danjuma.pdf · iv certification i, ombugus, danjuma abundaga, a post graduate student of the...
TRANSCRIPT
Odimba Rita
Department of
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION
SKILL
ASSESSING STUDE
Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s
DN : CN = Weabmaster’s name
O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka
OU = Innovation Centre
Odimba Rita
Faculty of Education
Department of Vocational Teacher Education
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF WORKSHOP-BASED PROCESS
SKILL TESTS IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CRAFT FOR
ASSESSING STUDENTS IN TECHNICAL COLLEGES IN NA
STATE, NIGERIA.
OMBUGUS, DANJUMA ABUNDAGA
PG/Ph.D/08/49503
i
: Content manager’s Name
Weabmaster’s name
a, Nsukka
Vocational Teacher Education
BASED PROCESS
IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CRAFT FOR
NTS IN TECHNICAL COLLEGES IN NASARAWA
ABUNDAGA
ii
TITLE PAGE
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF WORKSHOP-BASED PROCESS SKILL TESTS
IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CRAFT FOR ASSESSING STUDENTS IN
TECHNICAL COLLEGES IN NASARAWA STATE, NIGERIA.
By
OMBUGUS, DANJUMA ABUNDAGA
PG/Ph.D/08/49503
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL TEACHER
EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA IN FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE
IN INDUSTRIAL TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
December, 2013
iii
APPROVAL PAGE
THIS THESIS HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL
TEACHER EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
By
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
DR. T.C. OGBUANYA INTERNAL EXAMINER
SUPERVISOR
----------------------------------- ---------------------------------- EXTERNAL EXAMINER PROF. C.A. IGBO
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
------------------------------------------
Prof. S.C.I. IFAUNNE
Dean, Faculty of Education
iv
CERTIFICATION
I, OMBUGUS, DANJUMA ABUNDAGA, a post graduate student of the Department of
Vocational Teacher Education, with registration number PG/Ph.D/08/49503, has satisfactorily
completed the requirements for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Industrial
Technical Education. The work embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in
part or in full for any degree of this or any other University.
------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
DR. T.C. OGBUANYA OMBUGUS D.A.
SUPERVISOR STUDENT
v
DEDICATION
To my late parents -grandfather Ombugudaga Adigizi Ogulu, mother-Angbalege Abuntah
Ombugudaga and father, Abuntah Ombugudaga
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researcher wishes to express gratitude to his supervisor, Dr. T.C. Ogbuanya, for her
motherly guidance and constructive academic criticisms through out the period of this study.
Special appreciation goes to Professor S. O. Olaitan for providing some literature materials and
offering advice at various stages of the work. Equally appreciated are: Professors C.A. Igbo,
E.O. Ede, K.O. Usman and Doctors, E.O. Aneale, F.M. Onu, F.O. Ifeanyieze, and others for
their contributions and criticisms which helped to add quality to this work.
The researcher appreciated the inputs of Mr. Peter Anidiobi, the head of metal workshop
in Energy Centre, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and metal work teachers of Government
Technical Colleges, Assakio, Nassarawa State and Bukuru, Plateau State, for their contributions
to the process of gathering information for the study.
The researcher acknowledges the support of Mrs V.T. Monde, College of Education,
Akwanga, Engr. D. Angba, PHCN corporate Head quarters, Abuja and the Management of
College of Education, Akwanga for their support and advice. He is sincerely grateful to his
beloved wife Mrs Sarah D. Ombugus and children-Akolo Caleb and Wazi Dorothy for their
support, patience and understanding during the period of the study.
Finally, the researcher is grateful to God for giving him the opportunity to run the
programme.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL PAGE ii
CERTIFICATION iii
DEDICATION iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
ABSTRACT xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 9
Significance of the Study 10
Research Questions 11
Hypotheses 11
Scope of the Study 11
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Conceptual Framework 13
Test item validity and reliability 13
Technical College Education in Nigeria 22
Mechanical engineering craft 24
Process and Product Assessment 28
Assessment Procedures in Mechanical Engineering Craft 30
Workshop-based process skill test 34
Methods of Developing Process Skill Tests Items 35
Methods and Techniques of Assessing Skills in Vocational and
Technical Education 39
Rating Systems and Scales 43
Simpson Psychomotor Model 52
Theoretical Framework 56
Classical Test Theory 57
Item Response Theory 57
-2
viii
Classification Theories of Psychomotor Domain 61
Review of Related Empirical Studies 65
Summary of Review Related Literature 75
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Design of the Study 77
Area of the Study 77
Population for the Study 77
Instrumentation 78
Validation of the Instrument 79
Reliability of the Instrument 79
Method of Administering the Instrument 80
Method of Data Analysis 80
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Research Question 1 82
Research Question 2 83
Research Question 3 85
Research Question 4 86
Hypothesis 1 86
Hypothesis 2 88
Hypothesis 3 89
Findings of the Study 90
Discussion of Findings 101
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Restatement of the Problem 104
Purpose of the Study 104
Summary of the Procedures Used 105
Major findings of the Study 105
Implication of the Study 106
Conclusions 107
Recommendations for Implementation 107
Limitations 108
Suggestions for further Research 108
References 109
APPENDICES:
Appendix A NABTEB Marking Scheme Check List 120
ix
Appendix B Population Distribution of Teachers and Technicians 121
Appendix C Table of specification used for developing workshop-based
Process skill test items in Mechanical Engineering
Craft for NTC Students 122
Appendix D National Technical Certificate (NTC) Curriculum and
Module Specification in Mechanical Engineering Craft. 123
Appendix E Draft Copy of Workshop Based Process Skill Test in
Mechanical Engineering Craft 152
Appendix F Summary of Validates Comments 158
Appendix G1 Factor Analysis Results 159
Appendix G2 Discarded Skill Items after factor Analysis 169
Appendix H Final Copy of WBPST 170
Appendix I1 Distribution of 25 students into ability groups obtained
from the administration of 3 tasks, one each from
grinding, drilling and fitting operation. 176
Appendix I2 The 3 tasks and their corresponding process skill items
utilized to determine ability groups. 177
Appendix J1 Results of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 178
Appendix J2 Result of Post Hoc Test 195
Appendix K Results of Kendall Coefficient analysis 198
Appendix L Operational Guidance for using the workshop based process
Skill tests 200
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
1 Summary of the outcome of factor analysis 82
2 Validated task and skill items in grinding, drilling and fitting operation 84
3. Reliability estimate (Cronbach Alpha) for skill items in Mechanical
Engineering craft operations of WBPST 85
4. Summary of data utilized for analysis of hypothesis one 87
5. Summary of data utilized for analysis of hypothesis two 88
6. Summary of data utilized for analysis of hypothesis three 89
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
1 Schema (Conceptual Framework) 56
2 Item Characteristic Curves 60
xii
Abstract
The study focused on the development and validation of workshop-based process skill tests
items for students in mechanical engineering craft in technical colleges. The study adopted the
instrumentation design and was carried out in Nasarawa State. The population for the study was
25 mechanical craft NTC III students. The mechanical craft NTC III students comprised three
ability groups (8 high, 12 average and 5 low abilities). A 315 draft copy of workshop-based
process skill items were developed and utilized by the study. The instrument was subjected to
face, content, criterion- referenced and factorial analysis validation. Face validation was carried
out by five experts in the faculty of Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. The content
validation was carried out using a table of specification constructed based on the Simpson’s
(1972) model of psychomotor domain by three subject matter experts in the area of grinding,
drilling and fitting operations and there after 36 teachers and 14 technicians from 4 technical
colleges offering Mechanical Engineering Craft were used for item-by-item content validation.
The draft test was subjected to factorial analysis where ten skill items (2, 3, and 5 from grinding,
drilling and fitting operations) were discarded. Based on the results of the validation processes,
workshop-based process skill tests (WBPST) of 40 workshop-based tasks and 305 process skills
were developed. The developed workshop-based process skill tests items were used in assessing
25 NTC students in the Department of Mechanical Engineering Craft, Government Technical
college, Assakio, during 2012/13 academic session. Five teachers of mechanical engineering
craft were used as assessors for observing and assessing the students as they carry out given
tasks within the tests during the try-out. The data generated were analysed using Cronbach
alpha, Kendall coefficient of concordance and Post Hoc Test. The results of the data analyzed
relating to reliability of the WBPST revealed coefficients of 0.71 for grinding operation, 0.82 for
drilling operation, and 0.83 for fitting operation with the overall coefficient of 0.79. The
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to test the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance.
It was found out that there were significant difference in the mean scores of the three ability
groups (high ability, average ability and low ability). Scheffe test for multiple comparison
revealed that there were significant difference in the mean scores of the high and low abilities,
but no significant difference in the mean scores of the high and average abilities. The inter-rater
reliability coefficient of the workshop-based process skill tests was 0.57 and there was
significant relationship between five raters’ ratings of the process skills of some NTC students in
the test. It was therefore recommended that external examination bodies (NABTEB and WAEC)
should adopt the workshop-based process skill tests items in their examination for certification
of the students. It was also recommended that teachers should be encouraged by Government to
make use of workshop-based process skill tests items during teaching and assessing productive
learning aspect of mechanical engineering craft in students.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Mechanical Engineering Craft is one of the programmes in technical colleges, in which
students are examined by the National Business and Technical Examination Board (NABTEB)
for the award of National Technical Certificate (NTC). The National Board for Technical
Education (NBTE), (2003) defined Mechanical Engineering Craft as the application of skills to
produce, repair and maintain metal articles for man’s use. The programme is capable of being
utilized on its own as a foundation knowledge for more advanced work in the same field of
study. According to NBTE (2003), Mechanical Engineering Craft consists of the following
modules: general metal work I; general metal work II, general fitting; turning; milling; shaping;
drilling and grinding. The Board emphasized that the programme when successfully completed
can be used for employment purpose. According to Winden (1990) Mechanical Engineering
Craft means preparing metal parts by changing the shape, size and surface finish of metals.
Mechanical engineering craft therefore is a programme among others, that involves skills to
produce, assemble, and fit engineering components together. Sawing, filing, scraping, grinding,
drilling, shaping or fittings are necessary to produce most household metal products.
In Oranu (2003), mechanical engineering craft involves making of individual parts from
plate or bar material by the removal of metal, marking- out, drilling, turning, milling, tapping,
grinding and assembling operations. The mechanical craftsman may be primarily engaged in the
adjustment and assemble of manufactured in the machine shop. Mechanical engineering craft is
a programme of study involving operations in drilling, shaping, grinding, chipping, fitting,
measuring, assemble, heat treatment, scraping, turning, soldering and tapping to produce and
repair valuable metal articles. National Board for Technical Education (2003) specified the
following as objectives of Mechanical Engineering Craft: To stimulate and sustain students
interest in mechanical engineering craft; to enable students acquire useful knowledge and
practical skills in Mechanical Engineering Craft; to prepare students for further learning in
mechanical engineering craft and to prepare students for occupations in Mechanical Engineering
Craft. The achievement of these objectives in technical colleges in Nassarawa State could be
determined using valid measuring instruments through the curriculum.
The curriculum of a programme in Olaitan (2003) refers to all the planned experiences
provided by the school to assist the learners in attaining the designated learning objectives. The
author further explained that the curriculum of a programme also means its course content.
Alawa, Abanyam and Okeme, (2010), defined the curriculum of a programme as a structured
series of intended learning experiences through which educational institutions endeavour to
1
2
realize the hopes of the society. The authors explained curriculum of a programme as an
organized body of knowledge presented to the students/learners in a school. Curriculum is
therefore viewed as the total contents in mechanical engineering craft to be learnt by students
throughout their three years at the technical college with the basic entry knowledge from the
Junior Secondary School. The Mechanical Engineering Craft curriculum at the NTC III level is
designed with psychomotor objectives to prepare students with skills for sustainable
employment at graduation. The only way to ensure that these objectives are being achieved is to
assess the students. Students according to Audu (2008) are some persons undergoing a course of
study in any learning environment. In this study students are learners that are at the third year of
a three year course of study in Mechanical Engineering Craft and other subjects in technical
colleges in Nassarawa State. In Mechanical Engineering Craft, three ability groups of students
(High, Average and Low) exist in technical colleges. Ability level/group means the mental or
physical power that enables person to achieve or accomplish something. The extent to which
students differ in their ability levels demand development of relevant instrument for assessment.
Assessment in Nwachukwu (2006), is the consideration and judgement of students’ skills
competence. In Okoro (2008) assessment is a form of evaluation that uses collected data for
estimating the work, quality or effectiveness of a programme or project. Okoro stressed that in
technical education assessment is the process of calculating or estimating the extend of skills the
students have acquired. Assessment could be of an individual learner, class, workshop, the
school or the educational system as a whole. In this study, assessment refers to a process of
determining the performance of a student’s skills by asking the student to perform tasks that
require those skills. Skills according to Ogbuanya (2010) are the abilities in carrying out a task.
Merger in Olaitan and Ali (1997) defined task as logically related set of action required for
completion of a job objective. In the context of this study, task referred to a piece of work that
must be performed in the total business or industry in order for it to be successful. The
mechanical engineering craft curriculum emphasized tasks and skills that students are expected
to acquire in grinding, drilling and fitting operations. Each of these operations has tasks that are
performed through a sequence of practical activities or skills inconsonance with the objectives.
The objectives of mechanical engineering craft are in three domains, the Cognitive,
Affective and the Psychomotor. The cognitive domain is presently being favoured by
NABTEB, and teachers as observed in their structure of product assessment method called
marking scheme check list (Appendix A, p120). In Okoro (2002) objective one of Mechanical
Engineering Craft, to stimulate and sustain students’ interest in Mechanical Engineering Craft is
measurable through Krathwohl, and Masia taxonomy of affective domain. In the psychomotor
domain are objectives two and four as stated earlier are measurable through Simpson’s
3
taxonomy classified into: Perception, Set, Guided response, Complex overt response,
Mechanism, Adaptation and Origination, Simpson in Olaitan (2003). According to Ogwo and
Oranu (2006), a combination of these three domains – cognitive, affective and psychomotor in
any assessment instrument would reveal observable results for the achievement of the entire
objectives of Mechanical Engineering Craft. This could improve students’ interest in mechanical
engineering craft occupations and careers. For a competence -based vocational education
programme like the mechanical engineering craft, Williams (2009) noted that individual
manipulative skills need assessment with appropriate test.
Test, in the opinion of Enyi (2009) are statements or activities that are presented to
students that will stimulate them to respond or act, while the teacher use a rating scale to
determine the level of response or action of the students whether satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
Williams (2009) stated that the test indictors are signs or activities that show whether the
students’ performance is satisfactory or not satisfactory. In a similar view, Nwabueze (2009)
defined a test as a means for measuring the achievement of students or procedures developed for
measuring the rate of progress in students. A test therefore refers to the process of assessing
student’s skills by observing the student in performing tasks with a five point rating scale in
grinding, drilling and fitting operations in mechanical engineering craft in technical colleges
making use of Simpson’s taxonomy of psychomotor domain. Simpson’s taxonomy is classified
into seven stages through which learners’ skill acquisition can be assessed. Simpson’s (1972)
psychomotor domain model was developed on the concept of skill and it emphasizes the fact
that an individual when learning a skill for the first time goes through the seven stages, one after
the other until mastery of the skill is attained. In this study, the process skill rating was found
useful in the development of the test in the area of psycho-motor skills identified in the three
areas of the curriculum covered because it is adoptable to Simpson’s level of taxonomy.
Ezeji (2004) noted that test with process skill rating is an appropriate procedure for
finding out the extent to which vocational and technical education has attained its stated
objectives. In the same vein, Bukar (2006) stated that any evaluation instrument with process
rating is suitable for assessing skills possessed by students in vocational and technology
education. Similarly, Effiong (2006), Amuka (2002), Fatunsin (1996) and Igbo (1997) stressed
the need for observing and rating of step-by-step procedures in assessing manipulative skills in
vocational and technology education programmes. Oranu (2000) explained that the most
appropriate test for assessing technical education students for psychomotor skills is test of
competence on the skills they have acquired. Unfortunately, instruments for assessing
psychomotor skills in education are very few (Oranu 2000). The reason is that most teachers in
vocational/technical education lack the knowledge and skill in instrument development. This
4
lapse will not augur well for technical education programme like Mechanical Engineering Craft.
Valid and reliable assessment instruments have not been developed in Mechanical Engineering
Craft. Therefore rating the process skill might be more rewarding through a workshop-based
process skill test (WBPST).
Workshop-based process skill test connote the presentation of step-by-step practical
activities to be executed by the learner in a workshop. A workshop, according to Ogbuanya
(2011) is a unique learning room housing tools or machinery for testing, constructing, making or
repairing articles. The researcher viewed a workshop as a building housing tools or machinery
where action learning or practical activities take place. Workshop based process skill test, in the
view of Crowder (2010) is a systematic procedure to ascertain the level to which students have
achieve the set of capabilities specified in a curriculum. The National Teachers Institute (NTI),
(2011) conceived workshop based process skill test as a device of determining the extent
students can demonstrate observable skills taught and to perform them under conditions similar
to working condition of the trade. In addition, Inyiagu (2009) viewed workshop-based process
skill test as step-by-step activities necessary to determine candidate level of performance and to
ascertain the possible skill gained after exposure to practical exercise. Workshop-based process
skill test is then a device for determining the extent to which students can demonstrate the
practical competencies of mechanical engineering craft using rating while the student is
performing the process skills involved.
Process skills, according to the National Volunteer Skill Centre (NVSC), (2011) are
organized and co-ordinated forms of physically observable activities exhibited in carrying out
tasks in vocational and technology education. Elijah, (2006) defined process skills as the
procedures adopted for performing tasks with high level of accuracy. That is, process skill is the
step-by-step of performing activities in a manner acceptable by metalwork craftsmen. This step-
by-step activities of making, repairing and maintaining metal articles could be achieved through
workshop-based process skill test and acquired through observation, practice and training in
technical colleges.
Specifically, technical college is designed to prepare individuals to acquire manipulative
skills, basic scientific knowledge and attitude required of a craftsman and technician at sub-
professional level. In the view of Ikpe (2009), technical college is an institution where
vocational training intended to equip students with skills for entry into various occupations is
given. For example, craftsmen in fitting and machining; Tool and Die Making; Instrument
Making, Auto-Mechanics among others are trained in technical colleges. Earlier, Okorie (2001)
defined technical college as an institution where courses classified into engineering and
construction trades are offered. Engineering trades are kind of works involved in designing and
5
making machinery, electrical devices among others. The vocational education programmes
offered in technical colleges are equivalent to senior secondary education programme. On
completion of the course of training in technical college, graduates obtain work in industries or
establish businesses of their own. Relevant tests items for assessing the skills acquired by
graduates become necessary, hence the need for workshop based process skill test items.
Workshop-based process skill test items, according to Olaitan and Ali (1997) involves
the following activities: Identification of what to test in terms of areas or topics (skills in
grinding, fitting and drilling); specification of the skill elements in the topics, (in the direction of
Simpson’s levels of the psychomotor domain); arrangement of these elements in a logical
sequence representing order of performances, (in order of Simpson’s complex overt response
level); clarification of ideas or elements that may be confusing, deciding on the elements to be
involved in the action (table of specification); deciding on the skill items in the group to test
students understanding and mastery of the logical and procedure. Workshop-based process skill
test items developed through the steps above could help to elicit the mastery of skills of students
in mechanical engineering craft. For effective assessment, the workshop based process skill test
items should be valid.
Validity of an instrument, according to Nwabueze (2009) is the degree to which a test
measures what it is designed or made to measure. An instrument with high validity will measure
accurately the particular qualities it is supposed to measure. In the views of Ali, Olaitan, Eyo
and Swande (2000), validity of a measuring instrument is the property of a measure that helps to
ensure that the instrument measures what it suppose to measure. In other words, the validity of
workshop-based process skill test is the extent to which the students intended practical
competencies outlined in the curriculum are covered by the test items. Enyi (2009) classified
four types of validity, Face (Logical), content (Domain), construct and criterion–referenced
(concurrent and predictive) validity. Face, content and criterion referenced validity were utilized
in this study.
Face validity in the view of Ukonze (2010) is the degree to which the items in the test
appear to measure what it ought to be measuring. Anyaokoha (2009) stated that a test is said to
have face validity if it looks like going to measure what it is made to measure. Face validity is
the extent to which the items in the workshop based process skill test appear to measure the
process skills in the course content of mechanical engineering craft in technical colleges.
According to Akujo and George (2010), content validity of a test is its ability to measure
the subject matter content in relation to the instructional objectives. Akwaji (2006) stated that
the content validity of a test is when the items of the test are representative of a universe of items
that is comprehensive enough to represent the presumed objectives of the curriculum. Earlier,
6
Nwachukwu (2001) viewed content validity of a test as the measure of the degree to which the
test items represent the domain or property being measured. Content validity is therefore the
extent to which the items in the workshop based process skill test measures the instructional
objectives of mechanical engineering craft in the area of grinding, drilling and fitting operations.
Enyi (2009) defined criterion-reference validity as the demonstration of the accuracy of a
measuring procedure by comparing it with another procedure which has been demonstrated to be
valid. In this study, criterion-referenced validity refers to the extent to which the items in the
workshop-based process skill test represent the level of which the performance of students in the
field or work place can be judged as acceptable and sustainable. Test used for assessing students
should be valid and reliable.
Reliability of a measuring instrument in Ofuebe and Izueke (2011), is the ability of the
instrument to measure consistently the phenomenon it is designed to measure. Reliability
therefore means the consistency with which an instrument measures whatever it measures. The
use of valid and reliable workshop based process skill test for assessing NTC students in
mechanical engineering craft will ensure that students are taught the proper way of carrying out
tasks. In technical colleges, assessment of students’ learning in relation to the achievement of
the objectives of mechanical engineering craft is carried out after classroom instructions by the
teachers and NABTEB at the final examination using marking scheme checklist.
Odu (2001) observed that the assessment instrument used by NABTEB only help to
determine students’ achievement of two out of the four objectives of mechanical engineering
craft, which are in cognitive and affective domains. There are negligible observable results for
the achievement of two objectives, - To enable students acquire useful knowledge and practical
skills in Mechanical Engineering Craft and, - To prepare students for occupation in Mechanical
Engineering Craft, which are in the area of psychomotor domain. Bodams (2007), observed that
mechanical engineering craft practical examination conducted by NABTEB and teachers are
mainly rating products and not skills manipulation. In the same vein, Yalams (2001), stated that
marks are awarded based on mere looking and rating the end results of students activities with
little attention to the processes of the production. Okoro (2002) considered this approach,
subjective and prone to abuse by the evaluators and even the students. American Association of
Vocational Instructional Materials (2000) at other times, it is far better in terms of objectivity
and time to evaluate the finished product to see whether the student has achieved the skills.
To determine whether a student has achieved a desired skill, one may look at the process
student went through, the final product that the student produced or perhaps both sometimes,
following the correct process is all important. Product rating in Okoro (2002), has limitations:
students can get assistance outside to produce-products presented for assessment. Safety hazard
7
and correct use of tools/equipment by students cannot be assessed. Time spent in constructing or
repairing product or number of mistakes made in the process are not considered. These
limitations probably prevented skill development of students. The workshop based process skill
test items whose psychometric properties (validity and reliability) are determined through ability
groups of students can over come these limitations. It enables the teacher to assess directly the
quality of performance of the students. According to Odu (2001) process assessment involves
observation and grading of the learners in the entire task skills or step-by-step followed as
students perform the given tasks. Product assessment in Agu (2004) is ineffective in revealing
actual amount of skills possessed by students. The best way to assess skills in technical college
should be based on step-by-step of performing tasks, the author added. Both Odu (2001) and
Agu (2004) emphasized that, with process rating assessment, certain attributes of the learners
such as the ability to complete task at given time, safety practices, the skills/competencies and
procedures in the use and care of tools and equipment could be systematically observed
objectively and comprehensively assessed.
In assessing the process that the student followed, the assessment device needed is
usually the rating scale, best in case of assessing the quality of performance is the criteria used.
A rating scale therefore helps the assessor to discriminate between a group of students. This is a
useful assessment to be used for placement of the students. If the learners are to have any sense
of accomplishment in vocational education, and to be able to acquire necessary skills in
mechanical engineering craft, proper monitoring and assessment must form an integral part of
the teaching/learning processes. A very important criteria for objective and reliable assessment
suggested by both Ezeji (1986), and Nworgu (2006) is to construct and use a well-designed and
validated assessment tool. This will ensure that the actual performance by the learners rather
than their personality or attitudes as may be perceived by assessors. Without physical
observation, teachers will be generating and working with unreliable data which will mislead
both the students and their parents. This situation is liable to adversely affect the students true
performance records in mechanical engineering craft. In the same vein, Odu (2001) wrote thus;
“since process assessment is subject to a number of different types of error, a well constructed
rating scale, accompanied by explicit instructions of what qualities to look for, usually results in
higher reliability than product assessment made without the merits of such a scale.”
Grinding, drilling and fitting operations in the technical college curriculum involves skills
required in accomplishing given tasks, such as mounting grinding wheel in machine spindle,
sharpening cutting tool with grinding wheel, drilling a hole in a metal plate, reaming a hole in a
metal, sawing a metal bar, bending a metal rod, filing a metal piece flat, among others.
8
The students will perform these tasks using tools and necessary equipment while the raters
(teachers) will assess their performance based on the instrument developed. A valid and reliable
instrument for assessing the psycho-performance of students in mechanical engineering tasks is
therefore of paramount importance. But a review of related research has revealed no studies that
dealt specifically on the development and validation of instrument for assessing Mechanical
Engineering Craft operations in technical colleges.
Statement of the Problem
In technical colleges in Nassarawa State, like other states in Nigeria, NABTEB has been
accorded the responsibility of assessing the performance of students in mechanical engineering
craft. The examining body has been using product evaluation technique in form of Marking
Scheme Checklist. This is done at the expense of judging the production process of students
through workshop based process skills. The structure of NABTEB Marking Scheme Checklist
seems to favour the cognitive domain and do not sufficiently address the psychomotor aspect
(Appendix A p120). The practice of the examining body has given room to end-product
evaluation without students’ process skill development, i.e the objective of Mechanical
Engineering Craft is not fully achieved. The teachers assess students during workshop
instructions while NABTEB assess students at the final examinations. In a vocational/technical
education programme like mechanical engineering craft, it is pertinent that teachers become
increasingly knowledgeable about various methods of assessment that can be best employed to
ensure objectivity and fair judgment. In situations where mechanical engineering craft students
are expected to possess high quality skill proficiency especially in grinding, drilling and fitting
operations, based on their ability levels, the method employed for assessing the students must be
comprehensive and systematic. It does appear that lack of standard test exist among vocational
and technical education teachers with regards to assessing their students in performing
workshop-based tasks. It is observed that some teachers of vocational/technical education often
neglect the assessment of the processes involved in the production of projects by students in
favour of the completed works alone. Such teachers do not take time to observe their students
closely as they performed assigned tasks in the workshop. In most cases these teachers visit the
workshop only when to either assign or grade students’ completed projects when due, a situation
regarded as a loop hole that gives room for students to purchase articles from the market and
present for assessment or even sometimes contract their works out to colleagues in quest for
high marks.
The teachers and the external examiners merely look and rate the finished mechanical
engineering craft projects produced by students instead of judging the production process skill
9
adopted by such students. The assessments practiced by the teachers in the workshop and final
examination by NABTEB have produced graduates of mechanical engineering craft that are
unemployable in the field. This explains why many of the graduates are into other unskilled jobs
like commercial motorcyclist or remain unemployed. The fact that a student can present a
quality product does not constitute a positive proof that he can actually cut the parts with
acceptable degree of skills. The product rating method used by the teachers and examination
bodies in measuring performance of the students is defective. This, in effect makes it impossible
in the achievement of the objectives of mechanical engineering craft in technical colleges. The
present assessment practice does not ensure that the students of mechanical engineering craft are
taught the proper way of carrying out tasks in mechanical engineering craft.
If the assessment instrument used by the teachers and examining body had included
process skill and the students are successful as claimed through their results, they should be able
to demonstrate acquired manipulative skills in relevant mechanical engineering craft
occupations. The incompetency of the graduates could be attributed to the wrong scores and
conclusions about students’ performance obtained from invalid and unreliable instruments. The
problem of this study therefore is that mechanical engineering craft graduates lack practical
skills and yet most of them have good grades in their results. This study therefore was designed
to develop and validate workshop-based process skill tests that will help to complement the
present product assessment method used by teachers and examining bodies in order to enable
students demonstrate the acquisition of production skills in Mechanical Engineering Craft and
probably practice them after graduation to earn some living.
Purpose of the Study
The general purpose of this study is to develop and validate workshop-based process
skill test in mechanical engineering craft for assessing skills of students in technical colleges.
Specifically, the study seek to:
1. Develop workshop based process skill test items in mechanical engineering craft
(grinding, drilling and fitting operation) at NTC III level.
2. Determine the validity of the developed workshop-based process skill test in mechanical
engineering craft (grinding, drilling and fitting operations) at NTC III level.
3. Establish the reliability of the developed workshop based process skill test in Mechanical
engineering craft (grinding, drilling and fitting operations) at NTC III level.
4. Determine the ability levels of students in Mechanical Engineering Craft (grinding,
drilling and fitting operation) at NTC III level.
10
Significance of the Study
The developed and validated workshop-based process skill test would be useful to the
society, NABTEB, teachers and students of Mechanical Engineering Craft in the technical
colleges. The society will benefit from the implementation of the workshop-based process skill
test in the technical colleges, for valid and reliable test for assessing students’ performance
would sensitize teachers to employ proper method of assessment. This will enable students to
acquire the necessary skills outlined in the curriculum and consequently utilize the acquired
skills in producing and providing the needed services in the society.
Students offering Mechanical Engineering Craft at NTC III level in the technical colleges
will benefit from the implementation of the workshop-based process skill test because it will
ensure that proper sequence of learning the task areas in the curriculum is adopted by the
teachers as assessment will be based on the process of performing such tasks. The
implementation of the process assessment instrument will raise confidence of the students about
the process of award of marks and the final grades given to them. This will enhance the
students’ performance in the work place. The students of Mechanical Engineering Craft at NTC
III level will benefit from the implementation of the Workshop-based process skill test as it will
provide information to the students on the difficult areas of the curriculum. Students will use this
information to seek help or practice on their own in order to achieve success.
The National Business and Technical Examination Board could use the information from
the developed workshop-based process skill test to organize teachers’ seminars on the
development of process skill test items for assessing students in mechanical engineering craft in
technical colleges. The information and techniques in the developed workshop-based process
skill test could be adopted by NABTEB for assessing process skills of mechanical engineering
craft students in technical colleges during examinations. Implementation of the workshop-based
process skill test will assist NABTEB during her item writing and moderation meetings in the
psychomotor areas of mechanical engineering craft. The developed process skill test will also
provide information to the NABTEB of reason for mechanical engineering craft students not
becoming skilled or equipped in production process skills.
Teachers teaching Mechanical Engineering Craft at NTC III level could choose activities
for students by selecting from the list already outlined in the workshop-based process skill test.
Occupational areas listed in the study could serve as a guide to the teachers in counseling
students occupational choice in mechanical engineering craft. With the developed workshop-
based process skill test, the teachers would ensure that instructional planning respond to the
objectives of the NTC curriculum in mechanical engineering craft. The developed workshop-
based process skill test could guide mechanical engineering craft teachers in test item
11
construction and other devices for assessment of students mastery of skills in the psychomotor
areas of the course. Without reliable instruments, continuous assessment scores submitted to the
National Business and Technical Examination Board on behalf of each candidate for NABTEB
results cannot be said to be valid and reliable. Implementation of the workshop-based test
benefit the teachers of mechanical engineering craft as it would entrench validity and reliability
in teaching and assessment of students in the course. Teachers of mechanical engineering craft
will use the WBPST as a guide in developing appropriate instructional strategies for teaching the
practical tasks areas in the curriculum. The information from the WBPST could serve as a guide
to teachers of mechanical engineering craft in the writing of teaching materials such as textbooks
to include the teaching of skills.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study
1. What are the workshop-based process skill test items for assessing skills in mechanical
engineering craft in grinding, drilling and fitting operations at NTC level?
2. What is the validity of the developed workshop based process skill test for assessing
students' skills in mechanical engineering craft (grinding, drilling and fitting operations) at
NTC level?
3. What is the reliability of the developed workshop based process skill test for assessing
students' skills in mechanical engineering craft (grinding, drilling and fitting operation) at
NTC level?
4. What are the ability level of students in Mechanical Engineering Craft (grinding, drilling
and fitting operations) at the NTC level?
Null Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance.
Ho1: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of students on the workshop-based
process skill test in grinding operation based on their ability.
Ho2: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of students on the workshop-based
process skill test in drilling operation based on their ability levels.
Ho3: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of students on the workshop-based
process skill test in fitting operation based on their ability levels.
Scope of the Study
This study was restricted to the development and validation of workshop-based process
skill test using Simpson’s taxonomy of the psychomotor domain with the following levels;
Perception, Set, Guided response, Mechanism, Complex overt response and Adaptation.
Origination is not covered in the NTC mechanical engineering craft curriculum. The
12
development of the instrument was restricted to only three areas in the mechanical engineering
craft curriculum in technical colleges namely grinding, drilling and fitting operations. The
validation was restricted to face, content and internal validity. Only the mechanical craft NTC III
students who have been exposed to the curriculum of mechanical engineering craft participated
in the study.
13
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The literature for this study was reviewed under the following sub-headings:
1 Conceptual Framework
• Test Items Validity and Reliability
• Technical College Education in Nigeria
• Process and Product Assessment
• Workshop-based process skill test
• Simpson Psychomotor Model
• Methods of developing process skill test items
• Rating systems and scales
2 Theoretical Frameworks
• Classical Test Theory
• Item Response Theory
• Classification theories of psychomotor Domain
3 Review of Related Empirical Studies
4 Summary of Review of Related Literature
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is a component of a study that helps to explain relationships
among major concepts in the study. Nwabueze (2009) viewed conceptual framework as the
structure of research concepts that bring the interrelated ideas or theories involved in the
research question into one single or monolithic entity. Conceptual framework for this study is
therefore the complete circle links between the concepts and how each leads to one another in
developing and validating a workshop-based process skill test. Figure 1 in p. 35 is the schema
for the study. Conceptually, literature was reviewed on the following:
Test Items Validity and Reliability
Every test or assessment instrument has certain qualities that qualify it to be called an
instrument. Okoro (2003) classified psychometric qualities of assessment instrument into two
namely:
1 Validity
2 Reliability
Validity: The concept of validity as applied to assessment instrument has more to do with
objectives for assessment. Okoro (1994) defined validity of an instrument as the degree to which
a test or assessment instrument assesses what it is to be assessed. Generally, six validities are
14
13
14
associated with assessment instruments in vocational and technical education. These are:
Content, Concurrent, Predictive, Internal, Construct and Face validities.
Content validity: The content validity of a test for assessing skills in vocational and technical
education shows whether the test covers the areas it is supposed to cover. Okoro (1994)
observed that establishing the content validity of a test for assessing skills is very essential
because it enables the examiner to determine the degree of coverage given by the test to each
item of the skills outlined in the curriculum. Anatasi (1976) noted that content validating a test
answers two major questions namely; does the test cover a representative sample of the specified
skills and knowledge? Is the test performance reasonably free from the influence of irrelevant
variables? Answers to these questions imply establishing content validity of a test. Since tests
are constructed based on objectives of instruction or course outline there is therefore, a need for
thorough assessment of items of the test in order to establish the relevance of the test items to
the objectives of the instruction or course. Therefore, content validation of test for assessing
skills in vocational and technical education is carried out to ensure that the content of the test is
relevant to the objective of the assessment sufficiently complete, uncontaminated with other
content and at the appropriate level of difficulty.
Investigations carried out by the researcher revealed that the present method of assessing
the skills of NTC students in mechanical Engineering craft in Nasarawa state technical colleges
lacked content validity. For instance, out of the four objectives outlined in the curriculum only
two namely the objectives on stimulating and sustaining students’ interest and preparing
students for further studies in mechanical Engineering craft were assessed in most of the
technical colleges investigated. The other objectives namely the objectives in the use of acquired
knowledge and practical skills, and preparing students for occupations in mechanical
Engineering craft were not assessed with appropriate instruments.
There are several method of determining the content validity of a test. Mehrens and
Lehman (1984) suggested a method that involves asking experts in the field of measurement and
evaluation to thoroughly inspect and judge test for proper wording, consistency and reviewing
the test based on the suggestions of the experts. While Butler (1976) suggested that after a test
has been constructed and initially content validated by experts during construction, it should be
given to subject matter specialists for further review, corrections, and assessment of
appropriateness of the test items. Furthermore, Gachino and Galignton (1976) suggested that the
larger the number of subject specialists used for assessing the appropriateness of test items the
better the content validity of that test.
However, the method of content validation by employing experts has been criticized for
subjectivity because of lack of quantitativeness. Tuckman (1976) suggested that the subjectivity
15
of lack of quantitativeness can be eliminated by using rating scale. The rating scale would
provide means for the experts to express their views on those items of test to be retained and
those to be removed. While Mehrens and Lehman (1984) suggested that two tests should be
constructed over the same content areas and be given to same subject matter specialists for
analysis. The results should be correlated to produce quantitative value. Another quantitative
method of determining content validity of a test was suggested by Okoro (1993) when he
observed that by building a Table of specification into the process of test construction, it is
possible to provide quantitative value of content validity.
Earlier Green (1976) defined a table of specification as a table that provides general
outline of intended emphasis of assessment and the assessment approaches. UNESCO (2002)
described the Table of specification as a two chart in which content of a course/ topic are
correlated to the outcome/competencies, which describe the skills to be achieved from the course
of the study. Denga (1987) suggested the following steps for developing Table of Specification:
1. selecting content areas relevant to objective
2. deciding on the relative importance of the various content areas and assigning appropriate
weights in percentages.
Similarly, UNESCO (2002) suggested the following steps for developing Table of Specification:
1. referring to the syllabus to isolate the objectives or skills to be assessed.
2. developing a two way chart using the objectives or skills and domain relevant to the
objectives or skills.
3. developing the test format to match the specification in the chart
4. designing a marking scheme
A well-constructed table of specification has a very high degree of distribution of test
items along the various levels of the skills or competencies being assessed (Anatasi, 1987; and
Martens 1998).Cohen et al (2011) explained that the content validation of a test can be achieved
by subjecting such a test to factor analysis. The factorial analysis would discard the test items
with factor loading less than 0.40 as cut-off point at 10% over lapping variance. To ensure that
the workshop based process skill test is properly content validated, all the suggestions except the
one that require building two types of tests were considered and used.
Criterion related validity: the criterion related validity of a test for assessing skills is of two
types namely; concurrent and predictive. Denga (1987) observed that concurrent validity has to
do with the extent to which performance in one test or activity could be used to predict
performance in another test or activity taking place at the same time. This type of validity is
necessary when a test for assessing skills is constructed with a view to replacing less efficient
one in used. The concurrent validity of the test can be determined by administering two tests;
16
one serving as a criterion while the other serving as a predictor variable. The results should be
correlated to determine the difference in terms of correlation coefficient. The major problem
associated with this method is the need for obtaining valid and reliable test that will serve as
criterion. However, Tuckman (1976) suggested that the problem of lack of valid and reliable test
to serve as criterion should be eliminated by developing a rating scale for independent ratings of
individual’s characteristics or attribute.
Okoro (1994) explained that determining the concurrent validity of an instrument
requires standard setting. To the author a standard is used to classify students as either having
mastered a set of objectives or not having mastered those objectives. The author clarified that a
standard therefore represents a point on a scale of performance. Scoring above this point
indicates competence while scoring below this point indicates a deficiency. Web (2011)
emphasized that concurrent-referenced validity is significant in vocational /technical education
since vocational/technical education aims at preparing persons for employment in occupations
requiring specialized skills. The level of skill possessed by an individual can be determined
without reference to other individuals. In this study, the concurrent referenced validity of the
developed workshop-based process skill test items was determined by comparing the
performance of the students to the cut scores recommended by Simpson (1972) in the various
levels of the psychomotor domain. These are Perception (5-10%); Set (5-10%); Guided
responses (20-25%); Mechanism (20 – 30%); Complex Overt response (25 – 30%) and
adaptation (5-10%) (see Appendix C, p122).
Concurrent validation of an instrument according to Weiss and Davidson (1981),
involve cut scores, where the examinee possesses the trait if his score exceeds the cut score and
lacks the trait if his score fall below the cut score (often called a mastery test).
Satisfactory performance by a student will be based on scoring at least 1/3 (cut score) of all the
items in the levels of perception, set and adaptation which according to Simpson (1972) are as
followings: 1/3 of 5-10% of Perception; 1/3 of 5-10% of Set; and 1/3 of 5-10% of Adaptation
which is equal to 1/3 of 15-30% on the total test. This means that for a student’s performance at
these three levels to be judged satisfactory, the students must score a minimum of 5% in each
levels of perception, set and adaptation.
In the levels of guided response, mechanism and complex overt response, satisfactory
performance will be based on scoring at least 2/3 of 20-30% of guided response; 2/3 of 20-30 of
mechanism and 2/3 of 20-25% of complex overt response (Simpson 1972). This implies that a
student must score a minimum of 2/3 of 60-85% which is 40-57% of all the total items in
Guided response, mechanism and complex overt response before such a student can be judged as
obtaining satisfactory performance. Any score below 1/3 of perception, set and Adaptation, and
17
below 2/3 of Guided response, mechanism and complex overt response is regarded as
unsatisfactory provided the items met specification of the psychometric properties (validity and
reliability).
Twenty four test items each from perception, set, Adaptation giving a minimum of 72
represent 1/3 cut score; 76 items each from Guided response and mechanism and 81 from
complex overt response giving a total of 233 test items represent 2/3 cut score (Weiss and
Davison, 1981). The author recommended that the determination of the concurrent validity of a
test depends on the following percent age of testees in the test:
0-45% = low concurrent criterion – referenced validity,
50-69% = High concurrent criterion-referenced validity and
70% and above = very high concurrent criterion referenced validity. The above set of cut scores
was utilized to assess the performance of the respondents in this study.
Predictive validity: The predictive validity of test is defined by Nworgu (2006) as the ability to
relate to or forecast a future outcome. Again, Ogbuanya (2011) observed that the predictive
validity of tests has to do with the degree to which the outcome of performance in a particular
test used to predict performance in a future test. Therefore, the predictive validity of a test for
assessing skills in vocational and technical education is the ability of the test that could be used
to predict the performance of students at work place. Investigation carried out by the researcher
in some of the technical colleges revealed that there was no data on the predictive validity of the
method used for assessing the skills of NTC students in mechanical engineering craft. Miller
(2012) suggested that the predictive validity of a test is determined by correlating the result of
the test with the result of another test administered sometime in the future. The problem
associated with this method is that of time required to obtain the result of the predictor test. Even
though the workshop-based test could be used for predicting the future performance of students
in mechanical engineering craft jobs, the length of time required for obtaining data on the future
performance of students made it impossible for the predictive validity of the test to be
determined now.
Construct validity: The construct validity of a test for assessing skills in vocational and
technical education refers to the psychological variables being assessed by the test. Gronlund
(1985) noted that a construct is a psychological quality that exists in order to explain some
aspects of behavour or theoretical construct defining the behaviour. Earlier, Dalen (1979)
observed that a logical construct is a property hypothesized to explain some aspects of human
behaviour such as mechanical ability, intelligence or introversion. Kerlinger (1973) also
observed that the construct validity of a test explains the factors or constructs that account for
variance in test performance.
18
Therefore, construct in the context of mechanical engineering craft are those abilities
which enhances skills (Padelford 1984). Such abilities in mechanical engineering craft are
strength, endurance, dexterity, coordination, and balance among others. Denga (1987) suggested
that construct validation can be carried out by hypothesizing the construct and measuring to
determine whether the hypothesis holds. Earlier, Tuckman (1975) and Brown (1983) suggested a
method that involves conducting a pre-test and post-test to determine the effect of intervening
variables. If the post-test scores exceed substantially the pre- test scores, it should be concluded
that the intervening variables are good enough in explaining the construct. Again, Tuckman
(1975) suggested that by correlating the outcome of a test with another standardized test
measuring the same construct, the construct validity coefficient of the test could be obtained.
Gronlund (1985) suggested the following steps:
Identify and describe by means of theoretical framework the meaning of the construct.
Derive hypothesis regarding test performance
Verify the hypothesis by logical and empirical means.
Kerlinger (19743) suggested that by administering test on a group of subjects and analyzing the
data obtained by employing factor analysis, the percentage variance obtained should account for
general factor and of the test which could also be regarded as construct validity of the test.
Internal validity: The internal validity of a test is an aspect of content validity of test. Okoro
(1973) defined internal validity as validity concerning the analysis of students’ responses to
individual test items with a view to determining the extent to which each test item is measuring
what the whole test was designed to measured. This is an analytical method of determining the
content validity of test items.
Face Validity: The face validity of test for assessing skills in vocational and technical education
refers to whether the tests look valid to the test taker or test administrator. Mehren and Lehman
(1984) noted that face validity is a desirable feature of a test because it is useful to determine the
general characteristics of the test. While Anatasi (1976) observed that face validity concerns
with whether a test looks valid to the examinee that takes it, the administrative personnel that
decides on its usage and other untrained observers.
For the fact that the WBPST in mechanical engineering craft was developed for use in
the technical colleges by teachers there was a need to seek the views of the teachers on the
general features of the tests such as convenience in administration, validity of instructions for
the students and test administrators, and availability of facilities among others. Views on these
helped the researcher to determine the acceptability of the test and the schools where the test
should be used. Consequently, based on these reasons the face validity of the workshop-based
19
test was determined by using the teachers and technicians from the 4 technical colleges running
mechanical engineering craft programme.
Reliability: Reliability is a significant psychometric property of all measuring instruments and
tests. A reliable instrument is highly dependable and consistent in outcome. Kutiszyne (1987)
observed that if a test is reliable, it means it is consistently yielding the same result or nearly the
same result over repeated administration during which the trait is not changed. Denga ( 1987)
observed that the reliability of a test is defined in terms of repeatability of test result under the
same condition while Gronlurd (1985) observed that unless a test should be shown to be
consistent over different occasions or over different samples of the same performance domain,
there is title confidence in the result. Therefore reliability as it relates to tests for assessing skills
in vocational and technical education means the ability of the tests to yield consistently the same
result. Investigations carried out by the researcher in the technical colleges offering mechanical
engineering craft revealed that there was absence of systematic procedure for scoring students’
practical skills. However, scoring was subjectively done by giving students marks based on the
results of finished project/products presented. With this method, there was likelihood that the
grades given to students may not be reliable.
Godwin and Driscoll (1984) identified three types of reliability associated with tests for
assessing skills in vocational and technical education. These are:
1. measure of internal consistency
2. measure of stability
3. measure of equivalence
Albanese (1990) described the measure of internal consistency as consistency within a
test. While Joshua (2005) observed that items of a test should be correlated with each other with
a view to determining the extent which test items measure single basic characteristic. From these
two literatures, it can be said that the internal consistency of a test for assessing skills in
vocational and technical education is the consistency of test items in assessing one single
behaviour.
Okoro (2002) identified four methods of determining the internal consistency of tests for
assessing skills in vocational and technical education. These are:
1. Split half
2. Kuder Richardson Formulae
3. Cronbach alpha
4. Scorer judge
The split half method requires that a test should be divided into two and sub scores
obtained for each of the two halves obtained. The correlation coefficient of the obtained scores
20
explains the internal consistency of that test (Enyi, 2009). This method is appropriate for use in
determining the internal consistency of objective tests.
The Kuder Richardson method requires analyzing the responses of candidates using the
formulae K-R.20 and K-R 21. The two formulas are:
K-R, 20 =
−
−
∑21 Sx
PQN
N
N
K-R, 21 = ( )
−−
− 21
1 NSx
XNX
N
N
Where: N = Number of items in a test
P = Proportion of people who answered the item correctly
Q = Proportion of people who answered the item incorrectly.
PQ = Variance of a single item scored dichotomously (right or wrong)
∑ = Summation sign showing that PQ is summed over all items.
Sx2 = Variance of the total test score
X = Mean of the total test
This method is suitable for analyzing objective tests that are scored dichotomously.
The Cronbach alpha (α) method of determining internal consistency was developed by
Cronbach in 1956. It is a formula used for analyzing items of a test not scored dicchotomously.
The formula is
R =
−
−
∑2
2
11
1 Sx
S
N
N (Nworgu, 2006)
Where
N = Total number of items of a test
S12 = Variance of a single item
Sx2 = Variance of total test
This method is appropriate and suitable for determining the internal consistency of the
workshop-based process skill test in mechanical engineering craft because the items are not
dichotomously scored. This method was used in determining the internal consistency of the
three subtests making up the workshop-based process skill test.
Another method of determining the internal consistency of a test is the rater reliability
which requires administering a test once and using two or more judges to score the performance
of students in the test (UNESCO 2000). The two or more scores should then be analyzed to
determine the correlation coefficient which is the reliability coefficient. A perfectly reliable test
21
will give the same result. Tuckman (1975) suggested that the minimum number of students for
scoring twice should be one out of every five. This method of determining the rater reliability is
suitable for observational instruments. Therefore this method was used in determining the inter
rater reliability coefficient of the workshop-based process skill test.
Measure of Stability: The measure of stability of a test provides information on how stable the
result of a test is over a given period. Amadioha (2006) observed that the measure of stability
defines agreement between two sets of test scores over a period. Ebel (2006) noted that a test
administered and repeated on the same group after sometime should produce the same result if it
is stable. Even though data in the ability of the workshop-based process test was required but,
for the fact that some time was required between the first and second administration, this quality
of test was not determined at the moment.
Measures of Equivalence: This property of a test provides information on the extent to which
the test assesses the construct of behaviour other standardized tests were designed to assess in
the same field.
Uzoagulu (2011) observed that the measure of equivalence is concerned with inferences
about knowledge of skill in a specific domain. Chigbu (2011) suggested that the coefficient of
equivalence of a test should be obtained by administering one form of a test and after a period
has lapsed, the other form of the test is administered. The two results should be correlated to
obtain the coefficient of equivalence. Even though the measure of equivalence is relevant and
necessary for the workshop-based process test in mechanical engineering craft however, because
of the absence of data on any standardized test in mechanical engineering craft available in
Nassarawa State at the present, the researcher did not determine the coefficient of equivalence of
the workshop-based process skill test.
Interpretation of Reliability Coefficient: Several suggestions are available for interpreting the
reliability coefficient of a test. For instance, Gay (1981) recommended that a reliability
coefficient of 0.9 is good enough for a new test. Denga (1987) observed that a reliability
coefficient of 0.65 is good enough for achievement tests. Yet UNESCO (2002) suggested that
coefficient of 0.9 is good for new standardized test. In the case of inter rater reliability
coefficient, Okpala, Onocha and Oyedeji (1993) recommended that correlations coefficient
ranging between 0.7 to 1 can be considered as indication of agreement between two assessors,
while UNESCO (2002) maintained that different examiners using the same test should produce
the same marks or nearly the same marks. Whereas Nwana (1990) suggested 0.878 for a sample
of 5 people used in testing; 0.632 for a sample of 10; 0.396 for a sample of 25; and 0.192 for a
larger sample. For the purpose of interpreting the internal consistency of the workshop-based
process skill test, the average correlation coefficient of 0.82 was considered while for the
22
purpose of interpreting agreement between the assessors or raters, further statistical analysis was
carried out using F- test.
Technical College Education in Nigeria
The National Policy on Education (FGN,2004) identified five types of technical
education intuitions outside the universities. The institutions include the pre-vocational and
vocational schools at post primary level, the polytechnics, colleges of technical teachers
education and technical colleges at the post junior secondary school level. Though the
development of technical college education was rather slow in the country with only three
technical colleges, seven trade centers and eighteen hand craft centers between 1952 and 1960,
today we have over 196 technical colleges of which 22 are federal owned. (Okoro, 1999).
According to Okoro, (1999), the technical colleges are regarded as the principal
vocational institutions in Nigeria. They give full vocational training intended to prepare students
for entry into the various occupations, the products of this institutions are employed as
operatives, artisans and craftsmen in industries and allied organizations.
The national Board for Technical Education decree number 9 of 1977 stipulated the
functions of the technical colleges in the country to include
a. Provision of full time or part time course of instruction and training in technology,
applied science and commerce and in such other field of applied learning, relevant to the
needs of the development of Nigeria in the areas of industrial, commercial and vocational
agriculture.
b. Training in professional studies in engineering and other technologies.
c. Perform such other functions as in the opinion of the society as may serve to promote the
objectives of the technical colleges.
National policy on Education (2004) also made the production of craftsmen, artisans and other
sub-professional skilled personnel the responsibility of technical college education. Okoro
(2002) contended that technical colleges are responsible for the training and preparation of
craftsmen for the industrial and technological development of the country. Anneale (2005) in
support of the objectives of technical colleges as contended by Okoro defined technical colleges
as institutions for full time and part time education, especially in science, technical subjects and
trades connected with skills and machines. The integral scope of technical colleges is basically
in the acquisition of skills in technology.
Identifying the objectives of technical colleges, Atsumbe (2002) defined technical
college education as an education based on the fundamentals of industrial production. the author
further emphasized that the main objectives of technical college education is to make students
familiar with most import ant branches of production in industry, commerce, imparting of skills
23
and practical competencies in the handling of tools, materials and generally equipping the
students with both theoretical knowledge and work habits. Technical colleges provide the
workers and young people with vocational competencies needed in various disciplines required
in the world of work. Therefore the technical colleges in Nigeria are established to fulfill the
objectives of producing skilled personnel needed for provision of the maximum economic
security.
Technical colleges provide technical and vocational training for quite a number of
occupations including wood work, metal work, mechanical engineering craft practice, electrical
installation, radio and television work, refrigeration, carpentry and joinery, furniture making,
bakery, metal fabrication, tailoring, dress making typing, shorthand, accounts, spinning,
weaving, dyeing and bleaching, vocation, carpentry and joinery, furniture making, bakery, metal
fabrication, vocational agriculture, agricultural machine work and home economic (Olaitan,
1996). The duration of training is three years, leading to the award of National Technical
certificate. Also available in some technical colleges are advance course leading to the award of
Advanced National Technical Certificate (ANTC) or Advanced National Business Certificate
(ANBC) in the various field of study (NBTE 2003).
The requisite qualification of entry technical college is a junior secondary school
certificate (JSSC) or vocational Trade Center Certificate (VTCC) in the relevant discipline. In
Garba (1993) some senior secondary school dropouts (SSS) who wish to acquire skill to fit them
into vocations are also accepted. The curriculum according to NBTE (2003) stipulates that
candidates entering NTC programmes must be less than 14 years of age, and the entry
qualifications for ANTC is the NTC or its equivalent, and at least one year post qualification
cognate industrial experience.
The curriculums for each of the programme leading to NTC or ANTC are broadly
divided into three components. The NBTE (2003) specified the component as follows;
a. General education, which accounts for 30 percent of the total hours required for the
programme. This component of the curriculum aims at providing the trainee with
complete secondary education in the relevant subjects, in order to enhance their
understanding of the theory of machines, tools, materials, their design and application.
The general education includes subjects like English Language, Integrated Physical
science (physics, chemistry), mathematics and social studies. According NABTE (2003)
curriculum some other aims of general education subjects are as follows:
� To produce educated craftsmen and women who are competent not only in the
skills of their trade but also with sound theoretical basis for the acquired skills,
that is craftsmen and women who use their heads along with their hands.
24
� To produce means of upward academic mobility to post secondary education in
polytechnics, colleges of Education (Technical) and the federal universities of
Technology.
� To broaden the social outlook of the trainee so that he or she can appreciate the
relationship and interdependence between technology and the society.
b. Trade theory, trade practices and related studies that take 65 percent of the total hours
required for the programme. These components are no longer treated separately as
distinct subjects in technical colleges NBTE (2003). The integrated approach is now
applied for teaching trade theory, trade practice, trade science and calculations; unlike
the traditional approach, during the city and guilds of London institute in those days
where only applied aspects of the science and calculations were treated by technical
instructors, while the pure science and mathematics are now treated under the general
education.
c. Industrial work experience that accounts for 5 percent of the hours required for the
programmes NBTE (2003). This component of the course is compulsory also, for all full
time students, and may be taken in the industry or in the college production unit. It is a
supervised work experience and is evaluated to form part of the continuous assessment.
The technical college curriculum is subdivided into modules, according to NBTE (2003), a
module is a body of knowledge and skill capable of being utilized on its own or as a foundation
or pre-requisite knowledge for more advanced work in the same or other fields of study.
Therefore each trade module when successfully completed can be used for employment purpose.
The modular approach is very useful. According to Olaitan and Ali (1997), the modular
approach is of great value in institution that train person to be useful to themselves and make a
living on their own, thereby reducing the number of school dropouts.
Mechanical Engineering Craft Practice and its Components
Crawford (1997) described mechanical engineering as the branch of engineering that
deals with machines and production of power. It is particularly concerned with forces and
motion. He further noted that mechanical engineering is one of the several recognized fields of
engineering. Mechanical engineering had evolved from the practice of mechanics of an arts
based on trial and error to the application of scientific method in research, design and production
Agu (2004) defined it as that branch of engineering which deals with machines and mechanized
processes. The author stated mechanical engineering in particular is concerned with power
generation, transmission and utilization of tools and equipment. According to the author it
include machine tools, engines, transport of all kind, cranes, lefts, lock pumps, servomechanisms
and robotics.
25
Originally mechanical engineering was regarded as branch of civil engineering, that is
non-military engineering, but with development of locomotives for railways and steam engines
for industrial and marine uses, mechanical engineering came to be recognized as a separate
discipline (Encyclopedia of invention and technology, 1996).
Mechanical engineering studied currently in Nigeria institutions are production,
(manufacturing), automotive and power.
Mechanical engineering craft practice is one of the core trades or programmes offered in
almost all the technical colleges in the country. The aim of this programme is to train and
graduate a sub-professional mechanical engineer biased in production engineering
(manufacturing). The NBTE curriculum calls them craftsmen. Yalams (2001) in describing the
mechanical engineering craftsmen said they are sub-professional production and maintenance
engineers. They work in the manufacturing industries, which ranges from electronics to
pharmaceuticals and from plastics to food processing. The author further agued that mechanical
engineering craftsmen are involved in manufacturing machineries, motorcar parts, domestic
appliances and other capital equipment and consumer goods. A common feature of these
craftsmen is the use of machine tools, and equipment used in design, manufacturing, assembling,
measurement, inspection, and quality control techniques. The craftsman serves directly under the
technician or the professional engineer.
Yabani (2003) while subscribing to the crucial and indispensable role of the mechanical
engineering craftsman said the mechanical engineering craft practice curriculum is specifically
design to produce craftsmen that will be able to: Interpret and prepare engineering drawings of
mechanical equipment, their components and system; Carry out machine shop operations;
produce machine components; Operate, maintain or service mechanical equipment; Prepare
systematic engineering report; Carry out plant installation and maintenance.
The author further stressed that in addition to his professional course in engineering,
students would have to take course in mathematics, physical science which embrace chemistry,
physics and applied mechanics. To enhance his training in these other subjects, course in
humanities such as economics, Philosophy, English, histories are also recommended.
Mechanical engineering crafts practice as an occupational cluster has divisions within it
and each requiring distinctive skills. The breakdown of the courses into distinct components
varies from place to place depending on the level in which the course is taken. In developed
countries of the world, where mechanical engineering is highly automated and employed
complex computerized and expensive machineries, the divisions are streamed lined. However in
developing countries like Nigeria, components in mechanical engineering crafts practice as
26
practiced in the technical colleges includes grinding, drilling, and fitting operations among
others.
Jain (2010) viewed operation as the process of making something work. Operation is the
way that parts of a machine or a system work. Operation is also the step by step procedures of
accomplishing tasks in grinding, drilling and fitting. Operation is therefore the breaking down of
a task into its component activities for accomplishing such a task. Operations in Mechanical
Engineering Craft refer to the processes or step by step procedures of grinding, drilling and
fitting metal parts, repairing and maintaining of broken down metal products. The grinding,
drilling and fitting operations in this study are discussed thus:
Grinding operation – Ludwing et al (1975) defined grinding as a machining process
which removes metal from work piece either with a revolving abrasive (grinding) wheel, a
moving abrasive belt, a disc or some other form. When the work piece is brought into contact
with the abrasive tool, tiny chips of metal are removed. Because of frictional heat, the clips may
appear as red-hot sparks immediately after leaving the work piece, but they are rapidly cooled
by air. Thus, abrasive tools remove metal in chips form in much the same way as do lathe tools,
saw blades, and milling cutters. Okwori et al (2006) explained that grinding is a cutting process
comparable with milling, but the multi-tooth milling cutter is replaced by a rotating abrasive
grinding wheel possessing a very large number of small cutting edges. Grinding is also
considered as a machining process of removing metal, but comparatively in smaller volume. To
grind means ‘to abrade; to wear away by friction or ‘to sharpen’. The term grinding is used
when a relatively small amount of metal is removed, as in tools sharpening and in finishing
hardened steel work pieces to size. The use of abrasive tool is primarily for rapid removal of
large amounts of metal in order to produce a work piece of desired shape and size.
Grinding operations generally can be classified under two headings- Precision and non-
precision. Non precision grinding involves the removal of metal which usually cannot be
removed efficiently in any other way and does not require accuracy or close tolerances.
Examples include jobs such as reshaping cold chisels and centre punches, snagging the rough
spots from castings, and reshaping screw driver blades. Non precision grinding is mostly done
on pedestal grinder or with a portable grinder.
Precision grinding on the other hand includes many kinds of grinding operations which
require grinding accurately to specified size limits. Precision grinding machines are available for
many kinds of precision grinding operations. Flat surfaces are ground with surface grinder,
while round surfaces are ground with cylindrical grinding machines. Milling cutters are ground
with tool and cutter grinding machines. The following are several common basic classifications
27
of precision grinding operations: cylindrical grinding; Internal grinding; Centre- less grinding;
Tool and cutter grinding; as well as form and surface grinding.
In this study, twelve tasks involve grinding operations. They include- Mounting grinding
wheel in machine spindle; Grinding a metal object with surface grinder; Sharpening a cutting
tool with a pedestal grinder; Dressing and truing a grinding wheel; Maintaining grinding
machines; Hand polishing of a metal article, Sharpening centre punch on the bench grinder;
Sharpening a screw driver on bench grinder; Sharpening cold chisel on pedestal grinder;
Sharpening a twist drill on pedestal grinder; Polishing a metal article with compound wheels and
Polishing a metal article with coated abrasives. These tasks at the NTC level are classified under
non-precision grinding. All the tasks have procedures for accomplishing them in the workshop
(see Appendix E, p152 ). .
Drilling Operation - According to Jain (2010), drilling is a process of making hole or
enlarging a hole in an object by forcing a rotating tool called drill bit. The same operation can be
accomplished in some machines by holding the drill bit stationary and rotating the work. The
most general example is drilling in a Lathe, in which the drill bit is held in the tail stock and the
work is held and rotated by a chuck. Drilling then means to make a hole with a drill bit or twist
drill. It is one of the basic methods of machining solid materials. Winden (1990) stated that the
drill bit can perform operations other than drilling.
The drilling operations identified in this study consist of tasks such as Centre punching;
Drilling holes in metal; Boring holes in metal; Counter boring holes in metal; Counter sinking
holes in metal; Seating holes in metal; Reaming holes in metal; Producing garden trowel;
Drilling a hole using a hand drill; Constructing a mirror plate; Construction of Name plate; and
Producing a shoe horn. Each of the task has its corresponding step by step procedure for
accomplishing the respective task e.g. the procedural steps for “Centre punching for drilling”,
are:
(i) Taking measurement
(ii) Marking out
(iii) Positioning punch and
(iv) Stricking punch head.
Fitting Operation - In mechanical engineering craft, fitting means preparing mating
parts to touch or join each other in such a way that one will turn inside another, one will slide
upon another, or the parts will hold tightly together so that they cannot move upon each other.
Sawing, chipping, filing, scraping, bending and heat treatment are some of the operations
necessary to make parts fit. According to Crawford (1995), the term fit is used to signify the
range of tightness which exists between two mating parts. The author stressed that fitting work
28
might include the making of individual parts from plate or Metal material by the removal of
metal, marking out, drilling, tapping and assemble. The bench fitter or worker may be primarily,
engaged in the adjustment and assemble of details manufactured in the machine shop using hand
operated tools.
The tools most commonly used by bench fitter can be broadly divided into three main
groups:
(i) Driving Tools – these include hammer, plier, spanners, punches and screw drivers.
(ii) Tools used for the removal of metal – these cutting tools include files, hacksaws, chisel,
scrapers, reamers, dies and taps.
(iii) Tools used for checking and measuring the accuracy of the parts-steel rules, calipers, try-
square, protractor, micrometer, straight-edge, and surface plate. In addition to the tools
mentioned above, the fitter needs a work bench and vice.
Under fitting operations, the identified tasks include- Sawing a metal bar with hacksaw;
Shearing a metal plate with bench shear; Filing a metal piece with file; Bending a metal plate;
Soldering two metal parts; Heat treatment in metal; Thread-cutting in metal; Assembling with
metal fasteners; Construction of a swarf cleaner; Constructing a tool box; Construction of an
Angle Gauge; Constructing a pipe Wrench; Making a vice clamp; Production of a fitting plate;
Production of depth gauge; and Making camp saw. Each of the task has a procedural steps for
accomplishing it. (Appendix E, p152). The students will perform the above operations using
tools and necessary equipment while the raters (teachers) assess their performance based on the
developed and validated items in the workshop-based process skill Test (WBPST). The
mechanical engineering craftsmen should inevitably possess all the necessary skills in the
operations above. Literature reviewed on these areas helped the researcher in identifying the
assessable skills for the study.
Process and Product Assessment
NVSC (2003) explained two main methods for assessing the amount of skills possessed
by students. There are: (1) Process assessment and (2) Product assessment. Process assessment
involves step by step of carrying out the practical activities in the workshop. For example, if a
mechanical engineering craft student is to make a metal chair, process assessment will include
observing him in the sequence or step by step of selecting, measuring, cutting his stock and
joining them to produce the metal chair. It is assumed that a good and useful product would
result if all the steps/stages are correctly followed and carried out. Product assessment is not
interested in observing the student in the construction or servicing of the article, it is only
interested in final result. In product assessment, only the final product is assessed. In the
29
example given above, product assessment would involved the evaluation of the chair constructed
by the student if it satisfies certain criteria such as good design, strong joints, good finishing and
usability. Good products would attract high marks even if it received outside assistance,
achieved through trial and error method or even purchase from the market.
A hacksaw sawing test is also useful in illustrating the difference between process assessment
and product assessment. If the teacher carries out process assessment, he would write down the
processes such as measuring size, marking out, clamping work in vice, cutting speed and
accuracy in sawing. Product assessment on the other hand would involve an assessment of the
final sawn piece with reference to general appearance, squareness and straightness of cut.
From the above examples, this study is concerned with assessing the process skills in grinding,
drilling and fitting operations using process skill tests developed through Simpson’s taxonomy
of psychomotor domain. Simpson (1972) gave direction for effective administration of process
skill tests as:
- Prepare work area and provide students with all necessary equipment, tools, and
materials required to complete the test.
- Inform students prior to the test about all points that will enter into their rating.
- Create working conditions that are as nearly identical as possible for each student
being tested, whether several students are being tested at one time or each is tested
individually.
- Do not offer any assistance other than to clarify directions during the test.
- Instruct the students to follow directions carefully; make certain that students
understand clearly what they are expected to do and how much time is available to
complete the entire test.
- The test should contain a rating scale options requiring a minimum of writing so that
one can concentre upon the observation of students’ performance. Be familiar with
scale items prior to the administration of the test.
This study viewed this segment of the literature reviewed very relevant because of its
direct relationship with the mode of construction and administration of the instrument
developed. Process skill tests are one means of assessing students’ gains and acquisition of
specific skills. Students are tested under controlled conditions for psycho-performance in
mechanical engineering craft operations related to speed or rate of work, quality or precision of
work and procedure compared with a pre-determined standard. The choice of process skill
rating assessment method is based on the fact that it helps the evaluator to discriminate between
a group of students. Thus, it is a very useful evaluation to be used for further placement of the
students.
30
Assessment Procedures in Mechanical Engineering Craft
Technical education for a long time, has featured as a major part of the informal
education system in Nigeria. Fafunwa (1974), explained that in the informal education system,
vocational training was acquired mainly through the apprenticeship system.
In the apprenticeship system, it was easy to assess the performance of the children in the
technical skills. A child was instructed to observe very keenly when his father who was the
teacher practiced his demonstrations. In most cases, the children were not trained directly by
their parents, rather they were sent to relatives or master craftsman. Learning of the craft under
the apprenticeship system often began with personal services to the master. Young boys become
house servants to master craftsmen. After some years of promising usefulness, they would be
introduced gradually to the craft of the master. After a number of years, especially when the
child is getting matured, the master craftsman (the teacher) would request him to demonstrate
the skills acquired in the trade by giving him some jobs to do.
Undoubtedly, technical education was an important aspect of education in Nigeria during
the pre-colonial times and remained so into the 21st century (Okeme, 2011). In the formal
education system, technical subjects such as Metal working, Carpentry, Tailoring etc, were
introduced to early technical institutes-the Blaize Memorial Industrial School, Abeokuta and the
Hope Waddell training institute, Calabar (Olaitan, 1978). By the early 1960s as noted by
(Olaitan, 1991), technical subjects such as Mechanical engineering craft practice; Bocklaying,
Concreting, Electrical installation, Carpentry, Automechanic craft, etc, had been introduced
formally in technical colleges in Nigeria. Criticisms were leveled against the modes of
assessment of these subjects. For instance. Ikeoji (1996), Okorie (2001) and Fatansin (1996),
remarked that in psycho-performance based subjects such as Agricultural Science, Mechanical
engineering craft inclusive), there is inadequate assessment criteria. Thus, Mechanical
Engineering Craft students in technical colleges perform poorly in grinding, drilling and fitting
operations, when they were supposed to perform better on such operations because of their
skills. This makes the students to complain simply because the assigned grades to them do not
reflect the quality of workmanship. In the same vein, some of the students are awarded high
grades when their performance on the given operation is poor. Even up till now, people still
pass the WAEC – Technical and National Business and Technical Examination Board
(NABTEB) mechanical engineering craft examinations in flying colours without any evidence
that they possessed the required occupational skills (Agu, 2004).
31
The objective of teaching mechanical engineering craft in the technical colleges should
go beyond passing the WAEC – Technical and NABTED examinations in which scores are
awarded to students without a given format. Garba (1993), once commented that the essence of
teaching vocational subjects of which mechanical engineering craft are involved can be summed
up in terms of satisfying the use of knowledge and skills which the learning process provides.
This can be demonstrated by actually performing the operations learnt and receiving a valid and
reliable score from the teacher.
Emphasizing psycho-performance, Olaitan (1984), declared that, instruction is not complete
until the student has used the ability being taught. Furthermore, Wenting and Lawson (1975),
expressed that of all evaluation techniques used in occupational education like mechanical
engineering craft, learner performance-based test have been mostly emphasized. The authors
believed that learner performance measures should commensurate with the grades awarded.
Psycho-performance is emphasized in the psychomotor domain which is least express by the
final examination given to the technical college students offering mechanical engineering craft.
Feirer (1981), remarked that the best measure of the capability of an individual in mechanical
engineering craft workshop is the observed improvement in his job performance which should
match with the scores obtained.
Up to date, almost all the existing technical colleges in Nigeria have not been able to teach for
acquisition of occupational skills in mechanical engineering craft as a result of the invalid and
unreliable methods with which they use in assessing students. However, as a way to
synchronize evaluation with objectives, Mustapha (2002), recommended that the assessment of
students’ learning outcome in mechanical engineering craft should be performance-based and
should be evaluated with valid and reliable instrument.
The Need for Instruments Measuring Psychomotor Learning Outcomes
Most of the instruments in use for measuring students’ abilities are in the areas of
cognitive and to a lesser extent the affective domains. Little has been done to develop
instruments that measure outcomes in the psychomotor domain especially in the area of
mechanical engineering craft. Wolansky (1985) threw some light as to the possible reason for
this when he wrote that manipulative skill test is designed to measure and analyse a student’s
skill in the performance of selected operations or procedures under rigidly controlled conditions
and as such are time consuming to prepare and administer. He further said that such test also
tend to limit the number of students who can be tested at the same time.
32
However, there is documentary evidence that psychomotor tests have existed although
informally. Before the introduction of Western education into Africa, a type of education called
Traditional Education (Fafunwa, 1974), was practiced. This indigenous form of education was
mostly practical, non-verbal and informal, the author added. It bordered more on the
apprenticeship system. This system involved a master craftsman carrying out his job while he
allows his apprentice to watch and learn. The method of assessing the extent of learning was
simply by giving the apprentice a piece of job to do while the master observed and correct where
necessary. Though psychomotor tests are old, there is lack of emphasis on non-cognitive
learning outcomes in the modern Western Education in the developing world especially in
Nigeria. Olaitan (1978) pointed out that the lack of emphasis on the non-cognitive learning
outcomes has resulted in the neglect of manipulative skills, attitudes and values in our
educational system. Yoloye (1988), wrote on the need for non-cognitive evaluation thus: One
problem of the one-shot summative evaluation approach is that assessment is directed mostly to
the cognitive aspects of learning activities. Knowledge, understanding and other thinking skills
acquired in the various subjects of the school curriculum are evaluated and marks are awarded
relative to the pupils performance in the several subjects. Usually neglected in this procedure is
the assessment of skills normally associated with both the character and the industry of the
pupils.
Writing in the same vein, Mkpa (1992), said that psychomotor skills are those skills or special
abilities required by the learner in human activities which can be acquired through learning and
constant practice. It is therefore not all desired learning outcomes that can effectively be
measured by cognitive or affective methods Nwana (1982) pointed out that human behaviours
belong to the head (cognitive), heart (affective) and body (psychomotor). Spitze and Osborne
(1983) supported the above thus: Assessing the ability of students to perform manipulative skills
is certainly an evaluation activity that lends itself well to the use of rating scales. They enable
the evaluator to assess students abilities and performances, leaving other more appropriate
evaluation techniques to assess students knowledge.
According to Okoro (2002), development of psychomotor skills requires practice and
measurement and is rated in terms of speed, distance, procedures and techniques in execution of
a process or creation of a product or both. The author corroborated the opinion of Spitze and
Osborne when they stated that “the performance test is very useful in assessing the students
ability to perform a particular skill or execute a procedure where a paper – pencil test would be
less adequate in determining mastery”. Okoro (2002), further gave reasons for process skill test
(psychomotor test), when he wrote that, it contributes to a more comprehensive assessment of
33
students with the addition of performance testing; it measures the results of instruction in the
context of direct and “real life” applications; and it enables students to analyse their own
strengths and weaknesses.
The gap existing between the common place evaluation of cognitive learning outcomes and that
of non-cognitive types seems to continually widened. This is probably why the new National
policy on Education (FGN, 2004) recommended the continuous assessment method in our
school system. It is aimed at arresting the imbalance existing between assessment in cognitive
and non-cognitive learning outcomes through comprehensive evaluation. Evaluation needs to
stimulate real life situations so that measurement procedures will yield a predictive result.
Leigbody and Kidd (1968), stated that the involvement of performance test requires the learner
to perform the skilled operations which have been taught and to perform them under conditions
which are equivalent to or which approximate the working conditions of the trade”.
Oranu (1988), stressed on the need for carrying out process evaluation ie, the availability
of ready instrument for evaluating manipulative skills. This the author explained thus: process
evaluation requires attentive and consistent teacher observation of students’ performance. This
process should be objectively judged by using performance rating scale. Performance rating
scale should be developed in conjunction with performance objectives, student activities or
process skills. Instruments therefore, are of immense necessity to ensure proper development of
essential manipulative or performance skills in most vocational and technical subjects of which
mechanical engineering craft is a part.
How Mechanical Engineering Craft Practicals are Presently Evaluated by NABTEB.
The National Business and Technical examination Board sends their practical
examination question paper to schools two weeks ahead of examination date. Students are left
on their own to produce products in the workshop without their teachers intervention. On the
examination day, one examiner is send to each college to rate products and marks are awarded
based on mere looking and checking the end results of students activities using Marking Scheme
Checklist (appendix A, p120).
Task Analysis
One way of identifying process skill items associated with jobs is by task analysis
(Olaitan, 2003). Hersbatch (1976) defined task analysis as the process of identifying task
elements associated with major job objectives. Thus, the process of task analysis leads to the
identification of step-by-step procedure that have definite beginning and ending. Several
34
methods exist for carrying out task analysis. For instance, the centre for Vocational and
Technical Education Consortium in U.S.A in Igbo (1997) suggested an approach that includes:
(i) Reviewing relevant literature
(ii) Developing occupational inventory
(iii) Selecting a worker sample
(iv) Administering the inventory
(v) Analyzing the collected information
This approach is more suitable when a course outline is to be developed. Hersbatch (1976)
suggested an approach that includes identifying major tasks associated with a job or an
operation, scrutinizing each major task to identify specific enabling elements. This proposal by
Hersbatch is suitable and appropriate because the major objective of assessing skills could be
regarded as the major tasks, which would be scrutinized to reveal the sub tasks necessary for
attainment of the objectives. Therefore, when the major objective of skill assessment is analyzed
using the Hersbatch’s approach, procedural steps for the fourty tasks in the WBPST were
generated (see appendix E, p152)
Workshop Based Process Skill Test
Workshop-based Process Skill Tests (WBPST) is a device for assessing skills acquired
by the students of mechanical engineering craft in grinding, drilling and fitting operations. The
WBPST is an assessment tool developed though task analysis based on the mechanical
engineering craft curriculum. The Development was guided by Simpson’s taxonomy of
psychomotor domain which is classified into six stages through which learner’s process skill
acquisition can be assessed. Yallam (2001) explained that Simpson’s Psycho-productive
domain model was developed on the concept of skill and it emphasizes the fact that an
individual when encountering a new skill for the first time goes through the six stages one after
the other until mastery of the subject matter is attained.
Olaitan and Ali (1997) observed that practical activities are usually arranged into each
psycho-productive area of Simpson’s taxonomy of psychomotor domains which guides the
distribution of the test items. The workshop-based process skill test was developed and
administered to students to determine the level of achievement in skill development in
mechanical engineering craft. The process skill test items consist of statements which each
presents an action situation, with a five-point rating scale to rate the level of performance of
individual testee. The process skills for accomplishing various tasks in mechanical engineering
craft at NTC level adapted Simpson’s psychomotor classification as follows: Perception level
involves making choices in relation to the tasks to be performed, e.g. Selecting appropriate tools.
35
In this study, 24 process skill items fall under perception level, made up of 6, 8, and 10 in
grinding, drilling and fitting operations respectively. The Set level-involve readiness to perform
a particular task e.g. testing wheel for damage/crack. In the developed WBPST, there are 8, 7
and 9 process skills in grinding, drilling and fitting operations that fall under Set level of
Simpson taxonomy. Guided Response-is the third level in Simpson’s classification model which
emphasis is on performance of task guided by the teacher or a model e.g. |Checking lead bush
for burrs and fit”. The guided response level in the study has 19, 21 and 36 process skills in
grinding, drilling and fitting. Mechanism level-has 20, 20 and 37 process skills in grinding,
drilling and fitting operations respectively. At mechanism level, the student has achieved a
certain confidence and degree of skill in performance of an act e.g. “Pushing wheel on Spindle”.
Individual student at Complex Overt Response can perform a motor act that is considered
complex because of the movement pattern required. Example, “adjusting the rate of table feed”
when grinding metal object with surface grinder. In the study the process skills under Complex
Overt Response are 19, 24 and 32 in grinding, drilling and fitting operations. Adaptation is the
6th
level in Simpson taxonomy model which emphasis is on changing motor activities to meet
the demands of new problematic situations e.g. Sawing a strip of sheet metal with hacksaw. In
the developed test, 8, 6 and 10 process skills in grinding, drilling and fitting operations are under
adaptation level.
Methods of Developing Process Skill Tests Items
There are several procedures and guidelines for developing performance or workshop-
based tests in vocational and technical education. Some of the procedures and guidelines
considered in the study are presented below.
SMASSE project Kenya (2003) produced procedure for developing psychomotor test
which include:
- Devising situations and problems – involves devising problems that require hand-on
situation.
- Developing a task sheet – require listing of specific activity necessary for accomplishing
major tasks.
- Listing of materials, conditions and equipment required for carrying out the tasks.
- Devising criteria of evaluation – process, product or both.
- Developing evaluation instrument – Rating scale, checklist, or anecdotal record.
This proposal is good but not comprehensive enough. It fails to suggest the necessary planning
leading to devising problems and situations. However, some of the steps guided the researcher in
the study.
36
UNESCO (2002) suggested four steps for designing a test instrument for assessing
performance. The steps are:
- Specifying the purpose of the test
- Developing table of specification
- Selecting test items
- Designing and developing relevant test items.
These suggestions are relevant and were considered along with other suggestions in developing
the workshop-based process skill test.
Mkpa (1992) suggested the following steps for developing instruments for assessing
psychomotor skills:
- Identifying and stating the objectives to be assessed in behaivoural terms
- Identifying attributes, skills associated with the objectives
- Developing test blue print
- Item writing
- Trial testing
- Item selection
- Establishing validity and reliability of the test
These guidelines are relevant and therefore, were considered along with other suggestions in
developing the workshop-based process skill test.
Wiersma and Jurs (1985) suggested a four step procedure for developing workshop-
based test that include:
- Defining task to be performed by stating what the students are expected to do.
- Defining constraints or conditions necessary for executing the task such as tools and
equipment.
- Deciding on appropriate time
- Developing evaluation criteria, process, product or both.
These procedures are relevant in constructing specific measure. The model does not include
suggestions on test blue print. However, same steps were considered for this study.
Gronlund and Linn (1990) suggested the following procedures for developing workshop-
based test:
- Specify the performance outcome to measure
- Select appropriate degree of realism involving the creation of simulated condition that
will require actual performance
- Prepare instructions’ that clearly specify the test situation
- Prepare observation format to use in evaluating performance.
37
Some of these procedures are relevant and were considered for the study.
Nwana, (1982) suggested the following steps for developing performance test:
- Stating the objectives of the test
- Breaking down the objectives into specifics
- Deciding on the type of test to be used
- Deciding on the total number of items
- Constructing a table of specification
- Validating the Table of specification
- Constructing questions in accordance with the table of specification
- Generating answers to the questions
- Writing instruction to accompany the test
- Validating the questions instructions and answers
- Administering the test to a small group of about 50 with the view to determining
psychometric properties.
These steps are appropriate, and alongside with others guided the researcher in developing the
workshop-based process skill test in mechanical engineering craft.
Tuckman (1975) suggested the following steps for developing performance test,
(i) Specifying desired outcome: involves specifying the objective of the assessment
(ii) Specifying the test situation: requires stating what the students should be given in
order to perform the objectives and instructions.
(iii) Preparing performance checklist: Developing the criteria for evaluation.
The three steps are relevant for this study but are not comprehensive enough. For
instance, Tuckman suggested for specifying the test situation but failed to suggest the essential
considerations in doing that. However, the suggestions were considered along with others in
developing the workshop based test.
Green (1975) offered a four step procedure that includes:
- Generating general objectives of test
- Breaking the general objectives into specifics
- Constructing evaluation plan from the specific objectives
- Planning for the specific instrument such as ‘identification of test, work sample,
checklist and rating scale. This proposal emphasizes the general planning relating to
development of assessment instrument. The proposal along side with others guided the
researcher in isolating the appropriate test items for assessing the practical areas in
mechanical engineering craft at NTC level.
38
Thorndike and Hagen (1969) produced procedure for consideration in developing performance
test which include:
- The adequacy of the test items in eliciting the student’s behaviour which the test is trying
to measure.
- The degree of precision needed in the results of the test to achieve the purpose for which
the test is given.
- The freedom from irrelevant sources of variation which is conceived from the test.
- The appropriateness to age and developmental levels of the testees.
These procedures are relevant but not comprehensive because they do not include
suggestions on performance objectives emphasized in psychomotor domain of learning.
However, some were utilized along with others in developing workshop-based process skill test.
From the foregoing review of the literature relating to developing performance test, it is
clear that no single suggestion is complete and comprehensive enough for use in developing
workshop-based process skill test. However, the suggestions are grouped into three, namely:
- Suggestions relating to general planning
- Suggestions relating to specific planning and
- Suggestions relating to evaluation of the assessment instrument.
The suggestions relating to general planning require relating the curriculum with a view
to identifying appropriate assessment instrument. The suggestions relating to specific planning
focus on constructing the assessment instrument. The suggestions relating to evaluation aspects
require establishing the psychometric properties of the assessment instrument. Based on these
classification therefore, the suggestions by Thorndike and Hagen (1969), Bukar (1995),
Tuckman (1975), Mkpa (1992) and UNESCO (2002) are found to be relevant and were
considered alongside these groupings in developing the workshop-based process skill test.
Based on the above literature, the following steps were utilized in the development of the
workshop-based process skill test:
* Isolation of the performance objectives from the curriculum as listed:
- To enable student acquire basic knowledge and practical skills in mechanical
Engineering craft.
- To prepare students for occupations in mechanical Engineering craft.
Isolation of the practical areas in mechanical Engineering craft curriculum as listed:
- Drilling operations
- Grinding operation
- Fitting operations
39
* Identification of Parameters that will be used to develop the workshop-based process skill test
items. The parameters include:
a) Activities involving production, management and improvement practices in each of the
three practical areas;
b) The major occupational areas in each of the practical areas;
c) The six levels of psychomotor domain objectives as classified by Simpson (1972)
The above three aspects (a-c) are contained in the Table of specification (Appendix C p122).
Preparation of table of specification, the table of specification is prepared to ensure adequate
representation of the three occupational areas of mechanical Engineering craft and the various
levels of the psychomotor domain. Each topic was considered in terms of its relative importance,
time and emphasis given to it by teachers during instruction. This was based on information
from a jury of five year III mechanical Engineering craft teachers in the area of the study. The
jury of the teachers was five NABTEB chief examiners for mechanical Engineering craft and
four other NABTEB item Moderators in mechanical engineering craft. Information about these
jurors were obtained from NABTEB. In addition to the mechanical engineering craft juries, a
careful and detailed analysis of the coverage given to the various occupational areas and topics
as stated in the NTC mechanical engineering craft curriculum and the general mechanical
engineering craft NABTEB syllabus was carried out. The table of specification according to the
practical areas is shown in (Appendix C, p122)
Methods and Techniques of Assessing Skills in vocational and Technical Education.
There are several methods and techniques for assessing skills in vocational and technical
education. This is because skills in vocational and technical education contain cognitive,
psychomotor (practical) and affective components. In the light of this, no single method or
technique is effective enough in assessing skills hence the need for multiple techniques and
methods. However, the choice of methods and techniques depends on the purpose of assessment
and the type of domain to be assessed.
Ezewu (1984) identified direct observation as one of the techniques for assessing
practical skills in vocational and technical education. The observation technique, according to
Ezewu, (1984) is a process of using the sensory capacities to become aware of specific faults
relating to a situation or object within an environment. Darlen in Harbaur-peters (1992)
observed that the main factors involved in observation are attention, sensation, perception and
conception. Sensation is necessary because an observer becomes aware of any fact when
sensitized appropriately and attention is necessary because a state of alertness is vital to an
observer in order to isolate the needed information or facts. Observation is regarded as direct, if
40
it involves direct recording of the behaviours or skills being observed and indirect, if it requires
the observer to be part of the scene or a participant.
Harbor Peters (1992) maintained that if observation is not systematic, the results may
tend to become invalid and unreliable. The author further noted that factors such as the problem
of organizing information to be collected, faking in behaviour of the person being observed
affects the validity and reliability of observation. Other factors affecting observation as
identified by Kerlinger (1973) are personal bias of the observer and too much time required.
However, Nworgu (1990) argued that the problem of organizing data to be collected through
observation could be eliminated by using checklist rating scale or anecdotal record. Nworgu
(2006) believed that educating the observer about the variables being observed could reduce the
problem of observer bias and in consequence, faking could be eliminated unobtrusively. These
points were considered in designing this study especially in terms of rating scale for the
instrument of the study.
A rating scale consists of a set of characteristics or qualities to be observed and some
type of scale for indicating the degree to which each characteristic is present (Gronlund, 1985).
It is a reporting procedure with structured criteria along side with a scale for identifying the
degree to which the criteria exist. Therefore, with reference to assessment of skills in vocational
and technical education, a rating scale contains process skills as criteria against which a scale is
provided for assessing the degree of presence or absence of the skills.
Rating scale for assessing process skills in vocational and technical education in Okoro (2002)
exists in one of the following forms:
I. Numerical
II. Graphical and
III. Descriptive graphics.
A numerical rating scale for assessing process skills in vocational/ technical education
has a number to indicate the degree to which a characteristic is present while graphical rating
scale contains graphs (horizontal line) to indicate the position of the attributes or characteristics
being assessed. The descriptive- graphic rating scale for assessing process skills in vocational/
technical education involved the use of descriptive statements to identify the point on a graphic
scale.
A checklist for assessing process skills in vocational and technical education consists of
a set of characteristics or qualities being assessed on a nominal scale. A checklist does not
indicate the degree of presence or absence of a skill or criteria being assessed but it does indicate
the presence or absence only. Therefore, the use of observational checklist in assessing practical
skills in vocational and technical education involves finding out the presence or absence of an
41
attribute or characteristics only. It excludes the extent to which such skills or characteristic are
present or absence (Tuckman 1976). In a similar vein, anecdotal record can be defined as a
factual description of skills that an observer sees in individual’s life (Gronlund 1985). An
anecdotal record therefore, does not have any written criteria but it may contain a report of all
the actions or behaviours or skills exhibited which are of significance but cannot be assessed
using other methods of assessment. The anecdotal technique is most useful for assessing
evidence of learning that is not assessable using rating scale and checklist.
From the foregoing review of literature, it is clear that the observational rating scale is
more objective and comprehensive than the observational checklist and the anecdotal record in
assessing process skills in vocational and technical education. This is because it contains the
specific skills and a scale for scoring such skills. This was supported by Okoro (1999) when he
stated that the rating scale is useful and effective in assessing procedures and products in
activities involving manipulating workshop equipment and tools. However, investigations
carried out by the researcher revealed that even though some assessment of practical skills was
carried out in mechanical Engineering craft at NTC level in the technical colleges but there was
no evidence on the use of process skill technique for scoring students. Instead, assessment was
based on mere impressionistic evaluation of students’ products at the expense of the procedures
followed in producing the products.
Project: The term project has several meanings. For instance, Gallington (1977) defined project
as the term applied to any task that involves the construction of a product. Davies (1979) defined
it as a decision chain model consisting of three phases namely; initiation, execution, and
terminal result. Onwuka (1981) described project as a method of instruction that enables
students to acquire wholehearted purposes.
Emerging from these definitions is the fact that the project is a problem solving exercise that
involves both process and product. The process component of the project involves initiating
planning, and execution, while the product is the result of the process. Therefore, the project
when used as a method of assessment requires students to solve a problem and the assessor to
observe the student and award marks. Thus, the project is a problem-oriented assignment given
to students that require the use of knowledge and skills for solving it over a period of time.
Vocational education practical project are done in the workshop.
The use of tasks as a method of assessing process skills of students in vocational and
technical education has several problems. Harbaur-Peters (1992) identified the difficulty
associated with grading the result and the problem of assessing the three domains of learning.
Bello (1981) highlighted that too much time is required for the execution of the tasks. This
makes it difficult for assessing many students. However, Harbaur- Peters (1992) suggested that
42
the problem of grading could be reduced by using a rating scale or checklist. Literature search
and investigation carried out by the researcher in some of the technical colleges revealed that
process assessment and rating was not used for assessing students in mechanical engineering
Craft. Perhaps this may be because the curriculum in mechanical engineering craft at NTC level
contains several task performances which by implication would require several project tasks that
will require months to accomplish the assessment. This conclusion agreed with the observation
by Green (1975) when he said that the use of the project will require several class periods to
complete assessment of students’ performance in vocational and technical education.
Performance Test: Performance test is a tool that require the demonstration of physical skills.
Olaitan and Ali (2000) described performance tests as tests that require student to demonstrate
physical skills and operations taught to them and to perform them under conditions that are
similar to the working conditions for the trade. Thus, a performance test requires a job- like
situation in which a student is given a task to accomplish; the tasks could be to construct an
article, shape an object, or assemble parts. In performance test, a student is expected to carry out
some tasks and while the student is carrying out the tasks, he or she is being observed and
awarded marks. Therefore, performance test involves a task to be carried out in a testing
environment, within a given time and an observational schedule is used for the award of marks
during the operation. Consequently, it involves process and product assessment (Green, 1975
and Wiersma and Jurs, 1985). Therefore, assessing process skills using performance test
involves more than one method and technique i.e. project tasks to be carried out, and
observational technique and a rating scale to guide the observation. This statement agrees with
the assertion made by Ezewu (1985) that the assessment of skills in technical education requires
a combination of techniques and methods such as project tasks and observation rating scale.
The NBTE (2003) delineated the following as the objectives for assessment in Mechanical
Engineering craft. On completion of the course, the students should be able to:
I. Demonstrate the acquired knowledge and skills in mechanical Engineering craft.
II. Practice occupations in mechanical Engineering craft.
The verbs used to describe performance in the objectives are “to practice” and “to demonstrate”.
The assessment of these objectives would require students to demonstrate ability to use tools,
machines and equipment in grinding, drilling and fitting operations in the workshop. These
therefore, would demand that students be given tasks to perform in a workshop set up and while
the students are carrying out the tasks they would be observed and rated. This signifies process
skill assessment in a workshop setting. Therefore, the most appropriate and suitable method for
assessing the objectives of mechanical Engineering craft at NTC level is Workshop-based
process skill test.
43
Investigation carried out by the researcher in technical colleges in the study area revealed
that some kind of assessment of skills of student was carried out using invalid and unreliable
tests. But the absence of clear cut statement in the curriculum with regards to method of
assessment to be adopted and lack of tangible evidence of valid and reliable tests in the
institutions visited made the researcher to conclude that there was no valid and reliable method
of assessing performance of students. This conclusion agreed with the findings of Agu (2004),
who after visiting G.T.C. Assokio and G.T.C. Agwada concluded that there was no evidence of
any process skill tests for assessing students in technical colleges.
Rating systems and scales
Generally, a number of teacher-made rating systems and rating scale exist: Although not
all of them are employed at the same time in evaluating 'students, but at different specific times,
each type is utilized. Three commonly 'known types of rating systems and rating scales are
discussed in this section as they apply to performance measurement in vocational and technical
education.
Types of rating systems
Erickson and Wentling, (1986) grouped three major types of rating systems:
The instructor or supervisory ratings, Peer ratings, and Self assessment of process and product
performance
(a) Instructor or Supervisory Ratings
This appears to perhaps be the oldest and most used type of rating system in the evaluation of
either process or product as a performance measure, (Erickson & Wentling, 1986). Teachers or
supervisors both could conduct this type of performance assessment formally and informally as
the students carry out given tasks in the workshop or class. It involves direct observation of
students by the teacher as the Students work on specific assignments. The instructor or
supervisor walks round and observes what the students are doing and how they are doing it.
These informal observations are all part of the individualization of instruction within
occupational education. As to a more formalized performance measures, the observation is
followed with a more objective rating of the students through the use of guides or rating forms,
which also serve to record the rating once they are made.
These authors recommended that the teachers should organize and set up specific
performance tests through which students could be observed or in which the products can be
rated. Similarly, the authors stated that, this method of assessment is equally useful in private or
public organizations, such as industries, where most employment settings use some type of
system to aid them in determining an employee's retention in the job or for the purposes of their
salaries/wages increase or adjustment. They finally called upon educational and .institutional
44
authorities to devise specific rating forms to be filled out by employers of graduates of their
institutions to aid them in the assessment of students' performance and the ultimate revision and
improvement of their instructional programmes.
b. Peer Ratings
The peer rating system could take any form using any kind of tool. But one unique thing
about it, is that students are asked to assess their peers and the final assessment is checked and
recorded by the teacher. The practical aspect of peer ratings could take the form of:
- Arranging each member of the class to evaluate each of the other members of the class in
terms of their processes or products.
- The second approach is to involve a special committee of students or a segment of the class
as an evaluation committee that will be responsible for rating projects or the processes of all
students in the class.
- The third way is to divide the students and assign them the responsibility for
assessing three or four other members of the' class, thus involving, multiple ratings of each
student in the .class by different student or peer raters. According to Ericson & Wentling,
(1976), it is important within the students or peer evaluation committee to incorporate
appropriate rating scales and instruments for the recording of ratings. It is equally important to
have a means of combining ratings or averaging ratings especially when multiple ratings are
taken of each student's product or processes. These authors also advocated for the involvement
of students in the identification of important components of product and processes, as well as in
the establishment or formulation of rating forms to be used. According to them, this can aid in
.the instructional or learning process in addition to facilitating the measurement or assessment
processes involved. .
Four advantages of peer ratings were highlighted as follows by these authors:
i By involving students in the evaluation of performance, will introduce the students to the
complexity of assessment.
ii It will encourage the students to evaluate their actions and efforts.
iii It will encourage the students to become more actively involved in the teaching-learning
processes.
iv The processes of students evaluating other students' performances provide for a
recapitulation of the task and therefore reinforce retention of the particular task.
45
c. Self-assessment of Process and Product Performance
This simply refers to the situation in which vocational students evaluate the processes
and products of their own work by themselves. Erickson and Wentling, (1986)-stated that,
although this system has been more informally practiced, the need for making it more formal
exist. To them, this system could be made formal by providing students with a rating form,
possibly the same rating form that is used by the teacher to carry out their assessment. These
authors hold the view that, by making students aware of the rating process and giving them the
opportunity to evaluate their own work, probably provides the best diagnostic information to the
students about their performance. Also such information can aid vocational and technical
students in improving their competencies prior to an evaluation by their teachers.
Types of Rating Scales or Instruments
A number of rating instruments or scales for evaluation have been developed and are in common
use in vocational and technical education. These scales include: Ranking, product scales,
checklists, numerical scales, graphic rating scales and identification tests scales. Some authors
(Ericson & Wentling, 1988; Mehrens & Lehmann 1978, Okoro, 1999 and Enyi (2006)) have
described these rating scales in detail, the summary of which is presented below:
a. Rankings:
Ranking involves comparing process or products within a group of students and then ordering
each from the best in the group to the worst or poorest. This according to Okoro (2002) is
strictly utilized in a norm-reference evaluation in which a student's performance in a subject or
particular tasks, is reported with regards to others in the norm group.
The ranking system simply shows how an individual compares to others included in the
ranking. But it has the shortcoming that it does not really indicate the adequacy or depth/level
of performance of the completed product. However, despite this weakness, the ranking of
products or processes can be a reliable method in vocational and technical education provided
the teacher has the ability of being a good judge. An example of the ranking form, which could
be used by the peer, or student rating of classroom projects, is given in example 1 below:
Example 1.
On the following ranking form, indicate the best project first and most deficient last: In your
ranking, consider the following criteria:
a) Accuracy of constructing ( blue print)
b) Design changes
c) Workmanship
Project 15—————————-Rank
Project 10 ———————Rank
46
Project7—————————Rank
b. Product Scales
In Mehrens and Lehmann (1978) product scales incorporate a means of taking measures
similar to rankings and allowing for criterion references rather than relying solely upon inter
group comparisons of products. Basically, a product scale is a collection of samples of products
that vary in degree of accuracy or quality. The samples are usually arranged on a board or
display panel from the outstanding or very good ones to the less acceptable or poor samples
depending on the focus of product. Numbers are then generally assigned to each one of the
samples along the line of quality.
Evaluating a student’s product with a product scale involves the comparison of the
student's product to the scale and then identifying or awarding the number that corresponds to
the sample on the scale which most closely represents the student's product. An example of a
product scale may be that of a picture sketches or a sample of the products of various filing
surfaces made by mechanical engineering craft students in which different points are assigned to
various filed surfaces depending on the degree of skillfulness and type of file used. For instance,
ten marks/points could be assigned to surface filed with the appropriate amperage or heat
setting, and proportionately fewer points could go to surfaces that are judged as being either too
"rough" or too "smooth". See example 2 below:
Example 2:
2 4 6 8 10 8 6
4 2
Project 5 ——————————Rank
Project 2 —————————Rank
47
According to Mehren & Lehmann (1978), product scales are easily developed by first, choosing
those products that can be ranked one better than another, and then placed along a scale. The
scale may be updated as, additional products are developed that do not compare with any one of
the products already included in the scale. Hence, additions are always made between two
existing points on the scale.
The product scale has advantage over ranking method in that when used in
vocational/technical education, students are compared to a developed standard and any number
of the students within a class can have outstanding products. Simply put, an entire class may
perform in an outstanding manner compared to other classes. Yet, if class ranking are used,
someone in the class has to receive the lowest rank. An extreme but potential happening is that
the lowest ranking in one class could exceed the highest ranking in another class when actual
products are considered. Therefore, the product scale can help minimize this problem and allow
for a criterion reference of performance.
In addition to recording the existence and frequency of actions, the students’ activity can
be modified to record the proper sequence or occurrence in time of particular acts or maneuvers
as shown in example 3, given below:
Example 3:
Students' Action Sequence of Actions
1. Takes slide 1
2. Wipes slide with lens paper 2
3. Wipes slide with cloth
4. Wipes slide with finger
5. Moves bottle of culture along the table
6. Places digs or two of culture in slide 3
7. Adds more culture
8. Adds few digs of water
9. Hunts for coyer glasses 4
10. Wipes cover glass with lens paper 5
11. Wipes cover with cloth
12. Wipes cover with finger
13. Wipes off surplus fluid
14. Places slide on stage 6
15. Looks through eye piece with right eye
16. Looks through eye piece with left eye 7
48
Harbour-Peters (1999)stated that the above type of students’ activity checklist is
exceptionally useful when there is more than one way or sequence for completing a task! In
addition to focusing on correct maneuvers or actions, the checklist can also include incorrect
actions to indicate an individual's lack of proper response in certain instances. In most cases, this
type of information is useful to the vocational/technical teacher for diagnostic purposes and in
aiding both teacher and student in correcting deficient behaviour.
c. Checklists
Checklists in Oranu (1988) are simply lists of behaviors or activities that are checked by
a vocational/technical teacher as being observed during a particular observation session.
Checklists are valuable instruments for determining what a student can do or can not do and can
be extended to record the number of times a particular activity or technique has been used. A
checklist for observing an individual using, an overhead projector is given in example 4 below:
Example 4
Student's actions Occurrence
1. Position projector ______________
2. Plug projector into receptacle _______________
3. Place sample transparency on projector table _______________
4. Turn a projector _______________
5. Adjust position of machine ________________
6. Focus projector ________________
7. Turn off projector ________________
8. Insert first transparency _______________
9. Turn a projector _______________
10. Turn off projector while changing transparency ________________
d. Numerical/Qualitative Scales:
''Numerical rating scales measure characteristics by assigning numbers to specific rating
categories. Okoro (1999), for example, mechanical engineering craft students may be rated on
their adequacy in filing a “metal piece” flat and square. The scale might range from one to' ten,
one being poor and ten being excellent. Another example of a 4-item numerical rating scale for
evaluating machine tool operations in the formation of convex and concave radii is given in
example 5 below:
49
Example 5:
This type of scale in Ezendu (1992) simply asks that a check mark be placed in the appropriate
box. Other types of rating scales ask that check marks be placed along a continium ranging
from zero or one to a higher number ranging anywhere from three to ten. For instance in the
example given above on forming of radii on the .engine lathe, in addition to measuring the
accuracy of convex and concave radii, the workmanship of that formation could also be judged
at the same time through the use of an additional three point scales as follows (See example 6).
Another alternative for numerical scales involves using bipolar adjectives for
assessing performance or products. For example, a rating scale developed for assessing service
operations could be as shown in example 7 below:
Example 7
Forming of radii on the engine lathe
Accuracy
b) Concave
a) Convex: 1
2 3
3 = best
1 3 3 = best
Forming of radii on the engine lathe
Accuracy Workmanship
a) Convex:
b) Concave:
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
Setup of Drilling Operation
a) Disorganized 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Systematic
b) Slow 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fast
c) Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
2
50
From this example it can be noted that a series of ratings can be achieved for the same
operation of behaviour, each focusing on a different aspect of that behaviour. The numerical
rating scale has the advantage that it is simple and easy to summarise the observed ratings by
adding and averaging ratings and combining these to formulate an overall or total score for the
occupational task.
Graphic- rating scale or descriptive scale.
The graphic-rating scale also sometimes called Likert Scale is simply five item stem
followed by a straight line with rating categories positioned along the line. The scale in Enyi
(2006) can assume many different forms with or without descriptive categories or members for
the scale units. Usually however the graphic scale does not have numbers. A graphic rating scale
with five categories described in two or three words is presented below in example 8:
Example 8
These descriptions can be extended to a more specific delineation of each category -up to a
paragraph for each. A graphic rating scale with extended detailed description of categories is
shown in example 9 below.
Example 9
Rate Wazi on gross coordination as you have perceived her in this work situation:
a. Clumsy: very clumsy in the handling of objects such as tools, equipment.
b. Somewhat awkward: Has trouble manipulating objects such as tools, equipment, but with
practice can-improve on a specific task.
c. Average coordination: Performs at an average level as compared to others in the group.
d. Above average coordination: Possesses a high level of coordination on most tasks but may
have trouble with some.
e. Very well coordinated: Demonstrate a high level of coordination
across all manipulating activities.
Rate Wazi on gross motor coordination as you have perceived her
in this work situation
Clumsy Somewhat Average Above Average Very well
Awkward Coordination Coordination Coordination
51
According to Enyi (2006) one of the problems with numerical rating scale without
graphic description is that, the scale of one to five or one to ten used for instance is basically the
scale possessed by the individual assessor. In other words, a score of "5" to one vocational
teacher may be a score of "3"to another. The graphic scale therefore, serves to standardize
ratings by providing a number of different assessors a more consistent description of the
behaviors that represent each category along the scale.
Also, graphic items can be grouped with a number of stems using the same categories for
rating. This can be a great advantage in terms of saving space and preventing the vocational
teacher from changing his response mode for each item. On many rating scales, the line or
continuum of a characteristic is divided into unit distances usually of equal length. Sometimes,
numbers are even assigned to points along the continuum. This facilitates scoring, summary, and
averaging the item responses. . Stages for constructing graphic rating scales has been presented
by Remmers (1963) as follows.
1. The line, whether horizontal or vertical, should be unbroken.
2. The line should be five or six inches long, enough to allow indication of all
discrimination of which the rater is capable.
3. The direction of the line should be the same, that is, the socially desirable end should be
the same for all traits.
4. That for unsophisticated raters, the good end of the line should come first.
5. If several objects are to be rated, the best management of the page is that which rates all
of them on one characteristic before proceeding to another characteristic.
6. Descriptive categories should .be as near as possible to the points of the scale they
describe.
7. The categories need not be equally spaced.
8. In other than machine scoring, a stencil divided into numbered sections makes a
convenient scoring device.
9. That segmented lines should not call for any finer discrimination than will be used in
scoring.
The basic rating scales described in this section comprise the majority of those that are
appropriate to performance appraisal. One of their characteristics is that, rating scales used
in the measurement of process and product of performance provide a good basis for
systematically judging and recording judgments.
The knowledge gained from the review of literature for this section helped in selecting the type
of rating scale, used in constructing workshop-based process skill test (WBPST) in this study.
Specifically, the nature of the tasks to be observed and the skills involved called for a descriptive
52
rating scale along the pattern of the one ascribed above as summarized from Ericson &
Wentling's work of (1988).
Simpson Pschomotor Model
Simpson (1972) viewed the psychomotor domain as concerned with the development and
use of the muscles and the body’s ability to co-ordinate its movements. Simpson recommended
a classification system consisting of seven categories or levels, some of which are sub-divided.
E ach succeeding category from perception to origination demands a higher degree of skill from
the simplest to complex set of skills. The taxonomy of psychomotor domain as categorized by
Simpson (1972) was highly regarded as the more acceptable one by Okoro (2002), Nworgu
(2003), and Olaitan (2003), being the most widely cited taxonomy dealing with physical
behaviour. Simpson’s classification is as follows:
1. Perception: (5-10% of the total test items)
This is the process of becoming aware of objects and materials through the sense organs
such as eyes and ears. It involves use of sense organs to recognize cues, make choices and relate
to actions.
Examples.
• Student recognizes malfunction sounds of equipment
• Identify different sizes of drill bits
• Identify wrong tools in a group of tools
• Distinguishes aluminum metal from mild steel.
Illustrative verbs include: choose, isolate, relate, recognize, separate, distinguish, identify
describe, differentiate and detect.
2. Set: (5-10% of the total test items).
This level involves readiness to perform a particular task. It requires the student to
demonstrate an awareness or knowledge of the behaviour needed to carry out the skill.
(sometimes called mind sets). This level is sub-divided into mental set, physical set and
emotional set.
Examples
• Showing eagerness to mount a drill bit.
• Positioning a hack saw ready to cut.
• Using a bench-vice.
Illustrative verbs include: demonstrate, react, respond, show, start, move, begin, explain,
display, proceed, and volunteer.
53
3. Guided response: (20-30% of the total test items)
Emphasis here is on performance of the task guided by the teacher or a model. It
involves imitation and trial and error of the wanted skill. That is trying various responses, until
an appropriate response is achieved.
Examples
• Imitate the teacher’s way of draw-filing a piece of work,
• Sharpening a cold chisel after watching the teacher’s demonstration.
• Follow instructions to assemble components.
Illustrative verbs include: construct, assemble, build, dismantle, grind, display, fix, measure.
Calibrate, fasten, dissect, mix, originate, mend and heat.
4. Mechanism: (20-30% of the total test items)
Learned response has become habitual. At this level, the student has achieved a certain
confidence and degree of skill in the performance of an act. It still requires guided response.
Examples:
• Produce parts within the maximum and minimum size limits
• Use the steel rule to take measurement on circular shaped metals.
• Replace a broken hack saw blade.
Illustrative verbs include: Measure, fasten, fix, grind, manipulates, assemble, dismantle, display,
calibrate, build, dissect, construct heat and mend.
5. Complex Overt Response: (25-30% of the total test items)
This level involves the development of complex skills which can be performed
automatically. Individual student at this level can perform a motor act that is considered
complex because of the movement pattern required. The act can be carried out efficiently and
smoothly, that is with minimum time and energy.
Examples
• Cut a disc to the required size and lay out circles about ¼ “apart with no error.
• Drilling on the radial drilling machine
• Display accuracy in measuring with vernier and micro meter screw gauges.
• Raising a bowl with a hammer.
Illustrative verbs include: Assemble, sketch, mix, display, dismantle, heat, mend, construct, fix,
grind, organize, fasten, dissect, build, measure, manipulate and calibrate.
6. Adaptation: (5-10% of the total test items)
54
At this level, skills are well developed and the learner can alter learned skills to suit new
situations. Emphasis is on changing motor activities to meet the demands of new problematic
situations requiring a physical response.
Examples
• Using cold chisel to cut metal stock
• Using hack saw to cut sheet metal
• Modifies instructions to meet the need of the students.
• Perform milling operation on lathe machine.
Illustrative verbs include: Alter, adapt, revise, rearrange, change, vary and re-organize.
7. Origination: (5-10% of the total test items)
The seventh level involves creation of new motor activities and development of new or
original skill that replaces the skill initially learned. Making new movements to suit a particular
condition is the emphasis at this level. In other words, learning outcomes emphasize creativity
based upon highly developed skills.
Examples
• Designing a new plan of a mechanical engineering craft workshop
• Develop a new valid and reliable instrument for assessing student psychomotor
objectives
• Designing a more efficient way to perform an assessable link task.
Illustrative verbs include: Create, design, originate, arrange, compose, construct, develop and
combine. This level is however not in NTC curriculum and was not considered in this study.
Simpson’s model is appropriate for classifying the objectives in mechanical engineering craft at
NTC level because the levels illustrative verbs tally with those of mechanical engineering craft
practical objectives in the curriculum, (see Appendix D, p122). The model is also
comprehensive. It fulfils the requirement that psychomotor objectives involve an element of
cognitive and affective domains. Therefore, the model guided building of table of specification
for the workshop-based process skill test items.
Ability Level
Ability in Okeme (2011) is the mental or physical power that enables a person to achieve
or accomplish something. Ability level, according to Adeyemo (2010), means characteristic
mode of functioning that enables an individual show in intellectual activities in a highly
consistent and persuasive way. Ability level of a student in technical college is then the
personality characteristic that influence the students’ school performance. Adeyemo observed
that the capacity of students to engage themselves meaningfully in any educational task which
requires higher psychomotor functioning depends on factors which include their academic
55
potentials. Several studies within Nigeria have shown that students are qualitatively different in
their ability level or potentials (Adesoji, 2008).
Buttressing the view of Adesoji (2008), Adeyomo (2010) has identified three ability
levels in relation to teaching-learning situation, viz: High, Average and low. According to the
author, the first 33% of students with high scores in a test are in high ability group, while the
least 33% in the test are low ability group. The middle 34% of students belong to average
ability group. (Appendix I1, p176) The author further explained that high ability level students
are better than average or low ability group while low ability students might be better in other
tasks that have to do with the use of hands (manipulative skills such as in mechanical
engineering craft practice). The average ability students perform relative better on learning
activities involving social material which are more likely require external defined goal and
reinforcement, the author added.
Some studies have also revealed that the performance of low ability students have been
found to be lowest while that of high ability students was high (Kempa and Dube, 1974;
Roberts, 1995 in Adesoji (2008). Findings from some studies have revealed that the type of
assessment instrument can influence the performance of low ability students (Okebukola, 1992
and Lavioe, 1993). From the evidence available, none of the studies have investigated the effect
of process skill test items on the performance of the high, average and low ability students in
mechanical engineering craft with a view to finding out whether the low and average ability
students performance will be improved by their exposure to process skill tests. This study
would fill this gap.
56
FIGURE 1: Schema
Theoretical Framework
A theory is set of ideas that are intended to explain why something happens or exist.
For example, according to the theory of vocational education, “For every occupation, there is a
minimum productive ability which an individual must possess in order to secure or retain
employment in that occupation”. Ali (1996) viewed theory as an opinion or idea that somebody
believes is true but that is not proved. Olaitan (2003) explained a theory as a set of related
statements that are arranged systematically so as to give functional meaning to a set of series of
events. He maintained that the statement may take the form of descriptive or functional
definition, evaluation construct, assumption, postulations, hypothesis, generalization, laws or
theorem. Gall, Gall and Borg (2007) defined theory as a set of interrelated concepts, definitions
and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among
Test Development Operations in Mechanical Engineering Craft
Grinding operation Drilling operation Fitting operation
Process and product assessment
Simpson model
Workshop-based process skill Tests
Perception Set Guided
response Mechanism Complex overt
response
Adaptation
Validation Reliability Valid and reliable instrument (WBPSI)
Skill improvement and employability.
Process assessment
Ability level
57
variables with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena. The theories on which this
study is based are:
(a) Classical Test Theory:
This theory, according to Gall, Gall and Borg (2007) is a body of related psychometric
statements that are logically arranged and related to one another. These statements are used to
predict the outcomes of psychological tests such as the difficulty of items and the ability of the
test takers. The authors emphasized that the Classical Test Theory (CTT) is dependent
exclusively upon the abilities of the examiners and the characteristics of the test. Developers
attempt to construct a test that is highly reliable (i.e free of measurement error) and that is not
too easy nor too difficult for the individuals being assessed.
A great many tests used in education have been developed within the framework
provided by classical test theory. They are good tests but susceptible to the following problems:
i. The reliability estimates for the test and various item statistics (e.g., indices of item
difficult) depends on the sample from which they are derived. Thus, if a researcher
uses the test with a sample that represents a different population from the one used in
the test’s development, its reliability and item characteristics may be different.
The analysis of a test which is based on the above stated statistics uses C.T.T. The
Classical Test Theory is an influential theory of test scores in the social sciences. In
psychomotor objectives, the theory has been superseded by some more sophisticated models in
Item Response Theory (IRT). The Item Response Theory is therefore more relevant to this
study.
b. Item Response Theory (IRT): Thomas and Nelson (1996) referred to IRT as Latent Trait
Theory, Strong True Score Theory or Modern Mental Test Theory. Hambleton, Swaminathan
and Rogers (1991) defined IRT as a body of logically related statements describing the
application of mathematical models to data from questionnaires and tests as a basis for
measuring abilities, attitudes, skills or other variables. Mathematical model in the view of
Okeme (2011) is a representation of the essential aspects of an existing system or a system to be
constructed which represent knowledge of that system in a usable form.
Gall, Gall and Borg (2007) described item responses theory as an approach to test construction
that is based on the following assumptions:
i. An individual’s performance on any single test item reflects a single ability.
ii. Individual with different amount of that ability will perform different on the item.
iii. The relationship between the variable of ability and item performance can be
represented by a Mathematical function.
58
To describe IRT in simple terms, let us suppose that the ability being measured is drilling
ability. We will suppose further that there are five students (A, B, C, D and E), each with a
successively greater amount of this ability. Thus student E has more drilling ability than any
other student, student D, has more drilling ability than student C, and so on. Now suppose we
administer a drilling test item (1) that is very easy. All five students answer it correctly. This
item tells us then, that all the students have some minimal level of drilling ability. Next, we
administer another test item (2 that students C, D and E can answer but students A and B cannot.
This item is more difficult and it serves to differentiate the drilling ability of students C, D and E
from students A and B. we next administer an item (3) that only student E can answer. We now
know that this item reflects a higher level of drilling ability than the other two items, and it
differentiates the drilling ability of student E from the other four students.
The use of item response theory as an approach to item constructions and analysis has
two important features, it provides information about the amount of drilling ability measured by
each item. Second, student performance on a given item provides information about how much
drilling ability each student has so far. In our example above, we have described three test items,
each reflecting a different level of drilling ability. Suppose we concentrate to more item at each
level (1, 2 and 3) by the same method (we would develop 10 more (1) level items that all
students can answer. This item bank would have several worthwhile use:
i. We can customize testing for students of different ability level. For example, suppose
we give a student several 1-level items to answer. If the student cannot answer any of
them, we need not frustrate him, and extend the testing time unnecessarily, by
administering 2-level items.
ii. We can construct many different parallel tests, each of equivalent difficulty. For
example, we can go into our item bank and randomly select two items of each level
to construct a six-item test. We can then repeat the procedure and construct a parallel
test of equivalent difficulty.
iii. We can reduce measurement error for a particular individual by administering only
items within the range of those he/she is likely to answer correctly. For example, if a
student is like student C described above, we can administer many 2 level items in
order to determine the student’s drilling ability more precisely, (increasing the
number of items in a test reduce measurement error). There is no point administering
1-level items, which are two easy for this student or 3-level items, which are too
difficult.
59
Item response theory uses mathematical models to define the relationship between an observed
behaviour (i.e. performance on a given test item) and the ability that is presumed to under lie
that performance. In practice, we do not know the true drilling ability of individuals. It is a latent
trait, that is, an unobservable characteristic that is hypothesized to explain observed behaviour.
For example, if we observe an individual drilling a hole following order of procedure, we infer
from our observations that this person has good drilling ability. We can observe the behaviour of
drilling and order of sequence, but not the under lying ability.
An item characteristic curve is a mathematical function that is created to show the
relationship between test-item performance and the presumed underlying ability. Two item
characteristic curves are shown in figure 2. Several features of the curves are worth noting:
1. the horinzontal (x) axis represent the underlying ability (donated by the symbol Ө)
measures by the items. The ability is measured in standard –score units, such that
individual with user amounts (minus values) have less of the ability than those with
grater amount (positive values).
2. the vertical (y) axis represent the probability (p) of answering a given item correctly.
More precisely, P can be interpreted as the probability that an individual at a given level
of ability, chosen at random from a sample of individuals at the same level, will answer
the item correctly.
3. item 2 is more difficult for students at most levels of the ability, because the probability
of answering it correctly (p) is lower at most points of the X-axis which represent ability
(Ө).
4. item 1 has more discrimination power. Meaning that there is a greater difference in item
performance between low-ability and high ability students. For example, if we look at
item 1, there is probability that individuals at ability level O will answer it correctly. For
item 2, however, the probability is (.35) that individuals at ability level O will answer it
correctly, but a slights higher probability (.45) that individuals at ability level 1 will
answer it correctly. We can express this finding saying that item 1 has greater
information value “than item 2 for the range of ability under consideration.
5. even individuals at the lower level of ability (the left-most point of the X-axis) have a
probability greater than zero of answering the items correctly. This reflects that the two
items both allow guessing.
60
Figure 2: Item characteristic curves
Sources: Adapted from figure 7.1 on P, 207 of Gall, Gall and Borg (2007). Educational research,
An Introduction 8th
Edition.
In constructing test using IRT, test developers use one of various possible items characteristic-
curve models to fit item performance probabilities for pools of items to different ability levels.
For example, different model are used depending on how the items are scored (e.g. correct
incorrect; high –low; multiple choice) whether the items allow for guessing or whether they very
in discriminating power (as to items 1 and 2 in figure 2). In relation to this study, the item
response theory has relevance because it guided the researcher to identify the process skills in
mechanical engineering craft that were used in developing workshop-based process skill tests.
The study relates to the theory in that it guided the researcher in construction the five point
rating scale for assessing students skills in mechanical engineering craft at the NTC level. The
rating scale has the following response categories and weighted values.
Very high 5
High 4
Moderately high 3
Low 2
Very low 1
More so in the study, the item response theory guided the researcher in tailoring the skill items
to the ability of the individual student. The study was also guided in areas of the curriculum with
varying levels of Simpson taxonomy that suggest the difficulty levels of the test.
0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
-1 0 1 2 3
Item 1
Item2
61
Classification Theories of Psychomotor Domain
Numerous classification theories of psychomotor domain have been developed by many
experts. In this study, the following expert’s classifications will be discussed: Harbor-Peters
(1999). Denga (1987), Ezewu (1984), Singer (1972), Hauenstenin (1970), Fitts (1967) Adams
(1968), Miller (1967) and Seymour (1966).
Harbor-Peters (1999), classified the psychomotor domain into six levels namely
Reflex movements, Basic fundamental movements, Perceptual abilities, Physical abilities,
skilled movements and Non-discursive communication. Onwuka in Harbor-Peters (1999)
explained these levels thus:
i. Reflex movements –include movements like the blinking of the eyes, sneezing and
answering the call of nature. Every normal person makes such movements. It is not
possible to educate people on these movements.
ii. Basic Fundamental Movements - may be grouped in three categories:
• Locomotor movements – are movements of the body as one moves from place to
place, e.g. walking, crawling, running and jumping.
• Non – locomotor movements – involve movements of the body without moving
from place to place, e.g. movements of the hands and fingers while cutting,
sewing or knitting.
• Manipulative Movements – Refer to the use of the limbs to control or move
things, the type of movements that occur as one uses tools, and instruments such
as in geometrical constructions or in playing the Piano, guitar, or trumpet.
iii. Perceptual abilities –are relating to the ability of individuals to perceive and distinguish
things through the senses e.g. the ability to distinguish sound in the case of music or
surfaces or recognize change in shape during project making in workshops.
iv. Physical abilities –embrace endurance, strength, flexibility and ability. People in the
area of Health and physical education have a lot of skills to teach students and assess
them. Teachers can train students in endurance by assigning time-consuming tasks.
Flexibility can also be assessed in manipulative instruments. Mechanical engineering
craft teachers can assess pupils’ strength in cutting or filing exercises.
v. Skilled Movements – such movements involve the combinations of the various types of
physical abilities in making or creating things e.g. drawing involves some manipulative,
endurance and flexibility skills, yet the art of drawing is a skilled movement.
vi. Non-Discursive communication –is the highest level of the psychomotor domain. It
demands a combination of other levels that will enable an individual to get to this level.
Non-discursive communication is made up of two parts namely – expressive movement
62
and interpretative movement. Teachers in Fine Art can assess students’ expressive and
interpretative movements. The model explains psychomotor in terms of stages in
building perfection. Even though the model focus on stages involved in building
perfection of skill, it failed to incorporate some important stages such as observation and
demonstration. Therefore, the model is not comprehensive enough and was not
considered for the study.
Denga (1987) defined and classified cognitive and affective domains of educational
objectives. According to the author, cognitive domain deals with the intellectual skills of
remembering knowledge, understanding, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
Cognitive based objectives are defined using verbs such as “to state”, “to list”; “to explain”, e.t.c
each of these levels requires the individual to think and reproduce result. Affective domain
according to Anakwe (2009) is concerned with feelings, values and attitudes. The affective
domain is classified in terms of receiving, responding, valuing, organization and
characterization. The author concluded that verbs for describing affective objectives are “to
obey”, “to ensure”, “to control”. etc. The practical objectives of mechanical engineering craft at
the NTC level were defined using verbs such as “to drill”, “to shape”, “to cut”, et.c. By their
very nature, these verbs defined practical performances. As such, the cognitive and affective
based classifications are not relevant and therefore will not be considered in this study.
Ezewu (1984) in his classification used Harrow’s classification as a reference. Ezewu was
concerned with the extent to which Harrow’s classification of the psychomotor domain could be
applied to learning outcomes in vocational and technical education; which in his view has been
underscored by most models of the curriculum except the Aristotelian classification of
knowledge. Then Ezewu had to review Harrow’s classification. He stated that the domain is
applicable to supportive and physical activities. Therefore, Ezewu proposed his psycho- motor
domain with three categories and sub-categories. The classifications are:
• Low levels: Understanding of terminologies, task, job specification, instrument and
materials.
• Middle Levels: Task identification – identifies task in a job and breaks job into tasks.
Task element specification – identifies task elements, breaks tasks into elements, select
appropriate materials and instruments.
• High levels: Execution – identifies task-elements, handles instruments and materials
properly, executes with high speed, executes according to specification, co-operates with
necessary others. Output-meets standard specifications, functions according to standard.
Ezewu (1984) however, cautioned that his proposed classification is tentative, and its
applicability and usability will be determined through practices by the curriculum designers and
63
teachers in the related field. This classification is not comprehensive enough. However, some of
the steps were considered for this study.
Singer (1972) explained that psychomotor domain encompasses a broad spectrum of
movement behaviours. According to the author, the problems posed by the psychomotor area
are magnified by the fact that different disciplines have different interests. He further elaborated
that psychomotor activities are associated with military tasks, agricultural duties, vocational
skills, e.t.c. Singer then classified psychomotor behaivours into three main categories as
follows:
• Motor skills – Comprising of fine, manual and gross motor skills.
• Physical tasks – Comprising physical fitness area, non-vocational beahviour.
• Perceptual – Motor behavior – made up of exploration of space and language skills. The
model is not comprehensive enough and therefore was not considered for the study.
Hauenstenin (1970) defined a model of psychomotor skills that emphasizes sequence of
learning skills. These are:
1. Observing
2. Imitating
3. Manipulating
4. Performing
5. Perfection.
The sequence of learning skill starts with observing the skill, then followed by imitating through
perfection. This model is not comprehensive enough because it does not specify aspects of
psychomotor skills of these sequences. This model is not relevant and was not considered for
the study.
Fitts and Posner (1969) defined psychomotor skill in terms of types and levels of skill
disposition. These include:
Level 1: Cognitive motor skills
(i) Intellectual skills
(ii) Psychomotor skills
Level 2: Verbal motor skills
(i) Language skills
(ii) Perceptual skills
Level 3: Sensory dependent skills
(i) Perceptual abilities
(ii) Neuromuscular skills
(iii) Fine motor skills
64
(iv) Gross motor skills
This model identified types of psychomotor skills. It does not specify the dimensions of
psychomotor skills. Therefore it was not considered for the study.
Adams (1980) explained psychomotor domain using a theory, called graded movement.
Adams viewed graded movement as the basis of skills acquisition. The first stage involves
perception which is the basis of subsequent movements, this is a verbal-motor phase in which
the teacher provide verbal cues concerning the learner’s actions. In the second phase, the motor
phase, the verbal cues are not necessary since the perceptual trace is not firmly established. This
theory emphasis carefully directed teaching and practice in order to acquire skills. The model is
not detailed and is only good for teaching skills. However, some aspects of the first and last
stages of the model were considered in the development of the workshop-based process skill
test.
Miller (1967) developed hierarchical structure theory for explaining skills. Miller views
the acquisition of skill as the pressure co-ordination of separate units of activity into a
hierarchical order. Miller theory is based on TOTE which means:
(1) Test
(2) Operate
(3) Test
(4) Exit
The first stage is based on test in which the learner assesses whether there is any
difference between the actual state of the system and its required state. Any observed difference
requires the “operate” phase followed by further “Test” again. The circle of test operate and test
again will continue until the desired state is achieved, after which activity ends. This theory
could be good for developing teaching strategic not assessment.
Seymour (1966) defined psychomotor activities in industrial set up. The author
categorized such activities into five namely:
1. Handwork
2. Hand work with tools
3. Single purpose machine
4. Group purpose machine
5. Non-repetitive work.
This model explains psychomotor skills in terms of category of tools and machines used. It does
not explain the dimensions of skills involved in using the tools and machines. Therefore, it is
not appropriate for this research work.
Fitts (1962) developed a three-phase theory. These are:
65
• Cognitive Phase – the student analysis tasks and attempts to comprehend what to expect
and what has to be done. Procedures are described to the student and errors are pointed
out.
• The associative phase – correct patterns of response are established in the learner’s
repertoire as the result of practice. Inadequate movements and other errors are gradually
eliminated.
• The autonomous phase - skilled acts are now performed automatically, errors have been
largely eliminated, speed of performance is increased and resistance to the effects of
stress is intensified.
This model is only good for teaching skills and little for assessing skills possession. However,
the indicators of the last stage such as number of errors and speed was noted in the development
of the workshop -based process skill test.
From the classifications reviewed above, this study identified with Simpson’s (1972)
psychomotor domain with the following six levels – perception, set, guided response,
mechanism, complex overt response and adaptation. Using Simpson’s taxonomy, a table of
specifications was developed as it relates to recommended percentages of the author for such
levels except origination (see Appendix C p122).
Related Empirical Studies
Okeme (2011) conducted a study on development and validation of psycho-productive
skills multiple choice Test items for students in agricultural Science in secondary Schools in
Kogi state. The study focused on the development and validation of psycho-productive skills
multiple choice test items for students in agricultural science in secondary schools. The study
adopted the instrumentation design and was carried out in Kogi State. The population for the
study was 13,925 senior secondary three students in 239 public schools. The sample for the
study was 675 students comprising three ability groups (201 high, 314 average and 160 low
abilities). Multistage sampling technique was adapted. Purposive sample was used to select 15
schools with a population of 2,793. Systematic sampling was used to select 675 SS 3 students
from the students’ population of the 15 schools. A 148 psycho-productive skills test items was
developed and utilized by the study. The instrument was subjected to face, content and criterion
referenced validation. Face validation was carried out by five experts in the faculty of Education,
University of Nigeria Nsukka. The content validation was carried out using a test blueprint
validated by nine subject mater expert in the area of animal production, crop production and
agricultural technology. The psychometric properties of the items were first determined by
administering the instrument to a pilot sample of 40 drawn outside the sample. The criterion-
referenced validation was also carried out by utilizing the scores of the pilot sample with the use
66
of cut score. The reliability of the items was determined by using split-half technique and
Kudder-Richardson K-20. This yielded co-efficiency of 0.87 for animal production, 0.86 for
crop production and 0.88 for agricultural technology with overall coefficient of 0.87.
Percentages, formulae of difficulty index, discrimination index, distractor index and K-R20 were
utilized to answer the research questions. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to
test the null hypothesis at 0.05 level of significance. It was found out that the items had CVR of
between 0.333 and 1.000, difficulty indices of between 0.30 and 0.70, discrimination of not less
than 0.20, positive (+) distraction and criterion-referenced validity of 50% and above. It was
also found that there were significant differences in the mean scores of the three ability groups
(high ability, average ability and low ability). Scheffe test for multiple comparison revealed that
there were significant difference in the mean scores of the high and low abilities but no
significant difference in the mean scores of the high and average abilities.
It was therefore recommended that external examination bodies (WAEC and NECO) should
adopt the psycho-productive skills multiple choice test items in their examination for
certification of the students. It was also recommended that teachers should be encouraged by
government to make use of psycho-productive skills multiple choice test items during teaching
and assessing productive learning aspect of agricultural science in students. This instrument was
developed for assessing the psycho-productive skills of students. The study reviewed relate to
this study on process skills identification, but differs in the test form. The reviewed study made
use of process skill items in form of multiple choice test for assessing productive learning aspect
of agricultural science in students while this study identified task process skill items using rating
scale for assessing skill performance of NTC students in mechanical engineering craft. The
design of the reviewed study and some of the steps in the methodology are relevant, as such
were considered for this study.
Zhang and Lam (2008) carried out a study on Development and Validation of Racquet
ball skills Test for Adult Beginners in Cleveland USA. The purpose of their study was to
produce an instrument for measuring the performance of adults in racquetball skills. The study
used instrumentation design. The sample for the study was 131 adults comprising of 82 male
and 44 female college students. They were provided two 90 minutes sessions of practice and
preparation one week before the testing. Eight skills were developed and validated using a
subjective 5 point rating scale. A single round-robin tournament was conducted simultaneously
for male and female participants. They were evaluated in their overall skill level by a trained
evaluator. Auto-correlation of the data revealed that all the test items had validity and
coefficients equal to or greater than 0.5 except for two items-service placement to the left and to
the right and were dropped from further analysis.
67
The finding of the study from regression analysis revealed that the remaining six skills test items
were predictive of two criterion variables with the multiple correlation equal to .67 and .68 for
males and .61 and .75 for females. The researcher recommended that testing over minimum of
two days would be the best protocol for most racquetball skills. This test was not based on any
Nigerian curriculum and environment but used a subjective 5 point rating scale like this study.
The two test differ in curriculum environments. However, the design and validation procedures
of the reviewed study were considered for this study.
Azizi-Ur-Rehman (2007) conducted a study on the development and validation of
objective test items in physics for class nine in Rawalpindi city, Pakistan. The main objective of
the study was to provide an instrument for measuring the achievement of students in physics in
class nine in Rawalpindi City. The researcher used the instrumentation design to carryout the
study. Six boy’s schools were selected out of the 29 in Rawalpindi city. The instructional
objectives were designed and a table of specifications was used to construct the items.
The instrument was validated content wise by six experts in physics with the use of table of
specifications after which the instrument was administered to the students. After administration,
the scripts were scored objectively and interpreted by finding the difficulty index and
discrimination index of each item by applying the formulae.
The findings of the study were as follows;
1. Most of the items had difficulty indices of between-1.0 and 2.0 (good standard).
2. Only few of the items were too easy or too difficulty with discrimination indices of
between – 1.0 to 2.0.
3. One forth of the items had difficulty indices of 1.5 and above (ideally good range).
4. The mean, median, and mode values for the HA group fall close to one another.
The researcher therefore recommended that:
• Too easy and too difficult items make a test invalid and unreliable and should be
avoided.
• Catchy or dodgy items were always deceptive and promote guessing or cheating so
should not be included in the options.
• The instructional objectives, table of specifications, construction of test items, scoring
and interpretation of data should be in this order and a complete harmony among them.
• A valid test should contain items which are very difficult, difficult, normal or easy in
good proportion. The researcher suggested that 20% of the item should be very difficult
or difficult, 70% should be normal and the remaining 10% should be easy. The
objectives of test items in the above study were not developed on Nigerian curriculum
and environment, while this study’s objectives were formed on Nigerian curriculum.
68
Some steps in the methodology and design of the study were however considered for this
study.
Bukar (2006) conducted a study on Development and Validation of Laboratory-Based
tests for assessing practical skills of higher National Diploma Students in Electronic
Maintenance and Repairs. The research was designed to develop and validate laboratory-based
tests in Electronic Maintenance and repairs that will improve the method of teaching and
assessing students in the course. Three research questions and one hypothesis were formulated
to guide the study. Twenty work station-based tasks and 462 practical skills were generated
through a process of performance assessment revealed through review of the literature. A table
of specification was constructed based on the Padelford (1984) model of psychomotor domain to
ensure balance in assessment of the six levels of the psychomotor domain. Three experts helped
in content validation of the tasks and practical skills and there after 24 lecturers and
technologists from 24 polytechnics offering Electronic Maintenance and Repairs were used for
item-by-item content validation. Based on the results of the item-by-item content validation,
laboratory based tests of 20 works station-based tasks and 462 practical skills were constructed.
The constructed laboratory tests were used in assessing 48 HND students in the department of
Electrical Engineering, Kaduna Polytechnic during 2002/2003 academic session. The data
generated were analyzed using Cronbach alpha, product moment correlation, centroid method of
factor analysis, Kendall coefficient of concordance and F-Ratio Test. The result of the data
analysis relating to factorial validity of the laboratory based tests revealed that 77.01%, 65.5%
and 83.79% of the variance of the three sub-tests respectively were due to General factor.
The internal consistency of the tests on measuring instrument and Testing, Fault finding and
repairs and alignment are 0.71, 0.55 and 0.47 respectively. The inter-rater reliability coefficient
of the laboratory based tests is 0.41 and there was significant relation between five rater’s ratings
of the practical skills of some HND students in the tests. Based on these results, therefore it was
recommended to National Board for Technical Education (NBTE) that the laboratory tests be
adopted in all the polytechnic running Higher National Diploma (HND) in Electronic
Communication Technology). The instrument was constructed for teaching and assessing
performance of students, in electronic maintenance and repairs. Unlike the reviewed study
whose focus was on maintenance skills the focus of this study is on process skills assessment of
NTC students in mechanical engineering craft. The design of the study and some of the steps in
the methodology are relevant for this study and were utilized.
Effiong (2006) carried out a study on development and validation of alternative to
practical test for measuring skills in electronic devices and circuits in technical colleges. The
purpose of the study was to develop and validate alternative to practical tests to measure skills
69
possessed by students in electronics, devices and circuits –a component of R/Tv Electronics
trade. The study has five specifics purposes, five research questions and three null hypotheses.
Instrumentation research design was employed. The study was carried out in Akwa Ibom State
of Nigeria. The population of the study comprised of 93 final year B/Tv. Electronic students in
four technical colleges in the state. The whole population was used. A table of specifications
was prepared and two tests comprising 100 multiple choice items (Test A) and 30 short answer
items (Test B) were developed. Dave’s model of psychomotor objectives was used. Content
and face validation of the tests was done by 11 experts. Pilot testing employing test re-test
method was carried out on 52 final year R/Tv students in Cross River State technical colleges.
Weak and poor items were either improved or replaced after validation and reliability testing.
Thereafter, the tests developed were administered concurrently with a practical test set by
NABTEB at NTC examination level. Data collected through field testing were analyzed using
K-20 formula, item analysis, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Technique and t-test at 0.05
level of significance. Items with poor psychomotor properties were dropped. Findings were
that 87 multiplies choice items and 30 short answer items were valid, reliable and suitable for
inclusion in the final version of the tests developed, the tests developed and the practical test set
by NABTEB by had high correlation coefficients ranging from 0.88 to 0.91, and the three null
hypotheses showed that there was no significant difference in students’ performances in the
developed tests and the practical test. Recommendations were made based on the findings and
suggestions for further studies were stated. Effiog’s study was on measuring skills in electronic
devices while this study is on process skills in mechanical engineering craft. However the design
and methodology of the above study are relevant and guided the researcher in his study.
Amuka (2002) carried out a study on development and validation of an instrument for
assessing the affective work competencies of industrial technical education students. The
purpose of the study was to develop an instrument for assessing the affective work competencies
of industrial technical education students. For this purpose, five research questions and one
hypothesis were formulated to guide this study. The final year industrial technical education
students whose population size was 78 and were in the federal colleges of education (Technical)
located at Asaba, Omoku and Umunze in the South-South and South-East geo-political zones of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria were used for the study. The study was instrumentation study.
One hundred and twenty test items initially generated were submitted to 10 experts in industrial
technical education for face validation. The result of the exercise showed that 83 test items
survived the exercise and 37 test items were regarded to be defective and unacceptable for the
purpose. Consequently the 83 test items were subjected to Q-sort Allocation Technique by five
validators selected by balloting from the 10 experts for further improvement on the validity of
70
the instrument. In all 68 test items that survived the exercise became the 68 items of the
affective work competencies instrument for Industrial Technical Education Students
(AWCIITES). The instrument was trial tested using 18 final year industrial technical education
students of F.C.E (T) Akloka. The data generated were analyzed; the internal consistency
reliability coefficient of the AWCIITES was 0.8395 and the internal constancies reliability
coefficient of the clusters ranged from 0.244 to 0.830. They were computed using Cronbach
Alph formula. The inter-correlations among the clusters and the instrument were determined
using Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Machine Formula. Data were analyzed using
percentages, mean statistics and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The hypothesis was
tested at 0.05 level of significance. The findings revealed that:
(1) The 68 test items of the AWCIITES that resulted from the face validation and Q-Sort
Allocation Technique was suitable for the purpose of the study.
(2) The reliability coefficient of the instrument was fairly high (0.5395).
(3) The internal consistencies of reliability coefficient of the 15 clusters of the instrument
ranged from 0.244 to 0.830. The cluster that had the least coefficient reliability was
“careful” cluster and “friendly/pleasant” cluster the highest coefficient of reliability.
(4) The inter-correlations among the 15 clusters of the AWCIITES were both negative and
positive in magnitude and directions and low (-0.5358) to high (0.6966). the correlation
between the 15 clusters and the entire test (AWCIITES) ranged from low (-0.1808) to
high (0.7084).
(5) The student of federal college of education (Technical Umunze recorded the highest
mean scores in most of the 15 clusters of the instrument than FCE (Technical Omoku
and FCE (Technical), Asaba respectively.
(6) There were no significance differences in the mean scores of the students in the three
institutions in 12 out of 15 clusters of the instrument.
(7) However, there were significant differences in the mean scores of the entire students in
the three of the 15 clusters of the instruments. It was concluded that the AWCIITES have
been developed and validated. The focus of the above study was on work competencies
of NCE industrial students, while this study focused on process skill performance of
NTC students. The design and the methodology of the study reviewed above are related
to this study and therefore were utilized in the study.
Odu (2001) conducted a research on development and validation of an instrument for
assessing students’ psycho-performance in block-laying and concreting. The study was
conducted, with the major purpose of developing and validating an instrument for assessing
students’ psycho-performance in block-laying and concreting in technical colleges. The
71
researcher determined the validity and reliability of the instrument and established its usability.
Five research questions were considered and two null hypotheses tested. The instrumentation
design was used for the study. Eighteen block-laying and concreting operations from the
National Technical Certificate (NTC) curriculum which were amenable to a table of
specifications were selected for which 133 test items were generated. A total of 153 block
laying and concreting teachers, consisting the population were used to rate 580 block laying and
concreting students on the entire test items. Appropriate statistical tools such as mean, grand
mean, Person product moment correlation coefficient, Cronbach alpha, F-ratio, and Scheffees
multiple ranges tested were sued for analyses of data. It was found that
(1) 114 items out of 133 items developed were considered suitable for sue in the instrument.
(2) The instrument had sufficient content and face validity and the reliability coefficients of
items related to various operations ranged from 0.60 to 0.91 for the whole instrument.
(3) The one-way analysis of variance used to test hypothesis, one revealed that there was no
significant difference in the mean scores of the teachers on the students psycho-
performance on cavity wall construction, while there was significant difference in the
mean scores of the teachers on the students psycho-performance on the other 17 block
laying and concreting operations. hypothesis two revealed that there was no significant
difference in the mean scores of the teachers on students psycho-performance in all the
test items at 0.05 level of significance.
The major findings of the study were as follows:
(1) The sixteen block laying and concreting operation were selected by the teachers for the
instrument.
(2) One Hundred and fourteen test items out of the 133 items were selected for the
instrument.
(3) The instrument possessed a high content and face validity.
(4) The reliability of the whole instrument was 0.86 and that of the sub-scales ranged from
0.60-0.91 the instrument had a high reliability.
(5) The researcher’s guidelines on the use of the instrument was that it should be sued to
measure the degree of block laying and concreting competencies demonstrated by
technical college final year students. Guidelines on the scoring of the instrument and
interpretation of test data were also provided.
On the basis of the findings and conclusion in respect of this study, the researcher
recommended that:
(1) Block laying and concreting teachers should use this instrument for assessing students
psycho-performance in block laying and concreting operations.
72
(2) To avoid future differential rating on student psycho-performance by the raters,
workshops and seminars were recommended for the teachers to enable them familiarize
themselves with the techniques of using the instrument through the training patterns
given to the experimental group (three group of teacher who rated student psycho-
performance on block laying and concreting operations). Both the above study reviewed
and this study are related in the sense that they were all conducted at the NTC levels,
while this study is on assessing skills in mechanical engineering craft, Odu’s study was
on assessing skills of students in Blockaying and concreting.
The design and some statistical tools employed in Odu (2001) guided the researcher in the study.
Yalam (2001) conducted a research on the development and validation of metal work
process evaluation scheme. The purpose of the study was to develop and validate a scheme,
which could be used by metal work lecturers at the Nigerian certificate of Education (NCE)
level for evaluating students skills during practical metal work instructions, specifically, the
study addressed five research questions which boarded on identifying the major fitting and
machine operations often carried out by NCE metal work students, the basic skills and
competencies which lecturers often value and assess in their students during practical metal
work instructions, an appropriate rating scale, the validity and reliability of the developed
schemes. Through review of the National commission for colleges of education (NCE)
curriculum for metalwork, a task specification table was developed. Based on this table, 18
major task clusters were identified and further expanded into 164 sub-tasks, which termed the
number of items of the scheme.
Furthermore, 13 assessable competencies and a 4-point descriptive rating scale with various
response categories were developed and cooperated into the scheme. Draft copy of the scheme
was face validated by a total of 210 metalwork lecturers drawn from the 41 NCE (Technical)
awarding in situations all over the country. The scheme was tried out on 40 NCE final year
metal work students randomly sampled from 5 of the 41 different institutions. In each of the
institutions used for the try out, four mental work lecturers were used as a 4-man panel of
assessors for observing and assessing the students as they carry out specific given tasks within
the scheme during the try-out. The reliability of the scheme was established after analyzing data
obtained from the try-out. In analyzing the data, each of the four assessors’ ratings for each of
the items were paired into six set and correlated. The Pearson Product Moment Correlation
formula was used through Mini-Tab computer software for the analysis. Results of the analysis
revealed that all the 164 items of the scheme were highly reliable for inclusion in the final copy
of the scheme.
73
Furthermore, reliability of the various items of the scheme as well as that of the entire scheme as
a whole was obtained using the Kendall co-efficient of concordance tau. The obtained tau(w)
for the various clusters ranged between 0.31 to 0.97, whereas that of the entire scheme was
found to be 0.97. The implication of this outcome is that, the developed MPES was found to be
valid, reliable and practically useful for evaluating student’s skills practical mental work. It is
recommended that, the NCCE, other controlling and examining bodies such as the NUC, NBTE,
NABTEB, NECO should adopt the developed metal work process evaluation scheme (MPES) as
a standard instrument for evaluating students in practical metal work in their various institutions
and/or establishments (where applicable). The above study reviewed identified task skills in
cluster forms for evaluating students in metal work practicals at the NCE level. This study, on
the other hand identified step-by-step procedures of accomplishing given tasks in mechanical
engineering craft at NTC level. The design and methodology of the reviewed study are relevant
and therefore guided the researcher in developing the design for the study.
Fatunsin (1996) carried out a study on Development and Standardization of
Performance-Based Test for assessing students in agriculture in secondary schools in Ondo state.
This study developed and standardized a performance-based test instrument (PBST) for
assessing students in agriculture in secondary schools. The study determined the validity and
reliability of the test and established other psychometric properties. Five research questions were
answered and two hypotheses tested.
The study used both instrumentation and developmental research designs. The study isolated
two performance objectives from the curriculum, developed psycho-productive activities in the
seven areas of the secondary school agricultural sciences curriculum that lent themselves to table
of specifications from where 150 performance-based tests were generated. A total number of
600 students participated in responding to the test developed. The psychometric properties of
the test were determined using reliability validity estimates and item analysis (difficulty,
discrimination and distractor indices).
Appropriate statistical tools such as point-biserial correlation, Cronbach alpha, t-test were
involved to enhance analysis of data. It was found out that:
(1) The instrument had high point-biserial correlation of .71 and reliability coefficient of .94,
making the test valid and reliable;
(2) There were 134 out of 150 items that satisfied all the psychometric properties;
(3) The t-test analysis revealed that the male and female student maintained similar difficulty
and discrimination levels on the test items. If the result of this study is implemented, it
will be of great benefit to the students, to improvement in agriculture and also help to
boost agricultural productivity in the nation. Therefore, the researcher recommended the
74
test to schools and examining bodies for adoption. This study developed a workshop-
based process skill test for assessing students in mechanical engineering craft, while the
reviewed study above developed a performance based test in form of multiple choice test
using process skill items in Agricultural Science. The reviewed study’s design and
methodology are relevant and were utilized for this study.
A study was carried out by Igbo (1997) on Development and validation of a psycho-
productive skill test for assessing senior secondary school students in clothing and textile. This
study was designed to develop, validate and try out on instrument for assessing student’s
psycho-productive skills in the area of clothing and textile at the SSS level. Six research
questions and null hypotheses guided the study. In order to develop the instrument, performance
objectives were isolated from the senior secondary school (SSS) clothing and textile curriculum.
The performance objectives were utilized to develop a detailed table of specification based on
the seven levels of psych-motor domain. The table of specification was utilized to develop 170
test items. The items were validated and 164 items were found adequate and then pilot tested.
Item analysis was carried out and 160 items were finally selected. The selected items were field
tested on 204 SSS III students of clothing and textiles students from Lagos and Akwa Ibom
States who registered for clothing and textiles at the senior secondary certificate Examination
(SSCE) for 1995/96 session.
Reliability of the instrument was established using Kuder-Richardson formular (K-R21). Data
collected from the field were analyzed using mean, point biserial correlation coefficient, item
analyses techniques and t-test at 0.05 level of significance.
The findings of the study were:
• 152 item psycho-productive skill test (PST)
• PST point-biserial coefficient range of 0.05 to 0.86,
• PST reliability coefficient of 0.80
• PST difficulty index range of 0.20 to 0.79
• PST discrimination index range of 0.40 to 0.78
• The t-test revealed similar difficulty and discrimination levels for students of both states.
The major implication of the findings of the study is that the PST is valid and reliable
and can be used to assess SS students in clothing and textiles. It is therefore
recommended that PST should be adopted either in part or whole or modified for the
assessment of SSS clothing and textiles students. However, the study reviewed above
used process skill items in form of multiple choice test to assess skills of students in
clothing and textile at SSCE level. On the other hand, this study identified process skills
75
in form of rating scale for assessing NTC students performances in mechanical
engineering craft. The designs and methods utilized in the above study are relevant and
guided the researcher in identifying and selecting proper design and method for the study
toward the realization of the purpose of the study.
Garba (1993) conducted a study on the development and validation of instrument for
evaluation of practical skills in woodwork projects in Technical Colleges. The study focused on
the evaluation of practical skills in woodwork projects. Instrumentation survey designs were
adopted for the study. The actual instruments were generated through task analysis and based
on process and product of carrying out projects in wood work. Woodwork teachers totaling
seventy-one were used in validating the instrument. The internal consistency of the instrument
was determined by conducting a pilot test and using cronbach alpha to analyze the data
generated. The data for inter rater reliability was analyzed using Kendall coefficient. This
instrument was developed based on the project method of assessing practical skills and not the
procedural steps of carrying out the project. Unlike the reviewed study, this study developed
and validated a test based on the production processes of practical tasks in mechanical
engineering craft. However, some of the steps in the methodology were considered for this
study.
Summary of Review of Related Literature Review
The literature reviewed in this study covered the following: The conceptual framework
which guided the researcher to obtain and maintain activities within the schematic diagram.
Theoretical framework which covered theories and models of psychomotor domain helped the
researcher in developing step-by-step procedures, wording and arrangement of the skill items in
performing tasks in mechanical engineering craft at the NTC level.
The literature on psychomotor domain taxonomy and item development provided information on
the levels of various skill items to be developed, their characteristics, appropriate key concepts
that represented the nature of the skill for each level and the guidelines to follow when
developing the test items. These guided the researcher in developing workshop-based process
skill test covering the following levels: perceptions, set, guided response, mechanism, complex
over response and adaptation, and their relevant weighting in the table of specifications in the
areas of grinding, drilling and fitting operations.
Literature on types of validation guided the researcher on the various methods used to
obtain the psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of the test. This enabled the
researcher to arrive at a judgment on whether the items were good enough and stable for
assessing the manipulative skills of the students in production areas of mechanical engineering
craft curriculum. This is aimed at bridging the gap of absence of valid and reliable test for
76
assessing manipulative skills in the teaching and learning of mechanical engineering craft in
technical colleges so that students could acquire skills in the programme for use after graduation.
Literature on types of rating systems and scales aided the researcher in selecting the appropriate
rating scale used in developing the workshop-based process skill test. The literature reviewed on
empirical studies helped to guide the researcher in designing the study and also provided some
information for discussing the findings of the study.
The reviewed literature has revealed the weaknesses of product rating method used in
assessing skills of students in mechanical engineering craft in technical colleges. The reviewed
literature also revealed that workshop-based tests have been developed and applied in other
vocational subjects such as automobile mechanic work at the NTC level, but no study known to
the researcher is on development and validation of Workshop-based process skill tests in
mechanical engineering craft, hence this study was designed to develop and validate workshop-
based process skill tests for the programme in grinding, drilling and fitting operations.
77
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This chapter is presented under the following sub-headings: Design of the study; Area of
the study, Population and sample for the study, Instrument for data collection, Validation of the
instrument, Reliability of the instrument, Method of administering workshop-based process skill
test and Method of data analysis.
Design of the Study
This study utilized the instrumentation research design. According to Ali (1996) an
instrumentation research deals with the process of developing an instrument for assessing
performance of students or obtaining data for making decisions. Nworgu (2006) stated that
instrumentation design involves the following steps: Developing a test blue print (table of
specification); writing test items; trial testing (pilot testing); item analysis; test assembly; final
testing; Norming and printing. The instrumentation design is therefore found to be suitable for
this study because the focus of the study was on developing and validating workshop-based
process skill test for assessing students’ skills in mechanical Engineering craft at National
Technical Certificate level.
Area of the Study
The area of the study was Nasarawa State. The State has four technical colleges. These
include: technical colleges, Assakio, Agwada, Mada station and Federal technical and science
college Doma. The state is located in the North central zone of Nigeria sharing boundary with
federal capital territory, Abuja; the Nigeria’s Capital City. The choice of Nasarawa State was
informed by the increase in demand for repairs and maintenance of household metal products.
This is because of influx of people from Abuja into the state which has made fitting work
practice more lucrative. With the increase in demand for repairs and maintenance of metal
products, technical college graduates can easily be self-employed.
Population and Sample for the Study
The population for this study was 25 respondents. This was the final year students in
Government Technical College, Assakio. The 25 mechanical craft (Mech. craft) III students
were used for the field testing of the workshop based tests. The choice of Mech. craft III
students alone was based on the premise that they have received instruction for 3 years in the
national technical certificate (mechanical engineering craft) curriculum, hence, the students were
utilized in the study. No sampling was carried out because the population was manageable.
Government Technical College Asakio was used for the field testing of the WBPST. The choice
of the school was because the school has adequate models, equipment, materials and tools
77
78
necessary for carrying out the equipments, materials and tools necessary for carrying out the
research.
Instrumentation
The draft workshop-based process skill tests that consisted of 40 workshop base tasks
and 315 process skill items was constructed using the following strategy developed base on the
suggestion of Tuckman (1995), Igbo (1997) and UNESCO (2002).
Isolation of objectives of assessment from the curriculum
Isolation of specific objectives from the curriculum
Development of table of specifications
Generation of workshop-based tasks and process skill items
Content validation of the draft test
Filed testing of tests on class of 25 to determine validity and reliability
Final selection of process skill items
Careful analysis of the curriculum in Mechanical Engineering Craft at NTC level by the
researcher revealed the following objectives; at the end of course the students should.
1. Demonstrate skills in Mechanical engineering craft
2. Practice occupations in Mechanical engineering craft.
Therefore, the workshop-based process skill tests were developed to asses these objectives.
Twenty-one specific performance objectives relating to these two objectives were isolated from
the curriculum. A careful analysis of the 21 specific performance objectives by the researcher
revealed that all could assessed with workshop-based process skill tests (see appendix C, p122).
The 21 specific performance objectives were transformed into 40 workshop-based tasks using
textbooks in Mechanical engineering craft and Journal of Metal Manufacturing Processes (see
references).
The 40 workshop-based tasks were analysed using Task Analysis to generate 315 Process skill
items that were subjected to factorial analysis which resulted to 305 WBPST items. The 305
skill items were analysed and grouped according to the seven levels of perception, set, Guided
responses, Mechanical, complex overt responses and adaptation as identified by Simpson
(1972). This exercise helped in distributing the test items based on the domain levels in the table
of specification as follows:
79
Perception – 28 items (8.9% of Simpson’s recommended 5 – 10%).
Set – 26 items (8.3% of Simpson’s recommended 5 – 10%).
Guided Response – 76 items (25% of recommended 20 – 30%).
Mechanism – 76 items (25% of recommended 20 – 30%)
Complex overt Responses – 81 items (26.5% of recommended 25 – 30%).
Adaptation – 29 items (9.2% of recommended 5 – 10%).
The process skill items were written as statement employing verbs in present-simple and a four
point scale of very important (VI), Averagely important (AI) Slightly Important (SI) and Not
important (NI) was written against each. This was provided to enable the teacher and
technicians to carry out item- by item content validation. The reason for the disparity in
grouping the test items under the various psychomotor levels was that the practical activities that
were involved in each mechanical engineering craft operation have different levels of
operations.
Validation of Instruments
To determine important for inclusion into the final instrument, the test items were
subjected to factor analysis, using 0.40 as factor loading at 10% over lapping variance (Ashley et
al (2007). In the result, 10 skill items with factor loading less than 0.40 were discarded
(Appendix G2. p169) while 305 with factor loading of 0.40 and above were selected for the
study (Appendix E, p152). The factor analysis results are shown in
(Appendix G2, p169). The criterion-referenced validity of the test instrument was determined by
comparing the scores of the students to the pre-determined cut scores of 1/3 items of perception,
set and adaptation and 2/3 of guided response, mechanism and complex overt response.
A table of specification was developed based on the curriculum content giving due
consideration to the six levels of Simpson’s (1972) model of psychomotor domain. This helped
in ensuring that the 305 process skills were adequately distributed across the level of the
domain. The results are shown in (Appendix C1, p122.). The table of specification, the draft
workshop-based process skill tests and the curriculum in mechanical engineering craft at NTC
level were validated by three experts from the department of Vocational Teacher Education
(VTE) and two in measurement and evaluation from the department of Science Education,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka. The experts assessed the test for proper wording, consistency and
representativeness. Their corrections and suggestions were utilized in improving the test.
Reliability of Instrument
The internal consistency of the three sub-tests namely; tests on grinding, drilling, and
fitting operations were determined using the Cronbach alpha method to analyze test scores of the
80
25 students who were used for the field testing of the tests. The results revealed reliability
coefficients of 0.71, 0.82 and 0.83 for grinding, drilling and fitting operations respectively and
0.79 for the entire tests (Appendix J1, p178). Based on the suggestions of Bukar (2006), every
fifth out of the 25 students were systematically selected and rated by five teachers. Their rating
scores were analysed using Kendall coefficient of concordance (Tau). The results revealed that
the Kendall correlation coefficient between rater 1 and 2 is .71, 2 and 3 is .81, 3 and 4 is .60 and
4 and 5 is .80 (see Appendix L, p200). Each of these scores represent the degree of relationship
or association between the ratings of the 4 paired raters on level of performance among the 25
students of mechanical engineering craft. Sensiter (1969) in Olaitan (2003) stated that tests with
reliability coefficients of .70 and above are considered sufficiently reliable to be of practical use.
This means that the WBPST is reliable.
Method of Administering the Instruments.
The workshop-based process skill test was field tested on a class of 25 students with the
help of five teachers (research assistants) in Government Technical College, Assakio. Data were
collected during students practical activities. The students carried out practical activities 3 times
per week. The teachers rated them while carrying out the different tasks within a period of 4
months. Each of the teacher was guided by the WBPST developed by the researcher. The five
teachers who were also called research assistants were trained by the researcher for 2 days. The
purpose of the training was to ensure that the teachers understand the technicalities for
administering the test and the general requirements of the study (see Appendix K, p198) for
operational guidance on using the WBPST.
Materials and tools required for administering the test were organized according to tasks
and numbered 1 to 40 in the Mechanical Engineering craft workshop of Government technical
college Assakio by the research assistants. Each practical contact was assigned between 1 – 3
tasks for the testing. The students were briefed by one research assistant on instructions for
taking the test. Therefore, the research assistant called in the students one-by-one. They were
instructed to carry out the tasks starting with task one. Each task is given specified time of
20minutes – 1 hour. While the students were carrying out the tasks, one research assistant using
the workshop-based process skill tests rate the level of performance of the students. When the
5th, 10th, 15th …. 25th students were assessed; four other research assistants were involved.
The researcher was going to Government Technical College Assakio weekly to retrieve back the
used copies of the tests back from the principal.
Method of Data Analysis
To answer Research Question 1 the process skill items were analysed using factorial
analysis. To answer Research Question 2, the content validity was determined using Simpson’s
81
(1972) taxonomy of psychomotor objectives in generating the test items. Also comments of
experts in vocational Teacher Education and measurement and evaluation were utilized to
determine the face validity of the test items. For Research Question 3, the Cronbach Alpha
coefficient was used to test the degree of reliability of each operation and the entire test. For
Research Question 4 a test of 3 tasks with 24 process skill items was used to determine ability
groups of students in mechanical engineering craft (Appendix 12, P177). The three null
hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of probability using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The
Scheffe multiple comparison test was utilized to calculate the degree of agreement in the raters
rating scores.
Decision Rule:
For selecting the task skills important for inclusion in the workshop-based process skill
tests,0.40 as factor loading was utilized. Any skill item with factor loading of 0.40 and above
was important and any skill item with factor loading less than 0.40 was not important. For
testing the hypothesis, if the calculated p-value is more than the table value of 2.17 at a degree of
freedom of 2 and 22 level of significance of 0.05, the hypothesis is rejected while if the
calculated value is less than the table value the hypothesis is upheld.
82
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
This chapter presents the data analyzed for the purposes of answering the research
questions and testing the hypotheses formulated for the study.
Research Question 1
What are the workshop-based process skill items for assessing skills in mechanical
engineering craft in grinding, drilling and fitting operations at NTC level?
The data for answering research question 1 are presented in (Appendix G1 p159).
To select process skill items factorial analysis of the test items was determined which
Gall, Gall and Borg (2007) considered to play a major role in the development of various types
of tests used in education. The procedure involved (1) identifying 40 psychomotor tasks areas in
the NTC curriculum in Mechanical Engineering Craft (2) building a table of specification as in
(Appendix C p122) based on Simpson’s (1972) taxonomy of psychomotor objectives. This
followed a process of task analysis (3) generating skill items which closely fit the table of
specification. The skill items were subjected to factor analysis using 0.40 as factor loading at
10% over lapping variance (Ashley et al 2007). Therefore, any process skill with factor loading
of 0.40 and above was included in the workshop based process skill tests while skill items with
factor loading less than 0.40 were not included in the final copy of WBPST (see Appendix H,
p170). Ten process skill items with factor loading below 0.40 (4 in grinding, 1 in drilling and 5
in fitting operation) were discarded from the draft copy of WBPST (see table 1 below). This
means that 305 skill items satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the final copy of the test
instrument.
Table 1:
Summary of the outcome of factor Analysis
S/No Skill Item Factor Loading Remarks
1 Item G044 0.358 Not important
2 Item G064 0.391 “ ”
3 Item G079 0.157 “ ”
4 Item G080 0.192 “ ”
5 Item G0145 0.234 “ ”
6. Item F0253 0.358 “ ”
7. Item F0263 0.074 “ ”
8. Item F0282 0.351 “ ”
9. Item F0292 0.27 “ ”
10. Item F0298 0.212 “ ”
82
83
Research Questions 2
What is the validity of the developed workshop-based process skill test for assessing
skills of NTC students in grinding, drilling and fitting operations?
To answer this question, the Table of specifications constructed based on the Simpson’s
(1972) model of psychomotor domain revealed that out of the 305 skills, 8% comprising 24 skill
items were assessing the Perception level; 8% comprising 24 skill items were assessing the Set
level; 25% comprising 76 skill items were assessing the Guided response level; 25% comprising
76 skill items were assessing the Mechanism level; 26.5% comprising 81 skill items were
assessing the Complex overt response level and 8% comprising 24 skill items were assessing the
Adaptation level. The Origination level of Simpson’s Model was not involved in the study
because it was not in the NTC curriculum. These results showed that 6 levels of the domain
were adequately covered in the assessment method. This means that all the 305 skill items were
valid for inclusion in the test instrument.
The test items were submitted to experts in vacationed Teacher Education and
Measurement and Evaluation who reviewed the appropriateness of the face validity of the items
in measuring students’ process skills. The experts reviewed, reworded and re-structured the test
items and made satisfactory comments about the entire tests (see Appendix F, p158). On the
whole as shown in table 2 below, there were 12 tasks with 85 corresponding process skill items
on grinding operation, 12 tasks with 85 corresponding process skill items on drilling operation
and 16 tasks with 135 corresponding process skill items on fitting operation.
84
Table 2:
Validated Tasks and skill items in grinding, drilling and fitting operations
S/No Grinding Task No of Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mounting wheel in machine spindle
Grinding metal object with surface grinder
Sharpening a cutting tool with a grinding wheel
Dressing and truing grinding wheel
Maintaining grinding machine
Hand polishing of a metal article
Sharpening punch on the bench grinder
Sharpening a screw driver on bench grinder
Sharpening cold chisel on pederstal grinder
Sharpening a twist drill on Pedestal grinder
Polishing metal article with compounds and wheels
Polishing a metal article with coated abrasives
Drilling Task
6
12
7
6
6
6
8
7
7
8
6
6
= 85
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Centre punching for drilling
Drilling a hole in metal plate
Boring a hole in metal bar
Counter boring a hole in a metal plate
Counter sinking a hole in a metal bar
Seating a hole in a metal
Rearing a hole in a metal
Producing a garden trowel
Drilling a hole using a hand drill
Constructing a mirror plate
Construction of Name Plate
Producing a shoe horn
4
6
6
7
6
6
7
6
7
9
11
10
= 85
Fitting Task
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Sawing a metal bar
Sharing a metal plate
Filing a metal piece flat and square
Bending a metal rod
Soldering two metal parts together
Threading a metal bolt
Heat treating a metal product
Assembling with metal fasteners
Construction of a swarf cleaner
Construction of a tool box
Construction of an angle gauge
Constructing a pipe wrench
Making a vice clamp
Production of fitting plate
Production of dept gauge
Making camp saw
4
7
9
8
6
11
5
6
7
16
9
13
7
9
9
9
Grand Total
= 135
305
85
Research Question 3
What is the reliability of the developed workshop-based process skill test for
assessing skills of NTC students in grinding, drilling and fitting operations?
The data for internal consistency of the work shop based process skill Test are given in Table 3.
Table 3
Reliability Estimates (Cronbach Alpha) for Items in Mechanical Engineering Craft
operations of WBPST S/No Task Cronbach Alpha No of items Remarks
1. Mounting grinding wheel in Machine spindle 0.66 6 Very high
2. Grinding Metal object with surface grinder 0.74 12 “
3. Sharpening a cutting tool with a grinding wheel 0.76 7 “
4. Dressing and truing grinding wheel 0.65 6 “
5. Maintaining grinding machines 0.76 5 ‘ 6. Hand polishing of a metal article 0.82 6 “
7. Sharpening centre punch on the bench grinder 0.81 8 “
8. Sharpening a screw driver on bench grinder 0.74 7 “
9. Sharpening cold chise on pedestal grinder 0.63 7 “
10. Sharpening a twist drill on pedestal grinder 0.71 8 “
11. Polishing metal article with compound and wheels 0.74 7 “
12. Polishing a metal article with coated abrasive 0.74 6 “
13. Centre punching for drilling 0.73 4 “
14. Driling a hole in a metal plate 0.80 6 “ 15. Boring a hole in a metal bar 0.75 6 “
16. Counterboring a hole in metal plate 0.69 7 “
17. Countersinking a hole in a metal 0.82 6 “
18. Seating a hole in a metal 0.65 6 “
19. Reaming a hole in a metal 0.82 7 “
20. Producing a garden trowel 0.79 6 “ 21. Drilling a hole in using hand drill 0.72 7 “
22. Consctructing a mirror plate 0.81 10 “
23. Construction of name plate 0.67 11 “
24. Producing a shoe horn 0.80 10 “
25. Sawing a metal bar 0.68 5 “
26. Shearing a metal plate 0.75 5 “
27. Filing a metal piece flat and square 0.79 9 “
28. Bending a metal rod 0.78 8 “
29. Soldering two metal parts together 0.73 6 “ 30. Threading a metal bolt 0.74 11 “
31. Heat treating a metal product 0.81 5 “ 32. Assembling with metal fasteners 0.80 6 “
33. Construction of a Swarf cleaner 0.75 7 “
34. Constructing a tool box 0.68 16 “
35. Construction of an angle gauge 0.72 9 “
36. Constructing a pipe wrench 0.69 13 “
37. Making a vice clamp 0.66 7 “ 38. Production of fitting plate 0.77 9 “
39. Production of depth gauge 0.83 9 “
40. Making camp saw. 0.86 9 “
Analysis in Table 3 revealed that each of the 40 Mechanical engineering craft tasks had a
high reliability coefficient ranging from 0.65-0. 86. Also, the reliability coefficient of the entire
test was computed to be 0.75 which indicated that the assessment instrument was a refined test
in consonance with the recommendation of Uzoagulu (2011) which stated that acceptable
reliability of tests use in education is generally in the range of 0.50—0.95.
Therefore given the high reliability coefficients for various tasks in the instrument, the
answer to the research question about the reliability of the tests would be in the affirmative.
86
Thus, the items in the workshop based process skill tests (WBPST) were reliable and could be
considered for assessing students skills in Mechanical engineering craft in technical colleges.
In order to establish the inter-rater reliability in the test, a field testing was conducted
using 25 NTCIII students of mechanical engineering craft and five teachers (raters). Data
obtained from the field testing was analysed using Kendall coefficient of concordance, Tau (W)
to find out if there is significant relationship between the five rater’s scorings in the WBPST.
The degree of agreement or coefficient of concordance among the raters on the test scorings was
therefore computed. The inter rater reliability of the 5 raters were found to be 0.706, 0.641,
0.856 and 0.707 for raters 1 and 2; 2 and 3; 3 and 4 and 4 and 5 respectively (see Appendix K, p.
198). These values were in agreement with the recommendation by Cohen et al (2011) that a
coefficient ranging from 0.51 to 1.00 indicate high degree of agreement between 2 or more
examiners.
Research Question 4
What are the ability groups of students in mechanical engineering craft (grinding, drilling
and fitting operations) at the NTC level?
To answer this question, a test of 3 tasks with their 24 corresponding process skill items
was utilized (see Appendix I2, p177). The test was administered to 25 NTC III students in
Government Technical college, Assakio before the field testing exercise. The students’ rated
scores were computed and ranked from highest to lowest. Using Adeyamo (2010)’s ability
levels identification method, 8 students fell under high ability representing the first 33% of the
students with the highest scores; 5 students fell under low ability representing 33% of students
with the least scores and 12 students belong to average ability representing 34% of the students
with middle scores (see Appendix I1, p176). Based on this result, Adeyamo (2010) Method was
utilized to group NTC III students in Mechanical engineering craft.
Hypothesis
Ho1: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of students on workshop-based
process skill test in grinding operation based on their ability levels.
In order to test this hypothesis, the mean scores of the high, average and low ability
students on each of the WBPST operation was analyzed using F-ratio statistic. In the case of
significant difference between the group, the Scheffe multiple comparison test was applied to
determine the direction or source of the difference. The summary result of analyzed data for
87
hypothesis 1 is presented in Table 4 while the detail result of the analysis is given in (Appendix
J1, p178)
Table 4
Summary of Data Utilized for Analysis of Hypothesis One
Sum of
squares
df Mean of
square
F Sig. (P-
value)
Between groups
Within Groups
Total
1.4502
15.43938
16.8544
2
22
24
0.70744
0.70176
1.05098 0.4982
F-critical = 2.17
Table 4 revealed the F-ratio of the mean ratings of teachers on students performance on skill
items in grinding operation. The analysis indicated that there was significant difference in the
mean ratings of the three groups of students at 0.05 level of significance, d.f 2 and 22 on all the
85 skill items except 051 and 052. (see Appendix J1, P178). The rating of the teachers showed
that there was no significant difference in the mean scores of the students on skill items 51 and
52.
In all the skill items (except items 051 and 052), the F-ratio calculated were greater than
F-critical value (2.17). The result indicated that the null hypothesis of no significant difference
was rejected in all the WBP ST items but accepted in item 051 and 052.
Post-hoc analysis using Scheffe multiple comparison test (Appendix J2, p195) was
carried out to determine the direction of difference of the mean ratings of the three groups (high,
average and low) ability. Scheffe decision is that:
If the value of F-calculated is greater than the F-critical value and the p-value is less than 0.05
indicates that there is significant difference among the pair wise comparison or if the value of F-
calculated is less than the F-critical value and the p-value is greater than 0.05 indicates that there
is no significant difference among the pair wise comparison.
In this study F-critical value is 2.17 for the pair wise comparison of high ability versus
average ability group. The F-calculated values for the grinding skills were less than F-critical but
greater than p 0.05 indicating that there was no significant difference between the high ability
versus average ability compared;
The high ability versus low ability group compared had F-cal value greater than F-
critical (2.17) and less than p 0.05 indicating that there is significant difference in the mean
rating of the high ability versus low ability group compared. The direction of difference is that
88
high ability and average ability do not differ while low ability differed indicating that the
process skill items in grinding operation were not difficult for high and average ability but
difficulty for low ability.
Ho2: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of students on the workshop-based
process skill test in drilling operation based on their ability levels.
To test this hypothesis, the mean scores of the high, average and low ability students on
each of the WBPST operation was analyzed using F-ratio statistic. In the case of significant
difference between the group, the Scheffe multiple comparison test was applied to determine the
direction or source of the difference. The summary result of analyzed data for hypothesis 2 is
presented in Table 5 while the detail result of the analysis is given in (Appendix J1, p178)
Table 5
Summary of Data Utilized for Analysis of Hypothesis Two
Sum of
squares
df Mean of
square
F Sig. (P-
value)
Between groups
Within Groups
Total
1.072255
16.41637
17.48868
2
22
24
0.535961
0.746196
0.752882 0.55651
F-critical = 2.17
Table 5 revealed the F-ratio of the mean ratings of teachers on students performance on skill
items in drilling operation. The analysis indicated that there was significant difference in the
mean ratings of the three groups of students at 0.05 level of significance, d.f 2 and 22 on all the
skill items except 145 (see Appendix J1, P178). The ratings of the teachers showed that there
was no significant difference in the mean scores of the students on skill items 145.
In all the 86 skill items (except items 145), the F-ratio calculated were greater than F-
critical value (2.17). The result indicated that the null hypothesis of no significant difference was
rejected in all the WBP ST items but accepted in item 145.
Post-hoc analysis using Scheffe multiple comparison test (Appendix J2 p.195) was
carried out to determine the direction of difference of the mean rating of the three groups (high,
average and low) ability. Scheffe decision is that:
If the value of F-calculated is greater than the F-critical value and the p-value is less than 0.05
indicates that there is significant difference among the pair wise comparison or if the value of F-
89
calculated is less than the F-critical value and the p-value is greater than 0.05 indicates that there
is no significant difference among the pair wise comparison
In this study F-critical value is 2.17 for the pair wsie comparison of high ability versus
average ability group. The F-calculated values for the drilling skills were less than F-critical but
greater than p 0.05 indicating that there was no significant difference between the high ability
versus average ability compared;
The high ability versus low ability group compared had F-cal value greater than F-
critical (2.17) and less than p 0.05 indicating that there is significant difference in the mean
ratings of the high ability versus low ability group compared. The direction of difference is that
high ability and average ability do not differ while low ability differed indicating that the
process skill items in drilling operation were not difficult for high and average ability but
difficulty for low ability students.
Ho3: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of students on workshop-based
process skill test in fitting operation based on their ability levels.
In order to test this hypothesis, the mean ratings of the high, average and low ability
students on each of the WBPST operation was analyzed using F-ratio statistic. In the case of
significant difference between the group, the Scheffe multiple comparison test was applied to
determine the direction or source of the difference. The summary result of analyzed data for
hypothesis 3 is presented in Table 6 while the detail result of the analysis is shown in (Appendix
J1, p178)
Table 6
Summary of Data Utilized for Analysis of Hypothesis Three
Sum of squares
df Mean of square
F Sig. (P-value)
Between groups
Within Groups
Total
2.229
14.331
16.560
2
22
24
1.114
.651
1.711 .204
F-critical = 2.17
Table 6 revealed the F-ratio of the mean ratings of teachers on students performance on skill
items in fitting operation. The analysis indicated that there was significant difference in the
mean scores of the three groups of students at 0.05 level of significance, d.f 2 and 22 on all the
90
skill items except 206, 207 and 229. (see Appendix J1, P178). The rating of the teachers showed
that there was no significant difference in the mean scores of the students on skill items 206, 207
and 229.
In all the 134 skill items (except items 206, 207 and 229), the F-ratios calculated were
greater than F-critical value (2.17). The result indicated that the null hypothesis of no significant
difference was rejected in all the WBP ST items but accepted for items 206, 207 and 229.
Post-hoc analysis using Scheffe multiple comparison test (Appendix J2, p195) was carried out to
determine the direction of difference of the mean rating of the three groups (high, average and
low) ability. Scheffe decision is that:
If the value of F-calculated is greater than the F-critical value and the p-value is less than 0.05
indicates that there is significant difference among the pairs compared or if the value of F-
calculated is less than the F-critical value and the p-value is greater than 0.05 indicates that there
is no significant difference among the pairs compared.
In this study F-critical value is 2.17 for the pair comparison of high ability versus average ability
group. The F-calculated values for the fitting were less than F-critical but greater than p 0.05
indicating that there was no significant difference between the high ability versus average ability
compared;
The high ability versus low ability group compared had F-cal value greater than F-critical (2.17)
and less than p 0.05 indicating that there is significant difference in the mean rating of the high
ability versus low ability group compared. The direction of difference is that high ability and
average ability do not differ while low ability differed indicating that the process skill items in
fitting operation were not difficult for high and average ability but difficulty for low ability
students.
Findings of the Study
The following findings emerged from the study based on the research questions
answered and hypothesis tested
1. Findings on the workshop-based process skill items in performing tasks by students
of mechanical engineering craft in grinding, drilling and fitting operations at NTC
level.
The findings relating to factorial validity of the workshop-based process skill test
revealed that 10 skill items in the three operations (grinding, drilling and fitting) could not load
and were discarded (Appendix G2 p169). This confirmed the importance and internal content
validity of the WBPST items. This finding agrees with the observation by Okoro (2002) and Jain
(2010) that the higher the absence of low loading skill items, the more important and suitable the
test items. This finding also agrees with the views of Giachino and Gallington (1977) that if a
91
process skill test has no component of non-loading items, it is assumed that the factorial validity
of the test is high.
It was found out from the study that 12 tasks with their 85 corresponding skill items were
important to the teachers of mechanical engineering craft in assessing students’ skills in grinding
operation in technical colleges.
Task – Mounting grinding wheel in machine spindle
1. Testing wheel for damage/crack
2. Selecting washers or blotters
3. Checking lead bush for burrs and fit
4. Pushing wheel on spindle
5. Tightening flange nut
6. Test-running wheel without load
Task – Grinding metal object with surface grinding
1. Cleaning work-piece
2. Wiping magnetic chuck with clean cloth
3. Centering work piece on the chuck
4. Adjusting the table reverse dogs
5. Turning on the coolant valve
6. Adjusting the rate of table feed
7. Turning on the power
8. Hand feeding the table in until work piece is under grinding
wheel
9. Adjusting grinding wheel down until it is near the work piece
10. Turning on the power table feed
11. Turning the cross-feed out one fourth the width of the grinding
12. Wheel Grinding the entire work piece surface
Task – Centre punching for drilling
1. Checking the condition of the tool
2. Hand-running the grinding wheel
3. Removing burrs or dirt from work piece
4. Turning on power
5. Holding the tool and pressing against wheel at correct angle
6. Dipping the tool in water regularly
7. Grinding to required angle
Task – Dressing and truing grinding wheel
1. Checking the condition of the wheel
2. Selecting wheel dresser
3. Wearing safety goggles
4. Turning on power
5. Holding dresser on tool rest
92
6. Feeding the dresser across the wheel until it is true
Task – Maintaining grinding machines
1. Checking the condition of the wheel
2. Selecting wheel dresser
3. Wearing safety goggles
4. Turning on power
5. Holding dresser on tool rest
6. Feeding the dresser across the wheel until it is true
Task – Hand polishing a metal article
1. Cutting a strip of abrasive cloth from a roll or sheet
2. Wrapping it round a stick or file
3. Applying a few drops of oil to the metal surface
4. Rubbing the cloth back and as if you were sanding. Do not rock the tool, keep it flat.
5. Removing al scratches to make abrasive grains float in oil on the surface
6.. Reversing the cloth, exposing the back. Rubbing back and forth to get a high polish.
Task – Sharpening centre punch on the bench grinder
1. Checking the condition of the punch
2. Test running the grinding wheel with hand
3. Turning on power
4 Holding punch to the wheel at the correct angle
5. Pressing the punch against the grinding wheel
6. Swinging the punch from side to side by pivoting it over the tool rest
7. Dipping the punch in water regularly
8. Checking the correct point angle of the punch
Task – Sharpening a screw driver on bench grinder
1. Checking the condition of the screw driver
2. Test running the grinding wheel with hand
3. Filing either side of the point to remove dirts
4. Turning power of the grinding machine
5. Grinding each side of the point a little a time
6. Grinding the tip square
7. Dipping the tool in water often to keep it cool
Task – Sharpening cold chisel on pedestal grinder
1 Checking the condition of the chisel
2 Hand running the grinding wheel
3 Removing burrs from cutting edge with file
4 Switching on the grinding machine
5 Holding one side of cutting edge against the face of the wheel and moving it back and
forth in an arc
6 Grinding the second side to form a sharp edge
7 Cooling the chisel at interval of grinding
Task – Sharpening a twist drill on pedestal grinder
1. Checking the condition of the twist drill
93
2. Switching on the grinding machine
3. Grasping the drill near the point in your right hand, with your left hand holding the
shank
4. Holding the lip of the drill at an angle of 59 degree to the grinding wheel
5. Turning the drill in a clockwise direction, at the same swinging the shank down in an
arc of 12-15 degrees
6. Grinding a little off each cutting edge
7. Dipping the drill coolant at intervals
8.. Checking with a drill-grinding gauge for current cutting edges length and angles
Task – Polishing metal article with compounds and wheels
1. Selecting the type of article to be polished
2. Attaching a clean, soft cloth wheel to the head of the polishing machine
3. Selecting a stick of greaseless polishing compound
4. Turning on the machine
5. Holding the abrasive stick against the turning wheel until the face is coated
6. Holding the work piece firmly in your hands,
7 Moving it back and forth across the wheel until the scratches have been
removed
Task – Polishing a metal article with coated abrasives
1. Selecting the type of article
2. Fixing the abrasive belt around two or three pulleys
3. Turning on power
4. Holding the work against the belt in the areas between the
pulleys
5. Moving the work piece back and forth
6. Applying even pressure for a good polish
From the study, it was found out that the 12 tasks with their 86 skill items were important to the
teachers of mechanical engineering craft in assessing students’ skills in drilling operation in
technical colleges.
Task - Centre Punching for drilling
1. Taking measurement
2. Marking out
3. Positioning punch
4. Striking punch head
Task – Drilling a hole in Metal Plate
1. Centre punching the point of the hole
2. Selecting correct size and type of bit for the work
3. Clamping work piece
4. Inserting drill bit in chuck
5. Starting the machine
6. Feeding bit on work
Task – Boring a hole in metal bar
1. Selecting appropriate boring tool
94
2. Inserting tool in chuck
3. Locking tool in chuck
4. Clamping work in vice
5. Turning on power
6. Feeding tool into hole
Task – Counter boring a hole in a metal bar
1. Selecting the counter boring tool
2. Inserting tool in chuck
3. Locking tool in chuck
4. Clamping work in vice
5. Adjusting spindle for lower speed
6. Turning on power
7. Feeding slowly to required depth
Task – Counter sinking a hole in a metal
1. Selecting the counter sinking tool
2. Inserting countersink tool in chuck
3. Clamping work in vice
4. Adjusting speed half lower than for drilling
5. Switching on power
6. Feeding until required amount of material is
removed
Task – Seating a hole in a metal
1. Selecting the boring tool
2. Regrinding boring tool
3. Inserting tool in chuck
4. Clamping work in vice
5. Turning on power
6. Feeding slowly on hole bottom
Task - Reaming a hole in a metal
1. Selecting the reamer
2. Clamping work piece in vice
3. Fixing reamer to tap wrench
4. Holding reamer 900 to the hole
5. Feeding reamer into the hole steadily
6. Applying cutting fluid
7. Turning reamer clockwise till hole is reamed
Task – Producing a Garden Trowel
1. Selecting the appropriate materials and tools
2. Marking out the required dimensions
3. Sawing out and filing to shape, removing all sharp edges
4. Fastening work in a vice together with a hardwood cylinder.
5. Hammering the blade to a suitable curve
6. Bending up the tang to the measurements given
Task – Drilling a hole using a hand drill
95
1. Selecting the drill bit
2. Pulling back on the handle to open the jaws
3. Holding the shell of the chuck to insert a drill bit
4. Turning the handle forward to tighten the drill
5. Clamping in a vice or leaving on the ground if work piece is
large.
6. Placing the point of the drill in the centre punch mark.
7. Drilling the hole by turning handle clockwise direction
Task – Constructing a mirror plate
1. Selecting the materials and tools
2. Cutting off a piece of 1.6mm strip to the required size,
3. filing the edges straight and the corners square
4. Marking and scribing the centre lines to the dimensions given
5. Centre punching and drilling the holes.
6. Counter sinking the screw hole
7. Sawing away the waste metal
8. Filing to the correct shape and chamfer all straight edges
9. Removing all sharp edges with a smooth file
10. Polishing with fine emery cloth
Task – Construction of Name Plate
1. Selecting the appropriate material and tools
2. Measuring and marking out the specified dimensions
3. Cutting off a 75mm length of mild steel strip
4. Filing the edges and corners straight and square
5. Marking off the position of the holes
6. Drilling the specified number of holes
7. Counter sinking for a wood screw
8. Marking off two sets of parallel lines 3mm apart to act a
guide lines for the printing
9. Using the letter punches, stamp in the name and address
10. Chamfering all round at 450
11. Dipping in clear lacquer for surface protection
Task – Producing a shoe horn
1. Selecting the materials and tools
2. Cutting off a piece of copper or brass 130x50x1mm thick
3. Marking out to the dimensions given starting with the centre line
4. Cutting away the waste metal with a saw and filing to shape
5. Rounding off all the edges with a smooth file and emery cloth
6. Setting the metal down to shape in a grooved wood block, truing up with the edge of a hide
mallet
7. Truing up on Bick iron
8. Placing the shoe horn over the end of the Bick iron and bending the edges to the curve given
9. Bending the handle to a slight curve
10. Polishing
96
It was found out from the study that the 16 tasks with their 134 corresponding skill items
were important to the teachers of mechanical engineering craft in assessing students’ skills in
fitting operation in technical colleges.
Task – Sawing metal bar
1. Taking measurement
2. Marking out
3. Clamping work in vice
4. Tightening hack saw blade
4. Cutting to required size
Task – Shearing a metal plate
1. Measuring out
2. Marking out
3. Fixing work between blades
4. Aligning marked line with the cutting blades
5. Pressing shearer handle down ward to shear off the work
Task – Filing a metal plate flat and square
1. Measuring out
2. Marking out
3. Cutting out to specification
4. Choosing an appropriate file
5. Clamping work piece in vice
6. Filing the face side
7. Filing the face edge
8. Filing the second side and edge to required size
9. Polishing with emery cloth
Task – Bending a metal rod
1. Selecting the material and tools
2. Checking a full size drawing of the part to be bent
3. Measuring and marking out .
4. Deciding which is to be made first if more than one bend is required..
5. Fastening the work piece vertically in the vice, with bend line at the top of the jaws
6. Bending the work piece by striking it with hammer near the bend line
7. Squaring off the bend by holding the work piece in a vice with the edge parallel to the top of
the vice jaw
8. Making an obtuse bend, using a monkey wrench as a bending tool
Task – Soldering two metal part together
1. Selecting the parts and tools
2. Cleaning surfaces to be joined
3. Providing correct joint gap
4. Selecting correct soldering device and flux
5. Applying appropriate amount of heat
6. Removing of surplus solder
97
Task – Threading a metal bolt
1. Selecting the material.
2. Measuring and marking out
3. Cutting out the work piece
4. Grinding a chamfer on one end of the work piece
5 Fastening the die in a die stock
6 Adjusting the guide on the die stock for a free fit
7 Clamping the work piece in the vice and placing die on chamfered end of the piece
8 Holding one hand over the centre of the work piece and applying pressure to get the first
threads started
9 Applying cutting oil and turn the die stock clockwise.
10 Turning the diestock back frequently to break the chips
11 Backing off the die when the desired length of thread is cut
Task – Heat treating a metal product
1 Selecting appropriate source of heat
2 Heating to the required temperature
3 Leaving at this temperature for a certain length of time
4 Putting off heat
5 Cooling in a way that will give the desired results
Task – Assembling with metal fasteners
1 Selecting the fastener
2 Laying out the location of the fastener and drill the given hole on the parts
3 Countersinking if necessary
4 Checking the fastener for length
5. Inserting fastener in the holes
6 Pressing or tightening the parts together
Task – Constructing a Swarf cleaner
1. Selecting the material and tools
2. Measuring and marking out
3 Cutting off to length
4 Forging eye end
5 Forging and hot bending scraper end
6 Cutting and sharpening scraper blade
7 Brazing
Task – Constructing a tool box
1 Selecting the material
2 Measuring out
3 Marking out box body “A” with pencil from centre lines
4 Cutting out shape
5 Folding runners, two sides and corner laps
6 Bending other two sides.
7 Soldering laps to sides
98
8 Marking out partition plate “C”
9. Folding flanges
10. Marking out position of partition plate “C” in box “A”
11. Setting partition plate “C” in box “A” and soldering
12. Marking out lid “B”
13 Cutting out lid “B” to shape
14 Turning runner allowance and stopping flange on lid “B”
15 Fitting lid “B” to box “A”
16. Checking all sizes
Task – Construction of an angle gauge
1. Selecting the material
2 Measuring and marking out
3 Cutting to approximate size with hacksaw.
4 Filing two long edges square and parallel
5 Squaring one end
6 Marking out male and female vees
7 Cutting male and female vees with saw and finishing with file.
8 Checking angle sizes for accuracy
9 Finishing with emery cloth
Task – Constructing a pipe wrench
1 Selecting the material
2 Measuring the required dimension
3 Marking out profile of handle
4 Cutting and filing to shape
5 Bending in round form
6 Drilling reaming and taping pivot hole
7 Filing packing piece wedge shaped to suit handle and4mm” oversize on curved edges.
8 Fitting packing pieces and drilling in position.
9 Riveting parking pieces in position
10 Filing jaw teeth
11 Removing burrs
12 Case-hardening jaw teeth
13 Checking for accuracy
Task – Making a vice clamp
1 Selecting the material
2 Measuring the required size
3. Marking out to the sizes given
4. Cutting out the size given
5. Marking off the corners as given
6. Fastening in the vice and bending with a hammer
7. Rounding off the corners with a smooth file
Task – Production of fitting plate
1.. Selecting the correct material
2. Measuring the required sizes
99
3. Marking out
4. Cutting the required pieces
5. Drilling the number of required holes on the pieces
6. Rounding corners of the pieces with given radius
7. Cutting out the given equilateral triangle
8. Lapping A and B coupling
9.. Finishing the surface
Task – Production of depth gauge
1.. Selecting the appropriate material
2. Measuring out the required size
3. Marking out
4. Cutting the required size
5. Punching the centres where holes are to be
drilled
6. Drilling the required holes
7. Threading the holes with the specified tap
size
8. Providing the required metal bar
9. Finishing the surface
Task – Making a camp saw
1. Selecting appropriate material (aluminum tubing)
2. Measuring the specified size
3. Marking out
4. Cutting out the required size
5. Cutting slot on one end of the tubing to a specified length
6. Drilling a given hole on both ends
7. Bending the tubing from one end at a specified angle
8. Providing saw blade and wing nuts
9. Fixing the saw blade
Based on these findings, workshop-based process skill test consisting of 40 tasks and 305
process skill items was developed (see appendix K, p 197).
2. Validity of the workshop-based process skill tests in mechanical engineering craft
The process of content validation of the workshop-based process skill test by
constructing a table of specifications based on the six levels of psychomotor domain of Simpson
(1972) showed that 8% of 305 process skills assessed perception level. 8% assessed Set level,
25% assessed Guided response level, 25% assessed Mechanism level, 26% assessed Complex
overt response level and 8% assessed Adaptation level (Appendix C, p.122). This signified a
balanced in the spread of distribution of the process skill items across the six levels. This result
was in agreement with the assertion by Fatunsin (1996), Odu (2001) and Bukar (2006) that the
fairer the degree of distribution of test items the better representation of the behavioural domain
and the higher the content validity of the test.
100
The results of content validation of the test by using five experts in the field of vocational and
technical education to critique the wording, structuring, arrangement and adequacy of sampling
of the items revealed that forty workshop-based tasks and 305 process skills were well worded
and representative enough in terms of the content areas specified in the curriculum. This
signified adequacy of sampling of the content areas in the curriculum, which the test was
designed to assess. These results were consistent with the views expressed by Igbo (1997) that a
test is valid if the performance it assesses corresponds to the objective it is supposed to assess.
3. Reliability of the workshop-based process skill test in mechanical engineering craft.
The findings relating to the internal consistency of the three operations in mechanical
engineering craft revealed that the grinding operation had a reliability coefficient of 0.71;
drilling operation had 0.82; and fitting operation had 0.83, while the entire test had 0.79. These
are good enough for new tests. This is so because the obtained coefficients exceeded the
recommendation of 0.396 for a population sample less than one hundred and twenty (120) by
Ogwo (1993), Harbor-Peters (1999); and Nworgu (2006). These also exceeded 0.65
recommended by Denga (1987), Enyi (2009) and Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011).
However, the findings disagree with the recommendations by Gay (1976) and UNESCO (2002)
of 0.9 for a new standardized test. The low value of coefficient as compared to Gay’s
recommendation and that of the UNESCO is probably because the process skill tests was yet to
be standardized. For the standardization of the test, several administrations/field testing would
be required.
The findings relating to the inter-rater reliability of the test revealed a coefficient of
0.75. This was in agreement with the recommendation by Okoro (2003) that a coefficient
ranging from 0.7 – 1 is an indication of high degree of agreement between two or more
examiners.
Findings on the Hypotheses Tested
The following findings emerged from the hypotheses tested
Ho1: It was found out that there were significant differences in the mean ratings of the three
ability groups (high, average and low) on the workshop-based process skill test in grinding
operation. Scheffe multiple comparison test analysis further revealed that the low ability group
differed significantly in performance from the average and high ability groups.
Ho2: It was found out that there were significant differences in the mean ratings of the three
ability groups (high, average and low) on the workshop-based process skill test in drilling
operation. Scheffe multiple comparison test analysis further revealed that the low ability group
differed significantly in performance from the average and high ability groups.
101
Ho3: It was found out that there were significant differences in the mean ratings of the three
ability groups (high, average and low) on the workshop-based process skill test in fitting
operation. Scheffe multiple comparison test analysis further revealed that the low ability group
differed significantly in performance from the average and high ability groups.
Discussion of Findings
The discussion of findings were based on the research questions answered and the
hypotheses tested.
Research Questions
The findings that 305 out of 315 items with high factor loading were considered suitable
for inclusion in the WBPST was supported by the conclusions of Nworgu (1992), Garba (1993),
Okoro (2003) and Olaitan (2003). In their conclusions, they noted that items that satisfied all
psychometric properties with high factor loading are adequate for selection. Item 177 in task 26
received the highest factor loading of .944 probably because of the importance of measurement
in metal working. Usman (1993) observed that measuring is a vital skill in metal construction.
The author added that metal fitters skillful in measuring, produce better articles. Ten out of the
315 items had factor loading below 0.40 and so needed exclusion. The 40 tasks in grinding,
drilling and fitting operations showed factor loading ranging from .466-.944 portraying 40 tasks
with their corresponding 305 process skill items suitable for the test instrument based on the
factorial analysis
To ascertain the validity of the WBPST, teachers and technicians of mechanical
engineering craft in technical colleges and experts in industrial technical section of vocational
teacher education and measurement and evaluation, from university of Nigeria, Nsukka, were
given the instrument to indicate how important the items were for assessing the students skills
performance. As pointed out by Herscbach (1976) and Olaitan (2003) that the content validity of
psychomotor learning activity could be pursued by submitting the list of skill items drawn up for
use to experts for review so as to yield compromise or consensual agreement on the importance
of the items and such was the case in this study. After the validity procedures, it was found out
that the developed test instrument possessed a high content validity when compared with
findings reported by Odu (2001), Amuka (2002), Effiong (2006) and Okeme (2011) in similar
instruments developed by them.
In Odu (2001) content validity of the one hundred and fourteen test items in the 18 block
laying and concreting operations was obtained by critical analysis of each item by 3 specialists
in building technology section of vocational and teacher education, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka who validated the instrument. Amuka (2002) established content validity from the
detailed and comprehensive table of specifications, and comments of experts in vocational
102
teacher education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Effiong (2006) established content validation
by making a task analysis and writing out items that were considered appropriate, and then
submitting the instrument to four experts in vocational teacher education and two in educational
measurement and evaluation for validation. Okeme (2011) achieved content validity by carrying
out task analysis related to the area of study and getting experts in Agric education to comment
on how relevant the items were for use in the developed instrument. The author further subjected
the skill items to factor analysis where the factor loading of the items confirmed the internal
validity. Similarly, this was the case in this study.
The 85 items in grinding operations, 86 in drilling operation and 134 in fitting operation
had reliability coefficient of 0.71, 0.82 and 0.83 respectively. This indicated that all the items
were reliable in the six levels of Simpson’s taxanomy tested. These findings are in agreement
with the findings of Yalams (2001) in a study on Development and validation of metal work
process evaluation scheme where it was found out that the instrument demonstrated good
reliability with Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.83. These findings also agree with the findings
of Zhang and Lam (2008) in a study on Development and validation of Racquet Ball skills Test
for Adult Beginners in Cleveland, where it was found out that the test had a high reliability with
Cronbach coefficient of 0.68. The findings of this study on reliability is in consonance with the
findings of Fatunsin (1996) in a study on development and standardization of performance-
based test for assessing students in Agriculture in secondary schools in Ondo state, where it was
found out that the 134-items test had high point-biserial correlation of 0.71 and reliability
coefficient of 0.94. The findings of this study are in agreement with the findings of Azizi-Ur-
Rehman (2007) in a study on the development and validation of objective test items in physics
for class nine in Rawalpindi city, Pakistan, where it was found out that the test had a high
reliability coefficient of 0.75. The findings of the authors above gave credence to the findings of
this study.
Hypotheses Tested
The study found out that the calculated p-value for the skill items in
a) Grinding operation ranged between 0.355 and 0.710
b) Drilling operation ranged between 0.010 and 0.851
c) Fitting operation ranged between 0.036 and 1.711 (see Appendix J1, p178 )
d) These values were found to be greater than the p-critical value of 0.05 level of
significance with 2 and 22 degrees of freedom. This implied that there were
significant differences in the mean performance of the three groups of students (high,
average and low ability) on the workshop-based process skill test in grinding, drilling
103
and fitting operations. Hence the null hypotheses of no significant difference were
rejected.
Scheffe Multiple comparison test revealed that the difference was significant between the
high and low ability but was not significant between the high and average abilities when
compared. The implication of the result of Scheffe test is that the WBPST in grinding, drilling
and fitting operations were able to distinguish between high and low ability groups in terms of
their performance on the test which is a measure of the validity of the test.
The findings above are in conformity with the findings of Zhang and Lam (2008) in a
study on development and validation of Racquet ball skills test for Adult Beginners in
Cleveland, USA. The study found out that the auto-correlation of the data revealed that all the
test items had validity coefficients equal to or greater than 0.5 except for two items – service
placement to the left and to the right and were dropped from further analysis. The authors
equally found out that the findings of the study from regression analysis revealed that the
remaining six skill test items were predictive of two criterion variables with the multiple
correlation equal to 0.67 and 0.68 for males and 0.61 and 0.75 for females. The findings of this
study is also in agreement with the findings of Okeme (2011) in a study on development and
validation of psycho-productive skills multiple choice test items for students in Agricultural
Science in Secondary Schools, where it was found out that there were significant differences in
the mean scores of the high and low abilities but no significant difference in the mean scores of
the high and average abilities. The findings of the authors above gave credibility to the findings
of this study.
104
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter presented the summary of the statement of problem, purpose of the study,
procedure used as well as the major findings of the study; conclusion, recommendations and
suggestions for further study were also presented.
Re-statement of the Problem
Practical tasks are widely used as a method of developing skills in vocational and
technical education. With the present need for assessing performance of students in mechanical
engineering craft, it is pertinent that teachers be increasingly knowledgeable about various
methods of assessments that can guarantee objectivity especially in practical activities or skills.
It has been reported that, in most technical/vocational institutions, teachers and
NABTEB often neglect the evaluation of the procedures/steps taken by students to carry out
practical projects in favour of the completed products. Besides, often times grading of students’
practical projects are not done based on process of producing such projects, but that teachers
often award marks by rating the finished product alone. Where students are assessed in practical
works based only on the completed products rather than the processes, the result is bound to be
biased and unreliable. Misleading data or information about students’ performances does not
only adversely affect the students, but also tends to merr the image of both the teachers and the
entire school system.
A lot of indicators have shown that the non-process assessment of students’ skills in
mechanical engineering craft is due to lack of well designed valid and reliable instrument for
carrying out such assessments. This study therefore, set out to develop and validate a test that
can be used uniformly by teachers of mechanical engineering craft for assessing students’ skills
at the NTC level.
Purpose of the Study
Specifically the study seek to:
1. Develop workshop-based process skill test in mechanical engineering craft (grinding,
drilling and fitting operations) at NTC level.
2. Determine the validity of the developed workshop-based process skill test in
mechanical engineering craft (grinding, drilling and fitting operations) at NTC level
3. Determine the reliability of the developed workshop-based process skill test in
mechanical engineering craft (grinding, drilling and fitting operations) at NTC level.
105
4. Determine the ability levels of students in mechanical engineering craft (grinding,
drilling and fitting operation) at the NTC level.
104
106
Summary of the Procedures Used
The study made use of instrumentation design. The study was carried out in Nassarawa
state. The population of the study was 25 mechanical craft III students from Government
Technical Colleges Assakio. Three hundred and five (305) process skill items were used to
collect data for the study. The draft test was content validated for representativeness by building
a table of specifications based on six levels of Simpson’s (1972) model of psychomotor domain
and using criticisms of five experts. Factorial analysis was carried out to confirm the importance
and suitability of the test items. The reliability of the test items was established using, Cronbach
alpha, Kendall Coefficient of concordance, and scheffe multiple comparison test. Analysis of
variance (ANOVA) were utilized to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses.
Review of related literature and the study of previous indigenous and foreign research
works on the development and validation of instruments provided the necessary guide for the
development of the (WBPST). The NBTE approved curriculum for NTC (Mechanical
engineering craft was reviewed and a task specification table designed from it. After conducting
task analysis, fourty tasks were identified, and expanded further to give 305 process skill items.
These skill items are observable activities which are often carried out by mechanical engineering
craft students at the NTC level. A 5 – point scale with rating values of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 was
incorporated into the test instrument.
Major findings of the Study
1. All the fourty tasks and 305 process skill items out of the 315 were found suitable for
inclusion in the workshop-based test with factor loading above 0.40.
2. Content validation of the test by five experts revealed that all the 40 tasks and 305
corresponding process skill items were agreed upon as well worded and
representative enough for assessing skills in mechanical engineering craft at NTC
level. However, some comments on the need to improve the wording and
arrangement of some of the skills made and consequently effected.
3. The factorial analysis of the data on the three operations (grinding, drilling and
fitting) revealed that 10 skill items were discarded due to factor loading below 0.40.
4. The internal consistency of the three operations are 0.71, 0.82 and 0.83 for grinding,
drilling and fitting respectively.
5. The inter rater reliability coefficient of the WBPST is 0.73
6. There was a significant relationship between the five teachers’ ratings of the process
skills of some NTC students in the WBPST in mechanical engineering craft.
7. There were significant differences in the mean scores of the three ability groups in
grinding, drilling and fitting operations. Scheffe multiple comparison test revealed
107
that there was significant difference between high and average ability with low
ability in grinding, drilling and fitting operations.
Implications of the Study
The findings of this study have implications for curriculum planners, examination
bodies, teachers and students.
If curriculum planners have information on the efficacy of the curriculum content
through the assessment of the three domain (cognitive, psychomotor and affective), this could
help to justify any suggested curriculum improvement in the area of psychomotor domain and
its effect especially on vocational and technical education development.
If examination bodies could extend their assessment of students to skill areas of mechanical
engineering craft using workshop-based process skill test items, their assessment could become
more comprehensive as it will include assessment of skills to cover all the areas of mechanical
engineering craft. The assessment could become more reliable as it will cover all expected
curriculum contents. This holistic assessment could encourage the teaching of practical rather
than theory of mechanical engineering craft as now in practice in technical colleges.
The WBPST has bridged the gab created by the absence of a standard test instrument for
assessing skills in practical mechanical engineering craft in technical colleges. It has in essence
provided a readily available process assessment instrument of high quality in mechanical
engineering craft for use by classroom teachers in preparing their students for the NTC
programmes. These NTC teachers may now use the developed test to assess their students much
better, not only based on the completed products but on the observed steps or procedures
involved so as to be able to show proof of the marks or grades awarded to them (students).
Students of mechanical engineering craft at the NTC level would also benefit from the
use of WBPST, in that they could be made to be more aware of the skills to be considered in
assessing the tasks they are involved in performing. The students could be given the opportunity
by their teachers to assess their own works by themselves using the developed test. This could
help students to revise areas of their weaknesses for better attainment of psychomotor
objectives.
With the various tasks in mechanical engineering craft bedded in the WBPST, it
therefore implies that when circumstances do not permit for the administration of the entire test,
the tasks can be independently used to assess and obtain the best outcomes of skills or
competencies of students in the chosen context.
108
Conclusion
The achievement of the objectives of mechanical engineering craft curriculum in
technical colleges cannot be realized if all the domains (cognitive, psychomotor and affective)
are not assessed by examination bodies. The present mode of assessment of product alone and
cognitive ability achievement of students in mechanical engineering craft made the realization of
skill development in students of mechanical engineering craft unachievable in the technical
colleges. Hence, students graduated from technical colleges with very little occupational entry
based skills for work. This situation called for the development of workshop based process skill
test items to fill the gab created by the teaching and learning of mechanical engineering craft
towards achieving the overall objectives.
The inclusion of the developed workshop-based process skill test in assessment of
students performance in mechanical engineering craft could therefore provide a sound basis for
accurate judgment as to whether all the mentioned objectives have been achieved or not. This
study has therefore made the following contributions to knowledge and effective assessment of
productive learning of students in mechanical engineering craft in technical colleges in
Nasarawa State.
1. The study had provided information on the utilization of workshop-based process skill
test for measuring productive skill learning of students in mechanical engineering craft
towards the achievement of the comprehensive objectives of the subject in technical
colleges. This information could be utilized by teacher to adopt WBPST in measuring
skill learning of students in production areas of the mechanical engineering craft.
2. The study provided information on the defects in NABTEB and WAEC measurement
procedures (product rating, recall and identification) in measuring the achievement of
all the objectives and suggestions for improvement has been provided by the study
through the use of WBPST. The examination bodies could now integrate WBPST into
their mode of examining students for the achievement of curriculum objectives of
mechanical engineering craft.
Recommendations for Implementation
This study recommended the following for implementation
1. The external examination bodies (NABTEB and WAEC) should integrate WBPST
items in their examination for certification of the students.
2. Teachers should be encouraged by Government to make use of workshop-based
process skill test items during teaching and assessing students in mechanical
engineering craft especially the curriculum content areas that relates to production such
as grinding, drilling and fitting operations.
109
3. Evaluators in Technical education should use WBPST to study their curricular,
structure their contents into relevant tasks and develop similar tests/instrument in their
respective subject areas for use during teaching and assessing student skills.
4. The Government of Nasarawa State should direct her internal examination body
(Teachers Resource Centres) to integrate the use of WBPST items into the assessment
of students in Basic Science and Technology and Introductory Technology at primary
and junior secondary school levels as a matter of policy.
Limitations
The workshop-based process skill test items are alien to the students because they might
not have been exposed to them consciously by their teachers during instruction. This could
affect their performance in the test. Another limitation is that only one administration of a 24
item test was utilized to determine the ability groups of students. This may not give the best
measure of the students’ abilities. The origination level as an aspect of Simpson’s taxonomy was
not covered by the items because it was not considered relevant for the students by the
curriculum.
There are process skills in other areas of the curriculum but this study was limited to three areas
namely; grinding, drilling and fitting operations. The localization of the study to only Nasawara
state may have some impediments on the validity of the findings. Because of large number of
tasks and skills to be observed and assessed at a given time as contained in the test, it was not
possible to involve many students in the try out. Only a final year class of 25 students were
involved. The interest of this study was basically on the validity and reliability of the developed
process skill test, thus no attempt was made to discuss students’ real performances in the class
using WBPST. The attention was rather limited to how objectively and reliably could WBPST
be used to assess performances through the identified skills by teachers,
Suggestions for Further Research
1. This study suggests that research should be carried out on test development improvement
needs of teachers in assessing acquisition of production skills of NTC students in
mechanical engineering craft in Nasarawa state.
2. Study should be conducted on policy initiative for integrating WBPST into the
assessment of productive learning of students in mechanical engineering craft for
national development.
110
References
Adams, P. (1965) in Curson, L.B. (1982). Principles and Practice of Technical Education, Hong
Kong: Cassel Limited.
Adesoji, F.A. (2008). Students ability levels and effectiveness of problem solving instructional
strategy. Retrieved 12th
December, 2011 from http:www.krepublishers. com/02-
journal/iss-7-0-000-2008-web.
Adeyemo, S.A. (2010). Students’ ability level and their competency in problem-solving task in
physics. Retrieved on 5th January 2012 from http://www.soeagra.com/ijert/ vol.2/7.pdf.
Agu, P.A. (2004) . Use of production service unit in enhancing skill acquisition in technical
colleges. (Unpublished Ph.d Thesis). Department of Vocational Teachers Education.
University of Nigeria, Nsukka
Akujo, C.C. & George, C.C. (2009). Assessment of Technological work skills required by
Marketing Education Graduates in the world of work. Nigerian Vocational Association
Journal, 15 (1), 206-213.
Akwaji, I.E. (2006). Work skills required by Secondary School Graduates for success in cassava
processing Enterprises. (Unpublished M.Ed Thesis). Department of Vocational Teacher
Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Alawa, D.A, Abanyam, V.A, & Okeme, I (2010). Competency Improvement Needs of Teachers
of Agriculture in Afforestation for Effective Teaching in Secondary Schools in Cross-
River State, Nigeria. Journal of the Nigerian Vocational Association, 15 (1), 96-105.
Albanese, M.A. (1990). Type K and other complex Multiple Choice Items: An Analysis of
Research and Item Properties. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National
Council on Measurement in Education, Boston.
Ali, A. (1996). Fundamentals of Research in Education. Awka: Meks Publishers.
Ali, A. (1996). Fundamentals of Research in Education. Awka; Meks Publishers (Nig.).
Ali, A.; Ezeani, S. & Ogbazi, J.N. (1988). Introduction to Education Measurement and
Evaluation. Awka: Meks-Unique (Nig.) Publishers.
Allen, J.M. & Yen, W.M. (2002). Introduction to Measurement Theory. Pacific Groove, C.A:
Brooks.
Amadioha, A. (2006). Item placement, Test Anxiety, Reliability and Students Achievement on
Mathematics in secondary Schools in Rivers State (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis).
University of Calabar, Calabar.
Amaka, L.O.C. (2002). Development and Validation of an Instrument for assessing the effective
work Competencies of Industrial technical education students. (Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis). University of Nigerian, Nsukka.
Anastasi, A. (1987). Abilities and the Measurement of Achievement. New Directions for
Testing and Measurement, 5,1-10 Brace Jovanovich.
AAVIM (2000). America Association for Vocational Instructional Materials.
111
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological Testing. New York. IN- Macmillan.
Anene M. (2008). Measurement and Assessment in Education. Lagos: Bolabay Publication.
Anyakoha, E.U. (2009).Development research skills, concepts and conceptual frame work.
Nsukka: Great AP Express Publishers Ltd.
Ashley, Y.A, Boyale, A & Haile – Gabriel, A (2007). Adaptation decision and use intensity of
soil and water conservative measures by small holders subsistence farmer in Dodo
District, Wester Ethiopia. Land degradation and Development, Vol. 18: 289 – 302.
Astumbe, B.N. (2002). Needed Improvements on the curriculum of the Technical College
Mechanical Engineering Craft Practice. A Ph.D Thesis Submitted University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
Audu, R. (2008). In-Service Training Needs of Technology Education Teachers in Technical
Colleges of North Central states of Nigeria. (Unpublished M.Tech. Thesis). Industrial
and Technology Education Department. Federal University of Technology, Minna.
Aziz-Ur-Rehman (2007). Development and Validations of Objective test Items in Psychics for
(Class six) in Rawalpindi City. Pakistan Research Repository.
Barde, B & Denton, J. (2001). Using the process for Departmental Programme Assessment.
Paper presented at the (American association for Higher Education Conference), Denver.
Berg, B.L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences, (4th
ed). Allyn and Bacon:
Needham Heights, MA.
Berg, B.L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, (4th
Edition). Allyn
and Bacon: Needham Heights, MA.
Bhattacharyya, D.K. (2010). Research Methodology 2nd
edition. New Delhi: EXCEL Books.
Bishop, J. (2004). The impacts of Career –Technical Education on School Market Success.
Economics of Education Review, 23, 381-402.
Bodams, E.A. (2007). Repositioning Metal work Technology Education for Job creation.
Journal of Vocational and Technical Educators (JOVTED). 1(5) 115-119.
Bollen, A.K. & Pamela, P. (1998). Detection and Determinates of Bias in Subjective Measures.
American Sociological Review, 63,465-478.
Bukar, B. (2006). Development and Validation of Laboratory-Based test for assessing practical
skills of Higher National Diploma Students in Electronic Maintenance and Repairs.
(Unpublished Ph.D Thesis) Department of Vocational Teacher Education, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.
Bukar, B.(1995). Development of an Instrument for Evaluating Practical Projects in Electronics.
(Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis). University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Carmines, E.G. & Zeller, R.A. (1991). Reliability and Assessment. Thousand Oaks, C.A: Sage.
Chigbu, P.E. (2004). Model Problems and Solutions on (Statistical) Distribution Theory
Nsukka: Great A.P expresses Publishers Ltd.
112
Chow, S.I. (1996). Statistical Significance: Rationale, Validity and Utility. London: Macmillan
Publishers.
Cohen, L: Manion, L; & Marrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education, 7th
edition. Great
Britain, Rougtledge (Taylor and Francis Group).
Crawford S. (1995). Basic Engineering Processes. New York: Holt Binhart and Winston.
Croabach, N.E. (2005). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. New York. Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Cronbach, L.J. (1960). Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper and Brothers
Publishers.
Crowder, V.L. (2010), Assessment of Pre-service and in-service. Retrieved on 3rd
February
2000 from Fao.org/sd/Exdirect/Exan ool.htm .
CSHITB The Community Services and Health Industry Training Board in Victoria:
www.recognisingcompetency.org.au. Retrieved on the 11/5/11.
Curzon, L.B. (1982). Principles and Practice of technical education. Hong Kong: Cassel
Limited.
Denga, D.I. (1987). Educational Measurement, Continuous Assessment and Psychological
Testing. Calabar Rapid Educational Publishers Ltd.
Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1990). The Systematic Design of Instruction (3rd
ed). United states of
America. Harper Collins Publishers.
Dumbiri, D. N. (2011). Skill Training Models for Capacity Building of Teachers and Youths in
the Fish Industry in Selected Nigeria Delta States, Nigeria, Department of Vocational &
Technical Education, (Unpublished Ph.d. Thesis) University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Ebel, R.L. (2006). Essential of Education Measurement. New Jersey. Prentice Hall Inc.
Edikpa, E.C. (2004). Development and Validation of Decision-making skill Inventory for
Secondary School Principals in Anambra state. Department of Vocational & Technical
Education, (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis). University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Effiong, E.J. (2006). Development and Validation of Alternative to Practical Tests for
Measuring Skills in Electronic Devices and Circuits in Technical Colleges.
(Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). Department of Vocational & Technical Education,
University of Nigerian, Nsukka.
Elijah, V.E. (2006). Skills Development for Practical Applicability of Agricultural Principle by
Secondary School Students in Akwa Ibom State. (Unpublished M.Ed. Tech. Thesis).
Department of Vocational & Technical Education, University of Uyo.
Encarta Dictionary (2009). World English Dictionary (North America Edition). Retrieved March
10, 2012 from http://encarta.Mso.com/.
Enemali, J.D. (1993). Strategies for effective Management of Technical Colleges in Northern
States of Nigeria. (Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation). Department of Vocational Teacher
Education, University of Nigeria Nsukka.
113
Enyi, G.S. (2009). Introduction to Measurement and Evaluation in Universities, Polytechnics
and Colleges of Education (A Professional Approach). Enugu. Linco Press Ltd.
Erickson, R.C. & Wentling, T.L. (1976). Measuring Student Growth: Techniques and
Procedures for Occupational Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc.
Ezeji S.C.O.A., (2004). A guide to preparing Educational Specification for Secondary Industrial
Arts Facilities. Enugu: Cheston Agency Ltd.
Ezendu, S.A. (1992). Development and validation of some instruments for evaluating students’
learning outcomes in senior secondary school geography. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis)
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Ezewu, E.E. (1984). Towards a taxonomy of Educational Objectives in the Psycho Productive
Domain. Nigerian Journal of Technical Education 2 (1), 96 – 104.
Fafunwa, B.A. (1974). History of Education in Nigeria. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Fatunsin, F. (1996). Development and Standardization of Performance-based tests in
Agricultural Science in Ondo State. (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis) Department of
Vocational Teacher Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004). National Policy on Education (4th
edition). Abuja: NERDC.
Feirer, J.L. (1981). General Metals. (5th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Fink, A. (1995). The Survey Handbook. Thousand Oaks, C.A: Sage.
Fits, P. (1967) in Curson, L.B. (1982). Principles and Practice of Technical Education. Hong
Kong: Cassel Limited.
Fleishman, E.A. (1967) in Garba, L.N. (1993). Development of an instrument for Evaluating
Practical Project in Woodwork. (Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation), Department of
Vocational & Technical Education,University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Frerguson, G.A. (2006). Statistical Analysis in Psychology in Education McGraw-Hill
International Book Company.
Frisbie, D.A. (1990). The Evolution of the multiple true-false item formats. Paper Presented at
the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Boston.
Gagne, R.M. & Medsker, K.L (1995). The Conditions of Learning, Training Applications.
Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.
Gagne, R; Briggs, L & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design, (4th
ed), Fort
worth, TX; HBJ College Publishers.
Garba, N.L. (1993). Development of an Instrument for evaluating practical projects in
woodworking. (Unpublished Ph.d Thesis), University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Garba, N.L. (1994). Evaluating Student’s Practical Projects in Technology Education. Spectrum
Journal , 2,1&2.
114
Gay, L.R. (1981). Educational research; competencies for analysis and application (2nd
ed).
Columbus: Charles E. Merril publishing Co.
Giachino, J.W & Gallington, R.C. (1977). Course Construction in Industrial Arts, Vocational
Technical Education. Chicago: America Technical Society.
Green, J.A. (1975). Teacher made Tests (2nd
ed). New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Gronlund, N.E. & Linn, B.L. (1990). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching, 6th
Edition.
London: Macmillan.
Gronlund, N.E. (1982). Constructing achievement tests (3rd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ;
Prentice-Hall.
Guttman in Lynch, J.G. (1999). “On the External Validity of Experiments in Consumer
Research”. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (13), 225-231.
Haertel, E. (1985). Construct Validity and Criterion-referenced testing. Review of Educational
Research 55-46.
Haladyna, T.M & Downing, S.M. (2004). Construction Irrelevant Variance in high-stakes
testing. Educational Measurement, Issues and Practice, 23 (1)17-27.
Hall, P. (1973) in Padelford, H.E. (1984). Acquiring psychomotor skills. Journal of Epsilon
P.Tau X (2) 35-39.
Hambleton, R.K. (1990). Criterion-referenced testing method and practices. In Gutkin T. & C.
Reynolds (Eds). Handbook of School Psychology (2nd
ed.); P. 385-414, New York:
Wiley.
Hambleton, R.K.; Swaminathan, H. & Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response
theory, Newbury Park, C.A: Sage in “Test Theory”. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 45, 3; 49-56.
Harbor-Peters, V.F. (1999). Measurement and Evaluation. Enugu: Snaap Press Ltd.
Harrow, A.J. (1972). A taxonomy of the Psychomotor Domain; A guide for Developing
Behavioural Objectives. New York: Mckay.
Hauenstennnis, A.D. (1970). Curriculum engineering for behaivoural development. Columbus
Ohio: The Ohio State University Research Foundation.
Hersbatch, D.R, (1976). Deriving instructional content through task analysis Journal of
Industrial Teacher Education 13 (3), 63.
Hogarth, R.M. (1986). Generalizing Decision Research: “The role of formal models”. IEEE
Transaction on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Vol. 16,3,439-449.
Hornby, A.S. (2010): Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. (New 8th
Edition). Oxford University Press, New York.
Igbo, C.A. (1997). Development and Evaluation task Instructional Sheets for teacher clothing
construction skills in senior secondary schools. Nigerian Vocational Journal 6 (1).
115
Igbo, C.A. (1997). Development and Validation of a Psycho-production Skill test for assessing
senior secondary school students in clothing and Textiles. Ph.D Thesis, University of
Nigeria, Nuskka.
Ikeoji, C.N. (1996). Development and validation of an instrument for measuring psycho
productive skills in crop production in secondary schools. (Unpublished doctoral Thesis)
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Ikpe, U.G. (2009). Resource Management in Technical Colleges and the Provision of
Technicians in the Nigeria Economy. Nigerian Association of Teachers of Technology
(NATT). 22nd
Annual National Conference. P.383-387.
Inyiagu, E.E. (2009). Making Technology Education Workshop Equipment Cost effective in
Capacity Building for the Realization of Nigerians Vision 2020. Nigerian Association of
Teachers of Technology (NATT). 22ND
Annual National Conference. Pp. 388-394.
Jain R.K. (2010). Production Technology, 17th
Edition . New Delhi, KHANNA Publishers.
Joshua, M.T. (2005). Fundamentals of Test and Measurement in Education. Calabar: The
University of Calabar Press.
Kendall, M.G. (1975). Rank Correlation Methods. London and High Combe: Charles Graffin &
Company Ltd.
Kiade, A.L. (2011). An assessment of the teaching effectiveness of pre-vocational subjects
teachers in Ogun State, Nigeria. Retrieved on 5th
June, from http://www.academic
journal.org/JJVTE.
Kibler, R.J.; Barker, L.L.; & Miles, D.T. (1970). Behavioural Objectives and Instruction. Allyn
& Bacon Publishers.
Krathwohl, D.R. (1993). Method of Educational and Social Science Research. London:
Longman Group.
Lavioe, D.R., (1993). That development theory and application of cognitive network model of
production problem solving in Biology. Journal of Research of Science Technology,
30(7), 767-783.
Lawshe, C.A. (1975). A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity. Personnel Psychology, 28
(4) 563-575.
Leighbody, G.B. & Kidd, D.M. (1968). Method of Teaching Shop and Technical Subjects.
Albany: Delmar Publishers.
Lord, F.M. (1980). Application of items Response theory to practical Test Problems. Hillsdale-
New Jessey: Erlbaum.
Ludwig, A.O; McCarthy, J.W. & Repp E.V. (1975). Metal work Technology and Practice.
Bloomington, Illinois: McKnight Publishing Company.
McTavish, G.D. & Herman J.L. (2002). Social Research: An Evolving Process. (2nd
edition)
Harcourt College Publishers: Fort Worth, TX.
116
Mehrens, W.A. & Lehmann, I.J. (1991). Measurement in Education and Psychology. New
York: Holt Binhart and Winston.
Miller, R. (1967). In Curson, L.B. (1982). Principles and Practice of Technical Education Hong
Kong: Cassel Ltd.
Mkpa, M.A. (1992). Evaluating Psychomotor behavior: Meaning, classification and guidelines,
in Nworgu, B.G. (2006). Educational Measurement and Evaluation theory and Practice.
Nsukka: Hall Mark Publishers.
Mkpa, N.D. (2009). Teaching Methods and Strategies in Curriculum Theory and Practice.
Curriculum Organization of Nigeria.
Mustapha, M.K. (2002). Strategies for Improving the acquisition of skills in Metal Craft Practice
of the Vocational Training Centres in Borno and Yobe States. (Unpublished M.Ed
Thesis). Department of Vocational Teacher Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
National Board for Technical Education (2003). National Technical Certificate and Advance
National Technical Certificate Programmes Curriculum and Module Specifications.
National Teacher Institute (2006): Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE DLS), Book 5.
National volunteer Skills Centre: A Guide to Writing Competency Based Training Materials.
www.nvsc.org.au .Retrieved 21/5/11.
Njoku, S.N. (1994). Development of self-evaluation instrument for basic clothing construction
techniques for tertiary institutions in Enugu state. (Unpublished M.Ed Thesis),
Department of Vocational & Technical Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Nwabueze, E., (2009). Research Methods an Integrated Approach. Enugu: ABIC Books &
Equip. Ltd.
Nwachukwu, C.E. (2001). Designing Appropriate Methodology in Vocational and Technical
Education for Nigeria. Nsukka: University Trust Publishers.
Nwachukwu, C.E. (2008). Vocational Technical Education Programme design and
Development. Retrieved on 21st May, 2011 from
http://www.nigeriabestforum.com/blog/?p=38404.
Nwadiae, S.A. (1993). Occupational responsibilities of teachers of Agriculture in Bendel state as
perceived by principals and teachers of Agriculture. (Unpublished Master Thesis),
Department of Vocational & Technical Education,University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Nwana, O.C. (1982). Educational measurement for teachers. Lagos: Thomas Nelson Nigeria
Ltd.
Nwana, O.C. (1990). Introduction to educational research. Iseyen: Irepo printing press.
Nwana, O.C. (2008). University Academics in Nigeria. Owerri: Peace wise.
Nworgu, B.G. (2003). Educational Measurement and Evaluation, Theory and Practice (Revised
Edition), Nsukka: University Trust Publishers.
117
Nworgu, B.G. (2006), Educational Research, Basic Issues and Methodology (Second &
Enlarged Edition). Nsukka; University Trust Publishers.
Odu, O.K. (2001). Development and Validation of an Instrument for assessing students Psycho-
performance in Block laying and concreting. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). University of
Nigerian, Nsukka.
Ofuebe, C., & Izueke, E., (2011). Data Demands for Development Research, Enugu: Prince
Digital Press.
Ogbu, E.J. (2009). Development and Factorial Validation of Basic Electricity Interest Inventory.
Nigerian Vocational Journal, 14 (1) 1-12.
Ogbuanya, T.C. (2010). Entry Level Skills required by Technical College Electrical Graduates
in Electrical Installation Trade. Nigerian Vocational Association Journal, 15 (1) 342-
353.
Ogbuanya, T.C. (2012). Vocationalizing the new Senior Secondary School Edcuaiton
Curriculum. A Paper Presented at a Workshop Organized by NERDC to sensitize Senior
Secondary School Teachers in Ebonyi State on the new Senior Secondary Education
Curriculum Structure, content and mode of implementation, February, 2012.
Oguniyi, P.B. (1979). Education Measurement and Evaluation. Lagos: Longman Nigeria Press.
Ogwo, B.A. & Oranu, R.N (2006). Methodology in Formal and Non-Formal Technical and
Vocational Education. Enugu: University Trust Publishers.
Ogwo, B.A. (1993). The development and validation of mechanical ability test for Nigerian
technical colleges, Nigerian Vocational Journal (NVA) 6(1), p 58-64.
Ogwo, B.A. (2005). Modern Instructional Techniques, their Application in Technical Vocational
Education (TVE) programme of Polytechnics and Monotechnics. Paper Presented at the
Capacity Building Workshop for Lecturers of Polytechnics and Monotechnics in Nigeria
Organized by Education Trust Fund (ETF) held at Mosheed Abiola Polytechnic,
Abeokuta on August 24, 2005.
Ohuche, R.O. & Akeju, S.A. (1998). Testing and Evaluation in Education, African Educational
Resources.
Okeme, I. (2011). Development and Validation of Psycho Productive Skills Multiple Choice
Items for Students in agricultural Science in Secondary Schools. (Unpublished Ph.D
Thesis) submitted to the Department of Vocational Teacher Education, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.
Okorie, J.U. (2001), Vocational Industrial Education, Bauchi: League of Researchers in Nigeria.
Okoro, O.M. (1999). Principles and Methods in Vocational and Technical Education. Nsukka:
University Trust Publishers.
Okoro, O.M. (2000). Programme Evaluation in Education. Obosi; Pacific Publishers.
Okoro, O.M., (2002). Measurement and Evaluation in Education. Uruowulu-Obosi: Pacific
Publishers Ltd.
118
Okoro, O.M., (2008). A Manuscript on Evaluation in Vocational Technical Education.
Department of Vocational Teacher Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Okwori, R.O., Johnson, E.H., Odesanmi J.B., Aluko E.K., Akponome. A. et al (2006). Theory
and practice of Vocational –Technical Education: Basic Issues. Jos, Akins Press &
Services
Olaitan, S.O. & Nwoke, G.I. (1988). Practical Research Methods in Education. Onitsha;
Summer Educational Publishers Limited.
Olaitan, S.O. (1978). Vocational Education in Nigerian Schools and manpower development.
Unpublished Manuscript, Department of vocational education, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
Olaitan, S.O. (1984). Agricultural education for the tropics. London: Macmillan publishers.
Olaitan, S.O. (1991). Integration in education. The case for Agriculture as an integrated area of
study. Paper presented at the 6th
annual conference of the Nigerian academy of
Education, Zaria.
Olaitan, S.O. (2003). Understanding Curriculum. Nsukka: Ndudim Press.
Olaitan, S.O., & Ali, A. (1997). The making of the Curriculum: Theory, Process, Product and
Evaluation. Onitsha: Cape Publishers Int’l Ltd.
Olaitan, S.O., Ali, A; Eyo, E.O.; & Sowande, K.G. (2000). Research Skills in Education and
Social Science. Onitsha: Cape Publishers.
Olaitan, S.O.; Onyemachi, G.; Nwachukwu, C.E.; Igbo, C.A. & Ekong, A.O. (1999).
Curriculum Development and Management in Vocational Technical Education. Onitsha:
Cape Publishers International Ltd.
Olaitan, S.O; Igbo, C.A; Ekong, A.O; Nwachukwu, C.E; & Onyemachi, G.A. (1999).
Curriculum development and Management in Vocational Technical Education. Onitsha:
Cape Publishers.
Onu, V.C. (2008). Repositioning Nigeria Youths for Economic Empowerment through
Entrepreurship Education. Journal of Home Economics Research. Vol.9, Pp.148-157.
Oosterhof. A. (1994). Classroom Applications of Educational Measurement (2nd
Edition). New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Oranu, R.N. (1988). Evaluating Students attainments in vocational/technical subjects. Nigerian
Journal of Technical Education. 1(2), p 16-21.
Oranu, R.N. (2003). Vocational and Technical Education in Nigeria. Retrieved on 16th April
2011 from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/curriculfum/Africapdf/Lago2.ora.Pdf.
Oranu, R.N.’ Nwoke, G.I. &Ogwo, B.A. (2002). Fundamentals of Metalwork Practice. Enugu:
Doze Press Nigerian.
Osinem, E.C. (2005). Environmental Education in Agriculture. Enugu: Cheston Agency Ltd.
119
Osinem, E.C. (2008). Managing Agricultural Education and Training: Resources, Principles
and Methods. Enugu: Belony International Publishers.
Ozioko, J.O.C., (2004). Writing Project Report, Nsukka: Great Ap Express Publishers Ltd.
Padelford, H.E. (1983). A conceptual model of the Psychomotor. Journal of Industrial Teacher
Education, 20 (2) 15-21.
Padelford, H.E. (1984). Acquiring psychomotor skills. Journal of Epsilon. P. Tau X(2)35-39.
Roberts, J. (1990). Reliability and Learning from the Objective structured Clinical Examination.
Journal of Chiropractic Education, 14 (2) 219-223.
Roid, G.H & Haladyna, T. M. (1982). A Technology for Test-Item Writing. New York:
Academic Press.
Sax, G. & Cromack, T.R. (1966). The effects of various forms of item arrangements on test
Performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, Vol.3.
Seymour, W.D. (1966). Industrial Skiller London: Pittman Publisher.
Senter, R.J. (1969). Analysis of Data Introductory Statistics for the behavioural Sciences. Scott,
Foresman and Company.
Shadish, W.R. (2002). Revisiting Field experimentation: Field Notes for the Future.
Psychological Methods, 7 (1) 3-15.
Simpson, E. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the Psychomotor Domain.
The Psychomotor Domain, Vol.3, Washington, DC: Gryphon House.
Singer, R.N. (1972). The Psychomotor Domain: General consideration. Washington: Gryphon.
SpiEze, H.T. and Osborne, E. (1983). Techniques for evaluating students. Agricultural
Education Magazine, 56(1).
Strengthening of Mathematics and Sciences in Secondary Education (SMASSE 2003) Project in
Kenya: Macmillan Publisher Ltd.
Sullivan, R., (1995). JHPIEGO Strategy Paper. The Competency-Based Approach to Training.
(Adobe®Acrobat®)39k), retrieved on the 11/5/11.
Thomas, J.R. & Nelson, J.K. (1996). Research Methods in Physical Activities. USA: Heiman
Kinetics.
Thorndike, R.L. & Hogen, E.A. (2007). Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and
Education. New York; John Wiley & Sons.
Tuckman, B. (1995). Measuring Educational Outcomes: Fundamentals of Testing. USA;
Harcourt Brace Jovcanano.
Turabian, K.L. (1976). A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations (3rd
Ed.).
120
Ukonze, J.A. (2010). Vegetable Production Skills Needed by Instructor in Universities for
Effective Teaching of Vegetable Crop in Enugu state. Nigerian Vocational Association
Journal 15 (1) 63-71.
UNESCO (2002). Criterion reference assessment. (Unpublished Manuscript). UNESCO
Nigeria Project in Support of Revitalization of Technical and Vocational Education in
Nigeria, Kaduna.
Uzoagulu, A.E.(2011). Writing Research |Project Reports in Tertiary Institutions, (Enlarged ed).
Enugu: John Jacob’s Classic Publishers Ltd
Wana, O.C. (1982). Educational Measurement for Teachers. Lagos: Thomas Nelson.
Web. (2011). Glossary of key words. (Retrieved from :http://writing.colostate.edu/guides
/research/glossary).
Weiss, D.J & Davison, M.L. (1981). “Test Theory and Methods.” Annual Review of Psychology
32 (1)
Wentling, T.L. and Lawson, T.E. (1975). Evaluating occupational education and training
programmes. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc.
Wiersma,E & Jurs, S.G. (1985). Education Measurement and testing. U.S.A: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc.
Williams, P.S. (2009). Skill Acquisition: A Tool for Youth Development and Empowerment.
Nigerian Association of Teachers of Technology (NATT) 22ND
Annual National
Conference, P. 184-188.
Winden J.V. (1990). General Metal Work, Sheet Metal Work and Hand Pump Maintenance.
Netherlands, Tool Foundation.
Yalams, S.I. (2001). Development and Validation of Metalwork Process evaluation Scheme.
(Unpublished Ph.D Thesis). Department of Vocational Teacher Education, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka.
Yoloye, E.A (1984). Continuous Assessment: A Simple guide for teachers. London: CASSELL.
Yoloye, E.A. (1978). Evaluation for innovation. London: I.U.P.
Zhang, J.J. & Lam, E.T.C. (2008). The Development and Validations of a Racquetball Skills
Test Battery for Young Adult Beginners. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Zimmerman, B.B; Sudwecks, R.R.; Shelley, M.F.’ & Wood, B. (1990). How to prepare better
tests: Guidelines for University Faculty. Prove, UT: Brigham Young University Testing
Services.
121
122
Appendix A
123
Appendix B
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHERS AND TECHNICIANS OF
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CRAFT IN TECHNICAL COLLEGES
GEOGRAPHICA
L LOCATION
S/No
NAME OF INSTITUTION POPULATION
Nassaraw State
Name Of Institution Teachers Technicians Total
1 Gov’t Tech Coll. Assakio 9 4 13
2 Gov’t Tech Coll Mada Station 7 3 10
3 Gov’t Tech Coll Agwada 6 3 9
4 Fed .Tech .College Doma 12 6 18
Total 34 16 50
Source: Staff list register in the Vice principal office in each college (2011/12 session)
124
Appendix C TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS
NATIONAL
TECHNICAL
CERTIFICATE
MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING
CURRICULUM
OBJECTIVES
Pra
ctic
al
com
pe
ten
ce/p
erf
orm
an
ce
ob
ject
ive
s
AREAS OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CRAFT SIMPSON’S PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN LEVELS
- Grinding operations
- Drilling operations
- Fitting operations Pe
rce
pti
on
(5
-10
%)
24
ite
ms
(8%
)
Se
t (5
-10
%)
24
ite
m (
8%
)
Gu
ide
d r
esp
on
se
(20
-30
) 7
6 i
tem
s (2
5%
)
Me
cha
nis
m (
20
-30
%)
76
ite
ms
(25
%)
Co
mp
lex
Ov
ert
Re
spo
nse
(2
0-
25
%)
81
ite
ms
(26
.5%
)
Ad
ap
tati
on
(5
-10
%)
24
ite
ms
(8%
)
Nu
mb
er
of
skil
l it
em
s
1. Stimulate and
sustain students’
interest in
mechanical
engineering craft
(Tested through
Bloom’
Taxonomy).
2. Enable students
acquire useful
knowledge and
practical skills I
mechanical
engineering craft
(psychomotor
taxonomy)
3. Prepare students
for further learning
in mechanical
engineering craft
(Bloom’s taxonomy)
4. Prepare students
for occupation in
mechanical
engineering craft
(psychomotor
taxonomy)
See
Appendix A
Grinding operations
- Mounting wheel in machine spindle
- Grinding metal object with surface grinder
- Sharpening a cutting tool with a grinding
wheel
- Dressing and truing grinding wheel
- Maintaining grinding machine
- Hand polishing of a metal article
- Sharpening punch on the bench grinder
- Sharpening a screw driver on bench grinder
- Sharpening cold chisel on pederstal grinder
- Sharpening a twist drill on Pedestal grinder
- Polishing metal article with compounds and
wheels
- Polishing a metal article with coated
abrasives
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
4
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
12
7
6
6
6
8
7
7
8
6
6
85
Drilling operations
- Centre punching for drilling
- Drilling a hole in metal plate
- Boring a hole in metal bar
- Counter boring a hole in a metal plate
- Counter sinking a hole in a metal bar
- Seating a hole in a metal
- Rearing a hole in a metal
- Producing a garden trowel
- Drilling a hole using a hand drill
- Constructing a mirror plate
- Construction of Name Plate
- Producing a shoe horn
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
6
6
7
6
6
7
6
7
9
11
10
85
See
Appendix A
Fitting Operations
- Sawing a metal bar
- Sharing a metal plate
- Filing a metal piece flat and square
- Bending a metal rod
- Soldering two metal parts together
- Threading a metal bolt
- Heat treating a metal product
- Assembling with metal fasteners
- Construction of a swarf cleaner
- Construction of a tool box
- Construction of an angle gauge
- Constructing a pipe wrench
- Making a vice clamp
- Production of fitting plate
- Production of dept gauge
- Making camp saw
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
4
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
5
2
4
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
4
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
7
9
8
6
11
5
6
7
16
9
13
7
9
9
9
135
TOTAL ITEMS 24 24 76 76 81 24 305
1
National Teacher Certificate (NTC) Curriculum
Appendix D
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
Appendix E
A Draft Copy of Workshop Based Process Skill Test (WBPST) In Mechanical Engineering
Craft for Assessing Students in Technical Colleges
Direction
Please, rate how each student, performs in the following process skills
Key: 1=Very Low (VL), 2 =Low (L), 3 = Moderately High (MH), 4= High (H) and 5 =Very
High (VH)
GRINDING OPERATIONS
STUDENT 5 4 3 2 1
S/N Task 1: Mounting grinding wheel in machine spindle
Procedural steps / skill items
1 Testing wheel for damage/crack
2 Selecting washers or blotters
3 Checking lead bush for burrs and fit
4 Pushing wheel on spindle
5 Tightening flange nut
6 Test-running wheel without load
Task 2: Grinding metal object with surface grinder
Procedural steps / skill items
7 Cleaning work-piece
8 Wiping magnetic chuck with clean cloth
9 Centering work piece on the chuck
10 Adjusting the table reverse dogs
11 Turning on the coolant valve
12 Adjusting the rate of table feed
13 Turning on the power
14 Hand feeding the table in until work piece is under grinding wheel
15 Adjusting grinding wheel down until it is near the work piece
16 Turning on the power table feed
17 Turning the cross-feed out one fourth the width of the grinding
18 Wheel Grinding the entire work piece surface
Task 3: Sharpening a cutting tool with a grinding wheel
Procedural steps / skill items
19 Checking the condition of the tool
20 Hand-running the grinding wheel
21 Removing burrs or dirt from work piece
22 Turning on power
23 Holding the tool and pressing against wheel at correct angle
24 Dipping the tool in water regularly
25 Grinding to required angle
Task 4: Dressing and truing grinding wheel
Procedural steps / skill items
26 Checking the condition of the wheel
27 Selecting wheel dresser
28 Wearing safety goggles
29 Turning on power
30 Holding dresser on tool rest
31 Feeding the dresser across the wheel until it is true
Task 5:Maintaining grinding machines
Procedural steps / skill items
32 Checking the condition of the machine
33 Cleaning oil, chips and other dirts
34 Toping oil level
35 Greasing mating parts
36 Adjusting slides
Task 6: Hand polishing of a metal article
Procedural steps/ skill items
37 Cutting a strip of abrasive cloth from a roll or sheet
38 Wrapping it round a stick or file
39 Applying a few drops of oil to the metal surface
40 Rubbing the cloth back and as if you were sanding. Do not rock the tool, keep it flat.
153
41 Removing al scratches to make abrasive grains float in oil on the surface
42 Reversing the cloth, exposing the back. Rubbing back and forth to get a high polish.
Task 7: Sharpening centre punch on the bench grinder
Procedural steps/ skill items
43. Checking the condition of the punch
44. Test running the grinding wheel with hand
45. Turning on power
46. Holding punch to the wheel at the correct angle
47. Pressing the punch against the grinding wheel
48. Swinging the punch from side to side by pivoting it over the tool rest
49. Ensuring correct angle of the punch
50. Dipping the punch in water regularly
51. Checking the correct point angle of the punch
Task 8: Sharpening a screw driver on bench grinder
Procedural steps/skill items
52. Checking the condition of the screw driver
53. Test running the grinding wheel with hand
54 Filing either side of the point to remove dirts
55 Turning power of the grinding machine
56 Grinding each side of the point a little a time
57 Grinding the tip square
58 Dipping the tool in water often to keep it cool
Task 9: Sharpening cold chisel on pedestal grinder
Procedural steps/skill items
59 Checking the condition of the chisel
60 Hand running the grinding wheel
61 Removing burrs from cutting edge with file
62 Switching on the grinding machine
63 Controlling chisel movement
64 Holding one side of cutting edge against the face of the wheel and moving it back and forth
in an arc
65 Grinding the second side to form a sharp edge
66 Cooling the chisel at interval of grinding
Task 10: Sharpening a twist drill on pedestal grinder
Procedural step/skill items
67 Checking the condition of the twist drill
68 Switching on the grinding machine
69 Grasping the drill near the point in your right hand, with your left hand holding the shank
70 Holding the lip of the drill at an angle of 59 degree to the grinding wheel
71 Turning the drill in a clockwise direction, at the same swinging the shank down in an arc of 12-15 degrees
72 Grinding a little off each cutting edge
73 Dipping the drill coolant at intervals
74 Checking with a drill-grinding gauge for current cutting edges length and angles
Task 11:Polishing mental article with compounds and wheels
Procedural steps/skill items
75 Listing out material for polishing
76 Selecting the type of article to be polished
77 Attaching a clean, soft cloth wheel to the head of the polishing machine
78 Selecting a stick of greaseless polishing compound
79 Turning on the machine
80 Holding the abrasive stick against the turning wheel until the face is coated
81 Holding the work piece firmly in your hands,
82 Moving it back and forth across the wheel until the scratches have been removed
Task 12: Polishing a metal article with coated abrasives
Procedural steps/skill items
83 Selecting the type of article
84 Stating the conditions of a metal article
85 Fixing the abrasive belt around two or three pulleys
86 Turning on power
87 Holding the work against the belt in the areas between the pulleys
88 Moving the work piece back and forth
89 Applying even pressure for a good polish
DRILLING OPERATIONS
Task 13: Centre punching for drilling
Procedural steps / skill items
90 Taking measurement
91 Marking out
92 Positioning punch
93 Striking punch head
154
Task 14: Drilling a hole in metal plate
Procedural steps / skill items
94 Centre punching the point of the hole
95 Selecting correct size and type of bit for the work
96 Clamping work piece
97 Inserting drill bit in chuck
98 Starting the machine
99 Feeding bit on work
Task 15: Boring a holes in metal bar
Procedural steps / skill items
100 Selecting appropriate boring tool
101 Inserting tool in chuck
102 Locking tool in chuck
103 Clamping work in vice
104 Turning on power
105 Feeding tool into hole
Task 16: Counter boring a hole in a metal plate
Procedural steps / skill items
106 Selecting the counter boring tool
107 Inserting tool in chuck
108 Locking tool in chuck
109 Clamping work in vice
110 Adjusting spindle for lower speed
111 Turning on power
112 Feeding slowly to required depth
Task 17: Counter sinking a hole in a metal
Procedural steps / skill items
113 Selecting the counter sinking tool
114 Inserting countersink tool in chuck
115 Clamping work in vice
116 Adjusting speed half lower than for drilling
117 Switching on power
118 Feeding until required amount of material is removed
Task 18: Seating a hole in a metal
Procedural steps / skill items
119 Selecting the boring tool
120 Regrinding boring tool
121 Inserting tool in chuck
122 Clamping work in vice
123 Turning on power
124 Feeding slowly on hole bottom
Task 19: Reaming a hole in a metal
Procedural steps / skill items
125 Selecting the reamer
126 Clamping work piece in vice
127 Fixing reamer to tap wrench
128 Holding reamer 900 to the hole
129 Feeding reamer into the hole steadily
130 Applying cutting fluid
131 Turning reamer clockwise till hole is reamed
Task 20: Producing a Garden Trowel
Procedural steps / skill items
132 Selecting the appropriate materials and tools
133 Marking out the required dimensions
134 Sawing out and filing to shape, removing all sharp edges
135 Fastening work in a vice together with a hardwood cylinder.
136 Hammering the blade to a suitable curve
137 Bending up the tang to the measurements given
Task21: Drilling a hole using a Hand Drill
Procedural steps / skill items
138 Selecting the drill bit
139 Pulling back on the handle to open the jaws
140 Holding the shell of the chuck to insert a drill bit
141 Turning the handle forward to tighten the drill
142 Clamping in a vice or leaving on the ground if work piece is large.
143 Placing the point of the drill in the centre punch mark.
144 Drilling the hole by turning handle clockwise direction
Task 22: Constructing a Mirror Plate
Procedural steps / skill items
155
145 Selecting the materials and tools
146 Cutting off a piece of 1.6mm strip to the required size,
147 filing the edges straight and the corners square
148 Marking and scribing the centre lines to the dimensions
given
149 Centre punching and drilling the holes.
150 Counter sinking the screw hole
151 Sawing away the waste metal
152 Filing to the correct shape and chamfer all straight edges
153 Removing all sharp edges with a smooth file
154 Naming types of emery cloth
155 Polishing with fine emery cloth
Task 23: Construction of Name Plate
Procedural steps / skill items
156 Selecting the appropriate material and tools
157 Measuring and marking out the specified dimensions
158 Cutting off a 75mm length of mild steel strip
159 Filing the edges and corners straight and square
160 Marking off the position of the holes
161 Drilling the specified number of holes
162 Counter sinking for a wood screw
163 Marking off two sets of parallel lines 3mm apart to act a guide lines for the printing
164 Using the letter punches, stamp in the name and address
165 Chamfering all round at 450
166 Dipping in clear lacquer for surface protection
Task24: Producing a shoe horn
Procedural steps / skill items
167 Selecting the materials and tools
168 Cutting off a piece of copper or brass 130x50x1mm thick
169 Marking out to the dimensions given starting with the centre line
170 Cutting away the waste metal with a saw and filing to shape
171 Rounding off all the edges with a smooth file and emery cloth
172 Setting the metal down to shape in a grooved wood block, truing up with the edge of a hide mallet
173 Truing up on Bick iron
174 Placing the shoe horn over the end of the Bick iron and bending the edges to the curve given
175 Bending the handle to a slight curve
176 Polishing
FITTING OPERATIONS
Task 25: Sawing a metal bar
Procedural steps / skill items
177 Taking measurement
178 Marking out
179 Clamping work in vice
180 Tightening hack saw blade
181 Cutting to required size
Task 26: Shearing a metal plate
Procedural steps / skill items
182 Measuring out
183 Marking out
184 Fixing work between blades
185 Aligning marked line with the cutting blades
186 Pressing shearer handle down ward to shear off the work
Task 27: Filing a metal piece flat and square
Procedural steps / skill items
187 Measuring out
188 Marking out
189 Cutting out to specification
190 Choosing an appropriate file
191 Clamping work piece in vice
192 Filing the face side
193 Filing the face edge
194 Filing the second side and edge to required size
195 Polishing with emery cloth
Task 28: Bending a metal rod
Procedural steps / skill items
196 Selecting the material and tools
197 Checking a full size drawing of the part to be bent
198 Measuring and marking out .
156
199 Deciding which is to be made first if more than one bend is required..
200 Fastening the work piece vertically in the vice, with bend line at the top of the jaws
201 Bending the work piece by striking it with hammer near the bend line
202 Squaring off the bend by holding the work piece in a vice with the edge parallel to the top of the vice jaw
203 Making an obtuse bend, using a monkey wrench as a bending tool
Task 29: Soldering two metal parts together
Procedural steps / skill items
204 Selecting the parts and tools
205 Cleaning surfaces to be joined
206 Providing correct joint gap
207 Selecting correct soldering device and flux
208 Applying appropriate amount of heat
209 Removing of surplus solder
Task 30: Threading a metal bolt
Procedural steps / skill items
210 Selecting the material.
211 Measuring and marking out
212 Cutting out the work piece
213 Grinding a chamfer on one end of the work piece
214 Fastening the die in a die stock
215 Adjusting the guide on the die stock for a free fit
216 Clamping the work piece in the vice and placing die on chamfered end of the piece
217 Holding one hand over the centre of the work piece and applying pressure to get the first
threads started
218 Applying cutting oil and turn the die stock clockwise.
219 Turning the diestock back frequently to break the chips
220 Backing off the die when the desired length of thread is cut
Task 31: Heat treating a metal product
Procedural steps / skill items
221 Selecting appropriate source of heat
222 Heating to the required temperature
223 Leaving at this temperature for a certain length of time
224 Putting off heat
225 Cooling in a way that will give the desired results
Task 32: Assembling with metal fasteners
Procedural steps / skill items
226 Selecting the fastener
227 Laying out the location of the fastener and drill the given hole on the parts
228 Countersinking if necessary
229 Checking the fastener for length
230 Inserting fastener in the holes
231 Pressing or tightening the parts together
Task 33: Construction of a Swarf cleaner
Procedural steps / skill items
232 Selecting the material and tools
233 Measuring and marking out
234 Cutting off to length
235 Forging eye end
236 Forging and hot bending scraper end
237 Cutting and sharpening scraper blade
238 Brazing
Task 34: Constructing a tool box
Procedural steps/skill items
239 Selecting the material
240 Measuring out
241 Marking out box body “A” with pencil from centre lines
242 Cutting out shape
243 Folding runners, two sides and corner laps
244 Bending other two sides.
245 Soldering laps to sides
246 Marking out partition plate “C”
247 Folding flanges
248 Marking out position of partition plate “C” in box “A”
249 Setting partition plate “C” in box “A” and soldering
250 Marking out lid “B”
251 Cutting out lid “B” to shape
252 Turning runner allowance and stopping flange on lid “B”
253 Fitting lid “B” to box “A”
254 Checking all sizes
157
Task 35: Construction of an Angle Gauge
Procedural steps/skill items
255 Selecting the material
256 Measuring and marking out
257 Cutting to approximate size with hacksaw.
258 Filing two long edges square and parallel
259 Squaring one end
260 Marking out male and female vees
261 Cutting male and female vees with saw and finishing with file.
262 Checking angle sizes for accuracy
263 Finishing with emery cloth
264 Inspecting the angle gauge for correctness
Task 36: Constructing a Pipe Wrench
Procedural steps/ skill items
265 Selecting the material
266 Checking for hand tools
267 Measuring the required dimension
268 Marking out profile of handle
269 Cutting and filing to shape
270 Bending in round form
271 Drilling reaming and taping pivot hole
272 Filing packing piece wedge shaped to suit handle and4mm” oversize on curved edges.
273 Fitting packing pieces and drilling in position.
274 Riveting parking pieces in position
275 Filing jaw teeth
276 Removing burrs
277 Case-hardening jaw teeth
278 Checking for accuracy
Task 37: Making a vice clamp
Procedural steps / skill items
279 Selecting the material
280 Measuring the required size
281 Marking out to the sizes given
282 Cutting out the size given
283 Marking off the corners as given
284 Fastening in the vice and bending with a hammer
285 Rounding off the corners with a smooth file
Task 38: Production of fitting plate
Procedural steps/skill items
286 Selecting the correct material
287 Listing the tools required
288 Measuring the required sizes
289 Marking out
290 Cutting the required pieces
291 Drilling the number of required holes on the pieces
292 Rounding corners of the pieces with given radius
293 Cutting out the given equilateral triangle
294 Lapping A and B coupling
295 Finishing the surface
Task 39: Production of depth gauge
Procedural steps/skill items
296 Selecting the appropriate material
297 Measuring out the required size
298 Marking out
299 Cutting the required size
300 Punching the centres where holes are to be drilled
301 Drilling the required holes
302 Threading the holes with the specified tap size
303 Controlling threading taps
304 Providing the required metal bar
305 Finishing the surface
Task 40: Making camp saw
Procedural steps/skill items
306 Selecting appropriate material (aluminum tubing)
307 Naming tools to be used
308 Measuring the specified size
309 Marking out
310 Cutting out the required size
311 Cutting slot on one end of the tubing to a specified length
312 Drilling a given hole on both ends
158
313 Bending the tubing from one end at a specified angle
314 Providing saw blade and wing nuts
315 Fixing the saw blade
Appendix F
Summary of Validates’ Comments:
- Ensure even distribution of skill items – year one, two and three
- Check your grammar in the skill items
- Check operations properly to avoid mixing up items or questions
- The rating continuum is not appropriate because the rating is based on correct
performance of each activity
- The required thing is on how the student has carried out the operation not on
identification of important tasks.
- Differences to be explored due to gender, grade, ability levels etc. of the students.
- Direction/information on the prioritization and mean rating questionnaire to the
respondents is not clear.
- Cognitive knowledge may be called to play by the respondents and cognitive is not all
that ideal for measuring psychomotor as applied in alternative to practical..
159
Appendix G1
Factor Analysis Result
Task 1
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO1 ITEMGO2
1.000 1000
.472
.009
ITEMGO3 1.000 .650
ITEMGO4 1.000 .223
ITEMGO5 1.000 .650
ITEMGO6 1.000 .118
ITEMGO7 1.000 .194
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO1 .687
ITEMGO2 ITEMGO3
.806
.643
ITEMGO4 .472
ITEMGO5 .806
ITEMGO6 .744
ITEMGO7 .441
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
Task 2
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO7 1.000 .187
ITEMGO8 1.000 .023
ITEMGO9 1.000 .576
ITEMGO10 1.000 .574
ITEMGO11 1.000 .004
ITEMGO12 1.000 .018
ITEMGO13 1.000 .236
ITEMGO14 1.000 .471
ITEMGO15 1.000 .202
ITEMGO16 1.000 .245
ITEMGO17 1.000 .154
ITEMGO18 1.000 .078
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO7 .433
ITEMGO8 .512
ITEMGO9 .759
ITEMGO10 .758
ITEMGO11 .560
ITEMGO12 .633
ITEMGO13 .486
ITEMGO14 .686
ITEMGO15 .449
ITEMGO16 .693
ITEMGO17 -.679
Task 3
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO19 1.000 .124
ITEMGO20 1.000 .485
ITEMGO21 1.000 .366
ITEMGO22 1.000 .108
ITEMGO23 1.000 .189
ITEMGO24 1.000 .597
ITEMGO25 1.000 .521
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO19 .542
ITEMGO20 .696
ITEMGO21 .605
ITEMGO22 .529
ITEMGO23 .434
ITEMGO24 .773
ITEMGO25 .722
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
160
Task 4
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO26 1.000 .339
ITEMGO27 1.000 .366
ITEMGO28 1.000 .553
ITEMGO29 1.000 .235
ITEMGO30 1.000 .019
ITEMGO31 1.000 .498
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO26 .582
ITEMGO27 .605
ITEMGO28 .743
ITEMGO29 .485
ITEMGO30 .636
ITEMGO31 .706
Task 5
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO32 1.000 .418
ITEMGO33 1.000 .538
ITEMGO34 1.000 .605
ITEMGO35 1.000 .183
ITEMGO36 1.000 .001
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO32 .647
ITEMGO33 .734
ITEMGO34 .778
ITEMGO35 -.427
ITEMGO36 .531
Task 6
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO37 1.000 .039
ITEMGO38 1.000 .001
ITEMGO39 1.000 .419
ITEMGO40 1.000 .697
ITEMGO41 1.000 .485
ITEMGO42 1.000 .449
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO37 .598
ITEMGO38 .631
ITEMGO39 .648
ITEMGO40 .835
ITEMGO41 .696
ITEMGO42 .670
Task 7
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO43 1.000 .514
ITEMGO44 1.000 .128
ITEMGO45 1.000 .573
ITEMGO46 1.000 .029
ITEMGO47 1.000 .377
ITEMGO48 1.000 .474
ITEMGO49 1.000 .003
ITEMGO50 1.000 .007
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO43 .717
ITEMGO44 .358
ITEMGO45 .757
ITEMGO46 .572
ITEMGO47 .614
ITEMGO48 .688
ITEMGO49 .555
ITEMGO50 .863
Task 8
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO51 1.000 1.514E-5
ITEMGO52 1.000 .015
ITEMGO53 1.000 .721
ITEMGO54 1.000 .591
ITEMGO55 1.000 .401
ITEMGO56 1.000 .373
ITEMGO57 1.000 .074
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO51 .654
ITEMGO52 .421
ITEMGO53 .849
ITEMGO54 .769
ITEMGO55 .633
ITEMGO56 .611
ITEMGO57 .471
161
Task 9
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO58 1.000 .236
ITEMGO59 1.000 .259
ITEMGO60 1.000 .478
ITEMGO61 1.000 .047
ITEMGO62 1.000 .634
ITEMGO63 1.000 .117
ITEMGO64 1.000 .153
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO58 .486
ITEMGO59 .509
ITEMGO60 .691
ITEMGO61 .516
ITEMGO62 .797
ITEMGO63 -.441
ITEMGO64 .391
Task 10
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO65 1.000 .440
ITEMGO66 1.000 .012
ITEMGO67 1.000 .104
ITEMGO68 1.000 .674
ITEMGO69 1.000 .486
ITEMGO70 1.000 .482
ITEMGO71 1.000 .120
ITEMGO72 1.000 .246
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO65 -.663
ITEMGO66 -.508
ITEMGO67 .422
ITEMGO68 .821
ITEMGO69 .697
ITEMGO70 .694
ITEMGO71 .426
ITEMGO72 .496
Task 11
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO73 1.000 .359
ITEMGO74 1.000 .678
ITEMGO75 1.000 .746
ITEMGO76 1.000 .489
ITEMGO77 1.000 .597
ITEMGO78 1.000 .364
ITEMGO79 1.000 .025
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO73 .599
ITEMGO74 .824
ITEMGO75 .864
ITEMGO76 .699
ITEMGO77 .773
ITEMGO78 .604
ITEMGO79 -.157
Task 12
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMGO80 1.000 .039
ITEMGO81 1.000 .169
ITEMGO82 1.000 .269
ITEMGO83 1.000 .388
ITEMGO84 1.000 .408
ITEMGO85 1.000 .792
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMGO80 .197
ITEMGO81 .411
ITEMGO82 .518
ITEMGO83 .623
ITEMGO84 .639
ITEMGO85 .890
Task 13
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO86 1.000 .413
ITEMDO87 1.000 .628
ITEMDO88 1.000 .621
ITEMDO89 1.000 .557
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO86 .642
ITEMDO87 .792
ITEMDO88 .788
162
ITEMDO89 .747
Task 14
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO90 1.000 .261
ITEMDO91 1.000 .413
ITEMDO92 1.000 .233
ITEMDO93 1.000 .324
ITEMDO94 1.000 .271
ITEMDO95 1.000 .499
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO90 .511
ITEMDO91 .643
ITEMDO92 .483
ITEMDO93 .570
ITEMDO94 .520
ITEMDO95 .706
Task 15
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO96 1.000 .422
ITEMDO97 1.000 .615
ITEMDO98 1.000 .362
ITEMDO99 1.000 .447
ITEMDO100 1.000 .510
ITEMDO101 1.000 .407
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO96 .649
ITEMDO97 .784
ITEMDO98 .601
ITEMDO99 .668
ITEMDO100 .714
ITEMDO101 .638
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
Task16
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO102 1.000 .604
ITEMDO103 1.000 .293
ITEMDO104 1.000 .576
ITEMDO105 1.000 .009
ITEMDO106 1.000 .081
ITEMDO107 1.000 .149
ITEMDO108 1.000 .518
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO102 .777
ITEMDO103 .542
ITEMDO104 .759
ITEMDO105 -.693
ITEMDO106 .584
ITEMDO107 .586
ITEMDO108 .720
Task 17
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO109 1.000 .599
ITEMDO110 1.000 .325
ITEMDO111 1.000 .072
ITEMDO112 1.000 .005
ITEMDO113 1.000 .446
ITEMDO114 1.000 .651
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO109 .774
ITEMDO110 .570
ITEMDO111 .567
ITEMDO112 .770
ITEMDO113 -.668
ITEMDO114 .807
Task 18
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO115 1.000 .265
ITEMDO116 1.000 .505
ITEMDO117 1.000 .580
ITEMDO118 1.000 .328
ITEMDO119 1.000 .285
ITEMDO120 1.000 .395
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO115 .515
ITEMDO116 .711
163
ITEMDO117 .762
ITEMDO118 .573
ITEMDO119 .533
ITEMDO120 .628
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
Task 19
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO121 1.000 .460
ITEMDO122 1.000 .664
ITEMDO123 1.000 .649
ITEMDO124 1.000 .430
ITEMDO125 1.000 .556
ITEMDO126 1.000 .458
ITEMDO127 1.000 .217
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO121 .679
ITEMDO122 .815
ITEMDO123 .806
ITEMDO124 .655
ITEMDO125 .746
ITEMDO126 .677
ITEMDO127 .465
Task 20
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO128 1.000 .382
ITEMDO129 1.000 .702
ITEMDO130 1.000 .103
ITEMDO131 1.000 .004
ITEMDO132 1.000 .337
ITEMDO133 1.000 .570
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO128 .618
ITEMDO129 .838
ITEMDO130 .521
ITEMDO131 .662
ITEMDO132 .581
ITEMDO133 .755
Task 21
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO134 1.000 .079
ITEMDO135 1.000 .335
ITEMDO136 1.000 .548
ITEMDO137 1.000 .611
ITEMDO138 1.000 .603
ITEMDO139 1.000 .242
ITEMDO140 1.000 .263
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO134 .581
ITEMDO135 .578
ITEMDO136 .740
ITEMDO137 .782
ITEMDO138 .776
ITEMDO139 .491
ITEMDO140 .513
Task 22
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO141 1.000 .124
ITEMDO142 1.000 .023
ITEMDO143 1.000 .406
ITEMDO144 1.000 .035
ITEMDO145 1.000 .055
ITEMDO146 1.000 1.908E-5
ITEMDO147 1.000 .436
ITEMDO148 1.000 .691
ITEMDO149 1.000 .638
ITEMDO150 1.000 .609
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO141 -.751
ITEMDO142 -.653
ITEMDO143 -.638
ITEMDO144 -.588
ITEMDO145 -.234
ITEMDO146 .504
ITEMDO147 .660
ITEMDO148 .831
ITEMDO149 .799
ITEMDO150 .781
Task 23
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO151 1.000 .324
164
ITEMDO152 1.000 .390
ITEMDO153 1.000 .052
ITEMDO154 1.000 .347
ITEMDO155 1.000 .092
ITEMDO156 1.000 .041
ITEMDO157 1.000 .308
ITEMDO158 1.000 .518
ITEMDO159 1.000 .470
ITEMDO160 1.000 .240
ITEMDO161 1.000 .026
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO151 .569
ITEMDO152 .625
ITEMDO153 .429
ITEMDO154 .589
ITEMDO155 .603
ITEMDO156 .602
ITEMDO157 .555
ITEMDO158 .720
ITEMDO159 .685
ITEMDO160 .490
ITEMDO161 .560
Task 24
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMDO162 1.000 .503
ITEMDO163 1.000 .290
ITEMDO164 1.000 .064
ITEMDO165 1.000 .007
ITEMDO166 1.000 .006
ITEMDO167 1.000 .305
ITEMDO168 1.000 .083
ITEMDO169 1.000 .465
ITEMDO170 1.000 .563
ITEMDO171 1.000 .366
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMDO162 .709
ITEMDO163 .539
ITEMDO164 .553
ITEMDO165 .485
ITEMDO166 .680
ITEMDO167 .553
ITEMDO168 -.589
ITEMDO169 .682
ITEMDO170 .751
ITEMDO171 .605
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
Task 25
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO172 1.000 .051
ITEMFO173 1.000 .473
ITEMFO174 1.000 .592
ITEMFO175 1.000 .753
ITEMFO176 1.000 .437
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO172 .886
ITEMFO173 .688
ITEMFO174 .769
ITEMFO175 .868
ITEMFO176 .661
Task 26
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO177 1.000 .393
ITEMFO178 1.000 .891
ITEMFO179 1.000 .691
ITEMFO180 1.000 .093
ITEMFO181 1.000 .217
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO177 .627
ITEMFO178 .944
ITEMFO179 .831
ITEMFO180 .505
ITEMFO181 -.466
Task 27
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO182 1.000 .353
ITEMFO183 1.000 .226
ITEMFO184 1.000 .206
ITEMFO185 1.000 .344
ITEMFO186 1.000 .671
ITEMFO187 1.000 .597
ITEMFO188 1.000 .622
ITEMFO189 1.000 .303
ITEMFO190 1.000 .174
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO182 .594
ITEMFO183 .475
165
ITEMFO184 .454
ITEMFO185 .586
ITEMFO186 .819
ITEMFO187 .772
ITEMFO188 .788
ITEMFO189 .550
ITEMFO190 .418
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
Task 28
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO191 1.000 .063
ITEMFO192 1.000 .050
ITEMFO193 1.000 .209
ITEMFO194 1.000 .077
ITEMFO195 1.000 .558
ITEMFO196 1.000 .409
ITEMFO197 1.000 .824
ITEMFO198 1.000 .209
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO191 .951
ITEMFO192 -.723
ITEMFO193 .458
ITEMFO194 .677
ITEMFO195 .747
ITEMFO196 .639
ITEMFO197 .908
ITEMFO198 .457
Task 29
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO199 1.000 .587
ITEMFO200 1.000 .546
ITEMFO201 1.000 .659
ITEMFO202 1.000 .497
ITEMFO203 1.000 .339
ITEMFO204 1.000 .147
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO199 .766
ITEMFO200 .739
ITEMFO201 .812
ITEMFO202 .705
ITEMFO203 .582
ITEMFO204 .584
Task 30
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO205 1.000 .260
ITEMFO206 1.000 .230
ITEMFO207 1.000 .630
ITEMFO208 1.000 .299
ITEMFO209 1.000 .059
ITEMFO210 1.000 .095
ITEMFO211 1.000 .282
ITEMFO212 1.000 .623
ITEMFO213 1.000 .039
ITEMFO214 1.000 .103
ITEMFO215 1.000 .314
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO205 .810
ITEMFO206 .780
ITEMFO207 .794
ITEMFO208 .547
ITEMFO209 .644
ITEMFO210 .608
ITEMFO211 .531
ITEMFO212 .790
ITEMFO213 .698
ITEMFO214 .421
ITEMFO215 .560
Task 31
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO216 1.000 .358
ITEMFO217 1.000 .532
ITEMFO218 1.000 .031
ITEMFO219 1.000 .281
ITEMFO220 1.000 .461
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO216 .899
ITEMFO217 .729
ITEMFO218 .716
ITEMFO219 .530
ITEMFO220 .679
166
Task 32
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO221 1.000 .149
ITEMFO222 1.000 .541
ITEMFO223 1.000 .558
ITEMFO224 1.000 .785
ITEMFO225 1.000 .628
ITEMFO226 1.000 .436
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO221 .586
ITEMFO222 .735
ITEMFO223 .747
ITEMFO224 .886
ITEMFO225 .792
ITEMFO226 .661
Task 33
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO227 1.000 .002
ITEMFO228 1.000 .208
ITEMFO229 1.000 .564
ITEMFO230 1.000 .417
ITEMFO231 1.000 .390
ITEMFO232 1.000 .620
ITEMFO233 1.000 .013
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO227 .642
ITEMFO228 .456
ITEMFO229 .751
ITEMFO230 .646
ITEMFO231 .625
ITEMFO232 .788
ITEMFO233 .514
Task 34
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO234 1.000 .430
ITEMFO235 1.000 .196
ITEMFO236 1.000 .056
ITEMFO237 1.000 .013
ITEMFO238 1.000 .117
ITEMFO239 1.000 .521
ITEMFO240 1.000 .480
ITEMFO241 1.000 .150
ITEMFO242 1.000 .296
ITEMFO243 1.000 .299
ITEMFO244 1.000 .246
ITEMFO245 1.000 .273
ITEMFO246 1.000 .088
ITEMFO247 1.000 .123
ITEMFO248 1.000 .026
ITEMFO249 1.000 .016
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO234 .655
ITEMFO235 .443
ITEMFO236 .536
ITEMFO237 .413
ITEMFO238 .543
ITEMFO239 .722
ITEMFO240 .693
ITEMFO241 .588
ITEMFO242 .544
ITEMFO243 .547
ITEMFO244 .496
ITEMFO245 .523
ITEMFO246 .497
ITEMFO247 .551
ITEMFO248 .663
ITEMFO249 .625
Task 35
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO250 1.000 .708
ITEMFO251 1.000 .291
ITEMFO252 1.000 .218
ITEMFO253 1.000 .128
ITEMFO254 1.000 .551
ITEMFO255 1.000 .599
ITEMFO256 1.000 .456
ITEMFO257 1.000 .007
ITEMFO258 1.000 .024
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO250 .841
ITEMFO251 .540
167
ITEMFO252 -.467
ITEMFO253 .358
ITEMFO254 .742
ITEMFO255 .774
ITEMFO256 .675
ITEMFO257 .485
ITEMFO258 .654
Task 36
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO259 1.000 .018
ITEMFO260 1.000 .399
ITEMFO261 1.000 .283
ITEMFO262 1.000 .217
ITEMFO263 1.000 .006
ITEMFO264 1.000 .095
ITEMFO265 1.000 .089
ITEMFO266 1.000 .101
ITEMFO267 1.000 .622
ITEMFO268 1.000 .004
ITEMFO269 1.000 .103
ITEMFO270 1.000 .487
ITEMFO271 1.000 .512
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO259 .735
ITEMFO260 .631
ITEMFO261 .532
ITEMFO262 .466
ITEMFO263 .074
ITEMFO264 .508
ITEMFO265 .599
ITEMFO266 .517
ITEMFO267 .789
ITEMFO268 .661
ITEMFO269 .521
ITEMFO270 .698
ITEMFO271 .716
Task 37
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO272 1.000 .456
ITEMFO273 1.000 .584
ITEMFO274 1.000 .590
ITEMFO275 1.000 .266
ITEMFO276 1.000 .006
ITEMFO277 1.000 .385
ITEMFO278 1.000 .151
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO272 .675
ITEMFO273 .764
ITEMFO274 .768
ITEMFO275 .515
ITEMFO276 .580
ITEMFO277 .620
ITEMFO278 .489
Task 38
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO279 1.000 .096
ITEMFO280 1.000 .001
ITEMFO281 1.000 .294
ITEMFO282 1.000 .123
ITEMFO283 1.000 .572
ITEMFO284 1.000 .494
ITEMFO285 1.000 .301
ITEMFO286 1.000 .203
ITEMFO287 1.000 .083
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO279 .710
ITEMFO280 .632
ITEMFO281 .542
ITEMFO282 .351
ITEMFO283 .756
ITEMFO284 .703
ITEMFO285 .549
ITEMFO286 .451
ITEMFO287 .488
Task 39
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO288 1.000 .059
ITEMFO289 1.000 .603
ITEMFO290 1.000 .371
ITEMFO291 1.000 .667
ITEMFO292 1.000 .001
ITEMFO293 1.000 .049
ITEMFO294 1.000 .471
ITEMFO295 1.000 .025
ITEMFO296 1.000 .009
Component Matrixa
Component
168
1
ITEMFO288 -.642
ITEMFO289 .776
ITEMFO290 .609
ITEMFO291 .816
ITEMFO292 .027
ITEMFO293 .421
ITEMFO294 .687
ITEMFO295 .519
ITEMFO296 .695
Task 40
Communalities
Initial Extraction
ITEMFO297 1.000 .190
ITEMFO298 1.000 .045
ITEMFO299 1.000 .708
ITEMFO300 1.000 .303
ITEMFO301 1.000 .442
ITEMFO302 1.000 .269
ITEMFO303 1.000 .236
ITEMFO304 1.000 8.292E-7
ITEMFO305 1.000 .074
Component Matrixa
Component
1
ITEMFO297 .436
ITEMFO298 .212
ITEMFO299 .841
ITEMFO300 .551
ITEMFO301 .665
ITEMFO302 .518
ITEMFO303 .486
ITEMFO304 .561
ITEMFO305 .772
169
Appendix G2
Discarded skill items after factor analysis from the draft copy
1. Ensuring correct angle of the centre punch
2. Controlling the chisel movement
3. Listing out materials for punishing
4. Stating the conditions of a metal article
5. Naming types of emery cloth
6. Inspecting the angle gauge
7. Checking for hand tools
8. Listing the tools required
9. Controlling threading tasks
10. Naming tools to be used
170
Appendix H
Final Copy of the Developed Workshop Based Process Skill Test (WBPST) in Mechanical
Engineering Craft for Assessing Students in Technical Colleges
Direction
Please, rate how each student, performs in the following process skills
Key: 1=Very Low (VL), 2 =Low (L), 3 = Moderately High (MH), 4= High (H) and 5 =Very
High (VH)
GRINDING OPERATIONS
STUDENT 5 4 3 2 1
S/N Task 1: Mounting grinding wheel in machine spindle
Procedural steps / skill items
1 Testing wheel for damage/crack
2 Selecting washers or blotters
3 Checking lead bush for burrs and fit
4 Pushing wheel on spindle
5 Tightening flange nut
6 Test-running wheel without load
Task 2: Grinding metal object with surface grinder
Procedural steps / skill items
7 Cleaning work-piece
8 Wiping magnetic chuck with clean cloth
9 Centering work piece on the chuck
10 Adjusting the table reverse dogs
11 Turning on the coolant valve
12 Adjusting the rate of table feed
13 Turning on the power
14 Hand feeding the table in until work piece is under grinding wheel
15 Adjusting grinding wheel down until it is near the work piece
16 Turning on the power table feed
17 Turning the cross-feed out one fourth the width of the grinding
18 Wheel Grinding the entire work piece surface
Task 3: Sharpening a cutting tool with a grinding wheel
Procedural steps / skill items
19 Checking the condition of the tool
20 Hand-running the grinding wheel
21 Removing burrs or dirt from work piece
22 Turning on power
23 Holding the tool and pressing against wheel at correct angle
24 Dipping the tool in water regularly
25 Grinding to required angle
Task 4: Dressing and truing grinding wheel
Procedural steps / skill items
26 Checking the condition of the wheel
27 Selecting wheel dresser
28 Wearing safety goggles
29 Turning on power
30 Holding dresser on tool rest
31 Feeding the dresser across the wheel until it is true
Task 5:Maintaining grinding machines
Procedural steps / skill items
32 Checking the condition of the machine
33 Cleaning oil, chips and other dirts
34 Toping oil level
35 Greasing mating parts
36 Adjusting slides
Task 6: Hand polishing of a metal article
Procedural steps/ skill items
37 Cutting a strip of abrasive cloth from a roll or sheet
38 Wrapping it round a stick or file
39 Applying a few drops of oil to the metal surface
40 Rubbing the cloth back and as if you were sanding. Do not rock the tool, keep it
flat.
41 Removing al scratches to make abrasive grains float in oil on the surface
171
42 Reversing the cloth, exposing the back. Rubbing back and forth to get a high polish.
Task 7: Sharpening centre punch on the bench grinder
Procedural steps/ skill items
54. Checking the condition of the punch
55. Test running the grinding wheel with hand
56. Turning on power
57. Holding punch to the wheel at the correct angle
58. Pressing the punch against the grinding wheel
59. Swinging the punch from side to side by pivoting it over the tool rest
60. Dipping the punch in water regularly
61. Checking the correct point angle of the punch
Task 8: Sharpening a screw driver on bench grinder
Procedural steps/skill items
62. Checking the condition of the screw driver
63. Test running the grinding wheel with hand
53 Filing either side of the point to remove dirts
54 Turning power of the grinding machine
55 Grinding each side of the point a little a time
56 Grinding the tip square
57 Dipping the tool in water often to keep it cool
Task 9: Sharpening cold chisel on pedestal grinder
Procedural steps/skill items
58 Checking the condition of the chisel
59 Hand running the grinding wheel
60 Removing burrs from cutting edge with file
61 Switching on the grinding machine
62 Holding one side of cutting edge against the face of the wheel and moving it back
and forth in an arc
63 Grinding the second side to form a sharp edge
64 Cooling the chisel at interval of grinding
Task 10: Sharpening a twist drill on pedestal grinder
Procedural step/skill items
65 Checking the condition of the twist drill
66 Switching on the grinding machine
67 Grasping the drill near the point in your right hand, with your left hand holding the
shank
68 Holding the lip of the drill at an angle of 59 degree to the grinding wheel
69 Turning the drill in a clockwise direction, at the same swinging the shank down in
an arc of 12-15 degrees
70 Grinding a little off each cutting edge
71 Dipping the drill coolant at intervals
72 Checking with a drill-grinding gauge for current cutting edges length and angles
Task 11:Polishing mental article with compounds and wheels
Procedural steps/skill items
73 Selecting the type of article to be polished
74 Attaching a clean, soft cloth wheel to the head of the polishing machine
75 Selecting a stick of greaseless polishing compound
76 Turning on the machine
77 Holding the abrasive stick against the turning wheel until the face is coated
78 Holding the work piece firmly in your hands,
79 Moving it back and forth across the wheel until the scratches have been removed
Task 12: Polishing a metal article with coated abrasives
Procedural steps/skill items
80 Selecting the type of article
81 Fixing the abrasive belt around two or three pulleys
82 Turning on power
83 Holding the work against the belt in the areas between the pulleys
84 Moving the work piece back and forth
85 Applying even pressure for a good polish
DRILLING OPERATIONS
Task 13: Centre punching for drilling
Procedural steps / skill items
86 Taking measurement
87 Marking out
88 Positioning punch
89 Striking punch head
Task 14: Drilling a hole in metal plate
Procedural steps / skill items
90 Centre punching the point of the hole
172
91 Selecting correct size and type of bit for the work
92 Clamping work piece
93 Inserting drill bit in chuck
94 Starting the machine
95 Feeding bit on work
Task 15: Boring a holes in metal bar
Procedural steps / skill items
96 Selecting appropriate boring tool
97 Inserting tool in chuck
98 Locking tool in chuck
99 Clamping work in vice
100 Turning on power
101 Feeding tool into hole
Task 16: Counter boring a hole in a metal plate
Procedural steps / skill items
102 Selecting the counter boring tool
103 Inserting tool in chuck
104 Locking tool in chuck
105 Clamping work in vice
106 Adjusting spindle for lower speed
107 Turning on power
108 Feeding slowly to required depth
Task 17: Counter sinking a hole in a metal
Procedural steps / skill items
109 Selecting the counter sinking tool
110 Inserting countersink tool in chuck
111 Clamping work in vice
112 Adjusting speed half lower than for drilling
113 Switching on power
114 Feeding until required amount of material is removed
Task 18: Seating a hole in a metal
Procedural steps / skill items
115 Selecting the boring tool
116 Regrinding boring tool
117 Inserting tool in chuck
118 Clamping work in vice
119 Turning on power
120 Feeding slowly on hole bottom
Task 19: Reaming a hole in a metal
Procedural steps / skill items
121 Selecting the reamer
122 Clamping work piece in vice
123 Fixing reamer to tap wrench
124 Holding reamer 900 to the hole
125 Feeding reamer into the hole steadily
126 Applying cutting fluid
127 Turning reamer clockwise till hole is reamed
Task 20: Producing a Garden Trowel
Procedural steps / skill items
128 Selecting the appropriate materials and tools
129 Marking out the required dimensions
130 Sawing out and filing to shape, removing all sharp edges
131 Fastening work in a vice together with a hardwood cylinder.
132 Hammering the blade to a suitable curve
133 Bending up the tang to the measurements given
Task21: Drilling a hole using a Hand Drill
Procedural steps / skill items
134 Selecting the drill bit
135 Pulling back on the handle to open the jaws
136 Holding the shell of the chuck to insert a drill bit
137 Turning the handle forward to tighten the drill
138 Clamping in a vice or leaving on the ground if work piece is large.
139 Placing the point of the drill in the centre punch mark.
140 Drilling the hole by turning handle clockwise direction
Task 22: Constructing a Mirror Plate
Procedural steps / skill items
141 Selecting the materials and tools
142 Cutting off a piece of 1.6mm strip to the required size,
173
143 filing the edges straight and the corners square
144 Marking and scribing the centre lines to the dimensions
given
145 Centre punching and drilling the holes.
146 Counter sinking the screw hole
147 Sawing away the waste metal
148 Filing to the correct shape and chamfer all straight edges
149 Removing all sharp edges with a smooth file
150 Polishing with fine emery cloth
Task 23: Construction of Name Plate
Procedural steps / skill items
151 Selecting the appropriate material and tools
152 Measuring and marking out the specified dimensions
153 Cutting off a 75mm length of mild steel strip
154 Filing the edges and corners straight and square
155 Marking off the position of the holes
156 Drilling the specified number of holes
157 Counter sinking for a wood screw
158 Marking off two sets of parallel lines 3mm apart to act a guide lines for the printing
159 Using the letter punches, stamp in the name and address
160 Chamfering all round at 450
161 Dipping in clear lacquer for surface protection
Task24: Producing a shoe horn
Procedural steps / skill items
162 Selecting the materials and tools
163. Cutting off a piece of copper or brass 130x50x1mm thick
164. Marking out to the dimensions given starting with the centre line
165. Cutting away the waste metal with a saw and filing to shape
166. Rounding off all the edges with a smooth file and emery cloth
167. Setting the metal down to shape in a grooved wood block, truing up with the edge of a hide mallet
168. Truing up on Bick iron
169. Placing the shoe horn over the end of the Bick iron and bending the edges to the
curve given
170. Bending the handle to a slight curve
171. Polishing
FITTING OPERATIONS
Task 25: Sawing a metal bar
Procedural steps / skill items
172. Taking measurement
173. Marking out
174. Clamping work in vice
175. Tightening hack saw blade
176. Cutting to required size
Task 26: Shearing a metal plate
Procedural steps / skill items
177. Measuring out
178. Marking out
179. Fixing work between blades
180. Aligning marked line with the cutting blades
181. Pressing shearer handle down ward to shear off the work
Task 27: Filing a metal piece flat and square
Procedural steps / skill items
182. Measuring out
183. Marking out
184. Cutting out to specification
185. Choosing an appropriate file
186. Clamping work piece in vice
187. Filing the face side
188. Filing the face edge
189. Filing the second side and edge to required size
190. Polishing with emery cloth
Task 28: Bending a metal rod
Procedural steps / skill items
191. Selecting the material and tools
192. Checking a full size drawing of the part to be bent
193. Measuring and marking out .
174
194. Deciding which is to be made first if more than one bend is required..
195. Fastening the work piece vertically in the vice, with bend line at the top of the jaws
196. Bending the work piece by striking it with hammer near the bend line
197. Squaring off the bend by holding the work piece in a vice with the edge parallel to the top of the vice jaw
198. Making an obtuse bend, using a monkey wrench as a bending tool
Task 29: Soldering two metal parts together
Procedural steps / skill items
199. Selecting the parts and tools
200. Cleaning surfaces to be joined
201. Providing correct joint gap
202. Selecting correct soldering device and flux
203. Applying appropriate amount of heat
204. Removing of surplus solder
Task 30: Threading a metal bolt
Procedural steps / skill items
205. Selecting the material.
206. Measuring and marking out
207. Cutting out the work piece
208. Grinding a chamfer on one end of the work piece
209. Fastening the die in a die stock
210. Adjusting the guide on the die stock for a free fit
211. Clamping the work piece in the vice and placing die on chamfered end of the
piece
212. Holding one hand over the centre of the work piece and applying pressure to
get the first threads started
213. Applying cutting oil and turn the die stock clockwise.
214. Turning the diestock back frequently to break the chips
215. Backing off the die when the desired length of thread is cut
Task 31: Heat treating a metal product
Procedural steps / skill items
216. Selecting appropriate source of heat
217. Heating to the required temperature
218. Leaving at this temperature for a certain length of time
219. Putting off heat
220. Cooling in a way that will give the desired results
Task 32: Assembling with metal fasteners
Procedural steps / skill items
221. Selecting the fastener
222. Laying out the location of the fastener and drill the given hole on the parts
223. Countersinking if necessary
224. Checking the fastener for length
225. Inserting fastener in the holes
226. Pressing or tightening the parts together
Task 33: Construction of a Swarf cleaner
Procedural steps / skill items
227. Selecting the material and tools
228. Measuring and marking out
229. Cutting off to length
230. Forging eye end
231. Forging and hot bending scraper end
232. Cutting and sharpening scraper blade
233 Brazing
Task 34: Constructing a tool box
Procedural steps/skill items
234. Selecting the material
235. Measuring out
236. Marking out box body “A” with pencil from centre lines
237. Cutting out shape
238. Folding runners, two sides and corner laps
239. Bending other two sides.
240. Soldering laps to sides
241. Marking out partition plate “C”
242. Folding flanges
243. Marking out position of partition plate “C” in box “A”
244. Setting partition plate “C” in box “A” and soldering
245. Marking out lid “B”
246. Cutting out lid “B” to shape
247. Turning runner allowance and stopping flange on lid “B”
175
248. Fitting lid “B” to box “A”
249. Checking all sizes
Task 35: Construction of an Angle Gauge
Procedural steps/skill items
250. Selecting the material
251. Measuring and marking out
252. Cutting to approximate size with hacksaw.
253. Filing two long edges square and parallel
254. Squaring one end
255. Marking out male and female vees
256. Cutting male and female vees with saw and finishing with file.
257. Checking angle sizes for accuracy
258. Finishing with emery cloth
Task 36: Constructing a Pipe Wrench
Procedural steps/ skill items
259. Selecting the material
260. Measuring the required dimension
261. Marking out profile of handle
262. Cutting and filing to shape
263. Bending in round form
264. Drilling reaming and taping pivot hole
265. Filing packing piece wedge shaped to suit handle and4mm” oversize on curved
edges.
266. Fitting packing pieces and drilling in position.
267. Riveting parking pieces in position
268. Filing jaw teeth
269. Removing burrs
270. Case-hardening jaw teeth
271. Checking for accuracy
Task 37: Making a vice clamp
Procedural steps / skill items
272. Selecting the material
273. Measuring the required size
274. Marking out to the sizes given
275. Cutting out the size given
276. Marking off the corners as given
277. Fastening in the vice and bending with a hammer
278. Rounding off the corners with a smooth file
Task 38: Production of fitting plate
Procedural steps/skill items
279. Selecting the correct material
280. Measuring the required sizes
281. Marking out
282. Cutting the required pieces
283. Drilling the number of required holes on the pieces
284. Rounding corners of the pieces with given radius
285. Cutting out the given equilateral triangle
286. Lapping A and B coupling
287. Finishing the surface
Task 39: Production of depth gauge
Procedural steps/skill items
288. Selecting the appropriate material
289. Measuring out the required size
290. Marking out
291. Cutting the required size
292. Punching the centres where holes are to be drilled
293. Drilling the required holes
294. Threading the holes with the specified tap size
295. Providing the required metal bar
296. Finishing the surface
Task 40: Making camp saw
Procedural steps/skill items
297. Selecting appropriate material (aluminum tubing)
298. Measuring the specified size
299. Marking out
300. Cutting out the required size
301. Cutting slot on one end of the tubing to a specified length
302. Drilling a given hole on both ends
303. Bending the tubing from one end at a specified angle
176
304. Providing saw blade and wing nuts
305. Fixing the saw blade
Appendix I1
Distribution of 25 students into ability groups obtained from the administration of the 3
tasks and their 24 corresponding process skill items
Ability Group Number of Items Range of Scores Number of Students within Range of Scores
High ability 24 69 – 90% 8
Average ability 24 52 – 68% 12
Low ability 24 34 – 51% 5
177
Appendix I2
The 3 task and their 24 corresponding skill items utilized to determined ability groups of
students in grinding, drilling and fitting operations
Task 10: Sharpening a twist drill on pedestal grinder
Procedural step/skill items
1 Checking the condition of the twist drill
2 Switching on the grinding machine
3 Grasping the drill near the point in your right hand, with your left hand holding the
shank
4 Holding the lip of the drill at an angle of 59 degree to the grinding wheel
5 Turning the drill in a clockwise direction, at the same swinging the shank down in
an arc of 12-15 degrees
6 Grinding a little off each cutting edge
7 Dipping the drill coolant at intervals
8 Checking with a drill-grinding gauge for current cutting edges length and angles
Task 19: Reaming a hole in a metal
Procedural steps / skill items
1 Selecting the reamer
2 Clamping work piece in vice
3 Fixing reamer to tap wrench
4 Holding reamer 900 to the hole
5 Feeding reamer into the hole steadily
6 Applying cutting fluid
7 Turning reamer clockwise till hole is reamed
Task 27: Filing a metal piece flat and square
Procedural steps / skill items
1 Measuring out
2 Marking out
3 Cutting out to specification
4 Choosing an appropriate file
5 Clamping work piece in vice
6 Filing the face side
7 Filing the face edge
8 Filing the second side and edge to required size
9 Polishing with emery cloth
178
Appendix J1
Result of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
RQ 2
HYPOTHESIS 1
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
ITEMGO1 Between Groups 1.729 2 .865 1.041 .370
Within Groups 18.271 22 .830
Total 20.000 24
ITEMGO2 Between Groups .458 2 .229 .208 .813
Within Groups 24.182 22 1.099
Total 24.640 24
ITEMGO3 Between Groups .277 2 .139 .226 .799
Within Groups 13.483 22 .613
Total 13.760 24
ITEMGO4 Between Groups 2.335 2 1.168 1.640 .217
Within Groups 15.665 22 .712
Total 18.000 24
ITEMGO5 Between Groups 2.604 2 1.302 2.744 .086
Within Groups 10.436 22 .474
Total 13.040 24
ITEMGO6 Between Groups 1.703 2 .851 1.254 .305
Within Groups 14.937 22 .679
Total 16.640 24
ITEMGO7 Between Groups .640 2 .320 .503 .612
Within Groups 14.000 22 .636
Total 14.640 24
ITEMGO8 Between Groups .192 2 .096 .106 .900
Within Groups 19.968 22 .908
Total 20.160 24
ITEMGO9 Between Groups .192 2 .096 .132 .877
Within Groups 15.968 22 .726
Total 16.160 24
ITEMGO10 Between Groups .015 2 .007 .007 .993
Within Groups 21.745 22 .988
Total 21.760 24
ITEMGO11 Between Groups .042 2 .021 .044 .957
Within Groups 10.598 22 .482
Total 10.640 24
ITEMGO12 Between Groups .451 2 .225 .247 .784
Within Groups 20.109 22 .914
Total 20.560 24
ITEMGO13 Between Groups 4.095 2 2.047 2.861 .079
Within Groups 15.745 22 .716
Total 19.840 24
ITEMGO14 Between Groups 2.364 2 1.182 2.234 .131
Within Groups 11.636 22 .529
Total 14.000 24
ITEMGO15 Between Groups .406 2 .203 .353 .706
Within Groups 12.634 22 .574
Total 13.040 24
ITEMGO16 Between Groups .556 2 .278 .347 .710
Within Groups 17.604 22 .800
Total 18.160 24
179
ITEMGO17 Between Groups .551 2 .276 .501 .612
Within Groups 12.089 22 .549
Total 12.640 24
ITEMGO18 Between Groups .284 2 .142 .122 .885
Within Groups 25.556 22 1.162
Total 25.840 24
ITEMGO19 Between Groups .495 2 .247 .702 .506
Within Groups 7.745 22 .352
Total 8.240 24
ITEMGO20 Between Groups .778 2 .389 .557 .581
Within Groups 15.382 22 .699
Total 16.160 24
ITEMGO21 Between Groups 1.957 2 .979 1.753 .197
Within Groups 12.283 22 .558
Total 14.240 24
ITEMGO22 Between Groups 2.713 2 1.356 1.497 .246
Within Groups 19.927 22 .906
Total 22.640 24
ITEMGO23 Between Groups .362 2 .181 .273 .764
Within Groups 14.598 22 .664
Total 14.960 24
ITEMGO24 Between Groups 3.872 2 1.936 3.559 .046
Within Groups 11.968 22 .544
Total 15.840 24
ITEMGO25 Between Groups 4.823 2 2.411 2.991 .071
Within Groups 17.737 22 .806
Total 22.560 24
ITEMGO26 Between Groups 2.781 2 1.391 1.929 .169
Within Groups 15.859 22 .721
Total 18.640 24
ITEMGO27 Between Groups .115 2 .057 .068 .934
Within Groups 18.525 22 .842
Total 18.640 24
ITEMGO28 Between Groups 3.215 2 1.607 2.039 .154
Within Groups 17.345 22 .788
Total 20.560 24
ITEMGO29 Between Groups .313 2 .156 .580 .568
Within Groups 5.927 22 .269
Total 6.240 24
ITEMGO30 Between Groups .396 2 .198 .454 .641
Within Groups 9.604 22 .437
Total 10.000 24
ITEMGO31 Between Groups 1.584 2 .792 .946 .404
Within Groups 18.416 22 .837
Total 20.000 24
ITEMGO32 Between Groups 1.366 2 .683 1.189
.323
Within Groups 12.634 22 .574
Total 14.000 24
ITEMGO33 Between Groups 1.324 2 .662 .931
.409
Within Groups 15.636 22 .711
Total 16.960 24
ITEMGO34 Between Groups .815 2 .407 .569 .574
Within Groups 15.745 22 .716
Total 16.560 24
ITEMGO35 Between Groups 2.806 2 1.403 2.168 .138
Within Groups 14.234 22 .647
180
Total 17.040 24
ITEMGO36 Between Groups .272 2 .136 .250 .781
Within Groups 11.968 22 .544
Total 12.240 24
ITEMGO37 Between Groups 1.051 2 .525 .610 .552
Within Groups 18.949 22 .861
Total 20.000 24
ITEMGO38 Between Groups .515 2 .257 .327 .725
Within Groups 17.325 22 .788
Total 17.840 24
ITEMGO39 Between Groups 2.655 2 1.327 1.683 .209
Within Groups 17.345 22 .788
Total 20.000 24
ITEMGO40 Between Groups 3.356 2 1.678 1.883 .176
Within Groups 19.604 22 .891
Total 22.960 24
ITEMGO41 Between Groups .289 2 .145 .243 .786
Within Groups 13.071 22 .594
Total 13.360 24
ITEMGO42 Between Groups 2.689 2 1.345 2.672 .091
Within Groups 11.071 22 .503
Total 13.760 24
ITEMGO43 Between Groups .458 2 .229 .355 .705
Within Groups 14.182 22 .645
Total 14.640 24
ITEMGO44 Between Groups 1.018 2 .509 .590 .563
Within Groups 18.982 22 .863
Total 20.000 24
ITEMGO45 Between Groups 4.648 2 2.324 3.119 .064
Within Groups 16.392 22 .745
Total 21.040 24
ITEMGO46 Between Groups 1.981 2 .991 1.838 .183
Within Groups 11.859 22 .539
Total 13.840 24
ITEMGO47 Between Groups .842 2 .421 .713 .501
Within Groups 12.998 22 .591
Total 13.840 24
ITEMGO48 Between Groups .008 2 .004 .006 .994
Within Groups 15.992 22 .727
Total 16.000 24
ITEMGO49 Between Groups 1.731 2 .865 1.051 .366
Within Groups 18.109 22 .823
Total 19.840 24
ITEMGO50 Between Groups .629 2 .314 .434 .653
Within Groups 15.931 22 .724
Total 16.560 24
ITEMGO51 Between Groups 4.378 2 2.189 3.710
.041
Within Groups 12.982 22 .590
Total 17.360 24
ITEMGO52 Between Groups 5.295 2 2.647 4.959 .017
Within Groups 11.745 22 .534
Total 17.040 24
ITEMGO53 Between Groups 1.564 2 .782 1.046 .368
Within Groups 16.436 22 .747
Total 18.000 24
ITEMGO54 Between Groups 1.833 2 .916 1.584 .228
Within Groups 12.727 22 .579
Total 14.560 24
181
ITEMGO55 Between Groups .204 2 .102 .232 .795
Within Groups 9.636 22 .438
Total 9.840 24
ITEMGO56 Between Groups .192 2 .096 .183 .834
Within Groups 11.568 22 .526
Total 11.760 24
ITEMGO57 Between Groups 1.303 2 .651 2.065 .151
Within Groups 6.937 22 .315
Total 8.240 24
ITEMGO58 Between Groups 1.341 2 .671 1.007 .382
Within Groups 14.659 22 .666
Total 16.000 24
ITEMGO59 Between Groups .858 2 .429 .705 .505
Within Groups 13.382 22 .608
Total 14.240 24
ITEMGO60 Between Groups .713 2 .356 .447 .645
Within Groups 17.527 22 .797
Total 18.240 24
ITEMGO61 Between Groups .871 2 .436 .398 .677
Within Groups 24.089 22 1.095
Total 24.960 24
ITEMGO62 Between Groups .672 2 .336 .579 .569
Within Groups 12.768 22 .580
Total 13.440 24
ITEMGO63 Between Groups .131 2 .065 .105 .901
Within Groups 13.709 22 .623
Total 13.840 24
ITEMGO64 Between Groups .378 2 .189 .379 .689
Within Groups 10.982 22 .499
Total 11.360 24
ITEMGO65 Between Groups 2.058 2 1.029 1.511 .243
Within Groups 14.982 22 .681
Total 17.040 24
ITEMGO66 Between Groups .709 2 .354 .320 .729
Within Groups 24.331 22 1.106
Total 25.040 24
ITEMGO67 Between Groups 1.273 2 .636 .616 .549
Within Groups 22.727 22 1.033
Total 24.000 24
ITEMGO68 Between Groups 1.089 2 .545 .548 .586
Within Groups 21.871 22 .994
Total 22.960 24
ITEMGO69 Between Groups 1.760 2 .880 1.467 .252
Within Groups 13.200 22 .600
Total 14.960 24
ITEMGO70 Between Groups .251 2 .125 .200 .820
Within Groups 13.749 22 .625
Total 14.000 24
ITEMGO71 Between Groups 2.713 2 1.356 1.665 .212
Within Groups 17.927 22 .815
Total 20.640 24
ITEMGO72 Between Groups .233 2 .116 .128 .880
Within Groups 19.927 22 .906
Total 20.160 24
ITEMGO73 Between Groups 2.806 2 1.403 1.364 .277
Within Groups 22.634 22 1.029
Total 25.440 24
182
ITEMGO74 Between Groups .701 2 .351 .285 .755
Within Groups 27.059 22 1.230
Total 27.760 24
ITEMGO75 Between Groups .757 2 .379 .411 .668
Within Groups 20.283 22 .922
Total 21.040 24
ITEMGO76 Between Groups .411 2 .205 .208 .814
Within Groups 21.749 22 .989
Total 22.160 24
ITEMGO77 Between Groups 3.162 2 1.581 1.656 .214
Within Groups 20.998 22 .954
Total 24.160 24
ITEMGO78 Between Groups 2.851 2 1.425 1.771 .194
Within Groups 17.709 22 .805
Total 20.560 24
ITEMGO79 Between Groups 2.903 2 1.451 1.525 .240
Within Groups 20.937 22 .952
Total 23.840 24
ITEMGO80 Between Groups .560 2 .280 .367 .697
Within Groups 16.800 22 .764
Total 17.360 24
ITEMGO81 Between Groups 1.804 2 .902 1.125 .343
Within Groups 17.636 22 .802
Total 19.440 24
ITEMGO82 Between Groups 2.941 2 1.471 1.291 .295
Within Groups 25.059 22 1.139
Total 28.000 24
ITEMGO83 Between Groups 3.029 2 1.514 2.202 .134
Within Groups 15.131 22 .688
Total 18.160 24
ITEMGO84 Between Groups 1.957 2 .979 1.427 .261
Within Groups 15.083 22 .686
Total 17.040 24
ITEMGO85 Between Groups 3.200 2 1.600 3.259 .058
Within Groups 10.800 22 .491
Total 14.000 24
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
ITEMDO86 Between Groups 1.731 2 .865 .790 .466
Within Groups 24.109 22 1.096
Total 25.840 24
ITEMDO87 Between Groups .968 2 .484 .380 .688
Within Groups 27.992 22 1.272
Total 28.960 24
ITEMDO88 Between Groups 3.324 2 1.662 2.171 .138
Within Groups 16.836 22 .765
Total 20.160 24
ITEMDO89 Between Groups 2.473 2 1.236 1.752 .197
Within Groups 15.527 22 .706
Total 18.000 24
ITEMDO90 Between Groups .275 2 .137 .192 .827
Within Groups 15.725 22 .715
Total 16.000 24
ITEMDO91 Between Groups .566 2 .283 .463 .635
Within Groups 13.434 22 .611
Total 14.000 24
183
ITEMDO92 Between Groups .769 2 .385 .764 .478
Within Groups 11.071 22 .503
Total 11.840 24
ITEMDO93 Between Groups .291 2 .145 .273 .763
Within Groups 11.709 22 .532
Total 12.000 24
ITEMDO94 Between Groups .859 2 .429 1.016 .378
Within Groups 9.301 22 .423
Total 10.160 24
ITEMDO95 Between Groups 3.538 2 1.769 2.523 .103
Within Groups 15.422 22 .701
Total 18.960 24
ITEMDO96 Between Groups .233 2 .116 .107 .899
Within Groups 23.927 22 1.088
Total 24.160 24
ITEMDO97 Between Groups .291 2 .145 .330 .723
Within Groups 9.709 22 .441
Total 10.000 24
ITEMDO98 Between Groups .357 2 .179 .135 .874
Within Groups 29.083 22 1.322
Total 29.440 24
ITEMDO99 Between Groups .396 2 .198 .247 .783
Within Groups 17.604 22 .800
Total 18.000 24
ITEMDO100 Between Groups .233 2 .116 .131 .878
Within Groups 19.527 22 .888
Total 19.760 24
ITEMDO101 Between Groups 1.978 2 .989 2.137 .142
Within Groups 10.182 22 .463
Total 12.160 24
ITEMDO102 Between Groups .168 2 .084 .113 .894
Within Groups 16.392 22 .745
Total 16.560 24
ITEMDO103 Between Groups 1.099 2 .549 .811 .457
Within Groups 14.901 22 .677
Total 16.000 24
ITEMDO104 Between Groups 1.258 2 .629 .602 .556
Within Groups 22.982 22 1.045
Total 24.240 24
ITEMDO105 Between Groups 2.006 2 1.003 1.550 .235
Within Groups 14.234 22 .647
Total 16.240 24
ITEMDO106 Between Groups 2.633 2 1.316 1.865 .179
Within Groups 15.527 22 .706
Total 18.160 24
ITEMDO107 Between Groups 1.164 2 .582 1.449 .256
Within Groups 8.836 22 .402
Total 10.000 24
ITEMDO108 Between Groups 1.969 2 .985 1.186 .324
Within Groups 18.271 22 .830
Total 20.240 24
ITEMDO109 Between Groups .011 2 .005 .010 .991
Within Groups 12.149 22 .552
Total 12.160 24
ITEMDO110 Between Groups .941 2 .471 .688 .513
Within Groups 15.059 22 .684
Total 16.000 24
ITEMDO111 Between Groups .204 2 .102 .253 .778
Within Groups 8.836 22 .402
184
Total 9.040 24
ITEMDO112 Between Groups 2.255 2 1.127 1.575 .229
Within Groups 15.745 22 .716
Total 18.000 24
ITEMDO113 Between Groups .495 2 .247 .345 .712
Within Groups 15.745 22 .716
Total 16.240 24
ITEMDO114 Between Groups 1.295 2 .648 .602 .556
Within Groups 23.665 22 1.076
Total 24.960 24
ITEMDO115 Between Groups 1.099 2 .549 .391 .681
Within Groups 30.901 22 1.405
Total 32.000 24
ITEMDO116 Between Groups 1.804 2 .902 1.053 .366
Within Groups 18.836 22 .856
Total 20.640 24
ITEMDO117 Between Groups .277 2 .139 .407 .670
Within Groups 7.483 22 .340
Total 7.760 24
ITEMDO118 Between Groups 1.836 2 .918 1.231 .311
Within Groups 16.404 22 .746
Total 18.240 24
ITEMDO119 Between Groups .672 2 .336 .475 .628
Within Groups 15.568 22 .708
Total 16.240 24
ITEMDO120 Between Groups 1.455 2 .727 1.275
.299
Within Groups 12.545 22 .570
Total 14.000 24
ITEMDO121 Between Groups .233 2 .116 .184 .833
Within Groups 13.927 22 .633
Total 14.160 24
ITEMDO122 Between Groups .672 2 .336 .378 .690
Within Groups 19.568 22 .889
Total 20.240 24
ITEMDO123 Between Groups .451 2 .225 .308 .738
Within Groups 16.109 22 .732
Total 16.560 24
ITEMDO124 Between Groups 2.251 2 1.125 1.572 .230
Within Groups 15.749 22 .716
Total 18.000 24
ITEMDO125 Between Groups .531 2 .265 .482 .624
Within Groups 12.109 22 .550
Total 12.640 24
ITEMDO126 Between Groups 1.339 2 .669 .871 .432
Within Groups 16.901 22 .768
Total 18.240 24
ITEMDO127 Between Groups 1.829 2 .914 1.009 .381
Within Groups 19.931 22 .906
Total 21.760 24
ITEMDO128 Between Groups .992 2 .496 .651 .531
Within Groups 16.768 22 .762
Total 17.760 24
ITEMDO129 Between Groups .640 2 .320 .391 .681
Within Groups 18.000 22 .818
Total 18.640 24
ITEMDO130 Between Groups .675 2 .337 .384 .686
Within Groups 19.325 22 .878
185
Total 20.000 24
ITEMDO131 Between Groups .204 2 .102 .175 .841
Within Groups 12.836 22 .583
Total 13.040 24
ITEMDO132 Between Groups .095 2 .047 .068 .935
Within Groups 15.345 22 .698
Total 15.440 24
ITEMDO133 Between Groups 1.178 2 .589 .669 .522
Within Groups 19.382 22 .881
Total 20.560 24
ITEMDO134 Between Groups 1.109 2 .554 .851 .441
Within Groups 14.331 22 .651
Total 15.440 24
ITEMDO135 Between Groups 1.157 2 .579 .844 .443
Within Groups 15.083 22 .686
Total 16.240 24
ITEMDO136 Between Groups .406 2 .203 .268 .767
Within Groups 16.634 22 .756
Total 17.040 24
ITEMDO137 Between Groups .042 2 .021 .019 .981
Within Groups 24.598 22 1.118
Total 24.640 24
ITEMDO138 Between Groups 1.295 2 .647 .562
.578
Within Groups 25.345 22 1.152
Total 26.640 24
ITEMDO139 Between Groups .858 2 .429 .705 .505
Within Groups 13.382 22 .608
Total 14.240 24
ITEMDO140 Between Groups 1.891 2 .945 1.149 .335
Within Groups 18.109 22 .823
Total 20.000 24
ITEMDO141 Between Groups .095 2 .047 .068 .935
Within Groups 15.345 22 .698
Total 15.440 24
ITEMDO142 Between Groups .560 2 .280 .481 .624
Within Groups 12.800 22 .582
Total 13.360 24
ITEMDO143 Between Groups .629 2 .314 .696 .509
Within Groups 9.931 22 .451
Total 10.560 24
ITEMDO144 Between Groups 1.109 2 .554 1.228 .312
Within Groups 9.931 22 .451
Total 11.040 24
ITEMDO145 Between Groups 4.633 2 2.316 5.349 .013
Within Groups 9.527 22 .433
Total 14.160 24
ITEMDO146 Between Groups .677 2 .339 .649 .532
Within Groups 11.483 22 .522
Total 12.160 24
ITEMDO147 Between Groups .618 2 .309 .351 .708
Within Groups 19.382 22 .881
Total 20.000 24
ITEMDO148 Between Groups 4.939 2 2.469 3.551 .046
Within Groups 15.301 22 .696
Total 20.240 24
ITEMDO149 Between Groups 3.368 2 1.684 1.685 .209
Within Groups 21.992 22 1.000
Total 25.360 24
186
ITEMDO150 Between Groups .151 2 .076 .084 .919
Within Groups 19.689 22 .895
Total 19.840 24
ITEMDO151 Between Groups .042 2 .021 .028 .973
Within Groups 16.598 22 .754
Total 16.640 24
ITEMDO152 Between Groups .131 2 .065 .066 .936
Within Groups 21.709 22 .987
Total 21.840 24
ITEMDO153 Between Groups .701 2 .351 .405 .672
Within Groups 19.059 22 .866
Total 19.760 24
ITEMDO154 Between Groups .357 2 .179 .260 .773
Within Groups 15.083 22 .686
Total 15.440 24
ITEMDO155 Between Groups .168 2 .084 .091 .914
Within Groups 20.392 22 .927
Total 20.560 24
ITEMDO156 Between Groups 2.418 2 1.209 2.413 .113
Within Groups 11.022 22 .501
Total 13.440 24
ITEMDO157 Between Groups 3.642 2 1.821 2.154 .140
Within Groups 18.598 22 .845
Total 22.240 24
ITEMDO158 Between Groups 2.263 2 1.131 2.120 .144
Within Groups 11.737 22 .534
Total 14.000 24
ITEMDO159 Between Groups .204 2 .102 .090 .914
Within Groups 24.836 22 1.129
Total 25.040 24
ITEMDO160 Between Groups 1.273 2 .636 .616 .549
Within Groups 22.727 22 1.033
Total 24.000 24
ITEMDO161 Between Groups .939 2 .469 .535 .593
Within Groups 19.301 22 .877
Total 20.240 24
ITEMDO162 Between Groups .364 2 .182 .256 .777
Within Groups 15.636 22 .711
Total 16.000 24
ITEMDO163 Between Groups .672 2 .336 .579 .569
Within Groups 12.768 22 .580
Total 13.440 24
ITEMDO164 Between Groups 1.138 2 .569 1.096 .352
Within Groups 11.422 22 .519
Total 12.560 24
ITEMDO165 Between Groups .058 2 .029 .058 .944
Within Groups 10.982 22 .499
Total 11.040 24
ITEMDO166 Between Groups 1.036 2 .518 .791 .466
Within Groups 14.404 22 .655
Total 15.440 24
ITEMDO167 Between Groups .411 2 .205 .384 .685
Within Groups 11.749 22 .534
Total 12.160 24
ITEMDO168 Between Groups .035 2 .017 .015 .985
Within Groups 25.325 22 1.151
Total 25.360 24
187
ITEMDO169 Between Groups .531 2 .265 .322 .728
Within Groups 18.109 22 .823
Total 18.640 24
ITEMDO170 Between Groups 1.513 2 .756 .773 .474
Within Groups 21.527 22 .979
Total 23.040 24
ITEMDO171 Between Groups .233 2 .116 .128 .880
Within Groups 19.927 22 .906
Total 20.160 24
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
ITEMFO172 Between Groups .313 2 .156 .173 .843
Within Groups 19.927 22 .906
Total 20.240 24
ITEMFO173 Between Groups .566 2 .283 .403 .673
Within Groups 15.434 22 .702
Total 16.000 24
ITEMFO174 Between Groups .495 2 .247 .307 .739
Within Groups 17.745 22 .807
Total 18.240 24
ITEMFO175 Between Groups 1.578 2 .789 .539 .591
Within Groups 32.182 22 1.463
Total 33.760 24
ITEMFO176 Between Groups 1.433 2 .716 .549 .585
Within Groups 28.727 22 1.306
Total 30.160 24
ITEMFO177 Between Groups .524 2 .262 .282 .757
Within Groups 20.436 22 .929
Total 20.960 24
ITEMFO178 Between Groups .058 2 .029 .022 .978
Within Groups 28.982 22 1.317
Total 29.040 24
ITEMFO179 Between Groups 1.739 2 .869 .681 .517
Within Groups 28.101 22 1.277
Total 29.840 24
ITEMFO180 Between Groups .051 2 .025 .024 .976
Within Groups 22.909 22 1.041
Total 22.960 24
ITEMFO181 Between Groups .944 2 .472 .894 .423
Within Groups 11.616 22 .528
Total 12.560 24
ITEMFO182 Between Groups .939 2 .469 1.111 .347
Within Groups 9.301 22 .423
Total 10.240 24
ITEMFO183 Between Groups 1.969 2 .985 .973 .394
Within Groups 22.271 22 1.012
Total 24.240 24
ITEMFO184 Between Groups 2.835 2 1.417 2.753 .086
Within Groups 11.325 22 .515
Total 14.160 24
ITEMFO185 Between Groups .503 2 .251 .241 .788
Within Groups 22.937 22 1.043
Total 23.440 24
ITEMFO186 Between Groups .406 2 .203 .268 .767
Within Groups 16.634 22 .756
188
Total 17.040 24
ITEMFO187 Between Groups 1.981 2 .991 1.487 .248
Within Groups 14.659 22 .666
Total 16.640 24
ITEMFO188 Between Groups .335 2 .168 .170
.845
Within Groups 21.665 22 .985
Total 22.000 24
ITEMFO189 Between Groups 2.248 2 1.124 1.546 .235
Within Groups 15.992 22 .727
Total 18.240 24
ITEMFO190 Between Groups .233 2 .116 .258 .775
Within Groups 9.927 22 .451
Total 10.160 24
ITEMFO191 Between Groups .272 2 .136 .376 .691
Within Groups 7.968 22 .362
Total 8.240 24
ITEMFO192 Between Groups .517 2 .259 .367 .697
Within Groups 15.483 22 .704
Total 16.000 24
ITEMFO193 Between Groups 1.113 2 .556 1.233 .311
Within Groups 9.927 22 .451
Total 11.040 24
ITEMFO194 Between Groups .808 2 .404 .967 .396
Within Groups 9.192 22 .418
Total 10.000 24
ITEMFO195 Between Groups .139 2 .069 .140 .870
Within Groups 10.901 22 .496
Total 11.040 24
ITEMFO196 Between Groups .842 2 .421 .713 .501
Within Groups 12.998 22 .591
Total 13.840 24
ITEMFO197 Between Groups 2.592 2 1.296 2.465 .108
Within Groups 11.568 22 .526
Total 14.160 24
ITEMFO198 Between Groups 1.962 2 .981 1.300 .293
Within Groups 16.598 22 .754
Total 18.560 24
ITEMFO199 Between Groups .233 2 .116 .189 .829
Within Groups 13.527 22 .615
Total 13.760 24
ITEMFO200 Between Groups 2.689 2 1.345 1.864 .179
Within Groups 15.871 22 .721
Total 18.560 24
ITEMFO201 Between Groups 1.455 2 .727 1.517 .241
Within Groups 10.545 22 .479
Total 12.000 24
ITEMFO202 Between Groups .326 2 .163 .252 .780
Within Groups 14.234 22 .647
Total 14.560 24
ITEMFO203 Between Groups 1.295 2 .647 1.461 .254
Within Groups 9.745 22 .443
Total 11.040 24
ITEMFO204 Between Groups .495 2 .247 .196 .823
Within Groups 27.745 22 1.261
Total 28.240 24
ITEMFO205 Between Groups .073 2 .036 .036 .964
Within Groups 21.927 22 .997
189
Total
22.000 24
ITEMFO206 Between Groups 6.069 2 3.034 5.595 .011
Within Groups 11.931 22 .542
Total 18.000 24
ITEMFO207 Between Groups 4.726 2 2.363 3.869 .036
Within Groups 13.434 22 .611
Total 18.160 24
ITEMFO208 Between Groups 1.089 2 .545 .656 .529
Within Groups 18.271 22 .830
Total 19.360 24
ITEMFO209 Between Groups .517 2 .259 .223 .802
Within Groups 25.483 22 1.158
Total 26.000 24
ITEMFO210 Between Groups 1.715 2 .857 .885 .427
Within Groups 21.325 22 .969
Total 23.040 24
ITEMFO211 Between Groups .381 2 .191 .246 .784
Within Groups 17.059 22 .775
Total 17.440 24
ITEMFO212 Between Groups 3.724 2 1.862 1.733 .200
Within Groups 23.636 22 1.074
Total 27.360 24
ITEMFO213 Between Groups 3.775 2 1.888 2.112 .145
Within Groups 19.665 22 .894
Total 23.440 24
ITEMFO214 Between Groups 1.251 2 .625 .854 .439
Within Groups 16.109 22 .732
Total 17.360 24
ITEMFO215 Between Groups .842 2 .421 .343 .713
Within Groups 26.998 22 1.227
Total 27.840 24
ITEMFO216 Between Groups 1.901 2 .951 .682 .516
Within Groups 30.659 22 1.394
Total 32.560 24
ITEMFO217 Between Groups 1.962 2 .981 .938 .406
Within Groups 22.998 22 1.045
Total 24.960 24
ITEMFO218 Between Groups .051 2 .025 .114 .893
Within Groups 4.909 22 .223
Total 4.960 24
ITEMFO219 Between Groups 1.804 2 .902 1.455 .255
Within Groups 13.636 22 .620
Total 15.440 24
ITEMFO220 Between Groups 1.833 2 .916 .857 .438
Within Groups 23.527 22 1.069
Total 25.360 24
ITEMFO221 Between Groups .517 2 .259 .325 .726
Within Groups 17.483 22 .795
Total 18.000 24
ITEMFO222 Between Groups 1.138 2 .569 .772 .474
Within Groups 16.222 22 .737
Total 17.360 24
ITEMFO223 Between Groups .808 2 .404 .419
.663
Within Groups 21.192 22 .963
Total 22.000 24
ITEMFO224 Between Groups .640 2 .320 .367 .697
190
Within Groups 19.200 22 .873
Total 19.840 24
ITEMFO225 Between Groups .042 2 .021 .022 .978
Within Groups 20.598 22 .936
Total 20.640 24
ITEMFO226 Between Groups 1.472 2 .736 .922 .413
Within Groups 17.568 22 .799
Total 19.040 24
ITEMFO227 Between Groups 2.229 2 1.114 1.711 .204
Within Groups 14.331 22 .651
Total 16.560 24
ITEMFO228 Between Groups 3.072 2 1.536 2.116 .144
Within Groups 15.968 22 .726
Total 19.040 24
ITEMFO229 Between Groups 6.924 2 3.462 6.124 .008
Within Groups 12.436 22 .565
Total 19.360 24
ITEMFO230 Between Groups 2.396 2 1.198 2.271 .127
Within Groups 11.604 22 .527
Total 14.000 24
ITEMFO231 Between Groups 2.255 2 1.127 1.575 .229
Within Groups 15.745 22 .716
Total 18.000 24
ITEMFO232 Between Groups 1.164 2 .582 .997 .385
Within Groups 12.836 22 .583
Total 14.000 24
ITEMFO233 Between Groups 2.263 2 1.131 1.812 .187
Within Groups 13.737 22 .624
Total 16.000 24
ITEMFO234 Between Groups .473 2 .236 .451 .643
Within Groups 11.527 22 .524
Total 12.000 24
ITEMFO235 Between Groups .435 2 .217 .258 .775
Within Groups 18.525 22 .842
Total 18.960 24
ITEMFO236 Between Groups 2.800 2 1.400 2.026 .156
Within Groups 15.200 22 .691
Total 18.000 24
ITEMFO237 Between Groups .944 2 .472 .440 .650
Within Groups 23.616 22 1.073
Total 24.560 24
ITEMFO238 Between Groups 4.008 2 2.004 3.151 .063
Within Groups 13.992 22 .636
Total 18.000 24
ITEMFO239 Between Groups .968 2 .484 .761 .479
Within Groups 13.992 22 .636
Total 14.960 24
ITEMFO240 Between Groups .362 2 .181 .362 .700
Within Groups 10.998 22 .500
Total 11.360 24
ITEMFO241 Between Groups 1.962 2 .981 .955 .400
Within Groups 22.598 22 1.027
Total 24.560 24
ITEMFO242 Between Groups .495 2 .247 .463 .635
Within Groups 11.745 22 .534
Total 12.240 24
ITEMFO243 Between Groups .032 2 .016 .022 .978
191
Within Groups 15.968 22 .726
Total 16.000 24
ITEMFO244 Between Groups .757 2 .379 .411 .668
Within Groups 20.283 22 .922
Total 21.040 24
ITEMFO245 Between Groups .806 2 .403 .533 .594
Within Groups 16.634 22 .756
Total 17.440 24
ITEMFO246 Between Groups 1.731 2 .865 1.075 .359
Within Groups 17.709 22 .805
Total 19.440 24
ITEMFO247 Between Groups .362 2 .181 .130 .879
Within Groups 30.598 22 1.391
Total 30.960 24
ITEMFO248 Between Groups 2.851 2 1.425 1.042 .370
Within Groups 30.109 22 1.369
Total 32.960 24
ITEMFO249 Between Groups 7.048 2 3.524 3.078 .066
Within Groups 25.192 22 1.145
Total 32.240 24
ITEMFO250 Between Groups 2.560 2 1.280 1.354 .279
Within Groups 20.800 22 .945
Total 23.360 24
ITEMFO251 Between Groups 2.381 2 1.191 1.319 .288
Within Groups 19.859 22 .903
Total 22.240 24
ITEMFO252 Between Groups .058 2 .029 .056 .945
Within Groups 11.382 22 .517
Total 11.440 24
ITEMFO253 Between Groups .931 2 .465 .652 .531
Within Groups 15.709 22 .714
Total 16.640 24
ITEMFO254 Between Groups 1.569 2 .785 .966 .396
Within Groups 17.871 22 .812
Total 19.440 24
ITEMFO255 Between Groups 1.833 2 .916 1.298 .293
Within Groups 15.527 22 .706
Total 17.360 24
ITEMFO256 Between Groups 1.113 2 .556 .614 .550
Within Groups 19.927 22 .906
Total 21.040 24
ITEMFO257 Between Groups .842 2 .421 .842
.444
Within Groups 10.998 22 .500
Total 11.840 24
ITEMFO258 Between Groups .811 2 .405 .470 .631
Within Groups 18.949 22 .861
Total 19.760 24
ITEMFO259 Between Groups .992 2 .496 .651 .531
Within Groups 16.768 22 .762
Total 17.760 24
ITEMFO260 Between Groups .233 2 .116 .215 .809
Within Groups 11.927 22 .542
Total 12.160 24
ITEMFO261 Between Groups 2.364 2 1.182 3.405 .051
Within Groups 7.636 22 .347
Total 10.000 24
ITEMFO262 Between Groups .858 2 .429 .543 .589
192
Within Groups 17.382 22 .790
Total 18.240 24
ITEMFO263 Between Groups .459 2 .229 .417 .664
Within Groups 12.101 22 .550
Total 12.560 24
ITEMFO264 Between Groups .362 2 .181 .150 .862
Within Groups 26.598 22 1.209
Total 26.960 24
ITEMFO265 Between Groups .517 2 .259 .600 .558
Within Groups 9.483 22 .431
Total 10.000 24
ITEMFO266 Between Groups .378 2 .189 .239 .789
Within Groups 17.382 22 .790
Total 17.760 24
ITEMFO267 Between Groups 1.051 2 .525 .892 .424
Within Groups 12.949 22 .589
Total 14.000 24
ITEMFO268 Between Groups 2.335 2 1.168 1.306 .291
Within Groups 19.665 22 .894
Total 22.000 24
ITEMFO269 Between Groups .735 2 .368 .469 .632
Within Groups 17.265 22 .785
Total 18.000 24
ITEMFO270 Between Groups .008 2 .004 .006 .994
Within Groups 15.992 22 .727
Total 16.000 24
ITEMFO271 Between Groups 1.744 2 .872 .773 .474
Within Groups 24.816 22 1.128
Total 26.560 24
ANOVA
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
ITEMFO272 Between Groups .071 2 .036 .053 .949
Within Groups 14.889 22 .677
Total 14.960 24
ITEMFO273 Between Groups 3.926 2 1.963 2.317 .122
Within Groups 18.634 22 .847
Total 22.560 24
ITEMFO274 Between Groups .411 2 .205 .229 .797
Within Groups 19.749 22 .898
Total 20.160 24
ITEMFO275 Between Groups 1.339 2 .669 2.134 .142
Within Groups 6.901 22 .314
Total 8.240 24
ITEMFO276 Between Groups .778 2 .389 .640 .537
Within Groups 13.382 22 .608
Total 14.160 24
ITEMFO277 Between Groups .459 2 .229 .237 .791
Within Groups 21.301 22 .968
Total 21.760 24
ITEMFO278 Between Groups .560 2 .280 .481 .624
Within Groups 12.800 22 .582
Total 13.360 24
ITEMFO279 Between Groups .284 2 .142 .191 .827
Within Groups 16.356 22 .743
Total 16.640 24
ITEMFO280 Between Groups .992 2 .496 .582 .567
193
Within Groups 18.768 22 .853
Total 19.760 24
ITEMFO281 Between Groups 1.164 2 .582 .760 .479
Within Groups 16.836 22 .765
Total 18.000 24
ITEMFO282 Between Groups 1.836 2 .918 1.628 .219
Within Groups 12.404 22 .564
Total 14.240 24
ITEMFO283 Between Groups .168 2 .084 .087 .917
Within Groups 21.192 22 .963
Total 21.360 24
ITEMFO284 Between Groups 1.578 2 .789 .999 .384
Within Groups 17.382 22 .790
Total 18.960 24
ITEMFO285 Between Groups 2.556 2 1.278 1.952 .166
Within Groups 14.404 22 .655
Total 16.960 24
ITEMFO286 Between Groups 1.138 2 .569 .563 .577
Within Groups 22.222 22 1.010
Total 23.360 24
ITEMFO287 Between Groups .364 2 .182 .293 .749
Within Groups 13.636 22 .620
Total 14.000 24
ITEMFO288 Between Groups 1.341 2 .671 1.384 .271
Within Groups 10.659 22 .484
Total 12.000 24
ITEMFO289 Between Groups 2.229 2 1.114 1.711 .204
Within Groups 14.331 22 .651
Total 16.560 24
ITEMFO290 Between Groups .815 2 .407 .569 .574
Within Groups 15.745 22 .716
Total 16.560 24
ITEMFO291 Between Groups .204 2 .102 .133 .876
Within Groups 16.836 22 .765
Total 17.040 24
ITEMFO292 Between Groups .769 2 .385 .610 .552
Within Groups 13.871 22 .630
Total 14.640 24
ITEMFO293 Between Groups 1.424 2 .712 1.150 .335
Within Groups 13.616 22 .619
Total 15.040 24
ITEMFO294 Between Groups .944 2 .472 .762 .478
Within Groups 13.616 22 .619
Total 14.560 24
ITEMFO295 Between Groups .378 2 .189 .219 .805
Within Groups 18.982 22 .863
Total 19.360 24
ITEMFO296 Between Groups 2.624 2 1.312 2.252 .129
Within Groups 12.816 22 .583
Total 15.440 24
ITEMFO297 Between Groups .517 2 .259 .325 .726
Within Groups 17.483 22 .795
Total 18.000 24
ITEMFO298 Between Groups .357 2 .179 .230 .796
Within Groups 17.083 22 .776
Total 17.440 24
194
ITEMFO299 Between Groups .524 2 .262 .312 .735
Within Groups 18.436 22 .838
Total 18.960 24
ITEMFO300 Between Groups .406 2 .203 .268 .767
Within Groups 16.634 22 .756
Total 17.040 24
ITEMFO301 Between Groups 1.099 2 .549 1.358 .278
Within Groups 8.901 22 .405
Total 10.000 24
ITEMFO302 Between Groups 1.303 2 .651 1.310 .290
Within Groups 10.937 22 .497
Total 12.240 24
ITEMFO303 Between Groups .233 2 .116 .340 .715
Within Groups 7.527 22 .342
Total 7.760 24
ITEMFO304 Between Groups .769 2 .385 .533 .594
Within Groups 15.871 22 .721
Total 16.640 24
ITEMFO305 Between Groups 1.872 2 .936 1.172 .328
Within Groups 17.568 22 .799
Total 19.440 24
Summary of Hypotheses
Grinding operation
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
ITEM1-85 Between Groups 1.41502
2
.70744
1.05098
.4982
Within Groups 15.43938
22
.70176
Total 16.8544
24
Drilling operation
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
ITEM86-171 Between Groups 1.072255
2
.535961
.752882
.55651
Within Groups 16.41637
22
.746196
Total 17.48863
24
Fitting operation
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
ITEM172-305 Between Groups 2.229 2 1.114 1.711
.204
Within Groups 14.331 22 .651
Total 16.560 24
195
Appendix J2
RESULT OF POST HOC TEST
GRINDING OPERATION: ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
ITEMGO24 Between Groups 3.872 2 1.936 3.559 .046
Within Groups 11.968 22 .544
Total 15.840 24
ITEMGO51 Between Groups 4.378 2 2.189 3.710 .041
Within Groups 12.982 22 .590
Total 17.360 24
ITEMGO52 Between Groups 5.295 2 2.647 4.959 .017
Within Groups 11.745 22 .534
Total 17.040 24
Post Hoc Tests
FOR SPECIFIC ITEM UNDER GRINDING OPERATION
Multiple Comparisons
Scheffe
Dependent
Variable (I) STATUS (J) STATUS
Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
ITEMGO24 HIGH AVERAGE .80808 .33151 .072 -.0619 1.6780
LOW -.03636 .39781 .996 -1.0803 1.0076
AVERAGE HIGH -.80808 .33151 .072 -1.6780 .0619
LOW -.84444 .41139 .146 -1.9240 .2351
LOW HIGH .03636 .39781 .996 -1.0076 1.0803
AVERAGE .84444 .41139 .146 -.2351 1.9240
ITEMGO51 HIGH AVERAGE .60606 .34527 .236 -.3000 1.5121
LOW -.52727 .41432 .458 -1.6146 .5600
AVERAGE HIGH -.60606 .34527 .236 -1.5121 .3000
LOW -1.13333* .42846 .048 -2.2577 -.0089
LOW HIGH .52727 .41432 .458 -.5600 1.6146
AVERAGE 1.13333* .42846 .048 .0089 2.2577
ITEMGO52 HIGH AVERAGE .96970* .32841 .025 .1079 1.8315
LOW .03636 .39410 .996 -.9978 1.0706
AVERAGE HIGH -.96970* .32841 .025 -1.8315 -.1079
LOW -.93333 .40755 .095 -2.0028 .1362
LOW HIGH -.03636 .39410 .996 -1.0706 .9978
AVERAGE .93333 .40755 .095 -.1362 2.0028
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
DRILLING OPERATION
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
ITEMDO145 Between Groups 4.633 2 2.316 5.349 .013
Within Groups 9.527 22 .433
Total 14.160 24
ITEMDO148 Between Groups 4.939 2 2.469 3.551 .046
Within Groups 15.301 22 .696
Total 20.240 24
196
POST HOC FOR SPECIFIC ITEM UNDER DRILLING OPERATION
Multiple Comparisons
Scheffe
Dependent
Variable (I) STATUS (J) STATUS
Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
ITEMDO145 HIGH AVERAGE -.45455 .29578 .326 -1.2308 .3217
LOW .74545 .35494 .134 -.1860 1.6769
AVERAGE HIGH .45455 .29578 .326 -.3217 1.2308
LOW 1.20000* .36705 .013 .2368 2.1632
LOW HIGH -.74545 .35494 .134 -1.6769 .1860
AVERAGE -1.20000* .36705 .013 -2.1632 -.2368
ITEMDO148 HIGH AVERAGE .14141 .37484 .932 -.8423 1.1251
LOW -1.03636 .44981 .093 -2.2168 .1440
AVERAGE HIGH -.14141 .37484 .932 -1.1251 .8423
LOW -1.17778 .46516 .060 -2.3985 .0429
LOW HIGH 1.03636 .44981 .093 -.1440 2.2168
AVERAGE 1.17778 .46516 .060 -.0429 2.3985
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
FITTING OPERATION
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
ITEMFO206 Between Groups 6.069 2 3.034 5.595 .011
Within Groups 11.931 22 .542
Total 18.000 24
ITEMFO207 Between Groups 4.726 2 2.363 3.869 .036
Within Groups 13.434 22 .611
Total 18.160 24
ITEMFO229 Between Groups 6.924 2 3.462 6.124 .008
Within Groups 12.436 22 .565
Total 19.360 24
ITEMFO261 Between Groups 2.364 2 1.182 3.405 .051
Within Groups 7.636 22 .347
Total 10.000 24
197
POST HOC FOR SPECIFIC ITEM UNDER FITTING OPERATION
Multiple Comparisons
Scheffe
Dependent
Variable (I) STATUS (J) STATUS
Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
ITEMFO206 HIGH AVERAGE .64646 .33100 .172 -.2222 1.5151
LOW -.70909 .39720 .226 -1.7515 .3333
AVERAGE HIGH -.64646 .33100 .172 -1.5151 .2222
LOW -1.35556* .41076 .012 -2.4335 -.2776
LOW HIGH .70909 .39720 .226 -.3333 1.7515
AVERAGE 1.35556* .41076 .012 .2776 2.4335
ITEMFO207 HIGH AVERAGE .74747 .35123 .128 -.1742 1.6692
LOW -.36364 .42148 .693 -1.4697 .7424
AVERAGE HIGH -.74747 .35123 .128 -1.6692 .1742
LOW -1.11111 .43587 .058 -2.2549 .0327
LOW HIGH .36364 .42148 .693 -.7424 1.4697
AVERAGE 1.11111 .43587 .058 -.0327 2.2549
ITEMFO229 HIGH AVERAGE -.48485 .33793 .374 -1.3717 .4020
LOW .98182 .40552 .074 -.0824 2.0460
AVERAGE HIGH .48485 .33793 .374 -.4020 1.3717
LOW 1.46667* .41937 .008 .3661 2.5672
LOW HIGH -.98182 .40552 .074 -2.0460 .0824
AVERAGE -1.46667* .41937 .008 -2.5672 -.3661
ITEMFO261 HIGH AVERAGE -.15152 .26481 .850 -.8464 .5434
LOW -.81818 .31777 .055 -1.6521 .0157
AVERAGE HIGH .15152 .26481 .850 -.5434 .8464
LOW -.66667 .32862 .152 -1.5290 .1957
LOW HIGH .81818 .31777 .055 -.0157 1.6521
AVERAGE .66667 .32862 .152 -.1957 1.5290
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
198
Appendix L
Results of Kendall Coefficient Analysis
KENDALL Correlations
RATER1 RATER2 RATER3 RATER4 RATER5
Kendall's tau_b RATER1 Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .705 -.108* -.099 .050
Sig. (2-tailed) . .146 .037 .058 .342
N 305 305 305 305 305
RATER2 Correlation Coefficient .075 1.000 .808 -.044 -.027
Sig. (2-tailed) .146 . .868 .376 .581
N 305 305 305 305 305
RATER3 Correlation Coefficient -.108* -.008 1.000 .600 -.054
Sig. (2-tailed) .037 .868 . .223 .275
N 305 305 305 305 305
RATER4 Correlation Coefficient -.099 -.044 -.060 1.000 .804
Sig. (2-tailed) .058 .376 .223 . .093
N 305 305 305 305 305
RATER5 Correlation Coefficient .050 -.027 -.054 -.084 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .342 .581 .275 .093 .
N 305 305 305 305 305
Correlations
RATER1 RATER2
Kendall's tau_b RATER1 Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .705
Sig. (2-tailed) . .146
N 305 305
RATER2 Correlation Coefficient .705 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .146 .
N 305 305
Correlations
RATER2 RATER3
Kendall's tau_b RATER2 Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .808
Sig. (2-tailed) . .868
N 305 305
RATER3 Correlation Coefficient .808 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .868 .
N 305 305
Correlations
RATER3 RATER4
Kendall's tau_b RATER3 Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .600
Sig. (2-tailed) . .223
N 305 305
RATER4 Correlation Coefficient .600 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .223 .
N 305 305
Correlations
199
RATER4 RATER5
Kendall's tau_b RATER4 Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .804
Sig. (2-tailed) . .093
N 305 305
RATER5 Correlation Coefficient .804 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .093 .
N 305 305
200
Appendix L
OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR USING THE WORKSHOP-BASED PROCESS
SKILL TESTS (WBPST)
Introduction
A workshop-based process skill tests has been developed, validated and tried out. The result showed that all the items contain therein
are valid and reliable for assessing students’ skills in mechanical engineering craft tasks/operations especially at the NTC level. As a process
assessment instrument, it is to be used only when the students are performing tasks such as practical projects/exercises. This test is not an
alternative to practical neither is it a paper and pencil type of performance test. Therefore, should not be used for any of such purposes. It is a
device for assessing step-by-step practical activities or skills involved in carrying out tasks that require the use of tools, machines, equipment and
materials to construct projects/articles.
This manual contains instructions to teachers and any other person who may wish to use this test either in its full content or in part for
the purpose of assessing students process skills in mechanical engineering craft at the NTC level. Although the test is developed specifically for
use at the NTC level, aspects of it could be modified to suit varying students levels and categories in other areas other than technical colleges
depending on the course objectives and the type/level of students to the evaluated. In this manual, instructions to teachers on the preparation of
the workshop environment, the equipment tools, materials and machines supplies which should be done before administering this test, has been
provided. Also contained in this manual are guidelines for the assessors who may be involved in using the test for the actual assessment of
students. Furthermore, directions on how to score, compute, grade and interpreter the scores for each student observed in a given task has been
provided. It is therefore recommended that, before this test is applied, the teachers/assessors should carefully study this manual and follow the
instructions stipulated in it for effective result.
GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF THE WORKSHOP
1. Before using this test to assess students the teachers concerned should ensure that all the preliminary arrangements regarding the
workshop environment are put in place. By this, it is expected that, all hand and machine tools, materials and accessories necessary
for use in the execution of the task are adequately provided and are in perfect working conditions.
2. The workshop arrangement should be such that an assessor team of assessors could be comfortably seated where they can clearly see
the operations being performed by the student (s).
3. The arrangement in the workshop should be such that a candidate could carry out a given task standing, sitting or bending depending
on the operations to be performed.
4. Enough copies of the test instrument should be provided to cover every student being assessed.
GUIDELINESS FOR CONDUCTING THE ASSESSMENT USING WBPST
1. Where many students are to be set on the jobs and observed at the same time by either a single or multiple assessors, they should be
so-arranged that not all of them carry out the same operation at the same time. Different tasks should be assigned different
individuals.
2. When ever one or more students are set at a time, the rest of the student should be kept away from the station, so that, they do not
gain advantage of pre-in-formation on what to be done before they are called in
3. When ever one or more students are set at a time to carry out a series of operations, they should always ensure that their time is out
before moving, to the next operation.
4. Where two or more assessors are involved, each of them should have a copy of the test and be well situated where they could clearly
see the student (s) as they carryout the tasks.
5. Each of the assessors involved should carry out the assessment independently at the same time.
6. Under no circumstances should any assessor influence scoring of another.
7. No body is allowed to assist the student(s) influence their performance when the process assessment is going on.
8. Each assessor should be as objective as possible in rating each student. They should neither be too generous, severe nor too central in
their scoring.
201
GUIDELINES FOR RATING, ANALYSING AND INTERPRETING THE SCORES
For rating the instrument, the total scores for the instrument on each student’s performance was 5x305 =1525 points where 5 points
(very high performance) is the highest point obtainable per test item and 1525 is the total points obtainable in WBPST.
The student scores were converted into percentage thus:
Students scores in all the test items x 100%
1525
Scoring was done by calculating the students’ scores on all the test items over the total points multiplied by 100%. Scoring of the
instrument should not be one sided. Students who attained the specific skill measured on each item by the raters earned five points (very high
performance). The students who performed the skills to very near perfection earned four points and this scoring procedure goes down until one
point.
For interpretation of test results, students who scored 70 percent and above, scored A which is excellent: students who scored 60-69
percent scored B which is good; students who scored 50-59 percent scored C which is Fair; students who scored 40-49 percent scored D which is
pass while students who scored 0-39 scored F which is fail.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WORKSHOP-BASED PROCESS SKILL TESTS
1. It is specific-touching on specific mechanical engineering craft operations /tasks.
2. It is comprehensive-covering 3 main operations in NTC mechanical engineering craft curriculum
3. It is easy to use for rating and grading of process skills
4. Each task, process skill or operation is assessed independently.
5. It provides for individualized assessment.
6. It is objective, valid and reliable
7. It is practicable for use on all grinding, drilling and fitting operation at the NTC level.
8. It yields instant results.