A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BIOLOGY PRACTICAL LESSONS IN SELECTED WELL-ENDOWED AND LESS-ENDOWED SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN GHANA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1771Keywords:
well-endowed, less-endowed, practical, equipment, laboratoryAbstract
The teaching and learning of biology in the Senior High Schools has of late not been very effective since the practical aspect of the subject is seemingly neglected by many teachers. The main objective of this study was to investigate and compare how biology practical lessons were conducted in some well-endowed and less-endowed Senior High Schools in Ghana. The main instruments used for gathering the data for the study were questionnaires, document analysis and informal observation of some biology lessons. This enabled the Researchers to capture as closely as possible, the real picture of what happened during the observed lessons. The sampled population for the study consisted of 408 students and 24 biology teachers from twelve selected Senior High Schools in the Eastern and Central Regions of Ghana. Data collected were analyzed using frequency counts and percentages. The research findings showed that the time allotted to practical lessons in biology varied from one school to another, as 35.8% of students from well-endowed schools complained of insufficiency of time as against 78.9% of students from less-endowed schools. The study also found that the teaching strategies employed in the two categories of Senior High Schools were not different. However, students from the selected well-endowed schools tend to have a greater advantage than their counterparts from the less-endowed schools, as they were exposed to less lecture method 7.4% compared to 27.9% from the low-endowment schools. To ensure efficiency in the teaching of the practical aspect of biology in the Senior High Schools, the study recommends that the government and all other stakeholders in education must supply laboratories in all Senior High Schools with the necessary equipment, materials and chemicals to enable students to develop the necessary skills, attitudes, and interest in science.
Article visualizations:
References
Adedapo, K. (2010). The effects of experimental approach to teaching science on academic performance. Journal of science teachers of Nigeria, 19 (2), 57-64.
Adepoju, J.A. (1991). Factors and problems in the teaching and learning of mathematics in Nigeria schools: National school curriculum review conference proceedings. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Education.
Agboala, J.A. (2011). Activities for developing critical thinking skill. A paper published in the Department of Education, Ahmade Bello University, Nigeria.
Anamuah-Mensah, J. (1995). The race against underdevelopment: A mirage or reality? A paper presented at the 3rd Dean’s Lecture at the University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.
Angell, C., Guttersrud, O., Henriksen, E. K., & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils’ and teachers’ views of physics and physics teaching. Science Education,88(5), 1-24.
Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research (9thed.). Belmont, California: Wardworth Publishing Company.
Banahene, W. O. (2008). Principle and practice of teaching. Kumasi: KNUST Publishing
Barnes, D. (1985). Practical curriculum studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Beatty, J.W., & Woolnough, B.E. (1982). Why do practical work in 11-13 science? School Science Review, 63 (225), 768-770.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, C. (2001).Quantitative data analysis: A guide for social scientists. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis Inc.
Ghana Government (2006). A Public-Private Partnership Programme between Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Maks Publications & Media Services. Retrieved on June, 03, 2010, from http://www.ghanadistricts.com/region/Ghana.htm.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Edina: MN, Interaction Book Company.
Joppe, M. (2000).The research process. Retrieved November, 18, 2009, from http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm
Kraft, R. (1994).Teaching and learning in Ghana; A curriculum, textbooks, syllabus and handbook analysis. A report submitted to the Agency for international Development USAID mission in Accra, Ghana.
Lord, T. (2001). 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching.The American Biology Teacher,63, 30-38.
McCombs, B.L. (1996). Alternative perspectives for motivation. In L. Baker, P. Afflerback, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing Engaged Readers in School and Home Communities (pp. 67–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
National Institute for Science Education - College Level One.(1997). Collaborative learning, small group learning page. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Ogunyemi, B. (1990). The relationship between instructional resources and socio-economic status in selected population of high school. Dissertation Abstract International, 25 (2), 120-126.
Okebukonla, P.A.O. (1984). Effects of cooperative competitive and individualistic laboratory interaction pattern on students’ performance in biology. Ibadan: University of Ibadan
Partridge, N. (2003).Science out of the classroom. Journal of Biological Education, 37(2), 56-57.
Schreiner, C., & Sjoberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, Rationale Questionnaire Development and Data Collection for ROSE.A comparative study of students’ view of Science Education. Acta Didata: Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo, Norway.
Serwaa O. O. (2007). The status of science teaching and learning at the Upper Primary levels: A case study of selected schools in Kwahu South District. Unpublished Masters’ Thesis, UEW.
Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning. In C. Rogers & P. Kutnick (Eds.), The Social Psychology of the Primary School.(pp.327-369).London: Routledge.
Smith, M. L. (1982). Benefits of Naturalistic methods in Research in Science Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19 (8), 627-638.
Springer, L., & Stanne, M. E. (1999).Effects of cooperative learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,69, 21-51.
Tranter, J. (2004). Biology: Dull, lifeless and boring? Journal of Biological Education,38(3), 104-105.
WAEC. (2010).Chief Examiner’s Reports, for WASSCE biology. Ghana: WAEC.
WAEC. (2011).Chief Examiner’s Reports, for WASSCE biology. Ghana: WAEC.
WAEC. (2012).Chief Examiner’s Reports, for WASSCE biology. Ghana: WAEC.
WAEC. (2013).Chief Examiner’s Reports, for WASSCE biology. Ghana: WAEC
WAEC. (2014).Chief Examiner’s Reports, for WASSCE biology. Ghana: WAEC.
WAEC. (2015).Chief Examiner’s Reports, for WASSCE biology. Ghana: WAEC
Young, B.L. (1990). Teaching primary science. England: Longman Group.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
