26 Effects Of Instructional Design Problem Solving Model On Secondary School Students To Foster Creativity Skills In Physics

Abstract

This study investigates Effects of Instructional Design Problem Solving Model on Secondary School Students to Foster Creativity Skills in Physics. In this study, quasi-experimental design was used. The target population for the study comprises 8 Government Senior Secondary School two (SSII) Physics Students in Gwagwalada Area Council, FCT Abuja. The sample of the study comprised of 166 student, 87 males and 79 females. Creativity Performance Physics Test on Motion and Force (CPPTMF) of 24 items was used for trial testing, data collected was analysed using Cronbach Alpha to obtain 0.82reliability coefficient after validation. The experimental group was exposed to Instructional Design Problem-Solving Model while lecture method was used for the control group. The experimental and control groups were pre-tested in the first week of the research after which the treatment was applied and post-testing took place in the sixth week using CPPTMF. The data collected were analysed using mean, standard deviation and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to test the research questions and  hypotheses  raised at an alpha level of 0.05.Based on this research, it is known that students logical reasoning and predictive ability acquired with instructional design problem solving is better than those who received conventional learning. The implications of these results for physics instruction are discussed.

Keywords: Instructional Design, Creativity Skills, Logical Reasoning, Predictive Of Phenomenon

Introduction

Creativity is an essential attribute and valuable quality in the development of human capital to the extent that the national economy depends more on the creativity and innovativeness of the people (KPM, 2013). Creativity has become increasingly pressing in the twenty first century as creative and knowledge-based economies call for creative products that bring benefits and happiness to people. Educational thinkers and researchers believe that every individual has creative potential and education has a responsibility to nurture students’ creativity (Moran, 2010) to supply creative human resources for Socio economic development both nationally and globally. The education sector, perceived to be the most important sector of the society, faces great challenges in its effort to develop creativity amongst its teachers and students. However, the fostering of a conducive and creative environment depends largely on how teachers organize them. Aside from students and the learning environment, the teacher is the most influential factor in the successful development of creativity and innovation in the classroom (Gorshunova et al., 2014). In addition, it has been considered that schools should build creative environments for teachers and students to be creative (Moran, 2010; Starko, 2013) and policies, curriculum and, in particular, assessment for creativity should be deployed.

Creativity in science education, to be called precisely as scientific creativity thus has emerged as an independent field of research. Understandings of creativity skills are varied, but most researchers agree that creativity is a process of curiosity-exploring, imagining and logical reasoning based on one’s knowledge, experiences, emotions and motivations to generate original and effective products (Runco et al., 2012; Vygotsky, 2004). Different personal traits are needed for creativity (Gorny, 2007). Such as inquisition, imagination and logical reasoning are considered the important traits and they are closely interrelated in creative processes. Inquisition is one’s strong desire to know how things work, how people think (Starko, 2013). It plays a pivotal role in the mental and intellectual improvement of a child, and makes the mind more active, and allows exploration of surroundings for new ideas (Barell, 2003). Imagination is the ability to create mental images or pictures; and the ability to be creative and to think of new, interesting ideas or methods that have not existed before (Vygotsky, 2004). It provides the bases for creativity to arise (Brady & Edelman, 2012) and the power to develop creative thinking (Li, 2011;  Vygotsky (2004)

Creativity skills is understood as high order thinking and is the art of generating solutions to problems by the force of imagination and reasoning (Okpara, 2007), and includes lateral thinking that allows people to see things in new and unusual ways (De Bono, 1970). Curiosity, imagination, predictive and logical reasoning play important roles in every creative domain. For example, in mathematics creativity means asking new questions, imagining different solutions and then choosing and using a unique one to solve a mathematical problem (Leikin, 2013; Nadjafikhaha, Yaftianb, & Bakhshalizadehc, 2012). In chemistry, creativity is characterized by the discoveries and the predictions of unknown chemical components, the imagination of new chemical structures, and by the inventions of new chemical compounds such as molecules, substances and chemical transformations (Committee on Challenges for the Chemical Sciences in the 21st Century, 2003).

In the context of learning, creativity in physics is explained as a multidimensional and very complex intellectual process associated with knowing, understanding and applying different concepts, laws, principles, theories, formulae, symbols used in physics; which help a learner in recognizing a problem guessing the probable causes, formulating the problem identifying variables (figural, symbolic, semantic), relating those (constructing equations or using semantic relationship), finding probable solutions using analytical thinking, anticipative imagination (anticipating probable consequences) and subsequent experimental verification whenever necessary (Mukhopadhyay, 2013). All these develop foresight of learners in planning, their abilities in finding new relationships among the conventional objects and similarities between apparently dissimilar concepts, in elaborating a concept, finding various word-associations with different scientific terms, using correct language in physics, in correlating various concepts and also the ability of improving quality of scientific products encouraging divergent thinking in general, and also convergent thinking, in particular. This ultimately leads to verification of probable solutions of the problem by accepting or rejecting those steps wise (Mukhopadhyay, 2013).

Research undertaken in different areas of physics showed that methods of teaching and problem-solving skills are major factors to be considered for better performance in the subject (Brewton 2001, Gonzuk & Chagok 2001). Different methods and problem-solving models were used and they observed that the experimental group performed better than the control group, but their findings varied between the performance of male and female students. Suleiman (2010) found that students exposed to an activities-based approach, like problem-solving, performed better in mathematics than those exposed to conventional (lecture) teaching methods. Adeniran (2011) also observed that a physics specific problem- solving model enhanced better performance of high, medium and low scoring level students. The concept of teaching, according to Mkpanang (2005), implied that it was a set of stimuli initiated and regulated by an individual who was professionally trained to do so. In this context, the physics teacher was one who had acquired a learned skill and who conformed to ethical standards within the teaching profession.

Mankilik (2005) indicated that the teaching of physics in schools should be concerned with an education, which should lead students to understanding physics terms and more importantly its technological aspects. However, Olowu (2006) believed that it was the general opinion that the instructional methods of disseminating knowledge to learners were inadequate to the students’ needs. The difficulty encountered by students in learning physics was related to the method, which teachers used to teach the subject. The instructional methods used in most secondary schools were inadequate for achieving the desired objectives of teaching physics at that level.

Canter (2004) suggested the use of a problem solving model as a systematic approach that reviews students’ strengths and weaknesses, identified evidence-based instructional interventions, frequently used to collect data to monitor students’ progress and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions implemented with students.

Finally, most of the reviewed literature shows that, the curriculum model for creativity skills concentrated on general performance in process skills with less emphasis on how the method  can bring the best out of the students on a specific process skills such as students logical reasoning skills and predictive skills and so on. Hence this study is design to fill this link by study the effects of instructional design problem solving model on senior secondary school students to foster creativity skills in physics.

Specifically, the study will achieve the following objectives:

1. determine the creativity skills in logical reasoning performance in physics.
2. determine the creativity skills in logical reasoning in male and female students performance in physics.
3. determine the creativity skills performance in prediction of phenomena in physics.
4. determine the creativity skills in prediction of phenomena in male and female students performance in physics.

Research Questions

1. What is the mean performance scores of secondary school students in physics logical reasoning skills when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model and those taught with lecture method.
2. What is the mean performance scores between male and female secondary school students in physics logical reasoning skills when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model.
3. What is the mean performance scores of secondary school students in physics prediction of phenomenon when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model and those taught with lecture method.
4. What is the mean performance scores between male and female secondary school students in physics prediction of phenomenon when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model.

Research Hypotheses

From the above questions, the following have been hypothesized:

HO1: there is no significant difference in mean logical reasoning skills scores in physics students’ performance when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model and those with lecture method.

HO2: there is no significant difference in male and female mean logical reasoning skills scores in physics students’ performance when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model.

HO3: there is no significant difference in mean predicting skills scores in physics students’ performance when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model and those with lecture method.

HO4: there is no significant difference in male and female predicting skills in physics students’ performance when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model.

Research Design

The study was a quasi-experimental study using a non-randomized, non-equivalent pre-test and post-test control group design. The quasi-experimental design was used because a true randomization of subjects was impossible since intact classes were used. The target population of the study consisted of all senior secondary school physics students year two (SSII). The sampled population consisted of 166 students, 87 males and 79 females. The variables used in this study were independent variables of the model of learning (Instructional Design Problem Solving model and Lecture method) and dependent variable of creativity skills of the subjects. Experimental group was subjected to some selected topics using Instructional Design Problem Solving Model while the control group was also exposed to the same topics but with lecture method of teaching.

The instruments used for the study was Creativity Performance Physics Test on Motion and Force (CPPTMF) constructed by the researcher. The instructional package (Lesson notes on the Instructional Design Problem Solving Model) was used by the researcher for the experimental group while control group was taught by the classroom teacher with lecture method. The Creativity Performance Physics Test contained 24 items drawn from the concepts on Motion and Force, each item has five options with one correct answer, it was validated and used for trial testing, data collected was scored, converted to 100% and analysed using Cronbach Alpha (SPSS version 21) to obtain 0.82 reliability coefficient.

The study lasted for a period of six weeks. The experimental and control groups were pre-tested in the first week of the research after which the treatment was applied and post-testing took place in the sixth week using Creativity Performance Physics Test on Motion and Force (CPPTMF). The data collected were analysed using mean, standard deviation and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA),

Treatment

This study developed the learning activities in the following ways. First, it started with the common teaching activities, like questioning, giving examples, explaining phenomenon and doing experiments. In the past, teachers would ask questions and give explanations, but now students are asked to do these tasks. In short, the first method is reversing the role of teachers and students, that is, changing teacher activities in convectional classroom to student activities.

Second, it induces more freedom of exploration and self-directed elements into the inquiry, discovery and problem-solving process. In the past, teachers gave detailed guidelines and procedures and students do the ‘cook-book’ experiments, but now teachers ask students to design both the purposes and methods of the experiments, Students are given some ill-structured and daily-life problems to start the inquiry or problem-solving work. The tasks have room for diversified answer, and yet, they are simple and can be completed quickly in classroom (at least for the thinking part of it) or independently at home. To achieve this, the original creative problem solving and open inquiry model are simplified, and simple procedure is put down in worksheet form.

Third, this study purposely induced divergent thinking in nearly all tasks suggested. In the past, teachers were contended with one or a few correct answer in student work, but now teachers encourage the expression of fluency, flexibility, novelty and elaboration in student work. For simple tasks, a large number of answers are requested to stimulate fluency. The tasks would request either 5 or more answers in individual work, and 10 or more answers in group work. Sometimes, they simply state that ‘give as many answers as possible’. For difficult or complicated tasks, only one single but novel and imaginative answer is requested. In fact, the number of answers requested depends on the difficulties of the questions. For encouraging flexibility and elaboration, students are explicitly asked to give more different categories of answers, to change directions, or to give more details and elaborations of the answers. In short, common tasks can also foster divergent thinking abilities, provided additional instructions on answering are given.

In strict sense, the above three methods are not creating totally new instructional designs, but modifying existing ones to give more room for creative thinking. The instructional designs include questioning in reverse manner, asking students to redesign some standard experiments, rewrite standard theories or ideas, adding and eliminating some well-accepted things. To encourage imagination, students are asked to make predictions and answer some ‘suppose’ or ‘what if’ questions. To encourage creativity and sensitivity, teachers asked students to make use their five senses and intuition to make quest, to discover phenomenon, problems, uncertainties, discrepancies and changes that are difficult to be discovered (Cheng, 2004)

 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT

Data analysis and results are presented based on the research questions and research hypotheses

Research Question One

What is the mean performance scores of secondary school students in physics logical reasoning skills taught with Instructional Design Model and those taught with Lecture teaching method.

Table 1.1: Post-test Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Creativity Performance Physics Test between Experimental and Control group on Logical Reasoning Skills.

The table shows the posttest analysis of experimental and convectional teaching method group. The mean of the experimental group was 86.60 and standard deviation of 10.32 while the control group had a mean achievement of 68.45and standard deviation of 14.01, the result shows a mean difference of 18.15 for experimental group higher than control group.

Research Question Two

What is the mean performance scores between male and female secondary school students in physics logical reasoning skills taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model.

Table 1.2: Posttest Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Creativity Performance Physics Test between Male and Female Performance in Logical Reasoning Skills in the Experimental group.

The table shows the posttest analysis of Male and Female scores in Creativity Performance Physics Test in the Experimental group. The mean of the male group was 88.22 and standard deviation of 10.98 while the mean of the female group was 84.91 and standard deviation of 9.41, the result shows a mean difference of 3.31 in male higher than female in the experimental group.

Research Question Three

What is the mean performance scores of senior secondary school students in physics predictive skills taught with Instructional Design Model and those taught with Lecture teaching method.

Table  1.3: Posttest Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Creativity Performance Physics Test between Experimental and Control group on predictive skills.

The table shows the posttest analysis of experimental and control group. The mean of the experimental group was 84.51 and standard deviation of 12.56 while the control group had a mean achievement of 64.55 and standard deviation of 13.20, the result shows a mean difference of 19.96 for the experimental  higher than control group.

Research Question Four

What is the mean performance scores between male and female secondary school students in physics predictive skills taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model.

Table 1.4: Posttest Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Creativity Performance Physics Test between Male and Female Performance in Predictive Skills in the Experimental group.

The table 1.4 shows the posttest analysis of the mean creativity performance physics test scores between male and female students of experimental group. The mean of the male group was 88.18 and standard deviation of 7.77 while the mean of the female group was 83.86 and standard deviation of 15.29, the result shows a mean difference of 7.51 for male higher than female in the experimental group.

Hypothesis one: there is no significant difference in mean logical reasoning skills scores on physics students performance when taught with Target-Task model and those with lecture method.

Table 1.5: Summary of ANCOVA Comparison of Experimental and Control Group in Creativity Physics Performance Test Scores on Logical Reasoning Skills.

The Table shows a significant effect F (1, 331) = 10.127, P < 0.05. on this basis, the hypothesis was rejected. Therefore, there was significant difference between the mean logical reasoning skills scores on physics students performance when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model and those with lecture teaching method.

Hypothesis two: there is no significant difference in male and female mean logical reasoning skills scores in physics students performance when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model.

Table 1.6: Summary of ANCOVA Comparison of Male and Female Physics Students scores in Logical Reasoning Skills performance when taught with instructional design Problem Solving Model.

The Table shows a significant effect F (1, 175) = 0.203, P > 0.05. The result was not significant at P < 0.05 and hypothesis was retained. Therefore the Instructional design Problem Solving Model had no significant effect on the Posttest performance scores of male and female students in logical reasoning skills. This implies that there is no statistically significant difference existing within the two groups.

Hypothesis three: there is no significant difference in mean predictive skills scores on physics creativity performance test when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model and those with lecture method.

Table 1.7: Summary of ANCOVA Comparison of Experimental and Control Group in Creativity Physics Performance Test Scores on Predictive Skills.

.

The Table shows a significant effect F (1, 331) = 10.127, P < 0.05. on this basis, the hypothesis was rejected. The result revealed that there was significant difference between the mean logical reasoning skills scores on physics students performance when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model and those with lecture teaching method.

Hypothesis four: there is no significant difference in male and female predictive skills in physics students performance when taught with Instructional Design Problem Solving Model.

Table 1.8: Summary of ANCOVA Comparison of Male and Female Physics Students scores in Problem Solving Skills performance when taught with instructional Design Problem Solving Model.

The Table shows a significant effect F (1, 175) = 0.399, P > 0.05. The result was not significant at P < 0.05 and hypothesis was retained. Therefore, the Instructional design Problem Solving Model had no significant effect on the Posttest performance scores of male and female students in Predictive Skills. This implies that there is no statistically significant difference existing among the two groups.

Discussion on the findings

In the study, both groups showed significant improvements from pretest to posttest performance measures. Students who received target instruction were significantly more successful in the problem solving tasks (p < 0.05) than students in control group. There were major differences between both groups in their performances on the Creativity Performance Physics Text on Motion and Force (CPPTMF). These differences appeared in the number and the quality of problems each group solved. Strictly speaking, students in the experimental group performed better than those in the control group on all dimensions of problem solving process. This result of the study might be due to the fact that instructional design problem solving model increased students’ awareness of their problem-solving process knowledge and skills. From that point, one can say that using an Instructional Design Model (activity based instruction) could help students’ problem-solving performance more than lecture method problem-solving tasks (exercises). Having positive effect on the creativity skills acquired by the students in terms of logical reasoning skills and predictive of phenomenon skills on Instructional Design Problem-Solving Model usage was an expected result of this research, and it has consistency with the problem solving performance result.

Having positive effect of the Instructional Design Problem-Solving Model on problem solving performance supports various research findings which determine that the activities based instruction increased the performance in physics and in science (Olaniyi & Omosewo 2015, Adeniran 2011, Suleiman 2010 had come to this conclusion that strategy instruction was effective on problem solving performance. In chemistry (Sutherland 2002, Jeon & Huffman 2005) and in mathematics, Montague and Bos 2008, Montague 2002) obtained similar findings in their research that students exposed to activity based instruction performed better than those exposed to convectional teaching methods.

The result was not significant at p < 0.05 in creativity skills in terms of logical reasoning and predictive skills acquired between male and female when exposed to Instructional Design Problem-Solving Model instruction in experimental group. Therefore, instructional Design Problem-Solving Model package produced no significant effect on the posttest achievement scores of male and female students when covariate effect (pretest) was controlled. This implies that there is no statistically significant different between the male and female students. This was in disagreement to the findings of Brewton (2001), Gonzuk and Chagok (2001) and Nwosu (2001), who through the use of different problem-solving strategies found that male students outperformed female students.

Conclusion

This study provides some evidences of the effects of using Instructional Design Problem Solving Model package on students’ physics performance to acquire creativity skills in logical reasoning and predictive skills of phenomenon. In comparison, explicit activity based instruction was more effective in developing all aforementioned characteristics than conventional instruction. Explicit instruction fosters these student learning outcomes by engaging students actively in solving problems and becoming aware of every phases in this complex process. On this bases, it is recommended that, efforts should be made to organize training and re-training programmes on the use of Instructional Design Problem Solving Models in Physics for practicing teachers. This would enhance their teaching leading to better performances among students and Government should transform the textbooks of physics in problem based learning form. Because the traditional textbooks do not meet the criteria of problem solving approach. It is worthwhile to know that the study did not cover all concepts of physics and other variable such as teachers interest and academic level were not considered. It is therefore suggested that, more research should be considered to investigate the effect of Target-Task Problem Solving Model in other Physics concepts to verify this result on logical reasoning and predictive skills of students which has not so common in the existing literature in order to strengthen this result.

REFERENCES

Adeniran, S.O. (2011).Effects of two problem-solving approaches on senior school students performance in physics in Kwara state, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.2(1), 32-42

Barell, J. (2003). Developing More Curious Mind. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 12 -16

Brady, R., & Edelman, L. A. (2012). State of Create Global Benchmark Study: Global Benchmark Study on Attitudes and Beliefs about Creativity at Work, School and Home.https://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pdfs/Adobe_State_of_Create_Global_Benchmark_Study.pdf

Brewton, C.C. (2011). Gender equity in science, technology and mathematics education: a workshop for enhancing learning environments. Women in science technology, and mathematics education in Nigeria.Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria,. Nigeria: Heinemann Education Books PLC.pg 37-39

Cheng, V. M. (2004). Developing Physics Learning Activities for Fostering Students Creativity in Hong Kong Context, Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Vol 5, 2(1),

Committee on Challenges for the Chemical Sciences in the 21st Century (2003). Beyond the Molecular Frontier: Challenges for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. 1(2), 23- 26

De Bono, E. (1970). Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step. New York: Harper & Row.

Gonzuk, J. N., and Chagok, M. (2001). Factors that discourage girls from taking Physics: A case study of Plateau State. Women in science technology, and mathematics education in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, Nigeria: Heinemann Education Books PLC.352-355.

Gorshunova, N. K. (2014). The Significance of High School Teacher’s Creativity for Innovation Pedagogical Practice. Journal of International Scientific Publications, 12, 607-614.

Gorny, E. (2007). Creative Person. In Dictionary of Creativity: Terms, Concepts, Theories & Findings in Creativity Research. Netslova.ru.http://creativity.net slova.ru/Creative _person.html

Jeon, K., Huffman, D. and Noh, T. (2005), The effects of thinking aloud pair problem solving on high school students’ chemistry problem-solving performance and verbal interactions, Journal of Chemical Education 82, 1558-1564.

KementerianPendidikan Malaysia (2013). LaporanTahunanPelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia. Putrajaya: KPM.

Li, W. W. (2011). How Creativity Is Changing China. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Mankilik, M. (2005).Enhancing professional physics teachers’ role in life long education.Science Teachers Association of Nigeria. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference, Nigeria: Heinemann Educational Books PLC.274-277.

Montague, M. &Bos, C. S.(2008), The effect of cognitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving performance of learning disabled adolescents, Journal of Learning Disabilities 19, 26-33 .

Montague, M. (2002)., Solve it! Strategy instruction to improve mathematical problem solving, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 15, 110-116

Moran, S. (2010). Creative in School. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J. K. Staarman (Eds.), International Handbook of Psychology in Education. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pg 319-359

Nadjafikhaha, M, Yaftianb, N., & Bakhshalizadehc, S. (2012). Mathematical Creativity: Some Definitions and Characteristics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 285-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.056

Okpara, O. F. (2007). The Value of Creativity and Innovation in Entrepreneurship. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability 3. http://www.asiaentrepreneurshipjournal.com/AJES

Olaniyan, A.O &Omosewo, E.O (2015), Effects of a Target-Task Problem-Solving Model on Senior Secondary School Students’ Performance in Physics, International Council of Association of Science. Science Education International .Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2015, 522-538.

Olowu, G.E. (2001). Effects of knowledge of ratio and proportion on students’ computation skills in optics.Journal of Pure and Applied Science 3, (1&2), 27.

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92-96.

Starko, A. J. (2013). Creativity in the Classroom Schools of Curious Delight. New York: Routledge. 43-54

Suleiman, B. (2010). The effect of Polya, Gick and Bransford and Stein problem-solving models on students’performance in statistics word problems.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Science Education, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria. 34 -45

Sutherland, L. (2002). Developing problem solving expertise: The impact of instruction in a question analysis strategy, Learning and Instruction 12, 155-187.

Vygotsky, S. L. (2004). Imagination and Creativity in Childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42,7-97.

Leikin, R. (2013). Evaluating Mathematical Creativity: The Interplay between Multiplicity and Insight. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55, 385-400.

Mukhopadhyay, R. (2013). Measurement of Creativity in Physics – A Brief Review on Related Tools. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, 6(5)  pg 45-50 .www.Iosrjournals.Org

Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). ICT as a Driver for Creative Learning and Innovative Teaching. In E. Villalba (Ed.), Measuring Creativity. Luxemburg pg. 345-367.

Correspondents can be directed to:

OLUWATADE, Ojo Oluwadare

FCT COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, ZUBA-ABUJA

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS

Speak2tade@gmail.com