INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4576
Effect of Puzzle Cooperative Learning Strategy and Lecture
Instructional Approach on Students’ Mathematics Achievement in
Schools in Warri South Local Government Area, Delta State
1
Dr. (Mrs) Peace Omoroh ,
2
Dr (Mrs) Helen Ogagaoghene Ataikiru
1
Department of MathematicsCollege of Education, Warri, Delta State, Nigeria
2
Department of Chemistry College of Education, Warri, Delta State, Nigeria
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800414
Received: 16 September 2025; Accepted: 24 September 2025; Published: 23 October 2025
ABSTRACT
The effect of the lecture and puzzle cooperative learning method on the performance of students in
mathematics with respect to changes in the instruction strategy was a topic of investigation in this study. The
research design used was a quasi-experimental design consisting of a pretest, posttest and non-equivalent
control group. The population of the study was approximately 4,000 students in the Warri South Local
Government Area of Delta State. The mixed schools were separated by purposive sampling, and a sample size
of 200 students was selected by simple random sampling. The study instrument was the Geometry
Achievement Test (GAT), a test consisting of fifty multiple-choice queries and administered to collect data.
The fifty items in the multiple-choice queries during the pretest and posttest were the same. Three experts in
science education pilot-tested the tool, and the reliability coefficient was calculated using the Kuder
Richardson Formula 21 (KR-21). The study followed two hypotheses and two research queries as a guide. The
mean and standard deviation answered the research queries; t-test and ANCOVA at the 0.05 level significance
was used to test the hypotheses. Based on the study outcomes, lecture methods and puzzle collaborative
learning were influential to the extent that they exerted a significant effect on the mathematical ability of the
students. Overall, it was found that the puzzle cooperative strategy proved efficient in enhancing the math
ability of the students at different levels.
Keywords: Puzzle, Cooperative Learning Strategy, Lecture Approach, Mathematics Achievement
INTRODUCTION
A subfield of science called mathematics deals with the manipulation and analysis of numbers, including
computations and problem-solving. Mathematics is a discipline that methodically unearths patterns, laws,
principles, and theories to explain a variety of phenomena, according to Odogwu (2014). Because it provides
tools for understanding science, engineering, technology, and economics, mathematics is essential to national
development (Ijeh, 2014). According to Kravits (2013), mathematics is a skill that everyone should possess
since it is fundamental to all facets of life and plays a significant role in public decision-making. Under the
National Policy on Education (FRN, 2004), the federal government of Nigeria established mathematics as a
core subject from primary to secondary school and a requirement for admission to Nigerian Universities
Owing to the subject’s significance to both human and national development. Therefore, it is not feasible to
overstate the significance of possessing a sufficient understanding of and performing better in mathematics on
external exams. For this reason, the national education policy (FRN, 2013) promoted better teaching and
learning of science-related subjects particularly mathematics, as well as other sciences.
Despite recent advancements in teaching methods, the traditional lecture method is still used in nearly all
Nigerian schools. The instructor upholds control over the instruction procedure, delivers the material orally to
the entire class, and tries to emphasize factual knowledge (Ajaja and Eravwoke, 2011). According to Ajaja and
Kpangban (2000), one of the main obstacles to the learning procedure is that students are passive, making it
difficult to determine whether or not learning is occurring. Reports from the West African Senior Secondary
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4577
Certificate Examination (WASSCE) from 2014 to 2023 revealed that less than 60% of the candidates received
five credits with English language and mathematics, indicating that students' performance in mathematics is
still below stakeholders' expectations. Every stakeholder in mathematics is generally concerned with raising
student achievement and retention, which is why researchers have been looking for new approaches to
teaching the subject. Therefore, this study will look at both the Puzzle cooperative learning strategy and the
lecture instructional approach.
The Puzzle Cooperative Learning strategy is a way to set up classroom activities where students are divided
into groups of four, five, or six and given assignments (subtopics) to complete as the group puts together the
puzzle. Positive interdependence promotion, interaction, individual accountability, social skills, and group
proceduring quality are the five fundamental components of this cooperative learning approach (Sagsoz 2017).
Aronson (1978) introduced the puzzle classroom cooperative technique. Students in a class are divided into
small, diverse, inclusive groups of four, five, or six people, called the “home group. Each student is assigned a
specific subtopic to study independently before moving on to an "expert group," where students review the
material together before returning to their home group. The task is challenging in a large lecture classroom
where the teacher is the only instructor. Every student, however, has the opportunity to contribute
meaningfully to discussions and peer tutoring.
To determine the best way to teach mathematics in schools, regardless of a student’s sex, this study will
specifically compare the effects of the Puzzle cooperative learning strategy and the lecture instructional
approach on maths retention.
Problem Statement/Justification
Concern over the utmost efficient way to teach mathematics to students is growing as a result of topical
progresses in teaching methods and the poor performance in mathematics in schools, especially on the West
African Senior Secondary School Certificate Examinations (WASSCE). The question of the study is whether
the use of the puzzle cooperative learning strategy and the lecture instructional approach will result in any
discernible variances in the mathematical achievement of students in schools in Delta State's Warri South
Local Government achievement of Area.
Objectives of the Study
This study's primary goal is to investigate how students' mathematical achievement in Delta State's Warri
South Local Government Area is effected by the Puzzle cooperative learning strategy and the lecture
instructional approach. The research would specifically look at:
the effect of lecture instruction and the puzzle cooperative learning strategy on students' academic
performance in Warri South LGA schools.
the disparity between the mean achievement scores of students in Warri South LGA schools who were
taught mathematics using the lecture instructional approach and the Puzzle cooperative learning
strategy.
Research Questions
1. How will the Puzzle cooperative learning approach and the lecture instructional approach affect
students' mathematical achievement?
2. How will the mean achievement scores of students taught mathematics using the Puzzle cooperative
learning approach and the lecture approach differ from one another?
Hypotheses
H
1
There will be no discernible variance in the mean achievement scores of students taught Mathematics using
the Puzzle cooperative learning strategy and those taught using the Lecture instructional approach.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4578
H
2
There will be no discernible variance in the mean achievement scores of students taught Mathematics using
the Puzzle cooperative learning strategy and the lecture instructional approach.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Vygosky's (1978) social constructivism serves as the theoretical foundation for puzzle cooperative learning.
According to Vygotsky's theory, social interaction and cultural experiences are the main factors that influence
cognitive development. The theory states that letting kids interact with someone who knows more than they do
can significantly improve their learning. This person could be anyone who has a deeper comprehension of the
task or idea the child is attempting to learn. This theory emphasizes how important language use, culture, and
society are in influencing how students learn. In contrast to the lecture perspective, which places the onus of
teaching on the teacher while the students take on an unresponsive role, social constructivism places a strong
emphasis on the importance of the learner being actively involved in the learning procedure. Based on
Vygotsky's concept of the zone of proximal advancement, the cooperative learning theory emphasizes how
learners are interdependent as they work together to complete tasks that may be difficult for them to complete
on their own. Because students retain more information when working in groups, collaborative learning is
essential for the development of critical thinking abilities. Peer-to-peer learning is encouraged by collaborative
learning theory, which in turn stimulates more in-depth thinking in the classroom.
Students collaborate in groups of four to six to help one another comprehend academic material as part of
Puzzle Cooperative Learning (Johnson, 2014). This teaching strategy encourages students of various skill
levels to collaborate accomplish in small groups to a task (Akinbobola, 2006). Constructivist theory, according
to Jean Piaget (1978), strongly emphasizes the duty of the teacher to value experience and connections in
students' education. According to the theory, experiences shape meaning and construct knowledge.
Assimilation and accommodation are two of the main abstractions in this theory that support the development
of a person's new knowledge (Piaget, 1978). By combining experiences with preexisting ones, assimilation
allows people to create new viewpoints, reconsider preconceived notions, and ultimately change their
worldview.
Conversely, accommodation involves rethinking the world and new activities to make them fit into
preconceived ideas. During cooperative learning, students work together in groups, fusing their social and
intellectual skills to accomplish a shared goal. Usually, different groups are formed and each team member is
given a portion of the material to learn. They are also in charge of the education of the other group members.
Students put forth effort until the assignment is finished and everyone in the group has a firm understanding of
the subject.
The cooperative learning approach emphasizes that to maximize each team member's academic performance,
students must collaborate as a team, according to Hsiung Lou, Lin et al. Wang (2014). Each member of the
team is essential to the team's success, and if the team fails as a whole, it could compromise the success of the
group's achievement. Therefore, evaluating the team's performance necessitates evaluating both the
contributions of each team member and the interactions among them.
In a cooperative learning setting, students actively pursue knowledge and information via mental engagement,
using a variety of learning activities to improve their comprehension of a subject. According to developmental
and cognitive theories, it is a learning environment that empowers students to take ownership of their
education and actively engage in the learning procedure. It also promotes a collaborative classroom
atmosphere. Johnson (2009). Organizing class activities into groups that represent the sex and ability
distribution of the class is the aim of a cooperative learning environment. In this context, students actively seek
knowledge and comprehension. It also enhances social and educational learning opportunities. The teacher is
responsible for carefully selecting the group members who will oversee both individual and group learning
while the students work together in groups to accomplish tasks. Each member's success is reliant on the
group’s success. In cooperative learning, the group's success comes before the individual's. The theoretical
review states that puzzle cooperative strategy is a student centered learning approach. The use of learner-
centered teaching strategies, such as the Puzzle cooperative strategy, was the focus of the empirical studies that
were reviewed.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4579
To the best of the researcher's knowledge, however, no such studies have been conducted on how geometry
concepts affect students’ mathematics achievement at Delta State irrespective of their sexes by the lecture
instructional approach and the puzzle cooperative learning strategy. The purpose of this study is to close this
significant gap. This study will determine the effects of the lecture instructional approach and the puzzle
cooperative strategy on students’ mathematical achievement in Delta State schools in an effort to bridge the
aforementioned gap.
METHODOLOGY
This study employed a quasi-experimental design with a pre-test, post-test, and non-equivalent control group.
The non-equivalent control design was chosen because intact classes served as the foundation for inclusion and
the student selection procedure lacked randomization. The study's population consists of all Senior Secondary
School II (SSII) students in Delta State's Warri South Local Government Area. The 18 public secondary
schools have about 4,000 students enrolled. The Senior Secondary Two (SSII) students were used for the study
because they had been taught topics in plane and solid geometry and were not preparing for any external
exams.
The research sample consisted of approximately 200 Senior Secondary School students from four schools (four
intact classes) in Delta State's Warri South Local Government Area. A simple random sampling technique
known as balloting was used to select the four schools for the study. Simple random sampling (ballot) was
chosen because each member of the population has an equal and known chance of being selected.
Additionally, it ensures that the elements chosen from the study population are representatives of the
population from which the elements were drawn, as indicated by the statistics derived from the sample data.
Two schools employed the lecture instructional approach, and two employed the puzzle cooperative learning
strategy. The instructional approaches were dispersed at random among the four schools.
Data for the study was gathered using a tool called the Geometry Achievement Test (GAT). The GAT consists
of fifty (50) multiple-choice objective test items drawn from previous geometry-related Senior Secondary
Certificate Examinations (SSCE). The pre and post-tests was administered using the same tool. There were
two parts to it: A and B. The demographics of the respondents are included in Section A, and the multiple-
choice Geometry test items with options A via D are included in Section B. The post-test will use the same
items, which will be rearranged. This was given to the lecture group and the puzzle cooperative learning
group.
Face and content validity were used to validate this instrument. A three-person panel conducted the face
validity of the Geometry Achievement Test. Copies of the first draft of the Geometry Achievement Test's
multiple-choice items, the six-week instructional units, the research queries, and the hypotheses were
provided to the validators by the researcher. Validators were asked to review the GAT's objective test items for
word choice, test item appropriateness, and alignment with the six-week instructional units. The instrument
for the study was used once the test items had been approved by the panel.
A table of specifications was used to verify the instrument's content validity, guaranteeing that the queries
addressed every topic covered in the six-week instructional units. The SS II curriculum's guidelines, which
follow Bloom's taxonomy served as a controller for generating the table of specifications.
The Kuder Richardson21 (K-R21) formula was used to determine the instrument's (GAT) reliability. Thirty
students, ten females and twenty males who will not be involved in the primary study will be given the
instrument. The Kuder Richardson21 Formula was applied to the test-retest results. Owing to its application to
tests with items of variable difficulty that are scored dichotomously, the formula was deemed appropriate
(Nworgu, 2015). The geometry achievement test had a reliability index of 0.76 and higher after test results
were analyzed using the Kuder Richardson 21 formula. The instrument is dependable and appropriate for the
study. This supports the suggestion made by Johnson and Christensen (2000) that a test's accuracy and
precision are related to its reliability, and that a score of 0–70 or greater indicates that the test is accurate and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4580
reliable in measuring the traits it is intended to assess. The Kuder Richardson 21 formula is used because it is
suitable for multiple-choice objective test items.
Four instructors, who served as the study's research assistants, would be assigned to each school to conduct the
training. While the two instructors for the lecture instructional group received the training manual created by
the researcher, two of the instructors received training in the cooperative instructional strategy known as
Puzzle. The two instructors received two hours a day for two days of training in the Puzzle cooperative
approach.
The roles that students played at each phase of the educational procedure were outlined in the manuals. When
the researcher is satisfied that the trained instructors can successfully use the Puzzle cooperative instructional
style to teach the chosen geometry abstractions, the training is concluded. The two groups were pretested with
the GAT instrument two days before the commencement of the treatment and posttest six weeks after
treatment.
Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were used to answer the research queries. ANCOVA and
the t-test were used to determine whether the hypotheses were significant. The hypothesis will be tested at the
significance level of 0.05.
Research Question One: How will the Puzzle cooperative learning approach and the lecture instructional
approach affect students' mathematical achievement?
Table 1: Mean (𝒙) and Standard Deviation (SD) of Pretest and Posttest Achievement Scores of Students
Taught Mathematics Using Puzzle Cooperative Learning Strategy (PCLS) and Lecture Instructional Approach
(LIA)
Group
N
Pre-test
Posttest
Mean Gain
Mean (𝑥)
SD
Mean (𝑥)
SD
PCLS
108
24.26
8.95
58.33
11.63
34.07
LIA
92
22.50
7.84
43.54
10.14
21.04
Table 1 reflects how students performed in a pre-test and post-test relation on Puzzle Cooperative Learning
Strategy (PCLS) and the Learning Instruction Approach (LIA) for the students regarding mathematics. In the
PCLS group, the pre-test mean score was 24.26 and the standard deviation (SD) was 8.95, for the post-test
mean score was 58.33 and the SD was 11.63. So the mean gain is 34.07. Conversely, for the LIA group, the
pre-test mean score is 22.50 (SD = 7.84) and the post-test mean score is 43.54 (SD = 10.14), and the mean gain
is 21.04. PCLS group mean gain suggests a stronger positive effect on achievement using the Puzzle
Cooperative Learning Strategy when equated to the Lecture Instruction Approach.
Hypothesis One: There will be no discernible variance in the mean achievement scores of students taught
mathematics using the Puzzle cooperative learning strategy and those taught using the lecture instructional
approach.
Table 2: Paired Sample t-test Comparing the Pretest and Posttest Achievement Scores of Students Taught
Mathematics Using Puzzle Cooperative Learning Strategy (PCLS) and Lecture Instructional Approach (LIA)
Group
N
Pretest
Posttest
df
t
cal
Sig.(2-tailed)
Remark
M
SD
M
SD
PCLS
108
24.26
8.95
58.33
11.63
107
36.822
0.000
Significant
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4581
LIA
92
22.50
7.84
43.54
10.14
91
21.490
0.000
Significant
P < 0.05, HO
1
is rejected
The results in Table 2 present data from the tailed sample t-test of the pretest and posttest scores of students
learning mathematics via cooperative learning puzzles (PCLS) and lectures (LIA). In the instance of the PCLS
group, the t-calculated score of 36.822 with a .000 significance level shows strong variance between the pretest
and posttest scores. The same applies for the LIA group, which had a t-calculated score of 21.490 with a .000
level of significance, thus proving that the variance between the pretest and posttest scores is strong. Since the
significance level is below .05 for both groups, the null hypothesis (HO1) is rejected hence proving the strong
effect of students learning via cooperative puzzles and students learning in lectures on the average achievement
scores.
Research Question Two: The mean achievement scores of students taught mathematics using the lecture
instructional approach and the Puzzle cooperative learning strategy will not differ significantly.
Table 3: Mean (𝒙) and Standard Deviation (SD) of Pretest and Posttest Achievement Scores of Students
Taught Mathematics Using Puzzle Cooperative Learning Strategy (PCLS) and Lecture Instructional Approach
(LIA)
Group
N
Pre-test
Posttest
Mean Gain
MGD
Mean (𝑥)
SD
Mean (𝑥)
SD
Pcls
108
24.26
8.95
58.33
11.63
34.07
13.03
LIA
92
22.50
7.84
43.54
10.14
21.04
MGD = Mean Gain Difference
The Puzzle Cooperative Learning Strategy (PCLS) mean pre-test results were 24.26 (SD = 8.95) and post-test
results were 58.33 (SD = 11.63) for a mean gain of 34.07. The LIA group with pre-test mean scores of 22.50
(SD = 7.84) and post-test mean scores of 43.54 (SD = 10.14) had a net mean gain of 21.04. The mean gain
variance (MGD) is 34.07 for PCLS minus 21.04 for LIA and is 13.03. This comparison of gains from both
groups indicates that PCLS has a much greater positive effect on student achievement scores than LIA.
Hypothesis Two: There will be no discernible variance in the mean achievement scores of students taught
mathematics using the Puzzle cooperative learning strategy and the lecture instructional approach.
Table 4: ANCOVA Summary on Variance in the Mean Achievement Scores of Students Taught Mathematics
Using Puzzle Cooperative Learning Strategy and Lecture Instructional
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Corrected Model
17980.742
a
2
8990.371
105.908
.000
Intercept
27062.222
1
27062.222
318.796
.000
Pretest
7113.748
1
7113.748
83.801
.000
Method
9013.801
1
9013.801
106.184
.000
Error
16723.078
197
84.889
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4582
Total
565772.000
200
Corrected Total
34703.820
199
P(0.000) < 0.05, HO
2
is rejected
The achievement 2 scores of students in mathematics who were taught using the Puzzle Cooperative
Learning Strategy (PCLS) as equated to those taught using the Lecture Instructional Approach (LIA) will be
analysed in this section. Teaching approach (method) Type III Sum of Squares is 9013.801, F = 106.184, and p
= 0.000. Since p < 0.05, the null hypothesis (HO2) is not supported. This means that students learning from
cooperative 1 the Puzzle learning strategy outperform those learning from the lecture instructional approach.
DISCUSSION OF FINDING
The researcher revealed that both the Lecture Instructional Approach (LIA) and the Puzzle Cooperative
Learning Strategy (PCLS) have a favourable effect on students' math proficiency. Students showed significant
improvements in their post-test scores equated to their pre-test scores in both approaches, suggesting that both
teaching methods are successful in increasing students' mathematical knowledge. Owing to its collaborative
nature, PCLS actively engages students in the learning procedure via group and peer work. This method
encourages students to take ownership of their education, which boosts their motivation, comprehension, and
memory of mathematical ideas. Conversely, LIA improves student performance via structured instruction and
content delivery, despite being more conventional and lecture-based. Lectures are beneficial because they are
organized and fairly clear, which can aid students in comprehending complex mathematical ideas.
In conclusion, both PCLS and LIA improve student achievement, though the degree of each effect may vary
based on the dynamics of the classroom and the subject matter being taught. This is consistent with Prieto-
Saborit et al.'s findings. (2021) and Boadu and associates. (2024), who demonstrated the advantages of
cooperative learning techniques like Puzzle. However, it contrasts the findings of Kumar et al. and Obeidat
(2020), (2022), who also revealed that even though lectures aren't as interactive, they can still be useful for
learning, particularly in certain circumstances. Additionally, the study revealed that students who were taught
using the Puzzle Cooperative Learning Strategy (PCLS) outperformed those who were taught using the
Lecture Instructional Approach (LIA). The outcome demonstrates the superiority of PCLS over more
traditional methods like lectures in raising student achievement. PCLS students can take part in the learning
procedure more actively when they receive training on how to collaborate with others and concentrate on
student-centered learning. Students get the opportunity to collaborate and unravel problems in groups, which
helps them comprehend the mathematical ideas more fully. In addition to enhancing academic achievement,
this kind of interactive learning also fosters critical thinking and social skills. The latter result is in agreement
with Prieto-Saborit et al. Drouet e t al. (2021), (2023), who found that puzzles were a useful cooperative
learning tool that improved students' academic performance, especially in math. Nevertheless, the
contradictory findings of Scalise et al. and Obeidat (2020), (2025) suggest that traditional lecture-based
instruction may still be successful under certain circumstances, particularly if it is well thought out or
combined with other techniques.
CONCLUSION
Both the Lecture Instructional Approach (LIA) and the Puzzle Cooperative Learning Strategy (PCLS) have
been shown to have a positive effect on students' mathematical performance. However, the influence of PCLS
was greater because it was more collaborative and interactive.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. To improve students' math skills and engagement, teachers ought to employ more cooperative learning
strategies, such as Puzzle.
2. Programmes for professional development should give educators the tools they need to implement
cooperative learning techniques efficiently.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4583
REFERENCES
1. Ajaja, O.P and Eravwoke, O.U (2010). Effects of cooperative learning strategy on Junior secondary
school students’ achievement in integrated science. The electronic Journal of science education.
2. Ajaja, O.P and Kpangban E (2000) Enriching Biology teaching in the 21
st
century in Nigeria
implication for the teacher 41
st
Annual conference of STAN pg 138 – 140
3. Aronson, E. (2010). Not by chance alone: My life as a social psychologist. New York.
4. Aronson, E; Blaney, N; Stephan, C; Sikes, J & Snapp, N (1978). The jigsaw classroom. (2
nd
Ed.)
Beverly Hills; Sage Publications.
5. Boadu, E. A., Amoako, I. O., & Yawson, J. (2024). The effect of cooperative learning on students'
academic achievement in mathematics. Journal of Education and Practice, 15(7), 45-60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2024.03.007.
6. Chauhan, S.S. (2003) Advanced education psychology of human learning. Changai: Chao Publishers
7. Drouet, J., Lambert, E., & Duclos, F. (2023). Enhancing academic achievement through cooperative
learning strategies. International Journal of Educational Research, 66(2), 120-134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.06.001.
8. Egara, S. S., & Mosimege, M. (2023). Gender differences in the retention of algebra concepts using a
computer simulation approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(4), 789-804.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10049-0.
9. Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) (2004). National Policy on Education (4
th
ed) Lagos NERDC
Press.
10. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004). National Policy on Education. Lagos, Nigeria: Federal
Government Press.
11. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013). National policy on Education, Yaba Lagos, NERDC Press.
12. Gao, W., Wang, X., & Wang, Y. (2025). Exploring gender differences in mathematics achievement and
their implications for teaching methods. Gender and Education, 37(2), 128-145.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2024.1829123.
13. Hsiung, C.M, Lou,S. J, Lin, C.C and Wang P.I (2014). Identification of dysfunction cooperative
learning teams and troubled individuals. British Journal of Educational Technology 45: 125-133
14. Ijeh, (2014) Information and communication technology in classroom practice and praticals. Patola
Technologies Co., Abraka, Delta State.
15. Kekeba, M. (2025). Cooperative learning and its impact on reducing gender gaps in chemistry
education. Science Education International, 35(1), 50-64. https://doi.org/10.5947/sei.2025.0157.
16. Kravitz, C. (2013). Why Mathematics is important. In Akanmu, (2016). Application of geogebra
software in teaching and learning of Mathematics in Nigeria. MAN 2015 Conference Proceedings.
17. Kumar, R., Mehta, P., & Sharma, M. (2022). Exploring the effectiveness of traditional lecture methods
in mathematics instruction. Journal of Mathematical Education, 54(3), 188-201.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220965.2022.2025221.
18. Obeidat, R. (2020). The effectiveness of traditional teaching methods versus modern methods in the
mathematics classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 58(4), 234-248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.01.003.
19. Obeidat, R. (2020). The effectiveness of traditional teaching methods versus modern methods in the
mathematics classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 58(4), 234-248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.01.003.
20. Odogwu, (2014) Investigating high school students reasoning strategies when they solve linear
equations. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour. 26(1)115-139
21. Olson, V. E (2002). Gender differences and the effects of cooperative learning in college level
mathematics. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. Curtin University of Technology Perth, Western Australian
22. Prieto-Saborit, J. A., Martínez, M. J., & López, A. M. (2021). The role of cooperative learning
strategies in improving academic performance: A focus on mathematics education. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 113(2), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000523.
23. Ruhl.T.S. (2003). The Alliona List of medical cooperative learning strategy. Altiona Family physicians
Residency of Altiona Hospital Center for Medical
http://www.altionafp.org/cooperativelearningstrategy.html.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4584
24. Sagsoz, O, Karatas O, Turel V, Yudiz M & Kaya E. (2017) Effectiveness of jigsaw learning compared
to lecture based learning in dental education. European Journal of Dental Education. 21(1) : 28-32
25. Scalise, K., Gedeon, M., & McCulloch, D. (2025). A mixed-methods approach to evaluating the
effectiveness of traditional versus cooperative teaching methods in higher education. Journal of Higher
Education Research, 38(2), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2025.07.005.
26. Sharma, R., Saini, P., & Bansal, M. (2024). Enhancing academic achievement in mathematics through
Jigsaw, Group Investigation, and Student Team Achievement Division techniques of teaching.
International Journal of Educational Research, 69(1), 78-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.05.002.
27. Vygotsky, L.(1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. M.A.
Harvard University Press.
28. West African Examinations Council (2015). Chief Examiner’s Report Lagos: WAEC.
29. West African Examinations Council (WAEC,2006-2011) Chief Examiner’s Report.
30. Womack, S., Smith, K., & Miller, T. (2025). Exploring the role of gender in academic achievement in
the context of traditional teaching methods. Journal of Educational Equity, 33(1), 41-58.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-025-09347-2.
