Implications

Seven instruments were used for this study, they include:

(i) Summary Writing Achievement Test (SWAT)

(ii) Attitude to Summary Writing Questionnaire (ASWQ) (iii) Cognitive style Inventory (CSI)

(iv) Instructional Guide on Explicit Instructional Strategy (IGEIS) (v) Instructional Guide on Generative Instructional Strategy (IGGIS) (vi) Instructional Guide on Conventional method (IGMLM)

(vii) Teachers‘ Evaluation Sheet (TES)

3.5.1 Summary Writing Achievement Test (SWAT)

The instrument was a passage adopted from the students‘ recommended textbook. It was a summary passage titled: The features of poverty. SWAT was used as both the pretest and posttest to measure students‘ achievement in summary writing.

Questions set on the passage were made parallel to those obtained in WASSCE examinations The reliability of the instrument was determined by using test-retest method, and a reliability co-efficient of 0.81 was obtained. SWAT was scored using the criteria suggested in the WASSCE marking guides for May/June 2012. That is:

1. Five (5) marks were awarded for every correct answer.

2. Zero was awarded for a mindless lifting.

3. Half (½) mark was deducted for every spelling mistake.

4. Half of the marks allotted for a correct answer was awarded for answers that were not written as sentences.

3.5.2 Attitude to Summary Writing Questionnaire (ASWQ).

The Attitude to Summary Writing Questionnaire was made up of two sections, A and B. Section A is meant to elicit demographic data of the respondents like school, sex, class, age; and section B consisted of 15 items adapted from Fakeye (2001) who

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

66

worked on composition writing and so, the instrument was adapted to measure attitude to summary writing. It contained information on students‘ attitude and general disposition to the teaching and learning of summary writing. Students‘ response to the items was a closed response modes of four point scale of strongly agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD). The scoring for the positive items was based on 4, 3, 2, and 1for strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree respectively and reversed for the negatively worded items. The first nine items were positively stated while items 10 to 15 were negatively stated. To validate the ASWQ, the instrument was given to experts in the Department of Teacher Education, University of Ibadan for review and their recommendations were incorporated to produce the final draft. The instrument was administered to 80 SS Two students from two schools that were not part of the main study to determine the reliability and internal consistency of the scores using Cronbach alpha formula. The standardised alpha value of 0.78 was obtained.

3.5.3 Cognitive Style Inventory (CSI)

The instrument was adapted from Lorna Martin (1998) to assess the global and analytic cognitive style dimensions. The instrument was an inventory which contained 36 items numbered using alphabets range of A to JJ with a five point scale of Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Undecided (U), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD) to be scored 1,2,3,4 and 5 respectively before it was adapted into a 30-item four point scale of Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD).

The scoring was based on 4, 3, 2, and 1for strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree respectively. Also, the numbering pattern was changed from alphabets to numeral range of 1 to 30. All the items in the inventory were positively stated; items that fall into the odd number-group addressed the global cognitive style dimension while the items in the even number-group covered the analytic group. Therefore, there were a total of 15 items per group in the cognitive style inventory (CSI). Section A covered the demographic information of each of the respondents such as: name, class, sex, age, while the section B comprised a 30 – item questionnaire.

To validate the CSI, the instrument was given to test experts in the Department of Guidance and Counselling, University of Ibadan for review. Their inputs were included and the instrument was then administered to 80 SS Two students from two schools that were not part of the schools selected for the main study in order to

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

67

determine the reliability and internal consistency of the scores using Cronbach alpha formula. The standardised alpha value of 0.74 was obtained.

3.5.4 Instructional Guide on Explicit Instructional Strategy

The guide on Explicit Instructional Strategy was self-designed using the steps in the Explicit Instruction framework designed by Goeke, St^..uhrenberg and Witt (2008). It was a teacher-directed approach which used to teach the experimental group one. The guide comprised eight periods and its main features included general information which consisted of subject, aspect, topic, objectives, duration and procedural prompts. It also consisted of pre-instruction set, preparing the knowledge base for instruction, cognitive modelling, guided practice, independent practice and closure. The content was developed to cover eight weeks and specific treatment package was designed for each week. Detailed components of the Explicit Instructional guide are in the appendix section.

Validation of the IGEIS

The instructional guide was given to two experienced senior secondary school English teachers for review and their corrections were incorporated in the guide. Also, the researcher‘s supervisor and other lecturers in the Department of Teacher Education, University of Ibadan were presented with the draft of the instrument for corrections on the suitability of content, language of presentation and the workability of the instructional strategy. Corrections were then effected based on the suggestions given.

3.5.5 Instructional Guide on Generative Instructional Strategy

This instructional guide was adapted from Ogunleye and Babajide (2011) who worked on Physics and it was used to teach the experimental group two. The content of the guide covered a period of eight weeks and its main features included general information which consisted of subject, aspect, topic, objectives and duration. It is learner-centred and students were to work in groups of five. The instructional guide contained information for teachers who were to facilitate the teaching-learning process. The instructional guide provided opportunity for learners to play active roles and be at the centre of the learning process. It was made up of five procedural steps, which included: introductory, focusing, activity, discussion and application Phases.

Detailed components of the Generative Instructional guide are in the appendix section.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

68 Validation of IGGIS

For validation, two experienced senior secondary school English language teachers, the researcher‘s supervisor and other lecturers in the Department of Teacher Education, University of Ibadan were presented with the draft of the instrument for corrections on the suitability of content, language of presentation and the workability of the Instructional Strategy. Corrections were then effected based on the recommendations received.

3.5.6 Instructional Guide on Conventional method (IGMLM)

This Conventional method was used to teach the control group and it consists of eight periods of lesson based on commonly used or normal classroom teaching.

The main feature of the guide are general information which consists of subject, topic, procedure, general objectives, duration and content with specific treatment package for each week. It is a teacher-centred approach because it focuses more on the teacher and his activities in the classroom. The steps involved include: introduction, entry behaviour, explanation, exercises, and note copying and marking. Detailed components of the conventional teaching strategy are in the appendix section.

Validation of the IGMLM

For validation, two English language teachers in the senior secondary school, the researcher‘s supervisor and other lecturers in the Department of Teacher Education, University of Ibadan were presented with the draft of the instrument for corrections on the suitability of content, language of presentation and the workability of the Instructional Strategy. Corrections were effected based on the recommendations received.

3.5.7 Teachers’ Evaluation Sheet (TES)

The TES was a self-designed instrument to assess the research assistants‘

competence at using the Explicit and Generative Instructional Strategies. It was used to grade or score the research assistants during the practice sessions in preparation for the treatment stage. Separate teachers‘ evaluation sheet (TES) were designed for the Explicit and Generative lessons. Explicit Instructional Strategy Teachers‘ Evaluation Sheet (EISTES) using six components of Explicit Instruction according to Goeke (2008) and Generative Instructional Strategy Teachers‘ Evaluation Sheet (GISTES) using the five phases of Generative Instruction by Ogunleye and Babajide (2011) were used to observe and assess the research assistants. Four teachers with the highest score in the TES were selected to participate in the study. Detailed components of the

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

69

Explicit and Generative instructional strategies teachers‘ evaluation sheets are in the appendix section.

Validation of the TES

The teachers‘ evaluation sheets were presented to lecturers in the Teacher Education Department, University of Ibadan for consideration and suggestions on how to improve the quality of the TES. Also, the researcher‘s supervisor was presented with a draft of the instrument for corrections and input on the appropriateness of language, distribution of scores and arrangement of the different components of instructional. Corrections were effected based on the recommendations received. The reliability of TES was determined through inter-rater reliability and using Scott Pie, reliability co-efficient of .81was obtained.