IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 12 December 2020

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:
1694-2493
e-ISSN:
1694-2116
IJLTER.ORG
Vol.19 No.12

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
(IJLTER)
Vol. 19, No. 12 (December 2020)
Print version: 1694-2493
Online version: 1694-2116
IJLTER
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research (IJLTER)
Vol. 19, No. 12
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data banks.
Society for Research and Knowledge Management

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal which has been
established for the dissemination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
fields of learning, teaching and educational research.
Aims and Objectives
The main objective of this journal is to provide a platform for educators,
teachers, trainers, academicians, scientists and researchers from over the
world to present the results of their research activities in the following
fields: innovative methodologies in learning, teaching and assessment;
multimedia in digital learning; e-learning; m-learning; e-education;
knowledge management; infrastructure support for online learning;
virtual learning environments; open education; ICT and education;
digital classrooms; blended learning; social networks and education; e-
tutoring: learning management systems; educational portals, classroom
management issues, educational case studies, etc.
Indexing and Abstracting
Research is indexed in Scopus since 2018. The Journal is also indexed in
Google Scholar and CNKI. All articles published in IJLTER are assigned
a unique DOI number.

Foreword
We are very happy to publish this issue of the International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research.
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal committed to
publishing high-quality articles in the field of education. Submissions
may include full-length articles, case studies and innovative solutions to
problems faced by students, educators and directors of educational
organisations. To learn more about this journal, please visit the website
http://www.ijlter.org.
We are grateful to the editor-in-chief, members of the Editorial Board
and the reviewers for accepting only high quality articles in this issue.
We seize this opportunity to thank them for their great collaboration.
The Editorial Board is composed of renowned people from across the
world. Each paper is reviewed by at least two blind reviewers.
We will endeavour to ensure the reputation and quality of this journal
with this issue.
Editors of the December 2020 Issue

VOLUME 19 NUMBER 12 December 2020
Table of Contents
Analysis of Lesson Plans from Rwandan Physics Teachers..............................................................................................1
Kizito Ndihokubwayo, Irénée Ndayambaje and Jean Uwamahoro
First-Year Accounting Student Teachers’ Perceptions of their Classroom Learning Environment........................... 30
Mapuya Medson
How Adolescent Students with Disabilities and /or Complex Needs Perceive the Notion of Resilience: A Study
in Greece and England......................................................................................................................................................... 43
Maria Georgiadi, Stefanos Plexousakis, Josie Maitland, Elias Kourkoutas and Angie Hart
Reshaping the University Curriculum through the Visiting Lectureship.....................................................................70
Valentyna I. Bobrytska, Hanna V. Krasylnykova, Nina G. Batechko, Nataliia А. Beseda and Yevhenii S. Spitsyn
Teaching Children with Special Needs in Nigerian Regular Classes: Impact of Gender, Marital Status, Experience,
and Specialty ......................................................................................................................................................................... 86
Kingsley Chinaza Nwosu, WP Wahl, Hasina Cassim, Emmanuel Nkemakolam Okwuduba and Gloria Uzoamaka Nnaemeka
Attainment of the Immediate Program Graduate Attributes and Learning Outcomes of Teacher Candidates
towards Global Competence Initiatives........................................................................................................................... 106
Gilbert C. Magulod, Leonilo B. Capulso, Josephine Pineda Dasig, Micheal Bhobet B. Baluyot, John Noel S. Nisperos, Ethel
Reyes-Chua, Mahyudin Ritonga, Randy Joy M. Ventayen, Assel Khassenova, Mashraky Mustary and Supat Chupradit
The Development of Instructional Leadership Scale of Elementary School Principals in Indonesia ...................... 126
Agung Purwa Widiyan, Saowanee Sirisooksilp and Pennee Kantavong Narot
Unlocking the Cultural Diversity Black Box: Application of Culturally Responsive Pedagogies in University
Classrooms in Zimbabwe .................................................................................................................................................. 146
Norman Rudhumbu
A Conceptual Research Model for Investigating the Impact of Online Teacherpreneurship Education on Students’
Teacherpreneurial Competencies and Intentions in Preservice Teacher Education .................................................. 163
Olusiji Adebola Lasekan, Reyaz Malik and Claudia Méndez Alarcon
Curriculum Structure and its Influence on Content Knowledge of Economics Student Teachers .......................... 190
Mothofela R Msimanga
Questions in English Medium Instruction Undergraduate Lectures in a Sri Lankan University: Why are they
important?............................................................................................................................................................................ 208
Abdul Majeed Mohamed Navaz
Exploring Pre-Service Teachers’ Emotional Competence and Motivation for the Choice of a Teaching Career... 230
Tea Pavin Ivanec

Convergence or Divergence in EFL Teachers’ and Learners’ Beliefs on Using Smartphones in Learning English:
The Case of Master1 Students - University of Tlemcen (Algeria) ................................................................................ 246
Fatima Zohra Belkhir-Benmostefa
Investigating Predictors of Academic Plagiarism among University Students.......................................................... 264
Sumayah Nabee, Joash Mageto and Noleen Pisa
Reimagining the Sustainable and Social Justice Mathematics Classrooms in the Fourth Industrial Revolution... 281
Tshele J. Moloi and Mogalatjane E. Matabane
Efficacy of Teachers’ In‐Service Training for Increasing Their Knowledge of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder in Eastern Region, Saudi Arabia....................................................................................................................... 295
Tareq Melhem

1
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 1-29, December 2020
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.12.1
Analysis of Lesson Plans from Rwandan Physics
Teachers
Kizito Ndihokubwayo*
African Center of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning of
Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS)
University of Rwanda College of Education (URCE), Rwanda
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2566-8045
Irénée Ndayambaje
Rwanda Education Board (REB), Rwanda
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5300-9063
Jean Uwamahoro
African Center of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning of
Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS)
University of Rwanda College of Education (URCE), Rwanda
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1730-6685
Abstract. Lesson planning is a crucial roadmap guiding the teacher before
the implementation of the lesson. In the current study, we aimed at
reviewing pedagogical documents used by Rwandan physics teachers.
We gathered 32 lesson plans related to optics topics from five teachers
and analyzed them using the lesson plan analysis protocol (LPAP) and
lesson plan evaluation form (LPEF) jointly. We have found that teachers
do not prepare these documents as required by the newly introduced
competence-based curriculum. Teachers plan for low levels of Bloom's
cognitive and affective taxonomy domains and do not follow effective
inquiry techniques along the stages of the lesson activities. A detailed
discussion on each teacher’s practice was provided, and we hope it can
serve as a qualitative overview on teaching and learning planning for
effective classroom implementation. Due to the importance of
pedagogical documents on effective teaching, we went through a
rigorous validation process and suggested a model lesson plan to be
consulted by any physics teacher (please see Appendix C). We
recommend that teachers consult this lesson plan and prepare
accordingly before class.
Keywords: pedagogical document; lesson plan; physics teacher;
competence-based curriculum
* Corresponding author: Kizito Ndihokubwayo; Email: ndihokubwayokizito@gmail.com

2
1. Introduction
Any teacher in any subject needs to prepare the lesson before implementing it in
the classroom. There are many types of pedagogical documents that teachers need
as their daily instruments. These include the scheme of work, lesson plan, class
diary, mark sheet, attendance list, notebook, evaluation notebook, exercise
notebook, and so forth. However, these documents are importantly used for
different purposes according to different teachers and education systems across
the world. A system of training teachers in the Rwandan education system date
back to colonialism around the 1900s, when formal education was introduced.
Before competence-based curriculum (CBC), the knowledge-based curriculum
(KBC) also emphasized much on effective PDs. However, the current CBC (REB,
2015b) focuses on learner-centered as one of the millennium development goals
implemented in 2000 (Abbott, Sapsford & Rwirahira, 2015; Nsengimana et al.,
2020). As of 2016, all teachers were required to shift from knowledge-based
approaches and adapt to competence-based approaches. Except for content
knowledge, others related to pedagogical knowledge, instructional tool, and
methods have all shifted towards learner engagement related approaches,
including the ways of preparing PDs.
Pedagogical documents are essential because they guide teachers to the expected
destination. For instance, the work (SW) scheme guides teachers in a whole year
or term (REB, 2015c). SW focuses on unit planning, while lesson plan (LP) focuses
on topic planning (REB, 2015a). SW consists of what a teacher will teach in a term.
It is a well-scheduled document in the form of a bunch of lessons, while an LP is
a sheet of paper showing what the teacher will follow during a class of one or two
periods (REB, 2017). Jacobs, Martin, and Otieno (2008) refer to a lesson plan to a
teacher's day-to-day teaching practice focusing on pedagogical knowledge. PDs
are vital because they guide teachers' daily work. The scheme of work should be
well prepared to guide the teacher to schedule the lesson for an extended time
frame, while a lesson plan should be well prepared to reflect what will be done in
a real classroom. An investigation carried out in Rwanda during learning optics
showed the low performance and conceptual understanding of geometric optics
(Ndihokubwayo, Uwamahoro & Ndayambaje, 2020a) and physical optics
(Ndihokubwayo et al., 2020). Therefore, we were interested in analyzing these
documents used by some physics teachers to check the way teachers prepare their
PDs, mainly LPs. Planning is key for any teacher for his/her professional
development (Ruys, van Keer & Aelterman, 2012). Pramoolsook and Magday
(2019) and Sawyer and Myers (2018) assume that a lesson plan is a precise
reflection of what arises in the classroom. Thus, a link between teacher’s planning
and students’ outcome should arise. This study will help teachers to value the
preparation before the class takes place using various LP tools. Teachers generally
prepare the lesson plans for evaluation purposes by school administrators
(Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis & Trezek, 2008; Sawyer & Myers, 2018; Theoharis
& Causton-Theoharis, 2011), such as monitoring classroom curriculum
implementation. However, they can serve as a roadmap to teachers for effective
classroom implementation. They can also ensure that lesson plans are available
and clear for substitutes in case the teacher is absent (Jacobs et al., 2008). The LPs
include references to page numbers to be covered in the textbook, problems to be
assigned as homework, and lists of standards or objectives to be covered during
the lesson delivery.

3
The use of both lesson plan analysis protocol (LPAP) and lesson plan evaluation
form (LPEF) is limited to LP only. Therefore, classroom observation should serve
as a supplement to obtain data about the program under investigation. The lesson
plan tools are used to prescribe the components of a program in terms of
established models quantitatively and help determine the program's level of
implementation (Boikhutso, 2010; Pramoolsook & Magday, 2019). A lesson plan
analysis tool is a scalable and broader lens to support other tools that measure
teaching behavior, such as classroom observation. However, it does not show
evidence about lesson enactment until post-lesson information is delivered (Diem
& Thathong, 2019; Jacobs et al., 2008).
1.1 Research problem
It is essential to check what was planned before observation. The literature shows
a strong relationship between teacher planning and student outcomes, as it is
assumed that the teacher's lesson plan reflects the classroom activity (JICA, 2020).
Therefore, LPs would be useful in program evaluation, such as tracking CBC
implementation and teacher assessment. The SIIQS† project initiated lesson plan
analysis through lesson study activity in Rwanda; however, there have been no
studies evaluated of lesson plans for the physics CBC. Consecutive studies done
in Rwanda found gaps both in pedagogical document preparation and classroom
teaching practices. For instance, Byusa, Kampire, and Mwesigye (2020) found that
the teachers do not take the PDs as their guide; instead, they only care about
presenting them to education authorities such as district education officers,
headteachers, or deputy headteacher in charge of studies. Ndihokubwayo,
Uwamahoro and Ndayambaje (2020b) observed 42 physics classes using the
RTOP tool and found that reformed teaching is 53% and teachers are running out
of time and do not care about inquiry instruction. Nowadays, the inquiry is
gradually receiving considerable room in many developing countries' science
curriculum though it is at its early stage in Rwanda (Mugabo, 2012).
1.2 Research questions
This study aims at reviewing Rwandan physics teachers’ lesson plans in line with
the following research questions:
i) To what extent do physics teachers' lesson plans reflect on a
competence-based curriculum?
ii) How do physics teachers prepare their lesson plans based on cognitive
and practical Bloom Taxonomy's domains?
iii) Do physics teachers introduce inquiry-based planned instruction in
their lesson plans?
This study bridges the gap between teacher lesson preparation and real classroom
practices. It shows teachers an effective way of lesson planning. Therefore, we
hypothesize that there will be no difference among teachers in terms of lesson
preparation. This research's novelty is that we designed and validated a model
lesson plan that any teacher can refer to.
†
SIIQS: Project for Supporting Institutionalizing and Improving the Quality of School-Based In-
service Teacher Training Activity

4
2. Methods and Procedures
This is basic and applied research (Orodho et al., 2016). It is basic in a way that it
adds knowledge of Rwandan physics teachers’ lesson planning to existing
literature while is applied in a way that we have designed a model lesson plan for
teachers’ references. We have used a mixed methodology to present the data.
Thus, we have documented the characteristics of the lesson plans and discussed
the variability among teachers.
2.1 Sample scope
To carry out this study, we got an ethical clearance from the research and
innovation unit at the University of Rwanda College of Education (URCE) for and
research permission from distinguished districts. We, in May 2019, have visited
two schools in Kigali and the Eastern province, Rwanda. Our sample targeted 11
physics teachers from four districts in Rwanda selected purposively from schools
accommodating advanced level—grade 10 and 11—science, including physics
subject. We invited them to share with us the taught lesson plans related to optics.
These LPs should have been used in the last term (from middle January and early
April 2019). Eight teachers shared with us their lesson plans in hand or online.
Three of eight teachers shared the LPs that are not relevant. One teacher shared
mathematics LPs; two teachers shared LPs of mechanics related topics such as
"Kinematics and simple harmonic motion," "Simple harmonic oscillation (Simple
pendulum)," "Simple harmonic oscillator (Mass suspended from a coiled spring)"
and "Representation, characteristics, and properties of sounds waves." Among
these two teachers, one shared LPs related to optics but from 2018. We did not
consider all of these LPs from three teachers for our analysis. Thus, our analysis
took a case of five physics teachers' lesson plans. We have collected 32 LPs,
representing approximately 54% of the sampled teachers (Appendix A).
2.2 Data sources
We used two necessary LP analysis tools to carry out this study. The LPAP of
Ndihokubwayo et al. (2020) and the LPEF of Ferrell (1992). LPAP analyses nine
elements of a competence-based lesson plan. These 9 LPAP elements consist 27
items (Ndihokubway et al., 2020). The nine elements are sub-sectioned into three
stages: preliminary elements, the body of the content, and the accessories. "A
Lesson Plan Evaluation Form (LPEF) was developed to provide systematic
quantitative data about classroom functioning (Ferrel 1992, p. 23)." The LPEF
involves three models—curriculum, Bloom Taxonomy domains, and inquiry
techniques—of learning used in developing a curriculum where each lesson plan
is scrutinized to determine the level to which it reflected the discerned curriculum
elements (Ferrell, 1992). The developer of LPEF used the Inquiry Model to weigh
the degree to which the LPs reflected a chance to gather and organize data and
formulate and test hypotheses. The LPAP components align with LP format for a
competence-based curriculum (REB, 2019) while LPEF calls upon the inquiry-
based physics instruction (Ferrell, 1992) and illuminates the outcome from teacher
planned teaching practices.
2.3 Reliability analysis
In analyzing these 32 LPs, we read all the documents and classified them
according to the reserved scales (see Table 1). We used SPSS version 23.0 to
analyze both reliability tests and data presented in the results section.

5
Table 1: LPAP scales (Ndihokubwayo et al., 2020)
Explanation Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4
Item1 Related to Key Unit Competence
(KUC)
Not written Written but not related to
syllabus
Written in summary and related
to syllabus
Written in full and related to syllabus
Item2 Related to the format of the lesson
title
More than three Triple Double title Single title
Item3-4 Relationship between lesson title
and time, and the connection to
the syllabus
Definitely not Probably not Probably yes Definitely yes
Item5 Related to Instructional Objective
(IO)
Not written Written but Not related to
the topic
Written and related to the topic Written and related to the topic and
content
Item6 Number of IO components None One to two Three to four All five
Item7 Related to Special Education
Needs (SEN)
Not written "none" or "-" or the teacher
writes a number only
Describe only Write the number and describe
Item8 Addressing SEN Not addressed Not clear where it was
addressed
Addressed in IO or Description
of Teaching and Learning
Activity (DTLA)
Addressed in Introduction to the lesson
(Intro), or Lesson development (Dev), or
Conclusion of the lesson (Concl))
Item9 Related to DTLA Not written Written but not related Written but does not show well
what will be done in the lesson
Written and shows well what will be done
in the lesson
Item10-12 Writing the content of the lesson Not written Written but unclear (or not
related)
Written but not describe (outline) Written and well described
Item13-14 Stages of the development and
conclusion sections
Components
outlined in "Note"
are absent
Not clear/not identifiable Other components apart from
those outlined in "Note."
Components outlined in "Note" are
present
Item15-23 Teaching resources (TR),
Formative assessment (FA),
Active learning techniques
(ALT)in the content of the lesson
Not visualized Visualized but not clear At least one is visualized and
clear
More than one is visualized and clear
Item24 If visualized, was the ALT used
with purpose?
Definitely not Probably not Probably yes Definitely yes
Item25-26 Generic competences (GCs) and
Cross-cutting issues (CCIs)
Not written Not clear Outlined only Outlined and described
Item27 Teacher self-evaluation (TSE) Not written Written but not clear The teacher writes a simple word
"well or not well done"
The teacher well describes with the next
step

6
The criterion validity check has shown that the data from the LPAP were
consistent with data from other more standardized evaluation tools such as
Lesson Plan Evaluation Form (LPEF) and Science Lesson Plan Analysis
Instrument (SLPAI). A positive correlation (Pearson product-moment coefficient
r > .50) was detected across "Lesson approaches" of LPAP, "Inquiry techniques" of
LPEF, and "Student inquiry" of the SLPAI items.
Each lesson plan was assigned a number and separately rated by two raters from
the African Center of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning of
Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS) based at the University of Rwanda College
of Education (URCE); among them, one is the first author of this study. These
raters are experienced in analyzing lesson plans and are familiar with the LPAP.
The Spearman's rho among the raters was computed and found to be .81, while
the weighted kappa was found to be .72 across 27 LPAP items. Thus, the raters
did not differ in the way in which they rated the lesson plans.
The preliminaries (item1-9) got a reliability coefficient of .92 (and a weighted
Kappa of .87) across 32 LPs averaged from two raters. The body of the content
(item 10-24) got a reliability coefficient of .79 (and a weighted Kappa of .69), while
the accessories (item 25-27) got .58 (and a weighted Kappa of .48). Table 2 presents
detailed interrater reliability among 9 LPAP elements.
Table 2: Interrater reliability statistics across LPAP elements
LPAP elements Spearman's rho Weighted Kappa
(K)
Key unit competence 0.871 0.875
Title of the lesson 0.857 0.742
Instructional objective 0.969 0.968
Special Education Needs 1 1
Lesson description (DTLA) 0.897 0.758
Lesson stages 0.412 0.324
Lesson approaches 0.980 0.869
Generic competences and Cross-cutting
issues
0.369 0.214
Lesson evaluation 1 1
The inter-rater reliability for LPEF was similarly based on the same LPAP raters
scoring a sample of the same 32 LPs. The Spearman's rho among the raters was
computed and found to be .93, while the weighted Kappa was found to be .79
across all selected LPEF items.
Alongside rate agreement among raters, Cohen's Kappa is used to remove
agreement by chance (Cohen, 1988). Its interpretation is moderate when K is >.5,
reasonable when K is >.7, and excellent when K is >.8. For ordinal data, the
Spearman-Brown coefficient is considered, and a weighted Kappa is computed to
provide an ordinal outcome.

7
To supplement our study results, we have crafted and validated a model lesson
plan that any physics teacher can refer to (see Appendix C).
3. Data Analysis and Results
Each rater has rated all 32 LPs into four LPAP scales according to each of the 27
LPAP items. We have averaged the results from both raters and computed means
for each item. All teachers did not use the REB LP format. This is the reason why
tracking the steps of inquiry techniques was difficult. The new REB LP format
appears in the textbooks printed in 2019 (REB, 2019). However, teachers did not
yet adapt themselves to it. This may be the lack of emphasis from REB. Teachers
should be well informed of their roles. This format has segments in the
development and conclusion sections of the LP, where the development section
of the LP comprises discovery activities, presentation learners' findings
production, and exploitation of findings/production, and the conclusion section
comprises conclusion/summary and assessment/homework.
It can be found that there is a variety rate across all 27 items on a 4-point scale.
Thus, some items were rated one (on scale 1) while others were rated four (on
scale 4). This is to clarify that, for instance, most of the teachers did not write SEN
or wrote "none" or "-" or a number only and scored below an average score of 2.0.
However, none of this written SEN was addressed in the body of the lesson. Thus,
both raters rated this item on scale-1. However, they connect the lesson title to the
syllabus—as both raters rated this item into the scale-4. In other words, teachers
consult the syllabus in formulating the lesson topic. All teachers write the IO in
all the LPs, although they miss some components, mostly condition and standard
(see Table 3).
Table 3: LPAP mean scores from two raters
Mean
Rater1
Mean
Rater2
Mean
Rater1
&2
SD
Rater1
&2
Item1 Written KUC and how it is written 3.6 3.7 3.6 0.95
Item2 Format of the lesson title 3.8 3.8 3.8 0.46
Item3 Lesson title time-bound 3.2 3.8 3.5 1.11
Item4 Syllabus connected to the lesson title 4 4 4 0
Item5 Written IO and how it is written 4 4 4 0
Item6 Number of IO components 3.5 3.4 3.5 0.5
Item7 Written SEN and description 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.84
Item8 Addressed SEN and the place where
it is addressed
1 1 1 0
Item9 Written DTLA and how it is written 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.31
Item10 Lesson introduction 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.42
Item11 Lesson development 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5
Item12 Lesson conclusion 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.42
Item13 Components of the lesson
development
1.8 1.1 1.4 0.53
Item14 Components of the lesson conclusion 2.1 1.3 1.7 0.91
Item15 TR in Introduction to the lesson 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.67

8
Item16 TR in Development of the lesson 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.14
Item17 TR in Conclusion of the lesson 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.92
Item18 FA in Introduction to the lesson 2.6 2.7 2.6 0.76
Item19 FA in Development of the lesson 3.1 3.1 3.1 0.64
Item20 FA in Conclusion of the lesson 2.9 3 3 0.28
Item21 ALT in Introduction to the lesson 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.44
Item22 ALT in Development of the lesson 3.1 3.2 3.2 1.01
Item23 ALT in Conclusion of the lesson 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.68
Item24 If visualized, was the ALT used with
purpose?
4 2.3 3.1 1.17
Item25 GCs 4 3.7 3.8 0.37
Item26 CCIs 3.9 3.6 3.8 0.62
Item27 TSE 2.6 2.6 2.6 0.83
Active learning techniques (ALT) were mostly provided than formative
assessment (FA) and teaching resources (TR) (refer to Appendix B for more
detail). They were observed mostly in the Development and Conclusion of the
lesson than in the Introduction. This was reflected by the high percentage of LPs
in the Development of the lesson (47%) and the Conclusion of the lesson (28%).
The TRs were not visualized compared to FA and ALT in both parts of the
lesson—Introduction, Development, and Conclusion. This was reflected by the
highest percentages of LPs rated into scale 1 "not visualized"—Introduction
(87.5%), Development (37.5%), and Conclusion (68.8%) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Distribution of LPs into the Lesson Approaches group. Scale-1 "Not
visualized" scale-2 "Visualized but not clear" scale-3 "At least one is visualized and
clear" scale-4 "More than one is visualized and clear." On the "If visualized, was the
ALT used with purpose?" the scale-1 is "Definitely not," scale-2 is "Probably not"
scale-3 is "Probably yes," and scale-4 is "Definitely yes."
The descriptive statistics associated with LPAP scales across five physics teachers
are reported in Table 4. We evaluated the assumption of normality to satisfy
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%120.0%
TR in Introduction of the lesson
TR in Development of the lesson
TR in Conclusion of the lesson
FA in Introduction of the lesson
FA in Development of the lesson
FA in Conclusion of the lesson
ALT in Introduction of the lesson
ALT in Development of the lesson
ALT in Conclusion of the lesson
If visualized, was the ALT used with purpose?
% of LPs
Lesson
Approaches
Scale1 Scale2 Scale3 Scale4

9
distribution in these five teachers; the Skewness and Kurtosis were found
negative. Skew is about distributional symmetry, while Kurtosis is the thickness
of the tails and the center of the distribution (Blanca, Arnau, López-Montiel, Bono
& Bendayan, 2013). Thus, the data are not normally distributed; instead, they are
negatively skewed. Teachers are mostly ranked towards the scale-4 of LPAP.
Similarly, the data are negative Kurtosis distribution as the data in distribution is
short and wide.
Table 4: Descriptive statistics
Mean Std.
Deviation
Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Std.
Error
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
MeanTeacher1 2.778 .1945 1.0105 1.021 -.496 -.858
MeanTeacher2 2.926 .1910 .9924 .985 -.691 -.716
MeanTeacher3 2.919 .1803 .9368 .878 -.664 -.370
MeanTeacher4 2.892 .2035 1.0576 1.118 -.655 -.843
MeanTeacher5 2.639 .2182 1.1337 1.285 -.416 -1.253
In order to test the hypothesis that teachers plan their lesson similarly, we
performed the correlation analysis and analysis of variances (ANOVA). A .929
Cronbach alpha coefficient was found. Thus, the correlation is highly positive
among five teachers. The independent between-groups ANOVA did not yield a
statistically significant difference, F(26, 4)=1.386, p=.244. Thus, we retain a null
hypothesis of no difference between teachers in terms of LP preparation. The
teachers' means are crossly related, ranging from Teacher 5 (M=2.639) to Teacher
2 (M=2.926).
Among 32 LPs, only four LPs open the Introduction of the lesson by revising the
last lesson. This is important from the constructivist point of view in a way that
students should build on existing knowledge. Analyzing deep the formative
assessment and active learning techniques, we employed the LPEF tool to
compute scores on cognitive and affective levels of Bloom taxonomy to respond
to the FA and the inquiry techniques as an ALT for most experiment-based LPs.
The digits under table 4 are average scores from two raters at a 1-to 4-point Likert
type scale from 1 "the item was definitely not appeared" to 4 "the item has
definitely appeared."
From the Bloom taxonomy perspectives' cognitive level, teachers plan for only
delivering knowledge and assure that understanding is set in. This is shown by
the mean score (4.0) across all 32 LPs. Even the application of what was learned
was found below the average of 2.0. Similarly, at the adequate level of Bloom
taxonomy perspectives, teachers care for making their students receive
information (M=4.0) and attend (M=4.0) to and respond (M=3.1) asked questions
(see Table 5).

10
Table 5: Results from the Lesson Plan Evaluation Form 1: Definitely not, 2: Probably not, 3: Probably yes, and 4: Definitely yes
LP code
Cognitive Level of Bloom Taxonomy Affective Level of Bloom Taxonomy Inquiry techniques
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation
Receiving
Attending
Responding
Valuing
Organization
Characterizatio
n
Data
collection
Data
organization
Hypothesizing
Hypothesis
testing
PT1A 4 4 1 2 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PT1B 4 4 1 2 1 2 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PT1C 4 4 1 2 1 2 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PT1D 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PT1E 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 3 2
PT2A 4 4 3 2 1 1 4 4 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 1
PT2B 4 4 3 2 1 1 4 4 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 1
PT2C 4 4 1 1 1 2 4 4 4 1 1 1
PT2D 4 4 1 1 1 2 4 4 4 1 1 1
PT2E 4 4 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 1 1 1
PT2F 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PT2G 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 1 1 1
PT2H 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 1 1 1
PT2J 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 1 1 1
PT3A 4 4 2 1 1 2 4 4 3 1 1 1
PT3B 4 4 2 2 1 2 4 4 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 1
PT3C 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 1 1 1
PT3D 4 4 2 1 1 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

11
PT3E 4 4 2 1 1 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PT3G 4 4 2 1 1 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 3 1 1
PT3I 4 4 3 2 1 2 4 4 4 1 1 1
PT3K 4 4 3 2 1 2 4 4 4 1 1 1
PT3M 4 4 2 1 1 1 4 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
PT3N 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1
PT4A 4 4 2 2 2 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 2
PT4B 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 1 2 1
PT4C 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 4 2 2 3
PT4D 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 4 2 2 3
PT4E 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 4 2 2 3
PT4F 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 4 2 2 3
PT5A 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 1 1 1
PT5B 4 4 2 1 1 3 4 4 2 1 1 1
Mean 4.0 4.0 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.8 4.0 4.0 3.1 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.1
St. Dev 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.4 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.3

12
The space with no number refers to LPs that were not related to experimentation.
We then noted that other LPs would implement inquiry techniques. However,
such practice was not visualized. It seems that teachers are not aware of inquiry-
based learning techniques and those who are aware of them think that it can only
be implemented in experiment related lessons. Our results show that the use of
inquiry techniques was below the average of 2.0. Contrary wise, in the Ferrell
(1992) study, the LPEF analysis findings indicate that teachers follow an excellent
teaching practice during their lesson planning. Only in four LPs, the teacher
planned to ask students to hypothesize or predict the outcome of observation (see
Table 5). This is in line with a study by Ndihokubwayo, Uwamahoro &
Ndayambaje (2020), who, via RTOP results, found that teachers do not promote
prediction among students. The inquiry is associated with science, a complex
activity involving observation, questioning, examining various sources of
information to reveal what is already known in the light of experimental evidence,
investigating inferences by gathering/analyze/and interpret data, proposing
answers and explanations, and communicating the outcome (Mugabo, 2012).
4. Discussion of Practical Implication
Teacher 1 planned the lessons from the KUC "by the end of this unit; the learner should
be able to explain the properties of lenses and image formation by lenses" from S4.
Teacher 1 fully used group formulation in all LPs, where he emphasized on
mixing girls and boys as a criterion of the group formulation. This may be caused
by the gender inclusion expected in the 8 CCIs (REB, 2015b). This inclusion is
subtle. However, teachers should go beyond this and ensure that boys and girls
have the same learning rights. Contrary wise, Teacher 4 mentioned it. He wrote:
"gender balance: boys and girls are given equal responsibilities." Teachers should
also emphasize the inclusion of able students and struggling students to employ
a specific ALT purposively (refer to Appendix B for more detail). In presenting
the results, the teacher only uses the group leader. This act may discourage other
students and pressure the group leader. It is better to randomly select the
presenter so that everyone is ready to work as none knows who will present the
group findings. In describing the competences to be accommodated, the teacher
usually mentions: "skills in organizing scattered data to develop systematic,
observation, and detailed presentation"; however, in the teacher or students'
activity, there was not appearance of any doing an experiment, observing nature
or inquiry. He also wrote that "skills in report presentation, for example, in
Microsoft PowerPoint" while in the teacher or student activities, it appears
presenting on the blackboard. An LP serves as a map guiding the teacher during
the teaching process (Ndihokubwayo et al. 2020). However, it seems it is a
formality. For instance, in the "learning materials" place, the teacher mentions
some materials such as a calculator, internet connection. However, he does not
describe how they will be used in the main lesson (teacher and learner activities).
Straessle (2014) found that many teachers use written lesson plans but they do not
often refer to them during class delivery. Therefore, teachers need to take LPs as
their road map toward effective lesson delivery. Teachers should write their
lesson plan with full consideration. They should revise it to check everything is in
place. Refer to a model lesson plan in Appendix C3 as a standardized and full
lesson plan.

13
Teacher 2 planned the lessons from the KUC "by the end of this unit, the learner should
be able to explain the properties of lenses and image formation by lenses" from S4, and
"the learner should be able to analyze the nature of light" from S5.
Teacher 2 outlined the activities to be done by students and teachers. She took the
students into experiments and discussion of results through group work. She said
the teacher should do the first activity of the experiment while students do the
next step. However, this is good; however, this is good; she may be sure that
students cannot do even the first step if the teacher guides them skillfully. She
outlined the GCs and CCIs without explaining how they will be catered and
achieved. Thus, their role according to each and specific activity is lost. Teacher 2
differs from Teacher 1 in the way that she planned for the experiment, although
she did not provide the name of an experiment to be done or specifies its steps.
The teacher considered writing a lab report as an assessment during the
Conclusion of the lesson. The study of Amanda G. Sawyer showed that teachers
vary in the choices of resources for lesson planning due to their different
experiences.
be able to explain the properties of lenses and image formation by lenses" and "by the end
of this unit, the learner should be able to analyze the function of the simple and compound
microscope" from S4.
In the lesson on Measuring the focal length of the convex lens, the teacher set the
IO well (refer to Appendix B for more detail). For instance, he wrote, "given lenses
and other necessary apparatus, learners should be able to determine the focal
length of a convex lens effectively." This is in line with the Straessle (2014) study,
where teachers did not differentiate among the components of lesson planning,
although they care about clear learning objectives than other components.
Most of the time, the teacher introduces before learners are assigned to the group
works. He then emphasizes that students should follow his explanation actively.
In some of the LPs, the teacher described the SEN though he did not address them
in the lesson development. For instance, he wrote, "some students are quick while
others are slow in learning." Somewhere he even specifies the number "five
students have difficulties in understanding English" or "five students have
disruptive behavior." Always the teacher summarizes or concludes the lesson, and
students take notes.
be able to analyze the nature of light" from S5.
Most of all the teachers used a particular ALT without purpose. For instance,
Teacher 4 started by assigning students into groups. The use of such group work
should take a source, for example, after assigning students with individual work,
and the teacher notices difficulties among students to perform the given activity
or exercise. Most of the teachers ask questions in the Conclusion and expect
students to respond to those questions. However, these questions are not
mentioned. These questions or exercises should be different from what was
discussed in the lesson to avoid memorization and promote thinking. Thus,

14
students should use what was learned to answer questions or perform exercises
and not copy what they learned. This will increase their critical thinking as they
achieved competence, and the lesson will be viewed at a wide-angle (to be used
in various contexts). Our results show that teachers do not plan for a significant
assignment that reflects students' context and the use of what was learned clearly.
The Straessle (2014) study revealed that when creating assignments, teachers use
real-world connections significantly more frequently than any other facet. This
real-world context should be reflected when teachers emphasize allowing
students to connect themselves and what they learn to their real-life situations.
Moreover, this is well outlined and recommended in the syllabus (REB, 2015a)
daily use.
Teacher 4 planned to request students to interpret their results. This is very
important in promoting critical thinking. It alerts students that observation or
experimentation is not a standalone lesson objective; instead, a further inference
of the results is necessary to get the meaning of what they learn. Most of the
teachers care about critical thinking as a GC. Only teacher 4 emphasizes long-life
learning. For instance, "students will develop long-life learning by taking the
initiative to update knowledge and skills with minimum external support." This
is very crucial to motivate such senior five students to look further in their future.
It may help them to plan for their future studies and career.
Teacher 4 describes the "DTLA" well. For instance, in the lesson of "measuring the
Plank's constant," he wrote the DTLA: "using an electronic circuit containing a
LED power supply, digital millimeter, and a digital voltmeter, learners with the
help of the teacher describe how to measure Plank's constant." This may guide
anyone who reads the LP (for instance, before observing class) on what will be
done during the teaching and learning process. Teacher 4 encourages the students
to make a prediction. This helps students to observe and think by relating their
prerequisite knowledge to a new observation. Teachers outline what will be done
in the lesson but do not describe what and how they will be done. In the case of
teaching activity, if, for example, the teacher is not available to teach the lesson,
Deputy Of Studies will not have an opportunity to assign another teacher to teach
such lessons as it is not well and fully elaborated.
be able to explain the properties of lenses and image formation by lenses" from S4 and "by
the end of this unit, the learner should be able to analyze the nature of light" from S5.
Teacher 5 planed to provide short notes to students and give time to copy notes.
He is brief in planning all the LP steps, even in writing the KUC in full. Thus, he
shortened the KUC. He wrote, "explain the properties of lenses."
Most of the teachers start the introduction section by asking students questions
about the previous lesson. None of the teachers uses the LP format segmenting
the development section into discovery activities, presentation learners' findings
production, exploitation findings production, and the conclusion section into
conclusion/summary and assessment/homework. This shows why all LPs show
a poor description of activities to be done during the teaching and learning
process. Thus, if the teacher fills the LP format by planning for these components

15
of development and conclusion sections, the LP would be clearer and directive to
any other teacher or any classroom observer.
5. Conclusion and limitations
In this study, LPAP findings showed that physics teachers' lesson plans do not
reflect well on the competence-based curriculum. Teachers do not follow the REB
LP format, do not cater to slow learners, and are reluctant to use effective active
learning techniques. There is no need to limit teachers on which lesson plan
format to use; however, REB needs to guide them effectively during in-service
teacher training. Probably, what is essential is not the format, rather what to
consider while planning a lesson. Our findings show that the LPEF analysis
indicates that teachers do not use higher levels of the cognitive and affective
domains. Teachers do not consider following inquiry techniques too. Data from
the lesson plan analysis should be supplemented by classroom observation.
Although reviewing lesson plans added little to the accuracy of rating a teacher's
performance, however, this is a reasonable prediction that if a good preparation
were considered, the reformed teaching would also increase. The limitations of
our study lie on small sample disabling us to generalize our results. Therefore,
further studies should focus on the scheme of work as an important pedagogical
document and check its alignment to the lesson plan with a sounding teachers’
sample as well as lesson delivery.
Acknowledgment
This research was financially supported by the African Center of Excellence for
Innovative Teaching and Learning of Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS) of
the University of Rwanda (UR). We would like to extend our gratitude to the
individuals who evaluated the lesson plan presented in this research. Without
their comments, critics, and views, the lesson presented would not have rich
information and fruitful to our dedicated teachers. This is why Ms. Pascasie
Nyirahabimana, Mr. Hashituky Telesphore Habiyaremye, Mr. Jean Nepomscène
Twahirwa, Mr. Jean de Dieu Nkurikiyimana, and Ms. Jeannette
Nyirahagenimana, all their inputs are acknowledged. We highly appreciate the
editor and reviewers from IJLTER; their comments and suggestions were valuable
and helped us improve this study. We also thank Mr. Fidèle Ukobizaba and Miss
Juliette Itangishatse, who commented on the manuscript before sending it to the
IJLTER for review and publication. This work was also inspired by JICA experts
that worked for the SIIQS project; therefore, they are acknowledged.
6. References
Abbott, P., Sapsford, R., & Rwirahira, J. (2015). Rwanda’s potential to achieve the
millennium development goals for education. International Journal of Educational
Development, 40, 117–125. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.12.007
Birindwa, C., & Atwebembeire, A. (2016a). Physics for Rwanda Secondary Schools:
Teacher’s Guide Book 4. Kigali: Fountain Publishers Rwanda Ltd.
Birindwa, C., & Atwebembeire, A. (2016b). Physics for Rwanda Secondary Schools
Learner’s Book 4. Kigali: Fountain Publishers Rwanda Ltd.
Blanca, M. J., Arnau, J., López-Montiel, D., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2013). Skewness and

16
kurtosis in real data samples. Methodology, 9, 78–84. doi:10.1027/1614-
2241/a000057
Boikhutso, K. (2010). The theory into practice dilemma: Lesson planning challenges facing
botswana student-teachers. Improving Schools, 13(3), 205–220.
doi:10.1177/1365480210385668
Byusa, E., Kampire, E., & Mwesigye, A. R. (2020). Analysis of Teaching Techniques and
Scheme of Work in Teaching Chemistry in Rwandan Secondary Schools.
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(6), 1–9.
doi:10.29333/ejmste/7833
Causton-Theoharis, J. N., Theoharis, G. T., & Trezek, B. J. (2008). Teaching pre-service
teachers to design inclusive instruction: A lesson planning template. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(4), 381–399. doi:10.1080/13603110601156509
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Diem, H. T. T., & Thathong, K. (2019). Enhancing the pre-service biology teachers to
construct better lesson plans: A lesson study. International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research, 18(11), 218–231. doi:10.26803/ijlter.18.11.13
Ferrell, B. G. (1992). Gifted Child Quarterly. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 23–26.
doi:10.1177/001698629203600106
Jacobs, C. L., Martin, S. N., & Otieno, T. C. (2008). Instrument for Formative and
Summative Program Evaluation of a Teacher Education Program. Science Teacher
Education, 92, 1097–1126. doi:10.1002/sce.20277
JICA. (2020). The Project for Supporting Institutionalizing and Improving Quality of SBI Activity
( SIIQS ) Project Completion Report The Project for Supporting Institutionalizing and
Improving Quality of SBI Activity (SIIQS) Project Completion Report. Kigali.
Retrieved from https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12327383.pdf
Mugabo, R. L. (2012). Introduction of Inquiry-based Science Teaching in Rwandan Lower
Secondary Schools: Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions. University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Ndihokubwayo, K., Byukusenge, C., Byusa, E., Habiyaremye, H. T., Mbonyiryivuze, A.,
& Mukagihana, J. (2020). Lesson Plan Analysis Protocol (LPAP): Training Manual.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347388283_LPAP_Training_Manual
_Final_version_Suplementary_materials?channel=doi&linkId=5fda6b89299bf140
8816e04d&showFulltext=true
Ndihokubwayo, K., Uwamahoro, J., & Ndayambaje, I. (2020a). Effectiveness of PhET
Simulations and YouTube Videos to Improve the Learning of Optics in Rwandan
Secondary Schools. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 24(2), 253–265. doi:10.1080/18117295.2020.1818042
Ndihokubwayo, K., Uwamahoro, J., & Ndayambaje, I. (2020b). Implementation of the
Competence-Based Learning in Rwandan Physics Classrooms: First Assessment
Based on the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol. EURASIA Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(9), 1–8.
doi:10.29333/ejmste/8395
Ndihokubwayo, K., Uwamahoro, J., Ndayambaje, I., & Ralph, M. (2020). Light phenomena
conceptual assessment: an inventory tool for teachers. Physics Education, 55(3),
035009. doi:10.1088/1361-6552/ab6f20
Nsengimana, T., Rugema Mugabo, L., Hiroaki, O., & Nkundabakura, P. (2020). Reflection
on science competence-based curriculum implementation in Sub-Saharan African
countries. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 0(0), 1–14.
doi:10.1080/21548455.2020.1778210
Orodho, A., Nzabarirwa, W., Odundo, P., Waweru, P. N., & Ndayambaje, I. (2016).

17
Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods. A Step by Step Guide to Scholarly
Excellence. Nairobi: Kanezja Publishers & Entreprises.
Pramoolsook, I., & Magday, W. D. (2019). Move confirmation and teaching strategy
identification of english student-teachers’ lesson plans in the Philippines: A
rhetorical framework for novice teachers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research, 18(12), 150–173. doi:10.26803/ijlter.18.12.10
Ruys, I., van Keer, H., & Aelterman, A. (2012). Examining pre-service teacher competence
in lesson planning pertaining to collaborative learning. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 44(3), 349–379. doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.675355
REB. (2015a). Advanced level Physics syllabus. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda Education Board,
Ministry of Education.
REB. (2015b). Comptence-Based Curriculum. Curriculum Framework Pre-Primary to Upper
Secondary. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda Education Board, Ministry of Education.
REB. (2015c). Roll out of the Competence-Based Curriculum: Teacher Training Manual (1st
phase). Kigali. Rwanda: Rwanda Education Board, Ministry of Education.
REB. (2017). Teacher Training Manual - Reflections on Teaching Practice and Focus on
Assessement (3rd Phase). Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda Education Board, Ministry of
Education.
REB. (2019). Subsidiary Mathematics Senior 6 Teacher’ s Guide. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda
Education Board, Ministry of Education.
Sawyer, A. G., & Myers, J. (2018). Seeking comfort: How and why preservice teachers use
internet resources for lesson planning. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,
39(1), 16–31. doi:10.1080/10901027.2017.1387625
Straessle, M. W. J. (2014). Teachers’ perspectives of effective lesson planning: A comparative
analysis (College of William and Mary in Virginia). College of William and Mary
in Virginia. doi:10.25774/w4-8swa-7371
Theoharis, G., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2011). Preparing pre-service teachers for inclusive
classrooms: Revising lesson-planning expectations. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 15(7), 743–761. doi:10.1080/13603110903350321
Appendices
Appendix A: Pedagogical document reviewed
We have requested LPs from 11 teachers. We analyzed 32 lesson plans from five
teachers, where 24 were from S4 while eight were from S5. Fourteen LPs were
single lessons of 40 minutes period, 10 were double periods of 80 minutes each,
while 8 had triple periods of 120 minutes each.
Table A1: Lesson Plans collected alongside the optics content
no Topic Date Min
S4 lesson plans
1 Magnification of the lens, Power of the lens, and
exercises on formula of the lens
6/2/2019 40
2 Determination of the focal length of the lens 8/2/2019 40
3 Refraction through a prism (deviation of light by a
prism)
15/2/2019 40
4 The angle of minimum deviation and
determination of the refractive index
16/2/2019 40
5 Summary (Exercises) of all topics in this unit by
giving exercises
21/2/2098 40

18
1 Minimum deviation angles in prisms 6/1/2019 40
2 Physical features and types of thin lenses 21/1/2019 40
3 The image formed by a thin lens 23/1/2019 40
4 The formula of a thin lens 28/1/2019 40
5 Refraction of light through a prism 29/1/2019 40
6 Angles of minimum deviation and refractive index 30/1/2019 40
7 Deviation of light by a small angle of the prism 4/2/2019 40
8 Refractive index of the material 5/2/2019 40
1 Thin lens 25/1/2019 80
1 Thin lens equation 22/1/2019 120
2 Measurement of the focal length of a convex lens 29/1/2019 120
3 Defects of lenses and their correction.
Refraction through prism
5/2/2019 120
4 Refraction through a prism, a term associated with
refraction through a prism
7/2/2019 120
5 Deviation of light rays by a glass prism.
The angle of minimum deviation and
determination of the refractive index
12/02/2019 120
6 The angle of minimum deviation of a glass prism 14/2/2019 120
7 Lens maker's equation (Full lens equation) 19/2/2019 120
8 Definition of an optical instrument and angular
magnification, the human eye, and visual angle
25/2/2019 80
9 Formation of the image by a lens camera
Slide projector
28/2/2019 120
10 The terrestrial telescope, Galilean and reflecting
telescope
11/3/2019 80
S5 lesson plans
1 Compton effect and photon interaction 25/1/2019 40
1 Wave and particle nature of light 18/1/2019 80
1 The measure of Planck's constant 22/1/2019 80
2 Representation, characteristics, and properties of
sounds waves
28/1/2019 80
3 Blackbody radiation 31/1/2019 80
4 Guidelines for doing physics practical 31/1/2019 80
5 Compton effect and photon interaction 7/2/2019 80
6 Electron microscope 12/2/2019 80
Appendix B: Lack of IO and Presence of TR, FA, and ALT among
reviewed LPs
In this appendix, we presented what IO components lacked in LPs written by five
teachers (Table B1) and the presence of TR, FA, and ALT among five teachers' LPs
(Table B2).
Table B1 Lack of IO

19
Condition Who Action Content Standard/criterion
T1 5 4
T2 5 10
T3 1
T4 1 1
T5 2 2
Table B2 The presence of TR, FA, and ALT
TR FA ALT
T1 Pen, Pencil (1) Questioning (5) Group discussion (4)
Pen, Pencil, Prism (2) Group activities (2) Group activities (2)
Pen, Pencil, Prism, Calculator (2)
T2 Prism, pens, paper (3) Questioning (9) Lab activities (1)
Ruler, textbooks (1) Group activities (8) Discussion (2)
Charts (2) Group activities (9)
Blackboard, Chalk Board (1) Presentation (2)
Demonstration (1)
Providing examples
(1)
T3 Chalks, notebooks, figures Questioning (5) Group activities (9)
Chalks, notebooks, figures,
experiment protocol
Group activities (5) Presentation (3)
Chalks, notebooks, pens. Exercises, quiz (4)
Chalks, notebooks, pens, prism
Calculator, notebooks, pens,
Equilateral Glass Prism
Calculator, notebooks, pens.
Chart, simple microscope,
Calculator, notebooks, pens.
Lens Camera, slide projector, pens
(2)
T4 String Questioning (6) Group discussion (4)
White and black clothes, sunlight
(2)
Presentation (2)
Marbles Group activities (1)
Simple magnifying glasses Brainstorming (3)
Roleplay (4)
Note-taking (6)
T5 Questioning (2) Group discussion (2)
Presentation (1)
Roleplay (1)
Note-taking (2)
Appendix C: Model Lesson Plan
Preparation for class may take many forms. Notably, there are 2 phases before a
teacher enters the class and the other two after he/she enters the class. These are
pre-plan, lesson planning, and lesson delivery, and teacher assessment (REB,
2017). The pre-plan is when a teacher thinks about what he/she will do, what is

20
needed, which method, materials, or teaching aids he/she will use, how he/she
will cater to students, manage class, including varieties among students. After
pre-planning mentally, the teacher needs to plan on the paper. This is the lesson
planning phase.
To write the model Physics LP, we have chosen to only focus on one topic
(Determination of the refractive index of the prism) and planned to be taught in 2
periods (see Table C1). We consulted the syllabus (Rwanda Education Board,
2015a, pp. 23-24), student textbook (Birindwa & Atwebembeire, 2016b, pp. 49-58),
and the teacher's guide (Birindwa & Atwebembeire, 2016, pp. 1-2 and 18-20).
Table C1 Scheme of work for Unit 1 Thin lenses
s/n Syllabus Student's book Teacher's guide (no of
periods)
1 Characteristics of lenses Characteristics of lenses
(pp. 4-6)
Terms used in lenses
(pp. 7-11)
Types of lenses and
their characteristics (2)
2 Types of lenses:
converging (double
convex, plan convex,
convex meniscus) and
diverging (double
concave, plano-concave,
concave meniscus)
3 Refraction of light through
lenses.
Refraction of light
through lenses (p. 12)
Properties of images
formed by lenses (pp.
13-16)
Terms used in lenses,
refraction of light by
lenses, Images formed
by lenses (2)
4 Ray drawing and
properties of images
formed by lenses for an
object located at different
positions.
Ray diagrams and
properties of images
formed
by lenses (pp. 16-19)
Ray diagrams for a
convex lens (pp. 20-23)
Ray diagrams and
images formed by lenses
(2)
5 Graphical determination
of the focal length of
lenses
Accurate construction
of ray diagrams (pp. 23-
24)
Graphical determination
of the focal length of a
convex
Lens (2)
6 Thin lens equation, Power
of lens, magnification, and
sign convention.
The thin lens formula
(pp. 24-25)
The sign convention (p.
25)
Derivation of the lens
formula (pp. 26-29)
Magnification (pp. 29-
30)
Applications of the lens
formula (pp. 30-33)
Power of the lens (p. 33)
Determination of the
focal length of the lens
(pp. 34-37)
Thin lens formula
(equation), the sign
convention (2)
Magnification, Power of
the lens (2)
Determination of focal
length of a concave lens
(2)

21
7 Lens combination and
effective focal length
Combination of lenses
(pp. 37-40)
Defects of lenses and
their corrections (pp.
40-42)
Combination of lenses,
and effective focal
length of the lens
combination (2)
8 Derivation of lenses
formulae
9 Defects and correction of
lenses
Defects of lenses and
their corrections,
refraction
through glass prisms
(Introduction and terms
associated with
refraction through the
prisms) (2)
10 Applications of combined
lenses
11 Refraction through prisms Refraction through
prisms (pp. 43-44)
12 Terms associated with the
refraction of passing
through a prism
Terms associated with
refraction through a
prism (pp. 44-45)
General formulae for
the prism (pp. 45-49)
13 Deviation of light rays by
a glass prism.
Deviation of light by a
prism (pp. 49-51)
Determination of
refractive index of the
prism;
Deviation of light by the
prism, Minimum
deviation,
Determination of
refractive index of a
material of a
glass prism using
minimum deviation (2)
14 The angle of minimum
deviation and the
determination of the
refractive index of a prism
The angle of minimum
deviation and
determination of
refractive index n of a
material of the prism
(pp. 51-53)
The angle of minimum
deviation and the
refractive index n of the
material (pp. 53-54)
Deviation of light by a
small angle prism (pp.
54-57)
Determination of
refractive index of a
material of a prism (pp.
57-58)
15 Dispersion of light by a
prism
Dispersion of light by a
prism (pp. 58-59)
Dispersion of light,
Applications of total
internal
reflection by a prism (2)
16 Applications of total
internal reflection of light
by a prism
Applications of total
internal reflection of
light by a prism (pp. 59-
60)
Use of prisms in
periscopes (pp. 60-61)
17 Problem-solving related to
combined thin lenses and
refraction of light
Exercises (pp. 62-68) Problem-solving related
to combined thin lenses
and
refraction of light (2)
The unit of thin lenses comprises 17 topics (REB, 2015a, pp. 23-24) to be completed
in 24 periods (one period is 40 minutes). Six topics are related to prism—refraction
through prisms, terms associated with the refraction of passing through a prism,
deviation of light rays by a glass prism, angle of minimum deviation and the

22
determination of the refractive index of a prism, dispersion of light by a prism,
and applications of total internal reflection of light by a prism.
Table C2 is the sample lesson plan. This is one LP (Table D1) from sampled 32
LPs. It is the one we referred to during preparing the model physics lesson plan
(Table C3).
Table C2: Sample LP

23
Note that the lesson plan we drafted is in the format recommended by the REB.
We followed their format, but the content was prepared as an example by
ourselves to support the LP under Table C2. So, the mistakes or misinformation
that may be brought by our content has no way to be attributed to REB or teacher's
LP under Table C2. However, we have validated it to the extent it can serve as a
model lesson plan to be consulted by any physics teacher for proper planning.
Our LP draft was shared with seven people. These were three URCE assistant
physics lecturers (among them one teach teaching methods in addition to
physics), one consultant who worked for the SIIQS3 project, and three master
students at ACEITLMS/URCE who were physics teachers in secondary schools
before 2019. After receiving their validation reports (five reports from five people
who responded to our request), we have considered their suggestions and input
to enrich our LP draft and provide the current model LP (see Table C3).
3
SIIQS refers to the Project for Supporting Institutionalizing and Improving the Quality of SBI
(School-Based In-service Teacher Training) Activity. This project was piloted jointly by Rwanda
Education Board (REB) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) from 2017 to 2019

24
Table C3: Model lesson plan
School name: ………X……………………….. Teacher's name: …………X……...................................................
Term Date Subject Class Unit
No
Lesson No Duration Class size
I 12 February
2019
Physics Senior 4
PCB
1 10 of 12 80 Minutes 45
Type of Special Educational Needs to be catered for in this
lesson and number of learners in each category
One student has visual impairment (short-sightedness) while ten students are
slow to understand physics concepts together with the other seven students fear
mathematical formulae
Unit title Thin lenses
Key Unit Competence By the end of this unit, the learner should be able to explain the properties of lenses and image formation by lenses
Title of the lesson Determination of refractive index of the Prism; Deviation of light by the Prism, Minimum deviation, Determination of
refractive index of a material of a glass prism using minimum deviation
Instructional Objective Through experiments using materials such as glass prism of refracting angle 60o, a sheet of paper, soft board, pins, and
pencils, ruler, and protractor; through a series of exercises; learners should be able to:
• determine the refractive index of a material of a prism correctly.
• measure the angle of deviation d accurately
• plot a graph of deviation d against the angle of incidence accurately
• clearly explain the deviation formula and minimum deviation produced by a prism and its relationship with the
refractive index
• determine the refractive index of a material of a glass prism using the minimum deviation formula easily.
Plan for this Class
(location: in / outside)
This lesson will be conducted inside the classroom
Learning Materials Glass prism, pins, white papers, soft board, pencils, ruler, protractor, calculators, notebooks
(for all learners)

25
References Physics for Rwandan secondary schools Learner's Book 4, Fountain Publishers
Timing for each step Description of teaching/learning activities
In groups, students perform experiments to determine the refractive index of the prism. The
teacher provides materials, gives instructions, and guides students while students are busy
working towards lesson objectives.
Generic competences
and
Cross-cutting issues to
be addressed
+
a short explanation
Teacher's activities
Teacher's activities Learner's activities
1. Introduction
(10 min)
Ask questions about the previous lesson:
-Describe a prism as an apparatus that refracts light
-Write and interpret the Snell's law and the angle of
the prism
Guide students in answering questions and
clarifying for better conceptual understanding.
Identify students with poor understanding (slow
learners). Make sure everyone understands before
the next lesson; otherwise, consider them in the
next lesson.
Make sure students with short-sightedness are
sitting in front.
Answer to asked questions
-In optics, a prism is a transparent material like
glass or plastic that refracts light. At least two of
the flat surfaces must have an angle of less than
90o between them. The exact angle between the
surfaces depends on the application.
-Note that given i1, r1, and i2, r2 as angles of
incidence and refraction at F and G as shown and
n is the prism refractive index, then Snell's law
holds. That is; Sin i1 = n sin r1, and Sin i2 = n sin
r2.
Angle A: This is called the refracting angle or
angle of the prism. It is the angle between the
inclined surfaces of the prism. r1 + r2 = A.
GC: Communication
skills will be developed
through answering
questions
CC: Inclusive Education
will be catered for
throughout the lesson

26
2. Development
of the lesson
(65 min)
2.1 discovery
activities (20
min)
Form groups (seven groups of 6-7 students) by
considering a mixture of both boys and girls,
smart and slow learners.
Give instructions on what they are going to do
(experiment).
Assign different experiment tasks to different
groups of students in order to keep time and call
attention.
Ask students to follow the procedures and
record findings in their notebooks. Remind them
that they have different tasks and be ready to teach
their colleagues what every group did and found.
Guide each group to achieve expected results
and monitor the experiment procedure.
Note down the difficulties that groups face and
individuals' capabilities to learn which groups
will present in the next session.
Follow instructions and form groups as
requested.
Participate actively in groups by helping
each other to perform experiments and
following the procedure referred to in
textbooks.
Experiment 1 (to be done by group 1, 4, and
7)
Determination of refractive index of a material
of a prism (activity 32, p. 57 student's book)
Experiment 2 (to be done by group 2 and 5)
Deviation of light by the prism (activity 30, p.
50 student's book)
Experiment 3 (to be done by group 3 and 6)
Minimum deviation (activity 31, p. 51 student's
book)
Ask for guidance and record data on the
notebook.
GC: Cooperation will be
developed through
working together
performing experiment
GC: Interpersonal
relations and life skills
will be developed by
supporting each other
perform experiment

27
2.2 presentation learners'
findings production
(15 min)
Make sure students respect the time and spare
time for them to share their findings.
Depending on the teacher's notes (during
monitoring experimentation), assign one of the
groups who performed experiment 1 to
present on what they did and found. It is
better to allow the group that got difficulties
in order to raise discussion in the next session.
Let the group that faced more challenges take
the first floor to present and turn those
challenges into an opportunity to better
understand concepts.
Group 1 or 4 or 7 shares what they did
related to experiment 1 in front of the
class
Group 2 or 5 shares what they did
class
Group 3 or 6 shares what they did
class
Other students follow actively and
participate in discussions by asking for
clarification.
GC: Communication skills
will be developed during
students presentation
GC: Creativity and
innovation will be
developed through
generating the ideas in
case of being challenged
2.3 exploitation findings
production (20 min)
Start the discussion by motivating the rest of
the class to challenge the presenters.
Guide discussion of students.
Give an activity for all the groups. This will
make students use what they found in the
experimentation.
Activity: Determination of refractive index of a
material of a glass prism using minimum deviation
by working out exercises as group work.
Ask clarification, and others respond
Discuss the presented findings.
Derive the relation between minimum
deviation and the refractive index of the
material:
n = 𝑆𝑖𝑛
(𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛+𝐴)
2
/𝑆𝑖𝑛
𝐴
2
GC: Cooperation and
Interpersonal relations
and life skills will be
developed through
discussion and
challenging each other
GC: Critical thinking and
problem solving will be
developed
through the derivation of
formula and solving
exercises

28
Guide the learners to derive the relation
between minimum deviation and the
refractive index of the material by specifically
encouraging students that fear mathematical
formulae.
It is better the teacher presents at least two
diagrams of the prism, the first one in the normal
way and the second one at minimum deviation so
that they explore the difference between them and
the students can measure the angles of those two
prisms and then find the conditions for minimum
deviation in addition to that the teacher must help
the students to be familiar in the derivation of 4
formulas of prism before attacking minimum
deviation.
Monitor how they use what was learned to
adapt to a new situation in solving exercises.
If possible, the teacher must clarify the presentation
of students by adding scientific information.
He/she can show a video to the students for good
exploration and clarification.
Derive the formulas and use them in the
exercises on notebooks and a chalkboard
(work through exercise on page 60 in
student's book).
GC: Lifelong learning will
be developed through
exploiting other
opportunities available to
better improve the
knowledge as well as
skills

29
2.4 conclusion/ summary
(10 min)
Call for volunteer students to sum up what
was learned.
A better way is to call some students whom you
found had some challenges.
Another way is to ask one student from groups that
did, let say, experiment 1 to talk about what he/she
learned from the work done by students who did
experiment 2 or 3.
Another better way is to ask everyone to write a
summary of today’s lesson.
Help students contextual and appreciate the
competences gained and skills got in today's
lesson.
Motivate learners to record notes.
Groups evaluate each other
Students share what they learned new in
the lesson
Propose what to do for a better
understanding.
Share the importance of today's lesson.
Share how to apply what they learned in
everyday life.
Record notes on the individual
notebook.
GC: Interpersonal
relations and life skills
will be developed through
challenging each other;
therefore, this will
promote the Development
of the higher-order
thinking skills
GC: Lifelong learning will
be developed via
contextualizing the
learned concepts
3. assessment /homework
(5 min)
Assign homework as an individual work. Record the homework in an individual
notebook.
Teacher self-evaluation The lesson was well done; about ten students still have difficulties in mathematical formulae; before the next lesson
(lesson 11: Dispersion of light), I will make corrections of homework by engaging them during the first 15 minutes.

30
©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 30-42, December 2020
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.12.2
First-Year Accounting Student Teachers’
Perceptions of their Classroom Learning
Environment
Medson Mapuya
Sol Plaatje University. Kimberley. South Africa
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7331-5113
Abstract. This study assessed the perceptions of first-year accounting
student teachers about their classroom learning environment. The study
was prompted by studies which argue that the academic performance of
students is correlated with their perceptions of the learning environment
and the context in which teaching and learning takes place. The
population for the study was first-year Accounting students at a
university of technology in South Africa. The study employed a mixed-
method approach, and data were collected from students using a
Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) which covered 42
items. The findings from the quantitative part of the study revealed that
the students view their learning environment positively. Evidence to this
effect is demonstrated by the mean obtained in the categories of the
learning environment which were all above three. The themes which
emerged from the qualitative findings also corroborated the quantitative
findings. However, the qualitative data further reveal that the students
felt far away from issues directly related to their teaching and learning.
Consequently, a more student-participative approach to the planning and
designing of instruction is recommended to mitigate the identified
challenges.
Keywords: Student teachers; Learning environment; Perceptions;
Constructivism
1. Introduction
Actually, it has been acknowledged that the performance of first-year accounting
student teacher in accounting is to some extent unsatisfactory as shown in the
results of the second semester of 2016. The average class performance in
Accounting was 51%, while it was 69% in Business Management and 67% in
Economics. This is a very low class average as compared to the other two major
subjects which form part of the programme. Furthermore, in the final exam of
2016, there were twenty-one students who sat for the re-evaluation examination
in Accounting 1 against three in Economics 1 and none in Business Management

31
1. Nationally, this problem is highlighted in the statistics provided by Masondo
and Fengu (2019), Raborife (2017) and Seepe (2005), the National Council on
Higher Education, (2013), as well as the sentiments of Mapuya (2018) and Makola
(2016). Since Accounting 1 is a compulsory module in the programme, students’
poor performance in this module has raised some concerns and thus necessitated
this study. Based on the exiting literature, it has been found that such a failure is
closely associated with learners’ perceptions and the outlooks they have towards
the learning environment. Hence, the present research paper discusses what the
literature says about the issue under investigation, and attempts to find out first-
year accounting students teachers’ perceptions about their classroom learning
environment. In this concern, the investigator put forward the following research
question:
1. How do first-year Accounting student teachers perceive their classroom
learning environment?
2. Theoretical Framework
Masondo and Fengu (2019) and Hodgson, Lam and Chow (2010) argue that first-
year students need to adjust from highly structured and supportive learning
environments in their secondary schools which promote learning dependence to
a complex learning environment at university which emphasizes autonomous
learning. To this effect, Killen (2016), Mapuya (2018), and Millet (2015) warn that
the perceptions of students about their learning environment have a significant
impact on their transition to university life and their overall development and
academic progression. Furthermore, Killen (2016) and Millet (2015) agree that the
dynamics of adjusting to the social, academic and learning environments
constitute the difference between a negative and positive experience for most first-
year students. These dynamics also influence how students ultimately perceive
the learning environment.
2.1. Meaning of a Learning Environment
The term ‘learning environment’ has been approached differently by different
researchers. To start with, it is used to refer to a few contextual aspects or elements
of the teaching and learning process (Mapuya, 2018). It refers to the social
atmosphere or climate in which teaching and learning takes place (Killen, 2016;
Rankin, 2005; Millet, 2015; Arisoy, 2007). It also denotes the physical setting of the
classroom and its social norms (Litmanen, Loyens & Lonka, 2014). Lastly, it refers
to the physical activities in the classroom, the teaching strategies used in the
teaching and learning process, the type of learning in which students are engaged
and the assessment methods used to evaluate teaching and learning (Doppelt,
Christian & Schunn, 2008; Cleveland & Fisher, 2014). These definitions offer a
more holistic and comprehensive all-inclusive view of the learning environment,
but the one put forward by Doppelt et al. (2008) and Cleveland and Fisher (2014)
is found to be more relevant and applicable to this study.

32
2.2. Benefits of Knowledge about the Learning Environment and Why it is
Necessary
The learning environment includes several elements such as social relationships,
the classroom interactions, the general approach to learning activities and the
physical attributes of the classroom that contribute to learning. It comprises what
is perceived or experienced by both the students and the lecturer and stands out
to be a learning variable which can exacerbate or mitigate academic success of
students (Abraham, Ramnarayan, Vinod, & Torke, 2008; Bakhashialiabad et al,
2015). A comprehensive description of the learning environment should
incorporate the culture within a lecture hall and its existing ethos, distinctive
features and student interactions. It should also include how the lecturer
organizes the educational environment to enhance and stimulate teaching and
student learning, the type of learning in which students are engaged and the
assessment methods used to evaluate teaching and learning (Litmanen et al., 2014;
Doppelt et al., 2008; Cleveland & Fisher, 2014). Bakhashialiabad et al. (2015)
corroborated with the view of Du toit (2018) who contended that the contextual
variables of the teaching and learning process and the psycho-social engagements
in the classroom have a significant effect on the students’ ability to learn and
achieve their goals.
Bakhashialiabad et al. (2015) provided a two-side view of the learning
environment which includes both the physical and psychological aspects to
illuminate the implications for teaching and learning. They identified the physical
domain of the learning environment which refers to variables such as facilities,
spaces, ventilation, furniture, lighting, and all the other features which influence
the students’ comfort and safety and ultimately their learning experience and
personal development. On the other hand, the psychological environment focuses
on the variables within the classroom context in terms of the social relationships
among the stakeholders in the classroom. This is also referred to as the classroom
social interactions and relationships.
Most researchers and educational psychologists who have explored the learning
environment through the socio-ecological paradigm developed by Moos (1974)
subscribe to the conclusion that the learning environment can be a powerful
indicator of academic achievement of students and their attitudes (Myint & Goh,
2001; Brown, Williams & Lynch, 2011; Penlington, Joyce, Tudor & Thompson,
2012; Arisoy, 2007; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). The
dominant view that emerged from investigations in chemistry, physics, biology
and mathematics education corroborates with the finding that the perceptions of
students regarding the climate and atmosphere in which they learn is a major
qualifier of differences in academic achievement than factors related to the
characteristics of students (McLoughlin& Luca, 2004; Abraham, Ramnarayan &
Torke, 2008; Lin, 2003; Bakhashialiabad et al., 2015; Lakhan & Ekundayo 2013).
2.3. Research on Learning Environments
Many studies have been conducted on the learning environment and how it is
related to the academic performance of the students. Among others, the
investigations by Radovan and Makovec (2015), Dahlin, Fjell & Runeson (2010),
Nel, Nel & Hugo (2010), Urdan (2004) and Bakhshialiabad, Bakhshi &

33
Hassanshahi (2015) have produced compelling evidence to argue that a significant
relationship exists between students’ perspectives of the learning environment,
and the development of their cognitive and effective domains and their overall
academic performance.
Bakhashialiabad et al. (2015) confirmed that meaningful and successful learning
is positively correlated to the students’ perceptions of the learning environment.
Penlingthon, Joyce, Tudor and Thompson (2012) indicated that studies on
learning environments have connected the perceptions of students about their
learning environment to their quality of learning. In other terms, students tend to
learn much better and more efficiently when they have some positive perceptions
of their learning environment. Rakici (2004) claimed that the students’ attitudes
towards teaching and learning activities are directly associated with their
perceptions of the learning environment in their classrooms.
Den Brok (2006) and Arisoy (2007) added that gender is a significant factor that
consistently influenced the students’ perceptions of the learning environment,
irrespective of the interest in the learning environment. Rakici (2004) and Den
Brok (2006) revealed that girls rated their learning environment and the teacher’s
interpersonal behaviour more favourably than their male counterparts. The girls
who participated in an investigation by Arisoy (2007) showed positive
perceptions that are superior to those of boys. However, they were also more
motivated to learn than the boys. These claims were later reinforced by Brown,
Williams and Lynch (2011) whose findings demonstrated that female students
indicated a more positive perception of the learning environment than males. It
was also found that the students viewed the learning environment of male
educators as more cooperative than that of female educators. Also, male educators
were also rated as being stricter in the classrooms than female educators.
With regard to the above said, Arisoy, (2007) and Rakici (2004) suggested that
Moos (1974) developed the socio-ecological approach to illustrate the influence
the environment has on the perspectives of individuals who occupy it and how it
can be modified to improve their quality of life. As observed by Lakhan &
Ekundayo (2013), Moos (1974) argued that the psychosocial environment has
three central dimensions that focus on the majority of settings in which people
find themselves in their daily lives, namely: a relationship dimension, a personal
development dimension, and systems maintenance and systems change
dimension.
2.4. The Relationship Dimension
Rodavan & Makovec (2015) and Lakhan &Ekundayo, (2013) asserted that the
relationship dimension assesses and evaluates the degree to which students are
involved in the learning environment. It considers the extent to which students
assist and support each other to promote their education. In the same line of
thought, Rakici (2004) contends that the relationship dimension is concerned with
the nature and type of interactions and relationships between the people who
occupy a given environment. Rodavan & Makovec (2015) further note that this
dimension emphasizes the nature, quality and power of personal relations in any

34
given context. These relations can either be negative or positive, depending on the
effect they have on both the students and the lecturer. Den Brok, (2006) agreed
with Lakhan & Ekundayo, (2013) in which the elements which Moos (1974)
included in this category evaluate and examine the types and levels of personal
relationships among the students in the classroom.
2.5. The Personal Development Dimension
The personal development dimension evaluates and analyses the degree to which
the learning environment creates and offers students opportunities to develop
their self-esteem and self-enhancement. It covers all the aspects through which the
learning environment encourages the growth, development and promotion of
students. Lakhan & Ekundayo, (2013) suggested that at the university, this
dimension includes competition, academic success and task orientation. Rakici
(2004) complemented and added that under this dimension, self-discovery, anger
aggression and personal status are also important qualifiers. Lakhan & Ekundayo,
(2013) subscribed to an earlier view of autonomy by Allegrante, Hanson, Sleet &
Marks (2010), in which they agreed that autonomy assesses the degree to which
students are encouraged to be independent and self-sufficient scholars. This view
of autonomy is consistent with a social constructivist oriented teaching and
learning approach. It is also in harmony with the graduate attributes envisaged
by the Central University of Technology (CUT), Free State and some of the
educational imperatives of the National Curriculum Statement (Grades R - 12),
and the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (2015). Moos (1974) identified
the variable of autonomy under the personal development dimension to be
particularly prevalent and important in universities.
The practical orientation of the personal development dimension looks at the
degree to which the learning programme prepares and orients students towards
training for employment, focusing on the future and working towards the
achievement of concrete goals (Den Brok, 2006). This is also consistent with the
CUT graduate attributes and the educational goals and objectives pronounced in
the National Curriculum Statement (Grades R - 12) and the Curriculum
Assessment Policy Statement (2015). All schools and universities continuously
strive to realize and achieve the practical orientation of the learning environment.
Arisoy (2007) and Lakhan & Ekundayo, (2013) pointed out that the personal
problem orientation element of the personal development dimension evaluates
the extent to which students are encouraged to be conscious of their feelings and
problems and make attempts to understand them. This is an important element
of the learning environment, especially in light of the complex and diverse nature
of the various problems encountered by first-year students in universities as
identified by Pieterse, (2015), Makola (2016), Bojuwoye, (2002) and Bitzer, (2003).
2.6. The Systems Maintenance and System Change Dimension
The third dimension of the environment as propounded by Moos (1974) is the
systems maintenance and system change dimension. This dimension
encompasses components such as organization, order, clarity in expectations of
both the students and the lecturer and control of the environment and physical
comfort. Rakici (2004) further noted that it also includes innovation of the learning
environment at the university and that student influence is a variable which is

35
related to system change at universities. Radovan and Makovec (2015) added that
the system maintenance and system change dimension refers to the rules, the
surveillance mechanisms, the ability and manner in which the system responds to
changes. These changes can be in terms of learning needs and the overall
strategies used to implement into the curriculum. They are reflected and shown
in the differentiation of lessons, how clear the classroom rules and instructions are
and how differences in terms of thinking are accepted in the classroom. This
further affirms the need to create classroom learning environments which
embrace students’ diversity and always keep pace with their individual needs.
With reference to the above said, the relationship, personal development and
systems maintenance and change dimensions of the learning environment
directly affect how students perceive that specific environment, their learning
experience and ultimately their academic success (Bakhashialiabad et al, 2015;
Brown et al., 2011; Penlingthon et al., 2012). In this regard, specific reference must
be made to Bakhashialiabad et al. (2015) who hypothesized that the contextual
variables and realities of the teaching and learning process point to the efficiency
of the education process.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Design
An exploratory mixed-methods research design was used in this study. It was
indeed found to be compatible and consistent with the theoretical framework of
the study and the set research question. This method also enabled the researcher
to collect both quantitative and qualitative data which were required to answer
the research question. As advanced by Creswell (2013), combining both
quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study results in a comprehensive
understanding of the problem being investigated than can be achieved by either
method alone.
3.2. Participants
The participants of this study were 112 first-year Accounting students at a
University of Technology in South Africa.
3.3. Research Instruments
A constructivist learning environment questionnaire was used to collect data from
the respondents. The administration of this questionnaire also enabled the
researcher to measure how first-year accounting student teachers perceived their
teaching and learning context through the use of a five-point Likert-type scale.
Quantitative data were obtained from the ratings given by the students to each of
the 42 statements posed to them while qualitative data were gathered from the
open-ended section of the constructivist learning environment questionnaire.
This research instrument was adapted to be used in this study because its
developers have tested it for reliability and validity, and therefore the researcher
wanted to test its applicability to university students in South Africa. Although it
was initially developed and intended for secondary school students, it was found
to be useful and relevant to first-year students because there is a small gap in
terms of transition between them and the secondary school students (Aldridge,

36
Fraser, Bell & Dorman, 2012). It was also used by Walker and Fraser (2005) and
Aldridge, Fraser, Bell and Dorman (2012) in various investigations which also
sought to obtain the perceptions of students about their learning environments
and learning experiences.
3.4. Data Collection Procedure and Analysis
The questionnaires were administered by the researcher in person. To guarantee
a 100% return rate for the questionnaires, the researcher and the students
unanimously agreed that the questionnaires would be completed in class during
a free double period. The students handed in the questionnaires immediately after
completion. As noted by Creswell (2012), the first step in processing data from
Section B of the questionnaires used in this study was editing. The editing of the
questionnaires comprises of three main checks, namely completeness, accuracy
and uniformity. To ensure that every question was answered, the researcher
conducted a completeness check. On the other hand, to determine whether all
questions had been answered as accurately as possible, an accuracy check was
carried out. A uniformity check was meant to establish the extent to which all the
students have interpreted the questions and instructions in a similar way (Cohen,
Manion & Morrison, 2013).
The responses to the open-ended section of the questionnaires were coded before
being assigned unique codes for further analysis. Babbie (2013) notes that this
coding process requires the researcher to provide interpretations of responses, a
requirement which can lead to misinterpretation and researcher bias (Manion &
Morrison, 2013). Measures of central tendency and descriptive statistics
(McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Terre Blanche et al., 2011; Johnson & Christensen,
2014) were used to analyze and describe the students’ ratings of the various
statements that were presented to them
4. Findings
The study findings are presented on the complete questionnaire used in the study.
However, when discussing the findings, reference will only be made to findings
on learning to learn (shared control) and learning to communicate (student
negotiation). These are the sections of the questionnaire which directly address
the research question posed in the study.
Table 1. Presentation of students’ ratings of 42 statements
Statements Mean Standard
Deviation
A. LEARNING ABOUT THE WORLD (Real Life,
Personal Voice)
In this class
1 I learn about the world outside of school. 4.21 0.75
2 My learning starts with problems about the world outside
of school.
3.62 1.19
3 I learn how Accounting can be part of my out-of-school
life.
4.32 0.83

37
4 I get a better understanding of the world outside of
school.
4.07 0.98
5 I learn interesting things about the world outside of
school.
3.91 1.02
6 What I learn has nothing to do with my out-of-school
life.
2.48 1.40
B. LEARNING ABOUT ACCOUNTING (Uncertainty)
In this class
7 I learn that Accounting cannot provide perfect answers to
problems.
3.14 1.42
8 I learn that Accounting has changed over time. 3.58 1.30
9 I learn that Accounting is influenced by people's values
and opinions
3.42 1.37
10 I learn about the different Accounting concepts used by
people in other cultures.
3.63 1.33
11 I learn that modern Accounting is different from the
Accounting of long ago.
3.58 1.44
12 I learn that Accounting is about inventing theories. 3.38 1.36
C. LEARNING TO SPEAK OUT( Critical voice)
In this class
13 It is acceptable to ask the teacher "Why do we have to learn
this?"
4.24 1.15
14 It is acceptable to question the way I am being taught. 4.27 0.98
15 It is acceptable to complain about activities that are
confusing.
4.34 1.03
16 It is acceptable to complain about anything that prevents
me from learning.
4.46 0.87
17 It is acceptable to express my opinion. 4.63 0.74
18 It is acceptable to speak up for my rights. 4.32 1.08
D. LEARNING TO LEARN (Shared control)
In this class
19 I help the lecturer plan what I am going to learn. 2.74 1.33
20 I help the lecturer decide how well I am learning. 2.77 1.28
21 I help the lecturer decide which activities are best for me. 2.60 1.38
22 I help the lecturer decide how much time I spend on
activities.
2.62 1.40
23 I help the lecturer decide which activities I do. 2.36 1.29
24 I help the lecturer assess my learning. 2.94 1.50
E. LEARNING TO COMMUNICATE (Student
negotiation)
In this class
25 I get the chance to talk to other students. 4.43 0.84
26 I talk with other students about how to solve problems. 4.47 0.84
27 I explain my ideas to other students. 4.21 0.93
28 I ask other students to explain their ideas. 4.31 0.89
29 Other students ask me to explain my ideas. 4.08 0.97
30 Other students explain their ideas to me. 4.22 0.93
F. ATTITUDE IN LEARNING ACCOUNTING
(Commitment)
In this class
31 I am interested in Accounting lessons. 4.98 0.19

IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 12 December 2020

IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 12 December 2020

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 12 December 2020

Similaire à IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 12 December 2020 (20)

Plus de ijlterorg

Plus de ijlterorg (13)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 12 December 2020