Student scripts

This subsection covers a discussion of the second segment of student interactions through written discourse. From each participant student are discussed: a homework script and a test script. The scripts are discussed using science resources and formations by students as they answer questions and also on the basis of student meaning making and understanding.

5.2.2.1 Homework – food tests

Towards the end of the lesson on food tests Mr. Sameline wrote practice questions on the chalkboard for the students to copy into their notebooks and answer as homework. In all three questions the students used relevant science resources and formations. Even when the answer was not up to the teacher’s expectation but the vocabulary used was pertinent to food tests. Differences among the three students were the extent to which each would answer a question. This indicated different levels of understanding. The three students were at different localities along the continuum of content understanding and content meaning making. Sarah, the most vocal student during Biology lessons, was the closest to the distal end of the continuum of understanding than the other two students. She was followed by Vincent while Sharon was the one closest to the proximal end of the continuum. From the relationship between student classroom discourse and achievement, as observed in this study, one may say that the appropriate classroom discourse by students reflects good meaning making of content and thus good understanding. Therefore, a student who is good at classroom discourse is likely to achieve better in the subject. Observed from the homework scripts were certain mistakes that would lower a student’s achievement in a subject even if the student has used classroom

125

discourse. The mistakes the students made were: giving incomplete answers; grammatical errors; as well as not observing technical aspects. By incomplete answers one refers to such mistakes as not specifying quantities of substances to be reacted, and also leaving out some steps involved in a procedure. Grammatical mistakes were those such as students beginning a person’s surname with a small letter, for example in Benedict’s solution; as well incorrect spelling. A technical error was when the students reported a science procedure in the active voice instead of the passive voice. Content mastery by the subject teacher cannot be left out since content mistakes made by the teacher result in misconceptions by students.

5.2.2.2 Topic test – nutrition

The test concentrated too much on photosynthesis. Three out of four questions (75 per cent) covered photosynthesis leaving out nutrients and the human digestive system. The test also included information the students did not require such as page numbers where answers to the questions could be found, which showed the test was prepared haphazardly. The teacher only photocopied two pages of his Biology Study Guide, wrote the topic and date by hand at the top and simply multiplied the two pages for the students to write as a test. Question four did not carry marks (no indication), questions three and four were numbered by hand. Being a topic test it should have covered, without any bias, all the different sub-topics of the content. Its layout showed students that the teacher did not value the test and that would put serious students off. No wonder this kind of sloppy work showed up even in the examination paper. Teachers are required to set their tests carefully and present them well including the typing.

Vincent made grammatical mistakes and that could be rectified by collaborative work between natural sciences teachers and English language teachers, The natural sciences teacher would help with the content and the scientific language (classroom discourse) while the language teachers would help with the English

126

(everyday science discourse).The students need to be given a lot of practice questions requiring knowledge application since such questions are always found in examination papers and carry a lot of marks compared to other types of questions. Teachers should not allow their students to avoid such questions during lesson time. Vincent’s keeping quiet while learning about the cross- sectional structure of a dicotyledonous leaf did not help him catch up as it appeared in this test in the form of a misconception about chloroplasts. Therefore, natural sciences teachers need to encourage their students to talk in class, especially when there is something that they do not understand.

Coming to the issue of Sarah and Sharon not writing the test since the school administration sent them home to get school fees; one may say that is one of the greatest set-backs in students’ achievement at school. During the time the students are away learning continues and the absentees lose a lot as some may be away for as long as a week or more. The school committee, together with the school administration, need to devise a strategy of getting school fees from parents other than disturbing and making the students responsible to obtain them. Sending the students home for fees stresses them immensely. Some are aware that their parents do not have the money or are not there at all. If a student comes back to school after a week then it becomes problematic for the student to catch up. Take the incident of Sarah and Sharon; their Biology teacher declined to set them another test when they returned, which meant their Biology final score was affected. Finally, the consequences of such losses show up in external examinations at exit points (Standard 5, Forms 3 & 5). All adult stakeholders should shoulder the responsibility of school fees rather than passing it on to the students.

Despite all the limitations stated above the study has made a thorough effort of exposing the discourse patterns in the natural science classroom that could lead to poor performance of students in external examinations.

127