Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A SCALE FOR
ASSESSING STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION IN THE
LEARNING OF CHEMISTRY
BEING AN M.Ed RESEARCH THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
SCIENCE EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA NSUKKA, IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF MASTERS
DEGREE IN MEASUREMENT AND
EVALUATION
BY
AKWALI, PHOEBIAN CHIBUOGWU
PG/M.Ed/09/50899
MAY, 2012
i
TITLE PAGE
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A SCALE FOR
ASSESSING STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION IN THE
LEARNING OF CHEMISTRY
BY
AKWALI, PHOEBIAN CHIBUOGWU
PG/M.Ed/09/50899
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION FACULTY OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
MAY, 2012
ii
APPROVAL PAGE
This thesis report has been approved by the Department of Science Education,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
BY
____________________ ___________________
PROF. Z.C NJOKU PROF. D. N. Ezeh
Project Supervisor Head of Department
______________________ _______________________
Professor Joshua Monday Professor B. G. Nworgu
External Examiner Internal Examiner
_________________________________
Professor IK. C.S. Ifelunni
(Dean, Faculty of Education)
iii
CERTIFICATION
Akwali, Phoebian Chibuogwu a postgraduate student in the Department of Science
Education with Registration Number PG/M.Ed/09/50899 has satisfactorily completed the
requirements for course and research work for the degree of Masters of Education in Science
Education (Measurement and Evaluation). The work embodied in this thesis report is original
and has not been submitted in part or full for any other Diploma or Degree of this or any other
university.
____________________ __________________
AKWALI, PHOEBIAN .C PROF. Z.C NJOKU
(Student) (Project Supervisor)
iv
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered for me on the cross of
Calvary.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researcher gives thanks to the Lord whose undeserved kindness and love made this
work a success.
The researcher‟s profound gratitude goes to her loving, able and approachable
Supervisor, Prof. Z.C Njoku for his fatherly guidance in giving her objective and constructive
counsel and corrections which led to the successful completion of this work. The researcher
will also need to say a big “thank you” to all the lecturers in the sub-department of Science
Education for their contributions to her academic success.
A special appreciation goes to Prof. A.A Ali, Prof. S.A Ezeudu, Prof. U.N.V Agwagah,
Prof. N. Ogbonnaya, Dr. C.R Nwagbo, Dr. J.J Anyanwu, Dr. D.U Ngwoke, Dr. J.O Ezeugwu,
Dr. F.O Ezeudu and Dr. J.C Adigwe for their positive contributions towards the successful
completion of this thesis.
The roles played by Dr. B.C Madu, and Dr. A.O Ovute cannot be forgotten. They
assisted in supplying materials and in reading through the project.
The researcher also wishes to thank her dearly beloved parents, Mr. and Mrs. E.N
Akwali for staying by her morally, spiritually and financially throughout the course of this
study. The researcher lacks word to express her honest appreciation to them.
I will not fail to appreciate the love and care of Rev. Can. and Mrs. G.C Uchendu, Dr.
(Mrs.) Nwokeocha, Mr. Ugwuanyi Christian, Mr. Yisa James, Mr. Mbaji Nnamdi, Judith,
Juliet, Edwin and my siblings as well as their fervent and constant prayers.
I pray that God replenishes their stock with the best of their heart desires.
vi
ABSTRACT
The study was aimed at developing and validating a scale which could be used in assessing
students‟ motivation in the learning of Chemistry in Okigwe Education Zone one (1),of Imo
State. Six research questions and three hypotheses were formulated and tested at the probability of 0.05level of significance. The population of the study consisted of all the senior
secondary school Chemistry students in Okigwe Education zone one (1) of Imo state. The total
number of schools used was ten (10) co-educational secondary schools which consisted of five
hundred and eighty-eight (588) Chemistry students. The instrument called students‟ motivation
to learn Chemistry scale (SMLCS) was developed by the researcher and validated by four
experts in Science Education and Education Foundations of University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
The reliability coefficient of the instrument was calculated to be 0.92. The data were analysed
using mean and standard deviation to answer research questions. The hypotheses were tested
using t-test and ANOVA statistics at 0.05 level of significance. Findings showed that students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry in secondary schools could be explained by six factors, namely
Teachers‟ Personality factors, Classroom Environment factors, Students‟ Personal factors,
Parents/Family factors, Peers/Classmates factors and Career Needs factors. Also, the influence
of gender, school location and class level was not significant at 0.05 levels. It was
recommended among others that the instrument could be used to assess motivation of students
to learn Chemistry in secondary school.
vii
TABLES OF CONTENTS
Title page……………………………………………………………………….………i
Approval page……………………………………………..…………………………..ii
Certification ………………………………………………………… …………..…...iii
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………….…....iv
Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………..….…..v
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..…vi
Table of contents………………………………………………………………….…..vii
List of Appendices………………………………………………………………..…...xi
Lists of tables………………………………………………………………….............xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study……………………………………………...………….……1
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………....7
Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………..…….………....8
Significance of the Study………………………………………………...………….…8
Scope of the Study…………………………………………………………….……. …9
Research Questions……………………………………………………………...……...9
Hypotheses ……………………………………………………………………...……..10
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERAURE
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Concept of Instrument Development………………………………………...………..12
Concept of Factor Analysis……………………………………………………..……..16
Concept of Motivation……………………………………………………………..…..18
Concept of Achievement Motivation……………………………………………..…...24
viii
Concept of Learning…………………………………………………………...............27
Gender as a Factor of Students‟ Motivation………………………………….………..29
School Location as a Factor of Students‟ Motivation……………………………..…..30
School type as a Factor of students‟ Motivation………………………………..……..30
Class Level as a Factor of Students‟ Motivation…………………………… …….…..34
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Path-goal Theory of Motivation…………………………………………….…………36
Expectancy-value Theory of Motivation……………………………………….………38
General-dynamic Theory of Motivation………………………………….…………….39
B.F Skinner Theory of Learning………………………………………………….…….42
Gestalt Theory of Learning………………………………………………….………….44
Bandura Theory of Learning……………………………………….. ………………….46
EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Studies on Instrument Development on Motivation……………………………………48
Gender as a Factor of Student‟s motivation ……………….…..……………………….51
School Location as a Factor of Student‟s motivation…………………………..……….53
Summary of Review of Literature………………………………………………….…...56
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD
Design of the Study……………………………………………………...………………57
Area of the Study………………………………………………………….……...……...57
Population of the Study………………………………………………….….....................57
Sample and sampling Techniques………………………………………………...…….58
Instrument for Data Collection………………………………………………….…... ….58
Validation of the Instrument……………………………………………………………..59
Reliability of the Instrument……………………………………………………….…….60
ix
Method of Data Collection……………………………………………………..………60
Method of Data Analysis……………………………………………………...…...…...61
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Research Question 1………………………………………………….…...……………62
Research Question 2……………………………………………..……...………….. ….63
Research Question 3……………………………………………………..……….…….66
Research Question 4…………………………………………………….…..….………71
Hypothesis One…………………………………………………………….…..……….77
Research Question 5………………………………………………..….…….….…........82
Hypothesis Two…………………………………………………….…….…….….........88
Research Question 6………………………………………………………….................93
Hypothesis Three……………………………………………….………….……..……101
Findings of the Study………………………………………….………………………..106
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINDS, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion of the Findings……………………………………………...…………........108
Conclusion from the Study………………………………………….……………..........113
Implication of the Study………………………………………………...………………114
Recommendations …………………………………...………………………….............115
Limitation of the Study………………………………………………………….............116
Suggestions for further Studies…………………………………………...……………..116
Summary of the Study…………………………………………………..………….........116
References………………………………………………………………………………118
Appendix ……………………………………………………………………………….127
x
LISTS OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Initial draft of the Instrument…………………………………….………127
Appendix B: Modified Draft of the Instrument……………………………...….………130
Appendix C: Modified Developed Scale after Factor Analysis ………………...………134
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The Reliability Coefficient of SMCLS using Cronbach‟s Alpha
Coefficient …………………………………………………………….….62
Table 2: Factors Analysis Result of SMCLS that are Factorially
Valid…….……………………………………………………..………........63
Table 3: Mean motivation level of students to learn chemistry…….………………..67
Table 4: Mean scores and standard deviation for students‟ motivation (By sex) .…..71
Table 5: t-test result on mean scores of students‟ motivation on SMCLS scale (By sex)……………………………………………………………………..…....78
Table 6: Mean scores and standard deviation for students‟ motivation (By school
location)…………………………………………..………………..………..83
Table 7: t-test result on mean scores of students‟ motivation on SMCLS scale
(By school location)……............................……………………...…………89
Table8: Mean scores and standard deviation for students‟ motivation (Class
levels)……………………………………….…………………….…………94
Table 9: ANOVA result on mean scores of students‟ motivation on SMCLS scale
(By class levels)….………………………..…………………………..…..…...101
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Chemistry is a core science subject taught at senior secondary schools (SSS) in Nigeria.
It is a science subject which deals with the study of the structure and composition of matter
(Bajah, Teibo, Onwu, Obikwere; 2000). Ababio (2009) adds that Chemistry is one of the three
main branches of pure science that deals with the composition, properties and uses of matter.
Operationally, Chemistry is the study of matter, its structure, composition, transformation, uses
and energy consequences of its behaviours (Njoku, 2010). Chemistry is also one of the basic
sciences (biology, chemistry and physics) that are essentially needed for a nation‟s
technological development. To this effect, Aniodoh (2000) asserts that proper teaching and
learning of Chemistry facilitates candidate‟s enrolment in Medicine, Pharmacy, Nursing,
Engineering, Agriculture, Biochemistry and so on. To achieve the above needs, it is necessary
to motivate students to enroll in science subjects including Chemistry in their various schools.
Motivation has to do with the internal state or mental and psychological state in an
individual which compels, energizes, sustains and directs the individual‟s activity towards a
goal (Ngwoke, 2010). Motivation is a psychological construct which explains purposive or
goal-directed behaviour in human beings. Ngwoke (2010) says that motivation explains why
some students swat to pass their examinations, while some students wait for manna from
heaven. The author also says that motivation explains why an individual perseveres and
deprives himself of some pleasure in order to achieve a life goal; motivation explains why
some persons who can afford the luxury of doing no work choose not just to stay alive, eat,
sleep and grow like vegetables but rather work for self competence. Motivation is the impetus
that drives human beings into setting and attaining significant goals in life. Individual‟s needs
1
2
and desires have a strong impact on the direction of their behaviour. Operationally, motivation
is an internal feeling or activated force that spurs an individual to pursue a specific goal.
The motivation to achieve, however, may evidence itself only in behaviour of student‟s
value. For instance, a student may be highly motivated to achieve, and this may be exhibited in
athletics but not in school work. Thus, different situations have different achievement-attaining
values for students (Eccles, Alder, Futterman, Goff, Kaczala, Meece, & Midgely, 2003).
Individuals‟ actual achievement behaviours depend not only on their motivation to achieve but
also on whether they expect to achieve and whether they fear failure. Students are more likely
to work hard when they perceive a reasonable chance to succeed than when they perceive a
goal to be out of reach (Atkinson, 1964). Student‟s expectations of success can be measured by
asking them to predict a certain grade, indicate how sure they are to solve a particular problem,
and select the hardest task they think they can do from a collection of tasks varying by degree
of difficulty (Philips, 1997).
Student with high expectation for success on a task usually persist at it longer and
perform better than students with low expectations (Eccles, Adler, Futterman, Goff, Kaczala,
Meece & Midgely, 2003). Researchers like Carr (2003) have found that students with high
intelligent quotients (I.Qs) and low expectations receive lower grades than students with low
1.Qs and high expectations. In addition, child rearing practices, teaching styles and
communication pattern may affect students‟ attribution. When teachers are caring, supportive
and emphasize the teaching learning process over the achievement outcomes, and when they
give feedback, students tend to be motivated to achieve and to expect success (Daniels,
Kalkman, & McCombs, 2001). Achievement- motivated students are not gamblers. They
prefer to work on a problem rather than leaving the outcome to chance. Also, they seem to be
more concerned with personal achievement than with the rewards of success. They do not
3
reject rewards, but the rewards are not as essential as the accomplishment itself. Money, to the
achievement-motivated student is valuable primarily as a measurement of their performance. It
provides them with a means of assessing their progress and comparing their achievements with
other students. They normally do not seek money for status or economic security. McClelland
claims, it is because they habitually spend time thinking about doing things better. In fact, the
author has found that whenever people start to think in achievement terms, things start to
happen. For instance secondary school students with a high need for achievement will
generally get better grades than equally bright students with weaker achievement needs.
According to McClelland‟s (1987) research, achievement motivated students have certain
characteristics in common. These include; the capacity to set high („stretching‟) personal but
attainable goals, concern for personal achievement rather than the rewards of success, desire
for feedback, and they are often problem solvers.
Motivation has many effects on the school programme. Motivation is therefore one of
the major keys to learning. Teachers should therefore understand how to motivate the students
to learn. When motivating students to learn it is important to challenge, inspire and stimulate
them. Many students can be motivated by overcoming challenges and others by the approval of
their accomplishments. When trying to motivate students one must understand the factors that
affect students‟ motivation. These factors according to Iroegbu, Chukwudire, Nkwocha, and
Onyemerekeya (2003) include: cooperation, competition, readiness, maturation, enjoyment of
the subject, self concept, parental occupation or social economic status, novelty in teaching,
success, feedback, praise and blame, rewards, punishment, persistence and patience and
knowledge of objectives. The teacher should also focus on student‟s values, wants, desire and
needs when motivating students‟ to learn.
4
Individuals acquire the need to achieve success during the course of development and
the desire to achieve success varies among individuals. Atkinson (1964) confirms that some
students are success oriented while others are concerned with failure. The theorists also believe
that achievement of success depends on the probability to achieve and the desire to achieve. As
such, student motivation has been tied to their academic performance and their academic
achievement (McClelland, 1987). Available evidence on the level of achievement of students
in Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination (SSCE) in Chemistry is quite disturbing
(Akinyele, 1999; Akalonu, 2006; Amazigbo 2000; Eze, 2000). The low motivation of students
in chemistry seems evident in their performances in externally conducted examinations like the
annual West African Senior Secondary Certificate Examination (WASSCE) (James, 2006).
Specifically, WAEC Chief Examiners report (2007-2009) reported a general poor achievement
in Chemistry as the record covering the year 2007-2009 indicate an average pass rate below
50% of the entire candidates who took chemistry during that period (See Appendix H). The
logical conclusion from the students‟ low achievement is that there is ineffective motivation
going on in our secondary schools.
Many factors have been identified as being responsible for the relatively low
achievement motivation in secondary schools Chemistry. These according to Ozumba (2000),
includes the sex and lack of students‟ motivation in Chemistry. Other research finding
attributed to high failure rates in chemistry are: the perception of Chemistry as a difficult
subject, low parental encouragement, lack of adequate instructional materials and poor
Chemistry teaching. Ogbe (1998) also says that some factors like gender (of learner) and the
environment (or location) of learning, effectiveness of the teacher reaction of individuals
students towards examinations contribute to low motivation of students‟ in Chemistry.
McCracken and Barcinas (2006) found that the location of a school whether in an urban
5
or a rural area did not make any significant difference in the level of students‟ motivation. The
authors‟ findings are interesting because he used a large secondary school sample which was
drawn from across the Western Australia. Also, the influence of location of a school on
motivation was found not to be significant in a study reported by Haller and Virkler (2007).
The discrepancy in educational motivation between urban and rural students seems clear, yet
the reasons are not yet wholly attributed to known factors. In an effort to determine some
factors that are responsible for such discrepancies in educational motivation between the urban
and rural students, the present work tends to develop an appropriate instrument for assessing
students‟ motivation in Chemistry learning.
Also researches done by Gisela (2011) on motivation, states that parents, peers, and the
society all influence motivation of male and female students. The author stress further that,
how students are encouraged or discouraged to succeed in particular subjects, the expectations
placed on them and learning opportunities they are presented with contribute to the gender
achievement gaps in schools. Male students tend to receive more encouragement in
Mathematics and Science courses, while female students are nurtured more in reading and arts.
Gisela asserted further that parents are often inadvertently practice gender biases which
influence students‟ achievement. At home, gender-bias behavior usually surfaces early in a
child‟s life. Parents tend to buy their sons, and not their daughters, toys and books that are
related to math and science. The author went further to say that educators are also strong
influential factors in determining motivation for their students. Gisela also found that many
teachers unknowingly call on male students more often than female students to answer
questions and give them more complex problem to solve, which create a competitive learning
environment where men are tend to thrive. All these seemingly influence the students‟ sense of
accomplishment and motivation in school. Adeyegbe (2002) claims that boys are superior to
6
girls in science activities. On the other hand, Ezeudu (1992) observe a significant different
between boys and girls in favour of the girls. Thus, Halpern and Diane (2011) found that
science was free from gender bias. These indicate that gender, as factors of students‟
motivation in Chemistry is yet not conclusive. Thus, this study will be interested in exploring
how gender would differ in students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry using the instrument
developed.
Chemistry core curriculum emphasizes students‟ involvement in Chemistry lesson
through motivation. These calls for emphasis on the measurement of students‟ motivation
using valid and reliable instrument, since students‟ achievement have been linked to their level
of motivation.
In Nigerian secondary schools, assessment of learning in Chemistry is often done
during end of teaching period by the teachers and National examination bodies. Garba (1993)
and Iji (1996) further stress that such assessment tools or instruments must be valid and
reliable. However, Eze (1997) noted that most teachers involved in science teaching seem
unskilled in test development and validation. In particular, Ogunwole (1999) and Akano
(1999) found that reliable and valid instrument for measuring students‟ motivation towards
learning of chemistry are not available in secondary schools.
In developing and validating instrument to measure students‟ motivation towards a
school subject such as Chemistry, the influence of certain variables appears relevant. With
reference to this study, the influence of school type (single boy, single girl, mixed boys/girl),
and class levels (SS1, SS2 or SS3) are considered.
School type as a variable indicates the nature of a school in terms of whether the school
is for only boys, only girls or for both boys and girls. In a factor analysis study, Ovute (1999)
found that school type has influence on student‟s attitude towards the study of Physics in
7
secondary schools. In the present study, the influence of school type on the motivation of
students towards learning Chemistry was examined.
Furthermore, the influence of students‟ class level on the level of motivation towards
chemistry learning was determined. Class level indicates the categorization of the students in a
given school according to classes. In other words, class levels of senior secondary school
include SS1, SS2 and SS3 in a seniority order. A study conducted to investigate the influence
of class level on students‟ achievement in Igbo language by Ovute (2004) showed an
interesting result. In this study, the influence of class level on level of students‟ motivation
towards learning of Chemistry in secondary school was examined.
Statement of the Problem
Chemistry as a science subject in Nigerian‟s secondary school curriculum has been
plagued by serious problems of poor academic achievement by the students. For instance, the
WAEC Chief Examiners‟ Reports (2007-2009) reveal an alarming poor status in senior
secondary school achievement in Chemistry. The poor students‟ achievement in Chemistry has
been partly attributed to poor motivation of students in the learning process. This argument
stems from the paucity of instrument for assessing students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry.
The use of (McClelland, 1958) approach by researchers in the past to quantify the motivation
of students have proved unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, most science (Chemistry) teachers
cannot develop such instrument required for measuring students‟ motivation. Hence, a major
problem in motivational studies is its measurability due to lack of reliable instrument.
Therefore, there is the need to develop and validate an instrument, which could be generally
applied to determine the motivational status of students towards learning of Chemistry. The
problem of this study therefore is: could an instrument be developed and validated for
assessing students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry in secondary schools?
8
Purpose of the Study
The general purpose of the study was to develop and validate a scale for assessing
students‟ motivation in learning of Chemistry in secondary schools. Specifically, the study
intends to:
1. establish the psychometric characteristics of the scale.
2. find the factors of students‟ motivation in Chemistry learning.
3. find the level of students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry.
4. determine the difference of gender on students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry.
5. determine the difference of School location on students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry.
6. determine the difference of class level on students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry.
Significance of the Study
The findings of the study will be useful to Chemistry teachers, teacher trainees,
students, school administrators and future researchers. It also has some theoretical significance.
The Chemistry teachers will find the results of the study useful because, it will
highlight the level of motivation of students towards learning Chemistry at secondary schools.
This will enable the Chemistry teachers identify those factors that motivate students to learn
the subject so as to help teachers solve the problem of learning Chemistry as learning and
motivation have been found to be interrelated.
The Chemistry students will also benefit from the findings of the study as the study is
expected to find out the factors that are helpful in motivating them towards Chemistry
learning. This will enhance students‟ achievement in Chemistry.
The teacher trainees will also benefit from the findings of the study as it will serve as
reference materials to them to reform their programmes in order to meet the challenges of
effective learning. During the training program, the student-teachers will learn about the
9
factors that aid motivation and how it affects learning. The findings of the study will also be
useful to school administrators. It will provide highlight to the administrators on the level of
students‟ motivation. Such information will be useful for in service training of teachers on
effective application of motivation by the teachers.
Moreover, future researchers will find the results of the study useful. It will provide
data that will serve as reference point for those who wish to conduct research in the same or
related area of study.
Finally, the theoretical significance of the study will be based on Albert Bandura‟s
theory of social learning. For students to have motivation to learn Chemistry, they must have
the capacity to relate and exchange ideas with the environment. The findings will add to the
existing knowledge on motivational status of Chemistry students‟ worldwide. Also, it will
contribute to the existing theory on factors that motivate students to learn school subjects.
Scope of the Study
The geographical scope of the study is Okigwe. Okigwe is one of the twenty-seven (27)
Local Government Areas in Imo State. It has two educational zones. In terms of content scope,
the study was restricted to student motivation at all the senior secondary school levels in
Chemistry. The items include both intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of motivation. The
instrumentation procedure was limited to instrument development, validation, reliability and
exploration of impacts of gender, location, and class level.
Research Questions
The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What is the reliability coefficient of the instrument (SMLCS) developed to measure
students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry?
10
2. What are the factor loadings of the items of the instrument (SMLCS) developed to
measure students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry?
3. What are the mean scores of students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry as measured by
SMLCS?
4. How do male students differ from female students on their motivation to learn Chemistry
as measured by SMLCS?
5. How do urban students differ from rural students on their motivation to learn Chemistry
as measured by SMLCS?
6. How do class levels differ on students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry as measured by
SMLCS?
Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses guided the study and were tested at 0.05 level of
significance.
HO1: There is no significant difference between the mean scores of male and female students as measured by SMLCS.
HO2: There is no significant difference between the mean score of urban and rural students as
measured by (SMLCS).
HO3: There is no significant difference between the mean scores of class levels (SS1, SS2,
and SS3) students as measured by SMLCS.
11
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature for this study is organized under the following sub-themes;
Conceptual Framework
The concept of instrument development
The concept of factor analysis
Concept of motivation
Concept of Achievement motivation
Concept of learning.
Gender as a factor of students‟ motivation
School location as a factor of students‟ motivation
School type as a factor of students‟ motivation
Class level as a factor of students‟ motivation
Theoretical Framework
The path-goal theory of motivation
Expectancy-value theory of motivation
General-dynamic theory of motivation
B.F. Skinner theory of learning
Gestalt theory of learning
Bandura theory of learning
Empirical Studies
Studies on instrument development on motivation of students in the learning of Chemistry.
Studies on Gender as a factor that influences motivation of students in the learning of
Chemistry.
2
12
Studies on Location as a factor that influences motivation of students in the learning of
Chemistry.
Summary of Review of Literature
Concept of Instrument Development
Instruments are tools, which are specifically used for specific purposes including
research. They are basic and very indispensable for a successful conduct of any research.
Without a suitable instrument, the value of the quantity under investigation cannot be
adequately assessed (Eze, 2005). On the other hand, development is the process of producing
or creating something new or more advanced. Operationally, research instrument development
is the process of producing new tools which are specifically used for research purposes. Any
instrument developed for learning must satisfy necessary conditions. For instance, the
development of a good instrument for evaluating learning outcomes of students must begin
with a blueprint. In the present study involving instrument for assessing students‟ motivation,
there is no content. But there are factors which determine students‟ motivation. Therefore, the
blue-print for developing the Students‟ Motivation to Learn Chemistry Scale (SMLCS) will be
built around the factors of motivation.
The assessment instruments must be valid and reliable, according to Nworgu (1992)
and Garba (1993). Educational assessment instruments must be valid and reliable if the
assessment outcome is to be dependable. Validation means making a conscious attempt to
make the instrument valid and reliable. An instrument which is valid measures the content of
what it sets to measure and no other thing. For example, an instrument which is designed to
measure psychology of learning, will only measure psychology of learning and not curriculum
or any other thing. This therefore, implies that instruments that are valid for one subject may
not be valid for another subject. When an instrument fails to measure accurately what it intends
13
to measure, it is referred to as being invalid. Ali (1998) classified validity as: Content validity,
Predictive validity, and Concurrent validity. As an improvement of Ali classification, Harbor-
Peters (1998) identified and classified validity into five types: Content validity, predictive
validity, concurrent validity, construct validity and face validity. Anastasi (1961) includes face
validity and factorial validity.
Content validity can be referred to as rational or curricular validity. Ali (1998) says that
content validity with regard to any measuring instrument refers to the extent to which the items
of the instruments cover the topic of a course or facts of a construct which the instrument is
supposed to measure. The items coverage of the course content should only be nominal and
also be horizontal, lateral and vertical. To ensure all these, items should be carefully
scrutinized before being approved for use. It is usual to produce a list of the course content,
facets or attributes of the construct. The list is to be submitted to experts for vetting. Based on
the pool of the vetted and agreed course content or construct, items are constructed within the
frame of a blue-print. Then the items so constructed are re-submitted to experts in the area of
study as well as experts in science education, measurement and evaluation for vetting.
According to Thorndike (1991) content validity answers these questions:
1. How well do the tasks of this test represent what is considered to be important outcomes in those areas of instruction?
2. How well do these tasks represent what is the best and most expert judgment would
consider being important knowledge of skills?
One is concerned with criterion related or predictive validity of an instrument, if he/she
makes use of scores of individuals on an instrument to predict future performance of the same
individual in some other tasks. Another type of validity is construct validity. In psychology,
the term „construct‟ refers to something that is not observable. Most individual‟s traits such as
intelligence, aggression, motivation, stress, emotion, attitude etc. are referred to as constructs.
14
The existence of these traits is inferred from the individual‟s behaviour or attitude. Tony and
Wendy (1998) defined it as a concept which has the “added meaning, however of having been
deliberately and consciously invented or adopted for a scientific purpose”. Gronlund cited in
Iji (1996) saw construct validity as the extent to which test can be interpreted in terms of
certain psychological constructs. The author said that determining the construct validity of an
instrument involves:
1) Identifying the traits, skills or attributes presumed to account for performance on the
instrument that measures the construct.
2) Constructing a hypothesis regarding the performance.
3) Testing the hypothesis by logical and empirical means. This study will estimate
construct validity. In establishing construct validity, factor analysis is used. Factorial
validity is a refined statistical technique for analysis of the inter-relationships of behavioural
data. Factorial validity is a higher form of obtaining construct validity estimates.
Operationally, factorial validation is a systematic way of examining test items to determine
their extent of variations or inter-correlation in terms of their factor loading to ensure that the
items are of proven quality. In the words of Golt and Duggan (1995), the objective-evaluation
of any instrument involves primarily the determination of the reliability and validity of the
instrument in a specific situation. The importance of both characteristics can be summarized in
the statement that the perfect instrument must serve the purpose or purposes for which it is
intended and in so doing, must produce consistent information.
Another psychometric property usually considered in the development of the instrument
is reliability. Reliability is the extent to which instrument result measures the objective
consistently. That is, how well the same test whenever administered will yield consistent
results (Tony & Wendy, 1998). A reliable instrument is relatively free from errors of
instrument so that the scores obtained on the instrument are closed in numerical value to the
15
true scores (Iji, 1996). Reliability is severally defined by different authors. Ezeh (1992)
reported that synonyms for reliability include dependability, stability, consistency,
predictability, and accuracy. Reliability is defined as it constitute the ability of a measurement
to produce the same answer on successive occasions where no change has occurred in the
things being measured (Chukwuemeka,1990). Ugwudi (1995) and Momoh (1997) viewed
reliability as the degree of consistency between two measures of the same thing. Thorndike
(1990) further defined reliability as the level of consistence or stability of measuring device
overtime. To establish the reliability of a measuring instrument in concrete terms, Ogbazi and
Okpala (1994) identified eight major approaches or methods to include: Split-half reliability,
Kudder-Richardson 20, Kudder-Richardson 21, Test-retest method, Equivalent form,
Spearman-Brown Prophecy, Cronbach-alpha reliability, Test of reliability of nominal scale.
The split-half approach is to recast reliability of a measuring instrument which involves the
splitting of the instrument into two halves, may be odd and even number items. The correlation
coefficient is then computed to yield an estimate of the extent to which the instrument is
internally consistent. The Kuder-Richardson 20 (K-R20) method might be obtained if all
possible split-half combination of a group of items were correlated with one another. It is best
used when the items are scored Yes or No.
Kuder-Richardson 21 (K-R21) method is used for teacher made test instrument as well
as a rough estimation of K-R20. K-R21 measures the internal consistency and reliability of an
instrument. The reliability is calculated using the formular:
K – R (21): γxx = the main difference between K-R21 is that K-R21 assumes that the items of an
instrument are of equal difficulty while K-R20 assumes that the items are not equally difficult.
The test-retest method could as well be referred to administration of the same instrument to the
same group of individuals and correlation coefficient is then calculated. The measure of
16
equivalent form method is the administration of the same time or at different time two
equivalent instruments in terms of contents.
The Spearman Brown Prophecy method provides an estimate of the reliability of the
whole instrument, estimate of what the reliability would be if each half of the instruments were
twice as long range. The longer the items of the instruments the more reliable it is.
Cronbach alpha Reliability is a modified version of K-R formulae. This method is amenable
for use in determining and establishing instrument reliability with a single administration of a
single form of the instrument. This method also saves time and labour. For the present study,
the most appropriate method for establishing the reliability of the instrument was Cronbach
alpha reliability.
The Concept of Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is one method by which we can determine the internal structure of tests
of human abilities. Factor analysis is also a mathematical model which can be used in
describing certain areas of nature (Fruchter, 1954). This implies the inter correlation of a series
of test items or other measures so as to determine the number of dimensions the space
occupies. In addition, one could also identify these dimensions in terms of traits or other
general concepts. The tests which fall on the same dimension are observed and the things
which make them to fall on the same dimension are noted. Fruchter (1954:2) noted that “Test
correlate to the extent that they measure common traits. By observing and analyzing the
pattern of inter correlations the operation of one or more traits are inferred”.
Factor analysis helps to understand the types of variation being measured by the tests
and the interrelationships of these measures as well as how to modify them. If the correlation
between two tests items is not significantly different from zero, one can assume that the
overlap of each of these tests with the other is due to the separate non-overlapping traits. The
17
most distinctive characteristics of factor analysis are its data reduction capacity (Nie, 1975).
Given an array of correlation coefficient for a set of variations, factor analytic techniques
enable us to see whether some underlying pattern of relationships exists such that the data may
be re-arranged or reduced to a smaller set of factors or components that may be taken as a
sources variation accounting for the observed Inter relations in the data. Anastasi (1982) was
also thinking on the same line when she asserted that every factor analysis ends with a factor
matrix, that is, a table showing the loading of each of the factors in the test items. The factors
loadings represent the correlation of each item to the factor and this is the factorial validity of
the item. Thus factorial validation is a systematic examination of test items to determine their
extent of variations or inter-correlation in terms of their factor loading to ensure that the items
are of proven quality.
The first step in factor analysis is the inter-correlation of the scores obtained from given
tests. The correlation matrix is then factored using any of the factoring methods. These
methods include diagonal method, centroid method, principal-axes method, multiple-group
method, group-centroid method and simple summation method.
The diagonal method is one of the most simple and direct methods but it is limited by
the fact that very accurate estimates of the communalities are required. The centroid method
gives a mathematically unique, least-squares solution as the principal-axes method but is more
often used in experimental data. Multiple-group method is a variation of the centroid method,
the tests are grouped and it is assumed that the groups are linearly independent. If this
condition is not met the method results in imaginary numbers which would call for a
regrouping of the tests. The principal-axes method extracts the maximum amount of variation
with the smallest possible residuals. This method condenses the correlation matrix into the
smallest number of orthogonal factors though it is computationally difficult. The interaction
18
method of obtaining the factor loadings on the principal axes could be carried to any degree of
accuracy. After the factors have been determined they could be rotated for with other studies.
Rotation helps to obtain meaningful factors which are consistent (invariant) and not affected
by the type of analysis. Orthogonal (varimax) rotation method was employed. Factors are then
interpreted. Items which are factorially complex are reviewed and eliminated. Equally, items
whose loadings are less than a pre-determined number in each of the factors are eliminated as
not being factorially valid. This method was used to reduce the number of items for Students‟
Motivation to Learn Chemistry Scale (SMLCS) and its number of sections. The loading vary
from author to author. Examples are 0.3 (Schuster and Milland, 1978), 0.35 (Meredith, 1969)
0.4 (Leak, 1982; Shafter, 1978), 0.5 (Plake and Parker, 1982). A lot of studies used factor
analysis in their research.
Concept of Motivation
Motivation is derived from a Latin word, „moveer‟ which means to move. Many
definitions have been advanced for the concept, “motivation”. The different definitions
concede that motivation moves an individual to take actions that will enable him/her achieve
predetermined objectives. Motivation is therefore, defined as all phenomena within and
external to an individual which makes him strive to achieve an objective, stimulates him to
manifest an enabling behaviour, direct and energizes the behaviour till the desired objective is
achieved. Durojaiye (1985) identifies the following as indicators of a state of motivation to
learn: Favourable attitude and desire to learn to read, ability to control attention on set tasks
and to concentrate for a few minutes, ability to adjust to routine at school and at home,
positive emotional reactions to reading, a stable disposition when unable to read and positive
self-concept and self-esteem.
19
Furthermore, motivation can be defined as the driving force behind all the actions of an
individual towards attaining an objectives or set of objectives. The influence of an individual‟s
needs and desires both have a strong impact on the direction of his/her behaviour. A need is
something that if present would further the welfare of the organism. Individuals will satisfy
their needs through different means, and are driven to succeed for varying reasons both
internal and external to the individual concerned.
Motivation has been imagined from an array of both theoretical and empirical
perspectives. It has been viewed from the path-goal orientation (Georgapoules, 1957) from the
expectancy viewpoint (Atkinson, 1957; from the dynamic approach (Maslow, 1965; Atkinson
and Birth, 1989). Although each school of taught conveys a divergent view of motivation, all
the theoretical and empirical explanation converge at a unified point.
Gleaned from the above, motivation refers to the process of arousing, sustaining and
regulating the activities of an organization in a given context. The study of motivation
therefore is primarily concerned with how behaviour is energized, sustained, directed and
stopped. Motivation is also of a particular interest to educational psychologists because of the
crucial role it plays in students learning. Ormrod (2003) says that motivation in education has
several effects on how students learn and how they behave towards subject matter. He then
identifies them as follows: Directing behaviour towards particular goal, lead to increasing
effort and energy, increase initiation of students, and persistence in learning activities, enhance
cognitive processes, determine what consequences are reinforcing and punishing and lead to
improved performance.
The author asserts further that since students are not always internally motivated, they
sometimes need situated motivation which is found in environmental conditions that the
20
teacher creates. Matthew (2005) stresses further that some basic principles of motivation are
applicable to learning in any situation. They include the following:
1. The environment can be used to focus the student‟s attention on what needs to be learned.
Teachers who create warm and accepting atmospheres will promote persistent effort
and favourable attitudes toward learning. Interesting visual aids, such as booklets,
posters, or practical equipment, motivate learners by capturing their attention and
curiosity.
2. Incentives motivate learning incentives include privileges and receiving praise from the
teacher. The teacher determines an incentive that is likely to motivate a student at a
particular time. In a general learning situation, self-motivation without rewards will not succeed. Students must find satisfaction in learning based on the understanding that the
goals are useful to them or, less commonly, based on the pure enjoyment of exploring
new things.
3. Internal motivation is long lasting and more self-directive than external motivation,
which must be repeatedly reinforced by praise or concrete rewards.
Some students have little capacity for internal motivation and must be guided and
reinforced constantly. The use incentive is based on the principle that learning occurs
more effectively when the student experiences feelings of satisfaction. Caution should be exercised in using external rewards when they are not absolutely necessary. Their
use may be followed by a decline in internal motivation.
4. Learning is most effective when an individual is ready to learn.
Sometimes the student‟s readiness to learn comes with time, and the teacher‟s role is to
encourage its development. If a desired change in behaviour is urgent, the teacher may
need to supervise directly to ensure that the desired behaviour occurs. If a student is not
ready to learn, he or she may not be reliable in following instructions and therefore
must be supervised and have the instructions repeated again and again.
5. Motivation is enhanced by the way in which the instructional material is organized.
In general, the best organized material makes the information meaningful to the
individual. One method of organization includes relating new tasks to those already
known. Other ways to relay meaning is to determine whether the persons being taught
understand the final outcome desired and instruct them to compared and contrast ideas.
None of the techniques will produce sustained motivation unless the goals are realistic
for the learner. The basic learning principle involved is that success is more predictably
motivating than failure. Ordinarily, students will choose activities of intermediate uncertainty
rather than those that are difficult (little likelihood of success) or easy (high probability of
success). For goals of high value there are fewer tendencies to choose more difficult
21
conditions. Assisting students in defining their goals increases the probability that they will
understand them and want to reach them. However, students sometimes have unrealistic
notions about what they can accomplish. Possibly they do not understand the precision with
which a skill must be carried out or have the depth of knowledge to master some material. To
identify realistic goals, teachers must be skilled in assessing a student‟s readiness or a student‟s
progress towards goals. In the sense that;
6. Learning requires change in beliefs and behaviour, it normally produces a mild level of
anxiety.
7. It is important to help each student set goals and to provide informative feedback
regarding progress toward the goals.
8. Both affiliation and approval are strong motivators.
9. Many behaviours result from a combination of motives.
Motivation has two fundamental types namely: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that is driven by an interest or enjoyment in the task
itself, and exists within the individual rather than relying on any external pressure. Intrinsic
motivation is also an inner stimulus, for instance, hunger, and thirst for knowledge or curiosity
for information. These arouse the individual to activity and direct him to aspects which have
the capacity of reducing the need. It also occurs when students are internally motivated to do
something because it either brings them pleasure, they think is important, or they feel that what
they are learning is significant. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation is an external urge to
do something because of the external reward one will receive. It also come to play when a
student is compelled to do something or act a certain way because of factors external to him or
her (like money or good grade) In addition, students who are intrinsically motivated participate
in learning activities for their own sakes; they desire the outcome. They do not need rewards or
22
praise; they find satisfaction in knowing that what they are learning will be beneficial to them
later. They want to master the task, and they believe it is under their control to achieve
mastery. While extrinsically motivated individuals are those who participate to receive a
reward or avoid a punishment, they typically do not want to do the task; they expect some sort
of gain other than knowledge, such as praise, rewards, or avoiding punishment (keefe and
Jenkins, 2004). Harju and Eppler (2002) asserted further that students who were external
motivated tend to posses more irrational beliefs while internally motivated students involve
more in learning.
Senemoglu (2004) asserted further that motivation is a power gaining state to reach
certain goals. In order to learn, each student has to participate in the teaching learning process
willingly. Therefore, providing a necessary motivation and giving priority to motivation for
learning are among the major duties of the teachers and school. There are differences in
principles between motivated and non-motivated students‟ behaviours. When an individual is
motivated, maintenance of being interested and paying attention, willingness to make an effort
and necessary time to gain behaviours, focusing and devoting on the subject, not giving up
doing demanded behaviour in difficult circumstances, insisting on bringing to an end and
resolution are observed. The role of motivation in learning cannot be over emphasized.
Without motivation the objective of teaching and learning cannot be achieved.
Motivating students is seen as an important aspect of effective learning. In fact,
psychologists believe that motivation is a necessary ingredient for learning (Biehler and
Sowman, 1986). They believe that satisfactory school learning is unlikely to take place in the
absence of sufficient motivation to learn (Fontana, 1981). Motivation is one of the factors that
determine whether the student will achieve the knowledge, understanding or skills that he is
expected to learn. In education, motivation is that art of stimulating and sustaining interest in
23
the students where there is no such interest. Students who are highly motivated work
purposefully, energetically and more effectively, while unmotivated students are likely to
cause disturbance. A teacher who can keep his students well motivated has won more than half
of the battle (Iroegbu, Chukwudire, Nkwocha, Onyemerekeya, 2003). Moreover, both intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation lead to some degree of learning, but educational psychologists
consider extrinsic motivation less desirable because the learner tends to forget what he has
learned as soon as the extrinsic purpose is met. In addition to poor retention of learned
materials, extrinsic motivation usually leads to careless and inaccurate learning. The learning
task is hurried through quickly so that the reward may be obtained. For instance, a student tries
to get “A” in Chemistry because his mother promises him some money. To him copying
someone else‟s answer is as good as anything. However, it is possible to use extrinsic
motivation to build up intrinsic motivation. A student who hates chemistry can develop interest
in chemistry if he is rewarded whenever he does well in Chemistry. Gradually he become very
interested in Chemistry and may later not need any reward to study Chemistry.
Okoye (1983) opined that motivation holds the key to the understanding of human
behaviour. To him, motivation explains why one individual dodges work, and another works
normally satisfactorily enough to reach the objectives. For instance, students select different
school subjects based on their motivation to learn certain things while rejecting to select and
learn others in which they lack motivation. Thus, students‟ have varying reasons why they
select school subjects and work hard to pass them. They also have varying reasons why they
select school subjects but fail to work hard to pass them. The various reasons influencing
students‟ selection and working hard to pass their school subjects are factors of motivation for
the students. Okoye added that motivation should be carefully manipulated in the study
24
situation, so that our students are neither under motivated or over motivated but appropriately
motivated so as to be useful to themselves, their society and the world at large.
From the above characteristics that describe motivation, the researcher is going to develop and
validate a scale for assessing students‟ motivation in the learning of Chemistry.
Concept of Achievement Motivation in Learning
Every year many students elect to take Chemistry courses. Some of these students
accomplish little in class. According to Monte and Lifrieri (1973), these students may have the
desire to achieve, and the ability to accomplish the task, but feel that the accomplishment has
little or no value and feel doing it is not worth the effort or time. Others may fear that they are
not capable to compete with the required task, so that they will not even begin the task. They
feel that it is better to receive a lower overall grade than to prove they do not have the ability to
correctly complete the task. Atkinson and feather (1966) describe this rational as Achievement
Motivation.
Achievement motivation could be seen as self determination to succeed in whatever
activities one engages in, be it academic work, professional work, sporting events, among
others. Gesinde (2000) posits that the urge to achieve varies from one individual to the other,
while for some individuals need for achievement is very high whereas for others it may be very
low. However, there are high achievers and low achievers. What is responsible for the
variation could be the fact that achievement motivation is believed to be learnt during
socialization processes and learning experiences. As a matter of fact this varies from one
individual to the other. Gesinde (2000) asserts further that, those who have high achievers as
their models in their early life experience would develop the high need to achieve, while those
who have low achievers as their models hardly develop the need to achieve. Atkinson (1964)
confirmed that some people are success oriented while others are concerned about failures.
25
Success oriented people often set goals within their capabilities and they succeed often.
Anxiety ridden people often set goals which are too difficult beyond their capabilities, and
when they fail they try to escape blame by saying that the task is too difficult. Alderman
(1999) adds that some students feel that success is based on ability, and failure is caused by a
lack of ability. When competitive situations occur, many of these students often feel a need to
protect themselves from failure or a perceived lack of ability, so they develop strategies such
as withholding effort or setting unrealistic goals (too high or too low). Many students feel that
if they make effort and work hard, they will to succeed (Leondari, Syngollitou, & Kiosseoglou,
1998). Alderman (1999) adds to the achievement theories, that ability and effort has typically
been found to be the most frequent reasons for success and failure in achievement context.
Successful students are confident, enthusiastic, remain positive and optimistic. They expect to
succeed. Unsuccessful people often lack confidence and are negative and pessimistic, they
rarely expect success. In fact, they expect to fail. “Everything that happens to you, everything
you become and accomplish is determined by the way you think, and by the way you use your
mind (Tracy, 2005).
Achievement motivation can therefore be defined as the need to perform well or the
striving for success, and evidenced by persistence and effort in the face of difficulties. Schunk
(1994) added that achievement motivation can be seen as the need for success or the
attainment of excellence. In another view, achievement motivation is referred to the tendency
to set and work hard to meet personal standards and to attain goals within one‟s social
environment (Ziegler, Schmuke, Egloff & Buhner, 2010). Thus, achievement motivation is
regarded as a central human motivation. It is also a type of motivation that helps to determine
how and why an individual behave in a certain way. It investigates what gives some people
drive and some do not. The need for achievement has led many researchers to explain factors
26
involved in high and low achieving personalities. They found out that achievement motivation
can be represented as important construct in understanding an individual‟s motivation to work
hard on a task, provide creative solutions to problems, and assess risk and to control
uncertainty (Ziegler, et al 2010). Thus, we can say that the need to achieve is the spring board
of achievement motivation. Over motives for achievement can range from biological needs to
satisfying creative desires or realizing success in competitive ventures.
Achievement motive is the way an individual orients himself towards objects or
conditions that he does not possess. It is conditioned by one‟s early training, experience and
subsequent learning. All students are influenced by a need to achieve. It causes them to want to
be successful at what they attempt to do. But each student is affected in different degrees. For
some students, the desire to achieve is overwhelmed by their fear of failure. They are so
concerned that they will not be able to succeed at every task; they do not even attempt the task.
They feel that if the task is not attempted, it cannot be failed. These students have a hard time
dealing with their shortcomings, or they fear failing in front of their peers, so they avoid
situations where the opportunity to fail exists or where things are not of their control
(Atkinson, 1984).
Studies conducted by Atkinson (1999) showed that percentage of students will work
hard to achieve a task they do not enjoy, solely to maintain their high grade point average or
high class rank. This reflects back on the student‟s attitude towards success. High motivation
and high achievement may be associated with normal perfectionism (Accordino, 2000). Tracy
(2005) asserted further that fear of failure is what keeps most adults from succeeding. Simon
(1988), in his own view says that fear persuades students to set easier goal and less than they
are capable of doing. Fear triggers an internal defense system and fools them into thinking that
they have perfectly good reasons not to change. David McClelland‟s research on Achievement
27
Motivation led him to believe that, the need for achievement is a distinct human motive.
McClelland noted three types of motivational need, which he identified in his 1961 book “The
Achieving Society”:
1. Achievement motivation (n-ach); the n-ach person seeks achievement and attainment of
realistic but challenging goals.
2. Authority or power motivation (n-Pow); this drive produce a need to be influential,
effective and to make impact. It might also be displayed in educational settings by
students who are extremely competitive, who gain a sense of power by being
recognized as the brightest student or as the student most likely to succeed.
3. Affiliation Motivation (n-affil); the n-affil persons have a need for friendly relationship
and are motivated towards interaction with other people. It can also be exhibited by a
student in response to a desire for approval in social context. For instance, in a situation
where a student receives praise for doing well from family and friends.
There are also three facets of achievement motivation developed by different researches
which are: Goal theory, achievement behaviour theory and approach or avoidance motivation
theory. These theories have all tried to answer questions such as; what motives people to
achieve, to seek, succeed, and to do well? The investigation of this question for many started
with research into child development and what factors influenced a child‟s ability to complete
and achieve success at different tasks (McClelland, 1965). Thus, the various reasons
influencing students‟ selection and working hard to pass their school subjects (Chemistry) are
factors of achievement motivation for the students.
Concept of learning
There are many definitions of learning. Some definitions of learning includes: to
receive instruction, to come to know, to acquire knowledge or skill, and to acquire a habit. The
idea that it is what happens to the student when the teacher teaches him is not only inadequate
but misleading (Iroegbu, 2003). Learning has been so much associated with school that some
people think that learning goes on only in the school. This view of learning has been reinforced
by references to school as institutions of learning and to universities as institutions of higher
28
learning. It is true that the school is particularly and specifically arranged to facilitate effective
learning. But psychologists have found that learning cut across all human and animal species
and can occur anywhere that the organism encounters some sort of experiences, provided that
this experience produces a relatively permanent change in the behaviour of the organism. Not
all change results in learning, for example fatigue and maturation can alter behaviour but may
not be categorized as learning.
According to worell and stilweel (1981) learning cannot take place without a person,
interactive environment and behaviour change. Learning brings about changes in behaviour.
When this change in behaviour occurs whether the behaviour is socially desirable or not,
occurs purposefully, the change has to be relatively permanent. Otherwise, any observed
change is not an attribute of learning. An observed change in behaviour which is not an
outcome of learning could be a momentary effect of environmental stimulation such as
overfeeding or drunkenness which vanishes with time. Aronfreed (1971) asserted modification
of behaviour resulting from experience. Gagne (1977) as quoted by Nkwocha (2000) defines
learning as a change in human disposition or capacity which can be retained but which is not
simply ascribed to the process of growth. In another view, learning is a development that
comes from exercise and effort (Hurlock, 1965). Learning is generally defined as a process that
brings together cognitive, emotional and environmental influences and experiences for
acquiring, enhancing or making changes in one‟s knowledge, skills, values and world view
(Illeris, 2004; Ormrod, 1995).
Operationally, learning of chemistry refers to all the techniques and procedures which
the teacher and students individually or jointly use to bring about change in behaviour through
achieving the predetermined objectives and purposes of instruction in Chemistry education.
Learning of Chemistry generally demands that teachers determine the different methodologies
29
and the previous objectives of the content that will bring about permanent change to the
students.
Gender as Factor of Students’ Motivation in Learning
Gender is a social-cultural term describing the behaviour and attributes expected of an
individual on the basis of being born either a male or a female (Bassow, 1991), Kelly (1991) in
his own view says that gender is a cultural construct developed by the society to distinguish the
roles, behaviours, mental, and emotional characteristics between male and females. In Nigeria
the plight of the girl-child in science and technology education is characterized by very low
enrolment and lower achievement than that of boys. The paucity of girls and women in
chemistry and science are foundational and are documented by (Obioma & Ohuche, 1981;
Adigwe, 1992; Oloyede, 2006), the boys usually receive more encouragement, support and
higher expectation from parents and teachers than girls.
According to Njoku (1997), female aversion and low participation in science and
technology are linked to many impediments one of which is the masculine image of the
subject. The consistent findings by various researches about low enrollment, participation and
achievement of females in science subjects have according to Oakley (1996), warranted a spate
of researches into the problems of females in scientific studies. One of such problems of
females is attributed to the dominance of male culture over female. Erinosho (1994) reported
from his studies that, the dominance culture over women who are socialized into believing that
it is a taboo for them to venture into an occupation the male preserve. In addition, in some
cases men refuse to marry women who pick up such careers that have culturally been termed
masculine. These attitude according to Erinosho force women into believing that they should
feel guilty for achieving at the level of the men. This kind of expectation of gender occupation
roles could no doubt depress females‟ intellectual development, undermine their confidence,
30
and dampen their aspirations especially in science and technological related areas. In this
situation, one would not expect women to be motivated as equally well as their men
counterparts in sciences (chemistry). Agreeing with the above findings, Nsofor (2001) reported
in his study that, in some cultures, highly educated women are culturally not regarded as good
house wives and their possibility for marriage becomes limited. This is instilled into the minds
of growing females causing them to be myopic in their life aspirations. All this transmitted to
daughters by their parents lead to low self concept in the girls, which invariably affect their
aspirations and motivation for science studies (Chemistry).
School Location as a Factor of Students’ Motivation in Learning
A school is a place where the students learn political, social, intellectual and moral
standards of the society. In the school, education is a systematic training or instruction for the
development of character and mental power of the recipients (students). It is therefore, through
the school and the activities that take place in the school that sustain the societal values,
customs and norms. Schools may be located in one of two clearly distinct socio-economic and
physical environments, namely urban and rural environments. Gould and Kolb in Njoku (1997)
defined urbanization as a “Distinct quality of human community, with a special way of life
which is characteristic or a city”. Njoku outlined the characteristics of urban and rural
environments as follows:
1. Urban environment has a complex division of labour with a diversified occupational
structure which forms a major basis of the system of social stratification.
2. High territorial and social mobility
3. Marked functional dependence of population.
4. Substantial personal anonymity in interpersonal contacts, and systematization of
social roles and role interaction.
5. Reliance on direct modes or social control and
31
6. Normative deviance.
On the other hand, they defined rural environment as one that is traditional and
homogenous in terms of socio-economic cultural flux that characterize the cosmopolitan urban
environment. They characterized rural society as one with, Low population density, less social
differentiation, less social and spatial changes, Agriculture as the major occupation and which
centers on the political-economic system of land holding.
Iyortyer (1997) in a similar view defined rural community as one that lacks most of the
social amenities, and which has low population density and in which the main occupation of
the inhabitants is agriculture. He defined Urban as the communities as the human community
with relatively high population density, and has social amenities with complex division of
labour and distinct social classes.
Nwagu quoted in Igwe (1997) indicated that;
Urbanity is characterized by plurality of careers and economic
activities, most dwellers are employed in the secondary and tertiary
sectors of the economy and most parents are literate. Basic amenities
such as pipe-borne water, electricity, library facilities, modern
gadgets and equipment are prevalent in the urban areas. On the
contrary, rural inhabitants are mostly illiterate peasant farmers and
petty traders who operate at subsistence level.
From these definitions one can say that urban and rural societies are human
communities which are separated by their distinct characteristics. While in urban societies the
social and infrastructural amenities abound, there is lack of many social amenities that support
life and good living of the peasant inhabitants in the rural communities.
The community in which the child lives and goes to school cannot be divorced from his
academic performances in terms of interest, motivation, attitudes and achievement (Njoku
1997). According to Adiko (1997), most rural dwellers are farmers with little or no formal
32
education, while majority of urban or city dwellers are skilled professionals or semi-skilled
workers with sizeable incomes and thus high socio-economic status.
In his contribution Njoku (1997) asserted that, the difference in socio-economic status
between rural and urban dwellers as well as the difference in the physical structure of these
environments creates a world of difference in the learning opportunities, materials, facilities
and quality of personnel available to the students in rural and urban areas. Njoku (1997)
asserted further that, these opportunities are more favorable to urban dwellers than to rural
dwellers. To this, urban school students will be more motivated than their rural students‟
school counterparts in academic activities especially in the learning of Chemistry.
School Type as a Factor of Students’ Motivation in Learning
Schools can be grouped into, single-sex and co-educational schooling. Single-sex
schooling also known as single gender education is defined as the practice of conducting
education where male and female students attend separate schools or in separate building.
Riordan, Faddis, Beam, Seager, Tanney, DiBiase, Ruffin and Valentine (2008) outlined the
characteristics of single-sex and co-education schools as follows:
1. Single-sex schools decreases distraction in learning.
2. Reduces student behaviour problems
3. Provides more leadership opportunities
4. Promotes a sense of community among students and staff
5. Improves student self-esteem
6. Addresses unique learning styles and interest of boys or girls
7. Decreases sex bias in teacher-student interactions
8. Improves students‟ achievement
9. Decreases the academic problems of low achieving students
33
10. Reduces sexual harassment among students
11. Provides more positive students role models
12. Allows for more opportunities to provide social, moral guidance and Provides choice in public education.
On the other hand, co-educational school is defined as the integrated education of male
and female students in the institutions or schools. The authors also characterized co-
educational schools as one which increases distractions in learning, increases students‟
behaviour problems, increases gender bias in teachers-student interaction, lowers student
achievement and increases the academic problems of low achieving students. In co-
educational schools, boys and girls learn to easily mix socially with each other. Also, there are
more different academic strengths and weaknesses and a wider variety of approaches to
academic challenges in the co-education classroom. Thus, less stereotyping develops.
Halperns and Diane (2011) say that single-sex education is controversial. Halpern and
Diane also argue that it aids students‟ outcome such as test scores, graduation rates and
solution to behavioural difficulties. Halperns and Diane also believe that there are persistent
gender differences in how boys and girls learn and behave in educational settings. They added
that such differences merit educating the students separately, though they do not argue that all
girls learn in one way and all the boys learn in another way. Moreover, the authors added that
brains of males and females develop differently. The authors further say that by separating
students according to sex, the educator will be able to meet the needs according to the
developmental trajectory of the different genders.
Riordan (2008) says that results of studies on the effects of single-sex schooling is
equivocal: there is some support for the premise that single-sex schooling can be helpful,
especially for certain outcomes related to academic achievement and more positive academic
aspirations.
34
U.S Department of Education says that most studies reported positive effects for single-sex
senior secondary schools on all subject achievement tests. Riordan (2008) also found out that
positive results are more likely to be found by single-sex schools than for co-educational
schools in the same study for both academic achievement and social-emotional development.
In September 2011, the journal of science published a study deeply critical of the
evidence behind positive effects of gender segregation in schooling. This publication reads
that the movement towards single-sex education is deeply misguided and often justified by
weak, cherry-picked, or misconstrued scientific claims rather than by valid scientific evidence.
The result of the study is that there is no well-designed research showing that single-sex senior
secondary education improves students‟ academic achievement, but there is evidence that sex
segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism. The present
study seeks to determine the differential motivational factor in academic achievement of male
and female students in Chemistry.
Researches also argued that it is not single-sex education that is producing positive
results with the students rather it is the motivation of the teachers and the resources that are
available. On the other hand, the education review office report (Aitken, 2007) showed that
both boys and girls achieve better results in single-sex schools. Even though, boys and girls in
single-sex school perform more than the boys and girls in co-educational schools, they will
lagged behind more than their female and male counterparts in co-education schools.
Class Level as a Factor of Students’ Motivation in Learning
A class is a group of students who are taught or study together. Also, it is a period when
student meet to be taught a particular subject. Hornby (1999) defined a class as a category of
people grouped together because they have similar characteristics or qualities. A class can also
mean a group of students of varying age range, level of intelligence, from different socio
35
economic status who is taught together in a particular place. On the other hand, level simply
means individuals at the same position. Operationally, class level is defined as a category of
people at the same position grouped together to be taught in a particular place. Schools are set
up in the society to ensure that the young ones receive education which will enable them fit
into the society. This education cannot be achieved if there is no meaningful teaching and
learning in the classroom. Hence, Akubue (1991) defines classroom as one important place in
the operation of a school, which holds students together and offers them the opportunity of
achieving the purposes of education.
The classroom for all intents and purposes is where the success or failure of the
teaching-learning process is ignited, generated and sustained. A classroom can also be defined
as a room where students of different characteristics are taught for the purpose of proper
organization and effective classroom management (Ezeocha, 1990). The expectation and
objectives of formal education are normally accomplished in the classroom environment,
more than any other place. This is carried out through a well planned curriculum which the
class teacher manipulates to suit the level, ability and aspirations of the pupils through
effective and efficient classroom organization and management.
In the classroom, the teacher sets out complex plans and activities to ensure effective
and efficient learning. The management skills the teacher uses in the classroom will determine
the extent the students will achieve success in their learning. A classroom is a room which
houses one level of students in it. The different level of students includes junior secondary
school students (J.S.S) and senior secondary school (S.S.S) classes. Junior secondary school
students consist of J.S1, J.S2 and J.S3 classes. While senior secondary school students
consists of S.S1, S.S2 and S.S3 classes. In the present study, senior secondary school students
were considered. Senior secondary school is a school for the last three years of secondary
36
education. The senior secondary school daily programme is the most complex of all the school
programmes. There is also a variety of vocational interest goals and aspirations of senior
secondary school students. The school should provide for the vast individual differences of
within the formal school system. It is also at this level that the students are prepared to select
the course of study for entry into the university. For instance, for the student that are going to
study courses like Medicine and Surgery, Pharmacy, Chemistry, Biochemistry and the likes
are to be motivated to choose Chemistry and study hard, Since they must pass this subject at
least credit level in the West African secondary school certificate examination (WASSCE)
before they can be offered these courses in the university. Thus, the school system should
therefore prepare the students to achieve these objectives.
Theoretical Framework
Theories of Motivation
Motivation has been approached from a number of theoretical perspectives. Different
psychologists propose different theories of motivation but for the purpose of this particular
study, the following theories were reviewed: The path-goal theory of motivation, Expectancy-
value theory of motivation and General-Dynamic theory of motivation.
The Path-goal Theory
The path-goal theory is defined as the individuals‟ perception of his action or behaviour
(path), which may be related to the individual‟s idiosyncratic outcomes (goals). Path-goal
theory, according to Georgapoules, Mahoney and Jones (1952) is the extent to which the path
is seen as helping or hindering the individual in attaining his goals. A path-goal theory of
instrumentality can take values ranging from -1.00 through 0.00 to 1.00. A path-goal theory of
37
+1.00 means that taking that path is certain to lead to the attainment of that goal while a path-
goal theory of -1.00 means that that path is certain not to lead to goal attainment.
Perceived in relation to student motivation in learning, McClelland (1961) noted that
viewed from the path-goal approach that motivation function increases the net positive
valances associated with the path-behaviour to achieve success and to increase the students‟
path instrumentality with respect to achievement of success for personal outcomes and the
behaviour required for achievement of success. McClelland also asserted that individuals
acquire the need to achieve success varies among individuals. Atkinson (1964) confirmed that
when an individual is actively involved in a task, he sets himself a standard to conquer. This
standard is called the level of aspiration. Level of aspiration is longing for what is above one,
with advancement as its goal. Thus aspiration has to do with the desire to improve or to rise
above one‟s present status. A learner‟s level of aspiration may be high especially if he had just
succeeded, or it may be low if he had just met with failure. Aspiration may be positive or
negative. Positive aspiration has to do with winning success or doing better than one has done
before. Negative aspiration has to do with avoiding failure. Aspiration may also be described
as unrealistic especially when it is informed by limited knowledge and experience or
inadequate assessment of opportunities available in the learning environment for its attainment.
Some aspirations relate to what the learner wants to accomplish.
There are two sets of factors, which interact to determine the level of aspiration. They
are the personal factors, the cultural and environmental factors. Personal factors relate to such
personality traits as intelligence, interest, gender, self-concept, activity level, socio-economic
status and previous training experiences. Cultural and environmental factors include parental
ambition, social values and social reinforcement. Therefore, the actual frequency with which a
path is followed will be a function not only of the individual‟s motivation to follow it but also
38
of the constraints on him in his choice of behaviour, his ability and the nature of task. For
instance, in preparing for the lesson, the teacher sets clearly goals for the lesson in such a way
that the student will adopt the goals as his/her own goal and work hard to achieve it. Theorists
like Murray, McClelland and Atkinson outlined some characteristics of individuals with high
motivation as being often strong problem solvers, individuals that prefer tasks and problems
involving moderate levels difficulty, desires for feedback, having a strong orientation toward
problem-solving.
The Expectancy-Value Theory of Motivation
This theory has been one of the most important views on the nature of motivation. The
expectancy theory of motivation propounded by Ecceles, Adler, Futterman, Goff, Kaczala,
Meece, Midgely (2003) holds that the individuals‟ expectancies for success and the value they
have for succeeding are important determinants of their motivation to perform different
achievement tasks. Atkinson (1957) defined expectancies as individuals‟ anticipations that
their performance will be followed by either success or failure. Atkinson also, defined value
as the relative attractiveness of succeeding or failing on a task.
The essential element in Eccles, Alders, Futtermans, Goffs, Kaczalas, Meeces and
Midgelys alternative theory is that students are satisfied with the learning to the attainment of
what they desire. Thus, the expectancy theory argues that motivation is a function of choice
among alternative goals for which students have the potentials to satisfy their needs. Thus,
according to this theory of motivation, an individual chooses the behaviour he/she engages in
on the basis of:
(a) The valence he/she perceives to be associated with the outcomes of the behaviour
under consideration; and
39
(b) His/she subjective estimate of the probability that his/she behaviour will indeed result
from the outcomes.
Atkinson developed theory of motivation that perhaps best illustrates an expectancy
value framework. In its simplest form, Atkinson‟s theory states that the tendency to approach
as achievement activity (Ts) is a function of three factors: the motive for success (Ms), the
probability that one will be successful at the activity (Ps), and the incentive value of success
(Is). The factors are related multiplicatively, such that: Ts=M x P x I.
Here, Ms is the achievement motive, a relatively enduring personality trait presumed to
be learned early in life. Ps, is the probability of success which takes on numerical value from 0
to 1, with high numbers (e.g., Ps=0.80 indicating greater likelihood of successes, that is, an
easy task and incentive value (Is) represents an affective state, labeled pride and
accomplishment, and it was assumed to be inversely related to expectancy (I-Ps). This
relationship captured the notion that easier task, where the probability of success was high,
would elicit less pride and therefore be less motivating.
Atkinson‟s theory predicted that high achievement oriented people prefer tasks of
intermediate difficulty (Ps=0.5) because such task elicited the most pride following success.
People who were low in the achievement motive would be more motivated when tasks were
very easy or very difficult. Therefore, for the students‟ to pass their school subjects, the
students‟ should realize that he/she should harder to pass. The teachers should ensure that
every lesson has achievable goals. Also, the students‟ should set realistic and accomplished
goals in order to be successful.
The General-Dynamic Theory of Motivation
The dynamic approach interprets motivational parameters as determinants of change of
tendencies over extended period of time. The theoretical orientation suggested by the dynamic
40
approach refers to the conceptual analysis of change of behaviour as a function of the
subjective environment. Birch (1992) asserted that the dynamic theory explains behavioural
consistency in a changing environment as well as behavioural change in a constant
environment.
Maslow (1954) articulated that this theory is an attempt to formulate a positive theory
of motivation, which will satisfy theoretical demand while conforming to known facts about
human behaviour. The theory conceptualized by Maslow (1954) focuses on five goals of
behaviour and the strength of the need varies according to individual differences. The five
needs are Basic needs physiological, safety needs (security), Acceptance (Social) Recognition
(Esteem) and Actualization of needs. Maslow argued that these needs are basic goals and they
are related to each other being arranged in a hierarchy of prepotency. The needs must be
satisfied roughly in order, beginning with the basic needs.
Self-Actualization
Self- Esteem
(Recognition)
Social needs
(Acceptance)
Security
(Safety needs)
Physiological needs
(Basic needs)
41
Source: Maslow (1954)
Students are expected to satisfy these needs, unless these needs are satisfied, they
cannot perform will in their studies. Satisfaction of needs of an individual according to him
leads to feeling of superiority (worth), strength and adequacy of being motivated but
negligence of these needs produces feeling of inferiority, weakness and discouragement. If the
needs of the students are satisfied, they will put in their best to see that their goals are being
achieved. In other words, Maslow‟s theory has been widely used in Educational setting to
show the relationship between students and their achievement.
Warner (1992) has examined students‟ motivation in relation to Maslow‟s (1954)
theory and has pointed out that the majority of student learns under fear. This study suggests
that logical relationships could be posited between Maslow‟s needs hierarchy, educational
attitudes and self-concept.
Although the three theories reviewed have some interesting overlaps it would be
necessary to distinguish between behavioural, dynamic and cognitive approaches. Theories
belonging to the behavioural approach describe motivation in terms of behavioral tendencies in
a given situation. They emphasize the role of learning experiences, contingencies of
reinforcement, and situational variables in determining the direction and intensity of
behaviour.
The dynamic approaches which is based on psycho-analysis argues that behaviour is
determined by internal, largely unconscious, conflicts between drives, internalized demands of
culture and the reality of orientation of the ego. The dynamics of these conflicts led over to the
course of the child‟s development to the increasing dominance of reality guided activity over
impulse and pleasure orientation (Atkinson, 1984). The resolution of these conflicts involves
defense mechanism, which shape characteristics modes of functioning and play a role in
42
determining the meaning, direction and intensity of behaviour. The unique characteristic of this
approach is its emphasis on unconsciousness and unresolved conflicts, stemming from early
childhood experience.
The path-goal approaches on the other hand view motivation as determined by a
process of decision-making in which an active individual, seeking meaning and control of his
or her environment considers and selects from among alternative ways of behaviour. Prevalent
in this approach are the expectancy-value theories which see behaviour as a function of two
general factors.
1. The individual‟s perception of the values of outcomes expectancy to follow a certain
behaviour and
2. The perception of the means and prospect of achieving these outcomes.
The above approaches have important contribution in the study of motivation, but it is
the path-goal approach, which at present seems of greatest heuristic and practical value for the
analysis of motivation in education. Thus, the path-goal approach has effectively been applied
in both the teacher and students behaviour analysis.
Theories of Learning
A learning theory is a scientific explanation of how people and animals learn, thereby helping
us to understand the inherently complex process of learning. Merriam and Caffarella (1991)
highlighted three approaches or orientations to learning: Behaviourist, cognitivist, and social or
situational learning. These approaches involve contrasting ideas as to the purpose, process of
learning and the role that educators may take (Smith, 2011). Behaviourism as a theory was
primarily developed by B.F. Skinner. It encompasses the work of people like Edward
Thorndike, Tolman, Guthrie, and Hull. What characterize these investigators are their
underlying assumptions about the process of learning. In essence, three basic assumptions are
43
held to be true. Firstly, learning is manifested by a change in behaviour. Secondly, the
environment shapes behaviour. Thirdly, the principles of contiguity (how close in time two
events must be for a bond to be formed) and reinforcement (any means of increasing the
likelihood that an event will be repeated) are central to explaining the learning process. For
behaviourism, learning is the acquisition of new behaviour through conditioning. Conditioning
is the process of regulating the behaviour of a learner through the manipulation of some event
in the learner‟s environment. For instance, conditioning makes a child to dislike school after
suffering repeated conflicts with school authorities; or repeated failures in school activities etc.
There are two types of conditioning; Classical conditioning and operant conditioning.
Classical conditioning is where the behaviour becomes a reflex response to stimulus as
in the case of Pavlov‟s Dogs. Pavlov was interested in studying reflexes, when he saw that the
dogs drooled without the proper stimulus. Operant conditioning is where there is reinforcement
of the behaviour by a reward or a punishment. This theory was developed by B.F Skinner and
is known as Radical Behaviourism. The word „operant‟ refers to the way in which behaviour
operates on the environment. Briefly, behaviour may result either in reinforcement, which
increases the likelihood of the behaviour reoccurring, or punishment, which decreases the
likelihood of the behaviour not considered to be applicable if it does not result in the reduction
of the behaviour, and so the terms punishment and reinforcement are determined as a result of
the action. Therefore, motivation is defined as the urge to an act that results from stimulation.
For instance, a student who does not want to learn chemistry has to be persuaded to study it.
That is, a student can learn anything of which he/she is capable if he/she will only allow
himself to be put through to the pattern of activity necessary for conditioning to take place.
The behaviourists lay more emphasis on extrinsic motivation. The implications of this, is that
the teachers must make use of reinforcement, rewards and so on to induce motivation. The
44
needs of the students must be identified and efforts are made to satisfy them. Within this
framework, behaviourists are particularly interested in measuring changes in behaviour. Since
behaviourist viewed learning process as a change in behaviour. Educators arrange the
environment to elicit desired responses through such devices as behavioural objectives,
competency-based education, skill development and training (Smith, 2011). Education
approaches such as applied behaviour analysis, curriculum based measurement, and direct
instruction has emerged from this model (Kim, and Axelrod, 2005).
The earliest challenge to the behaviourists came in a publication in 1929 by Bode, a
gestalt psychologist (Bode 1929). Bode criticized behaviourists for being too dependent on
overt behaviours to explain learning. Gestalt psychologists were proposed looking at the
pattern rather than isolated events. They believe that a response to a situation is a whole
response to the whole situation. To them concept of behaviourist is atomistic and mechanistic.
Gestalt views of learning have been incorporated into what have come to be labeled cognitive
theories. Two key assumptions underlie this approach:
1. That the memory system is an active organized processor of information; and
2. That prior knowledge plays an important role in learning.
Cognitive theories look beyond behaviour to explain brain-based learning. Cognitivists
consider how human memory works to promote learning. For instance, the physiological
processes of sorting memory and long term memory are important to educators working under
the cognitive theory (Lilienfeld, 2010). The major difference between Gestaltists and
behaviourist is the locus of control over the learning activity. The individual learner is the key
to gestalts than the environment that behviourists emphasized on. But the present day Gestalt
field theorists avoid the use of concepts such as drive, effect, and reinforcement. For them
some key concepts in dealing with motivation are goal, expectancy, intention and purposes.
45
According to them motivation cannot be described merely as an impulse to act
triggered off by a stimulus. Rather it emerges from a dynamic psychological situation
characterized by a person‟s desire to do something. They regarded motivation as a product of
dis-equilibrium within a life space. A life space includes goals and often barriers to
achievement of these goals. A goal may be positive, something one wants to achieve or
negative, what one wants to avoid. When there are obstacles to the achievement of one‟s goal,
the individual experiences tension. The tendency to release the tension by proceeding towards
a goal including the overcoming of whatever barriers are on the way is motivation. A teacher
who accepts Gestalt field concept of motivation is deeply concerned with the problem of
personal involvement that is helping the student to see a need to learn Chemistry. Gestalt
believes that unless a student sees a need to learn Chemistry, he/she will not learn it at all or
will learn it a haphazard way. Gestalt psychologists‟ emphasizes on intrinsic motivation.
Cognitivists were mainly concerned with the way children learn. They asserted that children
learn nothing through rote memorization. True learning to them is achieved through the
understanding and insight of the problem at stake. They also saw rote memorization as leading
to blind non-productive learning by the students. The cognitivists insisted that teachers must
ensure understanding through the arrangement of learning material in such a way that can
enable students to see the whole and not just series of unrelated parts. They also stresses on
thinking and understanding. They believe that man is not a tabular rasa that he is born with
innate abilities. Also, that he is equipped with the capacity to think, the ability to reason,
though dormant at birth. Cognitivists also asserted that man can perceive and restructure his
environment. Social learning theory stresses the importance of social and cognitive factors in
learning as well as the role of observational model in determining behaviour.
46
The social learning theory proposed by Albert Bandura has become the most influential
theory of learning and development. While rooted in many of the basic concepts of traditional
learning theory, Bandura believed that direct reinforcement could not account for all types of
learning.
Bandura (1977) indicated that;
Learning would be exceeding laborious, not to mention hazardous,
if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to
inform them on what to do. Fortunately, most human behaviour is
learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed, and on
later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action
Bandura‟s theory also added a social element, arguing that people can learn new
information and behaviours by watching other people. This is known as observational learning
(or modeling) and it can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviours. Bandura (1977) says
that learning is accomplished by observing others without any direct or personal reinforcement
or any opportunity for practice. The author is of the view that all that is required for personality
to develop is for the person to observe another individual and take that individual as a model.
A model simply means anyone who demonstrates a behaviour that others observe.
There are three core concepts at the heart of social learning theory. Firstly, the idea that people
can learn through observation. Secondly, the ideas that internal mental state is an essential part
of this process. Lastly, the theory recognizes that just because something has been learned, it
does not mean that it will result in a change in behaviours. Bandura further identified three
basic models of observational learning as follows:
1. Real life model, which involves an actual individual demonstrating or acting out a behaviour such as parents, teachers, friends, heroes in films, sports stars, most
successful persons in the society. Students are highly motivated through observing and
imitating such models.
2. Verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations of behaviour;
47
3. Symbolic models, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviours in
books magazines, films, television programs or online Medias. In fact, modeling is very
crucial in school learning. Students not only emulate their teachers but also model
influential figures in their communities and even high achieving students in the school.
All these models can serve as a motivating device to prompt students to develop the habit of striving for excellence.
Bandura also noted that external, environmental reinforcement was not the only factor
to influence learning and behaviour. He described intrinsic reinforcement as a form of internal
reward, such as pride, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment. This emphasis on internal
thoughts and cognitions helps to connect learning theories to cognitive developmental theories
which he describes in his approach as social cognitive theory.
Furthermore, while behaviourist believed that learning lead to a permanent change in
behaviour, observational learning demonstrates that students can learn new information
without demonstrating new behaviours. Also, the theory added that is not all observed
behaviours are effectively learned, that factors involving both the model and the learner can
play a role whether social learning is successful. Bandura further indicated the steps involve in
the observational learning and modeling process as:
1. Attention
The person must first pay attention to model.
2. Retention
This is the ability of the student to remember the behaviour that he has observed
through rehearsal.
3. Reproduction
This is the ability to replicate the behaviour that the model has just demonstrated.
4. Motivation
For observational learning to be successful, the students have to be motivated to imitate
the behaviour that has been modeled.
48
In addition to influencing other psychologists, Bandura‟s social learning theory had important
implication in the field of education. Today, both teachers and parents recognize the
importance of modeling appropriate behaviours. Other classroom strategies such as
encouraging students, building self-esteem and building self-efficacy and students‟ motivation
are also rooted in social learning theory. The present study therefore is going to be based on
the social learning theory.
Empirical Studies:
Related Research Studies on Instrument Development and Validation.
Studies have been conducted in instrument development and validation. The study of
Chukwudolue (2002) developed and validated an instrument for teachers‟ motivation
Assessment scale for secondary school Teachers in Anambra state. The design of this study
was an instrumentation design. The research was conducted in five education zones in
Anambra state. The accessible population for the study consisted of all the 6781 secondary
schools in Anambra state. Stratified proportionate random sampling was used for pilot-testing
the instrument. To obtain items adequate for use in evaluating teachers‟ motivation assessment,
a purposive instrument was developed by researcher. The instrument “Teacher‟s Motivation
Assessment Scale” (TMAS) was face-validated and content-validated by experts in
measurement and Evaluation and Educational foundations. The instrument yielded an internal
consistency of 0.74. Data were analyzed using factor analysis, the cronbach Alpha, and t-test.
Consequently, from the results obtained, it could be concluded that the items of the instrument
provided a valid and reliable measure of secondary school teachers‟ motivation on their job.
This study is related to the present study though it lays emphasis on instrument development of
teacher‟s motivation scale for secondary school teachers; still it will guide the present study on
the type of design to use since instrumentation design was used in the study.
49
Also study of Ugochukwu (1991) developed and standardized an instrument for
evaluating the practical skills and competences that are required by nursing students. Six
practical skills considered major was selected through review of literature and text analysis. A
69-items instrument, Nurses‟ Practical Skill Test (NPST) was constructed pilot tested. The 55
items that were retained for the final form the NPST were those with facility indices of 0.30 to
0.70 and discrimination indices of 0.20 and above. The instrument was administered on 318
final year nursing students in eleventh schools of nursing in eight states in Nigeria. This
sample was composed using the stratified random sampling techniques. The study discovered
that:
i. The instrument posseses good face and content validity; and
ii. The reliability coefficient of the whole instrument using Cronbach Alpha (α)
Formula yielded a coefficient of 0.90, while the coefficients for the sections ranged from 0.51
to 0.79. The inter rater reliability was 0.73. This study relates to the present study because it
emphasizes on instrument development. The study also adopted instrumentation design which
will serve as a guide to the researcher in the present study on which design to be use for the
study.
Also to contribute in the development of instrument, Garba (1993) developed an
instrument for evaluating practical projects in woodwork. The research was conducted in 16
states in the Northern part of Nigeria. The accessible population for the study consisted of all
the 84 lecturers in 24 technical teachers‟ education department of Education Colleges of
Technology Polytechnics and Universities in the area of the study. Purposive sampling was
adopted and used for pilot- testing wood work project, a survey instrument was developed and
put into the following stages.
1. Designing stage
50
2. Planning stage
3. Assemble stage
4. Finishing stage
Each of the stages was properly spelled out. The instrument Technical Evaluating Practical
Project in Woodwork (TEPPW) was face validated and content validated by experts in
industrial, technical/ vocational education and measurement and evaluation. Reliability
coefficients of the various sections of the instrument ranged from 0.56 to 0.81 while the
instrument as a whole yielded an internal consistency of 0.91. Research questions and a
hypothesis generated to guide the study were analyzed using percentage count, mean statistics
and standard deviation. Scores of various sections of the instrument was determined by the use
of 2-scores which was further transformed to t- scores. The major findings of the study were:
i. All the 61items of the instrument (TEPPW) were considered by the respondents as
appropriate for use in evaluating students practical woodwork;
ii. The developed instrument needs to work according to specific standard;
iii. The developed instrument (TEPPW) possesses high content validity;
iv. The developed instrument (TEPPW) possesses Cronbach alpha (α) ranged from 0.56 to
0.81 in respect to each of the sections and 0.91 for the whole instrument; and
v. There was an overall good performance in the designing of woodwork projects;
This study relates to the present study because it also emphasizes on the instrument
development. Also, the study also adopted purposive sampling which will serve as a guide to
the researcher in the present study on which sample to be use for the study.
Gender as a factor of Motivation of Students in the Learning of Chemistry.
A study was carried out by Okoro and Etukudo (2001) on computer assisted instrument
(CAI), and extensive motivation-based traditional methods (EMBTM) were used as the
51
instruments. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of teaching methods with particular
reference to performance of female students in chemistry. This study was conducted using 40
students in each group. Each group had 20 male and 20 female students. They jointly had the
pre-test before the experiment and were later post-tested. Two hypotheses were formulated and
tested with mean, standard deviation and t-test statistics at .05 levels of significance. It was
discovered from this study that, male students performed significantly better than the female
students. Though, this study was aimed at comparing the effectiveness of teaching methods in
respect to performance of male and female students in chemistry. The study will be relevant to
the present study since motivation instrument will be used to determine the effectiveness of
learning and achievements of male and female students in Chemistry. Thus, it will guide the
present study.
A study was also carried out by Adedeji (2007), on the impact of motivation on
students‟ Academic Achievement and Learning Outcomes in Mathematics among secondary
school students in Nigeria. The research design used was an ex-post facto design. The
population for the study comprised all Senior Secondary 2 (SS2) students in Ibadan North-
West and Ibadan South West Local Government areas of Oyo state of Nigeria. An instrument
tagged Motivation for Academic Performance Questionnaire (MAPQ) was used to gather data
on the study. The instrument was adapted from Motivation for Occupational Preference Scale
(MOPS) by Bakare (1977), and Motivation for Academic study scale by Osiki (2001). The
reliability coefficient of the instrument was found to be 0.82 using test re-test reliability
method and the reliability coefficient yielded α = 0.82. The study was conducted using 450
secondary school students drawn from 10 schools in two Local Government areas in Ibadan.
The sample of student was randomly drawn from selected secondary schools. Their age ranged
from 15-22years with a mean of 18.6 years and standard deviation of 3.6. The study includes
52
male and female students. Other variables considered in the study are extent of motivation at
two levels that is; highly motivated and less motivated students. Two hypotheses were tested at
0.05 level of significance using t-test and analysis of Variance (ANOVA). It was found from
the study that male students significantly show high motivation than female students. While
this study was on the impact of motivation on male and female students‟ academic
achievement and learning outcomes in Mathematics, the present study also intends to find out
the extent of extent of motivation of male and female students‟ in the learning of chemistry.
Since the study considers gender as one of the variables. It will serve as a guide to the present
study.
Another, study was also carried out by Ahmet (2007) on the Affective factors that
Influence Chemistry Achievement (Motivation and Anxiety) and the power of these factors to
predict Chemistry achievement. The study was conducted using 819 high school students
attending 10 different high schools located in the city centre of Mersin. The Anxiety and
Motivation scales were an instrument used for data collection. Test re-tests reliability and
Cronhach-alpha coefficient (α) was used to calculate the reliability ad validity. Other variable
of the study include, gender (male and female). It was found that while 2nd grade students of
high schools had the highest motivation for Chemistry course, 1st grade students possess the
highest anxiety level for Chemistry courses as well. While this study was investigated on the
affective factors that influence Chemistry achievement (motivation and anxiety), the present
study also intends to find out the motivation of students in the learning of Chemistry. Since
motivation is also an affective factor and gender is considered. Thus, it will serve as a guide to
the present study. In another recent study, Kit-Ling (2009) carried out a research on grade
differences in students‟ reading motivation among Hong Kong primary and secondary
students. The study was conducted using 1,794 Chinese students from primary and secondary
53
school in Hong Kong. The researcher used Chinese Version of Motivation for Reading
Questionnaire (CRMQ) for data collection Reliability analyses and confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) were undertaken to assess the psychometric quality of CRMQ. It was
discovered that motivational decline is also a common phenomenon among Chinese students in
Hong Kong. Also, that the pattern of motivational differences is generally consistent among
students with different gender. While this study was carried out abroad, the present study will
be carried out in Nigeria. This study will serve as a guide to the present study since gender is
considered as one the variables.
Similarly, a study was also carried out by Maria (2004) on Gender differences in
academic motivation of secondary school students. The population for the study comprised of
students in second cycle of mandatory secondary education at public schools of province of
Jaen in Spain. The study was conducted using 521 students between the ages of 14 and 18
currently in second cycle of mandatory secondary education in all the public schools in the
province of Jaen. The instrument MAPE-11 used by the study was adapted by Montero and
Alonso (1992) to analyze the motivational patterns by students between the ages of 14- 18
years. The hypotheses were tested at .05 level of significance using t-test. It was found that
female students significantly showed low extrinsic motivation, taking more responsibility for
their failures than male students. This study is related to the present study because it
emphasizes on gender differences in academic motivation of secondary school students. Thus,
it will guide the present study.
School Location as Factor in Students Academic Motivation
Differential achievement of students from urban and rural areas was reported by
Adebayo (1997). In the study, Adebayo used a Raven‟s standard progressive matrices (which
is a non-verbal figural test of reasoning) on a population of 480 students from 8 schools in
54
Lagos state of determine gender, environment, and co-education as factors of performance on
the instrument. The schools which were single sex and co-educational were located in both
urban and rural areas. The results obtained among others showed that: students from urban
areas had higher mean scores than those from rural areas, although this difference was not
statistically significant. This study relates to the present study, though location (urban and
rural) was used but no emphasis was laid on motivation. There is therefore a gap that will
determine areas that need improvement in learning of chemistry. It is incontrovertible that
most of the studies show that urban students achieve higher than rural students. It is also
possible that students in urban areas perform better than their counterparts in rural location just
because they have high motivation to learn than their rural counterparts. It is therefore worth
investigating that the relative levels of students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry in the two
locations.
In a related study Achalla (1995) conducted a research which aimed at investigating
the effects of an environmental variable (school location) on the attainment of formal
cognition, and how the variable has affected the learning of evolution. Two research questions
and two hypotheses were formulated for the study in a Piagetian style instrument (PSI) used on
114 urban and 88 rural pupils. It was found that there is a significant relationship between
environmental factors and cognitive development between students‟ from rural and urban areas
in favour of students in urban schools. Though, the study laid more emphasis on cognitive
development of students instead of motivation which the present study intends to determine.
But, since the study considers location, it will serve as a guide to the present study.
Corroborating the above view, Iyabo (1996), Bulus (1996) and Iyorter (1997)
established from their separate studies that, there is statistical significant difference between
the performance of students from the two sets of environments (urban and rural) in favour of
55
students in urban schools. This study relate to the present study since location was considered
as one of the variable.
To determine whether location has any influence on the students‟ academic
achievement, Ayodele (1996) conducted a study using 7 randomly selected secondary schools
in Illaje-Local Government Area of Ondo Sate. Three schools were all girls school, three all
boys and one co-educational school. The instrument used was the 1991/92 WAEC results. The
results were grouped into alpha (a), credits, pass and failure grades. Percentage compilation
warranted an x2 (chi-square) testing of three hypotheses. The findings indicated among others
that academic achievement of students was dependent on location. Those urban schools
performed better than their rural counterparts on O/L WASCE.
Few researchers, however, have reports that are on the contrary. For instance, Abu
(1996) in his study on urban and rural school background of J.S.S 1 students in 5 junior
secondary schools in relation to academic achievements established that, rural school
background did not affect students‟ achievement in their J.S.S 1 sectional examinations. In a
related study Odugwu (1996), investigated the effect of school environment on the Biology in
Edo State. From the study, it was established that, there existed no significant relationship
between environmental factors and biology learning achievement between students from rural
and urban areas. Thus if students are exposed equally to the same procedure towards learning,
it is expected that learning will be acquired uniformly, hence the observed result.
Generally, it is opined that limited number of study has been carried out on location as
a factor of motivation. This may be due to lack of valid instrument to assess students‟
motivation especially in the area of Chemistry. The present study will seek to establish the
differential factors in the motivation of urban and rural students in the learning of Chemistry.
56
Summary of Review of Literature
A number of literature have been presented both from the conceptual, theoretical and
empirical perspectives. From the conceptual perspectives, the review presented conceptual
study on Instrument Development, Factor Analysis, Motivation, Achievement Motivation,
Gender as a factor of Students‟ Motivation, School Location as a factor of Students‟
Motivation, School Type as a factor of Students‟ Motivation and Class Level as a factor of
Students‟ Motivation. The study also presented the theoretical perspectives, stressing that from
a generalized point of view, motivation is the process of arousing, sustaining and regulating the
activities of an organism in a given context. This generalized view was supported with a
number of theoretical propositions about motivation. The theories reviewed include; the path-
goal theory, the expectancy value motivation theory and the general dynamic theory of
motivation. Each of these theories tend to explain motivation from what may initially look like
a diverse perspective, but on a closer analysis, they all tend to agree that it has to do with an
activated force which drives an individual into action or which inhibits action towards a
specific goal. The theoretical review equally analyzed learning theories.
From the empirical point of view, the review presented empirical studies on instrument
development, gender and location as a factor of motivation in the learning of Chemistry.
Although studies on motivation are quite numerous, it must be appreciated that researchers
have not given much emphasis to instrument development in motivation. In view of the
indispensability of a measuring instrument it has become necessary to develop and validate an
instrument which could be reliably applied in the assessment of students‟ motivation in the
learning of Chemistry.
57
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHOD
This chapter deals with the method which the researcher adopted for this study. This
includes the following: Research Design, Area of Study, Population of the study, Sample and
Sampling Technique, Instrument for Data Collection, Reliability of the Instrument, Method of
Data Collection, and Method Data Analysis.
Research Design
This is an instrumentation research study. According to Ali (2006), Instrumentation
study is a study which is purely geared towards the development and validation of
measurement instruments in education. This study therefore meets the requirement for
instrumentation study because measurement instrument was developed and validated for
measuring students‟ motivation in the learning of Chemistry.
Area of the Study
This study was conducted in Okigwe Education Zone one (1) of Imo State. The zone
consists of three local government Areas, namely: Okigwe, Onuimo and Isiala Mbano. These
zones are made up of urban and rural areas. In the zone, there are thirty-five (35) secondary
schools made up of twenty-seven (27) co-education and eight (8) single-sex schools
(Secondary Education Management Board Okigwe (SEMB) 2011/2012).
Population of the Study
The population for the study consisted of all senior secondary school students who are
offering Chemistry in Okigwe Education Zone one (1) of Imo State. All the class levels (SS1,
SS2, and SS3) were chosen because the influence of class level on the mean motivation was
considered in the study. From data, the population size was one thousand five hundred and
54
58
eight (1508) students comprising of SS1=1012, SS2=235, and SS3=261 (Secondary Education
Management Board Okigwe, 2011/2012). (See Appendix Di and Dii)
Sample and Sampling Techniques
Purposive sampling technique was used to draw ten (10) co-educational secondary
schools. The process of purposive simple random sampling involved, the researcher writing the
names of the co-educational schools on pieces of paper. Then, there was random selection of
the papers and those schools that were randomly selected formed the sampled schools. (See
Appendix Ei for details on this)
Instrument for Data Collection
The instrument used in this study was called Students‟ Motivation to Chemistry
Learning Scale. (SMLCS).
Description of the Instrument
The instrument for data collection called Students‟ Motivation to Chemistry Learning
Scale (SMLCS) was developed by the researcher based on the information generated through
review of literature. The instrument was designed on a four point-rating scale weighted as
follows: Strongly Agreed (SA=4points), Agreed (A=3points), Disagreed (D=2points), Strongly
Disagreed (SD=1point) for positively worded items, and vice versa for negatively worded
items. The instrument consisted of Sections A and B. Section A demographic information of
the respondents, while Section B information on the students‟ motivation to the learning of
Chemistry. Section B had six clusters; cluster 1 seeks to determine the teacher‟s personality
factors of students‟ motivation. This cluster has eleven items. Cluster 2 seeks to determine
classroom environmental factors of students‟ motivation. This cluster has eleven items. Cluster
3 seeks to determine students‟ personal factors. This cluster has nine items. Cluster 4 seeks to
59
determine parents/family factors of students‟ motivation. This has nine items. Cluster 5 seeks
to determine peer factors of students‟ motivation. This has eight items. Cluster 6 seeks to
determine career needs factor of students‟ motivation. This has eight items. Items were now
subjected to preliminary validation. This was to ensure that the clusters were correct,
unambiguous and relevance. Items were further subjected to construct validity to determine the
validity of the items. Researcher‟s choice of sixty-one (61) items at the draft stage was to make
sure that adequate provision was made for item mortality during preliminary validation and
main construct validation. At developmental stage, the researcher could not really determine
how many items that would drop either as a result of poor loading or factorial complexity.
Validation of the Instrument
The initial draft of this instrument was face validated by two experts in Measurement
and Evaluation, one expert in psychology and one expert in Educational Administration. The
validates were expected to look through the instrument based on the following criteria; check
the item for clarity, relevance, appropriateness of the identified factors, and the appropriateness
of the item under each of the factors. After receiving the expert‟s opinions, necessary
amendments were made on the items. The sixty-one (61) items sent for validation, were
reduced from 61to56 items (See Appendix A, B and C for details on the initial draft and
modified draft). But some new ones were added as suggested by validates. The inputs of these
experts helped in improving the number of items in each cluster of the instrument. (For
validates comments, See Appendix F). To determine the construct validity of the instrument
factor analysis was carried out as follows: the modified SMLCS of fifty-six (56) items was
subjected to factorial validation for construct validity using factor analysis. Factorial validation
is a systematic examination of test to determine their extent of variation or inter-correlation in
terms of their factor loadings to ensure that the items are of proven quality. The factor analytic
60
result is used to establish the extent SMLCS will exhibit factorial validity or the factors
identified through review of literature.
From the result of the factor analysis, items which loaded a minimum of 0.35 and above
were accepted as being valid (Factorially Pure, FP), but items with factor loadings of less than
0.35 (Factorially Impure, FI) and items which loaded up to 0.35 in more than two factors
(Factorially Complex, FC) were rejected. Meredith (1969) recommended that a loading of 0.35
should be accepted as the minimum factor loading for accepting any item. The factorial
validation revealed that; items (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56) were
factorially pure (FP), items (1, 2, 15, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 31, 38, 40, 44, 47 and 51) were
factorially complex (FC), and item (9 and42) were factorially impure (FI). These sixteen items
which were FC and FI were discarded. Thus, the researcher was left with only forty items and
these 40 items were renumbered serially (See Appendix G for details on this).
Reliability of the Instrument
The face validated Students‟ Motivation to Chemistry Learning Scale (SMLCS) was
subjected to trial testing. A total of twenty (20) SS1, SS2 and SS3 Chemistry students of
Okigwe Education zone two (2) were used. The scores obtained on the administration of the
instrument were recorded and Cronbach-alpha was used to determine its reliability. An overall
internal consistency reliability estimate of 0.92 was obtained. For the clusters reliability
ranging from 1-6, the internal consistency reliability estimates were 0.67, 0.70, 0.61, 0.67,
0.53, and 0.64 respectively.
Method of Data Collection
The Students‟ Motivation to Chemistry Learning Scale Questionnaire (SMLCS) was
administered by the researcher and a trained research assistant to the ten (10) co-educational
61
secondary school SS1, SS2, and SS3 Chemistry students in Okigwe Education Zone one (1) of
Imo State. The researcher and the research assistant ensured that the students filled the
demographic data, worked independently and complied with the given time. The instruments
were collected on the spot.
Method of Data Analysis
The following statistical tools were used to analyze the data. The descriptive statistics
involved the use of mean and standard deviation of scores to answer the research questions. 4-
point scale which has a mean of 2.50 and above was considered a suitable criterion mean that
indicates that the respondents agreed that a particular factor motivates them to learn Chemistry.
While a mean of below 2.50 indicates that the respondents disagreed that a particular factor
motivates them to learn Chemistry. The inferential statistics involved the use of t-test and one-
way ANOVA to test Null hypotheses. The t-test was used to test Null hypotheses one and two
while one-way ANOVA was used to test Null hypothesis three at .05 level of significance.
DECISION RULE
Decision Level (DL) Mean Range
Strongly Agreed (SA) 3.50 – 4.00
Agreed (A) 2.50 – 3.49
Disagreed (D) 1.50 – 2.49
Strongly Disagreed (SD) 0.05 – 1.49
62
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
In this chapter, results are presented on the basis of the research questions and
hypotheses that guided the study.
Research Question 1:
What is the reliability coefficient of the instrument (SMLCS) developed to measure
students‟ motivation to learn chemistry?
The reliability coefficient of the 40 item instrument was computed using Cronbach Alpha. The
results of the analysis are presented on the Table 1 below.
Table 1: The Reliability Coefficient of Students’ Motivation to learn Chemistry
Scale (SMLCS) Using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient
N = 588
S/N
S/N
Factors
No of
items
Reliability
coefficient of factors
1. Teacher‟s Personality Motivational Factors 8 0.67
2. Classroom Environment Motivational Factors 8 0.70
3. Students‟ Personal Motivational Factors 5 0.61
4. Parents/Family Motivational Factors 7 0.67
5. Peers/Classmates Motivational Factors 5 0.53
6. Career Needs Motivational Factors 7 0.64
Pooled Result 40 0.92
No of cases =588
No of factors (Clusters) =6
Cronbach Alpha =0.92
64
63
The results in Table 1 show that the reliability coefficient of the whole instrument
(SMLCS) is 0.92. This indicates that the total instrument which has 40 items is reliable enough
for finding out students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry in secondary schools. The Table also
shows reliability coefficient of the variables or factors of students‟ motivation to learn
chemistry. The Cronbach alpha coefficients of six factors range from 0.53 to 0.70. Thus, it can
be concluded that the reliability coefficient of each cluster of the instrument indicates that the
clusters/factors are reliable enough to assess students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry.
Research Question 2
What are the factor loadings of the items on the instrument (SMLCS) developed to measure
students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry?
Table 2: Factor Analysis Results of Clusters and Items on SMLCS that are
Considered Factorially Pure and Valid.
Factors (Clusters) Items Factor Loadings
Teacher’s Personality Motivational Factors
Our teacher‟s knowledge and skills in teaching makes me
want to learn more in Chemistry.
3 0.558
Our teacher‟s honesty in judging students makes me want
to learn Chemistry.
4 0.608
Our teacher‟s smartness and neatness makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry.
5 0.516
Our teacher‟s use of clear and audible voice while teaching
makes me want to learn more in Chemistry.
6 0.505
Our teacher‟s willingness to teach his lesson makes me
want to continue in Chemistry.
7 0.531
Our teacher‟s kind-heartedness makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
8 0.528
Our teacher‟s fairness makes me want to learn Chemistry. 10 0.601
Our teacher‟s moral virtue makes me want to continue with
Chemistry.
11 0.663
Classroom Environment Motivational Factors
I pay attention in the Chemistry class to avoid punishment
by our teacher.
12 0.810
64
Our teacher gives us lots of assignment, and that makes me
to learn more in Chemistry.
13 0.571
Our teacher encourages active participation in Chemistry
lessons and that makes me want to learn Chemistry.
14 0.587
Safety issues in Chemistry do not affect my wanting to
learn Chemistry.
16 0.644
The friendly nature of Chemistry class makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
17 0.356
Stories of great Chemists told by our teacher makes me
want to continue in learning of Chemistry.
20 0.664
Praises for any correct answers by our Chemistry teacher
encourage me to read hard in Chemistry.
21 0.551
Our Chemistry teacher‟s punctuality to lessons encourages
me to learn Chemistry.
22 0.473
Students’ Personal Motivational Factors
To retain my good position in Chemistry, I read hard. 23 0.486
To avoid failure in Chemistry, I read hard. 24 0.355
The calculations in Chemistry makes me want to learn more
in Chemistry.
28 0.701
The practical activities in Chemistry makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
29 0.678
My good grade in Chemistry makes me want to learn more
in Chemistry.
30 0.425
Parents/Family Motivational Factors
My parent‟s background in science makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
32 0.727
My parent‟s wish for science background in the family
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
33 0.545
The Chemistry textbooks my parents bought for me
encourages me to learn more in Chemistry.
34 0.354
My parent‟s encourages me to read hard and that makes me
to learn more in Chemistry.
35 0.521
My parent‟s praises for my good performance makes me
want to learn more in Chemistry.
36 0.370
The extra-mural classes my parents organizes for me in
Chemistry makes me want to learn Chemistry.
37 0.792
My parent‟s instruction to do my Chemistry assignment at
home makes me want to learn Chemistry.
39 0.679
Peers/Classmates Motivational Factors
My classmate‟s encouragement to read Chemistry makes
me want to learn Chemistry.
41 0.750
My friend‟s interest in Chemistry makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
43 0.513
65
My friend‟s good performance in Chemistry makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
45 0.505
My friend‟s love for Chemistry makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
46 0.694
My success in learning Chemistry will depend on the
cooperation of my classmates.
48 0.760
Career Needs Motivational Factors
My desire to become a chemist makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
49 0.541
My desire to become a medical doctor makes me want to
learn more Chemistry.
50 0.351
My desire to become an engineer makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
52 0.639
My desire to manufacture detergents and paints makes me
want to learn more in Chemistry.
53 0.615
My desire to become a laboratory technician makes me
want to learn more in Chemistry.
54 0.497
My desire to manufacture fertilizer makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
55 0.498
My desire to work in the chemical industries makes me
want to learn more in Chemistry.
56 0.441
The data in Table 2 show that a total of six factors and 40 items emerged factorially
valid. For the Teacher‟s Personality factor, there were eleven (11) items. At the end of factor
analysis, two (2) of the items, items (1 and 2) were found to be factorially complex, while one
(1) of the item, item nine (9) was found to be factorially impure. Such items were therefore
discarded. The ones that were found to be factorially pure and therefore suitable are presented
in the Table 2. The factor loadings of eight items in this cluster range from 0.505 to 0.663.
On Classroom environment motivation factor, there were also eleven (11) items. At the
end of factor analysis, three (3) of the items (items 15, 18 and 19) were found to be factorially
complex. They were therefore discarded. The ones that to be factorially pure are presented on
the Table. The factor loadings of the eight items in this cluster ranges from 0.356 to 0.810.
On Students‟ Personal motivation factor, there were nine (9) items. At the end of factor
analysis, four (4) of the items, items (25, 26, 27 and 31) were found to be factorially complex.
66
They were therefore discarded. The ones that are factorially pure are presented on the Table.
The factor loadings of the five (5) items in this cluster ranges from 0.355 to 0.701.
On Parent/Family motivation factor, there were also nine (9) items. After the factor
analysis, two (2) of the items, items (38 and 40) were found to be factorially complex. They
were therefore discarded. The ones that are factorially pure are presented on the Table. The
factor loadings of the seven (7) items in this cluster ranges from 0.354 to 0.792.
On Peers/Classmates motivation factor, there were eight (8) items. At the end of factor
analysis, two (2) of the items, items (44 and47) were found to be factorially complex while one
of the item, item (42) was found to be factorially impure. They were therefore discarded. The
ones that are factorially pure are presented on the Table. The factor loadings of the five (5)
items in this cluster ranges from 0.505 to 0.760.
On Career Needs motivation factor, there were also eight (8) items. After factor
analysis, one (1) item, item (51) was found to be factorially complex. It was therefore
discarded. The ones that are factorially pure are presented on the Table. The factor loadings of
the seven (7) items in this cluster ranges from 0.351 to 0.639. These factor loadings are
appropriate as they are in line with Meredith (1969) postulate.
Research Question 3
What are the mean scores of students on motivation to learn Chemistry as measured by the
SMLCS?
To answer this research question, the criterion mean of 2.50 was adopted. All mean scores that
are equal or greater than the criterion mean indicate “agreement” (A), while all mean scores
below 2.50 (that is 2.49 – 1.00) indicate “disagreement” (D) of the respondents.
Table 3: The Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Scores of Students on Factors that
Motivate them to Learn Chemistry.
67
N=588
S/N
Items
X
S.D
Decision
Teacher’s Personality Motivational Factors
1 Our teacher‟s knowledge and skills in teaching makes
me want to learn more in Chemistry. 2.70 1.00 A
*
2 Our teacher‟s honesty in judging students makes me
want to learn Chemistry. 2.83 0.97 A
3 Our teacher‟s smartness and neatness makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry. 2.66 0.96 A
4 Our teacher‟s use of clear and audible voice while
teaching makes me want to learn more in Chemistry. 2.65 1.06 A
5 Our teacher‟s willingness to teach his lesson makes me
want to continue in Chemistry. 2.71 1.09 A
6 Our teacher‟s kind-heartedness makes me want to learn
Chemistry. 2.89 0.87 A
7 Our teacher‟s fairness makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry. 2.82 0.96 A
8 Our teacher‟s moral virtue makes me want to continue
with Chemistry. 2.85
0.93
A
Cluster Mean 2.76 0.09 A
Classroom Environment Motivational Factors
9 I pay attention in chemistry class to avoid punishment by
my teacher. 2.59 0.88
A
10 Our teacher gives me lots of assignments and that makes
me want to learn more in Chemistry. 2.79 1.09
A
11 Our teacher encourages active participation in Chemistry
lessons and that makes me want to learn Chemistry. 2.66 1.11
A
12 Safety issues in Chemistry do not affect my wanting to
learn Chemistry. 2.78 1.03
A
13 The friendly nature of Chemistry class makes me want to
learn Chemistry. 2.85 1.04
A
14 Stories of great Chemists, told by our teacher makes me
to continue to learn Chemistry. 2.72 0.90
A
15 Praises for any correct answer by our Chemistry teacher
encourages me to read hard in Chemistry. 2.78 0.98
A
16 Our Chemistry teacher‟s punctuality to lessons encourages
me to learn Chemistry. 2.73 1.09
A
Cluster Mean 2.74 0.08 A
Students’ Personal Motivational Factors
68
17 To retain my good position in Chemistry, I read hard. 2.80 1.01 A
18 To avoid failure in Chemistry, I read hard. 2.91 0.99 A
19 The calculations in Chemistry make me to learn more in
Chemistry. 2.81 0.78
A
20 The practical activities in chemistry make me want to
learn Chemistry. 2.80 1.04
A
21 My good grade in Chemistry makes me to learn more in
Chemistry. 2.73 1.07
A
Cluster Mean 2.81 0.06 A
Parents/Family Motivational Factors
22 My parent‟s background in science makes me to learn
Chemistry. 2.57 0.97
A
23 My parent‟s wish for science background in the family
makes me to learn Chemistry. 2.78 1.01
A
24 The Chemistry textbooks my parents bought for me
encourages me to learn more in Chemistry. 2.65 1.03
A
25 My parent‟s encourage me to read hard and that makes
me to learn more in Chemistry. 2.88 0.94
A
26 My parent‟s praises for my good performance makes me to
learn more in Chemistry. 2.79 1.02
A
27 The extra-mural classes my parents organize for me
makes me want to learn Chemistry. 2.77 1.04
A
28 My parents‟ instruction to do my Chemistry assignment
at home makes me to learn more in Chemistry.
2.74 0.93
A
Cluster Mean 2.74 0.10 A
Peers/Classmates Motivational Factors
29 My classmate‟s encouragement to read Chemistry makes
me want to learn Chemistry. 2.88 0.98
A
30 My friend‟s interests in Chemistry make me want to learn
Chemistry. 2.78 1.03
A
31 My friend‟s good performance in Chemistry makes me
want to learn Chemistry. 2.61 1.04
A
32 My friend‟s love for Chemistry makes me want to learn
Chemistry. 2.80 1.02
A
33 My success in learning Chemistry will depend on the
cooperation of my classmates. 2.70 0.95
A
Cluster Mean 2.75 0.10
A
Career Needs Motivational Factors
34 My desire to become a Chemist makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry. 2.77 1.00
A
35 My desire to become a medical doctor makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry. 2.74 1.01
A
36 My desire to become an engineer makes me want to
learn Chemistry. 2.85 0.95
A
69
37 My desire to manufacture detergents and paints makes
me to learn more in Chemistry. 2.76 1.00
A
38 My desire to become a laboratory technician makes me
learn more in Chemistry. 2.77 0.96
A
39 My desire to manufacture fertilizer makes me to learn
more in Chemistry. 2.61 0.96
A
40 My desire to work in the chemical industries makes me
to learn more in Chemistry 2.65 0.98
A
Cluster Mean 2.74 0.08 A
X = Mean, S.D = Standard deviation, N = Number of respondents, A* = Agreed
Table 3 shows data on the mean scores of students on factors that motivate them to
learn Chemistry in secondary schools. The Table reveals that Teachers‟ Personality factors
have mean scores ranging from 2.65 to 2.89, which are above the criterion mean of 2.50. This
implies strong agreement by the respondents on the factors that motivate them to learn
chemistry. The cluster mean of 2.76 also indicates that the students agreed that the factor
motivate them to learn Chemistry. The cluster standard deviation is 0.09, which is less than
one (S.D < 1). This implies that all the respondents had scores that are close to the mean.
On Classroom Environment motivation factors, the mean scores range from 2.59 to 2.85 which
is above the criterion mean of 2.50. This implies strong agreement by the respondents on the
factors that motivate them to learn Chemistry. The cluster mean of 2.74 also indicates that the
respondents agreed that those factors motivate them to learn chemistry. The cluster standard
deviation is 0.08 which is less than one (S.D < 1). This implies that all the respondents had
scores that were close to the mean. The scores did not scatter widely around the mean, showing
strong general agreement of the respondents.
On Students‟ Personal motivation factors, the mean scores range from 2.73 to 2.91,
which is also above the criterion mean of 2.50. This implies strong agreement by the
respondents on the factors that motivate them to learn Chemistry in secondary schools. The
cluster mean of 2.81 also indicates that the respondents agreed that those factors motivate them
to learn Chemistry. The cluster standard deviation is 0.06 which is less than one (S.D < 1).
70
This implies that all the respondents had scores that were close to the mean. The scores did not
scatter widely around the mean, showing strong general agreement of the respondents.
On Parent/Family motivation factors, the mean scores range from 2.57 to 2.88 which is
above the criterion mean of 2.50. This implies strong agreement by the respondents on the
factor that motivate them to learn Chemistry in secondary schools. The cluster mean of 2.74
also indicates that the respondents agreed that the factors motivate them to learn Chemistry.
The cluster standard deviation is 0.10 which is less than one (S.D < 1). This implies that all the
respondents had scores that were close to the mean. The scores did not scatter widely around
the mean, showing strong general agreement of the respondents.
On Peers/Classmates motivation factors, the mean scores range from 2.61 to 2.88 which
is above the criterion mean of 2.50. This implies strong agreement by the respondents on the
factors that motivate them to learn Chemistry in secondary schools. The cluster mean of 2.75
also indicates that the respondents agreed that the factors motivate them to learn Chemistry.
The cluster standard deviation is 0.10 which is less than one (S.D < 1). This implies that all the
respondents had scores that were close to the mean. The scores did not scatter widely around
the mean, showing strong general agreement of the respondents.
On Career Needs motivation factors, the mean scores range from 2.61 to 2.85 which is
above the criterion mean of 2.50. This implies strong agreement by the respondents on the
items as factor determining their motivation to learn Chemistry in secondary schools. The
cluster mean of 2.74 also indicates that the respondents agreed that the factors motivate them
to learn Chemistry. The cluster standard deviation is 0.08 which is less than one (S.D < 1).
This implies that all the respondents had scores that were close to the mean. Also the scores
did not scatter widely around the mean, showing strong general agreement of the respondents.
Research Question 4
71
How do male students differ from female students on their motivation to learn Chemistry as
measured by SMLCS?
The difference on students in (SMLCS), based on the 40 item that survived factor
analysis, were scored and computed using mean and standard deviation to find the difference
between male and female students motivation on the instrument (SMLCS) . Also to answer
this research question, the criterion mean of 2.50 was again adopted. All mean scores that are
equal or greater than the criterion mean indicate “agreement” (A) while all mean scores below
2.50 (that is 2.49 – 1.00) indicate “disagreement” (D) of the respondents. The result of the
analysis is presented on Table 4.
Table 4: Mean and Standard Deviation of Scores in Students’ Motivation to
Learn Chemistry by Sex.
N=588
S/N
Items
Sex
n
X
S.D
Decision
Teacher’s Personality Motivational
Factors
1 Our teacher‟s knowledge and skills in
teaching makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.70 1.00
A*
F 272 2.70 1.00 A
2 Our teacher‟s honesty in judging students
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.80 0.99 A
F 272 2.86 0.93
A
3 Our teacher‟s smartness and neatness
makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.64 0.96
A
F 272 2.69 0.96 A
4 Our teacher‟s use of clear and audible
voice while teaching makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.64 1.02 A
F 272 2.65 1.10
A
5 Our teacher‟s willingness to teach his
lesson makes me want to continue in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.76 1.07
A
F 272 2.65 1.10 A
72
6 Our teacher‟s kind-heartedness makes
me want to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.93 0.84
A
F 272 2.84 0.91
A
7 Our teacher‟s fairness makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.80 0.94 A
F 272 2.85 0.99
A
8 Our teacher‟s moral virtue makes me
want to continue with Chemistry.
M 316 2.84 0.93
A
F 272 2.85 0.94 A
Cluster Mean M 316 2.76 0.10 A
F 272 2.76 0.10 A
Classroom Environment Motivational
Factors
9 I pay attention in Chemistry class to avoid
punishment by my teacher.
M 316 2.60 0.90
A
F 272 2.58 0.86
A
10 Our teacher gives me lots of assignment
and that makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.73 1.10
A
F 272 2.86 1.08 A
11 Our teacher encourages active
participation in Chemistry lessons and
that makes me want to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.74 1.10
A
F 272 2.56 1.12
A
12 Safety issues in Chemistry do not affect
my wanting to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.75 1.03
A
F 272 2.82 1.03
A
13 The friendly nature of Chemistry class
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.87 1.03
A
F 272 2.82 1.05 A
14 Stories of great Chemists told by our
teacher makes me to continue in learning
Chemistry.
M 316 2.70 0.91
A
F 272 2.74 0.90 A
15 Praises for any correct answers by our
Chemistry teacher encourage me to read
hard in Chemistry.
M 316 2.79 0.93 A
F 272 2.76 1.03
A
73
16 Our Chemistry teacher‟s punctuality to
lessons encourages me to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.76 1.09
A
F 272 2.70 1.10
A
Cluster Mean M 316 2.74 0.08 A
F 272 2.74 0.11 A
Students’ Personal Motivational
Factors
17 To retain my good position in Chemistry,
I read hard.
M 316 2.77 1.01 A
F 272 2.83 1.00 A
18 To avoid failure in Chemistry, I read hard.
M 316 2.92 0.97 A
F 272 2.89 1.01 A
19 The calculations in Chemistry make me
to learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.82 0.78
A
F 272 2.81 0.79
A
20 The practical activities in Chemistry
make me want to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.78 1.05
A
F 272 2.83 1.03 A
21 My good grade in Chemistry makes me to
learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.77 1.02
A
F 272 2.68 1.13
Cluster Mean M 316 2.81 0.06 A
F 272 2.80 0.08 A
Parents/Family Motivational Factors
22 My parent‟s background in science
makes me to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.56 0.96
A
F 272 2.57 0.99 A
23 My parent‟s wish for science
background in the family makes me to
learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.76 1.02
A
F 272 2.81 0.99
A
24 The Chemistry textbooks my parents
bought for me encourages me to learn
more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.64 1.01
A
F 272 2.66 1.06
A
25 My parent‟s encourages me to read hard
and that makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.83 0.96
A
F 272 2.95 0.92
A
74
26 My parent‟s praises for my good
performance makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.86 0.99
A
F 272 2.71 1.05
A
27 The extra-mural classes my parents
organize for me makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
M 316 2.80 1.03
A
F 272 2.73 1.05
A
28 My parent‟s instruction to do my
Chemistry assignment at home makes me
to learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.72 0.95
A
F 272 2.78 0.91 A
Cluster Mean M 316 2.73 0.11 A
F 272 2.74 0.12 A
Peers/Classmates Motivational Factors
29 My classmate‟s encouragement to read
Chemistry makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
M 316 2.78 0.96
A
F 272 2.99 0.99
A
30 My friend‟s interest in Chemistry makes
me want to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.82 1.01
A
F 272 2.74 1.06
A
31 My friend‟s good performance in
Chemistry makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
M 316 2.66 1.08
A
F 272 2.56 1.00 A
32 My friend‟s love for Chemistry makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.79 1.01
A
F 272 2.81 1.04
A
33 My success in learning Chemistry will
depend on the cooperation of my
classmates.
M 316 2.72 0.93 A
F 272 2.68 0.97
A
Cluster Mean M 316 2.75 0.06 A
F 272 2.76 0.16 A
Career Needs Factor
34 My desire to become a Chemist makes me
want to learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.78 1.00
A
F 272 2.75 1.00 A
75
35 My desire to become a medical doctor
makes me want to learn more Chemistry.
M 316 2.76 0.98
A
F 272 2.71 1.05
A
36 My desire to become an engineer makes
me want to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.86 0.98
A
F 272 2.82 0.90 A
37 My desire to manufacture detergents and
paints makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.70 1.02 A
F 272 2.83 0.97
A
38 My desire to become a laboratory
technician makes me learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.74 0.95
A
F 272 2.81 0.96
A
39 My desire to manufacture fertilizer
makes me to learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.70 0.95 A
F 272 2.51 0.95
A
40 My desire to work in the chemical
industries makes me to learn more in
Chemistry
M 316 2.66 0.97
A
F 272 2.65 1.00
A
Cluster Mean M 316 2.74 0.07 A
F 272 2.72 0.12 A
No. of Male respondents (nM) = 316, No. of Female respondents (nF) = 272, N = Number of
Respondents = 588, X = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, A* = Agreed
Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of students on motivation to learn
Chemistry according to gender. The cluster mean score of male students on Teacher‟s
Personality factor is 2.76 while that of the female students is 2.76. These mean scores indicate
equal rating of this factor by both male and female students. The associated low cluster
standard deviation values 0.10 and 0.10 of male and female students respectively also indicate
a homogenous response by the respondents.
The cluster mean score of male students on Classroom Environment motivational factor
is 2.74 while that of the female students is 2.74. These mean scores indicate equal rating of the
76
items of this factor by both male and female students. The associated low standard deviation
values 0.08 and 0.11 of male and female students respectively also indicate a homogenous
response by the respondents.
The cluster mean score of male students on Students‟ Personal motivational factor is
2.81, while that of the female students is also 2.80. The difference in the mean motivation
scores of the male and female students is 0.01. The value is too small to account for a
difference in male and female motivation scores. The associated low standard deviation values
0.06 and 0.08 of male and female students respectively also indicate a homogenous response
by the respondents.
The cluster mean score of male students on Parents/Family motivational factor is 2.73
while that of the female students is also 2.74. The difference in the mean motivation scores of
the male and female students is also 0.01. The value is too small to account for a difference in
male and female motivation scores. The associated low standard deviation values 0.11 and
0.12 of male and female students respectively also indicate a homogenous response by the
respondents.
The cluster mean score of male students on Peers/Classmates motivational factor is
2.75 while that of the female students is also 2.76. The difference in the mean motivation
scores of the male and female students is also 0.01. The value is too small to account for a
difference in male and female motivation scores. The associated low standard deviation values
0.06 and 0.16 of male and female students respectively also indicate a homogenous response
by the respondents.
The cluster mean score of male students on Career Needs motivational factor is 2.74
while that of the female students is also 2.72. The difference in the mean motivation scores of
the male and female students is 0.02 in favour of the male students. The difference indicates a
77
small mean score that cannot account for any difference in the mean motivational scores of
both male and female students on Career needs as a motivational factor of students to learn
Chemistry. The associated low standard deviation values 0.07 and 0.12 of male and female
students respectively also indicate a homogenous response by the respondents.
Generally, Table 4 presents the male and female students mean scores for all the factors
ranging from 2.51 to 2.93. Also, male students scored slightly higher mean in all the factors
except in Parents/Family and Peers/Classmates factors where female students scored slightly
higher mean scores but the slight difference is too small to account for any difference in the
mean scores of male and female students on the factors that motivate them to learn Chemistry.
This means that male and female students agreed that there is no difference on the factors that
motivate them to learn Chemistry.
Hypothesis One
There is no significant difference between the mean scores of male and female students
as measured by SMLCS.
There is significant difference between the mean scores of male and female students when t-
calculated (t-cal) is greater than t-table (t-tab) value, and no significant difference when t-
calculated is less than t-table at .05 level of significance.
78
Table 5: t-test showing the Mean and Standard Deviation of Scores on Students’
Motivation to Learn Chemistry by Sex N=588
S/N Items Sex n X SD df t-cal t- tab Sig. at
0.05
Teacher’s Personality
Motivational Factors
1 Our teacher‟s knowledge
and skills in teaching make
me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.70 1.00
586 0.01
1.65
NS
* F
272 2.70 1.00
2 Our teacher‟s honesty in
judging students makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.80 0.99
586 0.75
1.65
NS
F 272 2.86 0.93
3 Our teacher‟s smartness and
neatness makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.64 0.96
586 0.70
1.65
NS F
272 2.69 0.96
4 Our teacher‟s use of clear
and audible voice while
teaching makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.64 1.02
586 0.14
1.65
NS F 272 2.65 1.10
5 Our teacher‟s willingness to
teach his lesson makes me
want to continue in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.76 1.07
586 1.17
1.65
NS F 272 2.65 1.10
6 Our teacher‟s kind-
heartedness makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.93 0.84
586 1.28
1.65
S*
F 272 2.84 0.91
NS
7 Our teacher‟s fairness
makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.80 0.94
586 0.65
1.65
F 272 2.85 0.99
8 Our teacher‟s moral virtue
makes me want to continue
with Chemistry.
M 316 2.84 0.93
586 0.15
1.65
NS
F 272 2.85 0.94
Classroom/Environment
Motivational Factors
79
9 I pay attention in Chemistry
class to avoid punishment
by my teacher.
M 316 2.60 0.90
586 0.29
1.65
NS
F 272 2.58 0.86
10 Our teacher gives me lots of
assignment and that makes
me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.73 1.10
586 1.40
1.65
NS
F 272 2.86 1.08
11 Our teacher encourages
active participation in
Chemistry lessons and that
makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
M 316 2.74 1.10
586 1.99
1.65
S
F 272 2.56 1.12
12 Safety issues in Chemistry
do not affect my wanting to
learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.75 1.03
586 0.74
1.65
NS F
272 2.82 1.03
13 The friendly nature of
Chemistry class makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.87 1.03
586 0.67
1.65
NS F 272 2.82 1.05
14 Stories of great Chemists
told by our teacher makes
me to continue in learning
Chemistry.
M 316 2.70 0.92
586 0.57
1.65
NS F 272 2.74 0.90
15 Praises for any correct
answers by our Chemistry
teacher encourage me to read
hard in Chemistry.
M 316 2.79 0.93
586 0.42
1.65
NS
F
272 2.76 1.03
16 Our Chemistry teacher‟s
punctuality to lessons
encourages me to learn
Chemistry.
M 316 2.76 1.09
586 0.64
1.65
NS F
272 2.70 1.10
Students’ Personal
Motivational Factors
17 To retain my good position
in Chemistry, I read hard.
M 316 2.77 1.01
586 0.70
1.65
NS F 272 2.83 1.00
18 To avoid failure in M 316 2.92 0.97 0.30 1.65
80
Chemistry, I read hard.
F 272 2.89 1.01
586 NS
19 The calculations in
Chemistry make me to learn
more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.82 0.78
586 0.17
1.65
NS
F 272 2.81 0.79
20 The practical activities in
Chemistry make me want to
learn Chemist
M 316 2.78 1.05 586 0.64
1.65
NS F 272 2.83 1.03
21 My good grade in Chemistry
makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.77 1.02
586 0.94
1.65
NS
F 272 2.68 1.13
Parents/Family
Motivational Factors
22 My parent‟s background in
science makes me to learn
Chemistry.
M 316 2.56 0.96
586 0.17
1.65
NS F 272 2.57 0.99
23 My parent‟s wish for science
background in the family
makes me to learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.76 1.02
586 0.59
1.65
NS
F 272 2.81 0.99
24 The Chemistry textbooks my
parents bought for me
encourages me to learn more
in Chemistry.
M 316 2.64 1.01
586 0.26
1.65
NS F
272 2.66 1.06
25 My parent‟s encourages me
to read hard and that makes
me to learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.83 0.96
586 1.57
1.65
NS
F 272 2.95 0.92
26 My parent‟s praises for my
good performance makes me
to learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.86 0.99
586 1.74
1.65
S
F 272 2.71 1.05
27 The extra mural classes my
parents organize for me
makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
M 316 2.80 1.03
586 0.88
1.65
NS F
272 2.73 1.05
28 My parent‟s instruction to do
my Chemistry assignment at
M 316 2.72 0.95
0.83 1.65
NS
81
home makes me to learn
more in Chemistry.
F 272 2.78 0.91
586
Peers/Classmates
Motivational Factors
29 My classmate‟s
encouragement to read
Chemistry makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.78 0.96
586 2.49
1.65
S
F 272 2.99 0.99
30 My friend‟s interest in
Chemistry makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.82 1.01
586 0.95
1.65
NS F
272 2.74 1.06
31 My friend‟s good
performance in Chemistry
makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
M 316 2.66 1.08 586
1.07
1.65
NS F
272 2.56 1.00
32 My friend‟s love for
Chemistry makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.79 1.01
586
0.22 1.65
NS F
272 2.81 1.04
33 My success in learning
Chemistry will depend on
the cooperation of my
classmates.
M 316 2.72 0.93
586 0.49
1.65
NS F 272 2.68 0.97
Career Needs Motivational
Factor
34 My desire to become a
Chemist makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.78 1.00
586 0.34
1.65
NS F
272 2.75 1.00
35 My desire to become a
medical doctor makes me
want to learn more
Chemistry.
M 316 2.76 0.98
586 0.63
1.65
NS
F 272 2.71 1.05
36 My desire to become an
engineer makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
M 316 2.86 0.98
586 0.52
1.65
NS F
272 2.82 0.90
37 My desire to manufacture M 316 2.70 1.02 1.56 1.65
82
N.S = Not significant, S = Significant, t-cal = t-calculated, t-tab = t-table, df = Degrees of
freedom, M = Male, F = Female, Number of Male Respondents (nM) = 316, Number of
Female Respondents (nF) =272, Number of Respondents (N) = 588
Table 5 shows that the Null hypothesis one (HO1) of the study was not rejected since
the t-values were not found to be statistically significant on the thirty-six (36) items out of the
forty (40) items of the instrument (SMLCS). The t-calculated (t-cal) for the remaining four (4)
items, items (11, 26, 29 and 39) were less than t-table (t-tab) at .05 level of significance.
Hence, the Null hypothesis was rejected for remaining four (4) items.
In other words, the overall t-table (1.65) is greater than overall t-calculated (0.243) at
0.05 level of significance. It implies that there was no significant difference between the mean
scores of male and female students on these factors.
Research Question 5
How do urban students differ from rural students on their motivation to learn Chemistry
as measured by (SMLCS)?
detergents and paints makes
me to learn more in
Chemistry.
F 272 2.83 0.97
586 NS
38 My desire to become a
laboratory technician makes
me learn more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.74 0.95
586 0.87
1.65
NS
F 272 2.81 0.96
39 My desire to manufacture
fertilizer makes me to learn
more in Chemistry.
M 316 2.70 0.95
586 2.44
1.65
S
F 272 2.51 0.95
40 My desire to work in the
chemical industries makes
me to learn more in
Chemistry.
M 316 2.66 0.97
586 0.14
1.65
NS
F 272 2.65 1.00
Overall M 316 2.76 0.08
586 0.243 1.65
NS
F 272 2.75 0.12
83
To answer this research question, the criterion mean of 2.50 was again adopted. All mean
scores that are equal or greater than the criterion mean indicate “agreement” (A), while all
mean scores below 2.50 (that is 2.49 – 1.00) indicate “disagreement” (D) of the respondents.
The result of the analysis is presented on Table 6.
Table 6: Mean and Standard Deviation of Scores in Students’ Motivation to
Learn Chemistry by Location.
N=588
S/N
Items
School
Location
n
X
S.D
Decision
Teacher’s Personality
Motivational Factors
1 Our teacher‟s knowledge and skills
in teaching make me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.63 1.00 A
*
R 179 2.87 0.98 A
2 Our teacher‟s honesty in judging
students makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
U 409 2.82 0.98 A
R 179 2.86 0.93 A
3 Our teacher‟s smartness and
neatness makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.68 0.98 A
R 179 7 2.62 0.91
A
4 Our teacher‟s use of clear and
audible voice while teaching
makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.67 1.06 A
R 179 2.60 1.05
A
5 Our teacher‟s willingness to teach
his lesson makes me want to
continue in Chemistry.
U 409 2.73 1.07 A
R 179 2.66 1.13
A
6 Our teacher‟s kind-heartedness
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.89 0.83
A
R 179 2.89 0.97 A
7 Our teacher‟s fairness makes me
want to learn more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.83 0.94 A
R 179 2.80 1.01 A
8 Our teacher‟s moral virtue makes
me want to continue with
Chemistry.
U 409 2.89 0.92 A
R 179 7 2.75 0.96
A
84
Cluster Mean U 409 2.77 0.10 A
R 179 2.75 0.13 A
Classroom/Environment
Motivational Factors
9 I pay attention in Chemistry class to
avoid punishment by my teacher.
U 409 2.52 0.86 A
R 179 2.75 0.87 A
10 Our teacher gives me lots of
assignment and that makes me
want to learn more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.75 1.08
A
R 179 2.89 1.10 A
11 Our teacher encourages active
participation in Chemistry lessons
and that makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
U 409 2.69 1.12
A
R 179 2.58 1.09
A
12 Safety issues in Chemistry do not
affect my wanting to learn
Chemistry.
U 409 2.78 1.03 A
R 179 2.78 1.03 A
13 The friendly nature of Chemistry
class makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
U 409 2.85 1.09 A
R 179 2.84 0.91 A
14 Stories of great Chemists told by
our teacher makes me to continue
in learning Chemistry.
U 409 2.73 0.89 A
R 179 2.69 0.93
A
15 Praises for any correct answers by
our Chemistry teacher encourage
me to read hard in Chemistry.
U 409 2.81 0.96 A
R 179 2.70 1.03
A
16 Our Chemistry teacher‟s
punctuality to lessons encourages
me to learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.75 1.11 A
R 179 2.68 1.05 A
Cluster Mean U 409 2.75 0.10 A
R 179 2.73 0.10 A
Students’ Personal Motivational
Factors
17 To retain my good position in
Chemistry, I read hard.
U 409 2.75 1.01 A
R 179 2.90 0.10 A
18 To avoid failure in Chemistry,
I read hard.
U 409 2.97 0.97 A
R 179 2.76 1.01 A
19 The calculations in Chemistry
make me to learn more in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.84 0.76 A
R 179 2.76 0.84
A
85
20 The practical activities in
Chemistry make me want to learn
Chemistry.
U 409 2.76 1.05 A
R 179 2.91 1.03
A
21 My good grade in Chemistry makes
me to learn more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.70 1.07 A
R 179 2.80 1.08
A
Cluster Mean U 409 2.80 0.11 A
R 179 2.83 0.07 A
Parents/Family Motivational
Factors
22 My parent‟s background in science
makes me to learn Chemistry.
U 409
2.54 0.97
A
R 179 2.62 0.98 A
23 My parent‟s wish for science
background in the family makes
learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.83 1.03 A
R 179 2.65 0.95
A
24 The Chemistry textbooks my
Parents bought for me encourages
me to learn more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.61 1.03 A
R
179 2.74 1.05
A
25 My parent‟s encourages me to read
hard and that makes me to learn
more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.89 0.92
A
R 179 2.86 1.00 A
26 My parent‟s praises for my good
performance makes me to learn
more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.86 1.02 A
R 179 2.63 1.00
A
27 The extra-mural classes my parents
organize for me makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.78 1.03 A
R 179 2.75 1.07 A
28 My parent‟s instruction to do my
Chemistry assignment at home
makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.76 0.93 A
R 179 2.72 0.94
A
Cluster Mean U 409 2.75 0.13 A
R 179 2.71 0.08 A
Peers/Classmates Motivational
Factors
29 My classmate‟s encouragement to
read Chemistry makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.88 0.98 A
R 179 2.88 0.99 A
30 My friend‟s interest in Chemistry U 409 2.78 1.04 A
86
makes me want to learn Chemistry. R 179 2.77 1.03 A
31 My friend‟s good performance in
Chemistry makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
U 409 2.57 1.08 A
R 179 2.70 0.95 A
32 My friend‟s love for Chemistry
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.81 1.02 A
R 179 2.79 1.03 A
33 My success in learning Chemistry
will depend on the cooperation of
my classmates.
U 409 2.71 0.95 A
R 179 2.66 0.96
A
Cluster Mean U 409 2.75 0.12 A
R 179 2.76 0.09 A
Career Needs Motivational
Factor
34 My desire to become a Chemist
makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.75 1.01 A
R 179 2.79 0.99
A
35 My desire to become a medical
doctor makes me want to learn
more Chemistry.
U 409 2.74 0.99 A
R 179 2.74 1.07
A
36 My desire to become an engineer
makes me want learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.86 0.95 A
R 179 2.80 0.95
A
37 My desire to manufacture detergents
and paints makes me to learn more
in Chemistry.
U 409 2.75 1.01 A
R 179 2.79 0.98 A
38 My desire to become a laboratory
technician makes me learn more in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.74 0.97 A
R 179 2.84 0.92
A
39 My desire to manufacture fertilizer
makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.64 0.98 A
R 179 2.55 0.91 A
40 My desire to work in the chemical
industries makes me to learn more
in Chemistry
U 409 2.67 0.97 A
R 179 2.61 0.10 A
Cluster Mean U 409 2.74 0.07 A
R 179 2.73 0.10 A
No. of Urban respondents (nU) = 409, No. of Rural respondents (nR) = 179, N = Number of
Respondents = 588, X = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, A* = Agreed
87
The cluster mean score of urban students on Teacher‟s Personality factor is 2.77 while
that of the rural students is also 2.75. These mean scores indicate almost equal rating of the
items of Teacher‟s Motivational factor by both urban and rural students because 0.2
differences are too small to account for any difference. The associated low standard deviation
values 0.10 and 0.13 of urban and rural students respectively indicate a homogenous response
by the respondents.
The cluster mean score of urban students on Classroom Environment motivation factor
is 2.75, while rural that of students is 2.73. These mean scores indicate near equal rating of the
items of this factor by both urban and urban students since 0.02 differences are too small to
account for any difference. The associated low standard deviation values 0.10 and 0.10 of
urban and rural students respectively also indicate a homogenous response by the respondents.
The cluster mean score of urban students on Students‟ Personal motivational factor is
2.80 while that of rural students is also 2.83. Rural based students scored slightly higher mean
on this factor than their urban counterparts. This indicates that rural based students are slightly
more motivated to learn chemistry by personal concerns than external influences. But the
difference in the mean scores of rural and urban students is 0.03. The value is too small to
account for a difference in urban and rural mean scores. The associated low standard deviation
values 0.11 and 0.07 of urban and rural students respectively also indicate a homogenous
response by the respondents.
The cluster mean score of urban students on Parents/Family motivational factor is 2.75
while that of the rural students is also 2.71. The difference in the mean scores of the male and
female students is also 0.04. The value is too small to account for a difference in urban and
rural mean scores. The associated low standard deviation values 0.13 and 0.08 of urban and
rural students respectively also indicate a homogenous response by the respondents. The
88
cluster mean score of urban students on Peers/Classmates motivational factor are 2.75 while
that of the rural students is also 2.76. The difference in the mean scores of the urban and rural
students is also 0.01. The value is too small to account for a difference in urban and rural mean
scores. The associated low standard deviation values 0.12 and 0.09 of urban and rural students
respectively also indicate a homogenous response by the respondents.
The cluster mean score of urban students on Career Needs motivational factor is 2.74
while that of the rural students is also 2.73. The difference in the mean scores of the urban and
rural students is 0.01 in favour of the urban students. The difference indicate a small mean
score that cannot account for any difference in the mean scores of both urban and rural
students on Career needs as a factor that motivate them to learn Chemistry. The associated low
standard deviation values of 0.07 and 0.10 of urban and rural students respectively also
indicate a homogenous response by the respondents.
Generally, Table 6 presents the urban and rural students mean score for each of the six
factors ranging from 2.52 to 2.97. Also, urban students scored slightly higher mean on all the
factors except in Students‟ Personal factors and Peers/Classmates factors where rural students
scored slightly higher mean than their urban counterparts but these slight differences are too
small to account for any difference in the mean scores of urban and rural students on the
factors that motivate them to learn Chemistry. This means that urban and rural students agreed
that there is no difference on the factors that motivate them to learn Chemistry.
Hypothesis Two
There is no significant difference between the mean scores of urban and rural students
as measured by (SMLCS).
89
There is significant difference between the mean score of urban and rural students when t-
calculated value (t-cal) is greater than t-table value (t-tab) and no significant difference when t-
calculated value is less than t-table value.
Table 7: t-test on Mean and Standard Deviation of Scores on Students’ Motivation to
Learn Chemistry by Location
N=588
S/N Items School
location
n X SD df t-cal t-tab Sig. at
0.05
Teacher’s Personality
Motivational Factors
1 Our teacher‟s knowledge
and skills in teaching
makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.63 1.00
586
-2.80
1.65
S
* R
179 2.87 0.98
2 Our teacher‟s honesty in
judging students makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.82 0.98
586
-0.48
1.65
NS*
R 179 2.86 0.93
3 Our teacher‟s smartness
and neatness makes me
want to learn more in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.68 0.98
586
0.70
1.65
NS
R 179 2.62 0.91
4 Our teacher‟s use of clear
and audible voice while
teaching makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.67 1.06
586
0.76
1.65
NS
R 179 2.60 1.05
5 Our teacher‟s willingness to
teach his lesson makes me
want to continue in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.73 1.07
586
0.76
1.65
NS
R 179 2.66 1.13
6
Our teacher‟s kind-
heartedness makes me want
to learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.89 0.83
586
-0.11
1.65
NS
R 179 2.89 0.97
7 Our teacher‟s fairness
makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.83 0.94
586
0.38
1.65
NS
R 179 2.80 1.01
90
8 Our teacher‟s moral virtue
makes me want to continue
with Chemistry.
U 409 2.89 0.92
586
1.60
1.65
NS
R 179 2.75 0.96
Classroom/Environment
Motivational Factors
9 I pay attention in Chemistry
class to avoid punishment
by my teacher.
U 409 2.52 0.88
586
-3.04
1.65
S
R 179 2.75 0.87
10 Our teacher gives me lots
of assignment and that
makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.75 1.08
586
-1.49
1.65
NS
R 179 2.89 1.10
11 Our teacher encourages
active participation in
Chemistry lessons and that
makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
U
409 2.69 1.12
586
1.09
1.65
NS
R
179 2.58 1.09
12 Safety issues in Chemistry
do not affect my wanting to
learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.78 1.03
586
0.09
1.65
NS
R
179 2.78 1.03
13 The friendly nature of
Chemistry class makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.85 1.09
586
0.14
1.65
NS
R 179 2.84 0.91
14 Stories of great Chemists
told by our teacher makes
me to continue in learning
Chemistry.
U 409 2.73 0.89 586
0.41
1.65
NS
R 179 2.69 0.93
15 Praises for any correct
answers by our Chemistry
teacher encourage me to
read hard in Chemistry.
U 409 2.81 0.96 586
1.17
1.65
NS
R
179 2.70 1.03
16 Our Chemistry teacher‟s
punctuality to lessons
encourages me to learn
Chemistry.
U 409 2.75 1.11
586
0.79
1.65
NS
R
179 2.68 1.05
Students’ Personal
Motivational Factors
17 To retain my good position U 409 2.75 1.01 586 -1.65 1.65 NS
91
in Chemistry, I read hard.
R 179 2.90 1.00
18 To avoid failure in
Chemistry, I read hard.
U 409 2.97 0.97 586 2.39
1.65
S
R 179 2.76 1.01
19 The calculations in
Chemistry make me to learn
more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.84 0.76
586
1.12
1.65
NS
R 179 2.76 0.84
20 The practical activities in
Chemistry make me want to
learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.76 1.05 586 -1.60
1.65
NS
R 179 2.91 1.03
21 My good grade in Chemistry
makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.70 1.07
586
-1.12
1.65
NS
R 179 2.80 1.08
Parents/Family
Motivational Factors
22 My parent‟s background in
science makes me to learn
Chemistry.
U 409 2.54 0.97 586 -0.89
1.65
NS
R 179 2.62 0.98
23 My parent‟s wish for
science background in the
family makes learn
Chemistry.
U 409 2.83 1.03
586
2.00
1.65
S
R 179 2.65 0.95
24 The Chemistry textbooks my
parents bought for me
encourages me to learn
more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.61 1.03
586
-1.37
1.65
NS
R
179 2.74 1.05
25 My parent‟s encourages me
to read hard and that makes
me to learn more in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.89 0.92
586
0.38
1.65
NS
R 179 2.86 1.00
26 My parent‟s praises for my
good achievements makes
me to learn more in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.86 1.02
586
2.58
1.65
S
R 179 2.63 1.00
27 The extra-mural classes my
parents organize for me
makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
U 409 2.78 1.03
586
0.22
1.65
NS
R
179 2.75 1.07
92
28 My parent‟s instruction to
do my Chemistry
assignment at home makes
me to learn more in
Chemistry.
U 409 2.76 0.93
586
0.51
1.65
NS
R 179 2.72 0.94
Peers/Classmates
Motivational Factors
29 My classmate‟s
encouragement to read
Chemistry makes me want
to learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.88 0.98
586
0.01
1.65
NS
R 179 2.88 0.99
30 My friend‟s interest in
Chemistry makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.78 1.04
586
0.21
1.65
NS
R
179 2.77 1.03
31 My friend‟s good
performance in Chemistry
makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
U 409 2.57 1.08 586
-1.32
1.65
NS
R 179 2.70 0.95
32 My friend‟s love for
Chemistry makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.81 1.02
586
0.15
1.65
NS
R
179 2.79 1.03
33 My success in learning
Chemistry will depend on
the cooperation of my
classmates.
U 409 2.71 0.95
586
0.55
1.65
NS
R 179 2.66 0.96
Career Needs
Motivational Factor
34 My desire to become a
Chemist makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.75 1.00
586
-0.45
1.65
NS
R 179 2.79 0.99
35 My desire to become a
medical doctor makes me
want to learn more
Chemistry.
U 409 2.74 0.99
586
-0.08
1.65
NS
R 179 2.74 1.07
36 My desire to become an
engineer makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
U 409 2.86 0.95
586
0.69
1.65
NS
R 179 2.80 0.95
37 My desire to manufacture U 409 2.75 1.01 586 -0.42 1.65 NS
93
detergents and paints makes
me to learn more in
Chemistry.
R
179 2.79 0.98
38 My desire to become a
laboratory technician makes
me learn more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.74 0.97
586
-1.11
1.65
NS
R 179 2.84 0.92
39 My desire to manufacture
fertilizer makes me to learn
more in Chemistry.
U 409 2.64 0.98
586
0.96
1.65
NS
R 179 2.55 0.91
40 My desire to work in the
chemical industries makes
me to learn more in
Chemistry
U 409 2.67 0.97
586
0.63
1.65
NS
R 179 2.61 1.00
Overall U 409 2.76 0.10
586
0.26 1.65
NS
R 179 2.75 0.10
N.S* = Not significant, S
* = Significant, t-cal = t-calculated, t-tab = t-table, df = Degree of
freedom, U = Urban, R = Rural, No. of Urban Respondents (nU) = 409, No. of Rural
Respondents (nR) = 179, Number of Respondents (N) = 588
Table 7 reveals that the Null hypothesis two (HO2) of the study was not rejected since
the t-values were not found to be statistically significant on the thirty-five (35) items out of the
forty (40) items of the instrument (SMLCS). The t-calculated (t-cal) for the remaining five (5)
items, items (1, 9, 17, 23 and 26) were less than t-table (t-tab) at .05 level of significance.
Hence, the Null hypothesis was rejected for remaining five (5) items.
In other words, the overall t-table value (1.65) is greater than the overall t-calculated
value (0.26) at .05 level of significance. It implies that there was no significant difference
between the mean scores of urban and rural students on these factors.
Research Question 6
How do class levels differ on students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry as measured by
SMCLS?
94
To answer this research question, the criterion mean of 2.50 was again adopted. All mean
scores that are equal or greater than the criterion mean indicate agreement (A) while all mean
scores below 2.50 (that is 2.49 – 1.00) indicate disagreement (D) of the respondents. The result
of the analysis is presented on Table 8.
Table 8: Mean and Standard Deviation of Scores on Students’ Motivation to Learn
Chemistry by Class Level.
N=588
S/N Items Sex n X SD Decision
Teacher’s Personality Motivational
Factors
1 Our teacher‟s knowledge and skills in
teaching makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.69 1.00
A*
SS2 91 2.76 1.03 A
SS3 101 2.68 0.97 A
2 Our teacher‟s honesty in judging
students makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.82 0.98
A
SS2 91 2.90 0.93
A
SS3 101 2.82 0.93 A
3 Our teacher‟s smartness and neatness
makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.67 0.97 A
SS2 91 2.66 0.91
A
SS3 101 2.64 0.96 A
4 Our teacher‟s use of clear and audible
voice while teaching makes me want
to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.66 1.06 A
SS2 91 2.66 1.01
A
SS3 101 2.59 1.10 A
5 Our teacher‟s willingness to teach his
lesson makes me want to continue in
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.73 1.07 A
SS2 91 2.62 1.13
A
SS3 101 2.71 1.11 A
6 Our teacher‟s kind-heartedness makes
me want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.89 0.87 A
SS2 91 2.90 0.93 A
SS3 101 2.87 0.85
A
95
7 Our teacher‟s fairness makes me want
to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.81 0.96
A
SS2 91 2.85 0.97
A
SS3 101 2.84 0.99 A
8 Our teacher‟s moral virtue makes me
want to continue with Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.84 0.94 A
SS2 91 2.80 0.93
A
SS3 101 2.90 0.90 A
Cluster Mean SS1 396 2.76 0.09
A
SS2 91 2.77 0.11 A
SS3 101 2.77 0.12 A
Classroom/Environment
Motivational Factors
9 I pay attention in Chemistry class to
avoid punishment by my teacher.
SS1 396 2.59 0.89 A
SS2 91 2.57 0.85
A
SS3 101 2.60 0.90 A
10 Our teacher gives lots of assignment
and that makes me want to learn more
in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.80 1.08
A
SS2 91 2.88 1.06
A
SS3 101 2.67 1.15 A
11 Our teacher encourages active
participation in Chemistry lessons and
that makes me want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.68 1.11
A
SS2 91 2.57 1.10 A
SS3 101 2.65 1.11 A
12 Safety issues in Chemistry do not
affect my wanting to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.78 1.02 A
SS2 91 2.70 1.08
A
SS3 101 2.87 1.01 A
13 The friendly nature of Chemistry class
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.85 1.05 A
SS2 91 2.79 1.03
A
SS3 101 2.87 1.02 A
14 Stories of great chemists told by our
teacher makes me to continue in
SS1 396 2.85 1.05
A
96
learning Chemistry. SS2 91 2.79 1.03
A
SS3 101 2.87 1.02 A
15 Praises for any correct answers by our
Chemistry teacher encourage me to
read hard in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.77 0.97 A
SS2 91 2.75 1.03
A
SS3 101 2.83 0.96 A
16 Our Chemistry teacher‟s punctuality to
lessons encourages me to learn
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.74 1.10
A
SS2 91 2.73 1.09
A
SS3 101 2.69 1.09 A
Cluster Mean SS1 396 2.74 0.08 A
SS2 91 2.72 0.10 A
SS3 101 2.72 0.11 A
Students’ Personal Motivational
Factor
17 To retain my good position in
Chemistry, I read hard.
SS1
396 2.79 1.01
A
SS2 91 2.87 0.98
A
SS3 101 2.75 1.03 A
18 To avoid failure in Chemistry,
I read hard.
SS1 396 2.92 0.99
A
SS2 91 2.76 1.00
A
A
SS3 101 2.99 0.96
19 The calculations in Chemistry makes
me to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.82 0.80 A
SS2 91 2.79 0.78
A
SS3 101 2.81 0.74
A
20 The practical activities in Chemistry
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.79 1.03 A
SS2 91 2.84 1.05
A
SS3 101 2.80 1.11 A
21 My good grade in Chemistry makes
me to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.72 1.08 A
SS2 91 2.74 1.08
A
97
SS3 101 2.75 1.06 A
Cluster Mean SS1 396 2.81 0.10 A
SS2 91 2.80 0.05 A
SS3 101 2.82 0.07 A
Parents/Family Motivational
Factor
22 My parent‟s background in science
makes me to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.56 0.97 A
SS2 91 2.66 0.98
A
SS3 101 2.52 0.97 A
23 My parent‟s wish for science
background in the family makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.78 1.03 A
SS2 91 2.74 0.95
A
SS3 101 2.80 1.00 A
24 The chemistry textbooks my parents
bought for encourages me to learn
more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.65 1.03 A
SS2 91 2.69 1.05
A
SS3 101 2.62 1.04 A
25 My parent‟s encourages me to read
hard and that makes me to learn more
in chemistry.
SS1 396 2.90 0.94 A
SS2 91 2.86 0.98
A
SS3 101 2.84 0.95 A
26 My parent‟s praises for my good
performance makes me to learn more
in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.80 1.02 A
SS2 91 2.82 1.03
A
SS3 101 2.71 1.02 A
27 The extra mural classes my parents
organize for me makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.77 1.03 A
SS2 91 2.73 1.09
A
SS3 101 2.80 1.07 A
28 My parent‟s instruction to do my
chemistry assignment at home makes
me to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.74 0.95 A
SS2 91 2.74 0.91
A
SS3 101 2.78 0.91
A
Cluster Mean SS1 396 2.95 0.11 A
SS2 91 2.75 0.05 A
SS3 101 2.72 0.47 A
Peers/Family Motivational Factor
98
29 My classmate‟s encouragement to
read Chemistry makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.86 1.00 A
SS2 91 2.98 0.93
A
SS3 101 2.85 0.94 A
30 My friend‟s interest in Chemistry
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.82 1.01 A
SS2 91 2.68 1.09
A
SS3 101 2.72 1.05 A
31 My friend‟s good performance in
Chemistry makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.59 1.06 A
SS2 91 2.65 1.00
A
SS3 101 2.65 1.04 A
32 My friend‟s love for Chemistry makes
me want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.83 1.03
A
SS2 91 2.73 0.98
A
SS3 101 2.76 1.03 A
33 My success in learning Chemistry will
depend on the cooperation of my
classmates.
SS1 396 2.71 0.94
A
SS2 91 2.58 1.00 A
SS3 101 2.74 0.93
Cluster Mean SS1 396 2.76 0.07 A
SS2 91 2.72 0.11 A
SS3 101 2.74 0.15 A
Career Needs Motivational Factor
34 My desire to become a Chemist makes
me want to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.75 1.01 A
SS2 91 2.81 1.01
A
SS3 101 2.79 0.97 A
35 My desire to become a medical doctor
makes me want to learn more
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.73 1.03
A
SS2 91 2.86 1.00
A
SS3 101 2.64 0.97 A
36 My desire to become an engineer
makes me want learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.81 0.94 A
SS2 91 2.89 0.92
A
SS3 101 2.94 1.00 A
99
37 My desire to manufacture detergents
and paints makes me to learn more in
Chemistry
SS1 396 2.80 0.97 A
SS2 91 2.68 1.05
A
SS3 101 2.69 1.04 A
38 My desire to become a laboratory
technician makes me learn more in
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.81 0.93
A
SS2 91 2.80 0.97 A
SS3 101 2.59 1.01 A
39 My desire to manufacture fertilizer
makes me to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.62 0.96 A
SS2 91 2.56 0.92
A
SS3 101 2.61 0.97 A
40 My desire to work in the chemical
industries makes me to learn more in
Chemistry
SS1 396 2.62 0.96 A
SS2 91 2.56 0.92
A
SS3 101 2.61 0.97 A
Cluster Mean SS1 396 2.74 0.12 A
SS2 91 2.75 0.12 A
SS3 101 2.71 0.08 A
No. of SS1 respondents (nSS1) = 396, No. of SS2 respondents (nSS2) = 91, No. of SS3
respondents (SS3) = 101, N = Number of Respondents (588), X = Mean, SD = Standard
deviation, A* = Agreed
Table 8 presents the mean and standard deviation of students on motivation to learn
Chemistry according to class level. The cluster mean scores of SS1, SS2 and SS3 students on
Teacher‟s Personality factor are 2.76, 2.77 and 2.77 respectively. These mean scores indicate
almost equal rating of the items of Teacher‟s Motivational factor by both classes because 0.01
differences from SS1 respondents is too small to account for any difference among the three
classes. The associated low standard deviation values of 0.09, 0.11 and 0.12 of SS1, SS2 and
SS3 students respectively indicate a homogenous response by the respondents.
The cluster mean scores of SS1, SS2 and SS3 students on Classroom Environment
Motivational factors are 2.74, 2.72 and 2.72 respectively. These mean scores indicate equal
rating of the items of Classroom Environment Motivation factor by both classes because the
100
0.02 differences from SS1 respondents are too small to account for a difference among the
three classes. The associated low standard deviation values 0.08, 0.10 and 0.11 of SS1, SS2
and SS3 students respectively also indicate a homogenous response by the respondents.
The cluster mean scores of SS1, SS2 and SS3 students on Student Personal
motivational factor include 2.81, 2.80 and 2.82 respectively. These mean scores indicate equal
rating of the items of this factor by both classes because the 0.01 differences from SS1 and
0.02 differences from SS3 respondents are too small to account for any difference among the
three classes. The associated low standard deviation values 0.10, 0.05 and 0.07 of SS1, SS2
and SS3 students respectively also indicate a homogenous response by the respondents.
The cluster mean scores of SS1, SS2 and SS3 students on Parent/Family motivational
factors are 2.95, 2.75 and 2.72 respectively. These mean scores indicate equal rating of the
items of this factor by both classes because the 0.20 differences between SS1 and SS2
respondents and 0.03 differences between SS2 and SS3 are too small to account for a
difference among the three classes. The associated low standard deviation values 0.11, 0.05
and 0.47 of SS1, SS2 and SS3 students respectively also indicate a homogenous response by
the respondents.
The cluster mean scores of SS1, SS2 and SS3 students on Peers/Classmates
motivational factor are 2.76, 2.72 and 2.74 respectively. These mean scores indicate equal
rating of the items of this factor by both classes because the small differences between the
respondents are too small to account for any difference between the three classes. The
associated low standard deviation values 0.07, 0.11 and 0.15 of SS1, SS2 and SS3 students
respectively also indicate a homogenous response by the respondents.
The cluster mean scores of SS1, SS2 and SS3 students on Career needs motivation
factor are 2.74, 2.75 and 2.71 respectively. These mean scores indicate equal rating of the
101
items of this factor by both classes because the 0.01 and 0.04 differences from SS1 and SS3
respondents are too small to account for any difference among the three classes. The associated
low standard deviation values of 0.12, 0.12 and 0.08, SS1, SS2 and SS3 students respectively
also indicate a homogenous response by the respondents.
Generally, Table 8 presents the SS1, SS2 and SS3 students mean scores for each of the
six factors ranging from 2.52 to 2.99. Also, the slightly mean score difference in the factors
that motivate them to learn chemistry is too small to account for any difference between SS1,
SS2 and SS3 students. This means that SS1, SS2 and SS3 students agreed that the factors did
not have any difference on their motivation to learn Chemistry.
Hypothesis Three
There are no significant differences among the mean scores of class levels (SS1, SS2, and SS3)
students as measured by SMLCS.
There is significant difference between the mean scores of class levels (SS1, SS2 and SS3)
students when the significance value (sig) on the table below is less than 0.05 and no
significance difference when significance value is greater than 0.05 level of significance.
Table 9: ANOVA of the Means and Standard Deviations of Students’ scores on
Motivation to Learn Chemistry by Class level.
N = 588
S/N
Items
Class
Level
n
X
S.D
df
F-cal
Sig
Decision
Teacher’s Personality Motivational
Factors
1. Our teacher‟s knowledge and skills in
teaching makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.69 1.00 2 0.19
0.83
NS
NS*
SS2 91 2.76 1.03
SS3 101 2.68 0.97
2. Our teacher‟s honesty in judging
students makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.82 0.98 2 0.28
0.76
NS
SS2 91 2.90 0.93
SS3 101 2.82 0.93
102
3. Our teacher‟s smartness and
neatness makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.67 0.97 2
0.02
0.98
NS
SS2 91 2.66 0.91
SS3 101 2.64 0.96
4. Our teachers‟ use of clear and audible
voice while teaching makes me want
to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.66 1.06
2
0.16
0.85
NS
SS2 91 2.66 1.01
SS3 101 2.59 1.10
5. Our teacher‟s willingness to teach his
lesson makes me want to continue in
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.73 1.07 2
0.43
0.65
NS
SS2 91 2.62 1.13
SS3 101 2.71 1.11
6. Our teacher‟s kind- heartedness
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.89 0.87 2
0.03
0.97
NS
SS2 91 2.90 0.93
SS3 101 2.87 0.85
7. Our teacher‟s fairness makes me
want to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.81 0.96 2
0.08
0.93
NS
SS2 91 2.85 0.97
SS3 101 2.84 0.99
8. Our teacher‟s moral virtue makes me
want to continue with Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.84 0.94 2
0.28
0.76
NS
SS2 91 2.80 0.93
SS3 101 2.90 0.90
Classroom/Environment
Motivational Factors
9. I pay attention in Chemistry class to
avoid punishment by my teacher.
SS1 396 2.59 0.89 2
0.03
0.97
NS
SS2 91 2.57 0.85
SS3 101 2.60 0.90
10. Our teacher gives me lots of
assignment and that makes me want
to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.80 1.08 2
0.91
0.40
NS
SS2 91 2.88 1.06
SS3 101 2.67 1.15
11. Our teacher encourages active
participation in Chemistry lessons and
that makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.68 1.11 2
0.33
0.72
NS
SS2 91 2.57 1.10
SS3 101 2.65 1.11
12. Safety issues in Chemistry do not
affect my wanting to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.78 1.02 2
0.65
0.52
NS
SS2 91 2.70 1.08
SS3 101 2.87 1.01
13. The friendly nature of Chemistry
class makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.85 1.05 2
0.17
0.85
NS
SS2 91 2.79 1.03
103
SS3 101 2.87 1.02
14. Stories of great Chemists told by our
teacher makes me to continue in
learning Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.85 1.05 2
0.79
0.46
NS
SS2 91 2.79 1.03
SS3 101 2.87 1.02
15. Praises for any correct answers by
our Chemistry teacher encourage me
to read hard in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.77 0.97 2
0.22
0.81
NS
SS2 91 2.75 1.03
SS3 101 2.83 0.96
16. Our Chemistry teacher‟s punctuality
to lessons encourages me to learn
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.74 1.10
2
0.07
0.93
NS
SS2 91 2.73 1.09
SS3 101 2.69 1.09
Students’ Personal Motivational
Factor
17. To retain my good position in
Chemistry, I read hard.
SS1 396 2.79 1.01 2 0.33
0.72
NS
SS2 91 2.87 0.98
SS3 101 2.75 1.03
18. To avoid failure in Chemistry, I read
hard.
SS1 396 2.92 0.99 2 1.42
0.24
NS
SS2 91 2.76 1.00
SS3 101 2.99 0.96
19. The calculations in Chemistry make
me to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.82 0.80 2
0.05
0.95
NS
SS2 91 2.79 0.78
SS3 101 2.81 0.74
20. The practical activities in Chemistry
make me want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.79 1.03 2 0.06
0.94
NS
SS2 91 2.84 1.05
SS3 101 2.80 1.11
21. My good grade in Chemistry makes
me to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.72 1.08 2
0.03
0.97
NS
SS2 91 2.74 1.08
SS3 101 2.75 1.06
Parents/Family Motivational
Factor
22. My parent‟s background in science
makes me to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.56 0.97 2
0.53
0.59
NS
SS2 91 2.66 0.98
SS3 101 2.52 0.97
23. My parent‟s wish for science
background in the family makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.78 1.03
2
0.10
0.90
NS
SS2 91 2.74 0.95
SS3 101 2.80 1.00
24. The Chemistry textbooks my parents
bought for encourages me to learn
more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.65 1.03 2
0.11
0.90
NS
SS2 91 2.69 1.05
104
SS3 101 2.62 1.04
25. My parent‟s encourages me to read
hard and that makes me to learn more
in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.90 0.94 2
0.19
0.83
NS
SS2 91 2.86 0.98
SS3 101 2.84 0.95
26. My parent‟s praises for my good
performance makes me to learn more
in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.80 1.02 2
0.36
0.70
NS
SS2 91 2.82 1.03
SS3 101 2.71 1.02
27. The extra-mural classes my parents
organize for me makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.77 1.03 2
0.13
0.88
NS
SS2 91 2.73 1.09
SS3 101 2.80 1.07
28. My parent‟s instruction to do my
Chemistry assignment at home makes
me to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.74 0.92 2
0.10
0.91
NS
SS2 91 2.74 0.91
SS3 101 2.78 0.91
Peers/Family Motivational Factor
29. My classmate‟s encouragement to
read Chemistry makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.86 1.00 2
0.57
0.57
NS
SS2 91 2.98 0.93
SS3 101 2.85 0.94
30. My friend‟s interest in Chemistry
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.82 1.01
2
0.81
0.45
NS
SS2 91 2.68 1.09
SS3 101 2.72 1.05
31. My friend‟s good performance in
Chemistry makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.59 1.06 2
0.20
0.82
NS
SS2 91 2.65 1.00
SS3 101 2.65 1.04
32. My friend‟s love for Chemistry makes
me want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.83 1.03 2
0.49
0.62
NS
SS2 91 2.73 0.10
SS3 101 2.76 1.03
33. My success in learning Chemistry will
depend on the cooperation of my
classmates.
SS1 396 2.71 0.94 2
0.83
0.44
NS
SS2 91 2.58 1.00
SS3 101 2.74 0.93
Career Needs Motivational Factor
34. My desire to become a Chemist
makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.75 1.00 2
0.20
0.82
NS
SS2 91 2.81 1.01
SS3 101 2.79 0.10
105
35. My desire to become a medical
doctor makes me want to learn more
in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.73 1.03
2
1.07
0.34
NS
SS2 91 2.86 0.10
SS3 101 2.64 0.95
36. My desire to become an engineer
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.81 0.94
2
0.88
0.42
NS
SS2 91 2.89 0.92
SS3 101 2.94 0.10
37. My desire to manufacture detergents
and paints makes me to learn more in
Chemistry
SS1 396 2.80 0.97 2
0.80
0.45
NS
SS2 91 2.68 1.05
SS3 101 2.69 1.04
38. My desire to become a laboratory
technician makes me learn more in
Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.81 0.93
2
2.13
0.12
NS
SS2 91 2.80 0.97
SS3 101 2.59 1.01
39. My desire to manufacture fertilizer
makes me to learn more in Chemistry.
SS1 396 2.62 0.96
2
0.15
0.86
NS
SS2 91 2.56 0.92
SS3 101 2.61 0.97
40. My desire to work in the chemical
industries makes me to learn more in
Chemistry
SS1 396 2.62 0.96 2
0.12
0.89
NS
SS2 91 2.56 0.92
SS3 101 2.61 0.97
Overall
SS1 396 2.76 0.09
2 0.22 0.80 NS SS2 91 2.75 0.10
SS3 101 2.74 0.11
N.S* = Not significant, F-cal = F-calculated, df = Degrees of freedom, No. of SS1 Respondents
(nSS1) = 396, No. of SS2 Respondents (nSS2) = 91, No. of SS2 Respondents (nSS3) = 101,
Number of Respondents (N) = 588
Table 9 indicates that the Null hypothesis three (HO3) of the study was not rejected
since the F-values were not found to be statistically significance on all the forty (40) items of
the instrument (SMLCS). Hence, the Null hypotheses were rejected for all the forty (40)
items.
106
In other words, the significance value (0.80) is greater than 0.05 level of significance.
This implies that there was no significant difference between the mean scores of SS 1, SS 2
and SS 3 students on the factors on the factors that motivate them to learn Chemistry in
secondary schools.
Major Findings of the Study
From the analysed data, the following major findings emerged:
1. The reliability coefficient of the scale measuring Students‟ Motivation to Learn Chemistry Scale (SMLCS) is 0.92.
2. A standardized scale for assessing Students‟ Motivation to Learn Chemistry has
successfully been developed and could be used by Chemistry teachers.
3. The results in Table 2 show that the factor loadings of all the fifty-six (56) items were
analysed in the instrument (SMLCS). Items which failed to have minimum loadings
of 0.35 in any of the factors were rejected. Items that loaded up to 0.35 in more than
two factors were equally rejected. Items with factor loadings of 0.35 and above were
pure and accepted. Fourteen items (1, 2, 15, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 31, 38, 40, 44, 47 and
51) which loaded up to 0.35 in more than two factors were considered factorially
complex and two items (9, and 42) which loaded less than 0.35 were considered
factorially impure and were rejected. Forty (40) items had factor loadings of 0.35 and
above and were considered factorially pure. They were accepted and retained in the
final instrument (SMLCS).
4. The mean scores of students on motivation to learn Chemistry were: Teachers‟
Personality Motivational factors (X=2.76), Classroom/Environment Motivational
factor (X=2.73), Students‟ Personal Motivational factor (X=2.81), Parents‟/Family
Motivational factor (X=2.74), Peers‟/Classmates Motivational factor (X=2.75) and
Career Needs Motivational factor (X=2.73).
5. Male and female students agreed at equal levels on the various factors that motivate
them to learn Chemistry.
6. The hypothesis comparing male and female mean scores was upheld as there was no
significant difference between male and female mean scores.
107
7. Urban and rural based students agreed equally on the various factors identified in the
study that motivate them to learn Chemistry.
8. The hypothesis comparing urban and rural mean scores was upheld as there was no
significant difference between urban rural mean scores.
9. The SS1, SS2 and SS3 students‟ mean scores on the instrument (SMLCS) ranged from
2.52 to 2.99. This implies that the factors identified that motivate students to learn
Chemistry were irrespective of their class levels. In other words, students of
Chemistry at all levels are equally motivated to learn Chemistry by the factors of motivation identified for the study.
10. The hypothesis comparing SS1, SS2 and SS3 mean scores was upheld as there were
no significant difference among the mean scores of students in SS1, SS2 and SS3.
108
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The chapter presents the discussion of the findings, conclusions, implications,
recommendations, limitations, suggestions for further study and summary of the study.
Discussion of Findings:
The discussion of the findings was done according to the research questions and
hypotheses that guided the study as follows:
The reliability coefficient of the instrument (SMLCS) developed to measure students’
motivation to learn Chemistry
The reliability coefficient of the scale for assessing students‟ motivation to learn
Chemistry was 0.92. The clusters or subscales had reliability indices of 0.67, 0.70, 0.61, 0.67,
0.53 and 0.64. These values imply that the scale for assessing students‟ motivation to learn
Chemistry scale is very reliable and can be used to collect dependable data on students‟
motivation to learn Chemistry. The sub-scales or clusters of the instrument Students‟
Motivation to learn Chemistry Scale (SMCLS) include: Teachers‟ Personality Motivational
factor, Classroom Environment Motivational factor, Peers/Classmates Motivational factor,
Parents/Family Motivational and Career Needs Motivational factors.
The reliability coefficient of 0.92 as determined in this study is higher than the
reliability coefficient of the instrument developed by Osiki (2001) which had a reliability
coefficient of 0.82. Osiki‟s instrument was adapted from Motivation for Occupational
Preference Scale by Bakare (1977) and was utilized to develop a Motivation for Academic
study scale. The reliability coefficient is also in with the internal reliability of the instrument
developed by Garba (1993) which yielded a reliability index of 0.91 and was used to evaluate
practical projects in wood work.
109
The factor loadings of the Students’ Motivation to Learn Chemistry Scale (SMLCS)
In this study, face validity and construct validity were established. For the face validation
the instrument was submitted to four lecturers in the University of Nigeria Nsukka in order to
verify the correctness of the scoring key and to avoid the inclusion of irrelevant items. After
face validation, the sixty-one (61) items submitted for validation was reduced to fifty-six (56)
items. The modified SMLCS of 56 items was further subjected to factorial validation for
construct validity using factor analysis. The factorial validation revealed that 16 items were
factorially impure, and were discarded. Only 40 items survived the factor analysis and were
unevenly distributed among six factors identified in the study as relevant to students‟
motivation to learn Chemistry.
The six factors are as follows: Teachers‟ Personality, Classroom Environment, Students
Personal factors, Parents/Family, Peers/Classmates and Career Needs motivational factors. The
result shows that motivation to Chemistry learning in secondary school is accounted for by the
factors that are related to the Chemistry Teachers factors, the Classroom Environment factors,
the Students factors, the Parents/Family factors, the Peers/Classmates factors and the Career
Needs factors. The students‟ motivation is derived from these sources. The observed result is
not surprising because the interactions of learner with his/her environment play roles in active
learning. The students‟ desire to learn Chemistry in the secondary school is due to a composite
experience of many factors. The students in the secondary school level are at the formative age
and as such influenced by these common factors that help in learning, attitude and skills
development. In specific terms, teachers‟ personality as a motivation factor to students‟
learning of chemistry in this study is explained by eight (8) variables that included Chemistry
teacher‟s knowledge and skill, honesty, smartness and neatness, clarity in presentation,
readiness to teach, fairness and moral virtues.
110
These motivational attributes of the Chemistry teacher have been reported in earlier
studies. For instance, Matthew (2005) stressed that teachers who create warm and accepting
atmosphere will promote effort and favourable attitudes towards learning. Also, Iroegbu,
Chukwudire, Nkwocha, and Onyemerekeya (2003) explained that a teacher who can keep his
students well motivated has won more than half of the battle in learning.
The classroom environment motivational factor examined in this study spelt out eight
attributes that can explain the students‟ motivation to Chemistry learning as follows: paying
attention to avoid punishment, giving lots of assignment, active participation in class work,
safety issues in Chemistry not affecting my wanting to do Chemistry, friendly nature of
Chemistry class, reward for good achievement, stories of great Chemists told by our teacher
and teacher‟s punctuality to Chemistry lessons. These attributes of classroom motivation factor
have been reported by previous researchers. For instance, Keefe and Jenkins (2004) explained
that there are some students motivated by reward, praises or avoidance of punishment. Harju
and Eppler (2002) asserted that students who were externally motivated tend to posses more
irrational belief while internally motivated students involve more in learning. Learning of
Chemistry may be improved by external motivating factors as highlighted in the study.
Incentives include privileges and receiving praise from the teacher. The teacher determines an
incentive that is likely to motivate a student at a particular time. In a general situation, self
motivation without rewards will not succeed.
Another motivation factor identified in the study is students‟ personal motivation. Some
of the items of the students‟ personal motivation are: to retain good position, avoidance of
failure, calculations involved in Chemistry, practical activities involved in Chemistry and good
grades. These findings are not surprising because student find satisfaction in learning based on
the understanding that the goals are useful to them, based on the pure enjoyment of exploring
111
new things. Also, Tracy (2005) asserted that fear of failure is what persuades students to set
easier goal. Thus, the various reasons influencing students‟ success are factors of achievement
motivation for the students. Studies conducted by Atkinson (1999) showed that a good
percentage of students will work hard to achieve a task they do not enjoy, solely to maintain
their high grade point average or high rank in class. The students will thus be motivated
towards learning of school subjects like Chemistry because they want to maintain their class
ranks.
The parental/family and peers/classmates factors were established in this study as
motivational factors in students‟ Chemistry learning. The parental factors, which include
science background of the parents, parents wish, income of parents par the purchase of
textbooks, encouragement by parents, parents praises, extra-mural lessons organized by
parents in Chemistry and home study are motivational attributes that account for students‟
motivation to Chemistry learning.
The peers/classmates motivation factor is explained by the following attributes:
classmate‟s encouragement, friend‟s interest, friend‟s good achievement, friends‟ love for
Chemistry and cooperation of friends/mates and friends‟ attributes towards Chemistry
learning. This finding seems to be in consonance with the assertion of Gesinde (2000) who
posits that what is responsible for the variation in achievement could be the fact that
achievement motivation is believed to be learnt during socialization processes and learning
experiences. The author asserts further that those who have high achievers as their models in
their early life experience develop the high need to achieve while those who have low
achievers as their models hardly develop the need to achieve.
The career needs as motivational factor in students‟ Chemistry learning as reported in
this study was explained by seven (7) attributes as follows: the desire to become a Chemist,
112
become medical doctor, become an engineer, become a manufacturer and the Chemistry
related professions. This supports the earlier explanation by Schunk (1994) who explained that
the students‟ career needs determine the effort the students make towards achieving a better
goal. In other words, the career students need to attain not only determine the subjects they
choose in school but also the effort they make in those subjects, which describes their levels of
motivation towards the subjects.
Influence of gender on students’ motivation to learn Chemistry.
The findings of the study showed that the mean motivation scores of students to learn
Chemistry by males and females are the same. The t-test analysis further showed that there is
no significant difference between the mean motivation scores of male and female students at
.05 level of significance. This finding is surprising and not expected based on earlier reports
that there exists paucity of girls and women in Chemistry education (Adigwe, 1992; Oloyede,
2006 among others). According to the authors, boys usually receive more encouragement,
support and higher expectation from parents and teachers than girls. According to Njoku
(1997), female aversion and low participation in science and technology are linked to many
impediments, one of which is masculine image of the subject. Also, Erinosho (1994) reported
that the dominance culture over women who are socialized into behaviours that are a taboo for
them to venture into occupation that are male preserve. The present findings may be attributed
to the new dimensions in science and technology education where emphasis is laid on gender
sensitive teaching/learning approaches.
Influence of school location on Students’ Motivation to Learn Chemistry.
The findings of this study indicate that there was no statistically significant difference
between urban and rural mean motivation scores to learn Chemistry. This finding indicates that
motivation of students to learn Chemistry do not depend on school location. This finding is
113
unexpected when considered alongside earlier research reports. For instance, Njoku (1997)
explained that the community in which the child lives and goes to school cannot be divorced
from his/her academic achievements in terms of interest, motivation, attitudes and
achievement. Njoku further asserted that learning opportunities are more favourable to urban
dwellers than to rural dwellers and that urban school students are more motivated than their
rural counterparts in learning of school subjects like Chemistry. The fact that this study found
no significant difference in motivation of urban and rural students may be attributed to positive
change towards enhancing rural settings in learning infrastructures and activities.
Influence of class level on Students’ Motivation to Learn Chemistry.
The finding showed that class level of the students does not account for their motivation
to learn Chemistry in secondary school. In other words, there was no significant difference
between class levels in students‟ mean motivation scores to learn Chemistry in secondary
schools. This finding of the study is also surprising in the sense that it was the expectation that
class levels may influence motivation of students to learn Chemistry. However, this was not
the case. It was expected that as students mature in the learning of Chemistry or as their class
levels change from SS1-SS3, students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry would change due to
their experiences in the subjects. It appears that experiences in the learning of Chemistry do
not significantly change students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry.
Conclusions
From the findings of this study the following conclusions emerged.
1. The reliability coefficient of the Students‟ Motivation to Learn Chemistry Scale (SMCLS) was calculated to be 0.92 using the cronbach alpha coefficient.
2. Factor analysis revealed six factors containing clusters of items influencing students‟
motivation to learn chemistry. The reliability coefficient of these factors range from
0.53 to 0.70.
3. Students‟ motivation to Chemistry learning was explained by these six factors.
114
4. The six factors that accounted for the motivation of students to learn Chemistry are
Teachers‟ Personality Motivational factors, Classroom Environment Motivational
factor, Student Personal Motivational factor, Parents/Family Motivational factors,
Peers/Classmates Motivational factor and Career Needs Motivational factor.
5. Students‟ gender does not account for any significance difference in motivation of
students to learn Chemistry in secondary school.
6. Motivation to learn Chemistry is not influenced by school location.
7. Students‟ school location does not account for any significant difference in motivation
of students to learn Chemistry in secondary school.
8. Students‟ class level does not account for any significant difference in motivation of students to learn Chemistry in secondary school.
Implications of the Study
The findings of this study have far-reaching implications. The reliability coefficient of
the sub-scale developed in the study ranged from 0.53 to 0.70 and the overall reliability
coefficient is 0.92. This result implies that the Students‟ Motivation to Learn Chemistry Scale
(SMCLS) is reliable enough to measure secondary school students‟ motivation to learn
Chemistry.
Students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry is explained by six broad factors related to the
Teacher‟s Personality factors, Classroom Environment factors, Students‟ Personal factors,
Parents/Family factors, Peers/Classmates factors and Career Needs factors. This implies that
all these factors should be properly manipulated if Chemistry is to be adequately learned by
students. None of the factors should be neglected for effective learning of Chemistry at
secondary school level.
The findings also showed that motivation to Chemistry learning do not depend on
gender. The implications of this finding are that Chemistry related courses in higher institution
will be equally sought for by both male and female candidates. Any differences in students‟
motivation to learn secondary school Chemistry would be accounted for by factors other than
115
gender. Therefore, candidate choice of career lines at tertiary education level is influence by
other factors than Chemistry.
Further, the findings of the study that school location has no significant effect on motivation to
Chemistry learning has implication on provision of learning materials and facilities to both
urban and rural schools. It implies that both schools in urban and rural schools have
opportunities for learning. The movement of students from rural to urban schools would be
halted if both locations have equal learning opportunities. This is because students in both
locations have similar motivation to learn Chemistry.
Finally, the study showed that there was no significant difference in the mean
motivation scores of students by class level. The implication of this finding is that at any class
level, the motivation to learn Chemistry is the same. The motivation does not change as class
level changes.
Recommendations
The following recommendations were made based on the findings of the study.
1. The developed Students‟ Motivation to Learn Chemistry Scale (SMLCS) should be
utilized by teachers and school administrators in determining students‟ motivation to
learn Chemistry and other related subjects in secondary schools.
2. Teachers should motivate the students to learn Chemistry by exhibiting good
personality virtues and teaching expertise.
3. The classroom environment of the school should be enhanced for proper motivation of
students to learn by school authority and government.
4. Parents/Family should provide stimulating and encouraging learning environment in the
home for proper motivation of students to occur.
5. School guidance counselors should adequately counsel students on the career
opportunities as a means of motivating them to learn Chemistry better.
6. The government should provide stimulating learning environment in rural schools to
motivate students to learn in such locations.
7. At any class level the teachers should motivate the students to learn school subjects including Chemistry as motivation takes place at any class level.
116
Limitations of the Study
The limitations during the execution of the study were:
1. Due to the delimitation of the study to Okigwe Education Zone one (1) of Imo State,
the findings cannot be generalized across Nigeria.
2. The sample used for the study of this nature required large sample size. In any case the
return rate of the questionnaire copies was very high.
Suggestions for Further Studies
In view of the findings and limitations of the study, the following areas have been
suggested for further studies.
1. A replication of this study using more representative national sample.
2. A replication of the study using checklist as a data collection instrument.
Summary of the Study
Due to the paucity of the instrument to measure students‟ motivation, there was a need
for development of this scale. The purpose of the study was therefore to develop and validate a
scale for assessing students‟ motivation in the learning of Chemistry in secondary schools.
Sixty-one (61) items of the instrument was developed for the study. The instrument was face
validated by four experts to obtain fifty-six (56) items. The reliability coefficient of the sub-
scale developed in this study range from 0.53 to 0.70 and the overall reliability coefficient is
0.92. Out of fifty-six (56) items of SMCLS subjected to factor analysis, forty (40) items was
factorially pure. These forty (40) items were loaded unevenly on six factors, which explain
construct which underpin students‟ motivation to learn chemistry. This ensures that the
instrument has construct validity. The factors are Teacher‟s Personality factors, Classroom
Environment factors, Students‟ Personal factors, Parent/Family factors, Peers/Classmates
117
factor, and Career Needs factors. The final instrument is called Students‟ Motivation to Learn
Chemistry Scale (SMLCS).
To fully validate the instrument to ensure its functionality in the field, a survey of
Students‟ Motivation to Learn Chemistry was conducted using SMCLS as instrument for data
collection. The area of the study is Okigwe Education Zone one (1) of Imo State. The
population of the study consisted of all senior secondary school students who offered
chemistry in Okigwe Education zone one (1) totaling one thousand five hundred and eight
(1508) students. Purposive sampling technique was used to draw the respondents. Six research
questions and three hypotheses were formulated and tested at the probability of 0.05 level of
significance. Findings showed that respondents agreed that all the items in the clusters of the
instrument motivate them to learn Chemistry, Gender has no influence on the students‟
motivation to learn chemistry in secondary school, School location has no influence on the
students‟ motivation learn Chemistry in secondary school and Class Level has no influence on
the students motivation to learn Chemistry. The study implied that instrument is available for
assessing students‟ motivation to learn Chemistry. Also, student motivation is explained by six
factors, namely: Teacher‟s Personality Motivational factors, Classroom Environment
Motivational factors, Students‟ Personal Motivational factors, Parent/Family Motivational
factors, Peers/Classmates Motivational factors and Career Needs Motivational factors. It was
recommended that Chemistry Teachers and School Administrators to use the instrument. Also,
Chemistry Teachers to manipulate the various factors to improve students‟ motivation to learn
Chemistry in secondary schools. Also suggestions for further studies were made.
118
REFERENCES
Ababio, O. Y. (2009). New school chemistry for secondary schools. Onitsha: African-Fep
Publishers.
Abu, U. S. (1996). Environmental influence and attitude affecting the science education of
secondary school students in urban and rural areas of Borno state. Dougirei Journal of
Education, 6 (1), 28-30.
Accordino, D., Accordino, M., & Slaney, B. (2000). Investigation of perfectionism, mental
health, achievement, and achievement motivation in adolescents. Psychology in the
Schools, 37 (6), 535-545.
Achalla, S. M. (1995). Relationship among students level of cognitive development, school location and achievement in evolution in Offa and Moro L.G.A. of Kwara State.
African Journal of Education, 1 (1), 27-29.
Adebayo, O. A. (2002). Gender, environment and co-education as factors of performance in
the raven‟s standard progressive matrices. Gombe Technical Education Journal, 1 (2),
27-29.
Adigwe, J. C. (1992). Gender difference in chemical problem solving amongst Nigerian
students. Research in science and technology education. 10(2), 187-201.
Ahmet, A. K. (2007). Affective factors that influence chemistry achievement (motivation and
anxiety) and the power of these factors to predict chemistry achievement. Journal of
Turkish Science Education, 4(1)
Aitken, J. (1999). The achievement of boys. New Zealand: Education review office.
http://www.ero.Govt.nz
Akalonu, H. O. (2006). Towards result oriented chemistry practical chemistry examination at
the ordinary level. Journal of Science Teacher Association of Nigeria, 25 (1), 33-34.
Akinyele B. A. (1999). Why our Student fail the practical chemistry examination at the
ordinary level. Journal of Science Teacher Association of Nigeria, 25 (1), 33-34
Alderman, M. (1999). Motivation for achievement possibilities for teaching and learning. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher.
Ali, A. (1998). Strategic issues and trend in science education in Africa. Onitsha: Cape
Publishers
Ali, A. (2006). Fundamentals of research in education. Akwa: Meks Publishers (Nig).
Alonson, J., Motero, I. & Mateos, M. (1992). Evaluation of attributive styles: The EMA-11
Questionnaire. In J. Alonso Tapia (Ed.).
119
Amazigbo, J. C. (2000). Mathematics phobia, diagnosis and prescription. Enugu: Snaap Press.
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (4th Edition). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Inc.
Aniodoh, H. C. O. (2000). Stimulating and sustaining interest in chemistry. Journal of Science
and Computer Education, ESUT, 1 (92), 151-153.
Aronfreed, J., Bayley, N., Bellugi, U., Birren, J.E., & Bisseu, J.S. (1971). Development
psychology today. California: Communications Research Machines.
Atkinson, E. (1999). Key factors influencing pupil motivation in design and technology.
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals.JTE.vion2/atkindon.html.
Atkinson, J. (1974). Motivation and achievement. Washington: D.C.V.H.Winston and Sons.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risks taking behaviour. Psychology
Review, 64, 359-372.
Atkinson, J. W. (1984). Introduction to motivation. New Jersey: Van Nostrand.
Atkinson, J. W., & Feather, N.T. (1966). Theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wileyand Sons.
Awolola, J. B. (2001). The implication of low environment of Women in physics education in
Kwara State. STAN 42 Annual Conferences Proceedings, 93-94.
Ayodele, F. A. (1996). The influence of location, sex and subject area on students‟ academic
achievement in science. Nigerian Journal of Advanced Research in Education, 1 (1),
36-39.
Bajah, S. T., Teibo, B.O., Onwu, G., & Obikwere, A., (2008). Senior secondary chemistry (New edition). Lagos: Longman Nigeria Plc.
Bakare, C. G .M. (1977). Motivation for Occupational Preference Scale. Psycho-Educational
Research Publications.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs Prentice Hall Inc.
Biehler, R. F. & Snowmnan, J. (1999). Psychology applied to teaching (5Th Ed). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Bode, B. (1929). Conflicting psychology of learning. Boston: D.C Heath and Company.
Bulus, N. K (1996). A survey of problems of teaching and learning science and technology in
rural environment in Sokoto state. Sokoto Educational Review, 2 (1), 121-123.
120
Chukwudolue, F. I. (2002). Development and validation of teacher motivation assessment
scale for secondary school teacher in Anambra state. Unpublished, (Ph. D) Thesis.
University of Nigeria, Nuskka.
Chukwuemeka, D. E. (1990). Validity and reliability of teacher mode biology test questions used in Niger state secondary schools. Unpublished, (M.Ed.) Thesis, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.
Durojaiye, M. O. A. (1984). A new introduction to educational psychology. Ibadan: Evans
Brothers Ltd.
Eccles, P. J. Alder, T.F., Futherman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C.M., & Meece, J.L. (2003).
Expectancies, Values, and Academic Behaviours. In J.T. Spence (Ed.), achievement
and achievement motivation 75-146. San Francisco: Freeman.
Elliot, A. J. & Church, M.A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,218-232.
Elliot, A. J. & Harrachiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance goals and intrinsic
motivation: A mediation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
70,475.
Erinosho, S. U. (1994). Perspective on women in science and technology in Nigeria .Federal Ministry of Education Blue-print on Women Education in Nigeria (1989) Edition,
Lagos.
Etukudo, O. E. (2001). The female mathematics teacher in the 21st century; Adequacy,
competency and challenges. STAN 42nd Annual Conference Proceedings 167-169.
Eze, C. U. (2004). Constraints to effective teaching of chemistry practical in senior secondary
school. Journal of Science and Computer Education, ESUT. 1 (1), 35-45
Ezeh, D. N. (1992). Reliability and validity of test. In B.G Nworgu (Ed), Educational measurement and evaluation, theory and practices. Nsukka: Hallman Publishers
Eze, D. N. (1997). Development and validation of integrated science achievement test. Journal
of Technical and Science Education, 6 (1&2), 137-142.
Eze, D. N. (2005). What to write and how to write: A step-by-guide to educational research
proposal and report. Enugu: Pearls & Gold.
Ezeudu, F. O. (2000). Home environment factors that influence girl‟s orientation in science. Nigerian Journal of Empirical Studies in Psychology and Education, 1 (2), 163-165.
Ezeudu, S. A. (1992). Development and validation of some projects and instruments for
evaluating student learning outcomes in senior Secondary geography. Unpublished
Ph.D Thesis, University of Nigeria Nsukka.
121
Factor Analysis, Retrieved from http://ssc.utexas.edu/docs/stat53.html on 15/6/2011.
Fontana, D. (1981). Psychology for teachers. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Garba, N. L. (1993). Development of an instrument for evaluating practical projects in wood work. Unpublished Ph. D Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Georgopoloous, B. Mahoney G. & Jones (1957). Path goal approach to productivity. Journal
of Applied Psychology 41(3).
Gesinde, A. M. (2000). Motivation. In Z.A.A. Omideyi (Ed.) Fundamental of guidance and
counseling. Ibadan: Kanead Publishers.
Gisela, C. (2011). Gender achievement and motivation. University of Michigan: New Educational Review. Assessed from
http://www.ehow.com/infoinfluence-gender-achievement-motivation-students .htm #
ixzz1V kuf W5YA .
Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1995). An investigation of work in the science curriculum.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gronlund, N. E. (1976). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (3rd Ed). New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company Inc.
Haller, E. J. & Virkler, S.J., (2007). Rural and non-rural differences in students‟ educational
aspirations. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 9,170-178.
Halpern, E., & Diane, F., (2011). The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science
333(6050): 1706-1707. Retrieved November 4 2011.
http://www.sciencemag.ogr/content/333/6050/1707.full
Harbor-Peters, V. F. A (1998). Note worthy points in measurement and evaluation and their
process. Enugu: Snapp Press Ltd.
Hart, J. W., Stasson, M. F., Fulcher, K. H., & Mahoney, J. M. (2008). Assessing achievement
motivation as a multi-faceted construct: examining the psychometric properties of the
Cassidy and Lynn achievement motivation scale. Individual Differences Research, 6,
169-180.
Iji, C. O. (1996). Construction and validation of an instrument for evaluating higher degree
thesis in education. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Iroegbu, T. C., Chukwudire, H. U. C., Nkwocha, P. C., & Onyemerekeya, N. P. (2003).
Psychology of Human Learning. Owerri: Versatile Publishers.
Iyortyer, J. N. (1997). The effects of school location and school type on students‟ achievement
in mathematics. Unpublished B.Sc. (Ed) Thesis, University of Benin, Edo State, 57-60.
122
James, I. P. (2008). Effect of supplemental instruction on students‟ achievement and retention
in chemistry amongst Benue State senior secondary school student. Unpublished B.sc.
(Ed) Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Keder, A. (1990). Motivation and teaching. New York: Harper and Row Publisher.
Keefe, J. & Jenkins, J. (2004). Eye on education, instruction and the learning environment.
Larchmont, NY.
Kelly, J. P. (1991). The missing half girls and science education. Manchester: Manchester
University press.
Kim, T. & Axelrod, S. (2005). Direct instruction: An educations‟ guide and a plea for action.
The Behaviour Analyst Today, 6, (2), 111
Lau, k. (2009). Grade difference in reading motivation among Hong-Kong primary and
secondary students. British Journal of Education Psychology, 79(4), 713-733.
Lillienfeld, S., Lynn, S. J., Namy, L. L., & Woolf, N. J. (2010). A framework for everyday
thinking. Journal of Psychology, 1, 24-28.
Maria, T. C. & Pedro, F. C. (2004). Gender differences in academic motivation of secondary
school students. Education Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2(1), 97-112.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1965). Theory of human motivation. Psychology Review, 37-39.
Maslow, A. H. (1967). The further reaches of human nature. New York: Vking Press, Pp45-
49.
Matthew, W. (2005). General principles of motivation. Los Angeles Business Journal, 12-15, http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intanet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/motivate.h
tm
McClelland, D. C. (1953). Achievement motive. New York: Appleton- Century- Crofts.
McClelland, D. C. (1958). Scoring manual for the achievement motive, chapters 12, 13, and 14
in J.W. Atkinson (ed.), motive in fantasy, action and society. New York: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D. C. (1958). Methods of measuring human motivation, in Atkinson (ed.), motive in fantasy, action and John society. Princeton: Van Nostrand. Pp.12-13.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). Achieving society. Prince New Jersey: Van Nostrand.512pages.
http://www.businessballs.com/davidmcclelland.http.
123
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Achievement motivation can be developed. Harvard Business
Review, 43(November-December). Pp68.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). N-achievement and entrepreneur- a longitudinal study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4,389-392.
McClelland, D. C. (1968). Achievement motivation training for potential high school dropouts.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Graduate School of Education (Eric Document
Reproduction Service Number ED 029067)
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills and values determine what people do.
American Psychologist, 40,812-825.
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. New York City: Cambridge University Press.
McClelland, D. C., & Watson, R. I. (1982). Power Motivation and risk –taking behaviour.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743.
McCracken, J. D. & Barcinas, J. D. (2006).Differences between rural and
urban schools, student characteristics, and students‟ aspirations in Ohio. Journal of
Research Rural Education, 7 (2), 29-40
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96 (690-702).
McNeil, E. B., & Rubbin Z. (1979). The Psychology of being human (2nd Edition). New York:
Harper and Row Publisher, Inc
Meredith, G. M. (1969). Dimension of faculty of course evaluation. Journal of Psychology 73,
27 and 32
Ngwoke, D. U. (2010). School learning theories and application. Enugu: Immaculate
Publication Limited
Nie, N. N. (1975). Statistical package for the social science (SPSS). New York: Mc Graw- Hill
Book Company
Njoku, Z. C. (1997). Effect of practical work under different sex grouping on students‟ skills
acquisition and interest in chemistry practical activities. Unpublished Ph. D, Thesis.
University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Pp.76-79
Njoku, Z. C. (2010). Operational definition of chemistry. Njoku’s lecture notes.
Nkpone, H. L. (2001). Use of latent trait models in development and validation of Physics
achievement test for senior secondary students. Journal of the Science Teacher
Association of Nigeria, 46 (1 and 2), 72-80.
124
Nkwocha, P. C. (2000). Meaning and Theories of Learning Principles and Applications.
Owerri: Bennoka Nigeria Ltd.
Nworgu, B. G. (1985). Development and preliminary validation of Physics achievement test
(PAT). Unpublished (M.Ed.) Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Nworgu, B. G. (1992). Educational measurement and evaluation theory and practice. Nsukka:
Hallman Publisher.
Oakley, A. (1996). Sex, Gender and Society. London: Routledge Kegan Paul, Pp. 36-40.
Obioma, G. O. (1982). Development and preliminary validation of diagnostic mathematics
achievement test for Nigerian secondary school students. Unpublished (M.Ed) Thesis,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Obioma, G. O. & Ohuche R. O (1981). Sex and environment as factors in secondary school
Mathematics achievement. A Seminar Paper Presented at the National Annual
conference on Mathematics Association of Nigeria. Bayero University, Kano.
Ogbazi, J. N. & Okpala, J. (1994). Writing research report guide for research in education,
social sciences and the humanities. Enugu: Prime Time Limited
Ogomaka, P. M. C. (1984). Development and preliminary validation of students‟ evaluation of teachers‟ effectiveness scale (SETES).Unpublished (M.Ed.) Thesis, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.
Ogu, S. (1990). Development and validation of an affective behaviour assessment
inventory for Anambra state secondary school‟s students. Unpublished (Ph.D)
Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Okoye, N. N. (1985). The psychology of motivation. Ibadan: Adebara Publisher Limited.
Ormord, J. E. (1995). Human learning. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Osiki, J. O. (2001). Motivation for academic study scale. Ibadan: Striling–Horden Publisher.
Ovute, A. O. (1999). Factors of students‟ Attitude towards Physics in secondary schools.
Nigerian Research in Education, 6, 27
Ozumba, S. (2000). Interpreting barrier to decision making in primary schools. Journal of
Secondary Education Review, 149, 6-13
Pang, J. S & Schulthesiss, O.C. (2005). Assessing implicit motives in U.S. college students: Effects of picture type and position, gender and ethnicity and cross-cultural
comparisons. Journal of personality Assessment, 85, 280-294.
Philips, M. (1998). Family background, parenting practice, and the black-white test score gap.
The black-white test score gap: Washington: D.C., Booking Institution Press.
125
Plake, B. S & Parker C. S (1982). The development and validation of a revised version of the
mathematics anxiety rating scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement 42, (1)
551-557
Rennie, L. J. (1998). Gender equity towards clarification: A research direction for science teacher education. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 35 (8)
Riordan, C. (2009). The effects of single-sex schools. Argentina: Alced
Riordan, C., Faddis, B., Beam, M, Seager, A., Tanney, A., DiBiase, R., Ruffin M., Valentine,
J. (2011). Early implementation of Public single-sex schools: Perceptions of
characteristics. Washington D.C.
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self- regulation theory and work motivation. Hillsdale: N.J, Erlbaum.
Simon, S. (1988). Getting unstuck. New York: Warner Books.
Smith, M. K. (2011). Learning theory. The encyclopedia of informal education.
www.//em.wikipedia.org/wiki/ learning theory (education).
Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement:
two meta –analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140-154.
Spence, J. (1983). Achievement and achievement motives. San Francisco CA: W.H. Freeman
and Company.
Tella, A. (In Press). Motivation and academic achievement in mathematics.
Thorndike, R. M (1990). Correlational procedures in keeves. (J.P). Educational research,
methodology and measurement. An International Hand book. England: Pergamum
Press Plc.
Tony, T. & Wendy, D. (1998). Learning to teach science in the secondary school, a companion to school experiences. London: Routledge Publisher.
Tracy, B. (2005). Maximum achievement. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ugwudi, S. O. (1995). Development and standardization of an achievement test battery on the
primary social studies curricula modulus. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.
West African Examination Council (2007, 2008, 2009). Annual report (November -December). Lagos: Federal Ministry of Education.
Warner, A. R. (1992). Staff-personnel relations in secondary school administration. Journal of
Educational Management, 37 (4) 78-86.
126
Weggin, M. (1982). Staff-personnel relations in secondary school administration. Journal of
Educational Management, 37 (4), 78-86.
Wlodkowski, R. (1985). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass, Inc.
Worell, J. and Stiwell, W. E. (1981). Psychology for teachers and students. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Ziegler, M., Schmukle, S., Egloff, B., & Buhner, M., (2010), Investigating measures of
achievement motivation(s). Journal of Individual Differences, 3 (15-21)
127
Appendix A
Initial Developed Scale
Department of Science Education,
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
12th September, 2011.
Dear Sir/Madam,
REQUEST FOR FACE VALIDATION OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
I am a postgraduate student in the Department of Science Education, (Measurement and
Evaluation) units, University of Nigeria Nsukka. I am currently undertaking a work on
Development and Factorial Validation of a scale for Measuring Students‟ Motivation in the
learning of Chemistry.
The attached is an initial draft of the instrument for validation. You are please requested to
vet the items for clarity, relevance and total coverage for use in collecting data for the study. You
are also requested to put down your comments and suggestions for improving the quality of
instrument.
A copy of each of the purpose of the study and research questions guiding the study is
attached with this letter.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Yours faithfully,
Akwali, Phoebian Chibuogwu
128
Section A: Personal Data
Please, you are requested to supply all relevant information to items below:
1. Location of your school: Urban Rural
2. Sex: Male Female
Section B
Please indicate your response with a tick (۷) in appropriate column corresponding to the item of
your choice as a factor of motivation under the following guide. The guide is made up of four
response scale of:
Strongly Agreed (SA) =4points, Agreed (A) =3points, Disagreed (D) =2points, Strongly Disagreed
(SD) =1point.
S/N ITEMS SA A D SD
Teacher’s Personality Motivational Factor
1 I pay attention in Chemistry class to avoid punishment by my teacher.
2 I understand what the teacher teaches in Chemistry.
3 I am encouraged by the teacher‟s high skill of knowledge in chemistry.
4 My chemistry teacher gives me complex problem to solve, and that help me
to learn more in chemistry.
5 My chemistry teacher gives textbooks to the best student.
6 My chemistry teacher uses different teaching styles and that helps me to
learn more in chemistry.
7 My chemistry teacher tells us of a well known.
8 My chemistry teacher gives me kudos for any correct answer.
9 My chemistry teacher comes to class as at when due.
Classroom Environmental Motivational Factors
1 The teacher‟s class work improves my effectiveness.
2 Our chemistry teacher gives me attention in chemistry class.
3 The organization of the lesson by my chemistry teacher to ensure
maximum learning helps me to learn more in chemistry.
4 The effectiveness of our chemistry teacher encourages me to persist in
learning chemistry.
5 My teacher encourages active participation in chemistry class.
6 The feedback given by my teacher on every given class work helps me to
learn more in chemistry.
7 The quiz competition my teacher conducts from time to time helps me to
learn more in chemistry.
8 My teacher makes use of conducive environment in chemistry teaching.
9 My teacher calls on me more often to answer question in the chemistry
class.
10 I am discouraged in the chemistry class.
Students’ Personal Motivational Factor
1 I am first in the chemistry class.
2 I am convinced that I will do well in chemistry class.
129
3 I pay attention during chemistry class.
4 I am pessimistic to learn chemistry.
5 I am enthusiastic to learn chemistry.
6 I participate well in the chemistry class.
7 I do not put effort to succeed in chemistry.
8 I study hard to avoid failure in chemistry.
9 I find satisfaction in learning chemistry.
10 I have interest in learning chemistry.
11 The award received for doing well in chemistry is encouraging.
12 I expect praises in the learning of chemistry.
13 Chemistry is a useful subject.
14 I persevere even if chemistry learning is difficult.
15 I make sure that I am successful in chemistry class.
16 I avoid punishment in the learning of chemistry.
17 The calculation in chemistry makes me to learn chemistry.
Parents/Family Motivational Factor
1 My parent‟s background in science makes me to study chemistry.
2 My parent‟s wish for science background in the family makes me to study
chemistry.
3 My parent‟s buy me chemistry textbooks.
4 My parent‟s encouraged me to read hard in chemistry.
5 My parent‟s praises me for any good performance in chemistry.
6 My parent‟s relates my success in chemistry to my effort.
7 My father is a chemistry teacher.
8 My parents instruct me to do my chemistry assignment at home.
9 My parent‟s praises me for any good performance in chemistry.
Peers Motivational Factor
1 My classmates told me to read chemistry.
2 My classmates told me that chemistry is important.
3 I joined my friends to learn chemistry.
4 My success in learning chemistry will depend on the cooperation of my
classmates.
5 My friend has interest in chemistry.
6 My friend encouraged me to become a chemistry teacher.
7 My friend love chemistry.
8 My friend performs very well in chemistry.
Career Needs as a Motivational Factor
1 I am desirous to become a chemist.
2 I am striving hard to become a medical doctor.
3 I am convinced that chemistry is lucrative.
4 I am determined to become a researcher in chemistry.
5 I will perfectly manufacture detergents and paints with chemistry
knowledge.
6 I will manufacture fertilizer with the knowledge of chemistry.
7 I want to become a laboratory technician.
8 I want to work in the chemistry industries.
130
Appendix B
Modified Developed Scale before Factor Analysis
Department of Science Education,
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
20th November, 2011.
Dear Respondent,
TOPIC: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A SCALE FOR ASSESSING
STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION IN THE LEARNING OF CHEMISTRY
I am a postgraduate student from the Department of Science Education, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka. I am currently carrying out a research on the above topic. The purpose of the
study is to find out what make Chemistry students‟ want to learn Chemistry in their schools.
Please fill out for me all the items in the questionnaire below. There is no right or wrong
answer. Complete items according to the way you feel or the way you see it.
Thanks and God bless you.
Yours Sincerely,
Akwali Phoebian Chibuogwu
PG/M.Ed/09/50899
131
SECTION A: Personal Data
Please, you are requested to supply all relevant information to items below:
Name of my school is: _______________________________________________
My class is: SS1 SS2 SS3
My school is in: Urban area Rural area
Sex: Male Female
My school is: Co-educational Boys only Girls only
SECTION B
Please indicate by ticking (۷) at the level of your agreement or disagreement on what make
Chemistry students‟ want to learn Chemistry in their schools using the response options:
Strongly Agreed (SA)
Agreed (A)
Disagreed (D)
Strongly Disagreed (SD)
S/N ITEMS SA A D SD
The Teacher’s Personality Motivational Factor
1 I continued in learning Chemistry because of the effectiveness of our teacher.
2 Our teacher‟s resourcefulness makes me want to continue in learning Chemistry.
3 Our teacher‟s knowledge and skills in teaching makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
4 Our teacher‟s honesty in judging students makes me want to learn Chemistry.
5 Our teacher‟s smartness and neatness makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
6 Our teacher‟s use of clear and audible voice while teaching makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry.
7 Our teacher‟s willingness to teach his lesson makes me want to continue in
Chemistry.
8 Our teacher‟s kind-heartedness makes me want to learn Chemistry.
9 Our teacher‟s friendly and approachable virtue makes me want to continue in
Chemistry.
10 Our teacher‟s fairness makes me want to learn Chemistry.
132
11 Our teacher‟s moral virtue makes me want to continue with Chemistry.
Classroom Environment Motivational Factors
12 I pay attention in the Chemistry class to avoid punishment by our teacher.
13 Our teacher gives us lots of assignment, and that makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
14 Our teacher encourages active participation in Chemistry lessons and that makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
15 The overcrowding we experience in Chemistry class does not affect my wanting
to learn Chemistry.
16 Safety issues in Chemistry do not affect my wanting to learn Chemistry.
17 The friendly nature of Chemistry class makes me want to learn Chemistry.
18 Our teacher encourages us by giving prices to the best student.
19 Our Chemistry teacher uses different teaching styles and that makes me want to
learn more in Chemistry.
20 Stories of great Chemists told by our teacher makes me want to continue in
learning of Chemistry.
21 Praises for any correct answers by our chemistry teacher encourage me to read
hard in Chemistry.
22 Our Chemistry teacher‟s punctuality to lessons encourages me to learn
Chemistry.
Students’ Personal Motivational Factors
23 To retain my good position in Chemistry, I read hard.
24 To avoid failure in Chemistry, I read hard.
25 The award I received for doing well in Chemistry encouraged me to learn more
in Chemistry.
26 Praises for my performance makes me want to learn more in Chemistry.
27 Experiencing Chemistry in the world outside classroom makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
28 The calculations in Chemistry make me want to learn more in Chemistry.
29 The practical activities in Chemistry make me want to learn Chemistry.
30 My good grade in Chemistry makes me want to learn more in Chemistry.
31 My good understanding of Chemistry makes me want to learn Chemistry.
Parents/Family Motivational Factors
32 My parent‟s background in science makes me want to learn Chemistry.
33 My parent‟s wish for science background in the family makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
34 The Chemistry textbooks my parents bought for me encourages me to learn
more in Chemistry.
35 My parent‟s encourages me to read hard and that makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
36 My parent‟s praises for my good performance makes me want to learn more in
133
Chemistry.
37 The extra mural classes my parents organizes for me in Chemistry makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
38 My father is a Chemistry teacher and that makes me want to learn Chemistry.
39 My parent‟s instruction to do my Chemistry assignment at home makes me
want to learn Chemistry.
40 My parents give me money for any good performance in Chemistry and that
makes me want to learn more in Chemistry.
Peers/Classmates Motivational Factors
41 My classmate‟s encouragement to read Chemistry makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
42 My classmate told me that Chemistry is important and that makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
43 My friend‟s interest in Chemistry makes me want to learn Chemistry.
44 My friend‟s encouragement to become a Chemistry teacher makes me want to
learn Chemistry.
45 My friend‟s good performance in Chemistry makes me want to learn Chemistry.
46 My friend‟s love for Chemistry makes me want to learn Chemistry.
47 The company‟s of my friends makes me want to learn Chemistry
48 My success in learning Chemistry will depend on the cooperation of my
classmates.
Career Needs Motivational Factors
49 My desire to become a Chemist makes me want to learn more in Chemistry.
50 My desire to become a medical doctor makes me want to learn more Chemistry.
51 The lucrative nature of Chemistry makes me want to learn more in Chemistry.
52 My desire to become an engineer makes me want to learn Chemistry.
53 My desire to manufacture detergents and paints makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
54 My desire to become a laboratory technician makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
55 My desire to manufacture fertilizer makes me want to learn more in Chemistry.
56 My desire to work in the chemical industries makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry
134
Appendix C
Modified Developed Scale after Factor Analysis for the Main Analysis
Department of Science Education,
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
20th February, 2012.
Dear Respondent,
TOPIC: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A SCALE FOR ASSESSING
STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION IN THE LEARNING OF CHEMISTRY
I am a postgraduate student from the Department of Science Education, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka. I am currently carrying out a research work on the above topic. The purpose of
the study is to find out what make Chemistry students‟ want to learn Chemistry in their schools.
Please fill for me all the items in the questionnaire below. There is no right or wrong answer.
Complete items according to the way you feel or the way you see it.
Thanks and God bless you.
Yours Sincerely
Akwali Phoebian Chibuogwu
PG/M.Ed/09/50899
135
SECTION A: Personal Data
Please, you are requested to supply all relevant information to items below:
Name of my school is: ___________________________________________
My class is: SS1 SS2 SS3
My school is in: Urban area Rural area
Sex: Male Female
My school is: Co-educational Boys only Girls only
SECTION B
Please indicate by ticking (۷) at the level of your agreement or disagreement on what make
Chemistry students‟ want to learn Chemistry in their schools using the response options:
Strongly Agreed (SA)
Agreed (A)
Disagreed (D)
Strongly Disagreed (SD)
S/N ITEMS SA A D SD
Teacher’s Personality Motivational Factors
1 Our teacher‟s knowledge and skills in teaching makes me want to learn more
in Chemistry.
2 Our teacher‟s honesty in judging students makes me want to learn Chemistry.
3 Our teacher‟s smartness and neatness makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
4 Our teacher‟s use of clear and audible voice while teaching makes me want
to learn more in Chemistry.
5 Our teacher‟s willingness to teach his lesson makes me want to continue in
Chemistry.
6 Our teacher‟s kind-heartedness makes me want to learn Chemistry.
7 Our teacher‟s fairness makes me want to learn more in Chemistry.
8 Our teacher‟s moral virtue makes me want to continue with Chemistry.
136
Classroom Environment Motivational Factors
9 I pay attention in Chemistry class to avoid punishment by my teacher.
10 Our teacher gives me lots of assignments and that makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
11 Our teacher encourages active participation in Chemistry lessons and that
makes me want to learn Chemistry.
12 Safety issues in Chemistry do not affect my wanting to learn Chemistry.
13 The friendly nature of Chemistry class makes me want to learn Chemistry.
14 Stories of great Chemists told by our teacher makes me to continue in
learning Chemistry.
15 Praises for any correct answers by our Chemistry teacher encourages me to
read hard in Chemistry.
16 Our chemistry teacher‟s punctuality to lessons encourages me to learn
Chemistry.
Students’ Personal Motivational Factor
17 To retain my good position in Chemistry, I read hard.
18 To avoid failure in Chemistry, I read hard.
19 The calculations in Chemistry make me to learn more in Chemistry.
20 The practical activities in Chemistry make me want to learn Chemistry.
21 My good grade in Chemistry makes me to learn more in Chemistry.
Parents/Family Motivational Factors
22 My parent‟s background in science makes me to learn Chemistry.
23 My parent‟s wish for science background in the family makes me learn more
Chemistry.
24 The Chemistry textbooks my parents bought for me encourages me to learn
more in Chemistry.
25 My parent‟s encourages me to read hard and that makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
26 My parent‟s praises for my good performance makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
27 The extra-mural classes my parents organize for me makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
28 My parent‟s instructions to do my Chemistry assignment at home makes me
to learn more in Chemistry.
Peers/Classmates Motivational Factors
29 My classmate‟s encouragement to read Chemistry makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
30 My friend‟s interest in Chemistry makes me want to learn Chemistry.
31 My friend‟s good performance in Chemistry makes me want to learn
Chemistry.
32 My friend‟s love for Chemistry makes me want to learn Chemistry.
33 My success in learning Chemistry will depend on the cooperation of my
classmates.
Career Needs Motivational Factors
137
34 My desire to become a Chemist makes me want to learn more in Chemistry.
35 My desire to become a medical doctor makes me want to learn more in
Chemistry.
36 My desire to become an engineer makes me want to learn Chemistry.
37 My desire to manufacture detergents and paints makes me want to learn
more in Chemistry.
38 My desire to become a laboratory technician makes me to learn more in
Chemistry.
39 My desire to manufacture fertilizer makes me to learn more in Chemistry.
40 My desire to work in the chemical industries makes me to learn more in
Chemistry
138
Appendix D
Students’ Enrollment Figure for 2011/2012
ISIALA MBANO L .G .A
S/N Name of Schools Number of Students Location
SS1 SS2 SS3
M F M F M F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Ibeme High School
Aquinas S.S. Osu
ST Dominic‟s S.S.
Obollo S.T.S
Umuduru Osu C.S.S
Eziama S.S Osuama
Anara C.S.S
Umunkwo G.S.S
Amaraku S.S
Umuozu S.S Ugiri S.S
Ogbor Ugiri S.S.
Umuneke Ugiri S.S.
Osu Technical College
Osuachara C.S.S.
Okohia S.S
Mbeke C.S.S
Ezihe C.S.S
Amauzari C.S.S
35
35
9
2
11
18
6
-
5
8
10
25
62
7
5
24
13
8
25
25
14
3
10
33
9
13
9
10
20
30
-
8
8
21
10
10
8
10
3
1
2
6
3
-
2
4
5
7
13
2
2
7
5
2
5
7
2
0
1
5
2
4
1
0
4
4
-
1
3
2
1
3
9
7
5
3
2
9
5
-
2
5
4
9
12
3
1
7
6
2
4
3
4
1
2
4
1
5
1
1
3
3
-
0
1
1
2
1
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Total 283 258 82 45 91 37
139
Appendix Di
OKIGWE L.G.A
S/N Name of Schools Number of Students Location
SS1 SS2 SS3
M F M F M F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Agbobu C.S.S
Ihube high school
G.S.S Okigwe
Umulolo B.S.S
Ezinachi C.S.S
Umulolo High School
Umuowa Ibu S.T.S
G.S.S Ihube
Okigwe C.S.S
Urban M.S.S Ubaha
Aku Comm. S.S
Women Edu. Centre
5
15
-
-
13
-
7
-
17
50
3
-
7
-
69
-
18
9
3
60
13
59
4
-
1
4
-
-
4
-
2
-
6
12
1
-
1
-
17
-
2
3
1
9
5
7
0
-
3
7
-
-
7
-
3
-
6
19
2
-
4
-
12
-
4
2
2
15
5
8
1
-
Rural
Rural
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
Rural
Urban
Total 110 242 30 45 47 53
Secondary Education Management Board Okigwe, 2011/2012
140
Appendix Dii
ONUIMO L.G.A
S/N Name of Schools Number of Students Location
SS1 SS2 SS3
M F M F M F
1
2
3
4
5
Okwe Comm. S.S
Okwelle Sec. School
Comm. S.S.U‟ cheke Okwe
U‟duru Egbeaguru C.S.S
National Grammar Sch.
Umuna
8
4
26
14
9
14
7
16
18
3
3
2
6
4
2
5
3
4
3
1
3
1
6
6
5
2
2
4
3
1
Rural
Urban
Rural
Rural
Urban
Total 61 58 17 16 21 12
141
Appendix E
Sampled Population of Chemistry Students’ in Okigwe Education Zone One by Sex and
Location
Location of Schools
Number of Students
Sex
Male
Female
Urban
409
218
191
Rural
179
98
81
Total
588
316
272
Secondary Education Management Board Okigwe, 2011/2012
142
Appendix Ei
Ten (10) Sampled Secondary Schools
OKIGWE L.G.A
S/N Name of Schools SS1 SS2 SS3 Location
M F M F M F
1 Ezinachi C.S.S 13 18 4 2 7 4 R
2 Okigwe C.S.S 17 13 6 5 6 5 U
3 Urban M.S.S 50 59 12 7 19 8 U
ISALA MBANO
S/N Name of Schools SS1 SS2 SS3 Location
M F M F M F
4 Aquinas S.S Osu 35 25 10 7 7 3 U
5 Eziama S.S Osuama 18 33 6 5 9 4 U
6 Osuachara C.S.S 7 8 2 1 3 0 R
7 Mbeke C.S.S 24 21 7 2 7 1 R
ONUIMO L. G. A
S/N Name of Schools SS1 SS2 SS3 Location
M F M F M F
8 Okwelle Sec. Sch. 4 7 2 3 1 2 U
9 U‟ duru Egbeaguru 14 18 4 3 6 3 R
10 National Grammar School 9 3 2 1 5 1 U
TOTAL 191 205 55 36 70 31
143
Appendix F
Validates’ Comment
1. Items in cluster A and B seem to be related. Should endeavor to make the items
mutually exclusive.
2. The instrument is found valid.
3. Should use active verbs which will actually specify practical activities of the items.
4. Should response options that spelt out context and time line e.g. Always, Sometimes,
Occasionally and Rarely. Since motivation is not a matter of opinion but a matter of
how much or what level of participation in an activity.
5. Should number the items from 1- 61 in order to take note of the number being
deleted.
144
Appendix G
Factor Analysis Result
Criteria for item selection: Factor Loadings of 0.35 and above (Factorially Pure, FP)
Criteria for item rejection:
i. Factor loading of less than 0.35 (Factorially Impure, FI)
ii Items loaded up to 0.35 in more than two factors (Factorially Complex, FC)
Factors Items Quality Total number of
items
Teacher‟s factor
Classroom factor
Students‟ factor
Parents factor
Peers factor
Career needs
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11.
12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22.
23, 24, 28, 29, and 30.
32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39.
41, 43, 45, 46, and 48.
49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 56.
(FP)
(FP)
(FP)
(FP)
(FP)
(FP)
8
8
5
7
5
7
