A-2 Design Practicals

A Study for Teaching Advanced Level Physics Practical and Solution
approach to Practical Questions (pp. 36-48)

Munikwa Simbarashe
1
, Chinamasa Emmanuel
2
and Mukava Masimba
3

1
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Chinhoyi University of Technology
Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe
2
Department of Adult and Continuing Education, Chinhoyi University of Technology
Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe
3
Department of Irrigation and Water Engineering, Chinhoyi University of Technology.
Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe
Correspondence email: smunikwa @ cut.ac.zw

Abstract: The study sought to investigate teaching strategies used by Physics teachers for
preparing students for the Advanced Level Physics practical. It was motivated by the
observation that candidates were presenting poor quality of answers in the design practical
question. A descriptive survey research design was adopted and cluster sampling used to
enlist the services of 101 teachers who participated in the study. Questionnaires, interviews,
lesson observations and documentary analysis were employed to solicit information from
the participants. The study established that teachers employ ineffective traditional strategies
(lecture, guided and demonstration experiments) and very little of motivational experiments
and practising on past examinations design questions to prepare students for the design
practical question. Contributing factors to strategies used were the low weighting of the
design practical question, lack of staff development programmes, an examination paper 4
which required recall and can be passed without input from the actual design skills, lack of
knowledge and skills, inadequate contact time and unavailability of ZIMSEC examination
reports . Teaching of the design practical skills could be enhanced by staff developing
teachers , ensuring students practiced design practical examinations questions consistently
throughout the course , allowing students to design and carry out own experiments,
reviewing the syllabus to articulate more of planning skills and reviving publication of
ZIMSEC examination reports. It is recommended that teachers be staff developed to gain
knowledge and skills on the design practical, teachers should provide more practical design
questions through out the course, students be availed more opportunities to design and carry
out own experiments and that there be a paper focusing on design practical questions only.
Last, but not least it is also recommended that further research be done to verify the
effectiveness of strategies suggested if applied.
Key words: teaching strategies, practical questions, ineffective traditional strategies,
inadequate contact time, physics practical
Journal of Innovative Research in Education 1(1), April, 2011.
MAIDEN EDITION. http://www.grpjournal.org. Printed in Nigeria. All rights researved.
Global Research Publishing, 2011.

-36-
A Study for Teaching Advanced Level Physics Practical and Solution approach to Practical Questions

1 INTRODUCTION
Practical work in the school science curriculum has become the nucleus of curriculum
reform initiatives which have taken place worldwide (Gott and Duggan 2007:271). Inline
with this development the Zimbabwe Education system has taken on board the design
practical as a cornerstone in its bid to make Physics teaching and learning more responsive
to global trends and expectations. According to the Advanced level Physics syllabus (2008-
2012:36) the thrust of the design practical component is on the acquisition of planning
skills. When planning the investigation, students identify materials to be used, type of
variables to be involved (control, independent, dependent), formulate a hypothesis and
determine how the variables can be manipulated, controlled and measured (Chin, 2003:35
and Advanced level Physics syllabus 2008-2013). The inclusion of the design practical
component in the Physics curriculum is an acknowledgement that the design practical skills
are pivotal to the learning of Physics which develop critical competences in students.

In an effort to maximize gains in the learning of science and mathematics education the
Zimbabwe Education system has established the Science Education Teacher Training
(SEITT) programme, to staff develop Advanced level science and mathematics teachers
(Nziramasanga 1999:39). SEITT established ten regional centers to offer forums for
Advanced Level science and mathematics teachers to interact, share ideas and in most cases
solve problems faced by otherwise isolated mathematics and science teachers. The main
thrust of these science centers is to promote student active science and mathematics
learning and enhance collaboration of teachers within the regions. This facilitates individual
teachers getting assistance from colleagues and regional science advisers in areas of need to
enhance effectiveness in their science teaching. SEITT holds the assumption that the
teacher variable is an important factor in the performance of the students they teach.

Zimbabwe has a centralized education system and all high schools follow the national
curriculum. Students admissions to high school physics depend on ordinary level passes.
Admission into Advanced level Physics is based on having obtained a grade B or better in
Ordinary level Physics or Physical Science and grade B or better in mathematics. The
students study A level Physics for two years. The Advanced level Physics course serves,
as the main resource for Physics oriented study in higher education and training.

Each physics high school is availed a copy of the Physics syllabus by the Zimbabwe
Examinations Council, as a guide for the scope of content to be taught. The ministrys
recommended period allocation is ten (10) periods for Physics at both lower and upper six
levels. Schools are at liberty to determine length of period depending on their

Munikwa S, Chinamasa E and Masimba M: JOIRE 1(1), April, 2011: 36-48.

-37-

circumstances. Generally the periods are divided into seven (7) for theory lessons and three
(3) for practical per week. At the end of the two years students take five examination papers
namely Paper 1 (40 multiple choice questions,40 marks), Paper 2 (8 structured questions,
60 marks), Paper 3 (free response on mechanics and waves,40 marks), Paper 4 (3 laboratory
based experiments, 50 marks) and paper 5(free response on electricity and magnetism, 60
marks). Paper 4 is made up of two guided practical questions and one design practical
question. Questions 1 and 2 of the practical paper usually aim to verify a principle learned
during the course emphasizing quantitative analysis of data with a great deal of guidance on
how to execute the experiment. Usually question 1 is concerned with concepts, which
center on gravity and question 2 is focused on electrical principles. Question 3 on paper 4,
which is the focus of this paper, is a free response question set from any part of the syllabus
content. The question requires application of theory into practice.

According to the Zimbabwe School Examinations Council, Advanced level Physics
syllabus (2008 2012:36) the best strategy for preparing students for the design practical
question is by affording students opportunities to design some of their own experiments,
under close, safe supervision, during the Advanced Level course or by practicing on past
examination papers. This calls for granting students autonomy to conduct own experiments
and to create platforms to work on past examinations questions to master the planning skills
assessed by the design practical question. However the syllabus is not specific on the
methodology of teaching and using of the past examination design questions. The discretion
is left to the individual teacher.

1.1 Statement of the Problem
The study was motivated by the observation that, Physics candidates were having problems
in answering the Physics design practical question, as evidenced by low scores attained in
answering the question and in some cases failure even to attempt the question. The
Zimbabwe Examinations Council Advanced level Science and Mathematics of November
(204:39) reports points out that the majority of candidates had no in-depth knowledge of
the method and weaker candidates could hardly score a point in the design experiment
question. To compliment this view of student inadequacy the November (2005:38) report
indicates thatthere was of lack of conceptual and procedural understanding of the
principles involved in the design practical question. Interview with the chief examiner of
Physics paper 4, soon after the June 2010 marking session revealed that the general
performance of students in the design practical question was poor and some candidates did
not even attempt the question. The low scores obtained by the students in the design
practical question may make the students fail to pursue their intended carrier choices. Since
the introduction of the physics design question in physics paper 4 in 1996 very little


-38-

research has been carried out to examine the teaching strategies used by physics teachers
for the design practical question. These observations have motivated the following research
questions.

1.2 Research Questions
How are the teachers preparing students for the design practical question?
What factors contribute to the way the teachers are preparing the students for
the design practical question?
What strategies can be employed by teachers to improve their effectiveness in
imparting the design practical question skills?

1.3 Significance of the study
It is hoped the research findings would be beneficial to the teachers in terms of improving
the learning teaching strategies of the design practical. This would in turn enhance students
chances of doing well in answering the design practical question. The findings also would
provide important implications for the teaching and learning of the physics design
practical.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Chiaverina and Vollmer (2005) suggests that there are two types of experiments employed
in the teaching of physics namely the science oriented experiments that are designed
primarily to study the phenomena under reproducible conditions such as the determination
of acceleration of free falling bodies in the gravitational field of the earth. Such experiments
are focused on giving students the opportunity to quantitatively test a hypothesis. However,
Kim and Tan (2010) project that such experiments are designed for students to follow
instruction for execution procedures handed down by teachers without much thinking and
purpose. Implied is the notation that such experiments maybe of little educational value.
The second type of experiment is motivational in nature and is designed primarily to
provide students with a qualitative encounter with the process. This type of experiment
present the students with the opportunity of working on their own with guidance from the
teacher (Ramnarian 2011 and Chiaverina and Vollmer 2005).This approach to conducting
experiments advocates for greater student autonomy ,responsibility and accountability for
the process.

Wellington (1988) and Trumper (2003) argue that demonstration experiments have been
accepted as an integral part of learning physics. Their justification is that, demonstration
experiments provides the teacher with the opportunity of selling Physics to the class of
students through concretising concepts, stimulating discussion and active thinking. This is
an indication that demonstration experiments should be part and parcel of physics teaching


-39-

.In view of the above it can be argued that guided, motivational and demonstration
experiments expose students to planning skills in different magnitudes and dimensions, but
are essential in the execution of the design practical question.

Chiaverina and Vollmer (2005:2) and Swift (1986:2) argue that the 21
st
century is
dominated by an ever growing number of technological innovations, yet a growing number
of students leave school without the basic understanding of the physical principles that are
the basis of these technological developments. One can deduce that something is seriously
wrong with the teaching and learning of physics since the majority of physics students
graduate with rudimentary understanding of concepts. Kim and Tan (2010), Ramnarain
(2011) and Chiaverina and Vollmer (2005) advocate for more use of motivational
experiments for the advancement of students better understanding of physics concepts.
This calls for the prioritising of motivational experiments in physics teaching to effectively
prepare students for the new technological environment.

Swift (1986:3) projects that the shortcomings in the physics teaching and products has
necessitated the revision of physics curricula with the view of helping students understand
concepts through carefully designed student experiments. This calls for revised physics
curriculum to be more students centered to ensure that students benefit more from the
learning experiences rendered. According to Koponen and Mantyla (2006), Staer,
Goodrum, and Hackling (1998) and Swift (1986) the thrust of the science curricula
reformists is that pupils should be able to think scientifically, observe accurately, weigh
evidence, design and carry out experiments and make logical deductions. One can assert
that science reformists call for teaching approaches that empower students to develop
robust understanding of Physics principles and reasoning through inquiry based instruction
and activities. Koponen and Mantyla (2006) postulated that reformers and designers of new
physics curricula have quite often drawn their support of ideas from constructivist views of
learning. One can propose that reformists have a strong conviction that students should be
availed opportunities to initiate, conduct experiments and come up with their own
knowledge

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study adopted the descriptive survey research design. The descriptive survey research
design was deemed ideal for the study since the main thrust was on identifying, describing
and analyzing the teachers teaching strategies and contributing factors, in preparing
students for the physics design practical component of physics paper 4.Verma and Mallick
(1999:77) underscore the use of descriptive surveys to investigate educational problems
requiring an understanding of factors contributing to their existence.


-40-

Population
The study targeted advanced level physics teachers preparing students for their national
examinations. The group of teachers was targeted since it was strongly felt teachers are
directly in classroom instruction delivery. Hence they were knowledgeable and would
provide reliable and accurate information.

Sampling
The researcher used cluster-sampling technique. Each region and school has peculiar
factors influencing teaching methods hence considered a cluster. This was felt to be ideal
because the population was large and widely spaced. This could have caused a lot of
administrative problems, hence the need to randomly select a number of schools and
involve all the teachers teaching upper sixth physics in the study (Cosby 2003). This was a
census of physics teachers from school to school. The participants were drawn from
Bindura, Bulawayo, Harare, Gweru, Mashonaland West, Masvingo and Mutare.

Instruments
Questionnaires, interview schedule, lesson observation checklist and documentary analysis
were used to solicit information. Questionnaires were made up of both closed and open-
ended questions. Face-to-face interviews and focus group discussions were held. The
interviews were used to confirm the main aspects gathered through the questionnaire and to
provide in-depth understanding of the strategies used by teachers in preparing students for
the design practical question. Questionnaires were administered by the researcher and five
research assistants and collected after a day to ensure a high return rate. The research
instruments were administered during the final term of 2009.

Pilot study
The questionnaire was pilot tested with 15 physics teachers in Manicaland region. This was
done to test the questionnaires relevance, suitability and precision of questions sample and
language appropriateness and that findings can be analysed.

Data collection
After analyzing findings from the pilot study test, some questions were modified and mass
production was done. The researchers sort the help of research assistants from Bindura,
Bulawayo, Chinhoyi, Harare, Gweru and Masvingo. Research assistants were inducted into
the study to synchronise psychological orientation and develop uniformity for interviews,
lesson observations and documentary analysis. Questionnaires were administered to cluster
samples of physics teachers; interviews, lesson observations and documentary analysis


-41-

were conducted. Validity and reliability were guaranteed through pilot study and sample
triangulation.

4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The results are discussed with respect to research questions.

Table 1: Distribution of participants and their respective Advanced level Physics
teaching experience.N = 101

Region
Teaching
Experience In Years
1-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 Totals
Bindura 4 2 1 - 7(7%)
Bulawayo 9 5 3 5 22(22%)
Chinhoyi 4 1 - - 5(5%)
Gweru 5 1 - - 6(6%)
Harare 12 4 5 10 31(30%)
Masvingo 6 2 2 5 15(15%)
Mutare 8 4 2 1 15(15%)
Totals 48(48%) 19(19%) 13(13%) 21(21%) 101(100%)

The table shows that there were 101 participants among which were 84 males and 17
females. The distribution shows that male teachers dominate physics teaching. All the
participants were degree holders. The Advanced level teaching experience ranged from 1
year to 16 years. The participants have enough experience from which reliable information
can be obtained. The table also shows that (48%) have less than 4 years experience in
teaching advanced level physics, there are more senior physics teachers in large cities,
Bulawayo, Harare and Masvingo. This could have a lot of bearing on the teaching strategies
used in preparing students for the design practical question and their effectiveness.

Table 2: Distribution of Teaching Strategies Employed. N= 101

Teaching strategy % Of participants
Lecture 101 (100%)
Students designing own experiments and carrying them out 7(7%)
Practising past exam questions 101(100%)
Demonstration experiments 10(10%)


-42-

Guided experiments 53(53%)

The table shows the lecture method and practicing past examination questions as the
predominant strategies employed to impart skills in design practical; this promotes rot
learning and does not lead to conceptualization of concepts which is detrimental to
acquisition of planning skills. The minority (7%) of the respondents indicated use of
students designing own experiments and carrying them out. This finding is consistent with
Lewis (2002) and Mumba et al (2007) who established that rarely students availed
opportunities to design experiments and work according to their designs.

Of interest was the establishment that all participants indicated that they were exposing
their students to practicing Past examination questions though there was a variation in the
strategies used in administering the past examination questions to the students. Most of the
participants interviewed indicated that they gave the students questions to work on
individually in a specified period and hand in their work for marking. The solutions to the
problem would be discussed in class after marking. The method has some merit in that
there is a post discussion of the problem to shade light on the pupils strengths and
weaknesses and also ensure active participation of students in the discussion, However, the
manner in which the past examination questions were used lack the critical component of
students carrying out the experiment to justify their plan. In one lesson observed a student
presented his solution to the classs. They could not agree on Standard Units (SI) to use. The
whole period was spent on (SI) Units rather than the appropriateness of apparatus,
experimental procedure and variables to be manipulated.

About (53%) of the participants argued that they used the guided experiments supervised by
the teacher to impart some of the skills needed for the design practical question. They
argued that through their experience they had realized that some of the guided experiments
in textbooks and past examination papers were being converted to design practical
questions by examiners. A recent case cited by two of the participants who were
interviewed was the guided practical question 2 of November 2005, which came as a design
practical question in November 2006. So the strategy of using guided practical questions to
teach design practical could be paying dividends. However this strategy is discouraged by
Kim and Tan (2010) who project that they instill little thinking in students. This strategy
could better be used during the initial stages in lower sixth when preparing students for the
design practical tests in upper sixth.

10% of the participants were using the teacher demonstration experiment as a strategy for
preparing the candidates for the design practical question. The teacher picks a particular


-43-

design practical problem, selects the suitable materials and tries out the experiment in the
class. Pupils raise questions that are clarified by the teacher. The strategy deprives students
the opportunity to select own apparatus, manipulate the materials and generate own
knowledge. Actually one can deduce that teachers are teaching physics for examinations on
the expense of skills development.

Despite the various strategies used by physics teachers to prepare students for the design
practical question very little is being done to adequately prepare students for the design
practical question in terms of actual student practice. Sixty percent of the participants
pointed out that their students undertook one design practical question per term, 30 % of the
participants indicated extreme cases where they subjected students to answer a design
practical question at the end of term examinations only. Going over the students practical
exercise books confirmed that most of the teachers (77%) had assigned one design practical
per term and in some centers nothing had been done for the whole term. In three centers the
only design practical exercise administered was used for term marks. This indicates that
students are subjected to inadequate practice of the design practical question. This scenario
could be contributing to the poor quality of answers given by the candidates in the final
examinations observed by ZIMSEC report (2010). There is need for regular practice to
ensure good mastery of design practical skills and techniques, preferably a design practical
question could be administered after a unit or section has been covered.

Table 3: Distribution of Factors Contributing to the Strategies Used in Preparing
Students for the Design Practical Question. N =101

Factor Frequency
weighting of the design practical question 90 (90%)
The way in which the design practical question is set 26 (26%)
Lack of knowledge and skills 17 (17%)
Lack of staff development workshops 48 (48%)
Teachers experience as examiners 20 (20%)
Lack of ZIMSEC examination reports 4(4%)
Inadequate contact time 93 (93%)

From the table above the majority of the participants (93%) reported that the syllabus was
too long and they were under pressure to complete in time for the exams. The scenario
could be a major set back in preparing candidates for the design practical question since
they need time and proper planning. About (90%) of the participants indicated that the
weighting of the design practical question was lower than the guided question. They argued


-44-

that it only contributed 34% to the practical paper 4 and that pupils could still pass paper 4
with little or no input from the design question. Hence teachers felt that there was no need
to put much effort on the design practical question. This could have necessitated the
situation where design practical have been relegated to a few discussions towards final
examinations in some schools. However it was interesting to note that teachers
acknowledged that the design practical question enabled students to be more creative and
imaginative, yet they were not giving students ample practice to develop these skills.

Almost half, (48%) of teachers had not attended SEITT staff development workshops on
how to tackle design practical questions and other areas of need. Information obtained from
the minutes of some SEITT center managers from Bulawayo, Gweru, and Mashonaland
West, and Masvingo indicated that design practical question is an area of concern that they
had focused on in their meetings. Two physics teachers in one of the regions indicated that
each had six years in teaching physics but had never attended any workshop in line with the
design practical.

The way in which design practical questions are set in the national examinations made it
imperative for teachers to believe that a design practical question could be handled without
students having been subjected to the rigor of designing and carrying out their own
experiments. One teacher interviewed said Students are expected and can come up with a
solution to the design question without carrying out the experiment. Teachers cited that
they could simply get away with a few discussions of past examinations design practical
questions. This is a negation of one of the expectations within the syllabus which stipulates
that students are expected to design own experiments. This could be contributing
significantly to the generally poor performance of students in the design practical question.
One teacher interviewed indicated that he was not even aware of the requirements.

Five interviewed teachers concurred that; equipment required in solving some design
practical questions is not available in some schools and in some situations cannot be
substituted. Examples of such equipment cited by teachers included the cathode ray
oscilloscope, video camera, traveling microscope, light gate and signal generator. This
finding is consistent with those of Lensham, (1988) and Swift (1986) who established that
lack of equipment is a major setback in developing countries. Hence there is no way
teachers would plan activities involving such equipment for students to undertake
experiments. Such equipment is only discussed in passing, shown in diagrams and pupils
do not have hands on appreciation of the equipment. However lack of sophisticated
equipment is not a valid reason for not affording students opportunities to design and carry


-45-

out own experiments. Perhaps ZIMSEC can now set questions requiring local equipment to
improve examinations usability

Experience as an examiner was also highlighted to be a contributing factor. Only (20%) of
the participants indicated that their experience as examiners made them to be quite aware of
the demands of the design practical question. These were among the few who encouraged
students to design and carry out own experiments under their supervision. About (17%) of
the respondents indicated lack of knowledge and skills in handling the design practical.
Interviews with ten of the teachers revealed that they were not sure of the demands of the
design practical and how best to assist students.

Table 4: Strategies to Improve the Effectiveness of Teachers on the Design Practical
Question Skills. N= 101

Strategy Frequency
Staff developing teachers 45(44.6%)
Practising examinations questions consistently 23(22.8%)
Introducing an exam paper focusing on design practical 16(15.8%)
Reviewing the Physics syllabus 11(10.9%)
Reviving publication of examination reports 6(5.9%)

From table 4 (44, 6%) of the participants indicated that there is need for teacher workshops
to assist students in handling design practical questions. About 15.8% of the respondents
advocated for the introduction of an examination paper targeting the designing skills. The
argument being, that this would make teachers adopt a serious approach to the tackling of
the design aspects. The minority (5.9%) of the respondents argued that ZIMSEC should
revive publication of examinations reports which would go a long way in assisting them in
areas of need.

5 CONCLUSIONS
The study established that there is little involvement of students in design practical
activities and that physics teachers are employing ineffective traditional teaching strategies
for the teaching of design practical. Teaching methods used were largely traditional
(lecture, guided and demonstration experiments) and very little in terms of practising past
examinations questions and designing and carrying out own experiments. Use of the
teaching strategies were attributed to low weighting of the design practical question , lack
of staff development workshops , a designing question requiring recall of facts rather than
student initiative, lack of experience as examiners, lack of knowledge and skills and


-46-

unavailability of examinations reports . The effectiveness of the teaching of the design
practical question skills could be enhanced by staff developing teachers ,subjecting students
to motivational experiments, practising, design practical questions consistently, introducing
an examination paper targeting designing skills only and publication of ZIMSEC
examination reports .

The study recommends that teachers be staff developed to equip them with knowledge and
skills in handling the design practical and that design practical questions be tackled
regularly throughout the course. It is also recommended that students be afforded more
opportunities to design and try own experiments, the Physics syllabus be reviewed to
articulate the demands of the design practical and that there be a separate paper focusing
on the design experiments only. The study further recommends that further research be
done to verify the effectiveness of strategies suggested.

6 REFERENCES
Buffer, A, Allie, S, Campbell and Lubben, F (1998). The role of laboratory experience of
school on the procedural understanding of pre first year science students at UCT.
Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of SAARMSE, 14 - 17 January.
University of South Africa. Pretoria. 495 501.
Chiaverina, C and Vollmer M. (2005). Learning Physics from experiments. GIREP seminar
Ljubljana [Online] [cited 15 October 2008] from http://www.girep 2005.fm.uni-
Lj.si/dw report.pdf
Chin, C. (2003). Success with investigations. The Science Teacher, 70:34-40
Cosby, P, C. (2003). Methods in Behavioural Research. 8th edition. New York. McGraw
Fensham, P. (1988). Development Dilemmas in Science Education. London.The Palmer
Press.
Keys, C.W (1998). A study of grade six students generating questions and plans for open
ended investigations. Journal of investigation in science education 28 (3), 301
316.
Golt, R and Duggan, S (2007). A framework for practical work science and scientific
literacy through arguementation. Research in Science and Technology Education,
25:271-291.
Koponen, T, I. and Mantyla, T (2006). Generative Role of Experiments in Physics and in
Teaching Physics: A Suggestion for Epistemological Reconstruction. Science
Education, Volume15 Number 1.31-54 (24)
Lewis J (2002). The effectiveness of mini projects as open-ended investigations. Journal of
Teaching and Learning in the laboratory. 139 150.
Ministry of Education and Culture (1993). Handbook on School Administration for Heads.
Harare. Public Service Commission.


-47-

Mumba, F. Chabalengula, V.M. and Wise K (2007). Analysis of new Zambian High School
Physics Syllabus practical examinations for levels of inquiry skills. Eurasia, Mach.
Science and Technical Education 3 (1), 213 220.
Nziramasnga (1999). Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Education and
Training. Harare
Staer H, Goodrum, D and Hackling. M.W (1998). High school laboratory in Western
Australia openness to inquiry. Journal of research in Science Education 28 (2),
219 - 228.
Swift D.G (1986). Physics for rural development. A source book for teachers and
extension workers in developing countries. Chi- Checster.John Wiley and Sons.
Trumper, R. (2003). The Physics Laboratory-A historical Overview and Future
Perspectives. Science and Education 12, 645-670
Ramnarain, U. (2011). Teachers use of questioning in supporting learners doing science
investigations. South African Journal of Education Vol 31: 91-101.
Verma, G.K. and Mallick, K. (1999). Researching Education: Perspectives and
Techniques. London. Falmer.
Wellington (1998). Practical in school Science: Which way now? London. Routledge.
Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council Advanced Level Physics Syllabus (2008-2012)
Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council Advanced Level Science and Mathematics Report
on November 2004 Examinations.
Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council Advanced Science and Mathematics Report on
November 2005 Examinations.
Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council Advanced Science and Mathematics Report on
June 2010. Unpublished


-48-

A-2 Design Practicals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A-2 Design Practicals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study for Teaching Advanced Level Physics Practical and Solution

approach to Practical Questions (pp. 36-48)

You might also like