Evaluating the effectiveness of organic chemistry component of the Ghanaian high school chemistry curriculum
Using Stufflebeam's CIPP model and a convergent mixed-methods design, this study evaluates the Ghanaian high school organic chemistry curriculum, finding it moderately effective but highlighting weaknesses in input and process components alongside significant gender and school type disparities in student performance.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine the high school chemistry curriculum in Ghana as a recipe book designed to teach students how to cook "Organic Chemistry." This specific dish is tricky; it's abstract, complex, and requires special ingredients to make sense.
Two researchers, Benjamin and Kenneth, decided to taste-test this recipe book to see if it was actually working. They didn't just ask, "Did you like the food?" Instead, they used a famous evaluation tool called the CIPP Model. Think of CIPP as a four-part quality check for a restaurant:
- Context (The Menu Plan): Does the recipe make sense for the people eating it?
- Input (The Pantry): Do we have the right ingredients, pots, and pans?
- Process (The Cooking): Is the chef actually cooking the meal correctly?
- Product (The Final Dish): Did the customers enjoy the meal and learn something?
Here is what they found when they served this "recipe" to 226 high school students in the Cape Coast area.
1. The Menu Plan (Context) – The Good News
Verdict: Pretty Good.
The students agreed that the idea of the menu was solid. They felt the topics chosen (like naming chemical compounds and understanding reactions) were relevant to their future careers and daily lives. It was like agreeing that a menu should include pizza and pasta because those are popular and useful foods. The "why" behind the lessons was clear and appreciated.
2. The Pantry (Input) – The Big Problem
Verdict: The Kitchen is Empty.
This was the weakest part of the evaluation. While the menu looked good, the kitchen was missing the essentials.
- Missing Ingredients: The labs didn't have enough organic chemicals or reagents.
- Broken Tools: There were very few models (like plastic molecules) to help students visualize invisible structures.
- No Cookbooks: There weren't enough textbooks for every student.
- The Chef's Plan: Teachers often didn't have structured lesson plans ready to go.
The Analogy: Imagine being told to bake a cake, but the kitchen has no flour, no eggs, and no oven. You can talk about cake all day, but you can't actually make one. The students felt the "ingredients" for learning were missing.
3. The Cooking Process (Process) – The Method
Verdict: Mostly Lecture, Little Action.
Because the "pantry" was empty, the "cooking" method suffered.
- The Lecture Trap: Teachers mostly stood at the front and talked (lecture style) because they couldn't do experiments without chemicals.
- The Missed Opportunity: Students wanted to do the experiments, not just hear about them. They felt the class was too passive.
- The Silver Lining: The teachers were good at grading homework and giving feedback. They checked the students' work and corrected it, which kept the students on track even if the cooking was dry.
4. The Final Dish (Product) – The Result
Verdict: Students Got the Basics, But It Was Hard.
Despite the empty pantry and lecture-heavy cooking, the students still managed to learn. They understood the concepts well enough to pass and felt their interest in chemistry was sparked. However, because they couldn't see or touch the chemicals, the subject felt "abstract" and "invisible" to them, like trying to describe the taste of a fruit you've never seen.
The "Secret Sauce" of the Findings
The Gender Gap:
The study found a small but noticeable difference between boys and girls.
- The Analogy: Imagine two groups of students sitting in the same classroom. The boys, on average, felt slightly more positive about the class than the girls.
- The Reality: While the boys scored slightly higher in their satisfaction, the difference wasn't huge. It suggests that while the class worked for everyone, it might need a little extra "seasoning" (teaching strategies) to make sure girls feel just as confident and engaged as the boys.
The School Gap:
The type of school mattered.
- The Analogy: Students in "Endowed" schools (schools with better funding) felt the curriculum was slightly better than those in "Less Endowed" schools.
- The Reality: Schools with more resources (better labs, more books) had students who rated the experience higher. It's like comparing a school with a fully stocked science lab to one with a cardboard box labeled "Lab." The students in the better-equipped schools had a smoother experience.
What Students Said (The "Voice" of the Kitchen)
When the researchers asked students directly what was wrong, three main complaints came up:
- It's Too Abstract: "We can't see these molecules. They are invisible and confusing."
- No Tools: "We are trying to learn about chemicals without ever seeing the chemicals or the models."
- Too Much Content: "There is too much to learn in the time we have. It feels like we are being force-fed."
The Bottom Line
The researchers concluded that the Ghanaian Organic Chemistry curriculum is a good recipe, but the kitchen is under-equipped.
- The Goal: The curriculum aims are great.
- The Execution: The lack of chemicals, models, and practical labs is making the subject feel like a difficult, abstract puzzle rather than a hands-on science.
- The Fix: To make the "dish" taste better, schools need to stock the pantry (get chemicals and models) and change the cooking method (do more experiments, less lecturing).
The study suggests that if you give students the tools to see and touch the chemistry, they will understand it much better, regardless of whether they are boys or girls, or which school they attend.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.