A Comparative Study of Misconceptions of Physics Curriculum among the students of O-Level (University of Cambridge UK) and SSC Level (Pakistani National Curriculum 2006)

Abstract

The Study was designed to investigate that whether the required objectives of the curriculum are being achieved? And to what extent is classroom teaching preparing the students to meet the requirements and challenges of the 21st century. The objective of the study is to improve the quality of teaching learning process in the subject of physics at secondary level. The population of the study comprised of 16 schools of ICT (Islamabad Capital territory) offering O-level with Cambridge University's curriculum and 34 public schools of ICT, offering Pakistani National curriculum (2006) for their SSC classes. The sample of the study was selected in two stages. During the 1st stage 25% educational institutions were selected as sample of the study through random sampling. A standardized instrument of TIMMS (2008) was used to collect the data. It was content based achievement test. It was recommended teaching method for both the systems. The data was collected in two phases of Pre-test and Post-test. The hypotheses were tested statistically by using ANOVA analysis of variance and t-test through statistical package for social sciences (SPSS). There existed misconnections among the students of both the streams; male students had sounder concepts as compared to female students. Similarly at the pre-test stage although students of both the groups showed misconceptions but O-Level students had less misconception as compared to SSC Students. It is also clear that the concepts of SSC students become sounder at post-test stage after being exposed with student centred inquiry based teaching.

Headnote

Abstract

The Study was designed to investigate that whether the required objectives of the curriculum are being achieved? And to what extent is classroom teaching preparing the students to meet the requirements and challenges of the 21st century. The objective of the study is to improve the quality of teaching learning process in the subject of physics at secondary level. The population of the study comprised of 16 schools of ICT (Islamabad Capital territory) offering O-level with Cambridge University's curriculum and 34 public schools of ICT, offering Pakistani National curriculum (2006) for their SSC classes. The sample of the study was selected in two stages. During the 1st stage 25% educational institutions were selected as sample of the study through random sampling. A standardized instrument of TIMMS (2008) was used to collect the data. It was content based achievement test. It was recommended teaching method for both the systems. The data was collected in two phases of Pre-test and Post-test. The hypotheses were tested statistically by using ANOVA analysis of variance and t-test through statistical package for social sciences (SPSS). There existed misconnections among the students of both the streams; male students had sounder concepts as compared to female students. Similarly at the pre-test stage although students of both the groups showed misconceptions but O-Level students had less misconception as compared to SSC Students. It is also clear that the concepts of SSC students become sounder at post-test stage after being exposed with student centred inquiry based teaching.

Key Words: Misconceptions, Physics, curriculum, Inquiry based Science Teaching' SSC-class, O-Levels, University of Cambridge UK, Pakistani National Curriculum 2006

Introduction

Education being the third eye of a man remained the very essential part of different civilizations in historical perspectives. Shami (2005) quoted Quaid giving guideline about the future of Pakistan in first educational conference held in November 1947:

"The future education system should suit the genius of our people. It should be consonant with our culture and history. It should also integrate the highest sense of honour, integrity, responsibility and selfless service to the state. It should also provide scientific and technical education for the socioeconomic development of the country."

Secondary Education

An important sub-sector of the entire formal education system is secondary education (ix-x) is an important. On the one hand, it provides middle level workers for the economy and on the other it acts as a feeder for the higher levels of education. The quality of higher education, which is expected to produce high quality professionals in different field of social, economic and political life of the country, depends upon the quality of secondary education. This level of education, therefore, needs to be organized in such a way that it should prepare young men and women for the pursuit of higher education, as well as adjust with their practical lives meaningfully and productively.

It comprises of two categories

i) Lower secondary level (9th -10th ORS S C)

ii) Higher secondary level (1 lth-12thor HSSC)

The objectives of secondary education should be to provide such general education as to equip the student with basic knowledge in all subjects and skills in some fields to enable them to pursue life at their own.

Significance of Secondary Education

Secondary education is a turning point of a student's life. Secondary education is a stage where a student enters adolescence. This is the most crucial stage of life. The basic perception and modes of behaviour start taking shape and problem of adjustment with the new roles in life assure critical significance. Four years of secondary education, therefore, provide an excellent opportunity for the educationist to conceive and launch programs that initiate the learners into proper forms of behaviour and attitudes, which lead to decent productive and peaceful life in future (Govt, of Pakistan, 1998).

The O-Level (Ordinary Level) System

The "General Certificate of Education 'Ordinary' Level Examination", otherwise known as the "GCE 'O' Level" or the "O Levels" is the examination taken by students of Secondary Education in the United Kingdom, Commonwealth countries or regions associated with the British curriculum. The "GCE 'O' Level" is a subject-based qualification. The "GCE 'O' Level" functions as to determine the standards of middle-secondary students and usually not required in the entry to college. This usually encompasses students of Grade 8 to 10.

In 1988, O-level qualifications in the UK were replaced by a new system, the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). However the O level is still used in many Commonwealth countries, such as Bangladesh, Brunei, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Trinidad and Tobago. Some British schools also reverted to exams based on the O-levels. In June 2005, 12 million candidates from more than 200 countries registered for O-level examinations across the world. Institutions that offer O-levels are Cambridge International Examinations (CIE), American Council for Higher Education (Shah, 2013).

The SSC Verses O-Level

O-Level is an internationally recognized degree. After passing O level exams students can get admission in any international college or university on the bases of his/her grades. But SSC students have to qualify standardized SAT (I &II) or IELS tests. As SSC is a Pakistani system so it is an easier mode of qualification and certification. Olevel requires three years and SSC can be done in only two. However O-Level accesses the students on the bases of Bloom taxonomy which is internationally acceptable. Although it is also recommended for SSC exams but has not been followed (Haider, 2011).

Science Education

It has been universally acknowledged that the amicable survival of a nation in the 21st century depends largely upon the scientific development as well as upon scientifically literate society (Siddique, 2010).

The field of science education comprises science contents, some sociology and some teaching pedagogy. The standard for science education provides expectations for the development of understanding for students through the entire course of their k-12 education.

The developments of a science curriculum in the US emerged gradually after extended debate between ideologies, citizen science and pre-professional training. As a natural of a conference, 30 leading secondary and college educators in Florida, the National Education Association appointed a committee of ten in 1892 which had authority to organize future meetings and appoint subjects matter committees of the majors subjects taught in US secondary schools. The three conference committees appointed for science were:

1) Physics, astronomy and chemistry;

2) Natural history

3) Geography.

Each committee composed of ten leading specialists from colleges and normal schools and secondary schools (Lakshay, 2013).

Inquiry Based Science Teaching (Physics)

Discovery or inquiry process can be described as methods of teaching and learning with the help of which learners try to find out something which was unknown to them earlier. It refers to a process of self-learning whereby learners generate concepts and ideas with very little teacher intervention. The discovery method or inquiry approach are used to discover new knowledge through experimentation, problem solving or project work (Kingsfiel).

Inquiry is a process of framing questions, gathering information, analyzing it and drawing conclusions. Inquiry develops student's knowledge of the topic of investigation, skills of questioning, hypothesizing, information gathering, critical thinking and presentation. They are also disposed to engage in inquiry, open-mindedness and continuing their learning (Government of Pakistan).

Physics is the base of the physical sciences. It is the study of matter, energy and their interactions. Physics being the science of nature helps the students extremely in discovering the systems of nature especially at HSSC level. Many of the tools, on which the advancement of science and technology depends, are direct product of physics.

In Pakistan Physics is taught as an elective subject at secondary level and higher secondary levels. Physics curriculum is developed under the supervision of Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan.

Physics Standards and Benchmarks at Secondary School level in Pakistan

The content standard provides the description that of what student should know, understand and able to do in specific content area (Government of Pakistan, 2006). In addition, bench marks in each content area are drafted to further clarify the content standards. They define our expectations for student's knowledge skills and abilities along a development continuum in each content area. They are meant to define a common denominator to determine how well students are performing (Government of Pakistan, 2006).

Standards for SSC classed in National Curriculum 2006

National Curriculum 2006 has stated our national standards as follows:

1. Students will be able to display a sense of curiosity and wonder about the natural world and demonstrate an increasing awareness that this has led to new developments in science and technology.

2. Students will be able to demonstrate and understanding of the impact of science and technology on society and use science and technology to identify problems and creativity address them in their personal social and professional lives.

3. Students will be able to understand the processes of scientific investigation. They will be able to identify a problem design and conduct experiments and communicate their findings using a variety of conversational and technological tools.

4. Students will be able to describe and explain common properties forms and interactions of energy and matter, their transformations and applications inphysics.al system (Government of Pakistan, 2006).

Misconception

The study of students' another conceptions and conceptual frameworks has been an energetic field among science educationalist for more than two decades. It can be described as ideas that offer an inaccurate explanation about any object or event, happenings that are built on a person's direct observation and experience together with such things as predetermined concept, non-scientific faith immature theories, mixed conception or conceptual miss understanding.

There are many sources for the creation of mistaken belief and misconception e.g. students personal incorrect conclusions, parents or other family members perceptions, print or social media and even teacher can also be the source (Vinayan, 2006). Misconception also tends to be very resisting to instructions. Hence, conceptual modification has to occur for learning to happen. This puts teachers in the very challenging position required to bring about important conceptual change in students' knowledge (NY Science Teacher, 2013).

Revolutionary changes and restructuring of in-service and pre service teacher education curricula and class room practices can bring an essential change in teacher's conceptual correction. It can help to remove misconceptions which improve the quality of teacher education in science subjects especially (Malhotra, 2006). Generally concepts of students are categorized in the following three types.

i) Misconception

Barrass (1984) put in writing as inaccuracy in thinking and ideas, errors, misconceptions or confusing thoughts, or misinterpretations of information, which can be eliminated with the help of brighter students and competent teachers.

(Hancock, 1940) quoted the misconception or mistaken belief as ...any groundless idea, or faith that does not represent the factor of horror belief or mystical interference. Hancock considered misconceptions to come up from faulty logics and reasoning.

ii) Pre-conceptions

Thoughts which are expressed as outside class room learning are called pre conceived conceptions (Ausubel, 1968).

Actually these are predetermined beliefs or a conceptual misinterpretation. In this case someone knows and beliefs something logically wrong and incorrect but thinks it as logically correct.

Raja (1998) reported researches of last decade shows that the scientific thinking of many teachers resembled that of children. A number of teachers focused on the properties of substances rather than on systems interacting.

Many people who possess misconceptions but do not even know that their thoughts are fake or wrong. The most important frustrating and alarming fact about the misconceptions is that people keep on constructing their further knowledge on their existing logically incorrect understandings. Keeping this type of misunderstanding and misconceptions can have severe effect on the learning of a student. (NY Science Teacher, 2013)

iii) Naive conceptions

Naive conceptions can be described as pre-conceived idea or an abstract misinterpretation or confusion.

According to Raja (1998) the concepts and ideas or beliefs of students which are different from generally accepted concepts by the scientific community are called misconceptions, or alternate frameworks.

By now, it is well acknowledged that unusual conceptions and ideas or misconceptions are universal among students and that these hinder with successive learning and are challenging hinder for a conceptual change. Defeating misconception is critical to student knowledge and learning. Therefore, a study of student' misconceptions in the subject of Physics has great significance.

Misconceptions in physics

Physics, as a natural science in engineering, is not supposed to be difficult to learn and understand, because its content is easily found in daily life and follows a common logic. However, as our facts suggest, physics has become a subject that is considered difficult, so that the students and their teachers often agree to seek out a compromise to be optimized in the formal education process, that is, how to make an approach that merely allows most students to pass the exams. There have been many educators, particularly those who work with physical sciences and mathematics, finding that we have a challenge known as misconception in our way to understand physical phenomena.

An effective and meaningful physics teaching can only be ensured if the teacher, the key pivot of the change, is developed enough in content, concepts as well as methodology. A teacher who has a sound an in-depth knowledge of the subject and adapting student-centred approach can do the justice to his profession by providing meaningful learning while poor delivery may cause misconceptions, disappointments and disenchantment. It also promotes the rote learning (Government of Pakistan, 2006).

Teacher training/Teacher education may help teachers to become familiar with the variety of strategies for successful delivery of the curriculum. Teacher trainers should focus on training the under-training teachers in following areas.

1. Improved teaching investigation skills/Laboratory work

2. be aware of new innovations and strategies

3. Develop ability to conduct action research

4. Enhance ability to specialize in specific subject

(Government of Pakistan, 2006)

To point out the existence of misconceptions which affect our understanding of the world we are aware that not all information we receive is correct. In this way, misconceptions emerge in our concepts of thinking too. Misconceptions prevent us from knowing the world correctly (Bystrianska, 2013).

Many conventional learning approaches do not provide student an occasion for early recognition of potential problems in their understanding. The inquiry can be an effective means of transportation to allow students to build up their dangerous thinking and problem solving skills as well as deal with their individual misconceptions concerning a certain topic in physic (Hein, 2009).

A study was also conducted in England in which the process of conceptual change and student's undeveloped immature and illogical theories of physics concepts were quoted and described. It was carried out to explain how immature naive thoughts and theories became a characteristic of conceptual change. A survey was conducted and data was collected from 122 science teachers of primary classes in England. That teacher declared almost one third science topics from the primary curriculum as extremely difficult for students. Those topics were especially of abstract concepts i.e. electricity and forces. Teachers also identified 130 pre conceived misconceptions e.g. Stones grow or taller people are older than shorter people etc. which children cany to the science class with them. This realistic data provides the basis to conclude that young students have preconceived naïve and immature theories which became a barrier for their meaning full and logical learning. These also create illusion for science teaching. . (Pine, Messer and John 2010)

Raja (1998) also reported the study of Johnstone, Macdonald and Webb who explored the misconceptions in the area of thermodynamics with 98 higher grade chemistry students. The results indicated 8 major misconceptions among the students.

Awareness and knowledge of student misconceptions can be an extremely helpful tool for science teachers to improve the quality of science teaching. If the teachers have no idea and knowledge of their student's misconceptions then it's nearly impossible for them to bring a conceptual change among their students (Reuell, 2013).

Another study was also conducted by Kambouri (2011) in Cyprus. In which writer exposed the student's misconceptions in the subject of science. He quotes that these types of studies would help in improving science teaching and learning in Cypriot classrooms. He also thinks that more researches are required for the complete understanding and evaluation of the situation regarding teachers understanding and strategies adopted to remove the student's misconceptions in Cyprus. Mazur (1996) quotes that some students in their physics class had rote learnt equations and even numerical problems but they performed poorly during the tests of conceptual understanding because of their conceptual ambiguity. Pakistan has two parallel systems of Education i.e. SSC and O-Level. It has been mentioned in Pakistani national curriculum and O-level curriculum that Inquiry based science teaching is the most appropriate approach for teaching Physics. It not only helpful in transfer of knowledge but also ensures concept development. The curriculum is structured on the bases of Bloom taxonomy of objectives .This methods demands that teaching methods and assessment procedures should be based on this taxonomy.

It is concluded from above studies that misconceptions exists among the physics and science students. After reviewing the literatme it is also been concluded that no previous study has been conducted for the Pakistani National Curriculum 2006. This study may be useful in provision of data regarding the misconceptions in the subject of physics. It may be useful for developing and designing the appropriate class teaching strategies to overcome these misconceptions.

Statement of the Problem

The wide application of physics in different realms of life necessitates studying misconceptions of physics curriculum in Pakistan, thus need is felt to compare the two parallel systems being practiced at O-Levels and Secondary School Certificates (SSC) level. The study was aimed at comparing the misconceptions in the subject of Physics of the two parallel systems of education offered at Secondary Level in Pakistan i.e. O- Level and Secondary School Certificate (SSC).

Objectives

The major objectives of the study were:

i) To study the misconception in the subject of Physics among the students of O-levels

ii) To study the misconception in the subject of Physics among the students of SSC

iii) To identity the misconception in the subject of Physics among the male and female students of both the systems.

iv) To compare the misconception in the subject of Physics among the students of different age groups

v) To compare the misconception in the subject of Physics at O-levels and SSC.

vi) To give recommendations and suggestions for improvements concepts among the students of both the systems

Hypothesis of Study

Following null hypotheses were tested in this study

Hoi: There is no significant difference between mean score of male and female.

H02: There is no significant difference between mean score of different age group.

Ho3: There is no significant difference of misconceptions of the concepts in different content areas of physics curriculum, among the students of the two systems.

Ho4: There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level students and SSC students at pre-test stage.

H05 There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level students and SSC students at post-test stage.

H06: There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Force and Motion.

H07: There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC regarding the content of Equilibrium.

Ho8: There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Heat.

H09: There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC regarding the content of Mass and Weight.

H010: There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Waves.

H011: There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content Lenses and Mirrors

H012: There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Centripetal force.

H013: There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Electrostatics.

H014: There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Radioactivity.

H015: There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Electricity.

Significance

The findings of the study identified the differences and similarities between the systems as well as strengths and weakness of the students of both the systems. The study will be significant for the teachers, educational administrators, educational policy makers, curriculum developers Assessment experts and for future researchers as a springboard to investigate the quality and provision for science education programmes in the subject of physics in Pakistan of 21st Century. The study will also be helpful in improving the quality of teaching learning process in the subject of physics at secondary level. The study will also be helpful for the authorities of BISEs of Pakistan to modify their tests construction process according the international standards. The will also provide significant information to University of Cambridge (UK) to study the local curriculums of the countries where O-Level education is being important.

Delimitations of the Study

Keeping in view the time and financial constraints the study was delimited to the following areas only:

i) Area of ICT only

ii) For the subject of Physics only

iii) Only ten common content areas of National curriculum in the subject of Physics.

Methodology

It was a descriptive type study and survey method was used to collect the data. Pre-test/Post-test research design was used .Data was collected through a standardized content based instruments in two phases i.e. Pre-test and post-test.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of a study. Arrows indicating to depict connections among various steps and the relationship between different variables.

Population

The population of the study was comprised 20 schools of ICT (Islamabad Capital territory) offering O-level and among them 16 schools were following Cambridge University's curriculum. Similarly 34 urban schools of ICT which were offering Pakistani National Curriculum (2007) for their SSC classes. (Annexure-A).

Sample of the Study

The sampling was carried out in two stages:

a) Stage-1

The researcher selected 25% educational institutions as sample of the study through simple random sampling. Two educational institutions for boys and 02 institutions for girls were randomly selected i.e. total 04 institutions were selected for O-Level. Similarly 05 educational institutions for boys and 05 institutions for girls were randomly selected from O-Level and total 10 institutions were selected for SSC. All these institutions were located in Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT).

b) Stage-11

The enrolment of SSC boy's schools was 40-45 students, in each class and 35-40 students in female schools. The enrolment of each O-Level class for boy's schools was 35-40 boys and 30-35 girls. Researcher tried to make the both groups (O-Level and SSC) homogeneous on the bases of pre-test scores. The students getting different marks in pre-test were equally distributed in the SSC and O-Level groups.

It can be described as

Instrument

A Structured content based instrument, consisted of thirty test items was selected. Those 30 test items were selected from TIMMS (2000), which belongs to ten common content areas of both curriculum. For its validation and reliability in local context a pilot study was conducted with 45( 25 SSC and 20 O-Level students). The reliability coefficient of study was determined by applying Cronbach alpha reliability method and its calculated value was oc = 0.811.So on the bases of statistics it is concluded that test is valid and reliable.

Analysis and Interpretation of the Data

Demographic Comparison

Table 2 indicates that total SSC students appeared pre-test was 495 and after randomization through stratified random sampling the number of SSC students was 300 which was 61% of total SSC students. Similarly 134 SSC students appeared in pre-test and 120 were selected for post-test which was 90% of the total O-Level students.

Table 3 reveals that in pre-test phase of the experiment, out of 629 students the 349 students are aged between 15 years to sixteen years and 230 students are aged more than 16 years and only 50 students are aged less than 15 years. So most of the students are between the ages of 15-16 years. 100% students participated in pre-test.

Table 4 indicates that in post test phase , out of 420 students the age of 150 students between 15 years to 16 years and 150 students were aged more than 16 years and only 30 students were with the ages of less than 15 years. So most of the students were between the ages of 15-16 years. More than 60% students participated in post-test.

Table 5 indicates that at pre-test stage there were 629 students (369 males and 260 females) and during post-test there were 420 students (210 males and 210 females).

Pre-Test Comparison

Hoi = There is no significant difference between pre-test mean score of O-Level and SSC

Table 6 reveals that as the p-value is less than .05, which is significant at 0.051evel of significance. So the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of SSC students and O-Level students is not accepted. It is concluded that O-Level students have less misconception as compared to SSC students.

Post-Test Demographic Comparison

After 40 days teaching of ten common contents with Student Centred Inquiry Based Science Teaching, the same content based test was conducted .Tests were marked and scores were compared. The significance of difference between the mean scores of SSC and O-Level was compared by applying t-test. The summary of results is presented.

H02= There is no significant difference between mean score of male and female Students.

Table7 indicates that as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.051evel of significance hence the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of male and female is not accepted. It is concluded that male students have less misconceptions as compared to female students.

Ho3= There is no significant difference between mean score of different age groups.

Table 8 shows that value of F is > 0.05 i.e. F= 7.257, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of different age groups is accepted. It is concluded that all three age groups perform equally during the post-test.

Comparison of Post-Test Score obtained by SSC and O-Level Students for Different Content Areas

Ho4= There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Force.

From Table 9 it is clear that as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Force and Motion is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconception as compared to O-Level students regarding the content of force.

Ho5== There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC regarding the content of Equilibrium.

Table 10 reveals that as the p-value is < than ,05.which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC regarding the content of equilibrium is rejected. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students about the content of Equilibrium.

Ho6== There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Heat.

Table 11 shows that as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Heat, is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students for the content of Heat.

Ho7= There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC regarding the content of Mass and Weight.

Table 12 indicates that as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance hence the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Mass and Weight is rejected. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students regarding the content of Mass and Weight.

Ho8= There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Waves.

Table 13 indicates that as the p-value is > than .05, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Waves is accepted. It is concluded that students O-Level have significantly less misconceptions as compared to SSC students for the content of waves.

Ho9== There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content Lenses and Mirrors.

Table 14 indicates that as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content Lenses and Mirrors is rejected. It is concluded that students SSC have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students about the content flenses and Mirrors.

Hio= There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Centripetal force.

Table 15 indicates that as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance, so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Centripetal force is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to OLevel students for the content of centripetal force.

Hon= There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Electrostatics.

Table 16 shows that as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Electrostatics is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students regarding the content of Electrostatics.

Hoi2= There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Radioactivity.

Table 17 shows that as the p-value is > than .05, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Radioactivity is accepted. It is concluded that O-Level students have significantly less misconceptions as compared to SSC students about the content of Radioactivity.

Hoi3= There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Electricity.

Table 18 indicates that as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Electricity is rejected. It is concluded that SSC students have significantly less misconceptions as compared to OLevel students for the content of Electricity.

Hoi4= There is no significant difference between total post-test mean score of O-Level and SSC.

Table 19 indicates that as the p-value is < than 0.05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between total post-test mean score of O-Level and SSC is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have significantly less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students for all ten common content areas.

Overall comparison of SSC and O-Level on Post- test Scores

Hois = There is no significance difference of misconceptions, between the SSC students and O-Level students.

Table 20 indicates that the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so null hypothesis that there is no significance difference of misconceptions, between the SSC students and O-Level student is rejected. It is concluded SSC students had significantly less misconceptions as O-Level student

Discussion

Pre-test post-test design was used to investigate and compare the misconceptions among the students of both the systems i.e. O-Level and SSC which were equated on the bases of their pre-test scores. Ten common content areas of Physics curriculum were taught, by using Student centred Inquiry Based Science Teaching. After for a period of 40 days a post-test was administered to measure the misconceptions of both groups. The results of the study have been discussed as under;

Objective No.l: To study the misconception in the subject of Physics among the students of O-levels.

During the Pre-Test, the maximum score gained by the students of O-level was 22 out of 60. The marks varied betweenlO to 20 mostly. Few students scored less than 10 and two even zero. However their low scores do not reflect misconception as the content for which they were tested was new for them. Data also indicates that at pretest, O-Level students performed better than SSC students. However the average post test scores of O-level students were average i.e. 40-45.

Objective No.2: To study the misconception in the subject of Physics among the students SSC.

At Pre-test stage most SSC students scored less than 10 with a great number scoring below 5. Only a few students scored above 10. The reason for this low score was again that the content was new for them. At Post-Test stage most students of SSC performed excellent. Their average scores were more than 45.Which shows that their misconceptions were reduced.

Objective No.3: To study the misconception in the subject of Physics among the male and female students of both the systems.

At pre-test stage there were 369 males and 260 female students but after randomization on the bases of pretest scores 210 males and 210 female students were selected. T-test was applied on their post test scores and it is found that as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.051evel of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of male and female is not accepted and it is concluded that male students have less misconceptions as compared to female students.

Objective No.4: To study the misconception in the subject of Physics among the students of different age groups

Three age groups were selected i.e. Below 15 years, 15 -lóyears, and Above 16 years

In pre-test phase of the experiment, out of 629 students the 349 students are aged between 15 years to sixteen years and 230 students are aged more than 16 years and only 50 students are aged less than 15 years. So most of the students are between the ages of 15-16 years. 100% students participated in pre-test. Similarly in post test phase , out of 420 students the age of 150 students between 15 years to 16 years and 150 students were aged more than 16 years and only 30 students were with the ages of less than 15 years. So most of the students were between the ages of 15-16 years. More than 60% students participated in post-test.

ANOVA was applied on post test score. It was concluded that as the value of F = 7.257 is not significant at0.05 level of significance. Therefore the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of different age group is accepted. It is concluded that all three age groups perform equally during the post-test.

Objective No.5: To compare the misconception in the subject of Physics at O-levels and SSC.

The ten

1. Force and Motions

2. Equilibrium

3. Heat

4. Mass and Weight

5. Waves and Oscillations

6. Lenses and Mirrors

7. Centripetal Force

8. Electrostatics

9. Radioactivity

10. Electricity

So these areas were compared on the bases of scores obtained from post-test. The significance of difference between the mean scores of O-Level and SSC was found out by applying t-test. The summary of results is as under;

H04: On post-test

As p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance and the mean score of O-Level is 4.8323 and SSC is 6.2463. The mean score of SSC students is greater than O-Level. The mean difference is 1.44.So null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of force is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions than O-Level students for the concept of force.

H05: On post-test

As p-value is < than 0.05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance and the mean score of O-Level is 3.8485 and SSC is 5.7463. The mean of SSC students is greater than O-Level and the mean difference is 1.8978. Therefore the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC regarding the content of equilibrium is not accepted is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC have less misconceptions than O-Level students for the concept of equilibrium.

Ho6: On post-test

As p-value is < than 0.05 which is significant at 0.05 level of significance and mean score of O-Level is 6.9851 and SSC is 6.9515,the mean of O-Level students is greater than SSC. The mean difference is 0.0336. Therefore the null hypothesis that that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Heat is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC have less misconceptions than O-Level students for the concept of heat.

H07: On post-test

As p-value is < than 0.05 which is significant at 0.05 level of significance and the mean score of O-Level is 6.2545and SSC is 7.4030. The mean of O-Level students is greater than SSC students. The mean difference is 1.1485. Therefore the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Mass and Weight is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students for the concept of Mass and Weight.

Ho8: On post-test

The p-value is > than 0.05 which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance, the mean score of O-Level is 6.3806 and SSC is 5.0566. The mean of O-Level students is greater than SSC. The mean difference is .3997. Therefore the null hypothesis there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Waves is accepted. It is concluded that O-Level students have less misconceptions as compared to SSC students for the concept of Waves

H09: On post-test

The p-value is < than0.05 which is significant at 0.05 level of significance and the mean score of O-Level is4.7818 and SSC is 5.7167. The mean of SSC students is greater than O-Level. The mean difference is 1.5988. Therefore the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content Lenses and Mirrors is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students for the concept of lenses and mirrors.

Ho10: On post-test

As p-value is < than 0.05 which is significant at 0.05 level of significance, the mean score of O-Level is 4.7818 and SSC is 6.3806. The mean of SSC students is greater than O-Level. The mean difference is 1.5988. Therefore the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Centripetal force is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students for the concept of centripetal force.

Hon: On post-test

As p-value is < than 0.05 which is significant at 0.05 level of significance, the mean score of O-Level is 5.5414 and SSC is 6.3582 .The mean of O-Level students is greater than SSC. The mean difference is 0.8168. Therefore the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Electrostatics is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students for the concept of electrostatics.

H12: On post-test

The p-value is > than 0.05 which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance, the mean score of O-Level students is 5.4030 and SSC 4.6667. The mean of O-Level students is greater than SSC. The mean difference is 0.7363. Therefore the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Radioactivity is accepted. It is concluded that O-Level students have less misconception as compared to SSC students for the concept of radioactivity.

H013: On post-test

As p-value is < than 0.05 which is significant at 0.05 level of significance, the mean score of O-Level is 4.9455 and SSC students is 5.7537. The mean of SSC students is greater than O-Level. The mean difference is 0. 8082. Therefore the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Electricity is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have significantly less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students for the concept of Electricity.

H14: On post-test

The mean score of O-Level students and SSC students is significant at 0.051evel of significance which is significant at0.05 level of significance; the mean of SSC Students is greater than O-Level students. The p-value is< than 0.05,so the null hypothesis there is no significant difference between total post-test mean score of O-Level and SSC is not accepted and it is concluded that SSC students is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC has less misconceptions as compared to O- Level.

Findings

Analysis of the data revealed the following findings.

1. Data indicates that total SSC students appeared pre-test was 495 and after randomization through stratified random sampling the number of SSC students was 300 which were 61% of total SSC students. Similarly 134 SSC students appeared in pre-test and 120 were selected for post-test which was 90% of the total O-Level students. (Table 2).

2. It is inferred from the data that in both pre-test and post-test stages a large majority of the students were in between 15-16 years age group (Table 3).

3. It is also clear that at pre-test stage there were 629 students (59%males and 41% females) but during post-test there were 420 students i.e. 210 males and 210 females i.e. 50% each (Table 4 & 5).

4. Data shows that at pre-test stage as the p-value is less than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of SSC students and O-Level students was not accepted. It implies that O-Level students have less misconception as compared to SSC students at pre-test stage (Table 6).

5. At post-test stage data indicates that as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.051evel of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of male and female is not accepted. It is concluded that male students have less misconceptions as compared to female students (Table 7).

6. It is also visible that the as value of F is > 0.05 i.e. F= 7.257, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore null hypothesis, that there is no significant difference between mean score of different age group is accepted. So all three age groups perform equally during the post-test (Table 8).

7. For the content of force it is clear that as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance. So the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Force is not accepted. It implies that SSC students have less misconception as compared to O-Level students regarding the content of force and Motion (Table 9).

8. Data of the content of equilibrium shows that the p-value is < than .05. This is significant at0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC regarding the content of equilibrium is not accepted and it implies that SSC students have less misconception as compared to O-Level students (Table 10).

9. For the content of heat data shows that as the p-value is < than .05, Which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Heat, is not accepted. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students (Table 11).

10. It can be concluded that the content of Mass and Weight as the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of OLevel and SSC about the content of Mass and Weight is rejected. It implies that SSC students have less misconception as compared to O-Level students (Table 12).

11. Data about the concepts of waves indicates that as the p-value is > than .05, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Waves is accepted. It is implies that students O-Level have significantly less misconceptions as compared to SSC students (Table 13).

12. It is also clear that for the concepts of the content of lenses and Mirrors data indicates that the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that There is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content Lenses and Mirrors is not accepted. It is concluded that students SSC have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students (14).

13. For the content of centripetal force it is clear that the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance, so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Centripetal force is not accepted and it implies that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students (Table 15).

14. The data of the concepts of electrostatics shows that the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Electrostatics is not accepted. It implies that SSC students have less misconception as compared to O-Level students (Table 16).

15. Data of the content of Radioactivity shows that the p-value is > than .05, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance so our null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC about the content of Radioactivity is accepted and it is concluded that O-Level students have less misconceptions as compared to SSC students (Table 17).

16. About the concepts of electricity data indicates that the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between mean score of O-Level and SSC for the content of Electricity is not accepted and it implies that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students (Table 18).

17. Data for all ten common content areas also indicates that the p-value is < than 0.05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between total post-test mean score of O-Level and SSC is rejected. It is concluded that SSC students have less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students (Table 19).

18. The overall comparison indicates that the mean score of control O-Level and SSC indicates that the p-value is < than .05, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance so the null hypothesis that there is no significance difference of misconceptions, between the SSC students and O-Level student is not accepted .It is concluded SSC students had significantly less misconceptions as O-Level students (Table 20).

Conclusions

Following conclusions were drawn on the basis of statistical analysis and the findings of the study:

1. Misconceptions exist among the students of both the groups i.e. O-Level and SSC.

2. All three age groups performed almost equally during the post-test but male students had significantly less misconceptions as compared to female students.

3. The results revealed that the concepts of "Forces and Motions", "Heat "and "Mass and Weight of SSC students were better than O-Level students while students of O-Level had better understanding about the content of "Equilibrium" as compared to SSC students.

4. It is also concluded from the results that SSC students had less misconceptions in the chapters of "Lenses and Mirrors", "Electrostatics" and "Centripetal Force" as compared to O-Level students while about the "Radioactivity" and "Waves and Oscillations" chapters, O-Level students had less misconceptions as compared to SSC students.

5. The comparison of post test scores indicated that overall SSC students had better understanding or less misconception as compared to O-Level students.

Recommendations

1. As misconceptions exist among the students of both the groups i.e. O-Level and SSC. But after treatment by applying students centred and inquiry based teaching in physics to both groups, post test scores indicated that SSC students showed better understanding in the concept as compared to O-Level students. The results also revealed that if appropriate teaching methods are applied then leaning improves. It is proposed that continuous in-service teacher training programmes may be introduced to develop the capacity of physics teachers in pedagogy. The authorities of education and teacher training institutions may design and develop teacher training courses in collaboration with international donor agencies or internationally reputed institutions of Pakistan.

2. After post-test, it was concluded that among the ten common contents of both the curriculum, only the concepts of the students of both the systems increased and only the concepts of two contents i.e. "Radioactivity" and "Waves & Oscillations" SSC students had less misconceptions as compared to O-Level students. So teacher should be skilled enough in content, concepts and methodology because poor delivery may cause misconceptions among the students which also promote rote learning. Teacher training institutes may update their curriculum according to the new curriculum being implemented in the secondary schools. The capacity of teacher trainers may also be developed to equip them with new techniques of science teaching to develop future teachers according to the future needs in science teaching. The emphasis may be given to investigation skills/Laboratory work, new innovative techniques and strategies, action research and specialization in content area.

3. The Policy makers, Curriculum Development authorities, Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Educational Assessment Systems/ centres and Teacher Training Institutes may be aligned to improve in teaching and learning process in the country.

4. Misconceptions of the students of secondary level may be checked regularly through standardized achievement tests to evaluate the SSC physics student's mastery of concepts. Test items banks may be prepared by all the boards of Intermediate and secondary educations on the basis of test item development principles. The mechanism of O level assessment may be adopted by student assessment agencies in the country.

5. A future study may also be designed to study and compare the misconceptions of other science subjects at SSC and HSSC levels with that of A-Level.

References

References

Aufschnaiter, C. and Christian, R. (2010). Misconceptions or Missing Conceptions. Giessen: Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany

Ayesha (2010), A Comparative Study of Misconception in the Subject of Mathematics Among the Students of Olevel and matriculation in Islamabad schools, Islamabad: Federal College of Education on 07-082013.

Bhatia, P. (1983), Principles and Practical 's of Education, Shiba Printing Press, India.

Cambridge IGCSE Physics (2006), Harper Collins Publisher, London

Cambridge O Level Physics Curriculum code 5054 For examination in June and November 2013, University of Cambridge, 2011, London.

Chaudhri, A. G. (1982), Some Aspects of Islamic Education, Lahore: Universal books.

Cristian, R. (2005), General Students Misconceptions Related to Electricity and Magnetism, Physics Department the Ohio State University.

Cristian R. (2005). General Students Misconceptions Related to Electricity and Magnetism, Physics Department. The Ohio State University.

Farooq, R.A. (1994), Education system in Pakistan, Islamabad; Asia society for the promotion of innovation and reform in Education, pg# 0-10

Gay, L.R. (2012), Educational Research,5th Edition. Islamabad: National Book Foundation.

Govt, of Pakistan (2006), National Curriculum for General Science Grade 1V-V111, Islamabad.

Govt, of Pakistan (2006). National Curriculum for General Science Grades 1X-X, Islamabad. A Comparison of Traditional Method and Computer Assisted Instruction on Students Achievement in General Science.

Govt, of Pakistan. (1994), Physics curriculum for class (IX-X), published by National Breury of Curriculum and Text Books, Islamabad: Ministry of Education.

Ken, H. (2012), Teaching and Researching, Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt, New Dehli 110017, India

Khan, A. (1984), Development Education, Islamabad, Allama Iqbal Open University.

Martin, R., Sexton, C. and Gerlovich, J. (2002), Teaching Science for all Children: Methods for Constructing Understanding. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Pathak, R.P. (2011). Research Methods in Education and Psychology. New Dehli: Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt Ltd, 110017

Poham, W. James (1975). Educational Evaluation New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, INC.

Ranjit, K. (2005). Research Methodology. New Dehli: Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt Ltd, 110017

Rao, V. R. (2003). Science Education. New Dehli: APAAH Publishing Corporation, 110002

Sabir, H. (1998), Study guide of secondary education, A.I.O.U, Islamabad.

Shami, P. A. (2005), Education In Pakistan, Policies and Policy Formation, http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Chapters/40-Lpdf retrieved on 23rd December at 9:00 pm http://www.aku.edu/ismc/ismc-courses.shtml retrieved on 17th September 2010, 5:23PM

Teresa L. H. (2009), Using Writing to Confront Student Misconceptions in Physics, Washington, DC 20016-8058.

Thyme, M. J. (1974). Principles of Examining London: University Press.

TIMMS Test Items (2000). Department of Science Education, National Institute of Science Education University of Philippines, Quezon City

Vinayak, M. (2006). Methods of Teaching Physics. Crescent Publishing Corporation, New Hehli-110002.

Websites/Online Journals

Prof. Dr. Munir Ahmad, The Fifty Years of University and Pre-University Teaching of Statistics in Pakistan, http://isi.cbs.nl/iamamember/CD2/pdf/953.PDF. 2001

Bill Mulford, School Leaders: Changing Roles and Impact on Teacher and School, April 2003 Effectiveness, 2003, Tasmania

Tahir Kaleem Siddiqui, A Study of Teacher Competencies and Teaching Practices for School Effectiveness in Workers Welfare Model Schools, Rawalpindi, 2010

Ismo Koponen And Maija Nousiainen, Pre-Service Physics Teachers' Understanding Of The Relational Structure Of Physics Concepts: Organising Subject Contents For Purposes Of Teaching International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. April 2013, Volume 11, Issue 2. pp 325-357, Springer Netherlands, 2013

Koponen, & Maija ,Source:http://www-db.in.tum.de/teaching/wslll2/hsufg/ Taxila/Site/education. Html retrieved on 07-08-2013 at 3pm)

Colin Tudge, 2008, The Omniscience and Omnipotence of Science, (Italy) http://edge.org/responses/what-havevou-changed-vour-mind-about-whv

Margrete (2000) http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Retrieved on 08-07-2013 at 9pm (Ausubel,1968)(.http://newyorkscienceteacher.com/sci/pages/miscon/index.php Retrieved on 12-1202011 at 9:00 PM)

Cameron McCarthy, Goli Rezai-Rashti & Cathryn Teasley, 2009, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ ERICWebPortal/, Retrieved on 23-01-2013 at 9:00 PM)

Ryan Brown ,The British Empire In India,2010,Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2010 Charles E. Parton Award, Nordestedt Germany

Dawood Shah. Decentralization in the Education System of Pakistan, Policies and Strategies,2003,Academy of Educational Planning and Management, Ministry of Education(Devolved), Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.

Shamaas Gul Khattak, Assessment in schools in Pakistan,SA-eDUC JOURNAL Volmne 9, Number 2 .September 2012,(London)

Manuel Castells, (2004), The Network Society.A Cross-cultural Perspective, Los Angeles, Manuel Castells

KingsfieL.nd, www.macalester.edu/academics/geology/wirtli/leaniing. Retrieved on 12-10-2013 at 10:00 PM

Robert Sontheimer.2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historv of physics retrieved on 0-08-2013 at 5 am)

Richard P, Fevmnan - 2009, Lectures on Physics, Dorlin Kinderslay India (Pvt)