Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Shaheed Hartley
Table 2: Item means scores for NAQ for <strong>the</strong> five pilot schools
School A
[n = 12]
School B
[n = 9]
School C
[n = 12]
School D
[n = 10]
School E
[n = 10]
practical work 3.375 3.375 3 3.125 3.5
content knowledge 2.375 3.5 3.125 3.125 3.375
learning resources 3.25 3.625 3.25 3.5 3.75
training 1 3.5 2.625 2.875 1.75
curriculum support 2.375 2.875 2.5 3 2.875
IT 2.5 3.75 3.5 3.75 3.125
From <strong>the</strong> mean scores <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> data a number <strong>of</strong> trends were identified that were used as discussion
points in <strong>the</strong> group interviews. It appeared from <strong>the</strong> mean scores that in all 5 schools practical and
experimental work required by <strong>the</strong> curriculum were sometimes done. A similar pattern was identified
by <strong>the</strong> means scores <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learning resources and curriculum support scales. The mean scores <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
five schools showed a spread <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir needs in content knowledge and information technology scales
while <strong>the</strong> mean scores <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scale representing training needs at each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools varied <strong>the</strong>
greatest. The means scores for School A indicate <strong>the</strong> most negative graph identifying that teachers
need support in content knowledge, training and curriculum and information technology since all <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong>se mean scores range between almost never and sometimes for <strong>the</strong>se activities.
item means
5
4
3
2
1
0
practical work
content knowledge
learning resources
NAQ pilot
training
needs categories
curriculum support
IT
School A
School B
School C
School D
School E
Figure 1: Comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> item mean scores obtained per scale from NAQ for <strong>the</strong> five pilot schools
The mean scores for School E also highlighted a training need similar to that <strong>of</strong> School A while means
scores <strong>of</strong> School B showed a trend between sometimes and <strong>of</strong>ten doing <strong>the</strong> activities listed in <strong>the</strong>
items <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scales. The mean scores for School C and D showed a similar trend that indicated that
most <strong>the</strong> items in <strong>the</strong> scales were sometimes done. On <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>the</strong> data for <strong>the</strong> 5 schools indicated
Schools B, C and D showed similarly responses to <strong>the</strong> items in each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scales and a deviation
occurred in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> Schools and A and E with School A showing areas <strong>of</strong> greater need.
4.2 Needs identified in <strong>the</strong> open-ended questionnaire (OEQ)
As pointed out earlier, <strong>the</strong> OEQ was included in <strong>the</strong> booklet along with <strong>the</strong> closed NAQ that was
handed to teachers to complete in <strong>the</strong>ir own time. An analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> responses in <strong>the</strong> OEQ section
indicated that some teachers used <strong>the</strong> opportunity not only to elaborate on <strong>the</strong>ir responses in <strong>the</strong> NAQ
but to indentify ones that <strong>the</strong>y felt needed to be included. In an attempt to highlight <strong>the</strong> needs at
schools and identify priority areas for discussion in group interviews, <strong>the</strong> teacher responses in <strong>the</strong>
OEQ were clustered per school, represented by Table 3.
222