INNOVATIONS IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN NIGERIA, Ebele C. Okigbo, Nneka R. Nnorom, Ernest O. Onwukwe [best reads .TXT] 📗

and more than adequate. A matrix with the questions as the columns and the three grading categories as the rows can quickly alert the faculty member to whether students are more proficient at the whos and whats rather than the hows and whys (Agrawal & Khan, 2008).

 

Ashakiran & Deepthi (2013), identified some benefits of using CATs to both the instructor and students as follows:

 

Benefits to Instructor:  Classroom Assessment helps the teachers to focus on students learning. By determining what students have learned and what is unclear, they can focus the class more effectively to meet the learning needs of that group. This may mean reviewing some areas, or spending less time in other areas. Unlike student evaluation surveys [summative evaluation] which are typically given at the end of the semester, Classroom Assessment provides an on-going formative evaluation. Finally, the instructor can find out what can be changed immediately to help students to learn.

 

Benefits to Student: Students may be hesitant to ask questions during class. Classroom Assessments give students opportunities to provide anonymous feedback to their instructor about their learning. Students often discover, as the instructor reviews the feedback, that others in the class had similar questions. (Theirs was not a "dumb question" after all). Classroom assessment activities can themselves be positive learning activities for students, they can be developed both to promote (and not just measure) writing skills or critical thinking skills, and to increase student motivation to take themselves and their learning more seriously. In addition, students may become more involved in their learning when they find that others in the class learned some interesting things that they had not picked up from the class session. Through greater involvement, students are likely to become more self-directed learners, and may be more motivated to successfully complete the class.

Angelo and Cross (1993), suggest that new users of Classroom Assessment Techniques [CATs] will be most successful if:

They use only those techniques that appeal to their intuition and professional judgment;

They start with techniques that are quick and easy to use in a classroom setting in which the faculty member and the students are comfortable;

They only use CATs that they have previously tried on themselves;

They allow more time to complete the task the first time than might seem necessary; and,

They "close the loop" by reporting back to students what they, as faculty, have learned from student feedback and how that information can be used to improve student learning.

 

 

These techniques according to literature have been found to be providers of reasonable estimate of class performance, and can help to consolidate feedback in large class section. In addition, group activities of this sort can be extremely effective way to introduce students to one another and to encourage group learning. This data obtain from classroom assessment activities can immensely be useful for improving teaching and learning in a variety of ways. For example, such activities can help students learn how to study, encourage teachers to analyze objectively what transpires in the classroom especially in sciences, and guide students in a self-analysis of their own learning processes (Nartgun, 2010).

 

Statement of the Problem  

Nigeria system of education has focused more on grading and poor implementation of formative assessments, especially in the primary schools. For example, the aim of the implementation of Continuous Assessment Score (CAS) in Nigeria has failed as classroom teachers do influence the pupils’ score in what is supposed to be standard examination like Primary School Leaving Certificate (PSLC) Examination. Again, there has been lack of retention ability in knowledge acquisition among the primary school pupils. Pupils are needed to be guided in knowledge as to help know the key points of their knowledge concept. Primary school is a basic education that needs to be structured in a form that pupils will minimize the rate of their playing time, and be more of interested in learning.

Teaching and learning process in primary schools in Anambra West of Anambra State has been “content-interest” instead of “learners-interest”. It has also been discovered that a lot of pupils fail, not because they did not participated in the classroom assessment practices, rather, they were unable or could not have chance of asking question on their unclear points. This therefore, could not help the instructors in assessing where the pupils are having difficulties as well as proffering better teaching method in order to promote learning.

 

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of an instructional process using Classroom Assessment Techniques on students’ understanding of instruction in basic science. It also aims to ascertain whether or not the Classroom Assessment Techniques used during the instruction process made a contribution on students’ learning as measured using students’ feedback

 

 

Research Questions

In line with these research purposes, the following questions were asked;

1. What is the difference between the pre-test mean scores of pupils in the experimental

 group and the control group?

2.What is the difference between the post-test mean scores of pupils in the experimental  

 group and those in the control group?

 

 

Hypotheses

There is no significant difference between the pre-test mean scores of pupils in the experimental group taught using Classroom Assessment Techniques and the pre-test scores of pupils in the control group taught without the use of these techniques?

There is no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the pupils in the experimental group?

There is no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the pupils in the control group?

There is no significant difference between the post-test mean scores of pupils in the experimental group and those in the control group?

 

Methodology

The study adopted a pre-test/post-test control group quasi experimental design. This quasi experimental design used in this study requires the comparison of pre-test and post- test conditions of the experimental and control groups; participants are randomly assigned to be in one of the two groups. Since the aim of this study is not to generalize the results of the experiment to other populations, no population-sample association was used. Therefore, a study group was selected purposively in accordance with the objectives of the study. The study was conducted using 80 pupils of primary six, 41 females and 39 males, attending the day and evening class programs in Community Primary School Nzam, Anambra West in Anambra State of Nigeria. The night pupils were assigned to an experimental group and the day pupils were assigned to a control group. The experimental group was composed of 40 pupils, with 19 males and 21 females, and the control group was composed of 40 pupils, with 20 males and 20 females. A multiple-choice test comprised of 25 items was developed to test participants’ initial levels of knowledge before the instruction as well as their learning attainment levels following the period of instruction about relevant topics in the Instruction. An initial form of the test comprised of 75 items was administered to another group with similar backgrounds, and the resultant data was subjected to item and test statistics analysis. The content validity of the test was ensured through expert opinion and the use of a table of specifications. The internal consistency reliability of the test was estimated using the KR-20 formula, with a result of 0.83. The test was administered to the participants at the beginning and at the end of the experimental process. The raw scores were estimated and then converted into a score ranging from 0-100, with each correct response worth 4 points. The data was then entered into the SPSS 16 software program. The pre-test and post-test scores of the pupils in both the experimental and control groups were analyzed using descriptive statistics and hypotheses tested using independent samples t tests.

 

Before the teaching process begins, the researchers identified the subjects that would be covered according to the school curriculum. Moreover, the students in both the experimental and control groups were informed about how the lessons would be taught. In the control group, all the topics covered as part of the study were taught by the researchers. The content was presented in lesson. The researcher encouraged the pupils to ask questions about any content they did not fully understand.

 

The instruction in the experimental group was also performed by the researchers. However, unlike the control group, pupils in the experimental group were taught using proper Classroom Assessment Techniques, including minute papers and one sentence summary, in order to assess whether pupils learned the content and to identify and address learning problems. At the beginning of the instructional process, pupils in the experimental group were informed about these techniques and their inclusion was made compulsory.

 

Results

Research Question 1: What is the difference between the pre-test mean scores of pupils in the experimental and the control group?

 

 

Table 1: The results of analysis regarding the comparison of the pre-test mean scores of pupils in experimental and control groups

 

Group  N   S

Experimental  40  57.50  15.09

 

Control  40  61.65  11.48

 

No much difference was found between pre-test scores of pupils in the experimental group and those in the control group. By analyzing the mean scores and standard deviations, it is clear that pupils in both the experimental group (X =57.50; S=15.09) and the control group (X=61.65; S=11.48) had similar initial levels of knowledge about the research subject under question. This finding is important as it proves that before the instructional process the knowledge levels of pupils in both the experimental group and the control group were equivalent.

 

Research Question 2: What is the difference between the post-test mean scores of pupils in the experimental group and those in the control group?

 

Table 2: The results of analysis regarding the comparison of the post-test mean scores of pupils in experiment and control groups

 

Group  N   S

 

Experimental  40  82.30  10.67

Control  40  76.75  5.42

 

There was a difference between the post-test mean scores of the pupils in the experimental group and those in the control group. By comparing the mean scores and standard deviations of both groups, it is clear that pupils in the experimental group (X=82.30, S=10.67) demonstrated significantly higher levels of attainment about the instruction compared to pupils in the control group (X=76.75, S=5.42). Based on this finding, the researchers suggest that instruction using Classroom Assessment Techniques has a positive impact on enhancing the attainment levels of the pupils.

 

Hypotheses 1

There is no significant difference between the pre-test scores of pupils in the experimental group taught using Classroom Assessment Techniques and the pre-test scores of pupils in the control group taught without the use of these techniques?

 

Table 3: The results of analysis regarding the comparison of the pre-test mean scores of pupils in experimental and control groups

Groups  N   S  df  t  p

 

Experimental  40  57.50  15.09  78  1.49  0.14  

Control  40  61.65  11.48

 

From the table 3, the null hypothesis is accepted and the researchers conclude that no significant difference was found between pre-test scores of pupils in the experimental group and those in the control group (t(78)=1.49, p>0.05).

 

Hypothesis 2

There is no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the pupils in the experimental group?

 

 

Table 4: The results of analysis regarding the comparison of pre-test and post-test scores of pupils in experiment group

 

Groups  N   S  df  t  p

 

Pre-test  40  57.50  15.09  39  7.68  0.000*

Post-test  40  82.30  10.67

 

 

As indicated in Table 4, the attainment levels of the students in the experimental group increased significantly after the experimental process (t(39)=7.68; p<0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the researchers conclude that there is significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the pupils in the experimental group

 

Hypothesis 3

There is no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the pupils in the control group?

 

Table 5: The results of analysis regarding the comparison of pre-test and post-test scores of pupils in control group

 

Groups  N   S  df  t  p

 

Pre-test  40  61.65  11.48  39  8.41  0.000*

Post-test  40  76.75  5.42

 

 

The knowledge attainment levels of the pupils in the control group also increased significantly after the instructional process (t(39)=8.41; p<0.05). While the pre-test mean scores and standard deviations representing pupils’ initial levels of knowledge were