American Journal of Educational Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-6126 ISSN (Online): 2327-6150 Website: Editor-in-chief: Ratko Pavlović
Open Access
Journal Browser
American Journal of Educational Research. 2015, 3(9), 1122-1132
DOI: 10.12691/education-3-9-9
Open AccessArticle

Influence of CBL Methods on Secondary School Physically Handicapped Students’ Academic Achievement in Mathematics in Kenya

Rop Naftali Kipkorir1,

1Masai Mara University

Pub. Date: August 28, 2015

Cite this paper:
Rop Naftali Kipkorir. Influence of CBL Methods on Secondary School Physically Handicapped Students’ Academic Achievement in Mathematics in Kenya. American Journal of Educational Research. 2015; 3(9):1122-1132. doi: 10.12691/education-3-9-9


Learners with special needs education are of diverse categories. Among them are the Physically Handicapped (PH) and the Visually Impaired (VI).These learners may lag in education if there are no environmental and instructional adaptations to enable them compete on equal footing with their non-disable peers. Mathematics has been the worst performed subject among the PH learners in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) as indicated in the results of the years 2008 to 2013. Traditional mode of instruction had been the only method of teaching these learners. There was therefore, need to device ways to enable them to participate in learning with ease. Computer based learning (CBL) has reported to be effective in the teaching and learning of complex concepts in physics and accounting and could provide solution in the teaching of mathematics among the learners with physical disabilities. The purpose of this study was to establish the effects of CBL Methods on Secondary School Physically Handicapped (PH) academic achievement. The objective of the study was to examine the effects of CBL methods on Secondary School PH students’ academic achievement. A pre-test quasi experimental and correlation research designs were employed. The conceptual framework was adopted from Winnie and Butter, (1994) model. Saturated sampling was used to get and 5 mathematics teachers from Joyland secondary school for the physically handicapped in Kisumu County, Joytown Secondary School for the physically handicapped in Thika County and Mombasa Secondary school for the physically handicapped in Mombasa county. The instruments used were Computer Assisted Statistics Text, student motivation questionnaire, student interview guide and teacher interview guide. Validity of instruments was established by experts in special needs education. Reliability coefficient of student questionnaires was established by test re-test method whereby coefficient of 0.70 and above at p value of 0.05 was considered reliable. Quantitative data was analyzed using inferential statistics. The findings indicated that there was statistically significant difference in using CBL method [F (2, 125) =33.14, p=.000] on academic achievement. The CBL influenced the students’ academic achievement in Mathematics among the physically handicapped. It showed that there was significant difference in final exam scores of students receiving traditional instruction and those learning through CBL. The findings showed that use of CBL improves the learners’ motivation and achievement in their performance of mathematics. Professional should be provided to help teachers understand the needs of learners who cannot study because of their physical conditions. This modern system of learning is alleged to provide them with an equal opportunity to study, as their regular friends and relatives.

computer assisted statistics text computer based learning physically handicapped and the visually impaired

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


[1]  Alessi, R. D. & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer Based Instruction Methods and Development. Englewood:N.J; Prentice-Hall.
[2]  Anderson, J. R (1998). Learning and Memory. Masaches publishers; New York.
[3]  Ayere M.A (2009). Technology application in NEPAD and non NEPAD schools in Kenya. Unpublished PH.D Thesis in Kenya.
[4]  Best J.W. (1997). Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs; New Jersey.
[5]  Bielhler, R.F. & Snowman, J. (1982). Psychology Applied to Teaching. Aim press; Boston.
[6]  Black, R. (1998). Science education in Uganda: Progress and Possibilities International Journal of Science Education. 20(2). 239-252.
[7]  Bostrom, K. (1982). An Evaluative Study of the Effects of Effectiveness of Microcomputer Based Teaching in Schools. Social Research Council;London.
[8]  Boucher, A. (1998). Information Technology Based Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: A view of economic issues. Journal of IT for Teacher Education. 1 (1). 87-111.
[9]  Boyle, T. (1997). Design of the Multi-media Learning.Prentice Hall; London.
[10]  Christensen, K. (1997). Special Heads Education in a school for all. African journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 2:2.Computer Based Education at Queensland University of Technology. Queensland University of Technology. Brisbane.
[11]  Coolican. H. (1999). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. London Holder and Stoughton
[12]  Crawford, K. (1999). Coming soon: the new specialists. Times Educational Supplement, Update. P9.
[13]  Crook, B.(1994). Computer and collaborating exp. Of learning. London rout ledge.
[14]  Davabi, A. Nelson, D & Seel, n. (2009). Progression of mental models throughout the phases of computer based instruction: support info: practice and performance. Computers in human behavior 25: 723-730.
[15]  Davies, L. & Selwyn, N. (1999). Teaching with the Dream Machines: the representation of teachers and computer information technology. Journal of IT for Teacher Education. 8(3). 289-304.
[16]  De Cecco, J.P. & Crawford, W. (1988). The Psychology of Learning and Instruction. Educational Psychology, 2ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.
[17]  Ellis, H.D. (1989). Using Computers in University Education: Experiences from.
[18]  Eraut, M. (1991). Education and the Information Society: A Challenge for European Policy. London: Cassel Educational Limited.
[19]  Fisher, M. (2000). Computer Skills of initial teacher education students. Journal of information Technology for teacher education. 8(3). Pp 109-123.
[20]  Gaed, O. F. (1995). Emerging and converging technology: Implications for education and.
[21]  Gagne, R.M (1987). Instructional Technology: Foundations. Hillsadale: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates, Inc. Publishers
[22]  Garcia, R.F. (1992). Students’ perception of the classroom climate: A descriptive research Study. Research document for the American educational resources information centre(ERIC) Chicago. 1-20.
[23]  Gavora, J.M & Hannafin, M.J. (1995). Perspectives on the design of human-computer.
[24]  Gnagey, W.J. (1981). Learning environments: Reading in Educational Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Houston Mifflin Company. Interactions: Issues and Implications. Instructional Science. 22,445-447.
[25]  John Wiley. Johnson and Johnson. (1995). Positive Interdependence: key to effective cooperation. In Hertz- Lazarowitz, R., & Millet, N., eds. Interaction in cooperative Groups: in the theoretic ananatomy of Groups learning. Cambridge University, U.S.A: Cambridge university press.
[26]  Jung, J. (1978). Understanding human motivation. London: collier Macmillan publishing co.
[27]  Kagan, S. (1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational leadership (47(4). 12-16.
[28]  Keller, J.M. & Suzuki, K. (1988) Use of ARCS motivation model in courseware design. In D.H. Jonassen (ed), Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware. Hillsade NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[29]  Kiboss, J. K. (2000) Teacher/pupil perspectives on computer-augmented physics lessons on measurement in Kenyan secondary schools. Journal of Information technology for Teacher Education 9(3). 199-213
[30]  Leedy, P.D (1993). Practical Research: Planning and Design. 5th ed. New York: Mackmillan Publishing Company.
[31]  Lerman. S. (1997). The psychology of Mathematics Teacher’s Learning: in search of theory, in E.Pehkonen (Ed) Proceedings of PME21: international group for the psychology of mathematics Educational Conference, 3 pp. 200-227.
[32]  Makau, B.M. (1990). Computers in Kenyan Schools. A case study. Canada: IDRC.
[33]  Ogunyi, M.B. & Kiboss L.(2010).Promoting public understanding of science and technology and teaching in southern Sudan. UON Press; Nairobi.
[34]  Oslon, K. (1988). School worlds/Microworlds: Computers and the Culture of the Classroom. Pergamon Press; Oxford.
[35]  Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. Harvester Press. Brighton.
[36]  Philips, R. (1984). The future of the microcomputer as a classroom teaching aid. Computer Education, 8, 173-177.
[37]  Poyser, L. R. (1983). An examination of the classroom physical environment. South Bend: Indiana University. Prentice Hall,Inc.
[38]  Rollinson, R. & Broadfield, A. (1998). Organizational Behaviour and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. London: Prentice Hall. science, 5, 333-369.
[39]  Scott, J. (1997). Research teachers: Conceptions of teaching and learning of a level science and Mathematics teachers. Zimbabwe Journal of Educational Research, 9 (3). 237-255.
[40]  Scott, J. (1997). Research teachers: Conceptions of teaching and learning of a level science and Mathematics teachers. Zimbabwe Journal of Educational Research, 9 (3), 237-255.
[41]  Smith, L.M. & Pohland, P.A. (1991). Education, Technology and the Rural Highlands. Case Studies in Computer-Based Learning. Ed. Blomeyer, L. &Martin, D. London: The Falmer Press.
[42]  Stake, B. E. (1991). PLATO Mathematics: The teacher and fourth grade students respond. Case Studies in Computer-Based Learning. Ed. Blomeyer, L. &Martin, D. London: The Falmer Press.
[43]  Tanui,E. (2004). Relative effects of computer based instructions in accounting students’ achievement, perception of classifying environment and motivation in secondary schools in Kenya. Unpublished thesis. Egerton University.
[44]  Tennyson, R. & Rasch, M. (1988). Linking cognitive learning theory to instructional prescriptions. Instructional Science, 17, 369-385. The London: Falmer Press.
[45]  Voogt, J. (1993). Courseware for an Inquiry-Based Science Curriculum: An Implementation Perspective. CIP- Gegens, Den Haag.
[46]  Walklin, L. (1987). Instructional Techniques and Practice. Iowa: U.S.A. Stanley Thromen Publishers; The Bath Press.
[47]  Woerner, J.J. (1991). The Computer in the Science Curriculum. New York: Mitchel Publishing, Inc.