Análisis sobre las características de los materiales utilizados en el

Learners tested the theories so as to lead to new experiences. The facilitator guided the learners to provide correct answers to their misconceptions where applicable, to make predictions about the real world and then act on those predictions.

For validation, the instructional guide was presented to experts in Biology education and more particularly Biology teachers in secondary schools. Copies were given to English teachers and finally the researcher‘s supervisor so as to make necessary correction on the suitability of the content, language of presentation and the workability of the instructional strategy. The inter-rater reliability was then estimated using Scott‘s and the inter-rater reliability index of 0.74 was obtained.

3.4.5 Instructional Guide on Generative Learning Strategy (IGGLS) and its Validation

The instructional guide was adopted from Osborn and Wittrock (1991) and was used for the teaching of treatment group two. In this group, learners worked in group of five. The instructional guide contained information to the research assistant who also doubled as the facilitator in the teaching-learning process

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

76

environment. The instructional guide provided opportunity for the learners to play active roles and to be at the centre of the learning process. It was made up of five procedural steps which included: the introductory, focusing, activity, discussion and the application phases.

Introductory Phase: The facilitator introduced learners to the task ahead of them.

He/she then distributed them into different activity groups. He/she supplied all necessary materials to each group and assigned learners in each group specific tasks to be performed. He/she also exposed them to the concepts to be learnt.

He/she familiarized learners with the processes and methods of Generative Learning Strategy.

Focusing Phase: The facilitator presented the problem area to learners. Learners were then expected to recall information and ideas from their memories as well as experiences on the problem presented. After this, every member of the group brainstormed and discussed the problem presented by the facilitator. All these pieces of information were expected to be written and mentioned verbally. The facilitator then went round to supervise but never to correct learners‘

misconceptions.

Activity Phase: Every learner in a group was involved in performing diverse activities. These included carrying out some demonstration as well as performing some practical activities by following some procedural steps provided by the facilitator.

Discussion Phase: Learners discussed the results of the activities performed in their respective groups. The facilitator guided learners to provide correct answer to their misconceptions where applicable. Summaries of results were made in each group.

Application Phase: Learners presented their summarized results to the whole class. Also, they were expected to apply the new knowledge acquired to other similar or related situation with the assistance of the facilitator.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

77

For validation, this instructional guide was presented to experts in Biology education including two Biology teachers from Colleges of Education and Biology teachers from two secondary schools. Copies were also given to two English teachers and finally to the researcher‘s supervisor for necessary corrections on the suitability of content, language of presentation and the workability of the instructional strategy. Corrections were then effected based on the recommendations received. The guide was used by three independent raters and the inter-rater reliability was then estimated using Scott‘s π, with the inter-rater reliability index of 0.78.

3.4.6 Instructional Guide on Modified Conventional Strategy (IGMCS) and its Validation

The instrument was used for the control group. This teaching approach is commonly used in classroom teaching. It is a teacher-centered approach which focuses more on the teacher and his activities in the classroom. It was modified for the purpose of this study. Two questions were allowed in each class.The following steps were followed:

Step I: The teacher introduced the new concept by asking questions on relevant prior knowledge. The teacher did all the talking while the learners sat passively, facing the chalkboard.

Step II: The teacher stated the new topic.

Step III: The teacher explained the new concept as the learners listened to the teacher.

Step IV: The teacher asked questions on the concepts discussed.

Step V: The teacher gave the summary of the whole lesson on the chalkboard.

Steps VI: The teacher allowed the students to ask questions.

Step VII: The teacher concluded the lesson by marking learners‘ notes.

The instructional guide was presented to experts in Biology Education for corrections on the suitability of the content, language of presentation and the workability of the steps proposed. The reactions given were used to improve on

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

78

the draft instrument; and the inter-rater reliability was then estimated using Scott‘s π. The inter-rater reliability index obtained was 0.76.

3.4.7 Mental Ability Test (MAT) and its Validation.

Mental Ability Test was adopted from Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Test, (2012). The instrument was modified as shown in appendix VIIA and VIIB, to suit our culture here by replacing the foreign names of towns and people with our own. The instrument was in two parts- Mathematical and English. This test has the capacity to discriminate between high and low ability participants. The maximum score a student can obtain is 100. Students who score 60% and above were grouped into high mental group; 40% to 59% were assigned to medium ability group while students who obtained less than 40% were placed in low mental ability group. For the purpose of this study, the instrument was later adapted with the inclusion of names of people and objects based on our culture.

The instrument was validated using Alternate/Parallel forms of reliability.

The test was validated to ascertain its suitability for the study. The alternate/

parallel forms of reliability gave the reliability index value of 0.86 which was considered valid and appropriate for the study.

3.4.8 Evaluation Sheet for Assessing Teachers (ESAT)

This instrument was adopted, adapted, and used to evaluate the research assistants on the effective use of the instructional guides during the teaching process. The instrument revealed their presentation of concepts, mastery of the topics, use of materials and directed activities, and how effective their presentations were for the mastery of the concepts by the students.The instrument was used to evaluate the performance of the research assistants on the effective use of the three strategies:

1. Experimental Learning Strategy 2. Generative Learning Strategy 3. Modified Conventional Strategy

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

79

3.5 Research Procedure Work Schedule

3.5.1 Weeks 1 and 2 were used for the training of Research Assistants.

3.5.2 Week 3 was used for the administration of Pre- test 3.5.3 Weeks 4 –11 were used for the treatment

3.5.4 Week 12 was used for the administration of Post –test 3.5.1 Training of Research Assistants

The training of the research assistants was done to provide step by step explanation of the teaching guides as seen in appendixes IV, V and VI. After the training, the research assistants were assessed using the evaluation guide as seen in appendix VIII. This process took two weeks. Two research assistants per school were involved, so as to take care of the skills in practical Biology.

3.5.2 Administration of Pre-test

One week was used for the administration of the pre-test using the outlined instruments:

i. Mental Ability Test (MAT)

ii. Students‘ Attitude to Biology (QAB) iii. Biology Achievement Test (BAT)

iv Biology Practical Skills Rating Scale (BPSRS) 3.5.3 Treatment

The study involved two treatments and one control groups. Each of the groups consisted of male and female students of varing mental abilities, (high, medium and low). Each group was exposed to one of the instructional strategies outlined below:

i Experimental group 1: Experiential Learning Strategy ii Experimental group 2: Generative Learning Strategy iii Contro group: Modified Conventional Strategy

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

80

A. Procedure for experimental Group 1 (Appendix V)