RESEARCH REPORT NO. 16 "Science Achievement of Thai Children in Different Grades" by Chancha Suvannathat Ravipan Somnapan 1974 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Purpose of the study The main aims of the project are to investigate the children’s achievement in schience at different grade levels, to assess the relationships between the achievement in science and socioeducational factors, and also to bring up research findings for the consideration of improving the curriculum and instruction in Science Subject. Research methodology Sampling design The four target populations consisted for the following students: Pop I. : age 10 years to 10 and 11 months Pop II. : age 14 years to 14 and 11 months Pop IV : in grade 12 The students whose schools were in the areas sparsely pupulated or considered inacessible were excluded from the target populations. A two-stage stratified sluster probability sampling design was used. Schools were used as the sampling unit. The two stages were areas andschools within areas. The 57 areas were sets of approximately 72-school contigously located. The first fraction was 1/5; consequently, 11 areas were chosen. The second fraction was 1/10; thus the total of 79 schools out of 799 schools in the 11 areas were sampled. The 79 schools consisted of 14 government and 65 private schools. These were proportional to the population of schools. The numbers of students sample were 1790, 1912, 793, 719 for populations I, II, III and IV, respectively. Instruments There were 6 ests consisting of the items pertaining to four main science subject matters: earth science, biology, chemistry, and physics. Besides, there were 16 questionnaires concerning the students’ understanding the nature of science, and their attitudes toward science subject, schools, teachers, method of teaching science subjects, also the teachers’ opinions about the science instruction, and the school administration. An extra questionnaire on the National Case Study was also used and filled up by the conllaboration of the persons involved. Before actual testing and administering both tests and questionnaires were tried out with a sample of children in the conresponding ages and grades. The feedback data from the try out stage helped improve both the quality and administrative procedures of the instruments. Collection of data and treatment of data The Institute’s staff members were the ones who administered the tests and the questionnaires. Before the schedules were arranged with different schools in the samples, the official contacts were done through appropriate channels starting from the ministries concerned to the Governors of the provinces, then to the educational administrative officers, and the pricipals of the schools involved. In response to the questions in the tests and questionnaires, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement provided the Institute with the optical marksense answer cards specifically designed for the cross national alalysis. All data were sent to the IEA center for analysis. Except for the data on the optional population (PopIII), the Institute took care of its own analysis. Main findings The findings in the full report were grouped into 5 main sections. The first section concerned with the students’ total acievement in science subject and their achievement in four particular branches of science subject. The second section concerned with the background information of the sampled children and their parents. The third section concerned with the background information of the teachers in the sample schools. The fourth section was about the schools’ background information and its principals. Finally, the fifth section concerned with the relationships between the students’ achievement in science subject and certain factors. The main results derived from these five sections in the research report were put as follows: 1. The students’ achievement in science in relation to home and school factors. It was found that learning situation factors both at home and at school were responsible for the differences of the students’ achievement. There were certain kinds of learning conditions involved in the study, for example, number of student enrollment in school, co-education, ratio between students and teachers, size of class, number of hours spent for homework per week, opportunity to observe and experiment on what they have learned. In addition to the fact that factors associated with outside school learning were found to have great bearing on the students’ achievement in schience subject, the factors associated with learning conditions at school also played an influential part on the students’ achievement in this particular subject 2. The students’ achievement in science subject in relation to teaching learning factors. The results pointed out the importance of several factors such as school time allocated for learning the scinece subject, homework assignment, exposure to the subject matters, and opportunity to learn and experiment. The findings suggested the importance of the amount of time allocated by schools for children to learn as relevant to the quantity of the subject matter. As for the schools in the Population IV, they rarely arranged the time more than 6 hours for science learning. This seemed to be related to another factor concerning homework arrangement. Due to the fact that the science content was very wide, the class learning as normally taken might be too limited to cover such wide content. Therefore, homework assignments would be beneficial to the students in such a way that the teachers could broaden the scope of knowledge for the students. Also they could make use of homework assignments as a means for the students to review their own understandings in science lessons. The results of the analysis of data revealed that the students who did not have any homework did poorly in science tests. Another interesting finding revealed the negative correlation between the science achievement scores of the students in Population IV and their parental assistance in doing homework. Instead, there was a positive correlation between the science achievement scores of the student in the Populations I and II and their parental assistance in doing homework. It could be briefly discussed here that the student in the population IV might probably condider a parental assistance in doing homework as a direct help. This seemed to interfere with their need for emancipation at this stage of development. Or perhaps, only poor students needed parental assistance. However, it was more agreeable for the younger students to be willing to accept any parental assistance. It was also flund that there was a positive correlation between the teachers’ opportunities to get further training after their graduation, and their sturdent’ achievement scores in science. Besides, there was a positive correlation between the teachers’ qualifications in science subject, and their students’ achievement scores in science. It further revealed that the students’ opportunity to learn and experiment positively correlated with their total scores in science. The students in every Population expressed their need to learn the science subject by means of laboratory experimentation. This finding suggested that more opportunities should be given to the sutdents for the practicality and experimentation of the science subject. This was hoped to make them feel more inerested in science subject as well as in science activities outside the school. The students in the sample revealed clarly their lack of motivation and opportunity to learn and experiment. Consequently, their interest in science was very limited. Together with this, they also lacked parental support. These hindered their growth in keeping pace with the science progress. 3. The students’ achievement in science in relation to their scial class. Based on the data, the study revealed a positive correlation between the students’ achievement and their social class. There was a trend to indicate that the students, whose fathers belonged to the professional group such as high rank business administrators, were the ones who had higher than average achievement scores in science. This finding was in agreement with previours studies done along this line of investigation. Generally, it was expected that children from the high socio-economic status would benefit more from their rich environment than their friends from the lower socio- economic status. It was also well accepted that the social family background of children played a vital role in enriching their experience and making them learn more effectively, providing that their parents understand the children and know how to motivate them. 4. The students’ achievement in science in ralation to the teacher-student ratio and class size It was found that the average scores correlated positively with the teacher-student ratio. The students in the schools where the teacher-student ratio was high tot higher achievement scores in science than their peers from the schools where the teacher-student ration was low. This suggested that overloaded class might affect the quality of class instruction. Also, the finding revealed that both teachers and students in the sampled school lacked convenience and access to use the laboratory class, and some schools did not have any one laboratory at all, The research result reflected the necessity to encourage the schools to make more actual use of the lab class instead of dry lab. The schols should pay more attention to the practical side of the science teaching. By doing this, it was expected that the students would attain more meaningful concepts in their science learning. 5. The students’ achievement in science and their attitude and interest. Based on the analysis of the students’ like and dislike of school data, it was found that the students in the Populations I and II showed their higher positive attitude toward schools than the ones in the Populations III and IV. With regard to the interest shown in the science subject and science activities, the studenst, as a whole, expressed their interest in science and science activities at the low level, Yet, there was a tendency for the students in the higher grades to express more interest in science. This might be caused by two factors: the teachers’ qualification, and their lack of skills in teaching science. Consequently, they could not motivate the children to learn well in this subject. This was followed by the other fact that the children also lacked the opportunity to learn through experimentation and practice. One more important factor was the students’ lack of parental support and encouragement in science learning. All of these seemed to limit the students’ interest and their realization of the significance of science and science activities. 6. The students’ achievement in science in relation to their career expectation. It was found that the students in the Populations II and IV whose total achievement scores in science were high, expected to study further in medicine and engineering, and also expressed their desire to have their careers in medicine and engineering accordingly, However, most of the students in the sample set their expectatio to follow teaching career, civilian service, police and army after their graduation. This finding could be explained in two ways. Firstly, the students who had high achievement scores would be more able to evaluate more realistically their future success than the ones who had low achievement scores. As a general rule, they always engaged themselves dilgently in science and mathematics subjects which they knew that the subjects were very important in their future learning. Secondly, it might be possible that the students who set their expectation for becoming future medical doctors and engineers, would certainl seek for ore knowledge and understanding in science and mathematics. Therefore these two conjectures resulted in their gain of higher achievement scores in science. 7. The students’ achievement in science in relation to sex and age. On the whole, the male students were fond to be the ones who got higher total scores in science. Within the Population II, the older students got higher scores than the younger ones. On the contrary, for the Population IV, the older students got lower scores than the younger ones. This could be explained either by the fact that there were differences in the age range in two populations, or by the way Populations I, II and IV were difined. Populations I-ii were defined by age range; Population IV was by grade. (M.S. V). The age range in the Population II was quite close (just only 1 year apart), whereas the age range in the Population IV was very large (14-20 years). Accordingly, it could be expected that there would be wider differences in the abilities among the sampled students. Especially for the Population IV students, the younger ones who were found to get highter scores, would be generally about 17-18 years old. At the same time, their peers of older ages (more deviant that the average of 17-18) were found to obtain lower achievement. These older ones were less able due to the fact that by their age deviation from the group, they should be else where. This might not be a correct explanation, since there were several other factors to be considered altogether. Yet, such explanation, since there were several other factors to be considered al together. Yet, such explanation was given due to the previous research finding indication that the pupils, who were older than the average class ages, often were the ones who had low achievement. To sum up, the investigation on Thai children’s achievement in science revealed that the students’ achievement had a positive correlation with the students’ social family background, and also with the factors associated with their learning both at home and at school. In general, it was clearly shown that outside school learning factors had greatest influence on their achievement. At the same time, school factors had increasing importance for the students’ success in the science subject as the moved toward their higher grades. Besides, the finding revealed differences in the students’ achievement in science which were related to educational practices within the country. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SWUHOMEPAGEBack to Behavioral Science Research Institute