-.
.
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST
AN INVESTIGATION INTO SCIENCE PRACTICAL WORK IN SENIOR
SECONDARY SCHOOLS: ATIITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS
BY
JOSEPH GHARTEY AMPIAH
A THESIS SUBMITIED
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
OF THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST,
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AWARD OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE,
IN SCIENCE EDUCATION
MARCH,2004
CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own original research and
that no part of it has been presented for another degree in this University or
elsewhere.
Candidate's Name: Joseph Ghartey Ampiah Signature.... .o.~ ...Date:14p'105'
SUPERVISORS'DECLARATION
We hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of the thesis were
supervised in accordance with the guidelines on supervision of thesis laid down
by the University of Cape Coast.
Principal Supervisors Name: Dr. K. A. Monney Signature,,~oate. ?:~104),9q;­
Supervisor's Name: Prof. V.P.Y. Gadzekpo SignaturJJ1.0ate./k/~ ".
I
ABSTRACT
The use of practical activities in science has been accepted as part of
i the science teaching and learning in Ghanaian Senior Secondary Schools
f: albeit for different reasons. Over the years, the West African Examination
Ii Council (WAEC) Chief Examiners' reports have consistently alluded to
i weaknesses in students' performance in science practical examinations.
I
These weaknesses have cast serious doubts on Senior Secondary School
(SSS) students' involvement in practical activities during their science course
and giving the impression that they were either not taken through the practical
activities or did not take them seriously.
This study is aimed at investigating the factors that might contribute to
students' weaknesses in science practical work and how they can be
addressed. This was done through descriptive, inferential as well as
explanatory information on students' perception oftheir psychosocial
laboratory environments; their attitudes to science practical work; teachers'
views on the purpose of science practical work and how it is organised. The
study employed the surve;y method and qualitative approach to collect data.
Some of the key findings that emerged in this study were:
1. Factors influencing students' perception of their psychosocial science
laboratory environments were supply material environment, reliable
material environment, integration, and supervision.
2. Factors influencing students' attitudes towards science practical work
were learning tool, equipment and interest.
3. Students' perceptions of their laboratory environment and attitudes
towards science practical work were significantly different in favour of
students from SRC schools. The significant difference in perception
was due to the different material environments in the two school types.
The difference in attitude of students was due to interest in science
practical work and the provision of equipment.
4. No relationship was found between students' attitude to science
practical work and their perception of the science laboratory
environment.
5. Teachers' views on the purpose of practical work were mainly that of
discovering or elucidating theory taught in class; SRCs are not playing
the required role of supporting science practical activities due to poor
patronage arising from several constraints..
6. Students did not have enough science practical activities due to lack of
time, overloaded curricula, lack of equipment and large class sizes
7. Much attention was not paid to supervision of students by their
teachers during science practical activities.
These findings may account for some of the students' weaknesses in science
practical examinations reported by Chief Examiners.
Evidence from the findings was then used as a basis for conclusions
about addressing the situation in the schools. Recommendations for Ministry
..1
i
of Education and Ghrma Education G,,(I/I(;';, Wfl,I~C, and r;fJ(rl';flllIIlI
dcvclopom and potr::ntif.ll m,;nn for fwtl,,;( rr:r;"mdlV/flf(l nlm '(lnr!(:,
I
I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my indebtedness to my supervisors, Dr. K.A. Monney
and Prof. V.P.Y. Gadzekpo for their encouragement and valuable guidance in
seeing the study to its completion.
I gratefully acknowledge the Government of Ghana, University of Cape
Coast and A.G. Leventis, for financial support, which enabled me to
undertake and complete the study. I am equally grateful to Dr. A.K.
Akyeampong, former Director of the Institute of Education, University of Cape
Coast, for his advice, suggestions and concern for the study.
I also wish to thank all those who in diverse ways, contributed to' make
the study a possibility and to express my gratitude to my wife, Regina for her
unfailing support, patience and encouragement throughout the graduate
study.
Finally, to the Lord Jesus, to him lowe everything. To God be the
Glory.
i
I
I
I
DEDICATION
To my \\~fe, Regina and children, Emmanuel and Edwina for their
encouragement and patience during the course of my studies.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
DEDICATION
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS
Chapter 1
PAGE
ii
v
vi
xiv
xvi
xvii
Chapter 2
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Null Hypotheses
Significance of the Study
Delimitation
Limitations
Organisation of the Rest of the Thesis
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Overview
1
1
9
11
12
13
14
15
15
16
19
19
Historical Review of Science Practical Work 19
The Nature of Practical Work in Ghanaian SSS 24
:1I
Ih
j
I Students' Attitude Towards Science Practical 104
I
i Work
I
I Hypothesis two
102
I Associations between Students' Attitude and 107
I
I
I Psychosocial Perception
I
I Hypothesis three 107
I
I:
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
108
I Teachers' Views on the Role of Science
108
,I
11 Practical work
Ii
I'
Introduction
108
II Essential Functions of Science Practical
109
!I
I Activities
I
i Teachers' Reasons for Organising Science
110
I
I
! Practical Activities
i
I Summary on Role of Science Practical Work 119
Organisation of Science Practical Activities in 120
Schools
Performance of Science Practical Activities 120
Difficulties Associated with the Organisation of 136
Science Practical Work
Time Allocation for Science Practical Work 141
Use of Textbooks and Other Materials for 149
Practical Work
Use of Group Work During Science
152
].
Practical Activities
Support Given to Students During Science 160
Practical Activities
The Role of Science Resource Centres in the 163
Organisation of Science Practical Activities
Views on Improving the Organisation of 174
Science Practical Activities
Chapter 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSiON AND
177
I
RECOMMENDATIONS
I Overview of the Research Problem and
177
I Methodology
Summary of Key Findings 178
Factors Influencing Students' Perception of 178
their Psychosocial Science Laboratory
Environment
Factors Influencing Students' Attitude 179
towards Science Practical Activities
Associations between Students' Attitude . 180
and Perception
Teachers' Views on the Role of Science 180
Practical Work
Organisation of Science Practical Activities 180
AU
E Questionnaire on the Organisation of Science 212
I
Practical Work (QOSP)
F Questionnaire on the Role of Science Practical 223
Work (QRSP)
G Focus Group Interview Protocol for Interviewing 229
Science Students
H Semi-structured Interview Protocol for 232
Interviewing Heads of Departments
Semi-structured Interview Protocol for 234
Interviewing SRC Coordinators
J Spectrum of Teachers' Views on Role of 235
Science Practical Activities
K Results of Teachers' Ranking on Reasons for 238
Organising Practical Activities
L Excerpts of Science Teachers' Views on the 240
Organisation of Science Practical Activities in
SRC Schools
M Excerpts of Science Teachers' Views on the 245
Organisation of Science Practical Activities in
satellite Schools
Results of Teachers' Ranking of Skills that are 251
Promoted during Science Practical Activities
Xlll
LIST OF TABLES
I, .
I TABLE PAGE1 30
II A summary of practical skills for SSS elective science as
:1
outlined by WAEC and CRDD syllabuses;\I
Rotated component matrix showing factor loadings and 74
II
2
amount of variance explained for the final ASP
I'
3 Scales and descriptions of the final ASP instrument 76
4 Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha coefficient) and 76
variance of each the ASP scales
5 Rotated component matrix showing factor loadings and 81
amount of variance explained for the final SLEQ
6 Scales and descriptions of the final SLEQ 84
7 Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha coefficient) and 85
variance of each scale of the SLEQ
8 Description of factors underlying students' perception 94
9 Description of factors underlying students' attitude 95
10 One way MANOVA on SLEQ scales and category of 97
school
1-1 Univariate ANOVA on each scales of the SLEQ as a 98
follow up tests to the MANOVA
12 Mean scores for items constituting Supply Material 100
Environment in SRC and SAT schools
XIV
13 One way MANOVA on ASP scales and category of 103
school
14 Univariate ANOVA on each scale of the ASP as a follow 104
up tests to the MANOVA
15 Mean scores on items constituting Learning tool 105
16 Pearson product moment correlation analysis of 108
students' perception and attitude in SRC and SAT
schools
17 Teachers' ranking of reasons for organising science 111
practical activities
18 Mean scores and percentage responses in each 112
category for each item (N=50)
19 Teachers' ranking of practical skills in terms of 118
importance
20 Number of practical activities performed and recorded in 125
physics, chemistry and biology by school type
21 Percentage responses in each category on completion 143
of laboratory work and write-up (N=50)
22 Percentage responses in each category on the source 152
.
of materials for laboratory work (N=50)
23 Distribution of practical activities in SRC manuals 173
xv
A
I
LIST 0:= FIS'J?ES
c:;rr:.:::I r. __
73
l\.VU
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
I
I ASP Attitude towards science practical
CRDD
Curriculum, Research and Development Division
I ESLEI
Environmental science learning environment inventory
1
I GES
Ghana Education Service
,
I HOD(s) Head of Department(s)
I
, Interview protocol for heads of science departments
I IPHOD
! IPS Interview protocol for students
IPSC Interview protocol for SRC co-ordinators
MOE Ministry of Education
QOSP Questionnaire on the organisation of science practical work
QRSP Questionnaire on the role of science practical work
SAT Satellite school
SLEI Science laboratory environment inventory
, ,. SLEQ Science laboratory environment questionnaire
SRC Science Resource Centre
SSS Senior Secondary School.
SSSCE Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination
WAEC West African Examinations Council
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
Practical work occupies an important place in the education of science
students. It is based on the assumption that learning by doing is best for
acquiring process skills. Science practical work may involve several facets such
as illustrations of a phenomenon; providing experiences or getting a feel of
phenomenon; exercises or routines for students to follow; developing a particular
skill or becoming used to a piece of equipment or instrument. Early practical
activities were essentially demonstrations aimed at the acquisition of
ob~ervationaland manipulative skills, and for training in the use of equipment.
One way of looking at the aims of practical work is to categorize them
broadly into those related to developing practical skills and attitudes, and those
related to discovering or elucidating theory (Woolnough, 1998). The latter make
use of structured experiments linked to theory. Those who argue in favour of
practical activity are however, divided on its aims and how it should be organized
so as to help students. They differ greatly in what skills are important and how
they can be achieved. Some rate the aims related to practical skills more highly
than those related to developing theoretical work. Presently, practical activities
2
/~
could be provided through the use of either the conventional approach or
computer-assisted approach. Computer -assisted practical work relates to the
use of sensors, interfaces a.,Prl software to monitor and display data collected
during science practical activities. The conventional approach includes the use of .
standard laboratories, science kits, teacher demonstrations, and field activities.
Some science educators who advocate the use of conventional approach to
practical activities insist that science practical should be laboratory-based whilst
others advocate for practical activities that are not necessarily based in
laboratories. Those who insist on laboratory-based practical work assert that
emphasis on acquisition of laboratory skills may be especially important for
improving students' ability to design experiments to solve problems. Apart from
using laborato,/,-based practical work to solve problems, von Secker and Lissitz
(1999) are of the opinion that laboratory-based practical activities promote the
development of process skills, They therefore argue against the use of teacher
demonstrations as well as large group instruction as a way of facilitating the
development of process skills, In fact, Tamir and Lunetta (1981') think that
laboratory-based practical activity covers more areas of competencies when they
emphatically stated that the main purpose of the laboratory is to afford
exp,eriences and challenges for students to solve problems, construct relevant
science knowledge, undertake scientific investigations, promote inquiry and verify
known scientific concepts and laws. However, according to Knott and Mutunga
(1995) during the past twenty-five years a major re-appraisal of uses and
3methods in laboratory teaching has taken place. They have noted that there is
considerable controversy about the use of laboratories for the learning of process
skills. Some of the areas of concern raised by Knott and Mutanga (1995) are:
1. the high cost of laboratory work, making it difficult to continue
providing facilities and resources to the standard felt necessary;
2. severe time constraints and overloading of timetables leading to
serious problems in meeting syllabus requirements in quality
and quantity;
3. dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of conventional laboratory work,
which does not foster the understanding of scientific concepts and the
application of scientific principles to solving problems.(p. 186)
Several comparative studies of conventional laboratory classes and other
forms of teaching indicate shortcomings in the effectiveness of laboratory work.
Although laboratory work is thought to be more effective than other methods for
acquiring observational and manipulative skills, others have argued that it is
generally less effective for teaching factual knowledge, concepts, scientific
enquiry or problem solving skills (Knott & Mutunga, 1995; Lewin, 1992). In fact,
Edmondson and Novak (1993) think that science laboratory work is nothing more
than ,learning "bench techniques" (p. 551). According to them almost half a
century ago, summaries of research on the value of laboratory work experience
for learning science did not favour the laboratory over lecture-demonstration.
This is contrary to claims made by von Secker and Lissitz (1999) who argued for
4laboratory-based science practical work. Some earlier studies by Stake and
Easley (1978), Bogden (1977), Buchweitz (1981), and Waterman (1982) have
also showed that most students in laboratories gained very little either regarding
key science concepts or toward understanding the process of knowledge
construction. Lewin (2000) has observed that "the role of practical activity in
science is often confused with laboratory work" (p. 22). His argument is that
"active engagement with problems in the physical world is part of everyday
experience and most, if not all, worthwhile thinking skills associated with
secondary science can be taught without expensive equipment" (p. 22) and
hence without the use of a laboratory. Barton (1998) has also argued that the
scope of practical work done (in laboratories) is limited by logistical factors such
as equipment and time. He emphasizes that practical work should be geared
toward the analysis and interpretation of data instead of merely collecting and
processing data. Ross and Lewin (1992) writing on the role and impact of
practical work cite the work of Yager, Engen and Snider, which suggests that
laboratory activity does not fulfill the various functions expected of it, except
perhaps for the development of manipulative skills. They argue that if the only
skills that laboratory activity can achieve are manipulative skills then it is not
wO,rth committing resources to laboratories. According to Ross and Lewin (1992),
laboratories seem divorced from the materials and experiences that students
encounter in their daily lives. They therefore suggest that a substantial proportion
of laboratory investigations must use common materials encountered by students
5in every day life. In this way it might be possible for students to achieve the
various functions expected of them. Ross and Lewin conclude by suggesting that
it is the aims, content and implementation of practical work in science that
have to be reviewed, including the need to redesign science rooms and
science equipment to incorporate more of the materials from nature's
laboratory so that students have more opportunity to explore the
properties of everyday materials and the scientific principles embedded in
everyday phenomena. (p. 10)
This perspective taken by Barton (1998), Ross and Lewin (1992) and
some other science educators has led to the promotion of demonstrations,
science kits, computer-assisted practical work and other conventional methods
with more experiential and discovery-based strategies, which are not necessarily
laboratory-based.
The main reasons given to justify practical work in science education can
be encapsulated in a number of ways. Wellington (1998) identifies three reasons
in favour of practical activity:
(a) practical work can improve pupils' understanding of science and promote
conceptual development;
(b) practical work is motivating and exciting and helps learners to remember
things;
(c) practical work develops not only manipulative skills or manual dexterity
skills, but also promotes higher level, transferable skills such as
I
I, .
observation, measurement, prediction and inference.
There are counter arguments to the above reasons as some researchers
and science educators do not agree to some or all of the above arguments. For
example, on the first argument some people argue that practical work can
confuse as easily as it can clarify or aid understanding, especially if it goes
wrong. In addition to this, they argue that practical work is not a good tool for
teaching theory since theories are about ideas and objects. The thinking that
goes into such an argument is that theories involve abstract ideas, which cannot
be physically illustrated. In the words of Theobald cited in Wellington (1998)
"experience does not give concepts meaning, if anything, concepts give
experience meaning" (p. 7). Leach and Scott (1995) sums it up in this way: "In
the context of the school laboratory it is clear that students cannot develop an
understanding through their own observations, as the theoretical entitles of
science are not there to be seen" (p. 48). One of the counter arguments to the
second argument stated above is that some students are rather 'turned off by
practical work instead of it helping them to remember things. In fact, a study by
Murphy cited in Woolnough (1991) indicates that more girls than boys react
negatively to practical work in science. Woolnough (1998) for example, has
argu~d against the use of practical work in helping students understand both the
concepts of science and the process of science at the same time. So for over
100 years that practical work has been a part of science, its function has been
the sUbject of debate and disagreement among science educators (Barton,
6
71998).
Whatever views are expressed about the purpose of practical work, and in
spite of different opinions about its role, many teachers may see practical work
as offering an essential opportunity for students to link first-hand experience in
the form of practical work with concepts and ideas. Perhaps it is in line with this
thinking that the examination and teaching science syllabuses for Senior
Secondary Schools (SSS) produced by the West African Examinations Council
(WAEC) and Curriculum Research and Development Division (CRDD) of the
Ghana Education Service (GES) respectively have placed emphasis on the value
of practical work and developing familiarity with experimental methods among
students. A key issue in the reform efforts of the Ministry of Educ;ation (MOE)
aimed at promoting the learning of science in all schools is by providing students
with equal opportunity to engage in science practical work. It is expected that
allowing students to experience the process of scientific enquiry can develop an
understanding of science and its nature. Practical work is therefore, an integral
part of the science curriculum at the SSS level in Ghana.
In spite of all the arguments against practical work, Barton (1998)
concedes that there is no substitute for experiencing science at first hand as this
assists in developing an understanding of scientific phenomena. Barton admits
, .
"practical work has the potential to challenge pupils' ideas and to draw them into
learning about science" (p. 240). Perhaps iUs in line with this admission by
Barton that the MOE has towed the line for the development of process skills in
8particular and the teaching and learning of science in general through the use of
well-equipped laboratories. The WAEC chemistry syllabus for example, mentions
the availability of well-equipped laboratories as a pre-requisite for schools
pursuing chemistry at the SSS level. Unfortunately, in Ghanaian SSS, there are
significant inequities in opportunities for access to laboratory experiences due to
inadequate facilities and equipment, and lack of money to purchase consumable
supplies such that SSS have been categorized into well-endowed and less-
endowed schools. This officially endorsed categorization may create larger gaps
among students, because students in disadvantaged schools may generally have
fewer opportunities for scientific inquiry.
To address issues surrounding inequitable opportunities fpr effective
science course (which involves practical work), a policy option taken by the MOE
was to create special centres called Science Resource Centres (SRCs) stocked
with adequate resources and sited in selected SSS.These SRCs act as satellite
centres, which serve surrounding SSS, which lack the needed resources for
science practical work. Documents available from the office of the National Co-
ordinator for SRCs indicate that presently the centres are based in 107 selected
SSS in the country and service schools in their locality. These centres have been
equi~ped with basic science equipment including modern electronic devices and
computers to be used in the teaching and learning of science. Buses have been
provided to all SRCs for use by satellite schools. Schools are required to pay
user fees (which are charged to students) before they are allowed to use the
9centres. The centres' own teachers teach all students who go there. The project
is a collaborative effort between the Ghana government and Philip Harris
International of Britain with the Ghana Government providing the funds whilst
Philip Harris International provided the equipment and technical expertise. Under
the agreement, the Ghana Government rehabilitated and refurbished old
laboratories in the selected schools and Philip Harris International supplied and
installed science equipment in those selected centres.
The objectives of the SRCs at the District level include the following:
(i) to serve as teaching centres to supplement existing facilities in
secondary schools and give ample opportunities for practical work
using modern facilities and techniques including the use of
computers
(ii) to provide additional tuition facilities for students in schools without
well-equipped laboratories
(iv) to expose students and teachers to the use of computers and other
electronic equipment in the teaching of science
(Status Report of the Science Resource Centres Project, 1997, p. 2)
Statement of the Problem
, In the last section, it was argued that the MOE and WAEC syllabuses
emphasize the acquisition of scientific skills (e.g. accurate observation,
measurement and recording), and scientific attitudes (e.g. concern for accuracy,
objectivity, integrity, initiative etc) through practical work in biology, physics and
10
chemistry. In line with this, provision has been made for science practical work to
take place in schools by the establishment of SRCs to cater for both well-
endowed and less endowed schools. Yet WAEC Chief Examiners for physics,
chemistry and biology have over the years reported of students' weaknesses in
science practical examinations. A variety of specific students' weaknesses in the
practical examination reported by Chief Examiners cast serious doubts on SSS
students' involvement in practical activities during their science course. This
gives the impression that they were either not taken through the practical
activities or did not take them seriously. Some of the persistent weaknesses
identified over the years (1995-2001) by Chief Examiners for the sciences are
quoted below:
(a) candidates were incapable of critical analysis and interpretation of biological
data
(b) candidates have not been having adequate practical as was shown by the
answers provided
(c) it was clear from the answers that some candidates had not done any
experiments along the lines tested at all
(d) Candidates generally made statements which clearly demonstrates that the
su,ggested activities in the syllabus are not being carried out with any
seriousness
(e) most candidates could not show any sign of having done a simple
recrystallisation in their lives.
11
This is happening in spite of the fact that SRCs have been established for
both host and satellite schools to serve as teaching centres to supplement
existing facilities in secondary schools and give ample opportunities for practical
work using modern facilities and techniques including the use of computers. It is
uncertain whether the fault lies with the way science teachers organise science
practical activities or the frequency with which they are organised, It is also likely
that students' attitude to practical work or their perception of the science
laboratory environment have affected their interest and hence their performance.
It would be desirable therefore, to investigate issues concerning science
practical work at the SSS level, in order to help shed some light on what may be
possible reasons why students perform very poorly in science practical
examinations despite the provision of very expensive laboratory equipment and
materials for students in SRC and satellite schools in the name of promoting
scientific literacy and helping students to do well in science.
Purpose of the study
This study aims at investigating some of the factors contributing to
students' weaknesses reported by WAEC Chief Examiners on Science Practical
Examinations (see Appendices A1, A2 and A3) and how they can be addressed.
Th~ purpose of this study is therefore to:
1. determine factors if any, underlying students' perception of their
psychosocial science laboratory environment
12
2. determine factors if any, underlying students' attitude towards science
practical work
3. find out whether:
(a) students from SRC and satellite schools perceive their
psychosocial science laboratory environments differently;
(b) attitude of students from SRC and satellite schools towards science
practical work differ significantly.
4. determine whether associations exist between students' perceptions of
their science laboratory environments and their attitudes towards
science practical work
5. find out:
(a) what science teachers consider to be the essential purposes of
science practical activities in the teaching and learning of science
(b) how science teachers organise science practical activities.
Research Questions
Specifically, in this study an attempt was made to answer the following
research questions:
1. What factors, if any, underlie students' perception of their psychosocial
science laboratory environment?
2. What factors, if any, underlie students' attitude towards science practical
work?
13
3. Is there any significant difference between students' perception of their
psychosocial science laboratory environment in SRC and satellite
schools?
4. Is there any significant difference between students' attitude towards
science practical work in SRC and satellite schools?
5. Is there any significant relationship between students' attitude to science
practical work and their perception of their psychosoCial science laboratory
environment in SRC and satellite schools?
6. What do teachers consider to be the essential purposes of science
practical work in the teaching and learning of science?
7. How do teachers organise science practical activities to promote the
learning of science?
Null Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses have been formulated for testing:
1. There is no significant difference between students in SRC and satellite
schools in their perceptions of their psychosocial science laboratory
environment.
2. There is no significant difference between students in SRC and satellite
schools in their attitude towards science practical work.
3. There is no significant association between students' perception of their
psychosocial science laboratory environment and their attitude towards
science practical work in SRC schools.
14
Significance of the Study
First, this study has illuminated factors which affect students' perceptions
of their psychosocial science laboratory environment and attitudes toward the
science practical activities in Ghanaian SSS in the Ce.ntral Region. It will
therefore provide information about what emphases in the science laboratory
environment will promote positive student attitudes and perceptions. This will
provide the MOE/GES, science teachers and Heads of SSS with information
which will enable them adopt strategies that might improve students' attitudes to
science practical work as well as the learning environment of science
laboratories.
Secondly, the study has will unearthed and documented practices and
situations in both satellite and SRC SSS which might give some insight into
factors contributing to the low performance in WAECpractical examinations
reported by Chief Examiners.
Thirdly, this study provides useful information on how science practical
activities are organised in Ghanaian SSS, and the role they play in the teaching
and learning of science from science teachers' perspective. This study will
therefore, not only make an important contribution to the study of science through
laboratory activities, but will also contribute to improving the teaching and
learning of science in laboratories. It is pertinent to note that contexts for science
education differ substantially from one culture to the other, and that there has
been a considerable amount of work on how science and scientific ideas are
15
perceived in different cultures (Lewin, 1992). This study will therefore contribute
to the debate on the role of laboratory-based practical activity and its impact on
effective teaching and learning of science in SSS in the Ghanaian context.
Finally, this study will have significance for future policy formulation in
Ghana on the nature and use of laboratory-based practical work to facilitate the
teaching and learning of science and will be useful for appraising the use of
laboratory-based practical activities in the teaching and learning of science in
Ghana.
Delimitation
There were a total of 49 SSS offering all three elective science subjects (in
the Central Region of Ghana at the time of this study. The study confined itself to
only the 18 schools which were offering all three elective science subjects
(physics, chemistry and biology) for the WAEC examinations as the population of
interest. Only science students in SSS3 were used in this study since these
students had done the three elective science sUbjects for a period of almost three
years and were therefore in a position to share their views on science practical
activities over the almost three year period compared to students in SSS1 and
SSS2. In the collection of data using qualitative methods, this study confined
itself to the use of interviews only of science students, Heads of Departments
and SRC Co-ordinators.
Limitations
Despite the obvious advantages of integrating quantitative and qualitative
16
data by the use of different methodologies, the two methodologies (quantitative
and qualitative) are based on different assumptions. Some of the survey and
case study findings at times seem conflicting. This is to be expected since
situations in all schools may not fall in line with generalisations from the survey.
Another limitation was the restriction imposed on the data because of the
decision to focus on only schools, which offer all three science electives. Subject
selection at the SSS level allows schools to offer one or two of the three elective
science subjects. Although it is possible that there could be some differences in
the attention given to practical work in such schools, the differences will not be so
wide as to undermine the validity of the study.
Finally, the focus on four case study schools out of a total of 18 schools
places a limitation on the study. This was due to limited financial resources, and
time at the researcher's disposal. However, from my experience as a former
science teacher at the SSS level in Ghana, to a large extent the findings in this
study are a fair representation of the situation in many Ghanaian SSS. The idea
of using case studies was to understand issues about practical work in schools
within the context of the four SSS. Since the basic conditions are the not very
different, the key issues will still be relevant for the vast majority, if not all the
other SSS.
Organisation of the Rest of the Thesis
The thesis has four additional chapters, which have been logically
arranged to provide insights into the issues raised in this section and to provide
17
answers to the research questions. Chapter two of the thesis is devoted to a
general review of the relevant literature on issues relating to the study, namely,
history of science practical work, its role and organisation as well as attitudes,
and perceptions of students. The final part of chapter two looks at the concept of
the SRC model in addressing inequities in science equipment between well-
endowed and less endowed SSS.
Chapter three discusses the research methodology for the study. It
describes the type of study and design in detail, and the rationale for the design.
The strengths and weaknesses of the design are also discussed. Issues relating
to population and sampling, instruments, data collection procedure, and data
analysis are also discussed in detail.
In chapter four, the results of the study are presented and discussed
under two main parts. The first part presents the findings of the survey data
across 10 schools and discusses them under Quantitative Analysis. The second
presents the findings of the multi-site case studies across four schools and
discusses them under Qualitative Analysis. The chapter contains extensive use
of verbatim quotations from students, HODs and SRC Coordinators to illustrate
the perspectives of participants in the research and is in keeping with the
tra~itions of reporting qualitative case study evidence (Akwesi, 1994).
In Chapter five, an overview of the research problem and methodology are
given. A summary of the key findings and their interpretations with reference to
the literature are also provided. Implications and conclusions relating to the
I
I
I
1
~
1indinn~ :1Il' :ll~;o discus~;t'd. In nddilinn, till' 1~~~;UI'~; 11l1l'nttlwd fl11 pn:;:;ihll' tullll\'
ICSl~:lICh :111~ pll'scnkd. 1\ humility sl'clil1l1 ~;pl'cifyil1!llimit"linl1:; 111 till' :;ludV ii,
telms 01 the il1h'lnnl :md I'X\I'111:1 1 v,llidity 01 till' Il':;I':lld, dl':~iHI1 ,md
\'1cnl'mlis:1bility of the lil1dinns ll'spl'clivl'ly nil' inc\udl'd.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to review and discuss issues in the
literature relating to science practical activities. For the purposes of the study, the
review is organised around the following sub-headings:
(a) Historical review of science practical work
(b) The nature of senior secondary school science curriculum
(c) Role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science
(d) Organisation of science practical work
(e) Use of group work in the science laboratory
(f) The Science Resource Centre model
(g) Attitude of students towards science practical work
(h) Students psychosocial perception of their science laboratory environment
Historical Review of Science Practical Work
The literature shows that laboratories for the conduct of scientific research
have existed at least since the seventeenth century. However, according to
Jenkins (1998), the use of the science teaching laboratory, designed and
equipped to teach science to students, is essentially a nineteenth-century
phenomenon. Prior to this period, notably in the seventeenth century, analytical
..:::
laboratories were common in many European countries, in universities and
20
mining academies (Abdalla, 1991). However, according to Abdalla, in the United
Kingdom, the essential stimulus to practical teaching in those days was a
medical one, which began in Scotland, Glassgow and Edinburgh. This medical
reason for teaching practical work was introduced in London by Edward Turner
and Thomas Graham. In 1844 therefore, a huge teaching laboratory of the
Pharmaceutical Society was established.
According to Abdalla (1991), at that time the purpose for establishing
expensive laboratories to teach practical science to undergraduates was not
clear. During those days, science was taught mainly by memorising information
in textbooks, and when textbooks were not available, the teaching frequently
involved students in no more than copying down verbatim notes dictated slowly
by the class teacher (Abdalla, 1991).
In the nineteenth century, the introduction of laboratory work and for that
matter practical work in the sciences started with the teaching of chemistry at the
undergraduate level. Pioneering work done in the nineteenth century by Thomas
Thomson in Britain led to the establishment of the first undergraduate course in
practical chemistry at Glasgow in 1818 (Duff, 1997). Practical work was seen as
a vehicle for training the mind and developing the skills of observing, reasoning
and so on, which were deemed to be of general value. Before then, the teaching
of science particularly at the undergraduate level in universities in Britain was
mainly by means of lectures, which were sometimes enlivened by means of
demonstrations intended to capture the attention of as many students as
II ••
21
possible.
When Edward Frankland, was appointed the Chair of Chemistry at the
Royal College of Chemistry, which was opened in 1845, he succeeded in
persuading the Department of Science and Art to provide grants for science
laboratories. He however, found it was useless to equip laboratories and set up
experiments while teachers lacked laboratory experience, so he began a summer
school for teachers. In 1875 Frankland published his book "How to Teach
Chemistry". The book described 109 experiments that he believed all students
should be shown by teachers. This then became the chemistry practical syllabus
for schools for two decades (Lynch, as cited in Abdalla, 1991).
According to Abdalla (1991), an "x-Club", a group of nine men whose aim
was to change science education to one that was more practically based, was
set up in England. The influence of this group was very considerable with H.E
Armstrong as a key figure. His interest in science teaching stemmed from his
experience of teaching chemistry to medical students, who, he found, were
unable to interpret simple experimental data. This, and later experiences,
convinced him of the unsatisfactory nature of the science education being
received by students. The approach he advocated was one, which would allow
students to learn through discovery (Windeatt as cited in Abdalla, 1991).
In the mid-nineteenth century, science examiners of the Oxford and
Cambridge Local Examination Boards highlighted the importance of teaching
science in the laboratory. Notable among the science examiners was Edward
l
l
I.
I'
I~
I
I
II
I'I
22
Frankland who reported that the unsatisfactory results of the examinations in the
elementary stage were due to the lack of sufficient illustrations during teaching.
Grants were therefore provided by the Department of Art and Science to build
laboratories and purchase equipment. During the last quarter of the nineteenth
century therefore, resources were provided on a significant scale to support the
provision of school science laboratories for the teaching of practical skills and the
use of demonstrations. It was therefore declared that the instruction of scholars
in science sUbjects shall be given mainly by experiments (Hodson, 1990).
In the latter part of the nineteenth century, practical teaching of science
was extended to physics. Laboratories for teaching undergraduate physics
presented different problems from chemistry. This is because compared with
chemistry, physics embraced a wider variety of experimental activities that were
not readily accommodated within a single laboratory. Physics equipment were
often both delicate and expensive, as physics and was based upon accurate
observation and precise measurements.
After physics, botany came to be taught using the experimental approach.
The teaching of botany (plant morphology and taxonomy) came to be taught
using the experimental approach because of its direct relationship with everyday
experience. Since that time, the major science curriculum developments have
promoted practical work as an enjoyable, effective form of learning (Hodson,
1990).
From the beginning of the 20th Century there was continuous increase in
I
I
I
1
!
I
I'
I
I
I
I,
I
I:
iI
I'
I'
Ii
23
facilities and equipment suitable for practical science teaching. The 1914-1918
war opened the eyes of people to the importance of science teaching. This
awareness of the importance of science became more prominent after the
Russians launched their first satellite (Sputnik) in 1957. In the 1960s, another
cycle of science curriculum development began in the United States of America
and concentration on laboratory work increased. New American and English
curricula spread to different parts of the world including Africa. By the late 1950s,
some initiatives were taken which led to the large-scale curriculum reform
movements in the 1960s in England and Wales. This was first funded by the
Nuffield Foundation, and later by the Schools Council, set up in 1964 (Jenkins,
1998). According to Jenkins, in the Nuffield Projects pupils were, "as far as
possible, to engage in investigative activities and, thereby gain vicarious
experience of scientific discovery" (p. 46). This project lent important support to
the idea that had already been mooted that all science teaching should be
laboratory-based.
In Africa prior to the 1950s, laboratory work was used to demonstrate and
confirm knowledge as in Europe. The textbook was the curriculum and hence
what passed as the teaching of science was nothing more than information-
giving by teachers and memorisation of the presented information by students.
The theoretical approach to teaching science was further encouraged by the
emphasis it received in public examinations (Ajeyalemi, 1990). However, since
the 1980s, attempts have been made in Africa as a whole and Ghana in
.. 1
I:
I
I
:,' I
!
"
j I
I
24
particular to use laboratory exercises to provide opportunities for students to
solve problems, learn enquiry processes and develop decision-making skills.
Specifically, the WAEC imposed conditions in the science examinations to
ensure practical orientation of the science courses in the secondary schools.
Each of the science subjects (physics, chemistry and biology) consisted of a
theory paper and a practical paper. Each practical paper was based on the
content of the particular science subject. This was "intended to determine how
well the candidates understand the nature of scientific investigation and the use
of apparatus in a controlled experiment to determine an answer to a question"
(Collins & Aidoo-Taylor, 1990, p.17). The WAEC syllabus for example, requires
the availability of well-equipped laboratories as a pre-requisite for schools
pursuing science courses.
In summary, the development of science practical laboratories and the use
of practical activities as part of the teaching and learning of science has evolved
slowly since the nineteenth century. This began with chemistry. The evolution of
practical activities started in Europe and was extended to America and Africa and
became a serious issue in the 1960s. Presently, practical activities in science
have been accepted as part of the science teaching and learning albeit for
different reasons.
The Nature of Practical Work in Ghanaian SSS Science Curriculum
Science practical activity has become an integral part of most new science
programmes in developing countries according to reports of the 9th and 10th
I
'·1
I
I
25
International Clearing House on Science and Mathematics Curriculum
Development (Lockard as cited in Lewin, 1992). The science syllabuses for
Ghanaian SSS prescribed by CRDD and WAEC have a practical activity
component to be conducted in a laboratory setting. The CRDD document is a
teaching syllabus whilst the WAEC document is an examination syllabus. The
SSS syllabus from the WAEC from 1998 to 2002 emphasizes the acquisition of
some skills by means of practical work in biology, physics and chemistry as
follows:
Biology
(a) acquisition of adequate laboratory and field skills in order to carry out and
evaluate experiments and projects in biology;
(b) acquisition of the necessary scientific skills for example, observing,
classifying and interpreting biological data.
Physics
(a) carry out experimental procedures using apparatus;
(b) develop abilities, attitudes and skills that encourage efficient and safe
practice;
(c) make and record observations, measurements and estimates with due
regard to precision, accuracy and units.
Chemistry
development of laboratory skills including an awareness of hazards in the
laboratory and the safety measures required to prevent them.
I
,I
!
I
'I
1
,!
1l1li
26
The objectives of the science curriculum listed here are those that are tied
to the context of a laboratory. To achieve these objectives, students must of
necessity use the conventional approach of doing science in a laboratory.
According to Osborne (1998), this kind of emphasis on laboratory work is
"strongly associated with the conception that scientific knowledge is lying around
out there to be discovered by the curious" (p. 171). This idea of tying science
education to the laboratory has been the practice and culture of science teaching
since the nineteenth century as discussed in the previous section. It is therefore
not surprising that the WAEC and CRDD curriculum place emphasis on the
manipulation of a plethora of standard apparatus, the gathering of experimental
data and the acquisition of varied laboratory skills, which can only be acquired
through laboratory work. According to Osborne, only a "radical surgery will force
a re-examination of the cultural sclerosis that pre-dominates in the teaching of
science where the adherence to the laboratory blocks progression in our
pedagogy" (p. 172).
However, Knott and Mutunga (1995) have reported that during the past
twenty-five years a major re-appraisal of uses and methods in laboratory
teaching has taken place. They have noted that there is considerable controversy
about the use of laboratories for the learning of process skills. Some of the areas
of concern raised by Knott and Mutanga are:
1. the high cost of laboratory work, making it difficult to continue
providing facilities and resources to the standard felt necessary;
i
I
II
I
"1
!I
'I
":1
"
"'.
27
2. severe time constraints and overloading of timetables leading to
serious problems in meeting syllabus requirements in quality
and quantity;
3. dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of conventional laboratory work,
which does not foster the understanding of scientific concepts and the
application of scientific principles to solving problems (p. 186).
Several comparative studies of conventional laboratory classes and other
forms of teaching indicate shortcomings in the effectiveness of laboratory work.
Although laboratory work is thought to be more effective than other methods for
acquiring observational and manual skills, others have argued that it is generally
less effective for teaching factual knOWledge, concepts, scientific enquiry or
problem solving skills (Knott & Mutunga, 1995; Lewin, 1992). In fact, Edmondson
and Novak (1993) think that science laboratory work is nothing more than
learning "bench techniques" (p. 551). According to them almost half a century
ago, summaries of research on the value of laboratory work experience for
learning science did not favour the laboratory over lecture-demonstration,
contrary to such claims made by von Secker and Lissitz (1999). Some earlier
studies by Stake and Easley (1978), Bogden (1977), Buchweitz (1981), and
Waterman (1982) also showed that most students in laboratories gained very
little either regarding key science concepts or toward understanding the process
of knowledge construction. Lewin (2000) has therefore, observed that "the role of
practical activity in science is often confused with laboratory work" (p. 22). His
~,
'.I',
I:
"
I
,
I
"
I.
28
"
argument is that "active engagement with problems in the physical world is part
. of everyday experience and most, if not all, worthwhile thinking skills associated
with secondary science can be taught without expensive equipment" (p. 22) and
hence without the use of a laboratory. Barton (1998) has also argued that since
the scope of practical work done (in laboratories) is limited by logistical factors
such as equipment and time, practical work should be geared toward the
analysis and interpretation of data instead of merely collecting and processing
data. Ross and Lewin (1992) writing on the role and impact of practical work cite
the work of Yager, Engen and Snider which suggests that laboratory activity does
not fulfill the various functions expected of it, except perhaps for the development
of manipulative skills. They argue that if the only skills that laboratory activity can
achieve are manipulative skills, then it is not worth committing resources to
laboratories. According to Ross and Lewin (1992), laboratories seem divorced
from the materials and experiences that students encounter in their daily lives.
They therefore, suggest that a substantial proportion of laboratory investigations
should use common materials encountered by students. In this way it might be
possible for students to achieve the various functions expected of them. Ross
and Lewin conclude by suggesting that
it is the aims, content and implementation of practical work in science that
have to be reviewed, including the need to redesign science rooms and
science equipment to incorporate more of the materials from nature's
laboratory so that students have more opportunity to explore the
"
"Ii
Ii
I.
I'
29
properties of everyday materials and the scientific principles embedded in
everyday phenomena (p. 10).
This perspective taken by Barton (1998), Ross and Lewin (1992) and some other
science educators support the promotion of demonstrations, science kits,
computer-assisted practical work and other non-conventional methods with more
experiential and discovery-based strategies, which are not necessarily laboratory
based.
However, there are other objectives stated in the science syllabuses,
which relate to the acquisition of scientific skills but do not necessarily need
conventional laboratories to achieve them. These objectives are summarized as
follows:
(a) acquisition of the necessary scientific skills for example, classifying and
interpreting biological data.
(b) acquisition of scientific attitudes for problem solving
(c) appreciation of the scientific method which involves deduction and
interpretation of scientific data;
(d) development of attitudes relevant to science such as concern for accuracy
and precision, objectivity, integrity, initiative and inventiveness.
(e) development of scientific skills and attitudes as pre-requisites for further
scientific activities.
This means that apart from laboratory skills, the syllabuses therefore stress the
acquisition of skills that would enable students draw conclusions from
, ,
"
II
I,
I
,I
30 j
I'
experimental results, and the development of interest and the enjoyment of the
science subjects. The ability to interpret and reason would also enable students
develop understanding of the scientific concepts and procedures. These skills
are important and central to developing an understanding of the nature of
science and the skills of synthesis and critical evaluation, fundamental for
participation in a scientific society (Osborne, 1998). It is therefore obvious that
the science syllabuses for SSS place emphasis on both laboratory-based skills
and general scientific skills. Table 1 gives a summary of science practical skills
contained in the SSS WAEC and CRDD elective science syllabuses.
Table 1
A summary of practical skills for SSS elective science as outlined by WAEC and
CRDD syllabuses
Skills
.,
Process
Planning
Biology
Carrying out and
evaluating
experiments and
projects
Chemistry
Experimental
design
Physics
Identifying problems,
plan and carry out
investigations
including selection of
techniques,
apparatus,
, ,
i r
,
"Table 1 cont'd 31
Skills
Process Biology Chemistry Physics
measuring devices
and materials
Performing Observing; Accurate Make and record
classifying; adequate observation, observations,
laboratory and observing and measurements and
problem solving skills recording; estimates with due
Laboratory skills regard to precision,
accuracy and units
Interpreting Interpreting biological Deduction and Interpret, evaluate
data interpretation of and report on
scientific data observations and
experimental data
Scientific Scientific attitudes for Scientific attitudes Scientific attitudes
Attitudes problem solving such as awareness and skills that
of hazards in the encourage efficient
laboratory and and safe practice;
,
, 'I
,
safety measures concern for accuracy 1
Process Biology
Table 1 cont'd
Skills
Chemistry
32
Physics
and precision;
objectivity; integrity;
initiative and
inventiveness
"
Chief Examiners' Reports on Performance in Science Practical Examinations
The SSS science syllabuses from the WAEC emphasise the acquisition of
scientific skills (e.g., accurate observation, measurement and recording),
laboratory skills as well as scientific attitudes (e.g., concern for accuracy,
objectivity, integrity, initiative etc.). It is therefore expected that students would go
through the science syllabuses, which include practical work in preparation for
the final WAEC science practical examinations. With the provision of SRCs it is
also expected that students in disadvantaged schools would have the opportunity
to undertake practical activities.
However, a variety of specific students' weaknesses in the practical
examination reported by Chief Examiners cast serious doubts on SSS students'
involvement in practical activities in the schools. This gives the impression that
students are either not taken through practical activities or did not take them
seriously. Some of the persistent weaknesses identified over the years (1995-
'.
33
2000) by the Chief Examiners for the sciences are as follows:
Biology
(a) candidates were incapable of critical analysis and interpretation of
biological data
(b) candidates have not been having adequate practical work as shown by
the answers provided
(c) candidates should follow the question and do exactly what is demanded
(d) standard of drawing was very poor
(e) most candidates could not draw diagrams from observation of specimen
(f) inability to design simple experiments
(g) description of graphs drawn were inaccurate and explanation of the data
provided for the graphs was poor
Chemistry
(a) candidates showed clearly that they had notbeen exposed to some of the
activities suggested in the syllabus
(b) some of the candidates did not see the need to carry out the tests in the
order specified in the questions
(c) it was clear from the answers that some candidates had not done any
experiment along the lines tested at all
(d) most candidates did not show any sign of having done a simple
recrystallisation in their lives
(e) most candidates could not make correct deductions from the observations
I
~
"34
of the tests they performed.
(f) Candidates generally made statements of facts which clearly
demonstrates that the suggested activities in the syllabus are not being
carried out with any seriousness
(g) Some candidates did not have enough practical exposure
(h) Most candidates were found wanting in the way they recorded their tests
and observations
Physics
(a) many candidates did not present their units in the standard form. They
must be taught that whether the units are in a table, graph or final results
of experiments, it is neater and clearer to be presented in the standard
form
(b) some candidates chose awkward scales with the result that plotting of
graph was difficult
(c) poor labelling of axes and the omission of units on the axes
(d) candidates could not use measuring instruments to measure accurately
This is happening in spite of the fact that SRCs for both host and satellite
schools have been established to serve as teaching centres to supplement
existing facilities in secondary schools, to give ample opportunities for practical
work by students using modern facilities and techniques including the use of
computers.
I •.
I
i
,
1
Ii
~
"35
Role of Practical Work in the Teaching and Learning of Science
Advocates of science practical work contend that it is advantageous for:
(a) student learning of scientific knowledge and methods of science;
(b) student acquisition of scientific skills;
(c) motivation; and
(d) the acquisition of scientific attitudes
The literature pertaining to each of these reasons is extensive and conflicting as
there are arguments supporting and refuting each of the rationale that has been
stated. The purpose of this review is not to catalogue the various arguments for
and against science practical work. This is because science practical has been
accepted to be part of the science curriculum for Ghanaian SSS by the MOE and
WAEC. The issue therefore is, given that practical work must be done, what
purposes does it serve and is there an agreement in the literature as to what the
role of practical activities must be in order to promote the teaching and learning
of science? It is expected that practical work should promote cognitive and social
competencies as well as affective dispositions. According to Ben-Zvi (1991),
practical work at the secondary school level has been influenced by two
opposing philosophies: (a) the use of experiments as a means for verification of
previously studied facts, and (b) the laboratory as the focus of the learning
process where experiments are presented as problems to which answers are to
36
be sought. In the latter case the teaching of science is centred on the laboratory.
The major problem of centering the study of science around the laboratory is that
it is both expensive in resources and student time. Presently there seems to be a
growing concern that although the laboratory cannot be disposed of entirely, its
role in science education should be reassessed. As already noted, analysts differ
in their opinions about the role of practical work because of their different views
about learning theory (Ross & Lewin ,1992).
According to Woolnough (1998) one way of looking at science practical
activities is to categorize them broadly into those related to developing practical
skills and attitudes; and those related to discovering or elucidating theory. The
latter makes use of structured experiments linked to theory. Those who argue in
favour of practical activities are however, divided on its aims and how it should
be organized so as to help students. They differ greatly in what skills are ~
important and how they can be achieved. Some rank the aims related to practical
skills more highly than those related to developing theory and vice versa. In two
major research exercises in the 1960s and 1970s reported by Millar (1998),
teachers were asked to rank in order of importance lists of possible aims of
practical work. Two of the main groups of aims identified are those, which
concern the role of practical work in supporting the teaching of scientific
knowledge, and in teaching about the processes of scientific enquiry. As noted
by Millar (1998), "an investigative or enquiry approach encourages children to be
more independent and self-reliant, to think of themselves as able to pose their
I'I'
P
I'il!:
I
i,
I.
~
n37
own questions about the physical work and to find answers to them through their
own efforts" (p. 17). It seems that much of what is said about practical work
stems from this view about the use of the enquiry approach to teach science. In
reality what the practical work does is simply to reproduce a phenomenon, which
has already been established (Millar, 1998). However, as noted by Hacking
(1983) this serves two purposes for the teaching and learning of science. The
first is that it shows a phenomenon can be reliably reproduced so that students
could learn at first hand from the phenomenon instead of it being described to
them and they trying to visualise it. Secondly, since phenomenon is not easy to
reproduce, the outcome of a practical activity is evidence that students have
carried out the activity correctly and with sufficient care and skill. Students are
able to learn new ideas by being shown examples of them, rather than being
given formal definitions, or other verbal accounts. As pointed by Millar (1998),
"when we get pupils to investigate the relationship between force and
acceleration for a trolley, for instance, we are showing what the scientific ideas of
'force' and of 'acceleration' mean, by giving concrete examples of them" (p. 29).
Essentially then, according to Millar (1998) whatever teachers may say about
why they conduct practical work, the real purposes of practical work done in
schools is to try to
"encourage students to make links between things they can see and
handle, and ideas they may entertain which might account for their
observation ... Practical work that is intended to support the teaching and
38
,
learning of scientific knowledge has to be understood, and judged, as a
communicating strategy, as a means of augmenting what can be achieved
by word, picture and gesture" (p. 29, 30).
Science practical work may therefore involve: illustrations of a phenomenon;
providing experiences or getting a feel for phenomenon by students; exercises or
routines for students to follow; developing a particular skill or becoming used to a
piece of equipment or instrument.
Other surveys conducted over the past thirty years into reasons why
teachers do practical work and the type of practical activities they do are reported
by Woolnough (1998). According to him, teachers ranked those aims related to
developing practical skills and attitudes most highly and those related to
discovering or elucidating theory much lower. Yet Woolnough has observed that
the type of practical work teachers consistently say that they do most frequently
are structured experiments linked to theory (practical work to elucidate theory).
Organisation of Science Practical Work
Presently, practical activities could be provided through the use of either
the computer-assisted approach or conventional approach. Computer-assisted
practical work relates to the use of sensors, interfaces and software to monitor
and display data collected during practical science activities. The conventional
approach includes the use of standard laboratories, science kits, teacher
demonstrations, and field activities. Some science educators who advocate the
39
use of the conventional approach to practical activities insist that science
practical work should be laboratory based whilst others advocate for practical
activity not necessarily based in laboratories. Those who insist on laboratory
based practical work assert that emphasis on acquisition of laboratory skills may
be especially important for improving students ability to design experiments to
solve problems. All practical work organised must therefore be hands-on
laboratory activities.
Over the years laboratory manuals have become the blueprint for such
practical activities. Jenkins (1998) reports "many of the experiments in physics
and chemistry conducted by grammar school pupils in the early years of the 20th
century ... have been clearly derived from a standard format" (p. 42).
Consequently practical teaching of science in school laboratories have been
reduced to what Jenkins describes as "a set of routine 'cook-book' exercises,
sometimes involving little more than a lengthy elaboration of the obvious" (p. 42).
Some science teachers in the past have organised science practical activities to
emphasise the spirit of scientific curiosity by presenting experiments in the form
of problems which students were required to solve.
Another way of organising science practical activities contained in the
literature is by allowing students to use the science laboratory to conduct their
own investigations to find out things for themselves. Apart from using laboratory
based practical work to solve problems, von Seeker and Lissitz (1999) think that
laboratory based practical activities promote the development of process skills. I.
.,
"
40
,
They therefore argue against the use of teacher demonstrations as well as large
group instruction as a way of facilitating the development of process skills. In
fact, Tamir and Lunetta (1981) think that laboratory based practical activity
covers more areas of competencies when they emphatically stated that the main
purpose of the laboratory is to afford experiences and challenges for students to
solve problems, construct relevant science knowledge, undertake scientific
investigations, promote inquiry and verify known scientific concepts and laws.
However, in countries, which have severe resource shortages, practical activity in
a conventional laboratory environment is generally unsustainable (Ross & Lewin,
1992). Practical work is therefore organised in the form of less fancied teacher
demonstrations or large group experiments. The development of process skills
by students through the use of these methods is however, very limited and may
even be insignificant.
Computer-assisted practical work relates to the use of sensors, interfaces
and software to monitor and display data collected during science practical
activities. This is referred to in Britain as 'data logging' and in America as
microcomputer-based laboratory according to Barton (1998). Software tools
enable data collected to be investigated, manipulated, and analysed. As
explained by Barton "these software tools provide the option for a new kind of
practical science activity where pupils start by collecting data but spend most of
the time considering the significance of the data by exploring it" (p. 248).
Computed-based practical work is however, an innovation in practical work
41
whose potential, as yet is largely untapped.
Use of Group Work in the Science Laboratory
According to Lazarowitz, Hertz- Lazarowitz & Baird (1994), experiments in
the science laboratory have always required students to work in groups of two or
four, due to the constraints of experimental processes and limited equipment and
supplies. Anecdotal evidence shows that group work during science practical
work is a common feature in Ghanaian SSS. Even though in some cases group
work is resorted to as a result of constraints as mentioned, it is expected that
when students work in groups during practical work, it will enable them to specify
goals more precisely, plan procedures, generate and select alternatives, and
review or modify their plans. Cohen, and Arechevela-Vargas as cited in Cohen
(1994) have defined a group task "as a task that requires resources (information,
knowledge, heuristic problem-solving strategies, materials, and skills) that no
single individual possesses so that no single individual is likely to solve the
problem or accomplish the task objectives without at least some input from
others" (p. 8). However, it has been observed by Lazarowitz et. al. (1994) that
most practical activities given to students are not inherently group tasks, since
individuals could carry out the tasks. One may give a group a task, but, unless
there is some reason for the group to interact, students may well tackle the task
as individual work. This is especially the case if each individual must turn out
some kind of worksheet or report. Lack of group work may also arise if the
instructor divides the labour so that each person in the group does a different
42
part of the task; the group has only to draw these pieces together in sequential
fashion as a final product. The consequence is that there is comparatively little
interaction, and students do not gain the benefits of using one another as
resources, nor is there any basis for expecting the pro-social outcomes of
cooperation (Cohen, 1994). Slavin (1983) is particularly critical about giving a
group a single task that could conceivably be done by one person. If one person
can accomplish a task there is little motivation on the part of members in a group
to expend their effort in helping with the task. Therefore not all tasks assigned to
cooperative groups are true group tasks.
Even though studies have shown that the number of participants in a
group affects group discussion modes and individual learning, '''there is lack of
consensus in the peer interaction literature about the optimal size of groups"
(Alexopoulou & Driver, 1996, p. 1100). Some studies suggest that pairs function
better, others argue for larger groupings (e.g., four), "which give students the
opportunity to consider a wider range of ideas, hence reducing the possibility of a
discussion dying out too soon" (Alexopoulou & Driver, 1996, p. 1100).
Theoretically, small groups offer special opportunities for active learning and
substantive conversation and have been widely recommended as a means to
achieve equity (Nystrand, 1986; Oakes & Lipton, 1990).
In science practical work, perhaps the main type of interaction desired is
for students to offer each other assistance. Here the motivation for students to do
so as well as the preparation for constructive assistance of one another becomes
43
important factors. Cooperation is therefore needed from each member of the
group. Cooperative learning methods generally involve heterogeneous groups
working together on tasks that are deliberately structured to provide specific
assignments and individual contributions from each group member. Cooperative
learning should therefore not be confused with small groups that teachers often
compose for the purposes of carrying out science practical activities because of
limited number of apparatus. It is expected that students will have "cognitive as
well as social benefits as they clarify their own understanding and share their
insights and ideas with each other as they interact within the group" (Lazarowitz,
Hetz-Lazarowitz, & Baird, 1994, p. 1122) during the course of the practical
activity. Peers' modes of interaction on the social level therefore play an
important part in the process of the construction of knowledge in group settings.
Whether students want to work together seems to be of fundamental importance
in any group activity. Thus, at least for the purposes of interactions during
practical work, this may suggest that there could be advantages in using self-
selected groups (Alexopoulou & Driver, 1996).
When students work in groups, cooperating with each other, they are likely
to have a "more supportive climate for learning and in increased student ability to
organise projects, divide and assign the work given to them, and take
responsibility for completing it" (Lazarowitz, Hetz-Lazarowitz, & Baird, 1994, p.
1123). According to Lazarowitz et. a!. (1994), "studies have consistently reported
that on-task behaviour is higher when students learn through cooperative
r44
methods as opposed to individualized learning modes" (p. 1123). However, some
researchers have also found that even though cooperative learning is desirable,
it does not always result in greater understanding or enjoyment of subject matter
(Sherman, 1988; Tingle & Good, 1990).
The Science Resource Centre Model
In spite of all the arguments against practical work, there seems to be no
substitute for experiencing science at first hand as this assists in developing an
understanding of scientific phenomena (Barton, 1998). Barton admits "practical
work has the potential to challenge pupils' ideas and to draw them into learning
about science" (p. 240). In line with this thinking, the MOE and WAEC have put
emphasis on practical work in the teaching and learning of science through the
use of laboratories. The WAEC chemistry syllabus for example, mentions the
availability of well-equipped laboratories as a pre-requisite for schools .pursuing
chemistry courses at the SSS level. Unfortunately, in Ghanaian senior secondary
schools (SSS) there are significant inequities in opportunities for access to
laboratory experiences due to inadequate'facilities and equipment, and lack of
money to purchase consumables. Students in less-endowed schools may
therefore be at a disadvantage when it comes to practical work.
To address issues surrounding inequitable opportunities for effective
science course (which involves practical work), a policy option taken by the MOE
was to create special centres called Science Resource Centres (SRC) stocked
with adequate resources and sited in selected SSS. These SRCs act as satellite
45
centres, which serve surrounding SSS that lack the needed resources.
Documents available from the office of the National Co-ordinator for SRCs
indicate that presently the centres are based in 107 selected SSS in Ghana and
service schools in their locality. These centres have been equipped with basic
science equipment including modern electronic devices and computers to be
used in the teaching and learning of science. Buses have been provided to all
SRCs for use by satellite schools. Schools are required to pay user fees (which
are charged to students) before they are allowed to use the ce'ntres. The centres'
own teachers teach all students who go there. The project is a collaborative
effort between the Government of Ghana (GOG) and Philip Harris International of
Britain with the GOG providing the funds whilst Philip Harris International
provides the equipment and technical expertise. Under the agreement, the GOG
rehabilitated and refurbished old laboratories in selected schools whilst Philip
Harris International supplied and installed science equipment at those centres.
The objectives of the SRCs at the District level include the following:
(i) to serve as teaching centres to supplement existing facilities
in secondary schools and give ample opportunities for
practical work using modern facilities and techniques
including the use of computers
(ii) to provide additional tuition facilities for students in schools
without well-equipped laboratories
(iv) to expose students and teachers to the use of computers
c.
c.
46
and other electronic equipment in the teaching of science
Source: Status Report of the Science Resource Centres Project,
1997, p 2.
According to the Status Report of the Science Resource Centres Project
published in 1997 the intended benefits of this project include:
(i) improvement in the teachingllearning methodology
(ii) increased enthusiasm of students in the learning of science
(iv) teachers and students being computer literate and therefore
better prepared to fit into the modern information technology
age.
Source: Status Report of the Science Resource Centres Project,
April 1997, p. 2.
It is evident that practical activities have high costs compared to
classroom based teaching in terms of equipment and time (Ross & Lewin, 1992).
The MOE has committed about 20 million pounds sterling to the establishment of
SRCs with the objective of supplementing existing facilities in SSS to provide
equal opportunities to students to enable them engage in practical work and to
provide tuition for students in schools without the necessary laboratory facilities.
In 1998, the GES Council requested the National Co-ordinator of the SRCs to
undertake a small-scale assessment of the SRC project. A total of 399
respondents made up of 63 teachers and 336 students were purposively
selected from a few SSS in Ghana. The findings of the survey revealed that most
,.
'oJ'
f;~n_ ./-S-.:-f.;..- .
.~ .
,.
47
satellite schools visited the SRCs once in every two weeks. This means that the
average attendance per term at the centres by satellite schools was five times.
Almost all the host schools however, used the centres at least once a week thus
giving them some advantage in terms of access. Even though the majority of
students stated that they enjoyed going to the centres mainly because of the
modern equipment there, the minority stated reasons, which need to be fully
investigated. For example, some of the students stated that they were not able to
do the required number of practical activities planned for them since they only
went to the centre once every two weeks. Others stated that they did not get
access to some of the equipment, for instance, the computer. Some students
also indicated that sometimes they did not understand the practical activities they
undertook at the centre. Given the above problems and constraints, it was not
surprising that some students emphatically stated that they did not enjoy going to
the SRCs.
These findings though limited in scope raise questions about the benefits
that students (particularly those from satellite schools) may be deriving from the
SRCs. It also casts doubts on whether the SRCs are really having the desired
impact in terms of promoting equity among students with respect to practical
activities and providing tuition for students in schools without well-equipped
laboratories. It would be desirable therefore to investigate these issues in order
to help inform government policy on the provision of very expensive laboratory
equipment and materials for the teaching and learning of science at the SSS
l
\. H~ f,' ~).!lrJ,
f li: .
48
level.
Attitude of Students towards Science Practical Work
Historically, research on science education has focused primarily on
cognitive educational outcomes. However, research into the affective domain has
now become a major focus in science education, and one of the key variables
within the affective domain that has drawn attention is attitude (Weinburgh,
1995). Ajzen (1989) proposed a theory of planned behaviour in which
behavioural goals could be predicted from attitudes (Weinburgh, 1995). Since
then, "many researchers have examined attitudes by studying variables that
influence it" (Weinburgh, 1995, p.388).
Definition of Attitude
The term attitude conveys different meanings in the science education
literature. In 1929, Thurstone defined attitude as "the sum total of a man's
inclinations and feelings, prejudice and bias, preconceived notions, ideas, fears,
threats and convictions about a specific topic" (as cited in Abdalla, 1991, p. 96).
Others have defined attitude as the affect for or against a psychological object.
Various definitions of attitude can be restated in any of the following ways:
(a) affect for or against
(b) evaluation of
(c) like or dislike
(d) positiveness or negativeness toward a psychological object
The characteristics of attitude as summarized by Goldstein cited in Abdalla
I
I
!
/.
49
(1991) are as follows:
(a) Attitudes are learned
(b) Attitudes predict behaviour
(c) The social influences of others affect attitudes
(d) Attitudes are evaluative, emotion is involved.
The meaning of attitude focused on in this review of the literature centres on
affective reactions to science practical work. Attitude in this context implies
interest, enthusiasm, satisfaction, enjoyment, feelings of like and dislike.
According to Katz and Stotland cited in Akinmade (1992), attitudes have three
components, namely; affective, cognitive, and behavioural. The characteristics of
the three components are as follows:
the affective aspect is reflected in the expression of likes and dislikes,
pleasant and unpleasant states towards an object. The cognitive aspect
represents knowledge of the identity of the object, while the behavioural
part is the actual movement towards or away from the attitude object (p.
76).
The term "attitude towards science practical" is therefore used to indicate all that
an individual feels and thinks about science practical work as a result of
interacting directly or indirectly with various aspects of science practical activities
and which exert a direct influence on his/her behaviour towards science practical
work. Given that attitude has three dimensions, Schibeci (1983), has argued that
attitude towards science is predominantly affective and this is affected by many
,. I
~
:1
:1
,!
I,
1:"- t~.) .
r:.. .
50
variables (Freedman, 1997). One such variable is hands-on activity-based
laboratory instruction, which appears to have a consistent positive influence on
students' attitude toward science (Freedman, 1997). According to Freedman "the
laboratory, as a factor in the learning environment, is intrinsic in the development
of positive student attitudes toward science" (p. 344). Attitude towards science is
seen "as a learning outcome of the laboratory experience within the science
curriculum" (Freedman, 1997, p. 344). In this sense, students' attitude towards
laboratory work is taken for granted. Thus even though the laboratory is seen
only as an intrinsic factor in the attitude toward science, it could as well be an
extrinsic factor. Hence laboratory based science practical work could be seen as
an attitude object. This makes the study of students' attitude towards science
laboratory work desirable, as research on attitudes in science education has
primarily focused on attitudes towards science and not on science practical work.
Measurement of Attitude
Although attitudes are not easy to measure, attempts to measure attitudes
have been more successful than attempts to define them (Abdalla, 1991). As
noted by the sociologist Thurstone, cited in Freedman (1997) "attitude is complex
and not describable by anyone numerical index" (p. 344).
The concept of attitude, like many abstract concepts, is a construct. It is
an instrument that serves the human need to see order and consistency in what
people say, think or do. However, it is notsomething that can be examined, or
measured in the same way one can examine the cells of a person's skin
,
I
II
IIi
51
(Abdalla, 1991). We can only infer that a person has attitudes by his words or
actions. As stated above, although attitudes are not easy to measure, attempts to
measure attitudes have been more successful than attempts to define them.
When there is no reason for someone to hide anything, then it is assumed that
one's statements about one's own attitudes may be accepted as the best
indicator of the attitude. Responses to statements are used to measure attitudes.
The most popular being the Likert scale.
Students' Psychosocial Perception of their Science Laboratory Environment
In the past, research involving science students' outcomes focused
primarily on educational objectives in the cognitive domain. In more recent times
however, attention has been paid to outcomes in the affective domain and the
study of students' perceptions of their learning environment has formed a primary
component of this research (Weinburgh, 1995). Classroom and school
environment factors have been found to be particularly important influences on
students' outcomes, even when a number of factors were controlled (Henderson,
Fisher & Fraser, 1998). Within the learning environment, students' perceptions
are influenced by psychological and social factors. Hence studies into students'
perception of their learning environments have focused on psychosocial factors.
Research into psychological and social factors, which make up the
learning environment, has developed over the past 20 to 30 years. This period
has also witnessed the emergence of a strong tradition of studying classroom
climate through the perceptions of students and teachers (Fraser & Walberg,
I
II
I'
I
I
>J., ....
...-.-, '.'~
52
1991).
0'
The study of classroom environments started wheri"Rudolf Moss
developed a social climate survey for use in his work in psychiatric hospitals and
other human environments. From this work, he developed the Classroom
Environment Scale (Raaflaub & Fraser, 2002). Moss identified three general
categories of dimensions necessary for conceptualising all human environments.
These general categories are:
Relationship Dimensions (the nature and intensity of personal
relationships), Personal Development Dimensions (basic directions along
which personal growth and self-enhancement tend to occur), and System
Maintenance and System Change Dimensions (extent to·which the
environment is orderly, clear in expectation, maintains control, and is
responsive to change).
(Fraser, McRobbie & Giddings, 1993, p. 4)
All three general dimensions must be assessed to "provide an adequate and
reasonably complete picture of any environment" (Fraser, McRobbie & Giddings
(1993, p. 4).
Interest in the study of learning environments became more prominent
when there was evidence that learning outcomes and student attitudes towards
learning were closely linked to the environment in which the learning took place
(Myint & Goh, 2001). Tel (1991) has noted that perceptions importantly influence
human behaviour in science related issues and this has been found to exist in
1"-
53
almost all countries of the world. International research efforts involving tha-
conceptualisation, assessment, and investigation of perceptions of aspects of the
classroom environment have now firmly established the classroom environment
as a thriving field of study (Henderson, Fisher & Fraser, 1998). In the past three
decades therefore, much attention has been given to the development and use of
instruments to assess the quality of science classroom learning environments
from the perspective of students, teachers and external observers (Fraser, 1994;
Fraser & Walberg, 1991). Some past studies have examined associations
between students' attitudinal outcomes and student perceptions of the learning
environment in science classes. Past classroom environment research have
used a variety of questionnaires such as the "Learning Envirohment Inventory",
"Classroom Environment Scale", "Individualised Classroom Environment
Questionnaire", "Science Laboratory Environment Inventory", "Constructivist
Learning Environment Survey", "My Science Class Inventory" (Chin & Wong,
2001; Fraser, McRobbie & Giddings, 1993; Taylor, Fraser & Fisher, 1997) among
others to study learning environments. With the emergence and availability of a
whole range of psychosocial environment questionnaires for use in different
schools and classroom contexts, the study of learning environments has come to
assume a position of significance.
Classroom environment instruments have been used as sources of
f'
predictor and criterion variables in a variety of research studies conducted in
elementary and secondary schools. The most common means of measuring the
t,
",
;.'.!
':,'1
'j'i
, '
'I,;
:...I
l)
0" d IJ
54
learning environment has been through the use of perceptions of participants.
According to Raaflaub and Fraser (2002), this has proven useful as it provides
valuable information through the eyes of students or teachers as opposed to
external observers.
Even though there have been a lot of science education researches over
the last quarter of a century on classroom learning environments, Hegarty-Hazel
(1990) has noted that, surprisingly, hardly any of this work focused specifically on
science laboratory classes, which constitute one of the most important
environments in science teaching. It was not until 1992 that Fraser, Giddings and
McRobbie developed an instrument called the Science Laboratory Environment
Inventory (SLEI) for the study of science laboratory environments at the
secondary school level. Research has not been comprehensive about science
laboratory environments and so enough is not really known about the effects of
laboratory instruction upon students learning and attitudes (Fraser, McRobbie &
Giddings, 1993). There are therefore very few studies on students' perception of
science laboratory environments. It is therefore not surprising that research into
psychosocial science laboratory environment, which has become one crucial
dimension of science education, has not yet been explored in Ghana.
In a study on "Pupils' classroom environment, perceptions, attitudes and
achievement in science at the upper primary level" in Singapore, Chin and Wong
(2001) have reported that pupils surveyed indicated they wanted a much better
material environment for the study of science. They concluded in their study that
;
I'
()
" (J lJ
{,.- Ij
55
as learning of science was often enhanced through hands-on experiments and
experience, a conducive and well-equipped environment was likely to have
influence on the learning of science. The results of their study showed that four
environment dimensions (difficulty, cohesiveness, integration and material
environment) have significant associations (.12.<.05) with attitude scores. The
strong positive correlation found by Chin and Wong between pupils' perception of
the material environment and attitude also reiterate the importance of the
material environment in the learning of science. Also science laboratory classes
that integrate knowledge learnt from science lessons and provide conducive
material environment may ultimately have a positive impact on how pupils' learn,
and their attitude towards science. The significant environment~attitude
association for the integration scale concurred with past research by Wong and
Fraser (1996).
In another study in Tasmania (Australia), Henderson, Fisher and Fraser
(1998), measured students' perception of some aspects of their learning
environment in environmental science classrooms using the Environmental
Science Learning Environment Inventory (ESLEI). They found that students
stUdying more than one science subject perceived significantly higher levels of
Student Cohesion and a more favourable material environment than their
counterparts stUdying only one science subject. They also investigated
associations between students' perceptions of their classroom learning
environment and students' attitudinal outcomes. Of the five aspects of learning
,I
I
!
,:
,
: ,
'I
I'
!.
i
I,!:
:,.!
':
j
l>
o Q
56
environments measured in their study, student cohesion, involvement, and task
orientation were found to be most strongly associated with positive attitudinal
outcomes.
Fraser, McRobbie and Giddings (1993) explored the degree of association
between students' attitudes and their perceptions using the Science Laboratory
Environment Inventory (SLEI) they had developed and cross validated. Five
dimensions were found to account for the psychosocial perception of students'
laboratory environments. These were students' cohesiveness, open-endedness,
integration, rule clarity and material environment. They reported that overall,
these dimensions were found to be positively related with student attitudes with
the exception of open-endedness, which was negatively related to attitudes for
some subsamples. In particular, more favourable student attitudes toward
laboratory work were found in classes perceived to be higher in student
cohesiveness and integration. For example, with the class mean as the unit of
analysis, simple correlation between attitudes and integration was in excess of
0.6 for the total sample (Fraser, McRobbie & Giddings, 1993). However, as
rightly noted by Chin and Wong (2001), it must be pointed out that it cannot be
concluded in absolute terms that the nature of the environment caused the
observed student attitudinal outcome.
57
Implication of Literature Review for this Study
The literature that has been reviewed has shown that there is agreement
among some science teachers on the use of science practical activities in the
teaching and learning of science worldwide. However, what seems to differ
among science teachers is how science teachers perceive the purposes of
science practical activities in the teaching and learning of science. Even though
the organisation of science practical activities in Ghanaian SSS has been taken
for granted, as it is examined every year by the WAEC, what has not been
investigated are teachers views on the purposes of science practical activities,
and students' perceptions of and attitude towards these activities. However,
teachers' and students' views about science practical work cOLild affect how
science practical activities are conducted, the emphasis put on them, and how
they are organised. Given the reported weaknesses of SSS science students in
science practical examinations as contained in the reports ofWAEC Chief
Examiners, there is an urgent need to investigate science practical work in
Ghanaian SSS in order to shed some light on how it relates to students'
performance. It is to this problem that the present study is addressed.
L(!
I r,
!~ i ,1 I
, ,
---------------J~
I, 1.1
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed description of the
design, instruments and procedure used to gain insights into science practical
activities in Ghanaian SSS. To be able to achieve this, the study used a two-
phase design.
Research Design
Description of Research Design
This study was in two parts, and followed a mixed method design using
both quantitative and qualitative techniques (Creswell, 1994; Hogan, 1999). A
comparative quantitative design was used to test hypotheses on science
students' attitude towards science practical activities anp ·perception of their
psychosocial laboratory environment in SRC and satellite schools. A
hypothesised relationship between students' attitude and perception was also
tested. To accomplish this, a survey method was used with science students
randomly selected from five SRC and four satellite schools. All sampled
students completed two sets of questionnaires; one on perception of their
psychosocial laboratory environment and the other on their attitude to science
practical work. The individual students' scores were used as the unit of
j;. f'-,
,.-
analysis. The survey also covered science tea'eners' views on the role of
science practical activities in the teaching and learning of science and how
they are organised. This part covered a period of three months from April to
June 2002.
59
In the second part of the study, a sub-sample of four schools (two SRC
and two satellite) were purposively selected from the original sample for more
intense study. These case studies included observation of students' science
practical notebooks in biology, chemistry and physics. This was followed by
interviews with focus group of students, and individual Heads of Departments
(HODs) and Science Resource Centre (SRC) Co-ordinators. The purpose of
these was to investigate, qualitatively questions that emerged in the first part
of the study. The qualitative portion of the study included analyses of the
discussions of the focus groups of students with whole groups as the unit of
analysis. The qualitative data provided insights and triangulation for
interpreting the quantitative results.
Rationale for the Design
Even though research into educational issues has its own individual
focus, it cannot divorce itself from quantitative and qualitative methodological
issues that social science research raises. There has been a virtual catalogue
of arguments for engaging in research of one form or the other as the
assumptions underlying quantitative (traditional, positivist, empiricist etc.) and
qualitative (naturalistic, interpretive etc) paradigms are diametrically opposed
"
" I
,.
f··
60
to each other. The point here however, is not to'rehearse the.debates on the
merits and demerits of the two opposing paradigms.
Burgess, cited in Akwesi (1994) has posed two questions, which in his
view should constitute the basis for choosing one method or the other. These
are "What kinds of information are relevant?" and "What kinds of methods are
relevant for the particular topic under investigation?" (p. 167). Burgess'
contention is that there is no best method in educational research and that the
method one uses should be suited to the issue or topic being explored. Also,
Vulliamy, Stephens and Lewin (1990) have pointed out that the approach to
social research does not stem from fundamental philosophical commitments
only. Other significant considerations such as the particular purposes of the
research and the practicality of various strategies given the drcumstances in
which the inquiry is to be carried out must not be overlooked.
This study, first of all, sought to investigate factors underlying students'
poor performance in science practical work in Ghanaian SSS. To be able to
do this, there was the need to provide descriptive and inferential information
on students' perception of their psychosocial laboratory environments; their
attitudes to science practical work; teachers' views on the essential functions
of science practical work and how it is organised. This called for the gathering
of standardized information by using the same instruments and questions for
all participants.
Secondly, the study sought to find out whether there is any relationship
between students' attitudes to science practical work and their perception of
I
I
'Jj
\\
8 (, 'It
f"
science laboratory environment. To be able to;;60 this, it was necessary to
gather data from a wide population of science students in order to make
generalizations about the perceptions and attitudes of students to science
61
practical work in satellite and SRC schools. To meet these expectations, the
survey method was found most appropriate for use.
Instead of defending the patterns that would emerge from the survey
by appealing to the general case based on judgement derived from a wide
experience with no systematic empirical grounding, it was decided that the
patterns should be empirically validated. To do this, the researcher employed
qualitative design using semi-structured interviews. This enabled the
researcher to gain further understandings into the factors and variables being
investigated, thereby increasing the validity of the research findings. Two
.
satellite and two SRC schools were selected as case study schools. As noted
by some researchers (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996; Hopkins & Antes, 1990;
Merriam, 1988), one of the advantages in doing acase study lies in the fact
that it allows for the study of all the elements present in the setting in which
the inquiry takes place, and the collection of very extensive data in order to
produce an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon being studied. In
other words, case studies observe effects in real contexts. Since contexts are
unique and dynamic, case studies could be used to "investigate and report
the complex, dynamic and unfolding interactions of events, human
relationships and other factors in a unique-instance" (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2000, P 181), which quantitative data may fail to achieve.
mixed methodologies made it possible to get detailed, in-depth information in
order to describe, interpret and make informed judgment concerning teachers'
research questions posed and the issues that required exploring. The use of
62I"
"lj';
It was evident that both quantitative and qualitative methodologies
Herriot and Firestone cited in Yin' (1994,Chave argued that, a multiple-
This study therefore employed a combination of two basic
using measurement-oriented items.
activities in schools and how this influence attitudes and perceptions of
students about science practical work. Also the use of qualitative research
views on the essential functions and organisation of science practical
gathering further data from a smaller sample, in addition to data collected
strategy in a broad framework of a quantitative methodology was aimed at
and hence the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust.
were appropriate and necessary for this study in view of the nature of the
case design has a distinct advantage over a single case design. According to
them, the evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling,
methodologies (qualitative and quantitative) and two basic methods (surveys
and in-depth interviews) for data collection. The two methods of different
methodological origin and nature were used to
a) obtain a variety of information on practical activities in Ghanaiansss~
b) achieve a higher degree of validity and reliability of data
c) overcome the deficiencies of single method studies
1
!
j
:1
~ iI
, I
!
illI !
I 'Iii
, \
i il
f :lj 1
[jl ..::'I,, ':1! :
that such different research techniques could produce different results. This is
school. In this way the data in these multi-site case studies could be used to
subjectivity of respondents, their opinions, attitudes and perspectives together
ojIifj.
a weakness in the use of this design.
;.
There is however, a major pitfaHin thetjg'e of case stu9Y designs. The
Despite the obvious advantages of integrating quantitative and
Population
The Central Region had 49 SSS, with 18 of them offering all three
methodologies are based on different assumptions. It is therefore possible
qualitative data by the use of compl~mentarymethodologies,. the two
compare and confirm the data (Guba & Lincoln, 1985).
shortcomings, multiple sources of evidence were used in this study, which
provided multiple measures of the same phenomenon in each case study
about the difficulty of establishing reliability and validity. To minimise these
(1990) because of lack of rigour in the collection of qualitative data it is easy
for biased views to colour the findings and conclusions. Others have written
contribute to a degree of bias. According to Vulliamy, Stephens and Lewin
elective science subjects in the 2001/2002 academic year. Of the 18 schools,
11 were SRC schools with the remaining seven constituting satellite schools.
The schools categorized as SRC schools were locations, which hosted the
SRCs. The satellite schools were schools which went to the SRCs for some
of their science practical activities. The target population for this study is all
SSS3 students in satellite and SRC schools offering all three elective science
---------~
I.• J
t·
" It
subjects (physics, chemistry and biology) in tretCentral Regio,n of Ghana in
the 2001/2002 academic year.
"Sampling
The schools were thus in two clusters of SRC and satellite schools.
Each school was assigned an identification number and proportionate simple
random sampling was used to select four satellite schools and five SRC
schools yielding a total of nine schools. These were made up of two boys'
schools, one girls' school and six mixed schools.
A table for estimating the sample size from a given population
developed by Krejcie and Morgan cited in Cohen, Lawrence and Morrison
(2000) (Appendix B) was used to determine the student sample sizes in each
school. In each school, students were selected through simple random
sampling by class using the sample sizes developed by Krejcie and Morgan.
This yielded a total of 184 students from SRC schools and 204 students from
satellite schools making a total of 388 students. In each school (SRC and
satellite) all elective science teachers at post at the time of the research
numbering 50 formed the sample of teachers for the study.
Four case-study schools were purposively selected from the main
survey sample to gain further insights into students' perceptions and attitudes,
and teachers views about science practical activities that elTlerged from the
(depending on the number of streams in the school) were selected for focus
the choice of schools. In each of the four,schools, four to six science students
survey. Factors such as proximity, time and financial constraints influenced
'.
i
/,:
I
II
II ,\I. ,I
! 'I
If
11:
I: ,p,
I III'!
iii:
----------..'"
'.
OJ
,._1;':'
U
[.
Instruments'C' ,-
j'.."
The instruments developed for the study were:
(1) Attitude towards science practical (ASP)
(2) Science laboratory environment questionnaire (SLEQ)
(3) Questionnaire on the role of science practical work (QRSP)
(4) Questionnaire on the organisation of science practical work (QOSP)
(5) Interview protocol for students (IPS)
(6) Interview protocol for heads of science departments (IPHOD)
(7) Interview protocol for SRC co-ordinators (IPSC)
Attitude towards Science Practical (ASP) Instrument
In order to develop this instrument for assessing students' attitude
towards science practical activities, the researcher drew on -traditions of past
ASPs by (e,g., Abdalla, 1991; Misiti, Shringley & Hanson, 1991; Orion &
Hoftstein, 1991). The initial development of the new instrument, called the
Attitude towards science practical (ASP), was guided by the following criteria:
1. Consistency with the literature on attitude to science practical
A review of the literature was undertaken for the purpose of identifying
scales that are considered important in the attitude to science practical
activities (Abdalla, 1991; Misiti, Shringley & Hanson, 1991; Orion &
Hoftstein, 1991).
2. Salience to teachers and students
By asking students to respond to an open-ended questionnaire on their
attitude towards science practical activities and interviewing science
e.
"s ,,'
i. ;j, fi:
teachers in two SSS in the Cape'CoasH~unicipality en.abled them to
66
'J
bring out what they considered to be the most important issues on the
variables being investigated. Also science teachers and students in the
two pilot schools were asked to comment on draft versions of the set of
items in an attempt to ensure that teachers and students considered
the ASP's individual items salient.
The development of a reliable and valid attitude measure is a process
that consists of several distinct stages (Koballa, 1984). The main stages in
the development of the ASP were:
a) conceptualisation - the attitude scales of practical work
b) item formulation
c) content validation
d) construct validation -statistical analysis and comparison with experts'
judgement
Stage 1: Conceptualisation
The first stage in the development of the instrument was to identify the
various scales of students' attitude towards science practical work. It was
hypothesized by the researcher that attitude to science practical work does
not consist of only one scale but rather several distinct scales. On the basis of
the researcher's personal experience with students during practical work, the
researcher hypothesised that students' attitude towards science practical
work would have the following scales:
'I
,
"
r;
i '
! i.ll
when asked to go for science practical activities, as this involves either
necessary apparatus. These could affect the attitudes of students to
a change of environment or activity or both and serves as a break from
OfU'
as a tool for the acquisition of scientific skills etc.
taught in a theory class through practical activities; practical activities
practical work as a learning tool; e.g., understanding of concepts
This aspect concerns the various components of students' views of
t.:." ~ "J,./"
e .,f ,~. '.C' c::
" .~~ t'J;. 16
'""' ' .... 6-
Practical work as a learning tool i' f'·!>· ,.
o cj"
do not go as expected. This could be due to faulty apparatus, lack of
practical work.
Generally one would expect students to show considerable interest
theory lessons.
(d) Group Work
understanding of the practical, and lack or inadequacy of the
Doing science experiments is sometimes frustrating when experiments
(c) Interest
(b) Frustration
(a)
Sometimes students work in groups during practical activities. Group
work may foster co-operation between students, which may facilitate
the performance and understanding of practical work.- Group work may
therefore be a factor in considering students' attitude to science
practical activities.
"
: !\
! Ii
.·'1
. 11[ .[
i 'Ii:
i 'I'
i t·
;\
'" .
____________-..;... 1
'I
Stage 2: Item Formulation
vu
f_
activities. These issues may influence students' attitude towards
science practical activities.
with the drawing of graphs or solving problems that go with practical
Performing an experiment is one thing, and writing it up is another.
Students face may difficulties trying to reconcile experimental results
with what is accepted theoretically. Students may also have difficulties
Write-up
the pool of items. The idea was to collect a lot of items related to each of the
object of attitude towards science practical activities and the respondents.
While writing the statements, the criteria used by Edwards (as cited in
It was necessary to collect items that would make up a scale, which
five scales identified. The items collected were reworded to suit both the
Some of the statements made by the students were reworded and added to
2. What I don't like about science practical are ...
1. What I like about science practical activities are ...
the following open-ended items:
in one of the SSS in the Cape Coast Municipality were asked to respond to
Shringley and Hanson (1991), and Orion and Hoftstein (1991). Thirty students
science practical work by other researchers such as Abdalla (1991), Misiti,
collected were adapted from instruments used to measure attitudes towards
could be understood easily by students at the SSS level. Some of the items
(e)
'" II'
"
69
'.
r v (~ ,0:
Abdalla, 1991, p. 132) were taken into c'6nsideFatiotl~ The crit~ria are as
I·.. r:':'
follows:
1. Avoid statements that:
(a) refer to the past rather than to the present;
(b) are irrelevant to the psychological object under consideration;
(c) may be interpreted in more than one way;
(d) are likely to be endorsed by almost everyone or almost no one.
2. Select statements that:
(a) are believed to cover the entire range of the effective scale of
interest;
(b) are short, rarely exceeding 20 words;
(c) contain only one complete thought.
3. Keep the language of the statement simple.
4. Keep the language of the statement clear.
5. Keep the language of the statement direct.
6. Exercise care and moderation in the use of words such as "only",
"just", "merely", and others of similar nature.
7. Use simpler rather than compound or complex sentences.
8. Avoid words that may not be understood by the respondents.
Thirty eight items were originally constructed to represent the five
attitude scales. Each item was scored on a five-point Likert -type scale (5-
strongly agree, 4-agree, 3-undecided, 2-disagree, 1-strongly disagree). The
, ,
;,
1
i,
II,
, 'I
, I
r,
f~,~
1';, f;.. (t:
70
i_ ,..-; 0:
higher the scale score, the more a stude-nfwoli:et defnonstrate: that particular
.;.'.
scale of attitude.
Stage 3: Content Validation
At this stage, five science teachers from the two pilot schools in the
Cape Coast Municipality and two science educators from the University of
Cape Coast were asked to validate the content of the questionnaire. They
were given the items and the identified scales and asked to group the items
according to the scales indicated, and to assess the quality of each item, in
the context of clarity, ambiguity, generality, etc. The science teachers and
science educators first worked individually and met to resolve all
discrepancies in their evaluation of the items.
The science teachers and science educators agreed on 25 items and
their scales. The remaining 13 items were abandoned either because they did
not satisfy the quality criteria or because science teachers and science
educators disagreed about the scale to which the item(s) belonged.
The ASP was pilot tested using a total sample of 336 SSS3 elective
science students in two SSS in the Cape Coast Municipality by simple
random sampling by class from a population of 502 students. The sample had
a mean of 17.0 years and a standard deviation of 0.50 years and was made
up of 152 students from satellite and 184 students from SRC schools. The
questionnaires were distributed to the students in their science laboratories by
the researcher. Students in the presence of the researcher completed the
questionnaires. The questionnaires were then collected and analysed. I;j
I
J
,I
I'
"
Ii
I',iI
!I
,il
" 'I', ,
"l4l
Item Analyses
f,.
~-.. f.C ,6
" , .i; (;. "fj
71
"
The first step in refining and validating the ASP involved a series of
item analyses procedures using Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS). Data were subjected to item analyses in order to identify items
whose removal would enhance the internal consistency of the instrument. In
particular, an attempt was made to improve the internal consistency by
removing items with low item remainder correlations (i.e. correlations between
a certain item and the rest of the items excluding that item). All items that
reduced the alpha value were deleted. These item analyses procedures led to
the deletion of 9 (1, 4, 7, 10, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23) of the 25 items to produce 16
items. After these nine items had been dropped from the ASP, the Cronbach
alpha reliability coefficient increased from 0.72 to 0.88. The items deleted
included all the items under frustration, one item from Interest and three items
from Write up scales.
There were very low neutral responses (neutral percentages ranged
from 0.3% to 1.8%), which suggests evaluative quality (that favourable-
unfavourable feeling toward an object or idea) of the instrument. Also the
distributions of data generated by items on this instrument are distributed
across Likert's continuum again suggesting evaluative quality. This 16-item
version with an alpha Cronbach coefficient of 0.88 formed the starting point
for the series of factor analyses described in the next section.
'f
, 'Ii,
, I
iii
·1·
• Ii
II
:~
Factor Analyses
f¥ (;. ,6
" ,,0
f.7.- C,..,(.. !~
72
The second major stage in the refinement and validation of the ASP
involved a series of factor analyses using SPSS, The purpose was to
examine further the internal structure of the set of 16 items, which had
survived item analyses. The 16 items from the ASP were therefore analysed
using principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation.
Factor analysis gave three factors with eigenvalues greater than one to
be rotated. Three criteria were used to determine the number of factors to
rotate: the scree test, number of eigenvalues greater than one, and the
interpretability ofthe factor solution. The scree plot shown in Figure 1
confirmed that the ASP consisted of more than one linear scale. The ASP
was therefore, made up of more than one scale. Even though. the scree plot
strongly suggests a final solution with two principal components, no proper
interpretation could be given to the components after rotation. Consequently
three factors with eigenvalues greater one were rotated using a varimax
rotation procedure. The result of the rotated solution as shown in Table 2
yielded the following three interpretable factors: learning tool, interest and
equipment. Items 13 and 18 seem to be strange measures of factor 1 and
were therefore deleted. With the deletion of the 2 items from the ASP the 14-,
item, three-factor solution shown in Table 2 was decided upon as the optimal
structure for the final version of the ASP.
1,1
1
"",I,
I
[,i"
, I"
"ll,I.'
'II
,~
Scree Plot
c·
,,;....
..
73
7.,....----------------------,
6
5
4
3
2
Q)
::J
~1
c
Q)
OJ
ill 0 ol--~-..__.__-.__._~~~~._~~-~~-_>
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Component Number
Figure 1. Scree plot of eigenvalues of ASP
Each of the remaining items had a factor loadings greater than DAD, higher
than the conventionally accepted value of 0.30 for analysis involving
individual students as the unit of analysis (Fraser, McRobbie, & Giddings,
1993). The percentage of the total variance of 49.2% explained by the three
factors is quite large according to Fraser, McRobbie & Giddings (1993) given
that individual means was used as the unit of analysis. The structure of the
eigenvalues shows a dominant first principal component. The amount of
variance between respondents explained by the first factor is 34.6%. This
means that science practical activities as a learning tool for the study of
science concepts is a dominant factor influencing the attitude of students
towards science practical work.
, !
i.
;:1
!
I
I
'iI:
:~
74
f·Va
r,. u. 0
Table 2
f,. (J:. ,0:
"."~, </.10 of)
Rotated component matrix showing facto'~ loadi.~gs and amount of variance
explained for the final ASP
:.
Factor
Item Number 1 2 3
12 831
19 765
5 764
25 726
11 595
16 573
24 799
15 751
6 510
22 498
3 434
2 772
9 730
8 683
% of 34.6 8.6 7.0
explained
Variance
Eigenvalue 6.23 1.54 1.26
Decimal points omitted for factor loadings.
Factor 1= learning tool, Factor 2= interest, Factor 3= equipment
This confirms the assertion by Woolnough (1998) that students like practical
activities aimed at discovering or elucidating theory. The amount of variance
explained by the second and third factors is only 8.6% and 7.0% respectively.
• t
Table 2 shows that the fado~ 10adings'onc;;tMe'first compqnent ranged from
1.>
0.57 to 0.83. This means that all respond~'nts had very high and positive
75
correlation with the firs(principal component. This component was interpreted
as the extent to which science practical activities help in the learning of
science and was named Learning tool. The second principal component had
factor loadings ranging from 0.43 to 0.80. This was interpreted as the extent
to which students are interested in science practical activities and the
subsequent write-ups. The third principal component had factors ranging from
0,68 to 0.77 and was interpreted as the extent to which students like working
with science equipment. This scale was named equipment. Thus three scales
emerged in the pilot study for the final ASP. The scales and their
interpretations are given in Table 3.
Table 4 presents alpha coefficients for the three attitude scales using
the individual student as the unit of analysis.
Coefficients ranged from 0.67 to 0.87, exceeding the threshold of 0.60 given
by Nunnally (cited in Henderson, Fisher and Fraser, 1998) as being
acceptable reliability for research purposes. The overall Cronbach's alpha
coefficient was 0.88. The final ASP is shown in Appendix C.
In summary, the pilot study identified three factors that underlie SSS
students' attitude to science practical work. These are:
(a) learning tool
(b) equipment
(c) interest
Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha coefficient) and variance of each the
IV
.~. ~"
-' ...~,
with science equipment
. ..:.
activities and write-ups
Extent to which students like working
interested in science practical
Extent to which students are
science
activities help in the learning of
Extent to which science practical
Description
:,.. : .
ASP scales
Scale Alpha reliability
Learning tool 0.87
Interest 0.73 [-
Equipment 0.67
Total 0.88
Table 4
Equipment
Interest
Learning tool
Scales
Scales and descriptions,of the final ASP instrument
Table 3
"11Ii
"II
,
..
77
. f'..-' (.\l J~
Learning tool was identified a~dhe most pr,::m<l:ooU1lfactor infl.uencing the
attitude of students towards science practical,~ork as it accounted for over
. :;. I~
40.0% of the total variance. A series of item and factor analyses led to the
evolution of a refined version of the ASP, which was found to display
satisfactory internal consistency, reliability and factorial validity using the
individual as the unit of analysis.
Science Laboratory Learning Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ)
The SLEQ was developed to measure students' psychosocial
perception of their science laboratory environments in Ghanaian SSS. In
developing the SLEQ, the Science laboratory classroom environment
Inventory developed by Fraser, McRobbie and Giddings, (1993) served as a
guide. The instrument developed by Fraser et al (1993) was itself based on
Widely used questionnaires such as the Learning Environment Inventory, the
Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire, and the Classroom
Environment Scale. The development of the SLEQ was also guided by three
criteria used by Fraser et al. (1993), which were also found to be relevant to
this study.
The criteria are:
Scales chosen provided coverage of the three general categories of scales
identified by Moss for conceptualizing all human environments.
These general categories are
1. Coverage of Moss' general categories
I
i
t·
:;.1•. !':../'
;.,
5' -:
. :. "~ r;..:
Relationship, Personal Development\.~ndSystem Maintenance
and System Change (Fraser, ~;Robb;e & Giddings, 1993)
According to Moss (cited in Fr~ser ~i aI., 1993), at least all three
general categories must be assessed to "provide an adequate and
reasonably complete picture of any environment" (p. 4). The scales for
the SLEQ were therefore chosen to include scales in each of Moos'
three general categories.
2. Economy
78
In order to achieve economy in terms of the time needed for answering
and scoring, the SLEQ was designed to have a relatively small number
of reliable scales, each containing a fairly small number of items.
3. Salience to teachers and students
By interviewing numerous science teachers and students at the SSS
level and by asking my supervisors and other colleagues to comment
. .
on draft versions of sets of items, an attempt was made to ensure that
science educators, science teachers and students considered the
SLEQ scales and individual items salient.
In developing the SLEQ, the researcher assumed that students'
perception of their psychosocial science laboratory environment was multi-
dimensional. Four scales that run through most of the learning environment
instruments and which the researcher considered to be appropriate for the
science laboratory environment questionnaire were material environment,
supervision, open-endedness and integration. The researcher wrote 23 items
r.... I· 79
to cover the four areasmentioned. These':jt;TT,\5jforrri~d the initial version of
the SLEQ
As it was done in the case'of th~ ASP, the SLEQ was also pilot tested
with the same sample of students used for the ASP. The questionnaire was
distributed to the students in their science laboratories by the researcher.
Students in the presence of the researcher completed the questionnaires
within 30 minutes. The questionnaires were then collected and analysed.
Factor Analyses
'In refining and validating the SLEQ, a series of factor analysis were
conducted using SPSS. The 23 items from the SLEQ were analysed using
principal axis factor analysis. Factor analysis gave five factors with
eigenvalues greater than one to be rotated. The scree plot w.hich is, the plot of
the eigenvalues shown in Figure 2 confirmed that the SLEQ consisted of
more than one linear scale and hence the assumption that more than one
scale underlie students' perception of their psychosocial science laboratory
environment was upheld. Even though the scree plot strongly suggests a final
solution with three principal components, there were five eigenvalues greater
than one. The rotation of these five components using varimax rotation and
the resultant interpretations seemed more reasonable. Factor analysis led to
the removal of five items (Items 4, 11, 14, 16 and 19) from the SLEQ. The
reasons were that items 11 and 16 loaded significantly on more than one
scale. Item 14 seemed to be a strange measure of and was therefore
removed.
r
'> ;. 80
;.-,. (:;>; ,0:'
[' ;. fi.{i. t: 0
Scree Plot
."_ 1:-0'·
1- ---2('!1~'---,-:.-----,
6 ••, ,::.
5
4
3
2
Component Number
\
Figure 2. Scree plot of eigenvalues of SLEQ
Open-endedness did not emerge as a factor during the validation of the
SLEQ as items 4 and 19 that belonged to that scale were deleted. This is not
surprising, as many past studies have reported low level of open-endedness
(Chin & Wong, 2001). The supervision scale seems to somewhat overlap' with
the orderliness scale and so there was very little differentiation between
supervision and orderliness looking at the items that constituted the two
scales. When factor and item analyses were conducted on the remaining
items, four scales finally emerged and the material environment scale was
split into two. Supervision and orderliness got merged resulting in slight
improvement in the reliability of the SLEQ. Consequently four factors with
eigenvalues greater one were rotated using a varimax rotation procedure.
Table 5 shows the loadings obtained as a result of the factor analysis. The
rotated solution as shown in Table 5 yielded the following four interpretable
XI
factors: supply material environment. integration. supervision. and reliable
material environment. With the deletion of five items from the SLEQ, the 18-
item. four-factor solution was decided upon as the optimal structure for the
final version of the perception instrument. Each of the remaining items had a
factor loading of approximately 0.50, far higher than the conventionally
accepted value of 0.30 for analysis involving individual students as the unit of
analysis (Fraser. McRobbie, & Giddings. 1993).
Table 5
Rotated component matrix showing factor loadings and amount of variance
explained for tile final SLEQ
Factor
Item Number 2 3 4
8
13
2
20
7
22
15
1
6
12
9
--- -~------------
709
708
660
650
602
754
679
616
565
698
679
Item Number
18
10
17
21
5
3
23
% of
explained
Variance
Eigenvalue
23.5
4.22
10.2
1.83
9.2
1.66
6.7
1.20
Decimal points omitted. Factor 1- supply material environment,
Factor 2= integration, Factor 3= supervision, Factor 4= reliable material
environment
The percentage of total variance explained by the four factors is quite
large (49.5%), given that the individual means was used as the unit of
analysis. The structures of the eigenvalues show a slightly dominant first
principal component. The amount of variance between respondents explained
by the first factor is 23.48%. The results of the factor loadings in Table 6 show
that the first component ranged from 0.60 to 0.71. This means that all the
respondents had a high and positive correlation with the first principal
~-.
83
component. The inter-correlations among supply.material environment were
the highest among the four,Jactors (Table 5). This component was interpreted
as the extent to which laboratory equipment and materials are available and
adequate. The four psychosocial scales that emerged in this study, their
interpretations and the Moos category to which they belong are given in
Table 6.
Unlike the instrument developed by Fraser, McRobbie and Giddings
(1993), (which served as a guide for the development of this instrument), the
final SLEQ makes a clear distinction between two types of material
environment as described in Table 6. All the learning environment inventories
surveyed had only one description of material environment. In the pilot study
therefore, availability and adequacy of science equipment anq materials were
clearly distinguished from the reliability of such equipment and materials used
in science laboratories.
Item Analyses
Item analyses procedures were conducted on the set of 18 items
making up the SLEQ. Table 7 presents alpha coefficients for the four SLEQ
scales using the individual student as the unit of analysis. Coefficients range
from 0.61 to 0.76, exceeding the threshold of 0.60 given by Nunnally, cited in
Henderson, Fisher and Fraser (1998) as being acceptable reliability for
research purposes. The overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.84.
There were very low neutral responses ranging from 0.3% to 2.6% suggesting
evaluative quality of the instrument.
j
:1
!j I
Table 6
Scales and descriptions of the final SLEQ
Scale Moss Description
Category
Supply material S Extent to which laboratory equipment
environment and materials are available and
adequate
Reliable material S Extent to which laboratory equipment
environment and materials are reliable when used
Supervision R Extent to which students receive help
and are guided by their teachers
during science practical activities
Integration P Extent to which laboratory activities
are integrated with non-laboratory
theory classes
84
Also the data generated by items of the SLEQ are distributed across Likert's
continuum, which also suggests evaluative quality_ The final SLEQ is shown
in (Appendix D).
".
85
Table 7
Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha coefficient) and variance of each scale
of the SLEQ
Scale
Supply material environment
Integration
Supervision
Reliable material environment
Total
Alpha reliability
0.76
0.65
0.69
0.61
0.84
In summary, the pilot study identified four factors (scales) that underlie
the measure of students' perception of their psychosocial laboratory
environment. These are supply material environment, reliable material
environment, integration and supervision. A series of item and factor analyses
of the SLEQ led to the evolution of a refined version of the SLEQ which was
found to display satisfactory internal consistency reliability and factorial
validity using the individual as the unit of analysis. This refined SLEQ was
used for the main study.
Questionnaire on the Organisation of Science Practical Work (QOSP)
This questionnaire was designed after small-scale investigations by the
researcher on how science practical lessons were organised in three SSS in
the Cape Coast Municipality. Discussions between the researcher and nine of
the science teachers (one each in biology, chemistry and physics) in the three
86
schools who had been organising practical activities in their schools enabled
the researcher to write the questions for the QOSP. This also ensured that
major areas of concern to teachers on the organization of science practical
work were addressed in the formulation of the questions by the researcher.
The formulated questions were pre-tested in two schools (an SRC school and
one of its Satellite schools in the Central Region) with the aim of ensuring that
the QOSP fairly and comprehensively covered the items it purports to cover.
The responses of the teachers were used to improve the questions. The
supervisors of the researcher were also asked to comment on the suitability
of the questions. These processes led to a refinement of the questionnaire.
The final questionnaire had several parts. These included sections on
biographical information (e.g., years of teaching experience, -subject(s) taught
at the SSS level), organisation of science practical activities (e.g., support
given to students, number of times practical work is done on the average
each week). The QOSP is shown in Appendix E.
Questionnaire on the Role of Science Practical Work (QRSP)
This questionnaire was designed after small-scale investigations by the
researcher on science practical lessons in three SSS in the Cape Coast
Municipality. Discussions between the researcher and nineof the science
teachers (one each in biology, chemistry and physics) in the three schools
who had been conducting practical activities in their schools enabled the
researcher to write the questions for the QRSP. This also ensured that major
areas of concern to teachers about science practical work were addressed in
"
[
;. "
87
the formulation of the questions by the researcher. The formulated questions
were pre-tested in two scllools (an SRC school and one of its Satellite
schools in the Central Region) with the aim of ensuring that the QRSP fairly
and comprehensively covered the items it purports to cover. The responses of
the teachers were used to improve on the questions. The supervisors of the
researcher were also asked to comment on the suitability of the questions.
These processes led to a refinement of the questionnaire.
The final questionnaire had several parts. These included sections on
biographical information (e.g., years of teaching experience, subject(s) taught
at the SSS level), role of science practical activities (e.g., types of science
practical activities and the skills involved. The QRSP is shown in Appendix F.
Interview Protocols for Students, Heads of Science Departments
and SRC Co-ordinators
Semi-structured interview protocols were designed to collect data from
students, Heads of Science Departments and co-ordinators of SRCs. The
semi-structured approach to interviewing was used, mainly to gather
descriptive data in the subjects' own wo'rds so that insights could be gained
into science practical activities. Semi-structured interview schedules were
prepared for each category of respondents (see Appendices G, H, and I). The
use of semi-structured interviews also allowed the researcher to raise issues
of particular concern to the study. The interview schedules were therefore not
used rigidly so that interviews could proceed as naturally as possible.
88
Data Collection Procedure
The fieldwork was c;onducted in two stages: the first took place
between October 2001 and December 2001 and the second, April 2002 to
June 2002. The April 2002 fieldwork was a follow up to generalizations that
emerged from quantitative analysis of the first fieldwork data. It also served as
a validation exercise for the findings of the survey conducted in the first
fieldwork.
With a letter of introduction from the Head of Science Education
Department of the University of Cape Coast, the researcher visited the
selected schools and introduced himself to the various School Heads and
staff of the Science Departments. The first fieldwork involved data collection
from 10 SSS from the Central Region of Ghana. Data collection lasted three
days in each school. The ASP and SLEQ were distributed to students in each
school. Questionnaires on the role and organization of science practical
activities in SSS were given to the science teachers to complete. Out of 60
sets of questionnaires given out, 50 sets were completed and returned. The
ASP was administered by the researcher to selected students on the first day.
Students were allowed enough time to complete the ASP after which the
SLEQ was given to them. The students completed both questionnaires at one
sitting. This was done to ensure that the same students completed both sets
of questionnaire and to prevent the mortality of the questionnaire. The
completed questionnaires were collected by the researcher the same day.
' • .1 '
,.1
89
There were two sets of teachers' questionnaire. The first set, which
dealt with the role of science practical activities, was also administered on the
first day with the assistance of the Heads of Science Departments and the
second on the organization of science practical work the next day. As much
as possible, all questionnaires administered to science teachers were
collected by the third day. Cases of non responses were followed up thrice
before attempts to obtain the completed questionnaires were abandoned.
This procedure resulted in a return rate of 83%.
Follow-up visits were made to four of the schools during the second
fieldwork. The fieldwork at this stage consisted of only interviews, which were
conducted by the researcher. In each of the four schools, focus group
interviews were conducted with four to six science students (depending on
the number of streams in the school). The students were made up of the
Class Prefect, and another student randomly selected by the researcher. In
the case of schools with only one stream, the students involved in the focus
group interview were made up of the Class Prefect, the Assistant and two
other students randomly selected by the research. Focus groups in each
school were made up of the class prefect(s) and others selected by simple
random sampling by the researcher. The co-ordinators of two of the four
selected schools, which had SRCs were interviewed by the researcher using
a semi-structured interview guide. All interviewees were given assurances of
confidentiality and anonymity at the beginning of each interview session. All
student interviews took place in a quiet and comfortable environment with i
"
Ii
Ii,
I
II
1'\
I'.,
t
" ~
90
little possibility of distraction or intrusion so that students could talk freely. All
interviews conducted in th-e study were recorded using an audio tape-recorder
supplemented by note-taking with permission of the interviewees. The Heads
of Science Departments of the four selected schools were also interviewed.
The purpose of this interview was to seek deeper insights into issues, which
emerged from analyses of responses to science teachers' questionnaires and
student interviews. To ensure consistency and preserve the validity of the
study, similar data collection techniques were used in all the four case study
sites, namely:
(i) semi-structured interviews that focused around the key identified
issues of the study;
(ii) observation of science practical write-ups of 10 students including
those interviewed;
(iii) physics, chemistry and biology SRC practical handbooks published
by the MOE and used at the resource centres for practical activities
Two types of documents were sought and used in this study. The first
was the physics, chemistry and biology practical write-ups of all students who
took part in the interview sessions. These were examined to find out the type
of practical activities students had undertaken, their frequency and
relationship to the science syllabuses. The second was the physics, chemistry
and biology source books used by students and teachers at the Science
Resource Centres as a guide to practical activities.
91
'''1
Data Analysis
Differences between perceptions of the science laboratory
environment held by students in the different types of schools (satellite and
SRC) were analysed using one-way multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA). Differences in attitudes of students towards science practical
work the SRC and satellite schools were also analysed using MANOVA. The
corresponding one-way univariate analysis (ANOVA) with school type as the
independent variable was examined for each of the SLEQ and ASP scales
individually as a follow up test to the MANOVA to determine whether
significant differences exist between school-type on each scale.
To determine whether associations exist between students' perception
and attitude, simple correlation were conducted in addition to using the
standardised regression weight (beta), which characterises the associations
between an attitude scale and a particular perception scale when all other
perception scales were controlled or held constant.
Qualitative data gathered during interviews were analysed by reducing
them to patterns and themes and then interpreted to amplify the quantitative
data to provide insights into science practical activities in SSS. In using the
'theme approach' (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1992), the researcher has to
transcribe all the interviews. Even though this was time con::;uming it helped
to create familiarity with the data in the researchers' mind and hence aided
the process of analysis.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
In this chapter, the findings from the study into science practical work in
Ghanaian SSS are presented and discussed in relation to the three hypotheses
and five research questions. The hypotheses and research questions are
discussed based on quantitative analysis that compared means of students in
satellite and SRC schools on variables such as attitude and perception.
Qualitative data gathered during interviews with Heads of Science Departments
(HODs), students and co-ordinators of SRCs in case study schools, are used to
complement and substantiate findings. The statistical and qualitative analyses of
the data from of the study are presented in five sections:
(a) Students' perceptions of their psychosocial science laboratory
environment
(b) Students' attitude towards science practical work
(c) Associations between students' attitude and psychosocial science
laboratory environments
(d) Teachers' views on the role of science practical activities in the
teaching and learning of science
(e) Organisation of science practical activities in SSS
93
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Students' Perception of their Psychosocial Science Laboratory Environments
Research question one sought to find out the factors if any, which underlie
students' perception of their psychosocial science laboratory environment. The
study identified four factors (scales) through factor analysis. These are:
(a) supply material environment
(b) integration
(c) supervision
(d) reliable material environment
Table 8 shows the factors, their meanings and how much of students' perception
of their psychosocial science laboratory environment are explained by the four
factors.
The percentage of total variance explained by the four factors was quite
large (50.5%), given that the individual means was used as the unit of analysis.
The structures of the eigenvalues show a slightly dominant first principal
component (supply material environment). The amount of variance between
respondents explained by supply material environment is 26.8%. This means that
supply material environment is a dominant factor influencing how students
perceive their psychosocial science laboratory environments.
· :" ,.
94
Table 8
Description of factors underlying students' perception
Scale Description % of Eigenvalue
variance
explained
Supply material Extent to which laboratory 26.8 4.8
environment equipment and materials are
available and adequate
Reliable Extent to which laboratory 9.3 1.7
material equipment and materials are reliable
environment when used
Supervision Extent to which students receive 8.4 1.5
help and are guided by their
teachers during science practical
activities
Integration Extent to which laboratory activities 6.0 1.1
are integrated with non-laboratory
theory classes
Research question two sought to find out the factors if any, which underlie
students' attitude towards science practical work. The study identified three
factors that underlie SSS students' attitude to science practical work through
95
factor analysis. These are:
(a) learning tool
(b) equipment
(c) interest
Table 9 shows the factors, their meanings and how much of the attitude towards
science practical activities are explained by the three factors.
Table 9
Description of factors underiVing students' attitude
Scale Description % of
variance
explained
Eigenvalue
Learning tool Extent to which science practical
activities help in the learning of
science
40.8 5.71
Interest Extent to which students are
interested in science practical
activities and write-ups
8.9 1.25
Equipment Extent to which students like working 8.4
with science equipment
1.17
The percentage of the total variance of 58.1 % explained by the three factors was
quite large according to Fraser, McRobbie & Giddings (1993) given that
IiI
"
I,
96
individual means was used as the unit of analysis. The structure of the
eigenvalues shows a dominant first principal component (learning tool). The
amount of variance between respondents explained by the learning tool is
40.8%. This means that science practical activities as a learning tool for the study
of science concepts is a dominant factor influencing the attitude of students
towards science practical work. This confirms the assertion by Woolnough (1998)
that students like practical activities aimed at discovering or elucidating theory.
The amount of variance explained by interest and equipment was only 8.9% and
8.4% respectively.
Hypothesis one
Hypothesis one states that there is no significant difference between th~e
factors underlying the scales (or linear combination of the scales) of SRC and
satellite school students' perceptions of their psychosocial science laboratory
environment. To test this hypothesis, school type-related differences in
perceptions of students were explored using one-way multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) with the set of SLEQ scales as dependent variables and
type of school as the independent variable. The MANOVA test presented in
Table 10 shows that Wilks' lambda (A) value of 0.91 was statistically significant,
E(4, 383) =9.20, Q < .05, indicating the hypothesis that the population means on
the scales are the same for SRC and satellite schools cannot be supported, and
was therefore rejected.
Table 10
One way MANOVA on SLEQ scales and category of school
97
Effect Value E Hypothesis Error df Significance
df
Category of school 0.92 9.20 4.00 383.00 .001*
Significant *Q < .05
This result showed a significant difference (in favour of SRC students) between
the perception of students in SRC and students in satellite schools of their
science laboratory environment. The corresponding univariate analysis of
variance (ANOVA) with school-type as independent variable was therefore
examined for each of the SLEQ scales individually as a follow up test to the
MANOVA to determine whether there were significant differences between
schaal-type on each scales. The scale means, differences in means and
standard deviations and E ratio for SRC and satellite school students' responses
on the perception instrument are shown in Table 11. The table shows that the
ANOVA on supply material environment was significant, E (1, 386) =29.45, Q <
.013 but no significant type of school differences were found on the other three
scales (integration, supervision and reliable material environment).
This means that students from SRC schools perceived significantly a more
favourable supply material environment than their counterparts in satellite
schools. This result is however, not surprising for SRC schools, since their
laboratories are expected to be very well-equipped.
-' ,-'
98
Table 11
Univariate ANOVA on each scales of the SLEQ as a follow up tests to the
MANOVA
Standard
Mean Deviation E Significance
Scales SRC SAT SRC SAT
I
Supply material 15.27 12.60 4.84 4.84 29.45
environment
Integration 16.11 15.23 3.50 3.60 5.98
Supervision 17.92 17.80 4.99 4.30 0.06
Reliable 13.21 13.05 3.69 3.75 0.18
material
environment
Significant *12 < .0125, N = 204 (SAT); N= 184 (SRC)
.01*
.15
.06
.68
A less favourable perceived supply material environment could arise if equipment
and materials are not replaced when they get damaged or are exhausted. Also,
increase in population of students pursuing science programmes could
outnumber the quantity of equipment and materials available in schools. Case
study evidence from this study clearly indicates that in some schools both
explanations are tenable. Evidence from interviews analysed later in this chapter
shows that satellite schools, which could have taken advantage of a better supply
material environment in SRCs, did not avail themselves of this opportunity. Mean
99
scores for the items constituting supply material environment are reported in
Table 12. It can be seen from Table 12 that mean scores for items 2 and 13 were
below the average of 2.50 in satellite schools indicating that students felt the
quantity, availability and supply of equipment and materials were unsatisfactory
in these schools. The mean scores of the rest of the items on this scale for
satellite schools were only a little above average. Since this scale accounts for
more than a half of the total variance of students' perceptions of their
psychosocial environment, it is a very important factor to be considered in setting
up science laboratories to promote science practical activities in schools. Science
laboratories without the necessary equipment and materials for the
recommended practical activities in the WAEC syllabus would definitely not make
a good impression on students. Students from both type of schools however, had
similar perceptions of the reliability and use of science laboratory equipment and
materials reliable material environment.
The higher than average scores on this scale for both school types and the fact
that there was no significant difference between them shows that to some extent
there some workable apparatus in the science laboratories in both school types.
In summary, the results of this study show that students' general
perception of their science laboratory environments in both SRC and satellite
schools were positive but significantly different in favour of students in SRC
schools.
:i
I
Ii
)
,
;1,
I,
I
1.4
100
Table 12
Mean scores for items constituting supply material environment in SRC and SAT
schools
Standard
Item
No.
Supply material environment Scale
Mean
Deviation
SR SAT SR SAT
C C
7
2 We have enough equipment in
our school laboratories for
science practical
Our school laboratories have
enough room for individual/group
work
8 Our school laboratory is an
attractive place to work
13 The equipmenUmaterials
students need for practical are
readily available in our school
laboratories
2.93 2.28 1.30 1.27
2.80 2.75 1.58 1.61
3.63 ·2.68 1.37 1.51
2.86 2.24 1.33 1.31
20 We are supplied with all the 3.05 2.65 1.37 1.48
equipment we need for our
experiments in our school
laboratory
N - 204 (SAT); N= 184 (SRC); Average score = 2.50.
-~ lJT~r,J\~·f~
:Jlll'V~R~;';' OJ: G,P[ CGi\~
101
Students from SRC schools expressed significantly higher satisfaction with the
quantity, availability and supply of equipment and materials in their science
laboratories than their counterparts from satellite schools. This factor seemed to
have dominated students' perception of their psychosocial environments. This
finding implies importantly that if the Ministry of Education would want to improve
science laboratory environments in schools, then it needs to give priority
attention to the quantity, availability and supply of equipment and materials in
their science laboratories. The difference between the perception of students in
SRC and satellite schools may reflect the laboratory conditions in these schools.
However, there was no significant difference in how students from both type of
schools perceived the reliability and use of equipment and materials in their
science laboratories (Table 11). Also students from both SRC and satellite
schools appear to enjoy very high and similar levels of supervision and
integration (Table 11).
Material environment and integration as factors influencing students'
perception of their learning environments have been reported in studies by other
researchers (Fraser, McRobbie & Giddings, 1993; Henderson, Fisher & Fraser,
1998; Chin & Wong, 2001; Raaflaub & Fraser, 2002). For example, Chin and
Wong (2001) reported that in Singapore, primary school pupils surveyed
indicated they wanted a much better material environment for the study of
science. However, unlike these studies, which have only one material
environment as a factor, this study found two types of material environment
,
,I
Ii
III
!
I;
'IL
Ii
j!
,"
,I
I,
102
which were clearly distinguishable.
Even though integration as a factor influencing students' psychological
perceptions of their laboratory environment has been reported in the literature,
Supervision which has not yet been reported in the literature was found in this
study to be a factor underlying students' perceptions of their science laboratory
environment in both satellite and SRC schools.
Students' Attitude towards Science Practical Work
Hypothesis two
Hypothesis two states that there is no significant difference between the
factors underlying the scales (or linear combination of the scales) of SRC and
satellite school students' attitude towards science practical work. To test this
hypothesis, school type-related differences were explored using one-way
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with the set of attitude scales as
dependent variables and type of school as the independent variable. The
MANOVA test presented in Table 13 showed that Wilks' lambda (1\) value of 0.94
was statistically significant, E (3,383) =7.72, Q < .05), indicating the hypothesis
that the population means on the scales are the same for the two types of
schools (SRC and satellite) cannot be supported, and was therefore rejected.
The results of this analysis indicate that students in SRC schools had
significantly more positive attitude to science practical work than students from
satellite schools.
l
!
,I
!
:1
II
I:
'i
103
Table 13
.001*384.003.00
df
Hypothesis Error df Significance
7.72
Value E
significant differences between school-type on each scale. Table 14 presents the
individually as a follow up test to the MANOVA to determine whether there were
scale means, differences in means and standard deviations for SRC and satellite
independent variable was therefore examined for each of the ASP scales
corresponding univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with school-type as
practical work will definitely have an advantage over those without them. The
science concepts and practical skills, schools with better facilities for science
practical work is influenced by equipment and its use in helping students learn
Significant *Q. < .05
This is not surprising as SRC schools have relatively better laboratory facilities
than satellite schools. Since the findings show that attitude towards science
Category of school 0.94
Effect
One way MANOVA on ASP scales and category of school
schools. The ANOVA on interest and equipment were significant, E (1,386) =
18.22, Q. < .01 and E(1,386) =9.76, Q. < .0125 respectively.
Table 14 however, shows no significant difference between students in SRC and
satellite schools on the learning tool scale which is the most dominant factor
influencing attitude of students towards science practical work.
,
I
i\
Ii
\,
!
I
II.1\I
II;
I'I,':1
",
JI.i·
104
Table 14
Univariate ANOVA on each scale of the ASP as a follow up tests to the MANOVA
Standard
Mean Deviation E Significance
Scales SRC SAT SRC SAT
Interest 20.83 18.99 2.99 5.11 18.22 .001*
Equipment 13.33 12.53 1.97 2.91 9.76 .002*
Learning tool 26.05 25.25 4.20 5.52 2.50 .115
Significant *12. < .0125, N - 204 (SAT); N- 184 (SRC)
This means that between SRC and satellite schools, differences. in attitude
between students arise from interest in science practical work and equipment in
science laboratories rather than the learning aspect. Better and more modern
equipment in both school types as well as increase in the frequency of practical
activities by students can therefore easily generate more interest in practical
work. Better equipment in SRC school laboratories compared to those in most
satellite schools could therefore explain the difference in attitudes between
students of the two school types. This finding is however, not surprising for SRC
schools since their laboratories are supposed to be very well-equipped. As
already pointed out, evidence from interviews shown later in this chapter shows
that satellite schools, which could have taken advantage of better facilities at
SRCs, did not avail themselves of this opportunity.
The use of science practical activities as a learning tool according to the results
I
II
IIi
Ii
""I ~
I,
iI
Ii
I
I
I
'.
105
of this study has the most influence among the three scales identified on the
attitude instrument. The finding that there is no significant difference between
students of the two school-types on the learning tool scale suggests that
irrespective of the school-type, students have positive attitude towards practical
work since they feel it helps them understand science concepts. Findings by
some science researchers (e.g., Bogden, 1977; Buchweitz, 1981; Edmonson &
Novak, 1993; Waterman, 1982) which suggest that most students gain very little
regarding the understanding of science concepts through practical activities is
not supported by findings in this study. Findings from this study rather upholds
the assertion that practical work offers an essential opportunity for students to
link first-hand experience in the form of practical work with concepts and ideas
(Christofi, 1988, von Secker & Lissitz, 1999). Mean scores for the items
constituting learning tool are reported in Table 15. It can be seen from table 15
that the mean scores for all the items on learning tool were far above the average
of 2.50 indicating a very positive attitude on the learning tool.
In summary, the results of this study indicate that students' attitude
towards science practical activities in both SRC and satellite schools are highly
positive, but significantly different in favour of students from SRC schools. The
results also show that students' attitudes towards science practical work are
influenced more by the learning aspect of laboratory work than interest in science
practical work and the use of equipment during practical work.

107
However, there was no significant difference in the attitude of students from both
types of schools on the learning tool scale. The differences between the two
school-types were due to equipment and interest factors.
Associations between Students' Attitude and Psychosocial
Perception
One objective of this study was to investigate the associations between
students' attitudes towards science practical work and perceptions of their
science laboratory environment. This was also done for SRC and satellite
schools separately as it had been established that there are significant
differences in attitudes and perceptions of students in these two school types
generally, and especially, on some individual scales. In order to find out the
associations between attitude and perception, Pearson correlation coefficient (r).
Hypothesis three was formulated and tested for all students combined, SRC
students only, and satellite students only respectively.
Hypothesis three
(a) There is no significant association between students' perception of their
psychosocial science laboratory environment and their attitude towards science
practical work in SRC schools.
(b) There is no significant association between satellite students' perception of
their psychosocial science laboratory environment and their attitude towards
science practical work.
Table 16 shows the simple correlation coefficients (r), which describes the
0"
"j
"
Table 16
108
in both SRC and satellite schools.
.769*
.833*
significance
.016
-.021
N
204
184
Attitude vrs Perception (SAT
students)
students)
Attitude vrs Perception (SRC
Variable
Findings from this study showed that students' attitude towards science
in SRC and SAT schools
Pearson product moment correlation analysis of students' perception and attitude
environment, in both SRC and satellite schools.
practical work was not related to their perception of the school laboratory
significant relationships between attitude and perception measures for students
correlation coefficient, [) reported in Table 16 shows there were no statistically
examination of simple correlation coefficients (Pearson product moment
bivariate association between the perception and attitude measures. An
*Not significant, Q>.05
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
Teachers' Views on the Role of Science Practical Work
Introduction
In Ghana, like many other countries,there is a strong tradition of doing
practical work in school science. This is because there are vigorous assertions of
109
.
the claims of the usefulness of practical work by the'MOE and WAEC science
syllabuses. The key aims of the SSS science syllabuses are essentially the
attainment of scientific ~nowledge, and the development of practical skills and
attitudes. According to the science syllabuses, it is expected that this would
normally take place in conventional laboratory environments. It is widely
acknowledged that for many students, scientific concepts may be abstract and
difficult to grasp, hence teachers use different methods including practical
activities to improve student understanding of such concepts, Practical work is
considered to be effective as it allows students to change the abstract to the
concrete, thus helping in the internalisation and understanding of concepts (Arce
and Betancourt, 1997), There is however, a growing body of evidence indicating
that despite this emphasis on practical work much school science teaching is
unsuccessful in giving students an understanding of the ideas of science and
development of some scientific skills (Clarkson and Wright, 1992; Hodson, 1992).
It is in the context of these views and findings that this section explores science
teachers' views on the role science practic"al work plays in the teaching and
learning of science in Ghanaian SSS.
Essential Role of Science Practical Activities
Teachers were asked on the "Questionnaire on the role uf science
practical work" to specifically to state what they considered to be the essential
functions of science practical work in the teaching and learning of science in
schools, Teachers' views on the essential functions of practical work were that of
.1
I
,
110
helping students to develop practical'skills, elucidating theory taught in class and
developing scientific attitudes.
The spectrum of views expressed by teachers (Appendix J) can be
categorized into the following three:
Science practical activities
(a) help students understand the concepts or theoretical aspects better and
this aids teaching and appreciation of science;
(b) enable students to develop practical skills, collect, record and analyse
data, and;
(c) enable students to verify facts and principles that are taught in class.
Teachers' Reasons for Organising Science Practical Activities .
When the 50 teachers were asked to rank the reasons for organising
practical work, Table 17 shows that they ranked low, reasons for organising
practical work which were related to helping students arrive at new principles,
and seeking for problems, and find ways to solve them (see Appendix K for the
basis for the ranks). This confirms similar findings by other researchers
elsewhere (Kerr, Thompson, Beatty & Woolnough as cited in Woolnough, 1998).
They also ranked low, reasons related to satisfying WAEC examination
requirements, and helping students pass practical examination. ;hese rankings
were in agreement with views expressed by teachers in open-ended questions
on the same issue. Reasons related to using practical work to clarify theory
taught in class were ranked high, whilst those related to verification of facts and
,(
III
Table 17
Teachers' ranking of reasons for organising science practical activities
Reasons
To use science practical to clarify theory
To verify facts and principles already taught
To arouse and maintain interest in science
For students to develop specific manipulative skills
To encourage accurate observation
To enable students understand the theory better
For finding facts and arriving at new principles
To satisfy the science syllabus and WAEC examination
requirements
To enable students pass their final examination
To practice looking for problems and seeking ways to
solve them
Rank
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
acquisition of manipulative skills were ranked medium by teachers. It has been
shown earlier on in this study that learning tool, the extent to which science
practical activities help in the learning of science was the most il1fluential factor
affecting the attitude of students towards science practical activities. It must be
noted that these reasons for organising praCtical work ranked high or medium by
teachers are in line with the prescriptions of the science syllabuses. The views of
I
1.-4
-,
112
students and teachers of the role of science practical work is essentially that of
helping students understand theory or content taught in the science class.
It seems this role of science practical work has taken the centre stage in the
teaching and learning of science and has become the main reasons, though not
exclusively, for conducting practical activities in schools. This is evident from the
results shown in Table 18.
Table 18
Mean scores and percentage responses in each category for each item (N-SO)
Type of science practical Always Very Often Rarely/ Mean
Often Never
Practical to verify theory 30.0 50.0 16.0 4.0 3.04
already taught in class
Practical designed to help 20.0 44.0 32.0 4.0 2.82
students develop laboratory
skills
Practical designed to help 12.0 42.0 36.0 10.0 2.58
students develop scientific
attitudes
Project work designed by 0 2.0 38.0 6110 1.42
students based on a problem
of their choice
\.~
1.,
113
School Z).
.. ,it is unfortunate some science teachers don't make use of practical. For
instance if you allow the students to perform the practical teaching the
theory becomes easier, and because they have done it, they have seen it
so now you can talk about abstract things. So far as they are starting from
theory directly to the practical (Student, School X).
The HOD of school X agreed with these students on the use of practical
work to aid understanding of theory because according to him he had been using
this approach with success with his students. He observed that
For me what I like about practical work is being able to apply the
would have helped me to understand the theory better (Student,
between the variables later on. If we had done more practical, it
practical we did helped me to understand better the relationship
Once I found the theory on the simple pendulum difficult but one
For example, two students said:
practical work because of its value in helping them understand theory.
practical activities they had done had helped them to understand some of the
theory already taught in class. Students in school X also indicated that they liked
such practical activities. According to students in school Z for example, the few
The table shows that generally, teachers organised practical activities to verify
theory more often than not (96.0%). The majority of teachers (80.0%) with a
mean of 3.04 indicated th!3y always (30.0%) or very often (50.0%) conducted
\,
I
, '
,
'i.
114
the known, I mean from a point when they know what can happen if you
talk about it, they will also believe it. .. But unfortunately, for some teachers,
I don't know why they don't want to perform it, thinking they want to cover
more of the theory, but rather it makes teaching difficult for them. They
don't realise that and it doesn't make the boys enjoy the science. (HOD,
School X).
Ironically, according to Barton (1998), "many of the criticisms levelled
against practical work focus on difficulties related to teaching 'theory' through
practical work" (p. 238). The HOD of school X and students in schools X and Z
however, lauded the idea of using practical work to clarify some of the principles
and theories taught in science lessons. Evidence from this study shows that
using practical work in this way accounts for over 40.0% of students' attitude
towards science practical work. Students saw the value in practical work as
helping them better, to understand science theory they learn in the classroom.
Students' experiences with practical work, limited as they were, seem to dispute
the claims by Woolnough (1991) and Hodson (1990) that students do not learn
scientific concepts for themselves when doing practical work since the
. knowledge is already known. However, evidence from this study shows that the
knowledge could be known, but students may not necessarily understand it very
well. Finding out information for themselves through practical work is a useful
exercise as claimed by the students, regardless of whether or not that knowledge
is already known. It is therefore plausible that practical work when implemented
115
properly and creatively could increase students' learning of scientific concepts as
acknowledged by some students and teachers in this study.
The mean scores also indicate that teachers more often tended to conduct
practical activities with the intention of developing laboratory skills (2.82) followed
by developing scientific attitudes (2.58). The table however, shows a very low
mean of 1.42 with 60.0% of the teachers indicting that they rarely or never
allowed students to design and perform their own experiments. This confirms the
assertion that teachers placed more emphasis on using practical work to help
students understand science theory followed by the development of manipulative
skills thereby giving students very little opportunity to identify their own problems,
playa role in the design of appropriate experiments, collect and interpret data
themselves. Since students rarely pursue such activities, it would be difficult for
students to develop cognitive skills associated with problem solving. Studies by
Hannon (1994) and Arce and Betancourt (1997) have shown that when students
are allowed to design their own experiments, they become motivated, curious,
enthusiastic and confident. According to them students find practical work
challenging and rewarding as a result of this. Also Hodson (1990) acknowledges
the fact that if students are allowed to pursue their own investigations in their own
way through practical work; it can result in higher motivational power. It is
therefore disappointing that majority of teachers (80.0%) stated that they did not
allow their students to design and try experiments on their own. In assigning
reasons for this, some teachers mentioned lack of equipment in schools. Others
I
I
i
,I
I
'!
'I
I
!
!
I
I
"
116
stated that practical work was'guidedby WAEC syllabuses and that there was no
time and room for such individual adventurism. According to one of the teachers,
"we do only practical work guided by the WAEC syllabus" (see Appendices Land
M for the spectrum of views expressed by teachers). This means that
experiments were specific and related to those suggested by the syllabuses and
in some cases where equipment were available. The problem of time constraint
was the most cited reason by teachers for not allowing individual students the
liberty to perform their own designed experiments. According to those who gave
this reason, there was so much work to do in completing the science syllabuses
that students would not have the time to design and carry out their own
experiments. Some teachers also felt that it would not serve any purpose for
students to design their own experiments and carry them out, and pointed to the
nature of the WAEC syllabuses for science and the final WAEC practical
examination, which they said did not allow for or reward individuals for designing
their own experiments. Others thought it was not feasible for each of the over 50
students in their class to design experiments and carry them out since as they
put it "there will be confusion in the laboratory". About 20.0% of teachers who
indicated that they allowed their students to carry out individual investigations
. also stated that students did so for science exhibitions during speech and prize-
giving days in their schools. Only two teachers (4.0%) gave reasons related to
encouraging students to be innovative and creative. The teachers however
. ,
pointed out that students designing and performing experiments on their own
I
I
II
1,1
)1
!
I
"
117
could only be done with very few students as teachers need to supervise such
students. Without doubt the type of practical activities emphasized by teachers
was related to WAEC practical examinations even though they denied it when
they ranked low, reasons, which suggest that they do practical work to satisfy the
science syllabus and WAEC examination requirements.
Teachers were also asked to rank ten practical skills in terms of
importance in science practical work. Three out of the ten skills were related to
development of attitudes, two directly related to laboratory skills and the rest on
cognitive skills. Table 19 presents the results of the rankings (see Appendix N for
the basis of the rankings). The table shows that teachers ranked high or medium
all the attitudinal and laboratory skills. General scientific skills such as predicting,
drawing conclusions and hypothesizing, which are related to the development of
cognitive skills but not necessarily laboratory based were all ranked low. This is
not surprising as the final WAEC practical examination has very little if anything
at all to do with the development of cognitive skills. However, the skills which
teachers ranked low (predicting, drawing conclusions and hypothesising) are
rather those that can lead to the development of understanding of the concepts
and procedures involved in science which students need to acquire. Laboratory
skills such as observing and manipulation are not complete in themselves as
they only constitute the first hand experience phase of science practical work.
This should be followed by analysis and interpretation of the data collected. The
link between the two phases enables students to relate the first hand experience
11
118
to the appropriate concepts. Unfortunately, Barton (1998) has observed that "too
often the time and effort expended in collecting and processing the data tend to
squeeze out activities related to analysis and interpretation" (p. 238) of data.
Table 19
Teachers' ranking of practical skills in terms of importance
Practical skills Rank
Observing High
Manipulative Medium
Initiative Medium/High
Objectivity Medium
Integrity Medium
Problem formulation Medium/High
Experimental design Medium/Low
Predicting Low
Drawing conclusions Low
Hypothesising Low
Without analysis and interpretation, it would be difficult to link practical
experience with abstract concepts. However, helping students to make this link is
an important process, and one, which should form the core activity during
science practical activities.
119
Summary on Role of Science PracticCiI Work
In summary, evidence from the study suggests teachers' view of the role
of science practical activities were dominated by the desire to help students
understand theory. Emphasis was placed mainly on those practical activities that
could help elucidate theory and develop manipulative skills, though teachers
recognized the acquisition of attitudinal skills as essential. Even though teachers
ranked very low reasons for conducting science practical activities which are
related to satisfying science curriculum requirements and helping students pass
WAEC practical examinations, other evidences from the study suggest that this
was not true in practice. It is therefore not surprising that students' attitudes
towards science practical activities are dominated by the extent to. which science
practical activities help in the learning of science.
Laudable as it is for individual students to design and carry out their own
experiments, this was not the general practice in the schools. The evidence from
the schools show that very little or no emphasis was placed on the development
of higher-order skills in science which could help students develop understanding
of concepts and procedures involved in experimentation. To do this will require
students to be given the opportunity to explore, test and reason, using data not
necessarily generated by students. Students had virtually no opportunity to
identify their own problems, playa role in the development of appropriate
experiments, and collect data and interpret data themselves. Reasons given by
teachers suggested that in some cases they saw the performance of practical
i
I
1
I
i:
I:
J\;
It
1
,
I
"i~
i:;" 120
-
work as fulfilling a requirement for the final WAEC practical examination even
. though it could have been used to encourage ingenuity, initiative, creativity and
innovation on the part of students through the designing and carrying out their
own designed experiments. Also, even if teachers would like individual students
to design and try out their own experiments, time constraint and unavailability of
equipment are likely to frustrate such an attempt.
Organisation of Science Practical Activities in Schools
Performance of Science Practical Activities
Given that the essential functions of practical work is geared towards
helping students understand theory and prepare them for the final WAEC
practical examination, an attempt was made to find out how science practical
activities were organised in SSS using the case study schools. Questionnaires
for teachers and interviews with students and heads of Science Departments
were used to explore this issue.
The science syllabuses aim to help students acquire attitudinal and
process skills. Sections of the introductory parts of the science syllabuses
relating to these skills are as follows:
Physics
(a) develop abilities, attitudes and skills that encourage efficient and safe
practice;
(b) develop attitudes relevant to science such as concern for accuracy and
precision, objectivity, integrity, initiative and invectiveness.
,.J 'r
(. ,.~
121
Source: Regulations and syllabuses for the WAEC senior school
certificate examination, 1998-2000 (pAS9).
Chemistry
(a) enable students to develop laboratory skills, including an awareness of
hazards in the laboratory and the safety measures required to prevent
them;
(b) enable students to appreciate the scientific method which involves
experimentation, accurate observation, recording, deduction and
interpretation of scientific data
Source: Regulations and syllabuses for the WAEC senior school
certificate examination, 1998-2000 (p.120-121)
Biology
(a) acquisition of necessary scientific skills for example observing, classifying
and interpreting biological data;
(b) acquisition of adequate laboratory and field skills in order to carry out and
evaluate experiments and projects in. biology.
Source: Regulations and syllabuses for the WAEC senior school
certificate examination, 1998-2000 (p.77)
It requires a lot of consistent science practical activities for these objectives to be
achieved. However, a look through students' science practical notebooks and
subsequent interviews with them revealed clearly that much attention was not
paid to practical work in physics, chemistry and biology in the first two years of
I
! '
122
the science programme in all the four case study scii~ols. It was not possible to
ascertain the number of practical activities performed by science students just by
looking at the records in their science practical notebooks. This is because in all
the case study schools, students did not keep proper records of practical work
done. It came to light during interviews with students that practical activities were
sometimes not recorded by students into their practical notebooks or when
recorded were not properly written up. Also students were allowed to use pieces
of paper to record and write up practical work they had done. Some of the
practical exercises, which had been marked, did not show dates and/or titles of
the practical activity. A look through practical notebooks students could make
available gave the impression that even though students may have done a lot of
practical work, particularly in the third year, much attention was not given to the
write-ups.
Table 20 shows the number of practical activities performed by students
over a period of almost two and half years at the time of this study (interview of
students was conducted in the third term of the academic year between May and
June, 2002).
Generally, students in SRC schools performed more practical activities than their
counterparts in satellite schools. According to the students, som3 of the practical
activities were recorded on pieces of paper and so were lost.
What appears in Table 20 are the number of practical activities recorded
in notebooks, pieces of paper and what students remembered they did over a
I
i
"
"
,". ';'
t· - .~
17"_.J
period of nearly three years (SSS1 to SSS3). Where zero appears in the table,
the students insisted that they did not perform any practical activities during that
year.
A look at students' practical notebooks revealed that over half the practical
activities done were not marked. The picture portrayed by Table 17 is that
generally, students performed very few practical activities during the first two
years in school. As one student in school X puts it
In this school, we normally suspend the practical to form 2 third
term and form 3 (SSS3). So in form 1 (SSS1) and form 2 (SSS2)
we seldom do experiments. So we didn't do a lot of practical. .. the
teacher was saying that because of our number we can't be doing
practical with the form 2 (SSS2) and the form 3 (SSS3) students. At
least we've got more time so our practical work could be
suspended for some time so that when we get to SSS3 we will do
more practical (Student, School X).
Since students had to be prepared fbr the WAEC practical examinations at
the end of the third year, it is not surprising that more practical activities were
done during the third year. Table 20 shows that in all the schools except school
X, students did not perform any physics and chemistry practical :n SSS2. At least
school Y could not complain about lack of apparatus because it had an SRC.
Students in schools Y and Z did not also perform any chemistry practical
activities in SSS1. Also there was virtually no biology practical work for school W.
124
The situation in .biology was not different in school Z, except that the teachers
decided to make up for practical work lost by doing more practical (10) with their
students in SSS3.
The situation for physics practical work in school Z was worse than the rest of the
schools. According to the students, they performed only one physics practical in
SSS1 and this was on "Finding the refractive index of a glass block", They could
not even complete this practical and their notebooks confirmed this. In SSS2 they
did not perform any practical activities in physics at all. In fact at the time of this
study, the students had performed only two practical activities in SSS3. The
second practical was conducted on 26th January 2002 on the "Determination of
the refractive index of glass using illuminated objects" as indicated in their
notebooks.
This was marked and discussed with the students. Both practical activities done
in SSS3 were on light experiments leaving experiments on mechanics, electricity,
heat, and sound undone. The first experiment in mechanics performed by
students in school Z took place during the mock practical examination in May
2002. According to one of the students speaking on behalf of her colleagues:
The teacher told us to go and read about it. So we read about it and came
to apply it in the examination. We were able to take the readings and
tabulate the results but how to come with the graph was difficult. So we
couldn't plot the graphs. Another probiem we got was that as we swing the
pendulum we wasted more time on it so some of us couldn't
125
Table 20
Number of practical activities performed and recorded in physics, chemistry and
biology by school type
School/Subject Number of practical/Class
SSS1 SSS2 SSS3 Total
Physics School
Type
W* SAT 1 0 10 11
X* SRC 2 5 6 13
y SRC 4 0 5 9
Z SAT 1 0 2 2
Chemistry
W* SAT 1 0 9 10
X* SRC 5 5 6 16
y SRC 0 2 6 8
Z SAT 0 6 4 10
Biology
W* SAT 1 0 0 1
X* SRC 3 5 5 13 I'
y SRC 2 5 14 21 I
Z SAT 0 0 I10 10 I*Highest number of practical activities in schools with more than one stream I
I
I.
I
I
· . ,,..
~, ;, 1
,''':
126
finish the experiment. (Student, School Z).
In the mock examination in school Z, students were asked to measure the
diameter of the pendulum bob without being provided with vernier callipers. The
account of one of the students on how he tackled the measurement of the
diameter of the pendulum bob is quite revealing:
I have not seen vernier callipers before...1don't know whether we have
micrometer screw gauge here... Yes it was in the question but that one, I
didn't do it because we were not having the micrometer screw gauge or
vernier callipers (Student, School Z).
The lack of practical activities in school Z, being a less-endowed school, may
seem to be an extreme case but it is not too different from that of School W
which in comparison is a better endowed school. In the whole of form one in
school W, Table 17 shows that there was only one practical activity each in
physics, chemistry and biology. According to the students, the chemistry practical
activity in form one was based on a past WAEC practical examination question
and students could not make much of it at the time. One student remarked:
I remember our chemistry teacher gave us a question but he didn't show
us anything about it. He just gave us the practical question to do.
(Student, School W).
The only physics practical performed by students of school W was on finding the
"Density of an irregular object". Again a student remarked:
I.
\.-,
127
He showed us how to do the practical and we 'wrote them in our
notebooks. We did the practical but we didn't record it on a paper for him
to mark (Student, School W).
Students in school Y (SRC school) who had done relatively more practical work
than those in school Z (satellite school) were worried that even though they had
done more experiments in SSS3 than in SSS1 and SSS2 combined, they thought
they still had a lot more practical to do before the final practical examination
conducted by WAEC.
It is fair to note from the case study evidence, that emphasis was not put
on the performance of science practical work in schools especially in the first two
years. Sometimes lack of teachers accounted for the inability of students to do
practical activities. For example, the lack of a biology teacher accounts for
students in school Z not having any biology practical activities in form one. But
the same thing cannot be said for the lack of physics practical activities in the
same school in form one. There was a physics teacher who had not conducted
any practical sessions with the students. The other school had teachers but it is
clear that practical sessions were scanty in both SRC and satellite schools.
We were not going to the lab very often to do practical. Some of the
students and the teachers did not take the practical c1asse~ seriously.
Most of us thought that since we were in form 2 (SSS2) maybe there was
more time ahead so it is actually in form 3 (SSS3) that we started practical
so we didn't take the practical seriously from the beginning
i
i
I
!
128
(Student, School W; italics mine)
In school W the HOD agreed to the suggestion that much emphasis was not put
on science practical work when students are in SSS1. He however, defended this
practice by saying that
We have a reason for that. The time table doesn't cater for science
practical work. We have six periods for physics, and within those
six periods, which is two periods a day, you cannot organize
science practical. So it is not the fault of the teachers that the
students do not do physics practical. At the same time if you look at
the syllabus there are so many things to cover and so you have to
rush. So you are forced to cover most of the syllabus in the lower
forms and later towards form 3 (SSS3) then you do science
practical with the students (HOD, School W; italics mine).
However, an attempt is always made in the final year to make up,
somehow, for practical work neglected in SSS! and SSS2, so that at least
students would be able to take the WAEC science practical examination. The
nature of the questions in the WAEC practical examination promotes this lack of
emphasis on regular practical work. Some of the teachers indicated that some
. areas in the WAEC practical examination could be handled by students once
they are conversant with the theory. The WAEC biology practical examination is
made up of the following five areas:
!,
I
!
129
(a) graphs (drawing and interpretation)
(b) classification
(c) identification of specimen
(d) description of experiments (supposed to have been conducted by
students)
(e) drawing of specimen
According to some teachers and students, (a) to (c) constitute techniques which
could be taught with virtually no practical activities. It is only (d) and (e) that
students need to have practiced to be able to describe or perform in the practical
examination. If this is the case then it means some of the practical activities
relevant to the WAEC biology practical examination do not relate strictly to
laboratory tasks but to general cognitive competencies. However, it seems that
though teachers may be aware of these contexts in which practical work could be
used, since the over-riding concern was to make students pass the WAEC
examination, emphasis was put on the last one and even then mostly in the third
year to the neglect of the other uses. Fortunately, in physics and chemistry,
practical work makes up for only 20%, and so poor performance may not
adversely affect the final grades of students who perform very well in the theory
aspect of the examination. However, in biology practical work takes as much as
30% of the total marks for the biology examination. Students' performance in
biology is more likely to affect their final grades in biology compared to physics
and chemistry. However, if the claim by teachers that a sizeable amount of the
130
biology practical examination could be handled by students without necessarily
going through practical work, then the lack of practical work may also not
adversely affect students who have mastered the theory work in biology.
Another issue that came up for discussion during focus group interview of
students was practical examination at the end of the term. The case study
produced comments from students and evidence that suggested that practical
examination was rarely conducted by the schools either at the end of the term or
year. Apart from school Y where students said they took end of term practical
examination on two occasions, none of the other three schools organized any
science practical examinations. Some comments from students attest to this.
The mock examination was the first practical examination We took
(Student, School Z)
Our first practical exam was the mock exam in April. This was the
second term in the third year. In form two we were told that we will
do practical exams but they kept postponing (Student, School X).
Here we only have practical exams during mock because the mock
is supposed to be like the final exam (Student, School W).
The case of these four schools has provided considerable evidence to
confirm allegations made by Chief Examiners' in the sciences over the years that
the nature of students' weaknesses in the practical examination cast serious
doubts on students' involvement in practical activities during their science course
giving the impression that they were either not taken through the practical I
I
I
"
J
~
(;, . '.
':" .
131
activities or did not take them seriously. This view has -been acknowledged in the
comments and views expressed by students, HODs, and teachers in the schools.
It would however, be misleading to suggest that science teachers were
unappreciative of the need for practical activities to be performed by their
students. The wider picture from this study suggests that mitigating
circumstances (lack of teachers and equipment, large class sizes, overloaded
curriculum) constrain schools and teachers to overlook the performance of
science practical. Interviews with HODs confirmed this.
In school Zfor example, the HOD admitted that the school had not got
enough apparatus to do practical work. In physics, items such as cells, metre
rule, calorimeters, vernier callipers, weights, micrometer screw gauge etc were
not available in the school and had to be borrowed from another school over 20
km away. No doubt school Z is a typical poorly resourced school and clearly.
does not meet the conditions set by the science syllabuses of having a well-
equipped laboratory in order for the school to offer science. The situation in
school Z is indeed very discouraging and puts a limit on the number of practical
activities students could have.
The students in this school were expected to go to the SRC some 20 km
away since their laboratory was poorly equipped. However, this was not for free
as the school had to pay for fuel as well as consumables for the practical
activities particularly in chemistry and biology. The school did not have the
money to pay these bills any time students had to go to the SRC. Also since the
132
number of students in SSS3 was only 15, it was not Gost effective transporting
this small number of students in a big bus, which takes over 70 students.
Because of this situation, students in SSS3 had never been to the SRC for the
two and half years they had been in the school. The HOD of school Z indicated
that where apparatus were available for the kind of science practical activities
teachers wanted students to perform, students were made to do them. However,
during mock and final WAEC practical examinations they always borrowed
apparatus from other schools to enable students take the examinations. One
therefore wonders how students could out of the blue and with very little
experience in practical work be able to perform experiments in WAEC science
practical examinations without adequate experience and exposure particularly
when the instructions from WAEC to the science teachers categorically state that
the purpose of the practical test is to find out whether the candidates can carry
out simple practical work themselves.
Sometimes the inability of students to conduct practical activities was due
to the cost involved. For example, the HOD in school X indicated that for
chemistry practical alone the school had to purchase about 5 to 6 million cedis
worth of equipment before students could take the final WAEC examination. This
means that conducting practical activities is very expensive but students do not
necessarily pay more for offering science. Due to this, expensive practical work
could therefore not be done on regular basis.
133
Of course the number of students in the classes completely
overshadows the number of laboratories that we have... we have
not been able to cover the syllabus using the normal time. We have
to use afternoon classes. That is what we have been doing over the
years. If you use the normal time you will not finish and those who
are not prepared to go into extra classes they are the people who
are not performing the practical (HOD, School X).
It is very clear from the comments by the HOD of school X that there is
inadequate time even for the coverage of science theory prescribed by the
syllabuses and this affected practical work. All the HODs shared this opinion.
Since the number of periods allocated for science lessons (ranging between 6 to
8 periods a week) is not enough, the priority therefore was for teachers to
concentrate on the theory and make up for the practical work later. Time·
constraint appears to be a particularly serious problem as the HODs used it to
justify the inability of science teachers to conduct adequate science practical
activities with students. The reasons given by the HODs suggest that teachers
are not ignorant of the need for practical work but the constraints of time make
them put more emphasis on the theory aspect.
Sometimes when you look at the coverage of the syllabus I am sure
that with time, teachers have realized that they should rather spend
time giving the students theory then when they have gotten enough
they can take them through the practical (HOD, school X).
134
The belief is that somehow students would be able'to perform the practical in the
final examination once they get some little exposure. To enable students get
exposure, practical activities are organized at the last minute during the third
term for students. This state of affairs required that students did a number of
practical activities within a period of one or two hours. To prevent the situation
where students had to wait for one group to complete their practical work before
others had their turn, three or more different experiments are set up so that whilst
some groups are doing one kind of practical activity, others would be doing
different experiments and after completion the groups swap. In all the case study
schools, students were made to perform more than one practical activity during
any practical session especially during the students' final year. 'Whilst half of the
students will be in one room performing one set of practical activity the other half
would be in another room performing a different set of practical activity and after
an hour they switched over. It looks like the science teachers always wanted to
use the limited time available to conduct as many practical activities as possible,
particularly, in SSS3 when they see that students had not done enough practical
work. According to students in school X, sometimes they performed as many as
five practical activities in groups within two hours.
Sometimes for only three periods we are made to do so many
different practical activities sometimes four different practical; one
on resonance tube, sonometer box,one on heat, one on electricity
(Student, School X).
135
During this period emphasis on practical work is exari1i~ation driven, as the
following comments seem to portray:
Essentially, what is happening now is that we are only training the
students to go and pass the examination. Honestly, if the practical
is supposed to serve a purpose then it is supposed to complement
the theory. But here is the situation where you have done the
theory and you are now coming to do the practical so it's not
serving any purpose. The practical is supposed to help them pass
the examination (HOD, School W).
Probably, the teachers look at the end result of their teaching. So
whether they teach practical or not if at the end of the day students
do well in science examination then that justifies the approach they
have been using. (HOD, School X)
In the well-endowed schools in this study, more than half the number of students
presented for the examination are able to make grades A to D and this probably
tends to justify the approach of teaching the theory and doing practical work
getting to the final WAEC examination period in SSS3. This situation is not the
same for less-endowed schools. The approach of teaching mostly theory and
very little practical in less-endowed schools due to whatever constraints has not
yielded similar results as those in well-endowed schools. Teachers in less-
endowed schools tend to blame the students for their poor performance. The
comment from the HOD of school Y (less endowed) summed it up in this way:
136
If you look at the amount of work we put in for t1)e'm and their
results they are not comparable at all. I am putting in a lot of energy
going to the extent of explaining everything to them (HOD, School
Y)
In summary, there was ample evidence from the interview results and
observation of students' record of practical work done lead to the conclusion that
practical activities were not organized regularly for students, particularly, when
they are in forms one and two. It is evident from the result of this study that
students did not form the habit of recording practical activities in their exercise
books. Students therefore did not have consistent record of practical work done.
Some of the practical work recorded by students had no date and heading. For
some practical work there was virtually no write up at all. Science practical work
was considered important for students to pass their WAEC practical examination.
This state of affairs has come about as a result of many constraints, the major
ones being lack of time, overloaded curricula, lack of equipment and large class
sizes. In the next section, difficulties teachers and students face in organizing
and performing science practical activities respectively are explored.
Difficulties Associated with the Organisation of Science Practical Work
Another focus of the research was to find out difficulties teachers faced in
trying to organise science practical activities as well as those faced by their
students. It was expected that science teachers and students in SRC schools
may not have the same difficulties as those in satellite schools with respect to
137
apparatus, materials and equipment. The findings of the" study show otherwise.
Science teachers from both SRC and satellite schools enumerated
problems in three areas. These are (a) lack of apparatus and equipment needed
for some of the practical activities, (b) time constraint coupled with work overload
and, (c) lack of trained laboratory assistants. In the SRC schools, teachers
complained about insufficient apparatus for some of the practical activities they
wanted to conduct. In most cases therefore, it was not a question of non-
availability of equipment or apparatus but rather adequacy. If apparatus are
either not available or insufficient in some SRC schools, then teachers do not
know where else to turn for help. In the satellite schools, teachers complained
about poorly equipped laboratories, sometimes with no water flowing. The
apparatus where they were available were either limited in quantities or faulty.
Teachers from satellite schools indicated that they had to borrow equipment from
I . other schools regularly to be able to perform practical activities with their
students. According to the teachers, it is the limited number of equipment, which
made them, put students into groups. However, as one teacher puts it
"equipment may be available but limited in number and therefore there may be
more students per group than desired". Perhaps it is this frustration that
sometimes makes teachers decide not to conduct science practical activities until
the last minute. Biology teachers for example, complained about difficulty in
getting the right specimen and reagents for practical work whilst chemistry
teachers complained mostly about lack of chemicals. According to the teachers,
'.;;' .
138
.,
they found it easier getting the heads of the schools to release money to
purchase apparatus and materials for the final WAEC examination than for
normal school practical work. Sometimes it seems that if school heads do not
come from a science background themselves they may not see the need in
committing so many resources into major items of expenditure on students'
routine science practical activities or on science curriculum issues in general.
Teachers in SRC schools conceded that the SRC has been of tremendous help
to them because they get most of the items needed for practical activities from
the centre. This explains why equipment was a factor influencing attitude of
students especially in satellite schools.
Time constraint in the face of what the teachers called an '!overloaded
curriculum" coupled with the limited number of periods available to complete the
science syllabuses appear to be a particularly serious problem for many.
teachers. One teacher in an SRC school indicated that "because of the fact that I
am the only teacher teaching elective biology, my practical classes are large".
For this teacher the absence of a laboratory assistant made his work extra
difficult. In fact, most of the teachers complained about either the absence of
laboratory assistants or where they were available, sometimes were not very
useful because they were either watchmen or labourers who had been converted
into laboratory assistants. Such laboratory assistants were unable to offer the
kind of assistance needed by teachers or students. Consequently, every bit of
preparation for practical work had to be done by the science teacher. This
139
situation becomes burdensome, particularly, for chem'istry teachers when there
has to be a lot of preparation of solutions before practical activities can take
place.
Asked about what problems students had with science practical activities,
teachers enumerated a wide range of problems, which cut across satellite and
SRC schools, Some of the problems were however, peculiar to the less-endowed
schools, According to some science teachers in both SRC and satellite schools,
because of inadequate facilities in the schools' laboratories, students found it
difficult appreciating the importance of practical work. This supports the finding
that students' perception of their science laboratory environment is greatly
influenced by the availability and adequacy of equipment in both SRC and
satellite schools. Teachers confirmed that most times students only get access to
the laboratory when they get to upper forms (SSS2 and SSS3). Also students
were forced to work in groups due to lack of adequate number of equipment and
space. This made participation in practical activities by all members of a group
impossible. Many students therefore end up not benefiting from practical
.
activities due to insufficient time to set up the apparatus themselves and take
their own readings. Consequently, students have difficulty handling glassware
and working independently when it comes to examinations. Teachers also
indicated that students get frustrated with practical work due to faulty apparatus.
It is therefore not surprising that students' attitude to science practical work is
influenced by the use of equipment. According to one teacher in a satellite school
!
I,
,
I'!.4
~-.
,_ J
140
"in electricity for example, experiments may start with readings in turns by
students but later there may be inconsistency in the readings due to faulty
apparatus resulting in wrong results and graphs". Time constraint prevented
students from performing adequate number of practical activities. This made
students feel less confident when it came to practical work. The result of this
inadequate exposure to practical activities and lack of practice was that students
could not read measuring instruments accurately or plot graphs using their
results. Teachers indicated that students had difficulty interpreting and discussing
biological data. These are concerns that have been raised in Chief Examiners'
reports for biology over the years. This may be partly because of inadequate
exposure to laboratory training and practice as documented earlier in this work.
Normally, students enrolled for science in some schools have very weak
entry grades in science and mathematics and according to the teachers this was
a major contributory factor to their inability to perform well. Other major problems
faced by students as enumerated by teachers were:
(a) students' failure to follow instructions;
(b) students' difficulty with the plotting of graphs after they had collected
the data particularly when the readings are in decimals; and
(c) students working with improvised equipment which may not be very
efficient or reliable
141
Time Allocation for Science Practical work
Time allotted for science constitutes a critical dimension of the problem of
lack of practical work in the schools as seen in the previous section. In this
section, the issue of time is explored in more detail using responses and
comments from both case study schools and survey data.
Asked whether practical periods were officially allocated on time tables,
38.0% of science teachers stated that their time tables did not show any time for
practical work. The remaining 62.0% who indicated that their time tables had
periods allocated for science practical work gave a range of two to four periods
per week for such activities. Practical periods therefore differed from one school
to the other as well as across subjects. These periods were seen to be
inadequate by 68.0% of the teachers. Actually 76.0% of the teachers indicated
that school hours used for practical work ranged from two to three periods of 40
minutes duration per period. In schools where practical periods are allocated on
the time table, most teachers normally use them for theory work. In school X for
example, there were three periods for practical work and five periods for theory
but most teachers used all the eight periods for theory. According to the
teachers, this was even not sufficient and some teachers had to resort to
. afternoon classes for the teaching of more theory. Some teachers used some
afternoons and weekends to do practical work. However, doing practical work
after school has its own disadvantages.
142
Sometimes students are punished for not comirig' for practical work.
At other times nothing is done to them. Many people don't come for
practical work particularly for physics because we do it after school.
In chemistry because we do it during classes time many students
turn up (Student, School W).
Most times we don't go to the laboratory. The teachers don't'
organise the practical for us and the students don't go for practical
even when it is organised (Student, School X).
The HOD for school.X had a reason for students not turning up for practical work
particularly after school hours. According to him
The students probably do not like the practical because when they
came in we did not help them to develop the interest. The affective
aspect is missing (HOD, School X).
Teachers were asked to indicate whether students were able to complete
laboratory work and the subsequent write up within the period allocated for
science practical. The responses are presented in Table 21. From the table only
about half of the teachers (52.0%) indicated that students normally complete their
laboratory work and write-up within the time allocated for practical activities and
·this ranges between 45 minutes to two hours. The study has already established
that students sometimes do multiple practical activities within this period. It is
therefore not surprising that nearly half of the teachers indicated that students did
not complete both laboratory work and the write up within the practical work JI
IIi,
I,
'I'
I
period. The table shows that 88.0% of the teachers indicated that more often
than not students only complete the laboratory work.
Table 21
Percentage responses in each category on completion of laboratory work
and write-up (N=50)
143
Item Always Very Often Often Never/Rarely
Students complete their lab
work and write up
Students complete only lab
work
Students do not complete lab
work
8.0
20.0
o
14.0
50.0
4.0
30.0
18.0
12.0
48.0
12.0
84.0
This shows that the write up of the practical work is pushed to "after school" as
data collection dominates the practical time.
Students and the HOD in school X in this study confirmed this when asked
whether they did their practical write up in the laboratory.
It depends on the practical. Since it is two experiments a day for
two hours, maybe you might not finish the first one before an hour
is over. So you go and do the write up in the house (Student,
School W).
... '
144
We normally finish the practical work but we don't write it up. We
only take the readings (Students, School X).
Because of the limitation of time they get their readings and then
they retire to do the write-up (HOD, School X).
The write up of practical work at the SSS usually involves the following
steps:
(a) title and date of experiment;
(b) list of apparatus;
(c) diagram;
(d) method;
(e) precautions;
(f) observations;
(g) deductions;
(h) graph;
(i) calculation;
0) conclusion;
(k) sources of error.
When students mention practical write up they were referring to going through all
these stages. The evidence from case study schools shows teachers were not
particular concerned about practical write up by their students in the way outlined
above. Students also did not like doing the write up because they either saw it as
unnecessary or a waste of time as they are mostly not marked and discussed
I
I'
~
145
with them. A look through students' practical notebooks and the pieces of papers
presented for inspection shows that where students did any write up it was
mostly limited to observations, deductions, graph and calculation.
According to the students this is not even looked at and marked by teachers in
most cases thus confirming their belief that the write-up was not necessary.
When we do the practical the main concern is just how to get the
values. That is the main thing we do towards the SSSCE. So in
many cases we don't do a complete write-up. So far as we get our
values and plot our graphs, we are okay. The main thing they are
concerned with is the graph or how we get the table. So we don't
normally write up the practical systematically (Student, School X).
When we go to the laboratory a question is given to us, like maybe
a past question is given us. We use that in doing the practical. We
are more concerned with getting used to the instrument than writing
up the whole thing (Student, School W)
We have a lot of practical on electricity.' But the ones that he has
marked are three. The rest we just try our hands on them and go
and plot our own graphs (Student, School X).
It seems the main concern was for students to go through the practical activity
and take some readings. What students do with the results and graphs plotted is
sometimes not the concern of anybody. This seems to be a common practice in
the schools. Driver as cited in Wardle (1998) rightly reflected on this common
146
approach to practical work when he stated that:
practical lessons end abruptly when the prescribed task is complete
and little, if any, time is given to the interpretation of the results
obtained, although this is just as important as the activity itself
(p.272).
Even though the emphasis on collecting data provides perspective and
context for the students, it is the ability to interpret and reason, which is a
higher order skill in science, that develops the understanding of the
concepts and procedures involved (Wardle, 1998). It is therefore clearly
invalid and unconvincing in terms of developing students understanding of
science for them to just collect data in the name of carrying out practical
work without allowing them to question, reason and draw conclusions from
the data collected. However, even if the emphasis is on students using
practical work in school as a way of practicing for the final WAEC
examination the HOD of school X thinks that:
it is unfortunate that the practical students do, are not marked.
Because it is only when you mark and discuss with them that they
will build confidence (HOD, School X).
In fact some students even thought the write up was not necessary and that once
they understood what they had done when it came to the examination they would
be able.to perform.
i
I
l'
!
i
147
... here is the case about one and half months'or two months ago
we have done only one practical. So it is like we just write it up in a
kind of jotter or something and then we don't even know where
we've even kept the book. But apart from that we make sure that
we understand what we have done and how to go about the
practical so when it comes to the examination we will be able to
write. But as to record and put them in a document or like have it in
a book for reference, we don't have anything like that (Student,
School X).
We are taught in the classroom on how to draw the table, write the
units and plot graphs. All that we have gone through in the
classroom. So when we go to the laboratory and do the experiment,
the write ups are not so necessary. We just take our values and
leave. When we go the laboratory a question is given taus like
maybe a past question is given us. We use that in doing the
practical. We are more concerned with getting used to the
instrument than writing up the whole thing (Student, School W).
Some students stated that sometimes their teachers came to class to check their
graphs. However, without the teacher thoroughly going through students practical
notebooks to see what they had done, there is the possibility that even though
students have been taught what to do during 'practical, they still could have been
making errors which might not be detected by the teacher. It is only through
'.
148
correction, and reinforcing achievement that students will develop the kind of
skills teachers expect through practical activities. It seems that sometimes in a
rush to do more practical work all these important issues are overlooked.
Time constraint and lack of interest on the part of some students combine
to make practical work in some schools unattractive. In school X for example, the
lack of interest in practical work on the part of some students as pointed out by
the HOD might have stemmed from the teachers inability to encourage practical
activity. The following comment by a student in school X buttresses this point.
I must say that if practical work in my class was encouraged I don't
think people will feel lazy or become reluctant in doing practical
work. Because right from the very onset, if it has been put into us
that we should be serious with practical work I don't think we will be
having problems now (Student, School X).
These comments go to confirm the notion that some teachers do not put
high premium on regular practical activities and this affects the morale of
students. This is blamed however, on time constraint, which becomes a
convenient excuse for not organising practical work for students. Some teachers
are also not prepared to do extra classes with students in the afternoon or during
, the weekends so that they could have time for practical work. Students on the
other hand are apathetic to practical work because of lack of emphasis by their
teachers and so even when they are asked togo for practical work they feel
reluctant. However, since there is already a lack of commitment to practical work
149
on a regular basis on the part of teachers, they overlook students' lack of
interest, thus making practical work optional.
In summary, what the evidence in this study on time allocation for practical
work shows is that schools have different number of periods for practical work. In
some schools there are no periods at all allocated for practical work on the
official school time table. Teachers therefore conduct practical work as and when
they deemed it necessary. Even where practical periods are fixed on the time
table, teachers normally use them to teach theory. Laboratories for science in
such schools are therefore widely underutilized, or wrongly utilised for traditional
whole class teaching (Caillods, Gottelmann-Duret & Lewin, 1996)
Use of Textbooks and other Materials for Practical Work
Practical teaching of science in school laboratories in many cases consists
of 'cook-book' exercises designed for students to go through. According to
Jenkins (1998) a survey of practical work in school laboratories shows that the
use of laboratory manuals was a model over the first half of the 19th century. The
use of textbooks for science practical work has since that time become a regular
feature the world over. According to Caillods, Gottelman-Duret and Lewin
(1996), in most countries where print materials are widely available, there exists
. markets, which produce and distribute curriculum materials other than those
officially recognized. Schools in Ghana however, seemed not to share in this
common occurrence when it comes to books or manuals for science practical
activities. In the sample schools, 88.0% of teachers stated that they did not know
150
of any approved textbooks for science practical activities. The other 12.0% made
.reference to the Ghana Science Association of Teachers (GAST) textbooks as
the approved textbooks for practical work. However, GAST textbooks are
approved for the teaching and learning of science by the MOE but are not
specifically for practical work. However, there are suggested practical activities to
be performed by students in the GAST textbooks. One cannot therefore say that
GAST textbooks are like standard manuals for practical work. Unlike the situation
in some other countries, most teachers and students did not have access to
books or manuals produced by parallel markets. About 88.0% of teachers stated
that their students did not use any books when performing science practical
activities. The 12.0% of teachers who stated that their students use science
practical textbooks when performing experiments listed books such as Biology
Practical for SSS by Dan Dare, Investigations in biology for tropical schools by
Leslie Allen and SRC Practical Books as textbooks. Teachers who indicated that
their students did not use any standard textbooks listed some of the following as
sources of practical activities for their students:
a) selected past WAEC questions
b) practical Chemistry (SAMKOFSEL's series)
c) practical pamphlets
d) practical Physics for schools and colleges by Bredan O. Ahuche
e) prototype experiments from past GCE and SSSCE examination
papers
151
f) experiments designed by science teachers
g) suggested experiments in GAST textbooks
h) practical handout prepared by science teachers
The use of different textbooks or manuals suggests that no standard science
practical activities take place in schools as students look into different textbooks
or manuals for practical activities. Table 22 shows the proportion of teachers who
used different references for practical activities. The table shows that most of the
time (88.0%) practical activities performed by students are taken from WAEC
past examination practical questions and textbooks particularly, the GAST
textbooks. It can be seen from the table that the majority of teachers (66.0%)
rarely or never used pamphlets.
The different sources of science practical work shows that there is no
standardization across schools or even within schools on materials students use
as reference for practical work. The science syllabuses contain numerous
suggested practical activities. The chemistry syllabus for example, has a list of
topics on general skills and principles, quantitative analysis, and qualitative
analysis. However, it is not surprising that none of the teachers mentioned the
science syllabuses as reference materials for practical work in their schools as
anecdotal evidence shows that teachers do not use either the WAEC or teaching
syllabuses given by the MOE. The frequent use of WAEC past questions is not
surprising since this study has established that most teachers organized science
practical to enable their students have some confidence to take the final WAEC
152
examination.
Table 22
Percentage responses in each category on the source of materials for laboratory
work (N=50)
Item Always Very Often Often Never/Rarely
Designed by me 18.0 24.0 34.0 24.0
Taken from textbooks 6.0 24.0 56.0 14.0
Taken from pamphlets 2.0 12.0 20.0 66.0
Taken from WAEC past 12.0 34.0 42.0 12.0
questions
Use of Group Work during Science Practical Activities
Performing experiments in groups is a regular feature in Ghanaian SSS in
Ghana. Students are put together and given the task of performing practical
activities. It is therefore not surprising that 90.0% of teachers indicated that their
students work in groups during science practical activities. The evidence from
the study shows that students usually work in groups of four or five. This seems
to be the average with the maximum being 10 and the minimum 2. Group work
took place in schools with large class sizes of 50 or more as well aE: in those with
small class sizes of 15 due to inadequate equipment. According to the HOD of
school X, it was not possible to get students to perform practical work on
individual basis.
I .
v .
153
For instance given a class of 50, I have to divide them into two
groups of 25 each. Whilst one batch is writing the theory the other
batch is performing the practical and then they switch. It is not
possible to get them to do practical on individual basis due to
shortage of equipment (HOD, School X).
In schools with very large class sizes, the number of students far out number the
quantity of equipment and consumables in the laboratories, and so the situation
described by the HOD of school X is understandable. According to the HOD,
teachers in his school decided that after students had been introduced to
practical work in groups they would create a situation where students could have
individual practice in science practical work. Individual practice is' essential since
the purpose of the final WAEC practical examination is to find out whether the
candidates can carry out simple practical work themselves. However, according
to the HOD, this could not happen due to insufficient equipment even with an
SRC in the school. In school Y which had an SRC and an SSS3 science
population of 34, students performed physics practical activities in groups except
when they had practical examination due to insufficient equipment. However,
according to the students in school Y, chemistry and biology practical activities
were sometimes done on one to one basis, but then the class harl to be divided
into two groups for this to be possible. School Z had only 15 science students in
SSS3, yet because they did not have enough equipment this prevented them
from performing science practical work on individual basis. They therefore had to
-------------------,,-.-
154
wait and perform the practical work in turns. The following statements describe
the situation in chemistry, for example:
In chemistry we don't have enough pipettes and burettes. We have
about six. The burettes are old and the demarcations have all
become so faint you can't see them. So sometimes you have to
wait for your friend to finish so that you can collect his burette
(Student, School Z).
It can therefore be concluded that one of the constraints that give
rise to use of group work in schools was inadequate equipment and
materials. Comments from students in school W buttress this point.
Sir we don't know whether the equipment are around but they are
not being used. Because in physics we are assigned to work in
groups of three. For chemistry we have about six people to a group.
The teacher will tell us that he doesn't want us to waste chemicals,
so we have to work in groups. In biology we don't know whether the
equipment are enough but they just don't want you to damage them
so we work in groups. In biology the microscopes are not enough.
So they are placed at vantage points for us to use (Students,
School W).
Judging from the evidence from this case study, it appears that the key
determining factor for group work was inadequate equipment and materials or
the fear that students may damage them. However, group work could be used to
155
the advantage of students. Students could collaborate with each other to perform
science practical activities. For collaborative learning to occur students in groups
could interact among themselves and encourage the establishment of positive
relationships. However, the important issues of group success being dependent
on and ~ direct effect of, the individual work of each member of the group seem
to be absent in the case study schools. Instead the evidence shows that there
were clear differentiated power relationships among members in a group as in
many cases individual students assumed a directive role as the following
comments from students indicate:
One person or two people will do the whole practical so those of us
who are not performing the practical will tend to sit and then just
watch (Student, School X).
The disadvantage is where he does it and you always sit down not
practicing. And then he is always doing it and you will just be
watching. So you won't have a feel of it and if you don't take time
on the D-day that you are supposed to do it yourself you might be
found wanting, though you have been watching him do it, it might
happen that you wouldn't be able to pick it up (Student, School X).
Some people will feel lazy in a group because they know that oh
my friend will do it...at times some students even don't come to the
laboratory because they know they work in a group they will just
copy what others have done (Student, School W).
---------~--------- ~ v
156
Sometimes we become so dependent on our friends we don't
normally do the work ourselves because one sharp person is within
our group we all depend on the person. He takes the readings and
we all copy. Sometimes this annoys the person doing it (Student,
School V).
Particularly in the physics we depend very much on those who
understand. So we will be sitting there for the person to do it and
we copy. So if the person is doing the wrong thing we just copy
(Student, School V).
One reason for the above situation is the fact that group sizes become too
large leading to overcrowding around the experimental set up and therefore
some students naturally do not get the opportunity to engage in the task
assigned. Others hide behind group work presentations and therefore
intentionally do nothing to enable the group complete its task. In the end,
students do not gain much from practical work. Group work therefore becomes a
drawback to the performance of practical activities. Majority of students would
therefore not acquire any skills as the students themselves have indicated. It is
therefore difficult to see the purpose of such practical work. This situation is
exacerbated by the limited time at the disposal of students to cOIT,plete the
practical work in order for other group of students to get the opportunity to
perform their tasks. The following quotations from two students succinctly
describe the effect of overcrowding in their school laboratories during practical
,...
" .
157
work:
When we work in groups we are overcrowded and people tend to
sit on the fence especially when we are in groups like that. Not all
of us can put our hands together to do the practical at the same
time. One person or two people will do the whole practical so if you
are not performing the practical, you tend to sit and then you just
watch (Student, School X).
In chemistry there are six people in a group. Everyone will like to
perform the activity and sometimes that brings confusion since we
are asked to take three readings (Student, School W).
Another disadvantage of the type of group work done in the case study schools
was that of shared responsibilities during group work. According to students
some of them decide to perform some aspects of the practical, leaving others to
perform the rest. The following comments from students in school X illustrate this
point:
Let's take chemistry for example; you are supposed to take three
readings for the titration. So maybe the first person will do the first
one and will give it to you to do the second one and a third person
to do the third one. And then the others might be calculating the
values for you to be fixing in the table (Student, School X).
Taking chemistry for instance, our teacher is not usually with us. So
when we start maybe you might ask someone to come and take the
. ,,.. .
second reading. He might tell you that he would want to go for the
solution instead, or maybe he might swallow some of the solution if
he tries to pipette so he chooses not to do it (Student, School X).
Another reason for students not participating fully in the performance of
practical work is the lack of pre-lab sessions and sometimes the absence
of teachers in the laboratory during practical work. When students don't
know what to do they tend to look up to one person. In school Y, for
example, the HOD who happened to be the physics teacher mentioned
that one of the students in the class was very good and understood the
practical work very well. Focus group discussion with students revealed
that those who found themselves in the same group with this particular
student allowed him to perform the practical activities on their behalf. This
was because they did not usually understand the tasks assigned them and
the teacher was not there in most cases to help them. This situation gives
rise to some students monopolizing practical work not because they are
selfish but rather due to the circumstances in which they found
themselves. Surprisingly, case study students defended the monopoly of
practical work when it was suggested to them that some students
. intentionally monopolize practical work.
Yes you are right. But sometimes it is not their fault. Because
maybe for a given practical the others doing it may not know
anything about it so you have to monopolize and do it (Student,
15S
j:1
I
,1
,I
i
'i
!
I
'.I
i,
I
j
School X)
It is not our fault that we monopolize the practical. But then some of
the students are not willing to do it. If you ask them to do it, they will
tell you that they can't do it or something of that sort. You just tell
him the value that's all (Student, School W).
To the best of my knowledge, sometimes if you talk of the
monopoly within the students themselves is like the first person
who will go and sit behind the set up is the one who is going to
monopolize the practical (Student, School Y).
These comments show that there were virtually no democratic and
negotiated styles of working which has been shown to be linked to higher
motivational levels and greater all-round understanding than those in
which an individual student assumes a directive role (Hodson, 1993).
Students sitting together in groups and letting one of them to do all the
work while others watch or listen, should not be considered as cooperative
learning. It is evident from the evidence in this study that students
sometimes did, not get the opportunity to practice or find things out for
themselves during group practical activities. The benefits of group work
. were therefore lost to such students. It is therefore safe to conclude that
part of the reasons why students exhibit numerous weaknesses in science
practical examination may be due to the way science practical activities
are organized in schools.
159
Support Given to Students During Science P.ractical Activities
One way of reducing frustration on the part of students during
science practical work is supporting them before and during practical
activities. In the teachers' questionnaire therefore, teachers were asked
about support systems put in place to enable students cope with science
practical activities. During focus group interviews, students were also
asked to indicate the kind of support they received and the source of that
support. All the science teachers indicated that they gave support to their
students during practical work. About 42.0% of science teachers indicated
that they and their laboratory assistants gave support to students whilst
20.0% of the teachers indicated that students received support from only
science teachers. Another 22.0% indicated that students received support
from science teachers, laboratory assistants and their fellow students.
Asked to state who students receive most support from, 76.0% of the
teachers stated that they provided the most support to students. The
support listed by teachers fell into the following categories:
(a) finding out whether students were doing the right thing;
(b) helping in identification, drawing and labelling of specimen;
(c) correcting wrong experimental procedure as well as checking rInd
correcting faulty equipment;
(d) helping students so that they would not injure themselves or damage
any science apparatus;
160
(e) giving hints to students who are unable tq proceed as a result of their
inability to understand some points in the theory of an experiment;
(f) helping students focus specimens under the microscope;
explaining the theory behind the practical activity.
Case study evidence shows that pre-laboratory discussion in the schools
depended on which teacher was involved. In some schools, some
teachers organised pre-laboratory discussions whilst others did not. Also
sometimes teachers who organised pre-lab on one occasion did not do so
on other occasions. There is no standard practice when it comes to
organising pre-lab for practical activities.
The different kinds of support enumerated by science teachers
constitute the spectrum of support given to students. According to Hodson
(1993) the "only effective way to learn to do science is by doing science,
alongside a skilled and experienced practitioner who can provide on-the-
job-support" (p. 120). However, the evidence from the case study schools
shows that the support given to students differs from one science subject
to another and also from one school to another. In fact, in some cases
students indicated that no support at all was given to them. In the case
study schools, students were asked about how helpful their teachers were
when it came to practical work, and whether their teachers were always
present to give support. Also students were asked about the kind of
support they received from other students. In school Z, for example,
161
students indicated that they did not receive much support during practical
activities in physics but their biology and chemistry teachers together with
the laboratory assistants and their own colleagues gave them a lot of
support. Students in school W also indicated that they received a lot of
support from their chemistry teachers but not from their physics teachers.
The following comments from students' sum up how they sometimes
received support from their teachers during practical work in the various
science subjects.
In chemistry the teacher will explain everything to us and give us an
example, and set up the apparatus for us to do. When we have any
problems the teacher is there to help us (Student, School Z).
For the few physics practical we have done the teacher was very
helpful. He went round and showed us how to do things. But for
chemistry he just gives us the apparatus and expects us to be able
to go through and later we discuss (Student, School X).
In my class the science teachers are not too helpful, whether
physics, chemistry or biology. Even though they are always present
when we do our practical they do not come to see what we are
doing. (Student, School W)
Students also received support from their fellow students and laboratory
assistants as the following quotations from students show:
162
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
163
When you can't do an experiment anp you see that someone has
been able to do it you call him to come and help you. The teacher
would still be in the laboratory. Sometimes we call the teacher. But
we have seen that sometimes if we call our colleagues they are
able to explain it to us better. This happened in the glass block and
titration experiments. (Student, School Z)
Sometimes we receive more help from fellow students that the
teachers. When we need help during practical we call the teacher
or our friends to help us. I understand it better with my friends.
(Student, School W)
The comments from these students in the case study schools show that
their teachers did not always give them the needed support during science
practical activities. This lack of support is likely to breed frustration, which
could result in dislike for science practical work. This study shows that
generally, students had a positive attitude towards science practical work,
but case study evidence shows that there are numerous problems with
practical work in specific subjects.
The Role of Science Resource Centres in the Organisation of Science
Practical Activities
Evidence from teachers' questionnaire shows that majority of
teachers in satellite and SRC schools (74.0%) preferred using the SRCs
for organising practical activities. This is not surprising since the SRCs
164
have relatively better facilities for science pr~ctical work. What is
. surprising however is that a little more than half (54.5%) the teachers in
satellite schools indicated that they preferred not to use the SRCs for
science practical work even though 86.4% of teachers in satellite schools
described their school laboratories as either equipped with some of the
necessary materials/equipment needed for science practical (45.5%) or
poorly equipped (40.9%). Evidence from the study shows that students in
the case study satellite schools scarcely went to the SRCs for science
practical activities. SSS3 students in school Z for example, had never set
foot at the SRC whilst SSS3 students in school Y went to the SRC during
the first term of the first year only. The HODs of schools Wand Z threw
some light on why they were not taking their students to the SRCs.
According to the HOD of school Z which is a less-endowed school,
students were supposed to go to the SRC which was a distance of about 20 km
from the school for their science practical activities. This is because the district
has no SRC. It was however, not convenienUor teachers to take a few students
to the SRC to spend the whole day each week. Even though a bus from the SRC
picked students of school Z they had to pay the fuel bill as well as the cost of
. consumables for biology and chemistry practical activities. In addition, students
had to pay ¢5,000 a term as commitment charges before they were given access
to the SRC. Most often when students got to the resource centre, the teachers
were not ready for them, and sometimes they went there only to find students of
165
that school occupying the SRC laboratori~s. The HOD thought that transporting
15 students to the SRC was not cost effective and hence preferred borrowing
items from the centre instead to organise practical activities for students in the
school. Items the school normally borrowed for physics for example were cells,
metre rule, calorimeters, vernier callipers, weights, micrometer screw gauge etc.
However, interviews with the students revealed that these items were borrowed
during preparations towards the final WAEC examinations and not for regular
practical activities.
The views of the HOD of school W, classified as a well-endowed school
was not very different. When asked why students from school W were not going
to the SRC, he replied
Personally I think everything the SRC have we have them here. So
what is the point in taking students there? Personally, I see it as a
waste of time. Sometimes what you want them to go to the SRC to
see, the teachers there can't organise it for them. Rather, simple
experiments as we can organise here is what they organise for
them. So what is the point in going there? (HOD, School W).
According to the HOD of school W, in physics for example, there are so many
things, which can be demonstrated, based on the resources at the SRCs. So if
that was done and the SRC teachers announce to the schools that they had set
up very interesting experiments like the use of the cathode ray oscilloscope and
others to attract students to the centre, then they in turn will send the students
!
I
I
i
II
I
~'
v
v;-
I<;""
,i.~
166
there. However, the normal practice was for the resource centre teachers to ask
.the schools to give them a list of experiments they wanted their students to
perform. The HOD of School W felt that their school could organise all the basic
practical activities in science. So if students were going to the SRC for practical
activities it should be for the ones they could not organise in their school. Like the
HOD of school Z, he also complained that sometimes the teachers at the
resource centre were not ready for the students and this led to waste of time.
Interview with students in school W confirmed this.
To me it was a waste of time. The teachers there didn't like us.
They always compare us with the students in their school [italics
added] that they are better than us. They didn't devote their time to
us. They only come and do anything they like. But one of the
biology teachers was very good to us but not the physics and
chemistry teachers. The chemistry and physics masters were not
all that helpful to us (Student, School W).
However, unlike school W which claimed thattheir laboratories were reasonably
well equipped for basic experiments, the HOD of school X considered to be well-
endowed complained that his school laboratories was poorly equipped and they
depended very much on the SRC in the school for facilities for practical activities.
Fortunately, for this school, the SRC is situated in the school. With students from
other schools not patronising the centre, the SRC in school X has virtually
become the school's permanent laboratories. A similar situation existed in
.~
167
school Z that had an SRC.
The HOD of school Z who was also the Coordinator of the SRC lamented
that satellite schools had not been patronising the centre. According to him, one
SSS had visited the SRC twice and also a private SSS has been there twice
since the establishment of the centre some four years ago. Another SSS had
decided to create its own science laboratory and so does not patronise the
centre. He felt that because some of the schools were not offering elective
science subjects they were not keen in patronising the centre.
An interview with the Coordinator of the SRC located in school X was
quite revealing. The Coordinator was asked why school W was not patronising
the centre. In his reaction, he confirmed the fact that the two schools which were
supposed to patronise the centre had complained that any time they went to the
centre the whole of that day was wasted since they could not attend classes for
the other subjects they offer in their own schools. According to him, the problem
was with the time table. When the students go to the centre, the first three
periods was given to chemistry, the next three periods for biology and the last
three for physics. The students were therefore divided into three groups and they
rotated over the three practical sessions. Students therefore, virtually spent the
·whole day at the centre. Their own school time table was therefore disrupted at
least for that day. StUdents however, offer other subjects in addition to science.
Initially the students were going to the centre once every week but they realised
that it was affecting their participation in other school subjects. To address this
---~----:----""---""""""""''''-.--------~~~
v .
" \\..
168
problem the Coordinator said:
we met and agreed that it must be fortnightly. And then the
fortnightly too the last time it collapsed was when they were having
their mock. A whole lot of issues cropped up and fitting it into their
time table was not done (SRC Coordinator, School X).
A new arrangement where in term one SSS3 students could go to the centre
followed in term two SSS2 students, SSS1 in term 3 so that they could work it
into their time tables also encountered problems. The Coordinator conceded that
I the well-endowed schools, which were supposed to patronise the centre could
conduct most basic experiments in their schools. The Coordinator felt that in
establishing the resource centres, the MOE should rather have brought
equipment, which were not common, and those, which were expensive to the
centre. This could have been placed at the centres so that students could go and
use those equipment for experiments which they would not be able to perform in
their own schools. If going to the centre was to perform what the teachers called
"routine experiments" then it seems that in the' well-endowed schools, the idea of
the resource centre is not necessary, since they have most of the necessary
equipment and so could be independent of the SRCs in terms of practical
activities. The two schools, which were to go to this particular centre, were well-
endowed and as at the time of doing the research both schools had completely
stopped going to the centre. The last school stopped almost a year before this
study. In any case, this study has established that schools did not put much
---~---~--""'--":.-:-'--------~=--'=
v
~
"-
169
emphasis on practical work at least in the first-two years at the senior secondary
school. Patronage of the centres then does not arise during this period. Another
problem facing the centres according to the Coordinator was money.
The ministry gives three million cedis a year for the running of the
SRC bus. But tyres and servicing is expensive. Sometimes one
servicing may cost about one million cedis and there are other
problems. So for fuelling and serving three million cedis for the
whole year is inadequate. And if we have 15 students, going there
to pick them to come and perform experiments is not economically
wise (SRC Coordinator, School X).
According to the Coordinator a packet of filter paper costs ¢26,500, so if one is
performing an experiment on filtration alone and there are 45 students that
packet of filter paper will be used up. Filtration alone plus other components cost
so much yet students were asked to pay only ¢5,OOO per term. For example,
when the centre in school X was established, the Ministry of Education brought
20 burettes and those ones were of the glass type and so most of them had
jammed according to the Co-ordinator. Meanwhile one burette cost about
¢ 300,000 and a pipette about ¢1 00,000 not to talk about flasks, chemicals and
other equipment. Even though the amount paid by students was woefully
inadequate, according to the HODs, students were not prepared to pay more.
This has therefore put a lot of financial burden on the centres. According to the
Coordinator
II
170
We had a complaint from one of the ~ell-endowed schools. They
said that at their school if they are performing an experiment if it is
a fowl each student is given one. So they were expecting that when
they came here each student would be given a separate set up.
Each fowl is ¢15,OOO so if in the whole term students pay just
¢5,OOO it means that for one practical session we must find money
from elsewhere.
(SRC Coordinator, School X).
The SRCs are supposed to be very well equipped centres but according to
the Coordinator even in terms of everyday practical activities students were
expected to perform, the centre was not equipped with adequate number of
apparatus. It was therefore not possible for the students to work indiVidually
when they go to the centre. Even with simple titration, students had to work in
groups and even though when students work in groups they share ideas, the
Coordinator thought it was necessary for them to work individually in order to
build confidence in handling practical activities unaided during the WAEC
practical examination. According to him, when students do group work they build
up group confidence so that when they are on their own they can't work
. independently". The Coordinator thought that maybe SSS1 and SSS2 students
could be made to work in groups then later in SSS3 they should work
individually. According to the Coordinator the centre did not have most of the
chemicals for functional group analysis. The Coordinator enumerated several
"..
171
other problems. For example, an equipmen~ like DL plus, brought to the centre by
Philip Harris International was not suitable for the kind of practical work
II conducted in schools. In biology, bio- viewers supplied by Philip Harris
11) International did not have the accompanying slides. The same goes for the
overhead. Some of the chemicals were inadequate and most of the dyes had
been thrown off. The kit for soil experiments had been depleted and there was no
local market where they could buy from. According to him, physics equipment
were available but inadequate. Stop clocks brought to the centre were such that
once the battery runs down that was the end of the instrument even if new
batteries were fitted. The centre had only two computer inter-phases, so if there
were many students and the computer must be used to plot graphs or perform
experiments it was not possible. The six computers at the centre were
inadequate and most of the programmes on them were outmoded.
I
!
Asked whether the Ministry of Education had been replenishing the stocks
the Coordinator replied
No no no since they supplied they haven't bothered to change them
or improve upon them. Because the pH meters for example has a
life span. After some time the sensitivity reduces. The chemicals
also have a life span. These things were not taken into
consideration in setting up the laboratories (SRC Coordinator,
School X).
-
·1I
II
I
i;"';
-'
.:
~
'-
.-
.'?;
c 172
Another problem was continuity. In the word~ of the Coordinator
If you use the DL plus in the secondary school and you go to the
universities they don't have it. So in my view it is poor planning.
There must be continuity so that if you go to the university you must
find these equipment there. But after spending time the students go
to the university and don't have access to such equipment it is of no
benefit to him/her. Some of the equipment don't have sensors.
(Coordinator, SRC in school X)
After going through the resource centre practical manuals the researcher
found that most of the experiments were for demonstrations and the teach ing of
concepts. Very few experiments were related to practical activities suitable for
the science curricula and WAEC practical examination. However, the latter are
the kind of practical activities teachers and students were interested in.
According to the Coordinator, the activities in the manuals were not based on the
SSS science syllabuses but were meant to help science teachers use the
science equipment package from Philip Harries International, to teach at the
centres. There were three volumes of the manual one for each subject. Table 23
gives an idea of the nature of practical activities covered in the SRC manuals.
The practical activities are in three categories:
(a) Student practical activities related to the SSS syllabus
(b) Practical activities for teaching purposes (demonstrations)
(c) Practical activities of general interest (project work)
,..---------------------~-<-~-v'~"-,.-~ -
.,
173
Table 23
Distribution of practical activities in SRC manuals
Practical activities to be Practical activities Practical
done by students related to for demonstration activities of
demonstrations by teachers in all three subjects were higher than those that
Percentages are in brackets
The table shows that practical activities designed for teaching purposes or
I
I
I
I
I
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
the syllabus
48 (36.9)
10 (15.4)
32 (32.7)
75 (57.7)
45 (69.2)
66 (67.3)
general
interest
7 (5.4)
10 (15.4)
0(0)
students were expected to perform as part of the practical activities for the SSS
science programme. For example, chemistry has only 15.4% of the activities for
students to perform whilst the physics and biology manuals contain just about a
third of such practical activities. This means th~t the activities in the manuals,
and hence the practical activities to be conducted at the SRCs were more for
demonstration purposes than individual or group practical activities to be
performed by students. Given the time constraint teachers complain'3d about,
and the fact that students rarely performed practical activities in the lower forms,
one wonders whether teachers would like to spend time at the SRCs doing
demonstrations.
174
No wonder there was a very low patronage.of the SRCs by the satellite schools.
The sustainability of the concept of the SRC as centres where students could go
for science practical activities to supplement what was being done in schools
looks unfulfilled.
In summary, what the findings from the analysis of the role of SRCs show
is that teachers' and students' did not patronise the SRCs as expected. This
situation make schools that host the SRCs benefit a great deal from the centre as
the centres have virtually become their permanent laboratories. Teachers in SRC
schools were able to borrow almost all the apparatus required for their practical
activities due to proximity. Even though, the SRCs are better equipped than most
school laboratories, if some teachers do not usually conduct practical activities in
the lower forms because of time constraint, then they will definitely not use the
centres. Another important element is the value and concern teachers attach to
going to the SRCs. The findings suggest that due to logistic problems and the
time "wasted" at the centres due to the problems already discussed, teachers felt
that it was not worth taking students to the centres only for them to undertake
what they described as "routine experiments" which they could do in their own
schools. These factors conspire with time tabling problems to make the SRCs not
- play the required role of supporting practical activities particularly in satellite
schools.
Views on Improving the Organisation of Science Practical Activities
Teachers from both SRC and satellite schools expressed similar views on
t':
IJ
,
II[!
:'iIII,I
I'ilIi
ii
Ii
It
/I
il
H
if
I'tI
11
Ii
J
175
how the organisation of practical work could be improved in their schools.
Teachers whose schools did not have official times for science practical activities
on their time table felt that periods should be officially allocated on the time table
for practical lessons. According to them, if this is done, teachers would be
mindful of the fact that some periods were specifically allocated for practical work
and this could minimise the use of all periods for the teaching of content only.
Some teachers suggested the allocation of two hours per week for practical work.
A number of the teachers also mentioned that qualified laboratory
assistants should be posted to their laboratories to assist them organise practical
work for students. It seems the issue of laboratory assistants is a real problem,
which needs to be addressed since teachers need support in organising practical
activities for their students.
The issue of equipment and materials came up quite strongly. Teachers
were of the view that school laboratories must be supplied with equipment such
as microscopes, gas cylinders and accessories, mounted needles and
permanent slides in plant and animal physiology, histology, and mosses, and the
provision of a standard manual for practical activities. Also refrigerators must be
supplied to the laboratories to keep some materials like enzymes under
favourable conditions. Chemical reagents and preservatives must elso be
supplied. Equipment such as the air conditioners, ovens and incubators, which
are not functioning, must be repaired. Deionizers must be provided to enable
students work with distilled water. Outmoded equipment in schools should be
176
II
')
replaced with modern ones. Teachers also ~elt that the organisation of science
practical activities could be improved if the chemicals that are getting exhausted
are replaced with new ones.
I
i
I
,
l
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I,
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
V
\.t
" ....
il,.
,';; .'
\..\
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview of the Research Problem and Methodology
In this concluding chapter, the most important findings are highlighted, and
some generalizations are offered that it is hoped will focus attention on critical
issues for curriculum developers, Ministry of Education, Ghana Education
Service and the West African Examination Council.
This study sought insights into science practical work in Ghanaian SSS
using schools in the Central Region of Ghana. This was done by providing
descriptive, inferential as well as explanatory information·on students' perception
of their psychosocial laboratory environments; their attitudes to sciencz practical
work; teachers' views on the role of science practical work and how it is
organised. The study was done in two phases.
Phase one involved a quantitative study that compared the means on
attitude and perception variables of students in satellite and SRC schools. The
first phase also covered science teachers' views on the role and organisation of
science practical work in schools. This was achieved by employing a survey.
After the macro level analysis of the data generated in phase one, phase two of
the study used interviews and observation in four selected case study schools to
178
gain deeper insights into issues an~ generali~ati~ns '~bout science practical
activities that emerged franl the survey,
Summary of Key Findings
Factors Influencing students' Perception of their Science laboratory Psychosocial
Environment
It was found in this study that more than one factor influenced students'
perception of their psychosocial science laboratory environment. The study
identified four factors that underlie students' perception of their psychosocial
laboratory environment. These are:
(a) supply material environment
(b) reliable material environment
(c) integration, and
(d) supervision,
There'were two types of material environment, one on the availability and
adequacy of science equipment and materials and the other, the reliabjlity of
such equipment and materials when used in science laboratories, Supply
material environment, which refers to the availability and adequacy of science
equipment and materials, dominated students' perception of their psychosocial
environments, Supervision, which has not yet been reported in the literature,
was found in this stUdy to be an important factor influencing students' perception
of their laboratory environment.
Also, even though integration as a factor influencing students'
psychosocial perceptions of their laboratory environment has been reported in
.....- ~==o=.o_ ""- .>-;---\.....
v
Ij;
.;,
the literature, both supervision and integration a..~; posiliv~ dimensions that
; .
appear to influence stude~ts' views of their I~boratory environments in both
179
iI
I
I
I
I
satellite and SRC schools.
The finding was that students' general perception of their science
laboratory environments in both satellite and SRC schools were positive but
significantly different in favour of students in SRC schools. The significant
difference in perception was due to the different material environments in the two
school types.
Factors Influencing Students' Attitude towards Science Practical Activities
The study identified three factors that influence SSS students' attitude
towards science practical work. These are:
(a) learning tool,
(b) interest, and
(c) equipment.
Among the three scales, learning tool was found to be the dominant far:tor when
J
both satellite and SRC schools were combined. There was however, no
significant difference between students in satellite and SRC schools on this
dimension.
The study also found that generally, students' attitude towards science
practical activities in both satellite and SRC schools were highly positive but
significantly different. Students in SRC schools had a significantly more positive
attitude towards science practical work than their counterparts in satellite
schools. The attitude of students in SRC and satellite schools however, differed
i I
, I
I
I
!
I
if
"
" .
180
significantly on the interest and equipment dimenslol1~ in favour of students in
SRC schools.
Associations between Students' Attitude and Perception
Generally, the attitude of students towards science practical work in SRC
and satellite schools was not related to their perception of their psychosocial
science laboratory environment.
Teachers' Views on the Purpose of Science Practical Work
Teachers' views on the purpose of science practical activities were mainly
that it enables students understand science theory taught in the classroom and
helps in the acquisition of attitudinal skills by students. Another finding in this
stUdy was that students had virtually no opportunity to identify their own problems
to solve, or playa role in the development of appropriate experiments and
subsequent interpretation of data.
Organisation of Science Practical Activities in Schools
Practical activities were not organized very regularly for students in the
schools stUdied, particularly, when students are in SSS1 and SSS2. However,
attempts were always made in the final year (SSS3) to make up somehow for
practical work neglected in SSS1 and SSS2 to enable students take the WAEC
science practical examinations.
In the organisation of science practical activities, students were not given
the opportunity to use laboratory based practical activity to solve problems,
construct relevant science knowledge on their own, undertake scientific
...c..;..~~'"----=,:-'--"'""":;--»"~r-
. _ V
u;
181
investigations, and promote i,~qLJiry in th; first t'oNoyears rf their science
, . ,
programme. Most of the p~actical activities w§lre organised to verify known
scientific concepts and laws. This situation has come to be entrenched in the
schools as a result of many constraints, the major ones being time, overloaded
curricula, lack of equipment and large class sizes.
The study also found that time allocated for practical work differed from
school to school. In some schools, there were no periods at all allocated for
practical work on the official school timetable. Teachers therefore, conducted
practical activities as and when they deemed it necessary. Even where practical
periods were fixed on the timetable, teachers normally used them to teach
science theory.
The study also found that teachers in both satellite and SRC schools
asked their students to work in groups of four or five on the average during
science practical work. Group work took place in schools with large class sizes of
50 or more, as well as in those with small class sizes of 15. The key de!,ermining
factor for teachers' using group work was inadequate equipment and materials
as well as large class sizes in both satellite and SRC schools.
Support given to students when science practical activities were organised
by teachers differed from one science subject to another, and also from one
school to another depending on teachers' attitude and workload. The study found
that apart from the science teacher, students received some support from their
fellow students and laboratory assistants.
,..,.-------~===------~--~---..:.:._~~~--- ,,.
182
, .
,
This study found that very few schools undertook iourneys to
"
SRCs, as such journeys w~re considered by majority of the schools as not
cost effective and time wasting by science teachers and HODs. Teachers
in satellite schools preferred to make do with whatever is available in their
schools and occasionally borrowed from other schools for the science
practical activities their students engaged in.
Implications of Research Findings for Science Practical Activities at the SSS
The findings as summarised in this section have clear implications for
policy regarding SRCs and the performance of laboratory based science practical
activities as a curriculum requirement.
The finding that generally, students had positive perceptions of their
laboratory environment and attitudes towards science practical work means that
students are interested in science practical work in spite of all the problems they
face. Science teachers could easily take advantage of the generally positive
perception and attitude of students to organise and sustain practical ae:civities in
schools.
The finding that supply material environment (availability and adequacy of
science equipment and materials) is a strong factor which distinguishes the
psychosocial perception of students' in satellite and SRC schools suggests that
t6 improve science laboratory environments in schools, priority attention needs to
be given to this factor. This is particularly important since equipment is also a
factor that influences the attitude of students towards science practical work, and
it is obvious that many schools do not meet the WAEC syllabus requirement of
183
having well-equipped science labo'ratories for st!1dents to pursue the science
,.
programme. Science equipment must b~ repaired, and materials replenished
. from time to time to enable students continue to make use of them.
The finding that the dimension of supervision was a factor influencing
students' perception means that teachers should pay more attention to support
given to students. This is because the case study evidence shows that support
given to students vary from one subject to the other, and from one teacher to
another.
The finding that time allocation problems, and the use of groups, which
results in most students not playing active roles in the performance of science
practical work suggests that the organisation of practical work in the schools
faces a lot of challenges. Even though the WAEC practical examina.tion does not
directly assess laboratory skills, these skills are necessary for the collection of
raw data by students during the examination. Undoubtedly, the acquisition of
laboratory skills will require laboratories equipped with all the necessary
equipment for students to be able to practice and gain the necessary
manipulative and recording skills. However, given the organisational problems
associated with practical work in the schools, it should be possible for the WAEC
not to put heavy emphasis on the collection and recording of raw data during
science practical examinations. The focus of the examination could be on
observation using photographs and graphs, processing and interpretation of
data, experimental design, reasoning and problem solving skills, drawing of
conclusions using appropriate diagrams, charts etc. The syllabus must therefore
iI
II,
Iil
I
--..r.. -----------.~.
IS4
put emphasis on the use of demonstrations, simufations, video presentations,
and science kits as necessary and suffiCient means of teaching these skills at the
SSS. Emphasis could be put on laboratory skills at the tertiary level for students
who will pursue science at that level.
The findings that schools do not patronise the SRCs as expected, and
even see it as a waste of time and resources, imply that the objective of setting
up a centre where schools could undertake their practical work is not being
achieved. The SRCs could however, be centres where teachers could borrow
materials to organise science practical work in their own schools, send their
students for demonstrations, and receive in-service training on how to effectively
organise practical work.
Conclusion
Students' perception of their psychosocial science laboratory
environments and their attitude towards science practical work were positive but
significantly higher in favour of students from SRC schools. This seem~ to
suggest that the use of facilities at SRCs for science practical work has a higher
positive effect on students' attitude and perception. Students' perception of their
psychosocial science laboratory environment is greatly influenced by the
availability and adequacy of equipment in both SRC and satellite schools.
Unfortunately, satellite schools do not patronise the SRCs, thus denying their
students the benefit of using equipment from the SRCs. This study has however,
provided information about what emphasis in the science laboratory environment
will promote positive student attitudes and perceptions.
..
,..,--------~==~-- ---~~-~~.-_:__- v .
185
The purposes of the science practical activities ornanised by science
teachers were mostly to verify known sCientific concepts and laws taught in class.
Much emphasis was put on the teaching of theory with very little attention paid to
science practical work in the lower forms. Even though some practical activities
were organised, most of it were delayed until students were in SSS3. Schools did
not have equipment and materials which were commensurate with the number of
students offering science, and in some cases instruments used for practical
activities were faulty. Due to this state of affairs in the schools, in almost all
science practical activities, students work in groups, and were rushed through
them. Generally, there was poor supervision of students during science practical
activities by their teachers. This did not give students the opportunity to get the
needed exposure to laboratory training and practice.
The result was that there was inadequate exposure to science practical
activities and supervised training of SSS science students over the three year
period of science teaching and learning. This situation has arisen as a result of
many constraints, the major ones being time, overloaded curricula, lack of
equipment and large class sizes. These problems may account in part for
students' weaknesses in WAEC science practical examinations.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are offered:
(1) Serious efforts must be made by the MOE to improve the material
environment in SSS science laboratories to ensure that laboratory
equipment and materials are available and adequate. Special attention
, '
, I
I I
I
, I
i I
,
I
,
186
, ,
;> .:
should be paid to satellite schools which u!)L1ally<lack materials and
equipment in order to make the I~~oratories more attractive to students if
the acquisition of manipulative and recording skills will continue to be
emphasised by MOE and WAEC.
(2) The MOE, GES and Heads of Senior Secondary Schools should as a
matter of urgency ensure that periods for science practical activities are
officially allocated on the timetable in schools and that teachers use
them to conduct practical activities for their students. More importantly,
teachers' supervision of science practical activities must be monitored to
ensure that students are given the needed exposure to laboratory
training and practice.
(3) The MOE should adequately equip all schools for them to ul')dertake
basic practical activities and de-emphasis schools travelling to SRCs for
routine practical activities. Teachers could borrow items from the SRCs
or send their students to the resource centres for practicalactivities,
which would be impossible for them to organise in their schools.
(4) In the long term, the MOE must think of de-emphasising the acquisition
of laboratory skills. It should look at other lower alternative costs of doing
science practical activities such as use of demonstrations, video
presentations and other simulations which are effective but cheaper than
laboratory-based practical wo'rk in promoting understanding of theory
already taught or yet to be taught in class. This is because most practical
skills such as observation, analysis and interpretation of data, problem
r ..
"
187
solving, experimental d~sign, and drawingoTCb~clusions could be
acquired by students without the u"se o~ well-equipped laboratories.
Limitations of the Study
Despite the obvious advantages of integrating quantitative and qualitative
data by the use of different methodologies, the two methodologies (quantitative
and qualitative) are based on different assumptions. It is therefore possible that
such different research techniques could produce different results.
The focus on four case study schools out of a total of eighteen schools
places a limitation on the study. This was due to limited financial resources, and
time at the researcher's disposal. Also, the purposive sampling procedure used
to select case study schools decreases the generalisability of findings on
practices in SSS in Ghana. This study will not be generalisable to all SSS in
Ghana. The findings will however, serve as indicators of what may be happening
in other SSS in the other regions of Ghana.
Finally, the study used students offering all three elective scienc..e
subjects. However, it is possible that only one or two subjects may influence the
perception and attitude of students.
Suggestions for Future Research
Throughout the research, some issues surfaced that relate to the topic of
the study but which demand separate research effort to understand them further.
In this section the outstanding issues arising from the study, which require further
investigation, are presented.
188
(1) Evaluation of Science'Res6urc~Centres
One of the issues that surfaced in this ~tudy was the role SRCs are
expected to play in the teaching and learning of science particularly, in
supplementing the activities of satellite and less-endowed schools. As noted in
Chapter 2, the activities of the SRCs have not been comprehensively evaluated
since their establishment and the research findings point to ineffective SRCs.
! I Further research is needed to evaluate the SRCs to see the role it is
, i
i playing now as against the expected objectives in order to fully redirect it. Issues
about patronage, replacement of equipment, time tabling, cost to schools in using
the centres as well as convenience and benefits to schools and students need to
be researched into.
(2) Research into the Relationship between Practical Work
and overall Performance in Science
Detailed analysis must be done to determine the relationship, if cmy,
between performance in science practical examinations and the overall grades
students obtain in each of the science subjects in order to determine whether in
reality, lack of practical work has any significant effect on students overall
grades.
r-----~=="'-'----------:"..--.,-=-~-'..-----------
189
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude structure and behaviour. In AR. p'ratkanis, S,J.
Breckler, & AG. Greenwald (Eds.). Attitude structure and function (pp.
I
1\
I
I
I
241-274). Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.
Akinmade, C.T.a. (1992). Attitude to science as a school subject. In a.E. Akpan
(Ed). Toward creative science teaching and learning in West African
schools (pp. 75-87). Cape Coast: Catholic Mission Press.
Akwesi, CK (1994). Teacher assessment in the early years of secondary
schooling in Ghana and the United Kingdom. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis,
University of Nottingham, UK.
Arce, J., & Betancourt, R. (1997). Student-designed experiments in scientific
laboratory instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching, ~ 14-118.
Abdalla, M. I. (1991). An evaluation of first year practical chemistry in Jordanian
Universities. (Doctoral dissertation, University of East Anglia, (1991).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (1), 1A - 318A
Ajeyalemi, D. (1990). Science and technology education in perspective. In D.
Ajeyalemi (Ed.). Science and technology education in Africa: focus on
seven sub-saharan countries (pp. 4-12). Lagos: University of Lagos.
Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: peer
interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 33 (10),1099-1114.
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Barton, R. (1998). IT in practical work. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical Work in
190
School Science (pp 237-251). London: Rout:edge.
Ben-Zvi, R. (1991). Chemistry programme~. In A. Lewy (Ed.). The international
encyclopedia of curriculum (pp. 935-938). Oxford: Perganmon Press.
Bogden, C. A. (1977). The use of concept mapping as a possible strategy for
instructional assumptions of college teachers. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.
Buchweitz, C. (1981). An epistemological analysis of curriculum and an
assessment of concept learning in physics laboratory. Unpublished
master's thesis; Cornell University, Department of Education.
Caillods, F., Gottlemann-Duret, G., & Lewin, K. (1996). Science education
And development: planning and policy issues at secondary level. Paris:
Imprimerie STEDI.
Chin, T.Y., & Wong, A.F.L. (2001, December). Upper primary pupils' classroom
environment perceptions, attitudes and achievement in science. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for
Research in Education, Australia.
Christofi, C. (1988). Assessment and profiling in science: A practical guide.
London: Cassel Educational Limited.
Clarkson, S.G. & Wright, O.K. (1992). An appraisal practical work in science
education. School Science Review, 74 (266), 39-42.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive
small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
______________.--..~"r_---------
... ...:. ""
191
, '
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). ReseCirch<methods in
education. London: Routledge-Faliiler.
Collison, G.O., & Aidoo-Taylor, N. (1990). Ghana. In D. Ajeyalemi (Ed.).
Science and technology education in Africa: focus on seven Sub-saharan
countries (pp. 13-25). Lagos: University of Lagos.
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Duff, D. (1997). The forgotten pioneer. Chemistry in Britain (May). pp. 46-48.
Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of scientific
epistemological views, learning strategies, and attitudes of college
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (6), 547-559.
Fraser, B.J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In q.L. Gabel
(Ed.). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning
(pp. 439-541). New York: Macmillan.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: development,
validity and application. Learning Environment Research, 1,7-13.
Fraser, B.J., McRobbie, C. J., & Giddings, G.J. (1993). Development and
cross- national validation of a laboratory classroom environment
instrument for senior high school science. Science Education, 77 (1), 1-24
.Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.) (1991). Educational environments:
Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Freedman, M.P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude
III
II
I
,
192,.
towards science and achieve~ent in scienc~ knowledge. Journal of
, .'
Research in Science and Technology, 34 (4), 343-357.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research. An
introduction. New York: Longman
Grant, L., & Fine, G. A. (1992), Sociology unleashed: Creative directions in
classical ethnography. In M.D. LeCompte, W.L. Millroy, & J. Preissile
(Eds.) The handbook for qualitative research in education (pp. 405 - 446).
New York: Academic Press.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a framework
for mixed method evaluation designs. Education Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 11, 255-274.
Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills:
SAGE
Hacking, l. (1983). A critical look at practical work in school science. School
Science Review. 71 (256), 33-40.
Hannon, M. (1994). The place of investigations in science education.
Education in Science, 33-34.
Hassan, O. (1985). An investigation into factors affecting attitudes towards
science of secondary school students in Jordan. Science Education,
QR.. 3-16.
Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). Life in science laboratory classrooms at tertiary
level. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.). The student laboratory and the science
curriculum, (pp, 357-382). London: Routledge.
Henderson, D.G., Fisher, D.L., & Fraser, B.J. ('1998). Learning environment
and students' attitudes in environmental science classrooms
http://education.curtin.edu.au/waiver/forums/1998/henderson./html
Hitchcock, G. & Hughes, D. (1992). Research and the teacher. A qualitative
I
!I------~===-'--------'--------:--~-~.-,'---~~.,~93-~'--
'I;,
,I
",;
I'
"
introduction to school-based research. London: Routledge.
" ,
'I Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School
'I
:)
Science Review, 70 (256), 33-40.
Hodson, D. (1992). Redefining and re-orientating practical work in school
,
" science. School Science Review, 73 (264), 65-78.
Hodson, D. (1993). Rethinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to
i
P
practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22,
85-142.
Hogan, K. (1999) .. Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster
students' collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 36 (10), 1085-1109.
Hopkins, A. G. (1992). Qualitative research methodologies: a cross-cultural
perspective. Compare, 22 (2), 133-141.
:i
"
I'
i~II
d
,i
'I
Hopkins, C. D. and Antes, R. L. (1990). Educational Research. A structure for
Inquiry. (3rd ed). Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock Publishers Inc.
Jenkins, E. (1998). The schooling of laboratory science. In J. Wellington (Ed.),
Practical work in school science, (pp 35-51). London: Routledge.
Kennedy, M. M. (1999). A test of some common contentions about
educational research. American Educational Research Journal, 36 (3),
~
"~'
i~II,
f:
Ih ~ _
194
511-541.
Knott, M., & Mutunga, P. (1995). Mathods of teaching and learning. In B.
Matiru, A. Mwangi & R. Schlette (Eds.), Teach your best.. (pp 157-221).
Bonn: German Foundation for International Development (DSE).
Koballa, T. (1984). Designing a Likert-type scale to assess attitude towards
energy conservation; a nine step process. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 20,709 - 723.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lazarowitz, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Baird, J.H. (1988). Academic
achievement and on-task behaviour of high school biology students
instructed in a cooperative small investigative group. Science
Education.72,475-487.
Lazarowitz, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Baird, J.H. (1994). Learning science in
a cooperative setting: Academic achievement and affective outcomes.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (10), 1121-1131
Leach, J. & Scott, P. (1995). The demands of learning science concepts-issues
of theory and practice. School Science Review, 76 (277), 47-51.
Lewin, K. M. (1992). Science education in developing countries: Issues and
perspectives for planners. International Institute for Educational
Planning (UNESCO). Paris.
Lewin, K. M. (2000). Mapping science education policy in developing
countries. World Bank, Human Development Network Secondary
Education Series. Washington DC.
ii
Ii
I'd
III,
I'I:
if
I'
":1
!1I
I
I
I
Ii
I
1
I
I
I
L
------------. ~-'..!~---
195
McRobbie, C.J., Ruth, W.M. & Lucas, K.B. (1&97). Multiple learning.
environments in a physics classroom. International Journal of
Educational Research, 27, 333-342.
Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education. A qualitative approach.
London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: what practical work in science education
is really for. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical Work in School Science
(pp. 16-31). London: Routledge.
Ministry of Education (1996). Science in secondary schools. Pamphlet No. 38,
London: HMSO.
Ministry of Education, Ghana (1997). Status report of the science resource
centres project. Unpublished report by MOE.
Misiti, F. L., Shringley, R. L., & Hanson, L. (1991). Science attitude scale for
middle school students. Science Education, 75 (5), 525-540.
Myint, S.K., & Goh, S.C. (2001, December). Investigation of tertiary
Classroom learning environment in Singapore. Paper presented at the
International Educational Research Conference, Australian Association for
Educational Research (AARE), Fremantle, Australia.
Needham, R. (1987). Teaching strategies for developing understanding in
science. Children's Learning in Science Project, Centre for Studies in
Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds, UK.
Nystrand, M (1986). The structure of written discourse: studies of reciprocity
between readers and writers. New York: Academic
I'
-'---"""----:;.-~""'~===v======
196
Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1990). Making the best of schools: A handbook for
parents, teachers. and policymakers. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Orion, N. & Hofstein, A. (1991). The measurement of students' attitudes
towards scientific field trips. Science Education. 75 (5), 513 - 523.
Osborne, J. (1998). Science education without a laboratory. In J. Wellington
(Ed.) Practical work in school science, (pp. 156-173). London:
Routledge.
Raaflaub, CA & Foster, B.J. (2002). Investigating the learning environment
in Canadian mathematics and science classrooms in which laptop
computers are used.
http://tigersystem.neUaera2002/viewproposaltext.asp.propl0-4084.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London:
Routledge.
Rogg, S.R. & Kahle, J.B. (1992). The charaterization of small instructional
work groups in ninth-grade biology. Paper presented at the 65th annual
meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching
(NARST), Boston, MA.
Ross, A. R., & Lewin, K. M. (1992). Science kits in developing countries: An
appraisal of potential. IIEP research and studies programme. The
development of human resources: The provision of science education
in secondary schools. Paris: UNRSCO/IIEP
Scibeci, RA (1983). Selecting appropriate attitudinal objectives for school
,,.
197
,
I
I
I
I
,I
I
,I
I,
I
II
I
\
i ~
, I
I
I
science. Science Education, 67, 596-603.
Sherman, L.W. (1998). A comparative study of cooperative and competitive
achievement in two secondary biology classrooms: the group
investigative model versus an individually competitive goal structure.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, (55-64).
Slavin, R. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student
achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445
Stake, K. A., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Stapleton, C. D. (1997). Basic concepts in exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
as a tool to evaluate score validity: A right-brained approach. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Education.Research
Association, Austin.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd
ed). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Tamir, P. & Lunetta, V. (1981). Inquiry-Related tasks in high school science
laboratory handbooks. Science Education. 65 (5), 477-484.
Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist
classroom learning environments. International Journal of Education
Research, 27. 293-302.
Tel, SA (1991, July). Differential perceptions of science in grade 10 girls and
boys in Jordan. Paper presented to GASAT 6 International
Conference, Australia.
198
The West African Examinations Council, 1998 -2000 syllabus, The West
African Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination. Accra.
Tingle, J.B., & Good, R. (1990). Cooperative learning. Review of Education
Research. 50, 315-342.
von Seeker, C. E., & Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of
instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 36 (10), 1110-1126.
Vulliamy, G., Lewin, K., & Stephens, D. (1990). Doing educational research in
developing countries. London: The Falmer Press.
Wardle, J. (1998). Virtual science: A practical alternative? In J. Wellington
(Ed.). Practical work in school science, (pp. 271-281). London:
Routledge.
Waterman, M. A. (1982). College biology students' beliefs about scientific
knowledge: Foundation for study of epistemological commitments in
conceptual change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell
University, New York.
Webb, N.M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups.
International Journal of Educational Research, 13,21-39.
Webb, E., Campbell, D. 1., Schwartz, R. D., Sechrest, L., & Grove, J. B.
(1981). Nonreactive measures in the social sciences (2nd ed.).Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Sex differences in students' attitudes toward science.
A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of
---.-------------~~-.~---~-~-~-~~~.~ ~~,---------
Research in Science Teaching, 32, 387-393.
Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science; time for appraisal.
In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 3-15).
London: Routledge.
Windeat, I. (1985). Practical work in GCE advanced level chemistry courses -
An investigation of the students' opinions of aims of practical work and
their attitudes towards practical work. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of East Anglia, U.K.
Woolnough, B. E. (Ed.) (1991). Practical science. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Woolnough, B. E. (1998). Authentic science in schools. In J. Wellington (Ed.)
Practical work in school science, (pp. 109-125). London: Routledge.
Wong, A.F.L. & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Environment-attitude associations in the
chemistry laboratory classroom. Research in Science and Technological
Education. 14, 91-102.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods. California:
SAGE Publications.
J~__
199
200
APPENDIXA1
EXCERPTS OF CHIEF EXAMINERS' REPORTS ON CANDIDATES'
PERFORMANCE ON SSSCE BIOLOGY PRACTICAL EXAMINATiONS
The weaknesses include the following:
1. the quality of diagrams drawn were poor
2. labels of diagrams were either wrongly spelt or the guide lines did not
touch the points appropriately
3. writing up of experiments were poorly done. In some cases the candidates
had no idea at all as to what the experiment was about.
Both teachers and students have to put in more effort to bring about
improvement in performance in examinations.
(Chief Examiner's Report, 1999, p. 7)
The major weaknesses noted in candidates' scripts included the following:
1. It was difficult for all candidates to explain the data provided for the graphs
2. Candidates were unable to derive practical value or ecological significance
from the data provided for the graphs
3. Answers of candidates should be based on specimens provided only. In
most candidates wrote on unobservable features. This implied that they
answered the practical questions from the theory they have learnt. Such
answers did not attract any marks
4. There were too many spelling mistakes which were punishable, especially,
in the case of names and biological terms.
J__--
...:_------------
201
5. The standard of drawing still remains poor, and there is room for much
improvement.
Teachers and students have to undertake more tutorials as a way of
remedying these weaknesses.
(Chief Examiner's Report, 2000, p. 132)
Three main areas where candidates showed some weaknesses are:
1. Lack of understanding of the questions set.
2. Poor spelling of technical and scientific names.
3. Poor expression in English.
The standard of the paper compared favourably with that of the previous
years. In line with the trend observed in the past few years however, the
general performance of the candidates was poorer.
Candidates must read questions carefully to understand them before
answering.
Teachers should have spelling drills on technical and scientific names with
their students.
Students are encouraged to read storybooks to enrich their vocabulary.
(Chief Examiner's Report, 2001, p.115)
J~ _
i
I
(
i
l
202
APPENDIXA2
EXCERPTS OF CHIEF EXAMINERS' REPORTS ON CANDIDATES'
PERFORMANCE ON SSSCE CHEMISTRY PRACTICAL EXAMINATiONS
Titre values recorded by some candidates deviated greatly from those recorded
by the Supervisors. The way some of them recorded their titre values gave an
indication of their not having mastered the art of titration or mastered the
requisite practical skills.
Some candidates did a lot of cancellations in their write-ups giving the impression
that their writings were not based on their own work.
For question 2 most candidates were found wanting in the way they recorded
their tests and observations. They either did not write the tests and observations
at the time they were made and therefore forgot to write them or thought some of
the points were not worth putting down.
Most candidates could not answer question 3 of the three alternative papers well
indicating that they were either not taken through the activities or did not take
them seriously.
Students should be taken through a lot of practical activities for them to acquire
the requisite practical skills.
(Chief Examiner's Report, 1999, p. 15-16) .
For question 2, some of the candidates did not follow the instructions and
therefore could not present their results as required. The third question of all the
three alternative papers as usual was poorly done. Answers provided by most
candidates indicated that activities outlined in the teaching syllabus to be
..- .....~--
203
performed by candidates have not been given se',"ious attention that they
deserve. Candidates should be exposed to a lot of practical work to enable them
acquire the requisite practical skills. . ,.
Attention should also be paid to the activities outlined in the teaching syllabus so
that candidates would be able to answer the third questions satisfactorily.
(Chief Examiner's Report, 2000, p. 138)
The standard of the paper was comparable to that of previous years. However,
the performance of candidates was not encouraging atal!.
Students are advised to prepare adequately for the examination.
Teachers should endeavour to expose students to practicals so that they can
acquire the necessary concepts and skills that are needed to pass the paper.
Teachers should try to teach the mole concept from the first principle to ease
understanding.
(Chief Examiner's Report, 2001, p. 121)
H ~ ~
,I
II
, .
I'
I
•
204
APPENDIXA3
EXCERPTS OF CHIEF EXAMINERS' REPORTS ON CANDIDATES'
PERFORMANCE ON SSSCE PHYSICS P~ACTICAL EXAMINATIONS
It is suggested that students:
1. are taught report writing and how to state precautions taken to ensure
accurate experimental results.
2. are taught how to use measuring instruments to measure accurately
3. desist from premature rounding-off of figures until the final answer is
obtained
4. watch their arithmetic manipulation when solving problems.
(Chief Examiner's Report, 1999, p. 40)
The standard of the paper compared favourably with that of previous years.
Candidates' performance is the same as last year. However, few candidates
performed poorly.
1. Most candidates made deductions after obtaining only one reading
from their experiments.
2. Candidates after writing the experimental values in the standard form,
labeled the axes of their graphs wrongly.
(Chief Examiner's Report, 2000, p. 168)
Candidates need to be careful in recording their distance measurements. They
confused the units "em" and "mm".
205
Many candidates were unable to take protractor readings accurat,ely. Protractor
readings like 15.0°, 25.0 0, 35.0°, were erroneously recorded as 10.5°, 20.5 0,
30.5 ° etc. Also instead of the unit (0) they stated (DC).
Candidates had problems in plotting figures like 10.5, 20.5, 30.5 etc. For these
values they instead plotted 15, 25, 35 etc. Candidates continue to choose very
awkward scales difficult to plot with. Scales such as 1:2; 1:5; 1:10 are strongly
recommended.
Candidates should choose workable scales for their graphs.
Teachers must expose candidates to a lot of practicals and teach them how to
take readings or measurements.
(Chief Examiner's Report, 2001, p. 153)
~I- . _
206
APPENDIX B
KREJCIE AND MORGAN'S TABLE FOR DETERMINING THE SIZE OF A
RANDOM SAMPLE
I
I
N S N S N S
10 10 220 140 1200 291
15 14 230 144 1300 297
20 19 240 148 1400 302
25 24 250 152 1500 306
30 28 260 155 1600 310
35 32 270 159 1700 313
40 36 280 162 1800 317
45 40 290 165 1900 320
50 44 300 169 2000 322
55 48 320 175 2200 327
60 52 340 181 2400 331
65 56 360 186 2600 335
70 59 380 191 2800 338
75 63 400 196 3000 341
80 66 420 201 3500 346
85 70 440 205 4000 351
90 73 460 210 4500 354
95 76 480 214 5000 357
.'----------
Ij
I
j
207
N S N S N S
100 80 500 217 6000 361
110 86 550 226 7000 364
120 92 600 234 8000 367
130 97 650 242 9000 368
140 103 700 248 10000 370
150 108 750 254 15000 375
160 113 800 260 20000 377
170 118 850 265 30000 379
180 123 900 269 40000 380
190 127 950 274 50000 381
200 132 1000 278 75000 382
210 136 1100 285 1000000 384
Notes: N= Population size; S= Sample size
Source: Krejcie and Morgan cited in Cohen, Manion & Morrison, p94
.... :../
20
APPENDIX C
ATTITUDE TOWARDS SCIENC~ PRACTICALS (ASP)
Questionnaire for science students in .satellite and SRC schools
Directions
This questionnaire contains statements about attitudes to science practicals.
There are no "right" or "wrong" responses. Your feelings about each statement is wha
is important. Tick the appropriate column corresponding to your feelings about the
Be sure to respond to all items. If you change your mind· about your response to an
item, just cross it out and tick another.
Some statements in this questionnaire are fairly similar to other statements, Don't
worry about this. Simply give your opinion about all statements.
(1)
(1)
(1) '-OJ
(1) ell
'-
OJ en
« "'0 is(1) (1)
>. "'0 (1) >.
OJ (1) '(3 '- OJC Ql (1) OJ C0 '- "'0 ell 0
'- OJ c en '-Statements ..... is .....(j) « :J (j)
I like working with science equipment during
1 science practicals .
2 I wish we don't have science oracticals so often
Science practicals help me to understand the
3 theory tauqht in class
.
4 I don't like science practicals
I would like to have more exposure to science
5 eauipment durina oracticals
. I like working with science equipment despite the
6 loroblems I have when usinq them
Science practicals make me appreciate science
7 better
Science practicals help me to understand what I
8 learn in the classroom
2
1--====-.c-----,.-----~·,
I
I
!
OJ
OJ
L.-
OJ en
OJ ro
.... enen
-0 0« OJ OJ>- -0 OJ 2:-
en '13 .... en
c OJ OJ en c
a OJ -0 ro aL.- en ........ en c..... 0 .....Statements (f) « ::J (f)
Writing up science practicals is a very useful
9 exercise
10 Science practicals help me acquire a scientific skills
11 Science practicals help me to learn science better
12 Science practicals are borinq
vvrltIng up sCience pracllcals IS a very usetul
9 exercise
10 Science practicals help me acquire a scientific skills
11 Science practicals help me to learn science better
12 Science practicals are boring
II liKe sCience praCtiCal wnte-ups atter the
13 experiment
II understand sCience lessons better after aOlng
14 science practicals
BIO DATA
GENDER MALE D FEMALE D
AGE 1------,1 years
NAME OF SCHOOL. .
"I.
12
3
4
5
210
APPENDIX D
SCIENCE LABORATORY ENVIROr~MENTQUESTIONNAIRE (SLEQ)
Questionnaire for science students in satellite and SRC schools
Directions
This questionnaire contains statements about practices, which could take
place at your school laboratory. You will be asked how often each practice
There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. Your opinion is what is wanted about
what actually takes place during science practicals at your school laboratory
Think about how well each statement describes what happens at your school
laboratory. Tick the appropriate column corresponding to what actually takes
Be sure to give an answer for each question. If you change your mind about
an answer, just cross it out and tick another.
Some statements in this questionnaire are fairly similar to other statements.
Don't worry about this. Simply give your opinion about all statements.
Hemember that you are bemg asked how otten (Never, Hare/ylNot Otten,
Undecided, Often, Always) each of the following practices actually takes
place
a>
;l:
a
"'C .-
(1) 0
"'C Z(f) '(3
-->- >- L-ltl C (1) Qj (1)
~ (1) "'C L- >
Statements
;l: c ltl (1)
« a ::J 0:: z
At school we are taught the theory before
we perform the practicals in the laboratory
We have enough equipment in our school
laboratory for practicals
Experiments we perform in our school
laboratories do not vield accurate results
Laboratory equipment in our school are
faulty
I he theories we learn-during sCience
lessons are not related to the practicals
we do in our school laboratories
67
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~ ~
<t=
a
"0 .....
QJ 0
"0 Z
(/) '(3
->- .....>- r- QJ (j) QJro QJ "0 >~ .....<t= c ro QJ
Statements <{ a ::J 0::: Z
Our school laboratories have enough
room for individuallQroup work
Our school laboratory is an attractive
Iplace to work
Teachers do not supervise what we do
durina practicals in our school laboratorv
Students are required to follow certain
safetv rules in our school laboratories
:Our teachers do not come roun-d to
supervise what we are doinq durinq
The equipment/materials students need
for practicals are readily available in our
school laboratories
What we do in our school laboratory
sessions help us to understand the theory
we learn in class
There is a recognised way of doing things
safely in our school laboratories
We are asked to perform science
practicals in our school laboratories
without anv auidance
We are supplied with all the equipment we
need for our experiments in our school
laboratorv
We don't get the opportunity to handle
every equipment in our school laboratorv
We make use of the theory taught in class
during science practicals in our school
laboratories
Laboratory equipment in our school give
Iwrona results
810 DATA
MAL~ FEMALE 0 AGE ....yrs
NAME OF SCHOOL...........................
211
212
APPENDIX E
QUESTIONNAIRE ON 'THE ORGANSISATION OF
SCIENCE PRACTICAL WORK
(For science teachers)
This is a study, which seeks to find out issues connected with the organisation of
science practicals in your school. Please tick the appropriate box or provide the
information in the spaces provided. Your responses will be treated as confidential
and used only for research purposes. Your identity is not required hence respond
to the items as truthfully as possible.
SECTION A: 810 DATA
1. Gender: M 0 F 0
2(a) Educational
Qualification " .. , .. , .. , , .. , .
2(b) What subject do you teach? (You may tick more than one)
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Integrated Science
Other (Specify)
3. In whIch subject do you teach science practicals in your school?
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
2lJ
4. How many years have you been teaching at the Senior Secondary School
level? 0
SECTION B: ORGANISATION OF SCIENCE PRACTICAL WORK
5. Do you have a Science Resource Centre in your school?
Yes 0 NoD
6(a) Do you give support to your students when they are engaged in science
practicals?
Yes 0 NoD
(b) If Yes, what kind of support do you give?
......................................................................................................
............................................................... , ..
.............................................................................. .
(c) If No, why don't you give support?
......................................................................................................
..................... .
...................................................... .
7. Who do your students receive support from during science practicals?
(You may tick more than one)
Tick
Laboratory assistants
Fellow students
Science teacher
Other(specify)
.
214
8. Who do your students receive most support from during science practicals?
(You may tick more than one)
Tick
Laboratory assistants
Fellow students
Science teacher
Other(specify)
9(a) Do you have an approved textbook for science practicals at SSS level?
Yes 0 NoD
9(b) Do your students perform science practicals by using a science practical
textbook(s)? Yes 0 No 0
9(c) If Yes what is/are the name(s) of the textbook(s)
......................................................................................................
..............................................................................' .
........................................................................ .
........................................................................................... .
9(d) If No, what do they use for their science practicals?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••• '0' •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••
....................................................................................... .
.......................................................................................... .
...................................................................................................., .
.................................................................................... .
215
................................................................ '0' ,'0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
............................................................................................. .
10. What difficulties do you have in organising science practicals?
......................................................................................................
.................................... .
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••.••• ••••••••••••••• ••••••••• • , •••••••• 0' " •
............................................................................................. ... ., .. , .
..................................................................... . , ,
11.What difficulties do your students have with science practicals?
......................................................................................................
..................... .
....................................................................................... .
12(a) Do you have periods officially allocated on your timetable for practicals?
Yes D No D
12(b) How many periods are officially allocated on your timetable for
practicals? .
12( c) In your opinion are practical periods allotted on the timetable adequate?
YesD NoD
I
1
I
13.The science practicals my students perfonn are:
(Please respond to each item)
Always Very Often Never!
Often Rarely
Designed by me (the science
teacher)
Taken from textbooks
Taken from pamphlets
Taken from WAEC past questions
Other (specify)
14. During science practicals students:
(Please respond to each item)
216
Always Very Often Never!
Often Rarely
Design their own experiments and carry
them out
Follow instructions to carry out
experiments given to them
15. How many periods on the average do you use for science practicals each
week?
No. of periods Tick
1 period
2 periods
3 periods
4 periods
Other Specify
16. During the period allocated for science practicals each week students
(Please respond to each item)
Always Very Often Never!
Often Rarely
are able to complete their science
practicals and write-up in the
laboratory report before they leave
are able to complete their science
practicals in the laboratory but do
the write-up after they leave
do not complete their science
practicals and have to continue at
another time
217
218
17. During science practicals, students usually work in group~ of .
18.Which laboratory/environment do you use for your science practicals?
(You may tick more than one)
Science Resource Centre laboratory 0 School laboratory 0
Classroom 0 Other (Specify) ·························
19. How many periods a week, on the average ,do your students spend on
science practicals? ..
20. How frequent do your students go to the Science Resource Centre laboratory
for practical work?
Frequency Tick
Once a week
Once every 2
weeks
Once a month
Once a term
Twice a term
Rarely
Other (specify)
21 (a) Do you prefer to use the Science Resource Centre laboratories for your
practicals? Yes D NoD
219
(b) If Yes, why do you prefer it?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•• ,.0 ,'0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
........................................................................ .
(c) If No, why don't you prefer it?
......................................................................................................
•••••.•••••••••..•••••••••••.•••.•••..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••.•••••••••• •0.
How will you describe the school science laboratory?
Tick
a Equipped with all the necessary materials/equipment
needed for science practicals
b Equipped with some of the necessary
materials/equipment needed for science practicals
c Equipped with less than the necessary materials
/equipment needed for science practicals
d Lacks almost all the necessary materials/equipment
needed for any meaningful science practicals
Which laboratory are you describing? (Please tick only one).
Science Resource Centre laboratory Cl School laboratory c:=J
22. On the average, how often do you use the following environments for
teaching science? (Please respond to each item).
220
Always Very Often Rarely!
Often Never
Classroom
Laboratory
Field (for field work)
23. On the average, how often do your students perform sCience practicals?
Frequency Tick No. of
Hours
Twice a week
Once a week
Once every two weeks
Once a month
Other (specify)
24. Generally, how often do you have diSCUSSions on SCience practicals before
students undertake them?
Frequency Tick
Always
Very often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
221
25. Generally, how often do you discuss experimental findings/results with your
students after science practicals?
Frequency Tick
Always
Very often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
26. Generally, how often do you stay with your students when they are engaged
in science practicals?
Frequency Tick
Always
Very often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
27. Do you have a laboratory assistant to help you with the organisation of
science practicals? YesD No 0
:~fJ,WI1:J1 do yOIl Wilil1 call hr' dlllH' 10 .!l1nIJ!t. yrlllllllpll)V1' IIIHIII til.' ()IOi,"I·.tl\lf)1
of :;r;jI)IlOl prndlr:ah In yow Lcllnol?
"." " .' ,.1' '
" •••• ' ." •• , ,I' •• , ,., .,. I" "" , •• , ,.-, ", I'
of" ,., tl. " •. 0'··' ," ,., ,.
'I •• , 0' ,,- ,.
,I' .,1 oj. , •• ,." ••• ,.t··,·, F'"
", ,. , ,j,
, , • ) , , ••••••• , •••••••• , • , I . , " , , •
223
(For science teachers)
This is a study, which seeks to find out the role of science practical work in the
teaching and learning of science. Your responses will be treated as confidential,
and used only for research purposes. Your identity is not required hence respond
to the items as truthfully as possible.
Please tick the appropriate box or provide the information in the spaces provided.
SECTION A: BIO DATA
1. Gender: M 0 FD
2(a) Educational Qualification · .. ······· .. ·· · .. ···· .. ···· .. ·· · .. · .. ·
2(b) What subject do you teach? (You can tick more than (~me)
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Integrated Science
Other (Specify)
3. In which subject do you teach science practicals in your school?
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
224
4. How many years have you been teaching at the Senior Secondary School
level
SECTiON B: ROLE OF SCIENCE PRACTICAL WORK
5. Do students design experiments individually or do they do it as a
class/group
(You may tick more than one)
IndividuallyD As a Class 0 In groups 0
Other(specify) · · .. · .. · .
6(a) Do you allow your students to design and try their own personal
experiments during science practicals?
YesD No 0
(b) If Yes, why do you allow it?
................................................................................................
........................... ........................... ...... ~ .
..................... .
(c) If No, why don't you allow it?
.................................................................................................
7. What in your view is the essential function of science practicals in the
teaching and learning of science?
...................................... .................... ........................ ...
8. How often do the following processes feature in the kind of science practicals
students perform in your class? (Please respond to each item)
Always Very Often Rarely!
Often Never
Students identify their own problems for
scientific investigation through
experiments
Students select their own variables for
experiments
Students assemble their own selected
experimental apparatus
Students collect data
Students record data
Students analyse data
Students present experimental findings
Students interpret their findings
Students justify the interpretation of their
findings
" .
225
226
9. Rank the following reasons for doing science practicals from 1(for the most
important reason) to 10 (for the least important reason).
Rank
For finding facts and arriving at new principles
To use science practicals to clarify theory
To satisfy the science syllabus and WAEC requirements
To encourage accurate observation
To enable students pass their final examination
To verify facts and principles already taught
To arouse and maintain interest in science
For students to develop specific manipulative skills
To enable students understand the theory better
To practice looking for problems and seeking ways to solve
them
10. How frequent are the following science practicals performed by your students
Types of science practicals Always Very Often Rarely!
often Never
Practicals to verify theory already
taught in class
Project work designed by
students based on a problem of
227
.-
students develop scientific
attitudes
Practicals designed to help
students develop laboratory skills
11. How often are the following skills emphasized in the science practicals you
organise for your students. (Please respond to each item)
Skills Always Very Often Rarelyl
Often Never
Objectivity
Problem formulation
Manipulating
Skills
Initiative
Observing
Integrity
Experimental
design
Predicting
Drawing conclusion
Hypothesizing
12_ Rank the following skills in terms of importance from 1 (fo~ the 1110st
important) to 10 (for the least impoltJ:lt)
i·- -------T'~ank-I
\ ObjCctivity-------- __--\==1
~i:---:P:-:-r~o_b:-le_m~...,fo,__r-m-u-la-t-io-n---------l---J
\ Manipulative !
l\Initiative\---
t Observing 1----
_. __ ----;- 1- 1
Integrity \ I
\~ E~~~~~n~~n-~~~~CSign - - -. -- --- -t o --- ---I
IPredicting ----------- ------- . ------DrnV;ingC~nC1USion~ ..•• ······---1 I
LI.l~~~tl_l~~i~~ng_ __ _ ___ - - ---- ~[_ :_:~ __ l
229
APPENDIX G
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR INTERVIEWING SCIENCE
STUDENTS
Name of school. ················Type .
No. of streams ·
Date ······Time .
Practical Notebooks
Let students present their physics, chemistry and biology practical notebooks
from SSS1
In a discussion with them fill the tables for questions 1 and 2.
01 How many practicals have you done in science from form 1 up to now?
02. How many of these practlcals were marked?
Subject SS1 SS2 SS3 No. of times per No of
week weeks
Physics
.
Chemistry
Biology
Subject No. given No. marked
·SS1 SS2 SS3 SS1 SS2 SS3
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
230
Q3(a) How often do you discuss what you are going to do in practicals before
you do it?
(b) Do you discuss your findings, mistakes and difficulties after you have done
it?
(c) How helpful are your teachers when it comes to science practicals?
Q4(a) What is it about practicals that you like? Talk about physics, chemistry and
biology separately
(b)What is about practicals that you don't like? Talk about physics, chemistry
and biology separately
Q6 How do you see your science laboratory in terms of equipmenUmaterial,
space, support (laboratory asst., fellow students), integration and
supervision (teacher).
Q7(a) If students don't do well in science practicals in your school, what will you
attribute it to?
(b) Which of the science practicals are you confident about? Why?
Talk about physics, chemistry and biology separately
Q8(a) Why do you work in groups?
(b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of working in groups during
practical work?
Q9(a) How many times have you been to the science resource centre? Is going
to the science resource centre useful?
(b) What are the problems?
010 Or) you think you would hav(~ been [lellr;( off doiri(J r(;wticfJrr~, if you h'-i(j
attended ;J diffNonl r,chool? Expl~fn,
APPENDiX H
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL USED TO INTERVIEW
HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS
1. Do you have a time table for practical work?
2. What problems do you have with the students when it comes to
science practical work?
3. Do you use practical activities to help them understand the theory?
4. Do you teach practical work as a basis for the theory work or you teach
the theory and you let students go and verify
5. How often do you have practical work?
6. Do students do their write-ups in the laboratory?
7. How much emphasis is put on practical work?
8. What is your students attitude towards practical
9. Are the students aware of what they are to do or not to do in practical
work?
10. Your students say they have not been going to the SRC. What do you
say about it?
11. What reasons do you have for students not doing practical work in
forms 1 and 2?
12. What purpose does practical work play in the teaching and learning of
science?
13. Do you have enough apparatus for practical work as a science
resource centre school?
.4. In the school's own I::tbomtN~' do yell h~\\'(~ enollgh equipment fer
APPENDIX I
SEMI.STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL USED IN INTERVIEWING
SRC COORDINATORS
1. I have talked to students in other schools flnd they don't know why thoy
don't come here. What is your reClction?
2. When students come here, who teflchos them?
3. How well equipped is the Science Resemch Centre, in terms of evoryciflY
pmctical activities?
4. What kind of experiments do students undertako nt tho Science Rosomch
Centre?
5. In a summmy, what will you say me your impressions flbout the Science
Research Centre?
235
APPENDIXJ
SPECTRUM OF TEACHERS' VIEWS ROLE OF SCIENCE PRACTICAL
ACTIVITII~S
01. Why do you allow students to design their own practicals?
• To allow students to apply their own ingenuity and be able to explain or
put their thoughts across in the form of the experiments
• For a limited time, beside the main time
• To encourage initiative, creativity and innovation
• Because it can lead to discovery learning
• Inadequate time to supervise individually designed experiments. It is only
allowed during speech day exhibitions
• The constraint to complete the WAEC syllabUS does nC?t allow such
practice
02. Why don't you allow students to design their own practicals?
• lack of equipment usually means experiments are specific
• Practical work guided by WAEC syllabus
• Inadequate space and equipment
• Because of limited number of science apparatus in the laboratory
• They do not have enough drive to carry out experiments on their own
• For the sake of safe handling of the equipment and also time
• This is because there is no time for such activities to take place.
• During science practicals, the students come there to perform the
experiments I have for them but during their free period they come there to
236
perform their personal experiments be·cause we have oDly 2 periods per
week
• Because the time available is limited
• The problem of time. There is so much work to do that students cannot
have time to design their own experiments
• They may go out of order and may end up not getting any meaningful
scientific results
• To concretise concepts learnt and to afford the students opportunity to
infer, manipulate equipment, graph, interpret, observe, calculate, predict,
hypothesise and draw conclusions from a mass of data.
• The period for practicals is short. The nature of the final examination does
not allow it. However, if a students comes out with his own work which is
within the syllabUS he is allowed to do it, but not during the practical period
• Because apparatus are few and expensive and delicate nature of some of
the apparatus
• To be able to develop the attitude for research work
• experiments done are based on the topics taught in class
• We do only practical work guided by WAEC syllabUS
• Lack of equipment usually means experiments are specific
• There will be confusion in the laboratory
• Because we have a time frame to cover before they take their final WAEC
examination
237
03. What in your view is the essential function of science practicals in the
teaching and learning of science?
• To help students understand the conc~pts better
• To present the principles and concepts in science in a practical way to
help students use their hands in making objects. It also helps them to
understand the concepts better
• To develop practical skills, collect, record and analyse data
• Enhances understanding and appreciation of the subject of science
• It makes students understand the theoretical aspect better
• To enable students understand the theory better and this aids teaching
and learning
• Helps the students to visualise what is taught and have a feel of what is
taught in theory. It enhances understanding
• It helps students them to understand concepts which are difficult to explain
in the classroom
• it makes the abstract things real to students and makes learning easier
• Practicals enable students to understand the theory better, sustain their
interest and develop their analytical skills
• Helps students to very facts and principles that are taught in class. It gives
opportunity to students to seek ways of solving problems that are
identified
• To understand concept and principles in physics and to be able to use
their hands and imaginative power.
238
239
and seeking ways to solve them
In compiling this table all the responses wer€ brought together and average
values were worked out. Mean, mode and median values for each of the
statements were compared, since each of the methods had a tendency to
obscure some aspect of the data. The values wee placed as an order (order of
means, order of modes, and order of medians). All three orders were then
considered in allocation a high (1-3), medium (4-6), or low (7-10) rank for each
statement. Thus low denotes that all three averaging methods gave a low rank.
240
APPENDIX L '"
EXCERPTS OF SCIENCE TEACHERS' VIEWS ON THE ORGANISATION
SCIENCE PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES IN SRC SCHOOLS
Q1. Do you give support to your students? If yes, what kind of support
do you give?
• I do give hints to students who are unable to proceed as a result of their
inability to understand some points in the theory of an experiment
• Because of lack of laboratory assistants I often supply students with
apparatus. I sometimes help them in focusing specimens under the
microscope and also ask questions to help them verify certain principles
and theories
• By explaining the theory behind the practical
• I move from bench to bench to see whether they are doing the right thing.
At the beginning of the experiment I show them how they should go about
it
• Demonstrating for them to see and assisting those who still can't perform
after demonstration
Q2. Do your students perform science practicals by looking into a
science practical textbook(s)? If yes, what do you use for their science
practicals?
• Biology for SSS by GAST
• Biology Practical for SSS by Dan Dare
241
03. Do your students perform science practicals by looking into a
science practical textbook(s)? If NO,what do you use for their science
practicaJs? ;I.'
• They normally use past practical questions. Methods as described by
some textbooks on certain topics are also used sometimes
• I give the students instructions to follow if nothing is given in the GAST
such as dissection of the cockroach to study the alimentary canal. Use of
WAEC past questions
• They use practical handout printed by the master in charge
• Printed hand out from the SRC manual
• From the textbook I use
• There is no practical textbook
• We follow the tips or experiments given in the GAST
04. What difficulties do you have organising science practicals?
• Lack of the required apparatus and equipment needed for some
practicals. Time constraints - looking at the content of the syllabus and the
number of periods available
• Because of the fact that I am the only teacher taking elective biology, my
practical classes are large. The absence of a laboratory assistant makes
the work extra difficult. Inadequate apparatus such a s microscopes
• Availability of practical equipment and reagents
• Problem of getting the right specimen
242
• Since they perform the experiment in groups of five the students make a
lot of noise
• Limited time. Materials and'equipment not available.
• In cases where apparatus or instruments are not available it makes such
practicals difficult
Q5. What difficulties do your students have with science practicals?
• Students find it difficult to understand some basic principles. Most times
they only get access to the laboratory when they get to upper forms.
Inadequate apparatus/equipment in the laboratory causes students to
always work in groups which at times is inconvenient to some students
• Because of the quantity of apparatus in the laboratory, students usually
work in groups of three or four. This makes participation by all members of
the group impossible
• How to handle the glassware and work independently
• Since the students perform the experiment in groups, with a limited time
not all students get access to perform the experiments themselves.
• They fail to follow instructions
• Due to increase in the number of students making it difficult for each
student having access to a set-up. Since they usually work in groups
some students just observe without having a feel of it.
• Setting up the equipment fort the practical work in some experiments.
Choosing a scale for graph work after they have collected their results or
243
data sometimes become a problem more SD when the readings are in
decimals.
Q6 Do you prefer to use the SRC labor.atories for your practicals? If yes,
why do you prefer it?
• Because some of the equipment needed for practical lessons are
available
• There are new equipment. The apparatus of the SRC have been mixed
with those of the school.
• Because instruments/apparatus are available
• Because that is where the apparatus and chemicals are kept
• It is equipped with some of the necessary materials needed for science
practicals
Q7. Do you prefer to use the SRC laboratories for your practicals? If No,
why do you prefer it?
• The school has most of the science equipment for physics practicals.
Besides, the place cannot accommodate all the students at the same time.
Q8. What do you wish could be done to enable you improve upon the
organisation of science practicals in your school?
• Recruit laboratory assistants. That periods should be allocated officially on
the time table for practical lessons
• A laboratory assistant must be posted to the laboratory to assist me.
Necessary equipment and materials must be supplied adequately to
ensure that each student gets access to a microscope. Materials needed
II'
I
I
I
I
include gas cylinders and accessories and filled with gas, mounted
needles and permanent slides in plant and animal physiology, histology,
mosses etc. A refrigerator must be supplied to the lab to keep some
materials like enzymes under favourable conditions. Chemical reagents
and preservatives must be supplied to the lab. Equipment such as the air
conditioner, the oven and the incubator which are not functioning must be
repaired.
• Allowances should be given to both science teachers and laboratory
assistants to motivate them to do more practical work. Tutors and
laboratory assistants should be made to go for check up every month
since they deal with a lot of dangerous chemicals
• Organisation of science practicals could be improved if the chemicals that
are getting finished are replaced with new ones. The glassware that are
broken should be replaced so that every student will get his/her own
apparatus to work with. A week to the day of the practicals, the experiment
they will perform should be given to them. This will allow them to read
about it and make them encounter fewer problems.
• Periods should be increased on the time table. Equipment available are
outmoded so modern ones should be made available.
Materials needed for the practicals should be available. Companies should open
up to accept students for excursions so as to raise the interest of the students on
how these are applied on the field. Moreover, science tutors should be made to
attend regular courses for upgrading.
2_~ _
---- ---"--'---
24
APPENDIX M .
EXCERPTS OF SCIENCE TEACHERS' VIEWS ON THE ORGANISATION
SCIENCE PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES IN SATELLITE SCHOOLS
I
I
I
I
I
Ij
j,
I
!
j
.
1
i
•I
I
1
I
Q6(b) Do you give support to your students? If Yes, what kind of
support do you give?
• Fixing apparatus correctly. Manipulation of variables and equipment
• To mount their apparatus and to check if they are doing the right thing
• Helping in identification. drawing and labelling
• We help them during the set up where they have problems.
• Correcting wrong experimental procedure; checking and correcting faulty
equipment I give support when I see that they may injure themselves or
are likely to damage any of the apparatus
• Sometimes in setting up the apparatus especially in electricity
experiments and in checking out some faulty equipment
Q9(c) Do your students perform science practicals by looking into a
science practical textbook(s). If Yes, what do you use for their science
practicals
Investigations in biology for tropical schools by Leslie R. Allen; SRC practical
book
Q9(d) Do your students perform science practicals by looking into a
science practical textbook(s). If No, what do you use for their science
practicals
• Selected instructions from past questions and some books
I
I
I
I
I
i
I Jtr__...- _
1
I
I
t,
I
I
j
I
I
i
Ii
i
I
jl
/i
!
• Practical Chemistry (SAMKOFSEL's series)
• Practical pamphlets
• The instructions are written on the chalkboard from a textbook being usel
by the teacher i.e. Practical Physics for schools and Colleges by Brendar
O. Ahuche.
• Physics for SSS and past questions of the WAEC
• Instructions are written on the chalkboard
• Prototype experiments from past GCE and SSSCE examination papers;
any experiments in any practical textbooks where the experiments fall
within their required practical experience
• Design some of the experiments on my own.
• The students are given the theory behind the practicals and later
instructed on how to go about the work at the laboratory
010 What difficulties do you have organising science practicals?
• Inadequate equipment
• Limited apparatus, temporary lab, small space, few chemicals available.
• Most of the equipment are out of use or are spoilt. Besides the lab is not
spacious enough to accommodate all the students so they come to the
lab in batches and work in groups. In the afternoons the lab is very hot to
stay there for a long time
• Lack of biological specimen
The laboratory is poorly equipped, as such there is difficulty in obtaining
specimen.
I Jppz__~ _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
"
I
!'I
I
)
I
i
!
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
247
• No water in the lab. Tap does not flow
• We don't have apparatus. Even the few ones we have are not working.
• Large class sizes
• Not every equipment required is available and sometimes have to be
borrowed from another school. Equipment may be available but limited in
number and therefore there may be more students per group than desire
• No trained lab assistant
• Non-availability of chemicals for experiments; no permanent lab assistant
• Every bit of the preparation is done by me only since the school has no
lab assist
• Some of the equipment are old and some cases faulty so have to check
them before being given to the students. The experiments in some set-
ups are not enough and students have to pair up.
Q11 What difficulties do your students have with science
practicals?
• Inadequate equipment
• In most cases the setting-up of the equipment poses some problem
besides drawing an inference or relating the work to a concept already
taught.
• Understanding instructions to practicals. Correct way of writing laboratory
report
• Interpretation and discussion of biological data is a problem due to maths
problem
j
--oOIlIIl._~ _
248
• Inadequate time to do a lot of practicals.
• Inadequate space and equipment
• In electricity for example, experiments many start with readings in turns
but later there may be inconsistency and investigation has to be done by
science teacher.
• Have to work in groups. Problem in accurately reading measuring
instruments. Problem in plotting graphs using results.
• Students sometimes work with improvised equipment which may not be
very efficient or reliable
• Because of the inadequate facilities in the school's lab, they find it difficult
appreciating the importance of practicals
Q21(b) Do you prefer to use the SRC laboratories for your practicals?
If Yes, why do you prefer it?
The SRCs are better
Q21( c) Do you prefer to use the SRC laboratories for your practicals?
If No, why do you prefer it?
• The SRC cannot adequately cater for the large number of students
• Besides the accumulators that we go to collect from the SRC we have
almost all the equipment so we want to save time by working in our
physics lab.
• It wastes a lot of precious time since it involves transpoliation.
f
!
I
I)
j
j
I
I
I
• This is because most of the apparatus there are just for demonstration
not for exams
I
.1lk_--.. _
249
• Laboratories are small and teachers in charge teach the .same item
several times in the course of about two hours and this is very time
consuming.
• Teacher accompanying students spend the whole day at the centre.
Equipment used by students at the centre not available to students during
final exams.
• Transporting the students to the SRC
• Most of the apparatus needed in science practicals are available at the
centres
Q29 What do you wish could be done to enable you improve upon
the organisation of science practicals in your school?
• A larger well equipped lab. A lab assistant solely for physics. More of my
periods for practicals.
• Provision of more equipment like microscopes, dissecting kits etc in the
lab.
• The use of SRC should be made possible
• A well stocked laboratory. Standard practical textbooks
• Supply more apparatus, Provide time for practicals
• The required number of science equipment has often been requested so
that where possible the fewest number of students practicable woiuld
handle any particular experiment at a time
i
I
I
)z_~ _
-
250
• A textbook for science practicals. Reasonalqe class size: Adequate
science equipment. Two hours allocated for practical work per week.
Engagement of a trained lab. technician.
• A qualified lab assistant; a distillation equipment or deionizer to provide
enough distilled water; electronic balance; adequate equipment/materials
There should be a well balanced student-teacher ratio for effective organisation
of science practicals.
I 251
1
1j APPENDIX NI
RESULTS OF TEACHERS' RANKING ON SKILLS THAT ARE PROMOTED
DURING SCIENCE PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES
Skills mean median mode Rank
1 Objectivity 4 4 5 Medium
2 Problem formulation 5 5 2 Medium/High
3 Manipulative 5 5 4 Medium
4 Initiative 4 4 1 Medium/High
5 Observing 3 3 2 High
6 Integrity 6 6.5 6 Medium
7 Experimental design 5 5 7 Medium/Low
8 Predicting 7 8 8 Low
9 Drawing conclusion 7 7 9 Low
10 Hypothesizing 7 8 10 Low
In compiling this table all the responses were brought together and average
values were worked out. Mean, mode and median values for each of the
statements were compared, since each of the methods had a tendency to
obscure some aspect of the data. The values wee placed as an order (order of
means, order of modes, and order of medians). All three orders were then
considered in allocation a high (1-3), medium (4-6), or low (7-10) rank for each
statement. Thus low denotes that all three averaging methods gave a low rank,
medium/low that there were two medium and one low etc.
LI' '.: .
0f317H: SIT":-:- :-" l'E C:C'~\~J;]
'l_~ _