Chapter 5: Application of the Models
5.3. Evaluation of the learning experience
After identifying the acquiring of information and thinking skills learning experience operating at eMnambithi TVET College, the arising question is around its effectiveness to equip students for the attainment of curriculum objectives. Hence this section focuses on the actual evaluation of the learning experience. However, prior to the actual evaluation it presents the reliability test of the evaluation instrument.
5.3.1. Reliability of the evaluation instrument
As mentioned in chapter 3 sub-section 3.4.4, Appendix 3 question 10 was used to confirm the reliability of both data collection instruments (Appendix 2 and 3). Given both Appendices 2 and 3 are the same except their numerical values, the reliability of Appendix 3 implies the reliability of Appendix 2. The testing of the reliability was to make sure that the instrument was within the capabilities of the students, even though we have taken the questions from their curriculum. Table 5.2 presents the responses of students when they were asked if the data collection instrument is relevant to their curriculum? The results indicate that the first portion of 55.6% responded yes, the second portion of 4.3% responded no, and the last portion of 40.4% did not answer the question. The last portion (40.4%) will be excluded since their stand is unclear. Therefore, when we only consider the first and second portion; we find that majority (55.6%) of the students considered the questions in Appendix 1 and 2 to be relevant to their curriculum. Hence the data collection instruments were reliable, from both the perspectives of the researcher and the participants.
Page | 74 Table 5.2.: Validation of the evaluation instrument with Appendix 3 question 10.
Students’ response Number of students Percentage
Yes 26 55.6%
No 2 4.3%
No comment 19 40.4%
On the other hand, the 55.6% majority also indicate a possibility ofsatisfactory N1 and N2 mathematics lecturers’ content delivery abilities. In that regard, the current work establishes an assumption that the lecturer’s content delivery ability was satisfactory at eMnambithi TVET College. As mentioned, according to some scholars there are many variables that can contribute to students attaining HOTS; but the most critical are lecturer’s content delivery abilities and the curriculum [Yen and Halili, 2015; Chinedu and Kamin, 2015; Tanujaya et al, 2017;
Retnawati et al, 2018; Gupta and Mishra, 2021]. The 55.6% majority results of the current study, leaves the curriculum as the only major contributing factor in the occasion where students are found to have a poor HOTS. Hence, in that case the impact of the curriculum remains the only variable to be evaluated in Appendix 1 and 2 students’ responses.
5.3.2. Actual evaluation of the learning experience
The actual learning experience evaluation was executed using the average difference (𝑋̅) developed in chapter 4, see sub-section 4.2.2. The average difference does not necessary measure the actual quantity of the curriculum objectives attained, but rather it measures the improvement of student’s objectives attainment from the pre-assessment to post assessment.
Hence a higher average difference does not necessarily reflect the high number of objectives attained, but rather it reflects a good impact of the learning experience on students. For instance, student A obtained 2% on the pre-assessment and 60% on the post assessment. Student B obtained a 90% on the pre-assessment and 90% on the post assessment. Student B will have a lower average difference (improvement) but higher objectives attainment than student A.
In our case, all the necessary parameters for the calculation of average difference were taken from the actual data summarised in Appendix 5 and the results are presented in Table 5.3. The average difference was found to be 15.34%, excluding student number 29 in Appendix 5. The
Page | 75 Table 5.3: Parameters for learning experience evaluation extracted from Appendix 5.
Parameters Actual Data Values
Summation of percentage difference
∑ 𝑥𝑖
47
𝑖=1
= 705.44
Total number of students 𝑁 = 47
Average difference 𝑋̅ =15.34%
Table 5.4: SVHIR compartment values from the actual data in Appendix 5.
Compartment Parameters Actual Data Values
Initial time (in days) 𝑡0 = 1
Final time (in days) 𝑡𝑓 = 180
Initial Susceptible individuals 𝑆0 = 47
Final Susceptible individuals 𝑆𝑓 = 2
Initial Infected individuals 𝐼0 = 0
Final Infected individuals 𝐼𝑓 = 36
Initial Healthy individuals 𝐻0 = 0
Final Healthy individuals 𝐻𝑓 = 6
Initial Recovered individuals 𝑅0 = 0
Final Recovered individuals 𝑅𝑓 = 3
Final Vaccinated individuals 𝑉𝑓= 𝐻𝑓+ 𝐼𝑓+ 𝑅𝑓 = 45
Initial Total number of individuals 𝑁0 = 47
Final Total number of individuals 𝑁𝑓 = 47
* 𝑉𝑓 = 𝐻𝑓+ 𝐼𝑓+ 𝑅𝑓 from equation 5 in chapter 4.
student obtained 100% in both assessments of the objectives’ attainment; hence improvement cannot be measured since there was no room for improvement for that student. The obtained 15.34% average difference is far less than 50%. This means on average the learning experience in operation only improves the students’ Objectives attainment by 15.34% from the pre- assessment. Hence, we deduce that the current learning experience in operation is not effective enough to equip students for the curriculum objectives attainment.
As elaborated in chapter 4 sub-section 4.2.1, the three components of the learning experience are selected learning situations, learning activities and students’ interaction. However, the
Page | 76 foundation of the three components is the curriculum, given the curriculum has a major influence to determining the nature of each component. Therefore, whatever is reflected by each component relates to the effectiveness of the curriculum. In that regard, we deduce that the N1 to N2 TVET College’s mathematics curriculum is most likely to be incapable of equipping students for the attainment of its own objectives at eMnambithi TVET College.