5.3 LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF THE CONTEXTS
5.3.3 Non- recognition of crucial information
It was found that many learners missed crucial information provided in the scenario, which meant that they could not answer the question correctly. I use Q2.2, Q4.2.1 and Q2.1 to supply examples belonging to this category.
Q 2.2
P4, in answering Q2.2.2, did not consider the crucial information necessary to answer this question. He did not see that the number of goals scored by each team was given in the scenario and made a judgment using personal experience:
T: In order to know if they scored more than two whether they drew less than two, or what. Where would you find that information?
L: In the scenario.
T: Point it out for me where it shows you this.
L: Here [points to scoring].
T: But that show the points but where does it show the goals.
L: Shows the goals?
T: Yes, how many goals South Africa got and how many goals maybe USA got if they played them.
L: They didn’t give us the goals.
T: You didn’t look at this part here? Isn’t here they gave us the goals?
L: Yes.
T: So you answered that question you didn’t look at this part here?
L: No.
Q4.2.1
This question required learners to calculate the number of babies who survived their first birthday. The scenario, presented at the beginning of Q4, contained the crucial information that would allow them to interpret a mortality rate of 8,8 as 8,8 deaths per 1000 births. The scenario appeared in the beginning of Q4. There were then 7 sub–questions which followed, none of which required any crucial information provided in the scenario. Then Q4.2.1 appeared as the eighth sub question, and the only one which needed that the crucial information. In Q4.2.1, most learners knew the procedure needed, but the problem was with the interpretation of the figures in the table. None of the 73 learners could appropriate and apply that crucial information in their solution.
Respondent 1 did not know what the values in the table represented. When asked what could have been done to avoid this, the respondent replied:
I’d put this information here [points to below the question] so it would be in the face or probably highlight it or make it bold or something… you know.
R2 said she missed the crucial information because she “didn’t read the block”; when directed to the part where the information was given, R4 said that it would have been better if the information was given close to the question so it could be seen. When directed to the scenario at the beginning, Respondent 5 then realised that the values represented deaths per every 1000 live births and suggested that:
They should have put the scenario just above the question so we wouldn’t have missed it out. They put the scenario above the different set of questions on the scenario and put another table they could have put it under each and said refer to A or B that would have been better.
R6 said that that mistake could be avoided by the task designer by
Putting the relevant information where it’s needed the most, instead of putting it in a paragraph at the beginning.
All the other participants who were interviewed explained similarly that they missed the crucial information because it was so far away from the sub-question.
Q2.1
Participants 1 and 2 felt that the information provided in the scenario was not necessary to fill in the table of Q2.1.1 and did not use the information for Q2.1.5 where it was necessary.
P1 did not think the scenario was necessary to complete the values in Table 2: it could be done by following the number pattern: “…it would have been possible to work without this given [the scenario] as they gave you this first two” [values in the table]. The respondent felt that if the second value in the second row was also given, she could have worked out the other values in the second row: “So I felt if this was given as well [second value in second row], I could have worked all that out [the rest of the values in the second row]”. She tried to use a strategy of sequential number patterns rather than finding a relationship between the variables.
The respondent was not looking at the relationship between the number of workers and the
months taken to complete the stadium but merely a pattern in the independent variable, the number of workers. Because she did not refer to the information in the scenario which specified that the building needed to be completed within 6 months, her answer for Q2.1.5 did not take this fact into account. She just said: “Yes, more workers, less time”.
P2 also felt that the scenario was not necessary in completing the table of values showing the relationship between the number of workers needed to complete the stadium and the time it would take to do so. When asked how he could have found the answers to the table without referring to the scenario, he explained:
L: By reading the questions and seeing what is required … see they say calculate the numeral values of A, B and C. You can see A they needed 400 workers…they got number of months – 2 months, right? See, so you follow these calculations here and I’m sure you’ll find the answers to B and C.
T: So you’re saying that you didn’t need this story here; we could have still worked it out…
L: Yah, yah. We could have still worked it out.
The learners’ lack of understanding of the scenario is further revealed when asked in Question 2.1.5 whether it would be wise for the contractor to save money by employing only 120 workers. The learner’s response was “Yes. Because the stadium will be completed on time and labour costs will not increase unless workers are given overtime”. This response shows that the learner was focusing on the money issue rather than the time issue, which was emphasised in the scenario. The learner was not able to relate the question as a sub-question to Question 2.1 which is related to the relationship between number of workers and time to complete the stadium and not wages. The given scenario has not helped the learner to see this relationship. A possible reason for not using the crucial information to answer Q2.1.5 was that it was possible to answer all the preceding four questions without using that information;
however, it was crucial for Q 2.1.5. But in a similar manner to Q4.2.1, they may have missed it because the crucial information was only needed five questions after it appeared.