article · Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies
Background: Learner-centred and technology-supported pedagogies are increasingly used in secondary-school science, but it remains unclear whether students of different academic abilities benefit equally from these approaches. Objectives: This study investigated academic ability as a moderator of the effects of ICT-integrated instructional strategies on senior secondary school students’ achievement in Biology. Methodology: A non-randomised pre-test, post-test control-group quasi-experimental design was employed. The sample comprised 432 Senior Secondary School II (SS II) Biology students (177 males and 255 females) selected from 12 schools in Education District III, Lagos State, Nigeria. Students were assigned to three experimental groups exposed to ICT-integrated Jigsaw, Team-Assisted Individualisation (TAI), and Framing instructional strategies, while a control group received lecture-based instruction for nine weeks. Achievement was measured using the Biology Achievement Test (BAT), a 57-item instrument adapted from past West African Examinations Council examination questions (KR-20 = .78). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test the null hypotheses at the .05 significance level. Results: The findings revealed that academic ability had no significant effect on students’ Biology achievement (F(1, 427) = .75; p = .39). Similarly, no significant interaction was found between instructional strategy and academic ability (F(1, 427) = .12; p = .95), or between gender and academic ability (F(1, 43) = .96; p = .33). Conclusion: These results suggest that the ICT-integrated instructional strategies were equally effective across ability levels and gender groups. The study concludes that technology-supported collaborative learning approaches can promote equitable achievement outcomes in Biology and recommends their wider adoption alongside sustained investment in ICT resources and teacher professional development.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.9734/ajess/2026/v52i73207
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.