• Ms Word Format
  • 159 Pages
  • ₦3000
  • 1-5 Chapters



This study investigated the Impact of 5Es Learning Cycle Model on Questioning Style Performance and Academic Performance among Senior Secondary School II Chemistry students. A Quasi-experimental pretest and posttest research design was used for the study which featured two groups (Experimental and Control group). The experimental group was exposed to 5Es learning cycle model while the control group was taught using lecture method. Sample sizes of 164 students selected from two secondary school in Katsina Metropolis were used as the study sample, drawn from a population of 10 schools with a total of 753 students. The two schools randomly selected, were selected after matching them, to find their equivalent academically. The Instrument developed; Chemistry Performance Test (CPT) with a reliability coefficient of 0.82 was used to collect data for pretest, posttest and gender equivalent used to test three null hypotheses. The data collected were analyzed using t-test Statistic, ANOVA, ANCOVA and Scheffe‟s test at significance level of P≤0.05. Result indicated that; (i) the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group in their academic performance after undergoing the experimental treatment with 5Es learning model as t-cal 5.04 was greater than t-crit 1.96, showing there is a significant difference. (ii) the model was found to have enhanced the experimental group students‟ ability to answer more difficult questions (that is their questioning style preference) as there was a significant attempt of students for high level questions after treatment with 5Es model. (iii) The treatment has no significant effect on gender which implied that the model is gender friendly. Based on these findings, it was recommended that; (i) Chemistry teachers should incorporate 5Es learning model into the main stream of pedagogy in the teaching of Chemistry at Senior Secondary School level as it seems to have high potentials for enhancing high order thinking skills, understanding and achievements on the part of the learners. (ii) There is also a need for training and retraining of science teachers towards effective use of 5Es learning model in the teaching of Chemistry at SSS level as it promotes high order thinking.



1.1         Introduction

The relevance of science to national goals, aspirations and economy dictates to a large extent the huge commitment and support which Nations make and give to Science and Technology advancement. It is an essential tool for a Nation‟s progress and development (Chukwuneke, 2006: Akinbobola, 2009, Agboghoroma, 2009). The classification of Nations into Developed, Developing and Under-Developed is based on their Technological Advancement (Agogo, 2009, Maduawesi, Aboho and Okwuedei, 2010). This may be the reason why Achor (2006) and Ada (2008) opined that as a result of the speed at which the world is changing technologically, the need and usefulness of teaching and learning of Science should not be over looked. Students are expected to be trained to discover, invent and be part of this Scientific Community and the Teachers of Science and Technology are the means through which the skills and knowledge get to the learners.

Chemistry is most commonly regarded as the “Central Science” or the “Mother of science” owning to its confluence and influence. Okeke and Ezeannagba (2000) defined chemistry as a branch of science of matter. The relevance of chemistry as a requirement to technological advancement of a nation cannot be underrated (Babalola and Hafsatu, 2015). The Developed Countries forged ahead by recognizing the relevance of Chemistry in their National Economy as it is a core subject in the study of Medicine, Pharmacy, Engineering and Several technologically based courses. Research evidences have proved that Chemistry contributes to quality of life and Nation Building in all aspect. There have been researchers such as Eke (2008), accepting that any Nation aspiring to be scientifically and technologically developed must have adequate level of Chemistry Education.

According to the National Policy on Education (FRN, 2013), Chemistry Education should be emphasized at the secondary school in terms of its teaching and learning. This is because; chemistry as an academic discipline plays a very significant role in unifying other science subjects. This emphasis seems not to be in place as there has been consistent decline in the performance of students in public examinations conducted by the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) and the National Examination Council (NECO) in Sciences across the Country over the years (Agogo, 2003; Samba and Eriba, 2012). Studies revealed that, Academic Performance of students in Chemistry at Senior Secondary School Certificate Examinations (SSSCE) has consistently been very poor and unimpressive ( Njoku, 2005). Many factors have been suggested as contributing factor to this poor performance of students in Chemistry in particular and sciences in general. Some of these factors include: inadequate laboratory infrastructure and equipment in Chemistry (Eniayeju, 2001); poor teaching methods, lack of adequate practical equipment, Mathematical nature of Chemistry concepts and laws ( Ayogu, 2001); psychosocial factors (Bankole,2001); the abstract nature of Chemistry concepts (Samba and Eriba, 2012); students and teachers related factors (Mailumo, Agogo and Kpagh, 2009); concepts difficulty (Agogo, 2003 and Agwi, 2008). Also the West African Examination Council (WAEC) Chief Examiners‟ Report 2005-2010, reported students‟ general poor performance in Chemistry in Nigeria.

In Katsina State where this study was carried out, the situation is not different as can be seen in Table 1.1, which shows the performance of students in Chemistry from 2009 to 2014.

Table 1.1: Performance of Students in Chemistry at SSCE Level (WAEC) in Katsina State, from 2009 to 2015.


Year No. of Students No. of Students No. of Students % Pass %Fail
  in Attendance that Passed at that Failed    
    Credit Level      
2009 1800 355 1445 23 80
2010 1905 340 1565 18 82
2011 2033 404 1629 20 80
2012 2210 401 1809 18 82
2013 2560 528 2032 21 79
2014 2694 608 2086 23 77
2015 2111 421 1690 20 80

Source: Katsina State Ministry of Education (2015).

From Table 1.1, it could be observed that chemistry students have difficulties in the learning of Chemistry which has resulted in poor performance at Senior Secondary School level. Francisco, Nicoll andTrautmann, (1998), Gabel (1999), Ezeliora (2004) and Okoli (2006) reported that poor teaching methods adopted by Science teachers during instruction is one of the causes of students‟ colossal failure in Science examinations and remarked that these teaching methods and techniques do not seem to make learning sufficiently easy for students. Decanato, Ramirez, Aspee and Irma, (2006) submitted that the abstract nature and the difficulty in learning some concepts are so stable and coherent internally that conventional instruction has little effect on them. Students by nature are curious and need to be actively involved in the learning process.

Chemistry teaching is supposed to be result oriented and students centered, and this can be achieved when students are willing and the teachers are favorably disposed to using the appropriate methods and resources in teaching the students, (Adesoji & Olatunbosun, 2008). Methodology plays a very vital role in any teaching and learning situation and it primarily falls into two categories or approaches;

  • Teacher-centered approach, such as Lecture method and direct instruction and
  • Student-centered approach like Inquiry-based learning, Cooperative/Collaborative learning and Demonstration method.

Inquiry based instructional learning is a student-centered and teacher guided instructional approach that requires students to find out things for themselves. It is an important constructivist approach, allowing knowledge construction via asking questions. Constructivist teaching is based on the fact that skills and knowledge acquisition are not by passive receiving of information and rote learning but involve active participation of the learners through knowledge construction, hands-on and minds-on activities (Akinbobola and Ado, 2007).

Inquiry-based learning needs to be well structured and scaffolded, and inquiry cycles can be effectively applied in various educational settings. Its ultimate goal is to develop independent learners who know how to expand their knowledge and expertise through skilled use of a variety of information sources employed both inside and outside of the school (Kuncel, 2008). It requires careful planning, close supervision, ongoing assessment and targeted intervention by an instructional team of teachers through the inquiry process that gradually leads students toward independent learning (Crede, 2008). Inquiry Based Learning is primarily based on three important qualifiers about the nature of inquiry: three level of scaffolding (amount of learner self-direction), the emphasis on learning, and its scale (within-class, within-course, whole-course, and which-degree) Spronken-smith and Walker (2010). All models of Inquiry based learning emphasis the following levels of significant ways (NRC, 2000 and Maab and Artique, 2013).

  • Confirmation Inquiry: – students are provided with question and procedures, and results are known in advance.
  • Structured Inquiry:- students are given a problem and outline for how to solve the problem.
  • Guided Inquiry:- students also figure out the solution method.
  • Open Inquiry:- students formulate the problem for themselves.

For this study, Guided-Inquiry based learning was employed since it is compatible with the Constructivist Instructional Approach and the learning cycle model. The model provides a built-in structure for creating a constructivist classroom          .

The Learning Cycle originally credited to Karplus & Thier (1967), who published it in the Science Teacher, has been used in science education from its conception. Probably one of the earliest and foremost supporters of the Learning Cycle was the SCIS (Science Curriculum Improvement Study) programme which adapted it and included it in its science curriculum. Although there are several “E” versions (e.g. 3E, 4E, 5E, 7E and other modifications) the basic premise is that children have an experience with the phenomena in the learning of the concept / topic. 3E (Explore-Explain-Elaborate), 4E (Engage-Explore-Explain-Evaluate), and 7E (Excite-Explore-Explain-Expand-Extend-Exchange-Examine) are also suggested (Çalık, Ayas & Coll, 2010). But the most popular versions of constructivism is the 5Es model.

For 5Es learning model, each step with “E” refers to help students‟ learning by the experience of linking prior knowledge to new concepts. It is seen that 5Es learning model is especially effective in the elimination of alternative conceptions (misconceptions) (Bybee, Taylor, Gardner, Powell, Westbook & Landes, 2006 and Ültay & Çalık, 2016). This is because; constructivist learning theory claims that learning is an interaction between new knowledge and pre-existing knowledge (Bybee et al., 2006), and people construct their own knowledge by using their existing knowledge.

In this study, 5Es learning cycle instruction model by Bybee et al (2006) was used because it is one of the most effective models that can be utilized to promote students‟ conceptual understanding and learning of scientific concepts as opined by Ültay and Çalık,(2016). The components of the learning cycle model of a Science lesson are: Component 1: ENGAGE-“Capture the student‟s attention and interest”

Component 2: EXPLORE-“Activity”

Component 3: EXPLAIN-“Link to other concepts”

Component 4: EXTEND-“Apply learning”

Component 5: EVALUATE-“Feedback”

Questioning Style Preference Refers to the cognitive ability needed by a learner to answer more difficult questions. Through questioning at various levels of cognition, teachers and students share perceptions, perspectives and reflections of items to learn or learn from. However not all questions requires the same level of cognitive thinking. It ranges from Low-level, rapid-fire questions that result to short answers to High-level, open-ended questions that lead to problem-solving, reasoning, and the ability to learn in puzzling situations (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2000). Questions teachers pose are cues to students‟ level of thinking expected of them. It ranges from the lowest level of mental operation, requiring simple recall of knowledge (convergent thinking), to the highest, requiring divergent thought and application of that thought.

Questioning is any sentence which has an interrogative form or function. It is the heart of teaching learning process; it plays an important role in daily instruction. Questions can prompt responses ranging from simple recall of information to abstract processes of applying, synthesizing, and evaluating information (Zepeda, 2009). Blooms and his colleagues in 1956 developed a continuum for categorizing questions and responds into Low-level questions and High-level question, following the hierarchy (Knowledge, Comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation).

Low-level cognitive questions are questions which require students to remember, reiterate or find information that is within the text (Tienken, Goldberg & DiRocco., 2010 and Vogler, 2005). Although low-level, intext questions are easier to generate, teachers must ask questions from a variety of levels to ensure student achievement (Tienken et al., 2010). These types of questions do not encourage students to use high-level thinking, but rather require them to just recall what they have read or learned in a manner which produces a “correct” or “incorrect” response (Tienken et al., 2010; Walsh & Sattes, 2005). Research studies show that low-level questions are the easiest for teachers to produce, and, therefore, are the most common form of questioning in the classroom (Tienken et al., 2010). Although low-level questioning may not prepare students to think deeply, they do, however, set the stage for making sure students are ready for higher-level discussion (Walsh & Sattes, 2005). These questions are also called Convergent-thinking questions. Low- level questions are those at the knowledge, comprehension, and simple application levels of the taxonomy. Lower cognitive questions are also referred to in the literature as fact, closed, direct, recall, and knowledge questions.

High-level questions, although most infrequently used, are extremely beneficial for student learning. High-level questions are questions which require students to analyze, synthesize, evaluate, categorize or apply what they have read (Tienken et al., 2010; Vogler, 2005). High-level questions frequently do not have one correct answer, but rather encourage students to produce a response which is unique to their thinking and interpretation of the text (Tienken et al., 2010; Peterson &Taylor, 2012). Research has shown that asking higher-level thinking questions is fundamental to student learning (Lundy, 2008). In addition, teachers who emphasized higher-level thinking through the asking of higher-level questions promoted greater reading growth in their students (Lundy, 2008). There are also called Divergent-thinking questions (known as broad, reflective, or thought questions) are open- ended (i.e., usually having no singularly correct answer), high-level cognitive questioning (requiring analysis, synthesis, or evaluation). These questions require students to think creatively by leaving the comfortable confines of the known and reaching out into the unknown (Cotton, 2001).

Gender is another issue that affects students‟ performance in science education. Patrick

  • Ezenwa, (2000) and Duniya (2009) opined that gender issues in Science Education as it affects performance remains unsolved. Lentz (1992) and Usman (2000) in their individual studies noted that boy perform better than girls on activities that require manipulations and also boys are more mechanically and scientifically inclined than girls. Usman (2000) in their individual studies noted that boy perform better than girls on activities that require manipulations and also boys are more mechanically and scientifically inclined than girls. However, others like Mari (1994) observed from his study that female students perform better on their understanding of science process skills than male students. Bichi (2002) and Demole and Femi-Adeoye (2004) in their separate studies respectively found out that there are no gender differences in performance in science. Iliya (2011) in her study of teachers‟ cognitive questioning style and the effect on academic achievement of integrated science students in relation to gender revealed that the male are extrovert in nature and responds to teacher questions quickly as they are bolder than the females. Therefore, this study sort to investigate the impact of teaching model (5Es learning model) on gender in relation to academic performance and enhancing questioning style preference from low level questions to high level questions.

Academic performance is directly related to students‟ growth and development of knowledge, in an educational situation where teaching and learning process takes place. It is defined as the performance of the students in the subject they study in the school (Pandey, 2008). Academic achievement determines the student‟s status in the class. It gives children an opportunity to develop their talents, improve their grades and prepare for the future academic challenges. With the variables stated, this study will be investigating the impact of 5Es learning model on the Academic achievement of senior secondary school students and their students‟ Questioning Style Preference in chemistry. If 5Es learning model can enhance their Questioning Style Preference and improve their Academic Performance in Chemistry.

1.1.1     Theoretical Framework

The theoretical basis underlying this study is the use of Constructivist Instructional Approach (CIA) which is an inquiry based learning approach, attributed to the constructivism theory. There are two main forms of constructivism: cognitive and social constructivism. Cognitive constructivism draws mainly on Piaget‟s (1972) theory of cognitive development. Piaget proposed that individuals must construct their own knowledge and that they build knowledge through experience. These experiences allow creation of schemas or mental modes and thus lead to learning. In contrast to cognitive constructivism, social constructivists place more emphasis on the social context of learning. Vygotsky is the main proponent of social constructivism and suggested that cultural history, social context and language play an important role in the pattern and rate of development of children. Vygotsky‟s concept of the zone of proximal development argues that individuals can, with the help of a more experienced peer, master concepts and ideas that they cannot understand on their own (Vygotsky, 1978).

For this study Cognitive constructivism theory by Jean Piaget was considered, who articulated mechanisms by which knowledge is internalized by learners. He suggested that through processes of accommodation and assimilation individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences; it postulates that learning is a constructive process which requires the design of instruction to provide opportunities for such interaction. Constructivist learning environment also emphasizes knowledge construction instead of knowledge reproduction. An example of a guided inquiry learning approach is the Learning Inquiry Cycle Model. Grounded on the constructivist approach, 5Es learning and teaching model includes higher order thinking skills. It‟s a model that facilitates learning and creates beneficial opportunities for students while learning (Lorsbach, 2006).

Learning cycle is useful to teachers in designing curriculum materials and instructional strategies in science and compatible with the guided inquiry learning approach. The model is derived from constructivist ideas of the nature of Science, and the developmental theory of Jean Piaget (Piaget, 1970) and developed by Robert Karplus with the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) in 1964. The learning cycle of Karplus has three phases. These are Exploration, Term Introduction and Concept Application. Over the years the learning cycle was revised and added several phases. So, 5Es learning cycle was formed and it was developed by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). In this study, 5Es learning cycle instruction model by Bybee, Taylor, Gardner, Powell, Westbook & Landes, (2006) was adopted. The 5Es learning model of Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate and Evaluate is an instructional method for designing a series of experientially rich lessons that are conceptually linked and developmentally sequenced to support the ongoing, progressive refinement in student understanding as it develops over time (Bybee, 2006). The end of one phase of the learning cycle is the launching pad to the next phase. The underlying logic of the learning cycle is that individual lessons only make sense in the light of how they build on previous knowledge/lessons and how they create the cognitive need and scaffolding for subsequent lessons. Both the individual and the collective human understanding of science are built on (and in some cases reconstruct flaws in) the foundation of prior conceptions, including resistant-to-change misconceptions (O‟Brain, 2011). Similarly, the intelligent CIA is designed around a cycle of learning (learning cycle) experience with diagnostic, formative and summative assessments embedded in an instructional sequence that is aligned with the curriculum objectives (NSTA, 2001).

Based on these tenets of constructivism, the purpose of this study is to examine the impact this 5Es learning cycle model on the Academic Performance and Senior Secondary Chemistry Students‟ Questioning Style Preference in Katsina Metropolis.

1.2         Statement of the Problem

The persistent poor performance of students in SSCE Chemistry for quite some times now has become a major concern to Science Educator, Parents and other stake holders in Science Education. Literature has revealed that students performance in Chemistry at Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination have been consistently poor, (Njoku, 2005 & WAEC Chief Examiner‟s Report 2005-2015). Over the years science educators have been using the lecture method of teaching with little or no activities, which makes Chemistry concept difficult for students to understand (Anthony, 2009). In supporting this view, Derek (2007) reported the seriousness of the deplorable performance of Secondary School students in Science subjects and identified persistent use of the traditional mode of instruction as one of the major short-coming affecting the learning and achievement in Science subjects. Usman (2006), reveal that the prevailing method used by most teachers in Nigerian schools is the lecture method. According to them, this method does not allow meaningful learning and active participation of the learner and this leads to rote learning. Also the WAEC Chief Examiners‟ report (2015) attributed the poor performance of students in Chemistry to methodology and inability of students to answer all levels of questioning correctly.

The study on Cognitive Questioning Preference was conducted at Senior Secondary School level by Gandu, (2006) in Biology. Another study was carried out by Iliya (2010), at the Junior Secondary School level in Integrated Science. In their separate studies, poor performance in the Sciences was attributed to low level cognitive questioning which the students‟ are exposed to and preferred to answer during lessons and assessment. It is estimated that most questions asked by teachers (approximately 60%) are low level cognitive questioning, 20% are high level cognitive questioning, and 20% are procedural (Cotton, 2001; Allington & Johnston, 2002; Applegate, Quinn, & Applegate, 2002). It is believed that this type of questions can limit students by not assisting them to acquire a conceptual understanding of the subject matter of Chemistry. The frequent use of low-level Questioning by the teacher does not prepare students for the challenge ahead such as WAEC and other National Examination as these examinations are set based on all level Blooms taxonomy and questioning; this also results to the persistent poor academic achievement of students both in International and National Examinations (Ersoy, 2006).

Aksela (2005) employed the use of computer assisted programs to promote High Order Thinking Skills. A study by Cavallo (2003) aimed to examine students‟ interpretations of chemical reactions using open-ended questions (High Order Questioning) during the learning cycle, with a study sample of (60) students of the ninth primary grade, the results revealed a positive change in students understanding when implementing the learning cycle compared to the students studied using the traditional method.

So much attention has been given to the use of teaching methods to improve students‟ academic achievement, retention, self-efficacy, scientific literacy etc. in Chemistry among other Science subject. But the area of the using 5Es learning model in relationship to questioning style preference to improve on performance in chemistry is lacking. Since 5Es learning model sequences learning experiences so that students have the opportunity to construct their understanding of a concept over time and improve high order thinking skills. If students‟ Questioning Style Preference is not taken into consideration (in accordance to all levels of Bloom‟s taxonomy in the cognitive domain) it can possibly affect their academic performance. Also, the constant use of lecture method does not allow students appreciate the effectiveness of high level cognitive questioning as it does not promote high order thinking skill.

Therefore, this study employed the use of 5Es learning cycle model to determine its effect on Academic Performance and Questioning Style Preference of senior secondary school students in Chemistry.

1.3         Objectives of the Study

The research is designed to achieve the following objectives which are to:

  1. determine whether 5Es learning cycle model has impact on the Academic performance of senior secondary school chemistry compared lecture method.
  2. examine if 5Es learning cycle model will have impact on low and high Questioning Style Preference of Senior Secondary School Chemistry Students.
  3. compare the academic performance of male and female chemistry students with low and high questioning style preference exposed to 5E‟s learning cycle model.

1.4         Research Questions

The following research questions are formulated to guide this study.

  1. What is the difference between the mean (academic performance) scores of Chemistry students taught with 5Es learning model and those taught with lecture method?
  2. What is the effect of exposure to 5Es learning cycle model on the mean questioning Style Preference among senior secondary school Chemistry students and those taught with lecture method?
  3. What is the difference in the mean scores of male and female student‟s questioning style preferences who were exposed to 5Es learning cycle model?

1.5         Null Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses are formulated for testing at p ≤ 0.05 level of significant. HO1: There is no significant difference between the mean score of Chemistry Students



Academic Performance, when exposed to the 5Es Learning Cycle Model and those taught with lecture method.

There is no significant difference between the mean scores of Chemistry students with low and high Questioning Style Preferences when exposed to 5Es learning model and those taught with lecture method.

There  is  no  significant  difference  in  the  mean  scores  of  male  and  female

Chemistry   Students‟  Questioning    Style   Preference   when   exposed   to   5Es Learning Model?

1.6         Significance of the Study

This study is conceived to determine if the use of Constructivist Teaching Approach employing the 5Es Learning Cycle Model will have impact on the academic performance and questioning style preference of senior secondary school Chemistry students and uplift the standard of Chemistry Education. The findings will hopefully be of benefit to; Secondary school students (frontier), Science/Chemistry Teachers and Educators, Education Planner and Curriculum Designers.

  • Chemistry Students:- Inspiring Upcoming science student will benefit from the study if it is proved that the 5Es Learning Model of Science instructions lead to higher achievement in Chemistry. It will encourage the students to interact intimately with the subject matter of Chemistry through constructing their own knowledge from preexisting ones thereby engaging them in productive high cognitive processes and thinking. It is hoped that the students will develop better knowledge and understanding of chemistry concepts which would be very useful in both academic and career counseling.
  • Chemistry Teachers:- it is hoped that this study would cause an increase in the interest of chemistry teachers in developing and employing new and exciting science teaching methods, as the study explores the effectiveness of Discovery Inquiry-Based Teaching Method based on the Constructivist Theory, and, thus, it keeps pace with the contemporary educational trends in using educational strategies derived from learning theories to encourage high order thinking and enhance students Cognitive Questioning Preference.
  • Science curriculum Developers and Educational Supervisors:- due to its practical research significance because the study elements and procedures  were described using a modified learning cycle, which provides natural Science teachers and students, and educationalists in general, with the opportunity to know the procedures of the learning cycle, its application methods and its effect on the educational achievement. Hence it would help to redefine the curriculum in sequences of potential experience that emphasizes on student centered approach to learning.

1.7         Basic Assumptions

In the course of this study the following basic assumptions are made:


  1. SS II students have all had some knowledge of Chemistry from their previous class SS I.


  1. Questioning Style preferences can be measured by the instrument designed by sorting out.


  1. The methods of instruction used in teaching Chemistry normally do not include all stages of 5Es learning cycle model strategy, as on Explanation and Evaluation are common in lecture method.

1.8         Scope of the Study

This research is limited to finding out the impact of 5Es learning cycle model on the academic performance and Questioning Style Preference of Secondary School Students in chemistry, Katsina Metropolis will be the case study. Only Government Senior Secondary Schools will be sampled because it is believed that their teaching and learning condition is relatively the same, such as Class Size, Laboratory facilities, environment etc. All Senior Secondary II chemistry students‟ constitute the population for this study. The choice of SS II students is considered appropriate because the students‟ has been exposed to basic chemistry concept from their previous class (SS I). The method of instruction is the Constructivist Teaching Approach employing the 5Es learning cycle model adopted from by Bybee, Taylor, Gardner, Powell, Westbook & Landes, (2006).

The topics selected for this study were as follows:-

  1. Periodic Table
  2. Gas laws
  • State of Matter and Change of State
  1. Chemical Reaction
  2. Mole Concept

The concept selected for the study is in the SS2 syllabus. The choice of these concepts is considered suitable because they are some of the difficult areas students get to fail as reported by WAEC Chief Examiner (WAEC, 2011). The instrument used was the Chemistry Performance Test (CPT) with reliability coefficient of 0.82. It was used to collate data‟s for the pretest and posttest and to sort students‟ questioning style preference into high level or low level questioning according to Blooms taxonomy of cognitive domain..




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like