THE NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL OF TANZANIA

STUDENTS’ ITEM RESPONSE ANALYSIS REPORT

FOR THE FORM TWO NATIONAL
ASSESSMENT (FTNA) 2019

032 CHEMISTRY
THE NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL OF TANZANIA

STUDENTS’ ITEM RESPONSE ANALYSIS REPORT

FOR THE FORM TWO NATIONAL ASSESSMENT
(FTNA) 2019

032 CHEMISTRY
Published by:
The National Examinations Council of Tanzania,
P. O. Box 2624,
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

© The National Examinations Council of Tanzania, 2020

All rights reserved.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iii

FOREWORD ........................................................................................................... iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

2.0 ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE IN EACH QUESTION .. 1

2.1 Section A: Objective and Short Answer Questions .................................... 2

2.1.1 Question 1: Multiple Choice Items .......................................................... 2

2.1.2 Question 2: Matching Items and Short answer Questions ....................... 4

2.2 Section B: Short Answer Questions ............................................................ 6

2.2.1 Question 3: Laboratory Techniques and Safety ....................................... 6

2.2.2 Question 4: Oxygen and Hydrogen .......................................................... 9

2.2.3 Question 5: Water ................................................................................... 12

2.2.4 Question 6: Scientific Procedure ............................................................ 16

2.2.5 Question 7: Laboratory techniques and Safety....................................... 18

2.2.6 Question 8: Air, Combustion, Rusting and Fire Fighting ...................... 21

2.2.7 Question 9: Bonding, Formulae and Nomenclature ............................... 24

2.2.8 Question 10: Fuels and Energy .............................................................. 28

3.0 ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ PERFROMANCE IN EACH TOPIC ........ 30

4.0 CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 31

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 32

Appendix................................................................................................................. 33

iii
 FOREWORD
The National Examinations Council of Tanzania has prepared this Students' Items
Response Analysis (SIRA) report in order to give feedback to the stakeholders
such as students, teachers, parents, policy makers and the general public, on the
performance of the students who sat for Chemistry in the Form Two National
Assessment (FTNA) in November 2019.

The Form Two National Assessment marks the end of two years of Ordinary Level
of Secondary Education. It is an assessment which, among other things, shows the
effectiveness of the education system in general and education delivery system in
particular. Essentially, the students' response to the assessment questions is a
strong indicator of what the education system was able or unable to offer to
students in their two years of Ordinary Level Secondary Education.

The analysis presented in this report is intended to contribute towards

understanding some of the reasons behind the performance of the students in
Chemistry Subject. The report highlights some of the factors that contributed to the
students to score low marks in each question. Some of these factors are inadequate
ability to apply principles in interpreting scientific observations and improper
approaches in carrying out calculations. The feedback provided in this report will
enable the educational administrators, school managers, teachers and students to
identify proper measures to be taken in order to improve the students' performance
in future assessment administered by the Council.

The Council would like to thank Chemistry Coordinators, Assessors and all
stakeholders who participated in the writing of this report. The Council would also
like to express sincere appreciation to all staff members who participated in
analyzing the data used in this report.

Dr. Charles E. Msonde

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report analyses the performance of students who sat for the Form Two
National Assessment (FTNA) in Chemistry paper conducted in November
2019. The paper examined students’ competences and skills as stipulated in
the chemistry syllabus of 2010 which adhered to the 2011 Form Two
National Assessment format.

The paper consisted of ten questions which were organised into two sections
A and B. Section A was consisted of two questions while section B was
composed of eight questions. Students were required to answer all ten
questions in both sections. Questions in section A were objective and short
answer type. Question 1 comprised 10 multiple choice items and question 2
comprised 5 matching items and five short answer items. On the other hand,
in section B there were short answer questions. However, all questions in the
paper carried equal weight of ten marks.

A total of 570,891 students who sat for Form Two National Assessment,
(FTNA) in 2019 did Chemistry. Analysis of the results showed that the
overall performance was good as the students’ scores in most of the questions
were above 30 per cent of the marks allocated. In 2019, 44.79 per cent of the
students passed the assessment compared to 53.22 per cent of students who
passed in 2018. This reveals that the performance of students in 2019
decreased by 8.41 per cent.
This report is organised into four sections. The first section gives the
introductory part while the second section focuses on the analysis of
students’ performance in each question. The third section provides analysis
of performance per topic. Lastly, the fourth section gives the conclusion of
the overall performance and offers recommendation for future improvement.

2.0 ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE IN EACH

QUESTION
In this section, analysis of students’ performance in each question has been
done focusing on the demand of the question, students’ responses and figures
such as graphs and charts for more clarification. Samples of extracts of
students’ responses have also been inserted in appropriate questions to
illustrate the cases presented. However, highlights of misconceptions

1
 observed and reasons behind the students’ performance has been included as
well. The students’ performance in each question has been categorized as
good, average or weak.

2.1 Section A: Objective and Short Answer Questions

This section consisted of two questions. Question 1 carried a total of 10
marks whereas question 2 carried 5 marks.

2.1.1 Question 1: Multiple Choice Items

The question had ten items which were composed from eight topics. The
topics were Laboratory Techniques and Safety; Water; Hydrogen; Heat
Sources and Flames; Air, Combustion, Rusting, and Fire Fighting; Bonding,
Formulae and Nomenclature; Periodic Classification and Matter. In each
item, students were required to choose the correct answer from four
alternatives (A to D) and write its letter beside the item number in the spaces
provided.

The statistical analysis shows that 570,870 students attempted this question.
The analysis of performance indicates that, 20.9 per cent of the students
scored 0 to 2 marks, 67 per cent scored 3 to 6 marks and 12.1 per cent scored
7 to 10 marks. The summary of performance is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Students’ performance in question 1.

2
Figure 1 shows that, 79.1 per cent of students scored from 3.0 to 10 marks, an
indication of good performance in this question. The correct responses
provided by majority of the students showed that they had adequate
knowledge on the subject matter assessed.
However, 20.9 per cent of students scored low marks following their partial
understanding of concepts especially in items (iii), (v) and (ix).
Item (iii) required students to choose the property of hydrogen gas which
disqualify it to be among the constituents of air. The correct option was C
because of being very light although most of the students in this category
selected distractors A, B and D. Distractor A ‘because of being water
soluble’ is not an answer as hydrogen gas is not soluble in water. Distractor B
because of being denser than air attracted students who assumed air to be
lighter than hydrogen gas which is not true. Those who chose distractor D
because of being highly flammable did not understand that the property of
being flammable has nothing to do with the composition of air. In order to
identify the correct alternative, students were required to have the
understanding that hydrogen gas is lighter than the constituents of air and
hence it exists above air.

Item (v) required students to select the group and period of the Periodic Table
to which the element whose number of electrons is 11 belongs. The correct
alternative was A Group I and period 3 because the electronic configuration
of the element is 2:8:1. The three numbers separated by : indicate the number
of period (shells) and the valence electron, 1 imply Group 1. Students who
chose distractors B, C and D lacked understanding of electronic
configuration. Distractors B Group II and period 1 and D Group II and
period 3 indicate Group II instead of I whereas distractor C Group I and
period 1 indicate incorrect period.

Item (ix) required students to show the net charge of radicals. The
alternatives were A Zero B Positive or negative C Neutral and D Positive
and negative. The correct option was B ‘Positive or negative’ however some
students opted for the distractors. Those students lacked understanding that
neutral radicals do not exist.

3
2.1.2 Question 2: Matching Items and Short answer Questions
The question had parts (a) and (b) consisting of five matching items and short
answer questions respectively. The question was derived from the topic on
Matter.

The question was attempted by 570,875 students. The general performance

was average as 38 per cent of the students scored 3 marks and above.
Analysis in figure 2 shows that students who scored 0 to 2.5 marks were 62.0
per cent; those who scored 3 to 6 marks were 36.2 per cent and 1.8 per cent
scored from 7 to 10 marks. The summary of performance in question 2 is
shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Students’ performance in question 2.

Students who scored high marks correctly related statements in List A with
the responses in List B. Similarly, they provided correct answers in part (b),
an indication that they had adequate knowledge about the concept of matter.
For example, in part (a) (iv) students were required to match with list B a
substance whose components can be separated by physical means. Most of
the students responded by writing A solid instead of H air. Solid is a
substance with definite shape and size while air is the mixture whose
components can be separated by physical means. That is why they made
misconception of the term solid with air (mixture) which was an incorrect
response.

4
Part (a) (v) required students to match a substance that was a homogenous
mixture of two or more substances from List B. The correct match was B
Solution but some responded by writing C Water. They did not recognize that
water is a compound with a specific formula though it possesses
homogeneity in looking. This implies that the students lacked knowledge on
properties of mixtures.

In part (b) (iii) the students were required to give the physical property which
determines the boiling points of substances. Most students responded with
incorrect answers. For example, some responded as boiling, instead of the
correct responses which are forces holding its particles together, bond,
cohesion, intermolecular forces or adhesive forces. Failure of the students to
give correct responses indicates that they had insufficient knowledge
specifically on chemical bonds and bonding in general.

Part (b) (iv) required the students to give the change of state which involves
grinding chalk into a powder. The correct response was aggregation or solid,
but majority gave incorrect responses as they associated the question with the
change of state of matter. Moreover, some responded by writing that grinding
chalk into a powder is a state of matter. They could not know that grinding of
chalk does not involve change of state but it is the form of matter. This
indicates that the students had inadequate knowledge on states of matter. The
students who scored 10 marks in this question showed adequate skills and
understanding of the topics: Elements, Compounds and Mixtures; Matter and
Atomic Structure. The good understanding shown by the students was
revealed by their responses on the question. The responses given were clearly
presented indicating that they had relevant knowledge on the subject matter
for the topics involved. Extract 2.1 illustrates a sample of good responses
from a student who scored all the marks allocated.

Extract 2.1: A sample of correct responses in question 2.

5
 The students who scored low marks in this question showed little or no basic
knowledge on the topics Elements, Compounds and Mixtures; Matter and
Atomic Structure. They provided irrelevant responses. This generally
indicates inadequate knowledge on the content assessed. Extract 2.2 provides
a sample of incorrect responses from one of the students.

Extract 2.2: A sample of incorrect responses in question 2.

In part (b) (iii), students were required to give the physical property which
determines boiling points of substances. Most of students responded by
giving incorrect answers. For example, one student gave the response
boiling: however the correct responses were forces holding its particles
together, bond, cohesion, intermolecular forces or adhesive forces. Failure of
students to give correct responses indicates that they had insufficient
knowledge especially on chemical bonds and bonding in general.

2.2 Section B: Short Answer Questions

This section comprised question 3 up to 10 making a total of eight questions.
The questions were composed from the following topics: - Laboratory
Techniques and Safety; Oxygen; Hydrogen; Water; Scientific procedure; Air,
Combustion, Rusting and Fire Fighting; Bonding, Formulae and
Nomenclature and Fuels and Energy.

2.2.1 Question 3: Laboratory Techniques and Safety

This question had two parts (a) and (b). Part (a) required students to state the
use of the components of First Aids Kit while in part (b) students were
required to state the functions of laboratory apparatuses.

The question was attempted by 570,879 students of which 72.1 per cent
scored 0 to 2.5 marks; 21.2 per cent scored 3 to 6 marks; 6.7 per cent scored

6
from 7 to 10 marks. Students’ performance in this question is summarized in
figure 3.

Figure 3: Students’ performance in question 3.

The analysis reveals that 27.7 per cent of the students scored 3 marks and
above. Therefore, the general performance in this question was poor.

Students with poor performance in this question hardly stated the uses of the
different components of the First Aid Kit. Others could not give the functions
of laboratory apparatuses; they even skipped some parts of the question.
Likewise, a few students failed to state both uses and functions of the
components of the First Aid Kit and laboratory apparatus respectively in
English. Instead, they used Kiswahili language. Moreover, some wrote
irrelevant answers which sounded meaningless. For example, in answering
part (a) (ii), one of the students wrote the use of bandage as; it is used to
recovered and pain while in part (b) (iv) another student responded by
writing: motor and pestle is the suitable alternative heat source to be used in
absence of bunsen burner. This signifies little mastery of the subject content
and poor communication skills. Extract 3.1 shows a sample of poor responses
from one of the students who scored low marks.

7
 Extract 3.1: A sample of poor responses in question 3.

Students who scored high marks gave the correct use of the components of
the First Aid Kit and managed to state the function of the given laboratory
apparatuses. This indicates they had sufficient knowledge on the subject
matter. Extract 3.2 illustrates a sample of good responses from a student who
scored high marks.

8
 Extract 3.2: A sample of correct responses in question 3.

2.2.2 Question 4: Oxygen and Hydrogen

This question had three parts (a), (b) and (c), in part (a) (i) students were
required to explain why manganese dioxide is added to hydrogen peroxide
during laboratory preparation of oxygen gas. In part (a) (ii), students were
asked to explain how fish can obtain oxygen for respiration while they spend
9
their lives in water. In part (a) (iii), they were required to explain how oxygen
gas can be used for welding activities although it does not burn. Part (b)
required students to explain the properties of hydrogen which enable it to be
used in weather balloons and in production of oxy-hydrogen flame while part
(c) required students to give two domestic uses of oxygen gas.

The question was attempted by 570,895 students. The analysis showed that
84.9 per cent of the students scored 0 to 2.5 marks, 12.1 per cent scored 3 to
6 marks and 3.0 per cent scored 7 to 10 marks. Generally the performance of
students in this question was poor with only 15.1 per cent of the students
scoring 3 marks and above. Figure 4 summarizes performance in question 4.

Figure 4.0: Students’ performance in question 4.

Students who scored low marks failed to explain correctly the reasons that
were required. Some showed misconception as they explained the role of
oxygen instead of manganese dioxide in laboratory preparation of oxygen gas
from hydrogen peroxide. Others failed to account for solubility of oxygen in
water rather explained the role of gills in fish for respiration. For example,
one wrote: fish obtains oxygen for respiration because uses gill in water.
Some few could not associate properties of hydrogen with its application in
balloon and in production of oxy-hydrogen flames while others failed to
distinguish domestic use of oxygen. Principally poor performance of students
in this question was attributed to inadequate knowledge on the topics about

10
Oxygen and Hydrogen and poor English language competence. Extract 4.1
illustrates a sample of poor answer from one of the students.

Extract 4.1: A sample of poor responses in question 4.

However, students who scored high marks provided correct responses in

various parts of the question as they were not only knowledgeable enough to
apply the assessed skills but also they had good English language
proficiency. Extract 4.2 provides a sample of good answers from one of the
students who scored high marks.

11
 Extract 4.2: A sample of good responses in question 4.

2.2.3 Question 5: Water

This question had two parts (a) and (b). Part (a) required students to give
three tests for water. Part (b) had three items where item (i) required students
to differentiate water treatment from water purification; part (b) (ii) required
students to give reasons why drinking water must be treated and purified and
item part (b) (iii) required a student to explain three ways by which water can
be treated and purified.
12
Statistical data reveals that 570,880 students attempted this question. The
analysis of the students’ performance indicates that 76.4 per cent of students
scored 0 to 2.5 marks; 17.0 per cent scored 3.0 to 6.0 marks and 6.6 per cent
scored 7.0 to 10 marks. Generally, the question was performed poorly
whereby only 23.6 per cent of students scored 3 marks and above. Summary
of the performance is shown in figure 5.

Figure 5: Students’ performance in question 5.

A few students who got high scores were able to give three proper chemical
tests for water and showed appropriate results of each test. Likewise, they
correctly differentiated water treatment from water purification. They further
explained reasons why drinking water should be treated and purified. They
also explained how water is treated or purified. This indicates that they had
good understanding of the subject matter. Extract 5.1 illustrates a sample of
good answer from one of the students who scored all the marks.

13
 Extract 5.1: A sample of good responses in question 5.

However, students who scored low marks gave incorrect responses. Some
failed to identify the proper chemical tests for water. Instead, they mentioned
physical properties of water while others gave the three states of water; ice
(solid), liquid (water) and gas (vapour). Moreover, others confused chemical
tests for water with hard water and soft water.

A few students failed to differentiate water treatment from water purification.

Instead, they gave uses of water, mentioning some names of local drinking
water and explained importance of water. For example one student
differentiated water treatment from water purification as “water treatment is

14
the very important in the communities and in the domestic for example
cooking, drinking, cleaning, washing etc. water purification is the water of
the river”. Generally the performance of students is associated with the lack
of adequate knowledge on the subject content and poor English language
proficiency since they lacked knowledge on water treatment and purification.
Extract 5.2 provides a sample of poor response from one of the students.

Extract 5.2: A sample of incorrect responses in question 5.

15
2.2.4 Question 6: Scientific Procedure
The question was organised into two parts (a) and (b). Part (a) required a
student to differentiate hypothesis from analysis while part (b) required a
student to explain how senses are used as tools of observation during
experimentation.

The question was attempted by 570,879 students, of whom only 12.2 per cent
scored 3 to 10 marks, an indication of poor performance. The students who
scored 0 - 2.5 marks were 87.8 per cent, while 6.3 per cent scored 3 to 6
marks and 5.9 per cent scored 7 to 10 marks. Figure 6 shows the distribution
of the students’ scores in this question.

Figure 6: Students’ performance in question 6.

Poor performance in question 6 was a result of inadequate understanding of

subject matter in the topic scientific procedure.

Most of the students failed to differentiate hypothesis from analysis. They

gave stages of carrying out scientific experiments while others went as far
as listing and stating the use of laboratory apparatus in place of senses as
tools of observation during experimentation. For instance, one student
incorrectly wrote; observation, experimentation, data interpretation and
data analysis instead of senses as tools of observation. This implies that
those students lacked basic knowledge regarding the use of senses as tools
in a scientific study. Extract 6.1 shows a sample of poor responses from one
of the students.
16
 Extract 6.1: A sample of poor responses in question 6.

Conversely, a few students who scored high marks managed to differentiate

the terms hypothesis and analysis correctly and showed how the four senses
are used as tools of observation during experimentation. Some students went
a step further by giving appropriate examples of each sense relating to
scientific study. Generally, these students had adequate knowledge on
scientific studies and enough skills on how to use the four senses during
experimentation. Extract 6.2 shows a sample of good responses from one of
the students.

17
 Extract 6.2: A sample of good responses in question 6.

2.2.5 Question 7: Laboratory techniques and Safety

This question required students to give two precautions to be taken when
handling chemicals based on their warning signs. Figures of five warning
signs were given in five different parts of the question.

The question was attempted by 570,887 students, of whom 93.5 per cent
scored 0 to 2.5 marks indicating a poor performance. Students who scored 3
to 6 marks were 5.2 per cent and those who scored 7 to 10 marks were only
1.3 per cent. The distribution of students’ scores is shown in Figure 7.

18
 Figure 7: Students performance in question 7.

Most of the students who scored low marks in this question failed to give the
appropriate precautions for each of the five warning signs of chemicals.
Some of them responded by stating the meaning of the warning signs which
was a result of not understanding the demand of the question. Some failed to
identify the warning signs and a few skipped some portions of the question.
Similarly, some students provided laboratory rules instead of the precautions
to be taken when handling chemicals with various warning signs while others
gave the hazardous implications of the warning signs. For instance, one
student responded to toxic sign as: do not taste anything in the laboratory.
This implies that the student had insufficient knowledge on the topic about
Laboratory Techniques and Safety. Extract 7.1 shows a sample of poor
responses from one of the students.

19
 Extract 7.1: A sample of poor responses in question 7.

On the other hand, students who scored high marks provided appropriate
precautions for each of the five warning signs. In addition, they managed to
give meanings of the warning signs. This proved that they had enough
knowledge and skills on the subject matter. Extract 7.2 illustrates a sample of
good responses from one of the students.

20
 Extract 7.2: A sample of good responses in question 7.

2.2.6 Question 8: Air, Combustion, Rusting and Fire Fighting

The question required students to explain with examples five classes of fires
based on the nature of the burning material and the appropriate fire
extinguisher for each class of fire.

The question was attempted by 570,889 students, out of whom 38.0 per cent
scored 0 to 2.5 marks, 41.9 per cent scored 3.0 to 6.0 marks and 20.1 per cent
scored 7 to 10 marks. Those who scored 3 marks and above were 62 per cent,
an indication that the general performance in this question was average.
Pictorial presentation of performance in this question is shown in figure 8.
21
 Figure 8: Students’ performance in question 8.

Students who scored high marks managed to explain with examples the five
classes of fires and gave the appropriate fire extinguisher for each. The
responses given by students in this category met the demands of the question.
Most of them explained the classes of fire by giving more than one example
of the burning materials. This gives crucial evidence that they had sufficient
knowledge on fire fighting. Extract 8.1 illustrates a sample of correct
responses from one of the students.

22
 Extract 8.1: A sample of good responses in question 8.

On the contrary, students who scored low marks could not provide correct
answers to most parts of the question. Most of them mistakenly interchanged
both the meaning of the classes of fires and the extinguishers. A few of them
correctly stated classes of fire though they failed to match with the proper
burning material. Additionally, others confused by giving types of flames
produced when a material burns such as luminous flame and non-luminous
flame. Students who scored zero gave unrelated responses according to the
demand of the question. They mentioned process by which matter changes
from one state to another. For example, one student wrote melting, freezing,
evaporation, condensation, sublimation. This is an implication that the
student lacked adequate knowledge of fire fighting. Extract 8.2 illustrates a
sample of poor responses in question 8.

23
 Extract 8.2: A sample of poor responses in question 8.

2.2.7 Question 9: Bonding, Formulae and Nomenclature

This question required students to calculate molecular formula from
percentage abundances and molar mass. Percentages of abundances by mass
of the compound were 30.4% nitrogen and 69.6% oxygen and the molar mass
given was 92. They were required to procedurally calculate the compound’s
molecular formula. All steps involved in the calculation were to be shown.

The question was attempted by 570,892 students out of whom 66.6 per cent
scored 0 to 2.5 marks, 13.1 per cent scored 3.0 to 6.0 marks and 20.3 per cent
scored 7.0 to 10 marks. Students who scored 3 marks and above were 33.4
per cent, implying that the overall performance was average. Figure 9 gives a
summary of performance on question 9.

24
 Figure 9: Students performance in question 9.

Students who scored high marks on the question managed to calculate the
molecular formula. Most of them followed the proper steps to calculate the
empirical formula and finally the molecular formula. This means that the
students had adequate knowledge on the relationship between atomic masses
and empirical formulae. They carried out the calculation properly by
following all the necessary steps. Extract 9.1 illustrates a sample of one of the
students with a good answer.

25
 Extract 9.1: A sample of good responses in question 9.

On the contrary, the low achievers did not manage to calculate the correct
molecular formula. Most of them followed improper approach and used
improper formula. For instance, some students divided the relative atomic
masses by the percentages instead of dividing the percentages by the relative
atomic masses. Similarly, there were cases of students who used atomic
numbers instead of relative atomic masses. Poor performance of students in
26
this question was attributed to lack of adequate knowledge on the concept of
molecular formula and poor arithmetic skills. Extract 9.2 illustrates a sample
of the poor students’ response.

Extract 9: A sample of poor responses to question 8.

27
2.2.8 Question 10: Fuels and Energy
The question required students to explain five characteristics to be considered
when looking for a good fuel.

This question was attempted by 570,704 students, out of whom 59.5 per cent
scored 0 to 2.0 marks, 19.5 per cent scored 3.0 to 6.0 marks and 21.0 per cent
scored 7.0 to 10 marks. Generally, the performance was average with 40.5
per cent scoring 3 marks and above. Figure 10 gives a summary of the
performance in question 10.

Figure 10: Students performance in question 10.

Students who scored high marks managed to state all the five characteristics
of a good fuel. They managed to explain using technical terms with logical
presentation. For example, one student stated that a good fuel has high
calorimetric value and it should burn with moderate velocity. Extract 10.1
illustrates a sample of the correct responses in question 10.

28
 Extract 10.1: A sample of good responses in question 10.

On the other hand, students who scored low marks could neither state nor
explain the characteristics to be considered when looking for a good fuel.
Majority of them stated the uses of fuels instead of the characteristics of good
fuel asked. For instance, one student responded that a good fuel can be used
in domestic purpose, used in biogas, gives out and light. Other students listed
and explained the effects of fuels instead of characteristics. This is an
indicator of inadequate knowledge on fuel and energy. Extract 10.2 shows a
sample of poor responses.

29
 Extract 10.2: A sample of poor responses in question 10.

3.0 ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ PERFROMANCE IN EACH TOPIC

A total of 12 topics were assessed in FTNA 2019. The analysis of students’
performance on each topic shows that none of the topics was well performed.
Students’ performance was average in five topics and poor in three topics.

The topics which attained average performance were Air, Combustion and
Fire Fighting (62.0%); Fuels and Energy (40.5%); Matter (38.0%); Laboratory
Techniques and Safety (34.4%); and Bonding, Formula and Nomenclature
(33.4%).

The students who performed averagely on those topics, apart from showing a
good mastery of the content regarding the topic in question, they provided
partial answers. Most of them seemed not to capture all the requirements of
the questions.
The topics which were poorly performed were Water (23.6%); Oxygen and
Hydrogen (15.1%); and The Scientific Procedure (12.2%). The poor
performance of students on the stated topics indicates inadequate knowledge

30
 on the subject matter assessed and student’s inability to apply scientific
concepts. The poor performance observed also signalled incompetence in
tackling problems involving calculations. These factors, together with lack of
the aforementioned attributes, contributed to an unsatisfactory performance.
Furthermore, topics which appeared in question 1 only have not been rated
because they contributed very little with respect to others in the assessment.

The comparison of the students’ performance between the year 2018 and
2019 shows that, the performance in 5 topics has increased, while it has
decreased in 6 topics. More details on the performance on different topics are
presented in the appendix.

4.0 CONCLUSION
Analysis of performance per question in Chemistry for the FTNA 2019 has
shown that the overall students’ performance was good.
The analysis shows that 1 topic had good performance, 4 topics had an
average performance and 3 topics had poor performance. Good performance
was attributed to good mastery of the concepts tested in the respective topics
and understanding of the demands of different questions.
However, the analysis on individual items indicated that some of the students
experienced difficulties in answering the questions due to inadequate
knowledge. This poor performance was specifically attributed to:

(a) Lack of adequate numerical skills and inadequate knowledge on the

tested topics. This was evident in some of the students who gave
responses which did not relate to the questions asked.

(b) Failure of the students to understand the requirements of the questions.

Some students were unable to identify the key words used in the
questions. For example, there were students who gave explanations
instead of calculations.

(c) Lack of English language proficiency. This was manifested by the

students who gave incorrect sentences that could not enable them to
communicate their answers.

31
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to improve performance of students in Chemistry, the following
measures are recommended:
(i) Teachers to guide students demonstrate treatment and purification of
water for domestic use. This will help to improve performance in the
topic of Water.

(ii) Students should be advised to take part in projects that make use of the
scientific procedure in solving Chemistry problems in the society. This
will enhance performance in the topic about The Scientific Procedure.

(iii) Students are advised to carry out experiments on how to produce

oxygen gas by using manganese oxide. They are also advised to
identify the uses and properties of gas properties. As a result,
performance in the topics of Oxygen and Hydrogen will be improved.
(iv) More emphasis should be put on teaching English as some students
demonstrated inability to use English. Instead, they used Kiswahili
language in answering some questions while they were ought to
answer all questions in English.
(v) Students should be emphasized to read questions carefully before
attempting them. This will solve the challenge of misunderstanding
questions in future assessments.

32
 Appendix
ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE PER TOPIC IN 2019
Per centage of Students
Question
S/n Topic who Scored 30 Marks Remarks
Number
and Above
Laboratory
Techniques and
Safety; Heat sources
and Flame; Air,
Combustion and Fire
1 1 79.1 Good
Fighting; Hydrogen;
Water; Periodic
Classification; Matter
and Bonding, Formula
and Nomenclature
Air, Combustion and Good
2 8 62.0
Fire Fighting
3 Fuels and Energy 10 40.5 Average
4 Matter 2 38.0 Average
Laboratory Techniques
5 3&7 34.4 Average
and Safety
Bonding, Formula and Average
6 9 33.4
Nomenclature
7 Water 5 23.6 Poor
8 Oxygen and Hydrogen 4 15.1 Poor
9 Scientific Procedure 6 12.2 Poor

33