Microsoft Word - GRHE-V1N1-p80 Global Research in Higher Education ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 80 Original Paper Chemistry Students’ Science Process Skills Acquisition: Influence of Gender and Class Size Gladys U. Jack1* 1 Department of Science Education, Taraba State University, Jalingo, Nigeria * Gladys U. Jack, Department of Science Education, Taraba State University, P.M.B 1167, Jalingo, Nigeria Received: April 14, 2018 Accepted: May 10, 2018 Online Published: May 21, 2018 doi:10.22158/grhe.v1n1p80 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v1n1p80 Abstract Science process skills are central to the acquisition of scientific knowledge which is useful in problem solving in our immediate environment. In Nigeria, most secondary school students’ performances in chemistry in the West Africa Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) are generally low which could probably be attributed to lack or poor exposure to science process skills. The study therefore investigated the influence of gender, and class size on Chemistry students’ acquisition of science process skills. The design adopted for the study was descriptive survey design. The sample comprised of 720 students drawn through multi-stage random sampling from Adamawa and Taraba States in Nigeria. The research instrument was Science Process Skills Knowledge Test in Chemistry’ (SPSKTC). The study indicated that gender have negligible influence on students’ acquisition of science process skills; while large class size have great influence on students’ acquisition of science process skills. The study concluded that most students in Nigerian schools experience difficulty in the acquisition of science process skills. Based on the findings, it was recommended that there should be reduction of student-teacher ratio in schools and training of teachers on science process skills to enable teachers adopt methods that lead students to have the appropriate skills. Keywords Gender, class size, science process skills acquisition, chemistry students 1. Introduction Students are to be made able to acquire scientific knowledge by the processes of thinking, analyzing and interpreting observed facts. A new approach capable of triggering the processes of thinking, analyzing and inferring in the students’ mind is needed. Process approach is designed to attain these www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 81 Published by SCHOLINK INC. objectives in teaching science. Process approach presents the instruction in science in an intellectually stimulating and a scientifically authentic way. Here, emphasis is given to the ways of acquiring knowledge rather than to the content. This is a shift from the traditional approach. As a result, outlook on different aspects of instructional practice in science teaching, the designing of instructional objectives and the instructional strategies have changed totally, as also the method of evaluating the results of these processes, i.e., the process outcomes of science teaching. Process approach demands that students utilize their intellect and apply their ability to engage themselves in thinking and reasoning more dynamically. What is actually attained by the process approach is that students are initiated into being scientific investigators themselves. It is also expected to help students become better consumers of scientific knowledge and also enable them to make original scientific contributions to science. The process approach to teaching science is meant to foster inquiry and manipulative skills in students and discourage rote learning. This approach embraces other methods of science teaching and is mainly activity based, superior to those in which students are not actively involved in the learning process (Akinbobola, 2008). This has made the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) and other bodies that conduct Senior School Certificate Examination (SSCE) to stipulate that practical Chemistry should form the basis of teaching. During examination, practical Chemistry is also assessed separately. Currently, Chemistry being one of the science subjects taught in senior secondary schools is taught both in theory and in practical. In both internal and external examinations, practical Chemistry is assessed separately as an integral part of the subject and students are expected to have acquired certain science process skills on completion of the senior secondary school. The new science curriculum worldwide stresses science process skills and places emphasis on the development of higher cognitive skills through the student-centred approach (Shulman & Tamir, 2004). This approach, according to Molitor and George (2001) develops the understanding of science process skills through participation of students in activities in science classrooms. Ogunnniyi (2000) opined that the relevance of acquisition of process skills in science teaching is that it involves students’ in “doing science”. The acquisition of process skills by “doing science” enables students to, understand the concepts of Chemistry, one of the key science subject easily. Science as a practical subject provides students with an opportunity to interact with science process skills that can be used to solve problems in everyday life and contribute to national development (Abungu, Okere, & Wachanga, 2014). Science process skills are activities, which students carry out in scientific investigations to enable the acquisition of scientific knowledge and skills. Science Process Skills (SPS) are also defined as the adaptation of the skills used by scientists for composing knowledge, thinking about problems and drawing conclusion (Farsakoğlu, Sahin, Karsli, Akpinar, & Ultar, 2008). They are also the abilities each individual is supposed to possess in a science-based community as a science literate person (Temiz, 2007). www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 82 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Science process skills acquisition refers to a variety of abilities that affect the acquisition, retention, understanding, organization or use of verbal and/or non-verbal information (Amanso & Bassey, 2017). Science process skills acquisition in a generic term refers to a heterogeneous group ability manifested in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities, or of social skills (Hallahan & Mercer, 2007). Ajunwa (2000) observed that science process skills have general commonality in all science subjects, serving as tools for information gathering, problem solving, decision making and adaptation. Science process skills are classified as basic (observing, measuring, classifying, collecting data and using number relationships), causal (predicting, identifying variables and drawing a conclusion) and experimental (formulating hypotheses, making models, experimenting, controlling variables and making a decision) (Ayas, Cepni, Ozmen, Yigit, & Ayvaci, 2007). All of these science process skills are complementary of each other, providing students opportunities to reach meaningful learning goals in science. Science process skills also help in preventing the memorization of facts and developing negative attitudes in science (Temiz, 2007; Dirks & Cunningham, 2006). Science process skills have great influence on education because they help students to develop higher mental processes such as problem-solving, critical thinking and making a decision (Tan & Temiz, 2003; Koray, Koksal, Ozdemir, & Presley, 2007). Science process skills are cognitive and psychomotor skills employed in problem solving. They are the skills which the sciences use in problem-identification, objective inquiry, data gathering, transformation, interpretation and communication. Science process skills can be acquired and developed through training such as are involved in science practical activities. They are the aspect of science learning which is retained after cognitive knowledge has been forgotten. Using science process skills is an important indicator of transfer of knowledge which is necessary for problem-solving and functional living. The knowledge of process skills in science is very important for proper understanding of concepts in science. Alfredo, Natale and Lombardi (2006) stated that process skills are fundamental to science, which allow everyone to conduct investigation and reach conclusions. They observed that there is a serious educational gap in this area, both in bringing these skills into the classroom and in the training of teachers to use them effectively. The skills in qualitative and quantitative analysis cannot be completed without creativity. Practical work is not just putting the apparatus together when seen, but it needs planning, designing a problem, creating a new approach and procedure and also putting familiar things together in the new arrangement. This implies that the knowledge of creativity exhibited by candidates in any practical class helps them to manipulate some practical equipment. According to Giddings and Fraser in Akinbobola and Afolabi (2010), achieving the objectives of science practical work depends a lot on the mode of assessment of laboratory work adopted by teachers and examination bodies. According to them, the mode of assessment directly influences teachers’ teaching methods, students’ learning styles and attitudes towards practical activities. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 83 Published by SCHOLINK INC. The West African Examinations Council (WAEC) makes use of practical test/examination to assess students’ acquisition of various Chemistry practical skills. In these tests, students are required to carry out certain Chemistry practical activities following given instructions. The scores of the students indirectly indicate the levels of Chemistry practical process skills they could demonstrate during the practical examination. This mode of assessment is also adopted by Chemistry teachers who prepare the students for Senior School Certificate Examination (SSCE). This mode of assessment influences the teaching methods adopted by teachers. Also, students’ learning style is influenced in such a way that students always try to find certain correct responses or answers, irrespective of the procedures adopted. In North-Eastern part of Nigeria, secondary school students’ performances in chemistry in the West Africa Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) are generally low which could probably be attributed to lack or poor exposure to science process skills. Series of reports from the chief examiners of WAEC, 2007-2017 and that of Ochu (2007), and Jack (2013) showed that Chemistry students were deficient in interpreting data, descriptive ability, calculative ability, drawing inference and also in qualitative chemical analysis. It, therefore, follows that the trend is not improving even in recent years. Gender and class size are some of the major factors affecting the quality of learning and chemistry students acquisition of science process skills. Ukwungwu and Ezike (2000) have noted that many factors have been known to affect the academic performance of students in science and Chemistry in particular; and among these factors is the difference between boys and girls or gender. Akpokorie (2000) researched on the effects of sex on difficulties experienced by students in 15 process skills using 600 JSS3 integrated science students from schools in Delta State and the study revealed that; gender has no significant effect on the magnitude of difficulties experience by integrated science students on each of the 15 process skills. This finding also supports the that of Omajuwa (2011) who found that gender have no influence on students experienced difficulty in science process skills acquisition; contradicts the works by Afif and Majdi (2015) whose results of the study indicated that there were significant differences in science process skills due to gender in favour of the females. Commeyras (2003) reported that effective teaching seems impracticable for teacher educators having large class sizes of 50, 75, 100 or more. According to Ajaja (2010) very large class sizes, which exist in schools, have made healthy interactions between students and teachers almost non-existent. Most teachers hardly know their students by their names. The large class size has reduced individual student’s attention during practical lesson. Students seeking special attention as a result of lack of clear instruction in practical lessons are hardly attended to. All these culminate in very poor performances of students in test of practical knowledge in final year examinations. A number of studies have looked at the influence of class size on a variety of teaching and learning issues. Class size was also identified by most respondents as a major hindrance for effective teaching and learning. Adeyela (2000) found that large class size is un-conducive for serious academic work. Also Afolabi (2002) found no significant relationship among the class size and students’ learning outcomes. Chemistry requires getting the students involved, as most of the topics involve demonstration, if they could be well understood but www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 84 Published by SCHOLINK INC. this becomes very difficult when the class is large. But, out these studies reviewed the influence of class size on students’ science process skills acquisition was not investigated which called for urgent attention to the researcher. Chemistry is taught in most schools as a bundle of abstractions without practical experiences. This has resulted to students’ low acquisition of science process skills which has become more evident in the mass failure of students in the subject in public examinations. All the questions asked to test Chemistry students’ knowledge in practical skills require that they demonstrate one form of process skill or the other. The inability of students to carry out these activities properly results in low scores in the test of practical knowledge. The basic science process skills are useful in science and non-science situations while the integrated skills are the working behaviour of scientists and technologists. Thus, both basic and integrated science process skills are relevant and appropriate for all science subjects, in particular Chemistry at the senior secondary schools. Hence, there is need to find out the level of acquisition of the process skills, and influence of gender and class size since process skills are very fundamental to science and there exists a serious educational gap in this area both in bringing these skills into the classroom. Therefore, the problem of this study is: “will assess of secondary school chemistry students’ acquisition on science process skills help in bringing the process skills into the classroom and minimizing difficulty encountered by the students”? The following research questions were raised to guide this study: 1) What specific basic and integrated science process skills do Chemistry students experience difficulty in acquiring? 2) Does gender influence Chemistry students’ difficulty in science process skills acquisition? 3) Does class size influence Chemistry students’ difficulty in science process skills acquisition? The following research hypotheses were formulated for testing at the 0.05 level of significance: Ho1 There is no significant difference in the mean difficulty of chemistry students’ scores between basic and integrated science process skills. Ho2 There is no significant difference in the mean difficulty of process skills scores between male and female Chemistry students. Ho3 There is no significant difference in the mean difficulty of process skills scores between Chemistry students in small-class size and in large-class size. 2. Method The design adopted for the study is a descriptive survey design. The sampling technique used for the study was a multi-stage random sampling technique. The first stage was selection of 25 Local Government Areas (LGAs) that have senior secondary schools offering the basic science subjects from each of the three senatorial districts of Adamawa and Taraba states of Nigeria. The second stage was selection of 36 public schools from the 25 LGAs that have science laboratories and qualified chemistry teachers who had taught the subject for a minimum of 5 years to ensure that teachers’ qualification and www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 85 Published by SCHOLINK INC. experience does not confound the result of the study. The third stage was random sampling of 20 SS III Chemistry students from each of the 36 schools giving a sample size of seven hundred and twenty students. Out of this total number sampled 202 males and 196 females. The research instrument that was used for this study is; Science process skills Knowledge Test in Chemistry (SPSKTC) which consisted of two sections: Section A which demanded personal information on the school and respondent (bio data) and Section B which consisted of 70 questions on 15 items which include 6 basic or lower skills (observing, classifying, measuring, communicating, recording, using number relationships) and 9 higher or integrated skills (hypothesizing, predicting, inferring, identifying/controlling variables, interpreting data, defining operationally, experimenting, manipulating, and building mental models). The SPSKTC was a test of knowledge on 15 Science process skills, having options A-D where students are expected to choose only one correct answer. Each correct answer was assigned 1mark while the incorrect (wrong) answer was assigned 0 mark. The mean scores for each process skill by each student were collated by counting the number of students that experienced difficulty in process skills acquisition and expressed in simple percentages. Tests of skills involve testing the application of students’ knowledge to problems or situations so as to assess the level of student knowledge in comparison to a particular competence which was 15 items or process skills. The test of knowledge on Science process skills covers both the basic and integrated skills and these were adapted from WAECSSCE Alternative to practical Chemistry past questions of 10 years. The Science process skills Knowledge Test in Chemistry (SPSKTC) was subjected to both content and face validity by three experts in science education and two in test and measurement. Two Chemistry teachers who had taught this subject for more than eight years also helped in the validation of the instrument. The items were actually tested on a sample of the target population to determine the reliability. The items were pre-tested using 20 SS III Chemistry students in two randomly selected secondary schools in Adamawa and Taraba States. The data obtained was subjected to Kuder Richardson formula 21 to obtain the correlation value. A correlation coefficient of 0.78 was obtained which was considered adequate for this study. After the administration of the SPSKTC, students’ answers were collected and scored. The data collected were arranged and analyzed so as to answer the research questions and test the stated hypotheses. Descriptive statistics in terms of means, frequencies, percentages and standard deviation were used to analyze the response measures on SPSKTC. The level of difficulty of a particular process skill was determined by the value of the mean as follows: means scores less than 50 (<50) were classified as “Difficult”, and means scores equal to or above 50 (≥50) as “Simple”. Each student was scored on each of the science process skills before the individual scores were aggregated to form a composite means scores. The data collected were analyzed using means and t-test. The hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance with t-test statistics which were calculated with SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 16.0 version. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 86 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 3. Result Research Question 1: What specific science process skills do Chemistry students experience difficulty in acquiring? Table 1. Areas of Chemistry Students’ Difficulty in Science Process Skills Acquisition Type of Skills Science Process Skills N Mean Std. Deviation Remarks Basic Skills Observing 720 26.7160 14.82931 Difficult Classifying 720 45.9349 19.66844 Difficult Measuring 720 53.6389 15.79009 Simple Communicating 720 38.8889 17.13528 Difficult Recording 720 38.9167 18.58540 Difficult Using Number Relationships 720 35.7939 20.79647 Difficult Integrated Skills Formulating Hypotheses 720 36.9444 19.75080 Difficult Predicting 720 32.6736 16.60422 Difficult Inferring 720 28.7500 16.98297 Difficult Identifying/Controlling Variables 720 27.9824 15.44749 Difficult Interpreting Data 720 44.1111 19.98021 Difficult Defining Operationally 720 42.8125 18.54138 Difficult Experimenting 720 37.9722 19.21402 Difficult Manipulating Techniques 720 51.0284 18.41318 Simple Building Mental Models 720 51.8619 18.92849 Simple The analysis showed in Table 1 and Figure 1 revealed the specific science process skills that students experience difficulty in acquiring in this order: observing (26.72), identifying/controlling variables (27.98), inferring (28.75), predicting (32.67), using number relationships (35.79), formulating hypotheses (36.94), experimenting (37.97), communicating (38.89), recording (38.92), defining operationally (42.81), interpreting data (44.11), and classifying (45.93); while manipulating technique (51.03), building mental models (51.86) and measuring (53.64) as simple. Out of these 5 basic skills with mean scores of 39.98 and 7 integrated skills with mean scores of 39.35 were found difficult in acquiring by Chemistry students. Out of the 15 science process skills, 12 (80%) were found difficult by students in acquiring. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 87 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Figure 1. Areas of Chemistry Students’ Difficulty in Science Process Skills Acquisition Research Hypotheses 1: There is no significant difference in the mean difficulty of chemistry students’ scores between basic and integrated science process skills. Table 2 was used to answer research hypothesis 2. Table 2. T-Test Summary Table Comparing Mean Difficulty of Chemistry Students’ Scores between Basic and Integrated Science Process Skills Scores Type of Skills N Mean Std. Deviation Df t ∝ P≤ .05 Decision Basic Skills 720 40.0020 19.77573 718 .483 0.05 .637 Not Significant Integrated Skills 720 39.3485 20.05593 *Significant at p≤.05 Decision=Not Significant at p>0.05 level (H01 Not rejected or Retained). As indicated in Table 2 the t value for skills type is .483 not significant at p=.637: p>0.05 level of significance; showing that the significant (2-tailed) is greater than 0.05 showing non-significant difference between students’ difficulty in basic and integrated skills, hence the null hypothesis was retained. Thus the hypothesis 1, no difference between students’ difficult in basic and integrated skills was not rejected. Research Question 2: Does gender influence Chemistry students’ difficulty in science process skills acquisition? The analysis showed in Table 3 and Figure 2 revealed that the total mean scores of the male students who experienced difficulty in science process skills acquisition was 42.20 while; the mean scores of the female students who experienced difficulty in science process skills acquisition was 40.40. Both males and females experienced insignificant difficulty in process skills acquisition. Also in Table 3, the t values for sex for the 15 process skills www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 88 Published by SCHOLINK INC. are .637, .484, .458, .677, .635, .639, .638, .644, .637, .794, .553, .522, .528, .520 and .558 which are greater than; 0.05 level of significance. This shows that gender have negligible influence on students’ difficulty in science process skills acquisition but was tested with hypothesis 2. Table 3. Means Scores and T-Test Summary Table for Process Skills Difficulty Experienced by Male and Female Chemistry Students Process skills Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Df T ∝ Observing Male 366 26.8269 14.682 718 .637 0.05 Female 354 26.5590 14.831 Classifying Male 366 45.7285 19.817 718 .484 0.05 Female 354 46.1483 19.539 Measuring Male 366 54.4262 16.736 718 .458 0.05 Female 354 58.4746 19.482 Communicating Male 366 41.1202 19.401 718 .677 0.05 Female 354 39.4068 18.362 Recording Male 366 39.2896 18.328 718 .635 0.05 Female 354 38.4746 18.710 Using number relationships Male 366 38.5792 19.533 718 .639 0.05 Female 354 38.4746 20.111 Formulating hypotheses Male 366 35.8470 19.023 718 .638 0.05 Female 354 38.0791 20.441 Predicting Male 366 33.8115 17.038 718 .644 0.05 Female 354 34.6751 16.935 Inferring Male 366 27.5273 16.305 718 .637 0.05 Female 354 24.4350 3.817 Identifying/Controlling variables Male 366 27.1457 14.742 718 .794 0.05 Female 354 29.0077 16.071 Interpreting data Male 366 43.9891 19.985 718 .553 0.05 Female 354 44.2373 20.003 Defining operationally Male 366 43.0328 18.853 718 .522 0.05 Female 354 42.5847 18.237 Experimenting Male 366 34.5355 18.921 718 .528 0.05 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 89 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Female 354 41.5254 18.891 Manipulating techniques Male 366 52.9246 18.360 718 .520 0.05 Female 354 51.1621 18.464 Building mental models Male 366 53.7445 18.211 718 .558 0.05 Female 354 52.9154 19.4778 Total mean scores (Male)=42.20. Total mean scores (Female)=40.40. Figure 2. Process Skills Difficulty between Male and Female Students Research Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference in the mean difficulty of process skills scores between male and female Chemistry students. Table 4. T-Test Summary Table Comparing Process Skills Difficulty Experienced by Male and Female Chemistry Students Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Df t ∝ P≤ .05 Decision Scores Male 366 39.79 20.166 718 .731 0.05 .465 Not Significant Female 354 40.08 20.319 *Significant at p≤.05 Decision=Not Significant at p>0.05 level (H02 Not rejected or Retained). In Table 4, the t-ratio for gender is .731 is not significant at p=.465: p>0.05 level of significance; showing that the significant (2-tailed) is less than .05. The result showed that there was no significant difference in the mean difficulty process skills scores between male and female Chemistry students. Based on this, hypothesis two was not rejected. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 90 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Table 5. Means Scores and T-Test Summary Table for Process Skills Difficulty Experienced by Chemistry Students in Large Class and Small Class Sizes Process skills Class size N Mean Std. Deviation Df t ∝ Observing Large 420 23.8937 12.75058 718 .000 0.05 Small 300 36.6740 16.01602 Classifying Large 420 41.3177 18.79779 718 .001 0.05 Small 300 52.3411 18.98985 Measuring Large 420 49.9048 15.60217 718 .003 0.05 Small 300 58.8667 14.54030 Communicating Large 420 35.8333 17.49247 718 .000 0.05 Small 300 47.8333 18.38747 Recording Large 420 30.7619 17.04663 718 .001 0.05 Small 300 46.2667 18.45347 Using number relationships Large 420 34.7619 19.07629 718 .000 0.05 Small 300 44.0667 19.58078 Formulating hypotheses Large 420 30.3333 17.00437 718 .000 0.05 Small 300 46.8000 19.74147 Predicting Large 420 28.3929 12.76651 718 .001 0.05 Small 300 39.5000 19.23930 Inferring Large 420 21.6667 13.40870 718 .002 0.05 Small 300 32.8333 15.87384 Identifying/Controlling variables Large 420 25.4416 13.09896 718 .000 0.05 Small 300 32.7288 17.47558 Interpreting data Large 420 38.9524 18.50879 718 .000 0.05 Small 300 51.3333 19.75322 Defining operationally Large 420 39.2857 15.39346 718 .001 0.05 Small 300 48.2500 17.79728 Experimenting Large 420 26.8571 13.70081 718 .000 0.05 Small 300 54.2667 14.22921 Manipulating techniques Large 420 48.6604 18.44942 718 .002 0.05 Small 300 56.4552 17.43564 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 91 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Building mental models Large 420 49.0573 18.75935 718 .003 0.05 Small 300 59.5667 16.84533 Total mean scores (large class size)=35.01. Total mean scores (small class size)=50.80. The analysis showed in Table 5 and Figure 3 revealed that the mean scores of students that are from large class sizes that experienced difficulty in acquiring Science process skills were 35.01; while the mean scores of students that are from small class sizes who experienced difficulty in acquiring Science process skills was 50.80. Table 5 also showed the t values for class size for the 15 process skills which are .000, .001, .003, .000, .001, .000, .000, .001, .002, .000, .000, .001, .000, .002 and .003 which are less than 0.05. This shows that class size have great influence on students’ difficulty in Science process skills acquisition since the mean percent is significant; but was tested with Ho3. Figure 3. Process Skills Difficulty Experienced by Chemistry Students in Large Class and Small Class Sizes Research Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference in the mean difficulty of process skills scores between Chemistry students in small-class size and in large-class size. Table 6. T-Test Summary Table Comparing Process Skills Difficulty Experienced by Chemistry Students in Large Class and Small Class Sizes Class size N Mean Std. Deviation df T ∝ p ≤.05 Decision Scores Large 420 35.011 18.614 718 -30.500 0.05 .000 Significant Small 300 46.362 19.702 *Significant at p ≤ .05 Decision=Significant at p< 0.05 level (H03 Rejected). www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 92 Published by SCHOLINK INC. As indicated in Table 6, the t-ratio for class size is -30.500 at p=.000: p<0.05; showing that the significant (2-tailed) is less than .05 hence the null hypothesis Ho3 was rejected. The result showed that there was a significant difference in the mean difficulty process skills scores between Chemistry students in small-class size and those in large-class size. 4. Research Findings The results of the analysis showed that: i. 12 science process skills (80%) were found difficult by students in acquiring which includes: observing, identifying/controlling variables, inferring, predicting, using number relationships, formulating hypotheses, experimenting, communicating, recording, defining operationally, interpreting data, and classifying; with a total mean scores of 39.35 out of the 15 science process skills. ii. There was no significant difference in the mean difficulty process skills scores of Chemistry students between the basic and integrated science process skills acquisition. iii. There was no significant difference in the mean difficulty process skills scores between male and female Chemistry students. iv. There was a significant difference in the mean difficulty process skills scores between Chemistry students in small-class size and in large-class size. 5. Discussion The analysis of the data collected gave rise to the following findings which are discussed. The findings of the study as presented in Table 1 revealed the specific science process skills that students experience difficulty in acquiring in this order: observing, identifying/controlling variables, inferring, predicting, using number relationships, formulating hypotheses, experimenting, communicating, recording, defining operationally, interpreting data and classifying; while manipulating technique, building mental models and measuring as simple. Out of these 5 basic skills with mean scores of 39.98 and 7 integrated skills with mean scores of 39.35 were found difficult in acquiring by Chemistry students respectively. Out of the 15 science process skills, 12 (80%) were found difficult by students in acquiring. This variation in difficulty levels of Science process skills can be attributed to the type of activities to which the students were exposed. Adeyemi (2000) found that not all the process skills in Chemistry are found difficult by students. The findings of this study which indicated that students found controlling variables very difficult, contradicted earlier findings of Omajuwa (2011) who found controlling variables less difficult; but agrees with the study by Akpokorie (2000) which showed that students found controlling variables very difficult. According to Adeyemi (2000), when students are always exposed to practical lessons, with good quality of teachers and quality of teaching methods, they will obviously find most of these process skills less difficult. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 93 Published by SCHOLINK INC. As indicated in Table 2 the t value for skills type is .483 not significant at p=.637: p>0.05 level of significance; showing that the significant (2-tailed) is greater than 0.05 showing non-significant difference between students’ difficulty in basic and integrated skills, hence the null hypothesis was retained. Thus the hypothesis one, no difference between students’ difficult in basic and integrated skills was not rejected. The result showed no significant difference in the mean difficulty process skills scores between Chemistry students who experience difficulty in acquiring the basic and integrated science process skills acquisition. This finding may be hinged on the quality of teachers and instructional modes used by the teachers. This finding supports the work of Akpokorie (2000) and Omajuwa (2011) whose study showed that students find most process skills difficult. According to earlier work Ajaja (2010), the reason why students may find all process skills difficult could be due to the persistent use of lecture methods for teaching Chemistry as against the recommended use of laboratory and discovery/inquiry approaches which are student-activity centred. The analysis showed in Table 3 revealed that the total mean scores of the male students who experienced difficulty in science process skills acquisition was 42.20 while; the mean scores of the female students who experienced difficulty in science process skills acquisition was 40.40. Both males and females experienced insignificant difficulty in process skills acquisition. This shows that gender have negligible influence on students’ difficulty in science process skills acquisition but was tested with hypothesis 2. In Table 4, the t-ratio for sex is .731 is not significant at p=.465: p>0.05 level of significance; showing that the significant (2-tailed) is less than .05. The result showed that there was no significant difference in the mean difficulty process skills scores between male and female Chemistry students. Based on this, Ho2 was not rejected. The result showed that there was no significant difference in the mean difficulty process skills scores between male and female Chemistry students. Based on this, hypothesis two was not rejected. The findings of this study is in agreement with those of Akpokorie (2000) and Omajuwa (2011) who found that gender have no influence on students experienced difficulty in science process skills acquisition; contradicts the works by Afif and Majdi (2015) whose results of the study indicated that there were significant differences in science process skills due to gender in favour of the females. The analysis showed in Table 5 revealed that the mean scores of students that are from large class sizes that experienced difficulty in acquiring Science process skills were 35.01; while the mean scores of students that are from small class sizes who experienced difficulty in acquiring Science process skills was 50.80. This shows that class size have great influence on students’ difficulty in Science process skills acquisition since the mean percent is significant; but was tested with Ho3. As indicated in Table 6, the t-ratio for class size is -30.500 at p=.000: p<0.05; showing that the significant (2-tailed) is less than .05 hence the null hypothesis, Ho3 was rejected. The result showed that there was a significant difference in the mean difficulty process skills scores between Chemistry students in small-class size and those in large-class size. This implies that there was a significant difference in the mean difficulty process skills scores between Chemistry students in small-class size and those in large-class size. This www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 94 Published by SCHOLINK INC. result agrees with the work Adeyela (2000) whose studies revealed that large class size is un-conducive for serious academic work for students and process skills acquisition but; disagrees with the works by Afolabi (2002) and Commeyras (2003) who found no relationship among class size and students’ academic performance and process skills acquisition. According to Ajaja (2010) very large class sizes, which exist in schools, have made healthy interactions between students and teachers almost non-existent. Most teachers hardly know their students by their names. The large class size has reduced individual student’s attention during practical lesson. Students seeking special attention as a result of lack of clear instruction in practical lessons are hardly attended to. All these culminate in very poor performances of students in test of practical knowledge in final year examinations. But, Brophy (2004) opined that large class size can be handled through proper classroom management and group or cooperative teaching in science labs. The following conclusions were made, based on the findings of this research work. This study highlighted the difficulty experienced by Chemistry students in the acquisition of Science process skills. Based on the findings and discussion, it could, therefore, be concluded that majority of the science process skills (80%) with means scores of 39.35 are found difficult by chemistry students’ in acquiring. These process skills include observing, identifying/controlling variables, inferring, predicting, using number relationships, formulating hypotheses, experimenting, communicating, recording, defining operationally, interpreting data, and classifying and this may be as a result of persistence use of lecture method which does not promote active learning in science classrooms. Therefore, an effective, efficient and innovative method that provides students with an opportunity to acquire/interact with science process skills that can be used to solve problems in everyday life and contribute to national development should be encouraged in the teaching learning process to help improve students’ performance in chemistry. The study also revealed that gender have negligible influence on students’ process skills acquisition while large class size have great influence on students science process skills acquisition. Chemistry requires getting the students engaged; as most of the topics involve practical activities but this becomes very difficult when the class is large since it is un-conducive to acquire the appropriate science process skills required by students. The finding of this study implies that small class-sizes in schools enable chemistry students to acquire the appropriate science process skills, therefore large class-sizes should be discouraged from our secondary schools. Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made: 1) The study has established that a large proportion of science process skills 80% are found difficult by Chemistry students in acquiring. Teachers should therefore assess students on the different kinds of science process skills needed in science classes; and educate them on the relevance they play on their everyday life so as to arouse students’ interest towards chemistry and also reduce students difficulty on process skills acquisition. 2) The number of periods per week for practical Chemistry lessons should be increased to create room for more elaborate laboratory activities with students. This may help eradicate students’ www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 95 Published by SCHOLINK INC. difficulties in science process skills acquisition and enhance meaningful teaching-learning process which will lead them in acquiring more process skills. 3) The study has also reaffirmed that majority of the chemistry students’ found difficulty in acquiring both the basic and integrated science process skills. Teachers should therefore make a “Question Collection on both basic and integrated science process skills” and periodically choose a question to initiate a science exploration or activity to reinforce scientific and critical thinking amongst students in order to promote active learning in science classrooms and acquisition of science process skills. 4) The study has also reaffirmed that chemistry students’ acquisition of science process skills is negatively affected by large class size. The student-teacher ratio should be drastically reduced to help improve small class sizes such that adequate attention will be paid to students during laboratory exercises since large class size was identified as a major hindrance for effective teaching and learning in this study. References Abungu, H. E., Okere, M. I. O., & Wachanga, S. W. (2014). The Effect of Science Process Skills Teaching Approach on Secondary School Students’ Achievement in Chemistry in Nyando District, Kenya. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(6), 359-371. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n6p359 Adeyela, J. (2000). Problems of teaching science in large classes at the Junior Secondary School level. In Implications for learning outcome (Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis). University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Adeyemi, T. O. (2008). The influence of class-size on the quality of output in Secondary Schools in Ekiti State, Nigeria. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 3(1), 7-14. Afif, H. Z., & Majdi, R. J. (2015). Science Process Skills and Attitudes toward Science among Palestinian Secondary School Students. World Journal of Education, 5(1), 13-24. Afolabi, F. (2002). School factors and learner curriculum development in Science, Technology and Mathematics Education. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Conference of Science Teacher Association of Nigeria (STAN), 3-4. variables as correlates of senior secondary physics achievement in Ibadan (Unpublished PhD Thesis). University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Ajaja, O. P. (2010). Processes of science skills acquisition: Competences required of science teachers for imparting them. Journal of Qualitative Education, 6(4), 1-6. Ajunwa, C. (2000). Acquisition of physics process skills by secondary school students (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Department of Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Akinbobola, A. O. (2008). Facilitating Nigerian physics students’ attitude towards the concept of heat energy. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis, 45, 353-366. Akinbobola, A. O., & Afolabi, F. (2010). Analysis of science process skills in West African senior secondary school certificate physics practical examinations in Nigeria. Bulgarian Journal of www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 96 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Science and Education Policy (BJSEP), 4(1), 2010. Akpokorie, B. T. (2000). Junior secondary school Integrated Science: Students’ difficulties in process skills acquisition in Warri and its environs (Unpublished M. Ed. Dissertation). DELSU, Abraka. Alfredo, N., & Lombardi, I. (2006). An investigation of students’ learning difficulties in form 1V Chemistry. In Paper presented at the 27th Annual conference proceeding of STAN held at the Federal University of Technology, Owerri (pp. 78-82). Amanso, E. O. I., & Bassey, B. A. (2017). Assessment of Selected Science Process Skills Acquisition among Senior Secondary Schools Students in Calabar Education Zone of Cross River State, Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 10(1), 119 -126. Ayas, A., Cepni, S., Akdeniz, A., Ozmen, H., Yigit, N., & Ayvaci, H. S. (2007). Science and Technology Teaching from Theory to Application (6th ed.). Ankara: Pegem A publishing. Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Commeyras, M. (2003). Promoting a culture in reading. The Comet Thursday, February(13), 32. Dirks, C., & Cunningham, M. (2006). Enhancing diversity in science: Is teaching science process skills the answer? CBE life science Education, 5, 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-10-0121 Farsakoglu, O. F., Sahin, C., Karsli, F., Akpinar, M., & Ultay, N. (2008). A study on Awareness levels of prospective science Teachers on science process skills in science Education. World Applied Science Journal, 4(2), 174-182. Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2007). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of science process skills acquisition: Research to practice (pp. 1-67). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Jack, G. U. (2013). The influence of identified student and school variables on students’ science process skills acquisition. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(5), 16-22. Koray, O., Koksal, M. S., Ozdermir, M., & Presley, A. L. (2007). The effect of create and critical thinking based laboratory applications on academic achievement and science process skills. Elementary Education online, 6(3), 377-389. Molitor, L. L., & George, K. D. (2001). Development of a test of science process skills. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 13(5), 2001. Ochu, A. N. O. (2007). Evaluation of undergraduate Chemistry Education programme in the universities in North Central Education Zone in Nigeria (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis). University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Ogunniyi, M. B. (2000). Primary school, science and methods by ACE series, Nigeria. In Heinemann Educational Books Limited. Omajuwa, J. (2011). Senior secondary school students’ difficulties in Science process skills acquisition (Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation). Delta state university Abraka. Shulman, L. S., & Tamir, P. (2004). Research in teaching in the National Science. In M. W. T. Rober (Ed.), Second handbook of Research on teaching. Rawera, Chigaco, Rand McNally College www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe Global Research in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 97 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Publishing Company. Tan, M., & Temiz, B. K. (2003). The importance and role of the science process skills in science teaching. Journal of Faculty of Education, Pamukkale University, 1(13), 89-101. Temiz, B. K. (2007). Assessing science process skills in physics teaching (Ph.D. Thesis). Gazi University, Institute of Education Science, Ankara, Turkey.