WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Administrator (Online)
Welcome to PROJECTS.ng. I am online and ready to assist you. Let me know if you need my assistance.

Original Author (Copyright Owner):



Download the complete SCIENCE EDUCATION project topic and material (chapter 1-5) titled IMPACT OF PROCESS APPROACH ON QUESTIONING PREFERENCE, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION SPAN AMONG CHEMISTRY STUDENTS IN ZARIA METROPOLIS, NIGERIA  here on PROJECTS.ng. See below for the abstract, table of contents, list of figures, list of tables, list of appendices, list of abbreviations and chapter one. Click the DOWNLOAD NOW button to get the complete project work instantly.



The Project File Details

  • Type: PDF and MS Word (DOC)
  • Size: [1,462 KB]
  • Length: [214] Pages



This study investigated the Impacts of Process Approach onQuestioning Preference, Academic Achievementand Retention Span among Chemistry students in Senior Secondary School (SS2). A sample of 78 students selected from two secondary schools inZaria Metropolis were used as the study sample from a population of 1,241 students from 10 schools. The two schools randomly selected, were found after matching them, to be equivalent academically. One of the schools served as control group and the other serve as the experimental group which was exposed to science process teaching approach while the control group was exposed to lecture based instruction. Topics taught are state of matter, change of state, and kinetic theory of matter, Gas laws, Acid-Base reactions and chemical reaction. The choice of these concepts is considered suitable because they are some of the difficult areas student failed in exams. A researcherdeveloped Chemistry Achievement Test (CAT) with a reliability coefficient of 0.73, was used to collect data for pretest, posttest and post-posttest (Extended test) used to test the four null hypothesis. The data collected were analyzed using t-test statistic, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Scheffe‘s test at a significance level of P≤0.05. Results indicated that (i) the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group in their academic achievement after undergoing the experimental treatment of science process teaching approach (ii) the level of retention was significantly high for students taught using Science Process Teaching Approachwhen compared with thosetaught usingLecture Method (iii) Science Process Teaching Approach was found to be more effective in enhancing cognitive questioning preference of chemistry students at the senior secondary school level.Based on these findings, a number of recommendations were made; (1) there is a need for the improvement of the Chemistry conditions and practices existing in Nigerian schools through the use of SPTA(2) there is a need to employ science process based instruction in the senior secondary schools as a means to reduce academic failure and enhanceretention span among science students in the senior secondary schools and (3) there is also a need for training and retraining of science teachers towards effective use of Science Process Approach in the teaching of chemistry at SSS among others


Title Page —————————————————————————————————–i
Declaration —————————————————————————————————ii
Certification ————————————————————————————————-iii
Dedication —————————————————————————————————iv
Acknowledgements —————————————————————————————–v
List of Abbreviations.————————————————————————————–vi
Definition of Terms.————————————————————————————–vii
List of Tables ———————————————————————————————-viii
List of Figures ———————————————————————————————-x
List of Appendices—————————————————————————————–xi
Table of Contents —————————————————————————————–xii
1.1 Introduction ———————————————————————————————–1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ——————————————————————————-9
1.3 Objectives of the Study ——————————————————————————-11
1.4 Research Questions ————————————————————————————12
1.5 Null Hypotheses —————————————————————————————-12
1.6 Significance of the Study ——————————————————————————13
1.7 Scope of the Study ————————————————————————————14
1.8 Basic Assumptions ————————————————————————————14
2.1 Introduction ——————————————————————————————15
2.2 Nature and Teaching of Chemistry in Senior Secondary School—————————15
2.3 Methods of Teaching Chemistry——————————————————————-18
2.3.1 Understanding Chemistry ————————————————————————20
2.4 Science Process Teaching Approach————————————————————–24
2.4.1 Lecture Teaching Method ———————————————————————–30
2.5.Psychological Basis for Teaching Science by Process Approach ———————30
2.6. The Concept of Cognitive Taxonomy———————————————————–34
2.7. Cognitive Skills ————————————————————————————-46
2.8 Questioning and Using Cognitive Structures—————————————————–54
2.9 Cognitive Questioning Preference —————————————————————-56
2.1 Instructional Strategy and Retention Ability —————————————————–60
2.2 Instructional Strategy and Academic Achievements in Chemistry —————————62
2.3 Retention Span and Academic Achievement —————————————————–68
2.4 Overview of Similar Studies ————————————————————————70
2.5 Implications of the Literature Reviewed on the Present Study ——————————81
3.1 Introduction ———————————————————————————————83
3.2 Research Design ————————————————————————————–83
3.3 Population of the Study——————————————————————————–85
3.4 Sample and Sampling Techniques ——————————————————————-86
3.5 Instrumentation——————————————————————————————88
3.6 Validity of the Instrument (CAT) ——————————————————————–90
3.7 Reliability of the Instrument (CAT)——————————————————————90
3.8 Pilot Testing ———————————————————————————————91
3.9 Administration of Treatment ————————————————————————–93
3.1 Data Collection Procedure —————————————————————————-96
3.2 Data Analysis——————————————————————————————–97
4.1 Introduction———————————————————————————————-100
4.2 Data Analysis and Results—————————————————————————–100
4.3 Summary of Findings ———————————————————————————-110
4.4 Discussion of Results ———————————————————————————-110
5.1 Introduction——————————————————————————————–116
5.2 Summary———————————————————————————————–116
5.3 Summary of Major Findings ————————————————————————-118
5.4Conclusion ———————————————————————————————-118
5.5 Contributions to Knowledge ————————————————————————–119
5.6 Recommendations ————————————————————————————121
5.7 Limitations of the Study——————————————————————————-122
5.8 Suggestions for Further Study————————————————————————122
References —————————————————————————————————124
Appendices ————————————————————————————————–134


1.1 Introduction
Chemistry as one of the physical sciences deals with the nature of matter; its
properties and its changes in different conditions. Chemistry according to Zohar (2004)
should be studied to improve man‘s knowledge and enhance his understanding of his
environment for his survival. The subject as shown by Ezeliora (2010) is at the core of every
technology that is enjoyed today. According to Ezeliora, (2010) the power of chemical
science creates as a whole an enabling infrastructure that delivers food, medicine and
materials which are the hallmarks of modern life. Today its significance as a core subject in
the study of medicine, several technologically based courses, pharmacy and engineering is
indisputably important as stipulated in the National Policy on Education (FRN, 2008).
Therefore, Chemistry education has a fundamental role to play in providing solution to
several technological and socio-economic issues confronting man as well as improve
scientific literacy (Neshitt-Hawes, 2005 & Ezeliora 2010).
Chemistry has also been perceived by students at the various level of the educational
sector particularly in secondary school as very difficult to understand (Ezeliora 2003).
Majority of the students perceived Chemistry as a body of isolated facts to be memorized,
lacking relevance to reality which has led to lack of interest in it by students (Ezeliora 2003).
For many students, Chemistry is first a classroom affair. Echodain Ezeliora (2010) revealed
that very rarely do students know that the acid work in the Chemistry laboratory is found in
the farm, at home and at play. This wrong perception of Chemistry by students has resulted in
low entrance by students into Chemistry and Chemistry related courses both at the secondary
school and tertiary level of studies, and of course performance has not been encouraging
either (Zohar, 2004; Aksela, 2005 & Ezeliora 2010). Of the many factors responsible for
students attitude and low performance in Chemistry, there are a few that have not attracted
much attention. One of this is the inability of the Chemistry teacher to design, determine and
enhance students‘ cognitive questioning preference. This was attributed to the constant use of
lecture method, which has continued to conceal this basic fact, by emphasizing rote learning
(Zoller, 2001 & Zohar, 2004).
Effective Chemistry teaching involves student‘s active participation in the teaching-
learning process, the none active participation of learners has been agreed by Okebukola,
(2002); Zohar, (2004) and Usman, (2006), as one of the major factors responsible for poor
academic performance in the sciences. Lamenting the poor performance in the science, the
WAEC chief examiner in his report, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010as seen in Table
Table 1.1 Performance of Students in Chemistry at SSCE (WAEC) Level in Nigeria:
Period Number of Students (Present)
Number of Students (Pass)
Number of Students (Fail)
% of Students (Pass)
% of Students (Fail) 2005 182659 39125 143534 21 79 2006 228953 80355 148598 35 65 2007 250099 86150 163949 34 66 2008 289520 84520 205000 29 71 2009 326541 98215 228326 30 60 2010 367562 120560 247002 33 67 Source: Ministry Of Education, Kaduna State: 2013
and in KadunaState where this study is carried out, the situation is not different as can be seen
in Table 1.2 which indicated the performance of chemistry students from 2007to 2012,
Table1.2 Performance of Students in Chemistry at SSCE (WAEC) Level in Kaduna
State: 2007-2012
Period Number of Students (Present)
Number of Students (Pass)
Number of Students (Fail)
% of Students (Pass)
% of Students (Fail) 2007 4892 2348 2544 48 52 2008 5193 1766 3427 34 66 2009 5889 1826 4063 31 69 2010 5945 2378 3567 40 60 2011 6313 2336 3977 37 63 2012 6601 2112 4489 32 68 Source: Ministry Of Education, Kaduna State: 2013
The analysis show that students have problem with chemistry subject at SSCE and poor
passing grades fluctuate within the years under considerationwas categorical in attributing it
to the students‘ inability to attempt effectively questions that require high-level cognitive
domain. The reasons for this poor performance by the students could not be unconnected with
teachers teaching and students‘ questioning preference which are frequently at the low level
of the cognitive domain of educational objectives as hierarchical arranged in the Bloom
(1956) taxonomy of cognitive domain (i.e. knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis,
synthesis and evaluation) (Iliya 2010).
Teacher‘s effectiveness according to Cotton (2001) in activating performance depends
on his professional ability to arouse and sustain high cognitive processes by his questioning
behaviour. The cognitive level of a question is relative to the nature of the process to answer
it. Questioning styles are generally classified into two broad levels, low-level and high level
cognitive questioning styles. Low-level questions are termed knowledge based questions that
demands that students recall information, or facts previously taught for example a law or
theory (Cotton, 2001). She further explained that low-level questions assist students to
remember factual information, learnt for test, read or treated by a teacher. The questions are
organized to elicit from students experiences already acquired previously and retained in the
memory; they actually consist of questions that demands a yes or no, a short phrase kind of
answer. Sample verbs often employed are; list, identify, define, name, recite, state among
others. According to Zohar (2004)andGandu (2006), low-level cognitive questions are often
designed to assess student‘s ability to remember facts previously leant but lament that it does
not challenge learner‘s ability to think.
High-level cognitive questions can accurately probe students thinking skills and
conceptual understanding of Chemistry and assess student‘s ability to solve problems.
Aksela, (2005) revealed that several forms of authentic high-level questioning styles are
open-ended questions, concept maps, interviews, oral presentation, synthesis and evaluative
questions that demand skills. Real problems can stimulate students to hypothesize, predict,
conduct thought experiment, and generate explanations and can be made to develop students
higher order cognitive skills capacity in Chemistry (Zoller, 2001). For example, open-ended
response assists teachers to understand more clearly how students think, the prior knowledge
of students and what understanding are gained during instruction. A high-level cognitive
question task in Chemistry includes student‘s manipulation of some materials to produce a
product-written, pictorial, kinesthetic, or a combination of modes that probes conceptual
understanding (Carter & Berenson, 1997). The task can be open-ended or has a discrete
answer. It is usually selected to assess performance in using the process skill (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001). They also pointed out that terms such as apply, evaluate, analyze, predict,
explain, among others are often used in designing high-level cognitive questions. The
effective use of high-level questioning styles could not be achieved when teachers use
conventional method for the purpose of covering the syllabus on time. The science process
approach refers to an activity based teaching approach that engages the use of the mental
processes and can be facilitated by the effective use of cognitive questions (high and low
level questions), hence it will be employed in this study to ascertain students‘ cognitive
questioning preference.
The science process approach activates the teaching – learning process by its
activities. Aksela (2005) explained that the method directly involves the students as active
participants, thus enabling the students to take responsibility for their learning and to
effectively construct their own knowledge. The strategy emphasizes, that the planning,
teaching and assessment are focused on the needs and abilities of the learner. The learners are
actively engaged in doing most of the works by using their hands and cognitive structure in
the teaching and learning process. There is considerable research evidence (Ezeliora 2010)
that if learners are active in the class, they learn more effectively and exhibit greater
performance. Gandu, (2006) claimed that effective learning and performance are related
positively to the nature of questions the students are exposed to and preferred to answer. The
level of knowledge acquisition and mastery of skills is a function of the type of question
students preferred and are exposed to while using the process approach. Students‘ response
also formed the basis for assessing the quality of learning acquired and retention of materials
Retention is the ability to store and recall information or knowledge acquired from
learning, (Bichi, 2002). It occurs when the learner is able to effectively retain in memory
facts or materials learnt in schools. The correct coding of incoming information stimulates the
appropriate index which may be consulted to that retention. Materials are correlated to quality
of retention in relation to their correctness, familiarity, meaningfulness, concreteness and
image evolving characteristic (Adeniyi, 1997). Studies also have revealed that improved
instructional strategy such as the use of science process teaching approach could facilitate the
retention of learned concept (Ajewole &Okebukola 1998 & Samba, 1998). They further
reported that the instructional strategy, employed by the teacher could facilitate or inhibit the
retention of learned concepts. A study conducted by Zoller (2001) on the effect of science
process approach on student‘s retention of scientific concepts analyzed according to
academic performance revealed that high achievers were significantly better in retaining
learned materials. Bichi (2002) found that student‘s achievement is a function of the quality
of their retention. A major variable of significance to be determined is the retention ability of
learners vis-à-vis their cognitive questioning preference. Several studies have been carried on
retention ability of students for two weeks but the aspect of determining of retention span of
2,4.6, weeks of students using science process approach is relatively new which is the focus
of this study.
1.1.1 Theoretical Framework.
Science-Process-Based Learning, deriving its theoretical underpinnings from the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)(1960) andBruner‘s (1960) educational
philosophyand constructivist epistemological belief, that learning is an active process in
which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past
knowledgeorganizedaround intellectual/cognitive skills needed to learn concepts and broad
principles used in making valid inductive inferences. The learner selects and transforms
information, constructs hypotheses, and makes decisions, relying on a cognitive structure to
do so. Cognitive structure provides meaning and organization to experiences and allows the
individual to “go beyond the information given”. Bruner (1966) states that a theory of
teaching should address four major aspects: (1) predisposition towards learning, (2) the ways
in which a body of knowledge can be structured so that it can be most readily grasped by the
learner, (3) the most effective sequences in which to present material, and (4) the nature and
pacing of rewards and punishments. Good methods for structuring knowledge should result in
simplifying, generating new propositions, and increasing the manipulation of information.
Science process based learning typically starts with a concept, which serves as a driving
question compelling students to learn about the central concepts and principles of a topic
while engaging in producing the product. Its practice usually corresponds closely with what
happens in the real world and require that students play authentic roles and perform
meaningful tasks. To create a product, students are engaged in such cognitive processes as
problem solving, decision making, designing, and product making. These processes help
students transform information and construct their own knowledge and interpretation.
Throughout the process, students are encouraged to take charge of their learning and become
autonomous for their decisions. When they accomplish their assignments and acquired the
design skills, students are often endowed with a great sense of achievement.
Piaget (1967) suggested that students acquire knowledge and form meaning based on
their experiences which he termed ‗equilibrium‘. He described equilibrium of learning as
consisting of two processes, Assimilation and Accommodation. By this two processes,
students constructs new knowledge from their experiences he further stated. Assimilating
causes an individual to integrate new perceptual motor or conceptual matter into existing
schemata or patterns of behaviour (Mari, 2001) thus if a learner has similar experiences, he or
she can assimilate easily (incorporate new experiences into old experiences). For
accommodation Wadsworth (1996) explains, that when confronted with a new stimulus a
learner tries to assimilate it into existing schemata sometimes this is not possible, so an
individual can create a new schemata in which to place the stimulus or one can modify an
existing schema so that the stimulus fits into it (that is reframing the world and new
experiences into mental capacity already present).
Learning as perceived by Aikenhead, (2001) is an active ‗construction process‘ and that
learning is possible only on the basis of already acquired knowledge. There is therefore a
significant shift by this approach from the teacher and his lecture to the student and their
learning. Instead of telling the learner what to do, the teacher should begin by asking relevant
questions, instead of answering questions that only align with their curriculum; the students
should be allowed to draw conclusions on their own based on experiences acquired from
activities engaged in during studies. Thus logical and conceptual growth is enhanced by
creating the learning experiences that is open to new directions, that challenge the learner by
making them effective critical thinkers, to develop skills and confidence to analyze the world
around them, create solutions or support for developing issues and then justify their words
and actions through scientific processes (Zohar, 2004).
In the Science Process Approach the scientific skills are infact learning strategies that enable
students to interact with the environment. For example if students learn about theories of rock
formation, they should observe and make inferences about rocks. If they are to learn about
the structure of the atom, they might construct models, and test hypotheses with regard to
different theories (Zoller, 2004).
In view of this the processes of science are an integral part of the learning cycle proposed by
cognitive science educators. That is when the teacher engages students in the “exploration”
stage of the learning cycle to encounter a new science concept; the intent of the teacher is to
have the students utilize the processes of science in order to explore objects, phenomena and
events. Thus students would be involved in making observations and measurements,
collecting and interpreting data, and making conclusions for the purpose of investigating a
scientific object, event or phenomena. In other cases, students might design experiments to
test the efficacy of a particular scientific theory(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Pear, 2009 &
Abdulhamid, 2010).The processes of science become tools for the students in order to
understandthe concepts of science. In the cognitive perspective, science processes are the
learning strategies for students to learn science concepts and improve on their cognitive
questioning preference (Aksela, 2005).
Studies by Okebukola, (2002)andAbdulhamid, (2010) have shown that challenges‘
confronting the teaching and learning of science subjects in Nigerian schools is the use of the
chalk and talk method of teaching where students are passive listeners with few recipe of
experiments. Susan (2001) and Aksela (2005) lament that this approach most often cater for
lower order students‘ cognitive questioning preference, which place demands on the use of
knowledge and comprehension in the Bloom cognitive hierarchy that require mere recall, use
of pen and paper to respond to test items, rather than higher order cognitive level resulting in
capacity building in retention, thinking skills and improve academic performance by the
learner, (Jakomanyo & Masai, 2006 & Abdullhamid, 2010).
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Teachers employmethods that enable them cover their syllabuses, in most cases not paying
attention to the students, especially in terms of ability of the students. Over the years,
performances of students in chemistry have been reported by Abdulhamid, (2010) to be very
poor. According to them the high rate of failure in chemistry is most disturbing. Also Zohar
(2004) acknowledged that there is general poor performance in the science particularly in
chemistry. Anderson and Krathwohl, (2001) and Aksela (2005) revealed a significant high
rate of failure in chemistry, reasons given to explain the situation is the method of teaching
employed by the teachers which always neglect the learners. Felder and Brent (2005) and
Usman (2006), showed that the prevailing method used by most teachers in Nigerian schools
is the lecture method. According to them, this method does not allow active participation by
the student in the lessons and this leads to memorization and regurgitation of facts and
concepts by students without the basic understanding of these concepts.
WAEC chief examiners‘ report (2010) attributed student‘s poor performance in Chemistry to
methodology and the inability of students to attempt all levels of cognitive questions
effectively. Gandu (2006) and Iliya (2010) in their separate studies indicated poor students‘
performance in the sciences, attributing it to the low level cognitive questions the students‘
are exposed to and preferred to attempt during lessons and assessment. Cotton (2001) and
Susan (2001) revealed that teachers spend most of their time asking low-level Cognitive
question. The authors alsoargue that these questions focus on factual information that can be
memorized for example (which gas aids combustion?). 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 quality of learning and experience acquired and retained by the students can be
determined by the range of cognitive questions the teacher designs and employ in the
teaching – learning process. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revealed that the quality of
teacher made assessment is positively correlated to students‘ performance in Chemistry.
Cotton (2001) and Gandu (2006) insist that cognitive level of any set of questions is a
significant variable in learner‘s academic achievement. If therefore, the issue of using high
level and low-level cognitive questions is not addressed the poor academic performance of
Senior Secondary Students in WASSCE will still persist because WAEC sets their questions
based on Bloom‘s taxonomy of Cognitive domain(WAEC Chief Examiner Report, 2010).
Hence if the students Cognitive questioning preference did not take consideration of all
the levels or hierarchy of Bloom‘s taxonomy in the cognitive domain it can probably affect
their academic achievement. Also the constant use of lecture method in other to covers
syllabus on time will not allow students appreciate the effectiveness of high-level cognitive
questions. Thisis because the use of lecture method in chemistry doesnot enhance acquisition
of scientific knowledge or the effective learning of scientific concepts, attitude development
and cognitive skills acquisition such as perception,conception, memory and creativity,
fostered by the availability, richness and the use made of various learning materials through a
repertoireof teaching strategies in the classroom by the teacher, (Brekke,2005). Felder and
Brent (2005) claimed that unless deliberate attempt is made to foster the skills through the
skillful use of appropriate instructional method, academic failure is inevitable because to him,
these cognitive skills underlie all academic learning. Instructional method therefore becomes
an imperative and an important tool by which knowledge is dispensed, since learning
outcome depends largely on it. Science Process teaching method has been shown to improve
the performance of students (Brekke 2005, Lowenstein 2003 & Sizer 2003). Most of the
researches on science process teaching methods are on academic achievement and on
questioningstyles; no attention has been given to Cognitive questioning preference and
retentionamong chemistry students in the class employing the science process teaching
approach hence the present study was designed to investigate the Impact of the Process
Teaching Approach on cognitive questioning preference academic achievement and
retention span among chemistry students in the senior secondary school.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study are to:
1. examine the Impact of Science Process Approach on cognitive questioning preference
among chemistry students‘ at Senior Secondary School.
2. investigate the Impact of Science Process Approach on academic achievement among
chemistry students‘ at Senior Secondary School.
3. determine the retention span of senior secondary school chemistry students at 2,4.and
6weeks duration after exposure to Science Process Approach.
1.4 Research Questions
This study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the difference between the mean academic score of chemistry students taught
using Science Process Approachare compared to those taught using Lecture method?
2.What is the difference between the mean cognitive questioning preference scores
among senior secondary school students exposed to Science Process Teaching Approach
andthose taught using Lecture method?
3.What is the differencebetween the retention ability of senior secondary school chemistry
students taught using Science Process Approach when compared with those taught with
4.What is the differencebetween the retention spanof senior secondary schoolchemistry
students taught using Science Process Approach when compared with those exposed to
Lecture Methodat different duration?
1.5 Null Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were formulated for testing at P ≤ 0.05:
Ho1. There is no significant difference between the mean academic achievement of
chemistry students exposed to science process teaching approach and those
taught using lecture method.
Ho2. There is no significant difference between the mean score in cognitive
questioning preference among chemistry students exposed to science process
teaching approach and those taught with lecture method.
Ho3. There is no significant difference between the mean score in retention
ability among chemistry students exposed to science process
teaching approach and lecture method.
Ho4. There is no significant difference in the mean score on retention span among
senior secondary school chemistry students exposedto science process
approach and those taught using lecture method when subjected to an
extended retention test period of 2,4 and 6 weeks.
1.6Significance of the Study
The findings from this study will hopefully enable the science teacher/educator recognize
the uniqueness of each student learner, so that he can modify his teaching strategy to
improve their cognitive processes, and contribute to the upliftment of the standard of
science education in Nigerian secondary schools in the following ways. The study would
assist students to interact intimately with the subject matter of Chemistry through
participating in productive higher cognitive processes.
be useful and relevant to fellow researchers in the education sector who seek to
improve performance among students of all categories, to push forward the frontier of
knowledge on issue relating to science education and in policy formulations. Also to
add new information to the existing literature.
be beneficial to education planners and curriculum designers will benefit from the
findings of this study through knowledge, that there is a significant move away from
traditional method to an interactive nature of experiment and theory in chemistry
hence will redefined the curriculum in sequences of potential experiences that
emphasizes direct students interaction and involvement in the teaching-learning
it would assist science education teachers in the use of science process teaching
strategy and enhancing their cognitive questioning preference.
1.7 Scope of the Study.
This study was delimited to senior secondarychemistry students in the Zaria
metropolis, Kaduna State.The study sample was delimited to SS.2 Chemistry students
because the concepts selected for teaching is in the SS.2 syllabus.The topics include
state of matter, change of state, and kinetic theory of matter, Gas laws, Acid-Base
reactions and chemical reaction. The choice of these concepts is considered suitable
because they are some of the difficult areas student failed as reported by WAEC Chief
Examiner (WAEC, 2010).
1.8 Basic Assumptions
The following basic assumptions were made for this study:
1. Different individuals have different cognitive questioning preference and that they can
be improved through instructional strategies.
2. The students in the school are exposed to similar educational programme
obtained from the state education school syllabus.
3. The schools are exposed to equal academic environment in terms of provision
of classroom, science instructional materials, equipment, among others.


All project works, files and documents posted on this website, projects.ng are the property/copyright of their respective owners. They are for research reference/guidance purposes only and the works are crowd-sourced. Please don’t submit someone’s work as your own to avoid plagiarism and its consequences. Use it as a guidance purpose only and not copy the work word for word (verbatim). Projects.ng is a repository of research works just like academia.edu, researchgate.net, scribd.com, docsity.com, coursehero and many other platforms where users upload works. The paid subscription on projects.ng is a means by which the website is maintained to support Open Education. If you see your work posted here, and you want it to be removed/credited, please call us on +2348159154070 or send us a mail together with the web address link to the work, to hello@projects.ng. We will reply to and honor every request. Please notice it may take up to 24 - 48 hours to process your request.