles
Source of Variation Covariates (pre-test)
Sum of Squares 946.231
Df 1
Mean Square 946.231
3216.209
1
3216.209
52.384
.000
Treatment Group
2.545
2
1.273
.021
.979
Gender
0.156
1
0.156
.003
.960
129.794
3
43.265
.705
.552
46.482
2
23.241
.379
.686
Treatment X Learning Style
329.359
6
54.893
.894
.504
Gender X Learning Style
275.998
3
91.999
1.498
.222
164.165
2
82.083
1.337
.269
Explained
2241.243
20
112.062
1.825
.032
Residual
4788.939
78
61.397
7030.182 R squared = .319 (Adjusted R squared = .144).
98
Intercept
Learning Styles
F Sig of F 15.412 .000
2-Way Interaction Treatment X Gender
3-Way Interaction Treat X Gender X Learning Style
Total
Table 4.8 presents the result of the main and interaction effects of treatment, Gender and Learning Styles on the students’ conflict resolution skills scores in peace education at the .05 level of confidence. The results reveal no significant main effect of treatment on the students’ conflict resolution skills scores (F(2,78)=0.021,P>0.05). This outcome implies that there was no significant difference in the students’ post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores after exposure to different treatment groups. Hence, null hypothesis fifteen cannot be rejected. However, the result of the MCA in Table 4.9 shows the skills scores of the students exposed to the different treatment conditions.
141
Table 4.9:
Summary of Multiple Classification Analysis of Students’ Conflict Resolution Skill Scores According to Treatment, Gender and Learning Styles (Grand Mean = 66.060)
S/N
Variable + Category
N
Treatment Conditions
Unadjusted
Eta
Adjusted for Independent +
Deviation
Covariates
1.
Learning together
34
-2.93
4.70
2.
Constructive cont.
32
-3.53
3.20
3.
Conv. method
33
-4.49
.01
3.00
Beta
.32
Gender 1.
Male
42
-4.14
2.
Female
57
-2.05
2.66 .00
3.26
.00
Learning styles 1.
Reading
60
-3.08
1.04
2.
Auditory
16
-2.12
6.65
3.
Visual
07
-6.59
5.77
4.
Kinaesthetic
16
-6.10
.03
3.20
.51
Multiple R squared
.319
Multiple R
.565
The result in Table 4.9 shows that, with a grand mean of 66.06, the students exposed to learning together instructional strategy obtained the highest adjusted post-test mean conflict resolution skills score of 70.76(i.e.60.06+4.70). This performance was followed by the students exposed to constructive controversy strategy with post-test mean score of 69.26 while the lowest post-test mean score of 69.06 was obtained by the students exposed to the conventional method of instruction. This outcome shows that the best post-test mean conflict resolution skills score was recorded by the students exposed to learning together strategy. The result in Table 4.9 further reveals that, while treatment alone accounted for 10.24% (0.32)2 of the variance in the students’ conflict resolution skills scores, the independent and moderator variables jointly accounted for 31.9% (0.565)2 of the variance in the dependent variables. 142
Ho16: There is no significant difference in the post-test mean conflict resolution skill scores of male and female students exposed to different treatment conditions.
The result in Table 4.8 shows no significant main effect of gender on the students’ conflict resolution skill scores (F(1,78)=0.003,P>0.05). This outcome implies that male and female students do not differ significantly in their conflict resolution skills scores after exposure to different learning strategies. Hence, null hypothesis sixteen cannot be rejected. However, the result of the accompanying MCA in Table 4.9 shows that the female students with adjusted posttest mean score of 69.32 recorded better conflict resolution skills scores than the male students who recorded adjusted post-test mean score of 68.72. Table 4.9 further reveals that gender alone contributed 0% (0.0)2 to the variance in the dependent variable. In other words, gender did not play a significant role in the students’ conflict resolution skills.
Ho17: There is no significant difference in the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of students with different learning styles.
The result in Table 4.8 presents no significant main effect of learning styles on the students’ conflict resolution skills scores (F(3,78)=0.705,P>0.05). This outcome implies that the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of students having reading, auditory, visual and kinaesthetic learning styles are not significantly different. Hence, null hypothesis seventeen cannot be rejected. However, the result of the MCA in table 4.9 reveals that, in the order of performance, students having auditory learning style had the best adjusted post-test mean score of 72.71, followed by the students with visual learning style who had an adjusted post-test mean score of 71.83; followed by the students having kinaesthetic learning style who obtained adjusted 143
post-test mean score of 69.26, while the lowest adjusted post-test mean score of 67.10 was obtained by the students having reading learning style preference. Table 4.9 further shows that learning style alone accounted for 26.01% (0.51)2 of the variance in the dependent variable (students’ conflict resolution skills).
Ho18: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of students. The result of the 2-way interaction effect in table 4.8 shows no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on the students’ conflict resolution skills scores (F(2,78)=0.379,P>0.05). This outcome reveals that male and female students do not differ significantly in their conflict resolution skills after being exposed to the different treatment conditions. Hence, null hypothesis eighteen is not rejected.
Ho19: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment and learning styles on the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of students.
The result of the 2-way interaction effect in Table 4.8 shows no significant interaction effect of treatment
and
learning
styles
on
the
students’
conflict
resolution
skill
scores
(F(6,78)=0.894,P>0.05). This outcome reveals that students’ conflict resolution skills scores, after exposure to different treatment conditions, do not vary significantly among students with different learning styles. Hence, null hypothesis nineteen cannot be rejected.
Ho20: There is no significant interaction effect of gender and learning styles on the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of students.
144
The result of the 2-way interaction effect in Table 4.8 revealed no significant interaction effect of gender
and
learning
styles
on
the
students’
conflict
resolution
skills
scores
(F(3,78)=1.498,P>0.05). This outcome implies that the effect of gender on the students’ conflict resolution skill scores is not significantly sensitive to their learning styles of reading, auditory, visual and kinaesthetic. Hence, the null hypothesis twenty is not rejected.
Ho21: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment, gender and learning style on the post-test mean conflict resolution skills scores of students. The result of the 3-way interaction effect in Table 4.8 reveals no significant interaction effect of treatment, gender and learning styles on the students’ conflict resolution skill scores (F(2,78)=1.337,P>0.05). This outcome implies that there exists no significant difference in the students’ conflict resolution skills scores, after exposure to different treatment conditions, among all the possible learning style – gender combinations: reading-boys; reading – girls; auditory – boys; auditory – girls; visual – boys; visual – girls; kinaesthetic – boys and kinaesthetic girls. Hence, null hypothesis twenty one cannot be rejected. 4.3
Summary of Findings
The major findings from the descriptive analysis are stated in items 1, 2 and 3 while conclusions on the inferential are presented in items 4, 5, 6 and 7 below. 1.
The students taught with Constructive Controversy strategy appeared to be the best in post-achievement and attitude learning outcomes while those taught with Learning Together had the best fit in post-conflict resolution skills.
2.
Gender appeared to have varied effects on students’ post-achievement, attitude and conflict resolution skills’ scores across the three instructional strategies. 145
3.
Learning styles also appeared to have varied effects on the students’ three domains of learning when taught with Learning Together, Constructive Controversy and Conventional Method.
4.
There was no significant main effect of: (i)
treatment,
(ii)
gender, and
(iii)
learning styles on students’ post-test achievement scores; post-test attitude scores and post-test conflict resolution skills scores.
5.
There was no significant interaction effect of: (i)
treatment and gender,
(ii)
treatment and learning style, and
(iii)
gender and learning style on students’ post-test achievement scores; post-test attitude scores and post-test conflict resolution skills scores.
6.
7.
There was no significant interaction effect of treatment, gender and learning styles on: (i)
students’ post-test achievement scores
(ii)
students’ post-test attitude scores, and
(iii)
students’ post-test conflict resolution skills scores.
The independent and moderator variables, when taken together, accounted for 40.8% of the variance in the students’ achievement scores in peace education, 25.1% of the variance in the students’ attitude towards peace education and 31.9% of the variance in the students’ conflict resolution skills scores.
146
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study was designed to investigate the relative effectiveness of two cooperative learning strategies and conventional method in promoting the learning outcomes of junior secondary students in peace education aspect of social studies. In this chapter, efforts are made to discuss the major findings of the study and draw appropriate conclusion. Thereafter, the chapter makes some recommendations as deemed necessary.
5.1
Discussion of Findings
The findings of this study are discussed under the following headings: 1. Effects of the treatments using learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method of instruction on learning outcomes of junior secondary school (JSS) Social Studies Students in Peace Education. 2. Gender factor’s influence on the students’ knowledge, attitude and conflict resolution skills in Peace Education using learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method of instruction. 3. The influence of different learning styles on the students’ knowledge, attitude and conflict resolution skills in Peace Education using learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method of instruction.
5.1.1 Effects of the Treatments using Learning Together, Constructive Controversy and Conventional Method of instruction on learning outcomes of Students in Peace Education. The results of hypotheses 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 21 in chapter four revealed no significant difference in the students’ learning outcomes as a result of main treatment results in the 3-way 147
and 2-way interaction outcomes. As presented in the summary, there was no significant difference in the mean post-test achievement scores of the students in peace education under different treatment conditions. The different treatment conditions were three modes of instruction (learning together, constructive controversy and conventional method of instruction). However, the students treated with the constructive controversy method of teaching recorded the highest adjusted post – test achievement mean score. This was followed by the learning together group and closely followed by the conventional method group. This outcome therefore suggests that the constructive controversy strategy recorded the best post-test mean achievement scores but not significantly different from the post-test mean achievement scores of the other two groups (learning together group and closely followed by the conventional method).
The little higher increase in mean achievement score of constructive controversy over learning together and conventional method agrees with the observations of Johnson and Johnson (1989, 1995, 1998) that when students engage in constructive controversy, it enhances the quality of decision making and learning achievement as well as providing for differences of opinion leading to inquiry and truth. However, the non-significant main effect of the treatment negates the findings of Okebukola (1984), Alebiosu (1998), Esan (1999), Dotson (2001), Ghazi (2003), Ozsoy & Yildiz (2004), Ifamuyiwa (2006), Adeyemi (2008), Usulor (2012) and Salako et al (2012) who discovered significant superiority of cooperative learning over other methods of teaching. Perhaps what may account for the non-significant differences in this study may be due to what Tabulawa (2013) called failure of institutional structure and practice (context) rather than the failure of the pedagogy. As argued by him, failure of pedagogical reform should not be sought solely in the inadequacies of the innovation delivery system, but in the “enveloping social structure”, which involves multifarious factors – political, historical, economic, social and 148
cultural aspects of reform context. This is to state that the non-significant effects of the treatments may be due to lack of “social embeddedness” in giving attention to the peculiar social, cultural and political context of education and authority within Nigerian public classrooms.
The non-significant main effect of the treatments also suggests that direct instruction (conventional method of instruction) is by no means inferior to constructive controversy and learning together methods of teaching Peace Education in Social Studies. This had earlier been attested to by Schug (2003), that direct instruction is required for ‘cognitive coaching’, ‘social scaffolding’, ‘authoritative learning’ and ‘substantive knowledge’. This is equally supported by Frazee and Ayers (2003) that conventional method of instruction is ‘the background of good teaching’. In this particular instance, it is also possible that the various seminars and workshops which teachers could have been exposed to overtime have contributed tremendously to their improved quality of conventional mode of instructional delivery.
The outcome of hypothesis six revealed that students’ achievement in peace education was not significantly affected by their gender and learning style differences in this study. The reason for this may be due to gender balance sensitivity in treatment as well as equal opportunity for the use of the four learning styles (visual, auditory, reading and kinaesthetic) during treatment. The test on hypothesis seven revealed no significant interaction effect of treatment, gender and learning styles on the students’ achievement scores in peace education. The non-significance of treatment in this 2 - way interaction analysis may be due to attribution which, according to Perry and Penner (1990) refers to a situation where a student believes that his or her ability is sufficient to ensure success without trying hard. According to Ifamuyiwa (2006), this is a perception where a student feels that “I am smart and I don’t need to work” which always lowers motivation and 149
hinders achievement. Consequently, if the aggregate of such students suffering from ‘ability attribution’ are many in a class, the likelihood of the result is insignificant learning outcomes as witnessed in this study.
The finding on hypothesis eight equally revealed no significant main effect of treatment on the students’ attitude scores in peace education. This was contrary to the finding of Ifamuyiwa (2006) and Ibraheem (2011) who discovered a significant effect of treatment on students’ attitude towards mathematics and chemistry respectively. The non-statistical significance of the students’ post-test attitude scores after exposure to different treatment conditions may be due to the fact that attitudinal changes takes longer period to manifest. According to Mansaray (1991), attitude is an infinitely more intricate outcome to influence and invariably takes a longer time to develop. Equally, Ajiboye (1996) submitted that generally, an individual’s attitude depends to a large extent on the knowledge the person has about the object of affection. This is to say that, if there is no significant effect of treatment on the knowledge of a group of students, the result will likely be the same for their attitude as witnessed in this study.
On hypothesis 13, the finding from the 2-way analysis revealed that attitude scores in peace education was not a reflection of gender and learning styles. This is to say that male and female students, with different learning styles, do not differ significantly in their attitude to peace education. The same result was got in hypothesis 14 as the 3-way analysis revealed that, when exposed to different treatment conditions, gender and learning styles factors did not significantly influence the students’ attitude scores in peace education. Perhaps these non-significant effect findings may be due to the fact that there are other socio-economic moderators that can influence learning outcomes than gender and learning styles. Ogunbiyi (2006) noted other factors to
150
include classroom organization, school climate, peer–group nature, government policies and parental socio – economic background. As well remarked by Ifamuyiwa (2006), the social climate under which learners are exposed to cooperative learning strategies also goes a long way to provide the necessary motivation and opportunity for better understanding and performance. Consequently, as observed by the researcher in the public classrooms where the experiments were conducted, the lack of suitable seating tools may have demotivated the learners. This means that if the same experiments are performed in the highly-rated secondary schools with better classroom facilities, the post-test results may be better.
Findings on hypotheses 15, 20 and 21 are about the non-significant effects of treatments and moderators on conflict resolution skills of the students. Although, the results of the three tested hypotheses revealed no significant main and interaction effects of treatment, gender and learning styles on the students’ conflict resolution skills scores in peace education at the .05 level of confidence, the result of the Multiple Analysis Classification (MCA) revealed that the students treated with learning together instructional package obtained the highest adjusted post- test mean scores in conflict resolution skills. This was followed by those exposed to the constructive controversy, and at the bottom were the students treated with the conventional method. Nevertheless, the insignificance of differences across the groups attests to the submission of Sapon-Shevin (1994) that cooperative learning is a peer-centred pedagogy that builds positive social relationships. It also corroborates the argument of the Science Education Resource Centre (2010) that the goal of cooperative learning is the development of students’ analytical and critical thinking with social and cooperative skills in order to enhance their ability to work well together. Equally, the result is in tandem with the meta-analysis submission of Johnson and Johnson (2000) that cooperative learning often lead to qualitative decision making and problem – solving, 151
higher level reasoning, accurate understanding of all perspectives, creative thinking and reasoned judgments. Thus, there is no doubt that cooperative learning instructional models could promote creative thinking that are very supportive to enhancing conflict resolution skills of learners.
5.1.2 Interaction effects of Gender on Students’ Knowledge, Attitude and Conflict Resolution Skills in Peace Education using Learning Together, Constructive Controversy and Conventional Method of Instruction. Contrary to the findings of Yusuf (2007), Adeyemi (2008) and Sagkal et al (2012) but in line with Akinbobola (2009), Ajaja and Eravwoke (2010), Oloyede et al (2012), Oludipe (2012) and Salako et al (2012) there was no significant difference in the mean post-test achievement scores of male and female students in peace education after their exposure to different treatment conditions. Although the female students had a slightly higher adjusted post-test achievement mean score than their male counterparts, this was not statistically significant. Equally on hypothesis 4, the result showed that the students’ post-test achievement scores in peace education did not vary significantly between male and female students after exposure to the different treatment conditions. The same insignificant gender difference result was obtained for hypothesis 9 on the students’ attitude scale in peace education. Furthermore, the 2-way interaction effect of treatment and gender in hypothesis 11 on the students’ attitude scores in peace education revealed no significant difference. The same insignificant result was also obtained for gender and learning styles on the post-test mean attitude scores of the students in peace education. These non-significant effects of gender on the post-test mean scores of the students, like in the study by Ifamuyiwa (2006), suggests that gender stereotyping could not have significantly affected the experimental processes involved in this study.
152
Although there is no significant interaction effect of treatment and gender on the post-test mean conflict resolution skill scores of the students based on findings on hypothesis 18, the result of the Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) on hypothesis 16 was revealing. The results of the MCA showed that the female students had slightly better mean scores than their male counterparts. This finding is in line with the submission of Boulding (1977) which suggested that conflict resolutions were better handled with feministic touch than masculine approach.
5.1.3 Interaction effects of Learning Styles on the Students’ Knowledge, Attitude and Conflict Resolution Skills using Learning Together, Constructive Controversy and Conventional Method of Instruction. The findings of Ho3, Ho5, Ho10, Ho12, Ho17 and Ho19 revealed non-significant difference in the post-test mean achievement scores of the students based on their different learning styles. These findings were in line with that of Adams (2008) who found no significant difference in his studies based on learning styles modes, but contrary to the reports of Christou and Dinov (2010), Dunn et al (2010) and Ogundokun (2011) that learning styles significantly predicted various learning outcomes. Indeed for Ho3, the MCA showed that the students using kinaesthetic learning style recorded the highest adjusted post-test mean achievement score than the others. This was followed by the students with visual learning mode, the reading learners and the auditory learners respectively. This result attests to the little superiority of kinaesthetic learning styles in achievement test outcomes. On hypothesis 5, there was equally no significant 2-way interaction effect of the treatment and learning style on the post-test mean achievement scores of the students in peace education. The results of Ho10 and Ho12 also revealed no significant difference in the post-test mean attitude scores of the students with different learning styles.
153
However, the auditory learning students had the highest adjusted post-test mean scores in attitudinal rating. This was followed by the visual learners, the reading learners and the kinaesthetic learners respectively. This finding suggests that repetitive instructions to the hearing of students will always enhance their attitudinal changes. Although the results of Ho12 and Ho19 revealed that different learning styles could not significantly influence the conflict resolution skill scores of the students in peace education, the findings of the MCA however showed that the auditory learners had the best adjusted post-test mean scores. This result further attested to the efficacy of direct instruction as a means of ‘social scaffolding’ in conflict resolution (Frazee and Ayers, 2003; Schug, 2003; Hardwick, 2009).
5.2
Conclusion
The results of this study are very challenging. The generally non-significant findings suggest equal potency of both the experimental instructional strategies (learning together and constructive controversy) and the controlled conventional method of instruction depending on the classroom climate. The findings further suggest that no single method is sufficient to teach Peace Education in Social Studies classroom. This is why the queries of the contrarians on the efficacy of social studies instruction (Leming, Ellington & Porter – Magee, 2003) should always be taken seriously. This conclusion may however require further investigation in view of the observed students’ low performance in social studies learning outcomes (Federal Ministry of Education/UNICEF/UNESCO, 1997; Universal Basic Education Commission, 2009) in Nigeria. While it is good to always explore innovative methods of making learning democratic, peaceful and positive; it cannot be done without direct instruction (Conventional method inclusive). Consequently, as an authoritative and substantive means of knowledge, values and skill transmission, it may be desirable to combine the conventional method of instruction with 154
cooperative learning strategies to promote effective learning outcomes in Social Studies and Peace Education. This means that there is the need to always bridge the gap between the ‘Neoprogressive’ and ‘Neo-conservative’ (Kornfeld, 2005) methods of teaching Peace Education aspect of Social Studies in the classroom.
5.3
Recommendations
Arising from the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:
Conventional method of instruction should always be combined with either learning together or constructive controversy when teaching peace education in social studies. This is in line with Tabulawa’s (2013) recommendation of “smart implementation” of pedagogical reforms.
Teacher education programmes right from the Colleges of Education level to the postgraduate level should be well exposed to the principles and techniques of the various cooperative learning methods.
Regular seminars and workshops should be given by experts on the use of cooperative learning techniques to the serving social studies teachers in both primary and secondary schools.
Secondary school students should be encouraged to join Peace Corps and participate in community service so that they can be well entrenched in the art and science of constructive and non–violent engagements.
The Nigerian Education Research and Development Council (NERDC) should be mandated to produce innovative textbooks, manuals and instructional resources for applying cooperative learning techniques in the classroom.
155
5.4
Suggestions for Further Studies
Further researchers are needed on the replication of this study and other models of cooperative learning, in both the public and private secondary schools.
More investigations are needed to be carried out on the impact of moderator variables like gender, learning styles, classroom climate, socio–economic background, locus of control etc on cooperative learning methods of teaching since the various findings on them in the past appears inconclusive.
156
REFERENCES Abbah, T. (2013, May 26). Fulani/Farmers clashes claim 300 lives in 5 months. Sunday Trust. Retrieved 16th June from www.sundaytrust.com.ng/index.php/news/13160-fulani-farmersclashes-claim-300-lives-in-5-months. Abdulrahman, I. (2007). The challenges of designing and implementing strategic plans for peace. In I. O. Albert (Ed.), Local approaches to conflict transformation. Ibadan: The Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CEPAS). Abimbola, I. O. (2009). Formal instructional methods 1: Lecture, discussion, recitation and tutorial methods of teaching. In I. O. Abimbola & A. O. Abolade, (Eds.), Fundamental principles and practice of instruction (pp.133-144). Ilorin: Dept. of Science Education and Arts and Social Sciences Education, University of Ilorin. Abdullahi, O. E. (2010). Secondary education in Nigeria. In J. O. O. Abiri & A. A. Jekayinfa (Eds.), Perspective on the history of education in Nigeria (Revised Edition) (pp.116-138). Ilorin: Bamitex printing & publishing enterprises. Aborisade, S. (2013, May 27). Youths chase out Ondo monarch from palace over alleged relocation of institution. The Punch, p.1. Abu, R. B. & Flowers, J. (1997). The effects of cooperative learning methods on achievement, retention and attitudes of home economics students in North Carolina. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 13(2). Retrieved 29th June 2013 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/V13n2/Abu.html. Adamolekun, O. (1987). Albert Bandura. In Uba, A. (Ed.), Theories of personality (pp. 196207). Ibadan: Claverianum press. Adams, G. & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 20 years beyond. Distarseattle, W. A: Educational achievement systems. Adams, W. (2008). The effects of interactive reviews and learning outcomes at a Texas State University (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation). Texas : University of North Texas Adedoja, G.; Abidoye, J. A. & Afolabi, A. K. (2013). Effects of two puzzle – based instructional strategies on primary school pupils learning outcomes in social studies in Ondo State, Nigeria. African Education Research Journal, 1 (2), 58-63 Adedoja, O. G. & Fakokunde, B. J. (2010). A survey of the use of instructional games as a method of peace education. Nigerian Journal of Social Studies, 13 (1 & 2), 213-224 Adekunle, M. O. (1991). Methods and resources in teaching social studies. Retrieved 28th October 2012 from https://unilorin.edu.ng/journals/education/ije/dec1991
157
Adenigbagbe, O.G. (2007). Peace and human rights education for sustainable development in Nigeria. In L. A. A. Adeniji, S. A. Adeyemo & D. R. Adeniji (Eds.), Peace, security and national development. Sagamu: Remo industrial prints. Adeniji, L.A.A. (2008, March). Religious conflicts in Nigeria: a ravaging fire of our time. Paper presented at the 2nd distinguished lecture delivered at Federal College of Education, Abeokuta. Adetayo, O. (2013, May 9). Cultists anmbush, kill over 20 policemen in Nassarawa. The Punch. Pp. 2 &13 Adetoro, R. A. (2012). The dilemma of social studies teaching in Nigeria: A case study of Odeda local government area in Ogun state. Journal of Pedagogical Thought, 6, 99-110. Adeyemi, B. A. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning and problem-solving strategies on junior secondary school students’ achievement in social studies. Education & Psychology, 6 (3), 691-708. Adeyemi, D. A. (2008). The gender factor in composition writing with the use of cooperation and the individualized approaches at a junior secondary school in Botswana. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 8(1), 1-18. Adeyemi, B.A. & Salawudeen, M. O. (2014). The place of indigenous in peace education in Nigeria: Implications for social studies curriculum. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(2), 186-192. Adeyemo, S. A. (2010). The influence of cooperative learning and problem – solving strategies in senior secondary school achievement. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 1(1), 112-120. Adeyoyin, F.A. (1994, June). Dilemmas and opportunities for social studies teacher education. Paper presented at the 3rd International Social Studies Conference of African Social and Environmental Studies Programme (ASESP) held in Nairobi, Kenya Adisa, T. (2012). Politics of violence in Nigeria: The Plateau examples. Nigerian Tribune, Friday 10th August. Retrieved 12th June 2013 from www.tribune.com.ng/.../politics/45662-politicsof-violence-in-nigeriathe-plateauexamples Afolabi, S.S. (2012). A model of transformational teacher for Nigeria national development. In A. A. Adegoke (Ed.), Conference Proceedings for the 2nd Annual Conference of Collaboration of Education Faculties in West Africa (CEFWA) (pp. 1-10). Lagos: StirlingHordan Publishers Ltd. Afolabi, A. K.; Abidoye, J. A. & Afolabi, A. F. (2012). Effect of instructional media on the academic achievement of students in junior secondary schools. Pacific Northwest Library Association (PNLA Quarterly), 77 (1), 1-7. Retrieved 24th July 2013 from www.unllib.unl.edu/LPP/PNLAQuarterly/afolabi-abidoye-afolabi77-1.pdf 158
Afolabi, S. S. & Adesope, A. O. (2010). General principles, methods and strategies of teaching. Ibadan: Everlasting Publishers. Agabe. A. (2013, May 26). Nigeria police rescue four kidnapped foreigners in Port-Harcourt. Nigerian Eye. Retrieved 16th June www.nigerianeye.com/2013/05/nigeria/police/rescue/four/kidnapped/foreigners/in/PortHarcourt.html Agbe, A. G. (2001). The Ife/Modakeke crisis: An insider view. Ife Psychologia, 9(3), 14-20 Agbo, A (2007, June 4). A new dawn in the Delta. Tell. Pp 30-35. Aghulor, I. S. & Iwegbu, C. J. (2010). The place of social studies in peace education and Security. Nigerian Journal of Social Studies, 13 (1&2), 180-191. Ajaja, P. O. & Eravwoke, O. U. (2010). Effects of cooperative learning instructional strategy on junior secondary school students’ achievement in integrated science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 1-18. Retrieved 29th June from http:/ejse.southwestern.edu Ajala, E. M. (2007). The impact of relationship management of peace education on labour – management relations and workers welfare in selected industries in Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences, 15(3), 271-277. Ajayi, K., Ogunyemi, B. & Sotonade, F. (2004, April). Mainstreaming sustainable development into African school curricula: Issues for Nigeria. Paper presented at the UN Decade of Education at the University of Jyvaska, Finland. Retrieved 15th March, 2013 from www.tc.edu/cice/Issues/07.02/72ogunyemi.pdf Ajayi, O. G, & Adegbite, D. (2011). Conflict management and resolution. In R. A. Akinola, A. Adebayo, M. F. Ajala, O. O. Tonode, S. Jegede, O. Odulaja & A. O. Fafiolu (Eds.), Standard administrative ethics and practice: The College of Education perspective (pp. 122-129). Abeokuta: Federal College of Education registry. Ajayi, E. O. A. (2012). The place of the registry in institutional administration: challenges and prospects. A guest lecture for the registry staff at Federal College of Education, Abeokuta. Ajiboye, J. O. (1996). A self – learning programme, the modified lecture method and students’ cognitive and affective outcomes in some population education concepts (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Dept. of Teacher Education, University of Ibadan. Ajiboye, J. O. & Ajitoni, S. O. (2008). Effects of full and quasi-participatory learning strategies on Nigerian senior secondary students’ environmental knowledge: Implication for classroom practice. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 3(2), 58-66. Ajitoni, S. O. & Gbadamosi, T. V. (2012). Effects of service learning and educational trips in social studies on primary school pupils environmental knowledge for sustainable development. Academic Research International, 2 (2), 342-348. 159
Akinbobola, A. O. (2009). Enhancing students’ attitude towards Nigerian senior secondary school physics through the use of cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning strategies. Australian Journal of Teacher education, 34(1), 1-9. Retrieved from http://fo.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol34/issi/1 Akinkuotu, E. & Oremichen, S. (2013, May 27). Six killed as Lagos youths clash during match. The Punch. P.1 Akpuru-Aja, A. (2009). Basic concepts of conflict. In M. Ikejiani-Clark (Ed.), Peace studies and conflict resolution in Nigeria: A reader. (pp. 12-35) Ibadan: Spectrum books. Akudolu, L. R. (August, 2006). Assessing peace education components of the universal basic education in Nigeria through social studies curriculum. A paper presented at the 12th world conference in education organised by the World Council for Curriculum and Instruction, Manila, Philippiness. Akinwale, A. A. (2010). Integrating the traditional and the modern conflict management strategies in Nigeria. Retrieved 10th August, 2014 from www.ajol.info/index.php/ajer/article/viewfile/63323/51206 Albert, O. M. (2004). Effectiveness of peace education and social skill training in reduction of violent behaviour among road transport workers in selected motor parks in Ibadan. (Unpublished M.A. dissertation). Department of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Albert, I. O. & Albert, O. (2011). Strategies for peace education integration in ECOWAS members states’ tertiary school curricula. Retrieved 29th November, 2011 from www.humansecuritygateway.com/...CONFLICTTRENDS_Peace Education West Africa.pdf Albert, I.O.; Awe, T. & Herault, G. (1995). Informal channels for conflict resolution in Ibadan, Nigeria. Retrieved 10th August, 2014 from http://books.openedition.org/ifra/718 Alebiosu, K.A (1998). Effects of two co-operative learning models on secondary school students’ learning outcomes in Chemistry. (Unpublished Ph.D thesis). Department of Teacher Education, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Alli, Y. (2012, November 24). Government places #290m ransom on boko haram leaders. The Nation. Retrieved 16th June 2013 from www.thenationlineng.net/news/govt-placesn290m-ransom-om-boko-haram-leaders.html Aloysins-Michaels, O. (2009). Conflict analysis. In M. Ikejiani-Clark (Ed.), Peace studies and conflict resolution in Nigeria: A reader. (pp. 52-71) Ibadan: Spectrum books.
160
Amaele, S. A. (2010). Historical evolution of the Nigerian philosophy of education. In J. O. O. Abiri & A. A. Jekayinfa (Eds.), Perspective on the history of education in Nigeria (Revised edition). (pp. 276-305). Ilorin: Bamitex Printing and Publishing enterprises. American Society for Design (2013). 2013 Global peace education index – Building pillars of peace. Retrieved 2nd August from www.theasideblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/2013-globalpeace-index-building.html Anderman, L. H. (1999). Expanding the discussion of social perceptions and academic outcomes: Mechanism and contextual influences. In M. L. Meahr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: The role of context (pp. 303 – 336). Standford: CT JAI. Anderson, I., Hinge, H. & Messina, C. (2011). Peace education. Retrieved 5th June 2013 from http://cice.iondonment.ac.uk Aniekwe, C. C. & Kushie, J. (2011). Electoral violence situational analysis: Identifying hotspots in the 2011 general elections in Nigeria. Abuja: National Association for Peaceful Elections in Nigeria (NAPEN). Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.E.). Ethics. In Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP). Retrieved 16th August, 2014 from http://www.iep.uttn.edu/aristotl/ Ariyibi, G. (2013, April 1). One killed in PDP, ACN clash in Ekiti. Vanguard. P. 1 Atack, I. (2005). Peace Studies and Social Change: The role of ethics and human agency. Retrieved from http://www.development educationreview.com/issue Ausubel, D. F. (1977). The facilitation of meaningful verbal learning in the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 12(2), 162-178. Ayim, C. F., Ikemefuna, O. C. & Ekwoaba, J. O. (2012). Conflict and environmental challenges facing the oil companies in Nigeria Niger – Delta region. International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow (IJBMT), 2(3), 1-9. Azania, J. (2013, May 30). Edo varsity lecturers lament colleagues kidnapping. The Punch. P.18. Bajaj, M. & Chiu, B. (2009). Education for sustainable development as peace education. Peace and change, 34(4), 441-455. Bakut, B. T. (2006). The environment, peace and conflict in Africa. In G. S. Best (Ed.), Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa (pp.234-251). Ibadan: Spectrum books limited Baldi, S., Perie, M., Skidmore, D., Greenberg, E. & Hahn, C. (2001). What democracy means to ninety-graders: US results from the international IEA civic education study. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Education. Retrieved 20th June 2008 from http://www.citized.infro 161
Balkcon, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. Retrieved 6th March file://D:\New%20folder\Archived%20cooperative%20Learning.htm
2009
from
Bamiro, O.A. (2011). Effects of guided discovery and think - pair – share strategies on students learning outcomes in chemistry. (Unpublished Ph.D thesis). Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: PrenticeHall. Bandura, A. (1976). Social learning and personality development. NJ: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press. Bandura, A., Jeffery, R.W. & Wright, C.L. (1974). Efficacy of participant modeling as a function of response induction aids. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 56-64. Barbara, R. (2007). Constructivism and teaching the socio-cultural context. Retrieved 9th August 2007 from http://www.grout.demon.co.uk/Barbara/chreods.htm. Baron, J. (1995). My side bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking and reasoning, 1, 221-235. Bauers, D. & Magar, L. (2010). Where knowledge rules. Retrieved 25th February 2010 from Helum Home Education online. Bauers, D. (2010). Teaching tips: Pros and cons of the lecture format online. Brickstone Square Andover, M.A: Helium Inc. Baylor, D., Samsonov, P. & Smith, N (2007). A collaborative class investigation into telecommunications in education-constructivism. Retrieved 9th August 2007 from http://disted.tainu.edu/chaper4.htm. Bekoe, D. (2011). Nigeria’s 2011 elections: Best run but most violent. New York: United States Institute of Peace. Retrieved 12th December 2012 from www.usip.org/files/resources/PB%20103.pdf. Berliner, D. C. (1975). Educational series. Chicago: Rand MC Wally College Publisher. Best, G. S. (2006). The methods of conflict resolution and transformation. In G.S. Best (Ed.), Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa (pp. 93-115). Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd. Best, G. S. (2006). Conflict analysis. In G.S. Best (Ed.), Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa (pp. 61-78). Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.
162
Bilesanmi-Awoderu, J. B. (2006). Effect of computer assisted instruction and simulation/games on the academic achievement of secondary school students in biology. Sokoto Educational Review, 8(1), 49-60. Bilesanmi-Awoderu, J. B. & Oludipe, D. I. (2012). Effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies on Nigerian junior secondary school students’ academic achievement in basic science. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 2(3), 307-325. Bir, I. D. (2003). My ways of fostering a culture of peace. In J. Lasonen (Ed.), Cultures of peace: from words to deeds (pp. 84- 96). Finland: Institute of Educational Research, University of Jyvaskyla Borelli, M. (1979). Integration of peace research, peace education and peace action. Bulletin Proposal, 10(4), 391 Boulding, E. (1988). Building a global civic culture: Education for an independent world. Syracuse, N. Y: Syracuse University Press. Boulding, K. E. (1977). The power of non – conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 33(1), 9-15. British Broadcasting Corporation (2013). Nigeria’s Benue state conflict kills 53. Retrieved 5th June, from www.nigeria70.com/...news...s_benue_state_conflict...news/555591 Bruner, J. S. (1969). The act of discovery on knowing essays for left hand. New York: Anthenum. Bruner, J. S. (1973). Going beyond information given. New York: Norton. Burnley, J. (2003, June). The role of content knowledge for promoting peace and conflict resolution in social studies curriculum for undergraduate teacher trainees / beginning teachers. Paper presented at the UNESCO Conference on Intercultural Education, Jyvaskyla, Finland. Busato, V. V., Ten Dam, G. T. M., Eeden, P.V.D. & Terwel, J. (1995). Gender – related effects of cooperative learning in a mathematics curriculum for 12-16-year – olds. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(6), 667-686. Calleja, J. J. (1991). A Kantian epistemology of education and peace: An examination of concepts and values. (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis), Bradford University. Campbell, J & Bunche, R. (2011). Electoral violence in Nigeria (CPA Contingency Planning Memorandum No 9). Retrieved 12th December 2012 from www.cfr.org/nigeria/electoralviolence-in-nigeria/p22930. Campbell, J. (2012). Nigeria’s insistent insurrection. Retrieved 12th December 2012 from www.nytimes.com/2012/26/opinion/nigerias-insistent-insurrection.html. Carter, P. (1977). Another part of the twenties. New York: Columbia University Press 163
Centre for Teaching and Learning (2000). Teaching methods. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Retrieved 9th February 2010 from www.tac05.html Charlesworth, W. & Dzur, C. (1987). Gender comparisons of pre – schoolers behaviour and resources utilization in group problem – solving. Child development, 58, 191-200. Chianson, M. M., Kurumeh, M. S. & Obida, J. A. (2010). Effect of cooperative learning strategy on students’ retention in circle geometry in secondary schools in Benue state, Nigeria. American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 2(1), 33-36. Chism, N., Jones, C., Macce, B. & Mounford, R. (1990). Lecturing in teaching at the Ohio State University: A handbook (pp. 29-41). Columbus: Ohio State University, Center for Teaching Excellence. Chrisie, D. J., Wagner, R. V. & Winter, D. A. (2007). Peace conflict and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice – Hall. Christou, N. & Dinov, I. D. (2010). A study of students’ learning styles , discipline attitudes and knowledge acquisition in technology – enhanced probability and statistics education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 546-572. Retrieved 4th July 2013 from http://jolt.melot.org/vol6no3/dinov_0910.pdf Coelho, E. (1994). Learning together in the multicultural classroom (p.108). Markham, Ontario: Pippin Publishing Ltd, College Reading and Learning Association (2001). Brief report: An Introduction to learning styles for college teachers. Retrieved 25th February 2011 from the Free Library online Journal of College Reading and Learning Association. Cook, D. (2010). The rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria. Retrieved 12th December 2012 from www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/CTCsentinel-vol141ss92.pdf. Corkalo, D. (2010). Peace education – The development of peace education and its basic principles. Retrieved 25th October, 2012 from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2314/Peace-Education.html Cosden, M., Pearl, R. & Bryan, T. H. (1985). The effects of cooperative and individual goal structures on learning of disabled and non – disabled students. Exceptional children, 52, 103 – 114. Coser, L.A. (1956). The functions of social conflicts (p.188). Glencoe: Free Press Creed, T. (1986). Why we lecture? Symposium: A Saint John’s Faculty Journal, 5, 17-32. Curban, L. (1991). History of teaching in social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning (Pp 197-209). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. 164
Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 331-343. Daudu, G.K. (2009). Indigenous conflict resolution methods amongst the fulbe of Adamawa State. Retrieved 10th August, 2014 from http://umarpate.blogspot.com/2009/06/indiginousconflict-resolution-methods.html Daugherty, C. M. (2008). How do various social studies instructional methods affect students achievement in middle school? (Unpublished Master in Education Research Project). The Faculty of the College of Education, Ohio University, Ohio. Davies, L. (2005). The edge of chaos: Explorations in education and conflict. In J. Zajda (Ed.), International Handbook on Globalisation, Education and Policy Research (pp. 631-642). Springer: The Netherlands. Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp.275-319). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Dimitrios, T.G. (2007). Constructivist learning. Retrieved 9th http://www.3.telus.net/lin.guisticsissues/constructivist.htm/
August
2007
from
Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1979). Individual and collective conflicts of centration in cognitive development. European Journal of Psychology, 9, 105-198. Dotson, J.M. (2001). Cooperative learning structures can increase student achievement. Retrieved 14th March 2010 from Kagan online Magazine. Dunn, R. (1990). Rita Dunn answers questions on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 48, 15-19. Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles: Practical Approach for Grades 3-6. Massachusetts. Allyn and Bacon. Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning style. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Dunn, R & Griggs, S. (2000). Practical approaches to using learning styles in higher education. Westport, C.I: Bergin and Garvey. Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Olson, J., Beasley, M. & Gorman, B. S. (2010). A meta – analytical validation of the Dunn and Dunn model learning style preference. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353-362. Dyel, B. D. (2011). Effects of cooperative learning strategy on academic performance and attitude of basic science students in large classes. (Unpublished M. Ed. Dissertation). Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. 165
Edinyang, S. D. & Ubi, I. E. (2012). Relative effectiveness of inquiry and expository methods of teaching social studies on academic performance of secondary students in Akwa Ibom state, Nigeria. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 8 (1), 95-102. Edozie, G. C. & Ezeoba, K. O. (2010). Pedagogical development needs of primary school teachers for meeting global challenges in social studies curriculum. Nigerian Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(3), 112-120. Educational Broadcasting Corporation (2004). Concept to classroom. Retrieved 5th May 2009 from http://www.cooperative_collaborativelearning/explanation.htm. Ehman, L.H., Mehlinger, H.E. & Patrick, J. (1974). Toward effective instruction in secondary social studies. U.S.A.: Houghton Mifflin Company. Einstein, A. (1968). Einstein on peace. Nathan and Norden, (Ed.) (p. 371). New York: Schocken. Ejembi, R. (2011, June 22). 2 Soldiers, 18 others killed in Tiv/Fulani renewed clash. The Sun. Retrieved 12th December, 2012 from www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/06-2011005.html Ejiwale, P.O. (2004). The role of technical education in national development. The Pace Setters, 11 (2). Eluwa, G. L. C.; Ukagwu, M. O.; Nwachukwu, J. U. N. & Nwaubani, A.C.N. (1988). A history of Nigeria for schools and colleges. Onitsha: Africana – FEP Publishers Limited. Enu, D. B. (2005). New challenges for social studies curriculum content in a globalised social system. World Council for Curriculum and Instruction (WCCI) Nigeria Chapter Forum, 5(2), 207-214. Erden, M. & Altun, S. (2006). Learning styles. Istanbul: Morpa Culture Publications. Erinosho, S. Y. (1997). Female participation in science: An analysis of secondary school science curriculum materials in Nigeria. Abridged Research Report (29). Kenya-Nairobi: Academy Science Publishers. Ero, A (2009, June 1). Gun power diplomacy: Niger Delta - A return to the trenches. Tell. Pp 2025 Esan, A. D. (1999). Effect of cooperative and individualistic problem-solving strategies on students learning outcomes in secondary mathematics. (Unpublished Ph.D thesis) University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Ezeoba, K. O. (2012). Strategies for integrating peace education into social studies curriculum for junior secondary (basic 7-9) schools in Nigeria. Retrieved 25th October 2012 from http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v6i3.16
166
Ezugwu, K. U. (2009). Peace and coexistence in Nigeria the curriculum planning and implementation task. Nigerian Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 194-199. Federal Ministry of Education/UNICEF/UNESCO (1997). Assessment of learning achievement of primary four pupils in Nigeria (National Report). FME/UNICEF/UNESCO. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004). National policy on education (4th Edition). Lagos: NERDC Press Fox, J. & Bartholomae, S. (1999). Student learning style and educational outcomes: Evidence from a family financial management course. Financial Services Review, 8, 235-251. Frazee, B. & Ayers, S. (2003). Garbage in garbage out: Expanding environments, constructivism and content knowledge in social studies. . In J. Leming, L. Ellington & K. Porter-Magee (Eds.), Where did social studies go wrong? Retrieved 12th June 2006 from http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/contrariansfullpgf. Francis, D. (2006). Peace and conflict studies: An African overview of basic concepts. In S. Best, Introduction to peace and conflict studies: A reader (pp. 15-31). Ibadan: Spectrum books Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogy of the oppressed. The Continuum Publishing Company. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167191. Galtung, J. (1990). Peace by peaceful means. London: Sage publication. Galtung, J. (2003, June). Teaching and learning intercultural understanding: Fine, but how? Keynote address on inter-cultural education: teaching and learning for intercultural understanding, human rights and a cultural of peace, Jyvaskyla. Retrieved 9th February 2010 from http://www.uniorg/cyberschoolbus/peace/content2.htm. Galtung, J. (2007). Peace by peaceful transformation – the TRANSCEND approach. In C. Webel & J. Galtung (Eds.), Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies (pp. 14-32). London: Routledge. Galtung, J. (2008). Form and content of peace education. In Encyclopedia of Peace Education. Teachers college, Columbia University. Retrieved 12th June 2013 from http://www.tc.edu/centres/epe Garba, B. (2004). Strategies for youth conflicts prevention centres. Paper delivered at the University for peace curriculum development workshop for West Africa Region Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, A., Mason, C. & Matyas, M. L. (1989). Equity, excellence and just plain good teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 51, 72-77. 167
Ghazi, G. (2003). Effects of the learning together model of cooperative learning on english as a foreign language reading achievement, academic self-esteem and feelings of school alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27 (3), 451-469. Gleitman, H. (2000). Lecturing: Using a much maligned method of teaching in teaching at Chicago, Retrieved 25th February 2010 from www.tac06.html. Godongs, S. (2006). Mediation and mediation process. In S. G. Best (Ed.), Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum books ltd. Gould, R. (2013). The Transformative Power of Engaged Thinking for Peace Education. In P. P. Trifonnas & B. Wright (Eds). Critical Peace Education: Difficult Dialogues (pp.59-68). Netherlands: Springer. Greenspan, S. & Granfield, J. M. (1992). Reconsidering the construct of mental retardation: Implications of a model of social competence. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 442-453. Gumut, V. (2006). Peace education and peer mediation. In G. S. Best (Ed.), Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited. Hague Appeal for Peace Global Campaign for Peace Education (1980). Peace education. Retrieved 4th March 2009 from file://A:/PEACE%20EDUCATION%202_files/content2.htm. Hagman, J. & Hayes, J. (1986). Cooperative learning: Effects of task, reward and group size on individual achievement. ERIC Document Service Report No. ED278720. Hammond, K. (1965). New directions on research on conflict resolution. Journal of Social Issues, 11, 44-66. Hanze, M. & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects and students characteristics: an experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 29 - 41. Hardwick, M.W. (2009). Lecture method of presentation: “Boom or bane” to learning. Retrieved 25th February 2010 from http://www.phisonperformance.com/resourceson Haring, S. (2000). Teaching by lecture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Centre for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved 9th February 2010 from www.tac05.html on. Harris, I. (1980). Peace education theory. Canada: The Canadian Centre for Teaching Peace. Harris, I. & Mische, P. (2004). The relationship between peace education and environmental education. Paper presented at Marquette University Conference on Challenges and Paths to Justice, Miwaukee, Wisconson.
168
Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M. & Vedder, P. (2006). The relationship between the quality of cooperative learning, students’ goal preferences, and perceptions of contextual factors in classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 9-21. Howlett, C. F. (2008). The evolution of peace education in the United States from Independence to the World War I era. Encyclopedia of Peace Education. Columbia: Columbia University Teachers College. Retrieved 5th June 2013 from http://www.tc.edu/centre/epe.html Human Right Watch (2002). Nigeria: The Niger – Delta: No democratic dividend. Retrieved 5th June 2013 www.hrw.org/repors/2002/nigeria3/nigerdelta.pdf. Human Right Watch (2005). Rivers and blood: Guns, oil and power in Nigeria. Retrieved 5th June 2013 from www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/africa/nigeria0205.pdf. Human Right Watch (2011). Nigeria: Post – election violence killed 800. Retrieved 12th December 2012 from www.hrw.org/news.2011/05/16/nigeria-post-election-violencekilled-800. Ibeanu, O. (2006). Conceptualising peace. In G. S. Best (Ed.), Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa (pp.3-14). Ibadan: Spectrum books limited Ibraheem, T. L. (2011). Effects of two modes of student – teams – achievement – division strategies on senior secondary school students’ learning outcomes in chemical kinestics. Asia – Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 12-17. Ibrahim, K. O. (2011). Mallamibro’s CTM peace education reflections: History of peace in Nigeria. Retrieved 24th June 2013 from www.history-of-peace-education-in.html Ifamuyiwa, A. S. (2006). Effects of self and co-operative instructional strategies on senior secondary school students’ learning outcomes in mathematics. (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Department of Teacher Education University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Ikwumelu, S. N. (2010). Constraints to instructionalization of peace education in Nigeria educational system. Nigeria Journal of Social Studies, 13, (1&2), 204-212. Integrated Regional Information Network (2013). Nigeria: Timeline of Boko Haram attacks and related violence. Retrieved 12 March from http://irinnews.org Intercollegiate Studies Institute (2008). The shaping of America mind. Retrieved 26th February 2010 from www.http://nces.ed.gov/surveys-IEreport. Isom, M. D. (1988). The social learning theory. Retrieved 21st May 2009 from http://www.mhcollegeco/socscience/comm/bandura_s.mhtml. Iyamah, C. C. (2006). Teacher capacity building and utilization: the challenges of integrated social studies curriculum. Nigerian Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13 (3), 80-83.
169
Iyamu, E. O. S. & Obiunu, J. J. (2010). Impact of citizenship education on the civic consciousness of Nigerian youth. The Free Library. U.S.A. Farlex Inc. Iyamu, E. O. S. & Ogiegbaen, S. E. A. (2006). Assessment of the use of educational technology by social studies teachers in secondary schools in Western Nigeria. Retrieved 24th July 2013 from www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/docs/vol18_no1/commentary/assess_ed_tech.htm Iyamu, E. O. S. & Otote, C. O. (2006). Assessment of inquiry teaching competencies of social studies teachers in junior secondary schools in South Central Nigeria. Retrieved 24th July 2013 from www.itdl.org/journal/july_06/article04.htm Iyewarun, S. A. (1984, June). The role of the team teaching for a functional social studies education in the new education policy in Nigeria. Ilorin Journal of Education, 4, 3. Izom, M. S. (2010). Peace education, security and social studies in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Social Studies, 13(1&2), 192-203. Janis I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Jebson, S. R. (2012). Impact of cooperative learning approach on senior secondary school students performance in mathematics. Ife Psychologia, 20(2), 170-178. Jegede, S., Ememe, P. I. & Kolawole, T. O. (2013). Curbing deviance through peace education in Lagos state. European Journal of Educational Studies, 5(1), 43-56. Jekayinfa, A. A. (1996). Teachers’ perception of social studies education in the Nigerian secondary schools. Journal of Sociology of Education, 3(8), 103-109. Jekayinfa, A. A. (2005a). Views of Nigerian teacher on the adequacy of social studies curriculum contents at the college of education. The Social Educator, 2(1), 158-164. Jekayinfa, A. A. (2005b). Availability of resources for the implementation of social studies curriculum at the senior secondary school level in Nigeria. African Journal of Educational Studies, 3 (1). Retrieved 24th July from www.unilorin.edu.ng/publication/jekayinoluwa/14.pdf. Jekayinfa, A. A. (2006). Teachers perceptions of the introduction of social studies in the Nigerian senior secondary school curriculum. African Journal of Educational Studies, 4(1), 25-31. Jeong, H. W. (2000). Peace and conflict studies: An introduction. Aldershot: Asgate Jenkins, T. (2006). Learning for transformative and structural change: The CIPE model for community based learning. Paper presented at the International Peace Research Association Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 29 – July 3, 2006.
170
Jimoh, M. E. (2009). The use of instructional materials in teaching social studies at the secondary schools of Kabba Bunu local government area of Kogi State. Retrieved 28 th October 2012 from http://www. docstoc.com Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-70. Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1983). Learning together and alone. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice – Hall. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1995a). Teaching students to be peacemakers. Edina, M.N: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1995b). My mediation notebook (3rd ed.). Edina, M.N: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning and social independence theory: In R. Tindale et al. (Eds.). Theory and research on small groups (pp.9-36). New York: Plenum Social Psychological Applications to issues. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2000). Civil political discourse in a democracy: The contribution of psychology. Minnesota: Minnesota University. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Democratic decision making, political discourse and constructive controversy. Cooperative Link, 20(1), 3. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2007). Creative constructive controversy: challenge in the classroom (4th Ed). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Intellectual
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009a). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher. Retrieved 25th February 2010 from http://www.aera.net Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009b). Learning together. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Westport, C.T: Greenwood Press. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009c). Conflict resolutions. Retrieved 22nd June 2009 from mhtml:file://E:\conflict%20resoluton.mht. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009d). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning, 38(5), 365-379. Retrieved 25th November, 2010 from www.educationalresearcheredr.sagepub.com
171
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. J. (1992). Advanced cooperative learning (2nd Ed.). Edina, M.N: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Cooperation in the classroom (6th Ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. (1991): Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 651-663. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Stanne, M.B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta analysis. Retrieved 14th March, 2010 from mhtml:file://D:\constructive%20controversy%20method4mht.mht-overview%20of. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Tiffany, M. (1984). Structuring academic conflict between majority and minority students: Hinderance or help to integration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 9, 61-73. Johnson, R., Brooker, C., Stutzman, J., Hultman, D., & Johnson, D. W. (1985). The effects of controversy, concurrence seeking, and individualistic learning on achievement and attitude change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 197-205 Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, D. W. (1997). Cooperative learning: two heads learn better than one. Retrieved 6th March 2009 from http://www.context.org/ICLLIB/Johnson.htm. Johnston, L. M. & LeBaron, M. (2007). Conflict tactics in a mediation setting. The Peace and Conflict Review, (2), 2. Retrieved 10th August 2009 from the PDF Version of University for Peace from www.google.com. Julius, M. K., Ngao, G., David, M. & Paul, M. (2012). Peace education for sustainable peace and development: A case of Kenya. Journal of Research in Peace, Gender and Development, 2(2), 28-33. Retrieved 28th January 2013 from http://www.interesjournals.org/JRPG Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning (10th Ed). San Juan Capistrano, C.A: Kagan Publishing. Retrieved 6th March 2009 from http://www.kaganonline.com/cooperativelearning. Karim, K. E., Rutledge, R. W. & Titard, P. L. (2000). An empirical study of student attitudes towards group learning experience. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 172-182. Kayode-Ayodeji, D. (2013, April 15). Rioters strip Ogun traditional ruler naked after beating. Premium Times. P. 1 Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning style: Theory and practice (p.53). Reston: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Kerr, D. (1999). Citizenship education: an international comparison. Retrieved 4th March 2009 from www.google.com. 172
Kester, K. (2007). Peace education: Experience and storytelling as living education. The Peace and conflict Review, (2) 2. Retrieved 10th August 2009 from the PDF Version of University for Peace from www.goggle.com Kester, K. (2009). Education for peace: Content, form, and structure: mobilizing youth for civic engagement. Retrieved 25th October 2012 from http://www.ctd.northwestern.edu/cep/. Khan, N. Z. (2009). Differences between learning styles in professional courses at university level. Retrieved 25th February 2010 from the Free Library Online Journal of Social Sciences. Kissock, C. (1981). Curriculum planning for social studies teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kolawole, E. B. (2008). Effects of competitive and cooperative learning strategies on academic performance of Nigerian students in mathematics. Educational Research and Review, 3(1), 33-37. Kolb, D.A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. Chickering (Ed.), The Modern American College (pp. 232 – 255). San Francisco, C. A: Jossey – Bass Publishers. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kornfeld, J. (2005). Framing the conversation: social studies education and the neo-conservative agenda. Retrieved 24th July 2012 from http://sonoma-dspace.calstateedu/handle/10211.1/503 Ldpride.net (2008). Understanding your learning styles. Retrieved 10th September 2011 from www.dlu.edu.vn/FileUpload/2008111102736312.pdf LeCount, J., Evens, J., & Maruyama, G. (1992). It is a tough world out there: Students’ attitude toward gender socialization and pressures following a constructive controversy. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace conflict transformation across cultures. New York: Syracuse University Press. Lemire, D. S. (1998). Using learning styles in education: Research and problems. Journal of Alternative Learning and Teaching, 21(1&2), 43-57. Leming, J. S. (2003). Ignorant activists, social change, higher order thinking and the failure of social studies. In J. Leming, L. Ellington & K. Porter-Magee (Eds.) Where did social studies go wrong? Retrieved 12th June 2009 from http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/contrariansfullpdf.
173
Leming, J. S., Ellington, L & Porter-Magee, K (2003). Where did social studies go wrong? Retrieved 12th June 2009 from http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/contrariansfullpdf. Leming, J. S., Ellington, L, Schug, M. & Dieterle, D. (2009). Social studies in our Nation’s high schools: A national random survey of high school social studies teacher’s professional opinions, values, and classroom practices. Connecticut: University of Connecticut. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper. Liang, T. (2002). Implementing cooperative learning in EFL teaching: Process and effects. (Unpubished Ph.D. Thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan Lowry, N. & Johnson, D. W. (1981). Effects of controversy on epistemic curiosity, achievement, and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology. (115), 31-43. Lynne, G. R. (2012). Armed resistance: Masculinities, Egbesu spirits, and violence in the Niger – Delta. (Ph.D dissertation, Tulane: Tulane University). Retrieved 12th December 2012 from http://gradworks.umi.com/3519913.pdf. Mansaray, A. (1985). Effects of two modes of concept presentation and cognitive style on attainment of some social studies concepts by secondary school students. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Mansaray, A. (1991). Social studies methods for Ibadan external studies programme services. Ibadan: Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan. Marburger, D. R. (2005). Comparing students’ performance using cooperative learning. International Review of Economics Education, 4(1), 46-57. Marthe, N. T. (2012). Peace education. (Unpublished M.A. Dissertation in peace education and curriculum development). Costa Rica: University for Peace Martins-Umeh, F. N. (2009). Cooperative learning approach and students achievements in Sociology. African Research Review 3(3), 338-398. Martorella, P.H. (2001). Teaching social studies in middle and secondary schools. Upper Saddle Rivers NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Menon, B. (2001). Disarmament education: A basic guide. New York: United Nations. Mezirow, J. (2000). Transformative learning theory to practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice, new directions for adult and continuing education (pp.5-12). San Fransisco , CA.: Jossey Bass. Miall, H. (2001). Conflict transformation: A multi – dimensional task. Retrieved 6th June, 2013 from http://gradworks.umi.com/3519913.pdf. Miller, C.A. (2003). A glossary of terms and concepts in peace and conflicts studies. Geneva: University of Peace 174
Muigua, K. (2013). Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms under Article 159 of the constitution of Kenya 2010. Retrieved 16th August, 2014 from www.kmco.co.ke/.../paper%20on%20Article%2015%Traditional%20... Munson, L. S. (1992). How to conduct training seminars: A complete reference guide for training managers and professionals. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mustapha, R. B. (2004). Peace education in the curriculum. In J. Lausanne (Ed.), Cultures of peace: From words to deeds. Finland: Institute of Educational Research, University of Jyvaskyla. Mutunga, E. (2006). Gender and Peace processes in Africa. In G.S. Best (Ed.), Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa (pp. 365-382). Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd. Myers, I. B. (1962). The Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologist Press. Nandola, V. B. (2010). Effect of cooperative learning amongst student teachers. (Unpublised M. Ed. Dissertation) Bacha College, UNA, India. Nanna, O. (2012, March 5). North and Niger – Delta’s oil wealth: Vanguard. Retrieved 12th December 2012 from www.vanguardngr.com/2012/03/north-and-niger-delta’s-oil-wealth. National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) (2006). Introduction to conflict resolution processes II (PCR 106) (pp 1-145). Lagos: NOUN. National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) (2010). African traditional methods of conflict resolution (PCR 831) (pp. 8-140). Lagos: NOUN. Newsom, C. (2011). Conflict in the Niger-Delta: More than a local affair (Special Report). Washington: United States Institute of Peace. Retrieved 5th June 2013 from www.usip.org/files/resources/conflicts_Niger_Delta.pdf Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council (2007). Social studies curriculum for basic 7-9. Abuja: NERDC. Noddings, N. (2006). Critical lessons: What our schools should teach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Nwachukwu, C. B. (2009). Conflict prevention strategies. In M. Ikejiani-Clark (Ed.). Peace studies and conflict resolution in Nigeria: A reader (pp. 159-171). Ibadan: Spectrum Books limited Nwakanma, O. (2011, April 24). Post-election violence in Nigeria. Vanguard. Retrieved 12th December 2012 from www.vanguardngr.com/2011/04/post-election-violence-in-nigeria.
175
Nwanegbo, J. C. (2009). Internal conflict in south – eastern Nigeria: A study of Aguleri – Umuleri conflicts. In M. Ikejiani-Clark (Ed.), Peace studies and conflict resolution in Nigeria: A reader (pp. 500-517). Ibadan: Spectrum books. Obanya, P. A. (2010, April). Re-profiling teachers and teacher educators. Key note address presented at the first National conference of the School of Education, Emmanuel Alayande College of Education, Oyo. Obiyo, N. (2011). Improving achievements of pupils with learning and behaviour problems with cooperative strategy in Aboh, Delta state. Retrieved 29th July 2013 from www.journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/ajote/article/view/1586/2186. Odesola, (2012, January 11). Seven killed in Edo, Osun. The Punch. P.1 Ofordile, G. N. (1995). Effects of binary teaching achievements and interest in selected social studies units. (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Ogunbiyi, J.O. (2006). Value education and teacher-trainer environmental knowledge, attitudes and problem solving skills in colleges of education in Ogun and Lagos States, Nigeria. (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Department of Teacher Education, University of Ibadan. Ogunbiyi, J. O. (2012). Analysis of social studies evaluation in selected secondary schools in Ogun state, Nigeria. Global Journal of Human Social Science. 12 (8), 72-78. Retrieved 24th July 2013 from www.socialscienceresearch.org/index.php/GJHSS/article/view/347/305 Ogundare, S. F. (1999). Rationale for teaching about human rights in social studies education. In S. F. Ogundare & M. O. Ogunsanya (Eds.), Teaching human rights in social studies education (pp. 1-7). Ibadan: Social Studies Association of Nigeria (SOSAN). Ogundare, S. F. (2010). Invitation to fundamentals of teaching social studies (Revised edition). Ibadan: Franco – Ola Publishers. Ogundokun, M. O. (2011). Learning style, school environment and test anxiety as correlates of learning outcomes among secondary school students. Ife Psychologia, 19(2), 197-207. Ogunyemi, A. & Adetoro, R. A. (2013). Personal variables, knowledge and disposition to peace education concepts among junior secondary school social studies teachers in Ogun state, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice (JEP), 4(2), 66-77. Ogunyemi, B. (1999). Functionality of social studies: an analysis of current conceptions among undergraduate teacher – trainees. Nigerian Journal of Curriculum Studies, 6 (1), 56-63. Ogunyemi, B. (2006a). Curriculum implications of the decade of education for sustainable development for primary school social studies. Nigerian Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13 (1), 175 – 183. Ogunyemi, B. (2006b). Curriculum imperative for teacher preparation in peace and human rights education: The Nigerian case. In O. A. Oyedeji, B. Ogunyemi, (Eds.), Perspectives in 176
Nigerian education: Issues of the new millennium (pp. 225-237). Ibadan: Bash Moses Publishers. Ogunyemi, B. (2010). Curriculum politics in the changing fortunes of Nigerian social studies. International Journal of Education, 2(2), 1-12 Ogunyemi, B. & Raheem, K. (2006). Perceived relevance of human rights and peace education in post – military Nigeria. IFRA Special Research, (2), 1-18. Ojo, O. .J. (2002). Relative effects of self-regulatory and cooperative learning strategies on learning outcomes in senior secondary school mathematics, Ibadan-North, Nigeria. (Unpublished Ph.D thesis), University of Ibadan Ojiji, O. (2006). Conflict handling styles. In S. G. Best (Ed.), Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa (pp 116-129). Ibadan. Spectrum Books Ltd. Okebukola, P. A. (1984). Effects of two cooperative competitive and individualistic laboratory interaction patterns on students’ performance in biology. (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Okobia, E. O. (2011). Social studies teachers’ perception of the junior secondary school social studies curriculum in Edo State. European Journal of Educational Studies, 3 (2), 303-309. Okobia, E. O. (2012). Availability and teachers’ use of instructional materials and resources in the implementation of social studies in junior secondary schools in Edo State, Nigeria. Review of European Studies, 3(2). Retrieved 28th October 2012 from www.ccsenet.org/res. Okunloye, R. W. (2000, June). Conflicting conceptions of social studies curriculum goal in Nigerian junior secondary schools. Retrieved 29th July 2013 from www.unilorin.edu.ng/journals/education/ije/june2000/index.php. Olanrewaju, I. O. (2005). Nigerian education at crossroads: An attempt towards a solution to the problem of indiscipline in school administration. Educational Periscope, 1, 115-124. Olatunji, M. O. (2010). The 1969 National curriculum conference and the Nigerian national policy on education. In J. O. O. Abiri & A. A. Jekayinfa (Eds.), Perspective on the history of education in Nigeria (Revised edition). (pp. 250-259). Ilorin: Bamitex Printing and Publishing enterprises. Olawale, R. (2011, October 3). Arms inflow from northern borders intensifies: The Gaddafi mercenaries connection, Boko Haram members relocate to Kano, others. Nigeria Tribune. Olele, C. N. & Williams, C. (2011). Fostering democratic practices through cooperative learning in secondary schools: Towards matured democratic dispensation. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 2(2), 81-88.
177
Olojo, O. J. & Ojo, A. A. (2011). Effects of cooperative, competitive and individualistic instructional strategies on secondary school students’ attitude towards mathematics in Ondo state, Nigeria. Journal of Research in Education and Society, 2(3), 35-43. Oloyede, E. O., Adebowale, O. F. & Ojo, A. A. (2012). The effects of competitive, cooperative and individualistic classroom interaction models on learning outcomes in mathematics in Nigerian secondary schools. Retrieved 29th July 2013 from www.hindawi.com/ism/education/2012/263891.pdf Olubodun, J. B. O. (2008). Universal basic education and educational reforms in Nigeria. In A. R. Lawal, S. A. Jimoh, S. A. Olorundare & N. Y. S. Ijaiya (Eds.), Education reforms in Nigeria: Past, present and future (pp. 64-86). Ibadan: Stirling – Horden Publishers limited. Oludipe, D. I. (2011). Effects of two cooperative learning methods on junior secondary school students’ academic performance and retention in Integrated Science (Unpublished Ph.D thesis), Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye Oludipe, D. I. (2012). Gender difference in Nigerian junior secondary students’ academic achievement in basic science. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2(1), 92-99. Oludipe, D. & Awokoya, J. O. (2010). Effects of cooperative learning teaching strategy on the reduction of students’ anxiety for learning chemistry. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(1), 30-36. Oluyemi-Kusa, D. (2006). Gender, Peace and Conflict in Africa. In G.S. Best (Ed.), Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa (pp. 205-233). Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd. Omiyefa, M. O. (2009). Teachers’ and students’ perception of the relevance of social studies to pupils’ values and moral development in Abeokuta metropolis, Ogun State. (Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation). Dept. of Teacher Education, University of Ibadan. Omosehin, F. M. (2003). Effects of a training programme in cooperative learning on pre-service teachers’ classroom practice and pupils’ learning outcomes in social studies. A post-field seminar, presented in the Department of Teacher Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Oniemayin, F. E. (2008). Prognosis for the current reforms in education with benefits of hindsight. In A. R. Lawal, S. A. Jimoh, S. A. Olorundare & N. Y. S. Ijaiya (Eds.), Education reforms in Nigeria: Past, present and future (pp. 87-95). Ibadan: Stirling – Horden Publishers limited. Onuoha, J. (2009). Negotiation and mediation process. In M. Ikejiani-Clark (Ed.), Peace studies and conflict resolution in Nigeria: A reader (pp. 110-123). Ibadan: Spectrum books. Onu, G. (2009). The methods of conflict resolution and transformation. In M. Ikejiani-Clark (Ed.), Peace studies and conflict resolution in Nigeria: A reader (pp. 83-102). Ibadan: Spectrum books. 178
Oregon Mediation Centre (2012). Effective Mediation Resources. Retrieved 24th October 2012 from mediate.com. Oyeyemi, K. T. (2012). Evaluating peace education as mainstream curriculum: A study of Nigerian junior secondary schools. Phoenix: University of Phoenix. Retrieved 5th June 2013 from www.africanfoundationforpeace.org. Oyeweso, F. (2013, February 2). How masquerades killed muslim cleric and murdered peace in Abeokuta. National Mirror. P.1 Oyewumi, F. O. (2011). Indigeneous methods of peace-making and conflict resolution in OdoOtin local government area of Osun State, Nigeria. (Unpublished M.A. Dissertation in Peace and Conflict Studies). Ibadan: University of Ibadan. Oyitso, M. O. & Olomukoro, C. O. (2007). The relevance of peace education in adult education programme. Unizik Orient Journal of Education, 3(1), 26-32. Ozsoy, N. & Yildiz, N. (2004): The effect of learning together technique of cooperative learning method on student achievement in mathematics teaching 7th class of primary school. Retrieved 25th March 2010 from http://www.tojet.net/artcles/337..pdf on. O’ Shea, K. (2003). Education for democratic citizenship 2001 – 2004: A glossary of terms for education for democratic citizenship. DGIV/EDU/CIT (2003) 29. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Page, J. S. (2008a). The United Nations and peace education. Encyclopedia of Peace Education. Columbia: Columbia University Teachers College. Retrieved 5th June 2013 from http://www.tc.edu/centre/epe.html Page, J. S. (2008b). Peace education: Exploring ethical and philosophical foundations. Charlottesville: Information Age Publishing. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119. Passi, V. S. (2009). From cooperative learning towards communalism. Media Education Publication 8259. Retrieved 14th February 2010from http://www.edu.helsinki.fi./media/mep8/passivahitivuori.pdf. Pate, U. (2009). Peace education as foundation for peace – building in Nigeria. Retrieved 24th June 2013 from www.peace-education-as-foundation-for-peace-html. Patel, M. R. (2012). Peace education for school, college and university. Quest International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 1(1). Retrieved 6th June 2013 from www.mahidachintan.com Peace Education File (2004). The need and rationale for peace education. Retrieved 14 th March 2009 from http://www.peaceeducation.centre/philosophy.htm. 179
Peklaj, C. (2003). Gender abilities, cognitive style and students’ achievement in cooperative learning. Horizons of Psychology, 12(4), 9-22. Perry, J. & Felce, D. (2010). Assessing work-related social skills: Existing approaches and instruments. Cardiff: Welsh Centre for Learning Disabilities. Perry, R. P. & Penner, K. S. (1990). Enhancing academic achievement in college students through attributional retraining and instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(2), 262-271 Plato (360 B.C.E.). The Republic (Translated by Benjamin Jowett). Retrieved 16th August, 2014 from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html Powell, K. E., Muir McClain & Halasyamani (1995). A review of selected school – based conflict resolution and peer mediation. Journal of School Health, 65(10), 427-431. Putnam, J., Rynders, J., Johnson, R. & Johnson D. W. (1989). Collaborative skills instruction for promoting positive interactions between mentally handicapped and non handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 55, 550-557. Rassool, G. H. & Rawaf, S. (2008). The influence of learning styles preference of undergraduate nursing students on educational outcomes in substance use education. Nurse Education in Practice, 8, 306-314. Read, H. (2012). Education for peace. New York: Routledge. Reardon, B. (1988). Educating for global responsibility: Teacher designed curricula for peace education, K-12. New York: Teachers College Press. Reardon, B. A. (1988). Comprehensive peace education. New York: Teachers College Press. Reardon, B. A. (2003, June). Intercultural cooperation in higher education and teacher education. Paper Presented at the UNESCO Conference on Intercultural Education. Jyvaskyla, Finland. Reuters, T (2012). Timeline on ethnic and religions unrest in Nigeria. Retrieved 12 March 2013 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/24/nigeria-sect-violence. Rochester, J. M. (2003). The training of idiots: Civic education in America’s schools. In J. Leming, L. Ellington & K. Porter-Magee (Eds.), Where did social studies go wrong? Retrieved 12th June 2006 from http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/contrariansfullpgf. Ruyle, K. (1995). Group training methods: In L. Kelly (Ed.), The ASTD technical and skills training handbook. New York: McGraw Hill.
180
Sagkal, A. S., Turnuklu, A. & Totan, T. (2012). Empathy for international peace: Effects of peace education on Empathy skills. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(2), 1454-1460. Retrieved 5th June 2013 from www.edam.com.tr/estp Salako, E. C., Eze, I. R. & Adu, E. O. (2012). Effects of cooperative learning on junior secondary school students’ knowledge and attitudes to multicultural education concepts in social studies. Discovery Science, 2(4), 15-18. Retrieved 29th June 2013 from www. Discovery.org.in/ds.htm Samuel, W. W. & John, G. M. (2004). Effect of cooperative class experiment teaching method on secondary school students’ chemistry achievement in kenya’s Nakuru district. International Education Journal, 5(1), 26-35. Sandy, R. & Perkins, R. (1980). The nature of peace and its implications for peace education. Retrieved 4th March 2009 from http://www.peacefile.htm. Sankey, M. D., Birch, D. & Gardiner, M. W. (2011). The impact of multiple representations of content using multimedia on learning outcomes across learning styles and modal preferences. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 7(3), 18-35. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Cooperative learning and middle schools: What would it take to really do it right? Theory into practice, 33, 183-190. Sasikala, J. E. M. (2013). Effectiveness of cooperative learning on achievement in biology. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 3(6), 144-145. Schmeck, R. R. (1983). Learning styles of college students. In R. F. Dillon & Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition. New York: Academic Press. Scheurman, G. (1998). From behaviourist to constructivist teaching. Social Education, 62(1), 6-9 Schmidt, F. (2006). Peace Education Theory. Retrieved 15th February 2011 from www.peace.ca/peaceeducationtheory.htm. Schmidt, F. & Friedman (1987). Peace making skills for little kids, concept book (p.3). New York: Peace Education Foundation. Schug, M. C. (2003). Teacher-centered instruction: The Rodney dangerfield of social studies. In J. Leming, L. Ellington & K. Porter-Magee (Eds.), Where did social studies go wrong? Retrieved 12th June 2006 from http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/contrariansfullpgf. Schug, M. C., Tarver, S. & Western, R. D. (2001). Direct instruction and the teaching of early reading: Wisconsin’s teacher led insurgency. Mequon, W.I: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
181
Science Education Resource Centre (2010). Potential challengies with cooperative learning. carton college starting point teaching entry level geosciences. Retrieved 15th May 2010 from http://serc.carleton.edu//10848. Scott, J. (2005). The concise handbook of management: A practitioner’s approach. New York: Haworth Press. Scott, W. & Cherrington, D. (1974). Effects of competitive, cooperative and individualistic reinforcement contingencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 748-758. Segiru, O. (2010). Traditional institution and political conflicts in Agbede town, Edo State, Nigeria. (Unpublished M. A. Dissertation in Peace and Conflict Studies). Ibadan: University of Ibadan. Sewell, M. A. (2006). Teacher and children learning together: Developing a community of learners in a primary classroom. (Unpublished Ph.D thesis), Massey University, USA Sharma, A. (2013). Education for peace: Transforming the culture of violence. Retrieved 5th May 2013 from http://www.spaceandculture.in/index.php/spaceandculture/article/view/15/5. Siegel, L. (1992). Criminology. Saint Paul, Mien: West publishing Company Silberman, M. L. (1990). Active training: A handbook of techniques, designs, case examples and tips. New York: Lexington Books. Slavin, R. E. (1985). Small group instruction. The International Encyclopedia of Education. 85, 4596-4601. Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Retrieved 30th June 2013 from www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199102_slavin.pdf Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Slavin, R. & Tanner, A. (1979). Effects of cooperative reward structures and individual accountability on productivity and learning. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 294298 Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 651-663. Snyder, R. F. (2000). The relationship between learning styles/multiple intelligences and academic achievement of high school students. The High School Journal, 83(2)11-20. Sommerfelt, O. H. & Vambheim, V. (2008). ‘The dream of the good’ – a peace education project exploring the potential to educate for peace at an individual level. Journal of Peace Education, 5(1), 79-95. Retrieved 5th June 2013 from http://www.informaworld.com, DOI: 10.1080/17400200701859445 182
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (1994). Classroom compass: Cooperative learning, 1(2). Sparapani, E. F. (1997). Cooperative learning: An investigation of the knowledge and classroom practice of middle grade teachers. Education, 118(2), 251-258. Stomfay-Stitz, A. M. (2008). A history of peace education in the United States of America. Encyclopedia of peace studies. Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved 6th June 2013 from http://www.tc.edu/centres/epe.html Suttor, M. & Magar, L. (2010). Tips for teaching students how to take effective notes on a lecture online. Brickstone Square Andover, M.A.: Helium Inc. Swassing, R. H. and Barbe, W. B. (1984). Teaching through modality strengths. Columbus, OH: Zaner – Bloser Publishers. Sze, S. & Cowden, P. (2009). What about my child? Victoria, Canada: Trafford Publishing. Tabulawa, R. (2013). Teaching and learning in context: Why pedagogical reforms fail in SubSaharan Africa. Dakar: Codestria. Tarawald, G. H., Bull, K. S. & Seeler, D. C. (2009). From teaching to learning part II – Traditional teaching methodology. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 20(3), Retrieved 25th February from URL: http://Scholar.116vt.edu/ejournalJVME/v.20.3/turawald.html Temel, A. (2002). Do you know your learning style? Education Science, 48, 6-9. Thanndca, S., Honksuwan, S. & Suksringarm, P. (2012). A collaborative learning model of webbased instruction using learning together (LT) for enhancing metacognition. European Journal of Social Sciences, 33 (1): 23-31. Retrieved 24th January from httpo://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com The Free Library (2009). The effect of learning styles on education and the teaching process. Turkey: Social Sciences Publication. The Hague Appeal for Peace Global Campaign for Peace Education (1980). Retrieved 4th March 2009 from http://en.wikipediaorg/wiki/peace-education The Rainbow (2013, June 4). US offers $23m ransom on Shekau, other boko haram leaders. The Nigerian Voice. Retrieved 16th June 2013 from www.thenigerianvoice.com/nvnews/115477/1/us-offers-23m-ransom-on-shekau-otherboko-haram-leaders.html Thoresen, V. A. (2005). Theorizing peace education - A theoretical survey of the practice of peace education. (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Tromsa: University of Tromsa.
183
Thomson, V. (2012). Boko haram and Islamic fundamentalism in Nigeria. Global Security Studies, 3(3), 46-60. Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 282-342. Tsay, M. & Brady, M, (2012). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89. Ukpokodu, N. O. (2007). Fostering pre-service teachers’ transformative learning in social studies methods’ course: A reflection on transformative pedagogy. Social Studies Research and Practice, 2(3), 316-340. UNESCO (1996). Learning: The treasure within report of the independent commission on education for the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (1998). Promoting a culture of peace in higher education in the twenty first century: Vision and action. Paris: UNESCO. UNGA (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly resolution 217 A(3) of 10th December, 1948 UNGA (1959). Declaration of the rights of the child. New York , NY: United Nations General Assembly resolution 1386(14) of 20th November, 1959 UNGA (2000). International decade for a culture of peace and non – violence for the children of the world: Report of the Secretary - General. New York, NY: United Nations General Assembly Reference A/55/377 UNGA (2002a). A World fit for children. Adopted by the General Assembly Resolution S-27/2 of 10th May, 2000. UNGA (2002b). United Nations study on disarmament and non – proliferation education. New York, NY: United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/57/124 UNICEF (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Adopted by the General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20th November, 1989 UNICEF (1999). Peace education. Retrieved www.unicef.org/education/files/Peace Education.pdf.
24th
October
2012
from
United Nations (1998). Declaration on a culture of peace. Retrieved 25th Octobber 2010 from A/RES/53/243A. Universal Basic Education Commission (2009). 2006 National assessment of universal basic education programme final report. Abuja: UBEC.
184
Upeace (2006). Peace Education in Africa. Report of the working committee meeting, December 18-20, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Retrieved 10th August 2009 from www.UpeaceAfrica.org. Usulor, B. E. (2012). Effects of cooperative learning instructional strategy on junior secondary school students’ achievement in social studies. Nigerian Journal of Social Studies and Civic Education, 2(1), 1-9. Veenman, S., Kenter, B. & Post, K. (2000). Cooperative learning in Dutch primary classrooms. Education Studies, 26(3), 281-302. Vella, F. (1992). Medical education: Capitalizing on the lecture method. FASEB Journal, 6(3), 811-812. Voss, J., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337-350. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The Development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, M.A: Havard University Press. Wafika, S. A. (2010). The relationship between learning styles, emotional social intelligence and academic success of undergraduate nursing students. The Journal of Nursing Research (JNR), 18(2), 136-143. Wahistron, R. (1991). Peace education meets the challenge of the cultures of militarism. Peace Education Miniprints, 11. University of Sweeden: Malmo School of Education Walker, G. H. (1988). Cooperative learning. Retrieved file://D:\New%20folder\cooperative%20learning%20a.htm.
6th
March
2009
from
Wang, D. (2010). Seven types of conflict. Retrieved 24th October 2012 from livestrong.com. Webel, C. ( 2007). Towards a philosophy and metapsychology of peace. In C. Webel & J. Galtung (Eds), Handbook of peace and conflict studies (pp. 3-13). London: Routledge Wehrwein, E. A., Lujan, H. L & Dicarlo, S. E. (2007). Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Retrieved 3rd July 2010 from ADV PHYSIOL EDUC 31, 153 – 157. Whitaker, P. (1980). Peace education. Retrieved file://A:\PEACE%20EDUCATION_files\content.htm.
4th
March
2009
from
White, T. (2002). Howards futuristic school (p.B6). Baltimore: Sun. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Peace education. Retrieved 4th March 2009 from http://en,wikipedia.org/wiki/peace-education. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Cooperative learning. Retrieved 4 th March 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cooperativelearning. 185
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Conflict (narrative). Retrieved 24th October 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/characterization/conflict_(narrative)types.htm. Wisdom, I. J. & Imo, M. O. (2010). Literacy in co-curricular programmes and enhancement of peace education in schools. Nigeria Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(3), 128-136. Yusuf, A. (2007). Effects of cooperative instructional strategy on students’ performance in social studies. Retrieved 25th March 2009 from www.unilorin.edu.ng. Zeiger, S. (2000). Teaching peace: Lessons from peace studies curriculum in the progressive era. Peace & Change, 25(1), 52-69. Zhang, Y. (2012). A study of cooperative language learning method in reading course. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(8), 1678-1683. Zywno, M. S. & Waalen, J. K. (2002). The effect of individual learning styles on student outcomes in technology – enabled education. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 6, (1), 35 - 34
186
Appendix I
Lesson 1(A) Method:
Learning Together
Topic:
Peace
Class:
JSS 3 (13-15years age)
Duration:
40mins
Instructional Objectives: At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to: (i)
State the meaning of peace
(ii)
Describe peaceful situations
(iii)
Explain types of peace
(iv)
Identify ways of promoting peace
(v)
Appreciate the need for peace in their communities
(vi)
Participate in peaceful dialogues and activities
Instructional Materials: Story cards, Worksheets, Matching cards, notepads, biros, pencils etc. Instructional Procedure Step 1: The teacher writes the topic on the chalkboard with specific roles to be shared (3mins)
amongst each group member e.g. group leader and recorder.
Step 2: The teacher groups all the members into five each and ask the leader to assign (2mins)
roles to each member of the group.
Step 3: The teacher gives clear instruction on roles assignment of each group member (5mins)
and request that all should study their story card thus: 187
Storycard on Concept of Peace In one of his addresses to the United Nations Assemblies, Mr. Ban Kimoon (UN Secretary General) emphasized the need for peaceful coexistence in the world. According to him, the whole world needs a situation whereby there would be free movement of people, goods and services; stable democracy; industrial development; bilateral cooperation among nations; enduring fundamental human rights; economic progress; cultural exchanges and a general improvement in the living standard of the people. The type of peace we are talking about is a positive one, he reiterated. Explaining further, he said it is a peace devoid of war or violence, a state of quietness or calmness that involves people living or associating together with minimal or without conflict. Positive peace, in his observation means an unforced or natural one that promotes harmonious living in a community. He noted that many nations of the world are at war against each other because of religious intolerance, lack of social justice and equity, gender and cultural discriminations, lack of mutual understanding, ethnicity, nepotism and lack of respect for the rule of law. He therefore advised world leaders to encourage creation of clubs of peacemakers in schools as well as entrench the culture of peace through peaceful dialogue in their communities.
Step 4: All the students study their story cards. As the teacher goes round to monitor, (20mins)
each group attempts to answer the following questions through dialogue among themselves.
Q1: What is peace? Q2: Name different types of peace that you know. Q3: Describe a peaceful situation Q4: How do we promote peace in our communities? 188
Q5: Indicate ways by which people can appreciate peace in their communities. Q6: How would you participate in peaceful dialogues and activities? Step 5: Each group leader is to present their group answers to the whole class and awards (10mins)
(scoring) are given to them.
Home Assignment: Each student is to prepare a matching card for positive and negative behaviors from home.
189
Appendix II Lesson 1(B) Method:
Constructive controversy
Topic:
Peace
Class:
JSS 3 (13-15years age)
Duration:
40mins
Instructional Objectives: At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)
State the meaning of peace Describe peaceful situations Explain types of peace Identify ways of promoting peace Appreciate the need for peace in their communities Participate in peaceful dialogues and activities
Instructional Materials: Story card, Dialogue cards, Worksheets, Matching Cards, Note Pads, biros, pencils, rulers etc. Instructional Procedure Step 1: The teacher writes the topic on the chalkboard, groups the students into 6each and allows them to share roles among themselves. E.g. group leader (Moderator), recorder, 2 (3mins) Advocate members and 2 opposing members. Step 2: The teacher writes the following rules of constructive controversy to be obeyed on the chalkboard. (5mins)
a) b) c) d)
Group members are to be critical of ideas not of persons. Students are not to interject any opinion but listen and jot down notes. Each of the pair is to contribute to their position. The group (leader) then finally moderates the arguments and brings out the salient points. Step 3: The story cards on ‘peace’ and ‘conflict’ are given to the opposing sides in each group to study i.e. ‘peace story cards’ to the advocates and the ‘conflict story cards’ to the opposing members. (7mins)
190
Peace Storycard In one of his addresses to the United Nations Assemblies, Mr. Ban Kimoon (UN Secretary General) emphasized the need for peaceful coexistence in the world. According to him, the whole world needs a situation whereby there would be free movement of people, goods and services; stable democracy; industrial development; bilateral cooperation among nations; enduring fundamental human rights; economic progress; cultural exchanges and a general improvement in the living standard of the people. The type of peace we are talking about is a positive one, he reiterated. Explaining further, he said it is a peace devoid of war or violence, a state of quietness or calmness that involves people living or associating together with minimal or without conflict. Positive peace, in his observation means an unforced or natural one that promotes harmonious living in a community. He noted that many nations of the world are at war against each other because of religious intolerance, lack of social justice and equity, gender and cultural discriminations, lack of mutual understanding, ethnicity, nepotism and lack of respect for the rule of law. He therefore advised world leaders to encourage creation of clubs of peacemakers in schools as well as entrench the culture of peace through peaceful dialogue in their communities. Conflict Storycard When one considers many issues that lead to conflict all over the world, one is bound to say that ‘conflict is part of human life’. This was my conclusion while thinking-aloud one day. In my further contact with books, I read that conflict whether violent or non-violent, means a serious disagreement between two people or a group of people. When I asked my friend that: “why is it that people always quarrel and fight with others that come their way?” My friend replied that this may be due to inequality in distribution of resources, unfounded rumour, misconceptions, cheating and discriminations. He said,
191
sometimes people always misunderstand themselves due to stereotypes and prejudices. He believed language barrier and cultural diversities are also common problems. Later, I wonder why there were many violence in Nigerian communities as well as other parts of the world. At this point, I remembered the current Jos religious/ethnic clashes, the past, Bokoharam and Maitaisine religious riots; Ife-Modakeke land disputes; the inter-ethnic Yoruba/Hausa, Kataf/Hausa, Urhobo/Itsekiri conflicts; the intra-ethnic Aguleri/Umulari community clashes in Nigeria. Equally, the past Iran/Iraq war as well as the recent Israeli/Palestine wars came to mind as international conflicts. At the regional levels, one cannot forget the past Liberian and Sierra-Leone ethnic clashes as well as the current Sudan and Somalian wars. One then remembers thousands of lives and properties that were lost in the wars as well as permanent hatred created among people. Equally remembered were the facts that conflicts always lead to under development, family dismemberment, hardship, hunger, starvation, economic and industrial disruptions as well as infringement on peoples’ foundational human rights. As I was living with disillusion, my friend called my attention to the fact that conflict is not all that bad. According to him, if conflict is positively managed, it could bring healthy competition for further development, complex reasoning, quality achievement, increased motivation to take action, increased respect and trust, creative problem-solving and higher quality decision making. I then asked how conflict can be well managed to make it positive. His answers included inculcating attitude of tolerance and cooperation, creating cooperative learning environment in schools, inculcating spirit of constructive controversy engagement, teaching students to be peacemakers by ensuring that they acquire skills of conflict resolution like peer mediation, negotiation, compromise, reconciliation and arbitration.
192
Step 4: The controversy dialogue box goes thus: (15mins)
Peace Dialogue Themes
Conflict Dialogue Themes
1 Peace is more necessary than conflict for development. 2 Types of peace are more valuable than types of conflict. 3 Peace attainment strategies are better than conflict resolution skills (give examples) 4 Communities/nations that are peaceful are more than those ones in conflicts (give examples) 5 Consequences or effects of peaceful situations are more appreciated than conflict situations. 6 Peace dialogue is better than conflict resolution skills.
1 Conflict is more necessary than peace for development. 2 Types of conflict are more valuable than types of peace. 3 Conflict resolution skills are better than peace attainment strategies (give examples). 4 Communities / nations that are in conflict are more than those ones in peace (give examples). 5 Consequences or effects of conflicts are more appreciated than peaceful situations. 6 Conflict resolution skills are better than peace dialogue.
Step 5: The group leader (Moderator) then leads the recorder to take down notes on the (10mins)
following:
-
definition of peace
-
types of peace
-
strategies for promoting peace
-
consequences/needs for peace
-
Strategies for engaging in peaceful dialogue.
Step 6: Each group leader is to present their notes on their position in step 5 to the whole class (10mins)
while the teacher awards marks to each based on their performance.
Home Assignment: Each student is to prepare a matching card for positive and negative behaviors from home.
193
Appendix III Lesson 1(C) Method:
Conventional Method of Instruction
Topic:
Peace
Class:
JSS 3 (13-15years age)
Duration:
40mins
Instructional Objectives: At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)
State the meaning of peace Describe peaceful situations Explain types of peace Identify ways of promoting peace Appreciate the need for peace in their communities Participate in peaceful dialogues and activities
Instructional Materials: Lecture notes (peace story cards), matching cards, note pads, biros, pencils etc. Instructional Procedure Step 1: The teacher writes the topic on the chalkboard (2mins)
Step 2: The teacher distributes the story cards on peace to each students (3mins)
194
Peace Storycard In one of his addresses to the United Nations Assemblies, Mr. Ban Kimoon (UN Secretary General) emphasized the need for peaceful coexistence in the world. According to him, the whole world needs a situation whereby there would be free movement of people, goods and services; stable democracy; industrial development; bilateral cooperation among nations; enduring fundamental human rights; economic progress; cultural exchanges and a general improvement in the living standard of the people. The type of peace we are talking about is a positive one, he reiterated. Explaining further, he said it is a peace devoid of war or violence, a state of quietness or calmness that involves people living or associating together with minimal or without conflict. Positive peace, in his observation means an unforced or natural one that promotes harmonious living in a community. He noted that many nations of the world are at war against each other because of religious intolerance, lack of social justice and equity, gender and cultural discriminations, lack of mutual understanding, ethnicity, nepotism and lack of respect for the rule of law. He therefore advised world leaders to encourage creation of clubs of peacemakers in schools as well as entrench the culture of peace through peaceful dialogue in their communities. Step 3: The teacher reads the ‘peace story card’ to the hearing of all the students and (10mins)
asks them to jot points down.
Step 4: The teacher allows the student to ask questions on the story card. (5mins)
Step 5: The teacher then asks the students the following questions orally and moderate (15mins)
them accordingly.
Q1: What is peace? Q2: Name different types of peace that you know. Q3: Describe a peaceful situation Q4: How do we promote peace in our communities? 195
Q5: Indicate ways by which people can appreciate peace in their communities. Q6: How would you participate in peaceful dialogues and activities? Step 6: The students are to take down notes on responses to the questions asked above. (5mins)
Home Assignment: Each student is to prepare a matching card for positive and negative behaviors from home.
196
Appendix IV Lesson 2(A) Method:
Learning Together
Topic:
Conflict
Class:
JSS 3 (13-15years age)
Duration:
40mins
Instructional Objectives: At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii)
Define conflict Identify various types of conflicts Give examples of conflicts witnessed in Nigeria and others parts of the world. State causes of conflict Appreciate the values of positive conflict Explain the consequences of negative conflicts. Develop non-violent skills for resolving conflicts.
Instructional Materials: Story cards, Worksheets, Matching cards, notepads, biros, pencils etc. Instructional Procedure Step 1: The teacher writes the topic on the chalkboard with specific roles to be shared (3mins)
amongst each group member e.g. group leader and recorder.
Step 2: The teacher groups all the students into 5each and asks the leader to assign roles (2mins)
to each member of the group (different from the role each earlier played).
Step 3: The teacher gives clear instruction on roles assignment of each group member (5min)
and request that all should study their story cards thus:
197
Conflict Storycard When one considers many issues that lead to conflict all over the world, one is bound to say that ‘conflict is part of human life’. This was my conclusion while thinking-aloud one day. In my further contact with books, I read that conflict whether violent or non-violent, means a serious disagreement between two people or a group of people. When I asked my friend that: “why is it that people always quarrel and fight with others that come their way?”. My friend replied that this may be due to inequality in distribution of resources, unfounded rumour, misconceptions, cheating and discriminations. He said, sometimes people always misunderstand themselves due to stereotypes and prejudices. He believed language barrier and cultural diversities are also common problems. Later, I wonder why there were many violence in Nigerian communities as well as other parts of the world. At this point, I remembered the current Jos religious/ethnic clashes, the past, Bokoharam and Maitaisine religious riots; Ife-Modakeke land disputes; the inter-ethnic Yoruba/Hausa, Kataf/Hausa, Urhobo/Itsekiri conflicts; the intra-ethnic Aguleri/Umulari community clashes in Nigeria. Equally, the past Iran/Iraq war as well as the recent Israeli/Palestine wars came to mind as international conflicts. At the regional levels, one cannot forget the past Liberian and Sierra-Leone ethnic clashes as well as the current Sudan and Somalian wars. One then remembers thousands of lives and properties that were lost in the wars as well as permanent hatred created among people. Equally remembered were the facts that conflicts always lead to under development, family dismemberment, hardship, hunger, starvation, economic and industrial disruptions as well as infringement on peoples’ foundational human rights. As I was living with disillusion, my friend called my attention to the fact that conflict is not all that bad. According to him, if conflict is positively managed, it could bring healthy competition for further development, complex reasoning, quality achievement, increased 198
motivation to take action, increased respect and trust, creative problem-solving and higher quality decision making. I then asked how conflict can be well managed to make it positive. His answers included inculcating attitude of tolerance and cooperation, creating cooperative learning environment in schools, inculcating spirit of constructive controversy engagement, teaching students to be peacemakers by ensuring that they acquire skills of conflict resolution like peer mediation, negotiation, compromise, reconciliation and arbitration. Step 4: All the students study their story cards. As the teacher goes round to monitor, (20mins)
each group attempts to answer the following questions through dialogue among themselves.
Q1: What is conflict? Q2: Name various types of conflicts that you know. Q3: Give examples of popular conflicts witnessed in Nigeria Q4: State examples of international conflicts. Q5: State consequences of conflict. Q6: Can conflict be positive? Give reasons Q7: State various conflict resolution skills that you know Q8: How can conflict be well managed? Step 5: Each group leader is to present their group answers to the whole class and awards (10mins)
(scoring) are given to them.
Home Assignment: Each student is to prepare a dialogue conflict resolution report from home.
199
Appendix V Lesson 2(B) Method:
Constructive controversy
Topic:
Conflict
Class:
JSS 3 (13-15years age)
Duration:
40mins
Instructional Objectives: At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii)
Define conflict Identify various types of conflicts Give examples of conflicts witnessed in Nigeria and others parts of the world. State causes of conflict Appreciate the values of positive conflict Explain the consequences of negative conflicts. Develop non-violent skills for resolving conflicts.
Instructional Materials: Story card, Dialogue cards, Worksheets, Matching Cards, Note Pads, biros, pencils, rulers etc. Instructional Procedure Step 1: The teacher writes the topic on the chalkboard, groups the students into 6 each and allows them to share roles among themselves. E.g. group leader (3mins) (Moderator), recorder, 2 Advocate members and 2 opposing members. Step 2: The teacher writes the following rules of constructive controversy to be obeyed on the chalkboard. (5mins)
a) b) c) d)
Group members are to be critical of ideas not of persons. Students are not to interject any opinion but listen and jot down notes. Each of the pair is to contribute to their position. The group (leader) then finally moderates the arguments and brings out the salient points. Step 3: The story cards on ‘conflict’ and ‘peace’ are given to the opposing sides in each group to study i.e. ‘conflict story card’ to the advocates and the ‘peace story cards’ to the opposing members. (7mins)
200
Conflict Storycard When one considers many issues that lead to conflict all over the world, one is bound to say that ‘conflict is part of human life’. This was my conclusion while thinking-aloud one day. In my further contact with books, I read that conflict whether violent or non-violent, means a serious disagreement between two people or a group of people. When I asked my friend that: “why is it that people always quarrel and fight with others that come their way?”. My friend replied that this may be due to inequality in distribution of resources, unfounded rumour, misconceptions, cheating and discriminations. He said, sometimes people always misunderstand themselves due to stereotypes and prejudices. He believed language barrier and cultural diversities are also common problems. Later, I wonder why there were many violence in Nigerian communities as well as other parts of the world. At this point, I remembered the current Jos religious/ethnic clashes, the past, Bokoharam and Maitaisine religious riots; Ife-Modakeke land disputes; the inter-ethnic Yoruba/Hausa, Kataf/Hausa, Urhobo/Itsekiri conflicts; the intra-ethnic Aguleri/Umulari community clashes in Nigeria. Equally, the past Iran/Iraq war as well as the recent Israeli/Palestine wars came to mind as international conflicts. At the regional levels, one cannot forget the past Liberian and Sierra-Leone ethnic clashes as well as the current Sudan and Somalian wars. One then remembers thousands of lives and properties that were lost in the wars as well as permanent hatred created among people. Equally remembered were the facts that conflicts always lead to under development, family dismemberment, hardship, hunger, starvation, economic and industrial disruptions as well as infringement on peoples’ foundational human rights. As I was living with disillusion, my friend called my attention to the fact that conflict is not all that bad. According to him, if conflict is positively managed, it could bring healthy competition for further development, complex reasoning, quality achievement, increased 201
motivation to take action, increased respect and trust, creative problem-solving and higher quality decision making. I then asked how conflict can be well managed to make it positive. His answers included inculcating attitude of tolerance and cooperation, creating cooperative learning environment in schools, inculcating spirit of constructive controversy engagement, teaching students to be peacemakers by ensuring that they acquire skills of conflict resolution like peer mediation, negotiation, compromise, reconciliation and arbitration. Peace Storycard In one of his addresses to the United Nations Assemblies, Mr. Ban Kimoon (UN Secretary General) emphasized the need for peaceful coexistence in the world. According to him, the whole world needs a situation whereby there would be free movement of people, goods and services; stable democracy; industrial development; bilateral cooperation among nations; enduring fundamental human rights; economic progress; cultural exchanges and a general improvement in the living standard of the people. The type of peace we are talking about is a positive one, he reiterated. Explaining further, he said it is a peace devoid of war or violence, a state of quietness or calmness that involves people living or associating together with minimal or without conflict. Positive peace, in his observation means an unforced or natural one that promotes harmonious living in a community. He noted that many nations of the world are at war against each other because of religious intolerance, lack of social justice and equity, gender and cultural discriminations, lack of mutual understanding, ethnicity, nepotism and lack of respect for the rule of law. He therefore advised world leaders to encourage creation of clubs of peacemakers in schools as well as entrench the culture of peace through peaceful dialogue in their communities.
202
Step 4: The controversy dialogue box goes thus: (15mins)
Conflict Dialogue Themes 1 Conflict is more necessary than peace for development. 2 Types of conflict are more valuable than types of peace. 3 Conflict resolution skills are better than peace attainment strategies (give examples). 4 Communities / nations that are in conflict are more than those ones in peace (give examples). 5 Consequences or effects of conflicts are more appreciated than peaceful situations. 6 Conflict resolution skills are better than peace dialogue.
Peace Dialogue Themes 1 Peace is more necessary than conflict for development. 2 Types of peace are more valuable than types of conflict. 3 Peace attainment strategies are better than conflict resolution skills (give examples) 4 Communities/nations that are peaceful are more than those ones in conflicts (give examples) 5 Consequences or effects of peace is more appreciated than conflict situations. 6 Peace dialogue is better than conflict resolution skills.
Step 5: The group leader (Moderator) then leads the recorder to take down notes on the (5mins)
following:
- Meaning of conflict - Types of conflict - Examples of conflict witnessed in Nigeria - Examples of international conflicts - Causes of conflict - Values of positive conflict - Consequences of negative conflicts - Non-violent skills for resolving conflicts. Step 6: Each group leader is to present their notes on their position in step 5 to the whole class while the teacher awards marks to each based on their performance. (5mins)
Home Assignment: Each student is to prepare a dialogue conflict resolution report from home.
203
Appendix VI Lesson 2(C) Method:
Conventional Method of Instruction
Topic:
Conflict
Class:
JSS 3 (13-15years age)
Duration:
40mins
Instructional Objectives: At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii)
Define conflict Identify various types of conflicts Give examples of conflicts witnessed in Nigeria and other parts of the world. State causes of conflict Appreciate the values of positive conflict Explain the consequences of negative conflicts. Develop non-violent skills for resolving conflicts.
Instructional Materials: Lecture notes (conflict story cards), matching cards, note pads, biros, pencils etc. Instructional Procedure Step 1: The teacher writes the topic on the chalkboard (2mins)
Step 2: The teacher distributes the story cards on conflict to each students thus: (3mins)
204
Conflict Storycard When one considers many issues that lead to conflict all over the world, one is bound to say that ‘conflict is part of human life’. This was my conclusion while thinking-aloud one day. In my further contact with books, I read that conflict whether violent or non-violent, means a serious disagreement between two people or a group of people. When I asked my friend that: “why is it that people always quarrel and fight with others that come their way?”. My friend replied that this may be due to inequality in distribution of resources, unfounded rumour, misconceptions, cheating and discriminations. He said, sometimes people always misunderstand themselves due to stereotypes and prejudices. He believed language barrier and cultural diversities are also common problems. Later, I wonder why there were many violence in Nigerian communities as well as other parts of the world. At this point, I remembered the current Jos religious/ethnic clashes, the past, Bokoharam and Maitaisine religious riots; Ife-Modakeke land disputes; the inter-ethnic Yoruba/Hausa, Kataf/Hausa, Urhobo/Itsekiri conflicts; the intra-ethnic Aguleri/Umulari community clashes in Nigeria. Equally, the past Iran/Iraq war as well as the recent Israeli/Palestine wars came to mind as international conflicts. At the regional levels, one cannot forget the past Liberian and Sierra-Leone ethnic clashes as well as the current Sudan and Somalian wars. One then remembers thousands of lives and properties that were lost in the wars as well as permanent hatred created among people. Equally remembered were the facts that conflicts always lead to under development, family dismemberment, hardship, hunger, starvation, economic and industrial disruptions as well as infringement on peoples’ foundational human rights. As I was living with disillusion, my friend called my attention to the fact that conflict is not all that bad. According to him, if conflict is positively managed, it could bring healthy competition for further development, complex reasoning, quality achievement, increased motivation to take action, increased respect and trust, creative problem-solving and 205
higher quality decision making. I then asked how conflict can be well managed to make it positive. His answers included inculcating attitude of tolerance and cooperation, creating cooperative learning environment in schools, inculcating spirit of constructive controversy engagement, teaching students to be peacemakers by ensuring that they acquire skills of conflict resolution like peer mediation, negotiation, compromise, reconciliation and arbitration. Step 3: The teacher reads the ‘conflict story card’ to the hearing of all the students and requests them to jot points down. (10mins)
Step 4: The teacher allows the students to ask questions on the story card. (5mins)
Step 5: The teacher then asks the students the following questions orally and moderate them accordingly. (15mins)
Q1: What is conflict? Q2: Name various types of conflicts that you know. Q3: Give examples of popular conflicts witnessed in Nigeria Q4: State examples of international conflicts. Q5: State consequences of conflict. Q6: Can conflict be positive? Give reasons Q7: State various conflict resolution skills that you know Q8: How can conflict be well managed? Step 6: The students are to take down notes on responses to the questions asked above. (5mins)
Home Assignment: Each student is to prepare a dialogue conflict resolution report from home.
206
Appendix VII Lesson 3(A) Method:
Learning Together
Topic:
Global / International Cooperation
Class:
JSS 3 (13-15years age)
Duration:
40mins
Instructional Objectives: At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
State the meaning of global or international cooperation Appreciate the needs for global or international cooperation Give examples of international organizations for promoting global cooperation. Identify the various strategies adopted for achieving global cooperation. Ascertain the consequences of global or international cooperation.
Instructional Materials: Storycards, Worksheets, Matching Cards, Note pads, biros, pencils etc. Instructional Procedure Step 1: The teacher writes the topic on the chalkboard with specific roles to be shared (3mins)
amongst each group member e.g. group leader and recorder.
Step 2: The teacher groups all the class members into 5each and ask the students to (2mins)
assign roles to each member of the group (different from the role each earlier played).
Step 3: The teacher gives clear instruction on roles assignment of each group member and request that all should study their story card thus: (5mins)
207
Global /International Cooperation Storycard As I was discussing with my friend one day, he remembered the wonderful contributions of Nigerian Police and Solders in Peacemaking activities abroad. Then, I asked, ‘how were these possible?” He said that these were possible as part of global or international cooperation. Later, the two of us ponder on what actually global/international cooperation means. After a lot of argument, we both agreed that it involves the mutual understanding, willingness and agreement of all the people of the world to work together for progress and development. “How do people of the world work together”?, so queried my friend. I made him to understand that this are through various strategies like formation of International Organizations like United Nations Organization (UNO), the common wealth of Nations, the African Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the European Union (EU), the Arab League of Nations, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) etc. I made him to understand further that the UNO has some specialized agencies to carryout its functions like the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations International Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), International Labour Organization (ILO) etc. other strategy which I mentioned to him included the establishment of bilateral and multilateral cooperation agreements on economic, political, agricultural, military, health, telecommunication, energy, industrial, transport and sporting activities. “Why global or international cooperation?”, I queried. My friend highlights such reasons as the need to maintain international peace and security, the need to promote economic, social, cultural, educational and healthy living of the world’s people; the need to respect the principles of equal rights, self determination and social justice, the need to develop friendly relations among nations; the need to avert racial discrimination; the need to remove and prevent causes of war; the need to settle boundary disputes through peaceful
208
negotiation; the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of different nations as well as the need to promote international unity and cooperation. In the final analysis, the consequence of global or international cooperation as identified by us includes the relative peace being enjoyed all over the world now except in the Middle East and the Sudan/Somali regions of Africa. Secondly, it was observed that global cooperation has achieved much in the areas of military cooperation, trade relations, educational/cultural matters, sport and health relations, technical assistance (e.g. Technical Aid Corps), support for democratic institutions and non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations, telecommunication assistance, peace keeping supports, financial assistance (loans and grants) etc. One could imagine the whole world in turmoil without global cooperation, so stated one of the two jolly friends. As we were about to depart each other, my friend reminded me that there can be no global/ international cooperation without local and regional cooperation. He went further to state that local cooperative societies, inter-regional trades, inter-ethnic marriages, national sports festivals, cultural exchanges, economic organizations, federal institutions, local markets, youth service crops and technical aid corps have all become the platform for global cooperation. According to him, charity begins at home because without local and regional cooperation, there can be no global / international cooperation.
