Quantitative data

Pre-intervention and post-intervention testing

Assessment instruments were specifically designed to determine how students performed relative to the particular programmes’ instructional goals. There were two types of assessment instruments used: (a) tests to determine Piagetian levels and (b) science content tests.

(a) Pre/Post tests specifically designed for cognitive acceleration programmes concerned with Spatial Awareness and Conservation respectively (transfer tests) were cognitive tests administered to determine the Piagetian levels of the children. Spatial Awareness and Conservation are thinking skills, i.e., schema (“ways of thinking”) themselves but as they are not included in the schema in use in the LTEY programme, the researcher chose these tests to provide an opportunity to measure the extent to which thinking skills developed in the main activities were transferable into a situation requiring different thinking skills but also because the tests were appropriate for the age-groups concerned. Since Spatial Awareness and Conservation were two of the pre- and post- tests, the absence of intervention activities relating to either of these schema would allow any change in general cognitive development in that area to be assessed distinct from direct learning effects resulting from the activities.

The Spatial Awareness Test was designed by Michael Shayer and is based on the work of Piaget. The fact that pupils draw their answers, and that Shayer has used this test in completing research with young children, confirms the appropriateness of this test for the early year’s age group in use in this research. The spatial awareness test sought to establish the pupils thinking ability with

another thinking skill / schema not developed in intervention. Shayer (2001) states its function as being “to investigate the relationship between the optimum

Piagetian level at which a pupil can function and the understanding of science which he or she can achieve.” Participants were asked a series of questions pertaining to imagining and recording where items would be if they were moved a certain way. This test also assessed children’s ability to predict positions taken by liquid levels (horizontal) and plumb-lines (vertical) in different situations. It provided an opportunity to measure the extent to which thinking skills, developed in the main activities, were transferable into a situation requiring different thinking skills and as a way of measuring pupil’s piagetian level for comparison and analysis purposes.

A copy of the test, the data collection sheet created by the researcher and the marking system is included in Appendix A. Figure 4.1 illustrates the simple equipment used to carry out this test while Figure 4.2 shows the data collection recorded by one of the pupils.

Figure 4.2 Intervention group undergoing post test 1

The Conservation Test test was sourced from the author of the LTEY programme Anne Robertson (pers. com.), who used it in her initial research for the programme. The “Conservation test” explored the randomly selected pupil’s perception about the conservation of number, quantities of liquids and solids and weight, to provide an opportunity to measure the extent to which thinking skills developed in the main activities were transferable into a situation requiring different thinking skills. Because the conservation test was administered to one child at a time, a randomly selected one–third sample of children from each school were chosen for the test. The researcher did attempt to balance the gender and class location composition of the sample and it is shown in Figure 4.3 and 4.4. A copy of the test, the data collection sheet created by the researcher and the marking system is included in Appendix A.

Figure 4.3 Layout of equipment for pre-test 2

(b) A pre/post-test “Scientific Skills Test” was created to assess the pupils “Scientific thinking” (direct test). The LTEY programme of intervention aims to enhance early science development in the intervention class. Test 3 was prepared by the researcher and validated by independent individuals in the field of education by means of successfully trialling it in their own similar classrooms. The scientific skills test was created purposely to assess the pupils “scientific thinking” (direct test), the specific three scientific schema developed in the intervention activities were assessed in this test to determine the direct learning effects resulting from the activities. This test was important to determine whether the LTEY programme as an intervention helped develop pupils “Thinking Skills”, and improved the pupils “Scientific thinking ” in the specific areas/schemas of:

• Classification: describes a general cognitive ability to put into groups’ objects that have some characteristic in common. Robertson (2006:5) highlights that identifying criteria for belonging to a set, identifying similarities and differences and explaining their thinking can be difficult for young children. • Seriation: describes a general ability to put things into order. • Causality: concentrates on the links between cause and effect. These are the particular science skills focused on in the LTEY programme and an improvement in these therefore would be an indication of a parallel improvement in pupils “thinking skills”. This test also independently places demands on pupils “thinking skills”. Therefore, the scientific skills test also sought to establish the extent to which the intervention class exhibited increased understanding in the science schema of classification, seriation and causality

compared with the remainder of the sample, the non-intervention class, who were not exposed to the learning intervention.

Eight challenging questions were designed to assess if any improvement had been made in pupils “Scientific Skills” and “Thinking Skills” as a result of undertaking the LTEY programme.

• Questions 1, 2, 3 are based on assessing the skills of Classification. • Questions 4, 5, 6 are based on assessing the skills of Seriation. • Questions 7, 8 are based on assessing the skills of Causality Each question becomes increasingly challenging to the pupil. This test was created paralleling the LTEY programme, assessing each specific area/skill intended to be developed.

The researcher found it difficult to create a good balance between questions being “too easy” or “too challenging” , to make them appropriate for the different ages ranging from a “young” four year old to an “old” six year old as you might have in a typical Irish Junior and Senior Classroom. The questions/ directions are all read out by the teacher. Each question is outlined in Table 4.2. The answers to these questions are included in Appendix A. Pupil undertaking pre test 3 is shown in Figure 4.5.

Table 4.2 Question Format for Test 3 QUESTION

TYPE

AIM SCORING

1. Sets To assess classification under 3 variables -size (big/small)

-shape (circle/square)

-colour (yellow/blue) as seen in Figure 4.1.

12 3Q x 4

2. Odd One Out To assess classification; items with a common property.

12 4Q x 3

3. The House To assess classification; furniture into appropriate room.

12 6Q x 2

4. Length Sequence question based on length. 12 4Q x 3 5. Weight Sequence question based on weight. 12 4Q x 3 6. Growing Up Sequence question - Baby to Grandad. 12 6Q x 2 7. What Moves

Me?

Causality question - ‘push’ versus ‘pull’. 12 6Q x 2

8. What

Happened Next?

Causality question – Result of a particular action.

12 4Q x 3

Fig 4.5 Intervention Group undertaking Pre-Test 3