CLASSROOM LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF PROSTHETIC AND ORTHOTIC SCIENCES: STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE

Authors

  • Sajjad Hussain

Abstract

Background: In 2009 the ISPO team conducted an analysis of the student performance at PakistanInstitute of Prosthetic and Orthotic Sciences (PIPOS) and concluded the situation ‘unsatisfactory’. Thisstudy aims to explore the opinions of the current students regarding the nature of the classroom learningclimate at PIPOS. Methods: This survey was carried out in 2010 at PIPOS, Peshawar. The data wascollected on a self adapted questionnaire based on a literature review. It was distributed among the 48students. The data was considered non-parametric categorical, hence contingency table statistics isapplied in descriptive format. The statistics were analysed at 95% CI. Results: The replies reveal that thevariables tested were imperative and it was appalling that the majority went for second score ‘Fair’ whilefewer were in grade ‘Good’. Conclusion: PIPOS stands low in the ISPO 2010 report, with a highstudent failure rate due to issues related to curriculum and teaching methodology. There is a lot toimprove relating the students’ level up to the international standards.Keywords: Interpretive study, assessing student perception, classroom learning environment, ideal classroom environment

References

Jensen JS. Follow-Up Analysis of Pakistan Institute of

Prosthetics and Orthotic Sciences, Cat-II, Report (un published)

from ISPO Follow-up 3/30/2010, Copenhagen; August 2009.

Goh SC, Fraser BJ. Teacher Interpersonal Behaviour, Classroom

Environment and Student Outcomes in Primary Mathematic in

Singapore. Learn Environ Res 1998;1(2):199–229.

Burke WW, Litwin GH. A Casual Model of Organizational

Performance and Change. J Manag 1992;18(3):532–45.

Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI. An investement theory of creativity and

its development. Human Development 1991;34:1–31.

Fryer M, Collings JA. British Teacher’s views of creativity. J

Creative Behavior 1991;25(1):75–81.

Tardiff TZ, Sternberg RJ. What do we know about creativity? In:

Sternberg RJ, (Ed). The nature of creativity. New York:

Cambridge University Press; 1988.p.429–40.

Amabile TM. Growing up creative. Buffalo, NY: The Creative

Education Foundation; 1989.

PIPOS Prospectus/2009 Onward, pp:6–15.

Howell, DC. Statistical Methods for Psychology. Boston:

Duxbury Press; 1987.

Cerini B, Murray I, Reiss MJ. Student Review of the Science

Curriculum: Major Findings. London: Planet Science 2003.

Abraham I, Miller R. Does practical work actually work? A

study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching method

in school science. Int J of Science Education 2008;30:1945–69.

Charles K, Luoh M. Gender Differences in Completed

Schooling. National Bureau of Economic Research Working

Paper 9028. 2002.

Michael H, William R. Race and Sex variations in the Causes of

the Expected Attainments of High School Seniors. American

Journal of Sociology 1975;81:364–94.

Downloads

Published

2011-06-01