IMPACT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
ON PHYSICS ACHIEVEMENT AT
COGNITIVE LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE
By
‘Femi A. Adeoye* and P. N. Okpala
National Open University of Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria.
AUGUST, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Research studies that sought to provide solutions to problem of student underachievement in physics had always focused on the improvement of physics
achievement at the general cognitive level without much attention at the specific
cognitive levels of knowledge, understanding and thinking respectively (Okpala and
Onocha, 1988; Onwuegbu, 1998; Sotayo, 2002).
The few studies at the specific
cognitive levels tend to shed light on potent assessment and instructional methods for
developing in physics students terminal behaviours that are associated with higher
levels of cognitive outputs (Umoinyang, 2000, Iroegbu and Okpala, 1998). Desirous
as this objective may be, the terminal behaviours seem to be the apex of a pyramid
whose base consists of prerequisite capabilities that are rooted in the specific
cognitive level of knowledge (knowledge of physics terms, laws, principles, concepts,
relationships, operations, etc.). This study is thus aimed at examining the efficacy of
systematic assessment procedure, as integral part of instructional method, in
improving physics achievement at the cognitive level of knowledge. More so, when
impact of assessment procedures on instruction and learning is still under researched
(Obanya, 2005). This is in-spite of the views of science educators that the planned
and organized nature of continuous assessment implementation should augur well for
effective teaching of science subjects (Abe, 1999; Okpala and Onocha, 1995). Further
more, against the background that physics learning is becoming increasingly analytical
(Orji, 1998) and that gender stereotyping is still persisting in Nigerian learning
environment (Obanya, 2004), the study also sought to evaluate the effects of cognitive
style and gender on the physics achievement.
More specifically, the study provided answers to the following questions:
1. Is physics achievement of students at the cognitive level of knowledge
significantly affected by (a) assessment procedure (treatment), (b) cognitive
style, and (c) gender?
2. Is physics achievement of students at the cognitive level of knowledge
significantly affected by interaction of:
(a)
treatment and cognitive style;
(b)
treatment and gender;
2
(c)
cognitive style and gender;
(d)
treatment, cognitive style and gender?
METHOD
Design
This is a quasi-experimental study that made use of pretest-posttest nonrandomized control group design in which the treatment (at two levels) was crossed
with cognitive style (at two levels) and gender.
Sample
The subjects consisted of 120 year II physics students (72 males and 48
females) of varied cognitive style orientations (66 analyticals and 54 non-analyticals)
and age (mean age = 17.3 years; SD = 0.98). Stratified cluster sampling technique
was used to select the students from four co-educational secondary schools that are
distantly located from each other within Ibadan City, Nigeria.
Instrumentation
The study involved using the following valid and reliable instruments: Cognitive
Style Test, CST (Test –retest reliability value= 0.92); Long Multiple Choice Test in
Physics, LMTP (K-R20 reliability = 0.92) and Short Multiple Choice Tests in Physics,
SMTP (K-R reliability ranged from 0.88-0.92)
Nature of the Programme
Procedure
First, the physics teachers of the participating students (who are trained on how
to use the treatment package and instrument) made the students to respond to two
instruments: Cognitive Style Test (CST), and Long Multiple Choice Test in Physics
(LMTP).
After this, the teachers provided the treatment conditions to the two
experimental schools and the two control schools). The treatment lasted for eight
weeks. At appropriate points in the course of the treatment, six other tests were
administered to the students in experimental and control groups at the same time.
The last of the test (Physics Achievement Test) served as the posttest.
3
Experimental Group
The peculiarity of treatment given to this group was that the group members
were exposed to systematic (planned and orgnised) assessment procedure. Before
the commencement of the 8 weeks teaching, the physics teacher discussed with the
group on the nature of assessment to be adopted. The discussion involved making
the students aware of the following:
(i)
topics on which assessment of the 8 weeks of teaching should be based;
(ii)
number of assessment scheduled for the period,
(iii)
topics to be covered by each assessment;
(iv)
date for each assessment; and
(v)
type of instrument (e.g. multiple-choice test, essay test, project, practical
test, etc.) to be used during each assessment.
In the course of the 8 weeks teaching, the physics teachers in the experimental
group conducted the assessment of students in the group in line with the forementioned issues raised in the initial discussion.
Control Group
Students in this group were exposed to unsystematic assessment procedure.
There were no discussion and planning whatsoever, involving teacher and students,
on the nature of assessment procedure as was the case with the experimental group.
Students in this group, thus were NOT aware of the (i) topics on which assessment
should be based, (ii) number of assessment scheduled for the period, (iii) topics to be
covered by each assessment,
(iv)
date for each assessments, and (v) type of
instrument (e.g. multiple-choice test, essay test, project, practical test, etc.) to be used
during each assessment.
Data Analysis
The posttest achievement scores (at the cognitive level of knowledge) were
subjected to analysis of covariance using pretest scores (at the cognitive level of
knowledge) as covariates.
Graphical illustration was also employed as post-hoc
measures to disentangle significant interaction effects.
4
RESULTS
Table 1 shows data from the analysis of covariance of physics achievement
scores (at the cognitive level of knowledge) by treatment (assessment procedure),
students” cognitive style and gender.
The table shows significant main effects of
treatment (F(1,119) == 474.267: p < 0.05), cognitive style (F (1, 119) == 144.879; p < 0.05)
and gender (F(1, 119) == 29.085; p < 0.05). It also shows significant two-way interaction
effect of treatment and cognitive style (F(1, 119) == 56.358; p < 0.05)
TABLE 1:
Summary of 2x2x2 ANCOVA of Physics Achievement Test
Scores of Subject According to Treatment, Cognitive
Style and Gender at the Cognitive Level of Knowledge
Source of Variation
Covariates
Pretest
Sum
square
of DF
1407.105
1407.105
MAIN EFFECTS
8994.408
Treatment
5819.101
Cognitive Style
1777.613
Gender
356.868
2-WAY
790.037
INTERACTION
691.494
Treatment X Cog.
16.533
Style
42.912
Treatment X Gender
4.484
Cog. Style X Gender
3-WAY
4.484
INTERACTIONS
11196.034
Treatment X Cog. 1361.933
Style
12557.967
X Gender
EXPLAINED
RESIDUAL
TOTAL
Mean
square
F
Sig. of F
1
1
3
I
I
I
3
1
1
1
1
1407.105
1407.105
2998.136
5819.101
1777.613
356.868
263.346
691.494
16.533
42.912
4.484
114.682
114.682
244.354
474.267
144.879
29.085
21.463
56.358
1.347
3.497
.365
.000
.000
.000
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000
.000*
.248
.064
.547
1
8
111
119
4.484
1399.504
12.270
105.529
.365
114.062
.547
.000
The Multiple Classification analysis, MCA (Table 2), reveals that students
exposed to systematic assessment procedure performed significantly better than their
counterparts in the control group. The MCA also shows that analyticals performed
better than non-analyticals while girls performed better than boys. In all, the MCA
5
reveals a multiple R squared value of 0.828 and beta values of 0.69, 0.47 and 0.17 for
treatment, cognitive style and gender respectively.
TABLE 2:
Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) of Physic Achievement Test Score
Subjects According to Treatment, Cognitive Stlye and
Gender at the Cognitive level of Knowledge Grand Mean = 32.78
Variable +
‘N’
Unadjusted
‘Eta’
Adjusted for Beta
Independent
deviation
Treatment
1. SAP
2. UAP
65
55
7.14
-8.44
0.76
6.50
-7.68
5.29
0.57
4.38
Cognitive
Style
1. Analytic 66
2. NonAnalytic 54
Gender
1.Male
2. Female
72
48
-6.46
-0.89
1.33
0.11
Multiple R2
Multiple R
SAP Stands for Systematic Assessment Procedure
UAP Stands for Unsystematic Assessment Procedure
0.69
-5.35
.47
-1.45
2.18
.17
.828
.910
The significant two way interaction of treatment and cognitive style was
disentangled. This is illustrated graphically in Figure 1. The Figure shows ordinal
interaction and is such that students exposed to systematic assessment procedure
achieved better than their counterparts in the control group irrespective of the
students’ cognitive style. It also shows that the effect of treatment on physics
achievement was more for non-analyticals than analyticals irrespective of the result
that both groups of students seem to significantly improve their achievement when
exposed to systematic assessment procedure.
FIGURE 1
6
DISCUSSION
The result that treatment had significant effect on students’ achievement in
physics at the cognitive level of knowledge is explicable considering the views of
Okpala and Onocha (1995) that the act of providing a student with advance
information on the topics on which the assessment of an entire educational
programme should be based and the content areas to be covered by specific
assessment is likely to motivate the student’s learning and help clarify instructional
objectives; thus providing him with a better knowledge of the learning outcomes to be
achieved. Such a student, generally, is likely to tailor his study towards the specific
content area to be covered by each assessment. In addition, the student is more likely
to engage in meaningful in-depth study of the content area (Ezewu and Okoye, 1982).
A student who has an advance information on the number of assessment to be
undertaken during an educational programme and the date for each assessment is
likely to be more organized and prepared towards improving his study habits.
Providing students with such information could also help to demystify tests and
examinations as well as reduce the associated threats (Yoloye, 1994).
These,
perhaps, would further explain the significant differences in the achievement of
students in the experimental and control groups.
The type of assessment instrument to be used during instructional process
could influence students’ study habits and what they learn (Okpala and Onocha, 1985;
Abe, 1995.). For instance, essay tests tend to encourage writing skills and study
habits which emphasize global units and perception of relationship and trend (Ohuche
and Akeju, 1977); while the use of multiple – choice tests tend to encourage study
habits which direct attention to details (Okpala, Onocha and Oyedeji, 1993). As for the
practical tests, they provide opportunity for students to learn various skills such as
weighing, setting up of apparatus, handling and reading of instruments, plotting of
graph etc while projects encourage students to think, thereby gaining much knowledge
which they would otherwise have lost (Varghese, 1988). Again, the use of multiplechoice test (unlike essays, practicals and projects) give the teacher more opportunity
to set a large number of questions covering all aspects of the content areas.
7
Generally, when students are aware of these attributes of different types of
assessment instruments, they tend to modify their study habits to suit the type of
instrument they expect during assessment.
A student who has an advance
information on the type of instrument to be used during each assessment, thus, has a
better chance of organizing his study habits towards obtaining high scores in physics
irrespective of the cognitive level under consideration. In this regard, it is explicable
that students in the experimental group (who had advance information on the type of
instrument to be used during each assessment) could achieve significantly better in
the acquisition of knowledge of physics concepts, terms, principles, etc.
The result that analytical subjects performed better than the non-analytical
corroborates the view that a student’s performance in physics is a function of the
extent to which the student is analytically inclined as was stated by Saracho and
Dayton (1970), and Aghadiuno (1992). Indeed science educators (e.g. Ritchey and
Lashier, 1981) had argued that since science learning requires analytical approach, it
is to be expected that analytical individuals would achieve better than the nonanalytical ones. The significant cognitive style-group differences in achievement could
also be attributed to the nature of the student groups. As indicated by Moss and Sigel
(1963) analytical students exhibit the tendency to split stimulus into discrete entities
and then differentiate or analyse them separately in contrast to the non-analytical
students whose categorization and response are based on a whole. In addition, Crow
and Piper (1986) noted that the analytical students are not easily distracted by
extraneous things unlike the non-analytical ones.
The superiority of female students over their male counterparts in the
acquisition of knowledge of physics concepts, terms, etc. seem explicable considering
the study result of Iroegbu and Okpala (1998) that females would achieve better than
males when test items are based on physics contents/concepts that require learners of
medium numerical ability while the reverse would be the case when the test is based
on physics concepts/contents that require learners of high numerical ability. It thus
seems that high achievement in physics tests at the higher cognitive levels (e.g.
thinking) demands testees of high numerical ability most of whom are usually males.
As suggested in a previous investigation (Okpala and Adeoye, 1999), male students
8
seem to be involved more than the females in critical thinking – an attribute considered
necessary for solving physics problems as well as learning difficult and abstract
physics contents/concepts.
The significant two-way interaction, when viewed against the background of
significant main effects of treatment, suggests that practicing physics teachers should
use systematic assessment procedure (as integral part of physics teaching) for both
analytical and non-analytical students. In addition, the result (when viewed against the
background of significant main effect of students’ cognitive style) provides empirical
evidence supporting the use of systematic assessment procedure by physics teachers
as remedial treatment for physics students who are disadvantaged because of their
non –analytical orientation.
The result that no significant interaction effect of treatment and students gender
on physics performance existed at the cognitive level of knowledge shows that the
effect of using systematic assessment procedure in teaching on the physics
achievement seems not to be gender-sensitive. This result, when viewed against the
background of significant main effect of treatment, suggests that in situations where
students are to be tested at the cognitive level of knowledge, practising physics
teachers should freely use systematic assessment procedure while teaching male and
female students since gender does not seem to inhibit the extent to which a student
benefits from the procedure.
The result that the interaction effect of students’ cognitive style and gender on
achievement in physics at cognitive levels of knowledge is not significant shows that
the influence of students’ cognitive style (which the study also identified to be
significant) is not gender–sensitive. The result also indicates that the identified
significant gender influence on the achievement does not depend on whether a
student is analytical or non-analytical. It could thus be suggested that any intervention
strategy targeted at remedying the negative impact of students’ cognitive style on
physics performance should be extended to male and female students. In the same
light, any of such strategies with respect to gender should cater for both analytical and
non-analytical students. There is also indication (the non-significant three-way
interaction, viewed against the background of significant main effect of treatment) that
9
practicing physics teachers should freely use systematic assessment procedure while
teaching students of any cognitive style-gender combination (analytical boys,
analytical girls, non-analytical boys, and non-analytical girls) for acquisition of
knowledge of physics concepts, terms, principles, etc.
In all, the independent variable (treatment) and the moderators (cognitive style
and gender), when taken together, could be used to explain 82.8% of the variation in
the physics achievement – a level of explanation that is considered significant (p <
0.01). The order of contribution of the variables to the explanation is treatment (69%),
followed by cognitive style (47%) and the least is gender (17%).
CONCLUSION
The results reported in this study provide an empirical basis for sharing the view
that:
(i)
Educational policies and practices should be made to ensure that systematic
assessment procedure is used while teaching for acquisition of knowledge
of physics terms, concepts, principles, laws, theories, relationships,
operations, etc.
(ii)
Pre-service and in-service method courses aimed at facilitating teachers’
capacity to integrate systematic assessment procedure in teaching should
be organized for physics teachers in Nigerian secondary schools.
(iii)
Practicing teachers should be encouraged to use systematic assessment
procedure as a remedial treatment for non-analytical male and female
students who are under-achievers in physics because of their cognitive style
orientation.
It is hoped that the implementation of these recommendations would assist in
solving the problem of students’ underachievement in physics ( a topical
educational issue) in Nigeria.
10
REFERENCES
Abe C. V. (1999) “Educational Evaluation and Quality Control in Secondary Education
in Nigeria” in Obemeata (Ed.) Evaluation in Africa. Stirling Horden Publishers
(Nig.) Ltd.. pp. 112-122.
Abe, C. V. (1995) A Causal Model of Some Socio-psychological Variables As
Determinants of Achievement in secondary School Social Studies, Unpublished
PhD Thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Aghadiuno M. C. K. (1992) A Path-analytic Study of Cognitive Style, Understanding
of Science and Attitudinal Variables as Correlates of Achievement in Secondary
School Chemistry. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Crow, L. W. and Piper M. K. (1986) “A study of Field Independent Based Mental
Ability tests in Community college Science Classes”, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 23 (9), 817 – 822.
Ezewu E. E. and Okoye N. N. (1982) Principles and Practice of Continuous
Assessment. Evans Brothers (Nig.) Publishers.
Iroegbu T. O. and Okpala N. P. (1998) “Problem-based Learning Instructional
Strategy and Numerical Ability as Determinants of Senior Secondary
Achievement in Physics” Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 54-65.
J. STAN, 24 (1 & 2).
Moss A and Sigel I. E. (1963) “Cognitive Style Implications for Learning and
Instructions”. Psychology in School (8), 152 – 161.
Obanya Pai (2004) Educating for the Knowledge Economy. Mosuro Publishers (Nig.)
Ltd., 197pp.
Obanya Pai (2005) Revitalizing Institutes of Education in Nigerian Universities. A
Lead Paper Delivered at the Inaugural Meeting of Directors of Institutes of
Education in Nigeria, Conference Centre, University of Ibadan, pp 21.
Ohuche R. O. and Akeju S. A. (1979) Testing and Evaluation in Education, Lagos;
African Educational Resources (AER).
Okpala N. P. and Adeoye F. A. (1999) “Assessment Procedure, Student Cognitive
Style and Gender as Determinants of Physics Performance at cognitive Level of
Thinking” African Journal of Educational Research, vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Okpala N. P and Onocha C.O. 1985) “The Effects of a Teacher Vacation Course
(TVC) on Perceived Instructional Needs of Practising Physics Teachers”,
11
Okpala N. P. and Onocha C. O. (1988) “Student Factors as Correlates of
Achievement in Physics” Physics Education (A Journal of the British Institute of
Physics) Vol. 23, No. 6, pp 301 – 365.
Okpala N. P. and Onocha C. O. (1995) “Teacher Assessment of a New Physics
Curriculum for Nigerian Schools”, Olumo Journal of Education, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.
28-35.
Okpala, N. P. and Onocha C. O. (1995) Tools for Educational Research. StirlingHordens Publishers (Nig.) Ltd. 153pp.
Okpala N. P.; Onocha C. O. and Oyedeji O.A. (1993) Measurement and Evaluation
in Education, Stirling –Horden Publishers (Nig.) Ltd, 261pp.
Onwuegbu O. C. (1998) Effects of Cognitive Style, Study Habits and Instructional
Strategy on Students’ Learning Outcomes in Senior Secondary School Physics
in Delta State. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Orji A. B. C. (1998) Effects of Problem-solving and Concept-mapping Instructional
Strategies on Students’ Learning Outcomes in Physics. Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
pp. 247 – 253.
Ritchey, P.A. and Lashier, W. S. (1981) “The Relationship Between cognitive Style,
Intelligence and Instructional Mode of Achievement of College Science
Students”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18 (1), 41 -45.
Saracho O. N. and Dayton C. M. (1970) “Relationship of teachers’ cognitive Styles to
Pupils’ academic Gains”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (40), pp. 544549.
Sotayo G. (2002) Impact of Computer-and Text- Assisted Instruction on Secondary
School Students’ Achievement in Physics.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Umoinyang I. E. (2000) Student Socio-psychological Factors as Determinants of
Achievement in Senior Secondary School Physics.
Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Varghese, A (2002) “Project Work in Science”
Association of Nigeria, 21 (1), 181-189.
Journal of Science teachers’
Yoloye E.A. (1994) Continuous Assessment. A Simple Guide for Teachers, London.
Cassell Ltd.
12