Name Essel David
Index number WACE/JHS/18/0188
Topic: using activity and manipulative way to improve pupils understanding on series and
parallel circuits connection at Nyetina M/A JHS two
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS/FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter discusses and outlines the results of the research instrument used for the collection
of data for the study.
Table 1
Pre-Intervention Test
Marks obtained
No. of pupils
Percentage (%)
0-2
5
15.6
3-4
9
28.1
5-6
12
37.5
7- 8
4
12.5
9 -10
2
6.3
Total
32
100
From the table above, it could be observed that, five pupils out of the total class representing
15.6% scored marks between zero to two (0-2), nine pupils representing 28.1%, scored marks
between three to four (3-4) marks. Twelve pupils representing 37.5% scored marks between five
to six (5-6), four pupils scored marks between seven to eight (7-8) representing 12.5%and two
pupils (2) representing 6.3% scored marks between nine to ten (9-10).
Table 2
Result of interview conducted on experimental group
Reasons
No. of Respondents
Percentage (%)
Science is difficult
4
28.6
Low interest in science
2
14.3
Do not like how the topic was taught
5
35.7
No TLM was used
3
21.4
Total
14
100
From the interview conducted after the pre-intervention test, the following are the responses.
Four pupils representing 28.6% complain that science was also the response of two pupils
representing 14.3%, five pupils representing 35.7% complained about their dislike about the way
the topic was taught and three pupils representing 21.4% said TLM was used.
Table 3
Post-Intervention Test Result
Marks obtained
0-2
No. of pupils
Percentage
-
-
3-4
1
3.125
5-6
7
21.88
7- 8
13
40.63
9 -10
11
34.38
Total
32
100
At the end of the post-intervention test, the following are the scores obtained by the total
population. No pupil scored zero to two (0—2) marks. One pupil representing 3.125% scored
between three to four (3-4) marks. The marks between five and six (5-6) was scored by seven (7)
pupils representing 40.63% scored marks between seven to eight (7-8) and marks between nine
to ten (9-10) was scored by eleven (11) pupils representing 34.38%.
Discussion
Until a problem is identified, the solution can never be thought of. With this in mind, the
researcher administered a test which helped him to identify pupils’ problem on the differences
between series and parallel connections. The scores obtained from the pre-intervention test,
fourteen (14) pupils representing 43.73% had marks which are below average. With this poor
performance, the researcher realized that pupils had a problem in differentiating between series
and parallel connections. After the problem was identified, the researcher went on to find the cause
of pupils’ inability to differentiate between parallel and series connection through oral interview.
The information solicited from this interview is shown on table two. It was realized that more
than half of the respondent inability to understand the topic was caused by the approach used in
teaching the topic. The research instrument used in collecting data for the study helped to arrive at
findings. The pre-test was able to come out with pupils’ research problem and the oral interview
was able to reveal the reason for pupils’ inability to understand the topic understudy. The general
outcome of the intervention carried out was successful because pupils took active part in the
intervention process. The evaluation exercise (post-test) also came out with tremendous
improvements as shown in table 3 of chapter four.