3t:>~\)1,,-
I .
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES AND STUDENTS'
ACQUISITION OF SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN KISII CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF NYANZA PROVINCE, KENYA
BY
J6HN--(}N(;{)SI-
E55/1274512005
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER
OF EDUCATION IN THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
KENYATTA UNIVERSITY
NOVEMBER, 2011
Ongosi, John
Instructional
strategies and
• i!F, A
DECLARATION
This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other
university.
s~
-- --~----------
John Ongosi
E55112745/05
Date
This thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as University
Supervisors.
Signature fiilll ...""":?
---------------;l~l~~~~-
Date
•Prof. Henry E. Embeywa
Department of Educational Communication and Technology, Kenyatta University.
Date
Senior Lecturer
Department of Educational Communication and Technology, Kenyatta University.
11
DEDICATION
To my wife, Jeniffer and children; Robert, Dennis, Cynthia and Collins who hold a
special place in my heart.
111
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am indeed very grateful to my supervisors Prof. H.E. Embeywa and Dr. S. R. Ondigi
who with great devotion and patience guided me in developing this thesis. The
corrections and suggestions they made opened new perspectives to my view as I looked
forward to the study. I am indeed deeply indebted to Dr. G. Waweru and Dr. N. Twoli
who read this thesis and made useful comments.
My gratitude also goes to my classmates, Emmanuel, Eunice, Gladys, Grace, Paul, Stella
-- ...aad-Viaeent- wi-th-whem-the-spir-it-ef-enoouragement-was-always-k-ept-alive- l-wen't-alse-
forget my children. Robert. Dennis. Cynthia and Collins whose challenge that I table my
report card along with theirs at the end of the school term really touched me. To Mary
Ongoro who ensured my comfort and provided accommodation, I say a big thank you.
Finally, I thank Ms. Lucy MKirogo for .her patience and skill in typing this work. Most
gratitude goes to Mr. AD. Bojana for editing my work.
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Declaration (ii)
Dedication (iii)
Acknowledgement (iv)
List of tables (ix)
List of figures (x)
Abbreviations and Acronyms (xi)
'Aostracr:-::~:':' : - : : - (xii):
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
I'
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study " 1
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the study " 8
Objectives 8
Research Questions 9
Significance of the Study 9
Assumptions in the Study 11
Scope and limitations of the Study 11
Theoretical Frame Work. : '" 15
Conceptual Frame Work 16
Operational Definition of terms 17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction : 18
2.1 Science Process Skills 18
2.2 Classification of Science Process Skills ~ '" 19
2.3 Science Education .24
v
2.4 Science Teaching '" 27
2.5 Findings from Previous Research 31
2.6 Evaluation and Science Process Skills 37
2.7 Summary 40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction 42
3. 1 Design of the Study 42
3.2 Variables 45
TT Location otfne'SmOy .4'5-
3.4 Target Population .46
3.5 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size .47
3.6 Research Instruments 48
3.7 Pilot Study 50
3.8 Data Collection Techniques : 52
3.9 Data Analysis 54
3.10 Summary , 56
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Introduction 57
4.1 Reflection of Process Skills in the Syllabus 59
4.2 Objective (i): To find out which methods or Strategies used in teaching
are dominant in schools and their effect in students'
acquisition of Science Process skills 62
4.3 Students Acquisition of Science Process Skills 68
4.4 Students' Competency in Practical Manipulative Skills 70
4.5 Objective (ii): To establish whether gender differences affect students'
acquisition of Science Process Skills " 71
VI
• •
4.6 Objective (iii): Establish the effect of teachers' planning strategies on
students' acquisition of Science Process Skills 75
4.7 Objective (iv): To find out how the status of the school in respect to
availability of resources affects students'
acquisition of Science Process Skills 80
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction 84
5.1 Summary :.84
5.2 Implications of the Findings : 85
5.3 Conclusions 86
5.4 Recommendations 88
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research 90
RE~~RE~<:lC~.•............................................................~ 92
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Teachers Questionnaire 105
Appendix IT:Form 2 Student's Science Process Skills Test 110
Appendix ill: Researcher's Document Analysis Checklist 115
Appendix Iy: Researcher's Observation Checklist: Routine
Instructional Practices 117
I' Appendix V: Researcher's Observation Checklist: Students
Competency in Practical Manipulative Skills '" 119
Appendix VI: Names of the Schools in the Sample 120
Appendix VII: Routine Instructional Activites (Strategies) 121
A d· . VIII· Eff fG d A. • •.•.• f SPS 1 'l'7rt.ppen lX . ect 0 en er on rt.cqmSlllOn 0 1~1
Appendix IX: Teachers' Use of Planning Tools and Students
Acquisition ofSPS 132
Appendix X: Relationship Between Students Acquisition of SPS
And Availability of Resources 143
Vll
Appendix XI: Performance of form two students 154
Appendix XII :Research permit 183
Table 4.4: Students' Performance '" 69
Table 4.5: Students' Competency in Manipulation 70
Table 4.6: Gender and Performance 72
Table 4.7: Effect of Planning on Performance : 76
Table 4.8: Effect of Resources on Skill Acquisition 80
Vlll
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Students Enrolment- Kisii Central District 46
Table 3.2: Sample Size- Teachers and Students " , , ,.. ", ' .. , .48
Table 3.3: Schools in the Sample.. , , ,.,., " ".,", " , .48
Table 4.1: Frequency of the Skills in the Syllabus (Form 1- 2)., .. ' ,' ,' , 60
Table 4.2: Instructional Strategies" , , ,. , ' 63
Table 4.3: Questions and Respective Skills , , , , 68
IX
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Interaction of A Learner with the Environment 13
Figure 1.2: Learning Process in Science 14
Figure 1.3: Inputs That Influence Students' Acquisition of Science
Process Skills 15
Figure 2.1: The Main Components in Science Teaching .30
Figure 3. 1: The Structure and Process of the Study 44
Figure 4.1: Frequency Of The Skills in the Syllabus (Form r:.:.:- 2r: .. ~..:.-.:~::oo--.-
Figure 4.2: Students' Performance in the Skills 69
Figure 4.3: Performance of Boys and Girls 73
Figure 4.4: Planning and Performance 77
Figure 4.5: Resources and Performance 81
x
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS-
KCSE: Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education
KIE; Kenya Institute of Education.
KNEC: Kenya National Examinations Council
SMASSE: Strengthening Mathematics and Sciences at Secondary Education.
SPS: Science Process Skills.
BBS: Boys Boarding School.
GBS: Girls Boarding School.
--MB'S: 1v.fiXea-noaraing Sct1\)()1~-
MBDS: Mixed Boarding and Day School.
MDS: Mixed Day School.
Xl
ABSTRACT
The study sought to establish the effect of instructional strategies on acquisition of
science process skills by Form Two students. It diagnosed competencies of Form Two
students in science process skills, and associated the outcomes to instructional strategies
used by teachers. It was done in selected secondary schools in Kisii Central District. The
skills under study were; planning, experimenting, hypothesizing, application, questioning
and interpreting. The study was a descriptive survey in which purposive sampling was
used to select 13 secondary schools from divisional strata. Random sampling was used to
select 30 Form Two students in each school. In total, 410 Form Two students and 16
teachers participated in the study. The instruments which were used for data collection
were; a questionnaire for science teachers, a science process skills test for students,
observation checklist for lessons, and a document analysis guide for identifying skills
emphasized in syllabuses, schemes of work and students' written work. Analysis of data
--invelved-e-aleul-at-ien-ef-per-rentages,means--and-standard-de¥-iations.-Chi.".gquar.e-+x~_
analysis was done to determine whether gender. teachers' use or non-use of planning
tools, and facilities, had any effect on learners acquisition of science process skills.
Results from the study suggest imbalance in emphasis on specific skills by the syllabus.
None of the teachers planned their lessons. Students were not accorded adequate
opportunity to practice the skills. Class experiments were minimal and project work was
hardly implemented in the schools. Boys performed better than girls in the Form Two
Science Process Skills test. In this respect gender appears to influence students'
acquisition of the skills; application, hypothesizing, planning, interpreting and
questioning. However in the skill, experimenting gender does not affect performance.
Students in schools with adequate facilities perform comparatively better than their
counterparts in poorly equipped schools. The study further established that teachers' use
of planning tools and science equipment significantly affected students' acquisition of
science process skills.
xu
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Science forms the bedrock of knowledge whose application greatly influences a country's
technological and industrial development and directly impacts on the socio-economic
status of her people. Therefore, science education is expected to impart knowledge and
_ skills_fQLeffective~-.Under_standing_.QLnatur.e,_ application __in problem solving.. and.for
technological and industrial development. This education is provided through
instructional processes which involve application of various strategies to expose students
to learning through discovery or rediscovery of knowledge. In addition, these processes
develop the capacity of the learner to discern and solve problems.
For the objectives of science education to be achieved, teachers need to carefully devise
and or select strategies that will result in students acquiring both knowledge and skills.
Pedagogical practices that involve effective strate~es are what distinguish between good
teaching and poor teaching. The desire to devise the most effective pedagogies for
science lessons has over time led to evolutions of strategies by researches in educational
psychology and technology.
As a way of enhancing their effectiveness in lesson delivery, teachers are always
expected to device new strategies or modify existing ones so as to achieve, specified
objectives. Achievement of long-term objectives involves processes whereby learners'
1
competences in the skills develop progressively from one grade to another. The level of
competence reached depends on the quality of instruction and other inputs that support
learning. Low competence of students in Science Process Skills suggests weaknesses in
the curriculum and instructional strategies at classroom level.
The National Development Plan for Kenya of 2002-2008 notes that; "the education
system failed to successfully inculcate a modem scientific culture to imbue learners with
----------------- ----_._-- - --- - -
desirable social skills and values." It attributes the situation to inadequacies in the
provision and maintenance of essential physical facilities, instructional and research
materials and human resource capacity. The system of assessment through examinations
has also been accused of promoting rote learning at the expense of skill acquisition.
In Kenya, there have been reforms affecting both the education system and the
curriculum. Among the reforms were; the introduction of School Science Project (SSP)
in the 1970s and the 8-4-4 education system which involved significant changes in
science curriculum. Recent changes in the curriculum have been largely motivated by the
need to modernize the curriculum by promoting implementation of the modem hands-on
I'
approach to teaching and learning. This requires corresponding changes in instructional
strategies. The teacher should therefore, make appropriate choices and design activities
that help the learner to discover or verify facts through processes of inquiry. Other
countries have also had a number of reforms that brought significant changes in the
science curriculum. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, numerous curricula were
2
designed. This included; Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC), Physical Science
for Non-science Students (PSNS), Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS),
Intermediate Science Curriculum Study (ISCS), Australian Science Education Project
(ASEP), Chemical Education Project (CHEM study), Chemical Bond Approach (CBA),
Intermediate Physical Science (IPS), to mention but a few. In Britain, the Nuffield
Science project was introduced in 1962 with an aim to produce materials that would help
teachers to present science in a lively, exciting, and intelligible way (Tisher, Power and
----- ---------------------_. ------- ----
Endean, 1972). It involved pupils in conducting enquiries into the nature of things and
also had science presented to them as information built up by the enquiries of other
people.
Notable changes that took place in the developed world were driven by the need for
change from traditional science to the modern process based science. Why was the shift
from traditional to process based science necessary? Hurd (1970) observed that new
directions in science do not come into being without cause and that they are influenced
'by changes in social conditions and advances in science. Gega (1970) notes that most
modem educators realize that for intelligent living, it is at least as important to learn
Science Process Skills as principles and facts of science (content).
Traditional science courses did not put adequate emphasis on process science. As a result,
there was failure in science education which Piaget (1973) attributed to systematic
3
negligence in training pupils in experimentation. It was assumed that doing experiments
and explanations were the same. Practical activities were less emphasized and seen to be
subservient to theory or an afterthought of it (Solomon, 1980, Woolmough & Alsopp,
1985). Science lessons turned out to be uninteresting, less motivating and uninspiring to
students since student-centred activities were limited (Jevons, 1969). This was because
rote learning was dominant in classrooms.
The traditional science course was typified by blatant emphasis on contents of science
and the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge (Lee, 1967; Jevons, 1969). Having
been overtaken by new developments in science, some of this content became obsolete.
Science was seen as purposed to explain nature. Jevons (1969) perceived science as a
story about nature. Conants (1951) supports this perception when he views it as a
package of explanations. The emphasis was not for complete elimination of content-
based strategies but rather to incorporate them with process-based strategies.
The changes were also influenced by events happening in the world. Among these were
events of the Second World War, which inspired competition among countries to develop
better weapons of war and other technological innovations. Another example is the
launching of the Sputnik:by Russians in 1957. It made the United States of America feel
that there was something wrong with the way sciences were taught. This resulted in
curriculum reforms and expansion of research programme to address needs of military,
technology and for industrial development.
4
Curriculum reforms and paradigm shifts in pedagogy will always be there since societal
contexts, needs, and problems keep changing or emerging in time. In addition,
discoveries of new knowledge in science will necessitate changes so as to include the
new ideas/principles in the curriculum. National Council of Educational Research and
Training (2006) observes that good science education is one which is true to the child,
true to life, and true to science. This observation leads to the six point criterion upon
which the validity of any science course (curriculum) is evaluated. These are; cognitive
validity, content validity, process validity, historical validity, environmental validity, and
ethical validity. In particular, process validity is realized when learners are involved in
practical activities not only as a way to verify ideas/principles given in textbooks, but
also carry out open-ended investigations. This means that the curriculum at any given
time should be implemented through pedagogies that take cognizance of the six aspects
of validity in planning for instruction.
Process skill training in science instruction has gained emphasis because it promotes
student-centred practical activities. It also enhances development of creative talent,
innovativeness and nurtures positive attitude to science because it involves learners in
~ctivities they perceive to be relevant to their environment and their world in general.
Coil, Wenderoth, Cunningham and Dirks (2010) consider science process skills as the
fundamental skills upon which the conceptual framework of scientific expertise is built.
In addition, changes in the psychology of learning have influenced the shift from
traditional practices. Some of these developments in psychology include:
5
(I) The behaviourist movement of Skinner (in U.S.A), Pavlov (USSR),
Bloom, Gagne, Ausubel, Brunner, among others. This movement considers
behaviour to be any physical action which may also include innate processes such
as; acting, thinking and feeling. It emphasizes that effective learning must entail
objective observable behaviour as opposed to innate cognitive processes.
(II) Genetic epistemology of Jean Piaget which studies the origins of knowledge and
links validity of knowledge to the model of its construction. It shows that the
method in which knowledge is obtained/created affects the validity of that
knowledge. For example, when listening to music, we perceive a melody rather
than individual notes or when looking at a painting, we see the original image
rather than individual brush strokes. Kohler emphasized that one must examine
the whole to discover what its natural parts are, and not proceed from smaller
elements to wholes.
(III) Gestalt psychology ofKofka and L. Kohler. This Psychology looks at the human
mind and behavior as a whole. It emerged as a reaction to the behaviorist theories
of Pavlov and Watson which focuses on mechanical stimulus-response behavior
Kohler, W., 2010). The key concept in Gestalt theory is that the nature of the parts
is determined by the whole- parts are secondary to the whole. For example, a
series of flashing lights such as Christmas lights appear to be moving only
because our minds fills in missing information.
6
(IV) Later developments in cognitive SCIenceand classroom based research on
concept formation and cycles of learning. All these tend to support activity-based
learning and have greatly led to emphasis on themes such as hands-on, minds-on,
constructivism, meta-cognition and cultural epistemology.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Students' acquisition of Science Process Skills is linked to effectiveness of strategies
-useal:)y- teacners Ouring·essons. For effectlveeammg by students,-the teacher or scIence
should carefully strategize to enable acquisition of both knowledge and skills during
lessons. This means that strategies should be inclusive to cater for both knowledge and
skill acquisition. Competency in science process skills is a key indicator of achievement
of objectives in science education.
It has been reported that performance in sciences drops at secondary level compared to
that at primary level (Wasanga, 2006). This could be among other causes due to low
competence of candidates in Science Process Skills. Failure to adequately impart Science
Process Skills is a pointer to weaknesses in instructional strategies used by teachers. It
could also be an indicator of ignoring Science Process Skills during implementation of
the curriculum. This is the problem which this study sought to address by investigating
effectiveness of strategies used for instruction in Form Two physics lessons.
7
Any science course or instructional process that ignores skill development or knowledge
acquisition is inadequate. To determine whether there is adequate emphasis on skill
training and acquisition by students, the study analyzed the syllabus of physics for forms
one and two. It also compared results and evaluated differences arising between schools
with adequate resources and those that are inadequately equipped.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the strategies used by teachers in teaching
physics and establish their effect in enhancing acquisition of Science Process Skills
among secondary school students in Kenya.
1.4 Objectives
Objectives in the study were to:
(i) Find out which methods or strategies used in teaching are dominant in schools
and their effect on the development of ScienceProcess Skills.
(ii) Establish whether gender differences affect students' acquisition of Science
Process Skills.
(iii) Establish the effect of teachers' planning strategies on students'
acquisition of Science Process Skills.
(iv) Find out how the status of the school in respect to availability of resources affects
students' acquisition of Science Process Skills.
8
1.5 Research Questions
Researchquestions in the study were:
(i) How do instructional strategies employed by teachers affect learners' competency
in science process skills?
(ii) How does gender affect students' acquisition of Science Process Skills?
(iii) How does the teacher's use of planning tools affect learners' competencies in
Science Process Skills?
of resources?
1.6 Significance of the Study
Apart from curriculum reforms in Kenya, a number of actions have been taken ostensibly
to enhance quality in provision of education. These include routine Quality Assurance
and Standards Directorate activities- mentorship and advisory, and the latest SMASSE
project, which emphasizes use of hands on activities in teaching and learning aimed at
enhancing achievement of lesson objectives. With these, it was necessary that a study be
carried out to assess the extent of achievement of science process skills and to discern
enhancing or impeding factors.
Analytical reports of performance of most schools in KCSE have revealed lower
attainment in sciences compared to other disciplines. Wasanga (2006) observes that the
dismal performance in sciences does not augur well for Kenya's dream of attaining
9
industrialized status by the year 2020. The weak performance in sciences has in some
instances been attributed to lack of facilities even in situations where the facilities are
adequate. Focusing on process skill the study may be an eye opener for other causes to
be discerned. Identification of factors impeding realization of better performance will be
useful to teachers, KNEC and KIE who may come up with remedial strategies. For the
Quality Assurance and Standards Directorate of the Ministry of Education, the results
bring o~t Science Process Skills as useful indicators of effectiveness in teaching of
science. This may influence teachers to incorporate Science Process Skill training as an
important component of instructional strategies during lessons.
The Kenya Vision 2030 aims to «transform Kenya into a newly industrializing, middle-
income country providing a high quality of life to all its citizens by the year 2030" (RoK,
2007). Critical in this will be the input of scientific and technological capacities which
certainly relate to process skills. Based on the findings, this study gives suggestions on
what needs to be done so as to enhance acquisition of process skills and increased
participation in technological and creative industrial processes by graduates at various
levels of education.
I'
Process skills are vital as an avenue for solutions to problems affecting the individual and
his/her environment. Based on this view, learners who are exposed to process-based
science tend to be motivated and have greater quest to pursue studies in the field of
science. The extent to which implementation of the curriculum embraces the practice
10
will therefore be a useful revelation for schools and teachers in assessing current status
and the direction headed.
1. 7 Assumptions of the Study
(i) Students' pre-constructed knowledge as held in constructivism helps but is
Not sufficient on its own to realize in full scale, the process skills of
science.
(ii) The ages of the learners in the same class will approximate to the same
cognitive ability and therefore, -will not aiIect learner-s" acquisition of
science process skills.
(iii) Learners in form two have been brought up in and influenced by similar
environments that bear no significant differences in their learning of skills
In SCIence.
(iv) Acquisition of the named process skills was not sufficiently made after
primary school level.
1.8 Scope and Limitations of the Study
The study covered secondary schools in Kisii Central District in which the target
population covered teachers· and students. It targeted public secondary schools only. This
was based on the assumption that situations obtaining in public and private schools were
similar. It considered learning of science physics as a subject. In this, the syllabus was
analyzed to determine the emphasis given to science process skills in guiding teachers
during implementation of the curriculum. In administering instruments on students,
reference was made to form two physics classes only. Only six science process skills
11
were addressed and no consideration was made as to whether acquisition of anyone
particular skill had an effect in promoting acquisition of some or others.
1.9 Theoretical Framework
The learning theory is the theoretical foundation upon which the study was based. The
theory is derived from the definition of learning as a relatively permanent change in a
person's knowledge or behaviour due to experience (Richey, 1986). This gives two
aspects of learning- behaviour and knowledge (cognition) which have been separately
emphasized by the behaviourists and cognitivist movements. The former are concerned
with performance as the only evidence that learning has taken place, while the latter
emphasize how one processes new information by examining how he/she remembers this
information. By 'experience', it means the interactions, which the learner makes with
his/her environment- people, things and ideas.
Acquisition of science process skills entails students' competencies that manifest as
observable behavioural actions and cognitive capabilities. These competencies are
acquired through teaching and learning. Teaching involves organizing and or providing
~propriate experiences or opportunities for learning. The processes and procedures that a
teacher designs or the experiences he/she organizes in these respects, are referred to as
instructional strategies. These make the environment that a student interacts with to
learn. Learning which manifests in behaviour change in cognitive and psychomotor
respects can then be measured to give the learner's achievement (learning/acquisition of
skills). This is illustrated in Figure 1.1.
12
E
N
V
I
R
o
N
M
E
N
T
LEARNER.
I----+--~ Theoretical explanations by the 1--__ -90 ~Knovvledgeable and
teacher skills
Mental activities
• VISualization
• Speculation
1-----.........;~~I·-.4ntuifion ------ - - -
• Itnagery
Key: Arrows indicate inputs or interactions during specific activities
Figure 1.1: Interaction of a learner with the environment
Source: Researcher's design
Gagne (1985) observes that learning processes are going on all the time people are awake
and possibly when they are asleep. In these processes, previously learned material in
long-term memory is continually being retrieved to the working memory and to
Consciousness. This leads to refinement and enrichment of information through rehearsals
in repeated processing and recoding before being again returned to long-term memory.
The process of encoding is continually influenced by inputs whose origins are external to
the learner. It is therefore, the teacher's role to master the environment organizes and or
co-ordinate learning activities to give desired outcomes in learning. It has been observed
that, "to understand is to discover, or reconstruct by rediscovery, and such conditions
13
must be complied with if in the future individuals are to be formed who are capable of
production and creativity and not simply repetition" (piaget, 1973 & Ginn, 2005). The
strategies for effective learning in physics are similar to those used in other science
disciplines.The general process in science learning is outlined in figure 1.2.
PROCESS OUTPUT
A
---= __ --»is_C_Oy..eIY~ - ie-ee --- - - ----- ( - .. "-f----- -- - '--- _._---- -o New findings Application
INPUf o Solution of
Re-discovery Knowledge problems
o Explanationa Verification a Content
Through o Acquired of nature
experiments skills o Creative
'- and other procedures I-- applicationo Innovation
Figure 1.2: Learning process in science
Source: Adapted from Piaget's view (1973)
Inputs in the process include; expositions and general expenences organized by the
teacher and the interactions of the learner with the general environment. This gives the
learner an opportunity to discover or rediscover knowledge and skills which are vital for
understanding the nature and application in problem solving.
14
1.10 Conceptual Framework
This is derived from the view that most of human responses (behaviour) are learned.
Individuals respond or behave in specific ways that have been learnt over time. For
example, the sound of an alarm at a workplace informs workers that it is lunch time-
hencetheir subsequent behaviour follows a certain routine. This may not be the same for
a worker serving for the first time at the firm. In teaching and learning, both students and
teachers are restricted to some routines whose overall effect on the student is acquisition
of knowledge, skills, and values A number of inputs in a student's experience serve in
building or strengthening the kind of learning acquired. Figure 1.3, illustrates a student's
learningprocess
+
Choice of instructional
0~ feedbackp practice Teaching/learning
activity ~
Students entering behaviour -
Students
acqusition of ~
SPS
Personal student effort I--A
Environmeobl mfbeoces
oCulture
oSchool
oHorne
oConununity
utcornes
~
nt
practice
(careers)
Creativity
pp\ication
novativeness
Figure 1.3: Inputs that influence student's acquisition of process skills
Source: Researcher's design.
15
The teachers' choice of strategy, organization, and coordination of learning experiences
is influenced by his/her consideration of students' entering behaviour, direction of
students personal efforts, their background as informed by environmental influences.
Students' acquisition of science process skills is preceded by acquisition of information
pertinent to the "how" of application of the skills, followed by practical training or
practice of the skills.
Through evaluation, the teacher gets feedback on the level of acquisition of the skills by
the students. This enables him/her to make decisions for modification of strategies so
that desired outcomes are realized. The outcomes point to the success or failures in
realization of the overall goals for which curriculum is designed. Success manifests in
the individual's productivity in career practice, application of the skills in his/her life as a
\
citizen, creativity and innovative practice.
16
Operational definition of terms
8-4-4- system: A system of education used in Kenya where learners go through
eight years of primary school, four years at secondary and four
years at university level.
Constructivism: An educational theory which stipulates that learners do not start
learning with an empty head, but brings prior learning to the
learning situation which they use to learn new things (principles
and ideas). Learning becomes through constructivism, a
----- --------
negotiation of meaning.
------_._---- ---------
Instructional practice: What a teacher does or experiences he/she organizes
and/or opportunities provided in order to facilitate learning by
students.
Process science: An approach in the study of science which lays more emphasis
on how scientific knowledge is got than the knowledge itself.
Skill: The learned capacity to carry out predetermined results often with
the minimum outlay of time, energ~ or both.
SPUTNIK: The first artificial satellite to be launched into space by Russians in
" 1957. It triggered off the space race culminating in man landing on
the moon in 1969. It produced a lot of windfalls for science
education.
17
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter provides a definition of science process skills and distinguishes them
through classification of the skills as basic and integrated. It also discusses science
educationand looks into how science should be taught. A review of findings from studies
2.1 Science Process Skills
Padilla (1990) defines science process skills as a set of broadly transferable abilities,
appropriate to many science disciplines and reflective of the behaviour of scientists.
Similarly, Brown and Adam (2011) consider them as skills and premises which govern
the scientific method. They are "a means for learning and are essential to the conduct of
science" (Rinehart & Winston, 2001). The means in this case comprises activities
practised by scientists during processes leading to discovery and or verification of. .
scientific facts. The activities can be mental or physical manipulative operations that help
scientists to arrive at conclusions.
A variety of descriptions have been given for Science Process Skills. From The American
Association for the Advancement of Science, (2011), Slide Share Inc. (2011), Brown and
Adam, (2011), and Padilla, (1990), the list of Science Process Skills include; observing,
classifying, measuring, discussing, explaining, questioning, inferring, hypothesizing,
18
(
predicting, interpreting, controlling variables, analyzing, evaluating, synthesizing,
applying, experimenting, investigating, and communicating.
2.2 Classification of Science Process Skills
ScienceProcess Skills are classified into two categories, namely; basic process skills and
integrated process skills (Campbell, 1979, Padilla, 1990, The American Association for
the Advancement of Science, Slide Share Inc., and Brown and Adam, 2011). Basic skills
are simpler skins,-which are acquired as a pre-requisite for acquisition of the integrated
process skills. They include; observing, measuring, communication, classification,
inferring, using space/time relations, using number predicting and quantification. On the
other hand, integrated process skills are more complex skills, which are designed to
enhance the retention and refinement of the basic skills. They include, identifying
variables, formulating hypotheses, interpreting data, controlling variables, operationally
defining variables and designing investigations or experimenting. Ash (2011) notes the
existence of a bewildering variety of interpretations of process skills, including their
number, order and relative importance. This study focused on the skills; planning,
hypothesizing, experimenting, application and questioning which are discussed hereafter.
2.2.1 Planning
Planning is the process of outlining procedures or designing of routes to be followed in
operations intended to give desired outcomes. Simply put, it entails drawing up a scheme
or 'map' to be followed as a guide in carrying out an investigation. It involves ordering
or sequencing of activities or events in an investigation.
It is necessary to draw up a plan of action for what is to be done either individually or in
groups. This will usually follow steps involving answers to the following questions:
(a) What is the intention? What do I want to find out?
(b) What do I know about it?
(c) What method will I use?
(d) What can Ivary and what can Ikeep constant?
(e) What do I want to measure or note?
(f) Which sense(s) or instrument will Iuse?
(g) What should be recorded?
(h) Is my plan safe?
Answers to these questions guide the scientist in deciding whether or not to proceed with
the plan. A careful evaluation is-therefore, done to assure on the feasibility and safety of
the plan. It follows that a plan should be in written or printed form. It should also be
such that it can be carried out by any other person involved in the particular field of
study.
2.2.2 Experimenting
This is a process in 'which one carries out a scientific test in order to study the unfolding
results and to gain new knowledge. It can be carried out both as an in-door (laboratory)
(
20
or outdoor activity. It includes the skills of planning, observing, recording, analyzing and
presenting.
In experimenting, the answers sought should not be known in advance to the students.
Instead, the search for answers should stem out of their genuine interest. Kuslan and
Stone (1972) suggest the following as steps involved in experimenting:
(i) A problem is identified and narrowed until the class seems capable of solving it.
(ii) The class proposes hypothesis to guide the investigation.
(iii) Children take the responsibility for proposing ways of gathering the data from
controlled experimentation, observation, reading and other pertinent sources.
(iv) These proposals for action are co-operatively evaluated.
(v) Children investigate in small groups, as a class, and as individuals to gather the
data for testing the hypothesis.
(vi) Children summarize their data and come to tentative conclusions about the
adequacy of their hypotheses. Every effort is made to formulate scientific
explanations.
To promote students' disposition to experiment, teachers should encourage and help them
"
to cultivate the attitudes of curiosity, creativity, problem solving and disciplined
investigation.
(
21
2.2.3 Hypothesizing
This is a process in which the investigator or experimenter tries to give or state results of
what might happen in an experiment before it is carried out. It is a way of predicting
results before experimentation and has popularly been referred to as, making of educated
or intelligent guesses or giving ideas as to what might happen. It is based on a few
known facts and is therefore, supported or rejected through results of actual experiment.
It is a high order integrative process skill which requires certain levels of cognitive
---.._---_. ----. -- ----._- ~---- - ----- - -- - ------_.- ---
function. Hence children at primary level will be slow in developing it.
Ideally, hypothesizing involves visualization whereby the experimenter builds a mental
picture of the experiment in which he/she also mentally manipulates processes to be
involved. It therefore, brings to action, the power of imagination. Students develop this
skill through practising in tasks requiring its application. The teacher can easily access
the growth of this skill by listening or reading what the students present to each other or
to him.
2,2.4 Application
This is a process in which one utilizes acquired knowledge to explain or solve problems
in new situations. Having learnt that instability is caused by a high lying center of
gravity, one can apply it to explain why double-decked buses and those that are heavily
loaded on roof top carriers, easily overturn than single decked ones in which luggage is
stored in compartments below the passengers. Results or information presented
(
22
graphically or by use of charts and diagrams can be interpreted or explained by means of
utilization of prior knowledge.
2.2.5 Questioning
Questioning is an mquiry process involving raising or asking questions about
observations. Usually such questions lead to investigations. Curiosity drives the inquiry
process. It generates questions and a search for answers. Questioning therefore, forms
basis from which inquiry process continues. It is the heart of the process and a habit of
the mind which should be encouraged in any setting of learning.
Each question that is asked, leads to an action, which in turn leads to the use of other
process skills, including asking more questions. This is the nature of inquiry which is not
a linear process (Ash, 2011). Equally important to raising good questions is the process of
selecting questions that might be followed with fruitful investigations. In the school
setting, one of the most important skills we can develop is to understand better which
questions can be answered by experimentation, and which cannot. Pupils become aware
of this gradually. Part of the inquiry process is determining how to turn non-investigable
questions into investigable ones, and learning how to recognize questions that are
generative, long lasting, and interesting enough to foster a rich investigation.
(
23
2.2.6 Interpreting
To interpret means to explain or to derive more information from a representing situation.
Interpreting as practised in sciences involves getting as much information as possible
from the records or presentations that are made. Usually after experiments are
performed; diagrams, tables, graphs and charts are made. These form sketches out of
which more information can be derived through the process of interpreting. In other
words interpreting seeks to provide meaning to the data that is given or collected. As an
activity, interpreting succeeds other processes which more frequently follow the order;
observing --.recording --.interpreting --. discussing
As an instruction strategy, the teacher should always insist that records made from
experiments be made in forms that can be interpreted. The students should individually
or in groups, be asked to interpret such records. The teacher can in some cases allow the
students to make oral presentations of their interpretations. These oral presentations along
with written tests or examinations can be used to assess the skill of interpretation.
2.3 Science Education
A question arises as to what should be stressed in science education. What is more
.important? Process or Product? Carin and Sund (1980) and Victor (1970) consider both
I'
process and product (context) as essential components of a science programme. In
addition, objectives of the programme (Victor, 1970) and attitudes are key elements that
play vital roles in science education. Scientific attitudes are the rules of behaviour that
scientists have adapted for conducting scientific investigations. They include; beliefs,
(
values and opinions that guide behaviours of scientists. Inherent in these considerations
24
are the questions which guide scientific studies. These questions are why, what and
how? They refer to what should be taught (content), why it should be taught
(objectives) and how it should be taught (methodology-process).
It has been pointed out in chapter one that a good science education course must pass the
six-point criterion validity test. The six aspects of validity in' the curriculum (i.e.
cognitive validity, content validity, process validity, historical validity, environmental
validity, and ethical validity) are briefly explained here after. For content validity, the
curriculum is expected to offer content, process, language and pedagogical practices that
are age appropriate and within the cognitive reach of the child. In these respects, the
curriculum must convey significant and correct scientific content. Process validity
requires that the curriculum engages learners in acquiring the methods and processes that
lead to generation and validation of scientific knowledge and nurture the natural curiosity
and creativity of the child in science. Process validity is important since it helps the
student in "learning to learn" science. Effective teaching incorporates these aspects in
planning and instruction both in and outside the classroom. Historical validity is achieved
when the curriculum is informed by historical perspectives. This enables the learner to
I'
appreciate how the concepts of science evolve with time. Environmental validity requires
that science be put in the wider context of the leamer's environment, local and global,
enabling himlher to appreciate the issues at the interface of science, technology and
society. Ethical validity requires promotion of the values of honesty, objectivity,
cooperation and freedom from fear and prejudice.
25------_.- - ". -- ._-_ -.- .~ . .. --.- .-.--..-._-
I "r- . .A.. r
Scientific intelligence is a product of thinking skills and attitudes as processes and
principles with facts as products or content of science. The Biological Sciences
Curriculum Study (1968) suggests three components, which should be emphasized in a
primary science curriculum:
(i) The body of knowledge generated by and associated with science;
(ii) The processes and procedures used to develop that body of knowledge;
and
(iii)The attitudes and ideals which guide scientists in their work.
These components are not only relevant to primary science, but are equally basic for
attainment of goals of science education at secondary and tertiary levels as well. The
study reveals that "knowledge without process often becomes memorization of
information which ·will soon be forgotten; and process without knowledge becomes
acquisition of skills with no apparent purpose." It would therefore, be a distortion of
science if a curriculum entirely devotes to either knowledge or process alone. This view
is shared by Halim (2009) who in studies in Malaysia and Japan, observe that the level of
scientific culture of Malaysian students is significantly higher than that of their
counterparts in Japan. This they explained was attributable to Japan's primary focus on
I'
practical use of science and technology as opposed to striking a balance between process,
content and application. They conclude that Japanese students had failed to acquire the
scientific spirit. It is the adoption of the above three elements in a curriculum, that gives
rise to process science.
26
There is still a question as regards the relative importance of the skills which further begs
the question of which skill should be given greater emphasis in syllabi at various grades
or levels in education. Metzenberg (2000) considers reading as the most important skill
stating that "a student who has not developed the skill of learning through reading has no
professional future in science. While young people should be encouraged to pursue
science, it must also be supplemented with education through other courses that will
permit them to succeed. Hands-on investigative activities ought to be main components
in a science programme which should however not negate other vital aspects in teaching
and learning. Metzenberg (2000) also argues that the best 'hands-on' programme would
be one in which students can get their 'hands on' an informative text book!"
2.4 ScienceTeaching
The main concern in science education is fostering of knowledge, skills, attitudes and
values, which are essential attributes of a scientist. Teachers should, therefore, focus on
inculcating these attributes during lessons and other activities in the school routine. This
requires effective instructional strategies that take into account ~ the three components
of science- process skills, content, and context. Teachers should make use of instructional
I'
activities that involve concrete manipulatives, as these help in addressing a broad range
of conceptual knowledge, scientific and organizing skills and scientific and personal
attitudes (Haury & Rillero, 1994).
27
Stiegler and Hiebert (1999) have observed that in Japan, teachers have in more structured
ways been given the primary responsibility for the improvement of classroom practice. In
Japan, teachers have developed professional groups under the banner, "kounaikenshuu".
These groups have formal fora (laboratories for development and testing of new teaching
techniques) through which teachers are mentored and trained on effective instructional
strategies. In lesson study groups (Jugyou Kenkyuu) teachers meet regularly over long
periods to work on the design, implementation, testing, and improvement of one or
-- -_.- -------- --- - - --- - -
severaC"Researdl-lessons~ Resu"lts fro~ "Research lessons" are shared all over the
country to be used by teachers teaching the same grade.
Process skills are cognitive and psychomotor abilities that are central to the pursuit and
practice of science.' They involve the totality of activities - mental and physical - that one
carries out in order to arrive at logical conclusions. Just like the other sciences
knowledge in physics is derived through activities which entail, science process skills.
According to Wikipedia-The Free-Encyclopedia, a skill is the learned capacity to carry
out a specific process or activity with the minimum outlay time, energy or both. When
used in scientific procedures to generate understanding and knowledge, the skill is
referred to as a science process skill. This is what Aronson (2011) has observed in his
description of Gagne's Prescriptive model of instruction- asserting that a person is said to
have learnt when he/she acquires a particular capability to do something. This is
discerned in observable behaviour change. For instance, one is said to have learnt verbal
information when he/she is able to state the information when prompted. On the other
28
hand, choosing to act in one way or another is indicative of one's learning of an attitude.
When a motor skill has been acquired, the capability is being able to execute properly and
smoothly all the sub-skills in a correct sequence. A concept which is one type of
intellectual skill is learnt when one has capability to correctly identify or classify any new
example of the concept.
Embeywa (1990) classifies processes involved in scientific practice into four categories
as follows:
- -OTKiiow1eage generatIng processes-wrucli'lnCIuOe; o6serVation, experImentation,
speculation, intuition, and imagery.
(ii) Knowledge construction processes which include; visualization, manipulation
and Perception of explanation.
(iii) Processes, .which relate to the application of science in out of class settings.
They are called developmental processes examples of which are technological
innovations, practical problem solving and individual development of creative
talent.
(iv) Other processes which include communication, planning, organization, and
execution of activities such as classification, taking measurements, and recording
of data.
Effective instruction is therefore that which avails opportunities for learners to engage in
these processes. Content as a component or dimension of science education refers to the
presentation of science as a body of knowledge that is obtained through experimentation
and observation. On the other hand, context refers to the ways in which science is linked
29
to the environment of the learner. It entails experiences offered at home, school, by local
environment, culture, society and the state. Figure 2.1 shows the three components
involved in science.
Fig. 2.1: The main components in science teaching
Source: Researcher's design
Science teaching involves integration of the components as illustrated in Figure 2.1. This,
is realized through the teacher's creation and organization of appropriate learning
experiences and opportunities for learners. These experiences help the learner to develop
competence in the processes of science. Yager and McCormarck (1989) subtly warn
about the danger of viewing and teaching science simply as a body of information. He
observes that those who adopt this view justify the approach by assuming that science is
30
"information that scientists have accumulated. This school of thought maintains that no
dimensions can be viewed and understood without first knowing what scientists (or
C
science teachers) know. This presumes that students have no prior knowledge and hence
have first to know what the teacher knows in order for them to develop new knowledge.
2.5 Findings From Previous Research
Most studies on acquisition of Science Process Skills, affirm that students acquire the
------- ._------_._---
skills through training and investigative practice. In a study that sought to investigate
how students develop science process skills in authentic contexts, Roth and
Roychoudhury (1983) conclude that «important aspects of cognitive activities are
functions of meaningful contexts". They report that students develop higher order process
skills through non-traditional laboratory experiences that provide them with freedom to
perform experiments of personal relevance in authentic contexts. Such contexts allow
students to learn to; identify and define pertinent variables, interpret, transform and
analyze data, plan, design and carry out experiments including formulation of hypotheses.
These findings suggest that process skills need not be taught separately. Integrated
process skills develop gradually and reach a high level of sophistication when
experiments are performed in meaningful contexts.
Sis (2006) suggests that SCIenceprocess skills should be taught first in content-free
investigations whereby more attention should be paid to; spontaneous discovery,
elicitation, generalization and sharing of principles captured by authentic problem
31
solving. It is by so doing that students will have a base to move to content-based enquiry.
This sequence in science teaching and learning is also supported by Campbell's (2003)
finding that what is formally taught and written down is not as significant as those things
that the students learn through doing and participating in formal and informal interaction
with senior students and teachers.
Wong (2001) suggests that groupwork is particularly important for developing process
.---SKirrsana attitiiOein SCIencelearmng. Tlle-strategy is-effectIVe in fostering discussion.
Further observation reveals that hands-on science activities are wonderful vehicles for the
use and practice of the process skills. Springer, Stanne and Donovan (1999) have
observed that besides improvement in thinking skills and the use of science process skills
when students expetjence science through co-operative learning, attitudes toward science
are enhanced when students engage in hands-on science. Hands-on science experiences,
together with conversations about what is occurring, are the best methods for developing
children's science process skills. These experiences go beyond improving science
process skills to improving reading skills, language skills, creativity, and attitudes toward
science (Rillero, 1994). Wong (2001) observes that co-operative learning (groupwork)
,-
nurtures and or promotes various interpersonal skills, communication, logical thinking
and presentational skills. Students who have done groupwork display their growth in
tolerance, ability to listen to others and respect their views, improvement in self-
reliability, independence in dealing with others, ability to make decisions and in
becoming considerable and helpful towards others.
32
Stewart (1988) observes that even if directions are grven as guides for conduct of
laboratoryexperiments, it is still beneficial when students are permitted to design their
own experiments. In the same vein, he observers that the time spent in planning and
organizing the experiment becomes more important than time spent in ascertaining
whether or not the results are as expected. According to Fogle (1985), introductory
college students do not understand the nature of scientific questioning, and that common
misuse of the terms hypothesis, fact, and theory is symptomatic of student
misconceptions. He argues that students must be allowed to experience scientific
thinking firsthand.
Ostlund (1998) observes that, students in process approach programmes learn more than
those in traditional text book programmes. He cites evidence from research that
integration of science processes with reading and mathematics produce positive effects
on student learning. In this respect, it is further noted that when a teacher helps students
to develop science processes, reading processes are simultaneously being developed. In
addition, it enhances oral and written communication skills.
Competencies in science process skills and problem solving abilities relate positively to
higher achievement in other areas. For example, research done by Riley and Meyer
(1972) revealed that students in an instruction programme emphasizing science process
skills achieved higher comprehension scores than those who were taught using traditional
textbook approach. A study by Williams (1973) also found that some of the requisite
33
skills for reading relate to the acquisition of science process skills. Leonar~(1989)
observes that training in integrated science process skill development improved the
performance of college biology students in the use of integrated science process skills.
Chung and Mao, (1999) report that; inquiry teaching results in greater student
achievement and enhances positive attitude toward science more than those strategies
reflected in traditional science classrooms. Similar results were obtained by Toili (1985)
whowhile investigating the relationship between acquisition of science process skills and
achievement in science among standard 7 pupils found that, there is a positive correlation
between performance in science process skills test and science achievement test. Leonard
(1989) and Padilla, Okey and Dillashaw (1983) have also observed that use of laboratory
investigations to teach formal reasoning improves significantly the ability of students to
use formal operational thought. Similarly, cognitive development of college non-major,
biology students has been found to be promoted by a laboratory programme that
emphasizes investigation and accounts for limitations of student cognitive ability
(Leonard, 1989). Regarding mastery of content, Ross (1995) observes that integrated
. .
information skills have a positive impact on students' mastery of both subject matter and
ipformation-seeking skills.
In a study on the effect of instruction on integrated science process skills achievements in
grade six and eight pupils, Padilla, Okey and Garrad (1984) found that those students
who were on an intensive programme based on integrated process skills, performed better
than those who received content-oriented instruction.
34
pBluhn (1979) investigated the effect of science process skills instruction on pre-service
elementary school teachers' knowledge of ability to use and sequence science process
skills. Results from the study showed that pre-service teachers exposed to activity-based
instruction involving designing and performing experiments to solve problems, greatly
improved their ability to use and sequence science process skills.
Osodo (1988) studied the relationship between the acquisition of science process skills
and problem-solving ability among primary school pupils in urban and rural settings
focusing on the skills of quantification, classification and prediction. The study found
that boys performed better than girls in science process skills test and that urban pupils
out performed rural pupils in science process skills test. It also found that, compared to
the skills of classification and prediction, pupils performed better in quantification. The
overall comment from the study was that, the level of acquisition of the skills was
wanting.
One of the key outcomes of science education is scientific expertise. Ango (2002)
observes that part of scientific expertise is having the process skills associated with
scientific enquiry and that the expertise is not innate. To become an expert one must,
therefore, receive guidance in the ways of scientific enquiry so as to engage in
appropriate practice in the use of the skills of scientific enquiry. This guidance is to be
found in the instructional programmes provided by schools colleges and universities.
Alego (1987) in a study of Junior Secondary School pupils' competence in some selected
35
processes of science, which focused on skills of observation, prediction, generalization
and controlling variables, came up with the following results:
(i) The nature of science curriculum in Kenya's secondary schools is not process
oriented. The skills are not emphasized in the syllabus although pupils are
expected to acquire them informally through their laboratory experiences.
(ii) Junior Secondary School pupils demonstrated low competency in the skills of
observation, prediction, generalization and controlling variables.
----- ------
(iii) Low competence in the skills notwithstanding, the performance of boys was
better than that of girls in prediction, generalization and controlling of variables.
Leonard (1989) observed that inquiry laboratory strategies:
(i) Require students to make more extensive use of science process skills.
(ii) Are more students-centred and more inductive than traditional approaches?
(iii) Contain less direction and give the student more responsibility of determining
procedural operations.
(iv) Produce significantly greater educational gains than traditional approaches.
I' (v) Appear to work equally well for college students of all ability levels and not just
the very academically talented.
Piaget (1972) notes that the failure of traditional schools in physics and natural sciences
was due to systematic negligence in training pupils in experimentation. Fensham (2004)
observes that teachers particularly at primary level largely adopt a transmissive style of
36
pedagogy. He further notes that the shift from a knowledge heavy curriculum for school
science to a procedural and a discussive one in many countries is somewhat difficult.
Similarly, Piaget (1973) suggests that a student's incapacity in a particular subject is
owing to a too rapid passage from the qualitative structure of the problems (by simple
logical reasoning but without the immediate introduction of numerical relations and
metric laws) to the quantitative or mathematical formulation (in the sense of previously
worked out equations) normally employed by the physicist. This transition from
----_._-------- --------
qualitative structures to quantitative -forms involves a number of processes, which are of"
interest to all educators.
2.6 Evaluation and Science Process Skills
Evaluation and assessment are important aspects, which cannot be skipped, in any
instructional programme. It plays an important role in revealing misconceptions among
students and determines the effectiveness of instructional strategies or programme (Haury
and Rillero, 1994). For courses leading to certificates, whatever content is selected for
evaluation and the way it will be done, will affect emphasis given to teaching of process
skills and their acquisition by learners.
~
Certificates that are awarded after examinations (e.g. Kenya Certificate of Secondary
Examinations) have been used to measure an individual's competency and sometimes
merit for job opportunities. This may lead to rote learning of facts since what is important
37
is to address the course in ways that bear semblance to testing in examinations. However,
it is important that students' achievement in science process skills be assessed.
Reporting teachers' VIews on evaluation and assessment of hands-on learning and
teaching,Haury and Rillero (1994) suggest that:
• Hands-on learning in science can be evaluated by either asking students to orally
explain to you or to the whole class the process or experiment they experienced
------_.- ..
and why it works the way it does, or giving short quizzes or tests to see if they can
explain things in a written form.
• To determine if a student is able to do SCIence,he or she must engage in
performance based assessments. In this context, the assessment is designed in a
way that subjects the student to work with familiar materials/equipment (but in a
fresh context) without which answers cannot be obtained.
• Informal investigation is an important part of 'hands-on' SCIence at the
elementary school level and beyond. Likewise the teacher's evaluation of such
activities should be informal, relying mostly on unobtrusive observations.
Observation of students can be in small groups, the whole class or even
individualized. The teacher should make brief and even cryptic remarks of the
observations made daily. A record of evaluative comments is made on index
cards designed for each student. This can serve as a record of progress and
attainment to be used in planning further instruction, shared with parents, used in
grading and perhaps even shared with the students. In a survey on the use of New
38
York State's comprehensive instructional management system SCIence
programme, teachers said that observational approach was useful for assessing
students' strengths and weaknesses (Haury & Rillero).
• A Science Activity Evaluation form can be used as an instrument to measure
activity-based science process skills. The form is derived from an analysis of
Benjamin Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational objectives. Student behaviours are
listed from low-level skills to high level skills as follows: draw, identify, list,
.-locate, observe, compare, describe, distmgUIsh)outline, -state, apply,-oUIld;-test,
analyze, classify, compute, graph, design, infer, interpret, conclude, explain, and
hypothesize. Instructions given guide the teacher to write a student's name by a
skill when they observe it in class. The science activity evaluation form can be
used to evaluate the work of students. It can also be used to identify activities or
curricular that only engages students in predominantly low-level skills.
Use of portfolios has also been cited as effective means of realizing comprehensive
assessment (prince George's County Public Schools, 2005, Haury and Rillero, 1994 and
Anonymous, 2011). A portfolio is a collection of documents that contain evidence of
I'
achievement. It exhibits the student's efforts, progress, and achievement which may
include evidence of skills in one or more areas of the curriculum. It therefore, provides a
holistic view of a student's performance. Evidence presented in the portfolio may be
worksheets, laboratory reports, raw data, first drafts, or diagrams of laboratory
equipment. They allow for the alignment of instruction and assessment and provide
39
opportunity for students to be more closely involved in reflecting upon and assessing
their own growth. They also offer a vehicle for increased communication among teachers
and between home and school. They observe that, although the implementation of
portfolios is labour-intensive and time, consuming the gains in terms of improved-
education seems to warrant their consideration as part of the assessment process.
Assessment can also be done by using suitably structured tasks and scoring rubrics. A
------------_. __ ._--
rubric establishes a set of explicit criteria by which a work will be judged. For example, a
rubric to assess the application of higher order thinking skills in a student portfolio might
include criteria for evidence of problem-solving, planning, and self evaluation in the
work (Chapman, 2003).
2.7 Summary
Science process skills are both mental and physical manipulative activities by means of
which a scientist arrives at meaningful conclusions. Some of the skills are classified as
basic since they do not combine other skills, while others are referred to as integrative
because they combine two or more skills.
,.
Findings from previous research clearly show that science process skills are a must if any
science education is to fulfill its mandate. Considering previous researches, it is clear that
the studies did not cover all process skills. It is also noted that most studies targeted
pupils in primary schools. This study will contribute to filling the gaps by addressing
40
more skills and also bridge the gap from primary to secondary school level. Since
evaluation influences emphasis placed in curriculum implementation, it is imperative that
as much as possible, it incorporates aspects testing student's competences in process
skills.
41
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
Thischapter outlines methods and procedures used in the study. They include the design
of the study, variables, study location, target population, sampling techniques and sample
size, research instruments, pilot study, data collection techniques, and administrative
whichwas; to establish how instructional practices affect students' acquisition of science
process skills in selected secondary schools in Kisii Central District.
3.1 Design of the Study
The study was a descriptive survey which determined the current status in respect to
instructional practices employed by teachers and the effect they had on students'
acquisition of science process skills. The descriptive design was chosen because it has
been regarded as being useful for investigating a variety of educational problems (Gay,. .
1981). These include studies in which questions such as; "Is there a relationship between
experience with multimedia computers and problem solving skills? Do teachers hold
favorable attitudes towards computers in schools? What have been the reactions of
administrators to technological innovations in teaching of the social sciences?What kinds
of activities that involve technology occur in six-grade classrooms and how frequently do
they occur?" (Spector, Merrill, Merrienboer, and Driscoll, 2001). According to Jafferies
(1999), the studies include; case studies, document analysis, correlational studies, job
42
analyses, and development studies. The commonality with these studies is that they are
all surveys which are a measure of status rather than prediction.
Both qualitative and quantitative data were used. Kombo and Tromp (2006) advance the
view that qualitative and quantitative approaches to research are complimentary. When
both are combined in a study, they maximize the strengths and minimize the limitations
of each other. Qualitative techniques involve use of real scenario or natural settings such
---- _. -------_._---
as classroom situations whereby descriptions and analysis of culture and behaviour of
humans and their groups as held in the view of respondents is focused. Kombo and
Tromp (2006), regard feelings and insights as important elements in qualitative research.
On quantitative techniques, Kombo and Tromp (2006) cite its importance in establishing
cause and effect relationships. They also advocate it as m?st appropriate when the
scenario is artificial and when frequencies are sought to explain meaning. The design of
the study is as illustrated in Figure 3.1. The design systematically outlines steps, stages
and procedures that were involved in the study.
43
Data collection procedures
• Qualitative and quantitative
Identification of strata
as per the educational divisions
~
Sampling:
• Schools - purposive
• Students - random
• Physics teachers - teaching Form Two
!
Research Instruments
SCIence teachers questronnaire -- - -•
• SPS test - students
• Observation scbedules
- Instructional practices
- Students competencies in SPS
• Document analysis guide
1I Data analysis and interpretation I••I Piloting I
I Writing of report I
Figure 3.1: The structure and process of the study
Source: Adapted from Cohen & Manion (1994).
44
3.2Variables
Therewere two main variables in the study - instructional strategies used by teachers and
students' acquisition of science process skills as obtained from their competence in the
scienceprocess skills test. The dependent variable was students' acquisition of science
process skills while instructional strategy used by the teacher was the main independent
variable.
- - - ---- -- ------- ---- ---------- -- ---- -- --
3.3 Location of the Study
The study was conducted in Kisii Central District, in Nyanza Province, which was
situated to the east of Lake Victoria in Western Kenya. The district fell to the south of
the equator at about loS and 35~. The location was appropriate for the study since the
area had adequate representation of schools in categories of; mixed (boarding/day), boys
(boarding/day), girls (boarding/day), urban, rural, district and provincial. These- -
categories carried different contexts, which could affect the design and implementation of
teaching/learning activities. It was, therefore, presumed that students' acquisition of
science process skills would either be enhanced or hampered depending on the contexts.
This consideration influenced sampling which was done in such a way to accommodate
I'
as many possibilities as possible. The researcher was reasonably familiar with the
district's infrastructure and was in a position to make informed logistical judgment which
was vital for cost-effectiveness.
45
3.4 Target Population
The study involved 410 form two students and 16 teachers. There were 119 public
secondary and 20 private secondary schools in Kisii Central District. Students'
enrolment in the schools was as presented Table 3.1.
- -c-, - Table 3.1: Students enrolment- Kisii Central District- 2007
FORMl FORM 2 FORM 3 FORM 4 TOTAL
BOYS 3945 .3609 4203 3361 15118
- -- ---~- - - -- . -- - -
GlRLS 3419 4155 3481 2756 l3811
TOTAL 7364 7764 7684 6117 28929
Source: District Education Office - Kisii Central
The study targeted 14 public secondary schools which represented about 10% of the 139
secondary schools in the district. One of these schools was used in the piloting phase. In
each school, teachers of physics in form two classes were selected. On the other hand, 30
.students were randomly selected from all forin two classes in a school with two or more
streams. For a school with a single stream, at most 30 students were randomly selected
I'
while in cases where there were lessthan 30 students in form two class, all were selected.
In total, 410 students out of the total 7764 students enrolled in form two and 16 teachers
of physics were enlisted as respondents in the study.
46
3.5 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size
3.5.1 Sampling Techniques
Divisional strata were used to purposively sample 10% of the secondary schools in the
district. Stratified and purposive sampling was used to ensure representation from every
division and type of schools in the district. It thus gave representation of schools
according to the categories of mixed (boarding/day), boys (boarding/day) and girls
(boarding/day) only. Form two students from the selected secondary schools in Kisii
Central District were targeted. Form two class was chosen because physics was
compulsory for every student at that level. It therefore adequately represented all students
and their competencies in science process skills at that level. It was also the level at
which students decided whether to drop the subject or continue doing it in forms three to
four.
The teacher of physics in a school or at least two teachers teaching physics in schools
with two or more streams were randomly sampled. This led to the participation of 16
teachers. Arising from the pilot study, it was apparent that the highest number of streams
which would be encountered in a school would be five. Two teachers represented at least
40% of teachers of physics in such schools and this was adequately representative.
3.5.2 Sample Size
Out of the 7764 form two students in Kisii Central schools, 410 were enlisted as
respondents in the study. Sampling of respondents in each selected school was done
47
during the first visits which were used for preparations. In each school, 30 form two
students were randomly selected for scoring in the SPS test. However in schools with
single stream and less than 30 students in form two, the number enrolled was permitted.
With one to two teachers of physics teaching the subject in a form two randomly selected,
a total of 16 teachers were involved. The following tables show specific numbers and
categories sampled.
Table 3.2: Sample size- teachers and students
--- -
MALE FEMALE TOTAL J
Teachers l3 3 16 *Students 225 185 410 I
Table 3.3: Schools in the sample
BOYS GIRLS MIXED TOTAL
Boarding Day Boarding Day Boarding Day Dayl
Boarding.
No. OF 2 ·0 2 0 1 7 2 14
SCHOOLS
3.6 Research Instruments
Five instruments which included; a questionnaire for science teachers, a science process
skills test for students, observation checklist for lesson study, observation checklist for
students' competencies in practical manipulative skills, and a document analysis guide
for the researcher to identify skills emphasized in syllabuses, schemes of work and
students' written work, were used in the study.
48
3.6.1 Questionnaire
The questionnaire (Appendix 1) had both open and closed-ended questions which were so
designed in order to prompt teachers to respond by giving information pertaining to
instructional practices regularly used both in the past and the present. Some of the
questions enabled teachers to project their feelings regarding adequacy or inadequacy of
equipment for practical work.
3.6.2 Science Process Skills Test
It has been shown that acquisition of Science Process Skills can be measured through
examinations. This is supported by Haury and Rillero, (1994) who observe that
laboratory practical examinations have been used to assess students' attainment of
Science Process Skills. Students' attainment in Science Process Skills can also be
determined by observing them as they carry out practical activities. This latter aspect was
catered for by the observation schedule which addressed competencies of students in
practical manipulative skills.
The science process skills test (Appendix II) had questions which involved theoretical
~
and practical exercises requiring application of the skills. To enable assessment of
individual's competencies, each student was required to manipulate apparatus and
equipment in order to answer questions. The test was designed in such a way that it
allowed students to give responses in terms of knowledge acquired and in addition carry
out activities which involve application of the skills.
49
Students' competency in the skills was determined by their performance in the tests. A
score of 50% in a skill was considered as average and therefore, the minimum
consideration for a pass or measure for competence- hence acquisition of the skill. This
score is reasonable since it is the ideal median measure which by approximation can be
considered equivalent to the whole. A performance of 50% means that an individual's
ability is average. Average ability is reasonable since such learners have greater
propensity to rise to better performance. It could be quite unfair to condemn such
performance as failure since in ordinary practice, such category of response qualifies for
award of benefit of doubt.
3.6.3 Observation Schedules
Observation schedules (Appendices, IV and V) and the document analysis guide
(Appendix III) were instruments for triangulation in the study. They were designed in
such a way that they provided data which ~rroborat%Devidence of emphasis of science
process' skills in the routine instructional practices by the teachers.
3.7 Pilot Study
The pilot study was carried out at Cardinal Otunga High School - Mosocho. This
exercise was used to determine the time needed to carry out the study in one school.
Second, it helped the researcher to ascertain the suitability of the instruments particularly
in respect to reliability, validity and vocabulary used.
50
From the study, it was considered useful to involve the subject teacher's judgement of the
students' competency on practical manipulative skills. This was necessary since the
subject teacher's judgement brought in experiences derived not just from a single
observation, but previous activities as well. This enhanced reliability of the findings. The
study further showed that as planned there was adequate time for administration of the
instruments.
3.7.1 Validity
Results from the pilot study were used to judge the items in the science process skills test
to establish their content validity. Prior to the pilot study, the researcher had availed
instruments to classmates and supervisors whose input assured of validity. In addition,
administrative difficulties ensuing from piloting informed the decision to have the
teachers remain with their questionnaire on the first day of the visit. This ensured that
they had adequate time to study and understand the items thus increasing their validity.
3.7.2 Reliability
For reliability, the split, half test method was used to determine the co-efficient. The
I' .
Spearman-Brown formula was then used to adjust this co-efficient to make it represent
the whole test. The result was an average reliability coefficient of 0.827. This was
reasonably high and therefore, the instrument was very much reliable. A co-efficient of
0.5 and above was used as the yardstick for passing the tools as reliable. Ingule and
Gatumu (1996) and Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) consider a coefficient of 0.6 to 0.8 to
51
be quite high. Further still, Borg and Gall (1989) consider a coefficient of 0.40 to be
statistically significant at 0.001 level. Therefore, a coefficient of 0.5 is adequate.
3.8 Data Collection Techniques
Quite critical in data collection is taking precaution to avoid the Hawthorne effect. The
Hawthorne effect is a reactive situation in which subjects respond artificially owing to
feeling that they are in some way receiving "special" attention. This was avoided through
+ --- ---------------------------------_._---_._-----------------------
explanation of purpose of the study and establishment of rapport with students and
teachers during the first day of visit in each school. Respondents were assured that the
observations or information collected would not be used for any other purpose other than
for the study. The decision not to collect data on the first day also helped in this regard.
Collection of data involved administration of the instruments as outlined in parts 3.8.1 to
3.8.5. The process realized data in both qualitative and quantitative forms. To prepare for
analysis, collected data were coded and organized as per the respective instruments used.
3,..8.1 Questionnaire
The questionnaire was given to the teachers teaching physics in form two. It was left
with them during the first visit after the researcher had explained the purpose of the
instruments and the role they would play during administration of the Science Process
skills test. By the second visit, teachers had completed the questionnaire. The researcher
collected and coded the filled questionnaire in readiness for analysis.
52
3.8.2 Science Process Skills Test
Teachers of physics were requested to assist in administration of the science process
skills test to the students in the sample. Preparations for this exercise were done during
the first visit. During the second visit, teachers helped in mobilization of the respondents
into laboratories/rooms and also availed materials and equipment which were required for
practical activities. The researcher was at to provide clarifications on questions whenever
any student required. The test was administered for two hours in the evening after normal
lessons.
3.8.3 Observation Schedule- Routine Instructional Practices
The observation instrument for routine instructional practices was filled by the researcher
after observing lessens, confirming with records and student written work, and assessing
of the school's capacity in respect of science equipments. Timetables were also analyzed
with a view to determining the number of times laboratories were available for use by
each form two class every week. This observation helped in confirming teachers'
responses' on the number of times students were exposed to practical activities in the
laboratory.
I'
3.8.4 Observation Schedule- Students' Competence In Practical
Manipulations
Students' competencies ill practical manipulations were assessed during practical
activities. Explanation of the purpose of observation schedules was made on the first visit
53
and there was no misconception ill observations during lessons. The observation
schedule guided on specific aspects of experimentation and manipulation of apparatus
that the researcher had to consider. These included abilities to; correctly execute
procedures, set up apparatus and manipulate variables, make correct observations and
record results, analyze data and make inferences.
3.8.5 Document Analysis
--------- ._-------_._- --_._- --- - -------- - --_. - -_ ...- ---
Three documents were analyzed during the study. They were; the official K1E syllabus
for form two, schemes of work, and students' notes and assignments. Arrangements were
made with the heads of subject/department and teachers who availed syllabuses (physics),
schemes of work and students notes for analysis. The document analysis checklist guided
the researcher in confirming emphasis given to Science Process Skills in the syllabus and
in the schemes of work prepared by teachers. Students' notes were used to verify practice
or non-practice of the Science Process Skills during lessons. This was done by checking
for evidence of experiments and analysis of data with conclusions based on the same.
Notes were also analyzed for evidence of contextual illustrations that would enhance
visualization by learners.
I'
3.9 Data Analysis
As indicated data were coded and information obtained was presented in the form of
percentages and numbers of form two students who passed or failed to display
competence in the Science Process Skills under study. Qualitative data were organized
54
and tabulated according to themes addressing instructional strategies and institutional
status. From these, frequencies of observations (practices) made were computed.
To establish the commonly used strategies, results obtained using; the questionnaire,
observation schedules and document analysis were used. Since some of the issues
addressed by these instruments were the same, information obtained in a particular school
regarding such aspects were merged by considering a particular response in the
questionnaire to be true if authenticated by results obtained on the same through
observation and document analysis. Percentages that reflected preferences and or
practices were calculated. A strategy was considered dominant if the percentage of
practice was at least 50%.
To tell whether gender differences affected acquisition of Science Process Skills, results
on competencies in the skills under study were segregated according to gender. For each
skill, a contingency table on performance per gender was completed and chi-square
values computed. From these, the significance of the differences in performance was
determined by comparing the chi-square value with the critical value, 3.841 at 0.05 level
of confidence.
I'
To establish the effect of teachers' planning strategies on students' acquisition of Science
Process Skills, schools were categorized into two according to whether teachers were
using planning tools or not. The competence of students in the skills was then analyzed
using the chi-square test.
55
As to whether the status of the school in terms of endowment with resources affects
students' acquisition of Science Process Skills, a chi-square test was used to analyze the
performance of students. In this, the schools were categorized into two groups- those with
adequate resources and those where the resources were inadequate.
3.10 Summary
The study was a survey which involved descriptions and or analysis of observations/data.
-------------- ---~---- -- ---------- -._---_._._------ -------- ----- --------
Fourteen (14) out of one hundred and thirty nine (139) schools in Kisii Central District
were sampled using stratified and purposive sampling techniques. Physics teachers for
form two classes were used. Random sampling techniques were used to identify students
who participated in the science process skills test.
A questionnaire, SPS test, observation schedules and document analysis checklists were
used for data collection. The data were analyzed by calculation of percentages, means
and standard deviations. These statistics were compared and the differences used to form
basis for conclusions regarding association of instructional practices to students'
acquisition of science process skills.
I'
56
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis and discussion of strategies used by teachers and the
resultant competencies gained by learners as evidenced by the skills they acquire. In
addition, it analyses the content given in the syllabus and gives the frequency of the skills
i~_ac~?~~'!.llceto the number oftopics in which direct/indirect mention is.made of.the
same.
The study focused on the effects of previously used instructional strategies, on students'
acquisition of science process skills. In this respect, schools were grouped into two on
the basis of differences observed in application of various instructional practices. These
differences were deduced from results stemming out of descriptive analysis of qualitative
data. For each group, scores obtained in the science process skills test were analyzed
through calculation of percentages, means and standard deviations. The results obtained
were compared by matching their differences to the instructional practices in the
respective group of schools.
The next step involved determination of whether gender had any effect on acquisition of
the skills. Contingency tables were used and a chi-square r.:l) analysis done. Lastly, the
effect of teachers' use or non-use of planning tools and effect of school's status in respect
57
to available resources were analyzed to see if they affected acquisition of process skills
by students.
An attempt has been made to link the emphasis given in the syllabus to the strategy the
teacher is likely to use and associate it to influencing students' competencies which is a
direct product of instructional and learning practices as observed or inferred in the study.
Padilla (1990) acknowledges several research findings which propound that teaching
increases level of skill performance. The laid out course of what is to be taught directly
determines which skills learners will be trained in. Padilla (1990) notes that students learn
the basic skills better if they are considered an important object of instruction and if
proven teaching methods are used. Emphasis in syllabus is also used to predict the
preferences of the teacher as regards the choice of activities for teaching and learning.
Learners were categorized as per gender and similarly, the same was done for schools by
considering availability and adequacy of resources. Schools were also classified
according to teachers' use or non-use of planning tools. Based on these differences or
categories, analysis was done using the chi-square (:l) test to establish the significance of
I'
the differences in the effect on students' acquisition of science process skills. The
formula used was:
Where 0 represents the actual outcomes and E represents the expected outcomes.
The main questions for which this analysis sought answers were as follows:
58
(i) How do instructional strategies (practices) employed by teachers affect
learners' competency in science process skills?
(ii) How is students' acquisition of science process skills related to their gender?
(iii) How does the teachers' use of planning tools affect learners' competencies in
science process skills?
(iv) How is the students' acquisition of SCIence process skills affected by
availability of resources in a school?
4.1 Reflectionof Process Skills in the Syllabus
The frequencies of direct or indirect mention of the skills under study were computed by
tallying the number of times the skills were directly or indirectly mentioned in each topic
in the secondary physics syllabus. Direct mention of a skill was when the syllabus
referred to the skill or guided the teacher to emphasize the same. On the other hand,
indirect mention of the skill was when the syllabus guided the user to organize
experiences or to undertake and or seek activities that gave the learner an opportunity to
practise the skill. The results obtained were as sliown in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.l.
59
Table 4.1: Frequency of the skills in the syllabus (Form 1-2)
Skill Frequency
Application 19
Experimenting 14
Hypothesizing 0
Interpreting 1
Planning 7
Questioning 0
j
20
15
10
: --t-'---'-----.-'---'--'--------.---'--"---''"'--r-'-n-'-r------,
.&' .~ d><:-C!> $C!> .~ ~~
.~(J?t<$ .#~~~ #0 f ~O'
.~ </<:' ~<f ,~ <i~of
-
Skill
Figure 4.1: Frequency o~the skills in the syllabus (Form 1-2)
60
The skill, application was more frequent compared to the others. This was a pointer that
the syllabus reasonably emphasized problem-solving and explanations which normally
require application of learnt facts- principles or laws. Problem solving enhances
development of one's capacity to discern and offer explanations of natural phenomena.
Experimenting is second in preference probably because of the general perception that
science is practical and that scientific practice must entail practical activities. It is also
frequent because of the traditional content approach in which laws and principles in
physics are taught through expositions that reveal facts to be verified through experiment.
To experiment requires planning and explaining through interpretation of observations or
trends.
Skills like hypothesizing and questioning have minimal emphasis in the syllabus. This
was an indicator that the curriculum was content based oriented. This could probably
encourage inductive approaches more than deductive approaches in teaching and learning
of scientific facts. . This is in the sense of wanting to prove stated facts through
experimental trials or mere exposure oflearners to content that is available in books. This
I'
observation projects the hypothetical view that learners molded along this approach will
be less developed in attitudes that promote curiosity and creative applications. Further
research can test this hypothesis.
The stated objectives in the secondary physics syllabus made it almost certain that for
most concepts or topics, a teacher would employ process-free strategies. There
61
instruction in this respect was typically content driven. Practical activities in classrooms
or laboratories were designed to verify principles or facts found in textbooks. This was
unlike in the process approach whereby learning is characterized by discovery through
experimental inquiry. The latter approach disposes one to visualize content from an
original perspective and therefore, places one on a better pedestal to predict results and
interpret findings. Such an individual may also be better predisposed to raise questions
based on observations and hence to be more inclined to carry out investigations. This
view is supported by Padilla (1990) who observes that basic skills can be taught and that
when learned, they are readily transferable to new situations. However, it is noted that the
teacher is not specifically tied to using any specific strategy. He or she makes choices
based on learners' needs.
4.2 Objective (i): To find out which methods or strategies used in teaching
are dominant in schools and their effect in students'
acquisition of Science Process skills.
The tallies obtained from responses to the teachers' questionnaire were merged with
tallies of responses obtained from the researcher's use of the document analysis checklist
(see appendix vii). Document analysis was carried out as a triangulation to confirm
responses obtained from the teachers' questionnaire. From the results, percentages which
in the affirmative respond to the statements as listed in Table 4.2 were calculated. Table
4.2 gives data which were used to confirm the kind of instructional strategies that were
regularly used by teachers.
62
Table 4.2: Instructional strategies
Item Practice
(%)
Teachers plan their work with schemes of work 78.6
Teachers prepare and use lesson plans 0
Students notes had adequate figures and graphical illustrations 78.6
Students written work address objectives 100
Practical demonstrations incorporated in lessons ( from schemes of work) 21.4
Demonstrations dominate activities in the laboratory 85.7
--Students-Play..actiw..roleS-during-demonstratioIlS-. --.---------_. -- - -.-.-.~ - _., - ~.----42.9-
Individualized experiments dominate activities in the laboratory 0
Students personal initiatives to carry out practical worle is permitted 78.6
Project work is carried out as part of learning activities 28.6
Teachers make use of resources/teaching aids to enhance delivery of 28.6
theoretical content
Students are left with assignments to do after classes 100
Assignments are marked 92.9
Students are taken for out-door practical activities 0
Contents in the exercise books for practical suggest adequate practical 0
activities
Students had separate practical work books with evidence of class 21.4
experiments
Class experiments done at least once in a week 14.3
School had a laboratory assistant 57.1
The laboratory was well managed 64.3
Teacher satisfactorily assist individual learners during practical work 7.1
Group experiments dominate activities in the lab 7.1
All students play active roles during group experiments 14.3
Instruction in class took the form of expositions in which theoretical work was dominant.
Although as per timetables students were given opportunity to participate in practical
63
activities at least once in a week, it was only in 14.3% of the schools that learners
engaged in practical activities. The study considered practical activities to be adequate if
learners were consistently engaged in the same at least during the one double session
usually plotted on the master timetable. Results showed that engagement of students in
practical activities during the single lessons and double lessons was minimal.
Demonstrations, in which hands-on activities were teacher-centred, were preferred to
class experiments. Padilla (1990) observes that we cannot expect learners to excel at
skills they have not experienced or been allowed to practise. Regarding mastery of skills,
Padilla (1990) further says that a few practice sessions are inadequate for mastery, and
that mastery is enhanced when students are given multiple opportunities to work with the
skills in different content areas and contexts. Padilla, Okey and Gerrard (1984) found that
more complex process skills cannot be learnt via a two-week unit in which content is
'typically' taught.
Teachers were not adequately prepared to effectively teach physics in form two
classrooms. None of them had a lesson plan and all prepared notes which were
spmmaries of content in available textbooks. These were used as the only guides during
the lessons. In this respect, it was evident that most of the content was theoretically
generated and if any experiments were done, it was to verify what in most cases would
have been given as truth in theoretical form. In addition, it was found that only 28.6% of
the teachers made use of teaching aids. As found by Kyalo (1984), teachers in most cases
64
use the chalkboard as the only teaching aid. This means that teachers' non-use of
important teaching aids had not changed in the previous two decades.
It was only in 3 out of the 14 schools (21%) where learners were given separate exercise
books for practical work. From students' work, it was also noted that in all schools
practical work was inadequate as evidenced by content which was not quantitatively
commensurate to the number of double lessons that had passed. Practical work was
considered inadequate if students' exercise books reflected less than SCOla of the expected
entries in a month/tennlyear. It was, therefore, expected that a month's entries could be at
least 4. Following similar observations, Mwangi (1986) suggests that such an omission
places a low premium on the teaching of practicals in the minds of the students.
Although 87.5% of the teachers regarded project work as useful in enhancing learning,
this strategy was rarely used. Out of the possible 9 projects suggested in the syllabus
only one project (pinhole camera) was done by students in 21.4% of the schools. The rest
of the schools did not implement project work and 12.5% of the teachers did not see
project work as being useful. This was probably due to the attitude that projects required
too much time than was available. In schools where there was some evidence of project
activity, only one item evidenced it- quite often it was the pinhole camera. This
suggested that the products might have been merely used as teaching aids.
65
In general, it was clear that involvement of learners in hands-on activities was limited.
This happened despite the one session (double lesson) allocation for practical activities in
each class every week. Demonstrations were the dominant activities in the laboratories
and in these only 42.9% of the sessions actively involved the participation of students.
Limited practice of the skills could be responsible for low acquisition of the same. Toili,
(1985) observes that inquiry method is a prerequisite for the acquisition of science
process skills. However, the mode of science teaching in Kenya has mainly been by drill
rather than by inquiry, which renders pupils to be less creative and devoid of any useful
scientific skills. During theoretical sessions, only 28.6% of the teachers could make effort
to use teaching aids. This probably made visualization difficult and hindered exercise and
development of the power of imagination. It therefore, limited learners' practice of the
skills and could lead to low acquisition of the same. This situation was not helped by the
absence of out-door learning sessions or trips.
Although all teachers reported that they gave students assignments after classes and
92.9% of them claimed to be marking the same, students written work in all' cases
suggested that these practices were rare. These findings implied that students lacked
adequate feedback and guidance which could otherwise have been useful in promotion of
responsibility in one's own learning.
66
Challenges observed among the form two students:
• Some respondents had deficiencies in language and could not therefore express
their thoughts vividly. This manifested in poor tense, misrepresentation of terms
and spelling mistakes. For example; the word 'thread' was variously written by
some students as 'tread', 'trend', or 'threat'. Also, the word 'attract' was in some
cases written as 'contract'. A drawing of a pipette was erroneously labelled as
burette.
------------------ -- ---- --------- -- ---- ---------- ---
• In planning for experiments there were weaknesses such as missing of parts of the
set, e.g. burette without clamps and stands to support it, or source of heat missing
where it was required.
• There were a few cases in which concepts were mixed up. This included, for
instance, use of knowledge of rectilinear propagation of light and plane mirrors in
measurement of the length of the zigzag.
• Lack of independent interpretations or views by learners. This manifested in the
quest to exactly quote the written word leading to misconceptions/irrelevancy as
noted in some responses- some students struggled to quote what they couldn't
recall from their notes.
• Most respondents were apparently not used to working with practical equipment
and appeared to lack confidence.
67
4.3 Students Acquisition of Science Process Skills
Results on students' acquisition of the skills were obtained by tallying the number who
passed or failed in the respective skills. Questions which addressed the respective skills
were as distributed in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Questions and respective skills
SKILL QUESTIONS MARKS TOTAL MARKS
FOR THE SKILL
Application 2a 2
------------ -- ---------
3 2
5 1 6
7 1
Experimenting Practical: 1b 1 4
Practiea1:2b 3
Hypothesizing la 1
2b 1 4
2c 2
Interpreting 8 4 4
Planning Ib 3
4 3
Practical: la- 3 12
Practical:2a 3
Questioning 6 4 4
Students' performance in the skills (from Appendix xi) was per the summary in Table
4.4. The values in Table 4.4 show the total number and percentages of students who
passed and those who failed in each of the skills under study.
68
Table 4.4: Students' performance
Total No. of Performance (No of students)SPS Pass FailStudents No % No %
Application 410 116 28.3 294 71.7
Experimenting 410 106 25.9 304 74.1
Hypothesizing 410 73 17.8 337 82.2
Interpreting 410 144 35.1 266 64.9
Planning 410 82 20 328 80
Questioning 410 37 9 373 91
From Table 4.4, results translate graphically as follows:
100
90
80-e 70
fl 60
c
IV 50s.g 40
Ql 30
Q.
20
10
o
1"""1
r-- -r- I'"""
J"'"'
1- --- 1---
h.--.--~I ~ l- t-- l-:- t-- 1---
I t J~--- 1--- f--- 1-- t-:- ef
Skill
Figure 4.2: Performance graph
[J Pass
III Fail
In general, form two students' competency in the skills under study was low. In every
skill, less than 50% of the students demonstrated competency in the skills. Compared to
others, competencies in questioning, hypothesizing and planning were much lower.
69
Questioning and hypothesizing were neither directly nor indirectly mentioned in the
syllabus. This might have contributed to neglecting of the skills and in effect denying
learners the opportunity to practise the skills.
4.4 Students' Competency in Practical Manipulative Skills
With the help of the subject teachers, the observation checklist on students' competency
on practical manipulative skills was completed. The frequencies of competency or
incompetence of students in each skill as realized in the schools were then used to
compute percentages given in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Students' competency in manipulation
NO. OF STUDENTS
SKILL Competent Incompetent
No % No %
(i) Ability to carry out procedures and or instructions 112 27.3 298 72.7
(ii) Ability to set up apparatus for experiment 117 28.5 293 71.5
(iii) Ability to manipulate variables 108 26.3 302 73.7
(iv) Make correct observations 356 &6.& 54 13.2
(v) Record data (tabulation) 121 29.5 289 70.5
(vi) Analyze data 143 34.9 267 65.1
(vii) Make conclusions from experimental results 132 32.2 278 67.8
Most form two students (72.7%) had difficulty carrying out procedures on their own. The
few who were able to carry out procedures or instructions during experiments were
apparently more confident than those who could not. The latter were apparently
inexperienced in setting up apparatus for experiment. This was probably due to
70
inadequate exposure and participation in practical activities which may also have led to
fear of manipulating unfamiliar equipments.
Although a good number of students (86.8%) were able to make correct observations,
interestingly only 28.5% of the sample were able to exercise control through
manipulation of variables during experiment. This implied that learners were not
adequately trained in practical manipulative skills. Similarly, only 29.5% of form two
-
students were able to tabulate data and use then in accordance to prescribed formats. In
--- ._----_._------------------. -
addition, most students were not able to satisfactorily analyze data in order to make
rational conclusions.
4.5 Objective (ii): To establish whether gender differences affect students'
acquisition of Science Process Skills.
The performance of both boys and girls in the skills was low. The number of students
who passed per gender was below 50010 as seen in Table 4.6. Table 4.6 is a per gender
tabulation of the observed and expected results in performance. The percentages in
performance were calculated from the observed results.
"
71
Table 4.6: Gender and Performance
Performance
Science Process Skill (SPS) Gender
Pass Fail
0 E % 0 E %
Application M 76 161 33.8 149 64 66.2
F 40 133 21.6 145 52 78.4
M 61 60 27.1 164 165 72.9
Experimenting
F 49 59 26.5 136 135 73.5
M 52 41 23.1 173 184 76.9
Hypothesizing
+---_._-------_._. - '-~- ... -.-- -2-2--- -23--- ..-1-1~9- --1-63- -1-5.2--1-88.,2---
M 97 79 43.1 128 146 56.9
Interpreting
F 47 65 25.4 138 120 74.6
M 55 45 24.4 170 180 75.6
Planning
F 27 37 14.6 158 148 85.4
M 30 23 13.3 195 202 86.7
Questioning
F 11 19 5.9 174 166 94.1
From, Table 4.6, the percentages of form two students who demonstrated competency in
each skill was very low. Compared to others in the case of boys, the percentage pass of
43.1% in the skill, interpreting wa~ highest and questioning with 13.3% was the least.
The converse was true as the failures were 86.7% and 56.9% in questioning and
interpreting respectively. The percentage pass for girls was lower than that of boys. Girls
were relatively better (26.5%) in experimenting than in interpreting where the percentage
pass was 25.4%. Just like boys,the least performance of girls was in questioning where
the pass rate was 5.go/o. The graphical illustration of the results in Table 4.6 appeared as
shown in Figure 4.3. In each, skill the bars for fail were longer and thus depicted low
acquisition of Science Process Skills.
72
100 l
90 ,...- 80 r~ I'"0- 70CI)
(,) 60 [;;Jc f~ 50 Fail~ 400't: 30CI)C1. 20 r l I10 r r rh I0
M I F Mj M I F I M I M I F I M IF!F F
Skill
Figure 4.3: Performance of Boys and Girls
In the skills; application, experimenting, hypothesizing, interpreting, planning and
questioning, the r values at 1 degree of freedom(see appendix ix) were' 389.124, 0.05,
8.072, 14.005, 6.157 and 6.127 respectively. At 0.05 level of confidence all these values
except for experimenting, are greater than the critical value, 3.841. This means that for
the skills; application, hypothesizing, interpreting, planning and questioning, there is a
significant difference between the performance of boys and girls. This could be explained
I'
by the view that this skills required more spatial imagination and reasoning which is less
in girls than boys (Infeld, 2010; Twoli, 1986). Spatial ability involves visualization of
objects in three dimensional space. It indicates a student's ability to think and reason
using Imagery.
73
...•.•..--_ ..._ ..----..----~---
., ...
Generally, the percentage of girls passing in each skill was lower than that of boys. This
is explained by the view that learning of physics requires a certain level of mathematical
and spatial abilities which Kimura (1992) notes as being limited in girls compared to
boys. It has further been observed that before adolescence, there is no difference in
spatial ability between boys and girls. Differences in spatial ability manifest after
adolescence (Twoli, 1986). This explains the observed differences since at form two most
girls are in their adolescent stage.
In experimenting, there is no significant difference between boys and girls. Though all of
them did not do well, the percentages of boys passing was comparably higher than that of
girls. This is supported by Ahmet and Yilmaz (2007) who observe that there is no
meaningful differen.ce between girls and boys regarding acquisition of science process
skills. In both sexes, they observe that science process skills of the adolescents are
affected by the quality of the socio-cultural environment they are brought up in. Those in
a fine socio-cultural level tend to perform better than those in a poor one. This supports
Jegede arid Okebukola, (1991) finding that students with a liigh level of belief in
traditional African cosmology, make significantly few correct observations compared to
~
those with low level of belief. In a study carried out in Thailand, Willis (1989) observed
that girls don't do poorly in sciences compared to boys owing to innate sex differences.
The study revealed that girls can reach the same level of achievement as boys provided
there are structural changes to counter prejudices and offer a supportive environment for
girls to do science.
74
4.6 Objective (iii): Establish the effect of teachers' planning strategies on
students' acquisition of Science Process Skills.
Learners' competencies in science process skills tended to be higher where teachers made
and utilized planning tools. This is demonstrated by the results in Table4.7, whereby the
difference was that in one group of schools (SP) teachers had prepared up-to-date
schemes of work while in the other group (SW) teachers had not made schemes of work
----.~.---- -----_ .. ----
for the current period or had adopted Sample schemes prepared by -publishers .. IIlfne--
latter case, content currently covered was not in harmony with the schemes.
75
Table 4.7: Effect of planning on performance
Performance
Science Process
Category Pass Fail
Skill
0 E % 0 E %
SP 79 42 52.7 71 108 47.3
Application
SW 37 74 14.2 223 186 85.8
SP 75 39 50 75 111 50
Experimenting
SW 31 67 11.9 229 193 88.1
SP 19 27 12.7 131 123 87.3
Hypothesizing
___ S~ _______54______ 46__ __2Q8_____.2Il6____..214 __ ---:19-2-__----- --------_." •.._--
SP 96 53 64 54 97 36
Interpreting
SW 48 91 18.5 212 169 81.5
SP 66 30 44 84 120 56
Planning
SW 16 52 6.2 244 208 93.8
SP 27 14 18 123 136 82
Questioning
SW 12 25 4.6 248 235 95.4
Key: SP denotes the number form two students in schools where teachers were
making schemes of work.
SW denotes the number of form two students in schools where teachers were
not making schemes of work.
The results in Table 4.7 show that performance of students is comparably higher in
schools where teachers planned their work and applied the tools in their teaching. In the
skills; application, experimenting, and interpreting the percentage of learners who passed
in the category where planning tools were used were; 52.7%, 50%, and 64% respectively.
This performance was satisfactory since 50% can reasonably be taken as the expected
76
average of success or successful cases. For the skills; hypothesizing, planning and
questioning the percentages of students who passed in the category where planning tools
were used were; 12.7%, 44%, and 18% respectively. Except in questioning where the
number of those who passed in the category where teachers had not made schemes of
work was higher than those who passed in the category where planning tools were used,
better performance was realized with planning and application of professional tools for
teaching.
r ~
.~
120
_ 100
~e...
80B
c:ca 60E•...9 40
III
Q. 20
0 r r r r r r r~ r
I s> Isw I Sp Isw I Sp Isw I s> Isw I Sp Isw I Sp Isw I
Skill
Figure 4.4: Planning and performance
Key: SP denotes the number of form two students in schools where teachers
were making schemes of work.
SW denotes the number of form two students in schools where teachers
were not making schemes of work.
77
)
In all skills except hypothesizing learners' competencies in science process skills were
comparably higher where teachers planned their work as evidenced in current schemes of
work. This is clearly evidenced by the bars in Figure 4.4 where for fail they are longer
where planning tools were not made. The t values for the skills were respectively
computed as given in appendix. At 0.05 level of significance and critical value 3.841, the
X2 values for the skills; application, experimenting, hypothesizing, interpreting, planning
and questioning were 71.131, 70.695, 4.58, 85.209 85.154 and 20.793 respectively.
- -- -------- ------------ ----- ----
-Since arrt ese-vall,Jes-are-greater:-than the critical value 3.841, it means that there is a
significant difference between the results obtained when teachers plan for instruction
compared to when there is lack of it. This can be explained by the fact that planning
increases effectiveness since the teacher focuses on the specific objectives.
In addition, planning sets the teacher on a stage whereby, through visualization he
experiences the content before hand and is therefore able to anticipate difficulties which
his/her learners are likely to face. He/she is, therefore, likely to develop better strategies
to enhance learning. On the contrary, lack of planning implies laxity and less
commitment and thus omission of vital steps and or details by the teacher - hence
I'
ineffective teaching. Kamau (2004) argues that failure to use schemes of work (useful
guides to the teacher), can lead to poor coverage of the syllabus and that it can cause poor
performance of students.
78
Non-use of planning tools suggests that teachers were less dedicated to their work and
this could lead to preparation of poor notes for their students and in most cases lack of
evaluation of their teaching. In such a situation teachers may not realize when it is
appropriate to modify or change strategy. This is what Mwangi (1986) observes when he
notes that there is over reliance on old notes and inadequate reference to textbooks. This
could be an indicator of inadequate evaluation which led to his other observation that, the
teaching of chemistry was restricted to teaching of the syllabus whereas there is so much
._--_ ..__._----------_.-._.- - - ._- .-..-- _._ .._.- -_.- ----- .. _-_._-- - -- - ..... - "'---'
chemistry in the environment.
The case obtaining in students ability to hypothesize was rather interesting. In schools
where teachers did not make schemes of work, the percentage of learners who displayed
competency in hypothesizing was greater than where teachers made schemes of work.
This could possibly be due to the view that; in a situation where a teacher plans and is
effective, there is increased dependency of students on the teacher for learning. On the
other hand, where there is no planning and less commitment by the teacher, learners may
be trying to 'adapt through their own initiatives to learn the c6ncepts. In such
circumstances, there is increased practice of visualization by the learner who in effect is
I'
more likely to develop ability to make intelligent guesses.
79
4.7 Objective (iv): To find out how the status of the school in respect to
availability of resources affects students' acquisition of
Science Process Skills.
Results obtained in the schools categorized according to adequacy/inadequacy of learning
resources were as in Table 4.8. It gives learners' competencies in science process skills in
relation to the resources available in their schools.
Table 4.8: Effect of resources on skill acguisition
Performance
Science Process
Category Pass Fail
Skill
0 E 0/0 0 E 0/0
Rp, 96 68 39.8 145 173 60.2
Application
~ 20 48 11.8 149 121 88.2
RA 73 62 30.3 168 -179 69.7
Experimenting
~ 33 44 19.5 136 125 80.5
RA 45 43 18.7 196 198 81.3
Hypothesizing RN 28 30 16.6 141 139 83.4
RA 121 85 50.2 120 156 49.8
Interpreting
~ 23 59 13.6 146 llO 86.4
RA , 74 48 30.7 167 193 69.3Planning
RN 8 34 4.7 161 l35 95.3
RA 39 23 16.2 202 218 83.8
Questioning RN 0 16 0 169 153 100
Key: RA represents the category where schools had adequate resources
~ represents the category of schools where resources were inadequate
Except for interpreting (see Table 4.8) where slightly more than 50% of learners in the
category of schools with adequate resources passed, in all other skills the number who
80
passed were less than 500/0irrespective of the category. This results when compared to
those presented in Table 4.7 and Figure 4.4, show that even if there are adequate
resources, unless teachers prepare and use professional tools for teaching, good results
won't be realized. Results in Table 4.8 give the trends appearing in Figure 4.5.
_ 100
';!.- 80
Category Pass %
Category Fail %
120
60
40
20 r I r (. r r I F ro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rRA1RN RAIRNIRAIRNIRAIRN RAIRNIRAIRN
1.;0
Skill
Figure 4.5: Resources and performance
The results obtaining in learners' acquisition of process skills show that in the category of
schools with adequate resources, the percentage of learners demonstrating competency in
process skills is higher than where resources for teaching and learning science are
inadequate. The X2 values in respect to the skills were respectively as given in appendix x.
At 0.05 level of significance and critical value 3.841, the i" values for the skills;
application, experimenting, hypothesizing, interpreting, planning and questioning were
38.873, 6.346, 0.275, 57.303, 42.475 and 29.977 respectively. All these values except for
hypothesizing are greater than the critical value 3.841. It means that there is a significant
81
difference between the results obtained in schools with adequate resources compared
with those with scarce resources. This agrees with Eshiwani's (1983) finding that lack
of facilities can be the cause of poor performance among primary and secondary school
pupils. Kyalo (1984) also observes that lack of adequate apparatus makes science
teaching and learning ineffective and uninteresting and that teaching becomes too
involving if one has to make apparatus. Toili (1985) observes that there is a link between
good performance and availability of resources. In particular learner's competency in the
skill, interpreting, where 85% passed, was better than in all others. This is probably due
to the fact that, where there are resources, learners have more opportunities to observe
practical setups and that the teacher of physics may readily organize opportunities for
such learners to practise the skills.
Textbooks which were available in most schools (85.7%) were relevant and were of
current editions. Distribution of books among learners was fair since 53.4% of the
respondents indicated that learners shared textbooks in the ratios ranging from 1:1 to 1:3.
A textbook-pupil ratio of at least 1:3 is considered reasonable since each learner can
satisfactorily access the textbook.
Skills that ranked lowest in students' competencies were questioning and hypothesizing.
For the questioning skill the percentage failure was 83.8% and 100% in adequately and
inadequately resourced schools respectively. Interestingly these skills, were the least
emphasized or mentioned in the syllabuses. This could have led to less emphasis or
82
neglect of the same by teachers as they. planned and implemented instructional
programmes. The X2 value for the skill hypothesizing shows that there is no significant
difference owing to whether the school is adequately equipped or not. This is because
hypothesizing involves visualization which is a spatial activity entailing construction and
manipulation of mental images which does not require working with practical equipment.
83
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
This chapter gives a summary of the study by briefly referring to the research problem,
research methodology, results and implications of the findings, recommendations and
suggestions for further research. It also gives conclusions which were based on the
-- ------------------ -------------- -------_.,----_.-_._._- --- -------. ----
analysis of results obtained during the study.
5.1 Summary
The study took cognizance of the fact that the greatest impediment to competence in
scientific practice and by extension application of the same for technological and
industrial innovations is low acquisition and incompetence in requisite skills. By carrying
out a survey of common strategies adopted by teachers for instruction, status of schools
in respect to basic instructional and learning needs, emphasis on the skills by the syllabus,
. .
and the performance of form two students in a science process skills test, relationships
,-
between strategies and competence of learners in the skills are developed. To find out
whether gender, availability of resources, and preparation through planning by teachers,
had any effect on the resultant competencies of learners in the skills, a chi-square analysis
was done. In each of the skills under study, more than 60% of the form two students
failed to meet the criterion for competency. They also lacked ability to manipulate
practical experimental setups. Except in the skills; application, hypothesizing, and
84
interpreting, the results showed that gender differences had no significant effect in
students' acquisition of science process skills. However, availability of teaching and
learning resources and preparation for teaching through planning significantly affected
outcomes in students' acquisition of the skills. Students showed more competencies
where schools had adequate resources and where teachers used planning tools than where
it was contrary. Tifi, Natale, and Lombardi (2006) observe that process skills are
fundamental to science since they allow everyone to conduct investigations and reach
- -------------- ---------- -------- -
conclusions. However, there is a ·serious-gap-ln-·this-area and thitit·can·oedeouced Dotli
in bringing process skills to the classrooms and in training teachers to do this.
Teachers increasingly favoured pedagogies which made less demand of time and
organization. Strategies which require more time and or intensive co-ordination of
activities, such as projects, groupwork, and practical activities in the laboratory were less
practiced. This made learning and acquisition of process skills difficult. The environment
the teacher organizes in or out of the classroom provides vital experiences necessary for
acquisition of knowledge and skills. The extent of exposure or interactions of the learner
w)th this environment and its quality, have a bearing on the skills he/she acquires.
5.2 Implicationof the Findings
Except in experimenting, gender had a significant effect on students' acquisition of all the
other skills focused on in the study. Willis (1989) argues that girls don't do poorly in
sciences compared to boys owing to innate sex differences, but rather because of
85
practices that don't give girls equivalent support and opportunity as boys. According to
Willis (1989), what we do in shaping policy may well make a difference in how girls will
fare in the sciences. This finding provides justification for possible review of policies at
national and institutional levels so as to provide essential support and motivation for girls
to excel in sciences.
Lack of direct emphasis on specific science process skills in the syllabus may somewhat
-- ~----- ---- -- -- ----
be leading teachers to omit this critical aspect m science'lnstruction~ fithe same-Vetn,
owing to lack of guidance, other personnel such as those charged with supervision of
teachers may also not be taking cognizance of the necessity of this component in science
education. The implication of this is that there is need for action geared to bridging such
gaps in teaching physics and by extension science in general.
5.3 Conclusions
Boys performed better than girls in the form two Science Process Skills test. In this
respect, gender appears to influence students' acquisition of the skills: application,
hypothesizing, planning, interpreting, and questioning. However in skill, experimenting
gender does not affect performance.
There is a significant effect of a teacher's use of planning tools on students' acquisition
of science process skills. Students under the tutelage of a teacher who prepares and
makes use of planning or instructional tools, tend to be more competent in science
process skills than those under one who doesn't use planning tools. As evidenced in the
86
findings discussed in Chapter 4, the strategies a teacher develops and the attendant
practices in teaching/learning situations, greatly influence learners' acquisition of skills
that are basic for effective practice in science. This is why students' acquisition of
science process skills is higher when teachers prepare and make use of teaching tools
than when they don't.
Syllabuses. provide guidelines on content to be covered and even the scope of it. Since
most of the skills are not directly mentioned in the syllabus, practising the skills is
unconsciously omitted. This is more so given that in most cases teachers tend to limit
themselves to the syllabus and the textbook when preparing content for learners. As seen
in the findings, lack of mention of some skills such as hypothesizing and questioning as
competencies expected in students, leads to omission of related activities which could
otherwise enhance acquisition of such skills. Padilla (1990) also observes that students
can be taught how to formulate hypotheses and that this ability is retained over time.
Students in schools with adequate facilities perform comparatively better than their
counterparts in poorly equipped schools. The presence of equipment motivates and
offers challenges even to an unwilling teacher to make use of them. This owes to
increased expectation and anxiety in the learners and also the teacher's own expectation
for utilization of the resources.
87
5.3 Recommendations
(i) Syllabuses and teachers' handbooks should lay more emphasis by mentioning all
the skills and guide on practice and or use of strategies that embrace activities
that involve learners in processes leading to discovery as a means of
generation of content. This will be in conformity with global trends which
Bluhm (1979) notes as having emphasized on Science Process Skills at every
level of education from Elementary School to the University. Coil et al.,
--------
(2010) also recommend a wider implementation· o-r-cQurses- that- teach
undergraduates science process skills early in their studies with the goals of
improving student success and retention in the sciences and enhancing general
science literacy. Tift A, Natale N, and Lombardi (2006) observe that process
skills tend to last longer than learned content and that the thinking patterns so
developed can be readily transferred to new situations. In addition they say
that method-based hands-on investigative activities should be a significant
component of science teaching, at the same level as hands-on content-based
activities, rather than both being superficially covered. Therefore, in cases
where resources are inadequate, teachers should be advised to strike a balance
between process and content driven strategies. To attain this goal, teachers'
capacity to implement process-driven strategies should be built through in-
service training programmes.
88
(ii) Policies at national and institutional level should be reviewed to ensure equity
and equality in providing educational opportunities and to take affirmative
action that will support and motivate girls to excel in sciences.
(iii) An evaluation/assessment criteria that includes cumulative gathering of
students scores based on their achievements and competencies in process
skills, should be introduced. It may be desirable to use this procedure to
.identify individual student's specialties and or talents. Nurturing these and
directing their use in innovative practices and productive activities, will
certainly make contributions in solving specific problems and for economic
development. In a study carried out in Nigeria, Akinbobola and Afolabi
(2010) recommend that examining bodies should integrate testing of students'
abilities in science process skills in practical examinations.
(iv) There is need to identify the dynamic needs and problems in society should be
done and results thereof disseminated to learning institutions so that learners
can participate in the search for solutions. This will increase their opportunity
in practising and perfection of the skills. In this regard, it may be desirable'to
match subjects with problems whose solutions will largely derive from
application of knowledge and skills pertaining to the subject. This problem,
solving approach will certainly lead to inventions and productions for local
consumption and export. This may lead to realization of national goals such
as industrialization as envisaged in the "Kenya Vision 2030."
89
(v) It may be necessary to build the capacity of all individuals who are tasked for
supervision and assessment of teachers and their work. This will be aimed at
enhancing their knowledge and understanding of strategies that embrace
process approach as a means to deriving or discovery of scientific knowledge.
Referring to findings from research in the developed world, Klaara and Miia
(2006) reports that students' skills related to inquiry are poor and that teachers
-do not adequately teach inquiry skills without the involvement of special
interventions. A special instrument (checklist) for assessing effectiveness in
teaching/learning of science will need to be produced.
(vi) To enhance acquisition of process skills, it is desirable to make situations in
classrooms process friendly. This may require redesigning of classrooms and
their furnishings to enhance activities which will lead to development of a
variety of skills. In addition, the need to introduce Information
Communication Technology (lCT) as envisaged in Vision 2030 should be
taken into account. A study therefore, needs to be carried out to give results
.
which will shape the direction and give guidance for design of new
classrooms or renovations to modernize existing ones.
5.5 Suggestionsfor Further Research
(i) An investigation to find out the extent of the Kenyan teacher's awareness of
science process skills and use of process-based strategies as means to developing
learners' understanding of laws and principles in science should be done. This
90
•will be important to research on since as observed by Strawitz (1993), teacher
process skill proficiency is positively related to students' achievement and to the
development of formal reasoning. It has also been shown (Strawitz, 1993) that
pre-service elementary teachers as well as students at all levels of education are
deficient in science process skills.
(ii) There is need to carry out an investigation to identify factors that impede attitude
and motivation of learners and teachers in Kenyan schools to carry out activities
that enhance acquisition of process skills.
(iii) The extent to which implementation of the curriculum in the Kenyan context,
raises awareness and expectations of learners as to the specific skills they need to
acquire should be established.
(iv) There is need to carry out an assessment of the impact of the campaigns for
equality and equity in gender, in learning and acquisition of scientific skills by
girls in Kenya. This will in a way establish their impact on the girl child's
learning of science.
(v) A study to determine how science courses offered in Kenyan teacher training
institutions affect strategies used in teachingllearning and students' acquisition of
science process skills should be done.
91
REFERENCES
Ahmet, R.H. & Yilmaz, S. (2007). The effects of the characteristics of
adolescence on the Science Process Skill of the child. Journal of Applied
Sciences. 1,23.
Retrieved from: http://www.google.co.ke/#W=en&source=hp&q
Aitkenhead, AM. & Slack, J.M. (1985). Issues in cognitive modeling,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, New Jersey.
---_._---------_ .._-- ---- -- -----.-------- - --------- -._------ - - - -_. - -----
Akinbobola, AO. & Afolabi, F. (2010). Analysis of science process skills in
West African senior secondary school certificate physics practical
examinations in Nigeria. In American- Eurasian Journal of Scientific
Research, 5(4),234- 240. Retrieved from: http://idosi.org/aejsr/5(4)10/3.pdf
Alego, O. (1987). A study of junior secondary school pupils competence in
Some selected processes of science. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Kenyatta
University.
American Association for the Advancement of Science, (2011). Science process
skills. Retrieved from: http://www.scribd.comldoC/5567816/science-process-skills .
Ango, M.L. (2002). Mastery of Science Process Skills and their effective use in
the teaching of Science: An Educology of Science education in the Nigerian
Context. International Journal of Educology, 2002, 16 (1).
Retrieved from: http://www.era-usa.netlimages/Oll-IJE-2002 V16
Atkinson, A & Sinuff, H., (1985). Complete Certificate Physics, Nairobi: Longman,
Kenya Ltd.
92
Aronson, D. T. (2011). Contributions of Gagne and Briggs to a Prescriptive
Model of Instruction. Retrieved from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/461247611Gagne
Ash, D. (2011). The Process Skills of Inquiry. Courtesy of Jerry Pine, Caltech
Precollege Initiative.
Retrieved from: http://www.nsfgov/pubS/2000/nsf99148/ch7.htm
Beveridge, W.lB., (1950). The art of scientific investigation. Heinemann
Educational Books Ltd., London.
Biological Sciences curriculum study (1968). Boston: Houghton Mottlin Company.
Bloom, B. (1971). Handbook of formative and Summative Evaluation of
students learning, New York: Mc Graw - Hill Book Co.
Bluhn, W. (1979). The effect of science process skill instruction on pre-service
Elementary teachers' knowledge of ability to use and ability to sequence
science process skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 16
( 2), 427-432.
Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction. New York
Longman.
Brown, H. & Adam, H. (201 I). What are Science Process Skills? Wise
Greek, Conjecture Corporation. Retrieved from: http://www.wisegreek.com
Campbell, R. (1979). A Comparative Study of the effectiveness of process skill
instruction on reading comprehension of pre-service and in-service
elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16
(2), 123-128.
93
Campbell, RA. (2003). Preparing the next generation of scientists- The social
process of managing students. Social Studies of Science. 33(6), 897-927.
Retrieved from: http://sss.sagepub.com/contentJ33/6/897.short
Carin, A.A.,& Sund, RB. (1980). Teaching Science through Discovery. Columbus:
Merrill Publishing Company:
Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement
rates. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 8 (13).
Retrieved from: http://pareonline.netJgetvn.asp?v=8&n= 13
Chung, c.Y. & Mao, S.L. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students'
outcomes with inquiry - group versus traditional instruction. The
Journal of Education Research, 92 (Journal Article excerpt).
Retrieved from: http://www.questia.com/googlescholar.qst
Cohen, L. & Manion, L (1994). Research methods in education. London:
RoutLedge.
Coil, D., Wenderoth, M.P., Cunningham, M., & Dirks, C., (2010). Teaching the Process
of Science: Faculty Perceptions and an Effective Methodology. CBE Life
I' Science Education, Vol 9 (4), Winter 2010.
Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2995770
Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and common sense •.New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Embeywa, H.E. (1990). Students construction and assessment of scientific
explanation. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of London.
94
Eshiwani, G.S. (1983). Factors influencing performance among primary and
Secondary school pupils in western province of Kenya. Nairobi: Bureau of
Educational Research, Kenyatta University.
Fensham, P.l. (2004). Increasing the Relevance of Science and Technology
Education for All Students in the 21st Century. Science Education
International, 15 (1).
From: http://www.icaseonline.net/sei/15-0 1-2004/15-0 1-2004-7 26.pdf
. .
Fogle, T.A (1985). Student - directed biology lab investigations. Journal of
College Science Teaching, XIV.
Gagne, R. M. (1977). The Conditions of Leaming. New York: Holt Rinehart and
Winston.
Gagne; R.M. (1985). The Conditions of Leaming and Theory of Instruction. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gay, L.R. (1981). Educational research: Competencies for Analysis and
Application Ohio: Charles E, Merrill Publishing Company, 'Columbus,
43216.
Gega, P.c. (1970). Science in elementary education, New York: John Willey and Sons
Inc.
Ginn, W.Y (2005 ). A short description of Piaget's theory on Intellectual
Development. The S& KMethod Retrieved from: http://www.sk.com.br/sk-
piage.html
95
Halim, L (2009). The level of scientific culture among Malaysian and
Japanese students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1),
Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.comlscience?ob=ArticleURL&
udi=B9853
Hans, O.A & Koutnik G.P., (1972). Toward more effective Science instruction
in Secondary education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Haury, D.L. & Rillero, P. (1994). Perspectives of Hands-on Science Teaching.
North Regional Educational Laboratory (teaming poiniAssociates).
Retrieved from: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/contentlcntareaslscience/eric
Heath AT, (1981). Scientific explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hurd, P. D. (1970). New Curriculum Perspectives for Junior High School
Science. California: Wardsworth Publishing Co. Inc.
Infeld, J. (2010). The Differences Between Boys and Girls. Anatomy and
Physiology. @ suite 101. Retrieved from: http://www.suite101.comlcontentlthe-
differences-between-boys-and-gii-Is-a226314
Ingule, F. & Gatumu, H (1996). Essentials of educational Statistics. East
I"
African Educational Publishers, Nairobi, Kenya.
Iraki, W.N., (1994). Students and teachers expectations of practical work in
physics- A study carried in Laikipia and Nyandarua Districts of Kenya.
Unpublished M.Ed. thesis Kenyatta University.
Jafferies, S.C. (1999). Class notes- Descriptive Research. Retrieved from:
http://www.cwu.edu/-jafferies/PEHL557/pehI557 descripthtml
96
Jegede, O.J. &Okebukola, P.A {1991} The relationship between African traditional
cosmology and acquisition of a science process skilL International Journal of
Science education, 13 (1), 37-47. Retrieved from: http://www.informaworld.coml
smpp/content-ndb=all-content
Jevons, F.R (1969). The Teaching of Science: Education, Science and Society.
George Allen and Unwin, London.
Kamau, D .M.(2004). A study of the factors responsible for poor performance in
Chemistry among secondary school siiiilenis·lh Marciifita district.
Unpublished M.Ed. Research Project, Kenyatta University.
Kimura, D. (1992). Sex Differences in the Brain. Genesis of Eden Diversity
Encyclopedia. Scientific American Sept 1992.
Retrieved from: http://www.dhushara.comlbook/sociolkimuralkimura.htm
Klaara, K & Miia, R (2006). Estonian Teachers' Readiness to Promote inquiry Skills
among Students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, No. 1(9) Retrieved from:
http://www.ibse.webinfo.lt!jbse
Kohler, W. (2010). Theories of learning educational psychology- Insight
I'
Learning Theory. Retrieved from: http://www.lifecircles.ic.com/learning
Theories/gestalt!kohler.html
Kombo, KD. & Tromp, AL. D. (2006) Proposal and thesis writing - An
Introduction.Paulines Publications Africa.
Kuslan, LJ. & Stone, All. (1972). Teaching Children Science. Wadsworth
Publishing Company, California.
97
I
Kyalo, F.K. (1984). A study of the factors that affect science teaching and
learning in some primary schools in Changwithya location, in Kitui
District. Unpublished M.Ed Project, University of Nairobi.
Kyle, W.C. Penick, J.E., & Shyrnansky, JA (1979). Assessing and analyzing the
performance of students in college science laboratories. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching Vol. 16.
Lee, C.E. (1967). New developments in science teaching; Wadsworth.Belmont:
Publishing Co. California.
Leonard, H.W. (1989). Using Inquiry Laboratory Strategies in College Science
Courses. Research Matters - to the Science Teacher No. 8904.
Retrieved from: http://www.narst.org/publications/research/inquiry.cfm
Metzenberg, S. (2000). Reading: The Most Important Science Process Skill.
Education News, Saturday, 16th June 2000.
Retrieved from: http://www.k12standards.org
Miller, A I. (1986). Imagery in Scientific thoughts. London: The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass: London, England.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2002). Secondary education
syllabus volume two. Nairobi: Kenya Institute of Education.
Ministry of Planning and National Development (Kenya), (2002).
National Development Plan 2002: Effective Managementfor sustainable
economic growth and poverty reduction. Nairobi: Government Printer.
98
Mugenda, O.M & Mugenda, AG. (2003). Research methods: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches. African Centre for Technology Studies Press,
Nairobi.
Mwangi, 1.T. (1986). A study of the quality of facilities that exist for the teaching
of '0 'Level chemistry in some selected secondary schools in Mbiri
constituency of Muranga District. Unpublished M.Ed. Research Project,
Kenyatta University.
Nagel E, (1961). The Structure of Science: Problems in the logic of scientific
Explanation, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
National Council of Education Research and Training. (2006). Position Paper: Teaching
of science. New Delhi 110016. Retrieved from:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content-ndb=all-content
Osodo, G.O., (1988). A study of the relationship between the acquisition of
science process skills and problem solving ability among primary school
pupils in 'urban and rural setting in Kenya. Unpublished Research project,
Kenyatta University.
/'
Ostlund, K (1998). Relationship between reading and SPS. ElSE. 2(4), 1-8.
Retrieved from: htt,p://ejse.southwestern.edu/original%20sitelmanuscript/articie.
Padilla, M.J., Okey, J.,& Dillashaw, F.G. (1983). The Relationship between
Science Process Skills and Formal thinking abilities. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 20, 239-246.
Padilla J., Okey & ~ad (l984). The effects of instruction on integrated
99
I
science process skill achievement. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching. 21(3),277.
Padilla, J.M. (1990). The Science Process Skills. Research Matters- To the
Science Teacher, No. 9004, MarchI, 1990. Retrieved from:
http://www.narst.org/publicationl researchlskill.cfm
Parkinson, J. (1994). The effective Teaching of Secondary Science. London: Longman
Piaget,1. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescent to adulthood.
Human Development, 15.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. New York: Grossman Publishers.
Prince George's County Public Schools, (2005), Portfolio Assessment. Retrieved from:
http://www.pgcps.orgl--elc/portfolio.html
( ), (2011). Portfolio Assessment.
Retrieved from: http://www.nclrc.orglportfolio/2-2.html
Republic of Kenya, (2007). Kenya Vision 2030- The Popular Version.
Retrieved from: http://www.ku.ac.ke/"lIDagesistoriesidocs/Kenya
Richard, M.B. (1969). Inquiry objective in the teaching of Biology. MCREL
Position Paper, 1. Kansas City: Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory
(MCREL).
Richey, R. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. London:
Kogan Page.
Riley & Meyer, W. (1972) Science Process skills and comprehension.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 16 No.2. P. 123.
100
Rillero, P. (1994). Doing Science with your children. ERIC/CSMEE Digest.
Columbus OH.
Rinehart &Winston, (2001). Professional preferences for teachers.
Retrieved from: http://go.hrw.comlresourceslgo sc/genlHSTPR009.PDF
Romizowski, A (1970). A system approach to education and training. London: Kogan
Page.
Ross, J.T. (1995). Integrated Information Skills: Does it make a difference?
SLA4R. 23 (2), Winter. Retrieved from: http://oldweb.ala.org/aasl
Roth, W. & Roychoudhury, A (1983). The development of science process
Skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
30(2), 127- 152. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.comldoil10.1002/tea
Rowntree, D. (1974). Educational Technology in Curriculum Development; London
Harper and Row Publishers.
Ryan, A (2008). What is a systems Approach? Adaptation and Self- Organizing Systems
(nlin.AO). Retrieved from: http://arvix. orglPS cache/ariv/pd£'0809.1698vl.pdf
Sis, (2006). Scientists at play. Science in school, issue 1.,.
Retrieved from: http://www.scienceinschool.org/2006/issue1/play
Slide Share Inc. (2011). Science Process Skills- Presentation Transcript. Retrieved from:
http://www.slideshare.net/benjie1472/science-process-skills-1888384
Solomon, J. (1980). Teaching Children in the Laboratory. London: Croom Helm.
Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D., Merrienboer, lV., & Driscoll, M.P., (2001). The
Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology.
101
The Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1800
North StoneLake Drive, Suite 2, Blomington. Retrieved from:
http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/41/41-01.html
Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., & Donovan, S.S., (1999). Effects of Small-Group
Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. 69(1),21-51.
Retrieved from: http://rer.sagepub.com/content/69/1121.short
Stewart, B.Y., (1988). The surprise element ofa student designed laboratory
experiment. Journal of college science teaching, 17.
Stigler, J.W. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press, 1230
Avenue of the Americas.
Strawitz, B.M. (1993). Effects of Review on Science Process Skill Acquisition.
Journal of Science Teacher Education. 4(2), 54-57.
Retrieved from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/40871172v6177241/
Strawitz, B.M. (20b9). The effects of Review on Science Process Skill
Acquisition, Meta Press. Retrieved from: http://resources.metapress.comlpdf-
I'
review.axd?code
Tifi, A., Natale, N., & Lombardi, A. (2006). Scientists at play- Teaching Science
Process Skills. Retrieved from: http://www.scienceinschool.org/2006/issue1/play
Tisher, R.P., Power, CN. & Endean, L. (1972). Fundamental issues in science education.
Australia: John Wiley and Sons Australia Pty Ltd.
Toili, W.B.W. (1985). A Study of science process skill acquisition through the
102
Science curriculum by primary school children in Bungoma District.
Unpublished M.Ed Research Project, Kenyatta University.
Twoli, N. W. (1986). Sex differences in science achievement among secondary
school students in Kenya. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Flinders University
of South Australia.
Victor, E. (1970). Science for the Elementary School. London: MacMillan Ltd
Wasanga, P.M. (2006). The impact ofSMASSE project and other initiatives on
The performance in mathematics and science subjects at KCSE Level.
A paper presented during SMASSE symposium held at Silver Springs
Hotel, Nairobi on 13thand 14th June 2006.
Wellington, C &Wellington, J. (1960). Teachingfor critical thinking with
emphasis on secondary education. New York: Me Graw - Hill Book Company,
Inc.
Williams, J.P., (1973). Learning to read: A review of theories and models.
Reading Research quarterly, 8, 121-146.
Willis, S. (1989). Gender and The Construction of Privilege. Glasgow: Parker
~
Publishing.
Wong S.T.T., (2001). Group Work in Science learning- international scenarios
and implications for teaching and learning in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific
Forum on Science Learning and Teaching. 2(2), Article 9.
Woolnough, B. & Alsopp, T. (1985). Practical work in science; London: Cambridge
103
University Press.
Yager, R.E. & McCormarck, AT (1989) Assessing teaching/learning
successes in multiple domains of science and science education.
Science Education, 3(1), 45-58.
Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.comldoi/1O.1002/sce
104
Appendix I: Teachers Questionnaire
SECTION I (personal and General Information)
Questions in this questionnaire aim to obtain information about routine instructional
practices in your school. Please answer all questions honestly. All the information given
will be strictly confidential and will be used for the purposes of this study only. Your
cooperation is highly appreciated.
1. Female DGender: Male D
2. Type of the school
Boys: Day U
Boarding D
Professional qualifications
Girls: Day U Mixed:
BoardingD
Day D
BoardingD
3.
4.
B. Ed.(Sc.) D
Subjects taught
Maths D
Others D
BSC D Diploma D
Chemistry D Biology D S.I. D
(specify) .
5. Working experience in years .
6. Teaching subjects , .
105
SECTION Il (Information related to teaching and learning)
1. How many laboratories are there in the school?
2. How many times in a week is each class programmed to use the laboratory for
your subject?
3. How are experiments carried out in your class (es)? Tick only as applicable.
(a) Demonstration by the teacher 0
(b) Demonstration by the students 0
(c) Student performs them in groups. 0
(d) Students perform them individually 0
4. Experiments in each class are carried out at least. Tick one
(a) Once per week 0
(b) Once per fortnight 0
(c) Once per term 0
(d) Not at all 0
5. How are experiments prepared in your classes? Tick one.
I' D I design experiments and give students procedures to follow.
D
D
Students read and follow experimental procedures from a text book.
Students design and carry out experiments using apparatus provided
to them.
If so how often does this happen? .
106
6. Do find project work useful in teaching your subject? .
If yes
(i) How many projects do they on average do in a
(ii) Which of the projects suggested in the syllabus have they
done? .
(iii) Do they work individually or in groups for the projects?
(iv) Do the students make written reports of the project work?
If no, why not?
(v) Briefly explain your role during project work .
7. Do you give student assignments that require extensive reading of a
I'
variety of literature?
If yes how often?
107
Do you mark such assignments?
If not, why?
8. Do you use groupwork or co-operative learning strategies
during instruction?
If yes
(i) How many students on average make a group?
(ii) State any special considerations that according to your experience
necessitate this straiegy .
(ii) Do you allow students to report or give feedback from their
groups .
If not, why?
I' ••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••.•.••••••••••.••••
(iv) Does the time available reasonably permit the activity described in
part (iii)?
108
9. (a) In your honest opinion as informed by experience, are instruction
materials and equipment for teaching and learning Physics adequate in the
school? .
Explain .
(b) (i) On average how many students shore a physics text
book? .
(ii) Are the text books for the subject relevant in terms of syllabus content
and edition of text? .
(iii) How many students share experimental activities in
(I) Class? .
(II) The laboratory? .
109
Appendix II: Form 2 Student's Science Process Skills Test
The following questions aim to determine your competency in science process skills.
Please answer all of them to the best of your ability. Results that will be obtained will
only be used for the purposes of this study only. Your cooperation will be highly
appreciated.
Section A: Theory
1. Students working in ten groups tried to determine how the temperature of
glycerine which they were heating changed with time. After some time, the
thermometers of seven groups broke their bulbs and poured out the mercury. The
other three remained and continued to work well.
(Hl)(a) State the possible cause of this breakage.
(Pj) (b)Describe the steps you would follow to confirm your answer in part (a).
2. (a) Students in a physics laboratory set up the following circuit.
111-----
1 Switch
Bulb
The bulb lit when the circuit was completed. State what would happen if:
(Al) (i)
(A2) (ii)
(b) (H2)
The resistor R was replaced by an unknown conductor.
Another resistor R' was connected parallel to the one in the circuit.
Two magnets are arranged as follows:-
110
N x N
State what would happen if the south pole of another magnet is introduced at X which is
at equal distance from the two north poles.
(c) Light was passed through a glass window to a system which was covered
as illustrated in the diagram below:
ystem
(H3) State what could be the case if:
(i) The ray emerged bent towards the base of the system.
(ii) The ray emerged in the same straight path.
3. (A3) To measure the diameter of a wire (about 5.73mm) John and Jane used
vernier calipers and a micrometer screw gauge respectively. Who is likely to get
the correct value? Explain your answer.
4. (P2) Describe a simple experiment you would use to determine the density of
water.
5. (Aa) A science student working in a technology lab designed the following
setup for riveting pieces together.
111
A B
Suggest some modification that would increase the force at C.
6. Raise questions or objections to the following statements/situations.
contact and the interlocking between their surfaces.
(Q2) (b) The density of water is maximum at 4°c because there is a change in its
mass as it expands from O°cto 4°c.
(Q3) (c) Pressure in fluids (liquids and gases) and solids is solely due to weight.
(Q4) (d) Heat could be conducted faster if a conductor lying vertically is heated
from the top.
7. (A5) You have already learnt that expression
P = E where P = Pressure
A F = Force exerted
A = Area of surface on which force, F is exerted.
Use this relation to explain why a sharp knife cuts sukuma wiki better than
a blunt one.
8. Give as much information as may possibly be derived from the following
situations.
112
(II) (a)
25 20 15 10 5 0
Quantity
A (units)
Quantity 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
B (units)
(h) (b) Mixing three liquids in a beaker and leaving the mixture to settle
gives the following result.
-t--- liquid C
Beaker
liquid A
~-- liquidB
(h) (c)
metal x~/f(
metaly
Before heating
x
After heating
(L:) (d) When two terminals in an electric circuit are brought very close
together but not touching as in the diagram below. Sparks fly across.
113
___ ~RO~ 0----
Section B: Practical
1. (P3) (a) Describe a process that can be used to determine the length of the zig-
zag given below.
A"IV'vB
(EI)(b) Following the procedure you have described determine the distance
marked from A to B.
Describe a simple experiment that you would use to determine the
volume of a drop of water made from either a burette or a teat.
pipette.
Carry out the procedure you have described in (a) above and give
the volume of a drop of water.
114
Appendixm
Researcher's Document Analysis Checklist
Type of school. .
Total enrolment .
Number of students per class .
Content in syllabuses guide teachers on the topics and the scope of coverage they have to
consider in their schemes. Hence what comes out in schemes of work and notes taken by
students can suggest the extent to which deliberate efforts have been taken to impart
science process skills. Tick True (1') or False (F) against the statements be1ow:-
Statement T F
All the skills under study are mentioned in the Planning
syllabuses Hypothesizing
Experimenting
Questioning
Interpreting
I' Application
There is clear emphasis of intended science process skill
acquisition in the syllabus.
Teachers plan their work with schemes of work
Teachers prepare and use lesson plans for teaching
115
'---" _.. .. .-- .-. _. . ...•._- -.- .-- -- ..- .' .~-------.._-
Students written work provide evidence that suggest practice of the process
skills under study:
i) Adequate pictorial and graphical illustrations to facilitate easy
reflection by learners.
ii) Separate practical work books with evidence of class
experiments.
iii) Students' written work addresses specific objectives
adequately.
Teachers deliberately scheme to train students on SPS particularly those
under study (see teaching/learning activities):
i) Practical demonstrations incorporated in lesson plans
ii) Class experiments done at least once in a week
Comments (List the skills observed in the documents above).
116
Appendix IV: Researcher's observation schedules:
Routine instructional practices
Type of school .
Enrolment '" : Number
of students per stream .
Availability of resources indicates the kind of activities their use may generate. This can
however be confirmed by observing activities that obtain in a teachirig learning situation.
Tick True (T) or False (F) for the statements below.
Statement T F
The school has at least one laboratory per stream.
The laboratory is adequately equipped for each subject.
There is a laboratory assistant/technician.
The lab is well managed and records updated.
Each class has chance to use the lab at least once per week for each
subject (timetable available).
I'
Demonstrations dominate activities in the lab
Students play active roles during demonstrations.
Individualized experiments dominate activities in the lab
Teacher satisfactorily assists individual learners.
Group experiments dominate activities in the lab.
117
All students participates satisfactorily in group experiments
Students' personal initiative to carryout practical work was
permitted.
Project work is carried out as part oflearning activities.
Teachers use.resources during lessons for theory.
Teacher uses appropriate motivational cues during lessons
Students are left with assignments to do after classes.
Assignments are marked.
Students are taken for out-door practical activities e.g. field trips.
Contents in the exercise books for practical suggest adequate
practical activities.
Comments (if aRY) : .
118
Appendix V: Researcher's observation schedule: students
competency in practical manipulative skills
Type of school. ': .
Class .
Number of experimental sets .
NO. OF STUDENTS DISPLAYING;
SKILL
COMPETENCY INCOMPETENCY
(i) Ability to carry out
procedures and or
instructions
(ii) Ability to set up
apparatus for
experiment
(iii) Ability to manipulate
variables
(iv) Make correct
observations .
(v) Record data
(tabulation)
(vi) Analyze data
(vii) Make conclusions from
experimental results
Comments (If any) .
119
Appendix VI: Names of the Schools in the Sample
SINo SCHOOL DIVISION
1 Cm'tllnal oeaaga H1gll seneei M6soo116 M6soo116
2 Kisii High school Getembe
- -
3 Nyabururu Girls High school Getembe
4 Kioge Girls High school Mosocho
5 Nyanchwa mixed High school Getembe
6 St. Augustine's Otamba secondary school Kiogoro
7 -Aiiiaii6a secondary scliool Kiogoro
8 Nyaura secondary school Kiogoro
9 Kegati secondary school Keumbu
10 Nyosia secondary school Keumbu
11 Marani secondary school Marani
12 Kiareni secondary school Marani
13 Nyagesenda secondary school Marani
14 Nyaore secondary school Mosocho
120
Appendix VII
Routine Instructional Activities Strategies)
1(a) The school had a laboratory or a room designated for the purpose.
SCHOOL NO. OF
LABS
BBS/I 6
BBSI2 5(+1 under
constr)
-GBSI2-· . -3· ..
GBS/I 6
MBSIl 2
MBDS/I 1
MDS/2 1 (small)
MDS/3 1
MDS/4 2·
MDS/5 1 (new)
MBDS/2 1
MDSI7 2
MDS/6 1
MDSIl 1(CR)
(a)
True (T) False (F)
Adequately equipped 8 6
laberatories
Provision made in the 14 0
timetable for practice in the
laboratory once per week
121
2. School has: T F
Lab Assistant 8 6
Well managed laboratory 9 5
Demonstrations dominate activities in the 12 2
lab
Students participate actively in 6 8
demonstrations
Individual experiments dominate lab 0 14
activities
Teacher satisfactory assists learners in 1 13
Practicals
Group experiments dominate activities in 1 13
the laboratory
Allstudents participate activelyin group 2 "12
experiments
Students personal initiatives for 11 3
experiments allowed
Project work done 4 10
Adequate use of teaching aids during non 4 10
practical lessons
Teachers use of appropriate motivational 2 12
cues during lessons
Students given assignments to do after 14 0
lessons
Assignments marked 13 1
Out door practivities activities involved 0 14
Adequate practical activities seen in 0 14
students exercise books
Teachers plan their work with schemes of 9 5
work
Teachers prepare and use lesson plans 0 14
Adequate pictorial and graphical 11 3
illustrations seen in students notes
Separate practical work books given to 3 11
students
Students written work address course 14 0
objectives
Practical demonstrations incorporated in N/A N/A
lesson plans
Class experiments done at least once in a 2 12
week
122
l_r_O_O_F_PR_O_JE_C_T_S_IN_A_TE_RM I-=r'-'-o_Q_DEN__ C_y _
The reason given for not writing report was that such activity was not specified in the
scope of objectives given in the syllabus. In addition it was alleged that there wasn't
enough time to undertake such activity.
The role of the teacher in project activities was given as; giving procedures and or
instructions, provision of materials and equipments, and monitoring.
7. Students given extensive reading assignments
RESPONSE YES NO
Given 13 3
I mark assignments 7 2
Frequency of assignments
FREQUENCY NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS
1 per week 4
2 per week 1
1 per month 6
1 per term 2
2 per term 1
7. I use group work in teaching
I RESPONSE YES NO
FREQUENCY 14 1
(i) No. in group
124
No. OF STUDENTS IN FREQUENCY
GROUP
2 0
3 1
4 4
5 2
6 8
>6 1
YES NO
Bright students sharing experience with others. 7 7
Students report/give feed back from groups. 12 2
Time available is adequate. 4 10
91iUnquipmenf in laD are aoeauate 6- 9
(b) Sharing of text books
RATIO 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:>5 No text
book
FREQUENCY 6(40%) 1(6.7%) 1(6.7%) 1(6.7%) 5(33.3%) 1(6.7%)
(ii) Text book is relevant
I RESPONSE I YES INO.-=FRE~:'::'Q-=UE-=-:':::N:'::'C:"""Y----+-=1:'::'2(=8-5.-7)------2-:"(1-: 4-:-.3=-=-0;.-:":0)-------1
10. Sharing experimental activities in class
I ~~~~~ 1-=~=----I-=~---+I-=:---+I-=-~---I-~---+I-~-7----I
(c) Promptness in replenishing stock.
11-~=_::-:~~.~=-=~::-:_~=.:-:~E=-=C=y=-----I-~::-ro.:....m-pL.:t------I-~_e_la-,,-y_e_d _
125
I skip practical work due to lack of equipments
IRESPONSE
FREQUENCY
I!ALSE
Documentary evidence
Statement T F
All the skills under study are mentioned in the Planning 14 0
syllabuses Hypothesizing 0 14
Experimenting 14 0
Questioning 0 14
-Interpreting - -1-4 -9
Application 14 0
There is clear emphasis of intended science process skill 0 14
acquisition in the syllabus.
Teachers plan their work with schemes of work 5 9
Teachers prepare and use lesson plans for teaching 0 14
Students written work provide evidence that suggest practice of the process
skills under study:
i) Adequate pictorial and graphical illustrations to facilitate 0 14
easy reflection by learners.
ii) Separate practical work: books with evidence of class 3 11
experiments.
iii) Students' written work address specific objectives 14 0
adequately.
Teachers deliberately scheme to train students on SPS particularly those
under study (see teaching/learning activities):
i) Practical demonstrations incorporated in lesson plans 0 14
ii) .Class experiments done at least once in a week 2 12
Comments (List the skills observed in the documents above:
Schools where better planning was taking place were determined through evaluation of
consistency of practice. In this teachers were requested to avail schemes of work for the
previous years. Where previous records could not be traced then preparation for teaching
in such schools was considered inadequate.
126
Appendix VIII
Effect of Gender on Acquisition of SPS
Application (A)
P F Total
Boys 76 (33.8%) 149 (66.2%) 225
Girls 40 (21.6%) 133 145 185
Totals 294 116 410
0 E O-E (O_E)2 (O-Ef
76 161 -85 7225 44.876
149 64 85 7225 112.891
40 133 -93 8649 65.030
145 52 93 8649 166.327
i=L(O-Ei = 389.124
E
Experimenting (E)
P F Total
Boys 61 (60) 164 (165) 225
Girls 49 (50) 136 (135) 185
Totals 110 300 410
127
0 E O-E (O-E)z (O-Et
E
61 60 1 1 0.017
164 165 -1 1 0.006
49 50 -1 1 0.020
136 135 1 1 0.007
L (O-El'
E
=0.05
Hypothesizing (H)
P F Total
Boys 52 (41) 173 (184) 225
Girls 22 163 185
Totals 74 336 410
128
0 E O-E (O-Et (O-E)z
E
52 41 11 121 2.951
173 184 -11 121 0.658
22 33 -11 121 3.667
163 152 11 121 0.796
i=:L(O-Et
E
=8.072
Interpreting (I)
P F Total
Boys 97 (79) 128 (146) 225
Girls 47 138 185
Totals 144 266 410
129
0 E O-E (O-El (O-E)2
E
97 79 18 324 4.101
128 146 -18 324 2.219
47 65 -18 324 4.985
138 120 18 324 2.700
x: =I. (0- Ei
E
~
=14.005
Planning (P)
P F Total
Boys 55 (45) 170 (180) 225
Girls 27 (37) 158 (148) 185
Totals 82 328 410
0 E O-E (O-E)2 (O-Et
E
55,.. 45 10 100 2.222
170 180 -10 100 0.556
27 37 -10 100 2.703
158 148 10 100 0.676
'1':=I(O-Et
E
=6.157
130
Questioning (Q)
P F Total
Boys 30 (23) 195 (146) 225
Girls 11 (19) 174 (166) 185
Totals 41 369 410
0 E O-E (O-El (O-Ei
E
30 23 7 49 2.130
195 202 -7 49 0.243
11 19 -8 64 3.368
174 166 8 64 0.386
X2=I:(O-E)z
E
=6.127
131
Appendix IX
Teachers' use of planning tools and students acquisition of SPS
(i) Teachers who did not plan adequately.
Application (A)
SCHPOL P F
GBSIl 6 24
MDS/5 1 27
MBSIl 1 30
MDIBS/2 5 25
MDS/7 0 28
MDS/4 13 17
MDS/2 6 24
MDSIl 2 24
MDS/6 3 24 .
TOTALS 37 (14.2%) 223 (85.8%)
.•
132
Experimenting (E)
GBSI1 0 30
MDS/5 5 23 -
l\1BSI1 0 31
-
MDIBS/2 0 30
MDS/7 4 24
MDS/4 0 30
-
MDS/2 22 8
MDSI1 0 26
MDS/6 0 27
31 (11.9%) 229 (88.1%)
GBSI1 0 30
MDS/5 7 21
l\1BS/l 11 20
MDIBSI2 8 22
I'
MDS/7 4 24
MDS/4 9 21
MDSI2 8 22
MDS/l 5 21
MDS/6 2 25
54 (20.8%) 206 (79.2%)
133
Interpreting (I)
GBSIl 6 24
MDS/5 1 27
MBSIl 1 30
MDIBS/2 15 15
MDS/7 2 26
MDS/4 14 16
-- - -
MDS/2 3 27
MDS/l 3 23
MDS/6 3 24
48 (20.8%) 212 (81.5%)
Planning (P)
GBS/l 1 29
MDS/5 1 27. .
MBSIl 2 29
MDIBS/2 4 26
MDS/7 0 28
MDS/4 3 27
MDS/2 3 27
MDS/l 2 24
MDS/6 0 27
16 (6.2%) 244 (93.8%)
134
Questioning (Q)
GBS/1 0 30
MDS/5 0 28
MBS/1 3 28
-
MDIBS/2 2 28
MDS/7 0 28
MDS/4 7 23
-- - - -- -- - -- -- --- - - - ~--
MDS/2 0 30
MDS/1 0 26
MDS/6 0 27
Totals 12 (4.6%) 248 (95.4%)
(ii) Better planning and fair utilization of planning tools
Application (A)
P F
BBS/1 22 8
BBS/2 19 11
GBS/2 19 11
MBIDS/1 11 19
.f" ~ ??IMDS,'
Totals 79 (52.7%) 71 (47.3%)
135
Experimenting (E)
P F
BBS/l 15 15
BBS/2 15 15
-
GBS/2 22 8
MBIDS/l . 21 9
MDS/3 2 28
.- - -- - - ------ - - -- ------ - - -- - - - -
Totals 75 (50%) 75 (50%)
Hypothesizing (H)
P F
BBS/1 13 17
BBS/2 4 26
GBS/2 0 30
MBIDS/l 0 30
MDS/3 2 28
,-
Totals 19 (12.7%) 131 (87.3%)
136
Interpreting (I)
P F
BBS/I 26 4
BBS/2 18 12
GBS/2 20 10
MBIDS/I 21 9
MDS/3 11 19
-- - - - ----- -- - - ----- --
Totals 96 (64%) 54 (36%)
Planning (P)
P F
BBSI1 24 16
BBS/2 10 22
GBS/2 17 26
MBIDS/l 13 29
MDS/3 2 30
Totals 27 (18%) 123 (82%)
l37
X2 (USE OF PLANNING TOOLS)
APPLICATION (A)
P F Total
PEff 79 (42) 71 (108) 150
PIneff 37 (74) 223 (186) 260
Total 116 294 410
0 E O-E (0 _E)l (0":" E)l
E
79 42 37 1369 32.595
71 108 -37 1369 12.676
37 74 -37 1369 18.500
223 186 37 1369 7.360
L(O-EY
E
= 71.131
Df= (R -1)(C-1) = (2 - 1 )(2 -1) = 1
At 0.05 level of certificate x?- = 3.841
Since 71.131 is greater than 3.841 there is a significant difference between use of
planning tools and non use of the same.
138
Experimenting (E)
P F Total
Pm 75 (39) 75 (111) 150
Pinelf 31 (67) 229 (193) 260
Total 106 304 410
0 E O-E (O-Et (O-Et
- - .
E
75 39 36 1296 33.231
75 III -36 1296 11.676
31 67 -36 1296 19343
229 193 36 1296 6.715
L(O-Et
E
= 70.69~
HYPOTHESIZING(H)
P F Total
Pelf 19 (27) 131 (123) 150
Pinelf 54 (46) 206 (214) 260
Total 73 337 410
139
0 E O-E (O-Et I<O-Et
E
19 27 -8 64 2.370
131 123 8 64 0.520
54 46 8 64 l.391
206 214 -8 64 0.299
- - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - --- I-- -- ------- --- - - - _ - - - --
L(O-E):!
E
= 4.58
INTERPRETING (F)
P F Total
Pelf 96 (53) 54 (97) 150
Pinelf 48 (91) 212 (169) 260
TQtal 144 266 410
140
0 E O-E (O-E)l z: (0- E)l
E
96 S3 43 1849 34.887
54 97 -43 1849 19.062
48 91 -43 1849 20.319
212 169 43 1849 10.941
PLANNING (P)
P F Total
Pelf . 66 (30) 84 (120) 150
Pinelf 16(52) 244 (208) 260
Total 82 328 410
0 E O-E (o'-Ei z: (0- E)l
E
" 66 30 36 12% 43.200
84 120 -36 1296 10.800
16 52 -36 1296 24.923
244 208 36 1296 6.231
z: (O-Et
E
= 85.154
141
QUESTIONING (Q)
P F Total
Peff 27 (14) 123 (136) 150
Pineff 12 (25) 248 (235) 260
Total 39 371 410
0 E O-E (O_E)l L(O-E)l
~--- - - - --- -- E-- - - - -- -- - -- -
27 14 13 169 12.071
123 136 -13 1.243
12 25 -13 6.760
248 235 13 0.719
L(O-Et
E
=20.793
142
Appendix X
Relationship between Students Acquisition of SPS and Availability of Resources
(a) Schools with inadequate resources
Application (A)
P F
MDSII 2 24
MDS/2 6 24
- MI)S/3 _. - - 8- -- 22
MDS/5 1 27
MDS/6 3 24
MDS/7 0 28
Total 20 (11.8%) 149 (88.2%)
Experimenting E
P F
MDSII 0 26
MDS/2 22 8
MDS/3 2 28
MDS/5 5 23
MDS/6 0 27
MDS/7 4 24
Total 33 (19.5%) 136(80.5%)
143
Hypothesizing (H)
P F
MDS/1 5 21
MDS/2 8 22
MDS/3 2 28
MDS/5 7 21
MDS/6 2 25
- ----~- -- - - .- - .- . -- --- - - . ------ - _. - - "--- .-.
MDS/7 4 24
Total 28 (16.6%) 141(83.4%)
Interpreting (I)
P F
MDSII 3 24
MDS/2 3 27
MDS/3 11 19
Ml;>S/5 1 27
MDS/6 3 24
MDS/7 2 26
Total 23 (13.6%) 146(86.4%)
144
Planning (P)
P F
MDSII 2 24
MDS/2 3 27
-
MDS/3 2 28
MDS/5 1 2,7
MDS/6 0 27
- -- - - -
MDS/7 0 28
Total 8 (4.7%) 161 (95.3%)
Questioning (Q)
P F
MDSII 0 26
MDS/2 0 30
MDS/3 0 30
MDS/5 0 28
MDS/6 0 27
MDSI7 0 28
Total 0 169 (100%)
145
(b) Scbools witb reasonably adequate resources
Application (A) P F
BBS/l 22 8
BBS/2 19 11
GBS/I 6 24
GBS/2 19 11
MBS/I 1 30
--MBIDS!l - I'I -- - 19--
MBIDS/2 5 25
MDS/4 13 17
Total 96 (39.8%) 145 (60.2%)
Experimenting (E)
Application (A) P F
BBS/I 15 15
BBS/2 15 15
GBS/1 0 30
GBS/2 22 8
MBS/l 0 31
MBIDS/I 21 9
MBIDS/2 0 30
MDS/4 0 30
Total 73 (30.3%) 168 (69.7%
146
Hypothesizing (H)
P F
BBSII 13 17
BBS/2 4 26
GBS/I 0 30
GBS/2 0 30
MBS/I 11 20
MB/DSII - . 0 30
MBIDS/2 8 22
MDS/4 9 21
Total 45 (18.7%) 196 (81.3%)
Interpreting (I)
Application (A) P F
BBSII 26 4
BBS/2 18 12
GBS/l 6 24
GBS/2 20 10
MBS/l 1 30
MBSIDS/1 21 9
MBIDS/2 15 15
MDS/4 14 16
TOTAL 121 (50.2%) 120 (49.8%)
147
Planning (P)
P F
BBSII 24 6
BBS/2 10 20
GBS/I 1 29
GBS/2 17 13
MBSII 2 29
--MBSIDS/1 -- --- -1-3 17
MBIDS/2 4 26
MDS/4 3 27
TOTAL 74 (30.7%) 167 (69.3%)
Questioning (Q)
P F
BBS/1 14 16
BBS/2 8 22
GBS/1 0 30
I'
GBS/2 4 26
MBSII " 28.>
MBS!DS/I 1 29
MBIDS/2 2 28
MDS/4 7 23
TOTAL 39 (16.2%) 202 (83.8%)
148
X2(Resources)
Application (A)
P F Total
RAd 96 (68) 145 (173) 241
Rut 20 (48) 149 (121) 169
Total 116 294 410
- -- - - - - ~--_. .- -.--~ - - --- - - - -
0 E O-E (O_E)z (O-Et
E
96 68 28 784 1l.529
145 173 -28 784 4.532
20 48 -28 784 16.333
149 121 28 784 6.479
yO-Et,
E
= 38.873
149
Experimenting (E)
P F Total
RAd 73 (62) 168(179) 241
Rm 33 (44) 136 (125) 169
Total 106 304 410
0 E O-E (O_E)z (O-Et
- -- _E
73 62 11 121 1.952
168 179 -11 121 0.676
33 ·44 -11 121 2.750
136 125 11 121 0.968
YO-Et
E
= 6.346
Hy,Pothesizing (H)
P F Total
RAd 45 (43) 196 241
Rm 28 (30) 141 169
Total 73 337 410
150
0 E O-E (O-E)z (0-E)2
E
45 43 2 4 0.093
196 198 -2 4 0.020
28 30 -2 4 0.133
141 139 2 4 0.029
YO-Et
E
-- - = 0.215
Interpreting (I)
P F Total
RA I 121 (85) 120 241
RI 23 (59) 146 169
Total 144 266 410
0 E· O-E (0- E)z (0- E)z
E
I' 121 85 36 1296 15.247
120 156 -36 1296 8.308
23 59 -36 1296 21.782
146 110 36 1296 11.782
Y O-E)z
E
= 57.303
151
•Planning (P)
P F Total
RA 74 (48) 167 (193) 241
RI 8 (34) 161 (135) 169
Total 82 328 410
0 E O-E (O-Et (O-Et
E
74 48 26 676 14.083
167 ·193 -26 676 3.503
8 34 -26 676 19.882
161 135 26 676 5.007
LO-E)2
E
= 42.475
Questioning
P F Total
RA 39 (23) 202 (218) 241
RI 0(16) 169 (153) 169
Total 39 371 410
152
0 E O-E (O_E)2 (O-Et
E
39 23 16 256 11.130
202 218 -16 256 1.174
0 16 -16 256 16.000
169 153 16 256 1.673
yO-Et
E
- - - f--- - - -
= 29.977
153
Appendix XI
Performance of form two students
BBS/I
A(XI6) E(XI4) H(XI4) I (XI4) P(XI12) (XI4)
MS/I 4P 4P IF 2P 9P IF
MS/2 5P 4P IF 3P 9P OF
MS/3 3P 3P IF OF lOP OF
MS/4 4P IF 2P 3P lOP 2P
-MS/5 OF -3P - -l-F 2P -6P -0F-
MS/6 3P IF IF 3P 9P IF
MS/7 IF IF IF 2P 8P 2P
MS/8 4P IF OF 3P 6P OF
MS/9 4P OF OF 3P 9P OF
MSIIO 2F 3P OF 4P lOP IF
MSIlI 3P IF IF 3P 5F 2P
MSIl2 2F OF 3P 3P 5F 2P
MS/13 SP OF 3P IF 9P 2P
MSI14 4P 3P IF 3P 8P IF
MSI15 3P 2P IF 3P 7P 2P
MS/I6 3P 3P 2P 3P 6P 3P
MS117 2F 3P 2P OF 5F OF
MSIl8 IF IF IF 3P 4F IF
MS/I9 4P IF 3P 2P 2F OF
MS/20 2F OF 2P 3P 6P 2P
MSI2I 5P 3P 3P 2P 9P 2P
MS/22 3P 3P 2P IF 9P OF
MS/23 3P IF OF 2P 5F IF
MS124 4P OF 2P 3P 7P IF
154
MS/25 3P OF IF 4P 8P 2P
MS/26 6P 4P 3P 3P 12P 2P
MS/27 4P 4P IF 4P lOP 2P
MS/28 5P OF '3P 3P 7P 3P
MS/29 5P 3P IF 4P 8P IF
MS/30 2F 3P 2P 3P 6P 2P
TOTAL(D) 99 56 46 78 224 38
PASS(P) 22 15 13 26 24 14
FAIL(-F) 8 15 17 4 6 16
155
BBS/2
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(X/4) I (X/4) P(X/12) (X/4)
MS/I 2F OF IF IF 2F OF
MSI2 3P 3P OF 2P 6P IF
MS/3 3P 2P OF 3P 6P IF
MS/4 3P 3P IF IF 7P OF
MS/S 4P 4P OF 2P OF IF
-- -- -~ - - - ~ - - - .-- -- - - - -- - -- - - - - -_ .. - - ----- - ------ --- --
MS/6 IF OF OF 3P OF OF
MS/7 6P OF OF OF OF OF
MS/8 3P OF OF 3P 2F OF
MS/9 2F 4P IF 3P 2F OF
MS/IO 2F 3P 2P 3P SF IF
MSI1I OF 3P OF OF 3F OF
MS/I2 4P 3P OF 2P SF OF
MS/I3 4P 4P OF OF SF OF
MS/I4 IF 2P OF IF 6P IF,-
MS/I5 2F 2P OF 3P 6P 2P
MS/16 4P 3P OF OF 3F IF
MS/I7 3P OF OF 4P 2F OF
MSI18 3P 2P IF 2P 9P 3P
MS/19 4P IF IF 3P 7P 3P
156
MS120 2F OF 2P OF 2F IF
MS12I 2F OF OF 3P 6P 2P
MS/22 4P OF OF OF 3F OF
MS123 2F OF IF IF 3F OF
-
MS/24 4P 3P IF 2P 8P 4P
MS/25 3P OF IF 2P 4F IF
MS126 3P OF 2P 2P SF 2P
--- ---._- - .. -- -- - _.-_. - _ .. .-
MS/27 4P OF OF OF 2F 3P
MS/28 3P 2P 2P 3P 6P 2P
MS/29 2F IF OF 2P 4F OF
MS/30 4P OF OF IF 5F IF
TOTAL(Lx) 87 45 16 52 124 30
PASS(P) 19 15 4 18 10 8
FAIL(F) 11 15 26 12 20 22
157
GBSIl
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(X/4) I (X/4) P(X/12) (X/4)
FS/I 3P 4P OF 2P 8P 2P
FS/2 3P OF OF 2P 9P OF
FS/3 3P 3P IF 2P SF IF
FS/4 2F IF OF 2P 3F OF
FS/S 3P 4P OF 2P 7P OF
-" .._-- - .- --- -- - - - -- --- - - ---- ---- -
FS/6 2F OF OF 3P 6P IF
FS/7 2F 3P IF IF 7P OF
FS/8 4P IF IF OF 7P 2P
FS/9 3P 2P OF 2P 9P 3P
FS/IO 4P IF IF 3P 4F IF
FS/II 3P 3P OF 3P 6P OF
FS/I2 2F 2P OF OF 6P OF
FS/13 4P OF OF OF SF OF
FS/I4 IF 3P OF 2P SF OF
,-
FSI15 2F 4P OF 2P 7P OF
FSI16 2F 4P OF IF 5F OF
FSI17 4P 4P OF IF 6P IF
FSI18 3P 3P OF IF 8P OF
FS/I9 2F 3P OF 2P 3F OF
158
_#- - . -_. -_ .. --- ..._._-- ---- -----~ ..- ---------
KENYATIA U IV RSITY L E
FS/20 4P 3P OF IF 6P IF
FS/2I 3P OF OF IF SF OF
FS/22 3P 3P IF IF SF OF
FS/23 3P 2P OF 2P 6P IF
FS/24 IF 3P OF 2P 7P OF
FS/2S 4P 3P OF 3P 3F 3P
FS/26 2F 4P OF 2P SP OF
--_. - .. - - - - -- ----- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
FS/27 3P 3P OF 2P 4F OF
FS/28 3P IF IF 2P 3F IF
FS/29 4P 3P OF 3P 6P OF
FS/30 2F 2P OF 2P SF OF
TOTAL(D) 84 72 52 52 174 17
PASS(P) 19 22 OF 20 17 4
FAIL(F) 11 8 30 10 13 26
159
GBS/2
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(X/4) I (X/4) P(X/12) (X/4)
FSIl 2F IF OF OF IF OF
FS/2 2F OF OF OF 2F OF
FS/3 IF OF OF OF IF IF
FS/4 IF IF OF IF OF OF
FS/S 3P IF OF OF 3F IF
- -- - - - .-- --- - - -_. -
FS/6 OF OF OF OF OF OF
FS/7 3P OF IF OF OF OF
FS/8 OF OF OF OF OF IF
FS/9 OF IF OF OF IF OF
FS/IO 2F OF IF 2P OF IF
FS/II IF OF IF OF OF IF
FS/I2 IF OF IF OF OF IF
FS/13 2F OF IF OF IF OF
FS/)4 IF OF OF OF OF OF
FS/I5 OF OF OF OF IF OF
FS/I6 OF IF OF 3P IF OF
FS/I7 2F OF 2P OF 3F OF
FSIl8 IF OF OF OF 3F IF
FS/I9 IF OF OF IF IF OF
160
FS/20 2F OF OF 2P 2F OF
FS/2I 3P IF OF 2P 6P OF
FS/22 3P OF IF 2P 4F OF
FS/23 3P IF IF OF SF OF
FS/24 IF OF IF OF OF IF
FS/25 2F OF OF OF 2F OF
FS/20 --IF OF -OF -OF- -OF -OF
FS/27 3P OF OF OF OF OF
FS/28 IF OF IF OF 2F OF
FS/29 OF OF IF OF OF OF
FS/30 OF IF OF 2P IF IF
TOTAL(D) 42 8 12 13 40 9
PASS(P) 6 0 0 6 1 0
FAIL(F) 24 30 30 24 29 30
161
MBS/l
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(X/4) I (X/4) P(X/12) (X/4)
MSIl IF OF IF IF OF IF
MS/2 IF OF 2P IF OF OF
MS/3 OF OF 2P OF IF OF
MS/4 IF OF 2P OF 2F OF
MS/S OF OF OF OF OF OF
-- - - -- -- - - -
MS/6 IF IF 2P IF 6P IF
MS/7 IF OF 3P OF SF OF
MS/8 IF IF IF IF 3F OF
MS/9 OF OF IF OF OF OF
MS/IO OF OF OF OF OF OF
MSIlI 2F IF IF 2P 2F OF
MS/I2 2F OF IF IF 4F 4P
MS/13 OF IF IF OF 2F OF
MSIl4 IF IF IF OF 6P 3P
"
MS/I5 IF OF 2P OF 3F OF
MS/I6 OF -OF IF OF IF OF
MS/I7 IF IF 2P IF 4F OF
MS/I8 OF IF OF OF 2F OF
FS/I IF OF IF OF OF OF
162
FSI2 OF OF IF OF OF OF
FS/3 OF IF OF OF 2F OF
FS/4 OF OF 2P OF 3F 2P
FS/5 OF OF OF OF OF OF
FS/6 IF OF OF OF 3F OF
FS/7 3P OF 2P OF IF OF
FS/8 OF -I-F -IF -OF -I-F- -0F
FS/9 OF OF IF OF OF OF
FS/IO OF IF 3P OF 3F 2P
FSI1I IF OF OF OF 2F OF
FS/I2 IF OF IF OF 2F OF
FS/13 IF IF 2P IF IF OF
TOTAL(D) 21 11 37 9 59 13
PASS(P) ·1 0 11 1 2 3·
FAlL(F) 30 31 20 30 29 28
I'
163
MBDS/I
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(XJ4) I (X/4) P(X/12) (X/4)
MSIl 4P IF IF 3P 9P OF
MS/2 4P IF OF 2P 9P OF
MS/3 2F 4P OF 3P 8P OF
MS/4 3P 4P OF 3P 6P OF
MS/5 4P 3P OF 2P 3F OF
- ------ - - - - -.------ ... - --
MS/6 3P 4P OF 3P 9P OF
MS/7 3P 4P OF 4P 4F OF
MS/8 IF 3P OF OF 5F OF
MS/9 3P 4P OF 2P 9P OF
MS/IO 2F OF OF 3P 3F OF
MSIlI 2F 3P OF 3P 8P OF
MSIl2 2F 2P OF IF 4F OF
MS/13 IF OF OF IF IF OF
MS/I4 IF IF OF 4P OF OF
MS/I5 OF 3P OF 2P 5F OF
MS/I6 4P 3P OF 3P 8P OF
MS/I7 4P 4P OF 2P 8P OF
FS/I IF 4P OF 2P 9P OF
FS/2 IF OF OF IF OF OF
164
FS/3 4P 4P OF 3P 9P 2P
FS/4 IF 4P OF 2P 9P OF
FS/5 IF OF OF IF 9P OF
FS/6 2F 4P IF 2P 3F OF
FS/7 IF 4P OP IF 5F OF
FS/8 IF 4P IF 2P 4F IF
-FS/9 -2-F -l-F- OF -IF -3F -0F -
FS/IO 2F 4P OF 2P 4F OF
FSI1I IF 3P IF IF 3F OF
FSI12 2F OF IF 2P 5F IF
FSI13 3P 2P OP IF 3F OF
TOTAL(D) 65 79 5 62 165 4
PASS(P) 11 21 0 21 13 1
FAIL(F) 19 9 30 9 17 29
165
MBDS/2
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(X/4) I (X/4) P(X/12) (X/4)
MS/I 2F IF OF 2P IF OF
MS/2 IF OF IF IF IF OF
MS/3 IF OF IF IF IF OF
MS/4 2F OF IF OF 3F OF
MS/S 2F IF IF IF 3F OF
--- ---- - - - - -- ------ .- - --- ---
MS/6 2F IF 2P IF SF OF -
MS/7 IF OF 2P 2P OF 2P
MS/8 2F OF OF IF OF OF
MS/9 IF OF 2P IF 3F IF
MS/IO 2F OF IF IF OF OF
MSI1I 2F IF 2P IF IF OF
MS/I2 IF OF IF 2P OF OF
MSI13 3P OF IF 2P OF OF
M~114 2F OF 2P JP 6P OF
MS/I5 3P OF IF 2P 6P OF
MS/I6 OF IF IF 2P 3F OF
MS/I7 2F IF OF 4P 6P OF
MSI18 OF OF 2P IF OF OF
MS/I9 OF OF IF 2P 2F OF
166
MS120 3P IF 2P 2P 6P OF
MSI2I 3P OF IF 3P OF OF
FS/I OF IF IF 2P 3F OF
FS/2 2F IF IF IF 3F IF
FS/3 IF OF IF IF OF OF
FS/4 2F IF IF 2P 3F OF
FS/S 2F I-OF- . -+F -IF -0F -IF
-
FS/6 IF IF OF 2P 3F OF
FS/7 IF OF IF IF 2F 2P
FS/8 3P IF 2P 2P 4F OF
FS/9 IF IF IF IF 2F OF
TOTAL(D) 48 13 34 48 67 8
PASS(P) 5 0 8 15 4 2
FAJL(F) 25 30 22 15 26 28
167
MDS/l
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(X/4) I (X/4) P(X/12) (X/4)
MS/I OF OF IF OF 2F OF
MS/2 OF OF IF 2P 3F OF
MS/3 2F OF IF IF 4F OF
MS/4 3P OF IF OF 3F 2F
MS/5 IF IF 2P OF 4F OF
------ - - - -- ----- ---- - - ----- --- - ---- - -- -- - ---- -
MS/6 3P IF IF OF 2F OF
MS/7 OF IF 2P IF OF OF
MS/8 OF OF 2P 2P 6P OF
MS/9 IF OF OF OF 3F OF
MSflO OF OF OF OF OF OF
MS/II OF OF OF IF 3F OF
MSfl2 IF OF IF 2P OF OF
MS/13 IF IF IF OF 2F OF
FS/~ OF IF IF OF IF OF
FS/2 IF OF OF OF 3F OF
FS/3 OF IF OF OF 2F OF
FS/4 OF OF OF OF OF OF
FS/5 IF OF IF IF 6P OF
FS/6 IF OF OF OF IF OF
168
FS/7 OF IF 2P OF 4F OF
FS/8 OF OF 2P OF IF OF
FS/9 IF IF IF OF 4F OF
FSI10 IF IF OF OF IF OF
FSI1I 2F OF OF OF 2F OF
FSI12 IF IF IF OF IF OF
-FS/-13 -OF .OE -DE IF .~ .OF
TOTAL(D) 20 10 21 11 60 2
PASS(P) 2 0 5 3 2 0
FAIL(F) 24 26 21 23 24 26
169
MDS/2
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(X/4) I (X/4) P(X/12) (x/4)
MSI1 3P 3P 2P IF 8P IF
MS/2 2F 3P IF 2P 7P OF
MS/3 3P 3P IF 2P SF OF
MS/4 2F 3P IF OF IF OF
MS/S 2F IF IF OF 4F OF
- - - - . __ _-0 -- -_. -,--_ ... - - ._. - ------ _.-. - -- ._._-- -. -- --- --
MS/6 3P 3P OF OF SF OF
MS/7 2F 3P 2P OF SF OF
MS/8 IF 4P IF OF OF OF
MS/9 OF 3P OF OF 2F OF
MS/IO 3P OF 2P OF 2F OF
MSI1I 2F OF IF 2P 3F OF
MS/I2 IF 3P 2P IF SF IF
MS/13 IF 3P OF IF 3F OF
MSfri4 2F 3P IF IF IF OF
MSI1S OF OF OF OF 2F IF
MS/I6 IF OF IF OF 3F OF
MSI17 2F 3P IF IF 3F OF
MSI18 OF OF IF OF OF OF
FSI1 IF OF IF OF 4F OF
170
FS/2 2F IF IF OF 4F OF
FS/3 OF 3P OF OF 4F OF
FS/4 2F 3P IF OF 3F OF
FS/S IF 3P IF OF 4F OF
FS/6 3P 3P IF IF 3F OF
FS/7 OF 4P 2P IF 3F IF
--FS/8 -IF -4P IF --l-F -6P OF
FS/9 3P 4P 2P IF 2F OF
FS/IO IF 3P 2P IF SF OF
FS/II 2F 3P IF IF SF OF
FSIl2 2F 3P OF OF IF OF
TOTAL(D.) 48 72 31 17 103 4
PASS(P) 6 22 7 3 3 0
FAIL(F) 24 8 23 27 27 30
171
MDS/3
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(X/4) I (X/4) P(X/12) (X/4)
MS/I 2F IF OF 2P SF OF
MS/2 IF 2P OF IF SF OF
MS/3 IF OF IF OF OF OF
MS/4 4P OF IF 2P 6P OF
MS/S IF. OF OF OF OF OF
- -----
MS/6 IF OF OF 3P 7P OF
MSI7 IF OF IF OF IF OF
MS/8 IF OF IF IF 3F OF
MS/9 3P IF OF IF 3F OF
MS/IO IF OF OF OF OF OF
MSIlI 3P OF IF 2P 4F OF
MS/I2 IF IF OF 2P IF OF
MS/13 2F OF IF OF OF OF
MS/I4 IF OF IF OF OF OF
I'
MSI15 3P IF OF 2P IF OF
FS/I IF OF OF IF OF OF
FS/2 3P OF OF 2P IF OF
FS/3 3P IF IF OF 3F OF
FS/4 2F OF OF 3P 2F OF
172
FS/5 2F OF IF OF 3F OF
FS/6 IF OF OF IF OF OF
FS/7 2F IF IF OF 2F OF
FS/8 OF OF OF OF OF OF
FS/9 2F OF OF 2P IF OF
FS/lO 4P 2P 2P 2P 2F OF
FSl1l- 2F -1$ .OF -2F- -IF OF-
FSI12 2F OF 2P OF 2F OF
FSI13 3P OF OF OF 2F OF
FSI14 IF OF OF OF OF OF
FS/I5 IF OF IF IF OF OF
TOTAL(D.) 55 11 15 30 55 0
PASS(P) 8 ,2 2 11 2 0
FAIL(F) 22 28 28 19 28 30
173
MDS/4
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(X/4) I (X/4) P(X/12) (X/4)
MS/I 4P OF IF 2P 4F IF
MS/2 3P OF IF 4P IF OF
MS/3 2F OF IF 2P 2F 2P
MS/4 3P OF IF IF IF OF
MS/5 3P OF 2P IF 2F OF
.-~. -_._--- - - -- - ----- . - --_._-- .._- - _. -- - - -- .-- _ ....
MS/6 3P OF IF 3P 4F 3P
MS/7 3P OF 2P OF 7P 2P
MS/8 2F OF 2P IF OF OF
MS/9 IF OF OF IF OF OF
MS/IO 2F OF IF IF OF OF
MSI1I 2F OF OF 2P OF IF
MSI12 3P OF OF IF IF IF
MS/13 2F IF IF OF OF IF
MSI14 4P OF IF 2P OF OF
I'
MS/I5 3P OF IF IF OF IF
MS/I6 2F OF OF 3P IF OF
MSI17 IF OF IF 2P OF OF
MS/I8 3P OF 2P 2P OF 2P
FSI1 IF OF IF 2P 3F 2P
174
FS/2 OF OF 2P OF IF OF
FS/3 2F OF 2P IF OF OF
FS/4 2F OF OF 2P 8P IF
FS/S IF OF OF IF 2F 3P
FS/6 2F OF IF IF 2F 3P
FS/7 OF OF IF 2P 2F OF
.FS/8 3P OF .2P IF OF IF
FS/9 4P OF 2P 3P 6P IF
FS/IO 3P OF OF OF IF IF
FS/II OF OF 2P 3P 2F OF
FS/I2 2F OF OF IF 4F OF
TOTAL(D) 66 1 31 46 54 26
PASS(P) 13 0 9 14 3 7
FAIL(F) 17 30 .21 16 27 23
175
MDS/5
A(XI6) E(XI4) H(XI4) I (X/4) P(XI12) (X/4)
MSIl 2F 2P 2P IF 2F OF
MS/2 2F 3P IF OF SF OF
MS/3 IF OF OF IF OF OF
MS/4 OF OF IF OF OF OF
MS/S 2F OF IF OF IF OF
- -- -- - - -
MS/6 IF OF IF OF OF OF
MS/7 OF 3P 2P OF SF OF
MS/8 2F OF IF 2P IF OF
MS/9 IF OF IF IF 3F IF
MS/IO 2F OF IF IF OF OF
MSIlI IF OF IF IF OF OF
MS/12 2F IF 2P IF 3F OF
MS/13 IF IF IF IF 2F OF
MSlI4 OF OF IF IF IF OF
MS/IS OF OF IF OF OF OF
FS/I IF OF IF OF IF OF
FS/2 OF IF OF IF 2F OF
FS/3 IF IF 2P IF 3F OF
FS/4 OF OF IF IF OF OF
176
FS/S 2F OF OF OF OF OF
FS/6 3P 3P IF OF 6P IF
FS/7 IF IF IF OF 2F OF
FS/8 2F 3P IF IF 3F OF
FS/9 OF OF 2P OF 3F OF
FSIIO OF OF OF OF IF OF
~FSI1I IF OF -zp -OF 3F OF
FSIl2 OF IF OF OF OF OF
FS/13 OF OF 3P OF OF IF
TOTAL(D) 28 20 31 14 47 3
PASS(P) 1 5 7 1 1 0
FAIL(F) 27 23 21 27 27 28
177
MDS/6
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(X/4) I(X/4) P(X/12) (X/4)
MSII 2F OF IF IF OF OF
MSI2 OF OF IF OF OF OF
MS/3 IF IF IF IF 3F OF
MS/4 OF OF IF OF OF OF
MS/S 2F OF IF IF OF IF
----"- - - - . ----- - -------- -- -.-- ----
MS/6 3P OF OF 2P 2F OF
MSI7 IF IF IF 2P 3F OF
MS/8 OF OF IF IF 2F OF
MS/9 OF OF IF IF IF IF
MSIIO IF OF 2P IF 2F OF
MS/II IF OF IF OF OF OF
MSIl2 3P OF 2P 2P IF IF
MS/13 OF OF IF IF OF OF
FS/I OF OF IF OF OF OF
I'
FS/2 OF OF OF IF IF OF
FS/3 OF OF OF OF OF OF
FS/4 IF IF IF OF 2F IF
FS/5 OF OF OF IF OF OF
FS/6 OF OF OF OF OF OF
178
FS/7 IF OF IF IF IF OF
FS/8 OF OF IF IF OF OF
FS/9 3P IF 2P IF 3F OF
FS/IO OF IF OF IF 3F OF
FS/II OF OF IF IF OF OF
FSI12 IF OF OF IF OF OF
-FS/13 OF- --OF - - I-IF -OF- --tF ---OF
FS/I4 OF OF IF IF 2F OF
TOTAL(Lx) 20 5 23 22 27 6
PASS(P) 3 0 2 3 0 0
FAIL(F) 24 27 25 24 27 27
179
MDS/7
A(X/6) E(X/4) H(X/4) I (X/4) P(X/12) (X/4)
MS/I IF IF IF OF IF OF
MS/2 IF OF OF OF OF OF
MS/3 2F OF 2P OF 2F OF
MS/4 IF OF IF OF 3F OF
MS/S IF OF IF OF OF OF
---- -".-- - _ .... -. - ----,- - - - -- . .-. -- - -- - . -
MS/6 OF OF IF OF IF OF
MS/7 IF 4P IF OF 4F OF
MS/8 2F IF IF OF 2F OF
MS/9 OF IF 2P OF SF IF
MS/IO OF 3P OF OF 4F OF
MSI1I OF OF 2P 2P IF OF
MSI12 IF 3P IF 2P SF OF
MS/13 OF IF IF OF IF OF
MS/14 2F IF 2P IF 3F OF
I'
MS/IS 2F OF IF IF OF OF
MSI16 IF IF IF OF 3F OF
MSI17 IF OF IF IF 2F OF
FS/I OF OF IF OF OF OF
FS/2 OF OF IF IF 2F OF
180
FS/3 OF OF IF OF' OF OF
FS/4 IF OF IF OF OF OF
FS/S IF IF OF IF SF OF
FS/6 IF OF IF OF OF OF
FS/7 OF OF OF OF OF OF
FS/8 OF 4P OF OF OF OF
-- FS/9 - OF -OF -OF OF or- -{IF - .
FSflO OF IF IF OF 3F OF
FS/II IF OF IF OF OF OF
TOTAL(D) 20 22 24 9 47 0
PASS(P) 0 4 4 2 0 0
FAIL(F) 28 24 24 26 28 28
181
GRAND LXA= 703 LXE-425 LXH = 332 LXl =465 LXP:: 1246 LXQ = 160
TOTALS (Lx)
MEAN MA= 703 ME=425 M•• =332 Mt=465 Mp = 1246 Mo= 160
SCORE 410 410 410 410 410 410
=1.71(28.5%) =1.04(26%) =0.81(20.3%) =1.13(28.3%) =3.04(25.3%) =0.39(9.75%)
PASS(PT) 116 110 73* 144 82 41
FAlL(FT) 294 300 337* 266 328 369
182
Appendix XII
Research permit
TIns ISTO CERTIFY THAT:
Pl'of.lDl'.lMl'JMrs.lMisl9.~~.~ .
ONGOSI...............................................................................................
KENYATTA UNIVERSITYof (Address) _ .
P.O.BOX 43844 NAIROBI
has been permitted to conduct research in!...,,, ....~..• _
Par ,
.....................................................•.•. ,•..•... Location,KISII CENTRAL' ..
........................................................ , Dlstnct.
NYANZA ............................................................ , Province •
.INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIESon the tOpIC .••......••••...•••..•..•..•....•..•....••.•...•..•.......•...•..
AND STUDENTS ACQUISITION OF SCIENCE...........................................•...............................................
PROCESS SKILLS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
iN'''R'IS'Cf"CE'i-lfAAi:'"n'f"sTRTc'f'''OF'''NY ANZA
pl(D,rrNC'£· ..· .
. . 31ST DECEMBER 07for a penod endmg .....................................• 20 .
..--
- ---------
,{~al1 AIlS3111 -n-'
if 'AN3}1
. MOST 13/001/37C 413ResearchPenult No. .. .
Date of jssue.~.?~.?: ..?.I?.~.?. .
Fee received..~~~.~..~.??.:.~.?. .
.~.; .
;Permanent Secretary
Ministry of
Science and Technology
----
183